PROCEDURE FOR ASCERTAINING DE FICIENCY AND FOR SEPARATION OF VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM BUILDINGS AND OTHER HEREDITAMENTS. (Hansard, 21 May 1896)

HC Deb 21 May 1896 vol 41 cc175-98 175

§ (1.) For the purposes of this Act returns shall be made to the Local Government Board in accordance with the prescribed regulations—

(a.) by every spending authority in relation to the sums raised by them or their predecessors during the year next before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies; and
(b.) by every assessment committee or council whose duty it is to revise or make a valuation list, basis, standard or other valuation for any parish, in relation to the gross estimated rental and rateable value of that parish, and the proportion thereof which represents agricultural land; and
(c.) by any such authority, committee, or council in relation to any other prescribed information.

§ (2.) For the purpose of the returns, statements showing the gross estimated rental and rateable value of the agricultural land in a parish, and, in the case of any hereditament separately valued which consists in part of agricultural land and in part of buildings or other hereditaments, of each such part, shall be made by the overseers of every parish, and corrected by the assessment committee, and sent to the surveyor of taxes, and be subject to objection or appeal by the said surveyor and overseers before the assessment committee and the court of quarter sessions, in such form, within such times, and generally in such manner, and subject to such provisions, as may be prescribed.

§ (3.) The Local Government Board may by order make regulations for the purpose of this section, and also generally for carrying into effect this Act, and those regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act, and shall amongst other matters provide—

(a) for fixing, with the concurrence of the Treasury, for the purpose of the division in the statements of agricultural land from buildings or other hereditaments, the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings or other hereditaments;
(b) for giving effect to a notice of objection or appeal by the surveyor of taxes unless it is proved that such notice is unfair or incorrect;
(c) for the temporary adoption by the county council or any other council, of the division in the return between the total rateable value of agricultural land and that of buildings and other hereditaments;
(d) for the alteration in the valuation list in accordance with the statements as finally settled and sending copies of the returns to spending authorities and for applying and adapting any statutory form or procedure respecting the valuation list or poor rate; and
(e) for adapting this Act to cases where there is no valuation list, or where a sum is raised by rate from an area not a parish.

§ (4.) The regulations may also provide fines for the breach thereof not exceeding forty shillings, or in case of any continuing offence not exceeding forty shillings a day during the continuance of the offence, and any such fine may be recovered as a Crown debt or to an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds before a court of summary jurisdiction.

§ SIR J. BRUNNER
said he had been 12 years in the House, and had seen the 177 proceedings on many bitterly-contested Bills, but he had never known an instance of a Bill which excited strong feelings on both sides of the House having been conducted by its authors in the manner in which this Bill had been conducted. (Cheers and Ministerial cries of "Question!") Gentlemen opposite were still inclined to usurp the office of the Chairman. [Cheers.] Nor had he ever known a Bill on which the Government had refused to give way on a single line or on a single word to their opponents. [Cheers, Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Question!"] But the case was worse than that. The Government had not only refused to concede the smallest point to the Opposition, but they had made two promises to the Opposition and had broken them both. [Loud cheers.] Whether he should be successful or not, he meant to enter a protest against a lack of consideration for opponents, against a harshness unexampled in his recollection, such as he trusted he might never see in the House again. He therefore moved "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" [Loud cheers].

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
, who was loudly cheered, said: I think, if we were to strike a balance as to the side which has received ill-usage, we should come to a different conclusion from that which the hon. Baronet opposite has presented to us. [Cheers.] I may say also that in my Parliamentary experience a Bill has never been opposed in the manner and in the spirit in which this Bill has been opposed. [Loud cheers.] The methods which have been adopted have been such as are rarely employed. When the hon. Gentleman says the Government have made no concessions I may remind him that we have made a very great one in changing the Measure from a permanent into a temporary one. ["A concession to one of your own supporters."] This is the first time I have gathered it was not consonant with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I point out that the clauses which have occupied our time to-night are machinery clauses. ["No, no!"] They relate to matters upon which of necessity those who have access to the advice of Departments have special means of information not open to other hon. Members. We did not think the 178 machinery of the Bill would be improved by Amendments, many of them hastily drawn and handed to the Chairman in manuscript. I hope the House will not expect me to say anything further in answer to the Motion. We may differ as to the reasons why it has occurred and as to the justification for the various actors in to-night's drama; but, having gone so far, we can hardly stop. [Cheers.]

