HC Deb 02 November 1882 vol 274 cc631-48
MR. HEALY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the manner in which Sub-Commissioners address applicants under the Land Act from the Bench, especially when attempting to prove their improvements; whether he has seen the report a few days ago from Kilrea, County Derry Sub-Commission, where a tenant on the estate of the Rev. Godfrey D. Greene, giving evidence as to his improvements, was interrupted by the Chairman; whether Mr. Roper has been appointed Sub-Commissioner for a year certain; and, if it is intended to continue his services? The hon. Member stated that the manuscript Question which he had handed in at the Table had been so altered by the authorities of the House as to be now quite unintelligible.

MR. TREVELYAN

There is but one definite charge made in the Question of the hon. Member, and that is against Mr. Roper, the Legal Assistant Commissioner on the Londonderry Circuit. The only information I have as yet received on the matter is contained in a telegram from Mr. Roper from Limavady, which is as follows:— I never interrupt any tenant in giving evidence; did not interrupt Mr. Green's tenant; he was heard fully; made no complaint. With regard to Mr. Roper's tenure of office, his appointment dates from the 14th of September last and expires on the 13th of April. I cannot answer any inquiry as to whether the services of any Sub-Commissioner will be continued after his appointment expires.

MR. HEALY

gave Notice that on Monday he would ask the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Commissioner Roper used those words— Mr. Commissioner Roper: You are only telling us you did these things? Witness: Yes. Mr. Commissioner Roper; That does not cost much.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now reading a passage which, under my authority, was struck out from the Question.

MR. HEALY

I am giving Notice that on Monday I will ask this Question. May I ask you, Sir, whether you will not permit me to put that Question?

MR. SPEAKER

If the Question is in the terms which have already been deleted by mo, I could not, of course, allow it to be put.

MR. HEALY

begged to say that he would conclude his remarks with a Motion. A week ago he had put a Notice upon the Paper containing a short extract from a newspaper, which he understood was subsequently struck out under the Speaker's authority. He was informed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he was unable to answer his Question in consequence of the striking out of this particular portion of it. Ho informed him that upon Monday next he would read an extract from that newspaper, and he would now read it— Mr. Commissioner Roper: You are only telling us you did these things? Witness: Yes. Mr. Commissioner Roper: That does not cost much. The witness was then proceeding to say that he had made some minor improvements, and to state what the cost of these improvements was, when Mr. Commissioner Roper: Do you charge for boots and shoes going over the farm? Witness: No. Mr. Commissioner Roper: Why don't you? What about the spades and shovels? His (Mr. Healy's) object was to show the people of Ireland the sort of consideration the Irish tenants were getting from the English Courts Parliament had set up to assess rents between landlord and tenant. This was in the North of Ireland, a part said to have been hitherto exceedingly loyal, and where the people set great store upon their Ulster Custom and upon the question of improvements, so much so that the Government, before the Session was over, would have to give some day for the discussion of improvements. He desired to bring before the House the fact that when a tenant was giving evidence with regard to his improvements he was stopped in a sneering and jeering manner By one of the Gladstonian Courts, and asked why he did not give the cost of the boots and shoes he had worn over the farm, and why he did not charge for spades and shovels. If, in his discretion, the Speaker excluded every Question that was asked, there could be no relief whatever against his authority; but he failed to see on what ground that authority was established. If they took an extract from a newspaper which was supposed to be against the grain of the ruling authority in the House, that extract was not allowed to appear upon the Paper; but if they put forward certain other extracts, or if the Conservative Party—for instance, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham)—put Questions upon the Paper notoriously containing matter of debate, many of them involving serious questions of argument, they were told by the highest authority in the House that the hon. Member put them down upon his own authority. The hon. Member could exercise his own authority; but the Home Rulers below the Gangway could exercise no authority whatever. The grievance about putting Questions in the House had, in his opinion, grown into a scandal. They had three gentlemen at the Table, who had the control of such matters, and who knew full well that the Speaker would back them up in whatever they did. ["Oh! oh!"] That, at least, had been his experience, and he did not desire to extend his observations further.

