HC Deb 20 June 1862 vol 167 cc799-806

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 11 (Property hitherto exempt from rating as being used for charitable or public purposes to be rated).

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he wished to move the insertion after the word "purpose," of the words "except churches and chapels used exclusively for religious worship and open to the public, graveyards where no charge is made for interments, school-rooms used for the gratuitous education of children, court-houses, gaols, and bridewells." He thought, that whilst the intention of the clause was that property of all other kinds should be subject to the payment of poor rates, all descriptions of property which were used for public or religious purposes ought to be excluded from the necessity of contributing to such payment.

MR. VANCE

expressed his concurrence in the Amendment. A Select Committee on the subject of trading had recommended that charities and buildings used for scientific purposes should not be taxed.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he observed that several hon. Members had Amendments on the paper to move the omission of the clause altogether. He would suggest, therefore, with a view to save time, that the House should agree to the Amendment, and then discuss the question as to whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

MR. MONSELL

said, he had no objection to that course, but he should Vote against the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

said, he should move the omission of the clause, there being a strong feeling against taxing institutions established for charitable purposes, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would give way on that point.

LORD NAAS

said, he did not desire to exclude from exemption buildings wholly devoted to religious purposes, but it was his wish to limit the exemption to certain cases. Year by year the evil of property being exempted from the payment of poor rates was increasing. In the two unions of the city of Dublin property of the value of nearly £67,000 a year was exempted from poor rates altogether. Under the operation of the law there was no definite rule to guide the Valuation Commissioners, and the consequence was that several inferior institutions in Dublin were exempted. Amongst them was the office of the Royal Agricultural Society, the Committee House of Charitable Societies, in Circus Street; sextons' dwellings, the Irish Church Mission House, the residence of the governor of the military prison, the Canteen, Royal Barracks, the School of Medicine. Trinity College, however, a building wholly devoted to educational purposes, was not exempt. In the year 1861–2, a Vote of £60,000 was taken by the Government in aid of the local assessment to the poor rate, upon property in their possession, thereby admitting the principle that that class of property ought to contribute. But, perhaps, the worst case was that of Dublin Castle, occupied by persons living in commodious nouses and drawing Government salaries, but who contributed nothing to the rate. He was in favour of the clause as amended, not wishing that exemption should be extended beyond the classes of property comprised in the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that a great deal of property was improperly exempt from poor rates. It would be, however, better to deal with these exemptions by a Tenement Valuation Bill, and he therefore thought it would be judicious to expunge the clause.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he was opposed to the omission of the clause. By passing the clause, as amended, they would exempt all property which was entitled to be exempted from the payment of rates, and would leave all other property rateable. The clause would not interfere with tenement valuation. It would exempt places of worship and schools from taxation; but not convents, and buildings of that character.

MR. BLAKE

suggested that the landlords should pay the rate on buildings used for charitable purposes, and that the occupier should be exempted.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the objection to retain the clause was, that it did not properly find its place in a Bill for the relief of the poor, and he thought, therefore, it would be desirable to omit the clause from the Bill. Besides, its object was already provided for by an existing law, which said that buildings used for charitable purposes, science, literature, and the fine arts should be exempted from rating.

MR. SCULLY

proposed that the clause should be rejected, and that another well-considered clause should be brought forward on the report.

MR. M'MAHON

observed that a reference to the statutes showed that the landlord of a public establishment was liable to poor rate in respect of the rent he received for it.

Question put, "That Clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 62: Majority 16.

Clauses 12 to 15 were then agreed to.

Clause 16 (Limitation of Property and Proxy Claims).

MR. SCULLY

said, he would move the omission of the word "five" in order to insert "two," his object being to limit the time during which a person should be entitled to hold a proxy for the election of a guardian to two years instead of five. Such was the law of England, and he could see no reason why a different law should be made to apply to Ireland.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 39, to leave out "five," and insert "two."

MR. VANCE

said, he should support the clause as it stood.

MR. COGAN

said, he should support the Amendment. The Chief Commissioner of the Poor Laws in Ireland had stated before a Committee which sat last year to inquire into the Poor Laws, that in many instances proxies were held and votes given in respect of property which no longer belonged to the person who gave the proxy. It was therefore desirable to limit the time during which a proxy should be held.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the subject had been well considered in the Select Committee, the members of which thought assimilation undesirable; and he trusted that the clause would be retained unaltered.

LORD NAAS

said, the circumstances in Ireland were altogether different from those in England; and assimilation of the machinery of voting was therefore not a desideratum.

LORD FERMOY

said, he disliked proxies altogether; but if they were to be retained, it was desirable that they should he frequently renewed. Therefore he should support the proposed restriction.

MR. BUTT

said, the objection to five years was that it opened the door to fraud. Proxies might be held at a time when the person who had given them had lost his properly.

MR. GEORGE

vindicated the system of landlords voting by proxy, and contended that the clause as it stood, with the larger number of proxies to be in existence for five years, was preferable to the proposed restriction.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

said, a proxy was given to the landlord for the purpose of protecting his property. Now, it might frequently happen that a proxy might get into bad hands. It was advisable, therefore, that frequent opportunity should he given to the landlord for revising his proxy, and on that ground he should vote for the Amendment.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he should support the clause, which rendered it necessary to renew proxies once in five years, and preserved power in the landlords to revoke them at any time.

