Commons Sitting of 16 June 1873

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Berwick, v. David Robertson, esquire, now Baron Marjoribanks, called up to the House of Peers.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Boundaries of Parishes, Unions, and Counties, Mr. Cross discharged, Colonel Brise added.
Special Report—Jurios (Ireland) [No. 232].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Proportional Representation* [194].
First Reading—Building Societies (No. 3)* [195].
Second Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation* [192]; Blackwater Bridge* [176].
Report of Select Committee—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment [No. 250].
Committee—Rating (Liability and Value) [146]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Indian Railways Registration* [168].
Report—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment* [81–193].
Considered as amended—Law Agents (Scotland)* [184].
Withdrawn—Building Societies (No. 2)* [141].

LABOURERS' HOUSES (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR, FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has given up his intention of bringing in a Bill to increase the facilities for the erection of Labourers' Houses in Ireland?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONin reply, said, however much he might sympathize in the subject-matter of the hon. Baronet's Question, he feared he should not have an opportunity of bringing in a Bill that Session.

  METROPOLIS—PALACE OF WEST-MINSTER.—QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any plan for the appropriation of the ground to the West of the Palace at Westminster, acquired under the Act of

  991
  1869, has been agreed upon; and, if so, whether he will state its general character?
  MR. AYRTON,in reply, said, that several proposals had been made for the purpose of dealing with the land in question, but none of them had been finally approved. There was now a new proposal under consideration, which would involve considerable expenditure of public money. If that proposal should be approved, an estimate would be submitted, and a full explanation would be given before the Vote was taken.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870—SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SALTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is held to be in accordance with the intentions of the Elementary Education Act (1870) that Ratepayers in School Board districts, where the school accommodation already largely exceeds the average attendance of children, should be compelled to provide additional accommodation for children between the ages of three and five, seeing that there is no power under the Act for compelling the attendance at school of children below five years of age, and no Government Grant is made for children under four years of age?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that by the 5th section of the Education Act, it was enacted that accommodation should be provided not for the present average attendance, but for all the children resident in the district. If that provision were not carried out, we should be in this position that while no school Board could enforce attendance unless Public Elementary Schools be provided for all the children, it would also be unable to provide such school accommodation, we should therefore get into a deadlock and not be able to get on. With respect to children under four years of age, the Grant was made on the average attendance and not on the age. They found by Returns that 23 per cent of the population were between 3 and 13, and 18 per cent between 5 and 13. They had therefore asked for school accommodation for about 20 per cent of the class likely to attend elementary schools. General rules were not always strictly applied in each case.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF JOHN TOMLINSON.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case of cruelty to a horse, heard by the Borough Bench at the Malton Petty Sessions on Saturday, March 19th, in which the maximum term of three months' imprisonment with hard labour, under the Statute 12th and 13th Vic. c. 92, s. 18, was inflicted on John Tomlinson, plumber, of York, for having on Good Friday been guilty of gross cruelty to a thoroughbred horse by overdriving it till its fetlock joints were doubled over and broken, and its hoofs came off, and, after its feet had been thus mutilated, continuing to drive it until it dropped; and, whether he will consider the desirability of increasing the punishment in cases of such aggravated cruelty?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, he was far from thinking that this man had been adequately punished. If in all cases the utmost punishment that the law allowed were inflicted, he believed a stop would speedily be put to this species of cruelty. It was not his intention to bring in a Bill this Session to alter the law, but he would consider the subject.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—PUNISHMENT OF SAILORS—THE SHIP "WIMBLEDON."—QUESTIONS.
  MR. GILPINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the following statement:—That the ship "Wimbledon" was loaded at Cardiff on the 8th January 1873, and that on that day twelve men were committed by the magistrates for ten weeks' hard labour for refusing to go to sea in the vessel; that on the 24th of January five men of a new crew of the same ship were charged before the magistrates for refusing to go to sea, on the ground that the vessel was not seaworthy; that these were sentenced to ten weeks' hard labour; that on the 25th ten more of the crew refused to sail in the said ship; of these, seven were persuaded by the magistrates to go, and three were sentenced to ten weeks' hard labour; that on the 27th of January five of the men wore again brought up for refusal, and were remanded to the 29th,

  993
  that a further survey should be made; that, on their appearing on remand, the official record is, "No prosecutor appeared, and the men were discharged:" If there be any compensation for the men who have been thus imprisoned; and, if it is a fact that this vessel, twenty-five of whose crew have been thus imprisoned, is marked with a black mark in "Lloyd's Register," as unfit to be placed in any class?
  MR. CARTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to Mr. Gilpin's question, If he could state to the House whether, when the Cardiff magistrates discharged from custody the five men brought before them on the 27th of January, and remanded until the 29th, charged for refusing to go to sea in the "Wimbledon," because no prosecutor appeared, they (the magistrates) took any steps to procure a remission of the sentences upon the twelve men committed on the 24th of January, and the three men committed on the 25th, on the same charge?
  MR. BRUCEin reply, said, that the Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) and also that of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Carter) would be best answered by reading a succinct statement of one of the magistrates on the subject, from which it appeared that on the 8th of January, 1873, while the ship was in harbour, a portion of the crew, without giving notice to the master, refused to go further with the ship. They stated that the meat supplied to them on board was bad and deficient. They returned on the following day. The Court directed a survey to be made, and the meat was ascertained to be good and wholesome. The defendants still refused to proceed with the ship, and the Court sentenced them to imprisonment. On the 23rd of January five other men of the crew were charged with the same offence. On the 16th of January the ship left Cardiff, and had got as far as Lundy Island, when she met with bad weather, and was anchored in the Roads on the 20th. On the 20th some of the crew refused to proceed further with the ship, alleging that she was unseaworthy. A survey was made of the ship under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1871, and on the 24th a Report was made to the Board of Trade that the
  994
  ship was not unseaworthy, and that the defendants were therefore not justified in their refusal. On the 25th of January, ten other men, part of the crew, were charged with refusing to proceed to sea on the ground that the ship was unseaworthy. The case against these men was adjourned till the 29th of January, on which day the master did not appear and the charge was dismissed, the owners, to avoid the expense, having engaged another crew at Liverpool. The magistrates did not think, however, that because the captain did not appear against the men on the 29th, the ship must have been unseaworthy. They believed that the owners, smarting under the heavy expenses caused by the detention of the vessel, determined to abandon the prosecution and let the ship get away. The magistrates had taken no steps to procure a revision of the sentences which had been passed on the men who had been previously brought before them; and they did not think such a course would be reasonable or expedient. He (Mr. Bruce) had in his hand the Report of the Inspector, which entered into details; but the substance of it was this—On the whole, he regarded the ship as being strongly built and well-found in every respect. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton asked whether this ship had not been put on the Black List at Lloyd's. The ship was built in 1864 as an A 1 ship; but at the end of eight years, a fresh examination was necessary, in order to ascertain whether she should be continued on the Register. She was examined at Liverpool, and certain alterations were reported to be necessary by Lloyds' in order to re-instate her. The owners refused to make those alterations, and proposed such alterations as they deemed proper. They were therefore unable to continue her on the Register at Lloyd's.
  MR. GILPIN: In point of fact, then, the ship was uninsurable at the time.
  MR. BRUCEwished to add that the ship had since made her voyage in safety.

