§ (1.) The Lord Chancellor, the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, or any two of them (of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one) may make rules for the following purposes, namely:—
- (a.) To enable the Land Judge to act as an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission—
- (i) in any matter arising under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act; or
- (ii) in any appeal or rehearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act;
- (b.) To enable the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission to exercise any jurisdiction, powers, and duties, so far as existing at the commencement of this Act—
- (i) of the High Court or any judge thereof, either as successors of the Landed Estates Court and the judges thereof, or under the Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1865, or the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891; and
- (ii) of the Land Judge and of the Receiver Judge under any enactment conferring any jurisdiction upon either of such Judges as such;
- (c.) To enable the High Court to distribute the proceeds of any sale under the Land Purchase Acts, and to enable the Land Commission to carry into effect any sale under those Acts ordered by the High Court.
§ (2.) For carrying into effect any such rules, and exercising the jurisdiction, powers, and duties arising thereunder, the Land Judge shall be deemed to be an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, and the Judicial Commissioner shall be deemed to be an additional Land Judge.
§ (3.) The Land Judge as respects officers of the Supreme Court who are attached to such Judge, or otherwise employed in or about the execution of any such jurisdiction, powers, and duties as may under this section be exercised by the Judicial Commissioner, and the Judicial Commissioner, so far as respects the officers of the Land Commission, may direct those officers to perform such duties as he thinks fit under the Land Commission or under the Land Judge, as the case may be, and those officers shall perform those duties.
§ (4.) The Land Judge and the Judicial Land Commissioner may also make regulations for carrying into effect any rules made in pursuance of this section, and for the mutual relations between the Land Judge and the officers of the Supreme Court on the one side, and the Land Commission and their officers on the other, and in particular for the payment into the High Court of money to he distributed among the parties entitled thereto, and for the Land Commission carrying into effect any sales under the Land Purchase Acts ordered by the High Court.
§ (5.) Subsections two and three of section fifty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall apply to rules made under this section.
§ (6.) The first rules under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act.
§ MR. FLYNN moved in Sub-section (1) to omit the words "the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court." He considered that it was unsatisfactory there should be this interchange of duties between the Land Judge and the Judicial Commissioner in the administration of the Land Act. 336 It would be better if the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Commissioner and the President of the Incorporated Land Society of Ireland, or some other official, should form the body who had to draft the rules indicated in the clause, without bringing in the Land Judge. The whole question of the clause was open to doubt.
MR. T. M. HEALYthought it was hardly desirable to press an Amendment of this kind. He did not wish to speak too lavishly of a gentleman who had only been in the position of a Judge for a few months and whom he had often opposed in that House, but he considered the appointment of Mr. Rossas Land Judge had been a most satisfactory one, and it was not advisable to take away from him the power of having a say in the making of these rules.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that as he understood the Amendment it was not so much directed against the power of Mr. Justice Ross to make these rules as against the character of the rules he and the other gentlemen were empowered to make. The clause said that they—
may make rules for the following purpose namely (a) To enable the Land Judge to act: an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission—(i) in any matter arising under the Land Purchase Act as amended by this Act, or (ii) in any appeal or re-hearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act.He strongly objected to both these subsections, and it was impossible to consider the question of making rules without taking into purview at the same time the far-reaching character of the matters over which the section empowered these gentlemen to make rules. What he would be inclined to suggest to the hon. Member for North Cork would be not so much to press his present Amendment as the subsequent one, in which he proposed to omit Subsection (a).
§ MR. FLYNNsaid that, after the remarks of the hon. Member for North Louth and the hon. Member for East Mayo, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
337§ *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL moved in Sub-section (1), after the words "High Court," to leave out the word "and." He said the object of the Amendment was to join the President of the Incorporated Society of Ireland as one of the rule-making authorities. There was a very strong feeling on the part of the Incorporated Society that the President should be associated with the learned Judges mentioned in the section for the purpose of making the necessary rules. In the Judicature Act of 1894 for England, the President of the Incorporated Society of England was associated with the learned Judges for the purpose of making rules. The majority of the practitioners in these Courts were solicitors, and he thought the head of the profession should have a voice in making the rules and regulations.
