HL Deb 27 May 1881 vol 261 cc1429-38

OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.

THE DUNE OF ST. ALBANS ,

in rising to call attention to the law relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland known as Griffith's valuation, and to the unsatisfactory assessment of such property now in force, said, the subject of his Notice had been so threshed out during the past winter that it was unnecessary he should offer their Lordships any explanation beyond reminding them it was admitted that the prices, except in the instance of wheat, on which Sir Richard Griffith founded his valuation, were so below their present value as to make it a fallacious test of what the land which produces them was worth at the present time. It therefore followed that the principle held in Scotland, and partially in England, that the ratal should be dependent on the rental, could not be fairly universally applied in Ireland that rents should be governed by rates. There, however, was always the fact that Griffith's valuation existed, stamped with the authority of the Government in force for purposes of taxation, as their estimate of what the land was worth, and he said this was misleading. A Chancellor of the Exchequer might recognize the uses of such a scheme as Griffith's valuation; but it was another thing what Irish tenants would think of it when insidiously placed before them by agitators for their own purpose, nor was it easy to explain why a landowner could justly and legally demand a larger sum from the tenant than that on which he paid Income Tax. It was impossible to deny that Griffith's valuation played a great part in economic relations in land in Ireland. The landlord, the tenant, and the passer-by inquired the relation between the rent and the rates. He thought he was justified in making this appeal by the terms in which Mr. Baxter introduced the General Valuation (Ireland) Bill in 1873, at a time when the present Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer) was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the now Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was his Chief Secretary. On that occasion, Mr. Baxter, expressing, as he (the Duke of St. Albans) supposed, the opinion of those noble Lords, said that the valuation of the Southern and Western Provinces of Ireland was made when prices were exceptionally low, shortly after the Famine of 1847, and that the valuation of these Provinces was less than it ought to be. Mr. Baxter concluded his remarks by saying he believed the result, if his recommendations were carried out, would be as beneficial in Ireland as they had been in Scotland. On the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Kavanagh, who knew Ireland as well as any man did, speaking from the Conservative Benches, said the whole valuation of land in Ireland was far below what it ought to be, and that it ought to be placed on a fair basis. A Scotch Member (Mr. Duncan M'Laren), in the course of the debate, mentioned that Scotland was re-valued every 12 months, and he (the Duke of St. Albans) could not see why Ireland should not be so as well. He believed most of their Lordships who were experienced in land matters in Ireland would welcome such a valuation. The importance of the subject to those resident in Ireland would be his excuse for bringing it under their Lordships' attention. He believed if he had challenged a direct expression of opinion on this subject, many of their Lordships most conversant with Ireland would have supported him; but he had no desire to embarrass the Government in their present attempt to improve the condition of Ireland, and, therefore, without attempting to deal further with the general question, he would simply ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take any steps to have the law amended, so that in future the valuation of land in Ireland made by the Government Department for the purposes of Imperial and local taxation might not mislead public opinion as to the real value of such land?

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, he agreed with much that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of St. Albans) had said. He desired, however, before the Question was answered, to point out how undesirable, in the opinion of nearly everyone who had given evidence or written on the subject, it was to make valuations made for Imperial and other purposes the basis of rent. He had heard from a friend that in his part of the country, the land was at least 50 per cent under Griffith's valuation; while in his own part of the country Griffiths valuation was much nearer, and he therefore paid much higher rates than his friend. He did, not think it was necessary to have an entirely now valuation, as there were materials in hand for correcting them, and those materials should be made use of, the only thing required being a careful study of the data upon which Sir Richard Griffith worked, and a careful comparison of the old value of properties with the present price of farm produce, making the necessary alterations so as to arrive at a now valuation. He thought, however, that it was most desirable that they should have an issue of now Ordnance maps in reference to the boundaries of estates and other matters. There ought also to be abroad distinction between the valuation of land and the valuation of houses, because in many instances the landlords had to pay taxation upon the valuation of houses that belonged to the tenants. As changes were about to be made at the present time, he thought it only fair that a landlord should only be taxed on the valuation of his land, on something like the real value of the rental he received.

THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNE

said, that Griffith's valuation had been one of the thorns which had recently been constantly stuck into the sides of landlords, and, at the same time, one of those delusions that had been perpetually dragged before the attention of tenants, who were often only too willing to listen to the statements of agitators. While he sympathized with the noble Duke who had raised the question (the Duke of St. Albans), in his wish to see the question settled on a satisfactory basis, he was not sure that the suggestion made by him was likely to bring about the best possible solution of the question. He felt some doubt if the revaluation of land in Ireland would be of such value as the noble Duke seemed to think. The noble Duke was perfectly candid in stating that he did not wish the Commission so much to obtain a perfect basis for valuation, as to prevent the public mind being misled with regard to the rating value of land. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne), however, doubted whether an amended valuation would be either a useful, a practicable, or desirable measure at that moment; while as to its effect on either public opinion or taxation, he doubted whether it would be very important. As regarded local taxation, it would probably lead to the result that the taxpayer would, in most cases, pay about the same amount of rates as at present, but in a different way. He would pay a lower percentage upon a higher valuation. When they came to the question of the general valuation of land the noble Duke, in dwelling upon its fallacies, seemed to be trying to slay the slain. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) did not think anyone believed in it as an absolute or relative standard of rent, except, perhaps, those who conceived that by some Divine dispensation the land ought to be the property of those who tilled it. For some time past no one had been able to take up a paper in Ireland or England without finding an exhaustive demolition of Griffith's valuation. It had again been demolished in the able pamphlets issued by the Dublin Land Committee, and it had finally been put out of Court by the Reports of the two Commissions on the subject. He, therefore, doubted whether a new valuation would effect any good result. He ventured to think that the difficulties in the way of making such a valuation were so serious that at no time would it be very expedient to encounter them with a light heart; but, at the present moment, and under the present circumstances, it would be most inexpedient to do so. It must either be intended as a gauge of rent or it must not. If it was not intended as a gauge of rent, it would be valueless for the purposes of the noble Duke. If, on the other hand, it was to be the future measure of the letting value of land, then he asked their Lordships to consider the difficulties and obstacles which remained to be overcome. In the first place, they would have to consider the principle on which the valuation was to be based. Would they calculate the rent on what was called a scientific basis—that was to say, what the tenant would be able to pay to the owner after providing for his own maintenance and that of his family, and after, in addition to that, securing for himself a fair profit for his expenditure and industry? In that view, they would be met with this difficulty—that on the authority of two or three Members of Her Majesty's Government there were many holdings in Ireland so small that if the tenants held them rent free they would not have sufficient means to keep their families in a decent state of comfort. What, then, should be the rent of such holdings? Would it be a minus quality? Then there was a further difficulty—with reference to what standard of agriculture would the valuer fix the rent? Would the Public Department intrusted with the valuation have to estimate the rent with reference to the results which would be obtained from a proper treatment of the soil; because obviously it would be unjust to fix rents with reference to the sort of agriculture which prevailed in some parts of Ireland, where, to use the words of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, it was "miserably backward and feeble." Was the rent, then, to be computed on that basis, or on the basis of a more advanced and improved system of agriculture? But let them assume that these and other formidable difficulties had been overcome, there remained to be considered the question of time. They would have to deal with every one of these 600,000 tenancies at present existing in Ireland. His noble Friend (the Duke of St. Albans) had mentioned seven years as the time within which the valuation might be completed. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) felt doubt whether it could be concluded in that time, as it would be necessary to examine into such questions as that of the subsoil, the climate, the nearness of markets, and the thousand and one other questions which entered into the value of land. And, after all, when they had got their valuation, it would be inconclusive upon the most important point. It might give with perfect justice the letting value of a farm as it stood; but that would not determine the fair rent as between the actual owner and occupier, which could not be arrived at without ascertaining the tenant's interest in his holding, and whether he or the landlord had made the improvements. Before all these points could be effectually cleared up, it would be necessary to have upon every one of the 600,000 tenancies what was com- monly spoken of as "a land case." The noble Duke had referred to Mr. Baxter' s speech delivered in the year 1873. But in that year, so far as he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was aware, there was no proposition before Parliament to deprive the landlord and the tenant of the power of entering into contracts for the letting of land, and to compel them to place that duty in the hands of a Land Court. He would not be guilty of the irregularity of discussing a measure which was not before their Lordships' House; but, without any breach of Order, he thought he might say that it would require some courage to assert that some kind of measure affecting land tenure in Ireland would not be likely to pass within a reasonable period, and that one incident of that measure would not be the establishment of a Court which could be intrusted with the duty of fixing a fail rent. If so, would the new valuation be binding on the Court, or would it not? He had no doubt that a valuation such as that proposed by his noble Friend would not be regarded as binding on the Land Court when considering the circumstances of each individual case; and, if so, it followed that after all the trouble, expense, and delay they would have a valuation which would not be accepted by either the landlord or the tenant, and would not be binding upon the Court which might hereafter be called upon to decide questions of this kind. He therefore submitted that, although Griffith's valuation was not to be relied on or regarded as an absolute or even relative gauge of rent, it would be, in present circumstances, unwise on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake such a valuation as that which had been suggested.

