COURT AND LAND COMMISSION.

HC Deb 15 July 1881 vol 263 cc1015-58

Description of Court and Proceedings.

Clause 31 (Court to mean civil bill court, s. 22).

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 18, insert as a new sub-section:—"(2.) Any proceedings which might be instituted before the Civil Bill Court may, at the election of the person taking such proceedings, be instituted before the Land Commission, and thereupon the Land Commission shall, as respects such proceedings, be deemed to be the Court."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that although the Government proposed by this clause that the Primary Court to deal with matters arising under the Bill should be the Civil Bill Court of the county where the matter requiring the cognizance of the Court arose, the highest authoritities in Ireland, who had ample opportunities of forming a correct opinion upon the judgments of the Civil Bill Courts, were not satisfied that the County Court Judges were the best who could be selected for the purpose of acting with perfect impartiality between landlord and tenant. Indeed, it was supposed that, situated as they were socially, they might be disposed to look with rather more favour upon the landlord class than upon the tenants. He therefore proposed to associate with the County Court Judges two other persons to be elected by the Parliamentary electors of the county, who should have power to decide cases that came before them, at the option of the Court, but subject to appeal to the Commissioners if it was not considered that the decision of the Primary Court was a just one.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 18, after "arises," insert "associated with and assisted by two persons elected by the Parliamentary electors of the county in which the property is situate of which the proceedings take cognizance."—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press this Amendment, which he could not accept on many grounds, but mainly because it was not possible for the Government to admit the principle that either County Court Judges, or their deputies, should be appointed at the instance of persons whose duty it was simply to take part in the election of their Representatives in Parliament, and not in the appointment of persons to judicial offices.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the criticism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, to some extent, correct. The words of the Amendment did convey the idea that fresh tribunals were to be appointed, and he was disposed to amend it in that respect. His intention was that the two persons appointed by the electors should be permanent assistants to the County Court Judge, so far as cases to be decided in the county were concerned. To the extent he had mentioned, he thought there was weight in the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, although he could not agree that there was any weight whatever in the rest of his argument against the Amendment. It was well known that a much greater expense was involved in settling a case in Dublin, than in settling it on the spot where the question arose. The expense in Dublin would be ruinous to the tenant. The fact remained that it was desirable that the cases should be tried in the County Court of the county in which the cause of action arose, and that being so, it had to be considered what was the best tribunal for impartially carrying the Act into operation. The County Court Judges would, of course, exercise great influence upon the associates, as being learned in the law and competent to direct the attention of their colleagues to precedents bearing upon the cases before them. Still, he thought it advisable that they should be assisted by two men of local knowledge, who would be competent to decide upon matters of fact.

MR. HEALY

said, he understood that out of the whole body of County Court Judges there were only three or four whose decisions would be received with satisfaction by the tenants. The question, therefore, properly arose as to whether the County Court Judges should not be associated with assistants. Again, looking at the pressure of business that would occur, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint assistant barristers for the purpose of getting over the difficulty?

MR. GLADSTONE

It would be extremely wrong in us to call upon the Committee to constitute a great number of officers absolutely for the purpose of meeting the rush of business which it is supposed will follow the passing of this Bill; but the Committee will see that we intend, when we come to deal with the constitution of the Court, to ask them to take some powers for the purpose. I will not discuss that now; but it appears to me that an elastic provision of the kind proposed is the only mode in which we can attempt to meet the rush of business which may take place. The House, having agreed to that proposal, will then have a certain opportunity, when the Estimates come round, of trying the whole question upon the Vote for the Salaries and Establishment of the Commission.

MR. MARUM

called the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), which he suggested the hon. Member should adopt in place of his own. For his own part, he made no insinuation of any kind against the integrity, education, or ability of the County Court Judges; nevertheless, he was bound to say that it was not generally considered that they would form a tribunal satisfactory to the tenants of Ireland. He would recommend the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the question raised by him to be fully discussed on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk?

MR. HEALY

asked how many sub-Commissioners would be appointed?

MR. GLADSTONE

Our first duty will be to appoint Commissioners; and, with respect to that, the Committee will be parties. I do not propose to name the Commissioners until I have given fair notice to the Committee of the gentlemen we intend to appoint; but we can say nothing of the sub-Commissioners, except that they will be officers of the Commissioners.

MR. A. MOORE

said, he thought that the probable effect of strengthening the Civil Bill Court by the association of assessors would be that the Court would be the means of settling a larger number of disputes. With regard to the question of introducing the elective element into the construction of the Courts, he thought the discussion on that subject had better be taken when they came to the appointment of sub-Commissioners.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had no intention of proposing to do away with the Civil Court. The Committee had agreed that it should constitute the Primary Court in the cases that would arise under this Act, and he said it was desirable that those cases should be tried in the locality where the cause of action arose, because that would save a great deal of expense to the tenants. In that respect he could not but regard the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland for the removal of the proceedings to the Land Commission, as a mischievous alteration. The question had arisen as to how the County Court Judges were to be assisted. He was not going to bring any wholesale charges against those gentlemen, who had all had considerable experience in the law before they were made County Court Judges, and the Committee might assume that they were persons of fair attainments in that respect. But as regarded agricultural affairs, the case was very different, and it was felt, as a matter of fact, that the County Court Judges alone would not be likely to constitute a tribunal that would be regarded with satisfaction by the tenants. Therefore, it was asked that they should be assisted by persons appointed by the electors of the county. In any case, there would have to be an appeal to the Commission, because no one could wish that the Court of First Instance should not be liable to have its decisions reviewed and, perhaps, reversed by a Superior Court. But the great issue was whether or not it was desirable that the people interested should have confidence in the tribunal. He was disposed to the opinion that the electors of the county were the best judges of the kind of tribunal that would secure their confidence; and, therefore, he proposed that they should have the power of electing two persons to assist—not to supersede—the County Court Judges.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was not sure that the hon. Member for Cavan would be quite satisfied with the two assistants nominated in the way proposed by him. He believed that in Ulster and the Northern parts of Ireland, gentlemen would be nominated who represented the views and opinions of landlords, while the reverse would be the case in the other parts of Ireland. Now, as his idea of a Court was that it should consist of men who were rigidly impartial, he should be compelled to vote against these two assistants if the Amendment was pressed to a division. His opinion was that the Court should have the help of one person only as assessor, and that he should be a man practically acquainted with agriculture.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that, contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), the people in the North of Ireland approved this Amendment in the tenant's interest. They were quite as much alive to their own interest as the tenants in the South, and they were also quite aware of the nature of the issue between themselves and the landlords. He had no doubt that the tenant's interest would get the preference from the electors in any of the counties of Ireland. In view, however, of the wishes expressed by his hon. Friends, he was willing to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SHAW

said, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member. In his opinion, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was very worthy the attention of the Committee. He had a strong opinion that the County Court Judges would be incompetent to deal with many of the questions that came before them; and although he understood that some of these gentlemen were jealous of having any other persons associated with them, for his own part he could see no reason why they should be so very sensitive upon that point. This Bill, so far from creating litigation, as had been suggested, ought to do away with it. There was no need that any attorneys should come near the Court at all, for the purpose of settling any of the questions which the Court could very well deal with without their aid. He thought it would be an easy and proper thing to associate with the County Court Judge one or two assistants to be nominated by the Land Commission as occasion might require, and therefore begged to move the Amendment to which he had referred.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, leave out sub-section 4, and insert—"In all matters relating to the fixing of rent or ascertaining the value of a holding or tenancy, or the amount to be awarded as compensation for disturbance or for improvements, there shall be associated with the County Court Judge two persons to be nominated as occasion may require by the Land Commission, each of whom shall have equal voice with the said Judge in pronouncing the decision of the Court on the matters aforesaid."—(Mr. Shaw.)