  METROPOLIS—STREET TRAFFIC REGULATIONS—QUESTIONS.
  MR. LIDDELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called

  995
  to the rapid rate of speed at which large and cumbrous spring carts and vans now traverse the streets of the metropolis at all hours; And whether, in view of this practice, and with regard to the public safety and convenience, he will consider the desirability of making some further regulations of street traffic than those apparently in force?
  VISCOUNT MAHONdesired at the same time to ask, Whether further regulations wore contemplated with regard to cabs which carried no fares, and which, by going through the streets at a foot-pace, constantly impeded the public traffic?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, it is somewhat inconvenient to answer a Question of so much importance in this form, because if I give a very succinct answer, I shall neither do justice to the efforts of the police to diminish the danger of the streets, nor bring before the House a full picture of the state of things. I am also very 1oth to detain the House at any length on the matter. The Acts imposing penalties on persons for furious driving or for driving so as to endanger life or limb, or do bodily harm, are 2nd & 3rd Vic., c. 47, and 24th and 25th Vie. c. 100. The police have power to enforce those Acts by taking out summonses, or by apprehending offenders; but have no power to make regulations as to speed, the only power they have being that they can regulate the order which vehicles should take through the streets on certain occasions. During the year 1872, 528 summonses were taken out for the offence of dangerous driving, and 351 apprehensions were made. The number of police specially employed in regulating street traffic has been largely increased during the last four years, and it now amounts to 176, besides 230 stationed at fixed points; these are mostly in busy thoroughfares, and pay special attention to the traffic, and I believe I am within the truth in saying, that since Colonel Henderson has been Chief Commissioner the number of police specially told off for this duty have been increased four-fold; while the strictest orders to enforce the law have been issued to the police, and printed notices on the subject have been extensively placarded. I am sorry, however, to say that while the number of deaths has slightly decreased, the number of injured has not decreased in
  996
  proportion to the exertions thus made. The number of persons killed during the last four years has been—in 1869, 128; in 1870, 124; in 1871, 120; in 1872, 118. The agents in the deaths were—vans, 30; heavy carts, 19; light carts, 18; waggons and drays, 19; omnibuses, 14; cabs, 10; private carriages, 6; and ridden horses, 2. On the other hand, the number of injuries inflicted has considerably increased—namely, from 1,706 in 1869, to 2,677 in 1872. The population of the metropolitan police district was 3,110,654 in 1861; in 1871 it was 3,810,744, being an increase of 700,090, or at the rate of 70,000 a-year. The present population is probably 3,950,000. On examining the scenes of these accidents it will be found that they happen with comparative rarity at crossings in crowded places, where policemen are generally stationed, and where the crowded state of the streets prevents vehicles from moving rapidly. Accidents are more frequent in less crowded and and less well-guarded thoroughfares. Thus the largest number of accidents occurred in the district of Highgate, and a large proportion of these were in the streets which were used by children as their playground and by full-grown persons as a footway. The difficulty in enforcing the law arises from the necessity of proving "furious driving." The pace must be a matter of opinion, and the evidence of the police is very liable to be questioned. However, it is the intention of the Chief Commissioner of Police to increase the number of the police in crossings and busy thoroughfares; but his success cannot be complete without the co-operation of the passengers themselves, who often display an extraordinary indifference to danger. With respect to the Question of the noble Lord the Member for East Suffolk (Viscount Mahon), I admit the evil. I think that loitering or crawling cabs add much to the obstruction of traffic and to the safety of even prudent passengers; but the war waged by the Chief Commissioner against them was the subject of continual expostulation in this House, where it seemed to me that there was a disposition to prefer private convenience to public safety. Crawlers are largely patronized, and it is difficult to enforce a law when so many are conspiring against it, and the magistrates show a

  997
  disinclination to convict except where actual obstruction is proved. The number of cabs has increased from 5,687 in 1869 to 8,160 in 1872, and there will be a very large increase during this year. The Chief Commissioner has done what he could to diminish any justification fox loitering by increasing the number of standings from 292 in 1868 to 498 in 1872. During the last year 1,383 summonses were taken out against loitering cabs.

STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES—SALFORD AND MANCHESTER

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAWLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, How it has come to pass that in a Return to this House, bearing date "7 May 1873," and authenticated by his signature, "of all places in England and Wales having Stipendiary Magisstrates, with the dates of their first appointment, and their present salaries," there is no mention made of the borough of Salford and the division of Manchester, for which places there is a Stipendiary Magistrate; and, if he can inform the House whether there is any other place not mentioned in the Return which has a Stipendiary Magistrate?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, the reason of the omission was, that Salford was in the Duchy of Lancaster.

VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA—REVIEW IN WINDSOR PARK.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. WALSHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any space will be set aside in Windsor Park, on the occasion of the Review before the Shah of Persia, for the carriages of such Members of both Houses of Parliament as may wish to witness the Review?
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any arrangements will be made for giving opportunity to the Members of both Houses of Parliament to attend the proposed review of troops in Windsor Great Park, on the 24th instant?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I must premise by saying that the arrangements in Windsor Park are not under my direction; but I have informed myself upon the subject in order to be able to answer these Questions. Arrangements
  998
  have been made to enable Members of this House to witness the Review, and His Royal Highness Prince Christian, the Ranger of Windsor Park, has sent to Mr. Speaker 500 tickets for the Stand and 50 for carriages within the enclosure.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What facilities it is intended by Her Majesty's Government to afford to Members of the House and their families who wish to be present at the Naval and Military Reviews about to take place in honour of the Shah of Persia?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that he had been requested by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to answer in regard to the proposed arrangements. In order to prevent disappointment, he must repeat that the gathering of ships at Portsmouth would not be a Review. There would be no evolutions, but simply a gathering of ships. On the occasion of the visit of the Sultan, arrangements were made for a formal Review; but the weather being unfavourable it ended in a simple inspection. There would now be two naval inspections—one at Dover, where a large squadron—in fact, two squadrons—would meet the Shah, and an inspection at Portsmouth, which would not have the same interest as if there were evolutions. With regard to the attendance of hon. Members at Portsmouth, the Government had found themselves in a position of some difficulty. According to the precedent of the Sultan's visit, they would have issued about 3,500 tickets, would have hired special trains, and provided at Portsmouth an entertainment, of the cost of which he could give some notion when he said that in the case of one ship, which accommodated 300 visitors, a bill was sent in for £450. If the same general issue of tickets had been repeated on the present occasion, it would not have cost less than £8,000 or £9,000, including the chartering of steamers. Finding it would be inexpedient to distribute tickets broadcast, it had been resolved to gratify the natural wish of hon. Members of the Houses of Parliament to be present in a way which was most compatible with the public interest. There would be no special trains provided, and instead of chartering a steamer, the Government proposed to appropriate to the service two steamers already at their disposal, and such

  999
  arrangements would be made as would prevent hon. Members being under the necessity of having recourse to the hospitality of Naval Officers. He purposed placing himself in communication with Mr. Speaker as to the best mode of ascertaining the wishes of those who might wish to be present.
  In reply to Viscount GALWAY,
  MR. CARDWELL,said, tickets had been sent to Mr. Speaker for Members and their friends.

  THE MAURITIUS—ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, considering the opposition shown by members of all religious denominations in Mauritius, and the strong and so far successful resistance made in the Legislative Council, to the proposed disestablishment and disendowment scheme propounded by the Colonial Office, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will undertake to direct the Acting Governor of that Colony not to take any further steps towards an alteration of the existing Law affecting ecclesiastical establishments until the inhabitants shall have had sufficient time to make their views known, and, if necessary, until the subject shall have been discussed and decided by Parliament?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I hope, Sir, that the Papers in connection with this Question will be delivered to-morrow. By them my hon. and gallant Friend will find that we have anticipated his wishes, and that the Officer administering the Government of Mauritius has been instructed to defer the legislation in question until full time has been given for considering the views expressed by the colonists.

