Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

and all the agents of the Inspectors. | What amount of secrecy could there be in such an arrangement? It was upon this ground that he supported the Amendment.

New Clause,

Litton,)

(Superannuation.)

"The superannuation or retiring allowance of each petty sessions clerk retiring from office through age or infirmity shall be estimated MAJOR NOLAN said, that if he got the time of his so retiring, and shall be chargeupon his salary and emoluments of his office at no answer from the right hon. Gentle-able on the petty sessions clerk's fund,”—(Mr. man the President of the Local Government Board he should certainly move to report Progress. He thought he was entitled to some kind of answer when he brought forward a reasonable proposition.

MR. DOUSON said, he had not answered the hon. and gallant Member, first of all because he thought he had answered the objection already; and, secondly, because an answer had been given by his hon. Friend behind (Mr. Stevenson), who spoke from practical experience of the working of the existing Acts. It was not from any want of courtesy towards the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had not risen to reply. He was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment, which would involve a breaking down of what had hitherto been the legislation of the country. He hoped the Committee would agree to the clause, and he should then be prepared to report Pro

gress.

MAJOR NOLAN remarked, that the references in the Bill to previous Acts were badly drawn. He would not press the Amendment; but he hoped the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), in whose name it appeared on the Paper, would have an opportunity of bringing it up again upon the Report.

MR. WARTON complained that the President of the Local Government Board had dictated to the Chairman seated in his place with his hat on when he should put the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PEITY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND)
BILL-[BILL 41.]

(Mr. Litton, Mr. James Richardson.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR would object to the second reading of the clause unless the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill could inform the Committee what were the emoluments received by the clerks of petty sessions in addition to the salaries paid. He believed that in some instances these emoluments were very considerable, and the effect of this clause might be to throw an unfair burden upon the ratepayers.

MR. LITTON said, the case stood thus-under 21 & 22 Vict. provision was made by which the petty sessions clerks received pensions regulated by the amount of the salaries they received, but which salaries fluctuated with the amount of fees received from year to year. The present Bill required that these pensions should be based upon the amount of emoluments received, as well as salaries, which by the Bill were proposed to be fixed for the future. The emoluments had reference to a certain portion of the dog licence tax, which the petty sessions clerks received as remuneration. It was only reasonable that when they came to receive their pensions the pensions should be calculated upon the emoluments as well as the salaries.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked what the emoluments were? He questioned very much whether any hon. Member could inform him.

MR. MELDON said, that he knew something about the matter. The clause originally stood in his name, and the hon. and learned Member who had charge of the Bill agreed to adopt it. The petty sessions clerks were paid in two ways-by salaries, and by emoluments from fees on prosecutions, fees on licences, &c. The Bill provided, as it was introduced, that the clerks should be entitled to superannuation

allowances on their salaries only, ignor- | ing the fact that they were also paid by fees. Thet present clause merely provided that the fees as well as the salaries should be taken into account, as they were, at this moment, in the remuneration received.

MR. CALLAN said, the Bill took away all inducement from the petty sessions clerks to advise the magistrates in favour of convictions. Looking at the measure from a popular point of view, or from what was called the people's standpoint, it was a very desirable Bill. Strange to say, it received the sanction of every class in Ireland, so far as he could ascertain. In a recent visit to Ireland he had discussed the matter with every class of the people, and he had found there was a universal feeling in favour of the Bill. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) would withdraw his opposition, unless he had received strong representations from Ireland against the measure. In the event

of his hon. Friend not having received such representations, he hoped he would allow himself to be guided by the opinion of those who had really considered the question.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he had not the least objection to the Bill, and had promoted it as much as he could on the second reading. He knew that it was a good Bill, and all that he objected to was this particular clause. He objected to it because he believed that the emoluments of the petty sessions clerks were not exactly known, and, therefore, that it would be unfair to saddle the ratepayers with a permanent charge on the strength of emoluments of which they knew nothing. Among the emoluments were the licences on the dog tax. The hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill said nothing about that.