§ *SIR W. HARCOURT
I rise to absolutely contest and deny statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.] My Parliamentary experience is longer than his, and it has taught me when I was in his position that the use of the Closure constantly and from the earliest moment is calculated not to facilitate the dispatch of business, but to destroy the good feeling which is essential to the dispatch of business. It is that fatal error which has characterised the conduct of business by the right hon. Gentleman from the beginning of the Session to this hour. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the opposition offered to this Bill to-night as unexampled. That opposition has consisted in the moving of Amendments, which for the most part were substantial and solid Amendments of principle. The statement that the discussion was upon matters of machinery only in the early hours of the morning is a statement which the right hon. Gentleman could have made only through having been partially present—[cheers]—and not having taken much interest in or acquired much comprehension of the Measure. Upon the last clause upon which the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, we had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he was going to deal with one of the most important and vital principles of the Bill in connection with an Amendment which was on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire; he made that answer to myself when I reminded him that he had promised on an earlier stage of the Bill to deal with the question of valuation; when I reminded him of it he did not deny that he had himself promised to deal with it; but he excused himself for dealing with it because there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire in 179 which he concurred; and when we were expecting a discussion upon it up rises the Leader of the House and moves the Closure. I forbear to characterise in the language it deserves the conduct of business on such principles. We have been accustomed to rely on undertakings made by occupants of the Treasury Bench in the conduct of a Bill and, above all, by the Leader of the House. [Cheers.] It will be an evil day for the House when we can rely on those assurances no longer. [Renewed cheers.] The business of the House has been thrown into confusion to-night. Within my Parliamentary experience a Bill has never been conducted in such a spirit and manner, with determination to carry through clauses of great importance and Closure Amendments of the highest consequence, until half-past seven in the morning. As long as business is conducted in the House of Commons in that spirit you will have consequences which, unfortunately, were witnessed last night. [Cheers.]

§ MR. CHAPLIN
I rise for a single moment only to absolutely repudiate—[Opposition laughter]—the imputation that I have committed a breach of faith towards the House of Commons. What were the circumstances under which my pledge was given? In answer to an appeal from my hon. Friend and others sitting on that side, I did state that some Amendments should be brought forward before this Bill was passed giving effect to their wishes. But my hon. Friend behind me has placed an Amendment on the Paper. I was informed he was satisfied with his own Amendment, but that he could not move it in Committee, but would move it on Report. Before the right hon. Gentleman ventures again to charge me with a breach of faith let him make himself acquainted with the facts. [Loud cheers.]

§ MR. STUART
hoped that if the Committee refused to report progress it would not be on the ground that the Leader of the House had put before them. These three questions were of the deepest importance, not only with respect to this particular Measure, but with respect to the precedent for other Measures which it would establish. The first had been passed over absolutely unconsidered; the second had been 180 shuffled through, and the third had not been considered at all. In these circumstances, if the House decided to continue this discussion, he hoped it would do so with eyes open, and not under the assurance of the Leader of the House that there was only machinery to be dealt with. How could contributions be given towards the assistance of the rates based on rateable value without a Government valuation? He would content himself by saying that there lay before the Committee matter of such serious consideration that it ought not to be taken up by the House after a sitting of more than 16 hours.

§ MR. BROADHURST
said, that the Leader of the House had just stated that he had made a concession to the Opposition side of the House by limiting the operation of the Bill to five years; might he remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made in answer to appeals from his own side?

§ MR. CHAPLIN
As I made the statement, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I was willing to make that concession in deference to representations made to me from both sides of the House.

§ MR. BROADHURST
said, he was speaking with reference to what the Leader of the House had said five minutes ago. He did not want to trouble the right hon. Gentleman who had interrupted him, because they were all painfully aware of his exhausted condition. But he would ask the Leader of the House whether it was not the fact that the limitation was agreed to to prevent a general stampede of borough Members on his own side? If the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to the Motion for reporting progress, would he consent that they should adjourn for say, a couple of hours. [Cries of "No!"] He made the suggestion because he was informed that the resources of the kitchen were exhausted, and that there was nothing but poached eggs to be obtained. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]

§ MR. LOUGH
said, that he could scarcely think that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken his absolutely last word in reference to the Motion for reporting progress. Had the right hon. Gentleman looked at the 6th clause, which covered a page and a half of the 181 Bill? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the Motion for reporting progress, in consequence of the great strain which must have been placed upon the Chairman of Committees.

