Lords Sitting of 12 March 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1)*(34); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Actl (No. 1)*(35).
Third Reading—Marriages Legalization, now Marriages Validity*(30), and passed.

INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked Her Majesty's Government, Why (in Ireland), in calculating liability for income tax payable under Schedule B., it is, in lands let to tenants, calculated on rent actually paid, while on lands farmed by the owner it is calculated on ordnance value, when the owner can show from previous lettings that the letting value of such lands is considerably higher than the ordnance value?
LORD SUDELEY,in reply, said, that the Income Tax under both Schedule A and Schedule B in Ireland was calculated upon the Poor Law valuation, known also as Griffith's, and called by the noble Lord "ordnance." The landowner was supposed to receive as rent the amount of the valuation, and he was taxed on that. The occupier was supposed to make as profit, in addition to the rent, one-third of that amount, and he was taxed on that—i.e., nominally on the whole valuation at one-third of the general rate of the tax.
834
These amounts were maxima, which could not be increased, and which were only reduced by way of remission in special cases. When land was in hand the landlord paid under both Schedules (A and B) on figures calculated as thus explained. If, at the end of the year, he considered that his profit as occupier was less than the amount so calculated, he could appeal; and if he could put in figures to prove his case, the overcharge, under Schedule B, was repaid to him. In such figures on appeal—and this was the point to which the noble Lord was supposed to refer—the rent theoretically payable by him as occupier to himself as owner was put at the amount of the Poor Law valuation. This was obviously just, because that was the amount on which he was taxed as owner under Schedule A. If a larger allowance were made on the one side he ought, in equity, to pay the tax for a larger receipt on the other. Where the owner did not farm his own land, and the occupier applied for a remission, the actual rent paid was a fact which appeared in the accounts, and if it was larger than the valuation it was possible he might get a remission where the owner would not, if the land were in hand. But this was no hardship to the latter; in fact, it was the contrary, because he got a higher rent than the amount on which he was taxed. In short, the owner who had land in hand paid no more than was just and lawful, while on let land the occupier paid as much as could be properly claimed from him. Rents in all parts of Ireland except Ulster being even now sensibly, often considerably, in excess of the Poor Law valuation, landlords there habitually paid Income Tax on less than they received, and provision was made that in no case should they pay it on more than they received.

INDIA—THE BENGAL TENANCY BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS,who had given Notice of his intention to put the following Question to the Secretary for India:—
  Whether he will use his influence to cause the Bengal Tenancy Bill to be published and circulated, as amended by the Committee of the Council in India, before it is passed into law, so as to enable those interested in the measure, whether zemindars, middlemen, or ryots, to

