COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th June.] (Hansard, 17 June 1873)

§ SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN
moved, at end of clause, to add— Provided, That where a tin or copper mine is occupied under a lease granted on a reservation wholly or partly of money dues without fine, the gross annual value of the mine shall be taken to be the annual amount of the dues payable in respect thereof; and in the following cases:—1. Where any such mine is occupied under a lease granted wholly or partly on a fine; and 2. Where any such mine is occupied without any reservation of dues, the gross annual value of the mine shall be taken to be such as the assessment committee, overseers of the poor, or other rating authority (acting subject and according to the provisions of the Acts relating to union and parochial and other local assessments,) determine to be the annual amount of the dues in money at which the mine might be reasonably expected to be let without fine on a lease of the ordinary duration, according to the usage of the country. 1066 The hon. Baronet referred to the attempts which had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) to pass a measure with regard to the rating of mines. He also mentioned that he himself was the author of a Bill on that subject. The reason why a measure on that subject had not been carried was its inherent difficulty. Some persons would, no doubt, be content to allow their mines to be rated under the provisions of the Bill. But the plan he proposed was that tin and copper mines should be assessed on the royalty, by which he meant the value of a certain fixed proportion of the produce of the mine. This was the only fair mode of assessment. The plan of rating on the principle of the rent which a hypothetical tenant would probably give, could not be adopted, except with a large amount of injustice and inequality. Tin and copper milling presented the greatest contrast with other mining industries. In West Cumberland, for instance, the ore was not found in narrow and uncertain lodes, but in beds or layers, generally speaking of considerable thickness, and the produce of which might be estimated and assessed pretty accurately. But tin and copper were invariably found in lodes which were simply fissures in the earth, extending sometimes for a considerable distance, at varying inclinations, and extending to uncertain depths. These lodes varied in width from half an inch to 20 feet. The metal sometimes became poor and sometimes rich; sometimes the lode would be barren, and sometimes productive throughout its entire course. As an instance of the fluctuating produce of such mines, he might mention that in 1868 a copper mine yielded ore to the value of £3,590; in 1869, only £580. Another copper mine produced in 1868 £12,270; in 1869, £6,700; in 1870, £840. A mine on his own estate produced in 1859, £13,550; in 1866, £337; and seven years afterwards —namely, in 1873, nothing at all. A tin mine which in 1864 yielded ore to the value of £3,300, produced £650 in 1865, and in 1866, £2,473. Another tin mine yielded £10,000 in 1854, £6,500 in 1855, and in the following year £21,500. Another set of statistics, with which he would not trouble the House at any length, showed that 130 tin mines had been worked during the 10 years from 1067 1861 to 1870; but out of these 51 sold no ore in one year, 59 sold none in another, and other years showed a similar result. The state of copper mines was still worse. Out of 160 worked in a particular district between 1861 and 1870, an average of one-half of them were unproductive; in the year 1870, however, the number unworked was 110. What course would be adopted by the assessment committees having to deal with such a state of things as this? Instances had recently occurred of two mines rated at £2,500 and £2,000 respectively, and on appeal the assessments were reduced to £550 and £260. These were instances of the impossibility of rating mines fairly; if the Bill were passed without his Amendment being adopted, the assessment committees would be driven to assess them at the royalty. Why, then, should not the inevitable be made legal? The royalty was the true rent, and the proposal to assess at the royalty was approved by the agriculturists in the districts, the only persons really concerned. Within the last week he had presented Petitions from every single union in the district which he represented (West Cornwall), and those Petitions were universally in favour of rating mines on the royalty. It was not fair to look at this question with regard to one particular mine or union. It ought to be looked at with reference to the largest possible area. Taking the whole of the tin and copper mines in the West of England counties, in Devon, and in Cornwall, he found that in the eight years from 1862 to 1869 inclusive —years of comparative prosperity and adversity—the total value of ores raised amounted to £13,994,000 odd, or, in round numbers, about £14,000,000. The annual value during these years was about £1,743,004. In many cases the money obtained by the sale of the ore was not sufficient to pay the expense of getting it. It had been found necessary to make calls to the amount of £2,502,000. Taking the whole of the tin and copper mines in the counties of Devon and Cornwall as one concern, he found that the loss to the adventurers during those eight years amounted to about £1, 334, 000—an average annual loss of about £166,000. After that they could not talk of beneficial occupation. The royalty during those years was £702,348. It had been laid down by the House of Lords that 1068 an unprofitable concern was that which neither yielded nor was capable of yielding a profit. Assuming the annual loss on these mines to be less than £166,000 —say £125,000—still, how would it be possible to apply the principle proposed by the Government in this Bill to a losing concern like that? He had shown that tin and copper mines could not be rated fairly according to that plan; that the royalty did furnish an adequate standard by which to estimate the value of the mine to the owner; and that in the districts to which his Amendment referred it would give a very much larger sum for rateable purposes than any other. He did not put the matter before the Committee on the ground of the depression of the tin and copper trade at this moment, though it was well known that in the face of an arbitrary system of assessment there were many mines trembling in the balance, which would at once be closed if additional burdens were thrown upon them. His object was to put such rating upon mines as would be fair between class and class, and which would be easily understood and capable of equal application in times of prosperity and times of adversity. He begged respectfully to commend his proposal to the sense of justice of the Government and the Committee. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.