§ MR. WHITTAKER
said, that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had asked him not to press his Amendment with regard to valuation, as there was an Amendment upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire which raised the same point, and now the right hon. Gentleman informed him that that Amendment was not to be moved until the Report. No concession whatever had been made in Committee. Were these clauses going to be put one by one to the Closure, or wore they to have an opportunity of discussing them? No concession whatever had been made to them in Committee, the concession as to the time having been made on the Second Reading. They had not had a single concession of a word or a line in Committee on this Bill, and that was, he thought, almost unprecedented.

§ MR. LOGAN
said, that as a Member of that House of only five years standing, it might seem presumptuous for him to venture an opinion against that of the Leader of the House, but he remembered in 1892, when their Party sat on the opposite side of the House, an opposition was conducted in a very able manner by the hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary to the Treasury, to the Army Annual Bill, which he did not suppose anyone would say was a contentious Measure. That, he thought, was proof that the opposition to the present Bill was by no means unprecedented. There was no one who regretted more than he did some of the scenes that night. He regretted exceedingly that his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, after the able and very intelligent manner in which he endeavoured to lead the opposition to this Bill, was suspended. He believed the reason why he incurred the displeasure of the Chair—[cries of "Question" and "Order!"]—was simply as a protest against what he considered to be a breach of faith. [Cries of "Order!"]

*THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now practically referring to the 182 incident which occurred some time ago, and its bearing on this question I do not quite follow. [Cheers.]

§ MR. LOGAN
said, the protest of the hon. Member for Carnarvon was made because a promise had been broken. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision and allow them to go home. ["No, no!"] Oh, he was quite willing to stop there as long as they were. [Laughter.]

§ SIR JAMES KITSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Colne Valley)
thought there was a misunderstanding. There was now a much more peaceful frame of mind and, as there were many anxious homes awaiting them—[loud laughter]—he hoped they would be permitted to report progress.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"

*THE CHAIRMAN
withheld his consent, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared shortly to come to a decision without that Motion.

§ MR. GEORGE LAMBERT
said, there were many Gentlemen opposite able to discuss the question, but they were silent. [Laughter.]

§ DR. CLARK
asked whether if progress was not reported before 12 o'clock, when the Friday's sitting was ordered to commence, it would not be necessary for Members to re-assemble on Monday to dispose of the Orders?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
hoped they would finish before 12 o'clock, but in any case he did not believe the contingency contemplated by the learned Gentleman would arise.

§ Question put. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 189.—(Division List, No. 189.)

§ MR. MCKENNA
moved in Sub-section (a) to strike out the word "raised" and to insert instead thereof the words "actually received."

§ MR. CHAPLIN
accepted the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

183

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
moved the omission from Sub-section (2) of the words "For the purpose of the Returns." This sub-section, he said, referred to certain statements, and it was said that these statements were made "for the purpose of the Returns." These words were misleading and were really incompatible with the object of the sub-section. It was true that the statements were to be used for a Return to the Government, but each of these statements was in substance and in effect a supplementary valuation list—a list in which every agricultural hereditament was entered, the buildings being separated from the land. It was a new valuation list upon a new principle, and absolutely revolutionised the position of ratepayers in districts where there was agricultural land.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
could not accept the Amendment, because the words had been inserted on account of the subsequent sections in the Bill. The words related solely to the Returns, which were to be sent to the Local Government Board for the purpose of enabling them to make their estimate of the relative value of land on one side and buildings on the other.

