§ On the vote of £36,661, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland,
§ MR. FLYNNsaid, he did not propose to raise any question of policy, but merely to call attention to the payments made to the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland. In 1886 a long correspondence took place as to whether the salaries of those gentlemen were not too high when compared with the salaries of similar officials for Scotland. He did not ask the Secretary to the Treasury to make any alteration this Session, but merely to go into the question with a view to a reasonable reduction being made. He noticed that £1,500 was paid in fees to the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland, but it was not shown which of the two gentlemen got the larger share of that amount. If they were to proceed in the direction of economy they were entitled to know whether those fees were taxed. Moreover, he would like to know why these fees should be paid at all. In England there was a general feeling that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General should receive fixed salaries, and should not engage in private practice. It would, in his opinion, be very wholesome if such a rule were applied to Ireland. It was desirable in the interests of public business, and, indeed, in the interests of the reputations of hon. Gentlemen themselves, that, representing as they did the Crown, or, in other words, the State, they should not engage in any legal business but the legal business of the country. It was desirable that gentlemen occupying such positions should be above all temptation to engage in any legal business but the legal business of the country, and, being paid handsome salaries, the least the country should expect from them was to apply all their time and energy to their public duties.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid he noticed an item of £300 for the expenses of jurors at Assizes. He did not know in what way those expenses were incurred. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Winter Assizes for the whole province 1188 of Leinster were held in Wicklow, and that it was a great inconvenience and expense to the jurors of the county to have to come long distances—especially in the west where there were no railways—to Wicklow, and to wait there for weeks to do the Assize business for the entire province of Leinster. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Treasury proposed to remunerate those jurors? There was also an item for £400 for the defence of public officials who made mistakes. It was exactly the same amount last year, and he would like to know how it happened that the figure was identical to the very farthing both years?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.said, that the correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Office in 1886 resulted in the salary of the Irish Attorney General being fixed at £5,000, and the salary of the Solicitor General at £2,000; but neither of the law officers was prohibited from taking private practice. In regard to fees for contentious business, the same rule applied exactly to the law officers of England and Ireland. They were only paid for any contentious business they conducted for the Crown, and, as the fees for the conduct of such business were fixed by a Treasury Minute, and depended upon the nature of the business, and place where it was transacted, the question of taxation did not arise. The sum of £300 for jurors was intended to cover the expense of making the necessary provision for the comfort of jurors sworn to try cases at Assize. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had ever the fortune or the misfortune to serve on a jury and to be locked up all night. But, if he had that experience, he would not object to provide jurors in such a position with something to eat and drink and a bed to sleep on. It was to meet these expenses that the Vote was intended, and it amounted to only £300 for all Ireland. The sum of £400 for the defence of public officials was an estimate and not an expenditure, and it was because next to nothing was incurred last year that the same estimate was put down to cover any expenses that might arise this year. As to remunerating the jurors attending Assizes, there was no provision made by 1189 law for such a purpose. He was not at all sure that the law was not defective in that respect; but, at all events, it was the existing law of the land, and nothing could be done in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he noticed that the salaries and fees paid to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General amounted to £8,500, and that an exactly similar sum was paid to counsel for conducting prosecutions and representing the Law officers. That was a matter requiring some explanation.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDexplained that the additional sum of £8,500 covered the fees paid to counsel who prosecuted on behalf of the Attorney General at the different Assize Courts oil Circuit. The same rule practically applied to England.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Vote of £64,395, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments in Ireland,
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYcalled attention to the large sum annually spent in Ireland on the Court of Bankruptcy. Twenty or thirty years ago when the Bankruptcy Court, consisting of two Judges and a large staff of officials, was set up, there was a considerable amount of bankruptcy business in Ireland. But since then a great change had come over the country in that respect, and the amount of bankruptcy business now done in Ireland was exceedingly small. Within the past few years Bankruptcy Courts had been set up in Cork and Belfast, which had taken away much of the bankruptcy business from Dublin, consequently the staff in Dublin was now much in excess of the necessities of the case. In a short time the Government would have an opportunity of remodelling the Bankruptcy Department in Ireland, and he hoped the opportunity would be taken. As to Land Registration, this department of the public business was in a very unsatisfactory state. It was set up when Mr. Justice Madden was Attorney General for Ireland, and set an example to Irish Law Officers by taking an interest in Irish legislation. Good 1190 though the Act was, he could not say the same for the manner in which it had been administered. Registration of title in Ireland was now little more than a burlesque. Registration was made compulsory for tenant purchasers whether they had purchased before or after the passing of the Act in 1890. But special provision was made for the large number of tenant purchasers who had purchased before the Act. Every one of them who came in to register within twelve months of the passing of the Act was relieved of the Court fees. Those who purchased after the Act were not only compelled to register, but received no exemption from fees. That looked as though the old tenant purchasers were more favourably situated. But the operation of the Act was to produce the exact reverse of what was the undoubted intention of Parliament, for it placed the old purchasers in a position ten times worse than that of the new. With a new purchaser, the Land Commission was bound, as part of the procedure on the purchase, to register the title; and, therefore, the new purchaser had not to pay anything. But when the unfortunate old purchaser came into Court, as it was quite impossible for him to do the work himself, although he was relieved of the Court fees, he had to pay a solicitor handsomely for getting his title registered, and every conceivable obstacle was thrown in his way from first to last. The consequence was that not 5 per cent of the tenant purchasers who purchased before the Act had registered their titles. The rules made under the Registration Act, and the procedure set up, rendered this excellent measure almost a nullity, as far as its original intention was concerned, which was to make a farm as readily saleable as a cow, or horse, or any other chattel. Unfortunately, the Act contained provisions for registering the title to land subject to equities; and, consequently, registration did not imply a clear title. The purchaser, therefore, had to satisfy himself as to the title being clear just as carefully now as before registration was set up. A purchaser had to go into details with the same minuteness as before; he had to examine title deeds and leases, look out for mortgages, see whether there were any equitable charges, and go into all these matters exactly in the same way 1191 as he would do if there were no Land Registry. The result was that, instead of being a benefit to purchasers, it doubled their trouble and their costs. Could not something be done to make what should be an excellent institution more efficient and valuable? Of what good was a Land Registry which did not fulfil the first conditions of such a Registry? If it were to be of any use at all, a purchaser ought to be able to go in and see what the burdens on any piece of land really were, so that he might know what risk he incurred in putting his money into it. But, as he had said, the Registry made no investigation of tenants' titles. Instead of facilitating the registration of land, you might imagine that the one business of the office was to hinder it. The one idea of the gentlemen in charge of it appeared to be to throw difficulties in the way of registration and to increase law costs, by demands of affidavits and declarations, so that instead of being a blessing to the country it was more likely to be a curse. Could not something be done to diminish the fees that were demanded? He was glad to facilitate the passing of the Act, although the object of it was to cut down the fees of his profession, but the effect of it appeared to have been to transfer to the Treasury what was formerly paid to the solicitors.
