CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 15 July 1873)

§ MR. CRAUFURD
rose to a point of Order. he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was about to import into this Bill certain clauses which stood on the Notice Paper and would more properly form part of the 402 Valuation Bill. But these clauses appeared to him to be such as could only be introduced in Committee. He should like to know whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move those clauses on the Report?

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the clauses to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman impose any new charge they must be moved in Committee of the Whole House. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think fit to explain the objects of his new clauses, and to state how far they affect the rating of property to which they apply.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that upon the best advice which he had been able to obtain, he was satisfied that in bringing these Amendments forward upon Report he would be acting in accordance with the Rules of the House. The House would remember that during the passing of the Bill through Committee certain Amendments were moved with regard to the rating of plantations and woods; and he was desirous to obtain the general view of the Committee upon this particular question. The Government listened to the suggestions which were made on both sides of the House, and they came to the conclusion that they would accept the Amendments; but they also determined to put them into a practicable shape. The House must be perfectly aware that they could not accept suggestions made during the progress of the discussion in Committee without reserving the right, and indeed the duty, of correcting the method of their legal expression. It was to the method of their expression as a matter of drafting that his Amendments were confined, though it was perfectly true they were in the shape of two new clauses. He proposed to omit the proviso moved by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), at the end of Clause 3, and also to omit Clause 19, and to move instead two new clauses. The new clauses did not impose any new charge; they merely carried out in a legal form the decision already arrived at as to the method of assessing the value of rateable property.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
again appealed to the Speaker. It was admitted that the clauses were new, and he must ask whether it was not a case which trenched so closely upon the Rules that, as a matter of Order, the Bill should be recommitted for the consideration of these clauses.

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the now clauses proposed by the right hon. Gentleman involve any new charges such as were not embraced by the clauses agreed to by the Committee, undoubtedly it would be out of Order to proceed with such clauses in the House; they must be dealt with by the Committee of the House. If I apprehend correctly the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, these are not new charges. If that is so, it is competent for the House to deal with them without referring them to a Committee of the Whole House. Of course, it would be open to the House, if it thought proper, to take this course—to proceed with the Bill as it stands; and if, upon further consideration of the clauses, it is found that they involve a violation of the Rules of the House, undoubtedly the Bill must be recommitted in respect of such clauses.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the new clauses would not impose any now charge. He wished to know how and in what manner that question was to be determined?

§ MR. T. HUGHES
said, that perhaps the hon. and learned Member could tell the House in what respects the clauses were out of Order.

§ MR. STANSFELD
suggested that the hon. and learned Member could do so when they came to discuss the clauses, and then it could be decided whether he made out his case. He moved that the Bill be now considered.

