LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 15 July 1881 vol 263 cc1058-100

Progress resumed.

Clause 37 (Quorum of Commission).

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 11, to leave out from "by" to end of Clause, and insert "any Sub-Commission, with this qualification, that any person aggrieved by any order of one Commissioner, or by any order of a Sub-Commissioner, may require his case to be returned by at least two Commissioners, one of whom shall be the Judicial Commissioner."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 (Appointment of Officers).

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 16, to insert the words "solicitor and a" before "secretary."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 (Salaries of Commissioners).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 22, line 23, to insert, after "Commissioners," the words "other than the Judicial Commissioner."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

supposed that the Judicial Commissioner was to be the Chairman of the Commission?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

No.

MR. HEALY

Do I understand that the salaries are to be fixed before the Bill leaves the House?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Certainly.

MR. GIBSON

asked if the salaries of the President and the other Commissioners were the same?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

No.

MR. GIBSON

Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland will be good enough to explain.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

We postpone that. We provide for the salary of the Judicial Commissioner. He is entitled to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The other two Commissioners are not.

MR. LEWIS

This observation of the Attorney General for Ireland has suggested to me that this clause should not be dealt with until the 34th clause has been disposed of.

THE CHAIRMAN

The clause cannot be postponed until the Amendments are moved.

MR. LEWIS

observed, that the Committee was placed in a very considerable difficulty, because they had not decided, and could not at present decide, what should be the status of the Commission; and, therefore, they could not say what should be the salary of the President of the Court. They ought to know what was the class of persons to be appointed as Commissioners, if the Committee was to make an alteration from £2,000 to £3,000 in their salaries.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

It would be quite impossible to do that now.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

remarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made some alterations in the proposition, because he was about to propose that the salaries of each of the lay Commissioners was not to exceed £3,000 a-year, and there was an Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) to make it £5,000. Certainly, considering the immense powers that were to be given to these Commissioners, £2,000 seemed to be absurd.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I propose to make £2,000 into £3,000. That is the Amendment I intend to move shortly.

MR. GIBSON

wished most distinctly to be understood as not criticizing the propriety of postponing Clause 34, nor as objecting to the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. But a question was asked as to whether the judicial member of the Court was to be the President, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was not. He was asked this question—Were the two other Commissioners, who were not to be, either of them, the President of the Court, to have a less salary than the Judicial Commissioner?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

It is not provided for in the Bill.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked how the President of the Commission was to be appointed? For his part, he entirely objected to a Judge being necessarily the President of the Commission. They did not know who was to be the President, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about to ask them to fix his salary.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I am supposing a Judge who has the rank and salary of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

MR. WARTON

protested against the extraordinary haste with which they were now going. This matter of salary ought to be postponed until after the 34th clause was passed. They had got a Judicial Commissioner in the 37th clause, and now they were about to fix his salary before he was appointed by the Act. It was perfectly clear that the Judicial Commissioner, by virtue of his extra salary, whatever the Attorney General for Ireland might say now, would be the President of the Court, and that was implied by the Amendment. Then they must remember that there would be an appeal from one Commissioner, and this appeal would go to a Court where this Judicial Commissioner would be sitting.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give the reason for fixing £3,000?

THE CHAIRMAN

We have not yet reached that Amendment. The Question is to insert "other than the Judicial Commissioner" after "Commissioners."

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I propose now, in page 22, line 24, to leave out "two" and insert "three." The hon. Member (Mr. R. N. Fowler) has asked me the reason for fixing £3,000. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: As against £4,000 or £5,000.] We think it sufficient, and we do not wish to give more than is required.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ERRINGTON

moved, in page 22, line 25, after "Commissioners," to insert "one thousand pounds a-year, and to the." He had had an Amendment down to enlarge the salaries of the first Commissioners. He did not know what the Government thought of fixing the salaries of the Assistant Commissioners.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 25, after "Commissioners," insert "one thousand pounds a-year, and to the."—(Mr. Errington.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I think it much better to leave the appointment and the salaries of the Assistant Commissioners, who will be of various grades, to the Executive under the control of Parliament.

MR. HEALY

asked if the Assistant Commissioners were to get one salary, or to be fixed according to what they did?

MR. ERRINGTON

said, his desire was to secure a sufficient salary to the Assistant Commissioners.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought it was desirable to have inserted "not exceeding" a certain amount.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

The money must be voted by this House, and the salaries will all be brought under the review of the House.

MR. LEWIS

said, he did not know, before the Attorney General for Ireland had mentioned it, that the Assistant Commissioners might have salaries according to various qualifications. There was another objection to the very wide discretion given to these Assistant Commissioners. If they had some indication as to the views of the Government with reference to salaries, they might understand what were the class of persons they would seek to appoint. They ought to have some sort of indication of the salary.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I think that I cannot give the indication of salary. It must be left to the discretion of the Executive, on their own responsibility, to fix such moderate salaries as the exigencies of the case may require. It is undesirable to have a hard-and-fast line. After all, the matter is entirely under the control of the House.

MR. HEALY

said, he scarcely thought that it was entirely under the control of the House; and for this reason, that there had never been an instance of a salary being cut down by the House. They had to bear this in mind, that it put a whole lot of patronage not merely in the hands of the Government, but of Dublin Castle, and the favourites would get the tit-bits, and those who were not in such good odour would get the worst jobs. The whole thing would be in the hands of Dublin Castle, and it would have passed out of the control of Parliament. They knew that it would be on the Estimate. But what would happen? Perhaps the Prime Minister, on Monday next, would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to take a Vote on Account, which would include the salaries of the Commissioners; and a month afterwards, when the exact item came up, it would be at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, when the general body of the House would be away. This was a matter for consideration. They viewed everything with suspicion that took place in Dublin Castle. They knew that in for- mer days it was a hot-bed of corruption, and, at the present time, it was a place that they required to watch; and he thought that when matters affecting salaries came before the House they should insist upon a sum not exceeding so much being placed in the Bill. Unless they did that, they would place the whole matter in the hands of the Government. He should, therefore, move later to insert the amount in the clause.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PLUNKET (for Mr. GIBSON)

moved, in page 22, line 27, after "determine," to insert— The salaries of the Commissioners shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the growing produce thereof; such salaries shall grow due from day to day, but shall be payable to the persons entitled thereto, or to their executors or administrators, on the usual quarterly day of payment, or at such other periods in every year as the Treasury may from time to time determine. The object of his Amendment was that the salaries of the Commissioners should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to this—that, as far as regarded that Commissioner, who was to be a legal and judicial person, his salary would be charged on the Consolidated Fund, for that was the practice of the law in such cases. In the case of high judicial persons, in every reform that had taken place, now for a long time that principle had always been adhered to. It had been considered in the interests of the community that any person who had to exercise a high judicial office should have the salary secured on the Consolidated Fund, and that his salary should not be a question to be raised every year on the Estimates whenever they came to be passed. What he wanted to ask was this—were not the other Commissioners included in this Commission not practically and really judicial persons exercising high judicial functions. They had heard that one of these Commissioners, who was to be a Judge, and might become a President of the Supreme Court, was to be President, except so far as his brother Commissioners might choose to give him a certain conceded precedence. But his brother Commissioners were to have the right and power to exercise all judicial functions quite as much as the judicial person who was separated from them by the description, but not separated in any way by the authority which he would have.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Motion proposes to pay the salaries out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. Moneys voted by Parliament cannot be moved except on the recommendation of one of the Ministers of the Crown.

