EJECTMENTS (IRELAND). (Hansard, 12 August 1846)

SIR R. FERGUSON
objected to the 644 introduction of taxes, rates, and assessments. The sum of 2s. for each distress for taxes and rates was too high; and it was not desirable that any questions respecting distresses for taxes should be introduced into this Bill. The clause did not sufficiently define, whether, supposing a number of persons were to be employed, each person would have a right to 2s. a day—neither did it specify the 2s. as a maximum.

MR. PIGOTT
was of opinion, that it was equally desirable to limit the charge of distress for rates and taxes, as for rent. If his hon. Friend thought the 2s. too high, he would consider the schedule with a view to its alteration.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, the recommendation of the Land Commission with regard to the limitation of the charges of distress, applied only to distress for rent. He understood from his hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Ferguson), that the charges for distress in the case of rates and taxes were already limited by law. If that was not so, it might be desirable to limit them also; but in that case he thought the 2s. should be fixed on as a maximum. In the case of distress for rent, the magistrates had no power of awarding a smaller sum. He would take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pigott), why it was that a clause which was contained in the Bill, as originally introduced, founded upon the recommendation of the Land Commission, was omitted in the present Bill; he alluded to the clause by which the jurisdiction of the assistant barrister was extended to cases of permissive occupation. The Land Commission had given that subject much consideration. It was usual in Ireland, from charity or other causes, to put persons into occupation of a house, as caretakers, or from mere bounty. The law in reference to such cases was in an unsatisfactory state; and frequently such occupation had led to collisions and unpleasantness between the proprietor and occupier. Under these circumstances, the Commissioners had thought that the fifteen days' notice, and the disposition by legal process, would be advisable; and a clause for that purpose had been introduced in the original Bill. He begged to ask why it was now omitted?

MR. PIGOTT
said, with regard to the first point, he certainly thought it desirable that the fees for distress for rates should be regulated; but, probably, it might be 645 advisable to introduce those fees in a second schedule. With regard to the second point adverted to by his hon. Friend, it had formed the subject of much consideration with the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and, on the whole, it was not deemed expedient, in the present Bill, to extend the jurisdiction of the assistant barrister. The clause, as originally framed, would have given barristers jurisdiction in cases of title to land, which was contrary to the intention of the Legislature—their jurisdiction was intended to be confined to cases of contract. It would have operated upon the Statutes of Limitation and other important Acts: for those reasons it was deemed expedient to omit that clause.