§ MR. STUART
observed that a great difficulty bad arisen here which required the consideration of the Government. The subject of valuation and assessment was an extremely difficult one to deal with. In this particular case he thought really the difficulty had arisen from the Government tackling this altogether new question of the separation of land and buildings. That the Government did not appreciate the extreme difficulty of the position was shown by the very words which his hon. Friend proposed to omit. He knew that in this Bill these statements were intended to be used "for the purpose of these Returns," but it was using a steam hammer in order to break a nut. For the purpose of the Returns they had to get what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think was a fairly easy thing, namely, a separate valuation of land and buildings, and then, in order to get these Returns, they were told in an off-hand way that certain statements were required. Before they could get these statements they had really to upset the whole of the valuation, the 184 whole of the assessment system, and the whole procedure and the relations of the ratepayers to that procedure. He said before they reached it that this clause was one of the most complicated in the Bill. Those who had any knowledge of the question of rating knew how they upset everything when they touched anything. Here they were touching not only a little point, but one of the most vital points, because they must remember that time after time it had been stated by skilled witnesses before Committees of that House that it was almost an impossible thing to separate the valuation of lands and buildings. And yet the Government were about, just simply for the purpose of these Returns, to do a thing which was so difficult of accomplishment that when they merely made a sketchy outline of how to do it, that very outline upset the whole of the existing fabric of the procedure under the assessment of rates. It was most unfair to the House and to the constituencies that hon. Members should be obliged at a quarter past eight in the morning, after a sitting of 18 hours, to deal with such a very complex question. If it were only for the sake of this one clause, he would urge the Government to adjourn the Debate.

§ *SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that the further the discussion was carried the clearer it became that, as the Minister for Agriculture said, this Bill was not so much for the relief of agriculture as to effect a great reform of the principles of rating in the country. And that reform, introducing new methods and principles, was to be transacted in an all-night sitting! There could be no doubt that the statement that these clauses were mere machinery was an imposture. They were of the most vital character to the whole principle of rating. Probably it was not by intention, but simply by carelessness, that these momentous changes had been proposed merely for the sake of Returns. The principle of rating was to be revolutionised for the sake of one particular interest, and to the injury of all other interests; and yet the consequences of this revolution were not allowed to be discussed. That was the system relentlessly forced on the House by the Closure; and on no single clause had there been during the sitting a discussion 185 of the principles involved. A fair hearing had been given on no single clause.

*THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The right hon. Member is now reflecting on the action of the House, and that is out of order.

§ *SIR W. HARCOURT
called for some explanation from the Government.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that it was because the clause did not alter the system of rating that the introductory words proposed to be left out were necessary. Every existing right of the ratepayer was preserved, including the right of appeal. It was simply thought desirable that for the purposes for the Return, and for those only, this statement should be given. If the words were struck out it would produce the very evil to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention. Nothing in the clause touched the principle of rating or the principle of valuation. It was simply a Return to show what the division had been. It would not increase or lessen the amount of rateable value put upon the ratepayers.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said, that on Clause 5 the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to objections that there were no means of checking the division of the valuation, pointed to Clause 6 as a guarantee that some check of the kind would be provided. But now the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would seem to show that no additional check on the separation of the valuation would be provided by the clause, because, according to him, the clause was simply for the purpose of Returns. The check that was needed was the check of the Local Government Board, in order, in the first place, that the grant in aid might be properly estimated, and secondly, that the rate might be properly apportioned. The clause did not give the check the Attorney General had promised, and its effect would be to create great confusion amongst the different authorities.

§ *MR. HARRISON
pointed out that there might be a valuation of buildings and a valuation of agricultural land, but those two valuations added together would not represent what was now assessed. Again, when land and buildings were divided, land might be more valuable apart from buildings, and 186 buildings might be enhanced or not enhanced by land. Therefore when they created the new assessment they must give the same remedies and the same protection to the new system as existed under the old.

§ DR. CLARK
said, the Ministerial statement of the effect of the clause did not agree with the marginal note. The first part of the clause said that Returns should be made; for the purpose of the Returns statements were to be made; but these were to be in the form prescribed by the Local Government Board, whose regulations were to have all the force of an Act. All this was required, not for the purpose of the Returns, but for the purpose of the separate valuation, and this was to be a change of valuation without a right of appeal. All that was asked was that an addition should be made to the limiting words so as to give anyone aggrieved a right of appeal.

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

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 61.— (Division List, No. 190.)

