HC Deb 16 June 1873 vol 216 cc1003-31

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preliminary.

Clause 3 (Extension of Poor Rate Acts to other property).

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after the word "wood," to insert the words "not being land growing saleable underwood"—(Mr. Bouverie.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought the subject of the rating of timber had hardly been fully considered by the Government.

MR. GOLDSMID

observed that the rating of underwood was a most extraordinary anomaly, and the best way out of the difficulty would be to make under-wood no longer liable to rates, and instead to rate the land upon which the underwood grew, just as the land was rated on which any other crop grew.

MR. LOPES

asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for some explanation of the law of the case?

MR. PEASE

said, that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) were adopted, its effect would be to land us in greater confusion than ever. The Committee, would, in fact, be repealing portions of the statute of Elizabeth. He, too, believed the whole difficulty on the subject arose from no defined principle of rating being laid down by the Government.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), that any difficulty was created or increased by the principles laid down in the Bill. He had promised, in reply to the right hon. Member for North Northampton-shire (Mr. Hunt), to state frankly whether he found the law was as he had stated it. Now, having consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and referred to the case on which their opinion was founded, he had no hesitation in stating that he remained of the opinion that the statement he had made was correct—that the 1st section of the Parochial Assessment Act had made no change in the law; and left the judgment of Lord Ellenborough practically unaltered. He would leave his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to speak for himself.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the hypothetical tenant was introduced by the Parochial Assessment Act, and thus the question arose how saleable underwood should be rated. Say it was cut at the end of every seven years, then if the cutting produced £700, the hypothetical tenant would be rated at £100 a-year. That was the principle on which rent was rated in "The King v. Mirfield," and the decision so far was not disturbed by the words of the Parochial Assessment Act, that— The rate shall be made on an estimate of the net annual value of the several heredita-ments, rated thereunto; that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. after deducting there from certain rates and taxes and tithe-rentcharge and the average cost of insurance and such repairs and expenses as would be necessary to maintain them in the condition to command such a rent. The question then arose as to how such casual profits as saleable underwood were to be rated. The Judges decided that the words of the Act were not intended to mean that they should not rate any property except at what it could be let for one year; but that they should take the average annual value as the rent the hypothetical tenant should pay. There were a great many decisions on the subject. In the cause of "The Queen v. the South-Western Railway Company," Lord Denman said— It is clear that the enacting part of the Act introduced no new principle of rating. Both parties appealed equally to this criterion. The provisions of the Parochial Assessment Act declared that the principle of rating was not to be altered or affected by it. It was, therefore, important to consider how, under the law in this case, the company would have been rated if the Act had not passed. The same thing was laid down subsequently by Mr. Justice Mellor in another case. Substantially, the Parochial Assessment Act had made no alteration in this respect. There were agricultural crops that were not cut within the year, and they must be rated entirely on the same principle as saleable underwood cut every seven years. The average value was to be ascertained for the term, dividing it by the number of years, less discount. That would give the average sum on which the premises ought to be rated.

SIR HENRY HOARE

hoped the Government would accept the proposal on the Paper, that land of the kind in question should not be assessed at a higher value than if it had been used for a plantation or wood. That would make the whole thing clear.

MR. DENT

hoped the question would be settled without any legal dispute. The simplest way would be to take the woods at the agricultural value of corresponding land and rate them accordingly.

MR. BEACH

thought that, with respect to saleable underwood, it would be best to act upon the law as it stood. It would be manifestly unjust to place the rating on the land rather than on the underwood.

MR. STANSFELD

said, there were two questions which seemed to him to have been somewhat confused on the present occasion. One of these questions was, whether it would not be better and simpler to take saleable underwoods out of the Act of Elizabeth, and deal with them by one enactment. He thought that was a question upon which it would be advisable to arrive at a decision before they came to the question as to the method of valuation of plantations and underwoods.

MR. CLARE READ

thought it was essential that saleable underwood should be taken out of the Act of Elizabeth; otherwise there would be the danger that ground under the composite crop of saleable underwood and timber might be rated under both of those heads.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

pointed out that, as by the Act of Elizabeth saleable underwood might be rated, and it was proposed by the present Bill to rate plantations, the grower of a composite crop might be rated twice over—as a grower of underwood, and, secondly, as a grower of an acreage of timber, which might be computed to its full extent. He thought that if they repealed that portion of the Act of Elizabeth which exceptionally rated the growing crop of underwood, assessment committees could in each case fairly go into the value of the land. Every tract of woodland should pay one rate, irrespective of whether it was covered with timber or underwood.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he had known in extreme cases, in the county of Kent, underwood of 10 years' growth sold at£1 and 40 per acre; although, in the latter case, of course, the net profit was not £40, but, if the average expenses were taken at 50 per cent it would leave the net value of the land something under £2 per acre, regard being had to the fact that the rent was for nine years a deferred one. From this the House would see what differences existed in the value of the underwood to be rated, and he (Mr. Goldsmid) could only repeat that in his opinion the best way out of them was to take underwood from the assessment and repeal the exemption in the Act of Elizabeth, and allow the land on which underwood and timber grew to be rated and pay all that it ought to pay.