MR. LITTON said, the hon. Member

was mistaken. He had referred to the dog tax.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR was certainly of opinion that the majority of the Irish Members were not aware what these emoluments were. His contention was that they were not of a kind that superannuation ought to be calculated

[blocks in formation]

know from the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) what was done with the dog tax?

MR. MELDON replied that the dog tax was one of the sources from which the petty sessions clerks were paid. Up to the present time it had been to the interest of the petty sessions clerks to bring about as many convictions as possible, and it was for the interest of the public that the present mode of proceed ing should be altered. In bringing in the Bill his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Litton) had apparently forgotten that the superannuation allowances should be calculated on certain fees received from fines which did not fall upon the ratepayers at all. It was to remedy that omission that the present clause had been proposed.

Motion agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (PROCESS) BILL,

On Motion of Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Bill to

amend the Law respecting the service of Process of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MARJORIBANKS, Colonel HOME, Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, and Mr. ARTHUR ELLIOT Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 179.) House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Friday, 27th May, 1881.

MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE-Irish Jury Laws, appointed.

PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Gas Provisional Second Reading - Married Women's Property Orders [97]. (Scotland) (75); Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c. (85).

RAILWAYS — ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN RAILWAYS.—QUESTION. LORD BRABOURNE asked the Scretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there had been a Report received from from Mr. Crow, British Consul at Berlin, with respect to railway rates and charges,

and the administration of railways by | present Lord President of the Council the Government of Germany?

EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, that there was such a Report. It had been presented to Parliament in March last, and would be found among the Consular Reports.

VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND)—GRIFFITH'S VALUATION.

OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.

(Earl Spencer) was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the now Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was his Chief Secretary. On that occasion, Mr. Baxter, expressing, as he (the Duke of St. Albans) supposed, the opinion of those noble Lords, said that the valuation of the Southern and Western Provinces of Ireland was made when prices were exceptionally low, shortly after the Famine of 1847, and that the valuation of these Provinces was less than it ought to be. Mr. Baxter con

lieved the result, if his recommendations were carried out, would be as beneficial in Ireland as they had been in Scotland. On the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Kavanagh, who knew Ireland as well as any man did, speaking from the Conservative Benches, said the whole valuation of land in Ireland was far below what it ought to be, and that it ought to be placed on a fair basis. A Scotch Member (Mr. Duncan M'Laren), in the

Scotland was re-valued every 12 months, and he (the Duke of St. Albans) could not see why Ireland should not be so as well. He believed most of their Lordships who were experienced in land matters in Ireland would welcome such a valuation. The importance of the subject to those resident in Ireland would

THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in rising to call attention to the law relating to the valuation of rateable property included his remarks by saying he beIreland known as Griffith's valuation, and to the unsatisfactory assessment of such property now in force, said, the subject of his Notice had been so threshed out during the past winter that it was unnecessary he should offer their Lordships any explanation beyond reminding them it was admitted that the prices, except in the instance of wheat, on which Sir Richard Griffith founded his valuation, were so below their present value as to make it a falla-course of the debate, mentioned that cious test of what the land which produces them was worth at the present time. It therefore followed that the principle held in Scotland, and partially in England, that the ratal should be dependent on the rental, could not be fairly universally applied in Ireland that rents should be governed by rates. There, however, was always the fact that Griffith's valua-be his excuse for bringing it under their tion existed, stamped with the authority Lordships' attention. He believed if he of the Government in force for purposes had challenged a direct expression of of taxation, as their estimate of what opinion on this subject, many of their the land was worth, and he said this Lordships most conversant with Ireland was misleading. A Chancellor of the would have supported him; but he had Exchequer might recognize the uses of no desire to embarrass the Government such a scheme as Griffith's valuation; in their present attempt to improve the but it was another thing what Irish condition of Ireland, and, therefore, withtenants would think of it when insi-out attempting to deal further with the diously placed before them by agitators for their own purpose, nor was it easy to explain why a landowner could justly and legally demand a larger sum froin the tenant than that on which he paid Income Tax. It was impossible to deny that Griffith's valuation played a great part in economic relations in land in Ireland. The landlord, the tenant, and the passer-by inquired the relation between the rent and the rates. He thought

