HC Deb 07 July 1903 vol 124 cc1589-615

Considered in Committee:—

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 76:—

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

asked for some information with regard to these subsections. He noticed that by them it was intended to have three Judicial Commissioners and that when either of these Judicial Commissionerss at to hear appeals from the Sub-commissioners he was to be assisted by a properly qualified lay assessor. The hon. Member for North Louth in the beginning of the debate had said that all this would not matter because the Judicial Commissioner on the question of value would be guided by the report of the Court valuer, but that was exactly what would not happen. It would also be interesting to know where this specially qualified assessor was to come from, because he knew of nobody in Ireland who had any pretence to be called a land valuer who had not taken sides either with one party or the other. An impartial assessor of Irish land did not exist. If, however, he was assured that this specially qualified assessor would have the supreme voice in the question of value then his opinion on this matter might be somewhat modified.

MR. ATKINSON

said there was no Judge who would come within the first clause at present. It was anticipated that under the Land Purchase Acts under this Bill there would be a great deal of business to be eventually carried out. If this Bill was to be a success it was absolutely necessary that they should have one or two Judicial Commissioners to deal with it. Nothing could be more unfortunate for landlords and tenants than that there should be any block in the Land Courts, either with regard to land purchase or with regard to the administration of the funds, and it was possible, if this Bill was to be a success, that a great many difficult questions might arise. At present there were 13,000 appeals pending. It would be quite impossible to spare a regular Commissioner to sit with the Judge of the Land Court and in case of an appeal on the question of fair rent, it was felt it would be a great deal better that they should have a land valuer to sit as an assessor. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was rather difficult to please. He said the assessor or Judge must be a man aquainted with Irish land, and then he said there was no man in Ireland acquainted with Irish land who was not a partisan. How on earth then, were they to create a tribunal at all? If they went outside to choose, it would be said the man was not acquainted with Irish land; on the other hand, an in side man was said to be a partisan. He believed in case of an appeal a Judge and assessor would be a perfect tribunal, resembling what happened in the Court of Admiralty. The most difficult questions that any human being could be called upon to decide were the questions of patents; no Judge could have a personal knowledge of any particular patent but a Judge had to deal with evidence, and there was no difficulty in dealing with evidence, always provided that for the technicalities he could rely on the assessor. The assessor would be selected from among the most competent land valuers.

MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said he had no objection to this first sub-section, but it was quite another question when they came to deal with the other subsections. It was most desirable, in order to prevent any block, that there should be a Judicial Commissioner in reserve to act when required, because if from any cause, in the case of one Judicial Commissioner, he was incapacitated for any length of time, unless they had someone to fall back upon, the business might come to a standstill. He pointed out that this matter involved no extra expense to the country, as it only applied to future appointed Judges. It afforded, if there was to be any Judicial Commissioner at all, an opportunity of having a Judge, and it was most desirable that there should be a reserve. He did not, in supporting this, pledge himself to support the other sub-sections. The only question here, as it seemed to him, was whether they should depend upon one man or have a reserve to fall back upon.

MR. DILLON

said this sub-section had been sought to be justified on the ground of economy; but instead of economy it was nothing but extravagance. They had had a declaration from the landlords that they did not care for this clause, and in fact nobody wanted it except the Government. Why would they need two Commissioners? The Land Court got on with one Commissioner.

MR. ATKINSON

Thirteen thousand appeals accumulated.

MR. DILLON

said they accumulated owing to the conduct of the landlords and the Government. That was not a sufficient answer for introducing two Commissioners but, even if it were, was this the way to promote economy? This third part of the Bill was simply outrageous. The Attorney-General for Ireland got up to defend it, and informed the Committee that if this were passed there was no present Judge available for the position. Then who was to be the Judge? Was it to be the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Ireland, because he was old enough to remember the Bright Commission, when the Solicitor-General was counsel for the landlords and made the most ferociously eloquent speeches denouncing the tenants and the Land Court for cutting down the rents of the landlords? Was that the gentleman who was to be the Judge? The fact of the matter was, that this portion of the Bill was part of a system devised by the Government to stop all reductions of rent in Ireland in order to pave the way for purchase at a high price. If the Government would agree to omit Subsection 4 of Clause 76, and to drop out Section 78, he would not detain the Committee further.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S)