MR. LOPES

expressed his dissent from what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, with reference to the decision of Lord Ellenborough in regard to the rating of saleable underwood, and asked, if the Parochial Assessment Act was not to apply to the rating of woods and plantations, how the latter were to be rateable? Would the assessment committee rate them upon the principle of what, a tenant from year to year would give for them? The whole thing appeared to him to be left to mere guess-work, so far as the Bill before the House was concerned.

MR. DODSON

maintained that under-wood should be left in its present position as regarded rating, otherwise, in many cases, owners of underwood would escape with lighter rates than hitherto. The Bill before the House was not one for reducing the rating of underwood.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM

was of opinion that to repeal the Act of Elizabeth, as had been suggested, would be likely to be a dangerous step, seeing it had existed for;300 years, and that a great many judicial decisions had been pronounced upon it. He should support the Amendment, which, if carried, would prevent a double rating.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

thought it would be better to leave the Act as it stood with regard to the rating of under-wood, because there was no difficulty in understanding the law. If it was saleable underwood it was not to be rated as timber-growing land.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the measure they were passing would interfere considerably with the Act of Elizabeth, because one of its most important clauses would make perpetual an annual Act to exempt stock-in-trade from rating. If the Committee were at liberty to make so great a change, surely they might repeal that part of the Act of Elizabeth which referred to underwood, and he did not see how the Committee could meet the difficulty without doing so.

MR. CAWLEY

said, the difficulty of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), might be met by introducing the words, "not being land used solely for the growing of saleable underwood." That would leave such land under the Act of Elizabeth, and land growing timber would come under the measure.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was extremely favourable to persons growing saleable underwood and timber together, and he did not think it would effect the object desired. The worst saleable underwood grew along with timber trees; but it was saleable, and therefore would be rated at the lowest rate, while the land would escape so far as the timber was concerned. This was not what was intended; and his impression was, that the best way to deal with the matter was to take care in future rating that we dealt with the land as far as we could, whatever it grew. If we went on balancing one thing against another, as saleable underwood against timber, we should find that we were reducing instead of increasing the rates.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that having heard the arguments on both sides of the question, he was disposed to take the view just stated. There would be nothing inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill in taking saleable underwood out of the Act of Elizabeth, the simplicity of which he admitted; but it was felt that to adopt that course, and to enact for the first time that growing underwood should be subject to rateability, would produce some disturbance of the law as it had been laid down by the Courts, and therefore it would be wise to find a solution of the difficulty without dealing with the Act of Elizabeth. He would suggest that saleable underwood should be left rateable, as now, and that to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) should be added the words, "not being land growing saleable underwood." Then, adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, provision should be made for the case of mixed crops of timber and saleable underwood, by declaring that the value of the timber should be included in assessing the value of the underwood. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not say this course might not be open to some objection, but still it appeared to him to be the best.

MR. HUNT

said, the plan had not the advantage of simplicity, and he preferred the simpler plan of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) which followed Scotch precedent. At first, it was denied by the Government that there was any difficulty for the House to solve, but now it was admitted there was.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, the plan proposed was so complicated, that no assessment committee in the county of Kent would know how to work it. The plan of the hon. Member for South Norfolk commended itself by its simplicity, and it followed the precedent of Scotland, where land was rated, and not the crop which grew upon it. In fact, it would be just as reasonable to rate the cabbages in a kitchen garden instead of rating the kitchen garden, or the wheat instead of the land on which it grew.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

said, he was prepared, as an owner of woodlands, to submit to an increase of the rates on that portion of his property, on the full understanding that such increase should not be made until the question how far the local burdens were to be relieved by Imperial taxation was settled.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he objected strongly to the principle that the same land was to be subjected to a double assessment, as would be the case under this measure.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, he was glad that his Amendment had given rise to a valuable discussion. In moving the Amendment, he had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that he was proposing to rate not only the woods on their estimated annual value, but also the land upon which such woods grew. Such a proposal in his (Mr. Bouverie's) opinion was quite preposterous. In the West of England there were vast tracts of underwood which grew upon very poor land, which was fit for nothing else; and the result would be, if those under-woods were rated as well as the land, that every effort would be made to destroy them, which would have a very deleterious effect upon the climate. In France, it having been shown that the destruction of woods rendered the climate arid, there was a positive law to prevent their being cut down. The practical conclusion that he had come to was that if, upon the whole, the Committee preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read)—under which the land on which under-wood grew should be assessed at its rateable value as unimproved land—to that which he had moved, he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) on the understanding that it was not to be assumed that the Committee, in assenting to the Amendment, expressed any opinion on the subject of how lands covered with underwoods were to be valued.

MR. FLOYER

thought that, instead of making progress, the Committee were going back; because last week, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) it was decided that land growing timber should not be subject to rates. It was now proposed to take a course which would disturb the assessments in every Union in the whole country, and that for no good at all. As to the rating of woods which had been planted for centuries, who could tell what was their value when they were planted, or what was the improved value of them? If they wanted to assess woods and plantations, let them do so; but do not let them do it in a way which would lead to difficulties and litigation altogether uncalled for. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) would persevere with his Amendment.

