RESOLUTIONS.

HL Deb 30 May 1876 vol 229 cc1401-14

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, in bringing forward the Motion of which I have given Notice, I shall endeavour to spare your Lordships any details which are not necessary to the proper explanation of the subject in hand; but must ask to be excused if, in doing so, I trespass at greater length upon your Lordships' time than I have hitherto done. In reminding your Lordships that in the Acts to which it refers is contained the entire machinery by which county taxation in Ireland is kept in motion, I shall have said, I hope, enough to secure your Lordships'attention, while endeavouring to lay before you the objections that may be taken to the constitution of those bodies which originate and carry out county works in Ireland, and some further points in which the present system has been deemed to fall short. I have ventured to come forward, as I am convinced that any discussion which may arise in your Lordships'House on this question, cannot fail to be most profitable, and to elicit valuable opinions on what appears to me a very necessary measure of reform. My Lords, although there is some difference of opinion as to what its extent should be, still we may say that the desirability of some reform in the Grand Jury Laws is recognized by all parties in Ireland. Already this Session three Bills dealing with the question have been introduced by different Members of the House of Commons; and as far as my own experience goes, and from information that has reached me from various quarters I believe any wisely-conceived changes would meet with general satisfaction. But before stating my own humble views, I will, with your Lordships' permission, say a very few words as to substitutions that have been proposed for the present working system. A great deal has been said outside this House about sweeping away the Grand Jury altogether, and recasting the entire machinery. Now, my Lords, I have searched with a good deal of care for any arguments pro and con which bear upon this point, and I have failed to discover that any sound reason has been advanced in support of a radical change. Very many charges have been brought against the Grand Jury, but not one of them has ever been proved—nay, the evidence we have at our command goes distinctly to disprove them. The Grand Jury was intended to be, and may be said to be, the representation of the landed proprietors of the county. It must be remembered they have no right to originate anything—with a few exceptions—only a right of control. As a matter of fact, those gentlemen summoned by the Sheriffs represent pretty fairly the landed proprietors, and their working has in almost all cases given satisfaction. Their administration has been pure and, on the whole, economical; and I do not believe you will find by any means, or in any form, whether in the form of County Boards or otherwise, a body of men who would so persistently set their faces against jobbing or anything of that sort as Irish Grand Juries do. The question was constantly asked by the late Lord Mayo and other Members of the Committee of1868, and not a single witness, however averse to the present state of things, was able to bring forward an instance in which anything approaching jobbery or corruption could be imputed to Grand Juries. And again, my Lords, in retaining the Grand Jury, we retain at the same time that excellent function of control which they exercise in all matters which entail expenditure of the county cess. There is a feeling even among those who desire a complete change that control is necessary, and I find it in the Appendix to the Report of 1868, advocated by one witness in a form analogous to the Poor Law Commissioners. We have then, my Lords, a system in working order, the working of which has given satisfaction, and one in which the controlling body represents that just and proper authority which the landed interest is entitled to exercise in county matters. I am sure that under these conditions your Lordships will agree it is a far wiser course to deal with the question as far as possible on the principle of leaving well alone, instead of making sweeping changes, and establishing a new order of things which would certainly take time in righting itself and becoming efficient, and, perhaps, might fail altogether. Having said so much in reference to this part of the subject, I have to draw your Lordships' attention to those changes which it might appear advisable to bring about in the summoning and elements of the Grand Jury. It is, I believe, the legal supposition that the Sheriff of a county, in forming the Grand Jury, should first summon for each barony, a freeholder of £50, or a leaseholder of £100, but in reality there is nothing in the law to compel him to do so. The words of the statute are—"duly qualified by law," and however far we go back, we shall find no satisfactory definition of this qualification. Again, at present, the Sheriff's duty is discharged by his merely placing one name from each barony on the panel. It is no business of his to see that that person attends—merely to summon him and no more. The name must appear, and that is all; so that in reality there is no proper qualification, and no security for the representation of all the baronies. The former objection would be easily met by laying down in any future legislation some distinct qualification, say of £50 freehold, or £200 leasehold, and the second by requiring the Sheriff, in forming his panel, not merely to place one name for each barony first on his list, but to call through the entire list of qualified persons in each barony, until such barony is represented, or the list exhausted, and then, and not till then, to proceed to complete his panel. The proposal is not a new one, it has already been before Parliament, and I believe the principle of the Bill in which it is contained has been recognized by Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, there is one