  835
  have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with its provisions?"
  said, that he found that he stood somewhat in the position of the man who locked his stable door after his steed was stolen, because he had read in The Times of that morning a telegram to the effect that the Bill had been passed with little alteration, and that, though 250 zemindars and other proprietors of land protested against the measure, and the Viceroy received a deputation, he refused to delay the passing of the Bill. Thereupon the zemindars held a meeting and contributed a large sum of money to continue the agitation against the Bill. That showed a reason for bringing on the question two days ago. It appeared that the Under Secretary for India said in "another place" on Tuesday that there had been no haste; but the announcement to-day came upon those interested in the matter by surprise, and he trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would permit him to say a few words with regard to this measure, so as to explain the nature of the Question he was about to put to Her Majesty's Government in reference to it. In his view this Bengal Tenancy Bill was intended practically to extend to India the principles of the Irish Land Act. That was a fact. The history of this Bill was a somewhat curious one. A Bill on the subject was introduced in 1877 to enable the zemindars to collect their rents, such as was introduced into Parliament to enable Irish landlords, as it was stated ad nauseam, to collect their rents. But in 1883 another Bill appeared of a totally different character—a purely Irish Bill, having in it the principle of the three F's—namely, fixity of tenure, free sale, fair rent, as well as compensation for disturbance, and other points of similarity to the Irish Land Bill. In 1883–4 this Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and after various procedure, the Select Committee, composed of 11 Members, agreed to their Report by only three of a majority. The Report recommended various changes, and the Bill was not published or printed with these changes made in it till the 13th February. The object of himself and all those for whom he spoke was that some time should have been given—for it was now a matter that was past—for the consideration of the amended Bill, in which great and
  836
  marked changes had been made. Instead of time being given the Bill had been rushed through. More time to consider it and the republication of the Bill in the vernacular were all that was asked for. But the Viceroy had to meet—and he was glad of it—the Ameer of Afghanistan on the 27th, and it was held that this Bill had to pass before the departure of the Viceroy. He could not but think that this matter had been followed up and pressed with undue—that was, unwise—haste. But the Bill would not become law until it received the sanction of the Secretary of State; and what he asked was, that the noble Lord would not give his assent to this Bill until there was a full opportunity of ascertaining what was the opinion of the public with regard to it both in India and in England.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHalso complained that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the measure in its altered state. It should be remembered that the means of circulating information in India were not so good as in England. It seemed as if the Bill had been hurried through in order that the Viceroy might hurry off to the North-West Provinces to meet the Ameer of Afghanistan.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that before he went into the details, he thought it would be better for him to read copies of the telegrams which had passed between himself and the Viceroy since the discussion of Tuesday evening in the other House of Parliament. On that evening he telegraphed to the Viceroy as follows:—
  "From Secretary of State, 10th March, 1885.
  "Statement telegraphed by Durbhunga made in Parliament that you are pressing through Kent Bill without giving time for translation into vernacular; reason given that you must go to Simla. What shall I reply?"
  He received the following reply:—
  "From the Viceroy, dated and received 11th March, 1885.
  "Your telegram 10th. Statement absolutely unfounded. Bill already twice translated into vernacular. Select Committee held 64 meetings. Of these, 28 held in Calcutta within last few months, Maharajah attended only seven. Committee consisted of 11 members, of whom only two go to Simla, and decided vernacular republication unnecessary because almost all alterations were excisions favourable to zemindars and not new clauses. After Bill reported fort-night elapsed before considered by Legislative Council. First motion in Council was for sus-

  837
  pension by zemindar representative, which was lost by majority of 18 to 2. Two native members who do not go to Simla had voted before members of Executive Council were called upon to vote. Members representing ryots' interests voted in majority. Bill passed to-day without division, after seven days' debate."
  He thought it was clear, from this, that not only had there not been haste in the passing of the Bill, but that the matter had received an extraordinary amount of deliberation and discussion. In 1877 there was a Bill introduced. That Bill was directed to giving more facilities for the recovery of rents; but it was considered it was impossible to deal with one branch of the subject only. The result was that it was thought desirable by the Viceroy of that time—not his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon)—that there should be an inquiry into the whole subject of Bengal tenancy. In 1880 the Commission reported, their Report occupying about 500 pages. A Bill was brought forward in 1881. In March, 1882, the Indian Government sent home the Report of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and the Report of a Commission founded upon it. On August 17, the matter was considered by the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), and a dispatch sent, stating the opinion of the Secretary of State in Council that the necessity for legislation had been established, and going into the matter, as would be seen from the Papers which would shortly be presented to Parliament. After the receipt of his noble Friend's despatch, the Bill was printed by the Legislative Department of the Government of India, and, in conformity with the views of Lord Hartington, a Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council on March 12, 1883, and referred to a Select Committee on the 13th, being then published in English and three vernacular languages. The Bill was then fully examined and criticized. An amended Bill was prepared, which was published in the early part of 1884. The Select Committee having expressed a wish for further information, reports, opinions, and criticisms were obtained from a vast number of officials and other persons and published. With all these criticisms before them, he should have thought it might be imagined that the subject was ripe for some decision, some legislation. Upon the consideration of all this evidence, the Bengal Government again referred the
  838
  matter to a Select Committee. On February 12, 1855, the Select Committee reported, stating that the measure was not so altered as to require to be republished, and recommending that it should be passed as amended.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: How many said that.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he did not know, as he had not the numbers. The Select Committee consisted of six official and five non-official members, three Natives, and eight Europeans. The Government of India followed their recommendations. The important question was whether it was desirable to delay this legislation any further, and whether the alterations were of such a nature as to render it absolutely necessary there should be such delay. As he was informed, the alterations were not of a very serious or substantial character, and were, at all events, principally in the interests of the zemindars, who now came forward and complained of undue haste. So far as he could judge, the Government of India had acted perfectly right in not postponing this legislation for another Session, as the matter was pressing and had been under consideration a number of years. Information had reached him from India to the effect that the zemindars considered the legislation extremely unfair as regarded them, and that the ryots also looked upon the legislation as unfair towards them. Therefore, he thought, there was a strong presumption that the whole question had been treated in a fair and impartial manner. The noble Earl had spoken of the Bill as an attempt to introduce the three F's into India.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved, that he only said that it proceeded on the lines of the Irish legislation of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Bill was prepared by gentlemen versed in Indian affairs, but who had nothing to do with Ireland. The Government had acted in the matter entirely upon Indian principles, and in accordance with Indian precedents. If the Indian legislation had any resemblance to Irish legislation it was merely a coincidence, as it was never intended to apply the same principles in countries so utterly dissimilar. The interference in India by the Courts between the zemindars and