MR. LOPES,
in seconding the Amendment, said, he wished to make a few remarks on the legal points involved in the case. Under the statute of Elizabeth metalliferous mines were not rateable, but dues were rateable provided those dues were reserved in kind, and not paid in money. In the year 1872 a decision was given in the Courts, and it was laid down that surplus land and plant were rateable in certain cases. That was the present state of the law. And what did the Bill propose to do? It proposed that in future a mine should be rateable in the same way as any other hereditament; or, in other words, that the adventurers of a mine were to be regarded in the light of a hypothetical tenant from year to year, and were to pay in the same way. But the calculation involved in such a system was one which it was impossible any assessment committee could make. It might be said that rating took place in respect of coal mines. But the case of coal mines 1069 was essentially different from that of metalliferous mines. One day there might be every reason to believe a metalliferous mine highly prosperous, and in a short time circumstances might have so changed that the adventurers would be in despair. How, then, wer these mines to be rated? The proper way to rate them was to have regard to the dues paid to the lord. The dues were the basis on which the assessment ought to proceed. He brought in a Bill himself last Session, the object of which was to do away with the existing anomaly with regard to rating mines. The Bill was allowed to proceed to a second reading, and both the President of the Local Government Board and the Home Secretary expressed their approval of its principle. He hoped, then, the Government would accept the Amendment now proposed. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying, from his own knowledge of the county of Cornwall and a large portion of Devon, that if the principle laid down in the Bill of the Government was applied to the mines worked there, it would lead, not only to the hindrance, but to the total destruction of a large portion of the mining industries of those counties.

§ MR. A. W. YOUNG
supported the Amendment. The farmers of Cornwall without exception were in favour of it, so were the towns—at any rate, he could speak for his own. He hoped the Committee would give effect to the unanimous wishes of the people interested in the matter.

BRISTOWE
opposed the Amendment. He did not see why tin and copper mines should be subjected to one method of rating and other mines to another. He could not understand why the parishes were to have the benefit of the capital invested by the landlord or the tenant in the improvement of the land, as by buildings, drainage, and similar permanent improvements, and yet were to have no benefit from the capital invested in plant and machinery for winning ore from the mines. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment; for if he did, there would be very great difficulty in carrying out the principles of the Parochial Assessment Act.