§ MR. J. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said, he wished to call attention to the Land Division of the High Court. When it was constituted it was never dreamed that it would develop into the institution it had become. It was an institution to which no analogy existed in this country. When it was started it was intended for the temporary purpose of taking care of landed estates while they were being sold. It had developed into the largest landlord in Ireland, receiving a rental of £800,000 a year. What the Land Court had taken upon itself no one ever dreamed it would assume. It had undertaken to stop the natural operation of the market as regarded Irish land, to check the natural drop in its value, and artificially to bolster up that value. It acted as a great landlord who was removed from the ordinary incidents of dealings between man and man. The Land Division of the High Court was a monstrous excrescence on Irish life, and if the Government were wise they would find in this 1192 Court a great opportunity for commencing a system of compulsory sale in Ireland which would injure nobody and do an immense deal to benefit Ireland. Imagine the enormous advantage to the prosperity and peace of Ireland if the immense body of tenants who went to the Land Judges' Court were turned into peasant proprietors, which could easily be done. It was said compulsory sale would mean compelling men to sell their property who did not wish to part with it. But there were large estates in the Land Judges' Court where it was most desirable that the property in the land should pass from the "dead hand" of the Court, which could not expend money in the improvements that were needed. The owners of these estates could not complain if their property was sold by the operation of the Court at a fair and reasonable price and divided amongst their creditors, or, if there was anything left, the balance given to themselves. If the sale of land in Ireland went on without further development it would take 100 years to sell the land in Ireland to the occupying tenants. So he would urge on the Government the opportunity the Court offered for the creation of an immense number of peasant proprietors.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR, in replying, said he believed it was a fact that the Bankruptcy Court, Dublin, was over-manned for the work it had to do. But nothing could be done so long as the present members of the Court continued to hold their present position. The other question the hon. Member for Cork raised was one of considerable importance—as to the registration of title by the Land Commissioners. In the case of tenants who purchased their holdings before the passing of the Act of 1891, the registration had proceeded slowly. He doubted whether the whole blame was to be thrown on the Land Commission. He was inclined to doubt it, and he had been assured by the Land Commission that the delay did not arise from any act on their part, but in consequence of the apathy and tardiness with which the tenants themselves responded to the inquiries of the Land Commissioners. This was only an illustration of the fact that it was not so easy to make the land pass from hand to hand, which was the ideal some land 1193 reformers set before them. In many of the cases the tenants purchased their land free of equity as far as what they purchased was concerned, but still subject to the equities under which the landlord held, and it seemed to him difficult to imagine any system under which tenants could be enabled to hold a perfectly clear title. He entirely sympathised with the object of the hon. Member, and if it was in any way possible to expedite the process by which the registration took place, no pains would be spared on his part to effect it. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Government were not prepared to accept the principle of compulsory purchase, but they desired to facilitate the transfer of ownership of land from the landlord to the tenant as far as possible. No doubt the land held by the Land Judges' Court stood in a different position from the rest. He did not actually undertake to appoint a committee of inquiry, but he was satisfied that a distinction could be drawn between the larger part of the land in the hands of solvent landlords and that under the control of the Land Court, and if he could see his way to secure that the land now under the control of the Land Judges' Court should be transferred to the tenants on equitable terms, he should be only too glad to effect that object.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)thought the hon. Member for East Mayo had every reason to be satisfied with the Chief Secretary's answer. If the Chief Secretary would consider the whole constitution of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland he would find that the Dublin Bankruptcy Court was not singular in being overmanned. England, with a population of 30,000,000, only paid three times as much for her Supreme Court of Judicature as Ireland, with a population of 4,500,000. In the first place, in Ireland there were too many Judges. In England, a barrister in good practice reduced, rather than added to, his income by accepting a Judgeship. The average income of a barrister in good practice in Ireland at the present time was put at £2,000 a year.
THE CHAIRMAN (interposing)said, the salaries of the Judges did not arise on this Vote, but were on the Consoli 1194 dated Fund. The hon. Member could discuss the judicial staff in Ireland, but the Judges' salaries did not come under this Vote.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his point was that in Ireland, unlike England, a barrister accepting a Judgeship considerably increased his income. A spirit of extravagance ran through the whole judicial system. In justice to Ireland and the taxpayers of the country, the Chief Secretary ought to pause when judicial vacancies occurred and ask whether it was not desirable that some of these Judgeships should be abolished and the salaries and expenses of the judiciary in Ireland brought more into accord with the state of the country as regarded population and wealth. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Vote of £33,733, to complete the sum required for the salaries and expenses of the Irish Land Commission,
§ MR DILLONsaid, he did not know more expensive machinery of reform than the Irish Land Commission. The sum proposed to be taken for next year for the expenses of the Irish Land Commission was, allowing for the sum contributed by the Irish Church Fund, £66,733, and some years ago, when the judicial rents were being settled, the sum required used to amount to considerably over £100,000 a year. So, during the 15 years that the Commission had been in operation, the sum of no less than £1,300,000 had been, expended on the administration of the Commission. An enormous sum had been expended upon the Irish Land Commission, and yet they had only reduced the rents to an extent that the good feeling of the landlords would have prompted them voluntarily to have conceded in the circumstances. Therefore, the Land Act had been in operation for 15 years, with the result that it had, in the language of the late Lord Derby, been a raft on which the landlords had saved their pockets. Hon. Members had heard for many years from the Unionist Party that their idea of settling the Land Question of Ireland was to get rid of the landlords altogether.
THE CHAIRMANBefore the hon. Gentleman goes further, I may remind 1195 him that a general discussion upon the Irish Land Question would not be in order upon this Vote. As long as the hon. Gentleman confines his observations to criticising the expense of the machinery of the Land Commission, he will be quite in order; but if he proceeds to a general consideration of the policy of the Land Commission, and of the Land Question, I think that I should have to hold that his remarks would be out of Order.
