§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £34,919, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the Vote before the Committee was a very important one. It raised the question of the whole administration that up to this time had taken place in connection with the Land Act, and he need hardly say that a vast amount of criticism suggested itself upon almost every one of the items contained in the Vote. He had no desire whatever to raise anything like a prolonged debate upon any of these items; but he could not help noticing a fact, of which, however, they must all be aware, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who must, from the nature of things, be most cognizant of the expenditure included in the Vote, was at present absent from the House. He (Mr. Gibson) was quite prepared to make his criticism in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sure that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary, who was in charge of the Vote, and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, would give any explanations that were necessary; but if they were not able to enter into all the explanations that might be called for, he would suggest that some part of the Vote should be allowed to stand over until the return of the Chief Secretary. The first item in the Vote was a sum of £25,705 for Salaries and Allowances. He wished to know what estimate the Government had formed of the annual expense of administering the Irish Land Act, taking into account the salaries of the Commissioners, of the Assistant-Commissioners, and of the general staff? He was told that the figure which might be put down for that was not less than £100,000 a-year, or, at any rate, somewhere about that sum. He was not 72 desirous of passing any carping criticism upon the expenditure for Salaries; but, at the same time, he thought it was not only desirable, but fair, that the Government should inform the Committee what amount of expense the whole of the Empire would be asked to bear for the administration of this Irish Act. He would put that question at once on the first item of the Vote; and then he should like to know what was the amount received in fees from the suitors who went into the Court? He believed, from the study he had been able to make of the Rules and Orders of the Court, that the figure required to be paid as a fee in the first instance was extremely low. Any person who was a suitor, on coming into the Court, was only called upon to pay a fee of 1s. for the originating notice, and for that he got everything he could require, and he was not asked to pay 1s. further, no matter what the result might be. He wished, therefore, to know what, taking one year with another, was expected to be the amount of the receipts by the Treasury from fees? Fees so low did not exist in any other part of the world. Perhaps this might be a convenient time for asking a question as to the office of the Head Commissioners. The Head Commissioners had charge of a very large staff. There was, in the first place, a Secretary, who had the substantial salary of £ 1,000, and then an Assistant Secretary, who had a salary of £ 500 a-year; and he wanted to know whether in the Office a letter-book was kept, and whether that letter-book would disclose any instructions which might have been given to the Assistant Commissioners in the discharge of their functions? On more occasions than one, taking the newspapers as his source of information, he found that the Assistant Commissioners had stated that they had received instructions from the Head Commissioners in Dublin in regard to what they ought to do. Now, he wanted to know, seeing that a statement of that kind had been made, whether any letter-book was kept containing in writing a copy of all the instructions sent to the Assistant Commissioners? While he was upon the question of salaries and expenses, he should like also to ask a question upon another subject to which his attention had been directed. He noticed on page 73 33 of the Estimates the words "Chief Valuer attached to Commissioners." He assumed that that was the gentleman who was known as Mr. Gray—a very capable gentleman, he believed. But the next item was one for "Valuers ditto, ditto," with a maximum salary of £ 750. He wished to know what that meant? Valuers, he supposed, meant the plural; but what did the "ditto" mean? How many valuers were there? He had been informed, and he asked for further information on the point, that the Land Commissioners in Dublin had been desirous of appointing to the very important and responsible office of advising them upon their duties some of the best surveyors who could be got in the Empire, but that the Treasury had refused to sanction the appointments they made because they objected to pay the salaries that would be necessary. If that assertion were challenged, he could give the name of one gentleman who, according to rumour, was applied to, but who declined to accept the salary offered to him. A long letter had been written upon the matter to The Times. He had commented upon it at one or two public meetings in the strongest language he could find, because he considered it a scandal in the administration of an Act of Parliament, that the Treasury should refuse to the Commissioners who were required to administer the Act the instruments they considered necessary for the proper working of it. In administering an important Act like this it was obvious that the Commissioners would require the best class of persons they could obtain—persons who would be above all impeachment, and of the highest professional capacity. The Commissioners, it was stated, had applied to certain gentlemen whom they considered suitable for the discharge of the duties, and those gentlemen were willing to act, but the Treasury refused to sanction the salaries proposed to be paid to them, and other gentlemen had to be appointed. He did not mean to say that these other gentlemen were not good men; but what he did say was that the Land Commissioners were unable to get the men whom they thought most competent, because the Treasury refused to sanction the salaries they demanded. He asked, then, who were the gentlemen who had been appointed, and whether the noble 74 Lord the Financial Secretary of the Treasury could say whether higher salaries were asked for by the Land Commissioners in the first instance, and whether the gentlemen who were applied to originally did not refuse to accept the appointments in consequence of the refusal of the Treasury to pay the salaries asked for? There was another item upon which he would like to make an observation. There were 20 first-class clerks with a maximum salary of £ 400 each. He wished to know whether these gentlemen were new appointments, or were they gentlemen who held other appointments. According to his own knowledge of the matter, speaking roughly, he should say that the majority were new appointments, but that nevertheless they were put down as first-class clerks, and, he presumed, would become part of the normal staff employed in the service of the Commissioners. Was there any qualification or not? Was there any Civil Service examination or any particular test for ascertaining the qualifications of these gentlemen? There were other matters to which he wished to draw attention, and especially the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners; but he would leave that matter until he had obtained a reply from the noble Lord to the Question he had already put.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that, following up the questions put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), he should like to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Valuers had been appointed permanently or only for a fixed period, and whether they were specially charged with any specific duties? He also wished to know whether the legal officers already employed in the Land Court had been in any way utilized under the new Act? As he understood, since the Land Act came into operation the Encumbered Estates Court had scarcely had anything to do, and he wanted to know whether any steps had been taken towards utilizing the services of the unoccupied officers of that Court? He merely asked these questions so that the noble Lord might be able to make a reply to them in the answer he gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he joined with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gib- 75 son) in regretting that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was unavoidably absent from his place, but he would endeavour to give the best answer he could to the questions which had been put to him. In the first place, with respect to the specific inquiries made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he could inform him that with regard to the amount of expense required in the coming financial year, adequate information would be supplied in the regular Estimates. He believed it would be found that the expense of administering the Act would amount to something over £90,000, and something under £100,000.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that it was the estimated expense for 12 months. He had not, however, got the figures before him at that moment, and he was unable to state the exact amount with perfect accuracy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in stating that the originating fee paid by a suitor upon entering the Court was 1s. The amount derivable from that source would depend entirely upon the number of the applications, and he could not, therefore, state what the total amount was likely to be. At present there were something like 70,000 cases entered, and the fees would consequently amount to £ 3,500 this year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that that was too small a sum to cover the expense of administering the Act; but he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that after the House had already determined that the Court should be established there would have been many complaints if the Treasury had persisted in placing pecuniary obstacles in the way of the suitors obtaining admission to the Court. The next question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was—whether or not a letter-book was kept in the Office of the Land Commissioners? He had no absolute information on that point, but he could scarcely doubt that in an Office which had a great influx of correspondence there would be an elementary necessity for keeping a letter-book. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in his supposition that the chief valuer was Mr. Gray. The right hon. and learned Gentleman 76 asked next if it was the case that the Treasury had refused to sanction the salaries recommended by the Commissioners for the valuers? Now, the Treasury did not object to the salaries proposed by the Commissioners; but there was an important question to be considered—namely, how far the work to be done by the Assistant Commissioners was to be shared by the valuers. It would be recollected that there was a debate in the House itself upon that question, when an Amendment was moved that valuers should be appointed. The understanding then came to by the House was that the work should be done mainly by the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners, and not by valuers. After full consideration the Government came to the conclusion that it was advisable, as the Chief Commissioners were unable personally to visit the different farms, that they should have the assistance of valuers, but that no such officer should be attached to the Sub-Commission. The question had not been settled by money considerations; and while, on the one hand, the Treasury were not desirous of launching into extravagance, they could not be charged with enforcing an ill-timed economy, for it would be seen that the amount of the salary proposed to be paid to these valuers was £750 each. At present he thought there had been only one person appointed.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he believed that power had been taken to appoint four.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought there was power to appoint four ultimately.
