asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is not the usual practice, where salmon fishings on the sea coast belong to the Crown, to offer the refusal of the lease of such fishings to parties interested in the property immediately adjoining; whether the lease of salmon fishings on the sea coast ex adverso of the burgh of Crail is not at present, or has not until lately been in accordance with the said practice, vested in the hands of the municipal authorities of that burgh; whether an application for the renewal of such lease has been peremptorily refused to the said municipality; if so, whether he will state the reason for such refusal, and whether and to whom such fishings have been otherwise privately disposed of; and, whether he has any objection to produce the Correspondence upon this subject?

It has been, Sir, the usual practice, as a matter of courtesy to individuals and of convenience to the Department, where salmon fishings on the sea coast belong to the Crown, to offer the refusal of the lease of such fishings to the ex adverse proprietors, but not, as stated in the Question, to parties merely interested in the property immediately adjoining. The salmon fishings on the sea coast, ex adverso of the burgh of Crail, are at present under lease to the municipal authorities. An application, however, for the renewal of the lease to the municipality has been declined, because it was considered that it would be better for the interests of the Crown and the public to let the fishings, with other adjoining fishings extending for some miles along the coast, to a practical salmon-fisher, the sea frontage within the limits of the burgh of Crail being too narrow to admit of a separate fishery being established there to advantage. The fishings along a considerable extent of coast have accordingly been let to Messrs. Johnston and Sons, salmon-fishers, who at present rent the fishings from the sub-tenant, to whom the burgh let them. It would be quite unusual to produce Correspondence on such a subject.

I want to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that, as a general rule, proprietors of land ex adverso of the seashore, ought to have the refusal of the salmon fishing belonging to the Crown on such shore, and that where a different course is proposed to be taken, due notice should be given to such proprietors, in order that they might have full opportunity for representing their cases to the proper Department?

I am not prepared to answer the Question at this moment, though I may say I consider that in this ease, ample justice has been done to all parties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state to the House the reasons why a request, made on 21st of April last, in conformity with Clause 6 of the Act of 24 & 25 Vic. c. 70, for an Inspector to be sent to report upon the capabilities of certain bridges in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire to carry locomotive engines, remained unnoticed for seven weeks; and, on what grounds, or under the provisions of what Act, the person making the request was required by the Under Secretary to give an undertaking to the Home Department to pay all expenses incurred by such Inspector?

Although, Sir, the Act has been in operation since 1861, this is the first case which has arisen under the section referred to. The delay has arisen from the necessity of ascertaining the facts from the surveyor of the bridges in the first instance, and then of communicating with the Board of Trade as to the appointment of a person to make the inspection. So much time, however, would not have been spent if the applicant had correctly stated the names and addresses of the surveyors against whose notices he appealed. As to the second part of the Question the Act provides, with the view of securing an impartial arbitrator, that the question shall be determined by an officer to be appointed, on the application of either party, by the Secretary of State; but it makes no provision as to the payment of the officer's expenses. The matter is one of purely local concern, and the costs ought to be paid by the parties interested.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is owing to the financial difficulties in the Post Office this year that telegraph works in rural districts which had been sanctioned and promised have been stopped; and, if so, when the public may expect them to be resumed?

Sir, pending the consideration of the questions now before the Committee on Public Accounts, the telegraph extensions in rural districts have been suspended. It cannot at present be stated when they will be resumed.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the buoy which was formerly placed on the Platte Bone Rock, near the Island of Guernsey, has been removed, and, if so, when, and by whose orders; whether the said buoy still appears in the latest editions of the Admiralty Charts; and, whether any notification of the removal of the said buoy was issued by the Admiralty previous to the loss on the Platte Bone Rock of the steamer "Waverley," on the night of the 4th of June?

in reply, said, that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction over buoys, except in the ease of the dockyards. The buoy in question had been removed at the suggestion of the local authorities, inasmuch as it had so frequently been washed away, that there was no reliance to be placed on it. The removal of the buoy was notified to the Admiralty on the 26th of May, before the loss of the Waverley, and it had been replaced by beacons, and that was all the information he was possessed of on the subject. Notice of the change had been given to the channel pilotage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Law of Homicide in general, or that portion of it which relates to Infanticide?

in reply, said, that a Bill on the subject was prepared and he should be very glad to introduce it. It would not be well to do so, however, he thought, unless there was some probability of passing it, and as to that he could say nothing with certainty in the present state of Public Business.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the recent Convention between Austria, Italy, and Germany, abolishing the visitation of passengers' luggage at their respective frontiers; and if Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of extending this convenience by similar Conventions with France and Belgium?

