HC Deb 06 July 1882 vol 271 cc1615-7
MR. GIBSON

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Govern- ment, during the passing of the Irish Land Bill this Parliament, gave strong and clear assurances that appeals would be heard before the three Land Commissioners; whether, when a difference of opinion takes place between two Commissioners sitting to hear appeals, the whole appeal does not become practically abortive; and, whether the Government will represent to the Land Commission, that in obedience to the clear requirements of the Land Act the three Commissioners should, as a rule, sit to hear appeals, and that it is only under exceptional circumstances that they are justified in hearing appeals in the absence of any of their members, and particularly in the absence of the member who is personally acquainted with the value and management of land?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite rightly informed with respect to the arrangements made as to the hearing of appeals. The latest Return supplied by the two Commissions at the time when I formerly answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I believe, perfectly accurate in terms. But a great change has taken place in the balance since the period of the 1st of May to the 1st of July; 333 appeals have been heard by two Commissioners, and only 104 by three Commissioners. It is needless for me to answer the question whether when a difference exists the whole appeal becomes practically abortive. I am quite ready at once to state that I agree with what appears to be the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that although the hearing by two Commissioners is perfectly legal when the third Commissioner is detained upon special business, yet undoubtedly it was the intention of the Act and the expectation of Parliament that the rule would be that appeals should be heard by three Commissioners. For the present I can only say that, this state of facts having been brought to our notice, communications are proceeding on the subject.

MR. GIBSON

I think, Sir, it would be reasonable to indicate that, inasmuch as the office work of the Commissioners involves the consideration of legal and technical details, it would be far more suitable that the legal Commission should remain in Dublin, and that arrange- ments for the hearing of appeals should not involve the absence of the only Commissioner who has the slightest knowledge of the management and value of land.

MR. TOTTENHAM

asked whether the Government contemplated, at the time they appointed the Commissioners, that the two legal Commissioners should go to the country to hear questions of fact, and the lay Commissioner should remain in Dublin to hear questions of law?

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not admit, Sir, that there are two legal Commissioners. There is one legal and judicial Commissioner, and one lay Commissioner, who is a gentleman of legal education, but not a legal Commissioner in the sense that Mr. Justice O'Hagan is; nor did Parliament, when it assigned special duties to the legal Commissioner, include Mr. Litton in that designation. But there is no such arrangement as the hon. Gentleman indicates. The whole of the appeals heard by two Commissioners are committed to Mr. Justice O'Hagan and Mr. Litton, and, as I am informed, the arrangement has been that the duty has been alternative between Mr. Litton and Mr. Vernon, but requiring Mr. Justice O'Hagan to sit in all cases. It is only just to the Commission that I should state, without in the least qualifying what I have said, that the arrangement I have mentioned has been adopted by the Commissioners in no way for their own convenience, but with a view to the advantage of the parties coming before them. It would be much more convenient to the Commissioners personally that they should sit together to hear the appeals, and that they should be heard in Dublin.