ARMY—DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR MUSKETRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Officers holding the post of Deputy Assistant Adjutant General for Musketry are to be made supernumerary in their regiment according to section 21, Clause 207, of the Royal Warrant of December 1871?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Royal Commission on Military Education re-
  1000
  commended that the inspection of musketry in the various military districts should be intrusted to officers on the Adjutant General's Staff in the respective districts. This recommendation has been carried into effect, and, like other Staff officers of their rank, the officers discharging this duty are no longer supernumerary.

POST OFFICE—MAIL CONTRACTS—CAPE OF GOOD HOPE AND ZANZIBAR.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to put a Question with reference to the course of Business that evening. The second Order of the Day was the Adjourned Debate upon the proposed confirmation of the Mail Contract between the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar. He, therefore, wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to proceed this evening with the Motion for the confirmation of the Contract for the conveyance of the Mails between the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar with the Union Steamship Company; and, whether his attention had been called to to an omission on the part of the Treasury which he (Mr. Bouverie) imagined rendered it impossible to go on with that Motion until the omission had been supplied? The Standing Order of the House of 24th July, 1860, required that all Contracts extending over a period of years, creating a public charge, actual or prospective, for the conveyance of Mails by sea, should be laid upon the Table of the House immediately, if Parliament be sitting, or within fourteen days after its assembling, accompanied by a Treasury Minute setting forth the grounds on which they had proceeded in authorizing it. The Contract in question was entered into on the 8th of May of the present year, and was duly laid on the Table of the House in compliance with the Standing Order; but he found, on inquiry at the Library, that there was an entire omission to lay on the Table any Minute of the Lords of the Treasury. There was a letter of a Clerk of the Treasury appended to the Contract; but that was not a Minute of the Lords of the Treasury; and the best evidence that no such interpretation could be put upon this letter was, that to each of the other Contracts upon this subject, of which

  1001
  there were three, which had been entered into in the course of the last six months, there had been appended, in accordance with the Standing Order, a Minute of the Lords of the Treasury setting forth their reasons for approving of the Contract. Under those circumstances, he apprehended that it would not be competent to the House to proceed with the consideration of the Contract until such time as the Minute had been laid on the Table.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it had been the intention of the Government to proceed that evening with the Zanzibar Contract; but since the meeting of the House it had been intimated to him that a difficulty of the nature referred to by his right hon. Friend existed. The difficulty, as he understood, was a purely formal one. The common practice was to lay the Contract upon the Table together with the Correspondence, which Correspondence contained the view of the Government with respect to the Contract; but, in compliance with an Order of the House, there was likewise a formal Minute referring the House to the Contract and Correspondence; and he believed that, in that instance, the mistake had been committed of omitting to supply the formal Minute. The question became one entirely of the Orders and Rules of the House, and he thought it would be convenient if Mr. Speaker would give his judgment in the question, whether the Orders of the House had not been so far complied with that they might proceed with the Motion. If the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman should be that the Orders of the House had not been complied with, then the proper course, he apprehended, would be to move that the Order for the resumption of the Adjourned Debate should be discharged, and to give fresh Notice on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: Before the meeting of the House the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock drew my attention to the matter, and I have been able to inform myself on the subject. The Standing Order of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken is very clear and explicit. It lays down the Rule, that every Packet and Telegraphic Contract shall be laid on the Table of the House, accompanied by a Minute of the Lords of the Treasury setting forth the grounds on which they have proceeded
  1002
  to authorize it. Now, the Contract in question has, no doubt, been laid on the Table of the House, and it has been accompanied by a letter from an officer of the Treasury to the Postmaster General; but such a letter in no sense fulfils the requirements of the Standing Orders, and therefore, in my judgment, that Contract is not in a condition to be considered in its present shape by the House. I submit, therefore, that the proper course to be taken in the matter will be, when the Order is read for resuming the Adjourned Debate, to move that the Order be discharged, and then the House will take what course it thinks proper.
  MR. HUNTasked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether any reason could be given for the unusual course which had been adopted with regard to the Contract; whether any Minute has been passed by the Treasury; and, if not, whether any Minute will be passed, and when it will be laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the omission had not been a deliberate act; neither he nor Ids right hon. Friend had any cognizance of it. He would suggest that the Order should be read at once, with a view to its being discharged, and then his right hon. Friend would be able to renew his Notice of Motion for the disposal of the matter—probably, on Thursday. It would then be proper to move for a Committee to inquire into the whole question.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should like to know when the Government proposed to take the opinion of the House upon the Contract?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the Government would take it as soon as they could conveniently do so. If the Order was now discharged, the discussion might take place on Thursday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that the Order be read, for the purpose of being discharged.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate thereupon [9th June] read, and discharged.

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) BILL— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Secretary Brace, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Hibbert.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preliminary.
  Clause 3 (Extension of Poor Rate Acts to other property).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, after the word "wood," to insert the words "not being land growing saleable underwood"—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought the subject of the rating of timber had hardly been fully considered by the Government.
  MR. GOLDSMIDobserved that the rating of underwood was a most extraordinary anomaly, and the best way out of the difficulty would be to make under-wood no longer liable to rates, and instead to rate the land upon which the underwood grew, just as the land was rated on which any other crop grew.
  MR. LOPESasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for some explanation of the law of the case?
  MR. PEASEsaid, that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) were adopted, its effect would be to land us in greater confusion than ever. The Committee, would, in fact, be repealing portions of the statute of Elizabeth. He, too, believed the whole difficulty on the subject arose from no defined principle of rating being laid down by the Government.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), that any difficulty was created or increased by the principles laid down in the Bill. He had promised, in reply to the right hon. Member for North Northampton-shire (Mr. Hunt), to state frankly whether he found the law was as he had stated it. Now, having consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and referred to the case on which their opinion was founded, he had no hesitation in stating that he remained of the opinion that the statement he had made was correct—that the 1st section of the Parochial
  1004
  Assessment Act had made no change in the law; and left the judgment of Lord Ellenborough practically unaltered. He would leave his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to speak for himself.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hypothetical tenant was introduced by the Parochial Assessment Act, and thus the question arose how saleable underwood should be rated. Say it was cut at the end of every seven years, then if the cutting produced £700, the hypothetical tenant would be rated at £100 a-year. That was the principle on which rent was rated in "The King v. Mirfield," and the decision so far was not disturbed by the words of the Parochial Assessment Act, that—
  "The rate shall be made on an estimate of the net annual value of the several heredita-ments, rated thereunto; that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year."
  after deducting there from certain rates and taxes and tithe-rentcharge and the average cost of insurance and such repairs and expenses as would be necessary to maintain them in the condition to command such a rent. The question then arose as to how such casual profits as saleable underwood were to be rated. The Judges decided that the words of the Act were not intended to mean that they should not rate any property except at what it could be let for one year; but that they should take the average annual value as the rent the hypothetical tenant should pay. There were a great many decisions on the subject. In the cause of "The Queen v. the South-Western Railway Company," Lord Denman said—
  "It is clear that the enacting part of the Act introduced no new principle of rating. Both parties appealed equally to this criterion. The provisions of the Parochial Assessment Act declared that the principle of rating was not to be altered or affected by it. It was, therefore, important to consider how, under the law in this case, the company would have been rated if the Act had not passed."
  The same thing was laid down subsequently by Mr. Justice Mellor in another case. Substantially, the Parochial Assessment Act had made no alteration in this respect. There were agricultural crops that were not cut within the year, and they must be rated entirely on the same principle as saleable underwood cut every seven years. The average value was to

