§ Clause 4 (Powers of Land Commission).
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, this clause adopted a vicious system of drafting which had been over and over again condemned by the House. The Government had laid themselves open to criticism, which he was about to put forward.
THE CHAIRMANNo Amendment can be moved with reference to the Schedule which is not before the Committee. It is the invariable rule for the Committee not to consider a Schedule which is not before the Committee. That requires to be done on the Report.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would, in that case, propose to modify his Amendment by saying, instead of "satisfied," "hereafter provided."
§ MR. GIBSONthought his proposal would avoid that difficulty. The Committee would rightly understand his object after a few words of explanation. This clause proposed to say that for the purposes of this Act the Land Commission might exercise all the powers vested in them under the Act of 1881. Everybody knew now that the Land Act of 535 1881 contained a vast number of powers, some of a very plastic and peculiar character, and some of them referable to a special state of facts. It might be that some of those powers would be applicable to this Bill, while some of them would be partially applicable, and some of them very slightly applicable to the Bill, while others might be entirely inapplicable. He objected as strongly as possible to powers under the Land Act which were not at all appropriate or germane, and some of which were inconsistent, being pitch-forked into this Bill. Many people in Ireland were not able to follow the complicated construction of an Act of Parliament, and would not know what were the powers under the Act, or what it was they ought to obey or submit to. The Committee were entitled to ask the Government to indicate with precision, either by reference to the Land Act, or by special provision, what they exactly meant, and that was precisely his object. He was satisfied that if the Land Act of 1881 was to be incorporated as to its powers with this Bill, it would need the closest and most anxious consideration even by lawyers. As to the powers of the Land Commission, he had read the Land Act with all possible attention, and also this Bill, and he was bound to say that, even after one or two readings of the powers, he found considerable difficulty in knowing or guessing what was present to the minds of the Government when they said the Land Commission under this Bill might exercise all the powers vested in them under the Land Act of 1881. Ho should be very glad if the Government would indicate what was present in their minds; and he was the more anxious to ascertain this because he found later on, in the first paragraph, that any number of Commissioners might in particular determine in the case of any holding who was to be dealt with as tenant and who was to be dealt with as landlord. The words "in particular" had come into Acts of Parliament very often, and were likely to lead to confusion. What did the phrase mean? If the powers covered by the words "in particular" were already included in the general words as to the powers vested in the Commissioners for the purposes of the Land Act, what was the meaning of saying "in particular" hero? Was it 536 meant under the Land Act the Commissioners had power to determine who was to be dealt with as tenant and who as landlord for the purposes of the Act? If that was the intention of the drafting, he was not aware of any such power under the Land Act. He did not desire to go further into this matter now, and only wished to indicate in as general a form as he could the reasons why he proposed this Amendment; and if the Government would suggest, either now or later on, that they would deal with this question in a reasonable way, he was quite ready to accept any statement from them in entire good faith.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after "powers," to insert "hereafter provided."—(Mr Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that substantially the powers to be incorporated in this Bill were those contained in the 48th section of the Land Act, and if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment he would endeavour to provide against any difficulty.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendment he would propose was merely placed on the Paper in order that ho might ask the Government why it was necessary particularly to refer to the power of the Commission to determine in the case of any holding who was to be dealt with as the tenant and who as the landlord.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, leave out from "and" to "Act," in line 23, inclusive.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he was unable to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not sure that the next Amendment in his name did not follow a like case. It appeared to him that the first paragraph of this clause incorporated the section by way of reference, but did it in a peculiar way. 537 The words "in particular" appeared to him to govern a great number of things, and what the meaning of the words "in particular" was he could not make out. The words he had sought to omit seemed to be governed by the words "in particular." If it was only intended to show that there was a doubt as to who was to be dealt with as a landlord, he did not understand it; but if it was intended to ascertain who were the creditors and to constitute them in the position of a garnishee, he should object, because there was no such provision with reference to creditors and a tenant. Then the clause went on—
All powers vested in the Court by the thirty-seventh section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect to the distribution of purchase moneys, in the same manner as if the moneys so payable.He admitted that these words were governed by a previous statement, and if the Government would undertake to consider how far they could deal with this question he would not say another word.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. J. LOWTHER moved, on behalf of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley), to insert the following Amendment. After "moneys," in line 30, to add as a new paragraph:—
The Land Commission may, of its own motion, or shall, on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, unless it considers such application frivolous or vexatious, state a case in respect of any question of Law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Courts of Appeal in Ireland.
He did not know whether there was any objection to this Amendment on the part of the Government; but if there was, he hoped they would reconsider the question. This Land Commission was a most exceptional tribunal, and it had wholly failed hitherto, whatever fate awaited it in the future, in gaining the slightest public confidence. The tribunal was essentially of a partizan character, and the members of it were selected on the very ground that they were in harmony with what the Prime Minister called the spirit of the Act, which he had no hesitation in saying was one of the greatest Acts of confiscation which ever received the consent of Parliament.