§ MR. RENTOULsaid that, having regard to the fact that the President of the Incorporated Law Society was changed every year, he thought it would be rather unfortunate to agree to this Amendment. If the President were a permanent officer the Amendment would be a proper one.
§ MR. MACNEILLreminded the hon. and learned Member that the Lord Chancellor was changed with every Government. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted, because he thought it would be very proper that the head of the profession which practised most in these Courts should have a voice in the making of the rules in reference to the practice of the Courts.
§ * Mr. R. M. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)also hoped the Amendment would be accepted. This matter had excited a considerable amount of interest in Ireland amongst the solicitor profession, and he would appeal to the Chief Secretary to allow the President of the Incorporated Society to be associated with the Judges for the purposes mentioned in the section.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURtrusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not insist on the Amendment. He thought that anyone who read the clause and appreciated the purpose of it, would see that the introduction of the President of the Incorporated Society was wholly out of place. The object of the clause was to make regulations as to the 338 interchange of duties of the Land Judge and the Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission. Would it not be really absurd to introduce a gentleman from a body outside, however competent, that had really nothing whatever to do with the mutual relations between the Courts?
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment. It was in conformity with the strongly-expressed wishes of the Incorporated Society that he tabled the Amendment, but of course, if it was against the pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would not press it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. FLYNN moved to leave out Sub-section (a). There was a very strong feeling in Ireland in regard to the constitution of the Land Commission. It was felt very strongly that the members were appointed entirely from one class of the population—the landlord class, and that, as a rule, they took a not unfavourable view of the landlords' interests. Nothing more true or cogent had been said in the course of the Debate than the remark made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, that the nature and character of the clauses of the Land Act were not more important than its administration—that, in fact, the great and essential point in the successful working of the Land Acts in Ireland were the character of their administration and their administrators. It was not in human nature to expect that the average Irish tenant would feel any confidence in the administration of an Act, especially a Land Act, when he knew that his class had no voice or influence whatever in the appointment of the administrators. ["Hear, hear!"] They were face to face with an amending Act, and with the opening of a fresh statutory term, and if there was to be peace and contentment in Ireland the people must have confidence in the law and in its fair administration between all parties, especially in regard to cases of appeal. This feeling of want of confidence in the Land Commission existed in all parts of Ireland, and he ventured to say it prevailed as much in Ulster as in any other 339 province. All the time they had spent on this Bill in the effort to better the relations between landlord and tenant would be wasted if those who were to administer it—and above all the Land Commissioner, who exercised the higher functions of appeal—were to be exclusively drawn from one class of the population closely connected with the landlords, for the tenantry would not have confidence in the administration. That lack of confidence existed now in regard to the Land Commission, and for the reasons he had given, he moved the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he supported the proposal of his hon. Friend, though he confessed he should have been satisfied with a more moderate Amendment, in the form, for instance, of excluding Mr. Justice Ross from all power of interfering with the Land Commission in the matter of fixing fair rents. If the Government insisted on the intrusion of Mr. Justice Ross in the fair rent Department of the Land Commission, to which work he was entirely foreign, and with which he had no connection at all, they would be open to an unfavourable imputation. The history of the Land Department was rather peculiar. Mr. Justice Monroe was long stricken down by a serious illness, but he did not resign until the Tories came into office, in order to throw the gift of a Land Judge into the hands of the Tory Party. It was well known that Judge Monroe stood as a candidate against him, and therefore must be regarded as a partisan, but he was bound to say that a more pleasant judge to practice before in Court he had never known. Judge Monroe, however, was stricken down by an absolutely incapacitating illness in the month of March 1895. He went away to Egypt, but he withheld his resignation, knowing that a General Election was pending. The moment the party of law and order came into office he handed in his resignation. Mr. Justice Ross was appointed in Mr. Justice Monroe's stead, and at the very moment that that learned Judge was inducted to his office there was made the proposal to make him an additional Pair Rent Commissioner. The Government suddenly discovered, on coming into office, that there was such a thing as the 65 Rule, and Mr. Rice was, under that rule, struck off. He thought the Government 340 would act wisely if they would limit the proposal in the Bill. He would give Mr. Justice Ross full power over the department he managed so well, and which was germane to his present position—namely, the sale and purchase of land; but he could not see why, when there were already five Fair Rent Commissioners, another should be appointed. Under Clause 18, the Lord Chancellor might nominate any Judge of the High Court, with his consent, to act for the time specified by the Lord Chancellor as an additional Land Judge. In other words, Mr. Justice Ross was to be taken from his proper and appropriate duties and appointed an additional Land Judge. While, too, Mr. Justice Ross was to he taken from his proper duties the Government declined to fill up the existing vacancy in Ireland caused by the death of Mr. Justice Harrison. The question of fair rents ought to be left to the existing Judges, especially when the Government were using the age rule to remove officials who were trusted by the tenants.