§ MR. DILLON, said he had no intention of going beyond the line which the Chairman had laid down. He, however, desired to point out that, during all the years that this costly Commission had been in existence, no principle had been laid down regulating the fixing of judicial rents in Ireland. No definition had yet been given as to the meaning of the words "fair rent." Some instructions ought to be issued which would serve as a guide in fixing a fair rent. It had been stated that the decision must be left to the discretion of the Assistant Commissioners, who were to go upon the land and place a value upon it by rule of thumb. It must be evident to the Committee that in that case a great deal must depend upon the character of the men who were appointed Assistant Commissioners, and it was the character of those men which had caused grievous dissatisfaction in Ireland with what they had done, and great anxiety for what they might do in the future. No doubt many of the Assistant Commissioners were upright, impartial, and skilful men, but there were also among them many whose antecedents in no way qualified them to discharge efficiently the duties of their office. It was admitted that many of these men had had no previous experience to guide them in valuing land, and there were others of them, he was sorry to say, whose antecedents were calculated to entirely destroy the confidence of the people in their decisions. For instance, many of them had been in the employment of landlords, as valuers, sub-agents, and agents, and were even landlords themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] He held in his hand a very interesting return which had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for South Derry, which showed the names and date of appointment of all the Members 1196 of the Land Commission. He had discovered one or two cases where gentlemen who had furnished that return had not given full information as to their antecedents. Some he knew of had returned themselves as surveyors who were not surveyors at all, but had simply been landlords' agents. In the continuation of that return, the right hon. Gentleman should see that inquiries were made with a view to checking the statements. It was essential that this great Department—the most vitally important of all the Departments of the Irish Government—should command the confidence of the people. One of the most important matters at present engaging the attention of Irish people, was the revision of the present judicial rents. In order to revise those rents, a number of new Commissioners would have to be appointed. He would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to be most careful to select men who would, if possible, command the confidence of both landlords and tenants. It would be a very difficult thing to do, but upon the right hon. Gentleman's success in doing it would largely depend the success of that Department. These matters would have to be discussed next year with very great care indeed. There was one other matter he desired to mention now in connection with the Land Commission. Unfortunately, when the Land Acts Committee were appointed, certain Members in the House resisted the inclusion of the Purchase Department, but there was no Department that required reform more than the Purchase Department. He would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to apply himself carefully to the state of that Department, and to examine into the defects and evils which had obstructed its action. One abuse in particular should be removed as soon as possible. The practice had arisen, and been held by some Commissioners to be legal, of making lettings for the purpose of selling farms. He knew of farms let by fathers to sons, for the purpose of borrowing money on the sale of the farm. What, he asked, could be more fraudulent than that a man should let a farm at an exorbitant price so as to borrow the money at 2¾ per cent.? This was a gross abuse, and it had been perpetrated over and over again in different parts of the country. 1197 One of the Land Purchase Commissioners who attempted to stop it was overruled by his brother Commissioners. The money was voted by Parliament for the purpose of settling the tenant farmers on their holdings, and not for the purpose of being put into the pockets of impecunious landlords. The Committee were aware that, under the present Land Purchase Act, a certain portion of the price was reserved and guaranteed by the Land Purchase Commissioners, and that portion was not paid out till it had been repaid by the tenant. He contended that if farms were sold at a fair price the State possessed ample security in the tenant-right of the tenant, for the property of the tenant in the farm, as recognised now by the law, was often as great as the property of the landlord, and if he was only called on to buy the property of the landlord, the State, as mortgagee, had half the value of the farm, and the whole of the tenant-right stood as margin of security.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now criticising the law as it exists at present. I do not think that can be discussed on this Vote. I have allowed the hon. Member to deal with the administration of the Land Commission, but any alteration of the law cannot be discussed on this Vote.
§ MR. DILLONpointed out that frequently the reports sent to the Land Commission by the inspectors stated that the price fixed between landlord and tenant was too great, and that the farm was no security for the price. He had made inquiries as to whether the inspectors were instructed to separate the interest of the landlord and tenant, but, as a matter of fact, they did not; their custom was to examine a farm as it stood, and to report to the Land Commission whether the farm as it stood was value as security for the advance to be made. In many cases they reported that the farm was not value for the advance to be made, and, he contended, that showed that in the great number of these sales the tenant was compelled not only to pay for the landlord's interest in the farm, but also for the whole of the tenant-right. If that was not so there must be an ample margin of security, because the tenant-right must be there over and above the advance made by the State. 1198 He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to get for himself the instructions which were issued to the inspectors of the purchase department, and to cross-question those inspectors as to whether, when they were inspecting a farm and making a report on the nature of the security to the Purchase Commissioners, they took the farm as it stood, or reported on the landlord interest only. His remarks applied especially to certain large estates in Ireland where tenants had been evicted. He hoped this matter would be fully considered by a Committee next year, but pending that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into this point. At the opening of next Session he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would move for the reappointment of the Land Acts Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the administration of the Purchase Commission, and also of the Land Department of the High Court in Ireland.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid, that on the Ponsonby estate some of the tenants had purchased a short time ago, but their case would, unhappily, be a warning to others. It was pointed out at the time that the price that was being offered for this land was entirely disproportionate to its value. A large number of the tenants had engaged in an agrarian combination, and there had been a state of conflict on the estate, but he believed about half of them had purchased. They had purchased at so high a price, however, that it would be morally impossible for them to continue to pay the instalments. Unfortunately, it was likely to be only a matter of time when the purchasers on the Ponsonby estate would be in a far worse position than those who were on the holdings at present, and this state of affairs, he contended, was entirely due to the laxity of the Purchase Commissioners.
THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, said the hon. Member was not entitled to go into the constitution of the Land Commission, as those salaries were not included in the Vote. He must request the hon. Member to leave the Land Commission alone.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid, what he wished to deal with was the inspectors who went down to value the land. He knew, as well as any Member of the House, that 1199 he could not bring up the Land Commission on this Vote. He was not an old Parliamentary hand, but he knew that these inspectors were supposed to act upon instructions, but so far as he was informed, they did not do so. What they had to do was to see if the land was value to the State, but he contended that they put an extravagant value on the land. They ought to act on definite instructions and they ought not to attach importance to the financial embarrassments of the landlords. The inspectors should have nothing to do with that. They should have only to do with the present value of the land. He contended that the inspectors did not act in that way in the case of which he spoke, the Ponsonby Estate. With regard to the Sub-Commissioners he did not propose to go into that at any length. They might be told that they need not go into it, because it was intended to bring in a Land Bill next Session, but the members of that Committee were supposed to be in ignorance of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. They must take things as they found them, and their charge was that with the exception of a minority of the Sub-Commissioners, the bulk of them acted in the interest of the landlord class, that they were appointed from landlord agents, and that they had utterly failed to do justice to the people or to carry out the intentions of the Act of 1881. He should not weary the Committee with any lengthened reference to the report of Mr. Morley's Committee on that particular point. As far as the administration went, that Committee found that the Sub-Commissioners appointed under the Act went even beyond Adams v. Dunseath, and fixed the rent on the tenant's own improvements, and as if the tenant had no interest in the holding. The history of the manner in which these Sub-Commissioners had fixed the rent on the tenant's own improvements, was one of the most melancholy chapters in the 1200 history of how the Act, intended to benefit the tenant, had been whittled down until it had become practically worthless to the tenants of Ireland. Comparing the reductions granted, with the reductions granted voluntarily in England, it must be evident that these Sub-Commissioners had set all the equity of the case out of consideration. He should not say more than that, whatever legislation they might have on this question, he trusted that care would be taken that these Sub-Commissioners should not be drawn exclusively from one class, but from the people who would do justice as between man and man.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe hon. Member for East Mayo has criticised the Land Commission from two points of view. He has criticised the system, and he has criticised those who have carried it out. As regards the system itself, I am bound to say I can go a very considerable distance with him. He has told the Committee truly that the Commission has since its inception cost no less than £1,300,000, and that the work of the Commission has been to reduce the rents by 20 per cent, per annum. That is to say, that for an expenditure of £,300,000 there has been a gain to the tenants on the whole—if the advantage of the Commission is to be measured in that way—of something like £1,200,000 a year. I agree that that seems to be an enormous sum of public money to spend for a reduction in rents which in England would have been effected, as the hon. Gentleman says, by a voluntary arrangement between landlords and tenants. At the same time I must remind him that, if the Act of 1881 had not been passed, we must not assume that at the present time the tenants would be actually paying the rents they were paying at the time when that Act was introduced, and if you abandon the system of the voluntary arrangement between the landlord and tenant, and substitute for it a system of judically fixing rents, you cannot expect to have the advantage of the 1201 voluntary system going on concurrently with the advantage of the judicial system. If the rents are fixed by the Courts for a good number of years, that must have an inevitable tendency to stop any voluntary arrangements that might otherwise have been come to between landlord and tenant. That is a point which hon. Members from Ireland have not always sufficiently considered. The hon. Member went on to quote from the opinion given before the Select Committee by Mr. Doyle—namely, that the Assistant Commissioners were not guided by any principle, and that no one knew what a fair rent was, and he has asked me to do my best in the Land Bill I bring in to give an intelligible definition of what a fair rent is. I am not sanguine that I shall be able to accomplish that task any more than my predecessors. It may be possible to give a definition of a fair rent which is satisfactory in words, but I am bound to say, when it comes to the actual valuation of a farm, that I have very grave doubts whether any definition, however carefully framed, can really do away with what the hon. Member describes as the rule of thumb. The hon. Member for North Cork has referred to the case of "Adams and Dunseath," and he has stated that the Commissioners really were not in the habit of giving to the tenants so much as the judgment of "Adams and Dunseath" allowed, and that they really neglected the terms of that judgment altogether. If that refers to the division of the unearned increment as between the landlord and the tenant, in proportion to their interest in the holding, I think it is only fair to say that, so far as I can gather from the investigation of the subject I have been able to give, the Select Committee were not quite accurate in saying that "Adams and Dunseath" did lay down that principle at all.
