HC Deb 09 May 1862 vol 166 cc1484-90
MR. BLAKE

rose, pursuant to notice, to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was prepared to state his intentions as to bringing in a Bill for the reform of the Grand Jury Laws. The hon. Gentleman observed that the subject of reforming the grand jury laws of Ireland had been before the House in one shape or another for the last five-and-twenty year? The late Sir Robert Peel had said that within his Parliamentary experience he did not remember a single Session in which a Bill had not been brought forward, and he (Mr. Blake) might say that he could not call to mind any session in which Bills had not been brought forward, cither by Chief Secretaries, Attorney Generals, or private Members, with the view of dealing with the evil. He confessed it appeared strange to him that so many difficulties should be thrown in the way of a reformation that seemed to be so desirable. The main object of reforming the grand jury laws of Ireland was to establish the great and universally admitted principle that there should be no taxation without representation. The House was not, perhaps, aware that in Ireland the occupying tenant paid the whole of the county rate, and that the landlord paid nothing, although he might own 10,000 acres, unless in cases where he occupied the house on his own demesne, which was seldom the case in a country of almost general absenteeism. Notwithstanding this circumstance, the landlords or their agents sat upon the grand juries to disburse money which they did not contribute to raise, and to control an expenditure which was for their own benefit alone. To show how unfair the system operated, he might say, that although three-fourths of the population of the city of Waterford were Catholics, there had never been a single citizen high sheriff of that religion since the reign of James II. except one. According to the practice in Ireland the high sheriff chose the grand jury, so that there was no representation of the ratepayers whatever, Another objection was, that the tenant paid the whole of the grand jury cess, and a further injustice was inflicted by the fact that the greater portion of the amount so raised went to improve the property of the landlord in the shape of roads, bridges, &c., and in respect of which the landlord got an increased rent when a new tenant came in. Another, and not the least formidable, objection to the grand jury system is the very transient nature of the body itself. They were called into existence three or four days before the assizes; they remained together perhaps, not more than a week; and the consequence was, that they were obliged to dispose of the whole of the business in a hasty and inconsiderate manner. They then separated, and in all probability did not meet again for six months, or until the next assizes. It would, he thought, be very much to the advantage of those whose money was raised and expended, if the grand jury system were so reformed that the grand jury should become a sort of corporation, as in English counties, whose duty it would be to meet together at least four times a year, in order to discuss fiscal matters. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would Dot allow another Session to pass without applying himself to the redress of the abuses of which he complained. Year after year the subject had been taken up by Royal Commissions and by Select Committees of the House of Commons, but nothing had come of it. In order that the House might appreciate the relation between the grand jury and the ratepayers, he would briefly refer to the evidence of one or two influential and experienced gentlemen upon the subject. Mr. Joseph Kincaid, of the firm of Stewart and Kincaid, land agents to Lord Palmerston, was asked whether the grand jury cess was much complained of by the tenantry, and his answer was—"Very much: "— Does it appear to you that it would be desirable that the landlords, in the first instance, should pay those rates?—We are agents to an estate in the county of Dublin where the landlord pays the whole of the county cess, and charges no part to the tenant; and I have for a considerable time held the opinion that the landlord ought to pay all the local charges on the land. Several years ago I published a letter on the subject. I should think in Longford the rate amounts to nearly 2s. in the pound. Is it your opinion that it would be for the benefit of the landed proprietors to take upon themselves the payment of the taxes and charges upon the land?—I think it would be for the benefit of the landed proprietors that the tenants should be relieved from demands by other parties, particularly from the county cess, which presses upon them at a season when they are not able to pay it. Does it appear to you that the principle adopted as to the poor rate would be applicable to county charges, dividing the amount between the landlord and tenant?