said he must support the Amendment. The Attorney-General was not quite candid when he said no Judge now on the Irish Bench could be appointed. The hon. and learned Gentleman was called to the Bar in 1865, and had had a long experience. Did he ever know a Judge who had been asked by the Lord Chancellor to take an appointment to refuse it? He would not instance cases, but he knew of cases in which men, now dead and gone, not only accepted such appointments, but based claims for future promotion upon the fact that they had done so. In his opinion the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was a member of the Cabinet, was not the proper person to appoint a Judge for the discharge of such peculiarly delicate work as this. The appointment should be made by a person not in the Cabinet. The present Lord Chancellor was the chief antagonist of Mr. Gladstone on the question of the Land Act of 1881, and therefore could scarcely have any great regard for this Bill. He objected to this clause, because it brought most improperly the Irish Judges into connection with the Executive Government. An Irish Judge appointed under this Bill woud be bound to be more or less influenced to do his best for his employers, with a view to honours and titles afterwards. Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald had as much experience as any other Judge on the Bench, and was certainly an expert on the land question. He was an old friend of his own, and he did not choose to say anything against him; but would it be denied that his environment led him towards the landlord party? Surely the landlord party ought to be content with Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald without further assistance from the Irish judiciary. Of course, the Irish Judges would be only too delighted to take on this work, even without salary, because it would bring them into contact with the Government and give them something to do. The whole scheme of the finance of the Bill had been extremely clever; but this particular clause was merely a pretext for providing appointments for legal favourites of the Government. As soon as a Judge was appointed a Judicial Commissioner, so surely would there be an additional salary paid to him.

MR. WYNDHAM

said it was more than doubtful whether he could contribute anything to the debate which would assist the Committee in arriving at a decision on this point; but perhaps it might be his good fortune to assist the Committee if he illustrated this particular section and also showed the relation of this part of the Bill to the Bill as a whole. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said that the Judges of Ireland would all jump at the opportunity of helping Mr. Justice Meredith in discharging duties which were not very attractive, but no Judge would be bound to take up this work except with his own consent. All the section provided for was that among the many friends of Mr. Justice Meredith on the Bench, there might be some who would be prepared to give him assistance in the leisure moments which he understood some Irish Judges enjoyed. That was the whole of the section. They were bringing up the personnel of the Land Commission to a total of seven Commissioners. The Bill was described by some of its hostile critics in this country, as far as it had any hostile critics, as a leap in the dark. He hoped it was a leap into the light out of the darkness of the past. They were having seven salaried officials, and it was unreasonable to ask the public to hedge against all possibility of failure, and to appoint a number of persons to discharge rent fixing and judicial work in the event of land purchase failing. He believed that land purchase would succeed, and if it did succeed it would not be in the interest of a tenant who paid £4 rent to carry on a suit for two years on a question of 5s. a year, nor would it be to the interests of the landlord or his agent to appeal indiscriminately. A great deal of litigation would happily disappear. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was doing his best to expedite the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member intervened in Part III, which was his special problem, but he had not intervened again. He would ask the hon. Member if it was practical politics that they should have a judicial staff to carry on litigation on the scale on which it had unfortunately existed in the past. As to the question of personnel, Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald would take up new duties. Some might think that another distinguished gentleman might discharge them with greater satisfaction. That might be so, but Mr. Fitzgerald had legal qualifications, and he could not go to his colleagues and the Exchequer and say that because certain people were not quite satisfied with Mr. Fitzgerald another Judicial Commissioner should be appointed. It came to that, because by hypothesis Mr. Justice Meredith, and Mr. Fitzgerald for that matter, would have to give assistance in carrying out the Act unless there was to be great disappointment. In the distribution of the purchase money the assistance of Mr. Justice Meredith would be invaluable. He did not think he was stating anything that was not known when he said that Mr. Justice Meredith was heart and soul in favour of land purchase, and in making this Bill a workable measure; nor did he think that a Judge of the high character of Mr. Justice Meredith should be asked to spend one week out of every two in deciding questions involving 2s. or 5s. a year. Further, it would be cruel to both landlords and tenants that they should be asked to go on with this litigation. The Bill gave them an opportunity of escape, and in his opinion there would be very few who would not take it. If Mr. Justice Meredith was to give assistance in the distribution of the purchase money there must be some provision for dealing with accumulated appeals. Mr. Fitzgerald was there, and was, in his opinion, quite competent to perform that duty; and it would not be reasonable for him to ask the Treasury for another man. Mr. Fitzgerald had a salary of £3,000 a year; and it was proposed, because of the new work which was to be thrown upon him, to give him a pension calculated on £2,500 a year.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the right hon. Gentleman should remember that Mr. Fitzgerald, in 1892, commuted his pension. He got the choice of a salary of £3,000 a year without a pension or £2,500 a year with a pension, and he took the £3,000.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that all those points had been raised again and again, and the hon. Gentleman must forgive him for not opening them up now. As a rule, those matters were decided upon a hard and fast scale, and personal considerations were not allowed to influence in the slightest degree the salaries or pensions that were given. As regarded Mr. Murrough O'Brien, there was no precedent in any Act for giving him a pension. He thought it would be a pity, however, if any cause had been given to think that a slight was intended on Mr. Murrough O'Brien; and, therefore, although there was no precedent in the whole Statute-book for giving him a pension, and although the Treasury were perfectly entitled to say to himself that the matter did not enter into the Bill in any shape or form, his right hon. friend had acceded to his request, and Mr. Murrough O'Brien would have a pension. Mr. Murrough O'Brien had a longer record of continuous service than Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, and he would receive a substantial pension. With reference to Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane their salary was £2,000 a year, and he thought that hon. Members from Ireland would agree with him that when they were making new appointments, even if there might be some semblance of injustice as compared with old appointments, they should arrange the salaries on a scale having relation to the wealth of Ireland. The pension of the new Commissioners would be on the scale which obtained at the Treasury. Mr. Bailey had been a public officer of the State for years; and Mr. Finucane had entered the Civil Service years and years ago, and his past services as a public servant would accrue for a pension. He was a man who he was sure would do excellent work in his native land in connection with the Bill; and when his time for pension came it would be a substantial one. Mr. Wrench had a salary of £3,000 a year on the Consolidated Fund. He, like Mr. Justice Meredith, was heart and soul in favour of the policy of land purchase; and he had great experience in these matters. If the Bill were to succeed it would be folly on his part not to secure the services of such a man; but he could not ask Mr. Wrench to serve without giving him additional emolument. He thought Mr. Wrench had met him handsomely in the matter. Mr. Wrench was to have no pension. He assured the Committee that he had done his level best to solve the problem of getting for this great national object the men who, in his opinion, could best carry out this Bill, and who would be ready to work with each other; and he thought that was more important than any question of the exact proportion of their salaries and pensions. But the Government held that there must be some simplification in the rent-fixing procedure in the future; and that that simplification was not only good in itself, but was almost a necessary concession to the financial position, when they were putting such great financial resources upon the purchase side of the transaction. Was it reasonable that fifty, sixty, or seventy temporary Sub-commissioners should be employed, that two laymen and a man with judicial experience should, in the first instance, be sent down to look at a plot of land of very little value; that a valuer should be sent down; that there should be an appeal before three highly - salaried officers of State; and that a period of two years should be taken to decide whether a particular rent should be £4 10s. or £4 15s.? It would be a scandal if, after this Bill became an Act, such wholesale litigation took place as had taken place in the past. Therefore, when he had been asking his colleagues and the guardian of the national purse to give greater facilities, he felt it his duty to show that there would be savings, and that the great army of officials would not be kept on. If he were asked for an act of faith to show that he was not leading everyone into a fool's paradise, he would say that one legal Sub-commissioner and one lay Sub-commissioner would be a sufficient tribunal if the Bill passed, and that one Judicial Commissioner and a qualified assessor would be a sufficient appellant tribunal. If they had faith in this Bill as a purchase Bill, then they could economise on the rent-fixing side. He had felt himself compelled to give some evidence to his colleagues that such economies were possible, and those economies were embodied in the third part of the Bill.