MR. PLUNKET

Of course I bow to your decision.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

moved an Amendment in page 22, line 27, after the word "determine," to insert these words— The salaries of such Assistant Commissioners as well as the other officers shall in no case exceed one thousand five hundred pounds. The Attorney General for Ireland had given them no statement in the matter. The salaries as fixed for the Commissioners was £3,000 per annum, and he thought that it was necessary to put in the Bill that the salaries of the several officers should in no case exceed the half of that.

MR. WARTON

said, there was no such terms to be found in the Bill as "sub-Commissioner." The term was "Assistant Commissioner." A "sub-Commission" was mentioned, but not a "sub-Commissioner."

THE CHAIRMAN

The word "solicitor" is also mentioned.

MR. HEALY

said, the word "solicitor" had been inserted in the Bill. The Amendment was, after the word "determine," to add— And the salaries of such Assistant Commissioners, solicitor, or other officers, shall in no case exceed one thousand five hundred pounds per annum.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment. The solicitor, and secretary, and all the other officers were to be appointed by the Commissioners; and £1,500 a-year would be too much for most, if not all, of those officials who were to be appointed. If an Act of Parliament stated that a salary was not to exceed a certain amount, that amount usually became the minimum as well as the maximum.

MR. HEALY

said, he would not press the Amendment; but would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 29, leave out "Commissioners," and insert "Land Commission."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

MR. PLUNKET

said, he should like to know if he could now raise the question to which he had already referred. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the inconvenience and inconsistency in making a difference in the salaries of the Commissioners who were to be colleagues and equals. He was not in a position to put it more fairly; but he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the matter.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) was under a mistake in supposing that the Commissioners were to be equal, because an Amendment had been placed on the Paper to-day which showed that they were to be totally unequal. That showed the great inconvenience of voting salaries for this Commission before they had determined the status and position of the Commissioners. He did not think such a case could ever have occurred in Parliament before. In this matter he was obliged to refer to a former clause, and the truth was that one of these Commissioners was to remain in the position in which they were assured that all the Commissioners were to be in when the Bill was introduced—that was to say, that he was to be a permanent official. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland very fairly said that he assumed the Commissioners to be of equal rank; but it was clear that they were not to be, for two of them were to be appointed for only seven years.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that that is not the point we are now upon.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, they were discussing the question of salaries, and it was impossible for the Committee to form an opinion as to the salaries of the different Commissioners unless they knew what their status was to be. If some were to be inferior to others, he agreed that their salaries should be smaller; but that had not yet been determined. He would not, however, press the question, beyond saying that this was a most serious change that had been made, and he foresaw that a serious difficulty would spring up if the change was persisted in. They were told that all the Commissioners were to be of the highest character and position; but that was certainly not the case, as one was to be paid a higher salary than the others. He did not think the Committee ought to allow the clause to pass without being told what was the position of these officials.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

That question will come on later. The question now is whether one of the Commissioners is to have a higher salary.

MR. GREGORY

said, they were now on Clause 39, which provided that all the expenses should be paid out of monies provided by Parliament. The question was whether this was a proper mode of paying persons who exercised judicial functions.

THE CHAIRMAN

We cannot make a charge upon the Consolidated Fund without a special Resolution of the House.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was objecting to the proposal to provide, by an annual Parliamentary Vote, for the salary of a person who was exercising judicial functions.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I rise to Order. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) was not present when this question was——

MR. HEALY

I rise to Order. What is the point of Order the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) wishes to raise?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) wished to move an Amendment upon this question; but the Chairman ruled that he could not do so.

MR. GREGORY

said, that what he contended for was that a person exercising judicial functions ought to be paid independently of Parliament, and that was the principle on which they dealt with all existing judicial offices, the salaries being charged upon the Consolidated Fund. This was an exception to the general principle, and an exception which, he ventured to think, was in the wrong direction. He did not propose any other mode of payment at present; but he certainly thought that that which was proposed was not the right mode.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Question was "That the Clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill;" and, therefore, an Amendment could not now be moved. But, on Report, having regard to what had taken place, and knowing now what they did know as to the intentions of the Government, they might bring up an Amendment. The Chairman had ruled that an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his (Mr. Gibson's) name was out of Order, and he had anticipated that that might be so; but he had put it down in order to direct the attention of the Government to the question. It was a matter which he thought it would be well to consider on Report, as it was desirable, whatever they did, to preserve the independence of the Commissioners. They had already secured the independence of the legal member of the Commission in a proper way, and it seemed to him that it would be desirable to have some security for a like independence of the other Commissioners.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he did not understand that the Judicial Commissioner would stand in any peculiar position. Like the Railway Commissioners, he understood that each of the Commissioners would be entitled to £3,000 a-year, and that the Judicial Commissioner, as a Judge, would stand in quite another category.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, it was not wise that this thing should be wrapped up in this ambiguity. The Commissioner was not to be a Judge. It was a most unfortunate practice for the Government to put down a clause fixing the status of the Commissioners, to give Notice of Amendments to that clause, and then to postpone the whole thing, refusing the Committee liberty of dicussing it. The Commissioner would not be a Judge; but he was to be a barrister of 10 years' standing.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Committee have already decided that Clause 34 shall be postponed. It is not, therefore, competent for the hon. Gentleman to discuss it.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, it was competent for him to discuss the salaries. The Question was that the clause should pass, and it referred to the salaries of the Commissioners.

THE CHAIRMAN

But the words which the hon. Member refers to in that clause have been passed. This refers to the Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he objected then to the proceeding—he objected to something which looked exceedingly wrong. He would ask the Committee to look at the Bill. It was introduced in a particular way, and then the real working clause upon which everything hung was postponed. That was not the way in which an Act of Parliament of this importance ought to be discussed. He had not the slightest objection in the world to the Commissioners receiving £3,000 or even £5,000 a-year; but what he wished to secure was that which was on the face of the Bill—namely, that the Commissioners should be equal in status. He wished to secure that they should have equal salaries; and if that proposal was not adopted he did not think the measure would prove satisfactory.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

If the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) considers these matters important, he can go into them when we come to the clause that has been postponed. I am sorry that what he has objected to has been done in his absence.

MR. WARTON

said, that although the words "other than" were required in line 23, it was equally the fact that they were wanted in line 28. That only showed what they came to when they went too fast. They were proceeding with these clauses with the most indecent haste, and were landing themselves into absurdities which by-and-bye they would have to pay for. The Chairman had ruled that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin could not put his Amendment as to the proper way of paying the Judges; yet the Committee must remember that it was in their power to record their opinion by refusing to pass the clause. If the Committee took that course, Her Ma- jesty's Government would soon bring up a proper proposal.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) that they were proceeding too fast. In fact, he was of opinion that for some days they had been proceeding much too slowly. ["Hear, hear!"] He was extremely glad that at last he had been able to say something with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland could agree. With regard to what had been said in this discussion a few minutes before 1 o'clock that morning, he had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—he had asked whether or not the Judge would have precedence of the other Commissioners. He did not know whether he rightly interpreted the motives which actuated the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); but it seemed to him that for some reason or other the hon. Member objected to there being an inequality in the rank of the Commissioners. Well, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) strongly objected to there being any difference in rank; and, if there was any difference in rank, he thought that the last person to whom they should give precedence should be the Judge. If the hon. Member for the County of Galway would move an Amendment to the clause he should be very happy to support him.

