HC Deb 29 June 1896 vol 42 cc319-44

"In every valuation list and in the basis or standard for any county rate, and in any valuation made by the council of a borough or any other council for the purpose of raising the borough or other rate—

  1. (a) where separate hereditaments are specified therein, the value of agricultural land shall be stated separately from that of any building or other hereditament; and
  2. (b) in every case the total rateable value of the agricultural land in each parish shall be stated separately from the total rateable 320 value of the buildings or other hereditaments in such parish; and whenever a copy of the total of the rateable value of any parish is required to be sent to any person, such copy shall state both the above-mentioned totals."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out Clause 5. He said that his first objection to that clause was that it was unnecessary as a matter of drafting, for the sixth clause provided practically for the same thing as this clause provided for. In fact the whole machinery for separate valuation was set forth in Clause 6. But he objected also to this clause on its merits, on the ground that it was proposed that the separate valuation should be made by the same officers who prepared the ordinary valuation lists. There was, he would point out, a very substantial difference in the character of these valuations. When an ordinary assessment was made it was made for the purpose of a particular rate to be levied in a particular parish or district, but this separate valuation was to be made for the purpose of a contribution from the Imperial Treasury. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"]

MR. LEWIS

rose to order. He said it was evident that there was a determination in that quarter of the House (pointing to the Ministerial Benches below the Gangway) to interrupt his hon. Friend.

*MR. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order. I trust that hon. Members will give a hearing to the hon. Member. [Cheers].

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

urged that the reasons why the ordinary valuation list should be left to the overseers and and assessment committee did not apply-in this case. Here there was to be a separate valuation made for the purpose of this Bill, and if this separate valuation were to hold good for the general district rate, the School Board rate, or drainage rate, then the parishioners in that district would be interested in seeing that the separate valuation was made on an equitable and fair basis. But this was to be a separate valuation for the purposes of the Treasury alone, and yet the Government proposed to intrust it to the very people who were to benefit by it. The proposal was a monstrous one.

MR. CHAPLIN

said that the question of the retention of the clause was not alone one of drafting; it was absolutely necessary to the working of the Bill. The work prescribed in Clause 1 could not be done unless the valuation lists were prepared as prescribed in this clause, and the same remark applied to the provisions of Clause 3. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. [Cheers.]

MR. REGINALD McKENNA (Monmouth, N.)

said that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have appreciated the nature of the Amendment. [Cries of "Divide"!] As a matter of fact, Clause 5 was totally unnecessary in as much as Clause 6 carried out its object in similar language. Clause 6 provided for the valuation which was necessary for the purposes of this Bill, and, therefore, it was simply absurd to insert two clauses to accomplish one object. [Cries of "Divide"!]

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH,

who spoke amid continuous interruption, was understood to say that the Government ought to have some controlling voice in respect to the amount which it would be called upon to pay under this Bill.

MR. LOUGH,

who also spoke in support of the Amendment amid cries of "Divide," said the strongest argument against the retention of Clause 5 was the fact that all it enacted was provided for in Clause 6. The fact was that a great deal of the opposition to the Bill had been provoked by redundancy of language in drafting, for there were whole sections and sub-sections which were altogether unnecessary.

Question put, "That the words of Clause 5 to the end thereof stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 118.—(Division List, No. 289).

MR. JEFFREYS moved to add, after the word "totals," the words:— Where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of a house and buildings, the gross estimated rental of the house and buildings when valued separately in pursuance of this section from the agricultural land shall, while the house and buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land, be calculated not on structural cost, but on the rent at which they would be expected to let to a tenant from year to year. He said he proposed the change for the sake of uniformity. There were three separate ways of assessing property. In a great many unions the farmhouse, buildings and land were all assessed together as one farm. The most common practice was to assess the farmhouse separately and buildings and land together, and this occurred in nearly all the rural unions of the kingdom. The third way was assessing houses, buildings and land separately, which was almost invariably followed in urban districts where the Public Health Act of 1875 was in force. The Chamber of Agriculture had communicated with the unions in England to ascertain their practice; and from 230 answers already received it seemed that land and buildings were assessed together. What was wanted was a uniform system of rating. In two unions, side by side, there might be a totally different system in each. It would be very unfair to assess farmhouses at structural cost, as they were often large houses built in days when farming was flourishing and now occupied (though only partially) because they were the homesteads. There were a good many cases in which a separate valuation was made, but in nearly every instance it was for special purposes; and the unions in which it had taken place were nearly all more or less urban. An instruction of the kind given in his Amendment was absolutely necessary in order that rural districts might know how to carry out the law in future.