§ MR. GRAHAM
desired to say a few words in explanation of certain Amendments to this Bill as regarded Scotland, which he had placed on the Paper. The original intention of the Government in introducing this measure was that it should apply to England only; but it having been represented that it would be well that it should be extended to the sister kingdoms, certain clauses had beeen introduced by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), more or less adapted to meet the particular circumstances of these two countries. With one exception, these clauses were unobjectionable, so far as Scotland was concerned and so far as they went; but it was found, in the opinion of those who were entitled to express an opinion that 404 they did not truly meet the case of Scotland, as they failed to abolish certain exemptions in that country which the Bill proposed to abolish in England, and to deal with other exemptions in Scotland which did not exist at all in England; and not only so, but a conviction existed in the minds of the rating authorities of Scotland that the Bill did not make any provision — or at least made insufficient provision—to remedy some very serious abuses that had arisen in Scotland in the application of the 37th clause of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Besides this, an objection was taken in Scotland to the plan proposed by the Government for valuing Government property. He had been applied to to give expression to these opinions, and had put certain Amendments on the Paper to be proposed at this stage of the Bill. The Amendments were of three kinds. Those on the 6th clause proposed to remove exemptions from rating enjoyed by literary and scientific societies, which had been abolished in England, but which, from an error in the wording, the Bill did not deal with in Scotland; and also to abolish an exemption enjoyed mostly under private Acts by buildings used by municipal corporations and other public bodies for public purposes. To these Amendments no serious objection was, he believed, to be apprehended. Another object of his Amendments referred to the repeal of the 37th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and as to which they should, no doubt, have to contend against very powerful interests—but he desired nothing but what was fair. His third Amendment had reference to an alteration in the system of valuing and arbitrating on Government property. These Amendments found, he believed, very general approval and support from the Members for Scotland. The Lord Advocate, he believed, was favourable to their principle; nor did he think any formidable opposition was to be apprehended from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, except possibly upon the question of the valuation of Government property, on which he was aware the right hon. Gentleman entertained a strong opinion. But soon after Notice of these Amendments had been put upon the Paper, his attention was called to the fact that, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, 405 it would not be competent to him to move them upon the Report—the question, in fact, as had been raised by the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr. It seemed therefore that the only course open to him was to put an Amendment upon the Paper to recommit the Bill in regard to the clauses on which the Amendments had arisen—namely, the 4th, 6th, and 12th clauses. In ordinary circumstances no objection could be taken to that course; but his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had complained of his conduct in the matter as though it was of an unfriendly and hostile character; and had represented to him that the effect of the re-commitment of the Bill would in all probability be to throw very serious difficulties in the way of its passing. He had suggested that all the Amendments requisite in regard to Scotland might be embodied in a simple Bill, to which no objection could be taken; but there seemed little probability of the draft of such a Bill being agreed upon in time to pass it this Session. He therefore felt unable to accept the responsibility of so dealing with this Bill as to risk throwing away the large amount of time and labour the House of Commons had already expended upon it. Nor could he allege to himself any advantage from opposing this Bill. The Bill itself would give the people of Scotland a substantial gain. It established an important extension of the rating area, as regarded Government property and mines, and if it fell short of their just claims in regard to literary societies and municipal buildings, he believed that omission to be wholly accidental, and they had already heard from the right hon. Gentleman that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to complete the measure for Scotland in these points at the very earliest period next Session. As regarded the 37th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, he felt that it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to deal with a question of that kind, involving the interests of the great railway companies, at this late period of the Session. The only other Amendment was in regard to the scheme of valuation, and the character of the tribunal to be appointed to arbitrate, and that was one which could be discussed on this stage of the Bill. That being so, and having taken the best advice, he thought it was not his duty 406 to press the Motion that the Bill should be recommitted.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, he did not concur in the course taken by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham), nor in his reasons in support of it. He should therefore move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Bill be recommitted. The Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) were of such a serious character, and the measure itself was of such importance, that he felt it was impossible they could be adequately dealt with on the consideration of the Report. There was no doubt the Bill was intended to lay the foundation of future legislation in regard to local taxation, as distinguished from Imperial taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman declared otherwise, then he must call it a mere "meddling and muddling" of the law in respect to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be technically right in the course he intended to adopt; but the right hon. Gentleman was certainly not acting in accordance with the spirit of the Rules of the House. It was of vital importance that the House should consider this Bill in all its details before it was allowed to pass to "another place." The Bill originally contained 19 clauses, to which four were added during its progress through Committee. Of those 23 clauses it was now proposed to omit one; five new clauses were to be proposed by the author of the measure; and no fewer than 44 verbal Amendments were intended to be introduced. These figures were sufficient to show that the Bill had not been fully and fairly considered in Committee. If these had been mere verbal Amendments, he should have interposed no obstacle to the passing of the Bill; but the fact was that the proposed new clauses raised the whole question as to whether certain descriptions of property should be now, for the first time, made rateable. Although it might be true that the right hon. Gentleman had not actually taken out clauses from the Valuation Bill in order to insert them in this, yet it was certain that the clauses about to be proposed were clauses which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the distinction between the two measures, ought to have been in the Valuation Bill. The title of the present Bill, which appeared to be the original title of the two Bills 407 when combined in one, remained; so that, in point of fact, every clause of the Valuation Bill came under the title of the present Bill, and therefore might technically be introduced in it; but whether this were a fair way of dealing with the House was another question. His own opinion was that the two measures ought to have been proceeded with concurrently, and that neither of them ought to have been passed without the other being complete. There was one most important point to be borne in mind in dealing with the clauses in respect to the extension of rateability—namely, that the scheme be a practicable one, otherwise a rate might be invalid. The Bill extended rateability to three classes of property — namely, mines, land occupied for growing woods and saleable underwood, and to fowling, shooting, sporting, and fishing, when severed from the occupation of the land. He would remind the House in connection with the Act of 1840, that some one objected to the validity of a rate because every inhabitant of the parish was not rated, as he was bound to be under the Act of Elizabeth, and the decision of the Court was fatal to the rate. A Bill was then brought in to remove the difficulty by exempting persons from rateability in respect of their ability derived from their stock-in-trade; but after passing the House of Commons, it was discovered in the House of Lords, when it was too late to amend it, that it contained words which would carry the exemption further than was intended, and the Bill was consequently withdrawn. It was again introduced into this House without those words and passed through all its stages without discussion, and became law. What would be the result if the Bill before the House passed in its present form? What legal definition would be given to the words "right of sporting?" Fox-hunting was a sport which many took great delight in; but how could it be assessed? There were also persons who enjoyed the sport of rat catching, and to show how valuable it was, he would mention the fact that when the reservoir burst at Sheffield a few years ago a claim for compensation was put in by a rat-catcher because the rats in the valley were drowned by the calamity, and the rat-catcher lost his occupation, but the claim was refused on the ground that the applicant had no beneficial interest in the rats as such. 408 How were they, then, to rate a sport like that, in which there was no beneficial occupation? There were many persons, too, who considered rook-shooting sport, and the Bill made it rateable when severed from the occupation of the soil; but what that meant it was difficult to decide. It either meant that when not severed from the occupation of the soil it was not rateable, or else it meant that it was rated already. These matters were small in themselves; but when it came to a question as to the validity of the rate, they became very important. With regard to the right of fishing, was fishing in lakes to be rated, and how was it to be done? If it were not done legally it would invalidate the rate, and all for the sake of bringing in these things which were most unimportant as regarded the ratepayers, whilst great questions were left untouched and unsettled. The Bill if passed in its present form could not remain permanent or unaltered for more than a year or two; for the question of what was to be, and what was not to be rated, must be finally decided ere long. With regard to the question of whether the exemption of stock-in-trade should or should not include all machinery, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government used the argument that stock-in-trade was exempted, not because it was not rateable as such, but because it could not be got into the net. If that were so there would be no difficulty in rating machinery, and if the right hon. Gentleman's argument were sound it ought certainly to be rendered liable in some form or other. He did not consider that the Bill could be fairly and properly discussed on the Report, and if there was no chance of making it a perfect and permanent measure it ought not to be persisted in during the present Session. He agreed with those who thought the Bill possessed value, because it proposed to deal with Government property; but he took it to be a delusion to suppose that the liability of Government property depended upon the present measure. The Bill now under consideration would only lay the foundation of such liability, which must hereafter be dealt with in a distinct and separate measure. He proposed, therefore, that the Bill, which was most clumsily drafted, should be recommitted, in order that it might be thoroughly considered.
409 Amendment proposed, to leave out I from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "recommitted," — (Mr. Cawley,)— instead thereof.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) had intended to propose that this Bill should be recommitted with respect to certain clauses—not for the purpose of making any alteration in the Bill, but of making it more perfect, and of making the same rule apply to Scotland and Ireland that was applicable to England. He cordially approved of the views which the hon. Member expressed in the first part of his speech; but the second part was quite independent of the other. The hon. Member with great force urged that there were great defects in the Bill, arising from the fact that the Bill originally only applied to England, but in its progress it was made applicable to both Scotland and Ireland. But then having urged this matter very logically, and haying conclusively shown that the right thing would be to re-commit the Bill in order that any Amendment might be introduced, he went on to the second part of his speech, in which he spoke against all that he had previously advocated, and showed that it would be inconvenient and obstructive to delay the progress of the Bill, and he concluded without moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It was therefore impossible for him (Mr. M'Laren) to support the hon. Member, part of whose speech was logically true, but part was altogether fallacious. The question now before the House was to re-commit the Bill as a whole. He approved of the Motion to re-commit the Bill as regarded the four matters which had been mentioned, as that would take up a very short time indeed; but he declined to re-commit the whole Bill, fearing that it would take up more time than could be reasonably demanded from the House. He approved of the Bill as a whole, and thought it an admirable one. All his objection was that it did not carry out in Scotland that which it enacted in Ireland. He had himself given Notice to omit from the 4th clause the words "so far as relates to England" which would have made the exemption universal; and he regretted that it would not be in his power to move it.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Motion for re-commitment. As far as the extension of Clause 6 to Scotland and Ireland was concerned, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would have received the unanimous support of Members on both sides of the House, and though there would not have been the same unanimity in reference to Clause 4, he doubted not that a majority of hon. Members would have been found to support the proposal to remove the exemption as far as Ireland was concerned. In Ireland the question of exemption was looked upon with considerable disfavour, and in the City of Dublin so extensive were those exemptions in respect to property held by public bodies, that the rates on private property were increased as much as 9d. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Irish ratepayer to be left at that disadvantage, when, by consenting to this Motion, the injustice of the case might be got rid of.