—It may be, but I doubt whether the mode adopted is desirable, the tenant paying in the first instance, and getting an allowance afterwards, and it is open to the objection I have already suggested, that the tenant ought to be relieved as much as possible from different demands upon him at different seasons of the year and that the pecuniary dealings of the tenant with reference to the charges upon the land should be principally with his landlord. That principle of dividing the amount of the charges would be fair, giving the tenant a voice in the expenditure of the public money as well as the landlord; but the details may be exceedingly difficult to manage. In what manner would you propose to check the amount of the county rates if the landlords were liable to pay, and not the tenants?—The landlords and agents generally are the persons who lay on the assessment, as members of the grand juries. Would you continue the present system of associating the ratepayers with the magistrates?—I think the grand jury laws are capable of very great improvement in that respect; at the same time, I would be inclined to give the ratepayers a voice in the expenditure of the public money. The evidence of Lord Clancarty, for many years foreman of the County Galway Grand Jury, was also important. The noble Lord said— I am of opinion that if more than a partial remedy is to be applied—if a radical change is to be made in the system, it should be to do away altogether with grand juries for all purposes but the criminal business of the county, and to invest the Poor Law boards of guardians—representing as they do all the real and fairly taxable property within their several distriots—with all the fiscal powers hitherto exercised by grand juries, subject, of course, to such regulations as would prevent these new duties from interfering with the fulfilment of the primary objects of this institution. Dispensaries, fever hospitals, roads, and all other local public works, it is especially desirable should be placed under representative control, both for the sake of better efficiency, and in order to create that responsibility towards the payers of rates to which they are fairly entitled. Admiral Trench, when, examined on the same subject, said— Every attempt to improve the fiscal laws which govern grand juries has failed, and this because the system is itself vicious, and incapable of producing good. …I think that no power of raising and expending money should ever be intrusted to an irresponsible body, and least of all to grand juries. I would strongly advise that the whole machinery should be abolished, and an entire new system be resorted to. Surely, the great duration of the grand jury system, the numberless attempts to improve it, and the necessity for present inquiry are, or ought to be, more than enough to condemn it. I have spoken of it as the worst of irresponsible bodies for the purpose of levying and expending public money; and a long and attentive experience has justified me in doing so. Sir Richard Kane's evidence was as follows:— Have you any suggestions you wish to lay before the Commissioners?—No; only that I would strongly recommend that half of the county rate should be placed upon the landlord; and the reason why I say so is this, that the lords of the soil, who generally compose the grand juries, would look, I think, with more attention, and a greater degree of surveillance, to the disposition of the funds, if they were to put their hands into their own pockets. You would have a little more discussion; but, at all events, I think it would have a salutary effect. There are now nominal guardians of baronies, in many instances, who are, I need not say, very useless representatives. Sir Richard Musgrave likewise said— I think it fair that a portion of the rate should be paid by the landlord, and for this reason, that the landlord has the power, as a grand juror, of imposing the rate for the purpose of effecting improvements, now that the rate is entirely paid by the tenant, although the tenant derives benefit from the improvements only during his lease. When his lease expires, the landlord comes in for the entire benefit of that tax which he had imposed himself upon the tenant. Having thus referred to the evidence of some of the best authorities on the subject, he ventured to direct the attention of the House and the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a few extracts from the Report of the Royal Commissioners in 1842. They said— The intent of the Legislature in establishing presentment sessions seems to have been to give to the ratepayers such a representation thereat as would enable them to prevent improper or improvident presentments; but the law is not effectual for its purpose. Magistrates may, and, when a particular object is to be carried, not unfrequently do, attend the presentment sessions of baronies where they have no property, and outvote those who have. Then, as to the associated ratepayers, they are not chosen by the ratepayers at large, but are taken by lot from the reduced lists made by the grand jury in the way already described. They are therefore nominees, not of the class they are to represent, but of the class they are to control. The lot, too, may fall upon the most unfit, which is, of itself, a serious fault in the system; and, the uncertainty in which the ratepayers named by the grand jury are left until the day of the presentment sessions, as to the particular individuals who may be drawn to serve, is obviously calculated to prevent a regular attendance. (Signed) "J. BLAKE, Chief Remembrancer. JOHN YOUNG, Bart. BARON GREENE. WILLIAM SOMERVILLE, Bart. JOHN L. O'FERRALL. The Committee of 1830.