538
This was beyond dispute, because it had been stated in public that the Land Commissioners were all in harmony with the spirit of the Act, or in other words, with the spirit of confiscation.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that he had said in harmony with the spirit of the Act, and he thought that was a convertible term with confiscation. It was avowed that those gentlemen entertained opinions which were decidedly one-sided with respect to the rights of property. Those gentlemen had been appointed to constitute this tribunal, and he thought he should not be contradicted when he said they had not yet succeeded in disassociating the public mind from the idea that their opinions were preconceived as regarded those rights. That being the case, he thought it most important that an appeal should be given, at the instance of the parties, to a purely judicial tribunal. If the Government wished to have the law administered judicially and fairly, they would be disposed to give a chance of appeal from a tribunal composed of gentlemen who, doubtless, with every desire to disassociate themselves from any idea of partizanship, were distinctly an association of partizans. He thought there could be no objection to this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 30, after the word "moneys," to add as a new paragraph the words,—"The Land Commission may, of its own motion, or shall, on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, unless it considers such application frivolous and vexatious, state a case in respect of any question of Law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Courts of Appeal in Ireland."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment, because what was wanted was summary jurisdiction and the means of disposing of small sums rapidly. The sums likely to come under the Act would only be small, and the cost of appeals would be very large; and not only that, but appeals would delay the settlement of cases, and in that way the object of rapidly quieting the country would be 539 defeated. Under the Land Act very-large sums were involved, and it was perhaps necessary to give appeal; but here it was necessary to have the small sums rapidly settled.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEthought the Government might accept something which would have the same effect as the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken had misapprehended the object of the Amendment. This was not a proposal for general appeals; it was only a proposal that there should be an appeal on points of law. The Land Commission, as at present constituted, contained only one Legal Commissioner as such; and, that being so, it was not unreasonable to provide that in these cases, as in all other cases where questions of law were decided by a single Judge, there should be an appeal.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the very fact that there never was an Act in which such points of law had arisen as would arise under this Act was a reason for facilitating the points of law. He regarded this Bill as a rough-and-ready measure; but its object was to give peace to Ireland, and not to permit litigation for the employment of lawyers. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, but would adhere to a tribunal composed of one lawyer and two men of common sense.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, from one point of view he could not see how the Government could resist this Amendment, and thought they must have been carried away by the arguments in support of it. This was not the first time when the right hon. Gentleman had declared the Land Commission to be a failure, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had a personal dislike to the Commissioners. He had said the Commissioners were interested in politics. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: They are partizans.] Borne of the Judges had sat in that House—on the same side, but he thought they were as likely to give proper decisions as any other body of men. He did not think anything could be more indefinite, or more inconsistent with the position of a Privy Councillor, than that a Gentleman who had held the highest position in Ireland should endeavour to bring a Court of Law into discredit. Nothing could be worse than that proceeding, and he thought the House should in some way show its abhorrence of it.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he was astonished at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) upon the statement that the Land Commissioners were partizans. Their decisions had been overruled in almost every case where a point of law arose. He was not surprised that the Courts above should overrule the decisions of gentlemen who simply ran a stick into the ground and said the land was worth so much. The hon. Member had taken the right hon. Gentleman to task for what he had said; but he himself did not scruple to tell the House that gentlemen now occupying seats on the Bench in Ireland were partizans because they had sat in this House. [Mr. SHAW: I never said that.] He had understood the hon. Member to say that those who were placed to review decisions of the minor Courts were gentlemen who had sat in this House, and on the same side; they were, therefore, Party men, and he presumed that that meant partizans. He was surprised also to hear the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) say that because an Act of Parliament bristled with questions of law, that was the reason why those questions should be referred to gentlemen who knew nothing about law. Of course, if that was the principle to which the House was committed and was going to act upon, it might as well be that military questions should be referred to clergymen, and legal matters to the hon. Member himself. That might be all very well; but he ventured to suggest that there were a great many legal questions that might arise under this Act. They were not trumpery or trivial, and he would remind the hon. Member that our law was made up of decisions on small matters; and it was better that the law should be settled than that it should be uncertain and involve constant litigation. He believed that one decision by a competent tribunal would go far to settle any question that might hereafter arise.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, that the Commissioners had actually confirmed the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he considered the argument that questions of law should be referred to a Court of Appeal very strong. He was surprised that no Member of the Government had risen to explain the matter. He thought the House was entitled to ask the Govern- 541 ment how they expected cases of law to be decided apart from the Commissioners if there was to he no Court of Appeal.