§ MR. GIBSONasked who the gentleman was who had been already appointed?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was not able to answer that question. Indeed, he had not heard specifically that any appointment had been made, but only that power had been taken to make the appointments.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was afraid that the work would not be satisfactorily performed if the Treasury refused to appoint the best men.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could only repeat that the question had not been settled by money considerations, and that it was not one of salaries at all. It was not, however, considered advisable to have a large staff of valuers. With respect to the 77 clerks, he was not able to say what proportion belonged to the staff of the Church Commissioners; but, originally, when the Office was first constituted, a large proportion of the officers was taken from the salaried officials of the Church Commission. But as the Sub-Commissioners were multiplied a number of new appointments had been made, and there was a larger number of first-class clerks now than was originally contemplated. With respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the term for which the appointments were made, he had not got the precise information before him at that moment; but, speaking from recollection, he believed Mr. Gray was appointed for one year. The hon. Member suggested that the staff of the Land Court should be utilized. That was an idea that was agreeable to the Commissioners, but he did not think that they had yet been able to make an arrangement of that kind; they would, however, do so as opportunity offered.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, for his part, he should be very slow in falling in with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Land Commission should have anything to do with the officials now engaged in Judge Flanagan's Court. Judge Flanagan was not the person who, by any means, corresponded with the Prime Minister's definition of those who ought to be in-trusted with the working of the Land Act. With regard to the Church Commission, the noble Lord would remember that last year some Members raised considerable objections to the proposal to utilize the staff of the Irish Church Commission upon the new Land Commission; and in the closing days of the Session there was considerable friction between the Irish Members and the Treasury Bench as to the proposal then put forward by Her Majesty's Government. He himself understood that the Government gave the House a promise that there should be no sweeping of old officials into the Land Commission. The Irish Members were of opinion that it was not desirable to have any of the old officials imported into the Land Commission, as many of them would have imbibed prejudices in connection with their old offices, and the understanding was, so far as he was aware, 78 that none of these officers should be planted upon the Land Commission. He believed, however, that, in spite of the pledge given last Session, they had a superintendent from the Irish Church property branch with a salary of £700 a-year. He did not complain of that, as there might be some necessity for having someone who had been connected with the Irish Church Court. There was a considerable fight as to the solicitorship last year, and he now found that, in addition to the ordinary solicitor, they were to have a solicitor from the Church Property and Collection Department, with a salary of £600 per annum. He did not complain of the item; but he wished to have some explanation of the matter as he knew nothing about it at present. He should like to know if the individual appointed was the old solicitor of the Church Commission. He presumed that he was not. He presumed that the old solicitor would scarcely be inclined to accept such a salary as that which had been put down in the Estimate. He should like to ask whether the amount of duty which fell upon the solicitor of the Church Commission pure and simple was so extraordinary that it was necessary, for the continually diminishing amount of work which would fall upon his shoulders, to appoint a second solicitor? People in Ireland had learned to be very suspicious in regard to all appointments of a legal character. At present, for every four barristers called to the Bar there was at least one prize either in the shape of a County Court Judgeship, or a position on the Bench, or one of the legal appointments in the hands of the Government; and the tendency was to corrupt Irish intelligence by offering those offices to the Irish Bar, if these legal gentlemen would at once come in and serve the Government. Therefore, the noble Lord would not be surprised to find that the Irish Members desired some explanation as to this multiplication of officials. There was another point which was purely a matter of detail. He remembered very well, although he was not a Member of the House at the time, that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), when the Conservatives were in Office, inveighed very strongly against the mode in which the advertisements for Government stores were issued. [Mr. JOSEPH COWEN dissented.] He might 79 be mistaken in attributing the action in the matter to the hon. Member for Newcastle; but it was a fact that strong objections were raised in regard to the mode in which the Government advertisements were issued. For instance, supposing iron was wanted, advertisements were inserted in some newspaper in Cornwall where, perhaps, there was no iron at all; if coal was wanted, instead of going to Durham, or Northumberland, or Lancashire, an advertisement was inserted in some other county where no coal existed at all. The same complaint was to be made with regard to the Land Commission. What was called the "Schedule of Voluntary Agreements between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland" was published, not in the Metropolitan daily papers in Dublin, or in the Irish newspapers generally, but in the London Times, The Dublin General Advertiser—a paper belonging to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), which was never seen at all, or, at any rate, it circulated among a very limited portion of the people, having purely an advertising and an official connection—and in The Scotsman, published in Edinburgh. There was great sensitiveness among the Irish people upon this point; and he would ask the noble Lord if it was intended as a joke that the Land Commission, which affected the people of Ireland to such an extraordinary extent, could only find it worth while to insert the "Schedule of Voluntary Agreements between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland" in The Scotsman, the London Times, and The Dublin General Advertiser, owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow? He could assure the noble Lord that it was a matter in regard to which some people were very sore. Only within the last few weeks the Department had added insult to injury, and had inserted a two-line advertisement in some of the Dublin newspapers, referring the Irish people, if they wanted information, to the paper owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow. He presumed that they had got so thick-skinned that it was of no use going into these complaints; but the noble Lord would feel that this was a matter upon which a strong opinion was entertained. He would remind the noble Lord, if he was ignorant of the fact, that The Freeman's Journal was published in Dublin, and that it circulated 40,000 copies daily 80 among the very people the Treasury desired that the Act should be made popular with. He understood that it was the wish of the Prime Minister that voluntary agreements between landlord and tenant should take place altogether irrespective of the operation of the Court; and to carry out this object the Government, instead of advertising in The Irish Times and The Freeman's Journal, simply advertised in the London Times, the Edinburgh Scotsman, and The Dublin General Advertiser. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had referred to the question of valuers. That question of valuators, or valuers, was one of the utmost importance in connection with the working of the Act. The noble Lord had admitted—and he was somewhat surprised at the admission—that the Commissioners themselves were not able to visit the farms they had to deal with; and, therefore, they had to rely upon the valuers. Considering the multiplicity of the questions addressed to the noble Lord, it was only a matter of surprise that he was able, as he generally did, to grasp them and deal with them at all. It was a matter of astonishment that the noble Lord could carry all these details in his head, and that he should be able to deal with these Irish matters, which it might be supposed could only be dealt with by the Chief Secretary. The noble Lord was certainly entitled to the consideration of the Committee; but he should like to ask him if he was correct in stating that the valuers were appointed by the Commissioners only for a year?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHI think the valuers are appointed for a year only.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the noble Lord had stated further that, in his opinion, the Sub-Commissioners would not be able to visit the farms, and, therefore, must rely upon the valuers.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHNo; I said the Commissioners.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, of course, was an entirely different matter. It appeared, however, that the valuators were only appointed for one year, notwithstanding the fact that on the action of these valuers the entire administration of the Court, to a very large extent, depended. The Court of Commissioners, which was the final Court to 81 decide upon the various matters connected with the working of the Act, could not go down to farms in remote districts, and the Commissioners were obliged to see through the eyes of the valuers. Therefore, to a large extent, their verdict and decision must be influenced by the reports of the valuers; and the question of valuers became a matter of even more importance than that of the Commissioners themselves. He submitted that it was not quite a fitting thing that Mr. Gray, if the noble Lord desired that the Act should work properly—that Mr. Gray, with an extremely accurate knowledge of English land, but no experience of land in Ireland, should have been imported into Ireland, and sent down to the miserable cottier plots in the County Cork and other places, and that upon his verdict the Chief Commissioners should fix the rents. For his own part, he (Mr. Healy) objected to the whole transaction. He objected to it, first, because Mr. Gray was an Englishman—and English agriculture and Irish agriculture were entirely different things. He also objected to it because Mr. Gray's appointment was an appointment of so partial a character. Mr. Gray was appointed, as the noble Lord had stated, only for one year. Then, was it to be supposed that any man whose interest in the matter was only of a temporary character, would be able to bring to the discharge of his duties the same amount of care and thought that would be devoted by a man who had lived all his life in the country? Mr. Gray would necessarily have to be guided, to a large extent, by the opinion of others who had had, from previous residence, an opportunity of knowing something of the real value of the land. He protested strongly against the appointment being for one year only. He thought it would tend to the scamping of the job, and would interfere with the proper working of the Act. He could assure the noble Lord that there was much sensitiveness upon this matter in the South of Ireland. He had referred last night to the appointment of Mr. John Barrett to the office of valuer, Mr. Barrett being known as a gentleman who was one of the most bitter enemies of the tenants. If the Prime Minister was desirous that the Act should become popular, he should take care that no appointments of that class were made. He 82 would put the matter in this way. There was a strong agitation some years ago on the subject of Trades Unions, and certain Acts were passed directed against the "truck" system in England. What would have been said if, under those Acts, the Government had appointed as Inspector an individual who was the most hated and detested by the men connected both with Trades Unions and the "truck" system? What would have been done if, in dealing with the "truck" system, they had appointed as Inspector a man who had most heavily steeped himself in corruption and in the plunder of the workmen? Yet such a man would correspond to the character which John Barrett possessed in the South of Ireland. John Barrett—he would not go into his character again—was a man who, in the most peaceful times, never ventured to go out unarmed, and he had been guarded by the police for the last two years. Only very recently, acting under police protection, Barrett valued the farms of Lord Kenmare and the Gumbleton property without ever having walked over them or seen them. He, nevertheless, raised the value of the rents from 50 to 100 per cent. This was the man whom the Chief Commissioners had appointed to act as a Land Valuer. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister considered that the working of the Land Act was of very little consequence to the people of Ireland this might be the proper course to take; but he (Mr. Healy) desired that the people of Ireland should extract the utmost possible benefit they could get out of the Act. He had the keenest desire that the landlords should have their rents cut down to the utmost extent, and that the tenants of Ireland should benefit accordingly, and therefore he protested against the appointment of such a man as Barrett, who was a notorious rack-renter, employed to do the dirty work of Lord Kenmare. He protested against men like John Barrett being appointed as Valuers under the Act, and he had asked the Attorney General for Ireland that day whether Barrett, or men of his kidney, were appointed by the year or by the job? The answer he received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not at all definite.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)I know nothing about the matter.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was a very extraordinary thing that the Committee should be asked to vote money in order to pay Mr. Barrett a salary when they were not able to get from the Government any information whatever about him. He ventured to say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) got up and asked whether it was true that some well-known Tenant-righter, such as Byrne, of Walls Town Castle, Mallow, or some other well-known Tenant-righter, had been appointed under the Act, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had an answer ready; but when they asked whether a notorious landlords' partizan had been appointed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up and told them he did not know. It was most desirable that the Committee should have information upon these matters either from the right hon. and learned Gentleman or from the noble Lord. Of course, they did not expect that the noble Lord would be able to answer these questions in detail. It was not his business, and they could not expect details of this kind from the noble Lord, immersed as he was in other business. But when they had two Law Officers of the Crown in the House, he really thought that, on a matter of this kind, the Committee was entitled to some little information upon the question, and he would, therefore, ask the Attorney General to re-consider the matter and to answer this plain question—Whether John Barrett had been employed for 12 months under the Land Act as valuer, or not?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the matter was one which was not in any way in his Department, or he would, of course, have made it his business to have ascertained all the details; but, as it was not in any way in his Department, he had not requested information upon it. He fully admitted that the hon. Member had the right to demand the information from some quarter, and, therefore, he would take care to make himself master of the details in order to satisfy the inquiries of the hon. Member. His impression was that Mr. Barrett had not been appointed at all by the Land Commission. The valuers were appointed, he understood, when the Land Commission went down to hear appeals 84 from the Sub-Commissioners; and, so far, he believed there had only been two valuers appointed by the Land Commission—namely, Mr. Gray, and, he thought, a gentleman named Murphy. He had heard at the time Mr. Gray was appointed that he was a gentleman who, though of English extraction, had been for 30 years farming in the county of Wexford, and he was recommended to the Commission by a large number of persons as a gentleman thoroughly competent to deal with any questions arising in connection with the value of land. The general opinion in Ireland at the time Mr. Gray was appointed was that a more competent man could not be selected. He had been sent to Belfast to assist the Commissioners there, and, after examining the localities to which the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners applied, his report had given complete satisfaction. His impression was that only two valuers had actually been appointed, and that their appointment was only for one year. Mr. John Barrett, he believed, was the gentleman who valued some property of Mr. Bence Jones.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he did not think that the employment of Mr. Barrett was a Government appointment. A Sub-Commission was empowered to call in an independent valuer, as the Sub-Commission in Limerick had done, before they gave their decision in reference to a holding on Lord Ashtown's estate, where the cost of that valuer was borne in equal parts by the landlord and tenant. Possibly that also was the case with reference to Mr. Barrett, as he believed he was merely subpoenaed as a witness employed by one of the parties. His own opinion was that the Estimates were not burdened with Mr. John Barrett at all; but he could only state his impression, and not give it as an absolute matter of fact. He would, however, make inquiries upon the subject before the Report of Supply was brought up. As he was now upon his legs, he might answer the remarks made by the hon. Member in reference to the officers of the Land Commission supposed to have been taken over from the Land Court. Now, nobody had been taken over from the Land Court; but the Church Temporalities Commis- 85 sion, as the hon. Member would recollect, was terminated during last Session of Parliament, its remaining business transferred to the Land Commission, and some of the most competent officers connected with the Church Commission had been taken over. This was an advantageous arrangement for the public, seeing that the superannuation allowances of these gentlemen would be saved, and their services utilized. The solicitor had been taken over in that way, and as the Church Temporalities Commission required to be wound up, there was a large amount of this business to be transacted. The tithe rent-charge had to be collected, and there were other matters to be dealt with, such as the money which had been lent out upon mortgage, and was being paid by instalments; and there were questions still pending in regard to the purchase and sale of Church land. All the land had not yet been sold, and it was for the interest of the public to retain the services of the Solicitor to the Church Temporalities Commission. By that means the public retained the services of a man who had practical experience, and who was perfectly competent in a professional point of view, and at the same time they were saved the expense of superannuation allowance, which would necessarily have been incurred if the solicitor had been discharged and a new solicitor appointed, because it would have been absolutely necessary to appoint some one to discharge the duties which the solicitor to the Church Temporalities Commission had been retained to perform. Another gentleman, who had also been alluded to, Mr. O'Brien, had also been taken over from the Church Commission in August to discharge, under the Land Commissioners, the same duties which he had previously performed in connection with the Church Temporalities Commission. In that case, also, the public had the advantage of the services of a gentleman fully competent to discharge the duties, and experienced in the performance of them, and at the same time they were saved the expense of a superannuation allowance.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)believed that the gentlemen in question had been placed in precisely the same 86 position as that which they occupied under the Church Temporalities Commission. He had been asked if the services of these gentlemen were wanted or not? When the Act was being passed he had assured the House that they would be necessary for the discharge of the duties transferred to the new Land Commission. It was impossible to obtain gentlemen more fitted for the discharge of those duties, and the undertaking given when the Act was before the House last Session had been strictly adhered to—namely, that all the officers should be taken over who were competent to discharge the duties. He trusted that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the answer he had given him. He would only add that he would take care, before the Report was brought up, to obtain all the information that was requisite to explain those matters which had been referred to by the hon. Member, and which he was not at present informed upon.
