§ MR. GIBSONSir, I respectfully ask the permission of the House to move its adjournment for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the conduct of the Government in reference to the appointment of official valuers in Ireland.
§ MR. SPEAKERIs it your pleasure that Mr. Gibson be now heard?
And there being many voices for and against—
§ MR. SPEAKERIs the right hon. Member supported by 40 Members?
Whereupon, a large number of Members—not less than 40—rising in their places—
§ MR. SPEAKERcalled upon the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to proceed.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that he made no apology for pursuing the course which he had adopted in asking the attention of the House to a matter of grave and urgent public importance. He could not take so hopeful a view of the application of the New Rule as was taken by the Government, judging by the reception which he had received from Members opposite, when he was bringing forward, a matter of urgent public importance. Many Members would have heard with surprise that evening—for no Notice had been given—the decision arrived at by the Government on the subject which he was bringing before the House. As the Government had occupied all the time of the House for the consideration of those Rules, unless he had adopted his present course he would have had no opportunity of bringing forward a discussion in which the Government would doubtless be glad to afford an explanation of the course which they had taken, and from which doubtless they would not shrink. The change announced that evening by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was one of great importance. But grave as it was, the reasons announced for the change were even more grave. The Government had resolved that the system of appointing Court valuers, who were to assist the Sub-Commissioners in the exercise of their judicial functions, should be superseded by a perfectly new system, not sanctioned or recommended by the Court which had to administer justice and which was largely influenced, or liable to be influenced, by political considerations. What were the facts of the case? On the 28th of August last, in what the Chief Secretary for Ireland described as a well-considered Memorandum, the Land Commissioners presented, as their deliberate opinion, that 234 it was desirable for the administration of justice that a system of efficient Court valuers should be established. Why was this done? They had been left strangely in the dark. He would like to know why the House, and those interested in this question, could not have the opportunity of reading the official documents of the Irish Land Commissioners, which revealed their views. Were the Government ashamed of those views, or were their reasons for not disclosing them so plain and strong that if the documents were laid upon the Table of the House they would convince the House that no change was desirable? They had a well-considered Report in which the Land Commissioners presented their views, and in which, so lately as October 3, the Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government expressed their views as to these appointments. The Lord Lieutenant had expressed his opinion of the change by stating that the Government had deliberately come to the conclusion that the present system would gain the confidence of both parties more effectually than the system which had previously existed. That was the opinion of the Government in October; but now the Government, keeping back from the House the well-considered opinion of the Irish Land Commission, came down to the House and cast to the winds, as totally unfounded, their own "deliberate opinion" as to the best mode of administering the Irish Land Act. What was the reason suggested for this change? On the 28th of August the Irish Land Commissioners recommended the appointment of official land valuers. That was assented to by the Government in the hope of lessening appeals, of advancing progress, and of obviating the complaints which were made of the decisions of the Land Commissioners, many of whom were accused of scampering over farms almost without looking at them, and not being capable of deciding on the matters submitted to them. One would think, considering the matter from an ordinary standpoint, that official Court valuers, appointed by the central authority, possessing the necessary technical knowledge and experience, would primâ facie insure justice being effectually administered. The conclusion of the Government was arrived at after a twelvemonths' experience of no Court valuers, 235 which showed that independent valuers could not be obtained inasmuch as the ordinary valuers were in the habit of giving evidence for the landlord and the tenant in turn. All the valuers were so open to the charge of prejudice and bias that it was thought better to have independent valuers appointed by the authorities—that was, valuers who would be independent of both parties, so that the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, when assisted by their evidence, would be in a better position to give judgment in favour of the one party or the other. But there was this vice, or, as he preferred to call it, infirmity, underlying the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners—the want of independent judgment; for it was impossible to expect an independent judgment from officials who were only appointed for one year. The superior Judges now held their offices during good behaviour, for the very purpose of giving them an independent position, and yet in the present instance the Government appointed persons to these judicial offices only for a period of 12 months, with all the risks and uncertainties of such a position, and without any sure prospect of re-appointment. In fact, the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated with unmistakable vehemence that if the Sub-Commissioners did not give satisfaction they would not be reappointed. Such a position would make it impossible for them to act with independence. They should possess something like stability of office. If they decided cases in a particular way, and that way did not suit the Government, they would not be re-appointed. And now they found that quasi-judicial appointments were cut down to three months, for the official Court valuers were appointed for three months only with this pernicious result—that they were bound to conform to the wishes of the Government if they expected reappointment; and yet those who were intrusted with the administration of the law had deliberately stated that that was the best way of administering justice. He had nothing to say against these men personally, and he would assume that they were men of character and position; but he maintained that the mere fact of their tenure of office not being fixed was a warning to them to please the powers that 236 were. He thought that a speech that was made upon the subject by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was one of the most unfortunate ever delivered by a man in his high position. He himself never arraigned anyone's speeches without being prepared to support his statements. He commented on the Chief Secretary's statements in a speech delivered by him in Manchester shortly afterwards, which was fully reported in the Irish newspapers. As the right hon. Gentleman had not endeavoured to displace what he (Mr. Gibson) stated on that occasion, he was glad to take the present opportunity of criticizing the right hon. Gentleman's speech. On the 3rd of October last, in the Chief Secretary's room at Dublin Castle, the right hon. Gentleman received a large deputation from the North of Ireland, which, as he himself pointed out, was a one-sided deputation, and contained no representatives of the Conservative or National Parties, or indeed of any other than the Party—the Liberal Party—from whom the Government expected to receive some practical assistance in Ireland. The speakers, all of whom were introduced to the right hon. Gentleman either as the actual pillars of the Liberal cause in Ireland, or as persons who had tried to be such pillars, had expressed the dissatisfaction of their constituents with the working of the system of Court valuers. What was the language of the right hon. Gentleman's reply? He said in effect that if there was any dissatisfaction felt as to the appointment of Court valuers for three months, the Government "would undo the mistake;" those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman; and he gave two illustrations—and only two—to show that the official Court valuers had valued lower than the Assistant Commissioners, and that therefore the alarm of the deputation was not well founded. The moaning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was abundantly plain—that it was fair that the reduction should be on the same scale as that of the Assistant Commissioners, and that the Government would recognize the mistake they had made in the mode of appointing the Court valuers, and would undo that mistake. Such language as that held by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his political partizans had never before been used by the responsible Executive 237 Government in relation to the action of a Judicial Court. His exact words were—