MR. SPEAKER

The course taken by the hon. Member is, in my opinion, most irregular. He was informed by me that the form in which he proposed to put his Question was out of Order; and, in order to put himself in Order, he rises to move the adjournment of the House. In the course of his observations he does not address himself to the Question under consideration; but he attacks the authorities of the House. If the hon. Member intends to attack the authorities of the House, he should do so by a direct Motion.

MR. HEALY

said, that he had hitherto understood that the Speaker had always found it difficult to rule what observations were out of Order on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House; but as he had now ruled that he could not attack the authorities of the House, he should not proceed further with his remarks in that direction. He was referring to the way in which Irish tenants had been treated in these Sub-Commission Courts; and he trusted that they would have some assurance from the Government that if remarks like those he had quoted were used by landlord partizans, they, at least, would not countenance them. It was impossible for them to let the Government know what was the language used by those persons, because it was struck out the moment they put it on the Paper; and, therefore, they were completely shut out from bringing it to the notice of the Government, except by taking a course like the present. He had to tell the Government that there was in the North of Ireland a growing feeling of disgust at the character of the appointments that were being made. They were appointing under the Land Act a number of gentlemen drawn wholly from the landlord class. He would not enter into the question of religion; but when, out of 17 valuators, there was but one Catholic, it was evident that they were drawn from the territorial or ascendency class. That being so, how could they expect the people to have confidence in the administration of the Land Act? It was only the other day that a most respected clergyman of the Catholic Church, a gentleman well known to the Prime Minister, who, in the teeth of the "no rent" manifesto, had advised the tenants of Ireland to go into the Land Courts, wrote a public letter to The Freeman's Journal, stating that he regretted ever giving such a recommendation. He said that the Land Act was a sham and a failure, and he told the tenants that he repented of his meddlesome interference, and regretted that he had not allowed them to be swayed by the advice given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). When clergymen of that kind, who had hitherto supported the Land Act, now repudiated it, how could they expect its administration to command the confidence of the Irish people? In the county of Down when the Act was passed they actually lit a bonfire to celebrate the event. If they lit a bonfire now, it would be to burn the Act. As he said before, the Irish Members were stopped from bringing the grievances of the tenants before the House in a regular manner, and that was his excuse for moving the adjournment of the House, which he now did.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Healy.)

MR. TREVELYAN

regretted exceedingly that the hon. Member had brought on this discussion, because it touched a question concerning the interests both of landlords and tenants which was most delicate and important, and which required to be handled with very great care and deliberation. It was a question on which he certainly was unwilling to say one word unless he was able to say many, and to be in a position perfectly to understand a matter which was now in a condition that required to be approached with very great care. The hon. Member was, no doubt, perfectly correct when he said that there was a great deal of anxiety and apprehension in the North of Ireland with respect to the recent appointments of valuators; but he would be more correct if he said that there had been a still stronger apprehension and anxiety, but that that apprehension and anxiety was at the present moment diminishing. In what he intended to say he wished it to be understood that nothing he stated should be taken to imply any intention on the part of the Government. He did not intend to enter into the question of the appointment of the valuators, or the views of the Government in relation thereto; but he would say this much, at all events—a great deal had been written and a great deal had been said on platforms of the nature of that repeated by the hon. Member tonight—criticisms of a very severe character upon the individual opinions and individual antecedents of these gentlemen. The Government were not responsible for these appointments. The Government, through the Treasury, acquiesced in the appointment of these valuers; but the responsibility for the appointments rested absolutely with the Land Commission. The Government were not bound to defend them. It was, however, needless to say that anyone who shared to some extent the responsibility for the state of Ireland at the present moment would be bound very carefully to examine into these appointments; and he was bound to say that the more they examined into the appointments of these gentlemen the more they were convinced that the real cause of the apprehension with which the tenants regarded them was that they were called valuators, and that these gentlemen belonged to the same class from whom the Government drew the Sub-Commissioners. He believed also that both the Sub-Commissioners and valuators were, as a class, men in whom landlords and tenants ought to repose confidence. The motives of the Government for making the change were three—First, they wished to diminish the number of appeals by giving confidence; secondly, they wished to quicken the progress of business in the Land Courts; and, thirdly, they wished that the complaints made about the rapidity with which farms were examined should be obviated. With regard to two of these points—the diminution in the number of appeals and the rapidity of the progress of the Land Courts—it was too early yet to form an opinion; but one important object had, he thought, been obtained, and that was that the farms were now examined much more carefully than before. That was a very great gain; and he was glad to think that, while the examination had been made much more carefully than before, it was made by a class of men who as nearly as possible were of the same class as those gentlemen who were appointed with so much care—and he might say successful care—by his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He had tried in what he had now said to avoid raising any controversial question; but he thought it was impossible to let the observations of the hon. Member with regard to these gentlemen pass without a word of reply from their only spokesman in that House.