§ MR. MACFIE
said, he had no doubt as to the wisdom of the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) in withdrawing his Amendment. To have recommitted the Bill at this late stage of the Bill, and at this late period of the Session, would have been unwise. He thanked his hon. Friend for putting on the Paper some excellent Amendments, and he must express the gratification which he shared with many outside this House at the encouragement which Government had given him in the preparation of those Amendments. In reference, however, to the Amendment of Clause 6, he thought his hon. Friend might have gone further, and should not have confined himself to Scotland. At present, docks and harbours were frequently exempted, much to the injury of ports, such as Leith, Liverpool, and other places. He could give illustrative instances, but would just state how Leith was affected. Goods were landed there, or shipped, and they had to pass over the streets of Leith to the detriment of the pavements. In the various stages of their progress through the town those goods were protected at the expense of the rates of Leith, yet towards those rates nothing was contributed by the owners of that property or by the owners of the ships which brought it to the port. Nothing could be more unfair to 411 the inhabitants, who had to pay for the protection of their property and houses. Somehow or other, in various parts of the country exemptions were frequently smuggled in; but this Session he had hoped to receive from the Government a measure which would remove all such inequalities, and would be a great measure of justice. He was glad to find that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was not opposed to the Bill.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, his appeal to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) was made simply on the score of time, and the Government had to thank the hon. Member for the consideration he had shown by withdrawing his Amendment. At that advanced stage of the Session he could not entertain any reliable hope of the passage of a Bill full of technicalities if it were recommitted. The question before the House was whether the Amendments that were proposed should be considered upon the Report, and should pass into law during the present Session. He would remind the House that the Bill was introduced purely as an English Bill. It was not usual to deal with such a subject as this with regard to the three countries in one and the same Bill, because such a proceeding would greatly complicate the measure. It was urged that there should be no delay in extending to Scotland and Ireland the advantages of removing the exemption of Government property from rating which the Bill proposed to give to England. The Government thought that a fair appeal, and divided the Bill into three parts, the second of which they proposed by certain clauses to apply to Scotland and Ireland. With regard to the rating of Government property he contended that great delay would arise if the Bill was not passed, because it proposed to give legislative power to proceed to arbitration on the question of the value of Government property, and until this had been done nothing effectual could be achieved in regard to the rating of this class of property. Therefore, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) in thinking that no harm could be done if the Bill did not pass at all in the present Session. He had merely, as far as he could consistently with the scope and object of the Bill, prepared new clauses to meet the wishes of Members and the general opinion of the 412 Committee. There was no new matter in them, and there was no reason why they should not be discussed on the Report. The clauses were re-drawn in fulfilment of a pledge he gave the Committee. He hoped the House would be content to negative the Motion of the hon. Member, and allow the Bill to be considered as amended.