THE CHAIRMAN

We have passed the point at which the clause can be amended.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he did not know whether it would be worth while to bring up a new clause on Report on this matter; but the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was quite right in contending that equality in the position of the Commissioners should be measured by equality in their salaries.

MR. HEALY

wanted to know if it was intended that the Judicial Commissioner should receive a less salary than the other members of the Commission?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had already answered that question. The Judicial Commissioner was to be a member of the Supreme Court with the rank and salary of a Judge.

MR. HEALY

said, he was glad that the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stuck to this matter with such pertinacity. The Judicial Commissioner would certainly have the highest status, because he would be learned in the law, and he would have on that account in the Court a status which the other Commissioners would not possess. He did not object to this functionary having the salary of £3,500, but he thought that the other Commissioners should be paid an equal amount. If this matter were brought up on Report he was sure that the hon. Member for the County of Galway would receive support. Although the Judge would be a barrister of 10 years' standing and learned in the law, the other Commissioners, it was to be hoped, would have some learning on the Land Question. Therefore, they might be equal, in point of learning and of real utility, as Land Commissioners.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought that it would only be right that Parliament should have control over the salaries of the Commissioners, because if there was any fault to find with them it would be easy to bring their conduct under criticism in the House.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 (Powers of Commission).

MR. PLUNKET

said, he had placed in the hands of the Chairman an Amendment which proposed to strike out the first paragraph of the clause. He wished to ascertain what was the object and intention of Her Majesty's Government in inserting that paragraph. He must say, as far as he understood the matter, it would place the Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court in rather an ambiguous position. The case stood thus—the Land Commission was to be composed of three Commissioners, according to the terms of the Bill. One of those was to be supreme Judge, who would act with equal rank with one of the Judges of the High Court of Justice. Why, then, was he or any of his colleagues to tranfer any case which came before them to the Chancery Division of the High Court? The next paragraph went on to say— The Land Commission shall have full power to decide all questions whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which it may be necessary to decide for the purposes of this Act, and they shall not be subject to be restrained in the execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any Court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any Court. Why, then, were they to have the power of handing over part of their duty to another Court of an equal authority and dignity to themselves to entertain and decide for them? He did not understand on what principle it was proposed to treat the Chancery Division of the High Court as if it was subservient to the business of the Land Commission. They did not know yet what the matters were that were to be referred to the Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it was intended that they might have a Land Court for investigating titles or for buying and selling. It might be very convenient that the Commission should have power to refer such matters to the Land Court in case they were overburdened or did not feel competent to do this especial work. He did not think there would be any practical difficulty in the reference to the Land Judges.

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought the question was not at all so simple as his right hon. and learned Friend suggested, and he could see difficulties of two or three kinds. Was it intended that an Assistant Commissioner should have the power to send to the Landed Estates Court for determination any matter that occurred to him? If not, there was not a syllable in the Act to prevent his doing so, for the powers of the Commission were to be delegated to a single Assistant Commissioner, and his right to avail himself of the Landed Estates Court was left absolutely untouched. He was sure that could not be the intention of the Government, and he would therefore suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend before Report to make that point plain, so that it should be clear that only the Commission, sitting in a judicial capacity, should have the power to evoke the judicial aid of another great Court. There must also be something more definite than "any matter" to indicate what class of business was to be dealt with by the Commission; and it would not be fair that the Commission should take only the easy cases and leave the hard cases to be worked out by the Landed Estates Court. Then, again, where were the appeals from the decisions of the Land Judges in such cases to go? In the Irish Judicature Act of 1877, there was a special power given to make rules regulating the whole practice of the Court. Was that power to be overruled by this present provision? Under that Act there was an absolute right of appeal from any order made by the Land Judges; but was it now intended, if the power to send cases to the Land Judges was exercised, that any suitor who felt aggrieved might appeal from any order made by the Land Judges to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, whether the Land Commission liked it or not? If that was intended, and the drafting remained as it was, the Court of Appeal might be found giving decisions absolutely at right angles to the Commission. The more this was looked at, the more clear it became that it would be surrounded by difficulties, both substantial and technical. He did not think that was the way to preserve proper respect for the Bench; for they were to have no power of asking the assistance of the Lord Chancellor or of any of their Colleagues in the preparation of rules for regulating appeals. If the Government did not care to give this opportunity of participating in the regulation of the Court to all the Judges direct, they most assuredly should give it to the Heads of the Divisions, and, at all events, to the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Land Judges, in order to control, in a moderate way, the references to the Land Court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thought this plan would enable the Commission to send to the Land Judges to clear up some cases in order to insure that a clear good title should be sold; but could that be accomplished directly in the ordinary way in regard to private purchasers in Ireland? At present people in Ireland were able to work very well with the existing machinery, and he thought it would greatly simplify matters if the same system were adopted under this Bill. It was absolutely impossible that this clause could emerge from the House in its present shape. It was too wide and too general. It contained nothing at all to restrain the Land Commission, or to prevent an Assistant Commissioner having powers he was not intended to have; and he thought that if the clause was retained there should be power given either to the Heads of the Divisions, or at least to the Lord Chancellor, to take part in conjunction with the Land Judges in making the rules.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

admitted the force of some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, and would consider the matter before Report with a view to obviate the difficulties pointed out. It was not intended that the power of reference to the Land Judges should be exercised by the Commission by delegation. If the clause could not be satisfactorily amended and reduced in its operation, he would consider whether it could not be dispensed with.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked whether the Commission, having become owners of an estate, could go into the Court to sell; or, putting the converse, could they go into the Court like an ordinary purchaser and buy an estate from the Court? He wished to get at the relative positions of the Court and the Commission.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

replied, that the Commission could go and purchase an estate from the Landed Estates Court.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider before the Report whether he could not introduce words making the decision of the Chancery Division final.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he should consider that matter also.

MR. FINDLATER

observed, that anyone reading this clause would find that exceptional powers were given to the Commission; but he had an Amendment on the Paper with reference to the power of the Commission to refer to the Court, as he considered the terms of the clause rather wide.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he would not press the Amendment to a division, but, before withdrawing it, he wished to mention that under the present practice the Court gave notice to the tenants of an estate about to be sold; but at present it was not clear where the functions of the Commission were to begin in the way of selling holdings on estates and where the functions of the Court ended. At present that was most difficult to make out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 36, before "The," insert "For the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GREGORY

asked, what would be the functions of the Commission with respect to appeals?

MR. COLONEL STANLEY

inquired, as a point of Order, whether the position of the Amendment would preclude a discussion of Clause 41?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

No.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 36, after "power," insert "and jurisdiction."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 36, leave out "decide," and insert "hear and determine."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 37, leave out "questions whatsoever," and insert "matters."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 37, leave out "they."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved in page 22, line 41, insert as a new sub-section— 3. The Land Commission may, of its own motion, or on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, state a case in respect of any question of Law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland. The decision of the said Court of Appeal on any such question so referred to it shall be final and conclusive. Alter the numbers of subsequent sub-sections.

Question proposed, "That this new sub-section be there inserted."

MR. HEALY

suggested the insertion of "shall" after "or" in the second line.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he thought the word "may" was sufficient, and better than "shall," for he could imagine cases in which an application might be made for a case to be stated where there was small ground for it. It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Court, and, as a rule, the Court would interpret "may" as "shall."

