HC Deb 23 May 1867 vol 187 cc1011-2

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY,

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, in Scotland the assessor who valued for railways was always appointed by the Government, and the valuation was a gross and not a net valuation. The object of the Bill was to direct the railway assessor as to the manner in which he was to value for railways. It would enable the assessor to deduct one-half of the cost of maintaining the permanent way, it being considered that the wear and tear was about 18 per cent more than the cost of keeping up the worse class of house property.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Graham Montgomery.)

MR. CRAUFURD

said, the Bill was an attempt on the part of the railways to introduce on the valuation rate the change of gross value into net value. If the Bill passed how could they resist the claim of gas works, and afterwards of all other property? — a proposal which had been inquired into and reported against by a Select Committee. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Edward Craufurd.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, that the Bill was based on the principle that the maintenance of the permanent way of railways involved a reduction of 18 per cent more from the gross receipts than was required in the case of other property. The Bill redressed an established grievance in the present inequitable rating of the railways, and nearly every county had affirmed the principle of it. It was no railway job, but had been brought forward on the responsibility of Government, with the view of substituting a net for a gross valuation of railways for rating purposes, in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee which sat upon this particular subject.

MR. CARNEGIE

moved the adjournment of the debate. The Bill had not been properly considered by the county meetings in Scotland. It was pressed forward in what he considered a most improper manner.

LORD ELCHO

seconded the Motion for Adjournment, as he thought it very desirable before the Bill was read a second time that the House should hear the opinion of the late Lord Advocate of Scotland.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that he should support the Amendment on the ground that the Report of the Railway Commissioners had only just been printed and placed in the hands of Members.

Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

House adjourned at One o'clock.