§ MR. HUNT
said, that the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his observations predicted that if the Bill were recommitted it would be lost for the Session, and then at the close of his speech he informed the House that the Amendments he proposed were merely to give effect to the decisions the House had already arrived at, and that they introduced no new matter. Those two statements did not appear quite consistent one with the other. For his own part, while he approved of the principle of the Bill, he confessed that if the Bill were to be hurried through the House, and wore to be an imperfect measure, he would rather prefer postponing legislation on the subject for another year. At the same time, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the new clauses of the Government might be discussed in Committee of the House without the loss of an unreasonable amount of time. Had the Government been anxious to pass the Bill this Session, they would surely have introduced it earlier than they had done, so as to enable the House to consider it fully before May, instead of which the Bill was not printed until the 7th of May. He regretted that it was not referred to a Select Committee. They were now, on the 15th of July, discussing the question whether they should re-commit the Bill or discuss it on Report. Since it was read a second time, the Bill had grown from six pages to ten, not because of Amendments arising out of the original propositions of the Government, but because of additions which the Committee had found necessary to introduce; and now the Government proposed to take out of the Bill nearly all those additions made by independent Members, and carefully discussed in Committee, in order that they might substitute other wording which the right hon. Gentleman said would more effectually carry out the intentions of the Committee. The Amendments occupied six pages and the Bill only about nine; so that the proposal to re-commit the 413 Bill was not an unreasonable one. Sir Erskine May stated that it was always advisable when numerous Amendments were to be proposed to re-commit the Bill. He hoped, therefore, the Government would accede to the proposal, and lose no more time.