  839
  ryots was such that you could not import into it the observances of other countries. He had only to make one further observation in answer to a remark by the noble Earl that the Bill, although passed, was not yet law. He believed that the Bill would not come into operation for a certain time; but whenever it did operate, according to its own clauses, it would require no assent from the Crown, for an Act passed by the Legislative Council of India, and assented to by the Viceroy, took effect from the time of passing. Of course, it was open to the Secretary of State to advise Her Majesty to disallow the Bill. It would not be desirable that he should anticipate the result of a careful examination of the Bill when it came before him officially. At the same time he thought it his duty at once to state that this legislation had in principle the full approbation of Her Majesty's Government, and therefore it was extremely improbable that he should advise Her Majesty to disallow the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that he might fairly claim that when he was in India he had taken special steps to afford the public the fullest opportunity of considering every measure that came before the Legislative Council. Therefore, it would be unfair towards the present Viceroy if, after the observations of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), he did not ask the House to allow him to express his entire approval of the course which his noble Friend (Lord Dufferin) had taken in passing the Bengal Tenancy Bill during the present sittings of the Council. The Bill had been before the Council for two whole years, and the question to which it related had been under the consideration of the public for a great deal longer. It had been taken up long before he went to India; one portion of it was considered in 1877, but it was found impossible to deal with that part alone. Forthatreason the Commission was issued to which reference had been made. When he went out to India that Commission was about to report or had just reported; he did nothing until he received from the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal his opinion upon the subject. Sir A. Eden's recommendations were then fully considered by the Government of India and the Bill of 1883 was brought in. After the Bill was published a great many ob-
  840
  servations were made upon it by those interested, and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject. As regarded the composition of that Committee he might mention that he took an unusual step, being anxious that the interests of the zemindars should be fully and completely represented. There happened to be two vacancies in the Legislative Council, and he requested the zemindars to recommend to him a gentleman to fill one of them. This they accordingly did, and the result was that the zemindars were very ably represented. The other vacancy he filled up by the appointment of the Maharajah of Durbhunga, one of the largest owners of land in the Province of Bengal. The Committee reported in 1884, making considerable changes in the Bill. The Bill was then reprinted, and from March to November, 1884, was before the public. If there was any subject which had been fully and thoroughly discussed, it was the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Bengal. The time had now in his opinion come when Lord Dufferin was perfectly justified in passing the Bill. The changes which had been made in the Bill were, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had explained, mainly in favour of the zemindars. Athough not knowing the details of those changes, he was inclined to think that they were likely to be too much in favour of the landowners. He entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India that Lord Dufferin was right in passing the Bill, as now it had been amply considered in all its bearings.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSremarked, that he did not in the least dispute that the discussion on this measure had lasted over many years. The point he raised was, that the changes made in the Bill by the late Committee were such that the Bill ought to have been reprinted and circulated before being passed. All that they asked for was to have an opportunity of seeing the Bill. As to the character of the Bill, he would not discuss it further except by stating that Sir Richard Garth, the Chief Justice, had said that he looked with horror and dismay upon this revolutionary measure.
  THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEYexplained that he had received a copy of the Bill as amended by the Select Com-

