160 LOCAL TAXATION 



In May the report of the Departmental Committee on 

 Local Taxation was brought forward by the Local Taxation 

 Committee, when the Council expressed satisfaction that 

 the rating of land values in any shape is condemned in the 

 Majority Report. The Minority Report favoured rating of 

 site values, but the Council stated their opinion that as they 

 have consistently withstood any proposals for rating on capital 

 site value these fresh proposals should be strenuously opposed, 

 as being unpractical, unfair and quite impossible as far as 

 agricultural land was concerned, if regard was to be had to 

 justice as between both areas and individuals. They further 

 absolutely opposed the proposal contained in both the Majority 

 and Minority Reports that assessments for all local rates 

 should be transferred from local assessment committees and 

 overseers to the Inland Revenue Department. 



After one or two postponements the Budget statement 

 was made on 4th May, precisely at the hour when the Business 

 Committee was arranging the agenda for the Council on 5th. 

 It had been anticipated that this statement would have been 

 made at an earlier date, and with that view " The Budget 

 as it affects Agriculture " was one of the subjects sent down 

 to local Chambers at the previous meeting of the Council. 

 The postponement, however, prevented the Committee 

 putting a properly considered resolution on the agenda, but 

 they printed a non-committal motion, which they requested 

 Mr Charles Bathurst to propose, with the understanding that 

 he should withdraw it after discussion. This Mr. Bathurst 

 agreed to do, but his action was somewhat severely criticised 

 by certain newspapers, especially some on the Ministerial 

 side, who accused him of not having the courage of his con- 

 victions. The debate on this motion was unusually instruc- 

 tive, important speeches being made by Mr. Henry Chaplin 

 and Sir Luke White. The request for leave to withdraw the 

 motion was agreed to with only two dissentients. 



On 9th June the Council had the Finance Bill before them. 

 To the astonishment of everyone, it was found, when this Bill 

 was printed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely 

 disregarded the recommendation of the Departmental Com- 