§ * MR. DANEsaid that nobody would be better pleased than Mr. Justice Ross himself if this Amendment were accepted, because no more invidious duty could he thrown upon a Judge than the duty of fixing fair rents. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Louth should have made an ungracious attack upon an able and upright Judge, who had been compelled to retire through ill-health. The allegations of the hon. and learned Member had no foundation in fact. The hon. Member said that the learned Judge, who was struck down by illness in March 1895, retained his office with the view of resigning it when the present Government came into Office. That was not the case. The learned Judge obtained leave of absence in the hope that he might regain his health, and when that leave expired in March last, nine months after the present Administration came into power, he sent in his resignation. He was sure the hon. and learned Member would regret having made an attack upon an eminent Judge, who enjoyed the confidence and respect of all classes in Ireland.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if it was the case that in March 1895, when the Liberals were in Office, Mr. Justice 341 Munroe obtained leave of absence, he should be ready to withdraw what he had said.
§ MR. DANEsaid that he believed that it was an absolute fact that Mr. Justice Munroe obtained six months' leave, expiring last October, and that he then obtained a six months' extension of leave, and when that further extension expired he resigned his office.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he would assume that what the hon. and learned Member said was correct. If in the observations he had addressed to the House there appeared to be any personal reflections upon Mr. Munroe, he disclaimed them, and would be glad that they should pass out of the recollection of the Committee.
§ * Mr. DANEremarked that the on. Member, as a Member of the Bar, had acted as he (Mr. Dane) anticipated he would when he heard the facts of the case.
§ MR. DILLONthought the Amendment a very important one. He was against the proposal to add Mr. Justice Ross to the Land Commission for the purpose of fixing fair rents, and he had an almost equally strong objection to his being added to the Land Commission for any purpose whatever, and particularly for the administration of the Land Purchase Clauses. Putting aside altogether the question of Mr. Justice Ross's political career, there was no doubt that the nature of his duties as a Judge of the Land Court, and the nature of his duties if he were made a Commissioner charged with functions in connection with the sale and purchase of holdings, would be diametrically opposed to each other. A Land Judge's duty was to get the highest possible price for the land sold in his court, whilst it was often the duty of a Land Commissioner to decide whether landlords and tenants had not agreed to set too high a price upon land. In fact, it was his business to protect the Treasury. The duties of the Land Judge and Land Commissioner were, therefore, inconsistent, and it would be monstrous to transfer Mr. Justice Ross to the Land Commissioners' Court, either as a Land Purchase Commissioner or Fair Rent Commissioner, even if there was no special reason connected with the personality of the learned Judge why this should not be done. This clause 342 was one which would undoubtedly arouse the greatest alarm and distrust in Ireland. It was recognised by men entirely outside of Party that the Land Commission as at present constituted was by a large majority in favour of the landlords. The Government proposed by this subsection to add an additional Land Commissioner, who, by his associations and political prepossessions must be considered as unfavourable to the tenants' case. It was preposterous that this addition could be looked upon in any other light than as hostile to the tenants' interests. Supposing Mr. Justice Munroe had resigned before the late General Election, and that the right hon. Member for Montrose had appointed the Judge to the Land Commission, would this clause have been introduced into the Bill? The Government would never have introduced this proposal under such circumstances. He thought that this would be a most unfortunate thing to do. The interpretation which would in Ireland be placed upon this sub-section, combined with the decision of the Treasury in regard to the 65 Rule, would be that the Government were determined to pack the Irish Land Commission from top to bottom in the interests of the landlords.