MR. GLADSTONE

The authority of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, are undoubtedly great; but I cannot help thinking that this Motion was put on the Paper before that of my right hon. and learned Friend near me, and at a time when there was no distinct declaration before the Committee of the views which have now been adopted with regard to the relations between the parties in the Civil Bill Courts. This plan appears to me to be rather in the nature of an alternative. But if we adopt this Amendment, we should be obliged, in the first place, to appoint a large additional number of Assistant Commissioners. If we had asked the Committee virtually to make the Civil Bill Court exclusively the Court of First Instance, then, I admit, that much might be said in favour of this proposal; but I am sure my hon. Friend will see that it would be a very nice operation to call upon the County Court Judges, who, I must say, discharged their duties under the Land Act of 1870 with considerable efficiency, to submit to a re-constitution of their Courts—a proposal which the most moderate self-love would object to. Under the circumstances, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, the Prime Minister had twice reminded the Committee that the tenant might pass by the local Court and go to the Land Commission. Besides regarding this as an unfortunate arrangement, inasmuch as it would have the effect of diverting the energy of the Superior Court from matters of great importance, he did not think it supplied an adequate remedy for the defects intended to be removed by the Amendment before the Committee. He quite admitted the force of the Prime Minister's objection to neutralizing the County Court Judge by associating with him two other persons; and likewise the force of his objection to the creation of a large staff of officials to be kept in readiness for cases of emergency. But he thought that the first difficulty would be removed by associating only one person with the County Court Judge, as he had already suggested. He repeated his objection to having two persons associated with the County Court Judge. And, moreover, he objected to the Amendment on the further ground that it made no provision that the persons to be so associated should have practical knowledge of the matters upon which they were to give an opinion. The Committee were simply asked to affirm that the Land Commission should send down two persons, who, for anything expressed to the contrary, might be two persons who knew less of the matter in dispute than the County Court Judges themselves. For his own part, he would like to see the words "two persons" omitted from the Amendment, for the purpose of substituting "one person" who should have practical knowledge of the matters to be decided upon—namely, questions of fixing a fair rent, assessing the value of holdings, and the amounts to be awarded as compensation for disturbance and improvements. If the Committee would associate with the County Court Judge one such person having knowledge of these questions, he believed that a tribunal would be constituted whose decisions would at once be accepted, and which would do away with the necessity of going to the Land Court in Dublin. The question raised by the Amendment would, in his opinion, be settled better in this way than by any other arrangement which had been suggested.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

supported the Amendment on the ground that if the County Court Judges were left without the aid of skilled agriculturists, the cases would constantly be referred to the Land Commission.

MR. SYNAN

regarded the Commission appointed by this Bill as substantially a Court of Appeal, and the proposal in the Amendment as constituting a supplementary Commission. Their experience of the working of the Act of 1870 did not show that the County Court Judges had attracted to themselves the confidence of the tenant farmers of Ireland, and it was the object of this supplementary provision to strengthen the County Courts. The Prime Minister had objected to the Amendment, that if it were adopted a great many officials would have to be appointed; but he apprehended that if the Commission laid down proper rules, this would not be necessary. The Land Commission having the words of this Amendment before it, would require to have notice of every case that was to go before the County Court Judges, and it would then appoint one or two practical men to associate themselves with the County Court Judge for the purpose of settling the amount of rent and the value of the holding—two questions with which the County Court could not deal. He admitted there would be the question of expense; but, in his opinion, this would not be greater than if the County Court Judge were to appoint two Valuers, while the appointment of practical men would produce that confidence which, as the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had pointed out, the County Courts had lost in the eyes of the tenant farmers. He held that the County Courts must be strengthened, in order to constitute a Court of First Instance that the tenant farmers would not pass by, and a Court of First Instance was absolutely necessary if the Commission was to do its work at all.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, the Amendment was one which ought not to occupy the time of the Committee any longer, as it appeared to him that the arguments in support of it had lost all cogency since the adoption of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. DALY

said, that with regard to the action of the County Court Judges under the Act of 1870, there had been a great want of uniformity in their decisions. They had had experience of this in the district which he represented, and the result was that the confidence reposed in the judgments was not so great as it should be. It should be borne in mind, also, that a great loss of time would be brought about by the Commissioners having to travel from one place to another viewing the properties. He thought there ought to be somebody appointed in the capacity of Assessor to assist the Judge.

MR. GLADSTONE

The sub-Commission will do that.

MR. SHAW

said, that with the permission of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment, as the proposal of the Government had completely changed the aspect of affairs.

MR. A. MOORE

said, he should like to hear something from the Government in the direction which the Prime Minister had indicated when commenting on the speech of the last speaker (Mr. Shaw). As he understood the wording of the clause, the landlord and the tenant practically placed their property in the hands of the Court, and he hoped that that arrangement might succeed. But, as he understood it, the Court would be one of First Instance. When a man wanted his rent valued the Court of First Instance would be the sub-Commission which would go round the country, and there would be an appeal from that Court to the other.

MR. BLAKE

coincided with the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly) on the subject of the want of uniformity in the decisions of the County Court Judges. It arose, he believed, in a great measure from not having associated with them an expert on the subject of land, as many of them had little practical knowledge on that point. A suggestion had been made, which he considered was a good one, that they should associate with the County Court Judge an Assessor; but he would ask this—in the event of the Assessor and the County Court Judge disagreeing, how was a decision to be arrived at? The Prime Minister was plainly under the impression that it would be an easy matter to apply to the Commission; but, from his knowledge on the point, he could say that it was likely to be very difficult. For 10 years he was a Commissioner of Fisheries, and in many of the cases which they had decided there had been an appeal from their decision. They had very often given away as much as £1,500 at a sitting in one way or another, and very often the interests of very poor people had been concerned. The appeals very frequently were to the Lord Lieutenant in Council; and though the parties very often considered themselves aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners, yet, in consequence of the vast expense necessary in conducting appeals, the privilege was, in many cases, not availed of. In the first instance, the appellants had to travel up to Dublin. ["No, no!"] Well, if they did not they would have to appear by counsel. ["No!"] Surely they would, if they wished their case to be properly put, as counsel would be likely to be employed against them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

The sub-Commission would hear them in the first instance.

MR. BLAKE

said, he was speaking of the Fisheries Commission, and he believed the cases to be analogous. He had seen people in the humblest classes appearing in person and pleading before the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, and that entailed enormous loss both in time and money, considering their humble circumstances. That was the reason why he pressed upon the Committee the desirability of making the Court of First Instance as perfect as they possibly could. He did not wish to say anything against the County Court Judges, because he believed that under the Act of 1870 their decisions had been very fair on the whole, with a few exceptions. They might, in some cases, have shown a want of judgment; but that was almost all that could be said against them. They had the power of employing an expert to give evidence at present; and the question now was whether Parliament would confer upon them the same privileges which they had at present, or whether they would associate with them such an officer as had been proposed. If they gave them equal powers, they should appoint, of course, an umpire, otherwise, in case of disagreeing in opinion, how was the difficulty to be settled? And if that umpire should be appointed, the Committee ought to know something as to how he was to be selected.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member (Mr. Shaw), finding that his proposal did not receive general support, has withdrawn it, and, surely, the matter should be allowed to rest here. If hon. Members have anything to propose they can do so at a later stage.

MR. HEALY

said, that the Court was the kernel of the whole business. If it was unsatisfactory there would not be a single sale, nor transfer, nor a letting, which the local people would allow to take place, unless local opinion—that was, the opinion of the Land League—were satisfied. If these things were ratified by 100 Courts, unless they had the ratification of the Land League, the people would not allow them to take place. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he would put it in this way—that these things would not be allowed to take place unless public opinion was satisfied—no man would otherwise take a farm, and no man would pay the rent. Unless the Government made some satisfactory statement as to the action of these Commissioners, they would find that they had really done nothing.