If the tenants feel that they have lost very decidedly by the change, the Government have quite sympathy enough with the tenants to feel that it has taken a step which is injurious to them.Was not the meaning of that language that the official Court valuers were appointed to do justice to one side only? If the official Court valuers were appointed to do impartial justice between all suitors, what did the language of the right hon. Gentleman mean? In plain English it meant that if the valuers dared to value higher than the Assistant Commissioners, even rightly, then, if the tenants were dissatisfied, the Government would sympathize with the tenants and get rid of the valuers. He ventured to think that never was more dangerous or insidious language employed. How could the valuers be expected, after that language, to act fairly when they thus received from those who employed them and paid them, and could dismiss them, notice to quit? Would the Executive Government in Ireland dare to communicate or use that language in any of the Queen's Courts in that country, or would the right hon. Gentleman dare to speak like that in the Court of Queen's Bench or the Court of Exchequer? Did not Parliament intend that the Courts of the Land Commission should be as independent as any of the other Courts in the land? Yet here was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant taking upon himself to say that the Irish Executive would do all those things without the slightest reference to the Court which was bound in its conscience to be satisfied that justice was done. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the accuracy of all the reports made of that speech, and of the astounding statement which he would just read to the House. The Chief Secretary, on the same occasion, said—For the essence—the cardinal point—of the Land Act is the personal inspection of the farms by a part of the tribunal.He (Mr. Gibson) had asserted before, and he would say again, that there was not a single syllable in the Land Act which justified such an assertion. In all the exhaustive speeches of the Prime Minister during the passage of the Land Act there was nothing to indicate any 238 intention that part of the tribunal should view the land, In face of the silence of the Prime Minister on that point and the absence of any such provision in the Land Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary took upon himself to say that personal examination of the land by the tribunal was the essence, the vital point of the Act. The Land Commission was intended by Parliament to be independent of all other Courts, of the Government, and of parties; it was to be a Court of Justice for all suitors. He asked no preference for landlords; he sought no prejudice against tenants; but he did ask that fair and impartial justice that was intended by Parliament and insisted upon by the Prime Minister as the one justification of the Act. Yet now the independent Court of the Irish Land Commission was degraded into a Department of the Government. The Commission was not allowed to mould its own administration as it should think justice required, for they had heard from the Chief Secretary that its views were overborne by those of the Executive Government. The interview of the 3rd of October was one of the most remarkable incidents that had ever happened in the public life of Ireland—a deputation going to an Executive Minister of the Government to suggest how an Act of Parliament should be administered. The Minister accepted the position, and promised to vary that administration if it did not suit the views of his political friends. He (Mr. Gibson) challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say whether from the beginning to the end of his speech there was any suggestion that the Irish Land Commission would have even a consultative voice in the administration. That speech, supplemented by the statement made that day, placed the Irish Land Commission in a position equivocal, to say the least, if not absolutely contemptible. Although the Irish Land Act had vested the administration in them, the right hon. Gentleman had treated them as a mere branch of the Executive Government. He could not but think that some, at all events, of the Land Commissioners might have had the spirit and independence to protest against being treated as Government lackeys. The language of the Chief Secretary on that occasion was to the last degree unfortunate and to be deplored. He was quite confident if the 239 right hon. Gentleman had to deliver that speech again he would make a very different one, for it was open to great danger and criticism. If the right hon. Gentleman had the power to promise that the administration of the Land Act would be varied until it satisfied his political friends, might not this be used as a vast engine of gigantic political corruption? All through this Session Questions had been put to the Chief Secretary on this subject. He would show from his answers the halting and slow but resolute way by which the Government had been advancing to the startling decision by which they had that day surprised the House. On November 2nd the Chief Secretary was questioned in reference to this matter, and he (Mr. Gibson) in reading some quotations would show the House the deliberate, slow, and resolute way by which the Government advanced to the singular procedure by which to-day they surprised the whole House. On the 2nd of November the right hon. Gentleman said that the more he examined into the appointment of the valuators the more he was satisfied with them. He also said that he thought the Sub-Commissioners and the valuers were, as a class, men in whom landlord and tenant might repose confidence, and the examination of farms was being made with much more care than was formerly the case—one of the objects for which the official Court valuers were appointed, and one of the primary objects the Land Commission and the Government itself had in view. Therefore, at that time, they had it in the right hon. Gentleman's own words that the Court's functions were satisfactorily discharged by those whom he now sought to get rid of. On the 13th of November the right hon. Gentleman was pressed by an hon. Member from the North of Ireland as to whether, in consequence of the appointment of Judicial Court valuers, there had been any substantial number of withdrawals of tenants from the Land Court, indicating a want of confidence in them? The Chief Secretary for Ireland replied that the Land Commissioners stated that they were not aware of any withdrawals in consequence of the appointment of the valuers, except at Balbriggan. Up to that time there was no suggestion that these appointments had failed to satisfy the purpose for 240 which they were made. On the 2nd of November the right hon. Gentleman said—"I cannot undertake to say what action the Government will take in December;" but at that period the Government had no reason to be dissatisfied. He (Mr. Gibson) would now ask when was the decision to change and vary this mode of administration arrived at? What was the opinion of the Land Commissioners themselves about this change? From whom did the proposal that there should be a change proceed—from the Land Commision or the Government? And was the correspondence on the subject official and written, or not? There should be no secrecy or hesitation about placing all the circumstances before Parliament. There were now four Land Commissioners—Mr. Justice O'Hagan, Mr. Litton, Mr. Vernon, and Viscount Monck—and they knew that the proposal which suggested the appointment of official Court valuers was the unanimous, well-considered decision of the Commissioners.
