HC Deb 08 August 1882 vol 273 cc1224-43

Question again proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £52,552, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he had not received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he would use such influence as he had for increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, and that he would turn his attention to the question of the appointment of official valuators, the number of whom was wholly inadequate.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had listened to that part of the hon. Member's speech with great interest, and he could assure the hon. Member that both his points should receive the most careful consideration.

MR. HEALY

said, a moment ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman a question which he was unable to answer. He asked him if he could give any Return as to the proportion of settlements by the Sub-Commissioners in the dif- ferent Provinces of Ireland? He (Mr. Healy) himself was able to give an idea of that proportion, and he thought it would amount to little less than a revelation as to the manner in which one Province was being favoured by the Sub-Commissioners above the others. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Office, they could only learn from that right hon. Gentleman that there was such fluxion in the work, and such changes going on, that it was quite impossible for him to give any sort of Return as to the way in which the Sub-Commissioners were working. He (Mr. Healy) had three Returns, showing that a large proportion of the cases had been decided in Ulster, and he wanted to know the reason why? He presumed that the rest of the three Provinces were paying their share of the taxation for the maintenance of the Commissioners as well as Ulster; and he wanted to know why Judge O'Hagan, whose patriotic songs had a short time ago been brought before the attention of the Committee, showed such preference to the Northern Provinces? Taking the first Report, issued on the 28th January, he (Mr. Healy) found that in Ulster 530 cases had been settled; in Leinster, 259; in Connaught, 221; and in Munster 304; so that in Ulster 50 per cent more cases were settled than in any other Province. The next Return issued was dated the 25th April, and he found in Ulster there had been 962; in Leinster there had been 561; in Connaught, 258; and in Munster, 726. According to the last Return, he found that in Ulster 804 cases had been settled; in Leinster, 344; Connaught, 408; and Munster, 399. Now, that was an extraordinary state of things. He thought the Sub-Commissioners ought to deal with these cases pari passu, and not single out one particular Province for its work rather than another. There was sufficient work in the South to engage six Commissions; and, supposing there were 32 Commissioners, what ought to be done was to send eight to each Province. Was it fair that the tenants in Munster and Connaught, the poorest parts of Ireland, who had sent in their applications to have their rents fixed, should be neglected, because Ulster had a superior name for loyalty to the case represented by Members of the Liberal Party. He argued it was not fair, and he trusted they would have some re-arrangement on this point. What was going on in Ireland was a thing that, if it were going on in England, would be considered farcical. He should suppose that no less than 90,000 tenants had made applications to the Land Court, and thousands had refrained from entering it, knowing that it was useless to do so for three or four years to come. He found from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that up to April last 12,000 cases had been settled. The Courts began in November and December, so that it might be said that six months were occupied in settling 12,000 cases. Allowing for the rate of acceleration—and he quite admitted there had been considerable acceleration—it would take at least three years before all the fair rents could be fixed. He was quite willing to accept the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, two years. What he wanted to know was this—why did they not spend money and do in Ireland what they were doing in Egypt; why did they not send, out men to do the work required? He considered that every county in Ireland ought to have its own Sub-Commissioners; and that was the way the work would be considerably accelerated, and the minds of the people considerably appeased. When an unfortunate man sent in his application and did not hope to have his case dealt with for two years, and in the meantime was turned out upon his old rent, it was not a state of things which it was desirable to see maintained. In the case to which he (Mr. Healy) had drawn attention recently, Judge O'Hagan had pronounced a certain lease of Lord Kenmare's to be the most iniquitous he had ever had before him, and broke it. He said it was so bad that it would not stand in any Court of Equity; yet the tenant, Daniel O'Shea, would have to pay the rent under the lease until the Court was relieved of its present congestion, and if he did not pay he might be turned out on the road. Within the last three months Lord Kenmare had issued a writ against Daniel O'Shea, involving him in £5 or £6 costs. Attacks had been made upon the Chief Commissioner in that House and in "another place." Judge O'Hagan had written some excellent poetry—some of the most beautiful love poetry written in Ireland. Attacks had been made on the Bill by Lord Brabourne, who had referred to a case of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) as one of special hardship. The position of the case was this—the hon. Baronet went to the Court to get the true value of a tenancy fixed, and the tenant was put out of pocket £20 or £30. Attacks had been made on the Sub-Commissioners; but if attacks were made on one side, there was something to be said on the other side. In 1871 the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine announced his intention to raise the rentals of 19 holdings, and communications passed between him and his tenants on the subject. These holdings were originally held by the Cloth workers' Company, who had not raised the rents for a considerable time. They had a valuation made in 1840, and on the expiry of the leases in 1862 they had another valuation made at the rents assessed in 1840, and made increase; and in 1871 they sold their interest to the hon. Baronet, who, although the Company had made no increase in the rents, announced his intention to raise the rents on the holdings. The tenants first asked that the holdings should be valued and two valuators appointed, one by the landlord and one by the tenants; but he refused to assent. According to the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer), the tenants then proposed that a valuation should be made by one valuator appointed by the landlord, and they offered to defray the cost of the valuation themselves. To this the hon. Baronet also refused to accede, and expressed his intention to adhere to an assessment of rents which he had himself caused to be made. Most of the tenants refused to pay the increased rent; but notices to quit were served upon them, and then they paid. The gross increase in the rents was £400. Between 1840 and 1871 the tenants had effected considerable improvements in reclaiming and draining, and the increase in the rents was considered, to a great extent, as a tax on the individuals. This was the case noticed by Lord Brabourne in "another place" as one of special hardship. What did the tenants then do? They got the rents brought down; and it was only after the hon. Baronet had complained of injustice having been done to him, and said he could supply Lord Brabourne in "another place" with statistics and details—