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought "may" must mean either may or shall, but not both, and he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member reasonable. No Court worth having would be afraid of having its decisions reviewed. The late Mr. Butt had urged that parties should have an absolute right of appeal whether the Court liked it or not, and in the Judicature Act of 1877 that right was definitely given. He did not say the proposed Commission would not be satisfactory on questions that were non-legal; but it was arrogating an immense power to say that the Judicial Commissioner was so absolutely certain to be right that neither the landlord nor the tenant should have the right of appeal. That would be clothing him with a kind of infallibility, requiring the highest type of man ever put into the exercise of judicial functions. His right hon. and learned Friend said that in proper cases the Judicial Commissioner would interpret "may" as "shall," and in improper cases he would interpret "may" as "may." In other words, the Judicial Commissioner would not allow an appeal from his decision unless he liked. That was a "sham," and they must make up their minds finally whether they meant that there was to be an appeal or no appeal. Was it intended that under no circumstances, without the sanction of the Court, should there be a review of its decision on a legal question in which many thousand pounds' worth of property and the interests of hundreds of tenants might be involved? He protested against that, and would raise the point, not only now, but, if necessary, also at subsequent stages.

MR. SHAW

said, he thought it would not be wise to give a right of appeal in all cases, where there might be no ques- tions of law involved. It was assumed that the Judicial Commissioner would be a man of some standing, and that he would not refuse an appeal where there was some legal question. The proposal of the hon. Member would enable the man with the longest purse to appeal when there was no ground for it, and on the broad ground of common sense he thought it would be most objectionable.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

suggested as a way out of the difficulty, and to meet the case of a man with a long purse, the introduction of "upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court may think fit." That would insure justice to the poorer party.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he should be disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) if the words "unless the Court considers the application frivolous" were introduced.

MR. HEALY

said, he was willing to accept that proposal; but he pointed out that if the Committee knew who would be the Commissioners, they could better judge whether "shall" was necessary or not.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he hoped the Government would adhere to their own Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

proposed to insert "shall" after the words "before it."

Amendment proposed, in third line of proposed Amendment, after the words "before it," insert "shall"—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted."

MR. WARTON

observed, that the Committee were about to create a Court composed of one real Judge and two pseudo-Judges, and he thought it might often happen that the two laymen might overrule the judgment of the legal member of the Court, on the ground that they were right and the lawyer was wrong. The word "vexatious" would have no effect on their minds, and he thought it would be perfectly absurd to allow such a state of things. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in proposed Amendment, after the word "or," in line 2, to insert "shall."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he hoped the Government would not accept an Amendment which would enable every litigious person to insist on an appeal, however unreasonable. Even in accepting the words "unless it considers the application frivolous," the Government were going too far; and he would rather have the new Court in the same position as other Courts.

MR. H. DAVEY

remarked, that he believed no Judge would deny that the knowledge that his decisions might be reviewed had a salutary effect on those decisions; and he thought it would be unreasonable to refuse to the parties the right now proposed. Very difficult questions of law might arise before the Commission, and the two lay members might overrule the legal member, although they might be entirely wrong. He supported the Amendment.

MR. SHAW

preferred the words proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland; but suggested the insertion after "shall" of the words "provided that the Court considers the application reasonable."

MR. DALY

said, the real point was to insure that the man who had the most sovereigns should not be able to harass the poorer man; and he believed no Judge would risk his reputation by refusing an appeal on a question of law when he entertained any reasonable doubt. The Amendment was not necessary.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he could understand the kind of bogus feeling of lawyers on this question; but the tenant's interest would not suffer if this Court were conducted on the usual principles which guided Courts, and he advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to insist upon the Amendment to insert "shall."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

mentioned that one of the appeals now pending before the House of Lords was an appeal from some fishermen tenants of the Duke of Devonshire; and asked where the tenants would have been if they had not the right of appeal?

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed in proposed Amendment, In second line, to insert "unless it considers such application frivolous and vexatious."—(Mr Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

, observing that immense issues might be involved as to rents, suggested that before Report the Attorney General for Ireland should consider the desirability of providing that the decision of the Commission should only be final up to a certain limit of cases.

MR. H. DAVEY

suggested the adoption of the Bankruptcy rule, that there should be no appeal to the House of Lords unless the Court of Appeal deemed the matter sufficiently important, and supported the proposal for a limitation made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson).

MR. CALLAN

remarked that this discussion was kept up by Chancery lawyers, who knew nothing about Ireland and Irish property.

Question put, "That the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 25, insert "any" before the word "such."—(Mr. Plunket.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 29, leave out "aforesaid," and insert "except as by this Act provided."—(Mr. Plunket.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 (Appeal to Land Commission).

Amendment proposed, In page 23, line 36, after "Act," insert "or under 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. GIBSON

asked how this appeal machinery would work, observing that at present the Judges of Assizes were the appellate tribunal, and, through them, appeals could be heard in the country with little trouble and expense to the parties. But this was apparently to be changed, and he would be glad to know how the Government proposed that the new tribunal should work—whether in Dublin, or in the country?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he expected that the Commissioners would be able to go round the country and hear appeals from Courts of First Instance at convenient times. The idea was that the appeal work should be generally done in the country, as near as possible to the poor man's door.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the Amendment an excellent one; but regretted that the 21st section of the Act of 1870 was to be repealed, because that would cause great practical inconvenience.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 23, line 40, at end of Clause, add "The twenty-fourth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

said, he wished to propose an Amendment to which he attached very great importance. It was to suggest that decisions of the Land Commission sitting in an appellate capacity should not be final in certain clearly defined cases. He did not seek to encourage or facilitate reckless appeals, where there was no foundation for them; he sought only to give an appeal in certain clearly defined cases, where every reasonable man would say it was only reasonable, and where the Land Commission were not unanimous. The Judicial Commissioner might be overruled by the lay Commissioners, and where there was a difference on a point of law there ought to be an appeal. He would also give the right of appeal in cases where a certain sum of money was involved; but he had left the amount blank, being mainly desirous of getting the principle accepted; the amount could be agreed on afterwards. The third case in which he would give a right of appeal was when the Court itself desired it. It was a very important thing to set up this tribunal to deal with important legal points, and to say there should be no appeal from it to a higher tribunal; and he was not at all impressed by the contrary argument of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), whose common sense he would trust in any matter of business, but whose judgment he would not equally accept in a matter of law. It was not unreasonable to give such appeal where there was a difference of opinion, and it was not unreasonable to give an appeal where a great estate was dealt with, the owner claiming at the peril of costs. This was the law of the land in reference to every other tribunal; and he should be glad if the Government could see their way to modify the clause so as to make it meet the cases he had referred to.