§ MR. TREVELYANThe arguments of the Government are very short, but I cannot but regard them as sufficiently practical. I must say a single word on the speech by which this proposal was put forward. If it would have been difficult under any circumstances to have accepted this Amendment, the difficulty is greatly increased by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Since I have held my present position, the point with which I have been least gratified during the debates in this House has been the tone taken in different parts of the House about the Courts in Ireland, which appear to me to be bulwarks of liberty. During the discussion of the Prevention of Crime Bill one hon. Member made remarks against the Courts of Law which I regretted to hear; and I have heard with positive dismay the high-coloured language of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, directed against a Court which, I am satisfied, has the confidence of the great body of the people—a confidence so strong that I do not think anything the right hon. Gentleman will say can shake it. With regard to the repartée of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), that seemed to me as legitimate a repartée as was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman said the Land Commissioners were partizans, and the hon. Member for the County of Cork replied that the Judges had likewise been partizans. If ever there was a legitimate House of Commons' repartée it was that. The substance of this Amendment we cannot accept, because it has been brought forward in the shape of an expression of want of confidence in the Land Commission. Under the Land Act of last year very large sums of money were to be spent. The tenant right, which was one consideration, amounted, in no infrequent cases, to many hundreds of pounds; but now the cases are all confined to sums of money or loans of £30; and it is necessary that controversies relating to those sums—or, rather, not so much the controversies as the administrative questions—should be settled as quickly as possible. The business under the Land Act was distinctly contentious in some cases; under this Bill the business 542 will not be contentious, it will be much more of an administrative nature. But there is one consideration which, in the absence of any other, should weigh with the Government. If you give an appeal to the High Court, who is to pay the costs? The people; but, by the very construction of the Bill, it is taken for granted that they cannot pay. This consideration, if there was no other, would weigh with the Government; but, above all, the Government were anxious to make this an administrative Bill, in which the judicial element shall be only sufficient to see that justice is done, as far as possible, between the Treasury and the persons concerned; and this appeal to the High Courts would be entirely at variance with that idea.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he quite agreed that the Bill should be so constructed as to give speedy and ready justice; but, at the same time, care must be taken that the Bill did not become an engine of gross injustice. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had always been regarded as a kind of apostle of common sense, that being a rôle which he especially liked to play. Ho (Mr. Shaw) did not dislike lawyer's as individuals, but he had a kind of suspicion, if not a dislike, to the abstraction of the Profession. He did not believe in law, but in a super-common sense; that was the kind of thing the hon. Member liked, and so did he himself; but he liked common sense according to law. That was exactly the difference between them in this important matter. With regard to the Amendment, he quite admitted upon the question of discretion as to ordinary facts, on the ground of expense and administrative details, it was neither wise nor sensible that there should be an appeal as of right in every case. The more rapid the decisions were the better. He admitted, also, that in matters of importance, not involving large sums of money, a rough-and-ready decision would be valuable. It was suggested by the Chief Secretary that this was a mere question of machinery and administration, and that there was no room for any but the most petty and trumpery questions of law, which he rather seemed to think would be questions of simple technicality. Questions of simple technicality would never have been taken to a Court of Appeal; but the very first line of the 543 1st clause indicated an important topic of decision which must be borne in mind—namely, whether the holding was one to which the Land Act of 1881 at all applied. There might be very nice legal points arising, and it was true that in every case that had come before the Court of Appeal the decisions of the Commissioners had been reversed; the impartiality and soundness of the Commissioners could, therefore, not be trusted as being proved to ho reliable. But he would pass from that, and come back to this one point. What was involved in the question as to a holding being within the Land Act of 1881? Two things—first, was the holding to be brought within the Land Act for the purpose of getting an application under the Arrears Bill? That was a matter of a temporary character, to be disposed of in a couple of years, involving, perhaps, only £50 or £60. But it might last for ever if it was decided by the Land Commission that the holding was within the Land Act of 1881. That decision might operate not only for the purposes of the Arrears Bill, but for all time. So that, if an appeal was not given, the Land Court might, by a rapid decision, for a temporary purpose, bring a holding of great importance under the Act of 1881, and so seriously affect the whole status of a landlord's property. It would be a gross and scandalous piece of injustice not fairly to consider whether the landlord should not have the same sort of protection which the Legislature of last year thought it necessary to give for the general administration of the Land Act of 1881. Then there was another point. The Prime Minister had on the Paper a new clause, which practically made this a new Bill. It appeared on the Paper to-day for the first time, and introduced the question, not of the limit to £30 valuation,. but of £50. That would practically apply to every holding. He should be glad if the Government would indicate that they would deal with the particular topics he had raised; but in the event of their not doing so, he thought the Amendment ought to be adopted.