HC Deb 15 August 1881 vol 264 cc1929-31
SIR WILLIAM PALLISER

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Bessborough Commission, having received and considered the evidence of the Irish tenants, issued a circular inviting the Irish landlords to send in statements in reply; whether Her Majesty's Government, towards the close of last year, called upon the Commission to forward their Report with the least possible delay; whether the Commissioners framed and signed their Report without having considered the landlords' statements in reply; whether Her Majesty's Government were to a considerable extent guided, in framing the Land Bill, by that Report; whether they were aware, at the time, that that Report was based, as regards evidence, upon the ex parte and unrebutted statements of the Irish tenants; whether the mistaken assertion in the Report, that the landlords' replies were printed in the Appendix, confirmed the Government in the belief that those replies had been considered by the Commission; whether the landlords' evidence was published for the first time upwards of two months after the Report had been signed, and with the dates of the replies expunged therefrom; whether, owing to the suppression of those dates, Her Majesty's Government were ignorant that the landlords' replies had not been considered; whether the Land Bill had been practically settled before the mistake was discovered; and, whether, in consequence, the Land Bill, as well as the Report of the Bessborough Commission was based, as regards evidence, upon the ex parte and unrebutted evidence of the Irish tenants?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I will endeavour to answer the Question as far as the Government are concerned. In the first place, it is quite correct that the Government pressed the Bessborough Commission to forward their Report with the least possible delay. It is also true that that Report was published without certain replies of Irish landlords to evidence which was given before it. But as to the degree to which the Government was guided by the Report in framing the Land Bill, that is a matter of opinion, and everyone can form his own judgment on it by comparing the Report with the Land Bill. We were quite aware that, at the time when that Report was published, it did not contain the counter statements of the landlords; but those counter statements were received about March 10, and the Government had not at that time concluded the consideration of the Irish Land Bill. Perhaps I may here explain, as it is a matter in which interest is taken in the House, that of the 22 editions of the Land Bill to which reference has been made, by far the greater number were unknown to myself. They really signified a wise practice on the part of the draftsman, that whenever an alteration had been made, to put it in print with a view to a more close and accurate estimate of its effect. But I believe there were about four of those editions which went to the Cabinet. The consideration of the Land Bill was not finally concluded until some time after the replies of the Irish landlords had been received and considered. I ought also to say that the consideration of the Land Bill was commenced before the Report of the Richmond Commission was received, with the very important recommendation it contained; but that Commission also made its Report while the plans of the Government were under consideration.

SIR WILLIAM PALLISER

said, the right lion. Gentleman had not answered his Question, whether the Government were aware that the replies of the landlords had not been considered by the Commission?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, the Government had not received these replies at the time when the Government commenced consideration of the subject, but received them while the subject was under consideration. With regard to the Question as to when and how far the replies were considered by the Commission, that is a question which had better be put to the Commission itself.