point connected with the elements of the Grand Jury upon which I wish to say a word, and that is as to whether it is advisable to permit the eldest sons and agents of qualified persons to act in their place. Now, my Lords, in particular cases the entire withdrawal of this permission would no doubt act very harshly. There is a constitutional objection, as your Lordships are aware, arising out of the duties of the Grand Jury in criminal cases, which precludes Peers from giving their services. Minors, of course, cannot, nor women, nor lunatics or idiots. In these cases there could, I would submit, be no possible objection to retaining the present state of things. But, in general, my Lords, I believe there is a very strong feeling, that these persons should not be permitted to serve on the Grand Jury. The position of agents, merely as managers and not owners of property, would seem to exclude them even under the present very uncertain qualification. Again, the knowledge that their agents may be summoned indiscriminately may tend in many cases to encourage absenteeism, of the evils of which, at one time at all events, we used to hear a great deal. I do not desire to bring any charge of this sort against any class or individual, and we, who live in the country, know well the interest which some of the Members of your Lordships' House and others take in their Irish properties; but, still, the present system may be fairly said to be open to that objection. It might be argued in favour of eldest sons that, as they will be one day called upon to perform those duties which are now in their father's hands, it would be of advantage to them to have the means of acquiring a knowledge of those duties; but we must bear in mind that it will be in every man's power to give his son a qualification if he thinks necessary, a step which would seem to be a very wise one, as it would give him not only a prospective, but an immediate interest or stake in the county. I hope, therefore, that in dealing with this matter hereafter, Her Majesty's Government will limit the right to be summoned to the agents of those disqualified by law, under which phrase the different classes I have enumerated would come. The change would give general satisfaction, and one great advantage would certainly arise from it, it would tend to make non-resident proprietors take a more direct and personal interest in county affairs. I now come to the Resolution which deals with the appointment of committees, and as to their desirability I need not trouble your Lordships, only refer you to Section 14 of this Report, where the Committee have clearly stated their views; but as to the limits which should be put upon their jurisdiction I should like to say a word. In a Bill introduced by Lord Hartington some years ago, the powers of the proposed committees under his scheme were defined. The clauses in that Bill which I allude to seem to have been framed with a view of avoiding the danger which must attend the existence of these committees, if proper care is not taken in limiting their powers—that of their eventually usurping the functions of the Grand Jury; and I would suggest those clauses to Her Majesty's Government as a basis for future legislation; with this addition—that the committee should have a right of examining all accounts instead of those only of the cess collectors, and that it should be decidedly stated that it should have no power to deal summarily in any case, merely a right to report at the next Assizes. It should, I would suggest, be appointed by the Grand Jury out of their own body; and for this, among other reasons, that as one of the chief advantages we hope to derive from it is a greater sense of responsibility in county officers, the committee should consist of members of that body, to whom the responsibility is due. All I am suggesting to your Lordships is, that there should be some supervision in the interval from Assizes to Assizes. I have already indicated the danger into which the appointment of these committees may lead us; and I cannot help thinking that it would be more difficult to restrain them within proper limits, if they were formed out of those bodies with whom everything in the county originates. However, from whatever body they are taken I believe that with proper safeguards we should secure a very necessary element in county management, by establishing a body, the presence of which would be most useful in creating a more continuous sense of responsibility among county officers than it is possible should exist at present. My Lords, one argument that has been adduced in favour of sweeping away the present state of things is, that the Irish people have no control or authority over the expenditure of the £1,300,000 that is yearly levied by way of county cess. Now even supposing this were the case, it is quite impossible that the fault should lie with the Grand Jury, for we all know very well that nearly 90 per cent of that expenditure is entirely beyond their control. But where reform is needed—and urgently needed—is in those bodies which are termed the presentment sessions. In fact, we may go further, and say that it is with these bodies we are bound to deal first, as with them really rests the control and authority over the expenditure. This Report tells your Lordships all the objections against them as they are—as to the mode of their formation—as to the irresponsibility, non-attendance, and causes of non-attendance of cess-payers, and the risk of their being swamped by an overwhelming majority of magistrates at sessions—so it will not be necessary for me to enter into them. If the right to sit at presentment sessions were accorded only to such magistrates as possessed a residential or property qualification in the barony—and their number were limited by the number of cess payers who had a right to attend—we should remove one of the great causes of apathy, the fear the associated cess payers entertain of having their opinions entirely overruled. But