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the object of the new provision was to provide relief, and he wished the Committee to consider what was the state of things 544 already as the Bill stood. The question came before the tribunal in which the money at stake was, measured by the rent, a maximum of £30 valuation; that was a matter which must be adjudicated upon once and for ever. The Bill was an administrative Bill, and its jurisdiction must be exercised only once, and it could not so mould the law of England as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Bulwer) suggested. It was a mere administrative Bill dealing with loans, the maximum being £200, and the minimum £2 or £2 10s. If the law erred, it erred in giving an appeal too readily, because it would be found that where an investigation was conducted in the first instance by Sub-Commissioners, there was an appeal given to a Court containing one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice in Ireland specially familiar with the topic. If the Bill was to give relief, there would be an appeal with reference to the maximum of £30; an appeal would cost, at the very least, as much as the amount to be given in many cases. The Bill differed essentially from the Land Act of 1881, which dealt with vast rights of property. In dealing with one or two such matters there was propriety in giving an appeal to determine the question of right; but in this Bill, which was intended for the relief of the poor who were not able to pay even the rent, an appeal would be practically a denial of justice; therefore, he asked the Committee to give no encouragement to the Amendment. Abundant appeal was provided, and nothing more could be sought in the interests of justice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the limit was £50, according to the limit of the Prime Minister. That might be so; but, as he understood, it would extend the limit in cases where the landlord and tenant agreed to apply for an appeal. That was the essence of the Amendment, and there could be no question of appeal in that at all. The right hon. Gentleman had been hard driven to find some topic upon which it would be conceivable to take the opinion of the High Court of Justice, and the one question was to be, whether the holding came under the Act of 1881 or not? He did not share in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apprehension that even if there was a decision it would bind the parties for all time. For these reasons, it seemed 545 to him that there was no principle in the Amendment, but thought it a mischievous proposition as holding out the prospect of litigation. The ordinary Courts had power to deal with a maximum of £.50; but the Courts, under this Bill, would deal with amounts up to £500, and their decisions would he subject to one appeal. The Amendment sought very much more, and upon every principle he would ask the Committee to say that this was not a case in which appeal should be given.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that in the course of the proceedings of the Land Commission in all these numerous cases of poor tenants, who ought not to be put to expense, there would arise some very difficult questions of law indeed; and the proposal of the Amendment was that the Land Commission should have power, upon its own motion, and not on the application of any party, to allow points of law to be decided by the Courts above. The Land Commission, when it found a number of cases involving points of law, ought to have absolute power, without any cost to the poor tenants, to submit these points to the Court above.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the words in the Amendment—
Or shall, on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, unless it considers such application frivolous or vexatious.The effect of these words was that unless the application was frivolous or vexatious the Commissioners would be compelled to submit every point of law to the Court above if the parties wished it. Those words, which were not in the Act of last Session, would enable a great number of cases to be referred to the Court of Appeal at an enormous expense to the parties, and those would be cases in which that ought not to be done.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that was not his point. He would divide the Amendment into two separate propositions, and if the Government objected to one part which would involve a charge, there was another part which would not.
§ VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, ho was greatly astonished at the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. First of all, the Chief Secretary 546 for Ireland said it was not necessary to have any appeal, because the people could not afford to pay. It appeared to him that if that was a proper principle with regard to Ireland, it would apply equally to England; and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to sustain the argument that in England a man was to be barred from an appeal because he was not able to pay for it. Then the Solicitor General for Ireland said this would do away with the rights and interests of the poor, and he thought it might be asked that the right of appeal should be granted on behalf of the poor as on behalf of the rich. It was idle to argue that this was a one-sided matter. If there was to be an appeal at all, he did not think the question of the cost ought to enter into the account at all. He thought the Amendment was reasonable, as it was much more desirable that questions of law should be tried by a permanent Court than be relegated to a Court for temporary purposes.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there was an appeal provided for under Subsection 3 of Section 7, which said that in every case where applications had not been heard by the Land Commission—upon which was one of the Judges of the land—there might be an appeal to that Commission.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was no appeal to any judicial tribunal. This was a point on which ho should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee; but he would not detain them more than a minute before going to a division. There, however, had been a remark made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to the judicial tribunals in Ireland being subjected to the criticism of that House, respecting which he desired to say a word in reply. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would point out that his complaint against the Land Commission was that it was not a judicial tribunal at all, and that it was essentially a tribunal of partizans. That was what he had said on more than one occasion. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), who seemed to have great solicitude for his (Mr. J. Lowther's) reputation, which he was glad to think the hon. Member admitted he possessed at all, regretted that he (Mr. J. Lowther) should criticize that body 547 But he might venture to suggest the reason why the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) had a fellow-feeling with the Land Commission. The hon. Gentleman, he believed, had been a very distinguished ornament of a body that was not very widely dissimilar from the Land Commission with respect to the elements of its composition. He referred to the Bessborough Commission, upon which there were four partizans out of five, the hon. Gentleman being one of them. No doubt the hon. Member was solicitous for the reputation of a partizan Commission; but he knew the hon. Member had only made his remarks, so far as they related to him (Mr. J. Lowther), in good humour.