§ MR. TREVELYANMay I be allowed to say that they agreed to it, and that it was the opinion of the Land Commission—I was not aware every one of the Commissioners considered it advisable.
§ MR. GIBSONcontended that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he was entitled to assume that the four Commissioners were in favour of it, and the Prime Minister on the 27th October said just as much. He (Mr. Gibson) asserted that the Government were now proceeding against the opinions of the Commissioners. He insisted that the Commissioners were opposed to the change. What justification was there for the case? The right hon. Gentleman had not said that the Court valuers did not value fairly, and did not give satisfaction to their employers. There was no complaint from any Sub-Commission for whom they had valued, and there was no suggestion that the Land Commission had had any occasion to reprove a single one of these valuers. Therefore, the Government were not getting rid of them for valuing unfairly or for fixing unjust rents. They were getting rid of them to silence the clamour of some of their political friends; and they had not one solitary official sentence to support them in their action, 241 nor one Return to justify the change. On the contrary, they had the distinct assurance of the Chief Secretary that the examination of the land had been better conducted after the appointment of the official Court valuers than before. The Chief Secretary said he would not vouch that some of the Land Commissioners were not opposed to the Government plan. The House had a right to a full and frank statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to who were the "some." There should be no secrecy between the Government and Parliament, unless something of which the Government was ashamed would leak out. The Land Commission did not concur in the proposal of the Government, nor desire that the Court valuers should be given up. Did the proposal come from the valuers? Did the proposal come from the Government? If it did, what was the result? That the Executive had deliberately interfered with the administration of justice by what should be an independent Court. The change was not made at the request of the Land Commission, nor at the instance of the Court valuers. Was it made in consequence of clamour and agitation? The House was entitled to a clear explanation on that point. By making this change the Government, he assumed, would very nearly double the expense of the administration of the Land Act. It was now proposed to increase the Sub-Commissioners from three to five. What was to be the salary of the new Sub-Commissioners, and what their tenure of office? Were they also to be appointed to a three months' job, so that, in case of renewed clamour, they might be sent about their business? He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had, before the close of the Session, an opportunity of explaining both his speech in Dublin and still more fully the change which he had announced in the administration of the Land Act. He did not desire that a single benefit conferred upon the tenants by the Act should be recalled, qualified, or lessened, nor did he seek for a single undue advantage to the landlord. He had never sought since the Act became law to interfere with its fair administration, nor had he any other desire than that all parties should get fair play. But in the name of law let not the Act be administered as if it were an Act to set class against class; in the name of fair 242 play let it not be administered as a political weapon; but let it be administered as a great Statute ought to be administered, with impartial justice, which, in the words of the Prime Minister, must mean in its highest, best, and; worthiest sense, "justice to all."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no doubt his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be anxious to answer what he might call the personal part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech; but he thought the House would allow him as early as possible to state what in his experience he happened to know about the Land Commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had one very strong objection to the change in policy and another to the speech made by his right hon. Friend. Now, he would like to say a word about that speech. He had read it with a great deal of interest, and in doing so he came to two conclusions. The first was that his right hon. Friend simply meant to give this impression, that if in details the Act worked unjustly it should be remedied. The other conclusion he had come to was that if his right hon. Friend had had as much experience as he himself unfortunately had, if he knew how every word was open to misrepresentation on one side and the other, he would have never uttered words for which he should probably repent. But the really important matter was whether it was desirable to make this change, and whether Government were to be blamed for making it. The question came before Lord Cowper and himself, and he supposed very much upon the ground on which it came before his right hon. Friend and Lord Spencer—namely, that it was desirable to quicken the operations of the Court. At first, he was of opinion that the appointment of official valuers was desirable; but, on further consideration, he came to the conclusion that that change ought not to be made for two or three reasons. In the first place, a very important fact came to their knowledge, which he had overlooked until he was reminded of it, and he very much doubted whether his right hon. Friend bore it in mind until it was recalled to 243 his recollection, and that was that in the very long debates on the Land Bill this question was brought forward, and it was unanimously decided by the House that the Act should not be administered in that way. Hon. Members, if they referred to Hansard, would find that on July 15 of last year the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) proposed, when they came to the clause for the appointment of Sub-Commissioners, to add that the Lord Lieutenant might from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint "valuers of knowledge and experience in the value of land," on the ground that it would be impossible to leave to a local valuer the sole adjudication in these matters. The Prime Minister, in reply, said—
Undoubtedly a knowledge of the value of land will be one of the qualifications of some portion at least of the Assistant Commissioners; but these words, if added to the Bill, would lead to the conclusion that it was intended to employ a staff of official valuers and nothing else. I very much doubt whether official valuers appointed by Government would attract confidence to themselves. I think it a very doubtful experiment.The discussion went on for some time, and at last the Amendment was withdrawn. [Mr. GIBSON: That was as to the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant.] Well, we reconsidered the question, and we thought that was a mere technical point, and that it was quite clear that the question before the House was whether the Sub-Commissions should have the assistance of official valuers. It was quite possible to wriggle out of the decision come to by the House by taking another clause of the Act, which said that the Land Commission might from time to time appoint and remove solicitors, secretaries, and such officers as agents, clerks, managers, as they thought fit. Lord Cowper and himself came, however, to the conclusion that they would not fairly interpret the decision of the House if they did that.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the law enabled them to be appointed.