§ Any person aggrieved by the order of a Land Commissioner acting alone in carrying the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act into effect, may, if such Commissioner was not a Judicial Commissioner and the question is one of law, require the case to be reheard by a Judicial Commissioner, and in any other case may require the question to be reconsidered by a Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners; provided that if the Judicial Commissioner thinks it desirable the case should he re-heard by those three Commissioners.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)suggested that, as the clause was quite unnecessary, it should be negatived. This, like other clauses in the Bill, had been drafted by gentlemen of the Land Commission who did not know what they were about.
§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)also condemned the clause as quite uncalled for, unless it was connected with Mr. Justice Ross.
§ * THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.explained the difference between the clause and the 29th section of the Act of 1891. The latter provided that the appeal, if on a question of law, should be to the Judicial Commission; and if on any other question, to three Commissioners, one of whom should be the Judicial Commissioner, one a Commissioner under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and one a Commissioner under the Act of 1881. There was no such qualification in the present clause, which enacted that the tribunal should be the Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that until the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, the Land Commission consisted of two watertight compartments—the Purchase Department and the Pair Rent Department. In 1891 the Government abolished that distinction. The Irish Members protested, and a compromise was arrived at which provided that the appeal should not be to the Commissioners miscellaneously, but should be to a tribunal which should, at any rate, have some part of the Land Purchase element of the Commission upon it. This clause was an insidious attempt on the part of the Land Commission to go behind the compromise of 1891.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that since the passing of the Act of 1891 there was a tendency at headquarters to amalgamate, rearrange, and even to rig the Land Commission.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Centralsaid the clause was really consequential on Clause 17, under which rules might be made enabling the Land Judge to act as an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission in any appeal or rehearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act. If the question was to he raised at all, it had better be raised on the Report of Clause 17 itself.
§ MR. DILLONprotested against the introduction of Mr. Justice Ross. It was distinctly stated that he was not to 488 occupy the position of an ordinary Land Commissioner, but was to be brought on in special circumstances, and if the object of the clause was to confer on Mr. Justice Ross the right so fully exercised by the present Land Commissioners to review the decision of the Purchase Commissioners, it was an extension of the law which ought to be strongly opposed. The two bodies of Commissioners had totally separate duties—one had to fix fair rents, the other had to see that the Treasury did not advance too much for the security offered. He protested against the introduction of Mr. Justice Ross for the purpose of interfering with this safeguard of the Treasury, and indirectly of the tenants, because it sometimes relieved them of the exorbitant prices which they agreed to pay. Mr. Justice Ross's duty would be to see that the Treasury did not advance too much money, but as a Land Judge his duty would he to see that his clients got the utmost price for their land.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYcould not agree with the view taken by the last speaker with regard to the position of Mr. Justice Ross. He dubbed the clause the "Anti - Murrough O' Brien clause." Under the old Act it was essential, when there was an appeal, that the tribunal should include one Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885. They could not always have Mr. Lynch, who was a strong landlord's advocate, and accordingly Mr. Murrough O' Brien, who was appointed by the Liberal Government, was bound sometimes to be called in. But under this clause there would be no need to call in Mr. Murrough O' Brien, because they could always call in Mr. Wrench, Mr. Fitzgerald, or Mr. Lynch. Thus they would have a packed jury. He had not the slightest objection to Mr. Justice Ross on a question of law. He did not see that it mattered whether the appeal, then, was to Mr. Justice Ross or to Confucius. But when the appeal was on the question, of value it was wholly different, and it was in this connection that the clause in the Act of 1891 was of value. If the object of this clause was to bring in Mr. Justice Ross, then he contended that that was already done under Clause 17, If Mr. Justice Ross were brought in to deal with questions of law he should have no objection to that, but if it was a 489 question of value, he protested that this exclusion of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1885 was a matter of which they must take notice.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR, interposing, said it would probably meet the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman if he consented to insert the words "to he determined by rota."
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWho is to fix the rota? If the rota were to be decided by the Commissioners there would, perhaps, be no objection to that; but why was the bargain made in 1891 gone behind, and gone behind, apparently, without the knowledge of the Government? When a Parliamentary bargain was made it ought to be carried out, and the rota should be a rota in which the tenants had confidence.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he did not think that any attempt had been made, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to go behind the bargain of 1891; but, even though a Parliamentary bargain was made, it was open to suggest openly to the House that a change should be made. In this particular case, however, the Government had no desire to go behind the bargain come to in 1891, and therefore he would suggest that words be inserted providing that one of the Commissioners must be a Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885.