§ MR. WARTON(who, on rising, was received with loud cries of "Divide!") said, that, when silence was restored, he would make one or two short observations. Let them see what the Government really meant by rejecting this Amendment. They said, in the first place, that the Land Commission might not, of its own motion, refer any point of law—that was to say, that though it might be anxious to refer a point of law upon a certain case, upon the decision of which so many hundreds of other cases might depend, it would not be allowed to do so. That point had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who, he thought, had put it very neatly indeed. Curiously enough, this Land Commission was a body whom the Government trusted. The Conservatives had been reproached for not putting such confidence in that Commission; but the Government themselves showed how little confidence they had in that body when it suited their purpose not to have confidence. As this Bill progressed, and as the different concessions of the Government were made to the Party below the Gangway, it became more and more likely that many points of law would arise before the Commission. Amendments of the nature of those suggested by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) absolutely bristled with points of law. If the Bill had been left in its original simplicity, there might, perhaps, not have been so much necessity for amendment; but before they reached the Report stage they would find that an enormous number of points of law would have arisen. He had only 548 one thing more to say—[Crien of "Divide!"]—but that would take him some time to explain, unless he was listened to. It was this—that the condemnation the Conservative Party had put upon the | Land Commission seemed to be really tacitly understood by the Government in another respect. They seemed to assume that the Land Commission would always find in favour of the tenant. The Solicitor General for Ireland seemed to assume that they would not find in favour of the landlord—perhaps some order was to be sent round quietly to the Land Commission, as it had been in a previous case, to intimate that these cases were to be decided in favour of the tenant, and not of the landlord.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 171: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
§ SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to move to leave out from "moneys" to the end of the clause. This omission was something of the same nature as that proposed by the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), though it took rather a different view of the position. His (Sir Hervey Bruce's) Amendment was simply to leave out the words—
The Land Commission shall not be subject to be restrained in the execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any Court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any Court.It appeared to him that these were words which ought not to be left in the Bill, and the arguments which were to be used in favour of that proposal were somewhat similar to those in favour of the Amendment which the Committee had just decided. The Solicitor General for Ireland had failed to convince him (Sir Hervey Bruce) of the undesirability of having a Court of Appeal as a check upon the Land Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given a rather extraordinary reason why there should not be this appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had given an extraordinary reason for not agreeing to the proposal of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire; and he had patted on the back the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) for an ob- 549 servation he had made. Ho (Sir Hervey Bruce) was glad the hon. Member for the County of Cork had showed a greater discretion than the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) had said that if anybody would look at the Bill he would see that there were ample powers in it for the purpose pointed out, and that they would be able to refer cases to three gentlemen, one of them being a legal authority, and the other two well qualified to consider questions affecting the land. The hon. Member might be right, because he had, no doubt, had some experience in this matter; but, at the same time, as he would see, the clause said, "only one of them," and that would enable either of the Commissioners to hoar an appeal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had put a Question a few days ago to the First Minister of the Crown as to the condition of the Land Commission, and its not being necessary for all the members of the Commission to sit together; and the Prime Minister bad replied that the Chief Commissioner acted in this matter in accordance with the powers of the Act, but not according to the intention of the Act when it was passed. It had been his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) endeavour since that time to get the question raised in order to ascertain whether the sitting of two members of the Commission was in accordance with the law. But he had always been told that he could not raise that question. He thought it was an extremely hard case that in a Bill affecting the interests of so many people, some of them, perhaps, well off, some in moderate circumstances, and others who were very poor, there should be no power of letting parties appeal from their decisions, or rather the decisions of those gentlemen who were backed up all over the country on account of their political views and services. When he spoke of the Land Commission he spoke from practical experience No doubt many of the Sub-Commissioners were men of honour, and fit to transact all the ordinary business of life; but they were no more capable of judging of the value of land than he himself should be if he went into a strange field. They were no more qualified to value land than would be the right hon. Gentleman the 550 Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant if he were called upon to do so. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) said that if the whole decision in cases under the Arrears Bill were to be left to one of the Chief Commissioners it would be most unjust and unfair, and there fore he moved that Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word "moneys," to the end of the Clause.—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he took it that the question really raised was the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners; and he must say, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, that it appeared to him that he would be doing better service to his own cause if, instead of such general charges, he would bring forward particular instances of misconduct on the part of the Commissioners. He (Viscount Ebrington) thought that the Government would be likely, if only for their own credit and from the instinct of self-preservation, to select the best persons they could get to discharge the duties of the Commission. As far as he could judge, the Sub-Commissioners, taking them as a body, would compare favourably with Justices of the Peace, either in this country or in Ireland. They heard from time to time of specimens of Justices' justice which would compare with the wildest decisions of which Sub-Commissioners were accused, not unfavourably to the latter. He had a table which had been prepared by a Committee of Irish landlords, purporting to show the general value of Irish land; and it appeared that the Land Commissioners, in their judicial decisions, had placed the rent at an average of 11 or 12 per cent above Griffith's valuation, and only 1 per cent lower than the amount which appeared from that table as the general average rent of Ireland. It also appeared from the Returns that the average of the rent decided on by the Commissioners was as much as 42 per cent over Griffith's valuation; so it was obvious that the general run of cases submitted to the Commissioners must have been cases in which the rent was very much in excess of the valuation. 551 He knew perfectly well that Griffith's valuation was an uncertain guide as to the value of laud in Ireland. It might be worth little or it might be worth much; but when they found in cases affecting 200,000 acres that the average was as high as that, and they also found, on the information of those who understood the question very well, that the proportion of land in Ireland lot as high as 40 per cent over the valuation was very small, it was likely, in his opinion, that the cases which had come before the Commissioners were, as a rule, cases in which the rent was high, and he thought, taking one ease with another, they had done justice to all concerned. It was possible that they had not given satisfaction to the landlords, because it was not always satisfactory to an individual to find that a decision had been given attaching a lower value to one's property than he thought should be attached to it. Special cases were from time to time submitted to the House and the Committee in which the Sub-Commissioners had apparently very unjustly reduced rents which had been regularly paid for a long series of years. Special cases could only be met by special eases, and he knew of a case in which the landlord's own valuator reduced a rent which had been paid regularly for upwards of 50 years by a very substantial amount indeed, and the reason the valuator gave was that the land was not worth as much now as it was formerly. He presumed the Commissioners had in many cases acted on the same principle. It was a fact that the tillage land in Ireland did not produce as much as formerly. If hon. Gentlemen would compare the amount of the produce in 1850 and 1860 with the amount of produce in 1870 and 1880, they would find that the general produce had diminished; and if they had regard to one species of produce—potatoes—they would find that the average produce had diminished from 4½ tons to 3 tons per acre.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order. He desired to ask the Chairman whether the noble Lord was confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee?