§ MR. CALLANcomplained that no explanation had been given by the Attorney General for Ireland of the extraordinary and scandalous job which had been perpetrated in the Office of the Chief Secretary, by which advertisements relating to voluntary agreements were published for the information of the Irish people, in order to induce other people to come in and make similar agreements. It appeared that these advertisements were excluded from every Irish paper, and published in the Edinburgh Scotsman and London Times. He had travelled a good deal through Ireland, and though he constantly met with the London Times, for The Times circulated everywhere, even in Ireland, he had never yet seen a Scotsman except in four places—the Belfast, Londonderry, Dublin, and Cork Chambers of Commerce. The only other place it could be met with was in the country house of some Scotch merchant, who, having settled in the North of Ireland, like the proverbial Scotchman, never attempted to return to his own country. With these exceptions, he would undertake to say that not a single copy of the Scotsman was to be found in Ireland. The whole transaction in regard to these advertisements was a deliberate and infamous job intended as a bribe to secure their support to the Irish Administration. He wished to ask 87 whether anyone connected with the Irish Office was prepared to get up and say that the Government were not responsible for the transaction, but that it was a job perpetrated by some junior clerk, who probably received a discount upon the order?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Committee had heard his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) address a number of very pertinent questions to the Treasury, and he thought they would agree that the answer which had been elicited from the right hon. and learned Attorney General was not a very satisfactory one. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman evidently believed himself that that was so, because he had intimated that he would obtain the desired information and communicate it to the House upon the Report, or, in the event of being unable to do so, that the Chief Secretary would answer the questions. But the House was informed early in the evening that the Chief Secretary would not be in his place until Tuesday, and he presumed that it was proposed to take the Report of the Supply voted to-night on Monday. At any rate, that was the usual course, and it would only be reasonable for the Government to agree not to take the Report of the Votes taken in Supply that night until the return of the Chief Secretary, in order that the information which had been promised might be duly afforded. In looking over the Vote, the first thing that struck him was that there was in in Ireland a very different system with regard to the appointment of Civil servants from that which obtained in this country. Over and over again had been pointed out the very great waste of public money which took place in this country in consequence of the system of pensioning a large number of Civil servants, in the prime of life, who were certain to draw their pensions for a considerable number of years. Some years ago there was a Bill passed through the House of Commons and assented to "elsewhere," which in due course became law, which dealt with certain officers in the War Office and Board of Admiralty. That Act abolished a large number of persons in the War Office and the Admiralty, and he must say that he knew nothing more indefensible than the provisions of the Act. It squandered an 88 enormous sum of money in the shape of pensions, and cast out of the Civil Service a large number of persons who were perfectly capable of continuing the work in which they were engaged. These men were now entirely lost to the country, so far as their services were concerned, but they were likely to continue to draw their pensions for a considerable number of years. The ultimate reduction of public expenditure by the passing of the Act to which he referred would, he believed, prove in the end to be no reduction at all, but, on the contrary, he believed it would be found that the change had entailed a considerable increase. Whenever it was found necessary to incur an expense of this kind, when once the alteration of an establishment was decided upon, there seemed to be an insuperable objection on the part of the Treasury to utilize the services of the men whose services were got rid of in one Department, by employing them in some other Government Office. But, if these men had been employed in the public establishments in Ireland, they would have been provided with fresh bertha for the period during which they might still be able to render effective service, and in this way there would be a considerable reduction of expense to the public. In Ireland it was the practice, wherever it was possible to provide a fresh berth for a Civil servant whose period of employment was drawing to a close to do so. According to the first page of the present Vote, it appeared that a Secretary had been appointed at a salary of £1,000; but a foot-note stated that—
The Secretary is at present in receipt of a salary at the rate of £200 a-year as Secretary to a Temporary Commission on Inland Navigation in Ireland.That Commission was now drawing to an end, and accordingly another appointment was found for this gentleman. There was also a foot-note in regard to the Accountant, who also received a salary of £1,000 a-year. The note said—This officer is entitled under the Superannuation Act, 1859, and the Irish Church Act, 1869, Amendment Act, 1872, to a pension of £533 6s. 8d., £300 of which, in respect of services in the Office of Wood and Forests, is in abeyance as long as he holds his present employment.Consequently, that gentleman was not 89 left to the full enjoyment of his pension, as would be the case in this country, but he was provided with a fresh berth, so that some of the money was saved to the Exchequer. The same thing appeared to be carried out on the next page. The Agency Clerk (Land Sales) received a salary of £400 a-year, and this officer had been holding a temporary appointment at £250 a-year to the 1st of February, 1882. That gentleman, having left one appointment, was at once provided with another; and the same was to be said of one of the second-class clerks, who had since July, 1881, been in the receipt of a salary at the rate of £50 a-year, as clerk to a Temporary Commission on Inland Navigation in Ireland, but this payment would altogether cease before the 1st of April, 1882, He had no objection to this system, because it enabled the Government to save the public money by the utilization of the services of persons who had previously been employed in other offices, and he thought it was a system which might very well be extended to the Civil servants of this country. There was an opportunity of doing so at present, which he would respectfully press upon the attention of the Government—namely, in the matter of the Customs clerks who were about to be disestablished in large numbers, and who would only be too grateful if they were treated in the same way as the Civil servants in Ireland. There was another question which he desired to put to the noble Lord, a question peculiarly affecting the Treasury administration, and which he was entirely unable to reconcile with the ideas he had obtained from service in a similar Government Department. It was with reference to the officer he had mentioned before, the accountant, who, according to the foot-note he had quoted, appeared to be entitled to a superannuation allowance of £533 6s. 8d. per annum, £300 of which was in abeyance, in consequence of holding the position he did. But the other £233 a-year he still continued to draw, although it was a superannuation allowance in connection with the Irish Church Commission. They allowed the accountant to draw that £233 a-year; but he found upon the next page of the Estimates the case of an officer who was entitled to an annuity of £360 a-year under the Church Pro- 90 perty Act, and which sum would remain in abeyance while he held his present appointment. He asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why two opposite systems were pursued with regard to the officers to whom he had referred, one of whom was allowed to draw his pension during his appointment under the Land Act, and the other not allowed to do so? And, again, if the officer commuted his pension under the Church Property Act, would he be allowed to draw the full salary put down in the Vote?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Treasury were always anxious to avoid the waste incurred by pensioning men in the prime of life; and, as far as possible, it was the practice to utilize the services of men on pension. He had been almost tempted to wish that the hon. Member who had just spoken had not been retired from the War Office at so early an age; and he could assure him that he entirely agreed in the opinion he had expressed that clerks should continue to be employed while their services were of use to the public. The hon. Member would observe that the Government had endeavoured to prevent claims for pensions arising in connection with this Commission. They wished it to be understood that no one by his appointment earned the right to a pension, and it was distinctly stated in the Estimates that the service was a temporary one. The accountant to whom the hon. Member had referred was an especially experienced officer, and they had been glad to be in a position to avail themselves of his services in establishing this very important office. The general rule was that officers should not draw pensions whilst they were in receipt of salaries; but if there were occasionally cases in which the rule was not followed, it was owing to special circumstances which gave a right to the pension.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he failed to see where the money paid by the tenants for notices, copies of rules, and other documents was taken credit for in the Accounts. The office of Solicitor to the Land Commission having been resigned, he asked how it was, if the office was of the importance attributed to it, that it had remained vacant for three or four weeks, and when it was probable that it 91 would be filled up? He would suggest that the Estimate should be postponed until Irish Members had an opportunity of passing in review the qualifications of the gentleman who might be appointed. They had the greatest confidence in Mr. Fottrell; they regarded him as worthy of the confidence of the Irish tenantry, and were naturally anxious that his successor should be equally popular. He thought the noble Lord would see that it was only right that they should have some knowledge conveyed to them as to the gentleman who was to be appointed to the office. The Committee would have observed that the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) had a Notice on the Paper, which he thought might be very well applied and carried out with respect to Ireland. The noble Lord proposed to call attention to the circumstances attending the issue of a treatise, entitled Free Trade versus Fair Trade, by T. H. Farrer, and to move—
