§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in hearing evidence in Driscoll v. Hall the Land Commissioners heard any witness as to value, or confined themselves to hearing evidence as to a legal point; whether they sent a court valuer; in how many cases have they given decisions in which neither they nor the Sub-commissioners sent a court valuer, and is it an invariable rule not to give judgment unless they or the Sub-commissioners have sent a court valuer, or heard evidence as to value; and, is it the fact that the rent fixed is 263 greater than what the middleman pays his own landlord for his tenant's land, and for twice as much land in addition, which is in his own possession?
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, the Land Commissioners have forwarded to me a very full Report on this subject. It is too voluminous for me to take up the time of the House by reading it, and I think the House should have it in full; that is evidently the wish of the Commissioners. I will, therefore, lay it on the Table without delay.
§ MR. TREVELYANVery soon. It is a very long answer to the Question. I shall have it issued as a Parliamentary Paper.
§ MR. HEALYWill the right hon. Gentleman have the Estimate for the salaries of the Land Commissioners postponed until it has been printed?
§ MR. TREVELYANI cannot undertake to give an assurance to that effect.
§ MR. TREVELYANIf that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman, I would rather read the letter.
§ MR. HEALYIt is certainly a most important matter, and I intend to call attention to it on the Estimate.
§ MR. TREVELYANThen I will read the letter. It is as follows:—
§ "Irish Land Commission, Dublin,
§ "11th August, 1883.
§ "SIR,—With reference to Mr. Healy's Question regarding the case of O'Driscoll, tenant, Hall, landlord, I am directed by the Irish Land Commissioners to state as follows:—John Hall, the landlord, is, in fact, an extremely poor peasant. His wife's evidence as to their way of living was that she went spinning, that she had two sons and a daughter in service, and another daughter in America, who sends her a couple of pounds. Hall rented some land from Lord Bantry, at a rent of £10 18s., about 14 years ago. Hall's wife having to leave the place in which they were living, and to go and live as caretaker to her father, a bargain was entered into between her and Driscoll to the effect that Driscoll was to take the larger portion—amounting to seven statute acres—of the land at £12 a-year upon the terms that he would give it up again when Hall wanted it. The Sub-Commissioners came to the conclusion that the land was let for a temporary convenience, and dismissed the case. An appeal was brought. Upon consideration of some intervening circumstances not necessary to detail as to the lapse of time, the Commissioners, on appeal, though not without much hesitation, were of opinion that they ought not to confirm the dismissal pronounced by the Sub 264 Commissioners; but they were unanimously of opinion that as Driscoll refused to give back the land to Hall according to his undertaking, he should, as regards the land, be held to his bargain, and to give him a statutable term at a lower rent would not be just. They considered Driscoll's conduct to be unreasonable, and fixed the rent at the sum he had agreed to pay without going into the question of value. This order they thought consonant with justice, and they had distinct power to make it under the terms of the Statute. There is no invariable rule on the subject of sending a Court valuer. It is the ordinary rule that where there is an appeal from the decision of the Sub-Commission fixing a judicial rent, one of the Court valuers visits the farm before the hearing on appeal, and reports on its value. This is not done when the originating notice is dismissed. If the Commissioners, on re-hearing, are of opinion that it should not have been dismissed, their general practice is to remit the case to the Sub-Commissioners to fix a fair rent. They did not do so in Driscoll v. Hall, for the reason they have stated. The Commissioners, at the same time, consider it their duty to protest against being called upon by Government to make statements or to give explanations in relation to their judicial decisions. The rule that protects such decisions from being made the subject of Parliamentary inquiry is not, they conceive, a rule arising from any personal privilege; but it is a rule of public policy to secure the independence and impartiality of the judgment seat. When a Question is asked in the House of Commons impugning the judicial decision, and the Question is forwarded to the Judges who made the decision for a reply, the latter are placed in the dilemma either of violating a Constitutional rule, or, should they decline to answer upon the ground of that rule, of being assailed under the plea of privilege of Parliament in coarse and vituperative language. The Land Commissioners submit that the Question in Parliament seeking to ransack the judicial decision indicates of itself the only reply that can be properly given, and that the responsibility of making that reply should not be cast upon the Commissioners with the result of exposing them to language insulting in itself and calculated to prejudice the administration of justice. The Commissioners think that in justice to them this letter should be communicated to the House of Commons, or else that they may be at liberty to make it public, if they should so think fit.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
§ "W.W. GWENNY."
§ MR. HEALYI beg to give Notice that I will call attention to the circumstances of fixing fair rents, not upon the lines of the Act of Parliament, but by going into personal, collateral, and family matters; and, still further, I shall call attention to the fact that while the right hon. Gentleman has communicated a document reflecting upon Members of this House for having in their capacity as such asked Questions regarding a judicial decision of Mr. Justice O'Hagan and the other Land Commissioners, these 265 Commissioners did not use their position as Judges to decline to give evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords; that they have gone before the House of Lords and allowed themselves to be close questioned——
§ MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of Order.