MR. T. M. HEALYDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the hon. Member for South Tyrone was wrong? [Laughter.]
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI am not able to say, because I have not looked into it, what the view of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURHe may possibly have done so. The opinion I am expressing is at variance with the opinion of hon. Members opposite. If it happen also to be at variance with the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone I am afraid I cannot help that. [Laughter.] My own judgment was that that principle was not really laid down in "Adams and Dunseath," and that it was not fair therefore to charge the Land Commission with having neglected what, if it had been laid down in "Adams and Dunseath," I admit would have been an important element in the case. But that is only by the way. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo and the opinion given by Mr. Doyle, that it is simply a question for the discretion of each Commissioner. I have little doubt myself that there is a large element of truth in it. You may define and define, but when it comes to the practical application of the definition, then it really is a question of the skill which each valuer may have, of course bearing in mind the principles which must guide him in coming to a decision.
§ MR. DILLONIt is not so much a question of definition as a question of method.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUROf course I will do my best to make it as clear to the Sub-Commissioners as possible what they have to do, but it is impossible to avoid the use of a rule of thumb to some extent. Hon. Members opposite must know that we on this side of the House have never been very much enamoured of the Act of 1881. We all see the enormous difficulties its application entails, and we have always felt the disadvantage of fixing rents with absolute rigidity for a given number of years. You have ruled it out of order, 1203 Sir, to discuss the whole question of land tenure in Ireland, and, even had you not done so, I do not think I could at the present time enter on that subject, because if I did so I should necessarily have to anticipate what I may have to say next Session in introducing the Land Bill. I must say I am appalled not only at the expenditure in which the Land Commission has already involved the country, but I am also appalled at the idea of the expenditure which will be required if we have to deal with all the applications which may come in for fixing judicial rents in a manner similar to that already adopted. If the 30,000 or so applications to refix judicial rents came in during the year following September 30th, and if the Land Commission was to dispose of them in a single year, it would probably entail something like 70 additional sub-commissioners, and would cost the country some £80,000 quite apart from the cost to the parties themselves. I leave the matter there for the judgment of the Committee, in order that they may realise what the present position of affairs is. I may add, by the way, that if the proposal in Mr. Morley's Bill had been adopted, instead of 70 additional Commissioners, we might possibly have had to appoint double that number in order to deal with the applications that would come in. The hon. Member for East Mayo himself admitted that it would be very difficult to discover sufficient Sub-Commissioners who would be able to carry out the work in a satisfactory and impartial manner. I quite agree with the hon. Member in that, but he will also agree with me when I say that that difficulty would be enormous if such a vast number of Sub-Commissioners had to be appointed. The hon. Member said that he believed there had been a large number of bogus cases got up for the purpose of borrowing money at a low rate of interest from the State. Possibly such cases may have been brought before the Commissioners; but of this I am 1204 sure, that the Commissioners would inquire into the bonâ fides of all cases. I do not think that a single case could be found in which the Sub-Commissioners have allowed such a case to pass. The hon. Member asked me one other question, and that is whether, in considering the terms of purchase, the Land Commissioners have regard to the value of the landlord's interest only, or also to the value of the tenant's interest in the holding. I believe they have regard to the value of the holding as a going concern—["Hear, hear!"]—and I should imagine they were bound to do that. Then the hon. Member goes on to assume that the tenant has an interest in the holding equal to that of the landlord, and that the Commissioners have sometimes declined to accept the terms voluntarily arranged between landlords and their tenants, and, therefore, that it follows that those terms must have been very much too high, inasmuch as, considering the value of the security, you have to consider the interest of the landlord as well as the interest of the tenant. That is very plausible, but in each individual case you would have to look into the relation of the landlord's interest to the interest of the tenant. I believe the Commissioners have been excessively cautious, perhaps they have been overcautious, but until we really know what precautions they have regarded as necessary to safeguard the State against loss, it is impossible to infer with the hon. Member that the amounts voluntarily arranged in these cases between the landlords and the tenants have been in their opinion too high.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYdid not think that anyone would consider the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to be a conclusive reply to the right hon. Member for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his view the Land Commission had been over-cautious. That statement amounted almost to a hint to the Land Commission that they had held the purse-strings too 1205 tightly, and been too slow to sanction the arrangements come to between landlords and tenants. But this very slowness on the part of the Commission in making advances was the only protection which the unfortunate tenant had in a great many instances. If the landlord and the tenant were dealing with each other on a footing of perfect equality, he would agree that it was not the function or duty of the Commission to step in between them, and to ascertain whether the bargain made by the landlord and the tenant was just to the latter. But the relations of the parties were not equal. In spite of all the Land Acts a great number of Irish tenants went to meet their landlords with a burden of arrears upon their backs. This made it impossible to regard them as free agents in these purchase transactions. In a large proportion of cases the landlord had it in his power, by demanding the arrears due, to force upon the tenant any bargain which he might think fit to insist upon. In these circumstances, if there were not some Department of State to step in between the landlord and the tenant, to examine their bargain, and to consider whether it was a just one for the tenant, it would be a poor look-out both for him and for the State, which supplied the money for the advances. The right hon. Gentleman said correctly that at present it was not the function of the Land Commission to differentiate between the interests of the landlord and the interests of the tenant. According to the strict law, no doubt the sole function of the Commission, when asked to make an advance, was to inquire whether the holding as it stood was sufficient security for the loan. But the argument of the hon. Member for East Mayo was that the functions of the Commission ought to be extended, and that the Commission ought to investigate these bargains between landlords and tenants, with a view to ascertain whether they were just in the tenants' interest. That would be not 1206 only a proper policy in the interest of the tenants, but also a proper policy having regard to the interests of the State, because no system of land purchase could continue in Ireland unless the tenant purchasers could faithfully observe their bargains.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now getting rather far from the Vote. I ruled some time ago that hon. Members could not discuss the Irish land question on this Vote, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the particulars of the Vote.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether or not it would be open to him to argue that it was the duty of the Land Commissioners to issue such instructions to their valuers as would secure the tenant purchaser from loss.
