Committee. He must say also that he regarded the Amendment with some suspicion; for, in his own mind, he did not see that it was one which would recommend itself to the owners of real property. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to entirely disorganize and unsettle the existing arrangements for the assessment of real property. There was one point upon which he felt some regret, because the subject was rather a "hobby" of his. He was sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. SclaterBooth) had not done anything for the better assessment of railways. There was a clause in the Bill, truly, which authorized the calling in of a professional man in those cases; but it was very obvious that railway property had now become so enormous and important that it could hardly be assessed in the same way as ordinary property. He could not help thinking, therefore, that opportunities should be given to call in a professional valuer who would make a professional survey of all railway property in his county, and thus afford substantial data on that subject, which, under present conditions, must be only a matter of conjecture. Friend the Member for the City of London thought that was a fair opportunity for discussing that grievance of which he thought he had a right to complain. Though his right hon. Friend had a perfect right to bring forward this question, yet the second reading of this Bill was not the proper time to do so. [“No, no!"] He saw his right hon. Friend did not agree to that; but this question was essentially one for the Committee. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not going to argue that question; but he thought the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire did deserve some consideration namely, that whereas the income tax was levied upon the gross value, ought not the whole of the taxes to be levied upon the gross also? He believed it was so in Scotland, except as regarded the poor rate. But one thing he thought no one would denyall these taxes ought for the future to be placed on the same footing. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made an important statement on the question of rent. He believed that subject to be at the bottom of the Bill; for if rent was to be a criterion, they might depend upon getSIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT ting very much nearer to the value of thought that they must congratulate property than had ever been done be the right hon. Gentleman the President fore. What was wanted was to strengthen of the Local Government Board for the hands of the county authorities so having introduced this measure, framed that the whole of these modes of assessas it was very much in accordance with ment might be looked into, and thus the principles laid down last year in enable them to place all the rates of the Committee. He sympathized with the different Unions in the county on the right hon. Member for the City of Lon- same footing. What people objected don (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), and he thought to was the difference in the mode of the House generally sympathized with assessment in the various Unions which him in the Motion he had made; but he now existed. He hoped his right could not agree with his hon. Friend hon. Friend the President of the Local the Member for South Leicestershire Government Board might have fair (Mr. Pell), who suggested that there treatment in the consideration of the was no necessity for bringing forward Bill. He certainly did not think these this question. The hon. Member knew Bills-which were of very great interest perfectly well probably no other to the counties and of very large imhon. Member in the House knew portance-obtained a fair share of the so well—the difference between the assessment for the income tax, the county rate, and that for the poor rate. They were three distinct and different modes of assessment. Therefore, when the President of the Local Government Board brought in his Bill, which was to assimilate and place exactly on the same footing these different assessments, naturally his right hon. time and attention of the House, and he also was of opinion that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board did not obtain from the Government the opportunities accorded to other Departments, which the great and varied interest intrusted to his charge demanded. MR. HIBBERT said, he did not agree that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) was wrong | hon. Member who had last spoken, but in bringing forward his Amendment at they must bear in mind that this Bill the present time. He (Mr. Hibbert) was not a final measure, but only a prewas of opinion that it would have been liminary to one dealing with County entirely out of place in Committee, Boards. The hon. Member for South though he sympathized with the views Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) raised a very of his right hon. Friend. He was sure serious question. If the hon. Gentleno tax could be levied more unfairly and man thought he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) unjustly than a house and land tax upon could settle this question of the rating the gross value. The question was one of railways by a clause in a Valuaof great difficulty, for if the Amendment tion Bill, then the hon. Gentleman was were carried, the Chancellor of the Ex- a much more sanguine man than he. If chequer would be placed in a very awk- every hon. Member representing a parward position in making an income tax ticular class of property were to bring upon England, Scotland, and Ireland, forward a clause to provide for the spethere being a different system of assess- cial valuation of that property, he asked ment in each Kingdom. He should like when was this Bill to pass? It would to see the whole matter as affecting the be extremely unfair towards the Bill. three Kingdoms considered by the Chan- Let the Bill pass, however, and he cellor of the Exchequer, with a view of should be most happy to produce a placing the tax upon a much more fair Rating Bill which would deal with all and reasonable footing. The Amend- the questions not contained in this Bill. ment would only apply to England. He He trusted that after the debate on this hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. question referring to England, the hon. J. G. Hubbard) would be satisfied with Member (Mr. Ramsay) would not atthe discussion which had taken place, tempt to delay the progress of the meaand not press the Amendment to a Divi- sure. sion. There were some alterations which would make the Bill much more accept able in Lancashire namely, greater assessment boards were proposed to be left out. In Lancashire, which was thickly populated, the difficulty was not so much felt, but there were counties in which there were five or six greater assessment boards with five or six different authorities outside the county authorities, and it was impossible under those circumstances to have anything approaching uniformity. He had put down a Question the previous evening on the subject of the valuation of mines. Though he did not say it was a perfectly simple matter, he thought it would prove not so difficult as it was supposed to be. He trusted that when the Bill was in Committee his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles) would introduce a plan on some definite system for valuing mines. At present in some counties there were three or four systems for valuing mines, which naturally gave rise to great difficulties in the assessment of that kind of property. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he would not trespass long on the patience of the House, but he thought there were two or three questions to which he might refer. He did not at all deny that he sympathized with the remarks of the MR. BIGGAR said, he was not informed whether the right hon. Member the Mover of the first Amendment would proceed with it or not. With regard to the Bill, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had tried to bring it forward on a former occasion, when he was counted out. That, of course, was very unpleasant; but now the right hon. Gentleman had placed hon. Members in that position that he was bound to get a hearing for the Motion. He could not imagine that any person could depend upon the principle that a ratepayer was bound to pay taxes on the actual value of that which he occupied or received rent for. As regarded rateable property, a fair and honest principle was that of a certain reduction from the gross value on account of the many different deductions which had to come off in proportion to the amount for waste. The result was under the former system, that in the case of the income tax an unfortunate occupier really paid from 20 to 50 per cent more than he actually put in his pocket. He could not believe that such a principle could be upheld, and he thought this was the opportunity for deciding the question as to whether the income tax should be paid on the gross value or on what the income really was. For that reason he thought the House would do well to support the Amendment. ASSIZES BILL.-[BILL 83.] (Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Assheton Cross.) THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill do pass."-(Sir Matthew Ridley.) MR. COLE, in moving the Adjournment of the Debate, said, that he should like to know the nature of the Amendments to be proposed. He had a strong objection to the Bill as it stood, and he opposed it on several grounds. It was supposed to be a great advantage to prisoners; but he certainly thought, in that respect, it was no advantage at all. Under the Bill, which grouped several counties, it was impossible for pri soners to bring their witnesses to the place where they were to be tried. For instance, prisoners were brought from the Land's End to be tried at Exeter, the result being that persons not having large means were completely debarred from bringing their witnesses up to the Assizes. MR. RAMSAY said, he should be very sorry to do anything in the way of obstruction; but he would state in a few words his objections to the Bill in its present form. He found that in this Bill there was no alteration of the existing law, under which it was admitted on all hands that the diversity of the rating was very great indeed. He thought that any plan which would make the principle the same in England as in Scotland would be an improvement. It was said that the circumstances were somewhat different in England; but he was not aware of any one principle of difference between the relations of property in England and those in Scotland. If a tenant took a farm, the rent payable was accepted as the sole criterion of value, and he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was prepared to accept rent as the real criterion. If an owner be the occupier in Scotland, then the rent was taken to be the letting value to a tenant. The Valuation Act of 1854 provided that occupiers and proprietors should be bound to give an account of the rent paid to the owner, and in that way each parish in Scotland was provided with a uniform system of valuation; but the result of the present law in England was that in every parish there was a different mode of assessment. The result of the passing of the Valuation Act for Scotland was that whereas in the 12 years preceding the passing of that Act the valuation of the county in which he resided had only increased £11,000, in the first valuation under the Act the increase was £34,000 in the one year. And it had continued to increase every year since, having ad-over by the committing justices. Again, vanced from £291,236 in 1855-6 to £449,082 in the year 1878-9. He had statistics on the subject, which, if time permitted, he should have wished to have brought before the attention of the House; but, under the circumstances, he would briefly state that he did not believe the Bill as it then stood would secure that uniform valuation which it was expected to do. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. That, he thought, was a very great hardship; and, instead of assisting prisoners, he thought it the reverse. If prisoners were obliged to bring up their witnesses from the extreme ends of the counties, then the expense of so doing ought to be paid by the Government. He should wish to move the insertion of a clause that it should be in the power and discretion of the Judges to allow the expenses of those witnesses. That was not so in the Bill, expenses only being allowed in the case of witnesses bound why were jurymen taken from one county to try all the prisoners for three counties? It was very hard upon the sheriff of the county to have to provide for the trial of prisoners from three counties, instead of those from his own particular county, and it was also very hard upon the grand jurors of the county in which the Assizes was held. Then, again, another extraordinary provision was, that the sheriff of the county in which the trial was held had to attend the hanging of prisoners capitally convicted coming from the counties grouped with his own county. That was the effect of Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1877 where judgment of death has been passed on any convict at any assize, the judgment may be carried into effect in any prison in which the convict was confined for safe custody prior to his removal for trial and that the sheriff of the county for which such assizes were held shall be charged with the execution of that judgment, and shall for that purpose have the same jurisdiction and powers, and be subject to the same duties in the prison in which the judgment is to be carried into execution, although such prison is not situate within his