  1005
  be ascertained for the term, dividing it by the number of years, less discount. That would give the average sum on which the premises ought to be rated.
  SIR HENRY HOAREhoped the Government would accept the proposal on the Paper, that land of the kind in question should not be assessed at a higher value than if it had been used for a plantation or wood. That would make the whole thing clear.
  MR. DENThoped the question would be settled without any legal dispute. The simplest way would be to take the woods at the agricultural value of corresponding land and rate them accordingly.
  MR. BEACHthought that, with respect to saleable underwood, it would be best to act upon the law as it stood. It would be manifestly unjust to place the rating on the land rather than on the underwood.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, there were two questions which seemed to him to have been somewhat confused on the present occasion. One of these questions was, whether it would not be better and simpler to take saleable underwoods out of the Act of Elizabeth, and deal with them by one enactment. He thought that was a question upon which it would be advisable to arrive at a decision before they came to the question as to the method of valuation of plantations and underwoods.
  MR. CLARE READthought it was essential that saleable underwood should be taken out of the Act of Elizabeth; otherwise there would be the danger that ground under the composite crop of saleable underwood and timber might be rated under both of those heads.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEpointed out that, as by the Act of Elizabeth saleable underwood might be rated, and it was proposed by the present Bill to rate plantations, the grower of a composite crop might be rated twice over—as a grower of underwood, and, secondly, as a grower of an acreage of timber, which might be computed to its full extent. He thought that if they repealed that portion of the Act of Elizabeth which exceptionally rated the growing crop of underwood, assessment committees could in each case fairly go into the value of the land. Every tract of woodland should pay one rate, irrespective of whether it was covered with timber or underwood.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had known in extreme cases, in the county of Kent, underwood of 10 years' growth sold at£1 and 40 per acre; although, in the latter case, of course, the net profit was not £40, but, if the average expenses were taken at 50 per cent it would leave the net value of the land something under £2 per acre, regard being had to the fact that the rent was for nine years a deferred one. From this the House would see what differences existed in the value of the underwood to be rated, and he (Mr. Goldsmid) could only repeat that in his opinion the best way out of them was to take underwood from the assessment and repeal the exemption in the Act of Elizabeth, and allow the land on which underwood and timber grew to be rated and pay all that it ought to pay.
  MR. LOPESexpressed his dissent from what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, with reference to the decision of Lord Ellenborough in regard to the rating of saleable underwood, and asked, if the Parochial Assessment Act was not to apply to the rating of woods and plantations, how the latter were to be rateable? Would the assessment committee rate them upon the principle of what, a tenant from year to year would give for them? The whole thing appeared to him to be left to mere guess-work, so far as the Bill before the House was concerned.
  MR. DODSONmaintained that under-wood should be left in its present position as regarded rating, otherwise, in many cases, owners of underwood would escape with lighter rates than hitherto. The Bill before the House was not one for reducing the rating of underwood.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMwas of opinion that to repeal the Act of Elizabeth, as had been suggested, would be likely to be a dangerous step, seeing it had existed for;300 years, and that a great many judicial decisions had been pronounced upon it. He should support the Amendment, which, if carried, would prevent a double rating.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought it would be better to leave the Act as it stood with regard to the rating of under-wood, because there was no difficulty in understanding the law. If it was saleable underwood it was not to be rated as timber-growing land.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the measure they were passing would interfere considerably with the Act of Elizabeth, because one of its most important clauses would make perpetual an annual Act to exempt stock-in-trade from rating. If the Committee were at liberty to make so great a change, surely they might repeal that part of the Act of Elizabeth which referred to underwood, and he did not see how the Committee could meet the difficulty without doing so.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the difficulty of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), might be met by introducing the words, "not being land used solely for the growing of saleable underwood." That would leave such land under the Act of Elizabeth, and land growing timber would come under the measure.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was extremely favourable to persons growing saleable underwood and timber together, and he did not think it would effect the object desired. The worst saleable underwood grew along with timber trees; but it was saleable, and therefore would be rated at the lowest rate, while the land would escape so far as the timber was concerned. This was not what was intended; and his impression was, that the best way to deal with the matter was to take care in future rating that we dealt with the land as far as we could, whatever it grew. If we went on balancing one thing against another, as saleable underwood against timber, we should find that we were reducing instead of increasing the rates.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that having heard the arguments on both sides of the question, he was disposed to take the view just stated. There would be nothing inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill in taking saleable underwood out of the Act of Elizabeth, the simplicity of which he admitted; but it was felt that to adopt that course, and to enact for the first time that growing underwood should be subject to rateability, would produce some disturbance of the law as it had been laid down by the Courts, and therefore it would be wise to find a solution of the difficulty
  1008
  without dealing with the Act of Elizabeth. He would suggest that saleable underwood should be left rateable, as now, and that to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) should be added the words, "not being land growing saleable underwood." Then, adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, provision should be made for the case of mixed crops of timber and saleable underwood, by declaring that the value of the timber should be included in assessing the value of the underwood. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not say this course might not be open to some objection, but still it appeared to him to be the best.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the plan had not the advantage of simplicity, and he preferred the simpler plan of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) which followed Scotch precedent. At first, it was denied by the Government that there was any difficulty for the House to solve, but now it was admitted there was.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, the plan proposed was so complicated, that no assessment committee in the county of Kent would know how to work it. The plan of the hon. Member for South Norfolk commended itself by its simplicity, and it followed the precedent of Scotland, where land was rated, and not the crop which grew upon it. In fact, it would be just as reasonable to rate the cabbages in a kitchen garden instead of rating the kitchen garden, or the wheat instead of the land on which it grew.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he was prepared, as an owner of woodlands, to submit to an increase of the rates on that portion of his property, on the full understanding that such increase should not be made until the question how far the local burdens were to be relieved by Imperial taxation was settled.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he objected strongly to the principle that the same land was to be subjected to a double assessment, as would be the case under this measure.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was glad that his Amendment had given rise to a valuable discussion. In moving the Amendment, he had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that he was proposing to rate not only the woods on

