tentions of Parliament. They simply | cate under what circumstances the rent asked that this Bill should be put be- was to be taken as a criterion. Moreyond the possibility of dispute, and that over, if the expression rent was substithe intentions of the Chancellor of the tuted for annual value, they would not Exchequer and the Government in that subject the tenant farmer to the amount House should be given effect to. It of Income Tax that they desired to subseemed to him to be absolutely impos-ject him to. Exception had been taken sible for anyone who had listened to the discussion to say that the Bill accurately represented the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of Parliament with regard to the mode of assessing the Income Tax upon farmers. Under these circumstances, they desired, not in the slightest degree for the sake of obstruction of Public Business, but with a view to facilitate it, to be allowed to report Progress. On another occasion, perhaps, the Attorney General would be able to inform them that what they knew to be the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of Parliament were carried into effect beyond the possibility of doubt.

MR. W. HOLMS moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."-(Mr. William Holms.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) wished to say a few words with regard to this question, which he admitted to be one of considerable importance. The opinion he expressed a few moments ago he still desired to adhere to-namely, that the rent paid did not absolutely represent the annual value. No doubt, the Interpretation Clause in the former Act, to which attention had been drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must be considered; but there might be cases in which that did not entirely set the matter at rest. In some instances, rent did not represent the annual value; and it would be impossible to alter the Bill to make it assume another and a dif

to an answer of his given to a Question put some time ago. He had been taken severely to task for that answer, which had been stigmatized as entirely erroneous. At the time he made that answer, he looked into the question as carefully as he could, and he consulted others more competent than himself in the matter. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the matter, they would find that the answer which he gave was perfectly accurate. He was desirous of satisfying hon. Members fully upon the subject. But it was said that the answer which he gave upon a question of law was entirely erroneous. The question was whether, if a tenant farmer could establish that he had made less profits than had he any remedy? He answered, in the amount upon which he was taxed, reference to the provisions of the Statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 12-an Act passed subsequent to the similar Statute in 1851what he thought would take place. He would draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of section 3 of that Act, which seemed to him to be perfectly plain and distinct. The section of the Act ran thus

"That if at the end of the year of assessment of the said duties under this Act, any person occupying lands for the purposes of husbandry only, and obtaining his livelihood principally from husbandry, who shall have been assessed in the said year to the duties chargeable under Schedule B of the said first recited Act in respect of such lands shall find and shall prove whom the assessment was made, that his profits to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by and gains arising from the occupation of such lands during the said year fall short of the sum on which the assessment was made, it shall be made to them in that behalf within three calenlawful for the said Commissioners, upon appeal dar months after the expiration of the said year and of which notice in writing shall be given to the Surveyor of Taxes for the district, to

cause an abatement to be made from the amount of the said duties charged on such appellant ferent form from what it now did, in proportionate to the deficiency of his said profits order to make that intelligible. It would and gains; and in case the whole sum assessed not be accurate to use the expression shall have been paid, the amount of the sum rent instead of annual value; because if overpaid shall be certified and repaid in like they used the expression rent instead of said first recited Act in the case of any overmanner as is provided by Section 133 of the annual value, they would use a mislead-payment of the duties assessed under Schedule ing term for rent, and would not indi- D of the same Act." VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

3 D

Committee report Progress; to sit for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the again upon Thursday.

*

the sea.

that no stations were erected on the line;
that the accommodation which was to be
given to Ipswich was something more
than a mile off from where it was to
have been; and that the final station
was in the middle of an agricultural
district, a couple of miles out towards
A deputation then waited
upon the Board of Trade.
The deputa-
tion consisted of the Members for the
Eastern Division of Suffolk, the town of
Ipswich, the hon. and learned Member
for the County of Cambridge (Mr. Rod-
well), who thoroughly knew the locality,
various mayors and ex-mayors, of Ips-

Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation [176]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.) * [151]. Third Reading-Local Government Provisional Orders (Castleton by Rochdale, &c.) [160]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Killarney, &c.) [178]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brighton and Preston, &c.) * [177]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) [176]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cashel, &c.) [141]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Downpatrick) * [140]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment [184]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Matterdale Common) * [171]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Redmoor and Golberdon Com-wich; and, what was still more striking, it mons) [172]; Inclosure Provisional Order (East Stainmore Common) [174], and passed. The House met at Two of the clock.

**

*

was accompanied by the country rectors of all the parishes, while no other inhabitants besides the rectors were asked to go with the deputation. The Board of Trade stated, in reply to the representations made to them, that they extremely regretted that they had not the power to

FELIXSTOWE RAILWAY AND PIER interfere; that the Act was passed, and BILL [Lords] (by Order).

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

that their only power was to see that the line was constructed in a manner consistent with the safety of the public.

Motion made, and Question proposed, Beyond that, they had no power what

"That the Bill be now read a second time."