Amendment proposed, In page 23, line 40, after "same," insert "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order upon any question of law made by the Land Commission under this Act may, in case the members of the Land Commission were not unanimous as to such decision or order, or in case such decision or order affects an amount of not less than pounds, or in case the Land Commission consents thereto, require the Land Commission to reserve such question of law by way of case stated for the consideration of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, and the same shall thereupon be heard accordingly in such manner and form as may be prescribed by Rules of Court to be made for carrying into effect the provisions of this section with respect to appeals to the said Court of Appeal, in accordance with the provisions of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877.' The said Court of Appeal shall make such decision or order as ought to have been made by the Court below, and such decision or order shall be of the like effect as if it were the decision or order of the said Court, or the said Court of Appeal may remit the case, with such directions as they think fit, to the Court below: Provided always, That the judgment of the said Court of Appeal shall be subject to appeal to the House of Lords, in like manner and under the same conditions as the judgment of the said Court of Appeal in cases from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice is made, subject to appeal to the House of Lords by 'The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877:' "—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had confined his remarks to the earlier part of the Amendment, which was rendered unnecessary by the Amendments that had been already made in the Bill. It had been already provided that either of the parties concerned should have a right of appeal provided the grounds on which it was asked for were not frivolous. This right was granted without reference to any difference of opinion in the Court or to the value of the property at stake. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said nothing about the concluding part of his Amendment, which was the most important of all. It proposed that the appeal might be carried to the House of Lords, and that was inconsistent with what the Committee had already done. They had provided that a man could have his case stated in the Court of Appeal; but they had also enacted that the decision of the Court of Chancery upon his case so stated should be final and conclusive. A new departure was now proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government could not accept the proposition, because they thought they had provided for all that was required.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had a strong conviction that too much had been thrown into the hands of the lawyers, and that if the Bill was tied up by too many legal points and bonds great injury would be done to this great Act of reconciliation.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HEALY

moved, in page 23, at end of Clause, to insert the following sub-section:— Every solicitor of the Court of Judicature in Ireland may appear, act in, and plead any proceedings before the Land Commission or any of said Sub-Commissions, without being required to employ counsel; and all laws now in force concerning solicitors shall extend, as far as the same may be applicable, to solicitors so practising as aforesaid. The hon. Gentleman explained that the sub-section was taken from the Irish Bankruptcy Act. Of course, he presumed the tenants would have to employ lawyers of some kind. It was very desirable they should employ the cheapest; and under the sub-section he now proposed the Court could allow any solicitor to bring a tenant's ease before them. As the words were taken from the Bankruptcy Act he imagined the Attorney General for Ireland would not object to the Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the sub-section be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, although he considered the addition of the sub-section unnecessary, he saw no objection to it.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was very sorry to find the Attorney General for Ireland assenting to an Amendment absolutely at variance with existing legislation on the subject. The hon. Member for Wexford had gone back to the old Bankruptcy Act of 1857, and the sub-section he had abstracted had not the smallest reference to Land Courts. The 68th section of the County Officers and Courts Act of 1877 was far more beneficial to the suitors than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be, for it enabled the parties themselves, or the fathers or brothers of the parties, by the sanction of the Chairman, to appear in the County Court to argue the case, or it enabled them to appear by solicitor, or by barrister, if instructed by a solicitor. If the Amendment were adopted, taken as it was from an old Act of Parliament, which did not even now govern the proceedings, it would lead to the greatest complications, because it might be possible that the tenants would desire not to appear by counsel or attorney, but to appear in person, or by father or other person. He wanted to preserve these rights of the people as they were at present. Let the parties come in, if they pleased, without any professional man; let them come in with solicitors, if they so desired; let them come in with counsel if they so desired, and they sometimes would desire to do one thing and sometimes another. In his opinion, the Amendment was not necessary, and it would not be advisable to accept it in its present shape.

MR. HEALY

said, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely beside the question. It did not matter one pin whether the Amendment was taken from an old Act or not. The Committee ought to make it clear that the people could employ the cheapest form of counsel if they chose. There was nothing in the Amendment taking away from the people the right to plead for themselves if they wished to do so. The Attorney General for Ireland would bear him out that if the Bill passed without Amendment in this respect the Court might, as a matter of practice, exclude solicitors from plead- ing before them, and might insist upon solicitors employing counsel. What would be the result? If a claim were made in the Court for a solicitor would have to be employed, and he would have to employ counsel, and the costs would exceed the original claim by hundreds per cent. He was glad to think the Government had accepted the Amendment, which he was sure would be well received in Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had already stated that he considered the Amendment entirely unnecessary, though he did not think it would do any harm, indicating as it did the spirit in which they intended the Court to act.

MR. HEALY

said, he understood that the Railway Commissioners excluded solicitors, because their right to plead was not specified in the Act.

MR. MELDON

said, he was afraid the Amendment, if it would have any operation at all, would have a mischievous operation, because the circumstances under which the clause under discussion was introduced in the Bankruptcy Act were these—that counsel had the right of audience in the Bankruptcy Court while solicitors had not. That was not the case with the proposed Commission. In his opinion, even without any Amendment, solicitors, and counsel employed by solicitors, and even the parties themselves, would have the right to come in and practice before the Commission; but to remove any doubt in the matter there could be no objection to the insertion of a properly framed clause. He was sure his hon. Friend wished to lighten the expenses of going into Court. He would not like the Amendment to be accepted for fear its adoption would leave it open to argument that no other persons save counsel instructed by solicitors, or solicitors could practice before the Commission.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It was well known there were many solicitors practising in the County Courts who were far more competent to cross-examine witnesses and address the Court than any junior barrister possibly could be. These gentlemen could be employed at a much lesser fee, and it was unjust that an humble suitor should be excluded from availing himself of their services for the purpose of preserving the monopoly of the Bar. The Bar had had matters all their own way for a long time, and it was hard a solicitor should not have as equal a right to address a Judge as any barrister.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he was in favour of the principle asserted by the Amendment. He could not agree in some of the reasons apparently pressed against the Committee now agreeing to its adoption. It was not desirable that employment of counsel by the attorney should be required in every case in a Bill of the character of the present. A suitor could appear in any Court to plead his own cause, and there was no necessity for any formal words to show what his inherent right was in this respect. There was nothing in the Bill to say that an attorney might appear without being required to employ counsel. They all knew that counsel did enjoy peculiar privileges, including the privileges of pre-audience. It might fairly be contended that the words of the County Court Act passed in 1877 would not refer to a newly constituted Court; and what they did, by the proposed clause, was to say that an attorney without—in the words of the clause—"being required to employ counsel" should have the right of appearing in Court, that he should have the right of pre-audience now enjoyed by counsel.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, they were all agreed that it was desirable to allow solicitors or the parties themselves to plead before the Court. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) was firmly convinced that if the present Amendment were adopted what they desired would not result; and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had also doubts upon the point. He thought that if the Attorney General for Ireland would take care that on Report some words would be introduced making it perfectly clear that the parties could appear themselves, or by solicitors, or counsel instructed by solicitors, they might close the discussion at once, for that was what they all wanted.

MR. HEALY

said, he would prefer that the words should be inserted now, and then, if the Government saw any reason to make them more precise on Report, it would be competent for them to do so.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he considered the Amendment highly unnecessary and also misleading. It was the opinion of the Committee that the parties should be allowed to appear in Court themselves, as well as by counsel or solicitor. The Amendment implied that a solicitor was the natural person to take proceedings, and it added that he should be allowed to do so without employing counsel. If the Government thought it necessary to insert any words on this subject, he trusted the words adopted would not have a misleading effect.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it would, perhaps, be more convenient if the hon. Member for Wexford would withdraw his Amendment. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) would undertake on Report to introduce words which would improve the purpose of the hon. Gentleman, and make the point perfectly clear.

MR. HEALY

said, he was happy to withdraw the Amendment under these circumstances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 (Rules for carrying Act into effect).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, this clause enabled the Committee to frame rules for the regulation of their proceedings. He begged to move in page 24, after line 3, to insert— (b.) The proceedings on the occasion of applications to fix judicial rents under this Act.