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

I had no communication with Lord Brabourne on the subject.

MR. HEALY

Lord Brabourne adduced the hon. Baronet's case as one of special hardship; and he (Mr. Healy) presumed the noble Lord got his information from some quarter. That was one of the cases of hardship. Another was the case of the famous Lord Donoughmore. It was he who proposed this Session the Select Committee of the House of Lords to inquire into the working of the Land Act; and it was in consequence of his action that the Prime Minister called upon this House to pass what had been called a Vote of Censure upon the action of the House of Lords. In regard to the case of the innocent Lord Donoughmore, who considered that the Sub-Commissioners were acting in a very harsh manner, he found two decisions reported in The Cork Examiner. The Sub-Commissioners stated—and this was a remarkable indictment of Lord Donoughmore for his manner of dealing with the tenants—that when the originating notices were served by the tenants on his estate Lord Donoughmore requested Mr. Fennell, a land agent, to make a valuation of the holdings. What his valuation was they did not know; but Lord Donoughmore did not think it satisfactory, and he engaged another valuator, Mr. Cox, who gave evidence before the Court. According to the experience and evidence of Mr. Cox, Lord Donoughmore's tenants had, up to that time, been paying a great deal too much rent. Besides that of Mr. Cox, the Commissioners had the evidence of another gentleman, who agreed that the rents were too high. It was not alone the tenants or their valuator who said the rents were too high, but the landlords' valuator. This and thousands of other instances could be obtained of the treatment of tenants by their landlords; but he thought the two cases he had named might be taken as a fair test of what had been going on all over Ireland. There was in that House the hon. Baronet, who considered himself a fair landlord, and upon his action the Court had given a sweeping decision; and, in "another place," there was the noble Lord who thought he was so unjustly dealt with that he had obtained a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and upon his dealings with his tenants the Sub-Commissioners had given a decision. He had no doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine was as good a landlord as the average of landlords all round; and, in that case, he (Mr. Healy) was driven to the conclusion that the rents in Ireland were unjustly high. That was a painful fact, when it was recollected that last year the Prime Minister declared, on the evidence of Lord Bessborough's Commission, that the Irish landlords had been trying to act equitably in regard to rents. He could not help recalling that statement, and, at the same time, recollecting that that Commission was purely a landlords' Commission. What else could be expected from what was known of the interests of these gentlemen? Now, it was found that one of those gentlemen whom the Government appointed, as a fair man, was no less a person than Mr. Kavanagh, the founder of the Tenants' Exterminating Company—a gentleman who believed that the land was in a most valuable condition. What did these things bring him (Mr. Healy) to? To this—that when there were Sub-Commissioners operating all over Ireland, and receiving evidence that these unjust rents were being extracted, the Government ought not to be slow in their remedy to bring relief to the tenants, and not wait until the landlords should tie further meshes round the tenants, and get them at their mercy—or until another bad harvest should occur. It was a terrible thing that peace and order in Ireland depended on a little sunshine—that the rents were so high, and the people were so near famine, that the question of a little solar heat more or less in August involved the possibility of a terrible agitation, with murder, rapine, and disorder. The Government should appoint plenty of Commissioners and get decisions pronounced at once, so that the people might know what they had to expect. Unless the Government did this, and applied their power to bringing down the rents, they could never expect peace in the country.