§ MR. DILLONsuggested that it would be better to leave the law as it now stood. If the object of including this clause was to enable Mr. Justice Ross to take part in appeals on value, that was, in his view, a great objection to the clause, and he would still press the Government to state for what purpose the clause was inserted.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the clause was necessary in order to enable the Land Judge to sit on appeals. Unless the clause was passed as a corollary to Clause 17, it would be impossible for him to do so. The Committee had already decided that the Land Judge should be enabled to sit as an additional Judicial Commissioner.
§ MR. DILLONasked what was the good of this clause, if the Committee had already decided that? He thought the object of the clause, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, was a very unfortunate one.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if the question of Mr. Justice Ross was to be raised, it ought to be raised hereafter on the Report stage of Clause 17. He thought his right hon. Friend had met hon. Gentlemen opposite very fairly by proposing words which would have the effect of causing the bargain of 1891 to be adhered to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYcontended that the clause was absolutely unnecessary if the right hon. Gentleman was willing that the law should stand as it was now. All that was necessary to bring about the object of the Government had already been done under Clause 17.
§ * THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that the Act of 1891 abolished the distinction between Purchase Commissioners and Land Commissioners, and as the law stood at present under the Act of 1891 the Judicial Commissioner was the Commissioner named in that Act or his successor. Section 17 of this Bill enabled Mr. Justice Ross to do certain duties of the Judicial Commissioner, but it did not identify him with the Commissioner under the Act of 1891, and therefore this clause was necessary.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he accepted the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. He thought he had met them very fairly. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, in order that the words he proposed might be inserted.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he very strongly objected to the object of the clause as it had been stated by the Government.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it would not be in order now to withdraw the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, and therefore the House must come to a decision on the clause; but he would undertake that the Amendment should be made on Report.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) moved to omit Sub section (4). The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, if the Board bought an estate with a number of small tenants upon it, the 491 latter would by this sub-section be deprived of their right to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed. Small tenants were the very class to whom the right should not be denied.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Congested Districts Board existed for philanthropic purposes. It purchased estates with the direct intention of benefiting the tenants on those estates, and, as the Land Act of 1881 was passed to prevent undue oppression of the tenants by the landlords, it seemed absurd to suppose that this philanthropic body should be suspected of placing upon the tenants a higher rent than they could afford to pay. If the Board was so little to be trusted with the interests of the tenant, it was hardiy worth while that it should exist at all.
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that, from what he knew of Irish tenants, he thought they would rather pay a small rent than trust to the philanthropy of any body, whether the Congested Districts Board or another. [Nationalist cheers.] Any Board might have the best intentions, but the tenants should have some guarantee beyond mere philanthropic intentions before they were deprived of their rights.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)said this was a water-tight clause in the interests of the Treasury. The Congested Districts Board might purchase from a private owner a certain estate, but he could not prevent tenants coming into Court because Parliament in its wisdom said, "We will not allow you to have these contracts with your tenants. We will interfere and fix a fair rent, and give every man the right to have a fair rent." Why should not this apply to the State? [Nationalist cheers.] If it was right in the one, it was right in the other. He detected the finger of the Treasury in the clause. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not see why, when the State became the proprietor of land, its tenants should not have a fair rent fixed as well as the tenants of private owners.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the right of the tenant to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent for him was a vested right conferred upon him by statute, and, because thousands of tenants in Ireland might not have exercised their right, that did not justify the Committee 492 by a stroke of the pen in depriving them of it. He considered it an appalling proposal. He reminded the Committee that philanthropic boards acted through their officers, and backed them up through thick and thin, and it would be in the power of these officers to deprive the tenants of the right that had been given them by Act of Parliament.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, as time was precious, he would consent to the omission of the sub-section.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that, if time were precious so were the rights of the tenants under the Congested Districts Board.
§ On the Question, "That Clause 36, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
§ MR. DILLONhoped that next Session the Government would introduce a Bill to increase the powers of the Congested Districts Board in regard to the development of fisheries and the enlargement of holdings in the West of Ireland. There was a growing feeling that these were the chief agencies by which the people in the western districts of Ireland could be lifted out of the slough of terrible poverty in which they existed.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 37,—