I believe, Sir, that a notification has appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that a Convention has been made between Austria, Italy, and Germany, abolishing the visitation of passengers' luggage at their respective frontiers; but no communication has been made on the subject to Her Majesty Government from the Governments of the countries in question with respect to its provisions. Under those circumstances I could not undertake to say whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make any proposals on this point to the Governments of France and Belgium.

in rising to move that the House do adjourn this day at the close of the Morning Sitting, said, it might be convenient, as some portion of the House might desire to attend on Monday and Tuesday next, that he should state what was the Business which it was proposed to take on those days. It was proposed to proceed with Committee of Supply, taking the Army Estimates first on Monday, and secondly, the Education Vote; after that, if there was time, with the Lords' Amendments to the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, and the Valuation (Ireland) Bill. On Tuesday morning it was proposed that they should proceed with the Intestacy Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King), the principle of which had been already sanctioned by the House, and which now stood for Second Reading; then with the Canada Loan Bill the Valuation (Ireland) Bill, if not disposed of on Monday night, and the Juries Bill.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had shown every desire to suit the convenience of the House; but he thought it would be well not to take the Army Estimates on Monday, as many hon. Members who would wish to discuss them would not be able conveniently to attend on that day. He would also put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would not reconsider his proposal to take a Bill of such importance as the Intestacy Bill on Tuesday morning?

asked when the Judicature Bill would be again submitted to the House?

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) that it was a choice of evils on the part of the Government, who would be very sorry to inflict inconvenience on any hon. Gentleman in the discussion on the Army Estimates. But as the greatest happiness of the greatest number was the rule of action generally, so the smallest unhappiness of the smallest number was the rule which the Government endeavoured to adopt on this occasion. It was on that ground that they had come to the conclusion that the Army Estimates would be best discussed on Monday. With regard to Tuesday, there was the Judicature Bill, which might go into Committee, and the Juries Bill, the Committee on which might be continued, but with respect to which he was confident that the difficulty raised the other night with respect to local taxation had boon removed out of the way. The observation of the Government had been, that both these Bills were measures in which a large number of the House took an interest, and the discussion of which they would desire to attend; and the Government had endeavoured to arrive at the best judgment they could.

again expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed with the Army Estimates on Monday.

said, he trusted that the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill would not be brought on after 12 o'clock, or at an hour when it could not be discussed.

said, it was the intention of the Government to bring on the Bill at such a time as would enable the House to discuss it.

said, he did not object to the Order of Business on Monday, but he objected to the arrangement which had been made for Tuesday.

said, he strongly objected to proceeding with so important a Bill as the Intestacy Bill on Tuesday morning.

said, he should be glad to receive any suggestions from hon. Members. Perhaps it would be more agreeable to the House if he were to propose to take the Canada Loan Bill first on Tuesday and the Valuation (Ireland) Bill second, and if the two measures did not consume the whole day they might then perhaps proceed with the Juries Bill.

rose to move, as an addition to the Amendment, the following words:—"In the case of any mill or manufactory or building used for any such purpose." He said the Amendment would bring the law of England into harmony with that of Ireland, and that was a thing which was extremely desirable.

