§ MR. DILLONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the instructions issued by the Estates Commissioners to their inspectors, in February, 1904, should be treated as confidential any more than those which have been communicated to the House; who is responsible for drafting the instructions to the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners issued in. February, 1905; and did the Estates Commissioners approve of the alterations made by the instructions of February, 1905, as compared with the instructions of February, 1904.
§ MR. DILLONI beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority the instructions given to the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners in February, 1904, to regard the provisional agreements made between landlords and tenants on estates offered to the Commissioners as only one of the means by which the prices which the tenants would be willing to pay could be ascertained, were altered into an instruction that these provisional agreements were to be taken as conclusive evidence of the tenant's willingness to buy at the prices mentioned therein; and were the Commissioners assenting parties to this alteration.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe first instructions were framed when the Act had only been in operation a short time, and were merely provisional, tentative, 932 and informal. The instructions of 1905, which were based on the experience that had been gained, were drafted by the Estates Commissioners and submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant for revision. I have no information upon the last point raised in the Question, and, even if I had, as the Commissioners are under the general control of the Lord-Lieutenant in respect of these administrative matters, I do not think I could enter into the question as to whether they approved of the action of the Lord-Lieutenant.
§ MR. DILLONThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point of the Question, why the instructions issued in 1904 under which the Act was-worked for a whole year should be treated as confidential while those issued in 1905 have been laid on the Table?
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have answered the Question to the best of my ability. The original instructions were in the nature of confidential communications-passing from one branch to another.
§ MR. DILLONThe right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehends the Question. These could not be in the nature of confidential communications. They are the instructions issued in February, 1904, under which the Act was worked for a whole year. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order!"] It is necessary for me to explain the Question at length.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf every hon. Member explained his Question the time allotted for Questions would soon be exhausted.
§ MR. WALTER LONGIf the hon. Member is not satisfied perhaps he will put another Question down.
§ MR. DILLONI will put the same Question down again.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLCan the right hon Gentleman say why, having put on the Table the instructions to inspectors which have been in operation during the last few months, he refuses to give those under which the Act was worked for more than a year?
§ ME. WALTER LONGI have already answered that Question. I have said the original instructions were of a Departmental character and should be treated as confidential.
§ MR. DILLONI still adhere to my statement that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
§ MR. DILLONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who was responsible for the interpretation of the law now acted upon in regard to inquiries of inspectors in relation to the equity of the price under Section 5 of The Irish Land Act, 1903; and why were the instructions to inspectors issued in February, 1904, altered in this respect while the whole question of the interpretation of this section had been referred to the Judicial Commissioner for a decision.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe Estates Commissioners are in the first instance responsible for the interpretation of any section of the Act affecting any case coming before them, with this qualification, that they are bound, if requested by any person interested, to refer any question of law to the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, and may, of their own motion, do so if they desire his guidance. They have, I understand, availed themselves of this latter power, and have referred the interpretation of this section to Mr. Justice Meredith. The matter now awaits his decision.
§ MR. DILLONWhy is it that the matter has not been allowed to await the decision of the Judge, but that in the new regulations now laid upon the Table of the House it is prejudged by the Executive?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWhy during twelve months of the working of this Act were the inspectors instructed by the Estates Commissioners to take all the equities under Section 5 into account; why in a new instruction have they been instructed not to consider the equity affecting the tenant but only the equity affecting the remainder-man and the encumbrancers. I want to know upon whose advice that has been done, whether 934 it has been done by the Lord-Lieutenant or whether it has been done by the Law Officers of the Crown, and why they did not await Mr. Justice Meredith's decision on that point?
§ MR. WALTER LONGIt is really very difficult to answer a Question of this kind, because the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is putting a question of a strictly legal character and extremely technical, and one which I say with great respect might have been put on the Paper, and not asked in this way. My Answer, however, is this: In the original instructions to the inspectors, as I understand the situation, the Estates Commissioners acted on their own responsibility. They required guidance. They are under a double responsibility—the first is to refer questions to their legal adviser, the second is to act under the direction of the Lord-Lieutenant. It was held that their views in one aspect of the question [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Held by whom?]—held by the Executive—that their views were not a correct interpretation of the law. If that view is wrong it is quite obvious that it should be rectified.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWell, now I ask the Attorney-General whether he did not state in this House that the Law Officers of the Crown had given no opinion and no advice to the Estates Commissioners on this or on any other question.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEA.KERpointed out that the hon. Member was not in order in referring back to previous replies.