Chapman, Edward Charrington, Spencer Clive, Captain Percy A. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Hambro, Charles Eric Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G. (Midlx Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'd | Coghill, Douglas Harry Gibbs, HnA.G. H(City of Lond. Abraham, William (Rhondda) Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Fuller, J. M. F. Griffith, Ellis J. Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Harmsworth, R. Leicester Hayne, Rt Hon. Chas. Seale Resolution agreed to. Hare, Thomas Leigh Law, Andrew Bonar Glasgow NOES. | Healy, Timothy Michael Nolan.Col. John P. (Galway N. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) First Resolution considered. Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Vincent, ColSirC. E. H(Sheffield TELLERS FOR THE AYESSir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther. Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. Crooks and Mr. Shackleton. MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.) complained that the Government had refused to pay £700 or £800 a year in lieu of rates on Government property in Dublin, and had also deprived them of the right to test the validity of the refusal in the law courts. Ireland received in lieu of the rating of Government property the with any great respect or veneration. sum of £50,000, although it was quite Let him examine for a moment the true that in recent years there had been grounds on which this extraordinary a decided increase of that contribution, decision had been come to. The decisions largely because of the building of of the law courts in regard to rateable barracks in Ireland. But whereas in hereditaments were very conflicting, and England there was a Treasury valuer to very frequently irreconcilable, but a sort compute the amount which the Treasury of rule had been arrived at, according should pay, they in Ireland were entirely to the length of the Lord Chancellor's at the mercy of a Government depart- foot, and of which no one would speak ment, which seemed to be completely under the thumb of His Majesty's Treasury; and although they had to pay half of the official's salary, they had no control over his appointment, or over the principles under which he acted. Consequently, it might be assumed that he allocated in lieu of rates on Government property in Ireland the least sum that he could allocate. For instance, Phoenix Park, in Dublin, which was the largest park in the United Kingdom, was rated at £1,700. This park was acquired under the Act of Union, although it had been entirely paid for by the Irish Parliament, and the English Government had no more right to it than to the watch which he had in his pocket or the coat upon his back. But they had also taken all the advantages of the sites of the Viceregal lodge, of the Chief Secretary's Lodge, of the Under-Secretary's Lodge, the headquarters of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and for the hospital. Again, they had recently allowed Wellington Barracks an entrance into the Park, and indeed had converted this park, which had been grabbed under an Act in 1869, into one vast military training ground, although it had been a common for the people of Dublin for thousands of years. Under a decision of a case in England, called the Brockwell Park decision, the Government had, by secret communication, directed their valuer in Dublin to strike out of his valuation of the sums due in lieu of rates, the sum of £1,700 for Phoenix Park, the share of which falling to the Dublin County Council would have amounted to £700 or £800. What made this matter more extraordinary was that when the County Council system for Ireland was inaugurated the Dublin County Council, which represented the old Grand Jury, were deprived of the use of the Hall in the Four Courts, where the Grand Jury had met for fifty years, and compelled the Dublin County Council to build a hall of their own at a cost of £5,000 or £6,000. decisions on which the Brockwell Park case went were not applicable to Dublin. In the latter case a tenant existed, and an income existed in the shape of the grazing rents. On what principle, then, should the Government, by an official decision which they had refused to allow to be tested in the law courts— which some clerk in the Treasury, whom they could not get at, had given-deprive the ratepayers of Dublin of the contribution from the Government in lieu of rates which they had employed for more than fifty years? He had written to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer reasons on notepaper in regard to this point, for he had always found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol very fair in his attitude of mind towards Irish rating questions; but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman was then on the point of resignation, and it was very proper and natural, perhaps, that he should not have regarded Irish rating rights in Dublin as of very great importance, at a time when he was fighting a rearguard action with the Colonial Secretary. He had taken privately the utmost pains to convince the Treasury of the justice of the Dublin case, and on two occasions he had asked questions in the House upon it. The