the great and most important object of all, is to secure that those cess payers should adequately and fairly represent those classes who pay the rates—and we have at our hands a system already in existence, which will enable us to fulfil those conditions. The Guardians of the Poor fairly represent the people for Poor Law purposes, and would do so equally for purposes of the administration of the county cess; and the great advantage of such an arrangement would be, that we should attain our object without any of the difficulties attending the creation of new constituencies, franchises, and territorial divisions. The Baronial courts being thus constituted it would follow as a matter of course that they should appoint their representatives at the county at large sessions, by electing them from among themselves. As to the question of boundaries, it is no doubt one which will require consideration to deal with it satisfactorily; but I believe a mode of dealing with it could be found by which electoral divisions could without much trouble be rendered coterminous with the baronies. Most probably a Return exists—or at all events it could be procured, of those electoral divisions which are coterminous with baronies; and I feel confident we could find an already-established body in Ireland competent to deal with such as are not. I believe that if Her Majesty's Government laid their instructions on that authority, and directed them how to act in this matter, that by judicious pruning here, and adding on there, and the occasional suppression of an electoral division, the whole question of boundaries might be easily and quietly settled without any necessity of issuing a Commission, as was proposed by Lord Hartington's Bill of 1872. My Lords, I have now, I fear very imperfectly, touched upon those matters to which these Resolutions have reference; but before concluding I am anxious to ask your Lordships to consider one point, which I would submit should find a place in any measure of reform dealing with this question. I mean traverses. We may divide them into two classes—first, those of presentments on their merits, of contractors' applications for payments, and of presentments for damages; and, secondly, those of presentments for malicious injuries, and of disallowed applications. In the case of the former, the section is what I believe is called in law a mandatory section, the Judge being obliged to impanel a jury to try the case. In the second, it is within his discretion to do so or not. My Lords, it seems to me a matter for very serious consideration whether even the discretionary power to send a traverse to a petty jury should exist, although I cannot help feeling that, in the present state of juries in Ireland, it is one which Judges are not likely to exercise very widely; but still there may be, from a legal point of view, something to be said in its favour. In the other case, however, as it at present stands, the law may often have a very mischievous operation. Only the other day, in my own neighbourhood, a presentment for a bridge to connect two counties was passed by the two Grand Juries, fiated by the Judge at one Assizes and traversed at the other, on the two grounds of improper posting of notices and of utility. On the first, or technical ground, the decision was in the Judge's hands, but to try the second he was bound to impanel a jury; in fact, to refer it from a higher to a lower tribunal. What was the result, my Lords? That this useful work, which for two years the most respectable cess-payers and gentry in the neighbourhood had been endeavouring to carry out, was quashed upon traverse at the instance of a few public-house keepers living on the approaches to an old and insecure existing bridge, who were afraid that traffic would be diverted from their doors. I merely mention this to show what may happen; the very possibility of which should not exist. Surely when a presentment has to pass through the various stages it does, there are plenty of means of judging of its utility, or the contrary. It would be quite fair, if there is any objection to doing away with their assistance in traverses altogether, to leave the impanelling of a jury in the hands of the Judge of Assize; and to give, at all events, a more satisfactory tribunal, by empowering him, if he thinks proper, to grant a special jury on the application of either party to a traverse. Such a change would be more especially of advantage in cases of compensation for malicious injury, where local circumstances and feelings are likely to carry weight, and we should run less risk of having proposals extinguished just as they are arriving at maturity, through the ignorance or venality of the final tribunal that may have to decide on their merits. My Lords, I have here one or two suggestions, coming mostly from gentlemen well acquainted with the practical working of Grand Jury Laws, which I hope will be deemed worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Under compensation for malicious injury there are many cases in which no remedy can be obtained—as, for instance, growing fruit-trees, fences, timber, boats, yachts. In a recent case it was decided that valuable animals in a menagerie did not come under the Act, nor do fox-coverts. You can get compensation if your fox-hounds are poisoned, but not if your coverts are burned down, and I cannot see the use of one without the other. It would be for consideration whether injury to "all classes of animate or inanimate property" should give a claim to compensation. Again, it has been suggested that some means should be devised for paying road contractors at earlier periods, as at present they have a long time to wait for their money. In cases of payment for materials the actual value of the materials should be estimated, and not only surface damage. And with regard to the collection of the county cess, a practice held to be legal exists, to continue the rate as a charge on houses even while unoccupied, and if