MR. GLADSTONE

The proper time to make that statement would be later on, when we come to the question directly bearing upon it. We have endeavoured to conceive the clause so as to give it the highest elasticity. The cases may be locally decided, either by the Civil Bill Court, the sub-Commission, or by the Commission itself, which would, in cases of sufficient gravity and importance, be able to visit the localities and decide locally.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to provide that instead of one independent valuer, "one, or more," should be appointed. That proposal, it appeared to him, ran, in a certain sense, in the lines of the Amendment which had just been withdrawn. If the Bill passed in its present shape, where a local inquiry took place the decision might depend entirely on the view of one individual. It must be clear to anyone who knew anything of Ireland that it would be difficult to find a class of independent persons such as those contemplated in the Bill; and he should much prefer to see the Government adopt some plan for the appointment of a paid staff of independent men, who would save the Commission a great deal of work, and would obviate the necessity of their having to depend upon the class of functionaries referred to in the clause. The Prime Minister had said that he did not want to widen the scope of the body to be appointed under the Bill; but this matter was not brought in question now, and all hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they sat, would agree with him that it would be a most dangerous and unsatisfactory thing if tenants in a certain district had a valuer who was accounted a "tenant's man," and therefore distrusted by the landlord, and if, in another district, they had a valuer who had the reputation of being a landlord's man. He thought it would certainly tend to the satisfaction of all concerned if the opinion placed before the Commission for their guidance was that, not of one individual, but of two independent men. Their opinions should not represent any one class, but should be the result of the judicial consideration of the interests involved on either side. He did not mean to say that one should be appointed for the tenant and one for the landlord; but where they thought it necessary on a difficult point to have the evidence of more than one independent person, the Commission should have power to appoint "one, or more." If amended as he proposed, he thought the clause would be more satisfactory, and it would be more likely to carry out the intentions of the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 27, to leave out the word "an," and insert the words "one, or more."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'an' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think it would be wise for the Committee to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick). The hon. Gentleman had said with truth that it would be a difficult thing to find a thoroughly independent valuer in the sense that a tribunal would use the words; but he was afraid that if it was difficult to find one independent valuer, it would be still more difficult to get "one, or more." Then there was this difficulty. If two persons were appointed to go round and examine the property, and then came back with their joint Report, the tribunal, whatever it was, either the Civil Bill Court or the sub-Commission, would be more likely to give greater weight to the Reports than the Government contemplated. What the Government intended was that the valuers' Report should be taken as an opinion; but that it should be by no means regarded as binding the Court in its judgment. One valuer would occupy a much more subordinate position than would two if they were sent out together; and whilst the Report of one might not be accepted, it would be a very difficult thing for the Civil Bill Court or the sub-Commission to resist the Report of two. The sub-Commission could themselves visit the property and form an opinion. He did not think, however, as a matter of fact, that this power would be very often exercised by the sub-Commission.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the proposition of his hon. Friend seemed to him a reasonable and practical one. In a case that was not of very great importance, where it did not seem necessary to employ the services of a valuer, the Commission need not appoint one. The clause was permissive. Unless some important question arose in regard to which it was desirable that they should have the opinion of a man accustomed to valuing, the Commissioners, in their discretion, might not think it desirable to appoint an expert. In important cases that might occur, his hon. Friend proposed that, in order to give greater effect to the Report, two valuers might be appointed.

MR. MARUM

said, he fully appreciated the spirit of fair play which had been manifested by hon. Members who spoke with regard to the valuer; but it must not be forgotten that the landlord and the tenant would each of them have the power to bring forward a valuer. The question would only be one of expense. But the evidence which was now the subject of discussion would not be brought forward on the side of the Commission. True, it would be independent evidence; but it would have no more weight than the evidence of other valuers brought forward by the parties interested.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the subject of value was not so difficult a one as some people appeared to imagine. The duty would not be the valuation of the land for the first time, but the revision of the valuation fixed by Sir Richard Griffith. When Sir Richard Griffith carried out the valuation, he gave specific instructions to his valuers that such and such land, specifying the quality and character of it, should be treated in such and such a way, and the value arrived at by specific computations. What he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) apprehended that the Commissioners would have to do would be to compare the condition of the holdings now with their former condition, and alter, where requisite, the value fixed by the former valuer. The original figures would be taken as the basis, or starting point he might better designate it, and there could be no difficulty in allowing the matter to be decided by an ordinary tribunal.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) had given the best argument for the acceptance of the proposal, because he said that the opinion of one valuer would carry less weight than the evidence brought up by the other side. And this was what he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to particularly, because if the evidence of the Government valuer was to be borne down by hard swearing on the part of irresponsible persons his position would be almost untenable in the Court. He was assured that the best county surveyors and valuers could not be got to give evidence at all under the present system; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consider his suggestion from that point of view. It would nullify the whole intention of the clause if the valuers' opinion were to carry no more weight than that of independent witnesses who came into the matter on the one side or the other having no intimate knowledge of general valuation.

MR. MARUM

said, that he had not intended for a moment to convey that which the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) attributed to him. What he had intended to point out was that the independent valuer would not have a higher position over and above the evidence of valuers brought forward either for the landlord or the tenant.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 34, insert as a new sub-section—"(6.) Where proceedings have been commenced in the Civil Bill Court, any party thereto may, within the prescribed period, apply to the Land Commission to transfer such proceedings from the Civil Bill Court to the Land Commission; and thereupon the Land Commission may order the same to be transferred accordingly."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The following Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of Mr. Givan:—Clause 31, page 20, at end of Clause, add— Provided that after a judicial rent has been first fixed, the Court shall not be at liberty to direct a valuer to make a report in relation to any subsequent determination of a judicial rent; but in fixing a judicial rent to take effect during any statutory term after the first statutory term, the Court shall have regard only to the just increase or diminution in the value of the holding arising from the altered prices of agricultural produce or capital expended by the landlord under agreement with the tenant. That Amendment was, on Monday, the 4th of July, negatived in substance, and, therefore, cannot now be put.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 (Incorporation of certain Provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870).

MR. GREGORY

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, after the word "court," to insert "section twenty-four, relating to appeals from Civil Bill Court." Great pains had been taken in the Act of 1870 to constitute a strong Court of Appeal for the purposes of it, and he should be sorry to see it superseded. The Bill was to be carried out by the Land Commission, and there was only to be one Chief Commissioner and two other Commissioners, who would, if he read the Bill rightly, be put in the place of the Superior Judges of all the Courts of Judicature in Ireland. If that was the intention of the Government, and if they adhered to it, he did not suppose that anything that he could say would induce them to alter their decision. It might be part of their scheme, and, if so, he should not press his Amendment. But, at the same time, it was desirable that there should be some discussion on the matter. The existing Court of Appeal, he believed, carried out the intentions of Parliament when it was formed—namely, that it should be strong and satisfactory.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 39, after "Court," insert "section twenty-four, relating to appeals from Civil Bill Court."—(Mr. Gregory.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there would be a more convenient season for discussing the question of appeals; but he might point out that the 24th section of the Land Act of 1870, which constituted a strong Court of Appeal, had itself been altered and superseded. They would simply be reviving an old provision if they were to reconstitute that Court.

MR. GIBSON

said, the matter would not be clear even under the Amendment. It was true, as had been pointed out in the long debates of 1870, that in the drafting of the Act of that year very clear and very fully considered provisions were adopted for regulating appeals. Anyone who took up Clause 24 of the Land Act of 1870, which was now sought to be incorporated in the present Bill, would see from the language of the clause, and from the way in which it dealt with various topics, that the matter was gone into with far more detail and deliberation than was the case in regard to the present Bill. He had no sympathy with the Amendment; but he wished to indicate that he thought it would be reasonable, before they passed from this stage of the Bill, that the Government should satisfy themselves that they had given to the appellate tribunal, whatever it might be, all the powers and guidance that were laid down in Section 24 of the old Act. It was true, as stated by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite the Attorney General for Ireland, that the Court for Land Cases Reserved had been established, and that the Court provided by the Act of 1870 had gone; but then a very good substitute had been provided for it. They had substituted for it the highest Court—namely, the Court of Appeal in Ireland. And, more than that, the question of Appeals under the Land Act had been dealt with as recently as the year 1877. Under the Judicature Act, it was provided that it should be the right of the parties at their own election to have an appeal dealt with in the highest possible way. He did not see any provision like that in this Bill; but, no doubt, as the discussion would have to go very much into detail, the time for taking it in extenso would be on a later clause. He did not wish to discuss the matter now; but he wished to indicate that the points that were left somewhat in doubt were these. The Committee had decided that they would keep to a voluntary Court of First Instance—that was, if the parties elected to have their cases decided by it—the County Court would be presided over by a Judge, a learned lawyer, and a man of position. Well, at present, he did not see to whom appeals from the decision of that individual were to go. Were the appeals to be to the sub-Commission, or to the Commission itself? If to the latter, it would, no doubt, be more satisfactory. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper declaring that sub-Commissions should not have delegated to them the power of hearing appeals.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FINDLATER

said, that, in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Litton), he would move the Amendment standing upon the Paper in his name. It was quite clear that new duties would be thrown upon the Civil Bill Courts by this Bill, and he had received several letters from gentlemen who occupied the position of Clerks of the Peace, and who had elected to practice under the provisions of the Act of 1877, saying that their practice would suffer greatly. Their time would be entirely occupied with these matters, and they would have no leisure to attend to their private business. There could be no possible harm attaching to the adoption of this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, after line 9, insert "section sixty-three, relating to additional salaries to judges and officers of Civil Bill Courts."—(Mr. Findlater.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

