§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Land Commission proposes to dispense with the services of the Court Valuators at the expiry of the three months period for which they were engaged?
§ MR. TREVELYANIn answer to my hon. Friend, I will state with brevity the course the Government propose to adopt, and their reasons for it. Towards the end of last summer a conviction, which began quite early in the year, that there was a block in the business of the Land Courts, had become quite universal, and all parties were agreed that a remedy for that block would have to be found—I think that is not a controverted statement—and that it was desirable such a remedy should be found. The Government, after taking the advice of the Land Commissioners, sanctioned the appointment of valuers, with a view to increasing despatch of business and diminishing the number of appeals. One valuer was attached to each Sub-Commission. To the best of the judgment which the Government can form, the Courts so re-constituted have, taking Ireland as a whole, given judgments of very much the same character as before the re-constitution of the Courts. ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Benches.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not hold that opinion; but I am obliged to state the views of the Government. But the hopes of the Government as to the increase in the despatch of business, and the decrease in the number of appeals, have been disappointed. The number of decisions 213 has hardly shown any increase at all. The number of appeals, if anything, has shown the reverse of a decrease. Other means will, therefore, have to be sought to grapple with the great task that is still before the Commission. It has been determined to attach to each Court four lay Sub-Commissioners instead of two, so that one pair of Sub-Commissioners may be inspecting the farms, while the other pair is occupied in Court, and so on, turn and turn about. By this means the Government hope that the time of the legal Sub-Commissioner will be fully occupied, which was not the case before the recent appointment of valuers, and has not been the case since that appointment. They anticipate a very great acceleration in the number of cases decided; while the certainty that the lay Sub-Commissioners will have abundant time to spend on the inspection of the farms will give a confidence to both landlord and tenant, which they hope will largely diminish the number of appeals, though the Government think that that confidence had every reason to be given in the past. The Government believe that, in order to increase the rapidity of the working of the Land Act, public money cannot, than in this way, be more effectually and economically spent.
§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he passes from this subject, whether it is the intention of the Commission to employ many of the present valuers as new Sub-Commissioners?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe appointment of the valuers I may explain, as the House may be ignorant of the matter, lies entirely with the Land Commissioners. The appointment of Sub-Commissioners lies entirely with the Government, and it is for the Government to make appointments to the best of their judgment.
§ MR. GIBSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether that is the statement he promised yesterday as to the decision of the Government, to be announced to-day, with regard to the continuance of the employment of the Court valuers; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to how far the Land Commissioners have presented their views in any official form whatever which can be laid before Parliament?
§ MR. TREVELYANIt is extremely difficult to answer some of the Questions the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me; but I boldly say that I was anxious to present the Papers which the Commissioners, with their greater experience, and for reasons with which I sympathize, did not feel inclined to have presented. The Land Commissioners have objected hitherto—and I suppose will continue to object—to laying their reasons for recommending the appointment of valuers before the House. With regard to the change which the Government now propose, I may say this—that the Commissioners, though, perhaps, divided among themselves in their predilection for what they considered the best course, are unanimous in thinking that if the alteration is made the constitution of the Courts I have just mentioned to the House is a well-advised constitution.
§ MR. GIBSONI again ask, is the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the "full and complete" statement we were told would be made to the House on this subject; and I desire to know have the Land Commissioners unanimously approved of the termination of the employment of Court official valuers next month; or is this the idea of the four lay Commissioners and the idea of the Irish Executive?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe statement I have laid before the House contains the sum and substance of the reasons that have influenced the Government in making this change, and also the essential part of the change itself. If there is any particular point on which information is desired, I shall be glad to explain it. I have to state again that I will not assert that all the Land Commissioners prefer these Courts constituted as I have described; but what I do say is, that if this change is made it is a change which they all approve.
§ MR. GIBSONOne more Question, because this matter requires explanation. My Question was plain, and requires a categorical answer. Have the Land Commissioners approved of the change now proposed by the Irish Government?
§ MR. TREVELYANI have answered two or three times, and my intention is quite clear. I will not vouch for some of the Commissioners not preferring the present constitution of the Courts. I 215 have always endeavoured to be frank; and I thought that the House, when I made my statement, would gather that there are on the Land Commission gentlemen who prefer the present constitution.
MR. MACARTNEYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, by the appointment of these lay Commissioners they are merely to value, and not to sit in Court and hear evidence? I wish to ask whether the fact of a person being a valuer of experience, and much employed in valuing land, should be considered a disqualification for employment as Sub-Commissioners?
§ MR. TREVELYANI think the hon. Member is under a slight mistake as to the statement which I have made. Each pair of Sub-Commissioners will be alternately in Court, and engaged inspecting the fields. And the Government will endeavour to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in attempting to obtain the services of gentlemen who are thoroughly acquainted with the value of land.
MR. MACARTNEYMay I ask, as this is a matter of importance, whether I understand the right hon. Gentleman in believing that all the Commissioners will hear evidence? The Question I wish to ask is, whether two Commissioners will remain in Court hearing cases, and the two other Commissioners, who do not hear, will go to value?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe business, I take it, will be apportioned between the two pairs of lay Commissioners, and the same pair of lay Commissioners will inspect the farms and hear the evidence, just as was done before when there was only one pair of Sub-Commissioners. "We hope this will enable the Sub-Commissioners to give a very much larger amount of time to valuing the land.