first answer given to him was by the present Post master-General. Of course, the great case made out by the Government was that the Brockwell Park decision applied to England and Scotland, and that therefore there was no injustice done to Ireland. He had tried to get, but failed. how much Scotland and England had been robbed of by that decision. The Postmaster-General said "As regards the rating of the Phoenix Park, the Treasury have decided that in future no contribution in lieu of rates shall be made in respect of such portion of the Phoenix as is unenclosed and open to the public, or of the bailiff's residence and certain lodges. I regret that, by an oversight, the local authorities were not informed of the reason of this change. No alteration has been made in the valuation of the park, nor has the Treasury made anv legal decision on the subject. They have, however, always reserved to themselves the right to decide in the last resort upon any disputed question in connection with the contribution voluntarily made by His Majesty's Government in lieu of rates in whatever part of the United Kingdom it may arise." It was argued that this payment of rates on the part of the Government was a voluntary act-an act of grace. What would English Members of Parliament say if the £500,000 sterling contributed in England were suddenly withdrawn from the local authorities without even the courtesy of an intimation that it was to be done? Would it then be said that the payment was an act of grace on the part of the Government. The whole idea was Mr. T. M. Healy. 1 absurd. In England there were officials and clerks receiving salaries to the amount of £2,329 per annum to look after this "act of grace." What an extraordinary kind of grace it was that required so many officials to look after the "alms." The matter showed the vice of permitting these things to be decided by some obscure person at the Treasury-if anybody at the Treasury could be obscure. An additional absurdity was the fact that the Treasury, while withdrawing the pastoral portion of the park from rating, had consented, in the teeth of the Brockwell Park and other cases, to continue to pay rates upon the Viceregal Lodge, the Royal Irish Barracks, and other buildings, which no hypothetical tenant would ever take. It the decision turned upon the hypothetical tenant, let the Government put a placard in the window of the Viceregal Lodge, and see how much rent they would get. Nobody would take it as a gift. And what about a hypothetical tenant for Woolwich Arsenal? The Treasury therefore were in the absurd position of continuing to pay rates on a losing property which required expenditure to keep up, while depriving the County Council of rates on a profitable property. Such a position appeared to be not only illegal but inconsistent and repugnant. When he brought the matter before the House in October last year and asked the amount which had been stopped by the Treasury in England and Scotland in this connection, he was first told he could be given the details privately and then referred to a return from which, if he had been a skilled arithmetician-which he regretted to say he was not he could spell out some information for himself. That return, however, was not totalled, and was useless for his purpose. His contention was that the Government had, without inquiry, commit'ed an injustice, basing their action on a case which was really not analogous. Because both Brockwell Park and Phoenix Park were parks, it did not necessarily follow that the law which applied to one applied equally to the other. There was no resemblance in either occupiership or revenue between the two, and to use the Brockwell Park decision as a means to deprive the Dublin authority of rates was most unjust. More barracks had been built elsewhere, and consequently more rates would have to be paid in respect thereof, and the idea of the Treasury was to rob Ireland as far as possible, and prevent her getting any increase of rates. If this was a question of law- as the Government admitted it to be the fair thing would be to let the matter be tested on a petition of right. That a clerk in the Treasury should of his own volition deprive a public authority of £700 or £800 a year could not be tolerated, and no reply on the part of the Government would be satisfactory unless it agreed to remit the matter for the decision of a competent court of law. was THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT, Durham) said the question as it presented itself to the Treasury was a far simpler matter than it appeared to be to the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. If the matter was looked at in an impartial manner there was really no question of robbing anybody, or of The treating Ireland with injustice. rule which had been applied to Phoenix Park was exactly the same as had to Hyde been applied in London Park, St. James's Park, and others, and the rates involved amounted to about the same sum as in the case of Phoenix Park. The principle of the matter was this. As a matter of constitutional law the Crown was not liable to pay rates, but in recent years it had become the practice for the Crown to p y rates as an act of grace and favour. Having ascertained to