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was willing to admit that; but, at the same time, he did not think that the administrators of the law ought to take advantage of one clause to defeat the evident intention of the House on another matter. He did not know what had led to the change of mind in the present Irish 244 Government; but, upon full consideration, he did not think the change would answer. He would not deny that it was open to very considerable debate whether in the original framework and machinery of the Act there might not have been advantages in attaching to the legal Sub-Commissioner a valuer instead of a lay Sub-Commissioner. But he felt that the attaching of an official valuer to every Sub-Commission Court would be likely to lead to no saving of time, and might produce want of harmony. Again, his belief was that the present Sub-Commissioners, generally speaking, by their antecedents, and certainly by the knowledge they had gained during their time of office, were good valuers, and probably better than would otherwise be likely to be obtained. He was glad that the change had not been persevered in, and that the Government had adopted their present course. It would cost more money; but the Treasury were generally very cautious in checking expenditure, and he thought the expenditure would be wise, and that the work would be done quicker. He could not help thinking that there was too much heat introduced into this matter on both sides, for the decisions were very much the same, and neither side had a right to suppose that the valuers would do them much good or much harm. The decisions had been curiously alike, and had proved to him that the facts in those matters were so evident that it was very difficult for reasonable men not to come generally to the same conclusion. Then it did not appear that time would be gained by the plan now adopted, and that, though it might cost more, it would lead to quicker settlements. There would be two Sub-Commissions at work each day, and the fact that the legal Sub-Commissioner would have the whole of his time occupied with giving decisions would necessarily double the number of decisions given. One word as to the yearly term of the Commissioner's office. He did not see how that short term of office could be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman, in common with all who considered the interests of Ireland, desired that the decisions should be given as quickly as possible; but that involved the appointment of a large number of persons to decide, and his experience was that many of those whose services it was most 245 desirable to obtain were willing to be appointed for a short, but not for a long period. He hoped that the House would excuse his early intervention in the debate; but he wished to show how the matter presented itself to Lord Cowper and himself during their tenure of Office.
§ MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he regretted he could not take the same views as the right hon. Member for Bradford did of the now decision of the Government. For his own part, he regarded that decision as a most humiliating one, and, in regard to the interests of Ireland, most unfortunate. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had said, a system which but a few days ago was deemed a model of justice and fairness was reversed by the administrators of the Act suddenly and without explanation or adequate cause. He believed that the change had been made either in deference to popular clamour, which they must have known was artificial, or was the result of ignorance of the true state of the case, or of interested motives; and, in the former case, where were these concessions to stop? He, for one, saw no end to them, and felt that in Ireland nothing was fixed or certain. Capital would not go there for investment. They did not know what might happen before to-morrow. Men's minds were disturbed and perplexed by a sense of danger, and he saw no hope of improvement in the future unless the Prime Minister changed his method of governing the country. With respect to the discussion in the House at the time of the passing of the Land Act and the consideration of this particular question, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there had been a total change of the principles on which the Act was administered. When the question of the appointment of valuers was first before the Government, they might have taken either of two courses: they might have made a valuation of the entire country, the acceptance of which valuation would have been compulsory; or they might have taken the standard of acknowledged fair rent in each district and have compelled the reduction of excessive rents to that point. The Prime Minister virtually adopted the latter alternative, and, abandoning the attempt to define fair rent universally, left the 246 matter to be decided by Commissioners in each district, remarking that there was no district in Ireland where what was a fair rent was not perfectly well known. With that policy he did not quarrel, as it was most difficult to find a definition of fair rent without having reference to the rent actually paid for many years past. If that were the only question to be decided by the Court, the evidence of the landlord would be to the effect that the present rent had existed for the last 40 or 50 years; that it was fixed at a period when the prices of agricultural produce were much lower than they were now; that it was not much above the average of neighbouring estates, and that the tenants' interests had been bought and sold on the basis of the present figure. These were all essential facts in determining what was a fair rent; but when the landlords found that evidence of this kind was not received, they necessarily looked out for valuers to give evidence. There was difficulty in finding them. There were very few in his neighbourhood whose valuations would give confidence, and these few were perpetually engaged; but even when they could be procured and got to attend before the Sub-Commissioners, the latter said they looked with suspicion upon the evidence of paid valuers. The landlords, however, could not be expected to get valuations made for nothing, though it was easy for the tenants to get their neighbours, who were expectant of like services in future, to make valuations without being paid. He must do the Commissioners the justice to say that they did not pay much heed to this interested evidence, founded upon the principle of live and thrive before paying any rent, to which principle the tenants give a very liberal interpretation. The Sub-Commissioners could not adjudicate without becoming valuers themselves, and this was the system to which they were going back after a short period of official valuations. The structure of the Court was altogether inadequate to deal with its work. When valuations were made for a subordinate purpose of taxation, the whole system was laid down in an Act of Parliament; but here the work of fixing the rent of the whole land of Ireland, with a capitalized value of £400,000,000, was assigned to a set of men without any guarantee as to the necessary qualification, 247 which notoriously many of thorn did not possess. The House had been told that the decisions were very much the same before and after the appointment of official valuers, and upon that point he could not speak with confidence; but even if their appointment did not influence the decisions, it certainly inspired much more confidence in them, for the landlords knew that these decisions were no longer made at random, but after consultation with skilled professional valuers, and they were, consequently, less likely to appeal. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said the number of appeals had not decreased. All he could say in answer to that was that he had read a case in which the solicitor of a landlord had withdrawn a notice of appeal after he had seen a statement of the principles on which the official valuation was made, and this was said to be a sample of many cases. And, besides the desired diminution of appeals, the employment of these Court valuers was also likely to promote the settlement of cases out of Court, which would greatly accelerate the administration of the Act. There was no point connected with the Land Question more important than this. He felt sure that many more cases would be settled out of Court than was now the case if the work of qualified valuers rendered the decisions of the Courts and the consequent standard of rent more uniform. He believed that to some extent settlements had already been arrived at, and that many landlords were only waiting for an ultimate standard to be arrived at to come in; and that they had not done so already was due to the fact that these valuations had varied so considerably. But uniformity and consistency could only be looked for if the Commissioners had the assistance of qualified and impartial professional men. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the chief merit to be looked for in valuers was that their business was rapidly got over; but, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, they should seek, not so much for rapidity as for fairness in their decisions. Justice should be considered in preference to expedition. He much preferred seeing the appointment of these valuers placed in the hands of a judicial tribunal rather than in those of the Government. The House had already had sufficient expe- 248 rience of what the appointments of the Government were. What had induced the Government to throw over the recommendatians of the Chief Commissioners on this subject? He thought that he could give the House some explanation upon this point. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had offered unmitigated hostility to the appointment of these valuers. He had addressed various meetings in Ulster on the subject—had told the farmers that these valuers were nothing but rent-raisers, and he even said they "must and shall be dismissed." These would appear to be very peremptory orders, difficult of explanation to anyone not acquainted with the special mission intrusted to the hon. Member for Tyrone. ["Oh! "] He did not say officially intrusted; but it was well understood that the hon. Member had a mission to convert the Ulster farmers to the Liberal ranks. A person who had a duty of that kind before him might well be allowed a little latitude in his mode of performing it. But he believed that if the farmers were properly instructed as to the exact position of the facts, their view would be exceedingly different from that which had been represented to the Government. He hoped the interests of Ireland would not always be subordinate to the interests of Party. She had suffered very much from that already, and he believed never more fatally than by the change now proposed by the Government.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member opposite afforded a very good illustration of the inconvenience of raising a discussion of this character without Notice. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mullholland) had misconceived the views of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) altogether, and it was hard upon that hon. Member that he should be misrepresented in his absence. The hon. Member for Tyrone would, no doubt, have been in his place if he had had Notice that this discussion was coming on, and particularly if he had known that he was himself to be referred to. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had desired to have the subject discussed fully, and those who took strong views on it opposed to his own to be heard, he would have taken a very different course. He (Mr. C. Russell), for one, had come 249 down entirely unprepared for such a debate, and he had reason to believe that many of his hon. Friends who were absent would have been present had they had any Notice that this discussion, in which they would desire to take part, was likely to arise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a course, not only inconvenient in itself, but which rendered it impossible that those who had objected, and still object, to the employment of these valuers should have their views adequately represented. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had come down with a carefully-prepared and elaborate speech, and, having set the necessary organization behind him at work to make an audience for it certain, he had delivered it with the greatest emphasis and indignation. Why did he not give Notice of a Motion?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLremarked, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done so, it would have been blocked.
§ MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the noble Lord was more fully conversant with the subject of blocking than he was. No doubt, under the 45th Section of the Land Act, the Land Commissioners had power to appoint these valuers; but what was the object of these appointments, and what were their limits? Such appointments could not be made without the consent of the Treasury, and the Treasury—which really meant the Executive—had given their consent conditionally that the appointments should only be made for a limited period of time, by way of experiment, in view of the possibility of their not answering their purpose. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was mistaken when he regarded these valuers as forming a part of the judicial element of the Act. They were in no sense judicial officers; they corresponded rather to the valuers who were employed in cases for the particular and definite purpose of informing the mind of the Court, and they were not to sit as Judges themselves. If, therefore, the Treasury had a right to give a conditional consent to the appointments of these persons as an experiment, surely they had a right to say that the experiment should be no longer continued. It was said that the valuers had done their work well, that the landlords and tenants of Ireland ought to be satisfied with them, and that the Government was merely yielding to 250 vulgar clamour in the matter. Had he received Notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to bring this subject before the House that evening, he could have brought numbers of letters from well-informed persons who objected to the action of the valuers. In fact, he could recall no instance in Irish politics where there had been so unanimous an opinion in condemnation of these appointments. He could not agree in the opinion attributed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there was no objection to the personnel of these Court valuers. A large number of the communications which had been addressed to him in reference to this question were based upon the fact that many of the Court valuers were men who had been previously in the employment of landlords as rent-raisers, and who, on that account, must necessarily have a strong bias. Another charge had been that these were in some cases not men of experience at all; and if that were so, it was important the House should understand what was the function they were called upon to discharge. One could understand the Court valuers, assuming that they were really able mea, rendering an important service to the Court by ascertaining what was the full rent, and leaving the Court to make the necessary deductions and fix the fair rent; but what the Court valuers were asked to fix was not the full rent, but the fair rent. They were asked to do that without reviewing in evidence those elements which were absolutely indispensable to enable them to perform the function properly. A man might go down and inspect a farm, and the condition of the buildings upon it, and might say—"This land, as it stands, would only fetch 30s. or £1 an acre." But how could he, a stranger to the holding, with no power to examine witnesses or means of obtaining information as to the important data which went to determine a fair rent, give an accurate opinion as to what was a fair rent? He could not do it at all; and yet it was said his opinion as to a fair rent, come to without the power of examining the elements on which the calculations were based, should be put before the Court to influence its judgment in fixing a fair rent. But the objections to the system which had been tried did not stop there. There was another objection, the more mention of 251 which was sufficient to show hon. Members the justice of it, and that was the practical secrecy of the proceedings of the Court valuers. The valuers were not called before the Court before which the case was determined, except at the wish of the Court itself, and the parties to the case were practically in complete ignorance as to what, in the valuer's opinion, was the fair rent. The valuation so sent in was influencing the mind of the Court in determining the question of a fair rent when neither party knew what it was, or had the opportunity of cross-examining the valuer, so that men's rights were permanently prejudiced upon grounds they had no opportunity of meeting. The mere statement of the facts condemned the appointment of these Court valuers. They had wholly failed to expedite the despatch of business, and to lessen