§ MR. DODSON
wished to ask, as a point of Order, whether it would not be necessary to re-commit the Bill, at all events so far as concerned the proposed new clause, which was to follow Clause 3 in the Bill. It was provided that the law of rating should extend to "rights of fowling, shooting, sporting, and fishing, when severed from the occupation of the soil," but in no part of the Bill was it declared upon whose shoulders the burden should fall. This new clause imposed a burden on certain persons, and was, therefore, a rating clause, which ought to be considered in Committee.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he thought that his right hon. Friend was under a misapprehension, and that no new burden was charged by the new clause. As to the charge on the occupier of the land, it was involved in the 19th clause, and the clause only put into a legal and practical shape what had been embodied in Clause 19.

§ MR. HUNT
contended that as the clause provided that the occupier of any rights of fowling, sporting, or shooting, might deduct the rates from the owner, there was a new charge placed upon the owner.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
held that the clause did not impose any new charge, because the Bill by another clause—Clause 19—provided that all these rights should be assessed, and that where the owner was not occupier, the occupier should be entitled to deduct the rates from his rent.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The question raised upon the point of Order is one of great difficulty and complexity; but, according to the best judgment I can give on the matter, it appears that the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), so far as they relate to matters affecting the rating of property other than the rights of sporting, do not infringe upon the rules of the House. With regard to such Amendments, therefore, there is no necessity to recommit the Bill; but it appears to me that there is great force in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. 414 Dodson), and that the incidence of the rate with respect to the right of sporting, as imposed by the Committee, is varied by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Therefore, according to the Standing Orders of the House, the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 3. I submit that view to the judgment of the House.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he Ras anxious to "get on." He would therefore, suggest that the hon. Member for Salford should withdraw his Motion, and that the Bill should be recommitted with regard to Clauses 3 and 19 and the new clauses.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought it desirable that Bills should go up from that House to "another place" in as good a form as possible, and he did not believe that these Amendments could be discussed as they ought to be, except in Committee. The Committee had been discussing this matter for nearly two hours, and it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had not sooner consented to the recommittal. It was quite certain that much difficulty, litigation, and misunderstanding must arise upon the clauses as they stood, and the House must take care that summary justice was not done upon the Bill by its summary rejection in "another place."