  1009
  their estimated annual value, but also the land upon which such woods grew. Such a proposal in his (Mr. Bouverie's) opinion was quite preposterous. In the West of England there were vast tracts of underwood which grew upon very poor land, which was fit for nothing else; and the result would be, if those under-woods were rated as well as the land, that every effort would be made to destroy them, which would have a very deleterious effect upon the climate. In France, it having been shown that the destruction of woods rendered the climate arid, there was a positive law to prevent their being cut down. The practical conclusion that he had come to was that if, upon the whole, the Committee preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read)—under which the land on which under-wood grew should be assessed at its rateable value as unimproved land—to that which he had moved, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) on the understanding that it was not to be assumed that the Committee, in assenting to the Amendment, expressed any opinion on the subject of how lands covered with underwoods were to be valued.
  MR. FLOYERthought that, instead of making progress, the Committee were going back; because last week, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) it was decided that land growing timber should not be subject to rates. It was now proposed to take a course which would disturb the assessments in every Union in the whole country, and that for no good at all. As to the rating of woods which had been planted for centuries, who could tell what was their value when they were planted, or what was the improved value of them? If they wanted to assess woods and plantations, let them do so; but do not let them do it in a way which would lead to difficulties and litigation altogether uncalled for. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) would persevere with his Amendment.
  LORD HENLEYsuggested the insertion of the following words, "whe-
  1010
  ther growing timber or saleable under-wood, or both."
  MR. HENLEYthought that as the words "growing timber" had been struck out of the Bill, it had become immaterial whether the words which were under discussion were put in the Bill or not.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STANSFELDproposed, in order to carry out the intention of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to insert in page 1, line 22, after the words "lands used for plantation," "or for the growth of saleable under-wood."
  MR. DODSONthought the former Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was preferable to that which he had subsequently suggested, inasmuch as the latter appeared to be ambiguous.
  MR. HUNThoped a Law Officer would tell the Committee whether "wood" would not cover saleable underwood.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I think not.
  MR. HERMONthought the right principle was to rate land and not woods.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that if it were considered desirable by the draftsman that the Amendment should be modified, it should be done on the Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHmoved in page 1, line 22, after "wood," the addition of the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, That such land shall not be assessed at a higher annual value than it would have been assessed at if it had not been used as a plantation or wood."
  He was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) if the House preferred it.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMtrusted that the Amendment would be withdrawn; because if it were adopted, it would be in the nature of a direction to assessment committees, that they might rate land upon which timber was growing as high as they rated the adjoining land.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he believed that there was very little difference between the Amendment and the follow-

  1011
  ing one which stood in his name; but certainly the Amendment of the noble Lord did not instruct the assessment committee upon what principles they were to assess the land. He proposed, therefore, that the Proviso should run—
  "Provided, That the gross value of such land shall be taken to he the rent at which such land might, in its natural and unimproved state, be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes."
  These words followed the Scotch Act, substituting agricultural for pastoral purposes.
  Amendment (Lord George Cavendish), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the word "underwood," to insert the words, "Provided, That the gross value of such land shall be taken to be the rent at which such land might, in its natural and unimproved state, be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes."—(Mr. Glare Read.)
  MR. FLOYERsuggested that the condition should be "as pasture or grazing lands."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "for agricultural purposes," and inserting the words "as pasture or grazing land,"—(Mr. Percy Wyndham,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, he did not like either of the Amendments. He thought it would be more satisfactory for all purposes that land should be valued according to the crop which it carried. He disapproved rating worthless woodland at the value of adjacent land. Woodland in the neighbourhood of comparatively barren fields might be properly assessed at the value of those fields; but it would be obviously improper to assess woodland at the same rate as highly cultivated farms.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested the time had come when some definition should be given of the words "plantation" and "wood" and "growing timber." It sometimes took 30 years before a man who planted a wood saw the return of his money, and it was not good policy to discourage the planting of timber. He asked whether the right
  1012
  hon. Gentleman would object to the addition to the Amendment of the words—"And that no assessment shall be made until a saleable crop has been obtained therefrom."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsuggested that none of the proposals which had been made were necessary. A simple principle had already been laid down by which the assessment value would be that which any person would give for the land as a tenant, and upon that value the land should be rated. Hitherto, land occupied for particular purposes had escaped rating altogether; but by the clause land occupied as wood, plantation, or saleable underwood was to be brought into the rating on the annual value which any person would give for it. It was a fallacy to say there was no valuable occupation of a wood except when it was cut down. That formed its greatest value, no doubt, but the produce was gathered at rare intervals. Woodland was used as cover, and it produced lop and top.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not know what lop and top a proprietor would get from his property before he felled his timber. There was some timber which grew for three lives before it was cut down, and how could there be a revenue in the meantime out of which to pay the rates? There ought to be some provision introduced to enable a limited owner to cut wood under certain restrictions, otherwise the rating might soon place him in The Gazette. He begged to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the annual value of wood before the trees were cut.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that the Committee had, in that matter, another instance of the blindness with which the Bill had been brought before the House. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board must know that from 15 to 20 years after a wood was planted, so far from there being any return, there was considerable expense attending it. He would submit that the words "in its natural and unimproved state" should be omitted.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHsaid, they had been so long in a wood and involved in brambles—which in his county they called "lawyers"—that they did not know where they were. In many places the agricultural and pastoral

  1013
  value of woods was nil. In his county (Cheshire), where they had their woods and dingles, there was generally a deep ravine, good for nothing else; but the proprietors were obliged to plant it in order to prevent the cattle getting into danger. A man with whom he had shot in that county had suggested that pheasants ought to be specially bred for the place, with legs of different lengths, so as to enable them to run along the sides of the hills.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that, according to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), the gross value of the land should be taken to be the rent at which such land might in its natural or unimproved state be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes. In the county of Kent, the land which was planted was not land in its natural or unimproved state, but was very valuable, and such land might be rated far below what was fair, if the Amendment were adopted.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had known several instances in which in the case of a railway which had been found to be unproductive, the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the land must not be withdrawn from rate-ability, but must be rated on the same principle as the adjacent land; but he had never known anyone to suggest a mode by which the land could be properly rated, and therefore it had been done by agreement. It would be better, therefore, to let the overseers be guided by their own light rather than attempt to guide them.
  MR. MAGNIACobjected to the words "unimproved state." He remembered that in the county from which he came, the underwood was sold to manufacturers frequently for £20 an acre, and it would be very unfair that such land should be regarded as in an unimproved state.
  MR. WHARTONobserved that if the Amendment were adopted, some of the most valuable crops in England, the willow beds, would be exempted from rateability. It was not at all unusual for willow beds to realize £10 per acre per annum.
  MR. CLARE READquite admitted that willow beds were exceptional, and in his part of the country, they were never regarded as Underwood, but were cut every year, just as a crop of hay was taken off the land, and assessed accord-
  1014
  ingly. He did not mean to say that his Amendment was not open to some objection. It should be remembered, however, that those who had made improvements in woodlands, had done so under the idea that they would not be rateable, and it was not right to take advantage of the improvements they had made to rate them in the manner proposed.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTwished to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, how he would deal with copyhold property, where the woods belonged not to the copyholder, but to the lord of the manor? To make the copyholder pay would be manifest injustice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was afraid he would appear rather as a discredited witness, having already made one mistake. Nevertheless he believed there were profitable modes of occupying woods. He would say, if they meant to make a man pay for the value of woods, they should say so and rate him accordingly. It was perfectly true there were copyholds where the trees belonged to the lord, and the copyholder had no right to cut them down. But whatever could be ascertained to be the value of woods in the hands of the occupier, which the overseer would have to ascertain as best he might, that a tenant would give for such an occupation, and the rate should be assessed accordingly.
  MR. HUNTthought the principle proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was distinct and intelligible—it would be easily understood by the assessment committee, whereas the principle of the hypothetical tenant would be a puzzle which they would be unable to solve, and must lead to the greatest difference of opinion. They could not do better than accept the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk, with the exception of osier beds.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Government would accept the Amendment, if the words "in its natural and unimproved state" were left out, and the words "if it has not been used as a plantation or wood" added. The Amendment would then read—
  "The gross value of such land shall be taken to be the rent at which such land might be reasonably expected to let one year with another