MR. MONSELL

said, he advocated the stricter limitation. Railway proxies could only be given for a particular occasion.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he thought that the checks against fraud were so effectual that the limitation to two years would be injurious to the rights of property, without in the slightest degree affording any additional protection against fraud.

SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE

said, that as a landlord, he would prefer giving his proxies for the shorter period, since it would be a very disagreeable step to take to recall a proxy.

Question put, "That 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 32: Majority 69.

LORD NAAS

said, he thought it would be a fair compromise to substitute "twenty" for "ten" as the limit of proxies which any one person was entitled to hold. From information that had reached him he did not doubt, that if ten proxies were the maximum, it would practically amount in many cases to an act of disfranchisement.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the question was one of importance, inasmuch as in Dublin there was the case of one person holding 2,000 proxies, and of another holding more than 1,000; whilst in England no one was at liberty to hold more than four. He saw no reason for departing from the Resolution of the Committee, which fixed the number of proxies at ten. In selecting ten as the maximum he had only followed the precedent set by the noble Lord in an Act brought in by him in 1858. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the conclusion which had been arrived at by the Select Committee.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he objected to any limitation. Supposing that he had given his own proxies to an agent, was that a reason why the agent should not hold the proxies of other landholders? He denied that any gentleman in Dublin ever held 1,000 proxies. Proxies were held by agents pro hac vice; and he denied the right of any one to interfere in the matter.

MR. BLAKE

said, he would move an Amendment, of which he had given notice, that the number of proxies to be held by the same person should be limited to five.

Amendment proposed, in line 43, to leave out "ten" and insert "five."

MR. COGAN

said, that in reference to the denial of the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grogan) that 1,000 proxies had been held by one individual, it appeared from the evidence taken before a Committee last year that an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner stated that he had known 1,000 votes given by one agent.

MR. BLAKE

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 43, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty" (Lord Naas).

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he could not set his opinion against that of the Committee, and he felt bound to say that the number "ten" had been adopted after careful consideration by the Government.

LORD NAAS

explained, that since he had expressed the opinion to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, he had received information which led him to the belief that the restriction to ten would practically lead to disfranchisement in many unions.

LORD FERMOY

explained, that the object of granting proxies was to give to landlords votes for elections to seats at boards of guardians; not to give the power of interfering with the transaction of any business before the board.

Question put, "That 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 62: Majority 28.

MR. BLAKE

said, he wished to move additional words, providing that all persons exercising the privilege of voting by proxy should each time previous to availing themselves of it make a solemn declaration that they still held unchanged the franchise on which it was founded.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, it was impossible for the Government to entertain the proposition. A solemn declaration meant a declaration before a magistrate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 20 were also agreed to.

Clause 21 (Paid Officers and others incapable of serving as Guardians).

MR. COGAN

said, he wished to move the omission of certain words which would prevent the election to a seat at the board of any officer who had been dismissed by the Commissioners within five years previously. He thought it monstrous that it should be in the power of the Commissioners to brand a man so far as to disqualify him from being re-elected by the votes of his fellow-ratepayers. It by no means followed as a matter of course that the decision of the Commissioners must be in all cases right.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 15, to leave out the words "nor any person who, having been such paid officer, shall have been dismissed.

LORD NAAS

observed, that he thought the provision in the clause was a very good one.

MR. WALDRON

said, he should support the clause. He knew a case in which a paid officer, who had been dismissed for misconduct, took his seat next week as a member of the board of guardians, which refused to act with him.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, he should support the clause. Indeed, he thought the words "by the Commissioners" should be omitted, so as to extend the disqualification for re-election to officers dismissed by the boards of guardians, as well as to those dismissed by the Commissioners.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

suggested the withdrawal of the clause, in order that another might be framed narrowing the restriction.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he must decline to withdraw the clause, which was analogous to one in the English law.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 28: Majority 88.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he would move to insert the words "for fraud, embezzlement, or any criminal offence" after the word "dismissed," so that only grave misconduct should incapacitate a person from serving on the board.

LORD NAAS

said, that in that case the words "by the Commissioners" should be omitted also, so as to make the clause extend to dismissals by boards of guardians.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he must object to the words "gross misconduct." The phrase was not a legal one.

MR. MAGUIRE

Then I withdraw "gross misconduct."

MR. SCULLY

said, he would recommend that the words should run, "any person who should have been dismissed for any criminal offence." These words would enable the question of criminality to be raised in a court of justice, if a man were dismissed by the Commissioners on any such alleged ground. It would be "gross misconduct" in that House to consent to brand a man, whose only offence might be difference of opinion with the guardians or Poor Law Commissioners.

Amendment negatived.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, he would move an Amendment to omit the words "within five years previously." If an officer had been dismissed for misconduct, he ought not to be eligible to sit upon the board by which he had been dismissed.

Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out the words "within fire years previously."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 33: Majority 67.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday next, at Twelve of the clock.