HC Deb 09 August 1883 vol 282 cc2079-80
MR. KENNY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the illness of two of the Chief Commissioners is the only reason why the Court of Appeal has postponed until November next its proposed sitting at Ennis; if it is a fact that one of those Chief Commissioners is a valetudinarian, and has never gone to the country in discharge of his functions since his appointment to his present post, and also is ordered by his (looter not to travel; if there is any assurance that the other invalid will feel more disposed to sit next November than he does now, or that one of the others may not by that time be also indisposed; and, since the forty-seventh clause of the Land Act of 1881 provides for such a contingency as that which has occurred, what objection, if any, there is to put it in force; and, what is the object in adjourning for so long a time a Court so blocked with business?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, I think any Member of the House who reads the terms in which this Question is couched will agree with me in expressing regret that it should be worded in a manner to hurt the feelings of public servants. The gentleman referred to in the third paragraph is Mr. Vernon, who, after working as hard as a man can well work, has gone for his legitimate holiday, to which no one is more entitled. If his health has suffered by his public labour, it is not, in my opinion, a matter for contemptuous reference in Parliament. I am informed that the Commissioners are of opinion that, under the 22nd section of the Arrears Act, it is a matter of serious doubt whether the power to re-hear cases can now be exercised by less than three Commissioners. I have no control over the arrangements which the Commissioners make; but I agree with the hon. Member that the Irish Government ought to be conversant with those arrangements, and I will do my best to ascertain what those arrangements are.

MR. KENNY

With reference to this Question, I may say that I did not intend to convey anything that would hurt the feelings of any of the Chief Commissioners; and I may also say that commenting on the terms of my Question is no answer to it. I again ask, whether, under the 47th section of the Land Act, two Chief Commissioners may not sit to hear those cases; and, if there is any objection to Mr. Justice O'Hagau and Mr. Litton sitting to hear those cases other than that they may give decisions too favourable to the tenants?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, in commenting on the terms of the Question of the hon. Member, I said nothing about the motives that may have prompted it. There is no doubt that a public servant, who cannot speak here in Parliament, would be hurt by finding a Question like this asked about him. With regard to the Question, I have answered it as much as it is possible for me to answer it. The Land Commissioners are not bound to give any answer as to their arrangements; but as for communicating those arrangements to the Irish Government, I think, in consequence of the number of arrears, it is a very proper application to make. I assure the hon. Member it will not be lost sight of; but as to the effect the 22nd section of the Arrears Act may have with regard to sittings of the Land Commissioners, I cannot give any opinion on that legal subject.

MR. KENNY

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, as a matter of fact, Lord Monck has ever left Dublin since his appointment as Chief Commissioner?

MR. TREVELYAN

, in reply, said, he did not think he would be justified in interfering with the arrangements made by the Land Commissioners to prosecute the hearing of the cases.