  1015
  for agricultural purposes, if it has not been used as a plantation or wood."
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was accepted, he should move the addition of the words, "or for the sale of the crops growing thereon," after the words "for agricultural purposes," as otherwise fresh difficulties would be created in rating land on which timber and Underwood grew. He agreed with the Government that the Committee must strike out the phrase "in its natural and unimproved state."
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he could not help thinking if the Shah of Persia had been present to-night, witnessing the proceedings of that honourable House, His Majesty must certainly have come to the conclusion that they did not understand what they were discussing. Without going so far as that, he would say, looking to the hopeless complication of this measure, he did not think there was any prospect of such a Bill ever passing into a law.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, if the Committee could only know what the intentions of the Government really were, there would be no difficulty in framing words to guide the overseer.
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought the Government must now begin to see that the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was not unreasonable. Nothing was open to them, as far as he could see, save to accept the very sensible Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).
  MR. HERMONsaid, that, as a rule, it was the worst part of an estate which was planted with wood, and that the fact ought to be taken into consideration when the property came to be rated. Considering the expense of clearing land with the remains of old wood on it, he was of opinion that it ought not to be assessed at more than half the rate of the surrounding agricultural land.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONthought it would be well, seeing the state of confusion in which the Committee now found itself, that the point should be left open for future consideration. Land ought to be assessed for what it would pro duce, and not on some fictitious value.
  MR. STANSFELDwas of opinion that the words proposed by the hon.
  1016
  Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) would, as they stood, operate unfairly. He could not assent to a proposition which would take the valuation out of the hand of the assessment committee by laying down an arbitrary rule. He should be glad if the Committee would accept the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and leave the matter to the assessment committees. That would be the easiest course.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had no doubt it would be the easiest course; but if the Committee itself could not settle the difficulties, he despaired of assessment committees being able to do so. He understood an hour ago that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to accept the Amendment, and that it was because of an intimation to that effect that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) had been withdrawn.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had not accepted the Amendment, but had stated that the question which it raised was one which in his opinion ought to be settled before that of the method of valuation was raised.
  MR. HUNTcertainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to favour the Amendment; but, be that as it might, he thought the Government must now acknowledge the wisdom of the course which he (Mr. Hunt) had at the outset recommended—that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It would be better the Committee should report Progress, as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill was unable to say what he proposed to do.
  MR. STANSFELDcould not agree that it would have been better to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had not shown that if this Bill had passed through a Select Committee they would have avoided the present discussion. That was a question of considerable complication on which practical knowledge was very useful, and that practical knowledge existed in the minds of a great many hon. Members of that House. It was true that the question had taken some time to discuss, but he entirely denied that time had been wasted; and he trusted they might

  1017
  yet come to a clear decision upon it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that if the Committee had arrived at any conclusion he should not grudge the time that had been spent upon the question. He was, however, still unable to see on what principles the Government desired to have the land rated in the case of growing timber and saleable underwood. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had unfortunately adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to include saleable underwood in the clause, and it was precisely to that decision that they owed the difficulty in which they now found themselves. Saleable under-wood was sometimes an annual crop, and always a crop which might be safely computed upon an annual average, and therefore it had been rated on that average. The law in that respect required no alteration whatever. The question was how land should be rated upon which timber was grown, and no one on his side of the House wished to diminish the rateable value of the land on which saleable underwood was grown. He thought it would have been better to have had this discussion upstairs. At all events, if the Bill had gone before a Select Committee, it would have compelled the Government to make up their minds, and to offer some proposal on the subject. The fairest way out of the difficulty would be to report Progress. [Cries of "Move!"] He would accordingly move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. STANSFELDopposed the Motion. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was in error in throwing upon the Government the responsibility of a proposal which came from the Opposition side of the House. He could not accept the Amendment as it now stood, because the hon. Mover framed it when there was no reference to saleable underwoods at all. He believed it would be best to follow the advice of his hon. and learned Friend the Attor-
  1018
  ney General, and leave these matters for settlement by the assessment committee.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYthought that woods and plantations were very distinct, and ought to be rated differently.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), omitting the words "and unimproved," and maintaining the word "natural," would be very applicable to woods and plantations. The difficulty had arisen from dealing with saleable underwood. He would suggest to his hon. Friend to leave out the words "and unimproved," maintaining the word "natural," and then to add at the end of the Amendment, "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon." The land would then either be rated at its natural value, or the assessment committee, if it found saleable underwood upon the land, might rate it "for the sale of the underwood growing thereon."
  MR. HUNTsaid, the proposition just made might be a very valuable one, but it was entirely new, and he should like to see it on Paper, in order that they might have an opportunity of considering it. The Government had accepted an Amendment which came from his side of the House, and he wished to know what was now the proposal of the Government, if they had a distinct one. If the Government desired to mature their thoughts let them not continue that discussion.
  MR. STANSFELDobjected to the doctrine that they could never accept an Amendment without reporting Progress, in order to consider what consequential Amendments were necessary. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had to be considered under a new aspect, in consequence of their having withdrawn saleable underwood from the Bill; but if they were never to accept an Amendment which required discussion without immediately reporting Progress they would make no progress with the Bill. He thought the words proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would precisely meet the case. If they were acceptable to the hon. Member for South Norfolk they would be acceptable to the Government.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STANSFELDthen proposed to omit the words "and unimproved" from the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).
  MR. HUNTrose to Order, and asked what the question strictly before; the Committee really was? They were, he thought, discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) on the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read).
  THE CHAIRMANexplained the question to be that the words "for agricultural purposes," proposed to be left out of the hon. Member for South Norfolk's Amendment, in order to insert, "as pasture or grazing land," stand part of the Question.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, the hon. Member for West Cumberland. (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had gone away from the House and left his Amendment in his (Mr. Read's) hands. He preferred his own words to those of that hon. Member, and therefore he was prepared to withdraw them.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) could not be withdrawn, unless the hon. Member were there to ask leave for so doing.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsuggested that the hon. Member for West Cumberland's Amendment should be put and negatived.
  MR. GLADSTONEthought there was no real difficulty about the matter. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had empowered the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to deal with his Amendment as he thought fit, and the latter might therefore withdraw it.
  MR. DODSONsaid, it was an inflexible Rule of the House that an Amendment could not be withdrawn except by the Mover. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) having left the House, they were therefore in this unfortunate position—that his Amendment could not be withdrawn. They had no option but to negative it; and the effect would be
  1020
  that they could not amend the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) by omitting the words "and unimproved." They might, however, add at the end of the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon."
  MR. J. G. TALBOTthought, in the dilemma in which they were placed, they had no course open to them but to report Progress, and take the Committee again to-morrow at a morning sitting.
  MR. STANSFELDaccepted the interpretation of the Rule of the House given by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) as authoritative—subject of course to the decision of the Chairman; but they could easily get out of their difficulty without reporting Progress by adding the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon"; and then the words "and an improved" might be struck out on the Report. Would the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) agree to that course being taken.
  MR. CLARE READ,said he did not think it was at all necessary to omit the words proposed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if any hon. Member dissented from the withdrawal on any ground of an Amendment, the Amendment could not be withdrawn. Therefore, even assuming that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had the leave of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) it was quite clear the Amendment could not be withdrawn without the unanimous consent of the Committee. Although the practice of the House appeared to give no precedent for such a case as this, he thought it would be clearly for the convenience of the Committee if, in the accidental or inevitable absence of an hon. Gentleman, another hon. Member were distinctly delegated to withdraw an Amendment, that that authority should be respected.
  MR. GOLDNEYinformed the House that the late Speaker distinctly ruled that a Member having once moved an Amendment, no other Member could withdraw it.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONthought it was evident the Government did not know its own mind; and they had better for the present withdraw the disputed question of rating woods until they had had time to consider it.
  MR. BEACHsaid, the easiest course would be to negative the Amendment now, and bring up words afterwards to effect their object.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought, on the whole, it would be better not to allow the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the words
  'Provided, That the gross value of such land shall be taken to be the rent at which such land might, in its natural and unimproved state, be reasonably expected to let one year with another for agricultural purposes,'
  be there inserted."
  MR. STANSFELDthen moved to add at the end of the Proviso of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), "or for the sale of the under-wood growing thereon." He also gave Notice that on the Report, he should move to omit the words, "in its natural and unimproved state," and to substitute other words in their place.
  Amendment proposed, to add, at the end thereof, the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CLARE READhoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not omit the word "natural." He did not care so much about "unimproved."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the words he proposed were taken almost verbatim from the Act passed for Scotland, where he believed there had been no difficulty in ascertaining the natural value of the land.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that to assess the land at the value of the sale of the underwood was a thing far beyond his comprehension. The only solution of the difficulty was to assess the ground itself in all cases.
  MR. STANSFELDremarked that the Amendment, as amended, would effect exactly what the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) desired.
  MR. HUNTsaid, it was a common thing in his part of the country to have timber growing among underwood. If, therefore, the Amendment were agreed to, it would defeat one object of the Bill,
  1022
  which was to bring timber under assessment.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the Amendment he had suggested met the difficulty as to what was to be done with composite land, on which there grew both underwood and trees. He proposed that with regard to woods and plantations the assessment committee should assess them on the value of the land for agricultural purposes; but that if the land grew underwood wholly or in part, the committee should have the option of assessing it according to the value of the underwood.
  MR. CAWLEYwas opposed to leaving such a matter to the discretion of the assessment committee.
  MR. HIBBERTpointed out that under the Bill as it stood, the assessment committee would have an option to rate either according to acreage, or on the growth of underwood.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the discussion showed how utterly complicated the matter was getting, and thought that it would be better to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that if the Committee adopted the Amendment, they would be running back over half of the ground that they had already traversed. It appeared to him that the Committee ought to rate the land at its value, without reference to what might be growing on it—that was to say, at what it would let for. He would give no alternative to the assessment committee.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that timber was an ornamental appendage to large estates; but what the country desired was that it should bear its fair share of rateable burdens, and be brought fairly and fully into assessment.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), that the Question was, that the words "or for the sale of the underwood growing thereon" should be added to the clause.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that if the assessment committees were to create a tenth part of the quibbles raised in that House they would never get a rate at all. He was opposed to the principle of laying down rules to guide these bodies too strictly. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had not been fairly treated with regard to his Amendment, for he was the only man who had