Question proposed, "That this paragraph be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

said, the Amendment appeared quite reasonable as far as it went; but it would be well to add after rents "and the withdrawal of such applications."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

assented.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 24, after line 7, to insert— (e.) The proceedings in respect of cases stated for the decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland under this Act; (f.) The proceedings on the occasion of applications for transfer of cases for the Civil Bill Court to the Land Commission under this Act. Altering the letter of other paragraphs accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HEALY

said, in proposing the next Amendment, they all knew that, under the present unfortunate circumstances of Ireland, the only resource which the unfortunate tenant often had was that he was obliged to compel the landlord to incur the odium of sending down 3,000 or 4,000 police and soldiers to serve writs where exorbitant rent was exacted, knowing that public opinion was so strong and the process-server so obnoxious that no landlord, unless prepared to go to the bitter end, would care to serve writs on his tenants. This was owing to the influence of public opinion brought about by the Land League; but, in former days, when no such influence existed, despotism was only tempered by the blunderbuss. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh, oh!" but he was quoting the opinion of Mr. James Anthony Froude, an Englishman, whose opinion ought to be accepted by that House. Public opinion and the blunderbuss had, indeed, been the only force by which the tenants were enabled to redress their grievances. The Government said that the mode of serving civil bill processes for the recovery of rent should be placed at the discretion of the Court, and that not merely in cases where the tenant came in as a statutory tenant, but in all cases it was provided that the Land Commission should circulate forms of application and directions as to the mode in which application was to be made, and they might even amend or add to the rules and regulations. Now, he wished to understand what, under these circumstances, was the position of the learned Attorney General for Ireland. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to tell the Committee that the Land Commission was to be constituted and to have this power in the case of men who were not statutory tenants at all, and who, therefore, claimed none of the benefits under the Bill? Were the Land Commission, from time to time, to make such rules as would alter the mode of serving writs for people altogether outside the Bill? If so, why did not the Government put their proposal into the Bill honestly and fairly? A more insidious attempt to alter the processes of law in Ireland he had never seen. He should move an Amendment to omit the words giving the Land Commission power to make rules affecting the service of civil bill processes in ejectment and for the recovery of rent, and he expected that he should have the support of both the Members for the University of Dublin, because they all knew that, as Conservatives, those Members had fought for the old régime and must be in favour of the existing order of things. Both those right hon. and learned Gentlemen would contend that the Land Laws of Ireland, from their point of view, had worked in the most excellent manner; and the method of serving writs must, as part of those Land Laws, have worked excellently also. However, he simply wished to learn from the Government whether the provision was to apply simply to statutory tenancies, or whether it was to apply to all cases in Ireland, and he was surprised that the Government should have attempted to smuggle through in this manner a most important provision which would have a most far-reaching effect upon the tenantry of Ireland.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, leave out lines 15 and 16.—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

pointed out that the clause had reference only to the serving of processes, about which there had been difficulties during the recent crisis. He was sure the hon. Member did not wish to oppose the enforcement of the payment of fair rents; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was perfectly willing, on the part of the Government, to confine the provision to judicial rents under the Bill.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had met him very fairly. He agreed that if the Act worked fairly and the Court gave satisfaction, the man who took land from a landlord ought to pay a fair rent for it. It was desirable that the landlord should get that rent in the speediest possible way. An Amendment to the effect that the provision should simply affect the case of a judicial rent would entirely meet his view.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the statement made by the Attorney General for Ireland led to a very curious conclusion. This Land Law Bill, as he understood it, was supposed to cover all cases, and to redress all the shortcomings of the law, and to make exceptions in the way now proposed was not entirely fair. If the present method of serving processes of ejectment was inconvenient in the case of a fair or judicial rent, he did not see why it should not also be inconvenient in the case of other rents, which were only not declared to be judicial rents because they were believed to be fair rents without any such declaration. Either the system of serving these notices was or was not a good and proper one; and if it was not, it should be put an end to. Now, there was a fair opportunity of putting an end to it. In any case, both classes of rents should be subject to the same system, for in future, under this admirable Bill, there were to be no unfair rents at all.

MR. HEALY

expressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

I now beg to move that before the word "rent" the word "judicial" be inserted, and that after the word "rent" the words "under this Act" be inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the word "judicial."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'judicial' be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

objected to the Amendment, and wished to know why the words of the clause had been put in the Bill? They must have been put in, because it was well known last year that there were immense difficulties in the way of the serving of civil bill processes. The section was deliberately put in, and it had been referred to, he believed, in the course of debate by the Chief Secretary, who had pointed out the simplicity of service that might be effected under this measure. That must have been the governing principle in the minds of the Government when the section was inserted in the Bill. There was no attempt at the suggestion of any distinction between the two cases; but the power was taken of drawing up rules for the service of ejectment for the recovery of rent in all cases. They all knew that there was a power in the Superior Courts of directing substitution of service, and that compelled the landlord to go to the great expense of suing in the Superior Courts. The great difficulty of proceeding now in the cheaper jurisdiction of the County Courts was that it was a cumbrous and roundabout method of procedure. What reason was there for cutting down this provision and limiting it to cases where there was a judicial rent declared under the Bill? What justification could possibly be suggested? They all knew that, in the present state of Ireland, the greatest difficulty which the Executive had to meet was found in the service of processes; and yet, in the face of that, the Government were deliberately saying—"We will leave all these difficulties as they are at present; we will leave the Executive face to face with the difficulties they have experienced during the last nine months, and we will not simplify the service of processes." The Government were doing this with their eyes wide open, and leaving the Executive in the future, as in the past, to be put to endless expense and trouble. They would not be able to say, for the future, that this was owing to any defect of the law or to any obstruction on the part of the landlords; but they were deliberately doing this after the plainest notice, and excluding the possibility of the simplicity of service from being applied to the present system.

MR. HEALY

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the Court would have nothing to do with anything except judicial rents, and why should it step outside its own domain? It had been established to find a judicial rent; why should it have given to it any functions outside that? If the Court were confined to the matter of judicial rent, would any landlord in Ireland have the audacity to apply to that Court for a special rule with regard to ordinary rents? The position of the Government should be this, that the Court should be enabled to say to any such landlord, at once—"If you want your writs served, you must be able to show that your rent is a fair one; in fact, that it is a judicial rent under the Act." In that case, the Court would have power to change the mode of service of writs. The Bill was intended to deal with cases coming before the Court, and why should the Court have given to it a power extraneous to its own proper duties? The Bill worked in a particular groove, and the objections now urged from the Front Opposition Bench were an attempt to shunt it off the track to a siding where it had no business at all. The words "judicial rent" would keep the matter exactly within the scope of the measure.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman, as they all knew, had found the greatest possible difficulty in the service of these processes, and the one thing which the right hon. Gentleman wanted, as the Representative of the Executive Government, was to get rid of all that difficulty. The hon. Member for Wexford had said that when a judicial rent was fixed the Court had power to fix how the processes should be served; but how were those rents to be fixed? Any tenant who was dissatisfied with his rent, would apply to the Court and get a judicial rent fixed; but, presumably, unless the tenant did so apply, he was satisfied. The effect of the present Amendment was this—that were the tenant showed, by not applying to the Court, that he was content, the Executive were to be put to all the trouble that now existed in regard to the serving of these processes; and it was only where the tenant showed he was dissatisfied by applying to the Court that the Executive were to be relieved from that trouble. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would see to this matter.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not see how they could avoid making this matter clear, and inserting the words which were thought necessary, and thereby carrying out what appeared to him to be the intention of the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the beginning of the clause, he would find the words "application to be made under this Act," and it was quite clear that the spirit and the meaning of the clause was that the Court were to make rules with regard to the application of the Act. It would be a good thing to have rules made which should affect the serving of processes generally; but he did not see how they could give the Court power to make rules for something quite outside its jurisdiction.