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, it was desirable to act upon the opinion of the Speaker, and he therefore proposed to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Cross) that the Bill should be recommitted upon the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford. He proposed, therefore, to omit part of Clause 3, and to omit Clause 19, and he should then propose the new clauses as a rider to Clause 3.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, he was in the hands of the House, and had no objection to withdraw his Amendment, although it seemed to him that the Amendments involved the whole Bill.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. He had before urged upon the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of this Bill, that he would expedite it if he would consent to its re-committal. The right hon. Gentleman however declared that he would not consent to re-commit the Bill, because that would endanger its becoming law. He thought that Scotland 415 and Ireland had been rather hardly used. The President of the Poor Law Board had given what nearly amounted to a pledge, in order not to retard this measure, that he would bring in a Bill for Scotland and Ireland. [Mr. STANSFELD: No.] He was in the recollection of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman had not said he would do his best to table such a Bill, and if the House was about to re-commit the Bill it ought either to include Scotland or Ireland or else the right hon. Gentleman ought to bring in a Bill applicable to the United Kingdom. Would not the right hon. Gentleman facilitate his object if he would drop that portion of the Bill which did not apply to Ireland and Scotland and proceed only with so much of the Bill as had been made applicable to the whole United kingdom? The right hon. Gentleman told the House there was no precedent for dealing with rating questions for the whole of the three kingdoms, yet by this very Bill he proposed, with regard to England, to repeal the Act of Victoria which exempted literary and scientific institutions throughout the United Kingdom from liability to rates. He thought that Clauses 4, 6, and 12 should be recommitted.

§ MR. CLARE READ
sincerely desired that the Bill should pass in the course of the present Session, and that it should be as perfect as it could be made; but he could not see why, if the debatable parts of the measure were to be recommitted, the whole Bill should not follow the same course. The Bill had been brought in in a skeleton form, and had been built up in a most confused and confusing manner. It began at the wrong end of the subject; and he hoped that before it was got rid of there would be an assurance on the part of the Government that in the course of the next Session something real and substantial would be attempted to be done.

§ MR. STANSFELD
wished to explain, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), that he had only expressed an opinion that the general re-committal of the whole Bill would be attended with, perhaps, fatal delay.

MR. SCOURFIELD
said, he could not see that practical delay in dealing with the rating question would result from postponing the whole matter until next Session, inasmuch as Clause 7 only provided that the Treasury should at some future time bring in a measure.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not consent to recommit Clauses 4 and 6, because he felt sure that they could be usefully added to the Bill without loss of time.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
said, he thought the Government were to blame for the difficulty in which the House found itself, because they did not sufficiently think out all the questions before they brought them under consideration. He hoped the Bill would be proceeded with at once, as far as the rating of mines, woodlands, and Government property was concerned. The Bill, as it at present stood, was in a state of confusion; but it contained ample materials for the construction of a good and satisfactory measure this Session, as far as the three matters to which he had referred were concerned.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, it appeared that they were not able to get at the propositions about which there was a general concurrence, because it was insisted by some hon. Members that the whole Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of dealing with Scotland and Ireland. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld; objected to the re-committal of the whole Bill, on the ground that if they entered into that re-committal every point that had been considered and settled with reference to England itself must necessarily pass through the ordeal of being put from the Chair, and therefore every Member would be entitled to raise a discussion on it, as if the Bill had never been committed. In the first place, was it desirable to pass this Bill or not? And, in the second place, was the forcing upon the authors of the Bill that they should deal with the three kingdoms in one and the same measure a useful and equitable method of proceeding? As to the first question, he believed it was felt by both sides of the House that it was desirable this Bill should pass. Certainly, if it were desirable for the Government, it was undoubtedly desirable for the House, and for those who wished to bring the Government fairly in face of the other main portions of the subject of local taxation. In the view of the Government this was a portion of the question of local taxation which required first to be dealt with. When a simple proposition was submitted to them, the House could, as in the case of freeing a 417 literary institution from taxation, do it at once; but when they came to deal with the law of rating as applicable to various kinds of property, such precipitation was not convenient. He did not think either Scotland or Ireland would lose anything by the House consenting to the partial re-committal of the Bill, as contemplated by the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), and to which his right hon. Friend in charge of the measure was willing to consent. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Hibbert) had Bills in relation to Scotland and Ireland—one ready, the other almost ready—which could be introduced next Session. The main question was whether the House wished the Bill to pass this Session or not.