§ MR. A. P. VIVIAN,
in rising to support the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Sir John St. Aubyn), said, he did 1070 so mainly on the ground of the necessity that existed for uniformity of assessment. The plan proposed by the Government of leaving it to the assessment committees to find the rateable value was nothing new; it had had plenty of trial with coal mines, and the result had been anything but satisfactory; some assessment committees proceeded on one system of rating, and some on another. For instance, in the county of Glamorgan there were no less than six different modes of arriving at rateable value in the seven unions. If it was difficult for assessment committees to arrive at rateable value of coal mines it would be much more so in the case of copper or tin mines, and that for several reasons. No one could even approximately form an opinion when such a mine was opened how it would turn out; the value of the minerals themselves was subject to larger and more sudden variations than even coal, which no one could foresee. Then, again, that class of mines in which the mineral was found in lodes were more uncertain in their productive power than other descriptions of mineral property where the mineral was found in beds or known veins or seams as with coal, and the number of abandoned workings in Cornwall and Devonshire showed the very precarious nature of these undertakings. One great cause of the fluctuation in the value of their produce was the quantity of tin and copper imported; the arrival of a large quantity of copper or tin in our ports from Chili or Banca, sometimes lowered the price of the metal so much as to make what were previously flourishing mines in Cornwall, losing concerns. Then, again, strikes in the copper smelting works in Wales had lately seriously affected the welfare of copper mines. The fairest basis on which to rate these mines had for a very long time occupied the attention of those best able to form an opinion, and the unanimous decision arrived at had been to revert to the old basis of dues payable to the lord, which all parties interested agreed in wishing for. The lord's dues, being a proportion of the actual produce of a mine either in kind or money value, rose or fell in value with the prosperity of the mine itself as far as was practically possible, and in this respect they differed materially from the ordinary royalty of a coal mine which was a fixed sum per ton, whatever the 1071 value of the coal itself might be. The lords' dues represented the rent of the lords' underground property as much as the tenant farmer's rent did on the surface. The dues wore, moreover, a very full rent in consequence of the power of abandonment which was allowed to the tenant, and, further, the power which the tenant had of disposing to his own advantage of any of the plant which he had erected. He strongly objected to the surface works and buildings being compared to farm buildings; they were the tenants' outlay without which rent could not be paid, and were far more analogous to the farm implements such as steam ploughs, thrashing machines, &c. The surface buildings were not permanent, but very temporary improvements of the property, seeing that a large proportion of the mines were abandoned under five years' working. They further contributed to the sale of the lord's underground freehold from time to time. The best proof of the very temporary value of the most prosperous description of mining property was that it would not fetch in the open market more than 10 or 12 years' purchase, whilst land often fetched over 30 years' purchase. In conclusion, he would impress upon the Committee the fact that mining enterprise in Cornwall and Devon had very much suffered of late years. The Census of 1871 showed a decrease in the population of Cornwall of over 7,000; this arose from emigration, and consisted chiefly of hardworking experienced and practical men who had left the Duchy and the county of Devon, between 1861 and 1871, to find work abroad, very often leaving their wives and children behind to be supported by the rates. He feared that if any ill-considered basis of assessment were adopted than the lords' dues, the effect would be that they would see a still further emigration of the Cornwall and Devonshire miners, and that the effect of this legislation would be to increase rather than to alleviate the local burdens as was intended. For those reasons he strongly supported the Amendment.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he had stated that if from the local and technical knowledge of Members any particular case could be shown to justify in the mind of the House some special method of dealing with it, he did not think it would be for him or the Committee to 1072 refuse to listen to and exercise its judgment upon it. He was prepared to admit that the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn) had made out a special case. His hon. Friend had shown the extreme fluctuations in the products of mines of this description, and the exceptional difficulty of any fair, practical, and reasonable method of assessment of them under the ordinary law of the land. Having accepted the Amendment generally, he was not, of course, as yet prepared to state the best form of words in which it should be put; but he would consider the method of phrasing it with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. Whatever the landlord received, whether money dues or dues in kind, or dead rent, whatever was reserved or paid to the landlord should be the test of the rateable value of the mine. To effect that object some additional words were required to be added to the Amendment. It would also be necessary to state that the value of the mine in one year should depend on the receipts of the year preceding. The main alteration which he would propose was this. The measure of the gross annual value should be the measure of rateable value also, because the difference between the gross and annual value was the cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command rent.

COLONEL HOGG
said, that the agricultural portion of the community were entirely united in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn). He (Colonel Hogg) was glad the spirit of it had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld).

§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH,
as one of the few Members representing a district where dues were taken in kind, suggested that the Amendment should be extended so as to include lead mines also, seeing that out of many hundreds of such mines in Cornwall only two or three were paying.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he thought there was no provision for the case of an owner working his own mine.

§ MR. STANSFELD
replied that that was provided for by sub-section 2.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he did not think that that sub-section met such a case.

