Lords Sitting of 13 February 1882

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in moving for various Returns in connection with the Land Commission, said, he felt he owed an extra apology to their Lordships for bringing this question before them, as there had been already a short discussion on the matter, and there was likely to be another at the end of the week; but as he saw that their Lordships' time was not much occupied, and that there were few other occasions, unless when there were more able speakers to address them, he took advantage of the opportunity of the occasion of moving for some Papers to express to their Lordships and to the public some views with regard to the measure. He was told that some of these Returns had been granted, though, for some reason, they were not yet printed, and also that his Notice was informal. But as the rules under the Act required that the gentlemen appointed as Sub-Commissioners should have a practical knowledge of the value of land in Ireland, their Lordships and the public had a right to know in what manner the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had ascertained that they possessed the necessary qualifications. If a fair rent was to be ascertained, it was desirable that the Sub-Commissioners should possess a practical acquaintance with the value of land in Ireland; but he thought that a practical knowledge of the value of the land of a whole country was a thing which it would be very difficult to attain, and he doubted whether one individual possessed such an extensive knowledge. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stated that he had had interviews with the Sub-Commissioners, but that he had given them no instructions, and that it would be highly improper for him to do so. But if the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant gave them no instructions, it was the duty of the Chief Commissioner to give them some. As Parliament refused to lay down any
  478
  basis of valuation, and no instructions were given them, then these gentlemen had to discharge their duties according to their own fancy or caprice. As to their capabilities, he would not offer any criticism, because they would be tested probably before the Commission to be appointed—at least, some examination would be made as to what basis they acted upon. He was of opinion—and the Lord Privy Seal admitted it the other night—that the Commissioners had no possible choice except to begin on the valuation which already existed. They must have taken as their starting point Griffith's Valuation to ascertain what was a fair rent; but they should have considered under what circumstances that valuation had been made, and the circumstances at the present time. There was no less than 60 per cent increase in value in the ordinary products of the land, and that should be considered in fixing the fair rent. The valuation made by a glimpse at each holding, especially small tenants' holdings, where generally not an acre had been dug or ploughed since the crop was taken out, only exposed the law to ridicule. The majority of cases before the Land Courts dealt with small holdings of about 10 acres, divided into 10 fields; and it was impossible for the Commissioners to give the time necessary to go over each of these properly and make a satisfactory valuation. Again, it was quite unjust to take Griffith's Valuation as the criterion of rent without remembering that it was made for taxation, not for rent; that Sir Richard Griffith based it on the price of agricultural produce at the time it was made; that the increase in value of all such produce was very large, and that he stated that a large percentage should be added in estimating rent. Besides, there were no railways at the time. Land near railways, near towns and villages where great fairs were held, had an artificial value, though, of course, in a much less degree than building-land, and, save in considerable towns, the Sub-Commissioners had ignored these circumstances. The standard, therefore, taken by the Sub-Commissioners for fair rents—namely, the Ordnance value less possible tenants' improvements, ignoring all these circumstances, was, on the face of it, unjust and unfair. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) said the land-

  479
  lords, in many districts, were quite satisfied with the decisions of the Courts. Well, he supposed the rich landlords did not care to spend all their lives in litigation with their tenants in appealing to the higher Courts on points of law; and as to the poorer landowners, he was sure their Lordships did not know the unfortunate position they were in. Many of them were unable to appear before the Court on account of the expense, which averaged £10, including valuation and costs. The Government could hardly expect, where all the circumstances were considered, to secure the confidence of the Irish landlords or their friends; and they could hardly be aware of the number of men, women, and children—law-abiding people, against whose character nothing could be said—who would be utterly ruined by the unfortunate measure, carried out as it was likely to be, judging by precedent and examples. A few words as to valuing land on the "live and thrive" principle. The Lord Privy Seal ignored this; the Chief Secretary for Ireland accepted it. If it was the duty of Government to see that every subject could live and thrive, it was a Herculean task. There were said to be 250,000 people in this Metropolis who rose every morning not knowing where they could get their breakfast. Here was plenty of employment for the Home Secretary. But in this theory the fallacy, so far as regarded the small tenant in Ireland, lay in the fact that he did not live or depend on his holding of land. Commonly he was a migratory labourer; half his time was spent working in Great Britain, and he commonly returned to Ireland with from £ 10 to £20 in his pocket. If the "live and thrive "theory was to prevail, the Commissioners would have to consider all the ways and means of the tenant in order to assess a fair rent. He believed that on the "live and thrive "principle, in ordinary years, a small holder in Ireland was better off than an under-gardener in Kensington Gardens. The latter earned 21 s. a-week, out of which he had to pay 6s. 6d. a-week for his lodging; while the small tenant in Ireland had generally a three-roomed house, and seven acres of land and free turbary for about 2s. 6d. a - week. He had a Question on the Paper—namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether
  480
  the gentleman who now holds the appointment of Solicitor to the Land Commission in Ireland was previously Solicitor of the Land League? Report said that the Solicitor to the Land Commission had resigned; but he did not know whether that was so or not. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of any member of the Commission; but he asserted that if Mr. Fottrell really had been the solicitor usually employed by the managers of the Land League, he was not a proper person to make Solicitor to the Land Court. With respect to the unlucky pamphlet entitled How to become the Owner of your Farm, it seemed strange that Mr. Godley should have sanctioned its issue and yet have remained unaware of its contents. Mr. Godley was considered an excellent business man; but excellent men of business were not in the habit of tendering their sanction to the circulation of documents without knowing what those documents contained. It was said that the pamphlet was published without the approbation of the high officials. Justice O'Hagan must have had some idea that the pamphlet was to be issued.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, Justice O'Hagan had stated that he was unaware of the publication of the pamphlet.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he did not doubt the honour of Justice O'Hagan; but there was every reason to believe that his Lordship knew something about the matter. The whole story was very remarkable, and was not rendered less so by the official explanations. Indeed, it was not easy to avoid the suspicion that Mr. Fottrell had been made the scapegoat for the sins of his superiors. All things considered, he could not imagine that the Government expected the landlords to repose much confidence in the Land Court. Perhaps they did not know how many owners of property in Ireland had been utterly ruined by the administration of their Act. And not only the interested opponents and victims of the measure, but also dispassionate critics at home and abroad, had condemned its principles and its probable effect. The French Temps, for instance, regarded the Act as a socialistic measure of spoliation and expropriation, and a step towards the equalization of

  481
  property. Lord Derby, one of the ablest of the English critics of the Act, after clearly demonstrating that all the remedial measures passed had been concessions extorted by agrarian violence and crime, had said that the only reason for his vote in its favour was his expectation that it might prevent the alienation of the Northern Irish from English rule. In his speech at Liverpool, however, Lord Derby had asked what the Irish landowners would do if they were left face to face with the Irish people. That was much the same as to ask what would happen to Londoners if the police were suddenly withdrawn. It seemed to him that the possible abdication of its duties by the Government was a very singular argument for a remedial measure. The situation of affairs which followed the passing of the Land Act was this. Mr. Parnell was aware that if he did not make violent speeches the American subscriptions would fall off; and as the Government was able, under the Coercion Bill, to prevent him stopping the operation of the Act, he seized the opportunity of being made a martyr, with the prospect of being ready for action when the Coercion Act had lapsed. The same course was taken in 1870, when the Land Act was accompanied by coercive laws in some respects more stringent than the present Act. Then crime increased as coercion diminished; and, no doubt, this experience would be repeated, as the Prime Minister would again have to bid for the Irish vote. The Premier was eager to establish local government in Ireland, and to consider how a separate Parliament could be established with safety to Imperial interests. What was to be the result for the unfortunate people of Ireland? He predicted that the result of measures of this description would be the delivery of Ireland up to a state of violence and anarchy such as rarely or ever existed, he supposed, since the great French Revolution. Even now there would have been an absolute dissolution of society if it had not been for the Coercion Act and the Army. When the Coercion Act expired, the Land League would re-assert itself, and anarchy and bloodshed would pursue their course unchecked. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Returns of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "A Return of names of Sub-Commissioners appointed under Land Act (Ireland), 1881; with explanation in each case of what means were taken by the Lord Lieutenant to ascertain that the person appointed possessed 'a practical acquaintance with the value of land in Ireland,' as required by 10th section of General Rules and Orders made in accordance with section 50. of said Act:
  "Also, A Return showing in what cases Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners under Irish Land Act, 1881, have availed themselves of the power contained in clause 37, section 6, and also in clause 48, section 4, of said Act, of directing an independent valuer to report, &c. as to value of holding:
  "A Return of all cases tried before Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners under Irish Land Act of 1881 settling fair rent; showing the old rent, the Ordnance value, the acreage, and judicial rent of each holding; showing separately all cases adjudicated on at each sitting of Sub-Commissioners or Assistant Barrister in each town; also the time (if any) spent by Sub-Commissioners or Sub-Commissioner in such locality during such sitting in visiting in person the holdings, as contemplated in 20th Rule made by Commissioners under 50th clause of Irish Land Act:
  "Also, A Statement of the profession or occupation followed by Sub - Commissioners during twelve months previous to their appointment."—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he did not complain of the Returns being moved for, although the noble Lord appeared to have anticipated that he would do so. Nor did he complain of the statement of the noble Lord's views on a variety of Irish topics, beyond saying that the noble Lord had not given the slightest hint that such a statement was to be made, or that there would be anything more than a formal Motion for unopposed Returns. Their Lordships would agree with him that it would be more convenient that he should reserve anything he had to say about the working of the Irish Land Act until the subject was brought forward in a more regular way, as it would be in a day or two. This course would be the more convenient, as the noble Lord had, besides commenting on some observations he made last week, devoted a large part of his speech to criticizing the views of the Earl of Derby, who was not present. Therefore, with all respect for the noble Lord, he would confine himself to the matter of the Returns. An important portion of them had been already laid on the Table, and would soon be in their Lordships' hands. These were

  483
  the Returns relating to the cases tried. The information asked for in the first part of the Motion was hardly subject-matter for a Return. No doubt the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be prepared to explain that he made private inquiries in the ordinary way to satisfy himself as to the knowledge and qualifications of the gentlemen appointed; but that was not information that could be embodied in the columns of a Return. With that exception, he should be glad to give the information asked for. As a portion of it had been already supplied, he would amend the form of the Return, so as to make it describe the supplementary information to be granted. As to the noble Lord's Question, he informed the House the other day that Mr. Fottrell, the Solicitor to the Land Commission, had sent in his resignation, and it had been accepted by the Commission, so that he was no longer Solicitor to the Commission; but the reply to the present Question was that he had not previously been the Solicitor to the Land League.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon no occasion the Solicitor for the Land League.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he had made inquiry with regard to the statement that had appeared in the newspapers, and found that Mr. Fottrell was, upon one occasion, employed by Mr. Parnell and some other persons in connection with the purchase of a newspaper which subsequently became United Ireland; but that fact was not known when he was appointed Solicitor to the Land Commission. If what the noble Lord said meant anything, it meant that the Government and their Lordships were not to believe Mr. Godley, the Secretary of the Land Commission, on his word, or Mr. Justice O'Hagan on his word. The noble Lord said he had no doubt that Mr. Justice O'Hagan was an honourable man. What the noble Lord's idea of an honourable man was he did not know; but he left it to the noble Lord to reconcile those two statements. It appeared to him that the noble Lord was determined not to believe the assertion upon his word of this honourable man. The Government had not the slightest shadow of doubt as to the absolute and literal truth of the statements made by the Land Commissioners and by Mr. Godley as to their
  484
  entire ignorance of the contents of the pamphlet when it was issued, and as to the truth of the assertion that the moment they discovered the nature of its contents they stopped its further issue. In the great pressure of work it was possible that a mistake might be committed by the most honourable and the most efficient public servants, among whom Mr. Godley must be reckoned. Mr. Godley had tendered his resignation; but the Land Commission did not deem it their duty to accept it.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he was glad to hear that Mr. Fottrell was no longer connected with the Land Commission, because, from the information which had reached him, there was reason to suppose that he was himself the author of the letters on which the pamphlet was founded; and, assuming this, its own internal evidence showed that the writer was deeply imbued with the principles of the Land League. He did not speak with any personal feeling against Mr. Fottrell. He was very glad, in one sense, that the circumstance had occurred, because it had led to the lifting up of one corner of the curtain, and had allowed them to have a little peep into the Land Court. They had a glimpse of a full-length portrait of the Land Court Solicitor. His features were not pleasant; and he hoped they would have, at some future time, full-length portraits of the Judges to whom Her Majesty's Government had committed the property of all the landlords of Ireland. It was necessary that the officers of such a Court should be persons of the utmost impartiality. Whether Mr. Fottrell was connected with the Land League or not, the Land Court had been circulating for six weeks a seditious and most objectionable pamphlet. Naturally enough, they looked to the Prime Minister for an explanation of the publication of that pamphlet; and what was that explanation? Simply that there had been a miscarriage of a most remarkable character. Now, it seemed to him that, from Mr. Fottrell's known political proclivities, the Government might have expected something to happen of a remarkable character. The idea of a miscarriage was something premature, and possibly Mr. Gladstone thought the appearance of this pamphlet was premature. He knew nothing about that; but it appeared to him that the miscarriage was a breach of the 11th

  485
  Commandment—"Thou Shalt not be found out.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought the explanation given by Her Majesty's Government was far from satisfactory. It appeared to him that they should have marked their indignation by the summary dismissal of Mr. Fottrell, and should not have allowed him to resign.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Government had nothing to do with the appointment.
  EARL FORTESOUE: Am I to understand that it is in the gift of the Court?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes.