MR. MULHOLLAND

pointed out that the words "this Act" were distinctly mentioned throughout, except in respect of these rules in regard to the recovery of rent, as to which there was no such limitation. Surely, nothing could be more absurd than the position to which they would be reduced by the insertion of this Amendment. Take, for example, the case of two neighbouring landlords. One let his land at 20s. an acre, and the other let his land at 25s. an acre; but the rent of the latter had been reduced to the "judicial rent" of 20s. an acre under the Act. The landlord who had had his rent reduced by the interposition of the Court would have facilities for the recovery of that rent; but the other, who was so good a landlord that he had never been called before the Court at all, would be without such facilities. Could anything be more absurd? He wondered that the Chief Secretary, who must have been brought into contact with all the difficulties connected with the serving of processes, should now take up so extraordinary a position, which was most illogical. He could not see any ground whatever for the concession announced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and he hoped the Government would, on re-consideration, change their minds.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought the functions of the Land Commission were to fix a judicial rent, and not to collect it. When the rent was fixed, the parties would come under the ordinary processes of the law. It was very difficult to make any distinction between one kind of rent and another. If they went beyond the immediate scope of the Bill, where were they to stop? He would, however, like to see provided, in reference to the power of the landlord to carry the tenant into an expensive Superior Court, and to load him with costs that both parties should be put on the same footing, and that the costs of the Superior Court should not be allowed, unless that Superior Court certified that it was a fit case to take before it.

MR. PARNELL

said, it might or might not be desirable to make a reform which in effect would be an amendment of the County Offices and Courts Act of 1877; but such an amendment would be entirely beyond the scope of this Bill, and if amendments in one direction tending to an alteration of the rules and methods of procedure of the local Courts were suggested or attempted by Conservative Gentlemen, the Irish Members on their side would also bring forward amendments and suggestions which they would otherwise refrain from introducing, because they conceived that such alterations were entirely beyond the scope of the measure.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to remind the Attorney General for Ireland that this was a Bill "To further amend the Law relating to the Occupation and Ownership of Land in Ireland." The hon. Member for Wexford had said that a fair landlord had a right to a fair rent; but it must be remembered that, in the 22nd section, the Government had introduced words making it impossible for a landlord to go into Court to get a fair rent unless he had previously demanded an increase of rent.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary would consider the very grave question here raised. The title of the Bill distinctly recognized the amendment of the law generally, and here was an admitted evil which required to be remedied, and which was intended by the draftsman to be remedied by this clause, or else he would not leave the terms of this sub-section general while the terms of all the other sub-sections were particular. It would be very disastrous if a great benefit to the public and relief to the State could not be accomplished because it did not come within the assumed purposes of this particular clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

It is true that the word "and" is not quoted. It gives the Commission power entirely outside their general jurisdiction, and it should be in a separate clause.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

It is clearly an admitted evil; and the arguments of those behind me are unanswerable, and the Government have not attempted to answer them. It is the most absurd proposition that I have ever heard. If the Prime Minister had been present he would not have taken up the position.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

The matter is not so simple as the right hon. Gentleman would suggest. Under this rule you would be regulating the process, not of this Court, not of the Civil Bill Court under this Act, but regulating the general process of the Civil Bill Court. The Act provides that the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman shall regulate them. That being so, it would be a strange way to abrogate that power. You cannot have one procedure fixed by the Chancellor and five Chairmen, and another procedure by the Land Court, over-ruling the other. I do not mean to say that it is a serious question, or one of importance; but I do not think that it is so simple in a clause of this kind to give the power of the Land Commission, not the process of the Civil Bill Court, but a process which has been already regulated by another body. It is a matter, of course, deserving of consideration; but it is not so clear.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had never known in his life efforts shown by a Government to induce the House to arrive at a conclusion that the Executive were entitled to remain encumbered by all the difficulties which have been surrounding them for the last three months. They deliberately put into the middle of the clause sub-section "G," for the very express purpose of getting them out of the difficulty of the service of processes. That was a statement which had not been denied; and he ventured to think that it could not be denied, and would not be denied, before this debate closed. And what was the meaning of this remarkable and astounding and absurd change of front? They had in their Bill, as the result of deliberate thought, an Amendment to save the country thousands of pounds in the employment of military and police, which would, at the same time, simplify the service process and save the chance of outrage; and, having all these advantages in the Bill in clear English and in unmistakeable simplicity, they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, who said that it was not fair to free matters from existing complications. [Mr. HEALY: I never used the expression.] He admitted that it was a paraphrase. But if that were not the meaning of the argument of the hon. Member for Wexford, he was at a loss to indicate what it was. What was the argument of the last Government change? It was that of the Solicitor General. He said that there was a certain want of jurisdiction here. But the argument that he had used went too far, and did not go far enough. If they proposed to confine it to the power of regulating the processes for the non-payment of judicial rent merely, that was a matter which could be equally well dealt with under the Act of 1877, if the County Court Judges pleased to deal with it, and they merely superadded it to a better tribunal in a better way. What were the absurd results? In the first place, they saw the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who was the Officer answerable for the peace of the country and the administration of the law, struggling for the Amendment which would leave him in his difficulties, and leave the country exposed to outrage and expense. They had the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for England contending for an Amendment which would leave them face to face with results so absurd that they could not and would not be defended, because the position was this—that they were willing to direct the service of civil bill process for judicial rents, leaving uncovered under the existing law "the service of processes other than judicial." What was the result? Where was the reason which justified the distinction? A judicial rent could only be arrived at by a landlord if he asked for an increase. The landlord had not got the power of going into Court to have the rent measured simpliciter—he must ask for an increase; so that they gave the landlord whose title to it was that he asked for the increase of rent, the benefit of the now process, and they left the old cumbrous process to the landlord who had not asked the tenant to pay the increase. The tenant who brought his landlord into Court evidenced by that act that he was not satisfied with what he had to pay, and therefore they would give that tenant who had so shown that he was not satisfied with the rent that he had to pay, and asked to have it re-assessed, the benefit of a simple process; but they left the tenants outside this clause who did not make any complaint with reference to the rent under the old process. He asked, was the Bill confined to the tenants paying judicial rents? It was nothing of the kind. The Government's own glossary made a distinction between ordinary and other tenants; and they had dealt with all classes of tenants. They dealt with tenants paying judicial rents and those who were not—and here, when they were both comprised in the same class and in the same sub-section, they accepted an Amendment from the hon. Member for Wexford, who, very naturally, moved the Amendment from his point of view, which would make a distinction which the Government ignored in the previous sections; and the sole effect was to leave the Executive Government of the country exposed to expense, to difficulty, and to delay. Let not the Government say hereafter, if there were difficulties in the way of service of process, if it led to outrage and expenditure, and to the necessity of sending thousands of military and police, that it was in consequence of this Amendment here and elsewhere, that these results followed. It had followed by the deliberate acceptance of the Government after warning, and with notice of an Amendment that prevented them from obtaining a simple and cheap service of process. Let the matter be understood by the country and the Committee that the Government under this clause as it stood unamended were entitled to have a simple and clear service of process which could be obtained at the expense of a few shillings, which could be enforced without military and police, and which would obviate the chance of outrage; and, with these clear advantages on one side, the Chief Executive Officer of the country, advised by the Law Officers of Ireland and of England, insisted on remaining under a condition which at present they all deplored. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had taken an intelligent interest in these proceedings, had compared it, not very happily, to a Bill which was opposed by the Conservatives and thrown out—a Bill for the Limitation of Costs. It passed this House without discussion or debate. [Mr. HEALY: No.] He was present; and he would give the reason in one minute. It was passed on a Wednesday afternoon, in that quarter of an hour which was such an unhappy time for some people, on an occasion when he himself was absent. He would be quite willing that it should be made law on one condition, that they would say to the Civil Bill Court, to whom they asked the landlords to have their resort in certain cases, that they would give to them the same power for the service of processes that existed in the Superior Courts. But it was unjust and unreasonable to tell the landlords that they would penalize their application to a Superior Court, and, at the same time, to deny the Inferior Courts the same simplicity of service. He feared that he was not speaking strictly in Order, and therefore he would not pursue the subject further. He did not himself understand the reasoning—he supposed that was the word—which had operated on the mind of the Government. They had not explained their action; they had not defended their conduct; they had not attempted to show that they were not doing one of the most inexplicable things that ever was done by a responsible Government. He, for himself, could say something more on this subject; but he forebore. He was sorry that the Prime Minister was not present. He believed that if he were he would suggest some way out of the difficulty, which he felt himself to be very serious, and which he would be glad to see his way out of.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he forebore, though he could say a great deal more. Now, I really do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say much more. I should say that the heat of the day must rather have affected him for the last few minutes. The real state of the matter is this. Here is a clause, the object of which is to give the Land Commission power to make laws for working their Act. There is one section of it, which, it has been pointed out to the Government, goes outside the object of the Bill. It seems a natural and reasonable thing to ask that it should not be put in, especially when we bear in mind that I do not believe there is a single other case in which the Land Commission have power given them by this Bill to go outside their general duties. Now, I quite admit that it would be a good thing to have a change; but I cannot think that the way in which it has been pointed out to us is the right way. It seems to me perfectly clear that we have no right to be smuggling in a provision into the middle of the clause for another purpose. I do not see how we are to support the argument that the civil bill processes are to be made to apply outside the Act. The question is a very important one; and I am not sure that this Bill is the right place to deal with it. I think that better regulations might be made than under the present law; but I do not think that in a matter which would affect such a thing as the recovery of rent in Ireland, that we ought to change it in a clause apparently for another purpose, and simply by being inserted amongst several other clauses, so that it would hardly be suspected by anybody that it meant to apply to anything outside. If the thing is to be done, it should be done in a separate clause. I shall certainly bring the case before the Prime Minister. I have not had any conversation with him about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that I had alluded to it in the debate; but I do not remember having done so. I think that the matter is well worth examining; but I am certainly still of opinion that if it should be done that it should not be done in this clause.