MR. CHAPLIN

admitted that the majority of cases in which buildings were now valued apart from the land were cases where they had to contribute to special expenses. But he thought he had disposed effectively of the argument as to the difficulty of carrying out this operation by numerous instances which he quoted earlier in the evening where the thing was done already. His hon. Friend had stated that one of the great objects he had in view was to insure greater uniformity in the method of valuing land. Having given careful consideration to the proposal contained in his hon. Friend's Amendment he thought it was warranted by expediency and by justice, and therefore he was prepared to accept it. [Cheers.]

SIR W. HARCOURT

said he could not undertake to reconcile the differences between the hon. Member for Hampshire and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. [Cries of "They are agreed."] This was an Amendment coming from the Government side. Hon. Members opposite might allow them to discuss it. [Cheers.] The Amendment was of a most important character, and this determination not to listen to discussion was not reasonable. [Cheers.] There were circumstances which might induce the House, if they were so impatient of discussion, to postpone it till to-morrow. [Cheers.] The Amendment had been moved in a moderate, temperate, and clear speech by the hon. Member for Hampshire, and he hoped the House would allow a matter of this importance to be patiently and reasonably discussed. [Cheers.] The hon. Member had laid it down that there was great difficulty in assessing lands and buildings separately. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had repeated on this Amendment what he said earlier, when the House was not so full or so impatient. ["Oh!" and cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman said there was no difficulty in this matter, and read him a lecture for having suggested precisely what had been proved by the 130 Unions referred to by the hon. Member for Hampshire. [Cheers.]

MR. CHAPLIN

said that he did not read the right hon. Gentleman a lecture and had not the slightest intention of doing so. He merely pointed out some reliable information he had received from various quarters which showed that not, only could this be done, but that it was constantly done, and actually was in practice at the present time.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said that it was not for him to reconcile the differences between such distinguished authorities as the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hampshire, but what he wanted to call the attention of the House to was that now, nearly Twelve o'clock at night, the hon. Member for Hampshire was proposing what he avowed to be a complete reform in the practice of Assessment Committees. That was rather a serious matter, because if they told the Assessment Committees throughout the country that they were to follow a practice they had not been in the habit of following they would assuredly introduce great confusion into the work of the Committees.

MR. JEFFREYS

said the Bill told the Assessment Committees to assess in three different ways; he wished to simplify the matter.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said he had no doubt that was so, and he supposed if he were to condemn the Bill it would be said he was making a Second Reading speech. [Cheers.] In short this was a proposal to reform the whole system of assessment not proposed in the Bill which had been so maturely and carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government—[a laugh]—but embodied in an Amendment which, according to the hon. Member for Hampshire, was practically a reversal and condemnation of the proposal which the Government had made. Personally he was not prepared to accept the new principle of assessment which the hon. Member for Hampshire proposed without much further consideration and discussion than they could give to it to-night.

MR. DALZIEL

said the hon. Member for Hampshire was to be congratulated upon the ingenuity of his Amendment. The hon. Member recognised as they all did that the Bill changed the whole system of local rating, and that under certain circumstances it was possible that a valuation would be increased. The hon. Member proposed that if there was a dwelling-house on a particular farm it was to be rated as if it were for the cultivation of the land and nothing else; if the house were let apart from the land, it was, no matter how high the rent might be, to be rated as if it were occupied by the tenant himself. The hon. Member disputes that interpretation of the Amendment. Would the hon. Member say that Eaton Hall was used for the cultivation of the estate in its neighbourhood? [Mr. JEFFREYS: "No."] Then who was going to decide the question whether or not the mansion-house was used for the cultivation of the land? If a tenant lived in a house, the proper interpretation was that the house was used for the cultivation of the land. It was also reasonable to assume that where a proprietor lived on his estate he would be directly interested in the cultivation of the land. But what he wanted to arrive at was, who was to decide that question?

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

said the hon. Member who moved the Amendment assumed that farm-houses were used only, and could only be used, for the cultivation of the land. But farm-houses were, to a large extent, used in summer as lodging-houses—to such an extent, indeed, that the various railway companies issued a list of the farm-houses in their districts in which lodgings might be had. The Amendment left out of consideration all such farm-houses, because it said that the method of valuation it proposed should only be applied to houses used for the cultivation of land, and which could only be used for such a purpose. How did the hon. Member propose to meet the cases of those farm-houses? It was clear that the system of valuation embodied in the Amendment would not meet them. Worse than that, an Amendment that had been incorporated into the Amendment provided that a house should not be valued on its structural cost. These words were not only unnecessary, they were mischievous. Large mansion houses were not valued according to their structural value. They were valued on their letting value, which, of course, was much less, as it was difficult to let houses of that class when they came on the market. Eaton Hall—which had been mentioned already—would under this Amendment have to be valued according to its structural value, which would cause a very great deal of litigation and confusion. To meet the first point he raised, he moved to amend the Amendment by the omission of the words—"while the house and buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

did not think that the mover of the Amendment fully realised what the effect of the Amendment would be, and suggested that it should be withdrawn.

