REPORT OF AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 26 June 1879)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
objected to the existing machinery for the valuation of lands being upset in the way proposed by the Bill—the proposed alteration, as he understood, simply met the convenience of one county. The present system worked satisfactorily in most counties; and he did not see why the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) should propose to take away the powers of the Commissioners of Supply, and delegate them to a small Committee, from which there was no appeal to the general body. He would move an Amendment to leave out, after the word "Scotland," in Clause 4, and to insert the word "may," the effect of which would be to make the measure permissive instead of compulsory.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said, that although the point might seem a very simple one, it was of importance to Scotland. He entirely agreed with the objections that had been raised by his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie), and thought it was an utterly unprecedented thing for a decision of a Committee to be held final without any Report to the body that appointed it. He did not propose that the Committee should be obliged to report to the Commissioners of Supply, because that would only add to what was already a complicated business. The business of valuation occupied much time, and might be much more conveniently transacted by a Committee than by the whole body; but he thought the Commissioners should have a voice so as to be able to say whether they concurred in the action of the Committee.
683 In regard to some of the counties of Scotland, where the Commissioners of Supply were very numerous, no doubt, it might be an advantage to appoint a Committee; but in other counties, where the Commissioners were not too numerous to form a working body, it was a hardship to delegate their powers to a Committee. He hoped the House would not allow the whole object of the Bill to be defeated at this last stage.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
thought his noble Friend was making a mountain out of a molehill. The Bill was not introduced for the benefit of one county; it was to suit the case of almost every county but the one for which the noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) had spoken. The Bill had gone through the other House, where it met with no opposition. It was not in any sense antagonistic to the Commissioners of Supply. On the contrary, the Bill was simply to enable the general body of the Commissioners in each county to appoint a Committee of from five to 20 of their number to consider all questions of valuation, and if the parties affected were not satisfied, they would be able to appeal to two Judges of the Court of Session.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
thought the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie), if he entertained such strong objections to the Bill, should have brought them forward at an earlier stage. It seemed to him that if the Amendment were carried it would upset the whole Bill. The Commissioners of Supply, instead of being put on one side by this Bill, had the appointment of the Committee; which was much better than having the business done in very large, and sometimes tumultuous, meetings, which were not conducive to the proper treatment of such matters.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, he did not agree in the remarks of the noble Duke. When the Bill was in Committee, their Lordships were not so well acquainted with its provisions as they were now. The proposal of the Bill was that the Commissioners of Supply should annually appoint from among themselves a Committee to consist of not less than five or more than 20; to this Committee was intrusted the hearing and determination of all appeals which could be heard and determined by the general body; and their determination 684 was for all purposes to be deemed the determination of the Commissioners of Supply, by whom it was appointed. He shared the objection of his noble Friend behind him to this arrangement, and should vote for his Amendment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
explained, that the reason why he did not raise the question on the second reading was because the attention of their Lordships was not called to the provisions of the Bill on that stage of it.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said, that the reason why he did not go through all the provisions of the Bill on the second reading was because there were only two Peers besides himself in the House at the time.

§ THE EARL OF STAIR
said, he disapproved of the Bill altogether, and thought it would be better to let well alone. But he should vote for the Amendment, as the process of having to appeal to the Court of Session was a disagreeable one.
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF ALRLIE
said, be would not, after this Division, proceed with the other Amendments of which he had given Notice. He would, however, say that in the Division all the Scotchmen in the House, except the noble Duke the Lord President, and the noble Earl the Mover of the Bill, had voted for the Amendment. He should take the sense of the House upon it again when the Bill reached its next stage.

CONTENTS.
Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Blantyre, L.
	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
	de Ros, L.
Richmond, D.	Forester, L.
	Gordon of Drumearn, L. [Teller.]
De La Warr, E.
Dundonald, E.	Harlech, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Nelson, E.
Stanhope, E.	Inchiquin, L.
Stradbroke, E.	Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.)
	Skelmersdale, L.
Cranbrook, V.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]
Hawarden, V.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Winmarleigh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Airlie, E. [Teller.]	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Camperdown, E.
Northbrook, E.	Leigh, L.
Strathmore and King-horn, E. [Teller.]	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)