LORD WAVENEY

said, that, while there was much to complain of in Griffith's valuation, he did not think, for the reasons pointed out by the noble Marquess who had just sat down (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that a new valuation should be made at the present time. The Land Courts would have limited districts to deal with, and they would have the opportunity of arriving at a fair measure of rent in the case of different holdings. The principal difficulty would be owing to the number of holdings; hut that could be overcome by taking the valuation in acres, and so arrive at a conclusion. It appeared to him that the tenant's interest would be more accurately ascertained in the way he had suggested than in any other, because there would be a standard of the value of land in addition to the positive value. At the same time, he must say that, after many years' experience in Ireland, he thought it was possible to construct a valuation upon much more accurate principles; and the nearer they came to the Ulster Custom the more likely would they be to obtain a satisfactory result. The Ulster Custom was an immense advantage in determining the interest of the tenant, and it was wanting in the other three Provinces, in which all interests were massed together. Therefore he insisted strongly on some regulated and wells understood scale which should give the characteristic value of the land. It would be the most fatal termination of any Session of late years if the House of Commons returned to their constituents and their Lordships to their duties in the country without passing a Land Bill which should be acceptable to Ireland.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, there could be no doubt about the difficulty in getting a proper valuation, and he did not think that difficulty had been overrated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne). Griffith's valuation took a very long time to make, and was only made after considerable preparation by experienced men; but, notwithstanding the preparation with which it was undertaken and the ability with which it was carried out, it was, on the whole, totally inadequate, and did not make sufficient allowance for contiguity to towns and markets or to the seaboard, where valuable manure for potatoes could be obtained for nothing. That made a considerable difference. He knew men who rented land close to where fairs were held, and they made their rent by letting their land for a few nights' grazing at fair time. He thought, pending a settlement of fair rent under the proposed Land Bill, Griffith's valuation would be good as a basis, for if a new valuation was to be made, the valuation would take a number of years to complete. If the Land League continued, it would choke the new Courts; and if they did that, owners might as well say good-bye to their Property at once, and Parliament might as well pass a measure giving their property to the tenants. He hoped something would be done soon, and that the Government would not leave rent a vague and indefinite thing, but would formulate it in some practical way, which would show that it was not their intention to transfer land absolutely to the tenants, as would be done if some presently acknowledged basis were accepted.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he agreed very much with what had been said by the noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who appeared to have given reasons more than sufficient for the kind of answer which he had to give to the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans)—reasons why he was not able and did not think it expedient to pledge Her Majesty's Government to undertake the re-valuation of Ireland. But if the noble Marquess meant—though he (Lord Carlingford) did not suppose he did—that the present valuation was in all respects a satisfactory one, and ought to be permanently maintained in its present position, he (Lord Carlingford) was unable to go with him as far as that. He thought it was evident that the present valuation was a very imperfect one, and that there were reasons which, sooner or later, must induce the Government to see that it was revised and placed on a sounder footing. But that was not a task to be lightly undertaken, and he did not think the noble Duke would expect him to pledge the Government in the present state of Public Business, and of Irish Business in particular, to bring in a Bill for that purpose, especially in view of the fate which had met former Bills on this important subject. Two Bills for the purpose of revising the general valuation of Ireland and providing a new one had been brought in by two successive Governments, but had signally failed to make their way through the other House of Parliament; and he was not able to say that such a task should he undertaken now, although he fully admitted the imperfections of the system as it stood, and the grave reams that existed for improving it. There could be no doubt that in Ireland they ought to pay a little more Income Tax. And it was true that the inhabitants of the Middle and Southern Provinces of Ireland were paying less than their day share of taxation in comparison with Ulster. It was also true that tenants of arable land in Ireland were paying more than their due in comparison with those who held grass lands in that country. But the noble Duke who introduced this subject did not refer to any one of these grievances, his only grievance and only reason for insisting on a re-valuation being that Griffith's valuation misled public opinion as to the real value of land. No doubt that had been the case; and for that result landlords and Members of Parliament were, to a great degree, themselves responsible. But the danger of misleading the people of Ireland on that point no longer existed. There were not two opinions on the subject, even in Ireland. He (Lord Carlingford) understood that the Land League, and those tenants who were influenced by that body, by no means swore by Griffith's. There seemed, therefore, to be a practical unanimity of opinion that that valuation was out of the question as a guide for rents in Ireland. That opinion had been stated in the strongest way in the evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and also in the clearest way in the Report of the Irish Land Commission. It was therein stated— If anything has been clearly established it is this, that Griffith's valuation is not a trustworthy standard for the settlement of rents. It was also said— If a new valuation is required for rating purposes, it should rather be made at a time when there was no general desire to convert it to rent purposes. That was a very sensible reason for not introducing a new valuation in the days through which they were now passing. It also came out in the Royal Commission, and he thought it was a fact worthy of the notice of their Lordships, that while there were many rents in Ireland far above Griffith's valuation, which, nevertheless, were fair and reasonable rents, yet, with regard to the poorer tillage lands, it was quite high enough, and in case of revision would not admit of any addition whatever. That was an important statement made by Mr. Ball Greene, the Commissioner of Valuation, that in the case of the poorer tillage lands the rent at Griffith's valuation might be considered a fair rent, quite sufficiently high. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) need not be under the slightest apprehension that the Court proposed to be constituted for the settlement of rent would be guided by Griffith's valuation. No such tribunal would judge by such a standard. Each case would, undoubtedly, be considered on its own merits, whatever they might be; and the noble Duke need not have any alarm that it would be guided by any such valuation as that now in force in Ireland. While, therefore, he fully admitted the imperfections of the Irish valuation, and the reasons that existed for improving it at the proper time, he could not undertake to pledge the Government to make that change now.