MR. DILLON

complained that the right hon. Gentleman had embarked on a Second Reading speech, and protested against the assumption underlying it that the Nationalist Members were objecting to the proposed economies in the third part of the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman, in impassioned language, talked about the necessity for limiting the enormous number of appeals, he was confounded by his audacity, because in the year 1894, in the Morley Committee's Report, the Nationalist Party proposed a paragraph recommending the abolition of appeals in all cases below £20. Yet now the right hon. Gentleman, whose Party were bitterly opposed to that recommendation and voted against it, leaving the room at the end of the proceedings headed by the present Minister for War, and who thereby made themselves responsible for at least three-fourths of these appeals, was now appealing to the Nationalist Party not to encourage the multiplication of appeals! It was rather too much of a good thing to speak as if it were the Nationalist Party which had been in the habit of insisting on the right to carry innumerable appeals to the Courts above. They had always been more than willing to provide for the abolition of appeals except in cases above £20, and personally he would be prepared to accept the risk offered by the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth to stop appeals altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the object of Part III. of the Bill was to stop appeals on questions of valuation. He did not think that that accurately described it. The point was a very technical one, and he might be mistaken.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the object of the sub-section was to put obstructions in the way of appeals by giving the Commissioners power to refuse to entertain certain evidence. The whole tendency of the section was to penalise those who brought frivolous appeals.