MR. LEWIS

remarked, that it might be convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman now answered a Question which he had on the Paper—namely, Whether, having regard to the statement he made to the Liberal and tenant deputation who waited on him on the 3rd of October, it was the intention of the Government to interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the Irish Land Commissioners as to the continuance of the Court valuers after the expiry of their three months' appointment, which would terminate at the end of November? It was most unfortunate that in the short speech he addressed to the House the right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself; for this he said—and said loudly—that the Government had nothing to do with these appointments, which were made by the Land Courts. In a few sentences afterwards he spoke of them as being made with certain objects by the Government.

MR. TREVELYAN

I said that the Government, as a matter of policy, sanctioned the appointment of these valuators; but that the personal appointments rested entirely with the Land Commissioners.

MR. LEWIS

accepted the right hon. Gentleman's explanation; but that did not do away with the effect of the point he was raising—namely, what was the position of the Government with regard to the appointment of Court valuers? He quite understood that the consent of the Treasury was necessary in order to fix the remuneration of the Court valuers; but the Government had taken a totally different tone out of the House to that which they had taken in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, when a deputation waited on him on the 3rd of October last, referred especially to these valuers being on their probation, and intimated that on the result of that probation it depended whether the Government would renew their appointments. Now, he wished to know if the Government did not intend to interfere with the judicial exercise of the discretion of the Land Commissioners, why did they give it to be understood that the renewal of these appointments would depend upon the conduct of the valuers, upon the reductions they made, and whether those reductions were satisfactory to the general body of tenants? The result seemed to be that, although the Government were not primarily responsible for these appointments, and although, he supposed, they would deny that they exercised any influence upon the functions of the Land Commissioners, they intended to interfere by withholding the salaries of the valuers at the end of three months. He asked, on behalf of the landowning class in Ireland, what was the position of the Government? Were the valuers to be left with this threat hanging over their heads, that in three months, if their conduct had been unsatisfactory to the tenants, they were to be dismissed—that they were to be judged, not by the fairness of their evidence as between landlord and tenant, but by the amount of satisfaction which, they must give to a number of greedy tenants, who wanted reductions of 30 per cent instead of 20? He trusted the House would not allow this extra Session of Parliament to go by without understanding what was the programme of the Government with reference to the administration of this Land Act in Ireland, and what was the stand which they took in regard to these valuers. They said they had not appointed them; but did they or did they not intend to interfere with the discretion of the Land Commissioners? At the end of the three months, was it to be said that a man was to be dismissed, or a whole body of those men were to be dismissed, because the tenants in the North of Ireland or in the South of Ireland were dissatisfied with the result? He did not hesitate to say that the greed of the tenant-farming class in Ireland had been excited by the conduct of the Government in this matter, It had been excited by the speech by the right hon. Gentleman, who, in two columns of The Times newspaper, had told a Party deputation who had come to him—because they had bragged that they were supporters of the Government—that at the end of the three months the Government would consider whether these valuers were to be retained or not. And, then, what had the Solicitor General for Ireland done? Why, he had a meeting of his constituents in Coleraine. They passed a resolution demanding the immediate dismissal of these valuers, and then the Solicitor General wrote to them in acknowledgment of this resolution, and said—"I will press upon the Government most earnestly what you ask to be carried out." The right hon. Gentleman had told the deputation that the Government did mean to interfere, that the