That this House is of opinion that it is undesirable that permanent officials in the Public Service should publish works of a political and controversial character in their official capacity, and under the authority of the Parliamentary head of their Department.If officials in England were not precluded from publishing works of the kind indicated in the Notice of Motion given by the noble Lord, how was it, he asked, that Mr. Dennis Godley had issued a Circular, ordering, in the most decisive terms, every member of the Land Commission in Ireland not to write in any review, magazine, or public paper of any description whatsoever? An hon. Friend near him suggested coercion as the reason. They had, undoubtedly, had enough of that; but, whatever might be the reason, he ventured to say that, in his opinion, when a person received a salary for the performance of certain duties, his time should be fully occupied with those duties, and, therefore, he was inclined to support the Motion of the noble Lord when it came before the House. But why was Mr. Dennis Godley to lay down this law to the members of the Commission, while Mr. Farrer was allowed to give directions upon the question of Free Trade? If a gagging law was necessary at all, he contended that it should be applied equally to England and Ireland.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford was probably aware that, in order to exercise a strict control over the Accounts for the Public Service, receipts were chiefly paid by stamps, which was the case with regard to the originating notices paid for by the tenants in connection with the Land Commission. With reference to the office of Solicitor to the Land Commission, he agreed that it was important to fill up that appointment; but hon. Members would agree that it was still more so that the best possible selection should be made. He thought, therefore, the Committee would not be inclined to grudge the delay of a few weeks which was rendered necessary by the endeavour to obtain the best man available. As it was not competent to him to discuss questions upon the Notice Paper, he was not able to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Wexford in connection with the Motion of the noble Lord, to which the hon. Member had referred.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he desired to call attention to a communication addressed by the Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, requiring a question to be put to Mr. Fottrell with reference to certain communications to the Press, which led to the retirement of that gentleman—a question which Mr. Fottrell would not have answered had it been put to him personally by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He wished to understand whether the Commissioners were independent judicial officers, or if they were under the control of the Executive? Were they bound to put questions to their officers, which placed the latter in a position to state to the public that those questions were evidently put unwillingly, and in obedience to dictation? He appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who could not be expected to have any sympathy with the political views of Mr., Fottrell, to say whether it was not a fact that the appointment of that gentleman to the office of Solicitor to the Land Commission was regarded with great satisfaction in Ireland because of his well-known professional qualifications, his activity and zeal, as well as his anxiety for the promotion of land reform in a proper manner. It was 93 quite possible, and he did not deny, that in doing that which had led to his retirement, Mr. Fottrell had been guilty of an excess of zeal, which in the case of Government officials was sometimes a serious offence. But Mr. Fottrell had been punished by the Commissioners, acting, as in all probability they did, under the direct orders of the Government. If not, it was something very near it; and he had been obliged to resign his position because of what, at the utmost, could be deemed an excess of zeal. He could not have been actuated by personal feeling of any kind, because, unlike most solicitors to Commissioners, he was paid a fixed salary, and if he took the ordinary view entertained by officials so placed, the less he had to do the better he would be pleased. There had been elicited from him by means of a question of a compulsory character, to which he did not feel at liberty to refuse to reply, an acknowledgment that he was the person responsible for certain articles, the publication of which led to his resignation. He (Mr. Gray) did not wish, because, as he thought, Mr. Fottrell had been punished with severity and even injustice, that other persons should be punished likewise; but there could be no doubt that, while the entire punishment in this case had fallen upon the shoulders of Mr. Fottrell, there were others equally responsible, the only difference in their case being that they held very different political opinions, and were, in fact, well known to be strong Conservatives. It was for Party purposes, and, as he believed, in order to discredit the Land Commission, that the Conservative Party, both in that House and in "another place," originated a very violent personal attack against Mr. Fottrell, while they allowed another responsible officer to escape; and he was very glad that he had done so, because had he not so escaped, there would have been a double injustice in dismissing him also. But from this it would be seen how the political opinions of individuals altered cases. In the face of the action of Mr. Farrer in publishing a treatise on Free Trade, he did not think that any act had been done by Mr. Fottrell which could be construed into a justification for his compulsory retirement or dismissal. He was undoubtedly the author of certain articles which were subsequently published in 94 the form of a pamphlet by the proprietors of The Freeman's Journal, and the real and honest purpose of which was the promotion of what were known as the Bright Clauses of the Land Act. The intention was to circulate information in an easily accessible form. Mr. Fottrell did not propose that the articles should be re-published, and although they were published by the Land Commissioners, it was not at his instigation. Copies of the pamphlet were sent to him, and that was the way in which he became acquainted with the fact of their publication. Numbers of landlords and other persons having applied to him for information on the subject, and he having given them copies of the pamphlet, which, no doubt, contained suggestions that ought not to have been endorsed by the Land Commissioners, and satisfaction having been expressed at the technical information conveyed by the publication in clear and popular language, Mr. Fottrell suggested to the Secretary to the Commission that it would be a convenient thing, not to re-publish, but to procure a number of the pamphlets and circulate them. Now, if that had been done, he did not think the suggestion of Mr. Fottrell would have constituted so grievous an offence as would have justified the punishment which had been visited upon him. But a London Department, acting upon the red-tape system, entered into a calculation; without Mr. Fottrell's knowledge of the business in any way, the Stationery Department were requisitioned by Mr. Godley to procure a number of the pamphlets, not endorsed by the Land Commissioners, but those issued by an independent establishment, for which no one was responsible; that Department calculated that by appropriating the copyright, so to speak, they could save 2½d. a copy, and they proceeded to save it by re-publishing the pamphlets through the Queen's Printer. The mistake was that they were issued with the apparant sanction of the Government through the Queen's Printer's office in Dublin, and that really constituted the gravamen of the charge. The point was that they were, in fact, Government documents. For all this Mr. Fottrell had no kind of responsibility. If it was the business of any person to look to it, the entire responsibility must be divided between the Secretary to the 95 Land Commissioners and the Stationery Office; the Solicitor to the Commissioners had nothing to do with it whatsoever. But because of his supposed connection with the Irish Land League; because of the assertion, which although frequently contradicted, had been still more frequently reiterated, that Mr. Fottrell had been at one time solicitor to the Land League, and had been acting generally for the Land League; because of the well-known fact that he entertained very advanced opinions on the Land Question, and was most anxious that the Bright Clauses should operate, the whole violence of the Conservative attack fell upon Mr. Fottrell. That attack was, however, not directed against him. It was directed against the Land Commission. The Conservatives concentrated their forces; the Government yielded to the attack, deserted the Land Commission, and pressed upon them the dismissal of Mr. Fottrell, while the Commissioners, showing even greater weakness, yielded in their turn, and made Mr. Fottrell the scapegoat. He believed that no hon. Member would rise in his place and say that the Commissioners had not experienced a serious loss in depriving themselves of the services of Mr. Fottrell, and they would doubless have to wait more than the few weeks indicated by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury before they met with another gentleman of equal zeal and ability to supply his place. Certainly, he did not think, now that the business was over, that they had any reason for congratulating themselves with reference to the course they had taken or the way they had treated Mr. Fottrell in this transaction.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)pointed out that the Act provided that the Land Commission might from time to time, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, appoint or remove a solicitor. The appointment was sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant; but the responsibility with regard to it rested entirely with the Land Commissioners, who were an independent and judicial body. As to Mr. Fottrell's competency for the office of Solicitor to the Commissioners, he was appointed by them after careful inquiry, and was furnished by no less a person than the Lord Chancellor under the late Administration with 96 the highest testimonial. Therefore, having that agreement on all sides as to his competency, no one could doubt it. When the letters were re-published in pamphlet form, Mr. Fottrell found the pamphlets useful in the Office, because they gave practical information as to the working of the Bright Clauses, and they were given by him to a few persons who made inquiry on that subject. Mr. Fottrell's own account was, that assuming it would be useful, he suggested that the Secretary to the Commissioners should get the pamphlets purchased and issued under the authority of the Commission. Mr. Godley, the Secretary, not looking into the matter at once with the amount of care that he ought to have bestowed upon it, acted on impulse and sanctioned the issue of them under the authority of the Land Commissioners, and having done so he did not communicate the fact to the Land Commission, which was, he believed, at Belfast at the time. The question then arose which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), and it was found that it would be a matter of cheaper and easier printing if the pamphlet was re-printed and published through the Queen's Printer's office. It was always the fact that after an event everybody was very wise. The Secretary was reprimanded in strong terms by the Commissioners; but, at the same time, they did not think that the part he had taken in the matter required his removal, and, of course, the House must trust a judicial body in the exercise of its judicial functions. There was just one other matter to which he wished to refer. It had been suggested that Mr. Fottrell was a gentleman of Liberal opinions, and that the other official was not visited with dismissal because he was a Conservative. That was the first time he had ever heard that Mr. Godley's opinions were Conservative; his opinions were, as he (the Attorney General for Ireland) believed, pronounced Liberal. But, however this might be, political considerations had nothing what-ever to do with the matter.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that what he had meant to say was that the offence, if an offence had been committed, was not one which ought to have been dealt with in the way it had been dealt with. Was there any doubt in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attor- 97 ney General for Ireland that the Land Commission, if left to themselves, would have been desirous to retain the services of Mr. Fottrell? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not referred to one point that had been raised. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the appointments rested solely with the Commissioners. Why, a fortnight before the appointment the applicants were over in London seeking the interest, not of the Commissioners, but of the Government. That was a notorious fact; and, indeed, had not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoken of the appointment of Mr. Fottrell as if it was made by him? The Commissioners nominally had the appointment, but in reality it rested with the Government, as everybody knew. If the Commissioners were so totally independent and acted solely on their own responsibility, he wished to know why the Chief Secretary ordered that the question should be put to Mr. Fottrell so that he should criminate himself? Did the Attorney General for Ireland justify that action on the part of the Chief Secretary?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was no or order, anything tantamount to an order. The matter became one of public notoriety and public investigation. The pamphlet was issued with the Royal Arms upon it and involved the Government; it contained distinctly objectionable matter. Accordingly, the Government had no alternative but through their recognized channel the Chief Secretary, who was practically at the head of the Irish Executive, to request the Judges to make an investigation in the matter, as he apprehended would have been done in a like case in England or elsewhere. If the Judges had declined to do so, he did not see what power the Chief Secretary would have had to compel them; but, at the same time, if he were a Judge himself—not that he was at all likely to be—[A laugh]—he would withdraw that remark, as the House appeared to wish it, and would say that he was sure if hon. Gentlemen could put themselves in the position of the Judges they would feel that, in a case of such public notoriety, inquiry was necessary. The hon. Member (Mr. Gray) said that the Judges had acted unwillingly. No doubt they had, and 98 there was no wonder they should. He supposed there was no one who did an unpleasant thing willingly; but, still, sometimes he must do it. The Judges did make the inquiry, with the result already stated.