We are not disposed to accept this Amendment. When the Land Act of 1870 was passed we made a provision of the kind suggested, because it was certain that there would be an addition to the duties of these officials; but now the case is very different. We are going to set in motion a new and distinct agency, and we must not forget that since the Act of 1870 the salaries of the County Court Judges have been raised. It would be our first duty, supposing that we found that an appreciable increase of duty does flow into the County Courts, to see that a reasonable arrangement is made. At present, my opinion is that while, under the new arrangement, there was a substantial addition to the salaries of these officials, the addition to their duties has been by no means serious. But if we found that there was a case for an addition to the salaries we should, of course, come to Parliament, either for an Act, or the question could be raised by a Vote on the annual Estimates. I would submit that the question is not at present in such a condition as would justify the Government in accepting this Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater) dealt with two classes of officers. With regard to Clerks of the Crown, they were divisible into two classes—namely, those who elected to give up their practice and forego their right to superannuation, and those who did not elect to take that step. The time for their selection had now passed; but it would only be reasonable to give those officers who had elected to continue their practice and forego the right to superannuation to have some further time to consider whether, under the new Act, they would not adopt a different course. The point was only a simple one; but a number of men of position were interested, and might be seriously affected.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the further time which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) alluded to, and which he wished to have given to these officers to reconsider their decision, could only be afforded by an Act amending the Act of 1877—the County Officers and Courts Act. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not see his way to amending the clause as proposed. But the question would be for future examination; and if they saw that there was reason that the provision should be altered some steps would be taken in that direction.

MR. GIBSON

said, there was a distinction as to County Court Judges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was familiar with the Act of 1877. Some of those Judges who had attained a considerable age had allowed the time for making the selection to pass, thinking that they would be well able to perform the duties that were then cast upon them; but he thought it would be only reasonable to enable those Judges who had served for a long period of time—to consider whether they would not now avail themselves of the terms of the Act of 1877. He quite agreed that the matter was one for the amendment of the Act of 1877, and did not arise upon the present Amendment; but it was a matter for the action of the Government, and not a matter for the action of a private Member. He thought, however, it was desirable to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Arbitration.

Clause 33 (Reference to Arbitration).

DR. LYONS

said, he had placed an Amendment to this clause on the Paper, the object of which was to enlarge, as much as possible, the system of arbitration throughout the country in all cases of dispute arising between landlord and tenant. Reference was made to the Act of 1870, and in that Act it was contemplated that all arbitrations should take place under the conditions laid down in the Schedule to that Act, which had in view operations through the Civil Bill Courts. Now, as they had conceded the principle of a direct reference in all cases to the Land Commission, he desired, if possible, to incorporate a system of arbitration independently through that Court, and he believed it would be the most simple and least expensive and the most expedient method for the settlement of disputes. His attention had been called to the fact that the proceedings of that Court were at one time common with all the Superior Courts—that the Court of Common Pleas, the Queen's Bench, and so on, were in the habit of directing individuals throughout the country to constitute temporary Courts of Assize. Those persons had power to examine witnesses, to view premises, and to make reports to the Court, which reports appeared to have been acted on in a large number of instances. His attention had been first called to this system some time ago by a very eminent and learned and most distinguished Judge, who was extremely anxious that the people throughout the country should be discouraged from going into litigation, and that as free an access should be given to them as possible to a system of arbitration. He merely moved the Amendment by way of throwing out a suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 20, to insert new section—(1.) Where a landlord and tenant agree to arbitration on any matter in dispute, they may send in a joint application in writing, on a form to be furnished by the Court gratis, and the Court shall issue a formal precept of assize to one or more persons, to be named by landlord and tenant respectively, and who shall have power to select an umpire, and the finding of said umpire and his said assistants shall be entered of record in the Court, and shall be binding upon the parties, as if it were a finding by the Court itself."—(Dr. Lyons.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think that it was of advantage to accept this Amendment, because he did not see any substantial difference between the arbitration provided for in the Bill and that which the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Lyons) suggested. The Act of 1870 contained all the rules necessary for the appointment of arbitrators and officers, and, in fact, the whole machinery of that Act was followed. Arbitrators were fully provided for without going to the Court at all.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether this provision in the Act of 1870 had ever been exercised, as he had distinct information from Ireland that it had never been made use of at all? If that information was accurate he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring up an Arbitration Clause on Report, because, in his opinion, arbitration was a very proper thing to be adopted in the settlement of these disputes.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he was aware that the Arbitration Clauses of the Act of 1870 had not been extensively availed of; but they had been resorted to in some very important cases. In one case that he knew, the rents of 1,000 tenants were revised. The terms made use of in the provision of the Act of 1870 were those which experience had shown to be the most satisfactory according to Common Law procedure. It was to be hoped that hereafter the clauses would be more extensively made use of.

DR. LYONS

said, it had been stated that the arbitration could be carried on through the Land Court, and not through the Civil Bill Courts. He laid stress upon that, because according to the Act of 1870 the arbitration, in case of a dispute, was only to be through the Civil Bill Courts. It would be desirable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to take these things into his consideration, and, on Report, make the reference direct to the Land Commission, instead of rendering it necessary to go to the Civil Bill Courts.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had heard that the arbitration was to be conducted on a system similar to that upon which the Common Law Procedure Act arbitration took place in this country. That statement had given him some alarm, because if there was one thing more detestable than another it was to have to do with an arbitration case in England.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he could assure the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) that they were much more reasonable in these matters in Ireland than they were in England.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Appointment and Proceedings of Land

Commission.

Clause 34 (Constitution of Land Commission) postponed.

Clause 35 (Incorporation of Commission).

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 30, leave out "Commissioners," and insert the words "Land Commission."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 (Appointment of Assistant Commissioners).

MR. GREGORY

said, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Errington), he would propose the first Amendment which stood in his name.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member (Mr. Errington) is in his place, and, if he thinks it desirable, he can move the Amendment. He does not move it.

MR. GREGORY

said, he would propose the Amendment himself.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 40, after "Commissioners," insert "such Assistant Commissioners to consist of barristers and persons of knowledge and experience in the value and management of land."—(Mr. Gregory.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he was afraid that the hon. Member did little justice to his own Profession in this specialization.