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had heard with very deep regret the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The appointment of Mr. Justice Ross to the Judicial Bench was a perfectly proper one, and there was no reason why, under any circumstances, he should exercise partiality.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that what he complained of was the importation of this gentleman into the Land Commission.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Land Commission had to exercise judicial functions, and he failed, therefore, to see the pertinence of the interruption. The hon. Member seemed also to think that if the appointment had been in the hands of the right hon. Member for Montrose it would have been a partisan appointment. In making judicial appointments they always had regard to the fitness of the gentlemen who were appointed—[ironical Nationalist cheers]—and, speaking for himself, he should have perfect confidence in the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This clause had regard to 343 the desirability of amalgamating, or partly amalgamating, two Departments. For his part he should he extremely sorry if the Amendment were carried. In future the work of the Commission would he considerably increased, and the staff would consequently have to be correspondingly strengthened. The Government had adopted the arrangement proposed to he carried out in this clause because it could he embodied in a single clause, whereas any other arrangement would have necessitated the consideration of some six or eight clauses. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.
§ MR. J. MORLEYsaid if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had proposed to completely reorganise the staff of the Commission, he should have cordially agreed in his recommendation, but the fact was that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed only partially to reorganise it, and his proposal possessed none of the merits of the larger proposal that had been foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The Land Commission at the present time was composed of men who had taken no active part in the politics of Ireland, and now for the first time it was proposed to appoint a political partisan upon it. He could not but regard such a proposal as being a most unfortunate one.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the appointments to the Land Commission had been made with strict impartiality. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. J. MORLEYsaid that it had so happened that during the three years that the late Government were in office no vacancy had occurred on the Commission, but that the moment they were out of office two vacancies occurred. He did not desire to make any remarks upon the way in which those appointments were filled up further than to say that Mr. Justice Monroe was one of the most upright of men. ["Hear, hear!"] There was undoubtedly a great deal to be said in favour of reorganising the whole system of the land administration of Ireland. The present position of the Land Judges Court appeared to be one of the most striking among the many anomalies of Irish administration. The Chief Secretary pointed out that under Clause 34 of this Bill the Landed 344 Estates Court would have certain transactions in common, as it were, with the Land Commission; that was to say, that the Judge of the Landed Estates Court would have to act in a kind of judicial capacity in reference to the awards made by the Land Commission. If it was intended that the Land Judge should take any part as a Land Commissioner in these transactions great difficulties would undoubtedly arise. Whether that was so or not, he thought it was a very unfortunate thing to approach this great work of amalgamation with a Judge who had been identified with party politics. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman dealt in an inadequate way with a most important question, and he should support the Amendment.