LORD HENLEY

suggested the insertion of the following words, "whe- ther growing timber or saleable under-wood, or both."

MR. HENLEY

thought that as the words "growing timber" had been struck out of the Bill, it had become immaterial whether the words which were under discussion were put in the Bill or not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANSFELD

proposed, in order to carry out the intention of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to insert in page 1, line 22, after the words "lands used for plantation," "or for the growth of saleable under-wood."

MR. DODSON

thought the former Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was preferable to that which he had subsequently suggested, inasmuch as the latter appeared to be ambiguous.

MR. HUNT

hoped a Law Officer would tell the Committee whether "wood" would not cover saleable underwood.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

I think not.

MR. HERMON

thought the right principle was to rate land and not woods.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that if it were considered desirable by the draftsman that the Amendment should be modified, it should be done on the Report.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

moved in page 1, line 22, after "wood," the addition of the following Proviso:— Provided, That such land shall not be assessed at a higher annual value than it would have been assessed at if it had not been used as a plantation or wood. He was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) if the House preferred it.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM

trusted that the Amendment would be withdrawn; because if it were adopted, it would be in the nature of a direction to assessment committees, that they might rate land upon which timber was growing as high as they rated the adjoining land.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he believed that there was very little difference between the Amendment and the follow- ing one which stood in his name; but certainly the Amendment of the noble Lord did not instruct the assessment committee upon what principles they were to assess the land. He proposed, therefore, that the Proviso should run— Provided, That the gross value of such land shall be taken to he the rent at which such land might, in its natural and unimproved state, be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes. These words followed the Scotch Act, substituting agricultural for pastoral purposes.

Amendment (Lord George Cavendish), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, After the word "underwood," to insert the words, "Provided, That the gross value of such land shall be taken to be the rent at which such land might, in its natural and unimproved state, be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes."—(Mr. Glare Read.)

MR. FLOYER

suggested that the condition should be "as pasture or grazing lands."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "for agricultural purposes," and inserting the words "as pasture or grazing land,"—(Mr. Percy Wyndham,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. J. S. HARDY

said, he did not like either of the Amendments. He thought it would be more satisfactory for all purposes that land should be valued according to the crop which it carried. He disapproved rating worthless woodland at the value of adjacent land. Woodland in the neighbourhood of comparatively barren fields might be properly assessed at the value of those fields; but it would be obviously improper to assess woodland at the same rate as highly cultivated farms.

MR. J. LOWTHER

suggested the time had come when some definition should be given of the words "plantation" and "wood" and "growing timber." It sometimes took 30 years before a man who planted a wood saw the return of his money, and it was not good policy to discourage the planting of timber. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would object to the addition to the Amendment of the words—"And that no assessment shall be made until a saleable crop has been obtained therefrom."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

suggested that none of the proposals which had been made were necessary. A simple principle had already been laid down by which the assessment value would be that which any person would give for the land as a tenant, and upon that value the land should be rated. Hitherto, land occupied for particular purposes had escaped rating altogether; but by the clause land occupied as wood, plantation, or saleable underwood was to be brought into the rating on the annual value which any person would give for it. It was a fallacy to say there was no valuable occupation of a wood except when it was cut down. That formed its greatest value, no doubt, but the produce was gathered at rare intervals. Woodland was used as cover, and it produced lop and top.

MR. HUNT

said, he did not know what lop and top a proprietor would get from his property before he felled his timber. There was some timber which grew for three lives before it was cut down, and how could there be a revenue in the meantime out of which to pay the rates? There ought to be some provision introduced to enable a limited owner to cut wood under certain restrictions, otherwise the rating might soon place him in The Gazette. He begged to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the annual value of wood before the trees were cut.

MR. PEASE

said, that the Committee had, in that matter, another instance of the blindness with which the Bill had been brought before the House. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board must know that from 15 to 20 years after a wood was planted, so far from there being any return, there was considerable expense attending it. He would submit that the words "in its natural and unimproved state" should be omitted.

COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH

said, they had been so long in a wood and involved in brambles—which in his county they called "lawyers"—that they did not know where they were. In many places the agricultural and pastoral value of woods was nil. In his county (Cheshire), where they had their woods and dingles, there was generally a deep ravine, good for nothing else; but the proprietors were obliged to plant it in order to prevent the cattle getting into danger. A man with whom he had shot in that county had suggested that pheasants ought to be specially bred for the place, with legs of different lengths, so as to enable them to run along the sides of the hills.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, that, according to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), the gross value of the land should be taken to be the rent at which such land might in its natural or unimproved state be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes. In the county of Kent, the land which was planted was not land in its natural or unimproved state, but was very valuable, and such land might be rated far below what was fair, if the Amendment were adopted.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he had known several instances in which in the case of a railway which had been found to be unproductive, the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the land must not be withdrawn from rate-ability, but must be rated on the same principle as the adjacent land; but he had never known anyone to suggest a mode by which the land could be properly rated, and therefore it had been done by agreement. It would be better, therefore, to let the overseers be guided by their own light rather than attempt to guide them.