  1023
  come forward with a really practical proposal—namely, to rate this land on its agricultural value. The best plan would be to adopt that broad principle, and to leave it to the assessment committees to carry it out.
  MR. LOPESwished the Committee to understand how the question stood. They had taken "saleable underwood" out of the Act of Elizabeth, and it was now proposed in this Bill to rate it precisely as it was rated under the statute of Elizabeth. Nothing could be gained by this. Such a course would, if agreed to, result in a piece of legislation which would be a disgrace to the country.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that in the case of land covered with underwood, such land could not be rated at its "natural and unimproved" value, for the growth of underwood was an improvement in the value of the land, because underwood would not grow unless it was planted. He should propose to add the words "when used as a plantation or wood." That would fairly separate the two classes of cases.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he should propose to substitute the word "growth" for the word "sale," in the proposed Amendment, leaving himself at liberty to propose the necessary consequential Amendments on the Report.
  Amendment to the said proposed Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "sale," and inserting the word "growth," instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words 'or for the growth of the underwood growing thereon,' be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 74: Majority 14.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. CORRANCE,in rising to move an Amendment of the 3rd sub-section of the clause, which says that the poor rate assessment shall extend to rights of shooting and fishing, said, he thought it must now be apparent that the desire to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was not unreasonable, and that it was not a satisfactory course to throw these clauses together in the form of a mere outline for the House to fill up. He wanted the clause to be made more distinct, so that assessment committees should not have to hear over again questions which had long been decided in the
  1024
  Courts. It had not been usual in England to assess these rights; but it by no means followed that such rights did not exist. It had been laid down by the Law Courts that they did, when they were profitable; the Bill added little to these decisions, and it did not define the rights in any way. It therefore became necessary to inquire under what circumstances they could become profitable. It might be imagined from the clause that committees were to assess these rights in all cases; but it could only be intended that they should do so in special cases. His object was to make the clause a little more definite. He did not see why it should not be at once enacted that all shooting should be assessable at the sum at which it was let. That would include the cases of its being in the hands of the occupier of the lands, or the landlord reserving it at a certain value, and of the game being let. In Scotland they seemed to have a clear understanding on this subject, and he himself had been charged by a sharp parish officer 1s. 6d. poor's rate assessment upon a week's shooting. Nor did he complain of that, for he thought the officials there acted quite within their rights. As far as he had been able to trace, a case unprovided for here was that in which shooting gave an accessory value to a house, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to confer on local assessment committees the right of assessing within the Union limits all the enhanced value which the possession of such shooting gave to the house. He therefore moved after the words "fowling, shooting, sporting, and fishing" in the clause to leave out "although, and insert the words" when let separately or as accessory to the annual value of any mansion or dwelling house."
  MR. WESTdid not think the Amendment necessary, and the effect of it might be disadvantageous, and lead to all manner of difficulties. He thought it better to pass the sub-section as it was.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he objected to rating moors for shooting where they were not let at a rental by the owners for that special purpose, and a profit made thereby. As the clause stood, it would in fact fine a landlord for the possession of such an estate, because the assessment committee might

  1025
  say—"If you do not let the shooting, you might have done so, and we therefore assess you on the rental you might have had."
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, in his county the owners of moors and shootings, as a rule, did not let them, but reserved them for their own use and that of their friends. He wished that were the universal practice. But he agreed that wherever shootings were let there was a reasonable ground for assessing them to the rates.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the true principle was to bring under assessment all uncultivated land, whether let or not. In Scotland the practice was only to assess game when it was let.
  MR. LOPESasked for a definition of the word "severed?"
  MR. STANHOPEsaid, that grouse-shooting in Yorkshire was often of considerably more value than the occupation of the land, and what he wished was that there should be some fair limitation in the mode of assessing the right to shoot, so that an exceptional rent which might be given by the hypothetical tenant should not be accepted as the fair value.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that the loud complaints, especially in Scotland, did not arise from landlords exercising their right to preserve game, but from what had become a habit at the present day—namely, letting the right of shooting game. Great capitalists, wealthy manufacturers, took estates entirely for the purpose of preserving game. They paid enormous rents and raised an enormous head of game, and they sold such large quantities of game that they received back a considerable return in the shape of money. That was a system they were free to adopt, but if they adopted it they ought to pay their proper share to the rates. He, however, thought it was a detestable system of selling game at all.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained, in reply to the hon. Member for Launceston (Mr. Lopes), that "severed" meant separated. He supported the clause, for the reason that whether the shootings were let by the owner to a tenant or kept in his own hands, there was equally a profit derived from them, and they ought to be rated. As population and wealth had increased, the desire of sporting had also increased, while
  1026
  the quantity of land had not increased, and thus the right of shooting had become very valuable. In the old times referred to by the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish), it should be remembered that the sale of game was prohibited; but now game was sent wholesale to the poulterers by owners and tenants of shootings alike, for a profit. The assessment committee would find out what a shooting would let for, and rate it accordingly. The assessment committee would have much more difficult problems to solve than this. It was difficult to say on what principle a proprietor whose shooting brought him in £500 a-year and the land exactly the same sum should pay poor rates on the one £500, but not on the other.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdoubted not that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had a practical knowledge of the law, but did not think he had a practical knowledge of shooting. He (Mr. Cross) was in favour of rating the right to shoot, but care should be taken that great injustice was not done in attempting to rate it. In the cases of properties which were let, there was clearly a rent on which the man ought to pay, and he did not think the assessment committee would have any difficulty in finding out what a landlord could let his shooting for, and assessing him accordingly. But if the assessment committees were bound to rate all those persons also who had the right of shooting over their own land, they could not distinguish how far the owner chose to exercise that right, whether he shot one day in the year or 100.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALreferred to the Parochial Assessment Act to show that where the hereditament was reserved the owner should be rated at the net annual value. If the shooting was let, it would be easy to find out the rent received and rate the owner accordingly.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that if, as the Bill proposed, an addition should be made to the statute of Elizabeth, it should be made when there was a severed right of sporting, because under that statute the right of sporting was assessed in union with the occupation of the soil. That was in accordance with a recent decision. In the case of