appeals, as anticipated, when appointed. It was said that the Government were yielding to ignoble clamour. It was said that the hon. Member for Tyrone had an ambition to convert the staunch farmers of Ulster from Toryism to Liberalism. He (Mr. C. Russell) did not know whether his hon. Friend had such an ambition; but let the Opposition take warning that such speeches as those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) would do more to extirpate Conservatism in Ulster than many such speeches as that of the hon. Member for Tyrone. But what was the meaning of yielding to popular clamour? Did it mean yielding to expressed public opinion? Let them test the public opinion in a fair way. Let them give notice to the Representatives from Ireland that they wished to ascertain public opinion on this subject, for, after all, this was a Parliament of representative opinion, and within these walls the opinion of the people of Ireland could be gathered. He could understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite not altogether agreeing with him on the subject of representative government; but how was public opinion to be ascertained unless through the Representatives of the people in this House? The Government had wisely put an end to an experiment which, if persevered in, would have been fraught with the utmost danger to the fair prospects of 252 the Land Act. Would hon. Members opposite get up gravely in their places and say that this Act, however it might be criticized on the one side as against the interests of the tenants, and on the other as confiscation of the landlord's rights, should not be administered in a just and proper manner so as to give confidence? Just rights should be recognized on either side, and some attempt should be made to command the confidence and approval of the people of Ireland.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the hon. and learned Member asked why Notice had not been given to hon. Members for Ireland that such a subject as this was going to be brought up. Why, it was because no one could possibly have anticipated the reply which had been given to the Questions put to the Government that evening. It was said that in Ireland there was a concensus of opinion adverse to these valuers; but his experience led him to a conclusion diametrically opposed to that stated by the last speaker, who said that the valuers were not men of experience, and that they were asked to fix, not the full rent, but a fair rent. It was true they were asked to fix a fair rent, but they were to consider the land as they saw it, and the circumstances urged on the spot by the representatives of the landlord and the tenant; and he did not know in what better way a fair rent could be arrived at. The hon. and learned Member also said that the report sent in by the valuer was likely to prejudice the hearing of a case in the mind of the Court, and he complained that neither of the litigant parties were aware of what that report was. The hon. and learned Member was, apparently, not acquainted with the practice in the Courts of the Sub-Commissioners, as he (Mr. Tottenham) unfortunately was. The practice was, or the recent practice had been, that, after the hearing of the evidence, one of the lay Commissioners went out over the land with the valuer; they then gave in a report made up in the full Court. He did not see how it could be contended that the report, which was to be given in by the valuer previously to the hearing of the case, could in any way prejudice the finding of the Court. The principal reason given by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) for the recent change was that it would expedite the business of the Com- 253 missioners generally, and would enable them to dispose of cases that had for many months been blocking the Courts. But he (Mr. Tottenham) did not see how business was to be expedited by having two pairs of Commissioners to do exactly the same work that one pair had done before. It seemed to him to be obvious that a skilled witness or valuer, and one Commissioner, who should go out and inspect the land, were likely to get over as much work as two Commissioners, and to do it more efficiently. The House, he thought, must have listened with great astonishment to what he could only call a further proof of the mala fides with which the Act was being administered, contrary to the repeated expressions and promises of the framers given in 1881. He regretted that a tardy attempt made to do a small modicum of justice had been given up at the instigation of those who, having once got their hands into other people's pockets, were chafed at the check which, in some cases, the presence of these experts had placed upon their greed and dishonesty. He was far from admitting that the present system was perfect, but it was the nearest approach to scant justice which partizan administrators could have adopted. He believed it was adopted by them because they felt that the course that had been pursued, and of which complaints had been made daily, could not be defended on the principles of justice and equity. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did all in his power to neutralize any good effect which might have arisen from the appointment of these valuers by making the speech in which he clearly gave them to understand that, in the event of their proceedings and decisions not being in accordance with the wishes of the Government, as their appointments would be purely temporary, when the time for their renewal came he would know how to deal with them. What was it that the Government eminently wished should take place? Why, that a general reduction in the rental of Ireland should take place. ["Hear, hear! "] He presumed that the hon. and gallant Baronet (General Sir George Balfour) who said "Hear, hear!" was not an owner of property in Ireland. Other Members of the Government had spoken in the same spirit, and it was obvious that the Act was to be partial in its operation, and that the reductions were to be heavy. 254 What was the course pursued? The Government let loose a number of men, interested in many cases, in other cases ignorant of the first principles of agriculture—men in whose power it was put to burn, sink, and destroy the interests of the landlord where they came into conflict with those of the tenant, and thus had they well earned the name by which they were known throughout the country of "sub-confiscators," not Sub-Commissioners. Afterwards, public opinion being strongly roused at the action of the Sub-Commissioners, the appointment of skilled valuers was suggested to curb some of the absurdities that were being daily enacted. Those valuers were merely to advise the Court, and not to vote, and in many instances their estimate of value was not taken into consideration by the Commission. The tenants and their mouthpieces, however, finding that the "sub-confiscators" could not play the same pranks, or play them to the same extent as they had before been doing, directly the valuers were appointed, set up a shout of lamentation when they thought they were about to be deprived of some of their expected plunder; and they had ever since been demanding the removal of the only element of justice which had been introduced into that tribunal. To that clamour Her Majesty's Government had given way—not for the first or twentieth time—and now they sought to evade inquiry into that subject on the specious plea that Parliament had been called together only for one purpose. The country would understand that the pledges given by them had been disregarded and were worthless, and that popular clamour was to their minds more irresistible than the dictates of equity and justice.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I prefer to take the views held on the opposite side of the House on this matter from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), rather than from that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and whose statements in this House always represent the arguments and feelings of the Tory Party in Ireland raised to a state of white heat and incandescence, in such a degree that the ordinary mind is hardly able to follow them. Ever since the hon. Gentleman taught his doctrine of "salting the land well with rent"——
§ MR. TOTTENHAMI did not teach that doctrine.