at any time a house should become occupied then to recover all arrears. This is not done in the case of the poor rate, and would certainly appear a hardship. There are other points of detail, but these are the most important, and I will nottrouble your Lordships any further. With regard to the Resolutions, I submit them to your Lordships with a certain amount of confidence, as they have for their basis grounds which should recommend them to all parties in this House. They are based, as your Lordships will have seen, on the recommendations of the Committee of 1868, which was composed of hon. Gentlemen of different political views, on Mr. Kavanagh's Bill, of which the Chief Secretary has signified his approval, and upon Lord Hartington's Bill of 1872, which we may presume is satisfactory to noble Lords opposite. I believe legislation on these grounds would be welcomed in Ireland by the farmers' clubs, by the gentry, and by the cess-payers, and the subject seems one eminently fitted for the hand of a Conservative Government, being one connected with that internal and local reform which they acknowledged last year as their peculiar province. My Lords, I will therefore trouble you no longer. I have to apologize for detaining you at this length, but I feel a sincere hope that a consideration of the subject by your Lordships on the lines I have indicated may lead to the passing of a measure which will give us every prospect of finality, and which will render more perfect and economical the machinery for county taxation in Ireland. The noble Earl concluded by moving the following Resolutions:— (1) That no person should be summoned to serve on the grand jury of any county who is not possessed of a fixed property qualification in such county; (2) That the grand jury should annually at the summer assizes appoint from amongst their body a committee to represent the grand jury for certain limited purposes; (3) That the baronial presentment sessions should be composed of justices of the peace qualified in respect of residence or property in such barony and of the poor law guardians elected to serve for the electoral divisions wholly or partly situate within such barony; (4) That the county at large presentment sessions should be composed of persons elected by the several members composing the baronial presentment sessions in such county.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he could only compliment the noble Earl on the clear and temperate manner in which he had dealt with so complicated a question as that of the county taxation of Ireland. No one, indeed, was better qualified to deal with this important subject as his noble Friend, for no noble Lord connected with Ireland took a more active part in the business of that country. The Irish Grand Jury system wasso different from the Grand Jury system of England, that there was considerable difficulty in mastering the details of the Irish system. He agreed with his noble Friend that upon the whole the present system worked well—though he was far from saying that there was no room for improvement—and he was not sure that even after reform it would be found to be more pure and more economical than it was at present. He thought that they must all agree that the first Resolution of his noble Friend—that no person should be summoned upon the Grand Jury who had not a fixed property qualification—was one that must commend itself to their attention. Whilst, however, admitting that this would be right in theory, he was afraid that if it was attempted to be worked out in practice inconvenience and, in some cases, injustice would follow from the alteration. If such a qualification were insisted on there were parts of Ireland which would be deprived of all representation upon the Grand Jury. Again, lunatics and absentees whatever their fixed qualification could not sit upon the Grand Jury. As to the second Resolution, as to appointing a committee to represent the Grand Jury for certain limited purposes, he thought that a sufficient case had not been made out for alteration in that direction. The existence of the Grand Jury terminated with the Assizes; and a body which had such a very limited existence could not very well appoint an active body to represent them during the whole year. Further, he could not say what work this Committee would find to do even if it were appointed. One consequence of appointing the committee would be to reduce the Grand Jury itself, as regards matters of finance, to much the same position as their Lordships' House held in relation to the House of Commons in respect of Money Votes. Nor did he think that the appointment of such a committee would impose upon the officers of the county a sense of responsibility arising from the feeling that they were overlooked by the committee. Any officer who should be guilty of malpractices would now be liable to have his conduct brought under notice at the next Assizes, and this, he believed, was far more efficacious than anything that could arise from the Grand Jury delegating their powers to a smaller body. The two remaining Resolutions commended themselves very much more to his mind than the two previous ones. The present mode of electing members to serve the presentment sessions was not satisfactory, because there were not as many representatives of the cess-payers as it would be desirable to have, and the third proposition of his noble Friend was an improvement. He could not pledge the Government to bring in a Bill upon the subject this year, but he knew that the matter had occupied the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and two Gentlemen in the other House had brought in Bills upon the subject: the interest which was taken in the subject was further shown by the fact that two or three Committees had sat upon it within the last few years. He should be glad if the Chief Secretary should be in a position in a future Session to bring in a Bill to deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner.