COLONEL JERVIS, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months, said, he regetted that it was his duty to object to the second reading of the Bill. In 1874, a Bill was introduced for the construction of a railway from Ipswich to the sea coast on the east side. That Bill was not approved by Parliament, on the ground that it gave no accommodation whatever to the district through which it was proposed that the line should pass. In 1875, a fresh Bill was brought in, with a new plan; and a railway was to be made which was to give the fullest accommodation to the whole of the district. A number of witnesseswere brought up from the County of Suffolk and from the town of Ipswich, including mayors and ex-mayors, solicitors, traders, and others, who gave evidence that the line, as then proposed, would give the fullest accommodation to the district; and on the strength of the evidence given before the Committee, Parliament approved of the Bill. But before the line was completed, it was disputed by an Inspector sent down from the Board of Trade, who found

ever. It was also found that the Railway Commissioners had no power to interfere in the case; and, therefore, it was deemed advisable to wait until the Company came forward for additional powers, or to obtain fresh capital. The Company now came to Parliament for that purpose, and he must say that when a Company had taken such extreme liberty with the Forms of the House as to obtain an Act of Parliament under the plea of giving accommodation to the public, and then to prevent any accommodation being given to the district, it became his duty, for that and other reasons which it was not necessary now to enter into, to ask the House to inquire into the matter, and to interfere. He had brought the matter under the notice of the Board of Trade, and they had agreed to undertake, in the event of a clause being inserted in the Bill, to ascertain what stations were required and what accommodation ought to be given to the district. If the promoters of the Bill were willing to accept such a clause, and to allow the matter to be settled by the Board of Trade on behalf of the public, he would not further oppose the second reading of the Bill; but if they refused to accept such a clause, he should certainly divide the House

against the second reading of the Bill. I more fair, and he could not conceive He had felt it his duty to bring the circum- upon what ground the promoters of the stances of the case under the notice of Bill could decline to entertain the prothe House. During the 20 years he had posal of his hon. and gallant Friend, been a Member of the House he had that the Board of Trade should be the never known a similar case. He had parties to say what, in the interests of appealed to every official of the House, the public, was required. He underand to some of the most learned counsel stood that if the promoters assented who had been in the habit of practising to this course, his hon. and gallant at the Parliamentary Bar upstairs, and Friend would withdraw the proposition they all told him they never remembered he had made for the rejection of the a similar case-where a railway had Bill. He (Mr. Rodwell) took part in the been obtained under the pretence of matter simply upon public grounds. He benefiting the public, but where every was well acquainted with the locality, attempt had been made to prevent the and he knew the line; and he thought public from obtaining any accommoda- it was a great scandal that the public tion whatever. He begged to move the did not possess the accommodation which Amendment of which he had given they so well deserved, which was agreed Notice. to be given to them, and on the faith of which the Bill was originally granted.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."-(Colonel Jervis.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. RODWELL said, he should like, as he had been interested in the question before, and as he had attended the deputation to which his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Jervis) had alluded to, to state that he entirely concurred in what his hon. and gallant Friend had stated. While he disclaimed any intention of throwing an obstacle in the way of the passing of the Bill, he thought, on public grounds, that this was a legiti- | mate opportunity for the House of Commons to interpose, and to ask that the accommodation which was promised to the public should be given to them. It was a well-understood rule that when the promoters of a Bill came to Parliament for an extension of time, or for power to increase their capital, they brought the whole of their proceedings under the review of some tribunal. The only tribunal in this case was the House of Commons. The Board of Trade was powerless in the matter, and the Railway Commissioners were equally powerless. Up to the present stage, the promoters of the Bill had defied the public. They were now obliged to ask for fresh powers, and, without going further into details, he thought the House would do well to see that the Company now gave proper accommodation to the public. Nothing could be more reasonable or

MR. RAIKES said, the course which had been taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Colonel Jervis) might form a sound and useful precedent, though he hoped that he would not persevere with his Motion to throw out the Bill. It should be well understood by all those who were interested in railway management that when a Company came to that House for an extension of the privileges and powers which Parliament had already granted to them, they must be prepared to submit their conduct generally to the review of Parliament, and to challenge any judgment which Parliament might think fit to exercise as to the way in which they had used their powers up to the present time. But he confessed that, with regard to this particular Bill, he thought the object which the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), had at heart would be best accomplished by allowing the Bill to be read a second time, care being taken in Committee to consider the objections which had been raised. But none the less was it desirable that, where a Railway Company almost avowedly neglected the purposes for which it was created, exception at the proper time should be taken in Parliament against its proceedings. With regard to this particular railway, he understood that it went almost from nowhere to nowhere; that instead of starting from the town of Ipswich, which was a large and important town, and connecting it with the rising watering place of Felixstowe, it started from