county, as he has by law with respect to the common gaol of his county, or would have had if the Prison Act, 1865, and the Prison Act, 1877, had not passed." the section, which was very plain. The tary had promised that the House should section saidhave an opportunity of discussing the general question on a future occasion, which would be much better than to attempt to discuss a question of so much complication and importance on the third reading of a Bill intended to remedy a temporary difficulty. He thought the subject was worthy of the consideration of the House. He believed that in many counties grand jurors had made representations against the plan of holding four Assizes a-year, many of them saying three times were sufficient, while some thought two Assizes were sufficient in many places. While expressing no opinion on this question, he thought the mind of the country was not made up on the subject, and that the House should, therefore, have the opportunity for discussing the question in all its bearings. Therefore, the result was perfectly clear that if a prisoner was sentenced to be executed he returned to the prison within which he was confined before he was tried, and the sheriff attending the Assize had to be present at the execution. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shook his head; but he (Mr. Cole) thought it was clear, on a proper construction of the section, that the sheriff of the county in which the Assizes were held for the three or four counties comprised within the group must attend the hanging of every prisoner from any and all of those counties. It was so, indeed; and he therefore submitted that that section required very careful consideration and amendment. He undertook to say that no lawyer could read that 3rd section without coming to his conclusion. MR. J. W. BARCLAY seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Mr. Cole.) MR. MORGAN LLOYD said, the subject was of very great importance, and one which ought to be fully discussed by the House. He thought, however, the present was not a convenient opportunity for doing so. There was a necessity for the passing of the Bill on account of the Assizes to be held in April | next, which, though intended for the trial of prisoners only, would be held in every county, unless the Bill became law before that time. He hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cole) would withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to pass. The Home Secre VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he quite agreed with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). He thought that the whole question as to the holding of the Assizes was one on which the judgment of the House should be deliberately asked at some future Sitting. The arrangement, which at that moment was almost concluded, and had received the sanction of the Judges, was that the Assizes were fixed for the 22nd April, and that arrangement being settled for this year, at all events, the only question was whether the Judges were to go to every single place, although there might be only one or two prisoners, or whether the system which had hitherto been carried out, of grouping one or two counties together, should be adopted. Therefore, it would not be possible to take the general discussion upon the matter at the present time, though he quite agreed with the Mover of the adjournment as to the desirability of discussion. The Bill would never have been brought forward unless it had been to endeavour by it to avoid a great waste of time and trouble to all the sheriffs and Judges, who, if the Bill were not passed, would have to go to every town and Assize county. That being so, he hoped the House would consent to the third reading of the Bill, in order that the Government might be allowed to obtain an Order in Council for the settlement of the Assize in April as proposed. The only Amendment of the Bill was a prac 3 U tical one to insure the holding of two different Assizes in each separate county annually. The object of the 3rd clause was simply to provide for extreme cases. In some of the Welsh counties it was no longer thought necessary that there should be a gaol in each county capital -that was the general opinion of the Welsh counties. The sole object of the 3rd clause was to enable the sheriff of the county to which a condemned prisoner belonged, where there was no gaol, to attend the execution in the adjoining county where there was a gaol. Under the old system, the sheriff of the county to which the prisoner belonged, where there was no gaol, would not have had the right to attend the execution in the prison of an adjoining county under the new Prisons Act. The clause was simply intended to give the sheriff of the county to which the prisoner belonged the right of being present at the execution in whatever gaol to which the prisoner might be sent in default of there being a gaol in his own county. There was no intention, under the clause, to compel the attend. ance of the sheriffs of the county in which the Assizes were held at the exe cution of prisoners from foreign counties. If, however, on consideration it was found that the clause required any alteration the more clearly to express that view, he would see that some word should be inserted in the other House. MR. HERSCHELL said, with reference to the groupings of counties, the system of taking adjoining counties, and grouping them, would, no doubt, be convenient for some people; but in cases it would be more advantageous for everybody prisoners included to group them, not simply because they were adjoining counties, but with a due regard to the facilities some of communication between the various Assize towns and districts. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, if he understood his hon. and learned Friend, his suggestion was that the groupings should be arranged on a basis of Brad shaw. MR. COLE said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. SELECT VESTRIES BILL.-[BILL 54.] (Mr. James, Mr. Herschell, Mr. Joseph Cowen.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. W. H. JAMES, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it provided for the nomination of the overseers of particular districts by any independent ratepayers in the place of the members of a customary He had been anxious a year ago to vestry who were co-optatively elected. obtain a Return from the Local Govern ment Board, in order to show how many where an overseer received his nomina- lived at a considerable distance. The origin of the select vestry by usage was at a time when the whole of their parochial affairs relating to civil government were in the hands of ecclesiastics. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." (Mr. James.) MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he was always reluctant to oppose a Bill promoted by a private Member, as he |