Government would watch narrowly the result of these appointments, the evidence that the Court valuers gave, the result of their evidence, and the awards that were made, and on the result of that they would take their action; and the Solicitor General had told his constituents, though the Government had been parties to the fixing of the salaries of these valuers, that he would press upon the Government their dismissal. Although he approached the subject from a different point of view from those sitting below the Gangway, yet he was also of opinion that it was necessary for both sides of the House to understand what was to be the position of the land-occupying class with reference to these Court valuers. Were the valuers to be left to exercise their functions fairly and legitimately without the threat hanging over their heads that, unless they satisfied one class only of the community in Ireland, and that the tenant class, they were to be dismissed? Parliament might attempt to settle the Land Question by all these amending Acts; but nothing would settle the question if the Government excited the greed of the tenants in the way they were now doing. Even Ulster had said that the Land Acts were nonsense. Why were they nonsense? Because the Government had been continually giving way, continually conceding; because they had never set their foot down and said—"Now this step shall be final." They had met during this extra Session for the purpose of discussing the Rules of Procedure; but it was impossible to overlook the fact that the Irish Land Question was now no nearer settlement than it was two years ago. There was not the smallest approach to a settlement of it. The Arrears Bill had been received with contempt. ["No, no!"] The proof was clear. How many people had taken advantage of it? The whole system of land legislation in Ireland, in- cluding this very question of the Court valuers, showed that the Government had not even touched the fringe of the Land Question, and because they had not put their foot down and showed anything like a programme which they intended to carry out. Did they not, as a Party professing to be Liberal supporters of the Government, appeal to the Government that they should insist on the dismissal of these Court valuers at the end of three months, simply because their evidence and advice and the consequent awards were not satisfactory to the peasant class? But was ever any arbitrator's opinion satisfactory to both sides interested? Was it to be supposed that because the tenants as a class got a reduction of 3 or 5 per cent less than under the old system that, therefore, the new system was a bad one? It was impossible that the Government could ever settle the Irish Land Question unless they abandoned all shillyshallying, and gave both the occupying and the land-owning classes to understand clearly what their programme really was on these matters, and also that that programme had in it something like finality.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

said, the recent change in the administration of the Land Act in the appointment of valuers had destroyed the confidence of the tenant farmers of Ulster. He ventured to say that when the Returns of the Land Commission were laid on the Table of the House it would be found that, instead of the valuers having facilitated the administration of the Act, they had seriously impeded it; and, from personal knowledge of the county he represented (Tyrone), he could state that the decisions now given under the new system had diminished the settlement of fair rents by from 25 to 33 per cent. He remembered listening last year to the speeches made by noble Lords in "another place"—one noble Lord (Lord Kilmorey) said that the object of that House should be to revolutionize the working of the Land Act in Ireland. The Government had succeeded by their recent action in doing that most effectually. There was no place in Ireland where the Land Act was received more warmly or more thankfully than in Ulster; and he, for one, could only regret, for the sake of the prosperity of Ulster, that the Government had taken this fatal step—a step opposed to the decision of the House and to the expressed views of the Prime Minister himself. He could not understand how the Government gave their consent to such a grave change, especially when it was remembered that the House had disapproved of the appointment of valuers. The question would, be a serious one in the Province of Ulster; and from numerous communications which he had received, it would not surprise him if, before January next, a large number of the tenants of Ulster had withdrawn from the Land Court.

