HC Deb 17 August 1883 vol 283 cc1102-9

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had to propose a new clause which stood in his name on the Paper.

New Clause:—

(Occupier to be rated.—Constructive payment of rate.)

"In making out any Poor Rate after the commencement of this Act in respect of any premises situate in any city, town, or borough, returning a Member or Members to serve in Parliament, the guardians of the poor, or other person or persons making out such rate shall enter in the occupiers' column of the rate book the name of the occupier of every hereditament rated at a net annual value of more than four pounds, whether the rate is collected from the owner or occupier, or the owner is liable to the payment of the rate instead of the occupier, and such occupier shall be deemed to be duly rated for the purpose of any qualification or franchise depending upon rating; and, if any clerk of the union, or other person charged with the making out of the rate, negligently or wilfully, and without reasonable cause, omits the name of the occupier of any such rateable hereditament from the rate, or negligently or wilfully misstates any name therein, such clerk or other person shall, for every such omission or misstatement, be liable, if convicted in a summary manner, to a penalty not exceeding two pounds: Provided, That any occupier whose name has been omitted shall, notwithstanding such omission, and that no claim to be rated has been made by him, be entitled to every qualification and franchise depending upon rating, in the same manner as if his name had not been so omitted.

"In every such city, town, or borough, every payment of a rate by the owner of any hereditaments rated at a net annual value of over four pounds, whether the owner is himself rated, or is liable to pay the rate, or has agreed with the occupier to pay it, shall be deemed a payment of the rate by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification which, as regards rating, depends upon the payment of the poor rate,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. MAYNE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted one very important portion of this clause—namely, the county franchise. He included the borough franchise of £4; but it was just as necessary that the occupiers should be rated in counties where the value was £12 as it was, that they should be rated in boroughs where the value was £4.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name to this clause. The object of it was to insure that in counties the same procedure should have effect as in boroughs. If the return of occupiers in boroughs for £4 was compulsory, he thought a return for £12 should be necessary in counties.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause— In line 6, after "pounds," insert "and in counties every payment of a rate by the owner of any hereditaments rated at a net annual value of twelve pounds."—(Mr. Dawson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL

asked whether it would not be necessary to insert, after the word "pounds" in the proposed Amendment, the words "and upwards?"

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to add, after the word "pounds" in the proposed Amendment to the proposed Clause, the words "and upwards."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he did not agree with this Amendment. It was unnecessary. In towns, particularly in Dublin, where a special Act of Parliament applied, such a thing as an owner being rated for £12 and upwards was absolutely unknown. This proposal had not been made because it was perfectly unnecessary, such an instance never having occurred.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, he would at once bow to the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but it must be remembered that in counties containing places like Kingstown, where whole terraces were owned by one person, the circumstances were not those of ordinary country districts, and were just as they were in towns.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw?

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, he should like to hear some explanation on the point from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, be believed such a thing was unknown as rating the owner of a house of £12 value, but that if it did exist it was contrary to law—just as contrary to the existing law as it would be to the new law.

