§ SIR JOHN GRAYcalled the attention of the House to the proposed increase of Spirit Licence Duty in Ireland by the Board of Inland Revenue, and asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Whether, in proposing such increase, the Board were acting under instructions from the Treasury; and, if not, Whether the Treasury will interfere to prevent it? Great dissatisfaction had been caused throughout Ireland by this action of the Board of Inland Revenue. In Ireland the licenses for retailers of spirits were based on the rental or the value of the premises; and this rental or value was not the parochial or other local valuation, but the public Governmental valuation used for the assessment of inhabited houses. It was important, therefore, that they should understand what the public valuation of Ireland was. There was first the Ordnance valuation—generally called Griffith's valuation—and there was also the Poor Law valuation; but for a considerable number of years there had been no separate Poor Law valuation, the several unions having adopted the most recent Government valuation, known as the Tenement Valuation (Ireland), made by the Commissioners of Valuation appointed by the Government of whom Sir Richard Griffith was Chief Commissioner. That valuation was now used for all Poor Law purposes, for all grand jury rating, and all other county purposes—for all municipal purposes—and had been adopted by the Government for Imperial taxation purposes, and on it was based the Income Tax from property in Ireland. For a series of years the Inland Revenue adopted and acted on it. It was still just enough for the Government, for the Poor Law authori- 432 ties, for the county and municipal authorities; but the Inland Revenue have arbitrarily added 25 per cent to the public valuation, and made that the basis for the duty. That did not add 20 per cent to the duty—if it did, probably there would be very little irritation produced—it added nothing whatever to the large traders' license duty. Premises valued at or above £50 a year would continue to pay the same license duty as before; but the small traders in the country towns and villages would have, by the proposed change, their duties raised, not 25 per cent, but 100 per cent. Already much bad feeling had been caused by this unjust proceeding. Meetings had been held in Dublin, in Cork, in Kilkenny, in Limerick, in Waterford, in Clonmel, in fact, in every town in Ireland, to protest against this unfair and arbitrary departure from the public valuation basis so long acted on. He would put it to the Government and ask was it wise at such a juncture as the present to force an influential class of traders, whose ramifications spread into every village in Ireland, and whose houses were the centres of town and village political discussion, into a state of permanent irritation, and thus create so many normal schools for discontent and for just invective against the system pursued towards Ireland? The sum to be raised would be a very small compensation for the evils sure to result from the discontent and agitation that would arise. The total sum to be acquired by this new screw was variously estimated at £50,000 for as high as £80,000; but, though small in amount, it was an unjust addition to the drain from Ireland, and would be all levied from one class of traders, and that class of men who could not well bear it.
§ MR. MAGUIREcorroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, as to the dissatisfaction which had been created by the course taken by the Commissioners, and expressed his conviction that the proposed increase in the license was arbitrary and most unfair.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, speaking from his own knowledge, stated that the proposed increase was most unpopular, and in his opinion most unjust in principle. A basis which had existed for so many years ought not to be disturbed at the whim of the Revenue Board.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he could not see, when the Board had so long accepted the valuation, on what ground they were 433 now altering it. It could not be on the ground of any increase in the value of property, for the property in the smaller towns, which would be most affected, had been greatly depreciated, and it was that very property which the Board were endeavouring to saddle with an increase of taxation.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENbelieved that the effect of the change would be to increase the class of unlicensed or she been houses, where the greatest portion of the crime in Ireland was hatched, and where most of the conspiracies in that country originated.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the Question put to him was whether the Commissioners were acting under instructions from the Treasury. The Commissioners were not acting by direction of the Treasury. On being communicated with they informed him that they were proceeding in entire accordance with the Act of Parliament regulating the spirit duties, that they were not only acting according to law, but that they would not be acting according to law if they did not do what they had done. By the 5th section of the Act certain rules were laid down for ascertaining the value of these houses, and there was a proviso that if the persons authorized to grant licenses should be dissatisfied with the rent or value as shown by the certificate of the landlord, they were authorized and required to adopt such other means as the Commissioners of Excise might think fit to ascertain the true rent or annual value of such houses or premises. The Commissioners considered that they were bound by the Act to ascertain the true rent or value, and that they would be neglecting their duty if they failed to do so. They further stated that with respect to many of these houses where the license duty had been raised, that if it were not so raised it would operate unfairly with regard to other houses; because in many cases where new houses were built the true value was put upon them. They also said that in every case in which persons had appealed to the Commissioners inquiries had been instituted and redress granted whenever it appeared to the Commissioners to be required. The observations of hon. Gentlemen confirmed the representations made to him in favour of a new general valuation. If that were done these complaints would cease, and he should look for the support of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had taken part in this discussion if, during the 434 Session, he should introduce a new Valuation Bill.
§ SIR JOHN GRAYhoped the hon. Gentleman would suspend the proceedings of the Commissioners until a new valuation was made, and he should be glad to support him in any measure of that kind.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not consider the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman satisfactory, and did not think the clause in the Act made it incumbent on the Commissioners to act as they had done. The existing valuation had been made under the Tenements Valuation Act, and that being so he could not understand how it became the duty of the Commissioners to leave a mode of valuation which had been established for so many years and go back to a statute of the reign of George IV. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would adopt the hint of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and suspend the proceedings of the Commissioners, and in the meantime consider the whole matter and establish the valuation on a just and equitable footing.