HC Deb 30 March 1855 vol 137 cc1409-15
MR. FRENCH ,

in rising to call the attention of the House to the sums annually voted for Public Service in Ireland towards the payment of the constabulary force and the salaries of the assistant bar- risters, said that, under ordinary circumstances, he should have waited until these votes came fairly before the House; but after the opinion expressed the other night by the noble Lord at the head of the Government—if opinion it could be called, prompted as the noble Lord had been by the Secretary to the Treasury—he should really like to know whether the Government adhered to the extraordinary statement which had proceeded from them? The noble Lord stated that Ireland received yearly for the payment of the constabulary, assistant barristers' salaries, and payments to Crown solicitors, 730,950l. It was—out police, 542,000l.; Crown solicitors, 16,000l.; assistant barristers, 32,000l.; total 590,000l. And England, for prosecutions, education in workhouses, and medical attendance, 362,000l. Surely this was scarcely a fair way of putting the case. Why should 100,696l., voted for constabulary here, be omitted; or 100,000l., for the purchase of curiosities from private collections? Why should the large sums voted for establishments in London—73,000l. for parks; the monies for the Chelsea embankments, bridges, &c.; the 1,300,000l. for palaces; the 1,250,000l. for harbours of refuge, be left unnoticed? But he should confine himself to the two items noticed by the noble Lord. It was correct that in 1846 the expense of the police force in Ireland was transferred from the counties to the consolidated fund. It was equally true that since that period, in this country, charges to the extent of 1,100,000l. had been similarly transferred from the locality to the consolidated fund, 12,000,000l. of taxes had been repealed in England, but in Ireland only 500,000l. had been removed; and while in England new taxes had been imposed to the amount of 254,000l. only, in Ireland the new taxation reached 130,000l. Why was the transfer in Ireland made by Sir Robert Peel? The transfer of the payment of the constabulary from the localities, was not a boon gratuitously or unduly given to Ireland; the change was avowedly made as a set-off for the withdrawal of those advantages which that country enjoyed under the corn laws; as a measure, the expense of which would be fully covered by a diminution to an equal extent in the Army Estimates, and as a means of rendering the constabulary force more effective for general service. What said the right hon. Baronet in 1846— Now in the case of Ireland, if there be any portion of the United Kingdom which is to suffer by the withdrawal of protection, I have always felt that that part of the United Kingdom is Ireland. Its capital and enterprise are almost exclusively directed to agriculture, and if, in the intended measures with regard to the burdens on land, there should appear at first sight to be any undue favour shown towards Ireland, let us bear in mind that Ireland has not the means which other parts of the United Kingdom have of employing labour in manufacturing pursuits: but, again, I propose no relief from burdens which are not accompanied with some great social advantages. At present you have a great police force in Ireland. The expense of a great portion of that force is borne by the land in Ireland, the expense of the remainder is borne by the public treasury. I believe it will be an immense advantage to place the police force directly under the control of the executive, to prevent the possibility of all interference by local bodies, to make it as perfect a system as you can, excluding all power of local nomination or local interference, taking the whole control on the executive government, and, in order that you make that control complete, paying the expenses out of the public treasury. He (Mr. French) found it stated in the Dublin Evening Post, that this constabulary was a "complete military organisation," appointed, officered, and, of course, paid by the State. It was a force 12,000 strong, and its efficiency had enabled the Government to withdraw 14,000 or 15,000 regular troops from Ireland, which must have been paid by the national funds—and there had been a saving effected to the extent of 400,000l. a year. In 1846 there was voted for the expense of the army in Ireland, 1,200,000l., in 1853 but 800,000l.—the difference being nearly equal to the entire cost of the constabulary. There was, therefore, no pretence for calling it a local force. When the Act was introduced these men were to be exempt from the duty of enforcing the revenue; but they now assisted in preparing statistical and agricultural returns, and in enforcing and supporting the excise laws. How, then, could this be considered an undue boon to Ireland? The vote for the assistant barristers of Ireland, the noble Lord also characterised as a local charge, and contrasted it with the system of the County Courts here, which he mentioned were no charge on the national funds, as the fees received in those courts were sufficient to discharge all expenses. Here again the noble Lord was wrong, as 13,000l. a year was annually voted in civil contingencies for payment of the registers of these courts. Now, in addition to the civil business transacted by those Judges, the greater portion of the criminal business was decided by them. It was deemed advisable that these assistant barristers should be no longer paid partly by salaries and partly by fees, and a large deputation of Irish Members waited upon the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) and stated their reasons why they thought it desirable that a change should be made. A system of payment arising out of stamps, civil ejectment bills, was then resorted to, the result of which was that 40,000l. was collected, and 32,000l. of that sum only disbursed. Now, in the one case the State was repaid by fees, and in the other by stamps. In the case of England they did not prove a full equivalent; in that of Ireland there was a balance in favour of the State. He (Mr. French) did not ask for Ireland any exemption from taxation. The fact was that that country was unfairly taxed on the one hand, and misrepresented on the other. It had been the practice to insinuate that Ireland did not bear her fair share of the general or local taxation of the country. He would not trouble the House with any opinion of his own on that subject, but appeal to the opinion of one whose scientific acquirements, and whose calm judgment in matters of the kind, must bring weight to whatever might fall from him. Lord Rosse, on the 18th of May, 1849, showed in his "protest" that "the gross incense of England was 250,000,000l.; ditto of Ireland, 20,000,000l. Revenue, 52,000,000l.