§ MR. A. MOOREsaid, it would be very satisfactory, before they passed from the consideration of this Vote, if some precise and definite information could be given as to what steps were being taken in connection with the Purchase Clauses. After a good deal of trouble it had been elicited that the operation of the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1870 had been for years practically stopped; and he would now like to know what steps were being taken in respect to the matter, and what support the Land Commission was giving for the purpose of carrying those clauses into effect? The powers given to the Land Commission were threefold—first, to advance money to tenants to purchase their holdings; secondly, to purchase whole estates with the object of re-selling them; and, thirdly, they were empowered to negotiate between landlord and tenant with the view of facilitating the transition of land from the hand of one class to the other. It was a matter of notoriety that at the present time there was an enormous amount of land passing into the Land Court; but Judge Flanagan, in the exercise of a wise discretion, was holding back a large amount of Irish land. Now, if a proper organization were set on foot it was quite possible the wishes of the Legislature might be carried out more rapidly than at present. He believed there was a large number of estates that Judge Flanagan was unwilling to sell, simply because he could not do justice to the owners, the mortgagees, or to any of the persons interested. The other day he noticed from a report of the proceedings of the Court that Judge Flanagan was compelled to sell property at 50 per cent under the price he had been offered for it 12 months previously, and that the Judge said—
I have done my best to hold back this property for a certain time, but I suppose the 'massacre of the innocents' must at length begin.["Hear!"] He did not see that the selling of a man's property for half its value, entailing, as it would do in some cases, a large amount of trouble and 99 positive ruin upon those concerned, was a matter for rejoicing, It would be satisfactory to the Committee, considering that the real and true and highest hope of the country rested in the proper development of the Purchase Clauses, to know what steps were being taken by the Land Commission towards the development and working of those clauses.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member seemed to consider the interference of the British Treasury in the matter unreasonable. He seemed to forget that it was provided by the Act that properties should be purchased from Irish landlords by the Commission only when it could be done without loss. The hon. Gentleman said that at the present time no one could be induced to give a reasonable price for the properties; and what he wanted was that the British Treasury should come forward and give a price which no one else would give for them. [Mr. A. MOORE: No, no.] The hon. Member might say "No, no;" but he certainly wished the Treasury to buy lands at a fair price at a time when he himself asserted properties were being sold for half their value. He (Sir George Campbell) had always considered that the Land Act contemplated the purchase of lands only where there was a reasonable prospect of its being done without loss. If the Treasury were to give prices for land that no one else would give, it was evident the taxpayers of Great Britain must be prepared to put their hands in their pockets.
THE CHAIRMANI would remind the Committee that we are travelling away from the subject in discussing the general working of the Land Act. I understand the hon. Member for Colonel to ask what staff is included in these Estimates for carrying into effect the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act? That is quite within the scope of the Vote; but a general discussion of the Land Act is clearly beyond it.
§ MR. A. MOOREsaid, he never suggested, even in the most distant manner, that the British Treasury should do anything of the kind supposed by the hon. Baronet. If the hon. Gentleman had made himself better acquainted with the clauses of the Act he did so much to assist to pass, he would have understood his (Mr. Moore's) remarks. There was a fixed sum placed at the disposal of the Commission, and the responsibility 100 rested on them to invest that sum wisely. When land was at a depression of 50 per cent, he should not think the time at all inopportune for purchase.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that by the Land Act all powers with respect to the Purchase Clauses were transferred to the Land Commission from the Board of Works, and the first step taken by the Commission in the matter was to appoint a chief agent. They thought they could not do better than appoint the agent to whose exertions, according to universal admission, the success of the sales under the Bright Clauses was due. The duty of this agent was to promote, as far as possible, the successful working of the clauses.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, at the commencement of the discussion he alluded to what he conceived the great importance of the appointment of valuators. Mr. Gray had been appointed valuator for one year. If Mr. Gray was to be head valuator to the Land Commission, if he was to advise them and had to make reports on which they would act, one year was no tenure for him to hold by. It was absurd to expect to get the services of highly-trained and competent valuators if they could be shunted at the end of a year. Valuators would prefer to go about from Commission to Commission giving evidence, sometimes for the landlords and sometimes for the tenant, than to act as a kind of Judge-valuator for one year only. It struck him that at present the arrangements in this respect were anything but satisfactory. The other matter to which he called attention, and on which his apprehensions had not been relieved by explanation, was the appointment of assistant valuators.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought two had been appointed.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would like to know who they were. He had heard of the proposed appointment of Mr. Murphy—a gentleman he never saw, but whom he understood was a gentleman of great ability. He had heard it distinctly stated that the Land Commissioners were very desirous to obtain the services of Mr. Murphy, and that he was willing to serve if he should be paid at the rate at which Mr. Gray was paid, or at some other reasonable figure. It was 101 said that the Treasury, however, refused to sanction the payment, and the consequence was the valuable services of Mr. Murphy were lost to the Land Commission. He had said on public platforms, and he would now say in the House itself, that if this was the fact it was a gross public scandal. It was of the greatest importance to know who were the assistant valuators, and it was legitimate to inquire what the Government intended to do in reference to the tenure of these gentlemen. There were 36 of such gentlemen, upon whom very great and important duties were imposed by the Act. Twelve of them had a tenure of seven years—that was, they had a tenure as long as two of the Chief Commissioners themselves. The other 24 gentlemen had only a tenure of 12 months, and he would like to know under what Rule this tenure was regulated? He understood that the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners should be for seven years, and that the salary of the legal one should be £1,000, and of the non-legal one £750. He should like to know, then, under which of the Rules it was that the tenure of the last 24 appointed had been cut down to 12 months? He would also like to know whether the Government, at the end of the 12 months, intended to give more stability to the tenure of the 24 assistant valuators, and free them from the great uncertainty which surrounded their appointment, and which, from every point of view, deprived them of the semblance of independence? He was anxious to give every independence that could be given to the Assistant Commissioners, so that they should feel free and independent when they were giving their decisions. He was entitled to ask if it was intended by the Government, at the end of the first 12 months' tenure, to re-appoint the Assistant Commissioners for another term of 12 months only? He would be glad to know when it was intended to lay the Rules of the Land Commission on the Table of the House? And he would like to know, bearing in mind the statements that were made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary when the Land Act was passing through Parliament, when they were to have the statements laid on the Table of the House as to the tenure and qualification, and names, and other particulars of the Assistant Com- 102 missioners? When the Land Bill was in Committee, they were distinctly told that they need not wait for the Annual Report for such information, for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government stated, in answer to his (Mr. Gibson's) criticisms, that they would anticipate the Annual Report by a short statement, which would at once be laid before Parliament, indicating the names, qualifications, tenure, and other particulars of the Assistant Commissioners. That had not been done up to the present, and he did not think any further delay should be permitted. There was another matter to which he would invite the attention of the noble Lord. There was a large sum set down in the Estimate for travelling expenses—£9,400. He would like some explanation of that item. Were these travelling and personal expenses for the administration of the Act by the Assistant Commissioners; were the Assistant Commissioners paid lodging money and travelling expenses, and had they to make a Report of their travelling? These facts were important, with regard to the visits they paid the farms and other matters which were open to legitimate criticism. He did not wish to go into minute details and matters of small moment, but it was important that some explanation should be given as to how the amount given in the Estimate was made up. Hon. Members should be informed how much was for the lodging and how much for travelling, and what the travelling was? Was it travelling from town to town, or was it travelling to make the inspection, and, if so, how much was put down for inspection? He would say nothing about "incidental expenses," as he supposed, in connection with a matter of such, magnitude as this that they would have to be incurred; but there was another item he would like some explanation upon, and this would be the last he would refer to. In the matter of "Survey and Valuation," he was struck by the smallness of the figure—£200. He should like to know what valuation cost that very small sum; and he should like also to be informed whether the surveys and valuations were made by the chief valuer or other valuers, or by the surveyors; and whether the surveys and valuations were made for the purpose of fixing the rents by the Assistant Com- 103 missioners? He should like, in connection with this, to know whether there were any canons of valuation laid down for the guidance of the valuators who were employed by the Assistant Commissioners? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had drawn attention, in a Return he had asked for, to the fact that when the late Sir Richard Griffith made his great valuation of Ireland, he deemed it necessary—as it was obviously necessary—to give minute details indicating the general principles which should guide the valuators in making their valuations, and these documents were often appealed to. The Committee had a right now to ask what instructions were given to the valuators employed to make the surveys and valuations, both by the Assistant Commissioners and the Chief Commissioners. Did they merely turn the valuators loose on the farms, and tell them to make such valuations as they thought fit in their discretion, or did they give them some indications as to the general principles on which they were to proceed? It might be that the noble Lord was not in a position just now to answer this question; but he (Mr. Gibson) would be glad if at some time some explanation were given to the Committee on the point.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that with regard to the Valuators, as he had already stated, he could not speak with certainty as to the terms on which they were appointed. This, however, he could say, that the terms of the appointments were satisfactory to the gentlemen selected, and that these gentlemen were considered by the Chief Commissioners perfectly qualified to perform the functions of their offices. [Mr. GIBSON: What is their tenure?] The terms sanctioned by the Treasury were such as to secure the appointment of men well qualified for the work. The next Question put to him was with regard to the Rules of the Land Commission. They had been laid on the Table, and he had no doubt would be very shortly circulated. With respect to the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners, it was at first contemplated to make the appointments for seven years. These was a great number of cases entered for hearing; but it was not certain whether applications to the Court would continue to be made in large 104 numbers for more than a limited period; therefore it was thought undesirable to appoint gentlemen for a number of years when, at the expiration of the first year, they might be absolutely unemployed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) asked what would be the tenure of these gentlemen at the expiration of the first year? Well, as to that, the Government would be better able to judge when the 12 months expired. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat his Question at the end of the first year. With regard to travelling and expenses, speaking from recollection, he believed there was so much allowed for fares, and so much for day and night expenses—£1 or £1 1s.—and the actual travelling expenses. This amounted to a large sum; but when they remembered the number of Assistant Commissioners at work, they would not be surprised at its magnitude. As to the amount for surveys and valuations, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was surprised that it was so small; but one reason was that the Ordnance Survey did what was required free of charge. The Valuation Department also rendered great service to the Land Commission in supplying information as to the Government valuation. The charge made in the Estimate was for copying some of the valuations received from the Valuation Department. This Sub-head did not, he thought, include any expenses connected with the valuations.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe noble Lord has omitted to answer one or two questions put to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The right hon. and learned Gentleman insisted, first of all, upon the necessity of indicating some of the principles of valuation which are to guide the valuers. He referred to very important principles laid down by Sir Richard Griffith when the valuation of Ireland was undertaken by him many years ago. The Committee have not, however, heard what the principles are which are to guide the valuators in discharging the duties they have undertaken. It has not even been stated whether any principles have been indicated. I will not now enter into the question that stands for consideration by the House next Tuesday; but I assume, as a matter of fact, that 105 it is quite impossible that the Government can have intrusted the duty of valuing property without having, in some degree, indicated to the officers who were to carry out the valuation the principles on which they were to proceed. [Mr. GLADSTONE: The Government have no authority.] The right hon. Gentleman says the Government have no authority. Well, it appears to me impossible to conceive that those who are intrusted by the Government with the carrying out of this important measure—this great Act, which is practically to revolutionize the principles on which the ownership of property rests in Ireland—can have trusted to the Sub-Commissioners to value the property of Ireland without having given some directions to them as to the principles on which they are to administer the Act and discharge their duty. I assume that some principles were laid down for their guidance, and that they were not, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, told to undertake the duty without any indication or suggestion whatever being made to them as to the principles to be followed. There was another point to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. He said there was a distinct undertaking on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the names and qualifications, and tenure, and salaries of the officers should be communicated to Parliament immediately on its re-assembling. That was an undertaking as explicit as it is possible for an undertaking to be; but, so far as I know, it has not been carried out. I remember myself rising in my place and putting to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the great importance, the absolute importance, of assuring not only Parliament, but the country, that the officers who were to administer the Act should be officers in whom the most complete confidence could be placed; and that in order to assure Parliament that confidence could be placed in them, it was absolutely essential that their qualification for the office to which they were appointed should be made known as soon as it was possible to make it known. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) said it was not necessary to introduce into the Act a clause to compel the Government to make known the qualifications of the Sub-Commissioners, 106 for, of course, the Government would do it immediately Parliament assembled. We all thought it would be done; but I am afraid the information required has not been given. Then, I regard the matter of tenure to be a very great thing. My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) has alluded to the fact that the tenure is very short. I should be reluctant to place on the public funds any charge in the slightest degree in excess of that which they should bear; but in a matter of this kind, which concerns the peace, good order, and well-being of the country—and the well-being of the country for a much longer time than we can venture to think of at the present moment—it is of the highest importance that the tenure of office of the Sub-Commissioners should be one that will secure confidence in the administration of justice by those who have to administer it. It appears to me a matter of deep importance that the officers who have to decide the future of the country for many years to come should have a tenure of office other than one simply at pleasure.