said, he thought it was desirable that the Committee should know exactly their position upon the question immediately at issue. There seemed to be an impression in some minds that the 13th clause altered the law, and in some respects narrowed the exemption of stock in trade. The simple effect of Clause 13, however, was to repeal the 2 & 3 Vict., c. 87, s. 2, which made the exemption of stock in trade temporary, thus leaving it a permanent exemption. The result was, as he contended, that the Bill before the House did not alter the present law of rating machinery, while the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), modified, as it would be, to some extent by that of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell), would really alter the law and introduce changes the results of which could not be foreseen at present. He would be very sorry indeed to vote against the Amendment, because he wished to be in no way committed against its object; but it was surrounded at present with difficulties which would require the most careful consideration, and if the Amendment was pressed to a division, he would be compelled on the part of the Government to oppose it, because he could not pledge the Government to the terms suggested, though at another time his mind would be open on the subject. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would be content for the present to leave the question an open one. He urged that more especially, because the Amendment was really foreign to the immediate object of this Bill.

said, he could not consent to withdraw his Amendment, which he considered to be directly ger- mane to the object of the Bill, and. if the question was to be settled at all that was the proper time to do so. His Amendment was nothing more than an attempt to define what was and what was not stock in trade, and to explain an apparent contradiction of the law. A man was rated in respect of his occupation of an hereditament, and the Courts had held that the hereditament was to include whatever was attached to the freehold. The exigencies of commerce, however, had introduced machines which required attachment in order to give them stability, and hereupon the Courts held that machinery affixed to the hereditament by a large bolt was rateable, while a loom screwed to the floor was not an attachment to the freehold, and was not rateable. He did not wish to throw obstacles in the way of the progress of the Bill, but unless it was distinctly understood that the whole question should be fully considered, and a discussion allowed on the Amendment, or addition to the clause on the bringing up of the Report, he felt bound, in honour to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, to take a division at the present stage.

believed that the effect of the Amendment, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) if carried, would be to introduce great confusion in the administration of the law instead of to simplify matters. As the law now stood, it was not the machinery that was rated, but the whole of the property as enhanced in value by the machinery—the fixed machinery. The Amendment proposed to get rid of all that. ["No, no!"] It was proposed by the Amendment to rate "all machines by which motive power was generated or transmitted." It was said that the object of the Amendment was to make clear what machinery or portions of machinery should be rated; but it was difficult, if not impossible, to lay down any distinct rules on the subject. The question was one not so much of law as of fact, which must be decided on its merits in each case.

thought some better rule should be laid down as to what machinery was and what was not rateable. It was not fair towards either the Courts or the ratepayers that matters should be left as they were, for the present state of the law was as bad as it could be. The rule proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would be a great improvement. No less machinery would be rated under it than was rated at present.

hoped the question would be deferred till the Report, in order that some better definition might be introduced.

would vote against the Amendment. If the words proposed by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) were merely intended to define stock in trade, they were wholly unnecessary; but if it were intended by these words to exclude machinery fixed to the soil, which, although it was not rateable per se, was rateable indirectly, because it enhanced the valuation of the soil, then it was a most objectionable proceeding, seeing that the main object of the Bill was to extend the area of rateability.

hoped the Government would not under any circumstances listen to the suggested Amendment, which, instead of simplifying the Bill, would complicate matters ten times over, and land them in insuperable difficulties. He could not see how the generating or motive and transmitting power was always to be determined with a view to rating as in the case of steam power, waterwheels, windmills, and so forth. If the proposal were unfortunately sanctioned, it could not be worked or carried out by any human being.

suggested that the Bill should be proceeded with with caution, and not hurriedly, for as it was a money Bill, it could not undergo revision in the other House. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment which was now before them. He was quite prepared to admit that certain kinds of machinery should be rated, but the power to rate machinery ought not to be carried to such an extent as was contemplated, which would include every little thing down to the minutest points of detail.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford as being calculated to assist the operations of assessment committees.

said, that having carefully considered the Amendments of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) and the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell), and remembering that the object of the Bill was to extend and not to decrease the area of rating, he was opposed to both of those Amendments. Though he had voted for exempting Sunday and ragged schools, he almost regretted having done so, as he thought it would be much better that the Bill should contain no exemption whatever.

