§ MR. W. J. CORBET (Wicklow, E.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a passage in the Instructions issued by the Lord 1633 Lieutenant for the Justices and Associated Cesspayers at Extraordinary Presentment Sessions of the county Wicklow, in 1880, in regard to the Baronial Guarantee for the repayment of the Loan for the construction of a harbour at Wicklow, viz.:—
The tax necessary for this purpose is divisible between landlord and tenant, like the Poor Rate, and is paid by the landlord exclusively in all holdings valued at and under four pounds a-year;whether it is true that the tenants have been paying the whole of the tax up to the present time; what steps, if any, were taken by the Grand Jury in making the presentments, to inform the people, either through their secretary, through the barony cess collectors, or by advertisement, of the nature of their rights; how many instalments, and to what amount, have already been repaid to the Commissioners of Public Works in respect of the Loan; and, what steps can the people take to get back the landlord's moiety?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne), in reply, said, that the presentment in this case had been made by the Justices and Associated Cesspayers at a special Presentment Sessions; and 100 copies of the Lord Lieutenant's instructions, containing the paragraph mentioned in the Question, were sent beforehand for their use. The presentment when made was forwarded to the Grand Jury, who, he was advised, had no power to review it; but, on the contrary, were bound to carry it out, which they did. He had no means of ascertaining the manner in which the tax had been divided as between landlords and tenants; but, as he had stated, the cesspayers were made aware of how it could be divided. Whether any of them had been paying more than their share, and, if so, whether they could recover, were questions on which they must be guided by their own legal advisers. The total Government Loan in this case was over £37,000, of which, so far, something over £3,000 had been repaid.