the best of their ability the amount of the rate for which a private owner or occupier would be liable, the Crown as an act of grace paid the same amount to the local rates. In the Brockwell Park case, on which the hon. and learned Member had argued with his usual acumen, it was held that as the park was held for the public use and was entirely used for public purposes there was no rateable occupier, as the County Council were merely the custodians or trustees for the public. That being so, the Treasury held that as the County Council was not a rateable occupier neither was the Crown, and as the Crown simply paid as an act of grace And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, further Consideration of the Postponed Resolutions stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting. EVENING SITTING SUPPLY [23RD ALLOTTED DAY][6TH AUGust, SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said it was MR. ELLIOT said the Crown paid rates only in cases where, if the property were owned or occupied by private individuals, rates could be lawfully exacted, but in the case of the Brockwell Park or the Phoenix Park it had been found that there was no liability to pay rates, and therefore the Crown refused to be liable. SIR ALBERT ROLLIT pointed out that although the Crown was under no liability to pay compensation in the case of one of His Majesty's ships running down a merchantman they had always paid in such cases. MR. ELLIOT: Exactly; but if it was held that there was no liability in the case of a privately owned ship in similar cases the Crown would not accept any liability. SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said the Crown had taken up not a legal position but a moral and equitable position. The Government and the private individual were not in an analogous position. The private individual had limited means; the Government had the whole means of the community behind it. The whole community could pay where the private individual might not have the resources; for many years the Crown had paid in respect of its property, and had thereby set up a standard. Although not primarily liable where the property was not expressly named by statute, yet to withdraw the contribution on a technical ground was at variance with the higher moral standard which the Government had itself set up. MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.) said the case of Phoenix Park in respect of rating was very different from that of Hyde Park and other parks in London and elsewhere, because while in the case of the latter the whole of the park was available to the public as a recreation ground, in the case of the former a large portion was cut off for the purpose of grazing, and thus the inhabitants of Dublin lost the advantage of the park by so much. The whole of Phoenix Park was in the county of Dublin, and therefore the County Council should derive the benefit of the rates from it, but this they did not do. There was a considerable revenue derived by the Crown from Phoenix Park for grazing, and he did not think his hon. friend was far out when he estimated it at £700. They all knew that it was a matter of favour on the part of the Crown to pay these rates, but having Mr. Elliot. paid them so long he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman in charge of these matters (Mr. Elliot) that it would be well for the Government to reconsider the matter and continue the grants in lieu of rates. MR. ELLIOT altogether denied that in this matter there was any Irish griev ance at all. There happened to have been a decision by the House of Lords in the Brockwell Park case, to the effect that the park, being held by virtue of a statute for the public benefit, was therefore not rateable. The Crown had always paid rates upon an ascertained, definite prin ciple. Where the courts of law had decided that certain property was rateable, then where that kind of property was held by the Crown the Crown would, as a matter of favour, pay rates. The Crown said that, although not bound by the law, they would pay rates on that kind of property on which rates were payable, but they would not pay rates on that kind of property on which rates were not payable. It was a question of the law of the land. MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) expressed his sorrow that the Government should take up this position. The circumstances of the two countries were quite different. He was a ratepayer, both of the city and county of Dublin, and he could assure the House the rates were burdensome to a degree. If there had been no decision in the Irish Courts exempting the Phoenix Park, and it was conceivable that if the matter came before them they might take a different view to that which had been taken in this country, he thought it was very inconvenient at this stage of the session to make a change which would so seriously affect the ratepayers of the county of Dublin. Resolution agreed to. Second Resolution agreed to. Third Resolution considered. MR. WEIR called attention to the unsatisfactory state of the Highlands of Scotland. Referring particularly to the Congested Districts Board, he complained that it was the policy of the Scottish Office to hoard up the money available. |