—This Committee, and previous Parliamentary Committees, recommended that in all future leases the whole or a part of all grand jury assessments be placed on the landlord. Committee of 1844.—This Committee on the townland valuation recommend that county cess and poor rate should be collected together, and that all tenants should have the power of deducting a portion of the county rate as under the poor law. Devon Commission, 1845.—Recommend that the cost of certain public works in counties be borne by the proprietors, and the support of charitable institutions be transferred to the poor laws. Committee of 1836—Commission of 1840—Devon Commission, 1845.—All these recommend the office of clerk of the crown and peace to be united; those of 1840 and 1845, that the office of county treasurer should be abolished; that of 1840, that presentment sessions should consist only of magistrates qualified by property within the barony, and the elected guardians of same. He thought he had now laid before the House an abundance of evidence to show that a change in the Irish grand jury laws was urgently required. The state of things described by the several Commissions, and the witnesses whose evidence he had quoted, still continued. He did not make any charge against the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland—he did Dot blame him for the unsatisfactory state of the law—but he trusted the right hon.; Gentleman would at one give his attention to the subject, and that before the end of the present Session he (Mr. Blake) might have the pleasure of congratulating him on having accomplished that which so many of his predecessors in office had failed in accomplishing. He believed that there was no subject more worthy of the right hon. Baronet's attention than the question of the reform of the grand jury laws. It was matter of notoriety that there was scarcely any Irish measure, no matter how urgently required, which did not take seven years to debate before it became law; and unfortunately, if any interregnum took place, and that the discussions had to commence de novo, another period of seven years was consumed before anything final was done. If the Government adopted the suggestions of the various commissions which had inquired into the subject, they would make the grand juries of Ireland something in the nature of county corporations, and those who paid the cess would feel that they had representation as well as taxation. He believed the right hon. Baronet was not prepared to go into a discussion of the subject at the present moment, as, owing to an unintentional mistake on his (Mr. Blake's) part, he had led the right hon. Baronet to understand that he should, on the present occasion, ask a question only. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Baronet would give him a reply as to whether, in the event of the Government not doing anything in the matter themselves this Session, they would give their support to a proposition embracing the various improvements which he had ventured to indicate. The first point was as to the representation on the juries; the next, that the taxation should be on the poor rate principle—namely, that a portion should be paid by the landlord as well as by the tenant. He knew that the right hon. Baronet's hands were full at the present moment, but he might, without interference with the measures which he himself was promoting, give the assistance of the Government to a private Member endeavouring to effect those necessary reforms.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that he was not prepared to enter into a discussion of the grand jury laws. As had been observed, two or three Attorney Generals had failed to make satisfactory progress with measures they had introduced; and he did not think that at the present stage of the Session it would be desirable to introduce a Bill making any considerable changes in the action of the grand jury laws. In the case of the associated cess-payers, there might not be all the freedom of action that was to be desired; and he would be glad to introduce a Bill, perhaps next Session, if he held office, and would give the subject careful attention during the recess. He was not aware that the Irish generally desired to see any serious change made.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, that the subject had excited great interest in Ireland. There had been several county meetings held; and the proposals made at those meetings, at which all classes were represented, showed that a measure of the nature shadowed forth by the answer of the right hon. Baronet would not be satisfactory. The question was, why should county cess be borne by one class, and the rate for the relief of the poor be divided between two classes? For his own part he would rather wait ten years than accept a peddling and contemptible measure like that shadowed forth by the right hon. Baronet.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he considered that those who had the management of the cess were those who paid it, for all taxes of the kind must ultimately fall upon the land. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would see from the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, what was the real nature of the changes asked for.