THE CHAIRMANNo; I understand no criticism of the action of the Land Commissioners is permissible upon this Vote, because their salaries do not appear upon it. I have permitted criticism upon the character and action of the Assistant Commissioners and inspectors who form the staff, but the hon. Member must not criticise the action of the Commissioners.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, that of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chairman. He would press on the right hon. Gentleman that his sound policy would be to insist that the valuers should keep a tight hand over the national purse-strings, and not shovel out money in any quantity to the landlords of Ireland. He would pass to another point. In the Land Purchase Act of 1890 a clause was inserted placing on the Land Commission the duty of seeing, in connection with the land purchase transactions, that the labourers were properly housed and that provision was made for the erection of cottages on the holdings. That clause had proved a dead letter, and he wished to know why such an important enactment had not been put in force.
MR. POWERcorroborated the statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down. Since the Election he had been waited on by several tenants among his own constituents, who complained that the inspections made by the inspectors sent down by the Land Commission had been cursory and hurried, and that due regard had not been paid to their representations. They said they were not actually free agents in the agreements made, and that they acted under duress, most of them having had writs served upon them by the landlords. Their condition was desperate, and he would suggest that the Chief Secretary should, under the circumstances, consider whether it was not possible to extend the period for the repayment of the loans which had been made to them.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY rose, with increasing reluctance, to speak upon any Irish question. If a man served three years at the Bar he was a lawyer, and was entitled to pass his judgment upon any legal question; if a man studied medicine for a few years he was licensed to kill or cure; if he took a journey to Siam on a Cook's tourist ticket he was an authority upon that subject, or if he went round the world on a few months' trip he was entitled to write about Greater Britain; but if a man spent 40 years in Ireland, devoted himself solely to Irish politics, and made it his special study, then he was the last person in the whole world to be listened to. He was consequently thinking of devoting himself to Mekong and Macedonia—[Laughter]—leaving these small trumpery questions of his native land to English politicians, because they knew from an old saying that a prophet had no honour in his own country. It was, therefore, with great diffidence that he rose to make a few remarks on the Irish land question. He was greatly interested to hear from the Chief Secretary his observations in regard to his future legislation. The right hon. Gentleman dropped one remark that had struck 1208 him as singularly interesting, because it was the first indication he had given them of the policy he intended to act upon in regard to his Bill of next Session. He had told them that he was appalled when he came to contemplate the prospect which would open up before the country next spring or autumn in the fact that 30,000 Irish farmers were again to require to have their rents fixed. Fancy a man being appalled at another man's seeking justice! ["Hear, hear!"] Why was he appalled? Because 80 Sub-Commisioners at £500 a year each would have to be appointed, and £40,000 a year would have to be spent upon the settlement of the Irish land question. When they came to the Vote for the Royal Irish Constabulary would the right hon. Gentleman be appalled? £66,000 for the settlement of the Irish land question in the interest of the tenants. How much for the police in the interest of the landlords?—£1,370,000. That did not appall him a bit. There was another significant deduction to be drawn from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary was appalled at the notion of 30,000 tenants going into court, and he had warned the tenants that he was going to take a short way with them. [Mr. G. BALFOUR: "I did not say so."] No, the right hon. Gentleman did not dare to say so, but he was entitled to place his commentary upon the observations, and he maintained it was quite plain the right hon. Gentleman was going to garrot and throttle the rights of the tenants to go into court. The tenants were not to go into court, because Mr. Justice Bewley told them he would postpone judgment on their applications if they did. Yes, but if they did not go into court at once, although judgment might be postponed, what security and guarantee had they that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman might not contain some provision abridging the right they now had to have a fair rent fixed?
1209THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was discussing possible legislation next Session. It was obvious that that did not arise on the Vote for the Land Commission, which terminated on March 31 next.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he readily bowed to the Chairman's decision, because he could see the remark of the Minister that he was appalled as to what would happen next year was entirely disorderly.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that if made in that bald way it would have been disorderly. The right hon. Gentleman regarded the Commission as expensive, and, as an illustration of the expense, he referred to the possibility of future developments.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, concerned as he was in the clodhoppers in question, and having no regard whatever to the salaries which might be involved in their getting justice, his advice to the Irish tenants was that, notwithstanding the appalling shock to the conscience of the Irish Secretary, they should, as soon as their rights accrued, serve their notices in court, and leave it to the British Minister to say, when he brought in his Bill next March, how the rush should be dealt with. He did not believe that if the men rushed into court in any numbers, the right hon. Gentleman would have the courage to carry out the views which he imagined were now lurking in his mind. But the Chief Secretary said, with some truth, that the fixing of fair rents must be always more or less in the nature of a rule of thumb; he condemned that method of settlement, and alluded to settlement by legal process Where did the proposition of Euclid come in in the settlement of any legal question. Take the Employers' Liability Act. A workman had his leg taken off by a machine and he got compensation. Was that compensation arrived at by any other rule but the rule of thumb? How could any other rule prevail under a land 1210 system whereby the landlord was different in race, religion, thought, feeling, house and home, from the people. The landlord lived in this island and cared nothing about his own land, and in order to prevent his exactions they had set up an abnormal state of things which did not exist, except in India, in any other country in the world. As between Lord Clanricarde living in the Albany, and his tenants over in Galway, he said—"blessed be the rule of thumb." He did not hold up the rule of thumb, as some magnificent emanation of profound genius, but he said it was the only kind of protection the tenants had against their oppressors. As between the labour of the tenant and the so-called rights of the landlord, by every consideration which belonged to justice and equity, the improvements upon a farm were created by the tenant. Where had that contention been questioned? The right hon. Gentleman quarelled with the view of the Morley Committee. But did he quarrel with it upon the doctrine that the improvements were made by the tenants? No, the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to do that. The advocates of the tenants therefore contended that the tribunals, created as they were by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and permeated as they were by the land lord class, should not be allowed to say that those improvements belonged to any man except to the man who by his sweat had created them. The laws were those of the British Parliament; they were made by the enemies of Ireland in the House of Commons, and by her tenfold enemies in the House of Lords. Irish representatives were forced to come to Westminster to discuss them, and then the British Parliament quarrelled with its own handiwork and called them "rule of thumb." The British Parliament wished Irishmen to worship its laws, while it spat upon them itself. That was practically the Irish question. These Sub- 1211 Commissioners were 70 or 80 in number, and with one or two exceptions they were all landlords' men. The Chief Secretary was appalled at the thought of the Irish peasant having resort, not to the Land League, or the Riband Societies, or the Moonlighters, but to the tribunals which he himself appointed. He denounced this British pharisaism in connection with the Irish land question. There was no mystery about that question; it was so simple that it was ridiculous to discuss it. The Irish kern, who had made the land, whose home it was, who had to work on it in hunger and rain, sought some little right to acquire more decent sustenance than the pig and the fowl which housed with him. [Cheers.] He asked that he should be required to give to the landlord, who was away at Epsom or Monte Carlo, only what would leave him, the tenant, enough to live in misery and rags. The Chief Secretary was appalled at this expenditure on the Land Commission; but the million and three-quarters spent on the Royal Irish Constabulary was the delight and boast of Parliament. And what a magnificent body of men they were. [Ministerial Cheers.] Any one could be loyal at 30s. a week. If the Irish peasants, who hardly got 2s. 6d. a week out of their holdings, were given 30s. a week, they might be inclined to recognise more than they did the benefits of the British Constitution. The land question, or the future or the past policy of the Government, could not be discussed on this Vote. The only question that could be discussed was whether the salaries of the Secretary and Assistant-Secretary were or were not excessive. Here were the Irish Members, with a nation behind them, panting to know what the Government were going to do about the land question next year; there was not a peasant in Ireland to whom this question did not involve the whole of life interest; and yet the Irish representatives were not allowed even to offer a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government on the 1212 subject. He did not desire to deny the right hon. Gentleman sufficient time to consider the Irish land question. It had been considered long enough. They began its consideration with the Devon Commission 50 years ago.