MR. PARNELL

The hon. Member for Tyrone has just given it as his opinion that the appointment of Court valuers has destroyed, the confidence of the people of Ulster in the Land Act of last Session. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member did not go further and say, as he said some time ago at Coleraine, in the North of Ireland, that the confidence of the people of Ulster had been destroyed in this Act, not only on account of its administration, but on account of its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Dublin in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." It must have been evident to everybody that if the question of fixing a fair rent was left to a Court, or to a valuer, the landlord class in Ireland would obtain the greatest amount of representation amongst the men chosen to fix the fair rent. The education and the wealth of Ireland have been in the hands of that class, and hence it must happen that when the Government have to choose their valuers, or their Judges, or their Chairman of a Commission to fix a fair rent, the greatest number must be chosen from the landlord class; and from their sympathy with the landlord class therefore, landlords, other things being equal, must necessarily get the best of the administration of the Act, and I never expected anything else than that the tenants would be disappointed by the administration of the Act. I did, however, expect that at least the grain of advantage that was secured to the tenants by the clause in the Act which is known as "Healy's Clause" would not have been whittled away by the chicanery of the Conservative Judges of the Supreme Court. It is impossible to go into this question now; but it must be evident to the whole House that the question which has been raised by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford, and the other questions imported into the debate by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Dickson), should not be let alone, and that it will be of the utmost importance for the House to have a full opportunity of discussing the administration of the Land Act before the Session of Parliament is prorogued. I feel sure the Government will see the disadvantage of discussing a question of this kind on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House; and that they will also see that, failing a fitting opportunity for its discussion, the question will be continually bubbling and bursting up on awkward and inconvenient occasions, and that debates will arise of an imperfect and unsatisfactory character, leaving the House just as much uninformed as to the true state of things as it was at the beginning; and I therefore hope that before long we may receive the assurance from the Prime Minister that before the Prorogation the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing this most important question.