MR. GLADSTONEI thought it was contained, and I thought I had read it, in the evidence of the hon. Gentleman before the Commission.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMIt was not mine; it was a quotation which I cited.
MR. GLADSTONEIt was a quotation; but I understood it to be adopted by the hon. Member. If I am wrong in that, I entirely withdraw the expression. The hon. Member does not say I am wrong.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMNo, Sir; it is not my opinion. It is a quotation which I cited in the evidence I gave before the Commission. I do not adopt it.
MR. GLADSTONEThen I do not dwell upon it for a moment; but there are some words in the speech just made that are not quotations, or, if they are quotations, they are very cordially adopted. His account, for instance, of the Sub-Commissioners is that of "sub-confiscators." That is a quotation which is cordially adopted. He improved upon the quotation, because he spoke of these Sub-Commissioners being disappointed when arrangements were made which would deprive them of their expected plunder.
§ Mr. TOTTENHAMNot the Sub-Commissioners.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMThe tenants were disappointed; not the Sub-Commissioners. The Sub-Commissioners were the mouthpieces of the tenants.
MR. GLADSTONEI thought I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Sub-Commissioners had been in a state of apprehension and excitement on the subject of these valuers. The hon. Gentleman now says they are mouthpieces. A mouthpiece is an organ employed by some individual or another to express sentiments which the person himself is not in a condition to express directly. He says they are the mouthpieces of the tenants. Well, Sir, the tenants are an important portion of the population of Ireland, and, according to the hon. Gentleman, he is only responsible to the extent of describing the Sub-Commissioners—that is, to imply that I they have exercised functions that are judicial in a spirit that is not judicial; and if that is so, I do not see why he 256 should not apply to them the expressions about plunder which he says he did not apply. But I pass on from these matters. There are two questions raised before the House, and I shall touch briefly on only one of them. The first is in regard to certain expressions used by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in a speech made by him on the subject of the appointment of valuers. I join in most of the complaints of the speech; but the defence of it in detail I shall leave to my right hon. Friend himself, because that is a duty which he can best and most appropriately discharge. I will speak, Sir, upon the question of the appointment of these valuers and the withdrawal of the appointment; and upon that subject I know not whom I may please and whom I may displease, but I shall give what I may call the dry view of the subject. I am aware of no charge to be made against these valuers. I do not admit any charge against them. I am aware of no ground for sustaining it; and as I admit no charge against the valuers, as unequivocally I admit no charge against the Sub-Commissioners. I think the choice of the Sub-Commissioners does the highest credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). It was a very difficult duty to discharge at short notice, and it was admirably performed. The accusations against the Sub-Commissioners have miserably broken down. Why did we appoint valuers? I will give my own account of my own share in the matter as the responsible Head of the Government and of the Treasury. I frankly own it required all my respect for the Land Commission, all my desire to give the weight to their recommendation which I fully grant ought to be given to them in every case where the Executive Government share in the functions, and where it is not under the influence of some imperative call the other way—I say it required the whole of that influence to induce consent to the measure. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) referred to a report of a speech of mine, given in Hansard, when the valuers were appointed. It is seldom that in the variety of discussions that take place in this House the exact words one uses merge into the record of our proceedings, and I do not think that the report in question contains all that 257 I said on the subject. I may say that at first I was deliberately opposed to this method of proceeding. I looked upon it as a cumbrous method—as a method tending to diminish the responsibility of the Sub-Commissioners. I looked upon it as a method not likely to attract public confidence, and that without the smallest respect to the question whether it was likely to err in the direction of the landlords or in the direction of the tenants. I now come to this important part. The Land Commissioners made a recommendation which has not been presented to the House, and it is a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend that he has not felt himself at liberty to present the Paper to the House. It has been referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who had some knowledge of its contents. I know not whether he has that knowledge from the declarations of the Government or from any other quarter.
§ MR. GIBSONEntirely from the declarations of the Government.
