HC Deb 27 October 1882 vol 274 cc279-82
MR. T. A. DICKSON

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, taking into consideration the fact that, on the 15th July, 1881, when the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was under discussion, this House rejected without a Division an Amendment moved by the Member for West Surrey, "To appoint valuers of knowledge and experience in the value of land," the Government will cancel the appointments of seventeen official valuers at expiration of first three months; whether, in the course of the Debate, he is reported to have said— These words, if added to the Bill, would lead to the conclusion that it is intended to employ a staff of official valuers who are to be valuers and nothing else. I believe that it is extremely doubtful whether official valuers chosen by any one in connexion with, the Government would or ought to attract confidence, and I should consider it a most doubtful experiment; and, whether he has had any reason to change the conclusion at which he then apparently arrived?

MR. HEALY

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him, Whether he is aware that the hon. Member who asks this Question brought forward a Bill last Session to provide for the very thing which he now objects to; whether, in the Land Law (Ireland) Amendment Bill, which was prepared and brought in by Mr. Findlater and Mr. Dickson, it was provided that, in all cases of application under the Act, two valuers should be appointed who should return to the Court a report which should be entered on the record?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I think that it is unnecessary to reply to the hon. Member for Wexford as concerns the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Indeed, it appears to me to be a matter of public record, of which he is already in possession of evidence so much superior in kind to anything I can state from my fallible recollection that I should rather decline to enter on the subject. In reference to the Question of my hon. Friend behind me (MR. T. A. Dickson), I have to say that the quotation that he has made from the report of my speech, is, I have no doubt, substantially correct. It was a very important question which arose during the discussion of the Land Bill; and I certainly then preferred investigation by the Commissioners, who were the responsible Judges, to investigation by valuators, which I thought might have had a different effect. But this is to be borne in mind, that whatever may be said of the proceedings of the Commissioners—and we on this Bench have been very well satisfied with them—whatever may be said of the proceedings of the Commissioners, there is this undoubtedly to be said of them, that their strength was not equal to the work they had to do, and this was shown—first of all, in the difficulty lately they had in overtaking the enormous mass of applications sent in during the early period of the Act; and, secondly, in the rather considerable number of appeals. My noble Friend (Lord Spencer), when he went to Ireland, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), when he joined him in the Administration of Ireland, were very desirous, indeed, to find a remedy for the state of things, and to accelerate the business of the Court. It was with a view to that acceleration that they thought it wise to try the experiment of valuators for three months. It was done with a single-minded view to that result, and no other whatever, for we had every reason to believe that the judgments of the Courts had been thoroughly judicial in their character, according to our persuasion, and I am only speaking now of our persuasion. When, under these circumstances, the Irish Government applied to the Treasury for the experimental appointment of valuators, and when they gave it as their opinion that the business, without being injured in its quality, would be very considerably accelerated in its rate, which was an object of great public importance, it was determined that a certain number of valuators should be appointed for a term of three months. Of that three months a few weeks—I believe not more than four or five—have elapsed, and it is evident that every additional week improves our means of judgment. I should be glad, having explained the motives of our proceedings, not to enter further into the subject at present; but probably my hon. Friend will take counsel with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in order to form his own judgment upon the propriety of putting any further Questions.

MR. GIBSON

With reference to the answer which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to ask him whether the appointment of these valuers was the act of the Executive Government, or the act of the independent Court of the Land Commission?

MR. GLADSTONE

It was connected with the Executive Government through the medium of the Treasury, and without the agreement of the Treasury no proceeding of the kind could take place. I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting the Question to me, because it reminds me to mention what I had omitted to mention before—namely, that a strong recommendation in favour of these appointments proceeded from the Land Commission.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

I may be allowed to say, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), that my name was on the back of the Bill to which he referred. The object of the Bill was to provide that where a tenant and a landlord agreed upon a valuation in order to facilitate the working of the Act, a valuator should be appointed.