MR. GIVAN

said, that, as the only Member of Parliament who accompanied the deputation to the Chief Secretary, he wished to say that its object was in no degree to depreciate the benefits of the Land Act, because the people of Ulster had always been thankful for the Act as a measure which had given them stability and removed them above the caprices of the landlords; but it was to point out to the Chief Secretary and to the Government that the appointment of Court valuers was actually retarding the administration of the Act. The professed object of the appointment of the valuers was to keep the legal Commissioners always at work, and to expedite the business of the Commission. It was found, however, that not only were the functions of the valuers badly performed, and of a very unsatisfactory nature, but that in many cases the valuers had no knowledge of the district to which they were appointed. For instance, several men who were sent to Ulster were utterly unacquainted with the Ulster Custom. Their object in going to the Chief Secretary, therefore, was to point out that the personnel of these valuers was objectionable to the Ulster men, because they were unacquainted with the Ulster Custom, and that a system which sent men as valuers to fix a fair rent without hearing the evidence of the tenant as to the improvements made by him could not work satisfactorily. The deputation did not understand the Chief Secretary to say that the valuers were on probation, nor did they understand him to say that the valuers were to be dismissed if at the end of three months the rents were not sufficiently reduced. The Chief Secretary admitted that the object of their appointment was to expedite the business, and said that if it was found at the end of three months that the allegations of the deputation were true—namely, that the existence of the valuers retarded the administration of the Act, he would consider whether it would not be useful and advantageous to change the system. It had been said that the deputation was a Party one; but he denied that they went to the Chief Secretary as a Party deputation. It was a deputation of the tenant farmers of Ulster, of most respectable and influential representative men; and the assurance they received was that if the valuators did not give satisfaction to both landlord and tenant the Government would reconsider their appointment.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was glad that the hon. Member for Wexford had brought the matter under the notice of the House, for he had had frequent complaints made to him of the conduct of members of the Sub-Commission who had been appointed to administer the Land Act in the county of Mayo. The complaint of the hon. Member for Wexford was perfectly parallel to the complaints he had received from his constituents during a recent visit. No question was more important than whether the administration of the Land Act was calculated to defeat the purpose of Parliament. Why had the Act of 1870 failed to bring relief to the tenant farmers of Ireland? Not that that Act did not embrace a large acknowledgment of their rights; but the manner in which it was administered prevented the tenant farmers from getting the benefit that Parliament intended they should receive. He was decidedly of opinion that the administration of the Land Act deserved the serious attention of the Government. They had in Mayo three gentlemen as a Sub-Commission, and this Sub-Commission had not been able to devise any method of transacting business at all so satisfactory and expeditious as the Court constituted by one person—namely, the County Court Judge. He had already put a Question to the Chief Secretary as to whether some arrangement could not be made for the substitution of the County Court for this Sub-Commission? But in reply the right hon. Gentleman had said that this could not be done under the Land Act. In view of that circumstance he was induced to ask if the Government would not give facilities for the introduction of a short measure to amend the Act in that particular? The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), who represented an Irish constituency, had told the House that the policy of the Government was stimulated by the greed of the tenant farmers. Now, the Land Act was not adopted out of respect for any such low feeling. If he understood their object aright, it was this—that Parliament was anxious to secure to the tenant farmers property which the landlord had appropriated as his own; and, considering the great effort which Parliament had made to carry that Act, it was time to ask whether their intentions were to be defeated by the manner in which the Act was being administered? The Chief Secretary entirely failed to notice the principal ground of the hon. Member for Wexford's (Mr. Healy's) complaint—namely, the language attributed to one of these Sub-Commissioners; and he asked him to say what right a Sub-Commissioner had to ask a poor tenant farmer who was struggling against oppression questions like those read to them by the hon. Member for Wexford? He was inclined to believe the charge brought against that Sub-Commissioner by the hon. Member, for he had had unimpeachable evidence of similar charges brought against Land Commissioners elsewhere; and he had also heard complaints on the part of the tenant farmers of Mayo against the manner in which the Sub-Commissioners administered the Act there. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would say these were not frivolous or groundless complaints, but that they were serious complaints, and that the value of the Act was threatened by the way in which it was being administered by partizan Judges; and he hoped and trusted that the result of drawing his attention to the matter in this informal way would be that they would obtain a more substantial kind of justice in the future administration of the Act.

MR. CHARLES BUSSELL

said, the discussion must necessarily be incomplete and irregular, and he trusted the Government would bring it to an end by saying that they would give a day for the discussion of the subject. He did not desire to go into the merits of the matter now; but he felt bound to say that there did exist in a large part of Ireland, not confined to Ulster, a feeling of very great distrust because of the new scheme for the appointment of Court valuers; and a part of the objection which existed was based on the fact that these Court valuers gave their Reports to the Judges or Sub-Commissioners, who were to determine the question of fair rent, and that the parties, landlords and tenants, had no means of examining, criticizing, and cross-examining them as to how they arrived at their conclusions. He hoped the Government would give an early day for the discussion of this matter.