SIR ASSHETON CROSS

I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that, at all events, he agrees with us as to the merits of the case. He cannot defend the law as it as present stands, as he suggests that it should be amended, and he is with us entirely on the merits. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not quite admit that. But he says that the law is in an unsatisfactory state. Well, it is in an unsatisfactory state, and it would be in a still more unsatisfactory state if the Amendment is allowed to be carried; and the only ground for not retaining the section in the clause is that it does not belong to this clause. All that we ask leave to say is that the draftsman intends that this clause shall meet this case. Of course, any Court would naturally say that these words have not been left out of this particular clause for this special purpose. But if the right hon. Gentleman will go one step further, and say that the Government will consider this matter, and that he will bring in a separate clause, because he does not admit that this is a proper clause for it to be inserted in, we shall be content. The whole scope of the Act is relative to the operation of laud in Ireland and other purposes. It is absolutely within the scope of this Act, and no one can possibly think otherwise. What I am saying is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has put my argument before the Committee. The Government have admitted the whole strength of our case; but they are resting their defence on this—that this clause is not the place for it. If the Government will say that they will consider this matter, and bring up a separate clause, then we shall be content. If they will not, then I think that it is necessary for us to report Progress, in order to give them an opportunity to re-consider the matter.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I cannot say more than this, that I shall bring the matter before the Prime Minister; but I cannot say that I shall bring in a separate clause. If we put in the words "judicial rent," I do think, with the right hon. Gentleman, that it will leave things worse than they are at the present moment. I do admit, on the other hand, that there is an objection to there being two forms of collection. But the real question to be considered is this—is this a matter of sufficient importance that we should introduce it as a separate clause in this Bill, independently of the general Act? That is not so perfectly easy a matter to decide, and it is a matter which me and my right hon. Friend will have to consider, and it is not a matter upon which the Committee will expect me to pledge myself at present. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman objects to the passing of the clause with "judicial rent." [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS objected.] Well, if the right hon. Gentleman objects, we must take a division.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Under these circumstances, I have no alternative but to move to report Progress, and with every desire to promote the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman talks of introducing the words "judicial rent;" but that deserves very serious consideration, and, under these circumstances, it seems to me necessary that Progress should be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I should like to understand what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to report Progress for now? Is it that he objects to these words "judicial rent" being in? [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Yes.] Well, then, there is another mode—namely, to strike out the words, on the understanding that they will be brought in again, but, probably, not in that clause. It appears to me there is plenty of time for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the question hereafter. I think we must take a division.

MR. PARNELL

said, he hoped that when the Chief Secretary brought the question before the Prime Minister he would also bear in mind the admission made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that he considered this matter of so much importance that he would be willing to allow the Limitation of Costs Bill to pass if he could retain this reform in the law; and the right hon. Gentleman also would recollect that if he opened this gate and permitted a form of procedure under the Civil Bill Court in one direction, the Irish Members would be entitled to suggest procedure being made in other directions, and also of reforms in the Superior Courts.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not introduce the Limitation of Costs Bill at all. He was dealing with an interruption, and he had a very short explanation of the matter. He would say one word on the present proceedings. How and why did the Government accept the measure, when the right hon. Gentleman had said two or three times over that he would like to consult the Prime Minister on the subject? They had fully a right now to have Progress reported.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

What I did say was that I should like to consult the Prime Minister on the question of whether I would answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that we would bring up a clause. That was the point.

MR. GIBSON

said, unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a desire to consult the Prime Minister who was in charge of the Bill, and who had taken a most active interest in every single one of these clauses. For his own part, he expressed regret that the Prime Minister was not now present; and he considered that when they had got through 15 clauses with rapidity it was a tolerably reasonable request, after having given their reasons on the subject, that Progress should be reported.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he hoped it would not be necessary to take a division on the Motion to report Progress. He did not think the right hon. Gentlemen apprehended the position which had been placed before him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The position was this. His right hon. and learned Friend objected to the insertion of the word "judicial" in the clause now before the Committee, unless it were qualified by the admission on the part of the Government that they would bring up a clause in some other part of the Bill more appropriate in their view. In answer to that the right hon. Gentleman said—"I am not very clear in my own opinion; it is impossible to decide without consulting the Prime Minister." Well, that being so, could there be anything more reasonable than that Progress should be reported in order to enable the Goverment to consult their Leader and Chief on this point of considerable importance. It was the more necessary to do this, because, as everybody knew, no important point was ever raised in the Bill that any Member of the Government would venture to decide without a direct appeal to the Prime Minister. Under the circumstances, he hoped Progress would be now reported.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, he would just add to what had been said that they were not suggesting any change whatever; they were resisting change, and supporting a proposal that had received the support of the Prime Minister and the Government against a change that, as he thought, had been too hastily admitted by the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not dispute the Motion to report Progress, for what he saw induced him to think that they would not be allowed to decide the question raised.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.