MR. MAYNE

said, that, nevertheless, he thought it would be desirable that the Amendment, as proposed by the hon. Member, should be adopted, because this clause proposed for the first time to impose a penalty upon rate collectors and others responsible for entering the occupier's name in the rate book for any remissness in the performance of that duty; and he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that although it might be uncommon to find owners rated instead of occupiers of £12 value, it was very common, particularly in County Dublin, to find the rate book all wrong, and wilfully so. They had to deal in County Dublin with a class of rate collectors hostile to certain shades of political views amongst occupiers, and they frequently made a political choice as to whom they should put in the rate book. These collectors made inquiries as to the political leanings of the occupier of a house before they rated him at all. He was aware of instances in the Donnybrook Division of County Dublin in which occupiers rated at above £12—indeed, above £50—who had been in occupation of their houses for eight, nine, and even ten years, and had not even yet their names upon the rate book, and were only kept on the list of voters by claiming every year to be rated—a claim which was every year disregarded by both the collector and the Board of Guardians; in fact, a hostile collector, if he felt he had the Board of Guardians to sustain him in the particular course he adopted, could do just as he liked with his rate book. It was for the sake of the penalty which this clause now provided, and which was a novelty in Ireland, though it existed in almost all the English Franchise and Registration Acts, that he was so anxious that the hon. Member should not withdraw his Amendment.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he almost thought the hon. Member did not understand the clause he (Mr. Trevelyan) had had the honour of moving; and, further, the hon. Member had evidently not recently studied the Bill before the House. A rate collector, who, either through ill-faith or gross negligence, omitted to put upon the rate book persons who ought to be there, was liable to suffer penalties under the provisions of the 9th and 10th clauses of the Bill. The present new clause was introduced for quite another purpose—namely, for the purpose of securing the franchise to occupiers who were under the system of compound householders. It was not for the primary purpose of punishing the Clerk of the Union. The penalties inserted were only in case of non-performance of the duty of specially rating the compound householders. He should be obliged to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member on the grounds he had stated.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could be much surprised at any misunderstanding into which any hon. Member had fallen. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced an important change in the Registration Law of Ireland in this new clause without a single word of explanation; and he (Mr. Plunket) wished to call attention to the fact, for it was another illustration of the manner in which the Bill had been forced through the House. No wonder the House was entirely at a loss to know what was really intended by this clause. This question of the reform of the Law of Registration in Ireland had now been for 10 years before the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that hon. Members would not interrupt him; he had not interrupted them while they were speaking; and he, therefore, trusted they would be courteous enough to allow him to say a few words. [An hon. MEMBER: We were only cheering you.] He was saying, when interrupted, that this question had been long debated, and had created a great amount of variety of opinion during the last 10 years amongst persons of different parties. He (Mr. Plunket) had been one who had taken a forward part in opposing the policy which was attempted to be carried out by the alteration of the law proposed to be made in the Bill. He did not object to a proper reform of the Registration Law of Ireland, but merely wished to say that if he had taken no part in the discussion that evening on the Report of the Bill, it had been for the same reason that hon. Friends of his who were not then in the House took no part in a previous stage in the discussion of Amendments, because of the attempt to force the Bill through the House. He objected to a Bill like this being forced through the House, seeing that it would effect an enormous change in the constituencies of Ireland—seeing, as the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) said the other evening, that it would have the effect of doubling the constituency of Dublin and other places, and seeing that the measure was one really amounting to a Reform Bill, and a Reform Bill of a very important character. The Bill, when first brought in, was comparatively moderate; but suddenly, in the midst of the Committee stage, large Amendments were hurriedly accepted by the Government, part of which were being carried out by the clause in question. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the very Question, and he appealed to Mr. Speaker for protection. He was making a very short speech, and the interruptions which were constantly coming from the Benches below the Gangway simply made the conduct of Business in the House impossible. He had been listening to other hon. Members patiently enough, and now that he attempted to express his views he was met with most discourteous interruptions. If he had not taken part in the discussions hitherto, it was because the attempt to discuss the Bill in the present circumstances of the House and of the Session was the merest form. To take a Division would also be the merest form, and would not, in any degree, express the intelligent sense of Parliament on the question. In abstaining from taking any part in these discussions, he and his Friends threw on the Government the whole responsibility of dealing with this matter in a way which he, for one, did not hesitate to describe as unusual, inconvenient, and unfair.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would not follow the right hon. and learned Member into his statement as to what had been going on on the subject of the reform of the registration of Ireland for the past 10 years. He would only say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been in his place lately he would have seen that the matter had been fully discussed.

MR. PLUNKET

I beg to say that I have read the Reports, and that I found by them that the matter was not discussed at all.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, that before withdrawing his Amendment, which he was about to do, he wished to say——

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a second speech. If he desires to make an explanation, of course that is another matter.

MR. DAWSON (LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN)

said, he only wished to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had read the clauses passed for England quadrupling the constituencies—[Cries of "Order!"]

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, in reference to the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite, although his right hon. and learned Friend was not present, he was present in the previous discussion, and the matter was not discussed; on the contrary, they declined to discuss it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause:— (Evening sittings of revision courts.) Every barrister appointed to revise the lists for a Parliamentary borough containing, according to the last census for the time being, more than ten thousand inhabitants, shall hold at least one evening sitting of his court in such borough. An evening sitting shall commence not earlier than six nor later than seven o'clock in the evening, and shall be of such duration as, in the opinion of the revising barrister, shall be reasonable. Special notice or notices of an evening sitting or of evening sittings to be held in a borough shall be published by the town clerk in such manner as the revising barrister may direct,"—(Mr. Healy,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made in the proposed new Clause, in line 1, by leaving out "every barrister appointed," and inserting "every county court judge, chairman, or revising barrister, whose duty it is;" in line 6, by leaving out "revising barrister," and inserting "chairman, county court judge, or revising barrister;" and in line 9, by leaving out "revising barrister," and inserting "chairman, county court judge, or revising barrister."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

MR. TREVELYAN

asked that the third reading should be now taken,

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)—put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.