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
rose to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "overseers" to insert the words "and by any aggrieved ratepayer." He said the so-called statement was appealable to the Assessment Committee and Quarter Sessions by the overseers and the surveyor of taxes. Those two authorities had an appeal under the existing law, but there was another person who had an appeal under the existing law, and he had been strangely neglected by the framers of the Bill—he meant the aggrieved ratepayer. The clause as it stood gave no right of appeal to the aggrieved ratepayer. He had been surprised at the statement which had just been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who said that there was the same right of appeal under this clause as already existed. The whole point was that the land and buildings were to be separately rated, and it was obvious that the value of the buildings, when the division came to be made, was of the first importance to the agricultural ratepayer. If an undue amount of assessment was put upon the buildings that would aggrieve 187 the urban ratepayer, who ought then to have a right of appeal. If the overseers thought that the valuation wan not right, and they were to go to the Assessment Committee, and up by degrees to Quarter Sessions if they liked, to find out the value of a particular hereditament, all this was done behind the back of the owner. He wished to obviate the same process of appeal before the same Courts being gone through twice in order to ascertain for another litigant the value of the hereditament. The proposal as it stood would be contrary to all precedents with which he was familiar, and if they were going to upset precedent they were at all events face to face with this extraordinary reduplication. He hoped to move as the Amendment in line 33 after the word "overseer" to insert the words "and by any aggrieved ratepayers."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
thought the hon. and learned Member did not quite understand the primary object of these Returns, as none of the rights of the individual ratepayer would be affected. Unless it was absolutely necessary for the purpose of protecting individual rights to give every ratepayer who thought himself aggrieved the right to appeal, it might delay for a very considerable time the ascertainment of the amount which the particular district was to receive. There would be no individual grievance, and no ratepayer's right would be interfered with by this Measure.

§ SIR J. WOODHOUSE
suggested that it would save a multiplicity of proceedings if the aggrieved ratepayers had the right to intervene in the first instance.

§ MR. LOUGH
said, they had toiled all night and only one Amendment had been accepted. They hoped that this Amendment might be accepted.

§ MR. LAMBERT
said, the fact of a new kind of valuation being made was a serious matter to the rural ratepayer. It was important that the valuation should be a just one, and that under the circumstances the ratepayer in the country districts should have every opportunity of appealing as soon as possible, and certainly before all the proceedings indicated by the Bill were taken. For the sake of the smooth working of the Measure in the rural districts, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.

188

§ MR. STUART
said he wished again to point out the extreme complexity and difficulty of dealing with any question affecting rating and valuation, and to express regret that the Committee should be compelled to discuss this matter at that hour, after an all-night sitting. The whole question involved in the Amendment was of a most important and intricate nature. By the Bill they were about to introduce an entirely new system of assessment, or valuation, into the rural districts. The ratepayer, therefore, ought to be given some power of appeal in the first instance. This question was one that deserved the most careful attention of the Committee, and though they had now reached the 18th or 19th hour of the sitting, he hoped that it would not be slurred over.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that it was a fallacy to suppose that a different system of valuation was being adopted because land and buildings were being separated. No lawyer, or no person who had studied the question, could possibly have that opinion. The valuation is the same in both cases. It made no difference for this purpose with regard to the basis whether it "might" or "would." The basis was rent. In hundreds and thousands of cases, in the valuation lists in the country, that had been the basis adopted where buildings and land had been separately rated. In regard to the suggestion made that there should be a limit of time put in, he would consider it between now and the Report stage, and possibly it might be possible for them to allow aggrieved ratepayers to appear on an appeal initiated by the surveyor, but not on an appeal initiated by themselves.

§ MR. LOGAN
asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether there was any record of a rent in which the holding was rated separately from the land?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is the law now, and has been for 40 years.

§ MR. LOGAN
said there was no separate valuation of the buildings apart from the land, and it was utterly impossible for any man to say what was the fair rental value of buildings separated from the land. The rent paid was a joint rent for the land and for the buildings upon it. At the present time, on a great majority of farms in England and Wales, no separate valuation of the land from the farm had been made or was 189 known by anybody. It was absolutely necessary for the protection of the people in the large villages and small towns that every precaution should be taken that the valuations which were to be made should be equitable valuations. As the Government had refused to allow them the appointment of an official valuer, the least they could do was to allow an aggrieved ratepayer to lodge an appeal. The ratepayers in the larger villages, realising that under the Bill the landowners and the tenant-farmers were to derive benefit would naturally be suspicious of the existing Assessment Committees who valued the property. At present the appeal was not to an independent court, but to the Court of Quarter Sessions—a court of landlords.

§ DR. CLARK
pointed out that whilst the Attorney General contended that it had been the law for 40 years to have a separate valuation of land and houses, other legal Members told them it never had been done and could not be done. There was thus, clearly, a difference of opinion on the subject. He considered, however, the Government had met them fairly in the matter by the undertaking which they had given.

MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
thought the right hon. Gentleman, while he had tried to meet the Opposition, had done so in such a way as to render his proposal unacceptable. He had told them what the Government would do would be to consider the proposal of an appeal, but would only allow the ratepayer to intervene in the event of the Surveyor of Taxes initiating the proceedings. What they wanted was that the ratepayer should go before the Assessment Committee, that he should have the power, subsequently, to appeal to the justices sitting at special sessions, and should then, if necessary, even have a further appeal to the Quarter Sessions. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would meet them in that direction, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.

§ MR. DALZIEL
remarked that on every point in which there had been difficulty—and many difficulties had arisen—the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or one of his assistants for the time being had appealed to them to raise the particular question on the Report stage. But they had no assurance that they should have any better 190 opportunity on the Report stage than they had been afforded now, and they should in future, he thought, refuse to trust to the generosity or even the fairness of the Government. They had now an opportunity to debate these points, and debate them they would, no matter how long it might take. What the hon. Member for Bethnal Green asked was that an aggrieved ratepayer should have the right to appeal, and the Government could end the discussion on this particular question by accepting the Amendment, which was a reasonable and equitable one.

§ MR. ALLEN
said, that in his opinion it was the Government's own fault that they got on so slowly. Would the Attorney General give an assurance that this question should be discussed on Report at a proper hour?

§ Question put: "That those words be there inserted."

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 164.—(Division List, No. 191.)

§ Amendment proposed in Sub-section (2), after "assessment committee" to insert the words "and justices in special sessions."—[Mr. Pickersgill.]

§ Amendment put, and agreed to.

§ [MR. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.]

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)
said that the next Amendment, standing in the name of Mr. Pickersgill, to insert in line 26, after "prescribed" the words "by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," was out of order.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
, on a point of order, said, the Bill proposed to confer new powers upon the Local Government Board. The object of his Amendment was to confer those powers upon a body which, if the Chairman would allow him, he would show was already entrusted, in the matter of assessments, with precisely analogous powers.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)
If so, the Amendment would be in order.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
referred to Section 27, of the Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1869, which enacted that the 191 Justices in Assessment Sessions might, with the approval of Her Majesty's Secretary of State—which meant the Home Secretary—make orders from time to time for regulating the proceedings on appeal to them under that Act. The Bill proposed to give exactly the same powers to the Local Government Board. He was informed that there was an analogy of more recent date. The regulations which the Local Government Board was to have power to make were to be of the widest and most unprecedented character, including the form and time of an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Local Government Board was not the proper authority on which to confer powers such as these with reference to Courts of Justice. There were only two executive authorities in this country who, according to long established practice, had any control whatever over justices, and those were the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. The Justices would be disposed to say: "The Lord Chancellor we know, and the Home Secretary we know, but who are the Local Government Board that they should be empowered to direct proceedings in Quarter Sessions?"

§ DR. CLARK
said, he had to move a farther Amendment, which was that these regulations should lie on the Table of both Houses, because, practically, power was to be given to make Acts of Parliament. The regulations ought to be made by Parliament and not by the Local Government Board. The First Lord of the Treasury professed to believe that they were discussing simply the machinery for carrying out the Bill, whereas the machinery was not in the Bill at all. The machinery would have to be created when the Bill was passed. Powers were to be given to County Councils; and among the powers was power to alter the Valuation List. If principles as well as machinery were to be placed in the hands of the Local Government Board and the Treasury, Parliament ought to adjourn and never meet again. All that was asked by this Amendment was the proposed changes in the law should not come into force until Parliament had had a final voice in the matter.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he could not accept the Amendment. As far as he knew, the Secretary of State had no jurisdiction with respect to Assessment 192 Committees. They were Committees of Boards of Guardians, and thus were under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board.