SIR W. HARCOURT

concurred.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL (Devon, Tavistock)

said he did not propose to take up the time of the House for more than one or two minutes. He had, at a previous stage, moved an Amendment that all agricultural buildings should be included, and he still believed it would be extremely difficult to make assessments separately. But the Government had refused to accept this, and the stage was now passed. They must now take the Bill as it was, and try to make it as good as possible. He begged to move to leave out all the words after "calculated," and to insert instead thereof the words— as occupied with the land and not as if they were severed therefrom and separately occupied. He thought this language was better than that of the Amendment, and he thought the latter part of the Amendment was unnecessary and somewhat objectionable, in that it implied a lack of confidence in the Assessment Committee. He appealed to the hon. Member to have confidence in the Committee all in all, or not at all.

MR. CHANNING

attached importance to the words which his hon. Friend proposed to leave out, and thought that the words now proposed might be inserted without leaving out the words at the end of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke. Without the words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire which his hon. Friend proposed to omit, the burdens on the farmer might actually be increased by the Bill, and it might take away more than it gave.

MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN

agreed with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) that the words "shall not be increased by the said separate valuation" should be retained.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devon would go further than he intended. It would cover land occupied for residential purposes, as well as land occupied for the purposes of cultivation. The words in the original Amendment "shall not be increased by the said separate valuation" were absolutely necessary.

MR. LOUGH

put a point of Order. He wished to know whether this Amendment did not interfere with the general law of rating by instructing the Assessment Committees to assess differently from the way in which they would assess but for the Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

said it did not interfere with the general law of rating. This was an Amendment moved with respect to a particular change in the law of rating which was rendered necessary by this Bill. The Bill for the first time rendered it compulsory to rate separately lands and buildings in cases where it was not necessary before, and an Amendment to provide for that compulsory separation was in order.

MR. LOUGH,

who continued to speak amid cries of "Divide," said the House ought to look at this proposal with very great care. Did they want to exclude the case of the urban sanitary districts, and was the metropolitan police district to be excluded from the Bill?

MR. H. H. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

said in the discussion upon an Amendment which had been moved on the other side of the House, and had been accepted in principle, he thought a little more patience and conciliation might be shown towards the views of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken with tact and knowledge on the subject. [Ministerial laughter.] The whole question was, first, whether or not this Amendment was necessary; and, next, whether it was happily conceived for the purpose for which it was intended? The point upon which he believed they were all agreed was that where a house, or buildings, physically or structurally connected with a farm, were used, as they very often were, during certain periods for purposes not connected with the occupation of the land—for instance, if let as lodgings or for a summer residence—clearly they ought not to come within the purview of this Amendment. The real question was whether or not it was necessary to introduce into the Bill an Amendment of this kind. He was not satisfied that it was. Ever since the passing of the Public Health Act of 1875, and before that, they had had in all our urban and rural districts, as far as special expenses were concerned, a partial and qualified exemption of agricultural land from the full burden of the general district or special district rate. That being so, he could not help thinking that the provisions of that Act were to the effect that, where land was occupied substantially for agricultural purposes, it was to be assessed in the proportion of one-fourth only of its annual value. That being so, he could not help thinking that to introduce the qualification now proposed was not only totally unnecessary and unfounded in experience, but it might throw the whole law of rating both of urban and rural districts into confusion. Under these circumstances he would suggest to the Government and the House that the Amendment might be withdrawn. It might save a great deal of time and unnecessary space in our statutes to leave the general law to apply to this particular case in the sense in which it had been understood hitherto.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

pointed out that the Bill proposed to introduce the division of the rates into many districts for the first time, and that, although he agreed that the clause merely embodied the existing law on the subject, it was advisable to introduce into the Measure some explanation of the matter for the guidance of the overseers. In his view it would be highly desirable to adopt such a course. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. STUART

thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had made it quite clear that it was unnecessary to put this proviso into the Bill, and that it should form one of a series of regulations that should be issued for the guidance of the overseers.