he was

justified in making this appeal by the terms in which Mr. Baxter introduced the General Valuation (Ireland) Bill in 1873, at a time when the

general question, he would simply ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take any steps to have the law amended, so that in future the valuation of land in Ireland made by the Government Department for the purposes of Imperial and local taxation might not mislead public opinion as to the real value of such land?

THE EARL OF BELMORE said, he agreed with much that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of St. Albans) had said. He desired, however, before the Question was answered, to point out how undesirable, in the opinion of nearly

everyone who had given evidence | prevent the public mind being misled or written on the subject, it was to with regard to the rating value of land. make valuations made for Imperial and other purposes the basis of rent. He had heard from a friend that in his part of the country the land was at least 50 per cent under Griffith's valuation; while in his own part of the country Griffith's valuation was much nearer, and he therefore paid much higher rates than his friend. He did not think it was necessary to have an entirely new valuation, as there were materials in hand for correcting them, and those materials should be made use of, the only thing required being a careful study of the data upon which Sir Richard Griffith worked, and a careful comparison of the old value of properties with the present price of farm produce, making the necessary alterations so as to arrive at a new valuation. He thought, however, that it was most desirable that they should have an issue of new Ordnance maps in reference to the boundaries of estates and other matters. There ought also to be a broad distinction between the valuation of land and the valuation of houses, because in many instances the landlords had to pay taxation upon the valuation of houses that belonged to the tenants. As changes were about to be made at the present time, he thought it only fair that a landlord should only be taxed on the valuation of his land, on something like the real value of the rental he received.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE said, that Griffith's valuation had been one of the thorns which had recently been constantly stuck into the sides of landlords, and, at the same time, one of those delusions that had been perpetually dragged before the attention of tenants, who were often only too willing to listen to the statements of agitators. While he sympathized with the noble Duke who had raised the question (the Duke of St. Albans), in his wish to see the question settled on a satisfactory basis, he was not sure that the suggestion made by him was likely to bring about the best possible solution of the question. He felt some doubt if the revaluation of land in Ireland would be of such value as the noble Duke seemed to think. The noble Duke was perfectly candid in stating that he did not wish the Commission so much to obtain a perfect basis for valuation, as to The Earl of Belmore

He (the Marquess of Lansdowne), however, doubted whether an amended valuation would be either a useful, a practicable, or desirable measure at that moment; while as to its effect on either public opinion or taxation, he doubted whether it would be very important. As regarded local taxation, it would probably lead to the result that the taxpayer would, in most cases, pay about the same amount of rates as at present, but in a different way. He would pay a lower percentage upon a higher valuation. When they came to the question of the general valuation of land the noble Duke, in dwelling upon its fallacies, seemed to be trying to slay the slain. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne, did not think anyone believed in it as an absolute or relative standard of rent, except, perhaps, those who conceived that by some Divine dispensation the land ought to be the property of those who tilled it. For some time past no one had been able to take up a paper in Ireland or England without finding an exhaustive demolition of Griffith's valuation. It had again been demolished in the able pamphlets issued by the Dublin Land Committee, and it had finally been put out of Court by the Reports of the two Commissions on the subject. He, therefore, doubted whether a new valuation would effect any good result. He ventured to think that the difficulties in the way of making such a valuation were so serious that at no time would it be very expedient to encounter them with a light heart; but, at the present moment, and under the present circumstances, it would be most inexpedient to do so. It must either be intended as a gauge of rent or it must not. If it was not intended as a gauge of rent, it would be valueless for the purposes of the noble Duke. If, on the other hand, it was to be the future measure of the letting value of land, then he asked their Lordships to consider the difficulties and obstacles which remained to be overcome. In the first place, they would have to consider the principle on which the valuation was to be based. Would they calculate the rent on what was called a scientific basis-that was to say, what the tenant would be able to pay to the owner after providing for his own maintenance and that of his family,