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the Government brought forward a complete scheme dealing with any branch of administration, they were told it was so large that they could not pass it within the time at their disposal. If they tried to modify that scheme so as to deal with the exigencies and limits of Parliamentary time, then they were told that the scheme was so imperfect that they had better wait until the opportunity occurred for bringing forward a complete scheme. He did not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It seemed that he would not mind a complete scheme of reform in which Mr. Justice Ross was included as one of the active parties, but because the scheme was not a complete one, then the fact that Mr. Justice Boss happened to have been a Member of the House, sitting on the Unionist side, and so far a partisan, was conclusive against the scheme. Surely, if the fact that Mr. Justice Ross was at one time a Member of the Unionist Party in the House was an argument against his being included in a partial scheme, it was equally conclusive against his being included in a complete scheme; and let it be observed that if it was a complete scheme it must include Mr. Justice Ross. He had never pretended to be a partisan of the land legislation of 1881. One of the inherent and inevitable results of that legislation was that the appointment to judicial functions must be made by the party in power, and so it was always open to the opponents of the party in power to 345 charge them with partisanship. But they had to accept that, and must make the best of it. He asked the Committee to consider the scheme of the Government quite apart from the individual who would administer it for the moment. The plan advanced by his right hon. Friend was to ask the assistance of the Judge of the Landed Estates Court both in cases of land purchase and of fair rent. The hon. Member for Louth was prepared to accept that arrangement in the case of land purchase, but not in the case of fixing of fair rents. The, Government admitted that land purchase was the more important of the two branches, but they were given to understand that, unless the judical element in the fair-rent part of the Land Court was strengthened, a large arrears of business must gradually accumulate. That element might be strengthened by the employment of a Judge of the Land Court, which was the more obvious course, or by the appointment of a new Judge. But, if the latter course were followed, the same people who appointed Mr. Justice Ross would appoint the new Judge, and the exercise of their patronage in that event would be open to precisely the same charge as the exercise of their patronage in the case of Mr. Justice Boss.
§ MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to say that it would be possible to appoint a Judge not so open to the charge of prejudice.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped that Mr. Justice Boss was not open to a charge of prejudice. But, so far as he knew Ireland, every human being in it decidedly belonged to either one party or the other—[laughter]—and there was no way that human ingenuity could devise of selecting officials from a middle party, for a middle party could not be discovered by the most microscopic investigation. Therefore every Judge was open to attacks from opponents. One of the first judicial Commissioners appointed by the party opposite to deal with fair rents was Mr. Lytton. That gentleman was for many years in the House as an ardent and consistent supporter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it was never said that he was thereby unfit for his position. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would at least agree that the Government were not animated in making their 346 proposal by any partisan view; that their sole wish was to oil the machinery of the Land Court, and he hoped, therefore, the sense of the Committee would be taken upon that proposal without further delay.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he felt in his bones that this clause was wrong—[laughter]—though he might not adequately express his feelings. The point was not that Mr. Justice Ross was a partisan, but that this clause had been drafted at a particular moment to suit the gentlemen at one end of the scale while the Government were operating at the other end of the scale under this Rule 65.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI only heard of the application of this Rule 65 this very morning. Certainly it never entered into my calculations.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he did not think that confession helped matters. If the right hon. Gentleman had added that he did not intend to approve of the application of the rule——
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt does not rest with me.
MR. T. M. HEALYI suppose it is our old friend the Treasury—[laughter]—the dominant partner in everything. Why should not this matter be settled on a basis of compromise? If Irishmen were reasonably sensitive on a certain point, the Government ought to go some way to meet them. It would be a fair compromise if the right hon. Gentleman would say that for the present Mr. Justice Ross should be confined to the duties of a Purchase Commissioner.