MR. LEWIS

said, he could not help thinking that this subject was worthy of a little more consideration than had been given to it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Let them consider what would be the position of the judicial tribunal immediately after the passing of this Act. The chief Commission would be charged with an administrative duty of a most important character. It would have to consider the question of emigration, the question of waste land, the question of the purchase of the property by tenants, and the general arrangement of the business affecting the land of Ireland. A large amount of that part of the duty of the Court which bore upon the fixing of the judicial rent would fall upon the Assistant Commissioners; and it was a matter of vast importance that the first decisions under the Bill should be well considered, and not be decisions that would unduly raise the hopes of the tenants and depreciate the wishes and rights of the landlords. It seemed to him to be a matter of vital importance that they should not leave a carte blanche to the Commissioners as to the qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners; and yet there was no rule whatever with regard to the qualifications of the Commissioners. No doubt, his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) had fallen into the trap prepared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and had done despite to his own Profession by assuming that the only class that would be appointed would be barristers and agricultural experts. But the spirit of the matter was what his hon. Friend wished to deal with; and what he wished to press upon Her Majesty's Government was the desirability of considering this matter very carefully before they launched this measure upon the people of Ireland. He certainly thought there should be some sort of qualification for the Assistant Commissioners pointed out in the Bill. In taking a common-sense view of the matter, they could not but believe that a large amount of business would have to be transacted by the Court—such an amount that it would be impossible for three members of the Court to dispose of it. The result would be that if there was no qualification pointed out in the different counties of Ireland different classes of people would be appointed—in one case barristers, in another case solicitors, in another case farmers, and in yet another case country gentlemen. Assistant Commissioners might be appointed from all ranks of the community. He had no disposition to prolong the debate, or to raise an unnecessary question; but he did think that the whole leverage of this Bill, its suitability to the disease that required remedy, its likelihood of being made acceptable to the community, and its acceptability to the landlords would depend, in the main, not only on the good standing of the persons appointed to act as sub-Commissioners, but on the Committee presenting some specific qualification that would be necessary in order to justify the appointment of this class of persons. He thought it was their duty to take a division upon this question, so that they might have some indication of the views of the Committee upon it.

MR. GLADSTONE

I shall not quarrel with the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis); but I hope that he will allow me to point out that the Committee has no option but to leave the selection to the responsibility of the Commissioners or the responsibility of the Executive Government. I can give the hon. Gentleman two reasons why we think that the House of Commons is not able to exercise any selection in this matter. If the matters to be settled by the Commission could be dealt with very easily, then I think there would be no difficulty in agreeing to the Amendment; but I must point out that these Assistant Commissioners will have to discharge a great variety of functions, and that, in all probability, it would lead to very serious difficulties if you endeavoured to anticipate all the qualifications which would be required for the administration of this Bill. In the first place, the Assistant Commissioners would have to deal with the relations between landlord and tenant, and it would be most desirable that they should have some practical knowledge of the management of land. But that was only the beginning. In the next place, they would have to deal with the purchase of estates, and here a different class of qualifications would be requisite—namely, the knowledge possessed by land agents—persons engaged in the transfer of land. Then comes the question of reclamation of land, and here we should want not merely agricultural knowledge, but something in the nature of engineering and scientific knowledge. All these matters require a knowledge that is totally distinct from legal knowledge, and which must be possessed by those who would make good Assistant Commissioners. The hon. Member seems to assume that these Assistant Commissioners are all to join in the decisions of the Land Commission. But I take it that we should have a subdivision of labour, and that there are to be a great diversity of qualifications amongst them. These are the grounds upon which I hope the Committee will be satisfied to leave this matter to be dealt with in the manner provided by the clause.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Sussex. As that Amendment was now, in his opinion, unnecessary, he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw it.

MR. GIBSON

said, he looked upon this part of the Bill as being of supreme importance. By no previous Act of Parliament had such extensive powers ever been given to a Commission as those which would be given by the present Bill to the Commissioners, and far less had it ever been proposed that Commissioners should be able to delegate their important powers to an inferior tribunal. It was, therefore, not only right, but the absolute duty of the Committee, to criticize and examine with the utmost care every line of the present clause, because hon. Members would find the phraseology of the Bill so large that it was impossible to set any bounds to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any limits to the powers which the Commissioners were authorized to delegate to the Assistant Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had pointed out that it was necessary that the Assistant Commissioners should have a variety of qualifications, and the truth of that statement would commend itself to everyone who heard it; but that did not at all dispose of the Amendment, or of the objections to the clause in its present form. There was nothing in the clause to indicate to the Commissioners that they were to have regard to any special qualifications of the person to be appointed. He did not say that barristers alone should be appointed to the exclusion of solicitors, who, in many cases, might be able to do the work better than barristers. But surely it was right to indicate, at some point or other of the clause, the qualifications which should be possessed by the Assistant Commissioners. He ventured to say that would meet the great difficulty suggested by the Prime Minister. Again, he trusted that the Bill, before it left the Committee, would contain a provision that the doings of the Land Commission should be presented to Parliament in an annual Report. There was no Amendment on the Paper to that effect; and, therefore, he asked the Government within a reasonable time to prepare a clause which would give effect to his wish that the Commissioners should make an annual Report of their proceedings, containing in a Schedule the names of the parties appointed as Assistant Commissioners, as well as the duration of their appointments and the nature of their qualifications. There was another point which impressed him very much in connection with this clause—namely, the dependent position of these Assistant Commissioners. Unbounded power was given to them; but there was nothing, except, perhaps, the words "from time to time," to indicate the length of their employment by the Commissioners. According to the clause, the Assistant Commissioner might be appointed for the job or for six months, or he might be appointed to revise the rental of a district or hear the appeals of a particular Session. It was to the last degree inconvenient, and calculated to excite uneasy feelings in the minds of persons intrusted with the control of property, to find themselves absolutely dependent. Their equitable and judicial functions were immense, and the Government were sending them down without one atom of the protection which the whole history of our Constitution showed it was necessary to throw around everyone invested with judicial powers. He therefore trusted that the Government would furnish this protection in some other way than by merely saying that the Assistant Commissioners might be appointed from time to time. He thought that, in their Report, the Commission should state the names and qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners, and that some information should also be given therein as to the stability of their tenure of office. Looking at the drafting of the Bill, he was bound to say there was nothing in the clause to prevent the delegation of the right and power of appeal by the Commissioners to the Assistant Commissioners. He was certain that it was not the intention of the Government that those powers should be delegated, and therefore urged that the matter should be made clear before the Bill left the Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE

There has never been any intention that the Commissioners should have the power of delegating their power as a Court of Appeal to the Assistant Commissioners, although if a large development of business occurs it might be right that the sub-Commissioners should have the power of hearing appeals from the Assistant Commissioners. The right hon. and learned Gentleman desires that there should be a general description of the qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners, as an indication to the Commissioners and the Government. This appears to be reasonable, and my learned Friends will do their best to prepare words with that object. But I think it will not be possible to do so with mathematical precision, and therefore it may be necessary to add such words as "or otherwise." It is undoubtedly right and necessary that the Commission should make regular Reports of its proceedings. I think I can improve on the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the names and qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners should be included in the Reports of the Commission. Without waiting for the annual Report, which would necessarily take some time in preparation, I think it would be desirable, as an improvement on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion, that the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners should be made known at once to Parliament. I have no objection to undertake that they and their qualifications should be made known to Parliament. There is a mode by which I think the Government could meet the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the dismissal of any Commissioner—namely, to take care that it be done in the most formal manner by Order in Council. I do not exclude any other suggestion that may be forthcoming; but one of the greatest Administrators ever known in this country—Sir James Graham—held that an Order in Council was a form which would stamp the affair with a character of gravity and importance which would at once bring home the responsibility to the Administration.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought the Prime Minister had made a statement which would be, on the whole, satisfactory to the Committee; but he was bound to say—and he believed the right hon. Gentleman would recognize the truth of the statement—that these Commissioners would have an enormous power in their hands—such a power as had never until then been given to any body of men of a like character. As it was necessary, both in the interest of the landlord and in the interest of the tenant, that absolute confidence should be reposed in them, he was glad to hear that the Prime Minister proposed that the requisite qualifications, so far as they could be put into an Act of Parliament, should be inserted in the present Bill. With regard to the appointment and removal of the Commissioners, he saw that the words as they now stood in the clause were— The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury as to number, appoint and remove Assistant Commissioners; and the right hon. Gentleman had merely said that the dismissal of any of them should take place by Order in Council. He wished to know for what period of time these appointments would be made, and on what principle their duration was to depend, because, as he understood it, it was not the regulation of the appointments, but simply the dismissal of the Commissioners, that was to be effected by Order in Council—two things entirely different from each other. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not only give some information on that point, but also that he would place before the Committee the number of appointments that would be made. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could show any Act of Parliament authorizing an unlimited amount of money to be expended, which did not contain some provision for controlling that expenditure. The expenditure here was absolutely unlimited. They might have to pay for a number of Commissioners to administer what he would call the "landlord and tenant" portion of the Bill, besides Emigration Commissioners and Reclamation Commissioners, all appointed at the same time. He felt sure the right hon. Gentleman would look closely into the matter; but, in the meantime, the Committee knew nothing of the amount of money that would be expended. Again, if the appointments were not made for a certain time it would be impossible to obtain the services of good men; and, under those circumstances, it would be impossible that the sub-Commissioners should possess the confidence which ought to be placed in them. Again, it was said that one of the Assistant Commissioners would decide on technical points in the Provinces, and that then there might be an appeal. But if one Assistant Commissioner was to decide in the most difficult and delicate matters between landlord and tenant, and an appeal was then to be made to the Commissioners, he could not regard the arrangement as a very satisfactory one.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. and gallant Member was entering upon the discussion of subjects beyond that of the Amendment before the Committee. There were other Amendments on which those subjects might properly be discussed.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

