§ MR. JAMES DALY (Monaghan, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians on 5th January this year wrote to the officer of the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland protest- 1108 ing against a valuation made by their revising officer, reducing the valuation of premises from £39 10s. to £26, grabbed by a man named Kenny in the town of Carrickmacross; (2) whether he is aware that the previous tenant, Mr. Phelan, who was evicted, improved these premises so much that the valuation during his time was increased from £35 to £39 10s.; also that the present tenant swore at Castleblaney Quarter Sessions in October last that he was paying £35 per annum, same rent as the evicted tenant; and, if so, why a reduction in the valuation; (3) whether he can give the name Of the officer who made this valuation, and if he is the same person who increased the valuation on the previous tenant; and (4) if the Valuation and Boundary Survey Department gave any instructions in this case; and, if so, what were they?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralThe revision of the valuation of the premises referred to was made in 1893, when the valuation was reduced to £26, following deterioration of the buildings, which are very old. No objection was made at the time by the Board of Guardians, but early this year they requested that the valuation should be restored to its original amount. An investigation by a second Valuer, and subsequently by the Chief Valuer of the Department, confirmed the result arrived at by the First. Valuer, who reduced the valuation. It is the fact, I understand, that in 1880, when Mr. Phelan, the former tenant, and who is now, I believe, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, was in occupation of the premises, the valuation was increased from £36 10s. to £39 10s. The present occupier is liable for a rent of. £35, the landlord maintaining the premises and paying the taxes. None of the three Valuers who reported in favour of the reduced valuation is the officer who increased the valuation in 1880. I see no reason for stating the name of any of these officers. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative. It was open to the Guardians to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation in this case, and they were so informed on the 21st January last, but no steps were taken by them in this direction, and the statutory time for appealing has now lapsed.
§ MR. DALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large amount of correspondence has passed between the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland and the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians regarding reductions recently made by the revising valuer on the town property of Mr. Shirley, Carrickmacross; whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians have protested against the reduction made on the property mentioned; also that other landlords in this town have had to object to increases put upon their buildings by same valuer; and whether he can say it the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland gave their revising valuer any special instructions regarding the Shirley property in arriving at his decision; if so, can he state what they were?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURA large amount of correspondence has passed between the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians and the Valuation Office regarding a valuation reduced in 1893, and the Guardians have protested against the same, thought they have not appealed to the Courts as they might have done if dissatisfied. I am not aware of any general protest against the valuations made in this Union, but the fact that there has not been a single appeal against any of these during the past three years would seem to show that they have been equitable. No special instructions were given to any of the valuers who were revising in this Union.