—Proportion of England, 47,000,000l.; ditto of Ireland, 4,160,000l. Ireland paid upwards of 5,000,000l., and since then the income tax to the amount of 500,000l. had been added to her taxation. With regard to local taxation, it was shown that Great Britain pays 12,000,000l. on property rated at 105,000,000l.; Ireland pays 3,270,853l. on property rated at 9,898,566l., being a rate for local taxation of 6s. 8d. in the pound, whilst the local rate of England is but 2s. 3½d. From returns before the House in 1851, it was found that the poor-rate in England was 5,000,000l., county rate, 800,000l., highway rate, 1,000,000l.; total, 6,800,000l., being on the valuation of 68,000,000l., or an average of 2s. in the pound. Ireland pays county cess, 1,100,000l., poor-rate, 1,200,000l.; total, 2,300,000l., being on the highest valuation, that of 11,500,000l., an average of 4s. in the pound, double that of England." The flippancy and want of knowledge of the noble Lord then stood corrected by the gravity and information of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. If the noble Lord had consulted the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), he would not have fallen into the error he had pointed out. Sir C. Lewis, in a pamphlet from his pen, made these remarks on the subject of local taxation:— Supposing the nett annual value of property in Ireland to remain stationary, the future local taxation of the country, apart from municipal taxes, parish cesses, port dues, and light dues, may be estimated at 3s. 6d. in the pound; that of England being on the average, 2s. in the pound. These words, on the average, implied a much greater financial strain upon the local resources of a part of Ireland than appeared upon the face of the preceding statement. There were considerable tracts in Connaught and Munster, where the poundage of 3s. 6d., estimated as the average for Ireland must be multiplied by two or three to satisfy the demands fur county cess and poor-rate. But the country had the opinions of Lord Lansdowne, Lord Sydenham, and Mr. Goulburn, that Ireland was called on for too large a contribution. Had the case been mended by the budget of the right hon. Member for Oxford University? He had remitted 5,394,000l. to England, and 628,000l. to Ireland; but he had added to Ireland, in the shape of income tax and spirit duty, 700,000l. But not only had Ireland suffered in the allocation of public money, but, from the distribution of patronage, seventeen out of eighteen of the chief places in Dublin were given to Englishmen or Scotchmen, to the exclusion of Irishmen. He called upon the noble Lord, then, either to admit that he had spoken hastily and without adequate information on the subject, or by his own arguments, and not by the promptings of the Secretary to the Treasury, maintain what he had before advanced.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he was not aware that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Roscommon to introduce the question of the relative taxation of England and Ireland on the Motion for the adjournment of the House. [Mr. FRENCH: I placed a notice to that effect upon the paper.] He did not think that the practice adopted by hon. Gentlemen of bringing before the House every variety of subjects on a Motion for adjournment was a very convenient one; and the course which had been taken that night fully illustrated the inconvenience of the practice, for he was not at all prepared to answer the statements of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, he (Sir De Lacy Evans) had himself admitted that he was sensible of the inconvenience of discussing future military operations in that House, and said that he expected no answer to the statement he had made. He (Sir G. Grey) would merely observe that the Government were fully alive to the importance of the duty which devolved upon them of sending sufficient reinforcements to our army in the Crimea. The Government had not neglected that duty; and if there had been lately a cessation of the arrival of small detachments of British troops in the East, the result would be the simultaneous arrival of a large and efficient force in the course of a short time. He (Sir G. Grey) rose chiefly to notice the misapprehension under which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich appeared to be with regard to the Colonial Department, to which he had adverted that night. That right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the neglect of the business of that department; but in what instances he conceived such neglect had taken place he did not state; he (Sir G. Grey), therefore, could not give any specific answer to the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman had complained of an illegality, or irregularity, which, he said, had been committed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in having taken part in the business of the Colonial Department, and seemed to infer that the noble Lord had signed despatches to Governors of the Colonies. It was perfectly true, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that despatches from the Colonial Department—instructions, for instance, to Governors, in answer to despatches received from them—must be signed by a Secretary of State acting under the authority of the Sovereign; and that was the course which was now pursued; his noble Friend at the head of the Government had not signed any instructions which had been sent to Governors of the Colonies. These instructions had been signed by himself (Sir G. Grey), as one of the Secretaries of State. But there were many questions of great importance which he (Sir G. Grey) had felt that he could not satisfactorily dispose of himself whilst he had the charge of another department. He, therefore, communicated with the noble Lord at the head of the Government upon the subject, and he (Viscount Palmerston) said that he was perfectly willing to give his assistance in conducting the business of the office during the temporary absence of his noble Friend the Secretary of the Colonial Department (Lord John Russell). He (Sir G. Grey) was relieved by that arrangement from much of the labour and responsibility which would otherwise have devolved upon him; but he signed all these despatches to the Colonial Governors which a Secretary of State ought to sign. So far from this arrangement as to the conduct of the business of the Colonial Department, being an irregularity, he had always thought that it was not only competent to, but incumbent upon, the First Lord of the Treasury, who was responsible for the acts of the Government, to make himself acquainted with the business conducted by the different departments of the Government. He (Sir G. Grey) felt greatly indebted to his noble Friend for the relief thus afforded him. He believed that, with the assistance of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, all the pressing colonial business had been disposed of during the last four weeks. As he had said on a previous occasion, he did not think that the present arrangement could be sanctioned for any length of time; but he hoped that the absence of his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary would be of short duration; and if so, the Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice, would be unnecessary. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had given the weight of his name to an assertion that the business of the Colonial Department had been neglected during the absence of his noble Friend. Such a statement was calculated to create needless and unfounded dissatisfaction in the Colonies.