inquired how the appointment of the sub-Commissioners was to be made. Were the sub-Commissioners to be ordinary Civil servants, and for how long would they be appointed?

MR. GLADSTONE

I wish the Committee to understand that I have been, and am, endeavouring to provide that patronage shall not be brought into unnecessary existence. With reference to the objection of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I am bound to say that it is the almost universal practice in Acts of Parliament to lay down in general terms, subject to the responsibility of the Treasury, the power of appointing the officers necessary for the carrying out of the Act. In the Endowed Schools Act, it is provided that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, beyond the power assigned to the Commissioners, may allow them to employ such Assistant Commissioners' officers and clerks as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may think proper. The Assistant Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act have to exercise functions which excite as much jealousy as is likely to be roused in any other case.

MR. H. R. BRAND

wished to say a few words with regard to the important announcement made by the Prime Minister that he was prepared to state some of the qualifications necessary for Assistant Commissioners. There was one qualification above all others absolutely essential. He quite admitted that the sub-Commissioners would have various and very heavy duties cast upon them, and among these would be the regulation of rent, and other delicate and intricate matters which, up to the present time, the landlord and tenant had arranged between themselves. Therefore, he trusted that the Government would take into consideration that one qualification which was absolutely necessary to be possessed by the Assistant Commissioners was a practical knowledge of surveying and the valuation of landed property.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

suggested to Her Majesty's Government the importance of freeing these appointments of all connection whatsoever with politics. He thought it should be enacted that for the space of a year, or some reasonable time from the date of the determination of the appointment, the person so appointed should not be capable of sitting in Parliament. Cases would have to be decided by the Assistant Commissioners which would, no doubt, excite the interest of the whole country side, and in which popular feeling would be, perhaps, largely in favour of the tenant—the landlord's view of the question being represented by but a small number of individuals; and, under such circumstances, he was afraid that if the Parliament allowed the Assistant Commissioners to get into their heads the notion that they could achieve the amount of popular applause and confidence which had been referred to by some of the speakers in the course of the debate, it would be, to say the least of it, somewhat unfortunate, and he would therefore suggest that the appointments should be so made as that the Assistant Commissioners should be absolutely free from any taint of the kind, as also from any temptation to suppose that they might lay up a little store of political popularity which would later on be useful to them as candidates for seats in Parliament.

MR. LAING

said, he felt confident that the success of this experiment which was proposed to be tried by Her Majesty's Government would depend mainly upon its being carried out, not by gentlemen who were barristers and nothing more, but by practical men who, if they added a knowledge of law to practical knowledge of the subjects with which the Bill proposed to deal, would have an advantage, perhaps, over men who did not possess their technical legal knowledge.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the insertion in the clause of any Amendment which would fetter the hands of the Government in selecting men for the important offices of Assistant Commissioners. In saying this, he wished to say also that he did not think lawyers, no matter to which branch of the Profession they belonged, were the most fitting persons to fill the offices of Assistant Commissioners contemplated by the Bill. On the whole, he thought it would best to agree to the clause as it stood, leaving the selection of the Assistant Commissioners in the hands of the responsible Advisers of the Crown, who would, he was sure, discharge their responsibility in the best possible manner.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, he thought it a mistake to suppose that the Government of the day might be allowed to choose the sub-Commissioners with a feeling of certainty that the selections they might make would be the best. It would not be possible for those who were most interested in the matter, if the clause were let pass in its present form, to foresee the class of men who would be appointed to the positions of Assistant Commissioners. They all knew what the Civil Bill Courts were, and they had also great confidence in the manner in which the Chief Commissioners would be appointed, for they would, without doubt, be gentlemen of such position and training that the interests of landowners and tenants would alike be safe in their hands; but, as far as the sub-Commissioners were concerned, they were in the air. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that the chief function of the Assistant Commissioners would be the valuation of the lands; but he was quite sure that no satisfactory result could be hoped for unless a strong staff was attached to the Valuation Committee in Dublin, in order that greater uniformity might be got at in the decisions as to valuation. He was bound to admit the truth of the statement that there had been a want of uniformity in the decisions of the Civil Bill Courts; but that was owing to the fact that there had not been any special system of training, which should enable the Judges to form correct conclusions as to the value of land. Experts might be, and probably were, good and useful gentlemen to be called in to give evidence as to matters which they had made their special study; but he could not admit that they were likely to be the best judges in matters of this kind.

MR. GREGORY

said, that, after the discussion which had taken place, he should be glad to withdraw the Amendment he had moved, with the explanation that his conduct, as far as this part of the Bill was concerned, had been in the nature of a self-denying ordinance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved the insertion in the clause of words to provide that the dismissal should be "by Order in Council."

MR. BIGGAR

said, he hoped the Government would not preclude themselves from the power of appointing Assistant Commissioners from time to time, who might be either re-appointed or replaced, as the higher authorities might think best, in the interest of the public service, so as not to saddle the country with the cost of a large and, perhaps, owing to circumstances, useless number of public servants.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, a large discretion would be used in order to avoid the creation of a too large body of public servants.