MR. DILLON

said he did not, of course, object to that. But the proof that the section did not stop appeals altogether on the question of valuation was to be found in the provision that the appeals were to be heard by one Judicial Commissioner with the assistance of a specially qualified assessor. What could the assessor do except advise on questions of valuation? Thus the whole system of appeals would still stand, and it was preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and lecture them.

MR. WYNDHAM

I am sure I attempted nothing in the nature of a lecture.

MR. DILLON

said he wished to repudiate the idea that the Nationalist Party ever favoured the right of appeal. Still, so far as the sub-section would obstruct frivolous appeals, he was heartily in favour of it, especially as some of its provisions were advocated by them years ago.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that, whilst opposing the right hon. Gentleman on this clause, he did so without any sense of satisfaction, as he felt that he was arguing with a man who more or less agreed with Members on that side, but who had been to some extent defeated in his struggles with the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman was engaged in the task of looping the loop; he had had tremendous difficulties to face in arguing with the Treasury, and he naturally came to that House in an exhausted frame of mind after those argument. They fully appreciated the struggles he had made, however, and in any arguments they brought forward they had no desire to in any degree disparage his efforts. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the proposal made in the Report of the Morley Committee. What were the figures to preserve which he was now making a tremendous struggle on the landlord side?

MR. WYNDHAM

The landlords always opposed it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Well, I can stand a lot, but I cannot admit that. The Report stated that the system of rehearing questions on appeal was one of the causes which deterred tenants from making applications to have fair rents fixed. The effect of 21,847 rehearings and appeals had been to add about £2,383 to £466,871 of rental. That was what the landlords were fighting about. The addition represented about one-half of the Judge's salary, and putting the cost of each appeal, say £5, to the tenant and £6 to the landlord, the parties must have spent a quarter of a million sterling in order to get the rents increased by £2,383. The recommendation of the Committee was that where the value of the holding did not exceed £20, there should be no rehearing on the question of value. In a matter, therefore, in which the loss to the landlords would be so trifling and the gain to the tenants so material, surely the way to cut the Gordian knot was not to bring in any Judge of the High Court at all for the purpose of hearing appeals. They would thus please the Treasury, which he believed was the determining factor in these matters, by saving the addition of £500 a year to the Judge's salary and by saving the proposed addition of £500 annually to Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald's salary. Further than that, they would save litigants a quarter of a million of money by abolishing the system of trivial appeals. Let them take an example from the English County Court system where the litigant was entirely at the mercy of one individual. Let them apply a like principle to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was endeavouring to adjust matters by giving Mr. Wrench an additional £500 a year. Now, by reason of the position he had taken up, he was bound not to attack Mr. Wrench; he did not think it would be well to antagonise the man in view of the duties he was about to undertake. He would be in office whether they liked it or not. But what he did object to was the disparity of treatment between the Land Commissioners which occurred in the Reports of the Land Commission. Why should Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald always sign first, Mr. Lynch second, and Mr. Wrench third? Why should Mr. Lynch be in a position of inferiority to Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald? Why should the last-named be given £3,000 a year with a pension when he promised to take £3,000 without a pension? The right hon. Gentleman need not resent criticism from that side of the House. They were criticising the Treasury and not him. The right hon. Gentleman had said that land purchase in the future would be the rod that would swallow up all other rods. Well, the true test of it would be the abolition of the system of appeals. What difficulty need the landlords have in regard to that? If they were going to sell their estates they would have no interest whatever in the appeals. Let them show, then, a little more consideration for tenants.

In reply to a question by Mr. CLANCY,

MR. ATKINSON

said the object was to abolish rehearing, and therefore it was provided that no evidence not given below should be given on appeal except by special leave, and that no question should be raised above which was not raised below. That would ensure their being appeals proper as distinct from rehearings.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 13, to leave out Sub-section 3."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