Mr. T. A. DICKSON

said, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had stated that Ulster was favoured to a very considerable extent in the number of Sub-Commissioners in the Province, and in the numbers of decisions given; but the hon. Member had forgotten that on July 28th last there were 69,000 originating notices served in all Ireland, of which 31,000 came from Ulster, and only 38,000 from the entire three remaining Provinces. Therefore, if the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners in Ulster had been more numerous than elsewhere, that was simply because in that Province there were more cases than in the other three Provinces combined. The reason of that was very simple and plain. The tenant farmers in Ulster flocked to the Courts when the Land Act was passed. They determined to test the Act by going into Court, and they went into Court; so that if Ulster was favoured in the number of decisions given, that was because of the prompt action of the tenant farmers. But his (Mr. Dickson's) experience was that Ulster had not been favoured. He and his hon. Friends were rather disposed to think it was the prodigal children on the opposite Benches who had received favours from the Government, while they who sat behind the Government were very often treated with scant courtesy. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) when he said that the fatal block in connection with the Land Act was the slowness of its administration. The Government had only thought of appointing four Sub-Commissioners, but they soon increased them to 12, and then to 16; but, in his (Mr. Dickson's) opinion, 16 were not sufficient. There should be three for each county; and he believed there would have been great economy in administering the Act promptly and swiftly over the whole country. The present Sub-Commissioners would take five years to get through the work; and he would call the attention of the Government to the urgent necessity of increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, so that the tenants who had served originating notices might not have to continue their present high rents. It was a very remarkable thing that the attacks made in that House on the Sub-Commissioners, and in "another place," were all directed against the eight Sub-Commissioners in Ulster, although there were 32 Assistant Commissioners. Had a single charge been established in that House, or in "another place," against the integrity and honesty of a single Commissioner? Not one. The charge made against them was that they bad reduced the rents 22 or 23 per cent. What was the Land Act passed for, if it was not to effect a reduction in the rents? Since the debate raised by Lord Brabourne in "another place," it had been circulated by the Conservative and landlord Press in Ireland that, owing to that debate, the Sub-Commissioners had been changed all over Ulster. If the Government yielded to attacks in that House, or in "another place," on the honour of the Sub-Commissioners, and changed the Sub-Commissioners from county to county, they would do more to weaken the administration of the Land Act than anything else that could be done; and if they were unwise enough to be guided by "another place," and did not stand by the Sub-Commissioners, they would deal a fatal blow to the administration of the Land Act in Ireland.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. T. A. Dickson), and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made certain demands upon the Government; but, up to the present time, although there were on the Treasury Bench the Law Officers and the Prime Minister, who was mainly responsible for the Land Act of last year, not a single satisfactory reply had been made to these demands. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had listened to the greater part of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and his interpretation of that speech was that the only answer to the several questions addressed by the hon. Member for Sligo was one of absolute silence. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would take up the last point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dickson). What the Irish people were demanding was this—not only in the parts from which be and his hon. Friends came, but in the part which the hon. Member represented—Were the Government to allow this Act to become a nullity because they would not spare money for the appointment of additional Sub-Commissioners? He could not understand what was the attitude of the Government upon that point. Surely it would not cost much money to appoint Sub-Commissioners who would settle all the cases in the next year or two. Surely the Government must see that, and that in a few days under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill the work placed on the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners would be largely increased, and that the desire to take advantage of the Land Act would be largely stimulated. In the face of the large amount of further demand which would be made upon the Sub-Commissioners, the Government gave no definite pledge that they would give that increase of staff which was urgently demanded by all parts of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had given no satisfactory answer—in fact, he had not attempted to answer the hon. Member, for Sligo. As to the authority given to the unsworn testimony of the official valuator, in the whole course of English jurisprudence there had been no more startling departure from the proper course of law. A Sub-Commission, assisted by three sworn officers, decided on the rents, on the sworn testimony of valuators employed by the landlord and tenant, and then the Chief Commissioners overruled the decision of the three Sub-Commissioners. That was a most monstrous state of things. Secondly, the Chief Secretary for Ireland bad not attempted to answer the demand of the hon. Member for Sligo as to why Mr. Gray was appointed. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had thought proper to rake up the poetry written by the Judicial Commissioner (Mr. O'Hagan) in the days of his youth. No doubt, if one could penetrate into the inner mind of the Judicial Commissioner, it would be found that his opinions remained the same to-day as in the days of his verses. But the right hon. Gentleman did not condescend to say one word as to why one man, whose whole career had been one of rack-renting, had been appointed a valuator in a case in which the rent was in dispute. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not replied sufficiently to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sligo with reference to the valuators. His hon. Friend complained that two items of information which could have been furnished, and which had been collected by the Commissioners—namely, the amounts of the valuations for the landlords, and those for the tenants, had been entirely withheld, and that the only information given was that the former rents had been reduced to such and such amounts. The right hon. Gentleman had replied that the valuators on behalf of the landlords and the tenants only gave what was more or less ex parte evidence, which was not such evidence as ought to appear in a formal Return presented to that House. No doubt, the evidence of those valuators was of the kind described; nevertheless, it was evidence which, if it had been laid before the House, would have enabled them to see whether, in their decisions, the Land Commissioners leaned towards the side of the landlords or the side of the tenants. His hon. Friend and himself would have been glad to know something on that point; but, as the Government would not lay the Return on the Table of the House, he felt justified in concluding that the reason why the desired information had been withheld was because the House would otherwise see that the Land Commissioners leaned towards the landlords' valuations and not towards the valuations of the tenants. There was another point on which no answer had come from the Treasury Bench. He supposed the Committee had heard so much of what was called the Healy Clause of the Irish Land Act, that he should be consulting the wish of the Committee by making his remarks upon that subject as brief as possible. Roughly speaking, he believed the Land Commissioners must be given credit for having cut down the rents that came before them to something a little above Griffith's valuation. Healy's Clause would exclude the improvements of the tenants from the consideration of the Court in fixing the value of the holding; but it would seem that the whole purpose of that clause had been nullified, and that the Commissioners had not reduced the rents to the extent which the improvements of the tenants would justify. Even making full allowance for the work actually got through by the Land Court, he was afraid it would remain a fact, borne out by the testimony of his hon. Friends around him, and that of the hon. Members for Ulster, that the progress made by the Court was very little indeed. But, while the Land Courts were progressing slowly with their work, he could inform the Committee that the landlords were by no means slow in extracting from the tenants those rents which, in the majority of cases, would probably have been reduced had they come before the Court by about 20 per cent. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said it was a scandal that the tenants should be compelled to pay rents which, if brought before the Court, would probably be reduced by the proportion named. However, he did not want to speak with any acrimony upon that subject; but he urged the Government to bear in mind the impressive words which his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford had just addressed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made great sacrifices, both of his personal position in this Parliament and in respect of his Party, by passing the Irish Land Act of last year; and he had now made a greater sacrifice, in commencing what might end in a Constitutional struggle and a Ministerial crisis, by endeavouring to pass the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. What was the reason for the introduction of that Bill, but to protect tenants from eviction, and for which the right hon. Gentleman had so strongly resisted the Amendments sought to be introduced in "another place?" The main reason was that the Land Act of 1881 was intended to confer certain great benefits and blessings on the tenants of Ireland, and that as long as the tenants were steeped in arrears those benefits could not be obtained; and, accordingly, another Act of Parliament was necessary in order that those benefits might be secured to them. But was it not inconsistent with the former action of the Prime Minister, with regard to this legislation, to allow the Land Act to be nullified by the slowness of the Land Commission? He thought the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the appeals which came from all parts of Ireland to accelerate the work of the Land Court by the appointment of more Sub-Commissioners, and thereby complete the work of rescuing the rack-rented tenants of Ireland from the rapacity of their landlords.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the hon. Gentleman had laid down a proposition in which Her Majesty's Government were very much disposed to agree; nevertheless, he laboured under what appeared to be a great misconception. He appeared to think that the Govern- ment were satisfied with the great acceleration which had taken place in the proceedings of the Land Commissioners. He (Mr. Gladstone) was willing to confess that they were gratified with that acceleration; but satisfied they were not. They were desirous of further acceleration in the proceedings of the Land Commissioners, and that was his general answer to the representations which had been made upon this subject by hon. Members opposite. He must point out that the erection of new Courts was a work always of great difficulty, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) appeared to him to deserve much honour for the manner in which he had accomplished that portion of his duty. He thought that in a very short space of time he had made a selection of Sub-Commissioners who, upon the whole, were of a character to justify the general remark that they were deserving of confidence. But he would remind the Committee that the number of persons qualified in all particulars to undertake the duties of Sub-Commissioners was, after all, limited. Hon. Gentlemen, he thought, had the strongest reason for urging that no time should be lost in accelerating the progress of these most important labours; but they must, perhaps, be content to abate something of their pretensions, owing to the limit which was, in this matter, necessarily imposed on the operations of the Government by the absolute duty of considering the qualifications of persons appointed to the office. He by no means said that the limit had been reached. It had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that it would be a main part of the duty of the Executive Government in Ireland to apply themselves to the consideration of what further measures could be adopted for considerably accelerating the progress of the labours of the Sub-Commissioners; and, upon that most important subject, it was not necessary for him to do more than repeat that statement in order to show that Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Executive Government were of one mind. No doubt, the charge for these Courts was enormous; but, in the first place, he was not content to regard the question involved as solely one of money; and, in the second place, if he did so regard it, he should recollect that whatever the charge might import, the charge for the Irish Constabulary was, at the present time, about 16 times as large; and that this, in a more satisfactory state of affairs in Ireland, ought to be considerably reduced. If he were asked how that more satisfactory state of things in Ireland might be expected to be brought about, he would refer to the particular provisions introduced this year for the purpose of rendering the operation of the law more effective. But he looked still more to the operation of the Land Act, which, impartially and judiciously administered, would, he hoped and believed, improve the relations between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, hon. Gentlemen behind him, and those who had spoken from various parts of the House, might be assured that there was really no question or contention upon this subject between themselves and Her Majesty's Government. Subject only to this—that Her Majesty's Government must not go blindly to work. They were earnestly desirous of accelerating progress in the Land Courts by the means he had indicated. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had inquired why Mr. Gray had been appointed chief official valuator in Ireland. He was in a position to give to that question the very simple answer that he had been appointed exclusively on account of what were believed to be his pre-eminent merits. It was true that Mr. Gray's associations happened to have been in many cases with Conservative estates. Mr. Gray had been employed in a very large number of cases connected with such estates, and, whatever his politics might be—of which he (Mr. Gladstone) knew nothing, having in view the abilities and experience of the man, and what they believed to be his impartiality—Her Majesty's Government did not consider the fact of his having been so employed was a disqualification, because they believed his valuation would be just and fair. In saying that, he believed he expressed the opinion not only of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, but of all the Members of the Government; and most certainly that was the opinion which he (Mr. Gladstone) himself had formed from all that he had learned of the proceedings of Mr. Gray and of the valuations at which he had arrived. He believed that the expectations entertained at the time of Ms appointment had been completely fulfilled., and that it was not possible to make, on the whole, a more satisfactory selection of a person to discharge the responsible duties of the office of chief valuator that had been made by his right hon. Friend. That was his answer with regard to Mr. Gray; and with reference to the main subject, he hoped he had made it clear to the Committee that the disposition of Her Majesty's Government was to use every possible means for accelerating the operations of the Land Court.

