Reports relative to valuation for poor rates, and to registered elective franchise in Ireland (local reports) (second series): second appendix

Back to Search Bibliographic Data Print
VALUATIONS for POOR RATES, IRELAND. 
229 6 finished with as little delay as possible, to enable the clerk to complete a copy of the valuation. 
Apr-E\ni\ Resolved,—That the clerk be directed to prepare a correct copy of the valuation, prepara-torv to striking a rate; and that he be directed to apply to Mr. 
Thorn for a rate-book, and Dunmanway. 
to have it forwarded as soon as possible. 

27th January, 1841. 
At a meeting of the Board of Guardians, Dunmanway, held this day, Resolved,—That it is the opinion of this Board that at the next day of meeting on the Rate oi dered to be 27th of February, a rate should be struck for the Dunmanway Union, the valuation beino-struck-completed; and that the Commissioners be requested to issue an order for the appointment of a rate collector. 

Evidence. 
Evidence. 
Mr. 
William Pattison, valuator; examined. 
Mr.Pattisou,' 
Was appointed on the 1st of February, 1840, with Messrs. 
John Whelply and Mr. 
William Gilman (who are at present absent from Dunmanway), to value the Union conjointly. 
None of the three were professional valuators, but farmers residing within the Union. 
Mr. 
Qualifications. 
Whelply had previously been employed in making a valuation of the West Division of East Carbery, for thp purpose of equalizing the county cess, about 16 years ago. 
The valuators were furnished with a copy of the Poor Law Act, the Commissioners' circular Documents, furnished, on valuation and rating, the tithe composition books, and the county cess applotments for the parishes of Fanlobus, Drinagh, Inchigeela, and Kilmichael. 
They did not apply for or obtain any rentals from landlords, but got maps of their estates Nn rentals applied for from some of them. 
or obtained. 
The thiee valuators always valued together. 
They used the tithe composition and county Valuators, acted cess applotment books, for the purpose of ascertaining the areas of the different farms, which t(>gether. 
in general they found to be correct, but did not use either of them for the purpose of ascer-(urn^edcuments taining the value, because the county cess valuation wTas much below the real value, havino-been calculated according to a low scale of the prices of farming produce, and the tithe composition was often too high, although the value of land in the Union has greatly improved since that valuation was made ; but always used both to assist them in forming their opinion as to the true value. 
Did not estimate the gross produce and reduce it by the outgoings of the tenant, in order Did not estimate; to ascei (ain the value. 
£roi,s I'*"-"*-. 
Adopted the same system of valuation in the towns and villages as in the rural districts, System of valuation except lhat they took into consideration the higher letting value in towns. 
same intowns an(l In estimating local advantages or disadvantages took into consideration the proximity to Local circumstances 

* 

market towns, to public roads, to limestone quarries, and to public strands for procuring sand considered. 
for manure. 
Visited c\ery tenement in the Union. 
The inquiries made by them on \isiting each tenement were, as to its extent, the names of Inquiries made on the landlord and occupant, and the amount of rent. 
The replies to all these inquiries, except j^tnigeach the last, were in general satisfactory, but in some cases the tenants refused to state the amount of their rent; and when they did so, it was generally under what they paid, so that the valuators could not depend on it, and ne\er took it down in their field-books. 
The te&t of value which they adopted was, not the utmost that could be got from a solvent Tost of \ahie. 
tenant, but such a rent as they considered the tenant could afford to pay, and fairly live by. 
<dU rent" 

In calculating the value, did not take the present pi ices of produce, but the average for the last four years, which brought it below the present prices. 
Made no difference in the valuation where there was a lease. 
Made no distinction between farms of different sizes. 
No distinction where' In the mountain districts, which comprise upwards of one-third of the Union, the farms are Geueratl^oYforms. 
generally from 50 to 300, and in the lowland districts from 10 to 50 acres. 
Instituted a comparison between the value set upon each tenement, and the rent actually Value compared with paid where the valuators were, from their own local knowledge, aware of the amount, the rent-result of which was that in a very few instances, and those principally where tenants held under old leases, the valuation was as high as the rent, but by far the greatest portion were below the rent, in some cases nearly one-third when the lands were held under middle men. 
Houses and lands were separately valued, even when occupied together, but the amounts ^ate" vSd uere added and one sum for both inserted in the valuation book. 
The value of the house was estimated according to its appearance and state of repair. 
A f^f vaIuing slated house was valued considerably higher than a thatched house of the same description. 
No allowances were made by the valuators for either repairs or insurance in calculating Repairs not allowed the gross value; nor is there any sum charged for either in the Rate Book, the valuators' attention never having been called to them either by the Assistant Commissioners or the Board of Guardians. 
In estimating the value of land supposed the tenant bound to manage the farm so as to deliver it up at the end of the year in good condition. 
The value was estimated by what would be given for it by a person who would be bound by covenant to keep it in such condition and who would be able to perform the covenant, or com¬ pensate the landlord for his damages. 
In estimating what the tenement would let for to such a person, did not make any allowance Profit not allowed for. 
for any profit to be derived by him. 
from the occupation, but merely for his living.