, in moving the omission of Sub-section (4), said he could not allow this proposal to pass without a most resolute protest. Of Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald he knew nothing personally; the only time he had seen him was when he appeared as a witness before the Morley Committee; but it was necessary, in connection with such an Amendment, to sketch Mr. Fitzgerald's history in connection with the land question. In 1881 or 1882 this gentleman was appointed a legal Assistant commissioner under the Act of 1881, but he did not serve long in that capacity. In the counties of Tyrone and Armagh, the district to which he was sent, the indignation against his proceedings was so great that he was almost at once removed from the district. He was then made a County Court Judge, in which office he served for several years. An event then occurred which he believed had materially affected the administration of the Land Acts. Mr. Gladstone, when appointing the Land Commission, took great pains to see that it was fairly constituted, Mr. Justice O'Hagan being appointed as Judicial Commissioner; Mr. Vernon, a land agent, as the representative of the landlords; and Mr. Litton, a representative of the tenant farmers, as the representative of the tenants. Several years elapsed. Mr. Justice O'Hagan's health gave way, and there were rumours that he was about to retire. One morning, without a word of warning, the announcement appeared in the papers that Mr. Justice O'Hagan had retired,' that Mr. Litton had been appointed Judicial Commissioner, and that Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald had taken Mr. Litton's place as the representative of the tenants. Afterwards, when Mr. Vernon died, Mr. Wrench took Mr. Vernon's place as the representative of the landlords. Thus the tenants were deprived of any representative on the Commission whatever, for Mr. Fitzgerald was regarded as a man simply steeped in landlord prejudice. It was one of the jobs which had been the disgrace of Dublin Castle from time immemorial. Such was Mr. Fitzgerald's career in the Land Commission; he had never had any position at the Bar, and if he had not been Lord Fitzgerald's son he would never have had a position anywhere. He was now to be made a Judicial Commissioner, an office for which he had no legal qualifications, and in which he would not be regarded with the least confidence by the tenants. In fact, the tenants blamed Mr. Fitzgerald for nearly all the injustices they considered they had suffered at the hands of the Land Commission, and yet this was the man who was to be placed in a position to review the decisions of other men. What could be said in defence of such a position? There was also another point. Under the Act of 1892 the members of the Land Commission had the option of a salary of £3,000 without a pension, or a salary of £2,500 with a pension, and Mr. Fitzgerald elected to take the former. What was that but commuting his right to a pension? But it was now proposed not only to improve Mr. Fitzgerald's position, but to give him a pension as well. To put in such a position as was here proposed, a man who was hated by the people whose cases he would have to hear, and who believed him to be the bitterest partisan on the landlords' side, was nothing short of a public scandal, and to give him a pension in addition was a thing not to be dreamt of. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 20, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said that in moving this Amendment the hon. Member for South Tyrone represented the opinion of every representative of the tenants in Ireland. He was surprised that the Chief Secretary should have selected this man to carry out the Act, because it had always been recognised as a fundamental principle that when a great and revolutionary Act was passed, its administration should be placed in the hands of persons who were in sympathy with its spirit and objects. The right hon. Gentleman had given an admirable exposition of the views which inspired him in the selection of these officials and in justification of their salaries and pensions, but he had not dealt with the real underlying objection—viz., that he had gone out of his way to exclude from the administration of the Act the one man in whom the tenantry of Ireland had special confidence, and that he had equally gone out of his way to force into the administration the man in whom they had no confidence whatever. If this Bill was to have the beneficial results which all hoped for from its operation, surely the best way to begin its administration was not to place in every circumstance of advantage a man regarded as an enemy of its spirit and principle, and to drive from its administration the one man who had shown a keen and ardent sympathy, not with the rights of the tenant as against the landlord, but with the principle that the property of the tenant should be regarded as being as sacred as the property of the landlord The right hon. Gentleman had often declared that this measure would depend for its effectiveness upon the spirit with which it was received by the Irish people. That being so, it was to be deeply deplored that the Chief Secretary had taken a step so prejudicial to the efficient working of the Bill, but which all would join in hoping would not prove to be as disastrous as many of them feared.

As no other Member rose to speak,

*THE CHAIRMAN

was about to put the Question, when—

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked: Has not the right hon. Gentleman one word to say in defence?