MR. MAGNIAC

objected to the words "unimproved state." He remembered that in the county from which he came, the underwood was sold to manufacturers frequently for £20 an acre, and it would be very unfair that such land should be regarded as in an unimproved state.

MR. WHARTON

observed that if the Amendment were adopted, some of the most valuable crops in England, the willow beds, would be exempted from rateability. It was not at all unusual for willow beds to realize £10 per acre per annum.

MR. CLARE READ

quite admitted that willow beds were exceptional, and in his part of the country, they were never regarded as Underwood, but were cut every year, just as a crop of hay was taken off the land, and assessed accord- ingly. He did not mean to say that his Amendment was not open to some objection. It should be remembered, however, that those who had made improvements in woodlands, had done so under the idea that they would not be rateable, and it was not right to take advantage of the improvements they had made to rate them in the manner proposed.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

wished to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, how he would deal with copyhold property, where the woods belonged not to the copyholder, but to the lord of the manor? To make the copyholder pay would be manifest injustice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he was afraid he would appear rather as a discredited witness, having already made one mistake. Nevertheless he believed there were profitable modes of occupying woods. He would say, if they meant to make a man pay for the value of woods, they should say so and rate him accordingly. It was perfectly true there were copyholds where the trees belonged to the lord, and the copyholder had no right to cut them down. But whatever could be ascertained to be the value of woods in the hands of the occupier, which the overseer would have to ascertain as best he might, that a tenant would give for such an occupation, and the rate should be assessed accordingly.

MR. HUNT

thought the principle proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was distinct and intelligible—it would be easily understood by the assessment committee, whereas the principle of the hypothetical tenant would be a puzzle which they would be unable to solve, and must lead to the greatest difference of opinion. They could not do better than accept the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk, with the exception of osier beds.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Government would accept the Amendment, if the words "in its natural and unimproved state" were left out, and the words "if it has not been used as a plantation or wood" added. The Amendment would then read— The gross value of such land shall be taken to be the rent at which such land might be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes, if it has not been used as a plantation or wood.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was accepted, he should move the addition of the words, "or for the sale of the crops growing thereon," after the words "for agricultural purposes," as otherwise fresh difficulties would be created in rating land on which timber and Underwood grew. He agreed with the Government that the Committee must strike out the phrase "in its natural and unimproved state."

MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT

said, he could not help thinking if the Shah of Persia had been present to-night, witnessing the proceedings of that honourable House, His Majesty must certainly have come to the conclusion that they did not understand what they were discussing. Without going so far as that, he would say, looking to the hopeless complication of this measure, he did not think there was any prospect of such a Bill ever passing into a law.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, if the Committee could only know what the intentions of the Government really were, there would be no difficulty in framing words to guide the overseer.

MR. PELL

said, he thought the Government must now begin to see that the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was not unreasonable. Nothing was open to them, as far as he could see, save to accept the very sensible Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).

MR. HERMON

said, that, as a rule, it was the worst part of an estate which was planted with wood, and that the fact ought to be taken into consideration when the property came to be rated. Considering the expense of clearing land with the remains of old wood on it, he was of opinion that it ought not to be assessed at more than half the rate of the surrounding agricultural land.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

thought it would be well, seeing the state of confusion in which the Committee now found itself, that the point should be left open for future consideration. Land ought to be assessed for what it would pro duce, and not on some fictitious value.

MR. STANSFELD

was of opinion that the words proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) would, as they stood, operate unfairly. He could not assent to a proposition which would take the valuation out of the hand of the assessment committee by laying down an arbitrary rule. He should be glad if the Committee would accept the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and leave the matter to the assessment committees. That would be the easiest course.

MR. HUNT

said, he had no doubt it would be the easiest course; but if the Committee itself could not settle the difficulties, he despaired of assessment committees being able to do so. He understood an hour ago that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to accept the Amendment, and that it was because of an intimation to that effect that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) had been withdrawn.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he had not accepted the Amendment, but had stated that the question which it raised was one which in his opinion ought to be settled before that of the method of valuation was raised.

MR. HUNT

certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to favour the Amendment; but, be that as it might, he thought the Government must now acknowledge the wisdom of the course which he (Mr. Hunt) had at the outset recommended—that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It would be better the Committee should report Progress, as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was unable to say what he proposed to do.