THE CHAIRMANI have to inform the hon. Member again—and I think that he recognises the ruling to be just—that the land question generally cannot be properly raised on this Vote. [Ministerial cheers.]
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, hon. Members rejoiced at that statement. They did not want the Irish question to be discussed. [Cries of "Order" and cheers.] But the Irish Members were sent to Westminster to discuss it. The Irish people took no interest in anything else. This was not their Parliament; and the Irish Members came to it to fight their opponents in handcuffs. He made no complaint of the ruling of the Chairman. Practically, he believed it was the ruling that their own friends in the chair would arrive at; but it resulted from the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury had taken the salaries of the Judicial Commissioners off the Estimates, and had put them on the Consolidated Fund. The only question they could discuss on the Vote, therefore, was whether the Land Commission was an economical system or not. As far as he was concerned, he was not in the least interested whether the Irish Land Commission was economically worked or not. Personally he did not care whether it cost £60,000 or £660,000, The more that oppression cost in Ireland the better he was pleased; he would not cross the floor of the House to save the British Treasury a million of money. The more it cost this country the better he was satisfied. Acting, therefore, on the ruling of the Chair, he had only to express his opinion, for the benefit of those in Ireland who might read what he said [ironical cheers], that, having regard to the series of speeches the right hon. Gentleman had made, the series of letters which he had caused to 1213 be written to the Irish Land Commission and which he had been afraid to produce [cheers], the replies which he had received from the Land Commission, and which he had been afraid to lay on the table of the House, the circumstance that he was appalled at the prospect of 30,000 Irish farmers having the right to go into Court next September or November, the fact that the Government had promoted three gentlemen who had voted against the Report of the Morley Committee as against one in favour of it, that the right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to condemn the Morley Report on the one point vitally interesting to the tenant— its view of the case of "Adams v. Dunseath"—his advice to the Irish farmers would be to put little faith in the promises of the right hon. Gentleman of legislation in the course of next year. If they did they would be disappointed, and they would be well advised, if they now considered that they had the right to go into Court, to exercise that right while it still remained to them, in order to prevent that right from being taken away from them, as was threatened in the next Bill promised by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.]
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Vote of £63,104 to complete the sum for County Court Officers and others in Ireland,
MR. POWERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the great inconvenience that had been occasioned by the withdrawal of Civil Bill Courts from Carrick-on-Suir and Carrickbeg. Last year representations were made to the Chief Secretary, and it was arranged that the Courts should be restored; but there had been a misunderstanding as to the number of Courts that should be held, and it appeared to have been the decision of the Privy Council that the Courts should be held only once a year. He did not wish to draw an exact parallel between 1214 the County Courts in England and in Ireland: but, whereas in England quite small towns had a County Court sitting once a month, in Ireland they were denied even the small concession of having sittings twice a year. The difference between England and Ireland was that, whereas in England the convenience of the people was consulted, in Ireland they consulted rather the convenience of the highly-paid officials.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that his impression was that this was a question for the Judicial Committee.
MR. POWERsaid that, if the right hon. Gentleman would only express an opinion that the demand now made was, on the face of it, just and reasonable, he thought that those gentlemen would take their cue from him, and would submit to this small, just, and reasonable demand.
§ MR. FLYNNcalled attention to the case of Robert Gleeson, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir John Carden, who was, he stated, sentenced at Templemore Petty Sessions under a Statute of Edward III. It seemed extraordinary that the return of a Conservative Government should lead to the recrudescence of cases of magisterial oppression, which characterised the administration of 1880–1891. They would be very loath to attack the question of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, if they were not forced to do so by cases of that kind. He had asked the Attorney General that afternoon, about this case, and the right hon. Gentleman had replied that several prosecutions had taken place during the late administration.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he had stated that there were several hundreds.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid he challenged that statement. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information. He wished to know under what statute the residential Magistrate proceeded to this extremity, and sent this unfortunate evicted tenant to prison for a month? The fact was that this man 1215 was trying to sell some sheep, and the evicted tenant said to the possible purchasers, "These sheep ought to be good sheep, for they were grazed on my evicted farm." He held that to be an extraordinary and coercive law which could make an offence of such an utterance. It was admitted by the steward in cross-examination that that was the only act that the tenant had done, and that he had used no violence, obstruction, or intimidation, and yet the Resident Magistrate sent the man to prison for a month. He asked hon. Member's representing English and Scotch constituences to give a fair consideration to this case. In this country the workmen had the right of striking for higher wages. If their employer says to them, "I cannot give you more than so much wages," the men have a right to say to him, "we cannot accept the wages you propose to offer us," and to leave their employment. But further than that, the men had a right to station one of themselves at their employer's door, and advise those who came to fill their places not to enter into the employment. Why should not the law in Ireland be based upon the same principle? How did an evicted Irish tenant break the law by saying "These ought to be good sheep because they were fed npon my farm?" Under the ordinary law no man could have been prosecuted for making such a statement, and the right hon. Gentleman would have been ashamed to have introduced a Bill into the House for the purpose of making such a statement a criminal offence. The prosecution in this case had, therefore, been compelled to fall back upon the obsolete statute of Edward III. Surely that statute was opposed in principle to the now acknowledged right of Trade Unionists to combine for their own protection. The Resident Magistrate, however, acting under the power supposed to be conferred upon him by that ancient statute, had bound this man over to keep the peace, "which you have, not broken, or else we shall send you to prison for a month." The law under which this man was prosecuted was a monstrous one. It was a most unhappy thing for the Government that such a case as this should be brought before the country, and he was firmly convinced that the right hon. Gentleman had 1216 not heard the last of this matter. He was anxious to hear what reply the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General would give as to the proceedings at Templemore Petty Sessions, but if the Government went on in this way they would raise a very strong feeling in Ireland. They were anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should get fair play, and they should help him by every means in their power, but he warned him that a mean, miserable tyranny of this kind would raise a spirit in Ireland which could not be put down.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, a few cases of this kind had occurred, but in those cases the most angry protests had been made by the Irish Nationalist Members. The practice pursued here was most scandalous and outrageous. What was the case with regard to this unfortunate man? He was harshly and cruelly evicted. He was now suffering a second term of imprisonment. He was put under a rule of bail to be of good behaviour and keep the peace. He had not broken the peace, and he had not done anything which in England was not perfectly legal and commonly done by the working men of this country. There was the strike at Northampton.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the Attorney General had justified the placing of this man under a rule of bail, and he (Mr. Dillon) was contending that the man's action was exactly on all fours with the proceedings of the working men in this country. Mr. Gleeson had as much right to do what he did as the strikers in a recent boot strike had to endeavour to dissuade men from going into shops concerned in the dispute. Then, he understood that in cases of intimidation in this country the practice was to leave the prosecution to the individual aggrieved. But in Ireland, the numerous police force were ever ready immediately to set the law in motion. In this instance a cruel injustice had been done, and proceedings of this character, instead of promoting peace, would considerably increase the difficulties in preserving law and order in Ireland. He would await with interest the proofs that the late Government instituted hundreds of prosecutions under the Statute of Edward 1217 III. His recollection was that there were only two or three cases, and that in only one, instance was a man imprisoned. In every single instance in which the late Government attempted to enforce that Statute, the Nationalist Members remonstrated in the strongest possible language. Whether they were instituted by a Liberal Government or by a Tory Government, proceedings of this character were an abominable perversion of the law, and ought not to be tolerated for a single moment. He protested against this straining of the law against poor and defenceless tenants in Ireland, and he would impress upon the Chief Secretary that he should depart from the evil position taken up by the Irish Office, and should administer the law equally and indifferently between the poor tenants and the wealthy landlords of the country. If there was to be any inclination towards one side or the other, the right hon. Gentleman ought to loan rather towards an indulgent attitude towards the poor and defenceless, than towards the rich and powerful.