§ MR. PELL
shared most fully in the desire to see this Bill passed; but he must observe that those measures of the Government never would have been brought forward except for the Notice of Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes), and when brought forward they were laid on the Table in a very imperfect shape, as if there was no idea of their becoming law. He hoped the Government would consent to re-commit the Bill in reference to the 3rd and the 19th clauses, and he even thought they might include the 17th clause also, which would not lead to any prolonged discussion.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING,
having been assured that there were Bills in preparation for Ireland and Scotland, thought it would be indiscreet for the Irish and Scotch Members to oppose the Government.

§ MR. HUNT
inquired whether that would include any new clause?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, if the Bill were ordered to be recommitted with respect to Clauses 3 and 19, that Order would not apply to other new clauses.

§ MR. HUNT
Then I will move to add, instead of "with respect to Clauses 3 and 19," "with respect to any new clauses."

§ MR. DODSON
said, that no new clause could be received unless it were ordered 418 that the Bill be recommitted in respect to it.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, what he understood was that all new matter relating to Clauses 3 and 19 could be moved and dealt with on the re-committal of the Bill, but not other new clauses on all manner of different subjects totally unconnected with Clauses 3 and 19.

§ MR. GRAHAM
considered that the Members for Scotland had not been treated with becoming fairness, as they were deprived of the privilege which had been accorded to the English Members of re-committing the Bill. It was in deference to the President of the Local Government Board that he withdrew his Amendment in favour of a limited recommitment, and now he found the Government were ready to accede to a limited re-commitment as far as England was concerned only.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
suggested that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clauses 3 and 19, and any new clauses relating to the subject-matter of those clauses.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add the words "in respect of Clauses 3 and 19, and of any new Clauses relating to the subject matter of those Clauses."—(Mr. Cross.)

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he wished to vindicate himself, and to reply to the remarks of the Prime Minister. There was an old saying that England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Unfortunately, the Scotch Members had always supported the Government, and had never asserted. themselves. In his opinion, however, the time had now come when they should do so. They were a small minority in the House; but, if they acted together, they were a power. They had been always confiding in the Liberal Government which they followed, and, in his opinion, they had very often been too confiding, and what had been the consequence? Scotch legislation had not kept pace with either English or Irish legislation. The Irish Members acted wisely; they looked after their own interests, and they made their influence felt. Session after Session Irish business took precedence of other business; and it was time for Scotch Members to assert themselves in regard to what they considered ought to be done for their country. This Bill 419 was a first step in local taxation, which affected Scotland equally with England, and yet Scotland was not to be dealt with on the same footing. This was a consequence of there not being a Scotch Minister in the Cabinet. He must earnestly protest against the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister that it was unprecedented or unusual that any Member or any section of that House should attempt to force important modifications or changes in a measure of which a Member of the Government had charge. In pursuance of his duty to his constituents, he should take every advantage of the position in which the Bill now stood to obtain the full extension of its provisions to Scotland. He would never be deterred from the fulfilment of that duty by any observations of any Minister of the Crown.

§ MR. GRAHAM
moved, as an Amendment, to add, "and also in respect of Clauses 4 and 6."

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he had placed on the Paper several Amendments to this clause. He should, on coming to Clause 19, propose to omit the proviso which had been accepted on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read). In the meantime, he would ask the Committee to add the new clauses of which he had given Notice on the Report, and to make them an addition to Clause 3. In point 420 of form the first step he intended to take now was to substitute "for" for the word "as." This was a merely verbal Amendment.

§ MR. STANSFELD
then moved to leave out the word "underwood," in order to insert the words "or for both such purposes and." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to omit the proviso moved by the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that in point of form the next step for him to take would be to move the omission of Clause 19.

§ MR. G. MONCKTON
moved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "sporting," because it was a word which would simply serve to puzzle the assessment committee.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
moved to omit the word "fowling," and said that the words "shooting and fishing" would really cover all that the Government wanted to rate.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
was of opinion that it would be necessary to retain the word "fowling."

§ MR. WEST
pointed out that the exact words in the Bill, "sporting, shooting, fowling, and fishing," were commonly inserted in deeds. It was safer to stand by the old words, which had been used for a very long time.