*MR. HARRISON

pointed out that the 28th clause in the Union Assessment Act of 1862 dealt with this matter in a perfectly clear manner, and provided that where, after the valuation of a hereditament was inserted in the list, the hereditament was physically or in fact divided into two separate occupations, then that each of the parts should be inserted in a separate valuation list, and should be a fair apportioned part of that valuation out of which the two parts had been constituted; and that principle ought now to be adopted. For if the valuation was made separately of each part, the two parts would not amount to the present undivided valuation of the whole.

DR. CLARK,

who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said that many farmers let several of the rooms in their farmhouses for three or four months every year, and he should like to know whether that would deprive them of the benefit of the Bill?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said that in such cases the buildings would not be used solely for the purpose of the cultivation of the land.

DR. CLARK

thought that in such cases, gentlemen farmers having handsome and comfortable houses, and who were not obliged to let their rooms, would be treated differently from the poor men who were obliged to let their rooms in order to make both ends meet. He did not think that the Amendment to the Amendment would make the latter more acceptable. It would in fact make it obscure, and he should, therefore, vote against both.

*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicestershire, Loughborough)

thought that when the buildings were used partially during a portion of the year as a lodging house, the valuation Committee would regard these words as a direction that they might, at all events, value the buildings in the future and the land separately at a larger sum than the two taken together at the present time.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

did not think that the words could be read as a direction to the Committee in the sense indicated. They were inserted for the sake of precaution.

MR. R. J. PRICE (Norfolk, E.)

said that the Attorney General seemed to think that the result of accepting the Amendment would be that land other than agricultural land would be excluded. It was clear that the effect would be to include the buildings which were used in connection with cultivated land.

MR. BROAD HURST

said the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite was entirely unnecessary, for it simply instructed the Assessment Committees to do what they had been doing for a long time past, and it could only lead to confusion. [Cries of "Divide!"] The buildings referred to, or very many of them, were already exempt from taxation far more than they ought to be, and under the Amendment in question it would surely happen that the poor farmer who let half his house for a time during the summer months to visitors in order to be able to pay his rent, would continue to be assessed at a high rate, while the wealthy farmer, who had no necessity to resort to unusual means to increase his income, would have his assessment reduced. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Divide!"] The discussion on this question would not have been so long if the substance of the Amendment had been inserted in the Bill on the Second Reading—[cries of "Divide!"]—for the Amendment was to all intents and purposes a new clause. [Cheers, and renewed cries of "Divide!"] It had been sprung on the House at a late hour by an independent Member on the Ministerial side, and had certainly been accepted by the Government without due consideration. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"] The Amendment, indeed, would give rise to all sorts of confusion among the assessment authorities, for it proposed to give them instructions which were unnecessary and undesirable, and which would be mischievous and very unjust in its operation in many cases. [Cheers and interruption.] He hoped the Leader of the House would even yet think it wise to ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and that the Government would decide, if they should deem any such instruction to the Assessment Committees as that proposed to be necessary, to introduce it subsequently in the form of a new clause to the Bill, when full opportunity might be given the House to consider it. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Divide!"] He hoped the hon. Member for Tavistock would not persist in his Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?

*MR. LUTTRELL

said that, as he had already intimated, he thought these words would be better than those in the Bill. It was a matter of no very great importance, and he would not press his Amendment; but he appealed to the Government to consider whether these words could not be accepted.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said his objection to this Amendment in the first place was that it was absolutely unnecessary. The Solicitor General had admitted so much when he said it was desirable that these words should be incorporated in the Bill by way of explanation to those who had to put it into operation. It was rather a novel principle in legislation that they should introduce words and sections into a Bill, not because they amended the law, but in order to explain the law to people who did not understand it. The principle of this Amendment was already carried out in law, and was embodied, in very much better words, in the decision in Rex v. the Proprietors of the Liverpool Exchange. That decision laid down the principle that, in order to arrive at the separate value of any building, they must take into account not merely its position, but also the uses to which it was likely to be put in respect of its occupation. That was the very principle which was embodied in this Amendment.

*MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was repeating arguments which had been used over and over again. The fact that the principle of rating raised in this Amendment was that which generally prevailed in Law was admitted by the learned Solicitor General at a very early stage of the Debate.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

observed that, as far as the first part of the Amendment was concerned, he accepted the proposition of the Solicitor-General, but as far as the second part was concerned that was a most serious matter. It said first of all that they should value the properties separately, but if the aggregate of the three valuations was more than the separate valuation already laid upon the three together, then these principles were not to prevail. It simply meant that the value ascertained by a separate valuation was not to be put into operation, but that an artificial value ascertained without a separate valuation of the properties was to prevail. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment.