MR. GLADSTONEI think the right hon. Gentleman hardly intends to complain that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, on a sudden emergency of this kind, to have appointed 36 gentlemen to administer the Act for a term of seven years. I do not suppose he intends to go that length; but, if he does, I entirely differ with him. It seems to me that would have been a most improper course. I can believe it is the duty of the Government to give the best assurances they can—according to the knowledge they have—as to tenure. The original appointments that were made may be termed experimental appointments; but I deny that they were appointments simply during pleasure. They were experimental, and necessarily so from the nature of the case, for it is one of the difficulties in an Act of this kind—under which there are judicial functions to be performed, novel in their character and uncertain—that you cannot secure the advantages of a suitable, regular, equal, and working system, but must endeavour to have a system and method which is elastic, and adapt your judicial means to the work to be done. We have had the disadvantage of working a short period and with out knowing exactly what was necessary to be done; but the arrangements that have been made were 107 such as seemed necessary as matters stood, and I do not think there would be any advantage at the present moment in altering them. The best tiling we can do is to wait a few months, and we shall then know a great deal more than we know at present, both with regard to the amount of work to be done and the rate at which it has to be done. We shall be anxious to give all the information we can, and to take the best measures we can for meeting the various demands of the case in the course of the present Session. As to the question of the rate at which the work is to be done, the House probably was surprised last night to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland set forth the remarkable acceleration of the business in the Courts during the month of February, as compared with the rate of progress during the preceding months, although there had been no lack of diligence on the part of the Assistant Commissioners. At first operations were slow, owing to the difficulty attending initial stages with regard to machinery and rules. Another point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) was the engagement of Her Majesty's Government to produce an account with respect to the Sub-Commissioners to be appointed. It is quite true it was stated that it would not be necessary to wait for the conclusion of the year's operations; but it is no part of my duty to look to the redemption of that engagement. I am quite sure the Chief Secretary, if he were here, would be able to give a better account than I can. If there should by an accident, in the midst of an immense amount of work and number of engagements, have been a remissness in this matter, we will look into it and endeavour to give the information desired at the earliest possible time.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI am glad to hear what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to an account of the Sub-Commissioners. The House expected, when this Act was passed last year, that the Chief Commissioners themselves would, at the commencement, have gone into the different localities in Ireland, and written the line at the head of the copy-book, so to speak—have laid down some sort of rule for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners. I very much regret that they did not do so. We 108 trusted these gentlemen. The Bill would never have been allowed to pass if the names of the Chief Commissioners had not met with the approval of the House and been put into it. These gentlemen, I contend, should themselves have visited the different Provinces and counties in order to show what their interpretation of the Act was. There was one part of the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) to which the Prime Minister has not accorded an answer, and that was whether, in the absence of personal visits to the localities by the Chief Commissioners, there were not some general principles laid down by them and communicated to the Sub-Commissioners? That is what we especially want to know. These gentlemen were trusted with the execution of this Act on the faith of their great name and standing in the country. If they had gone round themselves and given a sort of plea as to the meaning of the Act, and as to how different cases were to be dealt with, the state of the ease would have been very different; but they did not do that, and therefore one may say that the putting of this Act into operation was handed over to the Sub-Commissioners. What we want to know, therefore, is, when these Sub-Commissioners were appointed?—I will not say what instructions were given them, because they would not be instructions, but what general principles were laid down for their guidance? An hon. Member the other night said that, whether you take Ireland by Provinces or counties, you find pretty much the same line of policy followed by the Sub-Commissioners—whoever they are—whether they are those who were first appointed or those who were appointed last. He went further, and said something which struck me very much. He declared—
It has not been denied, although it has been frequently pointed out, that whether the farms are highly rack-rented or not rack-rented, the reductions are pretty much the same. The Sub-Commissioners do not seem to he guided by the extent of rack-renting, but they have made a general reduction of something like 25 per cent.I do not know whether that is so or not. ["No, no!"] Well, that is a point upon which I want information. All I say is that that was an accusation made by an hon. Member who spoke the other 109 night, and it has never teen denied by any Member of the Government up to the present time.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHThere has been a Return on the subject.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSNo answer has been given to that speech since it was made. We want to hear something from the Government on this matter, which, however, is only incidental to the question I am putting, and which the Committee is entitled, I think, to have answered. Were any general principles laid down for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners who were to be appointed; and if the Attorney General for Ireland will be good enough to state that to the Committee? I will ask him further, if that is so, what are the general principles so laid down, and were the instructions to the Assistant Commissioners communicated in writing or not? That is a very plain question, to which, I hope, we shall have a very plain answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Before I sit down I would add a query which has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and which deserves great consideration—namely, what is the tenure of the last-appointed Commissioners? I quite agree with the Prime Minister that in an ordinary case it would not have been well to saddle the country for five or seven years with a charge for a flood of officers who would not be required after 12 or 18 months. But in a case of this kind, where you have 570,000 people who may have recourse to the Court, you must have known, if your Act was to succeed at all, you would have a great many applications, and that it was not at all improbable that for the first two or three years the Sub-Commissioners would have a great amount of labour to perform. The fact of paying a few thousands a year more out of the Exchequer was really an absolute trifle compared with what was really the main object we wanted to establish by this Act of Parliament. We wanted to establish this—that those who were to have the administration of the Act should be absolutely independent. It would have been better to have paid five or six or seven years' salary to these Sub-Commissioners, rather than have left them 110 uncertain of a renewal of their appointment at the end of the first year.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government had no authority, and, therefore, could not possibly give any instructions or directions either to the Land Commission, or Assistant Commissioners, or valuers. The 43rd section of the Statute provided that the Land Commission might delegate to any Sub-Commission such of the powers by the Act conferred upon the Land Commission as they thought expedient, and might from time to time revoke, alter, or modify any of the powers so delegated to the Sub-Commission. That delegation, whatever it was, he apprehended was an instruction. In reply to the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), today he had given an undertaking to lay on the Table a copy of the delegation; therefore, so far as that was concerned, the House would see what those instructions were. Beyond that Her Majesty's Government could not go. If the Committee wanted any other instructions given to the Sub-Commissioners by the Land Commission, application must be made to the Land Commission, because the Government knew nothing at all about it. ["Oh, oh!"] Probably there were hon. Members present who thought it was the duty of the Government to control and supervise the Land Commission. He confessed he was not of that opinion. It was the duty of the Land Commission to discharge their own functions independently, and it was not the duty of the Government to interfere with them in the discharge of those functions. The next point to which reference was made was the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners. The tenure of the first who were appointed was according to the Rules laid on the Table of the House, and dated 1st October last. The Statute directed that the persons appointed should have the prescribed qualifications and hold office for the prescribed times. The Rules of October accordingly prescribed for the Assistant Commissioners appointed under them the term of seven years. In reply also to the right hon. Member for King's Lynn, he had stated that the subsequent appointments made since the 9th of November, 1881, were made pursuant to a further Rule, which 111 was also laid on the Table to be printed. He had asked for it whilst this discussion had been going on, but had been unable to obtain it. It had been laid on the Table, but had not yet been printed; he apprehended that it would necessarily be printed as a public document. But the Assistant Commissioners appointed under that Rule of November held office for one year certain. As to the reduction of rents, of course, to strike an average all round gave no conclusion of any value whatever; but anyone who looked at the Returns furnished would find that in some cases there had been no alteration in the rents, whilst in others some had been reduced and others had been only triflingly raised. He had not provided himself with the figures, because he had not anticipated that the point would crop up. There were some cases where the reductions were slight, in others where they were considerable; in fact, the reductions made varied from 2 or 3 per cent to 50 per cent. The rent was, and must be, fixed having regard to the circumstances of each case. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the large amount of business to be disposed of, the large number of persons who might be expected to go into Court, and the large number who, in point of fact, had already served originating notices, made it appear that some means to make the administration of the Act more rapid were required. He, however, did not think the facts already presented would of necessity justify that suggestion, for the Return which the Solicitor General for Ireland had quoted from last night showed that nearly half the amount had been arranged out of Court; and the longer the Act was in work the more smoothly it might be expected to work, and the more numerous, he apprehended, would be the cases amicably settled out of Court. As an illustration of this, he would mention that he had received a letter to-day from the South of Ireland, near Bandon, in which this statement was made—
The valuator, who was culled on the part of the landlord, was employed on the part of the landlord to value the estate. He went over and valued it. The tenants appointed their valuator by agreement, and the tenants' valuator valued the estate also independently of the landlord's valuator.The estate appeared to be a considerable one. Before the valuators entered upon 112 their valuation they appointed an arbitrator, and the writer of the letter (Mr. Hooper) said—I and the tenants' valuator sat down, and in three hours we had arranged the entire estate, with 10 exceptions, which the umpire disposed of.He did not see why that desirable course should not go on largely in Ireland. The longer the Act was in work the less friction there would be in its working, the nearer landlords and tenants would come together and settle the points by mutual arrangement, as was a common practice before the Act was passed.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to know whether any principles had been laid down for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners and valuators; and whether there would be any objection to a Return, containing such principles, being presented'?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied, that he thought it would be better to inquire in the first instance. The Prime Minister had no information on that subject at present; but, of course, an inquiry could be made.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make an inquiry and answer the question in a day or two.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMinquired when the Return from which the Solicitor General for Ireland had quoted would be laid on the Table? He did not think it quite fair to those who had to make observations on these points that a Return should again be sprung upon them. He also wished to know whether it was not a matter of fact that in the Returns which had been published the vast majority of cases had shown reductions of between '20 and 30 percent, and that the next figure was between 30 and 40 per cent? Those were the results of such analysis as he had been able to make of the Returns presented. He further inquired whether it did not appear that on the date of those Returns the cases settled out of Court had been only 60?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could only say in answer that the Return from which he had quoted had been previously laid on the Table. It had not then been printed, but he had a manuscript copy of it. With regard to the reductions— 113 in the Province of Connaught, where they were largest, the average reduction was 28.60 per cent, and in the Province of Leinster, where they were the least, the average was 21.5 per cent.
§ SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSexplained, that what he had alluded to in his question was any instructions or principles that might have been laid down by the Chief Commissioners. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had stated that he would inquire upon that; but this very question had been down on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for more than a week. Surely the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Attorney General for Ireland, or the Solicitor General for Ireland, ought to have been able to answer a simple question, of which Notice had been given more than a week ago, by this time.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)I can only plead guilty to not having done what, perhaps, I ought to have done, in consequence of the pressure of the proper business of my own Department.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMagain asked when the Return from which the Solicitor General for Ireland had quoted would be in the hands of Members? It was no answer to his question to say that it had been laid on the Table, or that copies of it were in the possession of the Government. It ought also to have been in the hands of Members, in order that they might be in a position to answer the figures it contained.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was a difficult thing to say when the printer would have the Return printed; and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might think, it was impossible for the Government to state that positively. All they could do was to lay the Return on the Table; the printer was not under their direction.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, a good deal had been heard of the printer last Session, when it happened that he was not able to produce Papers in time for them to be made use of. He (Mr. Sexton) had carefully studied the Returns—as the right hon. Gentleman had invited Members to do—he did not say as to particular Provinces, or in particular districts, or well-off parts of the country, where the tenants were comparatively 114 well able to live, or where the improvements were of slight value, or where they were several times the value of the fee-simple. But he had found that throughout the average reduction was about 25 per cent, and that the Sub-Commissioners had kept over Griffith's valuation. He was quite unable to understand how this universally identical result had been arrived at. The Prime Minister had dropped an observation with regard to a statement made by the Solicitor General for Ireland last night, and he appeared to desire to lead the Committee to the conclusion that the rate of speed shown by the Sub-Commissioners in arriving at their decisions had very much increased; and he conveyed the idea to the Committee that there had been considerable improvement in that respect. Now, the cases decided up to the end of January numbered 1,300; the number in February 1,000. But how did the Solicitor General for Ireland proceed? By taking credit to the Sub-Commissioners for the cases settled out of Court. Why had these cases been settled out of Court? The fact that they had been settled out of Court was the most damning and fatal fact against the Sub-Commissioners. The tenants, seeing the hopelessness of seeking to obtain judicial decisions for months and, perhaps, years, were in many parts accepting any terms the landlords chose to offer. The Sub-Commissioners had shown fatal facility in too many cases in making vexatious and needless decisions. The Attorney General for Ireland said these cases would become more numerous. No doubt they would. The more the conviction was forced home on the minds of the tenants that they need not hope for an early settlement, the more completely would they be at the mercy of the landlords. And why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman leave out of view the fact that most of these tenants were two or three years in arrear? If, in such a case, there was no chance of a decision for two or three years, would not the landlord, under throat of eviction to recover the arrears, impose any terms on the tenant? These settlements out of Court were direct testimony to the inefficiency of the Land Act. A thousand cases were heard in February; that was an increase, but, even so, it was only 12,000 cases a-year, and it would take six years to deal with the cases awaiting 115 hearing. And, further, whatever had been gained in speed had been lost in public utility, for the discontent with the decisions had grown during February. The indication by the Prime Minister that the reductions would be lower in future had produced an immediate effect on the Sub-Commissioners; and although, of course, the Sub-Commissioners were independent judicial officers, there were many ways—by a postscript to a letter or a speech in the House of Commons—by which judicial independence might be at least sapped, if not overthrown. The Government were so in love with their Act——
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot, under a Vote for the Officers of the Land Commission, discuss the general principles of the Act.
§ MR. SEXTON, continuing, said, the Sub-Commissioners in Armagh, which was in Ulster, had recently valued an estate belonging to Mr. Francis William Pope, and their decision had given such grave dissatisfaction that the hon. Member for the county (Mr. Richardson) had felt it his duty to send a valuator over the estate after the decision had been given, and that valuator had arrived at the same conclusion as the tenant's valuator. And a most remarkable scene was witnessed a few weeks ago in that locality. During the popularity of the Act which they thought was to be their one salvation and hope, the tenants gave a singular proof of that popularity by publicly burning two of the Armagh Sub-Commissioners in effigy; and the newspaper report stated that the burning of the effigies was carried out with the utmost enthusiasm by the farmers of that district, and also that they adopted a resolution asking for the dismissal of the Sub-Commissioners. These were proofs of popularity to which he (Mr. Sexton) would have a very strong objection if he had been concerned in the production of the Land Act. The Attorney General for Ireland had quoted an Irish proverb—that "the best goaler is always on the ditch." There was at this moment a curious official illustration of that proverb. The Chief Secretary was supposed to know more about the work before the Commissioners than anyone else; but where was he? It was his business to be in the House to answer important Questions rather than to be away on the ditches in Clare, 116 making speeches to a small army of police and soldiers.
§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, it was perfectly true that he had from time received letters, finding fault with the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, from tenants who had considered the reductions made in their cases too low. He had also been asked from time to time to take part in meetings to find fault with the Sub-Commissioners' decisions; but he had uniformly declined to do so, believing that, as a Member of that House, it was not his business to sit in judgment upon the Sub-Commissioners. He had not thought any the less of the Land Act because of these complaints; his belief was that, so long as the Sub-Commissioners satisfied neither party, they could not be very far from right. With regard to the burning of the Sub-Commissioners in effigy, he had heard nothing of it. [Mr. SEXTON: It was reported in the newspapers.] He had not seen the report. It might have happened, for in some parts of Ireland effigies were sometimes burned. He believed that the late Lord Beaconsfield had been burned in effigy; and he knew the present Prime Minister had been; and he himself had been burned in effigy on the back of the Prime Minister. They were not, however, burned in effigy by supporters of the Liberal Party, or of the Party whom the hon. Members opposite (the Home Rule Members) wished to represent, but by the supporters of the Opposition.
§ MR. A. MOOREsaid, he thought it extraordinary that hon. Members should rise at this moment to complain of the slowness of the Sub-Commissioners. What amazed him was the forgetfulness into which hon. Members fell from time to time. Was the Committee aware that the whole of Tipperary was at this moment covered with placards, signed by Mr. Egan, telling the tenants not to pay rent and not to go into Court? Yet the Sub-Commissioners were to bear the blame of delay, while the whole force of the Land League organization was being directed against not only paying rent, but going into Court. When the Commissioners went to his town (Clonmel), not a tenant ventured to go into Court, for the word had gone forth that it would not be safe to do so. A number of tenants were most anxious to accept the most generous offer of their land- 117 lords to pay 75 per cent of rent down, and leave 25 per cent unpaid. Nothing could have been fairer; but when the tenants were prepared with their cases to go before the Court, shots were fired into their houses. In the case of one man, a bullet was fired into his house, and struck his daughter on the back, though happily without inflicting any serious wound. And in the yard the man found a notice on the wall to this effect—"No rent; no Court. Moonlight will call again." That was the reason why the tenants did not go into Court, and the Act had not worked more rapidly; and, until these outrages were put down, the Act could not possibly work well.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, it was evident that the abstention of tenants, either because of intimidation or for other reasons, from going into Court had nothing to do with the rate at which the Court could deal with the cases submitted to it. The two matters were totally distinct. He wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland for an explanation on one or two points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that it was not the duty of the Government to interfere with the functions conferred on the Chief Commissioners by Parliament in reference to the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners, and had pointed to a section of the Act vesting the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners in the Chief Commissioners, and not in the Government. He wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman adhered to that statement?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had already promised to further inquire into that matter, and to lay the copy of the delegation to the Sub-Commissioners on the Table.