MR. GLADSTONEI am bound to say that I have refreshed my memory upon it, and I find that the only motives urged by the Land Commissioners were not in the slightest degree what has been represented by the hon. Member who has just sat down—namely, that they acted with the view of curbing, to some extent, glaring absurdities that were of daily occurrence. There is not the slightest reference to anything of the kind, nor the slightest expression of dissatisfaction of the system of the Sub-Commissioners acting on their own responsibility. The Land Commissioners, as far as I am cognizant of it, urged two reasons, and two only; and these reasons were, that they believed that by the appointment of valuers they would greatly increase the expedition of the proceedings, and that it would bring about a diminution in the number of appeals. These were the motives that appealed to us most strongly. We were most anxious to expedite the proceedings. We had allowed no considerations of public expense to stand between us and anything that promised to promote that end; and these considerations, urged by the Commissioners, certainly operated upon me to do that about which I had great doubts whether it was agreeable to the House of Commons, 258 recollecting the debate that had taken place about the best method, and the most straightforward and just method, of carrying on these investigations. The experiment accordingly was made, and what is the result? It is this—that we have entirely failed in bringing about the expedition, which was the capital object we had in view. It is impossible to say that they have been expedited in any degree; but it is clear, if they have been expedited at all, they have been expedited in a degree which might be called infinitesimal. With respect to appeals, we have not the same perfect exactitude of figures before us to enable us to judge; but we have much evidence before us, and that evidence entirely tends to the conclusion that the appeals have not been diminished. If this is so, the two reasons given by the Land Commissioners have both of them fallen away, and not been fulfilled, and it is not a question of clamour; it is not a question of satisfying friends.
§ MR. GIBSONThere was a third reason given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
MR. GLADSTONEMy right hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to give that reason, if he thought fit; but I am speaking of the recommendation of the Land Commissioners. My right hon. Friend hoped, no doubt, it would have that effect; but I do not see that it has had that effect. It has produced quite as much objection, only from a different quarter; and I observe that what is meant by clamour is that part of public opinion of which you disapprove—and what is meant by public opinion, in the mouth of any gentleman, is the sentiment of the class to which you are allied in sympathy. But the Land Commissioners proceeded simply on the grounds that I have described, and those grounds have been cut away from under our feet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), I own, makes a plausible objection when he says that short tenure is a great reason for questioning the proceedings of these Assistant Commissioners, or of the valuers, for their tenure was shorter still. But the answer to the objection is that not only was great care taken, as experience, I think, proves to be the case, in the selection of the men, but in the appeals themselves, and in the fair and reason- 259 able and satisfactory degree in which those original judgments have been sustained upon appeal by the superior tribunal, whose competency no man doubts; and that, I think, is a conclusive answer to the objection drawn from the argument of short tenure. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman complains of the cost of the new arrangement. How does the matter stand? My right hon. Friend has, I believe, stated—I was out of the House at the commencement of his statement—that be hopes to secure the services of those valuers, or of some of those valuers. [Mr. TREVELEYAM: No, no; I did not say so.] At any rate, it is unnecessary. I thought some of those valuers would have been persons very proper for appointment. They will be considered, I believe, to be candidates for these offices; but at any rate they disappear as valuers, and the cost of them as valuers disappears. What is the practical state of the question as regards costs? We are going to undergo, to give our sanction to another increase of expenditure, but entirely with a view to that great and paramount object, expedition, the hope of which misled us, I believe, a couple of months ago, and the reality of which we hope now to attain. How does that matter stand? Overlooking the difference between the salary of a legal Commissioner and the salary of a lay Commissioner, we have at present Courts of four members, as far as expense is concerned—a legal member and three lay members—and these Courts of four members are doing work which was done by Courts of three. How do we propose to stand as to expenses? We propose to have Courts of five members—one legal Commissioner and four lay Commissioners. We shall have, therefore, a further expense. But with the Court of five members we hope, and expect, and calculate that we shall do the work of two Courts of four members. Therefore, although there is an increase of charge, with rapidly going through this important business, there is in reality a great economy, because there is a great shortening of the process of meeting with this mass of applications. It is just like this, if I may express it by the old symbols of algebra. Four men cost what we will call "X," and effect work which we will call "Y;" and now, by adding to "X" a quarter of "X," we are going to 260 get in work "Y" twice over. That is exactly the state of the case, as represents the matter of economy, and I hope it will be admitted on all hands that the landlord is as much interested as the tenant in expediting these proceedings. About that I think there can be no doubt whatever. The settlement of the country, the full establishment and consolidation of confidence, and the making it known to the world that Ireland is a land where industrial relations are upon a stable footing, that arrangements between land-lord and tenant have the character of permanence, and are placed, humanly speaking, beyond the reach of disturbance—these are questions of the greatest importance, and they are questions which cannot be carried to their maturity except by expediting the proceedings under the Land Act. I hope, as far as I am concerned, there can be no great difficulty in answering why I am a willing partner in the measure of my right hon. Friend and the Irish Government. I never loved in principle this method of proceeding by valuers, never anticipated it would be an improvement, and acceded to it for the sake of two great reasons which were propounded, and justifiably propounded, I have no doubt, by great authority. I have found these two reasons fail. I have found a large, heavy charge imposed on the Exchequer without any corresponding benefit whatever, and certainly not with the benefit of giving satisfaction, because dissatisfaction has been more loud and wider—if that were the consideration to which we look; but the point I take is that the two reasons have entirely failed, and consequently we propose to substitute for the present system, alike costly, cumbrous, and slow, a system under which, with a limited increase of the present cost, we shall realize a great future and permanent economy; and by means of which, having labour applied in a manner more economical and effective, we shall do greater greater justice to the Land Act by causing its provisions to find effect with far greater speed and efficacy over the whole surface of Ireland.