MR. SEXTON

said, the first portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be read in Ireland with great satisfaction. It was a subject for congratulation to find the mind of the right hon. Gentleman so possessed with what Irish Members considered to be the common sense of increasing the power of the Land Court. On a former occasion, the Prime Minister had estimated the number of tenants in arrears in Ireland at 190,000; and it was important to bear the figures in mind, because even if the majority of those tenants were enabled, by the operation of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, to go into the Land Court, the Committee would see that the work of the Commissioners would probably be quadrupled. That being so, he said nothing could be more important than, as soon as possible, to take steps to bring up the staff of the Land Court to an equality with the enormously increased demands that would be made upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, with perfect propriety, the obligation under which the Government lay of selecting duly qualified persons to fill the office of Sub-Commissioner, and had spoken of the difficulty experienced in making selections of the kind. But he (Mr. Sexton) ventured, with all humility, whilst admitting that some difficulty undoubtedly existed in finding fit persons to discharge the office in question, to say that the Irish Bar was a large body, and that it contained gentlemen eminently qualified, from amongst whom a selection could be made without unnecessary delay. Moreover, Ireland was an agricultural country, and, therefore, abounded in persons who were, by their special knowledge, qualified for the position of Sub-Commissioner. It would be easy to increase indefinitely the number of qualified persons who could be drawn from that source. With reference to the appointment of Mr. Gray to the office of chief valuator to the Land Commissioners, he thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject called for a little comment. He was thankful that any reply at all had been given, because, on the last occasion when he brought forward the subject, no answer was given. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had appointed Mr. Gray because of his ability; but he (Mr. Sexton) would remind the Committee that ability was one thing and impartiality another; and, so far as the belief of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the fitness of Mr. Gray for the office which he occupied was founded on the impartiality of Mr. Gray, he said that their belief was not founded on fact. Mr. Gray had formerly bought a townland, and having increased the rent of £300 by the gross amount of £200 a-year, sold it to another person, the transaction having produced a state of things which was one of the proximate causes of the introduction of the Land Act of 1881. He did not believe the decisions of such a man between Irish landlords and tenants could be just, and, whether they were just or not, they would never be believed to be just by the tenants in Ireland, and that in itself was a great evil.