MR. LEWIS

said, he regarded this as a matter of great importance, and urged that, before the clause was allowed to pass, the Committee should ascertain what degree of non-permanence was to be allowed to remain in connection with these appointments. If it was intended that these appointments should be temporary, what, he should like to ask, was to prevent an Assistant Commissioner from fixing rents in view of a future election? This, he might say, was not an imaginary case, for it was well known that in the United States ex-Judges had not unfrequently claimed the votes of electors on the ground of the decisions they had themselves pronounced in a certain class of cases. Was it intended to say, he would ask further, to exclude the appointments of Commissioners for temporary purposes, and to say to gentlemen who accepted appointments to fix judicial rents that they were to be no longer employed after the particular business they had in hand had been completed? This would open the door to almost every conceivable kind and amount of jobbery; and he could not conceive that the Committee would be doing right in passing the present clause without first having a clear statement on the part of the Government as to what was to be the nature of the tenure of office enjoyed by the Assistant Commissioners.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the question which had been put, and the answer given, could not be held to justify the construction which had been put upon them by the hon. Member, the simple question being whether, if the removal was to be the result of a proceeding as solemn as the issuing of an Order in Council, that would not in itself stand in the way of a decrease in the number if more Assistant Commissioners were appointed than were really required. The answer to this was that the Assistant Commissioners would know on appointment that when so appointed they could be removed by an Order in Council; but this was by no means an extravagant statement, nor was it one that pointed to uncertainty in the tenure of their offices by gentlemen who might be appointed to Assistant Commissionerships.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that, in his view, this clause was being disposed of in a manner which was not at all satisfactory, for the appointment of the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners was one of the most important features of the Bill. The principal duties of the Commission would, without doubt, be discharged by the Assistant Commissioners, who ought, therefore, to be appointed with the utmost care, unless it was intended that the Bill should be the means of continuing, instead of diminishing, the fearful amount of litigation which prevailed in Ireland. It was, no doubt, preferable that the Assistant Commissioners should be, at the outset, few in number; but it was equally important that their appointments should be permanent, and that they should not be removable except on the ground of misconduct. He must say that he could not but regard with regret the postponement of the clause, in which the Government proposed to make vital changes affecting the constitution of the Court, because that was connected closely with the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners. He could not help thinking that temporary appointments would be fatal to the Bill; and he, therefore, pressed the Government to say whether the Assistant Commissioners would be liable to summary dismissal when there was no more pressing work for them to do.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member was wandering a little wide of the Question, which was—whether the words "by Order in Council," should be introduced in the clause.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that when a short time back be put a Question to the Prime Minister, he understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to mean that in order to secure permanency the removal from office should only be by Order in Council. If he was right in this impression, the intention would be more clearly expressed by introducing the words "or misconduct" into the clause. If it was intended to take power to get rid of the Assistant Commissioners in a few months by means of a mere Order in Council, he could only say that, in his view, it was resorting to the use of a very grave machinery which ought only to be put in force for a very special purpose.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not think it would be wise to insert the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, because, if the removal of an Assistant Commissioners were rendered necessary for any reason, it would place the Commissioners in a difficulty. The first thing to be done would be to ascertain as nearly as possible how many Assistant Commissioners would be required, and it was known that the best men would not apply for appointments unless they had a prospect of permanence in their engagements. It would be exacting too much to say at the outset how many men would be required, and it would be equally unreasonable to urge that if the number required should be exceeded the Government should continue to employ men for whom they had in reality no work.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the solemnity of an Order in Council was a little diminished when it was remembered that a few years ago a cow could not be bought without an Order in Council. Was it, he asked, the intention of the Government to appoint special Commissioners for a special purpose. Did they intend to appoint a special Commissioner in the same way that a barrister was often appointed to go on an Assize, and whose services came to an end when the Assize was concluded?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, they certainly did not intend to appoint Commissioners for special cases. They intended to appoint Commissioners for certain periods.

MR. GIBSON

said, that the Prime Minister had intimated that he would introduce some such words as he (Mr. Gibson) had suggested—namely, that the Commissioners should have prescribed qualifications. He would venture to suggest that those words might be supplemented by adding that the Commissioners should hold office for a prescribed period. That would enable the Government to classify those who held office for a long period, those who held it for a less period, and those the duration of whose office the Government might like to make more prolonged. What they objected to was the absolute uncertainty and precariousness of the tenure. He thought that there should be something to indicate that a gentleman who was to be appointed as a Commissioner should hold his office for sometime.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there would be no objection to consider the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. There would be an annual Report, not only giving the names of the sub-Commissioners and their qualifications, but also their tenure of office. The Government would also undertake to present the names to Parliament. He thought that to adopt a particular form of words would only be to embarrass the Government; but, at the same time, he quite appreciated the desire to render the position of the sub-Commissioners less variable than it would be if they were at the mercy of any Administration who chose to dismiss them.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not think the Government, and particularly the Attorney General for Ireland, were really conscious of the importance of the question under dispute. Every Constitutional lawyer would remember that perhaps the best result of all legislation in past ages had been to secure the permanence of the position of Judges. It was one of the differences between a Constitutional and a Despotic Monarchy that in the latter case the Judges were liable to dismissal on arbitrary grounds; whereas, in the former, they continued in office so long as they conducted themselves well. He thought it was of very great importance that those Judges now under discussion, who would have to discharge functions quite as difficult and quite as important as the Judges of this country, should hold a permanent office. It was a question of the very utmost importance, and not one to be dismissed lightly or carelessly. What he regretted so much to see in the tone of the Treasury Bench was that, after they had heard the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin put before them with that temperateness, moderation, and legal knowledge which always distinguished him, and after those observations had at last made a due impression on the minds of the Premier and of the Attorney General for Ireland, that impression was dissipated, or nearly so, by the unusual questions of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). It was the invariable course of the Government to listen to reason for a time, and then to listen to unreason when it came from the hon. Member for Cavan.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, Order! I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very general in his remarks.

MR. WARTON

said, he would yield to the suggestion of the Chairman, because that was a matter of so much importance that he should be very sorry by any slip of his to lose the opportunity of saying what he felt bound to say. Without making any observations that were too general, he must point out that on that very Amendment they had had from the Treasury Bench two very different kinds of expressions. They had heard the Attorney General for Ireland with solemnity admitting the importance of the question, and they had heard him with levity answering the observations of the hon. Member for Cavan. It seemed to him that the common sense of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had solved the difficulty of the question, which was, how were they to know how many Assistant Commissioners would be wanted? That was the secret excuse for any hesitation on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Galway had asked—"Why should you not appoint a few at a time as they are wanted?" It was far better to have even a few appointed if their position was permanent than to have a greater number appointed if they were to be summarily dismissed. It was a matter of great importance that every one of those Judges should be permanent, because, if not, they would be subject to democratic intimidation. They had had it brought before them very distinctly, and the Government had taken no notice of it, that whatever the Courts might determine the Land League would review their decision.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire ( Sir R. Assheton Cross), that he had learned with regret the right hon. Gentleman's indifference to the public interests on that matter. He thought it must be clear to anyone who had attended to the general features of the Bill that under its operation within a period of five or ten years there would be a material change in the amount of business to be performed by the Court; and it was surely plain that if the Assistant Commissioners were appointed for a permanent office, at the end of five or ten years, as the case might be, they would have a claim for permanent endowment or compensation by the State on removal. He thought it was very much better to leave the words of the clause as they stood.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Salford. He considered an appointment for five years was quite long enough provided it was fixed.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, that in consequence of the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford he felt compelled to say a few words. He considered that no more grievous mischief could practically arise in the working of the measure than would be occasioned by the adoption of the suggestion that the tenure of the office of Assistant Commissioner was to be merely temporary, and not for a fixed period. No duty more delicate, or difficult, or which more demanded the exercise of the qualities of trustworthiness and intelligence, was ever imposed by statute on a body of gentlemen than that which by this Bill it was proposed to intrust to these Assistant Commissioners. The main burdens incident to the efficient working would have to be undertaken by them. They would be the persons who would have to go down, value the lands from personal inspection, ascertain what ought to be the fair rent, and, from oral statements, adjust the relations between landlord and tenant. The Chief Commissioners must necessarily act on the Report of their Assistants to a great extent. It was absolutely impossible that the Land Commission sitting at Dublin could discharge these functions. Let them look at what the Land Commission had to do under the Bill. They all saw the serious character of the duties imposed upon them, which would take up the entire of their time, if they were to be performed by three Commissioners with any efficiency. He endorsed every word that had been said by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and also by Conservative Members on the other side of the House, that nothing could be more mischievous in the working of that Act than to have Assistant Commissioners subject to influences of any character on the part of the tenant or of the landlord, or on the part of the Government. More especially, let him point out another practical matter which would result from the appointment of these gentlemen as Assistant Commissioners for very short and temporary periods. A great temptation would be presented that, in order to retain and continue in office, they would be disposed to create and encourage litigation or dispute. He did not mean to say that every officer would do so; but they should remove, as far as possible, this temptation to make work for themselves. He thought it would have been far better if they had had a smaller number of Assistant Commissioners, so long as their appointments were permanent. He asked the Committee very narrowly to scrutinize the clause, and not to allow it in any way to leave the Assistant Commissioners subjected to influences of any kind coming from any source. Personally, he should have considered it far better to have the Assistant Commissioners nominated during Her Majesty's pleasure, and only to be removed upon good ground being shown.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he supposed it would be agreed by every Member of the Committee that it was of great importance that the Commissioners should have the entire confidence of the country. He wished to point out that the Inclosure Commissioners were appointed for five years, and surely the Assistant Commissioners were not of less importance, or had less difficult duties to discharge, than the Inclosure Commissioners.