§ MR. GRAYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had tried to get from the Government a statement as to whether they would be in a position to lay on the Table a Return of the grounds or principles upon which any instructions they had given to the Sub-Commissioners had been based, and of the principles upon which valuations were to be conducted. He was rather inclined to fear that, even if the Government were disposed to grant such a statement, they would probably 118 be told by the Commissioners that they had not a copy of such instructions. It was a very remarkable fact that while important statements were usually made with care and deliberation, and copies were kept, yet in the case of the Land Commissioners copies of statements were not accessible at all. The right hon. Gentleman probably knew to what he was alluding, as he had placed a Motion on the Paper in reference to the matter. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had explained the small amount in the Estimate on account of valuations by the fact that the Government Valuation Office had placed at the disposal of the Commissioners copies of their maps. It appeared to him that the business would have been simplified if the Sub-Commissioners had availed themselves of the valuations as well as the maps. All the travelling expenses would have been saved, and the same results arrived at. In regard to the case of Mr. Fottrell, the Attorney General had said that when any action had been committed for which the Government were more or less responsible, they were entitled to ask the Department concerned to make an investigation. No one contested that assertion for a moment, and no one could question the propriety of the letter of the Chief Secretary on that matter, which had been laid on the Table. But the letter to which he (Mr. Gray) had alluded was not the printed letter, but a private letter. Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there was a private letter from the Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Judge O'Hagan, requesting him to ask Mr. Fottrell whether he was the author of certain articles which appeared in the newspapers? He could inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was such a letter, and the Chief Secretary had acknowledged that in a postscript to that letter he suggested that that question should be put to Mr. Fottrell. And Mr. Fottrell, in the published letter, had stated that the Commissioners, in accordance with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary, but with reluctance, had put a question which it was evident they would not have asked unless compelled. Did the Government justify that action, and would they lay the letter containing that postcript on the Table? That was 119 the letter he had referred to, and not the ordinary published letter requiring an investigation which was perfectly natural.
§ MR. CALLANcomplained that although the Solicitor General for Ireland had spoken twice, and the Attorney General for Ireland several times, neither of them had given any information respecting what he called a scandalous job—the advertisement of certain material facts which were to be brought to the knowledge of the Irish tenantry. That advertisement was inserted in The Scotsman newspaper, a paper which had for the last twelve months vilified the character of the Irish people, and in which, day after day, the Irish Members were attacked in its London letter in a manner only worthy of contempt. He contended that it was a gross act of bribery to a Scotch newspaper which did not circulate in Ireland, and he should like to know for what reason the bribe was given. It could not be for giving information to the Irish people, and it could only be given in the shape of a pecuniary bribe to a Scotch newspaper. He wished to know if the advertisements were sent out to the newspapers from the office of the Land Commissioners or from the Office of the Irish Government? If no answer were vouchsafed to the question he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £750.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had already stated that he would inquire into the matter and undertake to furnish the House with particulars.
§ MR. CALLANsaid the answer quite satisfied him. He saw that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so thoroughly ashamed of the transaction that he would not admit for a moment that the advertisements had been sent out from the Office of the Irish Government.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was not surprised to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not been able to reply to the queries put to him. The moment the name of Mr. Fottrell was mentioned the right hon. Gentleman the Premier gave a groan; but if he wished to see the Estimates passed quickly, that was not the way to succeed in his object. They were quite able to understand what these groans meant; but although the 120 clôture was under discussion, the Government had not yet succeeded in passing it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that as long as the Irish Members considered any question worth debating they would debate it in spite of the groaning of the Prime Minister and of the whole Treasury Bench in chorus. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it was true that the tenants were obliged to describe the position and name of their farm according to the way in which they appeared upon the maps of the Ordnance Survey? He was not quite sure whether this requirement appeared on the face of the originating notice itself, but he believed that it did. They had heard a good deal that night as to the Ordnance Survey maps, and he was sure that a good many people in Ireland were prejudiced against them, and he would tell the Committee why. He understood that the nomenclature, as it appeared on these maps, was one for which a well-known Irish scholar—the late John O'Donovan—was, to a great extent, responsible; but, nevertheless, it was a fact that many of the names which appeared on the maps of the Ordnance Survey were names which were not known to the Irish people at all. The result was that they compelled the persons who paid 1s. for an originating notice to go 15 or 20 miles in order to obtain an Ordnance Survey map, or else to incur the expense of purchasing one, in order to satisfy the Commissioners, when it did not signify a button what they called the farm so long as it was capable of being identified. He wanted to know what reason or necessity there was for these vexatious requirements, and whether the Commissioners themselves would be supplied with the maps of the Ordnance Survey? As soon as an opportunity was afforded it was his intention to call the attention of the House to these extra requirements. He should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, as he was so delicate about interfering with the judicial action of the Commissioners, he considered it part of his functions, or that of any other right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, to ask the Chief Commissioners or the Sub-Commissioners whether, instead of enforcing this extra requirement, it would not be sufficient 121 for the tenant to describe his farm, the number of acres upon it, the name of the landlord, and the name by which the the farm was ordinarily known? He could not understand why this extra requirement was attached to the originating notice, because, some 40 years ago, some person connected with the valuation thought fit to lay down a name for a particular farm, which might as well have been given in Arabic or Hindostanee, as it was not recognized generally.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought it was hardly necessary to answer the question. This was certainly the first time he had ever heard any complaint upon the subject. He had not seen any complaint in any of the Irish newspapers, nor had he heard of any from any professional man. As to the accuracy of the maps of the Ordnance Survey, he entirely differed from the hon. Member. It was a matter in which Ireland was far in advance of England. England was only beginning to follow in her wake. The whole of the proceedings of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, ever since the institution of that tribunal, had been based upon the Ordnance Survey. All the sales were verified by the Ordnance map, and there was not a person in Ireland interested in the sale of land who did not possess an Ordnance map of the locality with which he was connected. There were copies of it to be obtained in any library or public institution.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was no difficulty whatever in obtaining a copy of the Ordnance Survey, and this was the first time he had ever heard any objection raised to the accuracy of the Ordnance maps.
§ In reply to Mr. GRAY,
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had never heard anything, either good, bad, or indifferent, in regard to [...] letter in the Fottrell correspondence, [...]which the hon. Member had referred. [...]ad not seen the letter it was [...]le that he could answer the [...]
§ MR. GRAYremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman represented the Chief Secretary in the absence of that right hon. Gentleman, and he was, therefore, the only person the Irish Members could appeal to for information.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to put a Question to the right hon. and learned Attorney General in reference to this Vote in regard to the appointment of clerks. He was told that the Commissioners had represented that they would appoint clerks by competitive examination, and, accordingly, a number of persons made application to pass an examination, so that they might have a chance of securing some of the appointments. But before the time expired at which the examination was to take place, the greater part, if not the whole, of the appointments had been filled up by clerks who had passed no examination whatever. He only knew one clerk who had been appointed to a post under the Land Commission after undergoing an examination. He did happen to know one, and he was given to believe that the individual in question was the only one. It seemed to him that the course taken by the Commissioners in this respect was most objectionable, and he should be glad to learn if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position to give any information upon the subject?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he believed that some of the clerks had been taken over from the Church Temporalities Office, and it was not necessary that they should be required to undergo an examination. All the other clerks who were selected in order to start the Office were nominated and subjected to examination. Since the first appointments were made, all the clerks appointed in future would be placed on the same footing as the clerks in other Public Departments, and would only be appointed after competitive examination. It was possible that some of the clerks appointed in the first instance were brought up in batches; but they were all subjected to the same kind of examination, and all those appointed would in future be subjected to competition.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to make a remark in reference to the Fottrell Correspondence. He desired to 123 inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when the Chief Secretary read the celebrated postscript to the Correspondence, he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to lay a copy of the entire Correspondence upon the Table. Indeed, he had moved for it on Tuesday last, and accordingly the House would soon be placed in possession of this historical postscript.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that the explanation which had been given with regard to Mr. Fottrell was highly unsatisfactory. [A laugh.] It might be very amusing to some hon. Members; but the Irish Members considered it a very serious matter for the Government to appoint a decent man to a position and then to get rid of him. If they appointed him at all they should keep him. The explanation given on behalf of the Government was so unsatisfactory that he felt it his duty to move, by way of protest, the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000. Up to the present moment he had not said a word on the subject of Mr. Fottrell; but if Mr. Fottrell had had the slightest connection with the Land League he (Mr. Sexton) would have known it. The League had one or two solicitors, and so far as the Irish Bar were concerned the Land League were the best employers that Bar had during last summer. He had been personally concerned in employing 10 or 12 barristers every week, but with Mr. Fottrell he had had no connection at all. Mr. Fottrell was simply employed in connection with the purchase of The United Ireland newspaper; and, although he (Mr. Sexton) had the direction of the affairs of the Land League for some time, he never knew anything of that gentleman. It appeared that the only fault Mr. Fottrell had committed was a fault of excessive zeal in endeavouring to bring into operation the only part of the Land Act from which the least good could be expected. It was an evil lesson when honourable, high-minded men were driven out of the service of the Government, and when, upon the other hand, the son of Judge Fitzgerald, who had made himself a most useful agent of the Government in the pursuit of their policy of coercion, was singled out for favour and advancement. He intended to protest in every way he could against the cowardly and unfair treatment to which this high- 124 minded gentleman—Mr. Fottrell—had been subjected, and he would therefore move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £33,919, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ MR. GIVANonly desired to say one word at this advanced stage of the discussion. He regretted the course which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had taken in delaying the passing of the Vote. At the same time, he hoped he might be permitted to say that no one had ever imputed to Mr. Fottrell anything beyond the exercise of over zeal in the discharge of his duty. He had had frequent opportunities of seeing Mr. Fottrell since his appointment as Solicitor to the Land Commission, and he had never known a gentleman who was more devoted to the discharge of his duties, or had been more anxious to carry out the intentions of the Act of Parliament, and especially of the Bright Clauses, to which he was much attached. He did not think the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was necessary as a protest against the removal of Mr. Fottrell. He did not think it necessary at all that the course which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down proposed should be taken, because, in every circumstance in which reference had been made to the matter, the universal opinion had been—and it was the opinion he entertained himself in the strongest degree—that Mr. Fottrell had discharged his duties with efficiency. He was a gentleman of the very highest character, and the only fault he had been guilty of in connection with the whole matter was simply over zeal in the discharge of his duties.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 130: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 34.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.