§ MR. DILLONremarked that what the right hon. Gentleman proposed was that Mr. Ross, as Land Judge, should request Mr. Ross, as Land Commissioner, to get the estate inspected, and that then the matter should come back to Mr. Ross, as Land Judge, to pronounce on the conduct of Mr. Ross, as Land Commissioner. He did not say that the Land Commission might not so arrange their business as to avoid that, but he submitted it was a possible transaction under the clause as it stood. He did not see how the acceptance of this Amendment would in the least degree interfere with Clause 34. He knew perfectly well there were great difficulties surrounding the whole question of appointing Land Commissioners for land 347 purchase in Ireland. While admitting that it was a difficult and delicate task to select men in Ireland of proper qualifications and with antecedents that would convince the people that they would act judicially and impartially in the administration of these laws, he thought that the Government was hound to take some pains to make that selection. He did not think that this was a wise or prudent occasion on which to select as an additional Land Commissioner a gentleman who quite recently had been a militant Unionist in the House, and in the closest political relations with some of the leaders of the landlord party in Parliament. He did not complain of the character of Mr. Justice Ross, but hon. Members should remember that he had only been recently removed from the arena of political strife. What would hon. Gentlemen say if he, a Nationalist, were to retire for a year, and a Liberal Government appointed him a Commissioner of the Land Court? Would hon. Gentlemen think it a fair and reasonable appointment, or would the Irish landlords consider it to be such? It was absurd to ask the Irish people to accept Mr. Justice Ross as a fit and proper person to sit on the Judicial Bench in Ireland and to pretend that he could hold the balance evenly and fairly between landlords and tenants.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYpointed out that every reform which had ever been suggested of the Land Courts consisted more or less in these particular relations, and it did so happen that Mr. Justice Ross was a Judge of the Landed Estates Court. But the predecessor of Mr. Justice Ross was in the Land Court, and this clause was adopted in its main lines before it was known or suspected that Mr. Ross would be the Judge. All he said was let him be judged fairly. He did not see how they could deal with the judicial functions now.
§ MR. J. MORLEYwished to say one word about Mr. Justice Ross. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the point which he had ventured to raise. He had acknowledged that if it was intended that the Land Judge should take any part as a Land Commissioner in these transactions great difficulties would arise, and apparently now the 348 Land Judge was to be to all intents and purposes a Land Commissioner.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURNo, that is not so. The Land Judge will have to exercise different functions from the Land Commissioner.
§ MR. J. MORLEYsaid in that case Clause 34 would have to be modified. It was very important to know how the matter stood. He had already said that under Clause 34 of this Bill the Landed Estates Court would have certain transactions in common, as it were, with the Land Commission; that was to say, the Judge of the Landed Estates Court would have to act in a kind of judicial capacity in reference to the awards made by the Land Commission. They had not had any answer to that.
§ MR. RENTOULsaid that every man of mark in Ireland had been prominently identified with politics. Therefore, if the argument of the Nationalist Members were to carry weight, a difficulty would arise whoever was appointed as a Judge. For himself he had no sort of doubt that they would be impartial. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew four or five other gentlemen whose names might be submitted from his side of the House, but he knew that the hon. Member for East Mayo would make exactly the same objection to them; and probably, if other gentlemen were submitted from the other side of the House, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would take the same objection. The hon. Member for East Mayo, while admitting that someone must be put in here, had only attacked the man it was proposed to put in, and had not suggested any alternative. If he would suggest an alternative, no doubt the Government would consider it.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he would suggest, by way of alternative, that the hon. Gentleman should himself be appointed a Land Commissioner. He rose, however, to point out that the Chief Secretary said a few moments ago that the chief object of importing Mr. Justice Ross into the Land Court was to facilitate the operation of Clause 34; but, in the last speech he made, he said that so far as Clause 34 was concerned Mr. Justice Ross would not act at all with the Land Commission. He wished to know which view was the right one?
§ MR. HARRINGTONthought that such a proposal as that in the clause was very necessary for the proper working of the Acts in Ireland. He remembered a case in which a number of tenants were extremely anxious to get the opportunity of purchasing their farms, and they could not do so because the Land Court, which had to deal with their cases, had not the power to lend money for the purpose. So far as Mr. Justice Ross was concerned, he appealed to the Irish Members to say whether the same attacks that had been made on that Judge were not made on Mr. Justice O'Hagan. It made very litte difference to the Irish Members what party the Judge belonged to, if he had a sense of fair play.