MR. DAWSON

said, before the Government replied to that appeal, he wished to draw attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made a statement which was very discouraging to them in looking to him as the fountain of Irish information in that House. He had remained silent upon the question with reference to the Sub-Commissioner complained of, and the flippant manner in which he was said to have acted towards a poor tenant in Ireland; and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's silence in reference to that gentleman was to be interpreted as giving consent to his conduct. He was very sorry for that silence, and he would tell him and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that the approval of the conduct of any man in his position who outraged the public feeling in Ireland was one of the most fruitful sources of all the disturbances and discontent of which they had had to complain. The surest way to distinction and promotion, and to mount the ladder of political and Governmental favour in Ireland, seemed to be to make themselves exceptionally insulting to the vast majority of the people of the coun- try. He had met the other day a person who exemplified this, and this person told him that he had been decorated; but he owed this to the fact that he had signalized himself by the impetuosity of his violence against the cause of the people.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, he had not the slightest idea of taking up the time of the House in entering upon a discussion of the subject. He only wished to protest against the assertions of hon. Members opposite; and if he did not answer them now, it was not because they could not be answered, but because he did not want to engage in an irregular discussion. It must be apparent, as to the principle of having valuers, that no one who desired justice could oppose it. There might be objections taken to the appointments made, or to the justice of the decisions; but he had not heard of any. None had been specified. As to the principle of having valuers, if the object was to get fair and just decisions, be could not conceive that anyone should object to it. As he pointed out last year, from the nature of the case it was almost impossible to get evidence of the proper kind before the Judicial Court. The evidence of the tenants was said by the Sub-Commissioners to be so absurd that it could not be treated seriously, whilst that of the landlord was said to be partial. It had, in fact, always been a question of valuation; and the only point was whether, if land was to be valued, it should not be done by trained, skilled, and competent valuers—by men who should be above the suspicion of partizanship; and he took it that these appointments had been so made. He was delighted to learn from the remarks of the Chief Secretary, in his recent speech in Dublin, that these appointments had been sanctioned by the Government after mature deliberation; and he had perfect confidence that the Government would not yield to any clamour to make an alteration in this system, which, he conceived, was as much to the advantage of the tenant as the landlord, as tending to limit litigation and assist the administration of the Land Act, and as tending to injure only the class of the community who made money by making costs.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to notice the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), with the express object of putting an end to a conversational debate which could hardly lead to any positive or satisfactory result. He could not, he was afraid, comply with the suggestion, if it was to the effect that he should there and then state that an opportunity would be found for the discussion of this subject, and for this reason—that it was quite obvious that if such an assurance was given a great number of similar questions and demands would arise; and as to the course which he would take, he must have recourse to the general sense of the House with regard to the questions that might be or might not be discussed. What he proposed was, when they came to a conclusion upon the Resolutions of Procedure, upon which they were now engaged, they could then consider what were the matters which should have foremost place in the mind of Parliament, and, considering them together, then decide what opportunities should be given for the discussion of them.

MR. HEALY

asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the reply of the Prime Minister was characterized by what Mr. Matthew Arnold would call "a want of lucidity," as it was still doubtful whether the Irish tenants would have a chance of bringing their grievance to the notice of Parliament. All he could say was that there was a universal outcry against the administration of the Land Act, and he could not exculpate the Government at the expense of the administrators of that measure. The Prime Minister had stated that the result of the Act would not be the very general reduction of rents, and had apparently taken pains to secure the fulfilment of his own prophecy. The administrators of the Act were chosen by the Government, and rents were not being reduced—a fact for which he was unable to blame anyone but the Government.

MR. CALLAN

remarked that, whether justly or unjustly, great dissatisfaction existed in Ireland, and great distrust, because of the appointment of Court valuers. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) had asked if the valuers were chosen by the Land Commissioners on their own responsibility, and whether the Government had inter- fered in the matter, and the Chief Secretary had replied that they were chosen by the Land Commission, and that the Government did not interfere. Now, that answer had led the House and the country to believe that the Land Commission in Dublin was responsible for the policy and personnel of these valuers. Now, he wished to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of removing the misapprehension caused by his answer. Was it the fact that the Land Commission Court was responsible for the appointments? He was informed on the best authority that the policy of the appointment of the Court valuers was adopted at the instigation and suggestion of the Irish Executive. That was a statement which could be met with a decided "Yes" or "No." Was it not a fact, although the Land Act did not require the approval and sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, that before these appointments were submitted to the Treasury the names and all particulars regarding them were submitted by the Land Court Judges to the Irish Executive?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.