LORD INCHIQUIN

concurred with his noble Friend who had brought forward the Resolutions (the Earl of Donoughmore) that on the whole the Irish Grand Jury system had worked well; and though, no doubt, there were anomalies in its working, he did not think it could be much mended by the action of Parliament. He regretted that his noble Friend had not moved in the matter by presenting a Bill, because he did not think that much could be done by the adoption of abstract Resolutions. There could be no objection to the committee of supervision suggested by his noble Friend, if such committee were appointed only from one Assize to another; and he also thought there was no valid objection to Peers serving on Grand Juries so long as those bodies were only engaged in fiscal business and before they entered upon the discharge of criminal business. It appeared to him that in the selection of members to serve on the committee of supervision there was no good reason for confining the selection to members of the Grand Jury. Therefore, although he raised no decided objection to these Resolutions he should hold himself free, in case any Bill were introduced, to give it his support, although it might not be exactly in agreement with his noble Friend's proposal.

LORD WAVENEY

concurred with the noble Lord who had just spoken that there was no valid objection to Peers discharging the fiscal duties of Grand Jurors. He desired to point out that the sheriffs had a large discretion, and exercised it considerably in the selection of Grand Jurors in Ireland. They would get rid of much of the difficulty which was now felt in that country if there was a fixed property qualification for Grand Jurors. He was convinced, however, that where the Irish Grand Jury system was carried out by a proper order of selection of the Grand Jurors, great attention was given to the business of the country, and, notwithstanding all that had been said against the present Grand Jury system, a very slight alteration was necessary to make it an excellent one. So far as regarded the public works of the county it was superior to that which prevailed in the counties of England. In many parts of England the roads and bridges were still in an unimproved condition, while in Ireland they were attended to by those of the Grand Jurors who resided in the baronies. Under the Grand Jury Act, Poor Law Guardians were to save money and economize on all occasions; while the functions of the associated cesspayers were to act in conjunction with the Grand Jurors and to decide what money should be expended on county works for the public good. He thanked the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) for bringing forward these Resolutions, but he thought the discussion had shown that the present system required very little or no alteration when it was administered fearlessly and honestly.

THE EARL OF BANDON

said, he had known something of the Grand Jury system in Ireland for 30 years, and believed that the system worked well and honestly. It was often said that it did not comply with the principle that taxation and representation should go together; but it should be remembered that as regarded nine-tenths of the taxation the Grand Jury had merely a power of veto. The great evil in the present system was that they had not a permanent body to constantly look after all the works that had to be carried out.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

pointed out that of late years greater duties had been thrown upon the Grand Juries. They had now to manage the industrial and reformatory schools and other institutions, and the Grand Jury of the County Wexford had found it necessary to appoint a Committee to consider such matters, he therefore thought there might be abundant employment for such a Committee as was mentioned in the Resolutions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, an objection had been taken to the Resolutions on the ground that it would have been better to have brought forward a Bill. But he did not think that the Resolutions were open to such an objection. They had all recently seen the result of an abstract Resolution in the other House. But if an attempt were made to embody a scheme of Grand Jury law in a Bill it would be found that nearly every one of the clauses would have to be originated in the other House of Parliament; whereas the opinion of their Lordships' House could be taken on these Resolutions, and by that proceeding public opinion would be matured in the country. He hoped that his noble Friend would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place. His noble Friend had shown that he had fully considered the subject and mastered all the details of it. There might be some necessity for an alteration in the law—and all noble Lords who had spoken seemed to admit that some alterations were desirable—but, if any, it should take place in the lines pointed out by his noble Friend. He thought, however, that having drawn attention to the subject and elicited opinions, his noble Friend would not advance his cause by asking the House to divide on this occasion. This was a matter which deeply engaged the attention of the Irish Government, and he might mention that there was now a Bill in the other House which dealt with a portion of the subject; therefore he hoped the Resolutions would not be pressed further.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said, that after what had fallen from the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack he would be satisfied with the result of the discussion and not divide the House on the present occasion.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.