  1027
  the Guardians of Battle, it was held where a landowner occupied his own land and lot the shooting, he should be rated for the value of the land, and an addition be charged for the value of the shootings. He appealed, on the ground that having let the shootings they had passed out of his hands, and should not be charged in union with the land; but it was decided that where a profit was made by the game, it should be rated with the land. Therefore it was that the question of severance became very important, and the Courts had not yet decided what was a sufficient severance.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYheld that it was impossible to determine the value of game on any man's property in order to tax it, when everybody knew that game moved from one property to another, and was not confined to one alone. Game could be taxed only when it was let.
  MR. STANSFELDquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy's) statement of the law. This was a question of severance from occupation. It was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance). Nothing could be more ill-advised or more opposed to the true interest of the owners of the soil than to make the right of sport liable to rating if let, but not liable if reserved to the owner's use. The exception was not worth proposing; and it would not be creditable, but disastrous if attempted to be carried into effect. He was prepared, however, to amend the Sub-section, by substituting for the word "although" the word "when." As to the method of ascertaining the. value, that could be considered at a later period.
  MR. HUNTagreed that there ought to be no distinction as to rateability, whether the right of sporting was in the hands of the owners of the soil, or was let to others. The principle advocated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, that the right of shooting ought to be assessed at what it would reasonably let year by year would involve great difficulty, because it would depend upon the amount of game kept upon the land. He thought that the principle proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to assess the land at the full rent which it
  1028
  might be expected to fetch, irrespective of any reservation of game and timber, was the right principle.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that when game was let to the tenant, it paid both rates and taxes; when it was let to a third party it paid taxes, but no rates; but when it was left in the hands of the owner, it paid neither rates nor taxes. In a certain parish, the rental of which was under £1,000, two valuers had recently declared that the difference between the true agricultural value and the value as depreciated by the excessive quantity of game amounted to £340. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) that assessment could not be raised, and therefore he could not support it.
  CAPTAIN GROVEheld with the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Cavendish) that the whole system of rating game where the owner derived no benefit from letting it was wrong in principle.
  MR. GREGORYthought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was well advised in substituting the word "when" for "although." It would meet all the cases which the Committee contemplated. He should therefore support the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MUNTZmaintained that the Committee must assess in all cases or in none; and he pointed out that there would be no more practical difficulty in assessing the value of the game, than there would be in fixing the rent at which it would let.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he would not press his Amendment if the Committee were adverse.
  MR. SCOURFIELDcomplained that under the Bill, game was not treated on the same principle of rating as was applied to other descriptions of property.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Page 1, line 25, after the word "fishing," to insert the words "Provided, That such rights shall be let to or reserved to others than the occupiers of the soil, and provided that the land where such rights are reserved shall be assessed at a lower annual value for agricultural purposes than it would have been if such rights had not been reserved."—(Lord George Cavendish.)
  MR. STANSFELDdid not think that the Amendment of the noble Lord was necessary, its main object being already

  1029
  sufficiently met by the terms of the Bill.
  MR. LOPESagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in thinking the Amendment quite unnecessary.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,on the other hand, held that it provided for a case which was not met by the proposal of the Government—namely, the case where the game was of no value. The Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire would have the effect of requiring that there should be a bonâ fide head of game on the property that was to be rated.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that he and the noble Lord meant the same thing. He reiterated that they must rate the land and not the produce of the land. In rating the right of sporting they were rating a special product of the land. There were hundreds and thousands of acres of land where the right of sporting was not worth 2d. an acre. The difference between the noble Lord and himself amounted to this—that whereas by the noble Lord's Amendment they would have two assessments and two persons assessed, by his Amendment there would be one rating and one person to pay. He thought that if they once departed from the principle of assessing the hereditament according to its value they would get into all sorts of difficulty. How would they know who rented the shooting? Whoever did so might live at a considerable distance from the place, and if they wanted to distrain how would they do so? They could not distrain on the hares and rabbits.
  MR. CORRANCEthought the apprehension that had been expressed, that the land might be assessed to its full value, and that there might then be a rate for sporting, was groundless. Wherever sporting rights were reserved there was a corresponding reduction in the rent.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONobserved that the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) spoke of arable land, but the case was very different in respect of the dairy lands of his county.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 250: Majority 127.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, in line 26, to leave out the words "or ownership," the effect of the Amendment being to extend the Poor Rate Acts to rights of fowling, shooting, sporting and fishing, when severed from the occupation of the soil.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "or ownership."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  MR. W. EGERTONthought the Amendment, which had been suddenly proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, would not be received with great satisfaction by those who wished to have a fair settlement of this question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Egerton), in his opinion, had not quite caught the meaning of the Amendment. What the Government proposed was, that the right should be rated when the ownership of the soil was severed from the occupation thereof.
  MR. LOPESput the case of a lord of the manor who let his right of shooting, so that it became severed from his ownership. Would it not be necessary to retain the words, "or owners thereof," to meet that case?
  VISCOUNT GALWAYasked for a definition of the word "sporting" in the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was much easier to ask questions of law in the House than to answer them. With regard to the meaning of the word "sporting" in the clause he did not know that it differed from shooting.
  MR. HUNTasked, whether the lord of the manor could be said to occupy the commons with respect to which the question of letting arose?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALadmitted that the question would require attention hereafter.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwas almost afraid to ask whether the word "sporting" did not include fox hunting?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKcomplained that the very pertinent question of the noble Lord (Viscount Galway) had been treated with undue brevity by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General.
  MR. DODSONrose to Order. The Committee had agreed to the section of the clause in which the word "sporting" occurred, and could not go back upon it.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Why, then, was not the Solicitor General called to Order?
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 274: Majority 186.
  MR. STANSFELDmoved, at end of clause, to add—
  "And the said hereditaments which are by this section made rateable to the relief of the poor shall be rateable to all county rate, borough rate, highway rate, and other local rates which are leviable upon property rateable to the relief of the poor."
  MR. CLARE READthought his proposed Amendment respecting game ought to be discussed before another subject was entered into. [Cries of "Progress."]
  Motiom made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would assent to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MORRISON, Bill to make provision for the Proportional Representation of the People, and otherwise to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MORRISON, Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. AUBERON HERBERT, and Mr. THOMAS HUGHES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 194.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.