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 275; Noes, 109.—(Division List, No. 290).

MR. FLYNN moved, "That Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, be adjourned."

*MR. SPEAKER

said he could not accept that motion at this hour. ["Hear, hear!"] The next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George) had already been disposed of by a previous Division, and also those standing in the names of the hon. Members for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) and Devonshire (Mr. Luttrell). The Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon relating to appeal would come on on Section 6, which related to appeal. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) appeared to him to be out of order, as it raised the question of three years, which had been already decided by the House.

MR. CHAPLIN moved in subsection (a) to leave out the word "by" and to insert instead thereof the word "from," so that the sub-section should read "before the passing of this Act from any rate to which this Act applies."

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. SPEAKER

said the next Amendment, which was in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, had been disposed of by the Amendment just passed. Would the hon. Member move the next Amendment?

MR. PICKERSGILL

No, Sir; I will not.

MR. DALZIEL

proposed in subsection (2) after the word "corrected" to insert the words "and allowed." As the Bill stood the overseers had, he said, to prepare a statement, and had no power to make a correction. He proposed they should have such power.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

thought the Amendment was out of place. The hon. Member moved that the statements should be corrected and allowed by the Assessment Committee. But later on the clause stated that those Returns and statements would be subject to objection and appeal by the surveyor and overseers before the Assessment Committee. It was obvious that the Assessment Committee would not and ought not allow those statements before they had heard the objection and appeal.

MR. DALZIEL

If I withdraw the Amendment now, will the hon. Gentleman accept it later?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

I do not think it is wanted at all. The statements will be subject to appeal before the Assessment Committee.

MR. DALZIEL

If the hon. Member says the Amendment is unnecessary, and that my wishes are already carried out, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DALZIEL moved to leave out the first "and" in line 22, and to insert instead thereof the words— in the presence of and after hearing, in the Metropolis the surveyors of taxes, and in the rest of England and Wales the local assessors appointed under fourteenth and fifteenth years of Victoria, Chapter thirty-six, and the same shall be. The object of the Amendment was to secure that the local assessors should have some locus standi in the matter.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said the Amendment was unnecessary. The clause provided that the statements should be sent to the surveyor of taxes; and they were also subject to appeal by the surveyor and the overseers. When it was necessary to make a valuation for purposes of the Inhabited House Duty, the duties of those assessors were discharged by the surveyors of taxes, and, in like manner, the surveyor of taxes would be the assessor under this Act; and as it would be absolutely impossible for the surveyors of taxes to be present at every meeting of an Assessment Committee—as the districts were often very-large, and there might be meetings on the same day of several Assessment Committees—it was proposed that the statements should be sent to the surveyor of taxes, and that he should be heard afterwards on appeal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PICKERSGILL moved to insert after the word "overseers" the words "and by any aggrieved ratepayer." What he wanted to do was, he said, to give any aggrieved ratepayer the right to initiate an appeal. He should not wish the existing right of the ratepayer to appeal against the valuation list to be taken away; and words could be inserted to secure that.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said that the clause was not dealing with the right of the ratepayer to appeal against his own valuation; it dealt with the division between land and houses. It had been provided that there should be an appeal by the surveyor or by the overseer, and that the aggrieved ratepayer might be heard at any such appeal. It was impossible to go further, because the case contemplated was not an individual grievance.

MR. WARNER

said that he could not see any objection to the Amendment. If the ratepayer had not the right of appeal in the first instance, his case would be prejudged before he came to be heard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