MR. PAGET
said, he saw no reason why certain mines should be singled out 1073 and exempted from rating on plant and machinery while other mines were still liable to be rated.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he was not prepared to assent to lead mines being added to the category of mines until those who were interested in lead mines asked that that should be done. In South Durham none of the mines were rated on the shafts and machinery, but on the principle of the rent paid to the landlord, with considerable deductions made. If the principle proposed was carried out, one set of mines would be assessed on the gross rental, and another set would receive the benefit of considerable deductions.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, he thought the proposition to set a valuation on stone in quarries an unprecedented one, and he could not understand why it should be included with mines of any description

§ MR. W. B. BEAUMONT
said, he thought they might repeal the Act of Elizabeth, and leave all these matters to be settled by the local authorities. It would be presumptuous in him to offer an opposition to the very strong case which the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall had made out, and the more so as the hon. Baronet's proposition had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have an opportunity of considering the representations made to him by gentlemen connected with lead and other mines to see whether or not they should be introduced into the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he was heartily glad that the Government had accepted in spirit the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. There was no reason why the provisions as to tin and copper mines should not be applied to lead and other metalliferous mines. If they were not so applied, inextricable confusion would be the result. He utterly dissented from the view that the principle on which this rating was to be carried out should be laid down by the various assessment committees throughout the country, and that on an appeal against them the Court of Queen's Bench should decide what was the law on the subject. That course would lead to another 35 years' litigation. The principle of rating should be determined by the House.

§ SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN,
in reply, said, he thought all questions as to machinery would come to be determined at a more fitting time. He would probably have little difficulty in agreeing to the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld); but before he expressed an opinion on them he should like to see them on Paper.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
contended that whatever exemption was made in favour of copper and tin mines ought to be extended to jet mines. The difficulty was that no one knew what was the Government plan of rating mines; and, before the Committee proceeded further, he thought they ought to know what the Government plan was. There were many sources of mineral wealth—such as jet mines, stone mines, and gypsum mines—to which it was evident that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had not been directed.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, it was for Gentlemen interested in other mines to bring their case forward, and make the same convincing case which had been made out by his hon. Friend (Sir John St. Aubyn) in favour of tin and copper mines.

§ MR. MAGNIAC
maintained that the whole case of Cornwall was an exceptional one, standing on its own merits. He trusted that the Committee would refuse to take other mines with the case of tin and copper, and that the Government would adhere to the proposition that mines in which these two metals were found should be treated as separate from others.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
contended that he was perfectly justified in saying that other classes of minerals which stood upon all-fours with tin and copper should be entitled to the exemption.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, that all metallic ores which occurred in lodes were wrought under precisely the same conditions. It would, therefore, be absurd to legislate for the case of tin and copper only. The principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) was a just one, and should be made generally applicable to ores which occurred, not in beds, but in lodes.

§ MR. MUNTZ
agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that tin and copper mines ought not to be made exceptional.

§ MR. LIDDELL
pointed out that there was much greater risk and uncertainty in working minerals which ran in veins than those which lay in beds, and therefore he thought it essential that the Committee should not attempt to lay down down hard-and-fast principles, but should leave it, as far as possible, to the assessment committees, who knew the local circumstances of each case, and who were perfectly competent to deal with the question, as was shown by the fact that in the county with which he was connected (Northumberland) the assessment of mines had been raised during the last few years by £1,000,000 without any appeal having been made.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
said, he thought the principle embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Sir John St. Aubyn) would be entirely satisfactory, both to owners of tin and copper mines and other residents in those districts. There need, however, be no interference with the rating of mines the working of which did not partake of the same hazardous character. The royalty paid on a coal mine could only to a limited extent be compared with the rent paid for a farm. In the case of such a mine, the tenant did many things which in a farm would be done by the landlord. A mine might be compared to a tract of moorland which a tenant would take on a long lease at 10s. an acre. The tenant would in that case trench the ground and by outlay would improve it fourfold. The assessment committee would very properly assess him on the improved value. If the occupier of a coal or iron mine had his engines and the cost of sinking the shaft provided by his landlord, he would have to pay a very much higher rent for the mine than he would under ordinary circumstances. He quoted instances to show that the royalty paid for coal mines was in some cases far less than the sum at which the mine was actually assessed at the present time. In one case the royalty was £5,000 and the rated value £5,838; in another case the rateable value would be reduced by one-sixth of the present assessment if the royalty were taken as a basis. It was plain from this that, although the royalty might be a fair basis for Cornwall and copper mines, it would be most unfair for other parts of the country and other mines.