MR. STANSFELD

could not agree that it would have been better to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had not shown that if this Bill had passed through a Select Committee they would have avoided the present discussion. That was a question of considerable complication on which practical knowledge was very useful, and that practical knowledge existed in the minds of a great many hon. Members of that House. It was true that the question had taken some time to discuss, but he entirely denied that time had been wasted; and he trusted they might yet come to a clear decision upon it.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that if the Committee had arrived at any conclusion he should not grudge the time that had been spent upon the question. He was, however, still unable to see on what principles the Government desired to have the land rated in the case of growing timber and saleable underwood. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had unfortunately adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to include saleable underwood in the clause, and it was precisely to that decision that they owed the difficulty in which they now found themselves. Saleable under-wood was sometimes an annual crop, and always a crop which might be safely computed upon an annual average, and therefore it had been rated on that average. The law in that respect required no alteration whatever. The question was how land should be rated upon which timber was grown, and no one on his side of the House wished to diminish the rateable value of the land on which saleable underwood was grown. He thought it would have been better to have had this discussion upstairs. At all events, if the Bill had gone before a Select Committee, it would have compelled the Government to make up their minds, and to offer some proposal on the subject. The fairest way out of the difficulty would be to report Progress. [Cries of "Move!"] He would accordingly move that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

MR. STANSFELD

opposed the Motion. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was in error in throwing upon the Government the responsibility of a proposal which came from the Opposition side of the House. He could not accept the Amendment as it now stood, because the hon. Mover framed it when there was no reference to saleable underwoods at all. He believed it would be best to follow the advice of his hon. and learned Friend the Attor- ney General, and leave these matters for settlement by the assessment committee.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

thought that woods and plantations were very distinct, and ought to be rated differently.

MR. DODSON

said, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), omitting the words "and unimproved," and maintaining the word "natural," would be very applicable to woods and plantations. The difficulty had arisen from dealing with saleable underwood. He would suggest to his hon. Friend to leave out the words "and unimproved," maintaining the word "natural," and then to add at the end of the Amendment, "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon." The land would then either be rated at its natural value, or the assessment committee, if it found saleable underwood upon the land, might rate it "for the sale of the underwood growing thereon."

MR. HUNT

said, the proposition just made might be a very valuable one, but it was entirely new, and he should like to see it on Paper, in order that they might have an opportunity of considering it. The Government had accepted an Amendment which came from his side of the House, and he wished to know what was now the proposal of the Government, if they had a distinct one. If the Government desired to mature their thoughts let them not continue that discussion.

MR. STANSFELD

objected to the doctrine that they could never accept an Amendment without reporting Progress, in order to consider what consequential Amendments were necessary. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had to be considered under a new aspect, in consequence of their having withdrawn saleable underwood from the Bill; but if they were never to accept an Amendment which required discussion without immediately reporting Progress they would make no progress with the Bill. He thought the words proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would precisely meet the case. If they were acceptable to the hon. Member for South Norfolk they would be acceptable to the Government.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANSFELD

then proposed to omit the words "and unimproved" from the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).

MR. HUNT

rose to Order, and asked what the question strictly before; the Committee really was? They were, he thought, discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) on the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).

THE CHAIRMAN

explained the question to be that the words "for agricultural purposes," proposed to be left out of the hon. Member for South Norfolk's Amendment, in order to insert, "as pasture or grazing land," stand part of the Question.

MR. CLARE READ

said, the hon. Member for West Cumberland. (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had gone away from the House and left his Amendment in his (Mr. Read's) hands. He preferred his own words to those of that hon. Member, and therefore he was prepared to withdraw them.

MR. HUNT

said, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) could not be withdrawn, unless the hon. Member were there to ask leave for so doing.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

suggested that the hon. Member for West Cumberland's Amendment should be put and negatived.

MR. GLADSTONE

thought there was no real difficulty about the matter. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had empowered the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to deal with his Amendment as he thought fit, and the latter might therefore withdraw it.

MR. DODSON

said, it was an inflexible Rule of the House that an Amendment could not be withdrawn except by the Mover. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) having left the House, they were therefore in this unfortunate position—that his Amendment could not be withdrawn. They had no option but to negative it; and the effect would be that they could not amend the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) by omitting the words "and unimproved." They might, however, add at the end of the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon."

MR. J. G. TALBOT

thought, in the dilemma in which they were placed, they had no course open to them but to report Progress, and take the Committee again to-morrow at a morning sitting.

MR. STANSFELD

accepted the interpretation of the Rule of the House given by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) as authoritative—subject of course to the decision of the Chairman; but they could easily get out of their difficulty without reporting Progress by adding the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon"; and then the words "and an improved" might be struck out on the Report. Would the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) agree to that course being taken.

MR. CLARE READ,

said he did not think it was at all necessary to omit the words proposed.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that if any hon. Member dissented from the withdrawal on any ground of an Amendment, the Amendment could not be withdrawn. Therefore, even assuming that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had the leave of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) it was quite clear the Amendment could not be withdrawn without the unanimous consent of the Committee. Although the practice of the House appeared to give no precedent for such a case as this, he thought it would be clearly for the convenience of the Committee if, in the accidental or inevitable absence of an hon. Gentleman, another hon. Member were distinctly delegated to withdraw an Amendment, that that authority should be respected.

MR. GOLDNEY

informed the House that the late Speaker distinctly ruled that a Member having once moved an Amendment, no other Member could withdraw it.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

thought it was evident the Government did not know its own mind; and they had better for the present withdraw the disputed question of rating woods until they had had time to consider it.