§ MR. BROADHURST
said, the right hon. Gentleman was making a great constitutional change, the importance of which he utterly failed to appreciate. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to have some mercy towards the Department he adorned so much. Did he realise that it would be utterly impossible for that Department to carry out this work with its present staff? He was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not in a receptive mood after his prolonged efforts—receptive intellectually. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was in a very receptive mood in other respects. [Laughter.] He quite appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's sluggishness. [Cries of "Order, order!" and "withdraw!"] If that expression was too strong, he would withdraw it a hundred times. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would believe that he had no intention of saying anything offensive. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the physical impossibility of his Department discharging these duties efficiently and with credit to the nation and themselves. As a country magistrate he should look upon the right hon. Gentleman's Department with great alarm. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman were to have only half an hour's rest it would be very beneficial to the nation and would enable him to consider the very valuable suggestions that had been thrown out in the course of the Debate. He regretted the absence of the Opposition Leaders at that time of the morning—oh, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs was occupying his seat, because hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were no match for hon. Gentlemen opposite for making appeals.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)
Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself more strictly to the subject of the Amendment under discussion.

§ MR. BROADHURST
said, that he would endeavour to do so, but they were all getting a little loose in their mode of expression. He was only regretting that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the 193 House were unable to put their case as thoroughly and as exhaustively as they could wish. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not overweight his Department beyond what it would be able to bear.

§ MR. STUART
said, that one part of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the Amendment had been met by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who had been able to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary exercised similar functions to those which were indicated in the clause. In the matter of the assessment of lands and buildings separately there was a great deal to be learned from the assessment and valuation of the metropolis. He really thought that they were not going far enough by this Amendment. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was present, because he could point out to him that their assertion that these clauses did not refer to the machinery of the Bill only was a sound one. This subject had been investigated by Committee after Committee of that House, and it ought to be decided by the House itself. It was of the most essential character, because it affected the amount of money which every householder, as compared with every agricultural landowner, would have to pay in every parish in the kingdom. The Amendment was of the most vital importance to the Bill, and he urged upon the Leader of the House that this was not the machinery only of the Bill, but one of the most essential points. The clause was a mistake from beginning to end, and if only they had more Members present in the House to listen to what was said upon the matter, he should not despair of carrying the House with them. This was not a Party Amendment, nor was it one in regard to which hon. Members on that side wished to score off hon. Members opposite. He believed the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend would greatly improve the clause.

§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER took the Chair.]

§ MR. DALZIEL
said there was one point he wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman, and that was that he was proposing by this clause to make an unprecedented departure in placing the 194 arrangements of Quarter Sessions under the control of the Local Government Board. That proposal was in no sense associated with the particular objects with which this Bill was concerned. He contended that the Local Government Board was not a body which ought to have power over a judicial tribunal.

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

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 189.—(Division List, No 192.)

§ MR. PICKERSGILL
moved after "prescribed," at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert:— These provisions shall conform as nearly as possible to the existing statutory law respecting valuation lists, as regards notices, rights to inspect and take extracts, the hearing of objections, and otherwise.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ DR. CLARK
moved an Amendment requiring that the regulations made by the Local Government Board for carrying the Act into effect should lie on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for ten days.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. LOUGH
moved the omission of the words "shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act" from Subsection (3), so as to prevent the regulations of the Local Government Board for carrying out the Act having the effect of an Act of Parliament.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the omission of those words would make the sub-section meaningless, and render the regulations inoperative.

§ MR. STUART
recognised the difficulty, but desired that something should be done to prevent the Local Government Board from dealing with these regulations with a free hand.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that there was no sequence in the Amendment; it was a non sequitur.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
suggested that the Amendment should read, "if neither House of Parliament pass a resolution within ten days they shall be binding in law until varied in the same manner."

195

§ MR. STUART
That is absolutely satisfactory.

§ Amendment, as amended by the addition of the words suggested by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, agreed to.