§ MR. MICHAEL AUSTINdesired to direct the attention of the Committee to an extraordinary answer given by the Chief Secretary to a question put by him that day. He did not think it necessary to put a supplemental question because this Vote was coming on. As the case was typical of many others, he thought he was justified in calling attention to this subject. The question he put was as to whether a gun licence was refused by the resident magistrate to one Thomas Ambrose, a most respectable farmer of Ardagh, in the county of Limerick. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that he did not differ with the conclusions arrived at by the magistrates. If that was the principle adopted by the Chief Secretary it foreboded ill for the future. He thought it was the duty of the Chief Secretary, before he made that reply, to inquire into the character of the man whose application was refused. The matter had created a deep feeling in the district, and in every other part of the county. It seemed to him that this magistrate was not actuated by fine feelings of justice. He was rather inclined to believe that feelings of a different character must have actuated him in the decision he gave. 1218 He acted in antagonism to everyone who held Nationalist opinions, and on the Bench he had displayed animus to an extraordinary degree. The farmer whose application for a licence was refused was a well-known man in Ardagh, and his character would bear the closest investigation. Although his application was refused, a licence was granted two weeks ago by the same magistrate to an individual who had been found discharging his gun at people in a public road when suffering under the effects of drink. He pressed the Chief Secretary for an inquiry into the conduct of this Resident Magistrate.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND, replying to the hon. Member for East Mayo, said that it was very difficult for him to discuss the case of Robert Gleeson in that House, and for this reason:—If the contention of the hon. Member for Mayo was well founded, and if the order made against Gleeson was pronounced without any evidence whatever to justify it, it would be quite open to him to apply for a writ of certiorari, with the object of getting the order quashed. He had not the slightest alarm, so far as his own action was concerned, in discussing the particulars of this case. The prosecution, if prosecution it could be called, was nothing more than this, that a summons was served upon this man alleging that he did unlawfully watch and beset one Henry Morgan, and unlawfully obstruct and prevent him from conducting his lawful business, namely, sheep-selling, at the fair at Templemore, and did induce and prevent other persons from purchasing sheep from the said Henry Morgan with intent to injure him and the owner of the said sheep, and had been at said time and place guilty of conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. It was an ordinary form of summons. In regard to this jurisdiction the hon. Member for East Mayo said it did not exist or could not be exercised in England.
§ MR. DILLONNo, I did not say that. I said it would not be used in similar cases in England.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDdid not know that similar cases would arise in England, but this jurisdiction which magistrates had exercised, not as a punishment for crime 1219 actually committed, but in furtherance of preventive justice, to compel a man to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, existed in England as well as in Ireland, and existed not under the Statute of Edward at all, but under the commission which every magistrate holds. In regard to this matter, Mr. Morley, replying to a question on June 21 last, said, in reference to the application of this statute to the Massereene evicted tenants:—
Justices of the Peace in England and in Ireland have at all times exercised the power of requiring persons to find sureties for good behaviour when, in the exercise of their judgment, a case is made out for it in evidence. The power is founded on their commission as justices and the Statute of Edward, and it is, and has been, the ordinary law.That was the jurisdiction which the magistrates exercised, and they exercised it to prevent conduct calculated to provoke crime and lead to a breach of the peace. It was a jurisdiction not peculiar to Ireland, but which existed in England. It was entirely inaccurate to say that Gleeson was ordered to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for merely stating that the sheep had been fed on a boycotted farm. He dogged the vendor of the sheep for three hours and warned off people who, in all probability, according to the evidence, would have purchased the sheep. No conduct was more likely to lead to a breach of the peace or to interfere with the lawful right which every man in the community had to sell his produce in open market. ["Hear, hear!"] It was for these acts that Gleeson was bound over to keep the peace. The hon. Member for Mayo had challenged him to point to any case under the late Administration where men were held to bail under this statute for similar offences. He had not a complete list by him, but he should be happy to furnish one to the hon. Member if he would put a question on the Paper. He had shown where Mr. Morley enforced this Act against the evicted tenants on the Massereene estate. [Mr. DILLON: "Tried to enforce it."] He did not see how the Executive was less to blame for having taken an abortive proceeding. ["Hear, hear!"] In 274 agrarian cases during the three years of Mr. 1220 Morley's administration, men were held to bail to give securities to keep the peace and be of good behaviour under summonses actually in this form, and 71 were sent to prison in default of bail. In those three years 941 persons were proceeded against under summonses identical with this and were bound to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, those who made default being sent to prison. ["Hear, hear!"] So far from the present Government giving a different direction to the administration of the criminal law and putting in force statutes which had been laid aside during the term of office of the late Government, quite the contrary was the case, and they had merely pursued the policy adopted for the last 15 or 16 years. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. DILLONconfessed that he was surprised at the figures the right hon. Gentleman had given, and would take an opportunity of ascertaining whether they were accurate or not. He would only say that conduct similar to that adopted in this case would not be tolerated in England. When the bootmakers were on strike in Northampton they sent round men on bicycles to persuade country manufacturers and finishers not to take the boots of the Northampton makers. That was an analogous case to that of Gleeson, but it was not attempted to adopt the procedure in England which was adopted in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas not acquainted with the facts of the case to which the hon Member referred. He was responsible for administration of justice in Ireland, and he had, he considered, shown that in this case the magistrates acted quite properly in the course they took. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI have no control whatever in the matter. It is a matter entirely for the County Court Judge.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that was all very good; but the salaries of the process-servers were included in this Vote. Had the Committee no control over their salaries? All he asked was that persons occupying quasi-judicial 1221 positions in the service of writs and processes should not be allowed to act as partisans. In England—that great and free and noble country—it would not be tolerated; and what he wanted was to have the law of England applied to Ireland.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIf the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for an expression of my opinion, I say it is undesirable that persons holding these positions should act as partisans.