rose to move after the word "overseers" to insert the words "either to the Local Government Board or." He contended that there should be an appeal to the Local Government Board, or to the Assessment Committee in Quarter Sessions. Throe appeals as a matter of fact might be made—to the Assessment Committee in the first place, to the Justices in Special Session, and to the Court of Quarter Sessions. As a matter of fact with regard to the Assessment Committee, he did not think it was an impartial authority. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Hampshire with regard to the general character of Assessment Committees; he thought they did their work remarkably well, and they were fairly representative of the interests in the district. The only thing against them was, as had been stated before the Agricultural Commission, that they declined absolutely to make reductions in rateable value on land where they ought to have been made. Therefore he thought they could not in every case be a purely impartial authority, and consequently another authority more impartial ought to beset up for the purpose of dealing with these matters. In the case of the Assessment Committee, one of the spending authorities was the Board of Guardians, but the Board of Guardians was the very body which appointed the Assessment Committee, and therefore there ought to be an appeal to some outside authority. The Justices in Special Sessions were also, as a rule, members of the Assessment Committee, and he did not think they were really fitted for the task for sitting as a court of appeal. The Justices were all gentlemen interested in land, and they were specially interested in keeping up the valuation of the land, and in lowering the valuation of the buildings. Surely no hon. Member would say that they were a perfectly impartial authority for this question. The law was that no magistrate who was himself personally or pecuniarily interested in a case should sit upon that case. He thought it was unfair to the general taxpayer, and contrary to the principles upon which the law of the land had hitherto been based, that such an exception as this should be made. The third authority to which the appeal lay, was the Court of Quarter Sessions. He would point out that the qualification for a Justice of the Peace was the ownership of £100 a year in freehold, and by his very qualification he was bound to be directly interested in keeping up the valuation of the land. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon these gentlemen, but if a Magistrate was not allowed to sit in a licensing case because he was interested in it, why should he be allowed to sit as a court of appeal in the question of assessment in which he must be directly interested. It was important in the interests of the general taxpayer that there should be an impartial tribunal, and he contended that the proper authority would be that which dealt with local administration throughout the whole country, which had a special staff adapted for the purpose, and also a staff of inspectors. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

said that the authorities had to make an estimate and supply information to be submitted to the Local Government Board, and now the hon. Member proposed that there should be an appeal from them to the Local Government Board. Of course, he could not accept such an Amendment.

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 260.—(Division List, No. 291.)

MR. CHAPLIN moved after the word "sessions" to insert the words, "and subject to the right of any aggrieved ratepayer to be heard on such appeal." the Amendment, he explained, was moved in fulfilment of a pledge which he had given.

MR. LEWIS moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "ratepayer" the words "or any taxpayer resident in the parish.' He maintained that the taxpayer had just as much right as the ratepayer to be heard, because the taxpayer would be called upon to pay the bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said that the Government had gone as far as they possibly could in this matter, and it would simply introduce an absurdity if a taxpayer in the district were allowed to appeal.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said this was a taxpayer's question. He cited the case of a person of wealth living in apartments, who might pay thousands of pounds in respect of the Estate Duty and yet have no right to appeal.

*MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Gentleman press his Amendment.

MR. J. H. LEWIS

Certainly, Sir.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think it right to point out that the Amendment gives to every person who buys an ounce of tobacco the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. [Ministerial cheers.]

Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 258.—(Division List, No. 292.)

Words "and subject to the right of any aggrieved ratepayer to be heard upon the said appeal" inserted.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'that the remaining words of Clause 6 stand part of the Bill' be now put." [Ministerial cheers.]

*MR. SPEAKER

The Amendments which stand between the present point and the end of the clause do not appear to me to raise any question of importance either as regards drafting or substance, and I think there is not the slightest probability that any of them would be accepted by the House. Under these circumstances I accept the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. [Ministerial cheers.]

Question put, "That the Question 'that the remaining words of Clause 6 stand part of the Bill' be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 245, Noes, 92.—(Division List, No. 293.)

MR. FLYNN moved, "That this House do now adjourn." He said that many Members had been in attendance for 14 hours, having served on Committees which met at noon, and they were under obligation to attend Committees again at noon. For the sake of Members' health and the conduct of public business he protested against this system of protracted sittings.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

seconded the Motion. He was one of those who had been here since yesterday morning, and he had to be here again at a quarter to 12 to-day at the Standing Committee on Law. Members who worked hard on Committees were not able to give to a Bill of this sort the consideration which it deserved. Clauses 7 and 8, which followed, had not, perhaps, very much in them, but Clause 9 was a very difficult one indeed. There was no reason why the end of the Session should be considered so near that it was necessary to sit up all night to finish Bills of this sort, all the more as the particular clause mentioned was very imperfectly dealt with at the last all-night sitting.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

It is perfectly true that it is not desirable that the House should be asked to keep such long hours as we are keeping to-night, and perhaps are likely to keep. [Cheers.] I do not think the blame rests with the Government or with those who are responsible for the arrangement and conduct of business of the House. [Cheers.] We have not asked the House to do any more on this Bill than might reasonably and easily have been done between the hours of 4 and 12 o'clock. [Cheers.] The blame rests with certain Gentlemen who sit opposite. [Cheers.] Nor do I think that the questions that might be raised on Clause 9 are of so complicated and difficult a character that it is impossible they can be disposed of at this hour in the morning. Questions connected with accommodation land have been debated over and over again, and every argument is already familiar to hon. Gentlemen on both sides. [Cheers.] Under these circumstances I hope hon. Gentlemen will not press this Motion to a Division, but will feel that, having set our hands to the plough we ought not now to turn back, and ought before we separate to finish the small remains of the Bill.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of laying the whole blame for the position in which the House finds itself on everyone except himself. [Cheers.] He said that the arrangements of business were disordered and put out by the conduct of the Opposition. The House will be able to judge of that when they see the business that is put down for to-morrow. [Cheers.] One reason for reporting progress is because none of the business will be taken to-morrow which, at 4 o'clock, it was announced would be taken. There is no reason whatever why trilling Bills should be put down for to-morrow.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

They are not trifling Bills.