MR. HEALY

said, the figures relating to the decisions of the Land Court in Ulster, as compared with those throughout the rest of Ireland, were very striking, and claimed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would devote to them the amount of attention which they deserved. It appeared that, whereas in Ulster the number of originating notices was 30,470, the number of decisions was 2,296; and that, whereas, for the rest of Ireland, the number of originating notices was 39,125, or nearly 9,000 more than in Ulster, the number of decisions was only 3,479. The disparity between the two sets of figures was immense. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would hereafter take care that while speedy justice was done to the Province of Ulster, it should also be done to the rest of Ireland. He did not know whether the Ulster Sub- Commissioners were better or more numerous than their comrades in the South, and he had no means of finding out, because that was one of the things with regard to which the Government would furnish no Returns; but, whatever might be the cause, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that in future the unfairness complained of would be put a stop to.

MR. GIVAN

said, he thought the argument of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had been answered by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). One reason why the number of the decisions in Ulster was greater than for the rest of Ireland was because the Ulster farmers accepted the Land Act of 1881 from the first, and were ready to go into Court at the earliest moment. He pointed out that one of the chief causes of discontent all over Ulster and the rest of Ireland was the manner in which the official valuators discharged their duties under the directions of the Chief Commissioners on the hearing of appeals. It had been objected to by hon. Members opposite that the Sub-Commissioners did not take enough time to consider the cases that came before them. But he (Mr. Givan) himself had been present in those Courts, and was intimately conversant with the procedure of the Sub-Commissioners. They heard evidence on behalf of the landlord, and examined three or more witnesses on behalf of the tenant; they then went to the farm, and examined the land minutely before they came to their decision; and these decisions, he believed, were in 99 cases out of 100 sound. But what was the procedure of the Court of Appeal when any of these decisions came to he reviewed? They sent their official valuator, an unsworn and irresponsible man, however able and honest he might be, to view the land. Having done that, he returned, gave in his report, and upon it, as against the sworn testimony of several other valuators and persons examined by the Sub-Commissioners, the Judges of Appeal decided the case frequently against the tenant. He held in his hand a letter received that morning from a tenant whose rent was reduced from £240 7s. 8d. to £214. The Sub-Commissioners examined the man's farm, and found he had expended £750 in improvements, and, after a full and ex- haustive inquiry, they reduced the rent to the amount named. But, on appeal, the Commissioners brought the rent up again to £240, merely making a reduction of 7s. 8d. in the amount originally paid, and that upon the unverified report of the official valuator. The landlord was Mr. Shirley. He (Mr. Givan) thought that was not the way in which the appeals ought to be conducted; and he would only repeat that the present practice with regard to the official valuators was exceedingly unsatisfactory and irritating to the tenants who, having been dragged into the Court of Appeal, were obliged to pay all the costs incurred before the Sub-Commissioners, as well as those in the Court of Appeal, which together amounted to a large sum of money.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, if he had understood the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) aright, he complained that he (Sir Hervey Bruce) had given no assistance to the Sub-Commissioners when they went over his estate. If the hon. Member had received that account from others, he could inform him that his informants had grossly misled him. The hon. Member said it was so stated in the judgment of Mr. Greer; but he cared not what was in the judgment of that gentleman. When he was in Ireland he not only sent persons with the Commissioners to assist them, but on three or four occasions he had gone with the Commissioners himself, and given them all the assistance he could. He had already, on a former occasion, explained to the hon. Gentleman in that House why he was not present when they were going over one part of the estate—the reason being that he considered his Parliamentary duties of more importance than his presence in Ireland at the time. But on the occasion referred to he had taken every precaution that the Commissioners should be attended on every farm by persons perfectly competent, even more so than he' was himself, to assist them in their examination. If Mr. Greer had stated that he did not assist the Commissioners in this way, he stated what was incorrect.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

asked whether the hon. Baronet had given any assistance to the valuator, either of himself or by his agent?