MR. BEACH

said, the easiest course would be to negative the Amendment now, and bring up words afterwards to effect their object.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought, on the whole, it would be better not to allow the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided, That the gross value of such land shall be taken to be the rent at which such land might, in its natural and unimproved state, be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes,' be there inserted."

MR. STANSFELD

then moved to add at the end of the Proviso of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), "or for the sale of the under-wood growing thereon." He also gave Notice that on the Report, he should move to omit the words, "in its natural and unimproved state," and to substitute other words in their place.

Amendment proposed, to add, at the end thereof, the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. CLARE READ

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not omit the word "natural." He did not care so much about "unimproved."

MR. STANSFELD

said, the words he proposed were taken almost verbatim from the Act passed for Scotland, where he believed there had been no difficulty in ascertaining the natural value of the land.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that to assess the land at the value of the sale of the underwood was a thing far beyond his comprehension. The only solution of the difficulty was to assess the ground itself in all cases.

MR. STANSFELD

remarked that the Amendment, as amended, would effect exactly what the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) desired.

MR. HUNT

said, it was a common thing in his part of the country to have timber growing among underwood. If, therefore, the Amendment were agreed to, it would defeat one object of the Bill, which was to bring timber under assessment.

MR. DODSON

said, that the Amendment he had suggested met the difficulty as to what was to be done with composite land, on which there grew both underwood and trees. He proposed that with regard to woods and plantations the assessment committee should assess them on the value of the land for agricultural purposes; but that if the land grew underwood wholly or in part, the committee should have the option of assessing it according to the value of the underwood.

MR. CAWLEY

was opposed to leaving such a matter to the discretion of the assessment committee.

MR. HIBBERT

pointed out that under the Bill as it stood, the assessment committee would have an option to rate either according to acreage, or on the growth of underwood.

MR. HENLEY

said, the discussion showed how utterly complicated the matter was getting, and thought that it would be better to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee.

MR. PEASE

said, that if the Committee adopted the Amendment, they would be running back over half of the ground that they had already traversed. It appeared to him that the Committee ought to rate the land at its value, without reference to what might be growing on it—that was to say, at what it would let for. He would give no alternative to the assessment committee.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that timber was an ornamental appendage to large estates; but what the country desired was that it should bear its fair share of rateable burdens, and be brought fairly and fully into assessment.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), that the Question was, that the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon" should be added to the clause.

MR. LIDDELL

said, that if the assessment committees were to create a tenth part of the quibbles raised in that House they would never get a rate at all. He was opposed to the principle of laying down rules to guide these bodies too strictly. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had not been fairly treated with regard to his Amendment, for he was the only man who had come forward with a really practical proposal—namely, to rate this land on its agricultural value. The best plan would be to adopt that broad principle, and to leave it to the assessment committees to carry it out.

MR. LOPES

wished the Committee to understand how the question stood. They had taken "saleable underwood" out of the Act of Elizabeth, and it was now proposed in this Bill to rate it precisely as it was rated under the statute of Elizabeth. Nothing could be gained by this. Such a course would, if agreed to, result in a piece of legislation which would be a disgrace to the country.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that in the case of land covered with underwood, such land could not be rated at its "natural and unimproved" value, for the growth of underwood was an improvement in the value of the land, because underwood would not grow unless it was planted. He should propose to add the words "when used as a plantation or wood." That would fairly separate the two classes of cases.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he should propose to substitute the word "growth" for the word "sale," in the proposed Amendment, leaving himself at liberty to propose the necessary consequential Amendments on the Report.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "sale," and inserting the word "growth," instead thereof.

Question put, "That the words 'or for the growth of the underwood growing thereon,' be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 74: Majority 14.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. CORRANCE,

in rising to move an Amendment of the 3rd sub-section of the clause, which says that the poor rate assessment shall extend to rights of shooting and fishing, said, he thought it must now be apparent that the desire to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was not unreasonable, and that it was not a satisfactory course to throw these clauses together in the form of a mere outline for the House to fill up. He wanted the clause to be made more distinct, so that assessment committees should not have to hear over again questions which had long been decided in the Courts. It had not been usual in England to assess these rights; but it by no means followed that such rights did not exist. It had been laid down by the Law Courts that they did, when they were profitable; the Bill added little to these decisions, and it did not define the rights in any way. It therefore became necessary to inquire under what circumstances they could become profitable. It might be imagined from the clause that committees were to assess these rights in all cases; but it could only be intended that they should do so in special cases. His object was to make the clause a little more definite. He did not see why it should not be at once enacted that all shooting should be assessable at the sum at which it was let. That would include the cases of its being in the hands of the occupier of the lands, or the landlord reserving it at a certain value, and of the game being let. In Scotland they seemed to have a clear understanding on this subject, and he himself had been charged by a sharp parish officer 1s. 6d. poor's rate assessment upon a week's shooting. Nor did he complain of that, for he thought the officials there acted quite within their rights. As far as he had been able to trace, a case unprovided for here was that in which shooting gave an accessory value to a house, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to confer on local assessment committees the right of assessing within the Union limits all the enhanced value which the possession of such shooting gave to the house. He therefore moved after the words "fowling, shooting, sporting, and fishing" in the clause to leave out "although, and insert the words" when let separately or as accessory to the annual value of any mansion or dwelling house."