SIR W. HARCOURT

What! not trifling Bills with this and the Education Bill? [Cheers.] This is the last survivor of the great Measures of the Government, and what we claim is that a reasonable time shall be given to its consideration. [Cheers.] Anyone who reads the Debates to-morrow will see that the Amendments moved were important Amendments which deserved the discussion they have received, and one of the last Amendments was moved from the Government Bench, and necessarily, occupied a considerable time. Clause 9 is a most important one. When was Clause 9 discussed? [Loud cheers.] Why. at midday, after an all-night sitting [Cheers.] It was impossible to discuss the clause properly in such circumstances. And now it is to be discussed at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning, I presume. ["Hear, hear," and counter cheers.] Is that the manner in which a Bill of this character, affecting, as it does, every class of the community, ought to be discussed. And because we desire that a Bill of this importance shall not be passed through this House without fitting discussion, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the decay of the House of Commons. [Loud cheers and counter cheers.] It is not the decay of the House of Commons that it indicates—what it does indicate is the decay of the majority which support right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Benches opposite. [Loud cheers.] They will use their majority to-night, but if they do so they could not strike a more fatal blow at the existence of that majority. [Loud cheering.]

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,

who on rising was received with loud cheers, said: There is one thing which the country will consider when they see what has passed to-night with regard to this Bill, and that is, that if we succeed, as I hope we shall succeed, in passing the Report Stage of this Bill to-night, a blow will have been struck at the most factious opposition that has ever been offered to any Measure at that Stage. [Cheers and counter cheers.] I have sat in this House as many years as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and for many more years than the vast majority of the hon. Members who are now within its walls, and I never remember—and I defy hon. Members to contradict my assertion—any Measure being discussed in this manner upon its Report Stage. [Cheersand counter cheers.] What has been the course of business tonight? The right hon. Gentleman opposite complains that time has not been given for the adequate discussion of Clause 9. Why the clause has been discussed half-a-dozen times over. If the clause should not, in the end, have been adequately discussed, it will be because the time of the House has been occupied hour after hour by some of the most ridiculous and frivolous amendments that have ever been proposed in this House. [Cheers and counter cheers.] Let me recall to the House one of those Amendments, one which even the right hon. Gentleman himself was ashamed to support—I mean the Amendment by which any one who bought an ounce of tobacco—as you yourself, Sir, described it—should be entitled to an appeal against the assessment under this Bill. In view of such a fact as that I think that if there is one thing that we have to fear it is not that the country will say that the Bill has not been adequately discussed, and that the judgment of the House has not been pronounced upon it, but that the course which the Opposition are taking with regard to it is reducing the proceedings of the House of Commons to a farce. [Loud cheers and counter cheers.]

MR. BROADHURST,

who rose amid loud cries of "Divide" and repeated cries of "Order," said: I have been engaged (interruption) since 9 o'clock yesterday in the business of the House. [Cheers and interruptions and loud cries of "Order."] It is impossible for any hon. Member to adequately discharge his duties to his constituents under such pressure as this. [Renewed interruption and cries of "Order"] It it evident that hon. Members opposite wish to stifle discussion by these unseemly proceedings. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members opposite appear to be bent upon destroying the reputation of the House. [Renewed interruption and cries of "Order!"] No doubt great excitement has been produced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Cheers and counter cheers and loud cries of "Order!"] The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to arouse passion. The right hon. Gentleman describes a series of important Amendments as being frivolous and only moved for the purpose of wasting time. But it is the class to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs that are attempting to dip their hands into the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"]

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the question of the Adjournment of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. BROADHURST

No, Sir. [Loud laughter.] I am answering the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Renewed laughter and cries of "Divide" and "Order!"]

MR. DALZIEL

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether under the Standing Orders of the House an hon. Member has not the right to call your attention to the fact that an hon. Gentleman is being subject to deliberate and organised interruption.

*MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is putting a hypothetical question to me which I am not called upon to answer. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. DALZIEL

rose again amid loud cries of "Order!"