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONbegged to apologize to the Committee. He understood the question was the competency of the Sub-Commissioners generally to carry out this Act. Of course, if the Chairman ruled him out of Order, he should say no more.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped a vote would be taken on this Amendment. The words which it was proposed to omit were words which excluded the power of a Court of Law to interfere with the action of the Land Commissioners, even if the Court thought that that action was wrong. It would be a very mischievous tiling to prevent a Court of Law stepping in to keep the Land Commissioners right.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, everybody would admit that his noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) had argued the case of the Sub-Commissioners very much better than it had hitherto been argued on the Ministerial side of the House. His noble Friend's argument seemed to rest upon two pillars, to use a metaphor now in fashion. The first argument was that the Land Commissioners substantially agreed with the Bessborough Commission.
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that what he had stated was that the Commissioners' decision agreed with what appeared to be the general rule in Ireland, according to the information of the Irish Land Act Committee, which was a very different Body to the Bessborough Commission.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURbegged the noble Lord's pardon if he had not caught his words correctly. The second argument of the noble Lord was that substantially the Commissioners had the confidence of a large majority of the Irish people. That was urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) must point out to the Committee that the mere fact of a large majority of the Irish people having confidence in the Land Commissioners did not prove that the Commissioners deserved that confidence. The Irish people in this connection meant the Irish tenants. Not unnaturally the majority of the Irish tenants had confidence in the Land Commissioners, because they habitually decided against the landlord. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) 553 had no doubt that a debtor would have confidence in any Court which decided in his favour.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, this provision was taken bodily from the Land Act of 1881. The Land Act provided—
The Land Commission shall not be subject to be restrained in the execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any court.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that in the Land Act of last year there was the power of appeal provided. It was because there was no such provision in the present Act that it became dangerous to exclude the jurisdiction of a Court. In regard to one class of Statutes in this country it had been found very mischievous to exclude appeal.
§ SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) seemed to have misunderstood him. He did not mean to impute any personal impropriety to the Sub-Commissioners; but he said they were not men, from the point of position and ability, fitted to carry out the object for which they were appointed, and that they listened to the evidence of inexperienced instead of to that of experienced valuators. He would like to know how the noble Lord had arrived at his figures, for, if he understood the noble Lord correctly, he said the Commissioners were fixing the rents 11 or 12 per cent above Griffith's valuation. In his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) part of the country, that was far from the case; they, in fact, were fixing the rents far below Griffith's valuation. It had been said that the Sub-Commissioners visited every farm upon which they were called upon to adjudicate; but he (Sir Hervey Bruce) would ask what a timber merchant could possibly know about the value of land? In the matter of his farms the two Head Commissioners were legal gentlemen, so they were not likely to know much about the value of land. They sat up in their Court with great dignity, in wig and gown, and disregarded the evidence of the Court valuer, by fixing the rents very much below what he had recommended.
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, his figures were of a general character; but he should be pleased to show them to the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce).
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 93: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
§
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved to add at end of line 34, page 3—
All bankers, managers of post office and other savings banks, collectors of agricultural returns, and other persons shall be bound, on receiving a notice from the Land Commission, to produce, when and where required, all books, papers, and documents within their custody, power, or procurement, referred to in such notice.
He called the attention of the Committee to this subject on the 3rd clause of the Bill, and he would endeavour to explain, in a few words, the Amendment he had now placed on the Paper. He had always felt, as, he thought, many hon. Members had felt, that one of the great difficulties in this measure was that of insuring a full and complete inquiry into the ability of the tenant to pay his arrears. It was necessary to endeavour to point out, at least to the Commissioners and to those who were to administer the Act, that the inquiry should be searching and thorough, and to confer upon the administrators of the Act all the powers necessary to make it so. In the debate on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair," he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said it was very difficult to see how the Government could distinguish between the cases of those tenants who were able to pay arrears, and the case of those tenants who were unable to pay the arrears. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), replying to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) at that time, admitted that the matter was one of considerable difficulty, and went on to say—
Under our plan every person applying for an advance will be forced to render an exact account of the state of his affairs. We shall know what sum he has due to him, what sum he has in the savings bank, what stock ho has on his farm, the value of his furniture, and the general circumstances in which he lives, and we shall thus ascertain whether he is in that state of destitution which will enable him to come justly and ask for a portion of this gift."—[3 Hansard, cclxxi. 1642.]