MR. MACIVER

said, that he did not think even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) entirely appreciated the importance of the Amendment. He wished not merely to support every word that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), but also to remind his right hon. Friend and the Committee that it was not unreasonable to regard the Assistant Commissioners in the light of Judges, and it was not unreasonable to look on every side and see what the effect of judicial appointments of a temporary character was. Everyone knew that the English Bar and the English Bench held the estimation and confidence of the public in a way that was not equalled by any judicial body in the whole world; and he thought it would be the greatest possible misfortune if these Assistant Commissioners should be appointed for any temporary period. He considered that they ought to be in a position of absolute and entire independence, as the English Judges were. Unless that were done, he felt sure that the posts would be used for purposes of political jobbery, as was the case generally with temporary Government appointments in other countries.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

moved to insert, after the word "Commissioners," the following words:—"Who shall have prescribed qualifications and hold office for a prescribed period." He said, he did not wish to press the Amendment if the Government would undertake to introduce some words on Report which would have the same effect. He would not pledge himself to the exact words; but it was not very easy, at a moment's notice, to present a better form of words. He wished to be quite clear that before the Bill became an Act of Parliament the clause should contain a reference to qualification, and also a reference to the tenure of the Commissioners. If the Government would introduce such words on Report he would not press the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

We will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRODRICK

moved to insert, after the previous Amendment, the words "and valuers of knowledge and experience in the value of land." He wished to put that point clearly, because it had been suggested that it would be impossible to leave to a local valuer the sole adjudication in those matters. He did not wish to clog the Commission with the duty of deciding between the vast body of valuers, and it seemed to him most important that there should be some final resort in the form of accredited valuers attached to the Commission.

MR. GLADSTONE

Undoubtedly, a knowledge of the value of land would be one of the qualifications for some portion, at least, of the Assistant Commissioners; but these words, if they were added to the Bill, would lead to the conclusion that it is intended to employ a staff of official valuers who are to be valuers and nothing else. Well, I do not know, but I believe that it is extremely doubtful whether official valuers chosen by anyone in connection with the Government would, or ought to, attract confidence in them. I should consider it a most doubtful experiment.

MR. LEWIS

said, he could understand the objection of the Prime Minister; but it seemed to him that there was some virtue still left in the Amendment of his hon. Friend. They knew that in all classes of cases that would come before the Court, there was nothing where there would be so much difference of opinion as with regard to the value of property. They would get six or eight valuers on one side, and six or eight on the other; and the North and South Poles would not be further apart, practically, than the values which would be estimated by one side and the other. What was the course commonly pursued in such cases? In many arbitration cases in England, the presiding Judge or arbitrator, after hearing both sides, would say that he would select an independent person to whom he would send the case for his opinion. Now, he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would say that that was exactly the power the Land Court would have, without reference to anything placed in the Bill; and he admitted that there were arguments which went to show that it would be better to have power to appoint Referees for specific cases, than to appoint a class of valuers who should adjudicate on all cases. But it seemed to him that there was still some virtue in the Amendment, and that it was necessary to have one or two official valuers of the highest possible standing, who should act as a kind of assessors with the Court.

MR. CALLAN

said, he did not think there was any Amendment which would tend more to diminish confidence in the impartiality of the tribunals who were to decide these cases than the proposition which had just been made, and which had only been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. Who were the official valuers of Ireland? They were a class by themselves, who had been in existence for the last 40 years. They were the employés of the landlord, and they had a natural sympathy with their employers, for whom they went down amongst the tenantry and raised the rents. There was no landlord who had raised his rents within the last 40 years who had not brought down an official valuer to re-value his estate. The very name of valuer stank in the nostrils of the Irish people. Whenever there had been a visit of a valuer to an Irish estate, it was sure to be followed by a raising of rent.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had argued that the existing race of valuers were dependent on the landlords. It occurred to him, therefore, that the Amendment might have a tendency to diminish that objection, because valuers appointed under the Bill would no longer be dependent on the landlords, but would occupy an official status, and would be responsible only to the Government. It seemed to him that in proportion to the number of valuers they employed they might diminish the number of Assistant Commissioners.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, with reference to a previous statement made by him, that it had been called forth by what the Prime Minister himself said, when the right hon. Gentleman observed that it would be necessary to have some Assistant Commissioners who should be qualified to value land. As he was very anxious to limit the number of Commissioners, he had suggested that the point might be met by having some gentlemen as Commissioners who were technically acquainted with the value of land.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he thought the clause had really better remain as it was. Some very grievous mistakes had been made in England by valuers, and he thought it better to have local men called in by the Commissioners.

Amendment negatived.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved to insert, in page 2, line 5, after the words "Assistant Commissioners," the words "or of."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GREGORY

said, he wished to move an Amendment which would provide that the powers of the sub-Commission should be defined by the Com- mission and approved by Parliament. The effect of the clause as it stood would be that the Commission might, in fact, delegate all its powers to the sub-Commission. There was no restriction; the words were perfectly general; they might delegate any powers they thought fit, and, of course, any powers might include all powers. As an instance of what might come of this, he referred to the Bankruptcy Act for England. Here the Judge had the same power which they gave to the Commission, to the extent of delegating the whole functions of the Court to the Registrars, and he had exercised it, so that, in fact, an appeal did not lie to the Judge in the London Court of Bankruptcy, but from one Registrar to another. He did not say such would be the case in the present instance; but it might be the effect of the clause; and when it was considered what enormous interests would come within the jurisdiction of the Commission, the power of dealing with the whole landed property of Ireland in adjudicating on the rights of landlord and tenant, the relations of mortgagers and mortgagees, and the expenditure of public money to an unlimited amount, it was well to decide what powers should be delegated to the sub-Commission. He ventured to suggest that the powers of the Commission should be modified and restricted, and his Amendment would provide that the delegation should be made by rules having the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, and that these rules should also be laid before Parliament. Then the House would know what was going on. He did not think the Amendment would militate against the Act—it would only prevent abuses that might be likely to arise.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 5, leave out from "may," to end of Clause, and insert "by rules to be made from time to time, with the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, define the powers and duties of such sub-Commission, and such rules shall be laid before Parliament, if then sitting, forthwith, or, if Parliament be not sitting, then within three weeks after the meeting thereof."—(Mr. Gregory.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the object of the Amendment was a reasonable and proper one; but there would be great practical inconvenience in the attempt to define the powers of a sub-Commission by a series of rules to operate in a whole class of cases. It was quite possible that the Court might take a county or a group of cases to decide, while the sub-Commission would be detached for the purpose of going to a certain district, and there could not be a series of rules for each Sub-Commission—it must be guided by the class of cases. But he thought that the object would be met if they accepted the qualification that there would be always the power of appeal from the sub-Commission reserved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 6, after "such," insert "of the."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 6, after "powers," insert "except as to appeals by this Act conferred upon the Land Commission."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HEALY

asked would this be the time to make any statement as to whether any Vote would be included in the Estimates for this year?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could only answer the question by saying that it was not intended to ask for a Vote this year.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 (Quorum of Commission).

MR. GIBSON

said, as the clause was now the appeal might be loft with one Commissioner; but that power, he thought, should be exercised by more than one. In the Church Act it was provided that there should be three. With the exception of the appeal power let all the powers of the Commission be exercised by one Commissioner. He therefore proposed the following Amendment, in which he apprehended there would be no inconvenience in the drafting, as it was taken from the Church Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 9, before "any," insert "all appeals to the Land Commission under this Act shall be heard by all three Commissioners sitting together, except in the case of illness or unavoidable absence of any one member, when any appeal may, with the consent of the parties, be heard by two Commissioners sitting together, and save as aforesaid."—(Mr. Gibson.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Government intended to provide that anyone objecting to an order made by one Commissioner or sub-Commissioner should be at liberty to appeal to the Commissioners themselves, and to have the case heard by at least two Commissioners. That, he thought, would meet the whole case; and the proper time for introducing this provision would be when the 45th clause was reached.

MR. GREGORY

asked, would there in all cases be an appeal from the sub-Commission to the Commission?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Yes, certainly.

MR. GIBSON

, on the understanding that the subject would be raised again, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 10, after "Commission," insert "except the power of hearing appeals."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes before Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.