  841
  mittee; what he had not yet received was a copy of the Bill as passed only a day or two ago by the Legislative Council.

EGYPT (MILITABY EXPEDITION TO THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF THANKS TO THE TROOPS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose that a vote of thanks be awarded by Parliament to General Lord Wolseley and the Forces under his command for the able manner in which the military expeditionary force was conducted for the intended rescue of the late General Gordon and his garrison in Khartoum? said, that he had observed that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), in bringing forward the Supplementary Estimates in the other House, had made what he might term a merely parenthetical allusion to the conduct of our troops and the manner in which the Expeditionary Force had been handled, observing that no blame was to be attached in any way to the Military Force or to Lord Wolseley for having failed in the immediate object for which they had been sent out. On being twitted by an hon. Member with the small meed of praise he had bestowed, the noble Marquess had replied that such was not his intention, and that the Government were deeply sensible of the able and gallant manner in which Lord Wolseley and the Force under his command had acted. For his own part, he thought that if the Government were satisfied with the conduct of the Expedition, the Government ought, considering that the troops were about to go into what might be called summer cantonments, to show some recognition of their services by a direct Vote of Thanks from Parliament.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that a similar Question was to be put in the other House that evening, and his answer to the noble Earl would be the same as that given by the Secretary of State for War—namely, that, in the opinion of the Government, the Question was at present somewhat premature. He could assure the noble Earl that it was not from any want of appreciation
  842
  of the gallant and magnificent services of Lord Wolseley and the officers and men under him that the Government had come to that conclusion. The courage and endurance showed by the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of every branch of the Service had elicited the warmest feeling of gratitude, not only in the minds of the Government, but, he might also say, of all their countrymen. He could assure the House that the Government were fully sensible of the services which had been rendered by our Forces in the Soudan.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he considered the reply of the noble Earl a most unsatisfactory one. ["Order!"] As he was called to Order, he would give Notice that on that day week he would bring forward a Resolution on the subject.

ELECTION OF SCOTCH REPRESENTATIVE PEERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Lord Chancellor, Whether he can inform the House why a full report of the proceedings at Holyrood House on the 17th of February last, on the occasion of the assembly of the Scotch Peers by Royal Proclamation to elect two representatives in the place of the late Earls of Dundonald and Morton, has not been made to this House by the Lord Clerk Register; and whether the Lord Chancellor will call for this usual report to be forwarded from Edinburgh without further delay? He explained that he had been unable to be present at the election in consequence of the death of a near relative. Under these circumstances, he had proposed to exercise his vote by proxy, and had sent it by a noble Friend of his. But he learned from the public prints that a discussion took place as to whether that vote was valid or not. It was stated at the meeting that a full Report of the whole proceedings would, as usual, be sent to the House of Lords; but although three weeks had passed since the re-assembling of Parliament, he had not yet seen the Report.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the proper Return had been laid on the Table of the House that day. He was informed that it was earlier and not later than usual, considering the date of the election.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 1.) BILL [H.L.], (NO. 34.)
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland, relating to the Mitchelstown and Fermoy Light Railway: And

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LABOURERS ACT) (NO. 1.) BILL [H.L.], (NO. 35.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, relating to the Dunshaughlin and Manorhamilton Unions, and to the town of Trim: Were presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.