§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Upon what ground the statement was made in the Return presented to Parliament by the Local Government Board, dated 30th March 1886, that the 1529 highest rated parish in the Metropolis was Putney, which had to pay 6s. 8d. in the pound, including 10½d. in the pound for the maintenance and preservation of Wimbledon and Putney Commons; whether he is aware that there is no such rate as 10½d. in the pound there mentioned, or any uniform rate for the purposes alleged, over Putney or any other parish; whether the said Return is erroneous in omitting reference to the said Commons' rates as regards portions of Wandsworth and other parishes; and, whether he will cause the Return to be re-examined and amended?
§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I regret to say that I find that, through an error on the part of the printer which should have been noticed in the examination of the Return, but which was, unfortunately, overlooked, the parish of Putney is represented as paying a higher rate in the pound than was in fact the case. The maximum rate levied on any class of property in the parish for the maintenance and preservation of the commons referred to appears, from the Return made by the Conservators of the commons, to have been 5¼d. in the pound, instead of the amount stated in the Return to which the hon. Member alludes. The rate in respect of these commons is not a uniform rate. We now understand that a rate is levied by the Conservators of the commons referred to on part of the parish of Wandsworth; but no reference to such a rate was made in the Returns supplied to the Board by the overseers of that parish or by the clerk to the Conservators. The circumstances do not appear to be such as to require that the Return should be re-issued. The Return has been made annually, and care will be taken to make the necessary correction when it is next issued.