Those words pointed as clearly as words could point to an inquiry which should be as searching and as thorough as any inquiry under the Bankruptcy Act would be. What he desired to do by this
555
Amendment was to empower the Commissioners to conduct such an inquiry, and to give them certain powers which were obviously necessary if the inquiries which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said should be held were to be held. He desired to give the Commissioners, in reference to this point, powers similar to those enjoyed by the Court of Bankruptcy. It was of great importance that they should have some words in the Bill directly authorizing the Commissioners to make such inquiries as he proposed. The Committee knew perfectly well the light in which this matter was viewed by some hon. Members opposite They had heard within the last few clays the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), and more than one of the hon. Members representing Northern counties in Ireland, deprecating an inquiry of this kind as an inquisitorial thing which ought not to be allowed if the Government wished this legislation to succeed. But it must be borne in mind that the money of the taxpayers should not be wasted, and that they ought to endeavour to escape that widespread demoralization which would be caused if advances were granted to persons who were not really entitled to them. The only way in which they could insure that such sums should not be so granted was by making the inquiries, so far as they could, searching and thorough. What the Committee ought to do was to insert in the Bill a direction to the Commissioners, and leave it to them to carry that direction out.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 34, at end, add "all bankers, managers of post office and other savings banks, collectors of agricultural returns, and other persons shall be bound, on receiving a notice from the Land Commission, to produce, when and where required, all books, papers, and documents, within their custody, power, or procurement, referred to in such notice."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the power which he wished to introduce in the Bill was of very great importance. He was convinced that no inquiry could be real and valid without the power which the right hon. Gentleman wished 556 to have introduced. The power, however, was included in the words which ho (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had undertaken to introduce in the Schedule. While he agreed with the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view, he must say the Amendment was wholly unnecessary, because the Schedule would provide the power now sought to be given to the Commissioners.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would not have made a remark upon this Amendment if he had been as clear upon it as the Solicitor General for Ireland appeared to be. It was obvious that this was an Amendment framed in the interests of the public, and of the public Treasury, because it was the Treasury of the public that was interested in ascertaining what were the means of the tenants. Bankers, and the other classes mentioned, were to the last degree unwilling to come forward and give information, and obviously and fairly so, because confidence was the essence of their business. If there was no such distinct power such as ho thought there ought to be, he had a very strong opinion that if the parties were left' to put their own construction upon the possible meaning of the powers of the Court of Chancery, practically nothing would be done. With reference to the policy of such an Amendment, if the State gave a great gift, to enable the tenants to pay their debts, the State was entitled primarily to satisfy itself that the people were unable to pay, and for that purpose they must be able to exact the fullest declaration of the affairs of the tenants, and to require the attendance of every person who could throw any light upon the pecuniary position of the tenant, bearing in mind that the debtor was distinctly interested in keeping back the fact that he possessed any property, and that the class of persons picked out by this Amendment were the people who would be most desirous of withholding that information, and not to disclose how their clients stood with reference to them, or to anyone else. The answer to this was plausible. It was admitted by the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Amendment was reasonable, fair, and just. Yet the way it was met was this. The Government proposed a new Schedule to do everything that could be done under this Amendment, and said there was nothing whatever in the Amendment that would not be as clearly done in the 48th section of the Land Act. He questioned that, be- 557 cause he believed there was a distinction. In proceedings in the Court of Chancery each litigant was supported by particular arguments; but that was not the position of the Land Commission. The Land Commission, in administering its jurisdiction, had two parties before it, and it also had a strong neutral interest to consider, which interest, being the State, was guarded by this Amendment. If the landlord and the tenant were the sole parties interested, it would simply be a litigation between the landlord and the tenant; and the analogy between the Land Court and the Court of Chancery would be complete. But the peculiar point in which the analogy was not complete was that there was a gift, not from one side to the other, or a loan from one side to the other, but a gift from a third party, that third party being the State. Therefore, it was, at all events, open to some question whether these powers, which applied to the Court of Chancery and to the Land Commission, and to the Act of 1881, would equally apply under the exceptional jurisdiction of this Act. Even assuming that it might be argued as a matter of strict and rigid law, and be so interpreted by a Court of Law, that these powers might possibly be deputed to the Land Court under this Bill, he took other and higher ground. This power should be administered with all due forbearance and caution, respecting, as far as possible, the confidence placed in the bankers and other persons mentioned in the Schedule, and it was of great importance that parties who sought the benefit of the Bill on the ground that they were unable to pay their debts should be warned by a plain provision under the Act of Parliament that they were liable to have these witnesses called against them if they gave a false account of their property. This Amendment must be taken in connection with the Amendment already suggested to the House—namely, that the tenant should be called upon, when he applied to the Court for the benefit of this Act, to show that he was unable to pay his debts, and to indicate what property he had on the face of his application. If the Act told the tenant that he would be likely to have the banker and others to contradict him if he had given false evidence, that would be an enormous moral check, and might save hundreds and thousands of pounds. That was an argument he placed 558 as high as any doubt that might be cleared by a legal decision. He thought the Committee would do great good by placing this Amendment in the Bill, for if it could do no good it could not do any possible harm.