should be dealt with on the same principle | property was now, as a matter of fact, as if it were privately owned. If the subject to contributions for local purposes. Government carried on dockyards and The principle adopted by the Department other businesses which were also carried was to send down to the different localities on by private enterprise they ought to pay their own valuers, who, to the best of rates just as if they were private indi- their ability, put on Crown property an viduals. But there was a great distinc- assessable value. The valuer made it a tion between cases of that kind, and, for rule to see the assessment committee in instance, the case of Windsor Castle. a locality, and to inquire into the general Everyone knew that the Castle did not in rating in the district, and endeavoured to any way deteriorate Windsor; the very find out what would be an adequate and fact that the Castle was there increased proper contribution to the local rates. In property all round. The population 99 cases out of 100-indeed, in 999 cases flocked to the Castle, not the Castle to out of 1,000-there was no difficulty in the population. He hoped the matter coming to an agreement with the local would be put on a fair footing; but the authority. principle should not be conceded that Government property should be handed over to an ordinary valuation tribunal or even a County Court Judge. At present they had to pay three prices for Government property; and the same principle would occur in connection with valuation. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT, Durham) before the Committee in the able considerations which it behoved the It was an was Government to bear in mind in consider MR. CROOKS (Woolwich) said the local authorities had to take what was offered, or get nothing. MR. ELLIOT said that unless there was satisfaction, he did not think they could have the present peaceful and happy state of agreement. At any rate, as a did not make any complaints against the matter of fact, the assessment committees valuations. valuations. He ventured to think that was a fair proof of the fairness with which valuations were conducted. Rating matters, no doubt, rested largely on an what a hypothetical tenant would be old law sanctified by centuries, namely, likely to give for particular premises. But there a great difficulty arose, because how could it be estimated what a for, for instance, a lunatic asylum, a hypothetical tenant was willing to offer cavalry barracks, or a submarine mine. It came to this, that they had to take one that it was a very great proof of the thing with another; and he agreed fairness of the present system that so very few complaints were received. Owing to the efforts of his hon. friend, no doubt, there had been a great change in these matters, and public property now contributed more largely to local purposes than previously. But when his hon. friend contended that not only should local property contribute to local purposes, but that the locality should decide what amount should be paid by public property, he could not agree, as it lay with the Government to maintain the balance as between the general taxpayer and the local ratepayer. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark suggested that telegraph wires were not rated in Scotland. He did not understand that that was the case. MR. CALDWELL asked on valuation they were rated. they were always arrived at because they were told the Government were prepa e d to give a certain sum and no more, and that there was no appeal. It was a case what of leave it or take it; and, of course, it was accepted with the best possible grace. MR. ELLIOT said he understood that the hon. Gentleman's complaint was that the telegraph wires were not rated at all. MR. CALDWELL said he understood that local authorities in Scotland complained that the amount was not sufficient. ригровев. MR. ELLIOT said he was sure that the hon. Gentleman understood the matter thoroughly, otherwise he would not have brought it forward; but he was informed that telegraph wires in Scotland did pay a contribution to local He did not know that he could enter into any details with regard to specific localities, such as Islington and Woolwich. He would say, however, that, with regard to Woolwich, the valuation had only recently been revised, and in any event the localities mentioned could not be regarded as neglected areas. Wherever new buildings were put up it was the business of the Government valuer to go down and value the premises. The rise in the amount paid in rates was due very largely to the increase in poundage, and also to the new and more expensive buildings the Government were always erecting or acquiring. The only object of the Government was to keep the balance fair between the general taxpayer and the local ratepayer, and anything that hon. Members could do towards that object would be welcomed by the Government and wou'd assist in securing that what was right in the matter was done. MR. CROOKS said that on this particular question he had a very varied and wide experience. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury talked of mutual agreement between the Government valuer and the local authorities. He had been chairman of an assessment committee for many years, and had been a party to many such agreements; but MR. ELLIOT said that when local authorities wrote and said they entirely agreed with the valuations, he did not. think it could be said that an agreement had been extorted from them. MR. CROOKS said that was the art of polite letter-writing. It was the duty of the clerk to a local authority to inform the Government of what had happened in the politest possible language. The argument that it was a distinct advantage to a locality to have Government buildings was pushed too far. For instance, what advantage was it to a locality to have such a building as Holloway Gaol ? He thought the Government should be put in exactly the same position as a private firm. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark said that although he was not in favour of Government property paying on full assessment, nevertheless Government telegraph wires should be fully assessed. That was the old argument of assessing everybody else. The Government should get over all these squabbles about assessment if they introduced a measure to carry out a proper permanent assessment, to which all property would be liable. At present, many people got off because they had friends on the local assessment committee. Others had to pay more because they had no friends. A post office or a police station had a right to contribute to the looal rates just as if it were in private occupation A new ammunition company which was established at Plumstead perfectly entitled to say that if Woolwich Arsenal was properly assessed they should not be called upon to pay as much as they were. Surely, it was not impossible to arrive at a proper method of assessment. It was asked why should they rate the Palace of Westminster; but if the Palace of Westminster were removed what magnificent flats could be put up, and what a large assessment they would yield. He hoped the contributions-in-aid now was would go on increasing until the Government agreed to an impartial and proper assessment. MR. WHITLEY (Halifax) said there was an item for £8,000 for rates for houses occupied by the representatives of Foreign Powers. That was £1,600 increase over last year; and he was informed that the representatives of this country in foreign countries did not have their rates paid for them. He wished to know if that was correct or not. If it was, it was curious that this country should be asked to pay the rates of foreign representatives, whereas its own representatives abroad had to pay their own rates. MR. ELLIOT said the rates remitted the houses of representatives of foreign countries were remitted according ΟΥ where remissions were given our repre sentatives abroad were similarly treated. MR. CALDWELL said he wished to move to reduce Item G-the Government contribution of £10,000 to the expenses of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade by the sum of £1,000. When this matter came before the late Mr. Hanbury he took very considerable interest in it. Now, however, London had the benefit of two sums-not only the contribution of £10,000, but also the amount paid locally on Government property. Motion made, and Question put, "That Item G be reduced by £1,000 in respect. of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade."-(Mr. Caldwell.) The Committee divided:-Ayes, 70; to a system of reciprocity. In the cases Noes, 179. (Division List No. 229.) Ashton, Thomas Gair Bolton, Thomas Dolling Broadhurst, Henry Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) Channing, Francis Allston Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Anson, Sir William Reynell Arkwright, John Stanhope Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bailey, James (Walworth) Balcarres, Lord Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Banbury, Sir Frederick George Beach, RtHn Sir Michael Hicks Bigwood, James Mr. Crooks. AYES. Jacoby, James Alfred Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Lewis, John Herbert M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj. Nussey, Thomas Willans Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Runciman, Walter Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm Churchill, Winston Spencer Cripps, Charles Alfred Davenport, William Bromley Durning Lawrence, Sir Edwin Gibbs, HnA.G.H(City of Lond Houston, Robert Paterson Pierpoint, Robert Original question put, and agreed to. And, it being after Ten of the clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of Standing Order 15, put severally the Questions That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Service Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Army, be granted for the services defined in those Classes and Estiinates. CLASS I. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES- 2. Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £133,423, be granted to His Noes, 72. Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden Anson, Sir William Reynell AYES. Arkwright, John Stanhope Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bailey, James (Walworth) Balcarres, Lord 207 Supply-Civil Services and Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r Churchill, Winston Spencer {COMMONS} Revenue Depts. Estimates. Gardner, Ernest Hornby, Sir William Henry Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-Long, Rt Hon Walter(BristolS.) Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC. Doughty, George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Duke, Henry Edward Durning-Lawrence. Sir, Edwin Elliot, йn. A. Ralph Douglas Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.) Faber, George Denison (York) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Fergusson, Rt. HnSirJ. (Manc'r Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Flannery, Sir Fortescue Flower, Ernest Forster, Henry William Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick,SW) Fyler, John Arthur Galloway, William Johnson Asher, Alexander Bolton, Thomas Dolling Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Lowe, Francis William Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Lowther, Rt. Hon.James(Kent) Macdona, John Cumming Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W Milvain, Thomas Molesworth, Sir Lewis Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamstow Moriell, George Herbert Mount, William Arthur Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath) NOES. Cawley, Frederick Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles 208 Nicholson, William Graham Pierpont, Robert Rattigan, Sir William Henry Ritchie, Kt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier TELLERS FOR THE AYES Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther. Fuller, J. M. F. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- |