said, that, looking largely at the question, the great motive which had impelled the movement for a change in regard to local taxation had been the complaints of the owners of real property with respect to realty being rated as against the vast personal property of the country which was not rated. Undoubtedly it was a most extraordinary application of the doctrine advocated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) to say that when the complaint was that the range of rateable property was too narrow, they should proceed to narrow it further. They could not narrow the range further consistently with justice to the owners of real property. The strength of the Amendments consisted in this—that there was a great difficulty in the application of the law as it now stood; but would those Amendments answer the purpose of removing that difficulty? In his opinion, the Amendments of the hon. Member for Salford and of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. F. S. Powell) did not even touch the case, and would create a great deal of confusion and difficulty in the application of the present law. There was no doubt great difficulty in drawing a line of demarcation between fixed machinery which was rateable, and machinery which was not fixed and which was not rateable. The difficulty was one, however, which could not be settled by the present Bill. Moreover, he contended that it was an entire mistake in conjunction with this Bill to endeavour to supply a clearer definition. They had declared that Sunday and ragged schools should be exempted from rating, but they had not attempted to define a ragged school, and he was informed that the question as to what constituted a ragged school had been made the subject of a contest in a Court of Law. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford assumed that stock-in-trade was exempted because it was a proper subject for exemption. That was not the ground of its exemption. The Government had exempted stock-in-trade, because it was impossible to catch it; and if the Amendment touched a description of machinery which it was possible to catch—and it had been proved that it was possible to catch it, because it was already rated—in what sense could they contend that it ought now to be exempted? That being so, the Government would give to the Amendment the most decided opposition.

pointed out several anomalies which existed in the present system of rating, and said they must be dealt with by the Government sooner or later, and he thought the sooner they were dealt with the better it would be.

said, he was strongly in favour some days ago of sending the Bill to a Select Committee, and what was now happening convinced him, that that course ought to have been adopted. Points such as those which had been recently raised were not of a nature to be decided by a Committee of the Whole House.

said, it would be a fortunate thing for everybody but the members of the legal profession if the clause and all the Amendments were got rid of together. The Judges had lately been paying Parliament very handsome compliments for the manner in which they carried on the work of legislation, and it seemed to him that that clause would form another blessed example. In his opinion, they could have gone on quite well with an annual Continuance Bill, and then this question would not leave arisen. He certainly should decline to vote for either of the Amendments, because he believed that if they were adopted, they would only make confusion worse confounded.

said, assessment committees appeared to act on the principle that all machinery was rateable, and urged that it would be well if a remedy were provided for the evils of the system.

said, that as he understood there was to be no passage through Temple Bar after half-past 8 o'clock, and as his bon. Friend behind him (Mr. Corrance), who had an Amendment on the Paper, had informed him that if he went on, he must speak for an hour, he thought the best thing he could do would be to move that they report Progress.

trusted the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Motion, because the Committee had at present a very good and sufficient attendance of hon. Members. If the number should be much reduced, the Government would consent to report Progress.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 13, after "perpetual," to insert—"in so far as it applies to stock in trade only, but not to any other description of property." Its object was to limit the perpetual exemption from rating to stock in trade, and not extend it to other descriptions of personal property.

said, he had looked carefully into the Acts, and could not accept the Amendment, which would have a different operation from that which the hon. Baronet intended. The House had already decided not to render personalty or the general ability of parishioners liable to rating; and it was not desirable to go back to this already decided question.

said, the Amendment would impose a liability to rating upon every description of personality other than stock in trade. He could not therefore support the Amendment.

did not want the Committee to say affirmatively that any kind of personalty should be subject to rating, but only to say that the rating of personalty other than stock in trade should not be perpetual.

said, the Amendment, if carried, would necessi- tate the passing of an annual Bill for the exemption of all personalty except stock in trade.

in rising, according to Notice, to leave out the clause altogether, said, he believed it to be vexatious to certain classes and unnecessary. By the Bill, law and custom were strained in order to bring things into taxation that had always been exempted. The question must become a class question at the ensuing Elections, and he urged on the Government to let it stand over until the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to introduce a general measure on the subject.

defended the clause, which was necessary to prevent the absurdity of an annual Bill dealing with exemptions.