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was surprised, after the explanation of the Solicitor General for Ireland, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) should desire to place this Amendment in the Bill, and he could not see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. The Committee would understand that when the Act of last year was passed it was necessary to give a power to the Court of full examination; and, in order to do that, the best way was to confer on that statutory Court, not all the powers, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of the Court of Chancery, but all powers for the purpose of forcing examination of witnesses. It was quite evident the House ought to give similar powers to the Court which would have to inquire into these matters. Why should they depart from the expression in the Act of last year giving generally powers to be transferred? If they once began to minimize they would raise a difficulty as to whether the Court had those powers which were expressed in the Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the analogy would be complete; but that in Chancery there were two parties who raised particular issues, in respect to which the Court applied powers which did not exist here. That was true; but in Chancery there was a question at issue, and, the subject-matter having been determined upon, how could it be said that there was no analogy if the comprehensive powers conferred on the Court of Chancery were conferred on this Court? It was suggested that no attempt should be made to particularize these powers; but the right hon. Gentleman who moved to have these powers in the Schedule was now putting into the Schedule those extensive powers which were given to the Court of Chancery, and which included all the powers that could be wanted. He was not satisfied with his own view; but now supported an Amendment which was most faulty in reading, because it only applied to certain persons, but raised doubts of a most objectionable character.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether it was or was not the fact that the Post Office Acts protected Post Office Savings Banks in a particular way, even against the powers of examination possessed by the Court of Chancery? He had heard that that was the fact, and he very much questioned whether there would in any case be a readiness on the part of the Post Office authorities to allow their accounts to be examined. If there was one class of banks which more than another should be inquired into he thought it was these Post Office Savings' Banks, because they would most probably hold the small accounts belonging to persons who would be likely to come under this Act.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman is under an entire misapprehension. To produce a local postmaster would be perfectly useless. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the postmaster stands in the same position towards the Post Office depositor as the Secretary to the Trustees of the old Savings' Banks depositor. The local postmaster knows nothing whatever. Ho does not keep the books or the accounts. The depositor himself is the keeper of his book, and ho comes to the local postmaster from time to time, and has an entry made, and then takes the book away. The power of the Court will be exercised against the depositor himself, and it will be the duty of the Court, if it thinks fit, to require the depositor to produce his book; but the local postmaster has no power to assist the Court.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, ho thought the Post Office could tell whether the man kept a book or not; and suggested that the Government should consider whether they should put in a Proviso enabling this tribunal to obtain the transcript of the documents which would appear on the accounts. Would there be any difficulty in providing that a transcript, signed by a responsible official, should be produced? The Prime Minister said the depositor alone was possessed of the book, and the official only made an entry; but he supposed there was some record as to how many people had books. It was so in London, and a letter to the Post Office in London would elicit the fact whether a person who said he could not pay his debts had a book or not. If there was no great inconvenience to the 560 Public Service, such a power must prove a great check. If the tribunal gave a man money to pay his debts, they must inquire, to a certain extent, into his affairs, to find out if he was entitled to this gift; and if some information could be given without inconvenience, it might cause a vast saving to the public, and act as a check to people who had not the slightest title to assistance.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought the time of the Committee was not well occupied with this discussion. This Bill concerned the poorest class in Ireland—the small tenants — whose valuation reached no higher than £30 per annum. These were the people the Committee was asked to suppose had banking accounts. This was something farcical to those who knew the condition of those people. They were unable to save anything; they were unable to procure decent food and clothes, and yet the supposed savings of these rack-rented tenantry were to be called into account. There would be nothing to produce, and how anybody could suppose anything to the contrary astonished him. Then the agricultural returns wore to be brought against the tenants; but those returns were compiled from information voluntarily given by the Irish tenants, and they had been thanked in the returns for giving the information. But when once the Irish tenants knew that the particulars they gave would be used against themselves, they would refuse to give it, because they would feel that such information would some day subject them to a great deal of annoyance and trouble. Prom any point of view, this Amendment seemed to him absolutely ridiculous.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ MR. BULWERsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) seemed to think there was only one class of tenants—the poor and honest; but there was also another class, neither poor nor honest. A case had been lately published in the papers in which a man, who had declined to pay his rent, on being threatened with legal proceedings, had pulled out of his pocket £120. It was one thing to give power to the Court to enforce the pro- 561 duction of evidence if the Court thought fit; but what he wanted to know was, whether, if he, as a landlord, came before the Commission, he could use this power in order to prove his case or disprove that of his antagonist? In English Courts there was a process by which access could be obtained to the hooks of the saving's banks; and was the same power to be provided in Ireland as was now possessed by the litigant in any other part of the Kingdom?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the powers of the Land Court were exactly the same as the Chancery Court, or any other Court, in regard to enforcing the production of documents on its own motion.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.