MR. PAGET
failed to see why a special principle should be laid down for these cases, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would state whether it was intended to lay down the principle proposed only with regard to these particular mines.

§ MR. STANSFELD
declined to discuss the new clause before it was drawn; but he would say that he was unable to commit himself any further than he had gone. He had undertaken to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir John St. Aubyn), subject to certain modificabut beyond this he could not go.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
asked whether the new clause would be brought up upon Report or in Committee?

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that he saw no objection to introducing it in Committee.

§ MR. PEASE
moved, at end of clause, to add— The gross annual value of a mine rated under this Act shall be ascertained in manner following:—In the case of a mine occupied upon a rent reserved contingent on the annual produce thereof, whether ascertained by weight or measure (any reservation of a minimum certain or fixed rent notwithstanding); the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord annually shall be deemed the gross annual value, until the contrary be proved. In the case of a mine occupied as aforesaid, and of which the rent payable annually to the landlord shall have been proved to be a rent below the reasonable gross annual value of the said mine; or in the case of a mine occupied on a reservation of fine, or partly on fine and partly on the weight or measure produced; or in the case of a mine occupied by the owner thereof; or in the case of a mine occupied by any other mode of reservation; the gross annual value of such mine shall be estimated on the ascertained produce thereof, and upon a computed rent for such produce as if it had been a mine occupied upon a rent reserved contingent upon the annual produce thereof, whether ascertained by weight or measure. The hon. Member expressed his opinion that it would be far better to lay down some principle than to leave the matter wholly in the hands of the local assessment committees, a course which would be sure to produce discrepancies in rating. He wanted to have it laid down that those who worked their own minerals should be rated on the same scale as those who merely rented them, with the view to one general standard of rating being established in respect to those mines.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham altogether unnecessary. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the Great Eastern Railway case had laid it down that the rent of a mine was only to be taken as presumptive evidence of value liable to be rebutted. That was what the Amendment of the hon. Member amounted to, and the terms used were no improvement on the well-known words of the Parochial Assessment Act.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, the Amendment would lead to a great reduction in the valuation of many collieries. The mode of assessment proposed was one which would not be in the interest of the ratepayer, and would leave a large amount of property, such as buildings and mining plant belonging to the lessor, unrated. He did not think there was any more difficulty in rating iron mines than there was in rating coal mines; the assessment committees were daily adopting an improved mode of doing so, and a great ninny gentlemen who were interested in the subject, to whom he had spoken, were in favour of leaving the matter to the assessment committees. This Amendment would be introducing into assessment committees a new bone of contention. The Government could not assent to it.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would consider the question of metalliferous mines generally, and would not make exceptions in the case only of tin and copper.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, there was great uncertainty in working all minerals; but the uncertainty was greatest in working those which ran in veins. It was essential, therefore, that the Committee should lay down no hard-and-fast line, but should leave the assessment, as far as possible, to be dealt with by local committees acquainted with the local circumstances. In Durham, owing to the recent opening out of mines, the assessment had been raised one million, and there had not been a single case of appeal. This fact showed that no difficulty arose where the assessment was made by local committees.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
said, if the present Amendment were carried a reduced rating would be brought about 1078 on coal and iron mines, and that was an alteration to which he hoped the Government would not give their sanction.

§ MR. BROGDEN
said, he saw no difficulty in applying the principle adopted in respect to the rating of coal mines to all other descriptions of mineral.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he thought it would be most undesirable that any new definitions should be introduced with reference to the rating of mines, as he believed that the principle hitherto applied to coal mines had always worked well.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he thought the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) was amply justified in bringing this matter under the consideration of the Committee. He would venture to say there was hardly anything in the law of rating so entirely undefined and variable as the mode of rating coal mines. It would be impossible to make the law entirely uniform; but he was confident something might be done in that direction if the President of the Local Government Board would devote the same attention to this matter as he had done to the rating of woods. At the same time, he could not support the precise Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite, because its effect would be to rate coal mines on a lower basis than they were at present.