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,) Dublin University

said that ever since the Act of 1881 was passed he had had considerable experience of its working, and perhaps he might be permitted to say a few words in reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Under this Bill they proposed to institute a new department called the Estates Commissioners, and three gentlemen had been nominated. One of these was Mr. Wrench, and the other two were new appointments. If this Bill were attended with the success that his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, in conjunction with all Irish representatives, hoped for, the outstanding appeals on the subject matter of fair rent were likely to be largely diminished. It was expected that a great many litigants who elected to take advantage of the benefits conferred by this Purchase Act would not pursue their appeals, which would be withdrawn. If that result came off of course there would be no necessity to maintain the machinery of the existing Courts of Appeal in connection with the Land Commission in fair rent cases. At the present time the practice was that three Commissioners should sit together for hearing these appeals and other fair rent matters, two of them being lay Commissioners and the third the Judicial Commissioner. Under this Bill Mr. Wrench had been transferred to the Estates Commission. Mr. Lynch had earned by long service a right to retire, and he believed that he intended to retire. In that case Mr. Murrough O'Brien would be the only one left as a lay Commissioner except Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Murrough O'Brien now-got for the first time a pension. Assuming that he exercised his right to retire it was provided for in this Bill that the vacancy would not be filled up. Mr. Wrench had been transferred, and of the old body of Land Commissioners they had only got Mr. Justice Meredith and Mr. Fitzgerald left. There were at present 13,000 appeals, and it was not to be assumed that all of them would disappear; but assuming that a large number of them would be discontinued some provision had to be made for the trial of the balance. Consequently, they had to provide for every contingency under this Act, and the Treasury were anxious to effect an equivalent saving in the department which they were trying to supersede, namely, the rent-fixing department. Machinery was provided by which these appeals would be disposed of by the Judicial Commissioner, and in the event of that machinery not being sufficient, power was given in this Bill to call upon any Judge appointed since 1902 to act as a Judicial Commissioner in order to deal with any block in the business of the Court. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had made a rather bitter attack on Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald. As an advocate for both tenants and landlords he had had many opportunities of observing Mr. Fitzgerald in the discharge of his duties, and he had no hesitation in saying that Mr. Fitzgerald, whether as a Sub-commissioner or a County Court Judge, or finally as a Land Commissioner, had invariably acted ably, conscientiously, and fearlessly. It was very difficult for a man in Mr. Fitzgerald's position in Ireland to escape the charge of being a partisan. Mr. Fitzgerald had been denounced that night as a landlords' man. He had over and over again heard Mr. Fitzgerald charged with being a partisan of the tenants. Mr. Fitzgerald was to be retained as a Judicial Commissioner to decide appeals in fair-rent cases, with the assistance of a lay colleague, but it was hoped that these appeals would be very few in number. As for Mr. Justice Meredith, he never was a politician and he did not believe that he ever attended a political meeting.

MR. HEALY

Yes, he did.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that Mr. Justice Meredith devoted his time and energies to his profession, and he could safely say that he never was an aggressive or active politician. There never had been a Judge who had brought to the discharge of his duty more energy or industry or a higher idea of what was due from him than Mr. Justice Meredith. The question was, what was to be done with Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald? Was he to retire or were his services to be availed of under this Act? His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had gone through as severe an ordeal as any Minister ever had gone through in regard to the financial proposals of this Bill. Was he to suggest to the Treasury that Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald's services should not be utilized? No one could suggest that Mr. Fitzgerald was not competent to discharge his duties, physically, at least. For the last twenty-five years he had had daily experience in the administration of the Land Acts, and no man placed in that position could fail to acquire the character of a partisan. He had heard it repeatedly alleged by the hon. Member for South Tyrone that Mr. Fitzgerald was a landlords' man, but undoubtedly he was a gentleman who had discharged duties for nearly a quarter of a century in a way which commended itself to the profession of which he was a member. Mr. Fitzgerald had been retained, and he would be entitled to administer the law in the matter of any of these appeals which were still reserved. He doubted if English hon. Members knew the nature and extent of the matters which might be dealt with in one sitting of these Courts. So long as they had this system of fair rents they must have these appeals, and therefore they must have competent judicial persons to preside over the hearing of them. In electing Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald for this function regard had been had to the fact that for twenty-five years he had had every opportunity of making himself acquainted with this particular work, in which he had given every satisfaction both to landlords and tenants.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the hon. and learned Member had not touched the real point at issue, and had argued the matter purely on financial grounds. He wondered whether the Solicitor-General had the authority of Mr. Commissioner Lynch or Mr. Commissioner O'Brien for stating that they were about to retire. Mr. Lynch had been dismissed by the Solicitor-General without the dropping of a tear. He had endeavoured to find out the reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman had delivered this masterly speech in regard to these three great personalities. If they were dealing with a House of Commons which did not contain any Irishmen he could have understood that speech, but there was hardly an Englishman in the House, and therefore they could not be fooled. The speech of the Solicitor-General was rather a bad compliment to his own countrymen. Was there any reason under Heaven why different treatment should be meted out to one of these gentlemen above or below another? Unless some non-performance of duty or absence of intellect could be shown as a reason why A should be treated differently to B, the conclusion must be arrived at that gross injustice was being done. Who was responsible for this injustice? He knew the Chief Secretary had absolutely nothing to do with it, and he did not believe the Attorney General was capable of treating any man with injustice, and the Solicitor-General was not a law officer with a seat in the House when the Bill was drafted. They were fighting shadows, because there was not one man in that trinity who was responsible. Where, then, were they to look for the responsible parent of this extraordinary arrangement? He really thought it must have arisen from some official spontaneous generation. It was the outgrowth of the Castle system. The Irish Secretary had gained the sympathy of the Committee by his heroic performance in reference to the other clauses, and no one wished to say a harsh thing about him. No one wished to go to a division upon this Amendment for fear that they would beat the Government upon this clause, and so the gentleman who would be placed in this position could boast that he received his appointment as Judicial Commissioner by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons. It was to be hoped he would not deserve further censure. He trusted the Government would see that the one solution of this difficulty was to provide that his colleagues, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Murrough O'Brien, having deserved well of the country, should be on the same footing of equality with regard to finance as their more lucky colleagues.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. DILLON