MR. WEST

did not think the Amendment necessary, and the effect of it might be disadvantageous, and lead to all manner of difficulties. He thought it better to pass the sub-section as it was.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he objected to rating moors for shooting where they were not let at a rental by the owners for that special purpose, and a profit made thereby. As the clause stood, it would in fact fine a landlord for the possession of such an estate, because the assessment committee might say—"If you do not let the shooting, you might have done so, and we therefore assess you on the rental you might have had."

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

said, in his county the owners of moors and shootings, as a rule, did not let them, but reserved them for their own use and that of their friends. He wished that were the universal practice. But he agreed that wherever shootings were let there was a reasonable ground for assessing them to the rates.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the true principle was to bring under assessment all uncultivated land, whether let or not. In Scotland the practice was only to assess game when it was let.

MR. LOPES

asked for a definition of the word "severed?"

MR. STANHOPE

said, that grouse-shooting in Yorkshire was often of considerably more value than the occupation of the land, and what he wished was that there should be some fair limitation in the mode of assessing the right to shoot, so that an exceptional rent which might be given by the hypothetical tenant should not be accepted as the fair value.

MR. LIDDELL

said, that the loud complaints, especially in Scotland, did not arise from landlords exercising their right to preserve game, but from what had become a habit at the present day—namely, letting the right of shooting game. Great capitalists, wealthy manufacturers, took estates entirely for the purpose of preserving game. They paid enormous rents and raised an enormous head of game, and they sold such large quantities of game that they received back a considerable return in the shape of money. That was a system they were free to adopt, but if they adopted it they ought to pay their proper share to the rates. He, however, thought it was a detestable system of selling game at all.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

explained, in reply to the hon. Member for Launceston (Mr. Lopes), that "severed" meant separated. He supported the clause, for the reason that whether the shootings were let by the owner to a tenant or kept in his own hands, there was equally a profit derived from them, and they ought to be rated. As population and wealth had increased, the desire of sporting had also increased, while the quantity of land had not increased, and thus the right of shooting had become very valuable. In the old times referred to by the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish), it should be remembered that the sale of game was prohibited; but now game was sent wholesale to the poulterers by owners and tenants of shootings alike, for a profit. The assessment committee would find out what a shooting would let for, and rate it accordingly. The assessment committee would have much more difficult problems to solve than this. It was difficult to say on what principle a proprietor whose shooting brought him in £500 a-year and the land exactly the same sum should pay poor rates on the one £500, but not on the other.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

doubted not that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had a practical knowledge of the law, but did not think he had a practical knowledge of shooting. He (Mr. Cross) was in favour of rating the right to shoot, but care should be taken that great injustice was not done in attempting to rate it. In the cases of properties which were let, there was clearly a rent on which the man ought to pay, and he did not think the assessment committee would have any difficulty in finding out what a landlord could let his shooting for, and assessing him accordingly. But if the assessment committees were bound to rate all those persons also who had the right of shooting over their own land, they could not distinguish how far the owner chose to exercise that right, whether he shot one day in the year or 100.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

referred to the Parochial Assessment Act to show that where the hereditament was reserved the owner should be rated at the net annual value. If the shooting was let, it would be easy to find out the rent received and rate the owner accordingly.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that if, as the Bill proposed, an addition should be made to the statute of Elizabeth, it should be made when there was a severed right of sporting, because under that statute the right of sporting was assessed in union with the occupation of the soil. That was in accordance with a recent decision. In the case of the Guardians of Battle, it was held where a landowner occupied his own land and lot the shooting, he should be rated for the value of the land, and an addition be charged for the value of the shootings. He appealed, on the ground that having let the shootings they had passed out of his hands, and should not be charged in union with the land; but it was decided that where a profit was made by the game, it should be rated with the land. Therefore it was that the question of severance became very important, and the Courts had not yet decided what was a sufficient severance.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

held that it was impossible to determine the value of game on any man's property in order to tax it, when everybody knew that game moved from one property to another, and was not confined to one alone. Game could be taxed only when it was let.

MR. STANSFELD

quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy's) statement of the law. This was a question of severance from occupation. It was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance). Nothing could be more ill-advised or more opposed to the true interest of the owners of the soil than to make the right of sport liable to rating if let, but not liable if reserved to the owner's use. The exception was not worth proposing; and it would not be creditable, but disastrous if attempted to be carried into effect. He was prepared, however, to amend the Sub-section, by substituting for the word "although" the word "when." As to the method of ascertaining the. value, that could be considered at a later period.