§ MR. PEASE
said, that in placing the Amendment on the Paper, he was actuated only by the desire to secure some uniform system of rating for all mines. Having drawn the attention of the Government to the point, and brought about the brief discussion which had taken place, he should not press the Amendment to a division.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
called attention to the fact that, according to a Parliamentary Return, as many as 13 different modes of assessing coal mines were in force. In more than one-third the royalty was taken as the basis: in others the plant was added; in three the letting value was taken. Surely some definite principle should be fixed on?

§ MR. LIDDELL
stated that the Return from which the hon. Member (Mr. Hussey Vivian) quoted was dated 1867, and great improvements had been made during the past six years in some districts. In the North very great progress 1079 had been made, and an intelligible principle had been arrived at. A percentage on the amount of capital invested was added to the amount of coal sold, and from this was deducted a reasonable allowance for keeping up the machinery. That principle had proved sound, inasmuch as it had been long in practice without appeal.

§ MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, the principle was most unjust, because in his county (Glamorganshire) mines were worked by driving in at the side of a hill, and therefore without machinery.

§ MR. A. F. EGERTON
said, the number of appeals were few, and that the matter might be fairly left to the assessment committees, who would, no doubt, arrive at some uniform principle.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, it was true the Return quoted was seven years old, but no other was in the possession of the House. Hon. Members said the principles on which mines were assessed had been much improved; but on what was the assertion founded? Why had not the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill furnished a new Return, if the present state of things really differed from that which existed when this Return was obtained.

§ MR. MUNTZ
moved, at the end of the clause, to add— The word 'mine' shall be held to mean all coal, metalliferous, ironstone, clay, and limestone mines; such mines to be rated at the clear nett annual at which they could be let. The words 'Land used as a plantation or wood for growing timber' shall be held to mean all woods, forests, and ornamental plantations; such land to be rated at the nett estimated value of adjacent lands. It was a difficult question to say what was a mine, and he did not see how the assessment committees could come to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the question of what was a mine had been litigated for two centuries, and he thought that the definition had been at last settled. The Courts had decided that, whatever was obtained by open working, such as in a quarry, was not a mine; but that if the material was obtained from beneath the surface by means of shafts then it was a mine, and it would be most unwise to unsettle that interpretation of the term by attempting to re-define it.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that the Solicitor General had stated that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was mere surplusage; whereas, in his opinion, it would be positively mischievous.

MR. LOPES
said, he thought that if the Bill were ever, unfortunately, to become law, it would furnish a subject for litigation for the next ten years; and he believed that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) were adopted it would add to the confusion.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, that, after such expression of opinion on the part of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
moved to add the following words at the end of the clause:— Provided, That the gross annual value of the hereditaments comprised in sub-section (1) shall be ascertained in the manner and on the basis hereafter provided in this Act.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
explained that it was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because its effect would be to make a new law of rating by this Bill, which would be directly contrary to the object of the Government. The Government wished to preserve the law of rating as it had been settled during the last three centuries, and merely to make fresh provisions with regard to those descriptions of property which had hitherto been exempt from rates, but which were now to be rendered subject to them.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he was not open to the charge that he proposed a great change in the law of rating. All that was proposed was, that when property was brought under the law of rating it should be rated in a fair and proper manner, and that the law with respect to it should be altered so as to insure its being so rated. Perhaps the words of the Amendment went further than he intended, and therefore he asked leave to amend them so as to make the Amendment refer only to properties "not now rateable."

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, that even then the Amendment would mean more than the hon. Baronet was conscious of, for it would refer to all mines that were rateable for the first time under the Bill, 1081 which did not propose any special rating for iron and other mines. By his general proposition the hon. Baronet would tie them down to re-consider the very question raised by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), by the Amendment already withdrawn.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
suggested that the Government should consider the expediency of rating itinerant traders who paid visits to towns, did a good trade, and then left them without contributing to the local taxation.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, the hon. Member should also include travelling menageries.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, the clause as it stood would be unworkable. A great alteration had been made in the Act of Elizabeth by taking saleable underwoods out of it, and therefore we should now be working on a principle which it was not intended to adopt when the Bill was introduced. He hoped that the clause to be brought up would be intelligible.

