HC Deb 18 July 1845 vol 82 cc668-70

House in Committee on the Valuation (Ireland) Bill.

On Clause 5,

Viscount Clements

objected to the whole Bill. It was preposterous to introduce a measure of this importance at so late a period of the Session, and to try to carry it on in a House consisting of four Irish Members, and eleven Members from other parts of the three kingdoms. He would not be a party to such a course; and he would now move that the House be counted.

The Chairman

counted the Committee; and there being only twelve Members present, left the Chair; and Mr. Speaker having resumed it,

The Chairman

reported to him that there were not forty Members present.

The House was again counted, and forty Members being present, again resolved itself into a Committee on the above Bill.

On the Question, "that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Viscount Clements

said, he would divide the Committee.

Strangers were excluded, but no division took place, Viscount Clements finding no seconder.

On the Question being again put,

Viscount Clements

said, he would move "that the further progress of the Bill be postponed for six months."

Sir T. Fremantle

urged on the noble Lord the necessity of allowing the Bill to proceed.

Sir R. Ferguson

would again press on the right hon. Baronet what he had often urged before—namely, to try the Bill as an experiment in those counties which had not yet been valued.

Viscount Clements

had no wish to let others do for him what he could do for himself; and he therefore objected to this Bill, on the ground that it committed to the Executive Government in Ireland, what could be more satisfactorily done by the grand juries of counties, as far as related to valuation, and applotting the grand jury cess. Under these circumstances, he would persevere in his opposition to the Bill.

Mr. S. Crawford

also urged on the right hon. Baronet the propriety of adopting the suggestions of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Ferguson), of letting the measure stand as an experiment on those counties which had not been valued.

Sir T. Fremantle

said, he could not take upon himself to follow the advice of the hon. Baronet, without more consideration; and, therefore, if the noble Lord would allow the remaining clauses to go through Committee, he would—if no objection existed in other quarters—comply with the suggestion; but if he could not consent to the suggestion, he would promise the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet, an ample opportunity of discussing the point at another stage, and have the sense of the House taken on it, in a much fuller attendance of Members.

Mr. George Hamilton

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry knew very well—no one better—how general was the complaint in Ireland with regard to the want of uniformity and accuracy of all existing valuations. Nothing could be more desirable than one uniform and accurate valuation on a proper principle, which would be understood. The principle of the valuation proposed in the Bill, was what he considered the only sound principle, namely, the letting value to a solvent tenant. Certainly it would have been better if the Bill had been introduced at an earlier period; but the effect of the postponement would be the delay of a year in commencing the valuation on sound principles.

Clauses to the 18th agreed to.

On Clause 15, "Decision of Sub-commissioners to be conclusive."

Mr. Sharman Crawford

objected strongly to this clause.

Viscount Clements

concurred in the objection. The people of Ireland should be taught to look to their natural guides, the magistracy and gentry, and not to Government officers.

Sir R. Ferguson

was of opinion, that in reference to the valuation of tenements, it would be desirable to do away with the appeal, where the Sub-commissioners differ, to the Committee of Appeal, and to give it to the quarter sessions.

Mr. George Hamilton

concurred, on the whole, with the suggestions of his hon. friends; there was, in Ireland a natural and not an unjust jealousy of Government Commissioners, especially where there was no appeal from them. He thought the best machinery would be an appeal from the valuator of tenements to the Sub-commissioners, as the Bill provided, that is, if the owner of a tenement should not be satisfied with the valuation of it; the Sub-commissioners should examine and correct the valuation. He would add to that, an appeal to the Barrister at quarter sessions. Generally, he supposed, the revision of the Sub-commissioners would be satisfactory, and not the less likely to be so, if there was an appeal from it.

The remaining clauses were agreed to.

House resumed. Bill to be reported.

At the five o'clock sittings,

Back to