155 / 244
and Cox as the representatives of this Society on
this Committee. This undoubtedly is a step in the
right direction but as I have mentioned in my
previous paragraph it is a pity that this principle
of an Examining Committee has not been extended
into other aspects of much needed legal reform.
It is hoped that a report of this Committee, and
other Committees that may be set up to deal with
Law Reform, will not meet with the same fate as
many other Government Commissions have met
in the past and that the delay in dealing with
Committee suggestions and bringing about reforms
will not be such as to render them obsolete even
before they are introduced.
S
tamp
D
uties
:
The profession still continues to receive complaints
from vendors and purchasers as to the financial
hardship imposed on the public by the new rates
of stamp duties on the sale and transfer o f land
and house property under the Finance (No. 2)
Act, 1947. This burden is particularly heavy in
the case o f young married couples and when it is
realised that it is seldom possible to buy a house
nowadays for less than £2,000 it will be seen that
one o f the immediate effects of the Finance (No. 2)
Act, 1947, by raising the duty from 1 per cent, to
5 per cent, was to levy a new tax o f at least £80
on many newly married couples.
The Society
protested against this duty when it was first imposed
and renewed its protest' each succeeding year.
The position was alleviated to some extent by the
Housing (Amendment) Act, 1950,which authorised
a reduction of the duty to 1 per cent, where new
houses are purchased by means o f a grant under
the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.
The
Small Dwellings Acts apply however in only a
limited number o f cases. In the vast majority of
cases including sales of agricultural land the 5 per
cent. duty continued to be enacted. The case o f a
newly married couple is perhaps the most extreme
case o f hardship. The view o f the Society is, however,
that a tax o f 5 per cent, on the sale or transfer of
house property or lands cannot be justified under
any circumstances.
In the Budget Speech of the Minister for Finance,
delivered on May 2nd, there was a welcome but
only partial remission o f the duty. I f the next
Government implements the Minister’s proposals
the 5 per cent, duty in the case o f land and houses
will be reduced to 3 per cent. Purchasers of new
houses for which a grant can be obtained under
the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1950, will, of
course, still continue to pay the 1 per cent. rate.
I would like to thank the Minister for this partial
relief but I should like to point out that as far as this
Society is concerned it is still regarded as only a
half measure, and that solicitors and their clients
will not consider that justice has been done until
the duty in the case of lands and houses has been
reduced to the same level as the duty on transfers
o f Stock Exchange securities. In this connection
it should be remembered that until 1947 the Stamp
Duty on transfers of land was at the same rate as
on transfers of stocks and shares. The 1947 Act
raised the duty on transfers o f stocks and shares
to 2 per cent, and the duty on transfers o f land and
houses to 5 per cent.
In his Budget Speech the Minister announced
that the 2 per cent, duty on transfers o f stocks
or marketable securities would be reduced to the
original 1 per cent, as regards transfers o f stocks
or marketable securities issued by an Irish company.
In my opinion a transfer of Irish land or house
property to an Irish citizen should not be treated
less favourably than a transfer of stocks and shares
in an Irish company.
R
ents
and
L
easehold
C
ommission
:
The Society’s memorandum on the subject of
the Rent Acts has already been submitted and oral
evidence has been given before the Commission.
The Memorandum on the Landlord and Tenant
Act, prepared by this Society, is in draft form and
will be submitted to the Commission as soon as
possible.
S
olicitors
B
ill
:
Charles Dickens,, who was a disgruntled law
clerk, took his revenge on the profession,
inter alia,
by portraying the law’s delays in the famous case
o f Jarndyce
v.
Jarndyce. The technique o f delay
described in that famous case has unfortunately
been adopted by successive Governments in their
attitude towards the Solicitors Bill. The Bill was
first introduced by the Society in 1943- It is
essentially a non-contentious matter and its principles
and outstanding provisions are for the purpose of
safeguarding the public in . their dealings with
our profession. Its secondary importance is to
modernise the profession’s domestic affairs such
as examinations and matters of that sort.
The
public stand to gain a great deal from this B ill;
the profession relatively little materially but much
from the additional confidence and trust o f the
public which will result from it.
As I have said the Bill was first introduced in
1943 during the regime o f a previous Government.
Despite many assurances that the Bill would receive
speedy consideration its progress has been very
disappointing. With the change of Government,
three years ago, it was hoped that the desirability
5