MR. HUNT

agreed that there ought to be no distinction as to rateability, whether the right of sporting was in the hands of the owners of the soil, or was let to others. The principle advocated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, that the right of shooting ought to be assessed at what it would reasonably let year by year would involve great difficulty, because it would depend upon the amount of game kept upon the land. He thought that the principle proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to assess the land at the full rent which it might be expected to fetch, irrespective of any reservation of game and timber, was the right principle.

MR. CLARE READ

said, that when game was let to the tenant, it paid both rates and taxes; when it was let to a third party it paid taxes, but no rates; but when it was left in the hands of the owner, it paid neither rates nor taxes. In a certain parish, the rental of which was under £1,000, two valuers had recently declared that the difference between the true agricultural value and the value as depreciated by the excessive quantity of game amounted to £340. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) that assessment could not be raised, and therefore he could not support it.

CAPTAIN GROVE

held with the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Cavendish) that the whole system of rating game where the owner derived no benefit from letting it was wrong in principle.

MR. GREGORY

thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was well advised in substituting the word "when" for "although." It would meet all the cases which the Committee contemplated. He should therefore support the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. MUNTZ

maintained that the Committee must assess in all cases or in none; and he pointed out that there would be no more practical difficulty in assessing the value of the game, than there would be in fixing the rent at which it would let.

MR. CORRANCE

said, he would not press his Amendment if the Committee were adverse.

MR. SCOURFIELD

complained that under the Bill, game was not treated on the same principle of rating as was applied to other descriptions of property.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In Page 1, line 25, after the word "fishing," to insert the words "Provided, That such rights shall be let to or reserved to others than the occupiers of the soil, and provided that the land where such rights are reserved shall be assessed at a lower annual value for agricultural purposes than it would have been if such rights had not been reserved."—(Lord George Cavendish.)

MR. STANSFELD

did not think that the Amendment of the noble Lord was necessary, its main object being already sufficiently met by the terms of the Bill.

MR. LOPES

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in thinking the Amendment quite unnecessary.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,

on the other hand, held that it provided for a case which was not met by the proposal of the Government—namely, the case where the game was of no value. The Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire would have the effect of requiring that there should be a bonâ fide head of game on the property that was to be rated.

MR. CLARE READ

said, that he and the noble Lord meant the same thing. He reiterated that they must rate the land and not the produce of the land. In rating the right of sporting they were rating a special product of the land. There were hundreds and thousands of acres of land where the right of sporting was not worth 2d. an acre. The difference between the noble Lord and himself amounted to this—that whereas by the noble Lord's Amendment they would have two assessments and two persons assessed, by his Amendment there would be one rating and one person to pay. He thought that if they once departed from the principle of assessing the hereditament according to its value they would get into all sorts of difficulty. How would they know who rented the shooting? Whoever did so might live at a considerable distance from the place, and if they wanted to distrain how would they do so? They could not distrain on the hares and rabbits.

MR. CORRANCE

thought the apprehension that had been expressed, that the land might be assessed to its full value, and that there might then be a rate for sporting, was groundless. Wherever sporting rights were reserved there was a corresponding reduction in the rent.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

observed that the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) spoke of arable land, but the case was very different in respect of the dairy lands of his county.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 250: Majority 127.

MR. STANSFELD

moved, in line 26, to leave out the words "or ownership," the effect of the Amendment being to extend the Poor Rate Acts to rights of fowling, shooting, sporting and fishing, when severed from the occupation of the soil.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "or ownership."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

MR. W. EGERTON

thought the Amendment, which had been suddenly proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, would not be received with great satisfaction by those who wished to have a fair settlement of this question.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Egerton), in his opinion, had not quite caught the meaning of the Amendment. What the Government proposed was, that the right should be rated when the ownership of the soil was severed from the occupation thereof.

MR. LOPES

put the case of a lord of the manor who let his right of shooting, so that it became severed from his ownership. Would it not be necessary to retain the words, "or owners thereof," to meet that case?

VISCOUNT GALWAY

asked for a definition of the word "sporting" in the clause.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, it was much easier to ask questions of law in the House than to answer them. With regard to the meaning of the word "sporting" in the clause he did not know that it differed from shooting.

MR. HUNT

asked, whether the lord of the manor could be said to occupy the commons with respect to which the question of letting arose?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

admitted that the question would require attention hereafter.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

was almost afraid to ask whether the word "sporting" did not include fox hunting?

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

complained that the very pertinent question of the noble Lord (Viscount Galway) had been treated with undue brevity by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General.

MR. DODSON

rose to Order. The Committee had agreed to the section of the clause in which the word "sporting" occurred, and could not go back upon it.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

Why, then, was not the Solicitor General called to Order?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 274: Majority 186.

MR. STANSFELD

moved, at end of clause, to add— And the said hereditaments which are by this section made rateable to the relief of the poor shall be rateable to all county rate, borough rate, highway rate, and other local rates which are leviable upon property rateable to the relief of the poor.

MR. CLARE READ

thought his proposed Amendment respecting game ought to be discussed before another subject was entered into. [Cries of "Progress."]

Motiom made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. STANSFELD

said, he would assent to the Motion.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.