*MR. SPEAKER

I must repeat that the hon. Gentleman has put his point of Order to me. ["Hear, hear!"] [Several HON. MEMBERS on the Opposition side of the House, "No, he has not." Cheers and renewed cries of "Order," and interruption.] If the hon. Member has a point of Order which he has not put to me he can put it.

MR. DALZIEL

My point of Order, Sir, is this, that under the Standing Orders of the House, when an hon. Member sees that there is deliberately disorderly conduct on the part of another hon. Member he is entitled to call your attention to it. [Cheer.] I wish to draw your attention to the disorderly conduct of Lord Cecil. [Cheers, and cries of "Order."]

*MR. SPEAKER

There has been no specific misconduct of which I can take notice, but there has been a great deal of noise and disturbance in the House, and I trust hon. Members will now allow the Debate to proceed in order and quiet. [Cheers.]

MR. BROADHURST

complained that shameful attempts had been made to silence speakers on his side of the House by clamour. False charges had been brought against them. [Cries of "Divide."]

*MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member desires to have a quiet hearing I hope he will moderate his language. [Cheers.]

MR. BROADHURST

said he had always regarded himself as one of the most orderly and least offensive of Members. [Laughter.] He was in an exhausted condition—[laughter]—and he appealed to the Government to allow him and other Members who had been working steadily for some 16 or 18 hours to get some rest. ["Hear, hear!"] There were still points in this Bill which must be seriously discussed. They were of the highest importance to the ratepayers of the country, and required calm and dispassionate consideration.

MR. DALZIEL,

who was met by cries of "Divide," said that on the Opposition side of the House there was an unprecedented feeling of hostility to the Bill.

*MR. SPEAKER

said that the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the question of adjournment. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. DALZIEL

thought that the interference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not of a kind likely to promote tranquillity. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had rushed into the fray with an enthusiasm which was hardly justified. [Cheers.] He had challenged any Member of that House to point to a single instance of such determined opposition to a Bill as was being offered to the present Measure. The right hon. Gentleman before delivering that challenge should have consulted his colleague the Secretary to the Treasury. That right hon. Gentleman would remember a Bill. [Cries of "Question."]

*MR. SPEAKER

said it was true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had expressed an opinion that certain previous Amendments were of a substantial nature, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied and took a somewhat different view of those Amendments; but neither of those observations were really pertinent to the question before the House. [Cheers.] He must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the subject further.

MR. DALZIEL

After your ruling I will not pursue my reply to the impertinent remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Loud cries of "Order," cheers, and "Withdraw."]

*MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member had applied the word "impertinent" to the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally, I should have called him to order, but he used the word with reference to his observations and, I imagine, in the more classic sense. [Laughter.]

MR. DALZIEL

said that he did use the word in the more classic sense. [Cries of "Divide!"] He thought that the Leader of the House, in the interests of the House, in the interests of the future of the Session, should accede to this Motion, and, above all, looking to the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to conduct themselves—[Cries of "Divide!"]—any attempt at argument was now out of the question; it was impossible to appeal to hon. Members with any prospect of consideration, for they had made up their minds not only to vote the Opposition down, but to clamour them down.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said that one argument urged for not agreeing to the adjournment was that the action of the Opposition on this Bill had been factious. [Cheers.] He had seen a good many Governments and a good many Oppositions, but he had never yet known a Government that did not complain of the Opposition as being factious. [Laughter.] Consequently that argument had no force with him. [Laughter.] So far as he was personally concerned, it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the House sat up or not, because when he wanted to go to bed he should do so. [Loud laughter.] The Leader of the House had admitted that important discussion was necessary on the 9th Clause.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

No, I did not. [Cheers.]

MR. LABOUCHERE

At all events the right hon. Gentleman would be able to conceive that a state of mind existed on that side of the House which deemed discussion necessary. [Laughter.] Well, that was a philosophic view of the matter, and the Opposition honestly and truly thought that there should be discussion. They would be quite ready to give the right hon. Gentleman the two preceding clauses if he would consent to take the 9th Clause at a later hour to-day. [Ministerial cries of "No!" and Opposition cheers.] Such a course could well be adopted without injury or delay to either public or Government business, and the right hon. Gentleman could not get up and fairly assert the contrary. Under these circumstances he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, as the guardian of the honour of the House, and as one who was always desirous of promoting good feeling among its Members, should adopt the suggestion he had just made. [Ministerial cries of "No!" and Opposition cheers.]

DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid)

rose to speak, when

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved "That the question be now put." [Ministerial cheers, and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 98.—(Division List, No. 295.)

Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes. 245.—(Division List, No. 296.)

Clause 7,—