§ MR. DALZIEL
proposed, in Sub-section (3), after the word "provide," to insert the words— (a) for the appointment in each county of a Government assessor, who shall be empowered to attend all meetings of assessment committees within his county. Their case was that the Assessment Committees were unsatisfactory so far as the Imperial authority was concerned. He proposed that the assessor should be appointed by the Government, should be appointed to the Assessment Committee, and should be, to all intents and purposes, a member of the Assessment Committee. The advantage of having this gentleman sitting representing the Imperial authority would be that he would be able to gain great experience from the intimate relations he would have with the work of the Assessment Committees, and be able to introduce a method of uniformity. It would not be necessary to provide remuneration in any way, for his idea was that the person appointed should be an existing official who was already in receipt of a salary and who would undertake this work, which would not be very hard.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
, as an objection to the Amendment, said there would be not only indirect, but direct, payment of some existing official, and, as a further objection, pointed out that they had already debated the question of there being a Government valuer, and, having decided that question, it was surely not fair to ask the Committee to engage in another discussion as to the appointment of a gentleman to perform the same functions, simply because the hon. Member called him a Government assessor instead of a Government valuer. It was impossible to accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. STUART
said, that the problem which the country generally now had to face had already been faced in the Metropolis, where it was of primary importance that the valuations should be made on the same principles. By the Metropolitan Valuations Act a representative of the Inland Revenue Department was 196 given a place on the Assessment Committees. The alteration for the better which had thus been brought about was quite astonishing. The application of this system to the country at large would be a great improvement to the Bill. His object all through had been to improve this clause from the point of view of the Bill itself; and ever since the Bill had been accepted by the House he had loyally endeavoured to make it better. The point in question was the most difficult part of the Bill; and he did think that the Government would have postponed this clause. Unless the Local Government Board were protected by some such power, it would not be a fit body to fix these regulations.

§ COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)
said, that the proposal to have a Government assessor as well a surveyor of taxes was quite new, and altogether unnecessary.

§ MR. LOUGH
said, his hon. Friend opposite was mistaken in thinking that the supporters of the Amendment wanted to have two officers. They did not; they would be quite satisfied with one; but they desired that he should be appointed under the Local Government Board, and should act in the interest of the Treasury independently of the local bodies that might assess in the localities. They had been told that the Bill was perfect; that it wanted no Amendment, but for the past three hours every Amendment which had been proposed from that side of the House had been accepted. He was sure that when their labours were over the Government would admit that the Opposition had done a great deal to improve the Bill.

§ DR. CLARK
said, that there was an officer of the kind suggested in the Amendment in every county in Scotland. He was called the assessor, and was paid by the Inland Revenue.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Hear, hear!

§ DR. CLARK
And the result was that the Treasury had uniformity in Scotland. It was true the officer was paid by the Inland Revenue, but he did local work. He was the registration officer; he made up the rolls and he was responsible to the House for them, though he was an Inland Revenue officer. What was wanted was a fair and uniform valuation in all districts. Let there be throughout England, as there was in Scotland and in London, 197 someone who should be present to see that the instructions that were given were carried out.

§ *MR. WHITTAKER
said, it was absolutely necessary there should be someone to protect the public and see that they were not unduly fleeced. As a matter of fact there was not much confidence in the Assessment Committee; they were too largely composed of the class who were going to benefit by this Bill. When self the trembling balance holds 'Tis seldom right's adjusted. The interests of the public in the towns could not be left with Assessment Committees and Quarter Sessions when they could make so much difference between the burdens that fell upon land and those that fell upon buildings. In illustration of what could be done, he referred to the accounts of Voluntary Schools, in the management of which, in order to get public money, managers did what they would scorn to do in private affairs. The people of the towns were going to find the bulk of the money, and they ought to have representation.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that what was asked for by the Amendment was practically a complete remodelling of the rating of England. ["Hear, hear! and "It wants it!"] He had no objection to that. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had submitted an Amendment, the essence of which was that there should be a paid officer; and the hon. Member for Caithness said there ought to be someone corresponding to an assessor in Scotland. He was not in the least opposed to it; but it was foreign to the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said he had had great experience, but for once he had made a mistake, for he said that the Inland Revenue appointed such an officer in London. Nothing of the kind; the only officer was the Surveyor of Taxes, who, under this Bill, would have statements sent to him. The Bill said the Local Government Board were to provide, with the concurrence of the Treasury, for the fixing of a minimum; surely there was the control hon. Members wished for, and all that could be given unless there was a complete remodelling of the system.

§ MR. LEUTY
said, that what had been stated with regard to the want of 198 uniformity in London was true of the country generally. There were instances of a rate being levied in more than one union under differential assessments; and when he had brought instances before a Committee he had been told by the Chairman that he could not regard what was done in other unions. The local Poor Rate was a mere trifle compared with other rates assessed on a different basis. Surveyors of taxes might well do in the country what had been done in London. The Inland Revenue did not necessarily adopt the assessment of the Poor Law authorities, but they revised it for themselves.

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

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 198.—(Division List, No. 193.)

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

§ Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No. 194.)

§ Question put accordingly, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 195.)

§ On Clause 7,—