§ MR. MACNEILLobserved that he had no unkindly feeling towards Mr. Justice Ross. Though he and that gentleman had differed for many years in politics, they had been on terms of intimate personal friendship. There was no one in whose appointment he more rejoiced than that of Mr. Justice Ross as Land Judge. There were frequent complaints in reference to the Irish Bench being over manned, but it would be within the knowledge of everyone that the Land Judges' Court was an exception, and had plenty to do. Its President had the work of two Judges. Only a few years ago there were two Land Judges, but on the Courts being amalgamated only one Judge remained. Why should Mr. Justice Ross's duties be increased, or what was the object of increasing his duties? Personally, in any matter affecting himself, he should have the utmost confidence in Mr. Justice Ross, but would his appointment, coupled with the 65 years rule, and having regard to his antecedents, not be regarded as an endeavour to pack with partisans the Land Commission in the interests of the landlords? He believed that the reasons which had been alleged for making this gentleman a Judge of the Land Commission were not the real and vital reasons which had actuated the Government in this matter. Mr. Justice Ross was not only a vehement partisan, but his appointment was due to landlord influence.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid he wished to point out that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any hon. Gentleman from the 350 other side of the House had met the point that the Land Judge—whether he be Judge Ross or not he did not care—was called upon to discharge two positions which were mutually inconsistent and, to any fair-minded man, naturally destructive. As a Land Purchase Judge, he was supposed to act as a protector of the taxpayer; to see that no unreasonable sum was advanced, and that the credit of the State was not pledged beyond what it ought to be. Rut in the capacity of Land Judge, he was a kind of dry nurse to certain estates in Ireland. This was an inconsistent and even false position in which to place a Judge. He thought he had shown that the subsection was a dangerous one, and he hoped that every fair-minded man, who wished to see the administration of the Act carried out fairly and honestly, would support the Amendment.
§ Question put:—
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 79.—(Division List, No. 342.)
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to omit Sub-section (b). He had no desire to contest the proposal of the Government, but wished to ask why the subsection which purported to confer additional powers on the Judical Commissioner had been introduced in the Bill. It appeared to him that the subsection would rather limit the Judicial Commissioner's powers, because by Section 41 of the Act of 1881 a Judicial Commissioner was made a Judge of the Supreme Court, and given powers accordingly.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the point raised by the hon. Member was a highly technical one, and that he would like to have time in which to consider it.
MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the Land Judge or the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission would have precedence, and whether they would have correlative rights in respect of the distribution of patronage.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that hon. Members opposite seemed to be under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause. What the section did was to enable the Lord Chancellor, the Land Judges, and the Judicial Commissioner to frame rules, and to frame rules in such a way 351 that there would be no conflict of jurisdiction as had been suggested.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDCertainly, consistently with the provisions of the clause.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that the sub-section expressly provided that the object of the rule was to enable the Judicial Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he had a perfect right to exercise jurisdiction already, and this clause enabled him to make the rules.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On the question "That Clause 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYcalled attention to what seemed to him an absurdity, namely, that while the clause enabled the Land Judge to exercise the powers of the Judicial Commissioner for the purpose of hearing an appeal, it did not give him power to hear a motion to substitute service, or any other motion of that sort.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the, object of the clause was to prevent the arrear of business which might accrue.
§
MR. T. M. HEALY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following sub-section:—
Such rules which apply to the Court of the Land Commission in Dublin shall be held at the Four Courts in Dublin and not elsewhere.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. MICHAEL DAVITT (Mayo, S.) moved to omit Clause 17. He approached this Bill not as a friend but as an enemy. He believed the Bill to be from the beginning to the end an amalgam of fraud and hypocrisy, and he hoped that it would never find its way into the Statute Book of the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Justice Ross was one of the most notorious partisans of landlords in Ireland, and therefore, he was one of the worst persons that the Unionist Party could have put upon the Land Commission. This clause would affect some 30 millions' worth per annum 352 of landlords' property in Ireland. Various attempts had been made during the last 20 or 30 years to dispose of that property in the open market, and the average price offered for it had been about 12 years' purchase. That often had not been accepted because the landlords did not think the price sufficient. Now under the operation of this clause, the property would be disposed of at from 17 to 20 years' purchase, with the result that the tenants who purchased their holdings would be defrauded of from five to eight years' purchase.
§ Amendment negatived; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 18,—