moved to add the name of Mr. Murrough O'Brien as an additional Judicial Commissioner. The Solicitor-General in the speech which he delivered a few minutes ago explained what was to be the future constitution of the Appeal Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that Mr. Commissioner O'Brien and Mr. Commissioner Lynch were to disappear from the scene, and on that he based the necessity for appointing a qualified assessor. What was the necessity for appointing a qualified assessor? He assumed that Gentleman would receive a salary of £1,000 a year, or some considerable amount. This clause had one great vice which he thought no executive Government should ever indulge in. Commissioners had been excessively rewarded because they were supposed to have favoured one side in the various litigations which had come before them, while they expelled a man who had the confidence of the great mass of the people. That was a proceeding on the part of the Government which must tend to de- moralise the Judicial Bench in Ireland. He moved:

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 20, to leave out the word 'one,' and insert the words 'and Mr. Murrough O'Brien, two.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the clause."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had already endeavoured to state the general grounds that led the Government to adopt Part III. of the Bill. He thought in discussing this matter they might eliminate all personal questions. The point at issue really was whether the Government were right or wrong in selecting Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald for this post. He was responsible for that selection, and could assure the Committee that he should not have made it had he not felt that Mr Fitzgerald was perfectly competent to discharge the duties which would devolve upon him. When attacks were made on servants of the Crown it was incumbent on the Minister as a matter of duty to defend them. He asked the Committee to take it from him that Mr. Fitzgerald was competent for the duties. In not appointing Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Lynch there was no slight whatever cast upon these gentlemen. He gathered that some hon. Members from Ireland were not satisfied that the Government in this manner had acted discreetly. He was there to defend the discretion which they exercised.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 26, at end, to insert the words 'and shall be entitled to a superannuation allowance calculated on a salary of two thousand five hundred pounds and otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Super-annuation Acts, 1834 to 1887.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. DILLON

said it was impossible to allow this transaction to go through without a word of protest. This was really a most scandalous job. It was not correct to say that Mr. Commissioner Fitzgerald under this Act was having any additional work placed on his shoulders. Why was he to get a provision? Under an arrangement come to in 1892 Mr. Fitzgerald received £500 a year extra per annum on the undertaking that he would not claim a pension. He had been drawing that extra sum for eleven years, and now the Government came forward and claimed that he should receive a pension. This clause was recommended to the Committee on the ground of economy, and yet the Government proposed this extraordinary job. The right hon. Gentleman in making the proposal had not said one word in justification of it? What was the ground for making it? They could only assume that it was a reward for services. It was a monstrous thing to propose to the House of Commons that Mr. Fitzgerald should be allowed to go back on the bargain made with the Treasury. To give him the right to a pension now after he had drawn for eleven years £500 a year extra for having agreed not to claim a pension was a most corrupt transaction. The very same considerations applied to Mr. Commissioner Wrench, who accepted a similar arrangement eleven years ago. Did anybody deny that under some future Bill Mr. Wrench would not also be given the right to a pension? Of course he would. Mr. O'Brien was practically dismissed because, he supposed, he did not give satisfaction to the gang who controlled the Castle in Dublin.

MR. WYNDHAM

would not reply to the remarks of the hon. Member, who was good enough to say that his action had been influenced by what he called "the gang who controlled the Castle," but would ask the Committee not to consider him discourteous if he did not repeat all he had endeavoured to explain on a former occasion as to the grounds affecting his action. It had been pointed out to him that the omission of Mr. O'Brien from the pension provision might be held to constitute a slight upon him; and although there was no precedent for a pension in this case he had secured one for him. He explained that he had recast the provisions of this clause and had gone to the Treasury in an endeavour to meet the Committee on the point. Mr. Wrench would serve under another tenure than that which he now enjoyed; additional pay was given to him for additional services, and the pension had been withdrawn. He regretted that these efforts had been futile, and he now felt that any further defence would not induce hon. Members to change their minds.

MR. TULLY

said he had been calling for a division all the evening, but no one would support him. This was a sham battle, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to proceed to another clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HEMPHILL

had the following notice of Amendment on the Paper— In page 35, line 19, at end, to insert the words 'and all Assistant Commissioners appointed under the said Act and holding office at the date of the passing of this Act as permanent civil servants of the Crown shall be entitled to have all their periods of service under the Land Commission, whether the same shall have been continuous or otherwise, taken into account for all purposes of superannuation allowance.'