  EARL FORTESCUEwent on to remark that, in his opinion, the Land Court was dealing with the ease in a spirit of extraordinary tenderness. He had not read the pamphlet; but if it was such as had been described by Members of the Government, such an abuse as its circulation, in the name of the Commissioners, was not calculated to enhance the opinion which would be entertained in the country of the impartiality of the Land Court. In regard to Mr. Godley, he might be a valuable officer; but what had happened would, he believed, very seriously shake the public confidence in Mr. Godley's fitness for his place, inasmuch as, after serving some months with him in the same Office, he had relied on a partizan like Mr. Fottrell, and had blindly endorsed his recommendation. As to the Sub-Commissioners, from what he had learnt publicly and privately, he believed that, in spite of the Government's grand professions of impartiality, the appointments of several of them were neither better nor worse than the political appointments made for many years by successive Governments in Ireland.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the Government would give their Lordships some information as to the amount of time which would be required for deciding all the cases which had been presented to the Land Commissioners. It had been stated that, at the present rate of progress observed, decisions on those various cases could not be given within the present century. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government had made any calculation on that point.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that it would be quite impossible for him to give the noble Earl any satisfactory
  486
  answer on that point. Such a question was not to be answered by a mere arithmetical calculation, as the result would depend upon facts which no one could predict with certainty. But it might relieve the noble Earl's mind to say that the number of cases settled voluntarily out of Court was very large, and was increasing daily.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is more reason for surprise at what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has not told us than at what he has told us. I was very much struck that the noble Lord passed without observation an important statement made by my noble and gallant Friend behind me (Lord Dunsany), to the effect that these letters, which were boiled down into the form of a pamphlet and circulated throughout Ireland, were actually written by Mr. Fottrell. I do not know whether that is so or not; but probably my noble and gallant Friend would be well informed on the subject, and would not speak without authority. But if the Government admit that by silence, it certainly throws a new light upon Mr. Godley's assent to the publication. But, in any case, whether Mr. Fottrell was the original author or not, or had anything to do with the concoction of this pamphlet or not, the Government must have known that he was strongly imbued with the principles of the Land League; and they hardly seem to take a sufficiently grave view of the character of Mr. Godley's action in the matter. They seem to think that if they once establish that he knew nothing about it they have achieved a great triumph. But I would really rather that Mr. Godley had known something about it. It seems to me so tremendous a thing that in the administration of a law affecting the future happiness of Ireland for generations the Secretary of a Commission should circulate a Circular which purports to be a statement of the views of the Land Commission upon the most vital points, not only without reading it, but without having the slightest idea of what it contained. It seems to me only part of the strange and mysterious inadvertence with which it has been the fate of the Government to be attended in all their dealings with Ireland. I had rather, I say, that Mr. Godley had known something of the matter, because, whatever his personal opinions were,

  487
  similar conduct might be prevented for the future by adequate care. I confess that I should hear with some satisfaction that some graver notice had been taken than a mere refusal to receive Mr. Godley's resignation on account of this very serious neglect, or more than neglect, on his part. Whether Mr. Fottrell was the author of these letters or not, Mr. Godley must have had a very shrewd idea of what his proclivities were, and either he must have been inconceivably careless, or had an impression that his superiors would view without distate his adopting that side of the controversy in Ireland.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I must point out the inconvenience of what has happened this evening. There is a very important Notice on the Paper about the administration of the Land Act, upon which there is very likely to be a long debate, and now a number of questions are asked on the subject. The noble Earl below the Gangway (Earl Fortescue) has rushed to the front at once—as he is apt to do—and condemned the Land Commission without having read the pamphlet in question.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I heard of it from the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl has not read the pamphlet; he does not seem to have read the Papers presented to the House; and he did not know whether it was for the Government or the Land Commission to take action against the Solicitor, yet he immediately condemned the Government for not taking immediate action. Before there had been time to take action Mr. Fottrell had sent in his resignation, which was accepted. I have at this moment information which I think has a great bearing upon the appointment of that gentleman; but I prefer waiting till Friday to give it. With regard to what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has said, I quite agree that it was certainly wrong for the Secretary to sanction the publication of any document without having made himself master of it. But I have been connected with official life for many years, and it is idle to pretend that the head of an Office is never to accept the judgment of a trusted subordinate on a long document which has not had time to master. Will the noble Marquess say that he has never shown such confi-
  488
  dence? Certainly, Mr. Godley has been a singularly diligent public servant, by the concurrent evidence of all who have known him.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That there be laid before this House—
  Return of names of Assistant Commissioners appointed under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881:
  Also, Return showing in what cases the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners under the Act have availed themselves of the power contained in clause 37, sub-section 6, and also in clause 48, sub-section 4, of the Act, of directing an independent valuer to report, &c. as to value of holding:
  Also, Return of the time spent by each Sub-Commission at each town where sittings were held, stating how much of such time was spent in court and how much in visiting holdings, in accordance with rule 20 of the Irish Land Commission:
  Also, Statement of the profession or occupation followed by Sub-Commissioners during twelve months previous to their appointment.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.