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, he had been examined and cross-examined upon every case that came before the Commissioners. He was not examined when he was in London; but was perfectly prepared to be examined on any subject connected with his estates, and to give a flat and distinct contradiction to the reports that had been published in various Liberal periodicals concerning himself—a contradiction that would not depend alone on his own statement, but on documents which would conclusively establish his position. He should be happy to meet any learned counsel that the hon. Gentleman might send to cross-examine him, and, to facilitate this meeting, it was his intention to start for Ireland to-morrow evening.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he had received a strong complaint with reference to the appointment of Mr. Russell as valuator in the county of Mayo. He held in his hand some of Mr. Russell's valuations, to which he should presently have to ask the attention of the Committee. But, in the meantime, he had received a letter which he felt bound to refer to. His correspondent asked him to give attention to the antecedents of Mr. Russell, valuator to the Commissioners. It appeared from the letter that Mr. Russell at one time bought a small property, the tenants of which had not paid their rents. The day after he took possession he gave notice to quit to every one of these people. On the hearing of the case, Mr. O'Hagan expressed his surprise, and said he would adjourn it till the next day, even remarking to Mr. Russell's attorney that he hoped everything would be right in the morning. In one sense, however, everything was right, for each one of the tenants was evicted. He would now compare some of Mr. Russell's valuations with Griffith's valuation, and the judicial rent fixed. In one case—a farm of eight acres—Original rent, £7 4s. 10d.; judicial rent, £3 10s.; valuation, £4. The next case was a farm with Poor Law valuation, £7; judicial rent, £5 10s.; valuation by Mr. Russell, £8. In the next case the judicial rent was £8 12s.; Mr. Russell's valuation, £11 5s. Finally, in another case the farm of John Healy was valued by him at £8 10s.; whereas Griffith's valuation was £5 10s. What sort of justice could there be in that sort of valuation; or how could anyone believe that Griffith's valuation was under the market value of the holdings? In his valuations Mr. Russell seemed to be indifferent to the improvements of the tenants; and, as a matter of fact, in cases of appeal the decision was always against the tenant. In a case where the estate belonged to a notoriously rack-renting landlord in the West of Ireland, who went there originally as a hired process-server, there was one farm where the old rent was £13 8s.; the judicial rent, £10; Mr. Russell's valuation, £13, at which the rent was fixed on appeal. There was another case—the farm of Anthony Sullivan—judicial rent, £7 10s.; Mr. Russell's valuation, £12 15s. He would only read one more case; but he did not know exactly how the figures stood. In the case of Anthony M'Guire his valuation was £7; while Mr. Russell's valuation was £20 10s. There was another case, in which a tenant hired eight acres at a value of £4 5s.; the Court valuation being £5—he could not say whether that was Mr. Russell's valuation. These were all matters of fact on record. Taking Mr. Russell's action with his antecedents, he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would ask the Committee what sort of care could possibly have been exercised by the Government in selecting that gentleman for the duty of making valuations? What had the poor people, whose interests were affected, to look to in cases where Mr. Russell was sent in as a valuator, with the result of raising the rent very considerably on appeal? It was necessary, of course, to appoint some such gentleman; but he trusted in future the Government would exercise great care in preventing persons of that precise stamp being appointed.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £63,238, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum. necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin.

MR. SEXTON

said, he need scarcely remind the Government of the importance and complexity of matters arising under this Vote. It included the whole of the recently re-organized Magisterial Service of Ireland, the special superintendent officials, and the salary of that emi- nent administrator, Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and when he said that he thought he rather foreshadowed the possibility of some considerable discussion on the Vote. He simply wished to ask if it would not be more convenient to take the Committee on the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill that night, and resume the consideration of the remaining Irish Votes to-morrow? He raised the question just now simply for the sake of ascertaining the views of the Government.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that as he saw several hon. Members present who were interested in the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill, he should be inclined to accede to the hon. Member's request. If he was to understand from the silence of hon. Members opposite that they thought it probable that they would be likely to dispose of the Committee stage of that Bill that night, he should be inclined to stop Supply.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was not aware of any reason why the Committee on the Bill should not conclude that night.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.