§ MR. CLARE READ
doubted whether they would cover the catching of rabbits in a warren.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, he was not sure as to "fowling," but he thought "sporting" was too wide and general a phrase. The value for rating purposes would be a bagatelle.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, he thought it would be better to omit the word "sporting," which might include rat-catching; for he knew places where rat-catching was a favourite sport, and was largely practised. He thought, however, coursing might be included.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he did not think it worth while to make such objections. The object of the Government was to include everything which formed the subject of a lease. Did the hon. Member ever see a lease of the right of rat-catching? All the rights referred to in the Bill were some- 421 times of value, and he did not see why they should not be rateable.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he would like to know whether it was intended to rate the right of a master of foxhounds to ride to cover.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
doubted whether the words would cover the case of a rabbit warren, about which there was no clement whatever of sport.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, the words would include the case of a free warren.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
suggested that the word "sporting" should be omitted, and the words "killing game and rabbits" substituted, as this, he thought, would include coursing, &c.

§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH
said, it appeared to him that by the course they were taking in this matter, hon. Gentlemen opposite were manifesting a great want of faith in their constituents and in the assessment committees. There was no reason whatever why they should treat them as their enemies.

§ MR. BEACH
remarked that although he should have the greatest confidence in the assessment committee, they would have to apply the law as it was laid down in the Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that of course the Government had no intention or desire to rate masters of foxhounds. He agreed that the words suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), "the killing of game or rabbits," would answer every purpose.

§ MR. PELL
preferred to retain the word "sporting," as they did not know what "game" was.

§ MR. CLARE READ
felt sure that the words proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire would meet every difficulty.

§ MR. STANSFELD
moved the insertion of the following new clause, after Clause 3—

MR. GOLDSMID
said, he wished to know what was meant in the clause by the expression "the natural state of the land." Something must have been done with the laud at some time or other since it was created; and that being so, who could tell what its natural state was? The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the words from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and he should like to have some explanation of their meaning.

§ MR. HUNT
proposed to omit the word "only" in the first line of subsection (a) "if the land is used only for a plantation," &c. The land might be used for the purpose not only of growing wood, but of preserving game, and those words would seem to imply that the land was assessed only for agricultural purposes.

§ MR. STANSFELD
explained that the word "only" in sub-sections (a) and (b) was used with reference to a provision contained in sub-section (c).

MR. HENLEY
observed that if land in its natural state were assessed, some allowance ought to be made for the expense necessarily incurred in clearing it. Some of the ancient forests had remained uncleared because it was thought the land would not repay the cost of clearing.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
promised to consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman before the bringing up of the Report. If the owner of a wood used it as a game cover, it might be necessary to make him pay for his game as well as for his wood.

§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK
was in favour of retaining the word "only" in the sub-section.

§ MR. HUNT
said, his object in moving the omission of the word "only" was to obtain the opinion of the Committee on the point. He would suggest that the Chairman should report Progress in order that the Government might have time to consider the point.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, it was unnecessary to report Progress, as the question raised would be considered before the bringing up of the Report.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
moved in paragraph (a), line 1, to leave out "a plantation or" after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph— If the land is used only for plantation the gross value shall be estimated either as if the land were let for planting purposes, or as if the land were in its natural state and let and used for agricultural or grazing purposes without any trees growing thereon, as the Assessment Committee may determine. His object was to encourage the plantation of land unsuitable for agricultural or grazing purposes, but which, though too poor for those purposes, might be made useful for the growth of larch and other trees.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, that if those words were adopted by the House they would be departing from the understanding which had already been come to with respect to the rating of plantations and woods, and the Government therefore could not accept the Amendment.

MR. GOLDSMID
moved the omission of the words "in its natural state." These words had been defined to mean that as a man without his clothes was in his natural state, so land without trees was in its natural state; and if that were so it would be better to omit the words.

§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH
said, that the more they went into this matter the greater mess they seemed to make of it.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, these words had been been inserted to carry out the view which was generally expressed by the Committee, that land covered by plantations or woods should be assessed as if the plantations and woods were not there, and as if the land were let for ordinary agricultural purposes.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.