HC Deb 05 May 1882 vol 269 cc231-2
MR. ION HAMILTON

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he has received any information in regard to the facts alleged in the following paragraph, which appeared in the Irish Correspondence of the "Times" of the 1st instant:— A gentleman in a western county has a demesne and about thirty tenants occupying one electoral division. As they refused to pay their rents he evicted them. Immediately they applied to the hoard of guardians, who voted from £1 to £2 a week for the relief of each family. The effect of this—for the rating in Ireland is by electoral division—is that the whole cost is thrown upon him, involving an expense of from £40 to £50 a-week. But this is not all. They have all lodged claims under the special section of the Land Act of 1870, which provides that where the rent is £15 or under, if the rent of the holding be held to be exorbitant, eviction for non-payment will be looked upon as a disturbance, and the tenant shall be entitled to compensation measured by seven years' rent. They have also made claims for improvements. He has, therefore, sixty lawsuits on his hands, and claims against him to the amount of about £10,000; and, whether the Government propose taking any steps to prevent landlords being ruined through the agency of the Poor Laws?

MR. HEALY

said, he wished, before the Question was answered, to know, whether it was a fact that the Irish Members had been years bringing in Bills to abolish electoral division rating, and to substitute Union rating instead; and, whether the Representatives of the landlords and the Tory Party had not opposed this proposal on every occasion?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

, in reply, said, he was not a Member of the House during the time to which the hon. Member referred, therefore he could not answer the Question. He was aware, however, that Union rating in Ireland had for a long time been a matter of public consideration. He was unable to find out the instance which the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) indicated in his Question; but in answer to his inquiry, he had to say that the auditor of the Local Government Board, under the 95th section of the first Poor Law Act, was empowered to disallow all illegal and improper charges that were taken credit for by Guardians, and to reduce those which were extravagant.