§ MR. MICHAEL AUSTINasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make any inquiries into the case of Mr. Ambrose, who was refused a gun licence. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police sergeant gave this man a most exemplary character and supported the granting of the licence?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was not aware.
§ MR. FLYNNurged that if a farmer applied for a licence for a gun for use on his own farm the political predilections of the magistrate should not be allowed to interfere. He believed it was perfectly impossible that cases such as had been mentioned could have occurred in England. He challenged any English Member to show that any case of the kind had happened in this country.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Vote of £56,178, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police,
MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained of the legal disability of pawnbrokers in Dublin to form limited liability companies.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDpromised to look into the matter.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Vote of £675,461, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Constabulary,
§ MR. DILLONsaid, he abstained from protesting against this Vote during the time of the late Government, because it was the policy of that Government to grant Home Rule to Ireland, 1222 and the Home Rule scheme contemplated the reorganisation and reduction of the police establishment. Fifteen years ago a most remarkable speech was delivered by the late John Bright on the Irish Constabulary Vote. He said that the speeches of the Irish Members had been of a character to produce an effect on the House, and that he agreed with a great deal that had been said. He referred to the Irish Constabulary as a force differing from any force in Great Britain for the preservation of the peace, and added that in the then condition of Ireland it was almost necessary. But that showed how much there was to be done to change the condition of the general mass of the Irish people; and he expressed the hope that the time would come when the police system of Ireland might be placed on a footing as judicious, and as conformable to English ideas of freedom as that of the English police. Mr. Bright made that speech 15 years ago, and since that time nothing had been done to carry out his views. The whole history of the Royal Irish Constabulary was most extraordinary, for, as the population of Ireland had decreased, the cost of the police force had increased. At one time the force was partly paid out of the local resources of Ireland, but at the time of the Repeal of the Corn Laws the whole cost was thrown on the British Exchequer by Sir Robert Peel. In 1860 the force cost £700,000 a year, and the population of Ireland was more than 6,000,000. In 1870 the cost was £911,000 a year; in 1871 it cost £913,000 a year; in 1880 it cost £1,134,000 a year; in 1886 it cost £1,396,000 a year; in 1888 it cost £1,412,000 a year, and at that figure it now stood. So that while the population had decreased by a million and a half, the cost of the police force had doubled since 1860. The facts and figures showed that there must be something radically wrong in the social system of Ireland; and there did not appear to be any prospect of change in this extraordinary position of things. The Constabulary cost £1,400,000 in 1887, and with a decrease of 300,000 in the population, the cost was still the same. In 1860 the Constabulary cost 2s. 4d. per head of the population, and to-day 7s. per head. The facts required 1223 some explanation, for, apart from agrarian disturbance, the Irish were practically a crimeless people. Outside the large towns it was purely an agricultural population, and it should cost less to police an agricultural than a manufacturing population. In the English boroughs outside London there was one policeman to 1,200 of the population; in Ireland, outside of Dublin, there was one to 300; in other words, there were four times as many policemen in proportion to the population. The reason was the Irish police were used for military purposes; they were a standing army to maintain the injustice of rent. The landlords had been encouraged in their oppression by an absurd use of the police. No landlord in Great Britain expected armed police to be put in motion at his wish to evict tenants. There was no civilised country in the world in which such performances went on as was constantly to be seen in Ireland in the shape of summary evictions for non-payment of excessive rent. The police, acting as bailiffs and servants of the Irish landlords, had caused outrageous expense for the Irish police, amounting to £1,000,000 more than should be required, and £700,000 or £800,000 for the Irish Land Commission to reduce rents which were too high. The Imperial Exchequer was bled to the extent of £1,500,000 a year to keep up the system of landlord government in Ireland. How long was Ireland to have a police force costing three or four times as much as that of any other country in the world? Some explanation for this state of things should be given before the House was asked to pass this Vote.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member had exaggerated the figures as to the Irish police. The force did not number more than 11,000. It was reduced during Mr. Morley's tenure of office by 688, and between August, 1886, and August, 1892, when a Conservative Government held office, it was reduced by 571 men.
§ MR. DILLONThere has been no reduction in the cost.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURNo, but in the number of men. The additional cost was to a considerable extent due to the Pension Scheme introduced by Act of Parliament. But, although the hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that 1224 during the past three years he did not think it incumbent upon him to attack the size of the Constabulary force and the amount expended upon it because there was a Government in office friendly to his own views of Irish policy, he could hadly expect him, immediately after coming into office, to do what he did not ask the late Government to do.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the late Government were pledged to a large scheme for the reconstruction of the Government of Ireland which entailed a great reduction in the police. A Unionist Government now came in not so pledged, and he wanted to know what their intentions on the subject were.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that a reduction had been made in the number of men in the force by the two last Governments. As, however, Mr. Morley did not find it possible to carry out any considerable reduction in the force, he did not see any prospect of the present Government being able to do so.
MR. T. M. HEALYhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not confound them with Mr. Morley. They were Irish Nationalists, and had nothing to do with Mr. Morley. He protested against the whole system—the Government of Ireland as carried on by Mr. Morley and by Mr. Balfour, and by anybody else. Mr. Morley, however, did one good thing, inasmuch as he had issued a direction that one-half of the officers of the force should be chosen from the ranks. Instead of selecting the young men from Yorkshire to fill the ranks of the force they should be taken from among the Irish people themselves. He did not complain of the amount of the Estimate. The more wasteful the Government were the more he would like it, except in so far as he was a taxpayer himself. This was only a part of the great system of disease which affected the country. [Cheers.] When they attacked the Constabulary system, they attacked only, as it were, its big toe; the head and heart of the system were at Westminster, and it was here that they should be attacked. [Cheers.] The Constabulary were only an illustration of the system. He would not sit down without congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the most apt means he had devised for avoiding Irish 1225 Debate. He had driven them into discussing this most important Vote and other Irish Votes at half-past one in the morning, and then said that they were all tired and wanted to go to bed. Irishmen had seen many illustrations of the methods of Unionist Government, but this admirable addition and appendix to Unionist policy was a fit ending to this happy fortnight. [Laughter and cheers.]
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the Vote of £69,883, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland,
§ MR. T. M. HEALY rose to call attention to the case of the Maamtrasna prisoners, as to whose conviction, he said grave doubt existed. One of those prisoners had died. Some of them were Irish-speaking people and were denied the ordinary solaces of religion by being confined in a part which was not an Irish-speaking part of the country. Lord (then Sir Charles) Russell, Sir Edward (then Mr.) Clarke, and others had voted with them in a former Division on this question. Seeing that grave doubt existed as to the conviction of these men; in view of the strong minute which had been placed on the books of the prison by the visiting justices; and looking to the other points he had mentioned, he would suggest that the time had come when some re-consideration of their cases might be promised by the Government,
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the case of these prisoners had already been carefully considered.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Vote of £56,095, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland—agreed to.
§ Vote of £3,795, to complete the sum for Dundrurn Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland—agreed to.