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he had again considered the Amendment in the amended form in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move it, and he was still of opinion that if those gentlemen on whose behalf he was acting were civil servants, they came within the Superannuation Acts, and no Amendment was necessary. If they were not civil servants then the right hon Gentleman was proposing to extend the benefits of the Acts to gentlemen who did not comply with the conditions, thereby placing on the Exchequer a charge which he was not entitled to place upon it without having fortified himself with a Resolution of the House. The Amendment, therefore, would not be in order.

MR. HEMPHILL

had also the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 35, line 19, at end, to insert the words 'And all Assistant Commissioners appointed under the said Act and holding office at the date of the passing of this Act as permanent civil servants of the Crown shall be entitled to have all their periods of service under the Land Commission, whether the same shall have been continuous or otherwise, taken into account for all purposes of superannuation allowance, and any Assistant Commissioner appointed on the permanent staff of the Land Committee under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, who in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner is fully competent to discharge his duties shall not be compelled to retire by reason only of having attained any age limit of the Civil Service, without prejudice to the power of the Lord Lieutenant by Order in Council to remove such Assistant Commissioner pursuant to section forty-three of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that this proposed Amendment was open to the same objection as the first. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would amend the Superannuation Act in respect of these particular gentlemen. That would be outside the scope of this Bill; it would require a special Act.

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 26, at end, to insert the words, '(4) The Right Honourable Frederick Stringer Wrench shall, if he is nominated as an Estates Commissioner, be paid, in addition to his present salary, a salary of £500 out of money provided by Parliament. (5) Murrough O'Brien, Esquire, one of the Land Commissioners, and the two Estates Commissioners appointed by His Majesty, shall be entitled to superannuation allowances in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1887.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the Chief Secretary had undertaken to in-quire if it were possible to find a method by which, without violating the Judicial Rules, the tenure of Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey could be made more secure than it was under the Bill?

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could only effect that object when they came to the Report stage. He would then be prepared to move that the services of the Estates Commissioners, including Mr. Wrench, Mr. Bailey, and Mr, Finucane, could only be dispensed with by an Order in Council to be laid before Parliament.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that that was a very considerable concession, and they ought to mark their sense of it by giving the Government the rest of the clauses. Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 agreed to.

Clause 78.

*MR. BUTCHER (York)

said that his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth had stated that the view of the landlords was that it would be much better to delete this part of the Bill, but that he had accepted the position1. Now, he was bound to say that the speech of the Chief Secretary had convinced him that the right hon. Gentleman had made with the Treasury the best bargain possible in the interests of both landlords and tenants. It was part of that bargain that the costs of the land fixing Courts should be reduced, and, to effect that, Clause 78 had been introduced. He had put down on the Paper an Amendment for the purpose of preserving the existing system, but, after the explanation of the Chief Secretary, he did not think it would be right that he should move it. He therefore begged leave to withdraw his Amendment—"In Clause 78, page 35, line 33, leave out 'appeal,' and insert 'apply for a rehearing.'"

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co, N.)

said he wanted to propose a proviso to the first sub-section of Clause 78, in the following terms—

Amendment proposed— In page 35, line 34, at end, to add the words 'Provided that in the case of a holding the rateable value of which does not exceed £20, no appeal shall be allowed under this Act except on a question of law.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. Member was perfectly at liberty to raise that point now, but he should prefer that the hon. Member raised it on Report.

MR. CLANCY

said there were so many matters left over for Report, that he proposed it with the object of obtaining the view of the Chief Secretary.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not give his view on an Amendment that he had not seen, even in manuscript.

MR. CLANCY

said he did not wish to obstruct progress, and he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 78, agreed to.

Clauses 79 to 81 agreed to.

Clause 82

MR. TULLY

said he thought that the definition of labourer in the clause, instead of being extended was rather restricted. He wished to move an Amendment to strike out the words "other than a domestic, or menial servant." He did not see why this invidious distinction should be brought in The effect of it would be very unfair and would greatly limit an application of the Labourers Acts. In the West and also in the North of Ireland these Acts were a dead letter until the Local Government Act came into force, when the people got some representation on the local authorities. With some amendment this section could be made a good working section, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also apply it to small towns. The labourers of Ireland were nearly as numerous a body as the tenant farmers, and he did not see why they should be deprived of the same legislation as the tenant farmers.

Amendment proposed— In page 37, line 15, to leave out the words other than a domestic or menial servant.'"—(Mr Tully.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.