and after, in addition to that, securing, monly spoken of as "a land case." The for himself a fair profit for his expendi- noble Duke had referred to Mr. Baxter's ture and industry? In that view, they speech delivered in the year 1873. But would be met with this difficulty-that in that year, so far as he (the Marquess on the authority of two or three Mem- of Lansdowne) was aware, there was no bers of Her Majesty's Government there proposition before Parliament to deprive were many holdings in Ireland so small the landlord and the tenant of the power that if the tenants held them rent free of entering into contracts for the letting they would not have sufficient means to of land, and to compel them to place that keep their families in a decent state of duty in the hands of a Land Court. He comfort. What, then, should be the rent would not be guilty of the irregularity of of such holdings? Would it be a minus discussing a measure which was not bequality? Then there was a further fore their Lordships' House; but, withdifficulty-with reference to what stan- out any breach of Order, he thought he dard of agriculture would the valuer fix might say that it would require some the rent? Would the Public Depart- courage to assert that some kind of mea. ment intrusted with the valuation have sure affecting land tenure in Ireland to estimate the rent with reference to the would not be likely to pass within a results which would be obtained from a reasonable period, and that one incident proper treatment of the soil; because of that measure would not be the estabobviously it would be unjust to fix rents lishment of a Court which could be inwith reference to the sort of agriculture trusted with the duty of fixing a fain which prevailed in some parts of Ire- rent. If so, would the new valuation land, where, to use the words of the be binding on the Court, or would it Duke of Richmond's Commission, it was not? He had no doubt that a valuation "miserably backward and feeble." Was such as that proposed by his noble the rent, then, to be computed on that Friend would not be regarded as bindbasis, or on the basis of a more advanced ing on the Land Court when considering and improved system of agriculture? But the circumstances of each individual let them assume that these and other for- case; and, if so, it followed that after midable difficulties had been overcome, all the trouble, expense, and delay they there remained to be considered the would have a valuation which would not question of time. They would have to be accepted by either the landlord or the deal with every one of these 600,000 tenant, and would not be binding upon tenancies at present existing in Ireland. the Court which might hereafter be called His noble Friend (the Duke of St. upon to decide questions of this kind. Albans) had mentioned seven years as He therefore submitted that, although the time within which the valuation Griffith's valuation was not to be relied might be completed. He (the Marquess on or regarded as an absolute or even of Lansdowne) felt doubt whether it relative gauge of rent, it would be, in could be concluded in that time, as it present circumstances, unwise on the would be necessary to examine into such part of Her Majesty's Government to questions as that of the subsoil, the undertake such a valuation as that which climate, the nearness of markets, and had been suggested. the thousand and one other questions which entered into the value of land. And, after all, when they had got their valuation, it would be inconclusive upon the most important point. It might give with perfect justice the letting value of a farm as it stood; but that would not determine the fair rent as between the actual owner and occupier, which could not be arrived at without ascertaining the tenant's interest in his holding, and whether he or the landlord had made the improvements. Before all these points could be effectually cleared up, it would be necessary to have upon every one of the 600,000 tenancies what was com

LORD WAVENEY said, that, while there was much to complain of in Griffith's valuation, he did not think, for the reasons pointed out by the noble Marquess who had just sat down (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that a new valuation should be made at the present time. The Land Courts would have limited districts to deal with, and they would have the opportunity of arriving at a fair measure of rent in the case of different holdings. The principal difficulty would be owing to the number of holdings; but that could be overcome by taking the valuation in acres, and so arrive at a conclusion. It appeared to

« ForrigeFortsett »