§ MR. REED
moved, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "and 'The Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act, 1869." He said those words, by which these institutions were exempted from rating, were the result of a compromise, and he thought he was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to state the grounds on which he proposed to repeal an enactment of this nature, after it had received the assent of the House by a considerable majority. He could not see any consistency in repealing the Act applying to half those schools. The right hon. Gentleman said the circumstances had entirely changed since that time; but he was quite satisfied that the opinion of the country had not changed, and he was aware of no change except that the Government had determined to abolish all exemptions. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose to deal with the Act of Will. IV., 1082 by which one-half of the Sunday schools in the country were exempt.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he felt bound to leave this question to the decision of the Committee, because the principle of the Bill was the repeal of all exemptions from rating. He was perfectly conscious of the strong grounds urged by the hon. Member in favour of exempting these schools. He admitted the great utility and value of these institutions, and that public opinion, as evidenced by numerous Petitions, was in favour of their being exempted from rating, and he also admitted that the present condition of the law was what his hon. Friend bad rightly called a compromise. He should therefore, on behalf of the Government, assent to the Amendment.

§ MR. COLLINS
urged that, as elementary schools established by voluntary subscription saved rates which otherwise must be raised to establish the elementary schools, such schools were in principle as much entitled to exemption as Sunday and ragged schools, the establishment of which was not compulsory.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he thought the exemptions in the Bill should be extended. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) upon what ground he drew a distinction between Sunday and ragged school and other somewhat kindred schools, and upon what grounds exemptions were to be granted to some and not to others? He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment in the manner in which it was put, and if they would support him, he would divide on the Question.

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
said, he thought the object of this Bill was to bring about equality and put an end to all exemptions from rating. Sunday and ragged schools might be useful institutions; but the Committee ought to consider that the exemptions of these from rating meant additional rating upon other schools. Some were of opinion that children who had been hard at work all the week had better be 1083 allowed to run in the fields on Sunday than be mewed up in Sunday schools. He did not see why special exemptions should be extended to Sunday schools and not to other institutions. They should legislate in this matter so as to bring about a just equality.

§ MR. PEASE
perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. In 1869, the House, by a large majority, was of opinion that these schools ought to be exempted from rating, and he thought it was hardly worth while to disturb the compromise then entered into.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, he could not, in the name of consistency, see upon what ground the Government could exempt ragged schools and not exempt other institutions from rating. He understood they were disposed to exempt ragged schools because the exemption would save the ratepayers. ["No, no!"] Then why exempt them?

§ MR. COLLINS
suggested that the clause should be struck out, and that on a future occasion another clause should be brought up, treating the whole subject of exemptions. Supposing the Committee passed the clause as it stood, would that prevent them in the future from dealing with it? would it prevent them from considering hereafter the whole question of exemption?

MR. STAVELEY-HILL,
while he did not agree with his hon. Friend who had just spoken, did not think his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Reed) had made out a case for exempting ragged schools.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, it was perfectly true that in 1869 ragged schools were exempted from rating; but since then the Elementary Education Act had, been passed which required that children should be sent, not to a ragged school, but to a regular elementary school. Therefore, there was no reason whatever for continuing the exemption of ragged schools.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, the clause dealt merely with what were exemptions at the present moment. The question as to other exemptions was to be dealt with hereafter.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH
said, it might be taken that ragged schools, under the Elementary Schools Act, would very soon cease to exist, so that the matter in dispute was really only the exemption of Sunday schools. Such 1084 an exemption as the law now stood, was equivalent to a grant from the rates in aid of Nonconformist schools alone; for the Sunday schools of the Church of England were generally held in buildings in which, on week-days, education was given which was not gratuitous, and for this reason Church Sunday schools could rarely be exempted under the provisions of the Act. This was so clearly unfair, that he should vote for the repeal of the exemption altogether.

§ MR. T. HUGHES
said, he did not agree with the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, and he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.

§ MR. CANDLISH
said, he thought there were few cases in which the exemption had not been conceded. The country had not rated the schools which they had power to rate; the opinion of the House had been most emphatic in favour of the exemption; and in spite of the opposition of the two front benches, the second reading was carried by a majority of 157.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated that the principle of the Bill was the abolition of exemptions, but he was now giving up the principle, surrendering, as the Solicitor General said, to force. Upon what principle, then, were literary and scientific institutions to be rated? If the principle were abandoned in the case of Sunday and ragged schools, it ought to be abandoned in the case of institutions which had hitherto been exempt, and many of which would be closed if they were subjected to rating.