Sitting of 15 July 1881

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* [215]; Summary Procedure (Scotland) Amendment* [216].
Second Reading—Metallic Mines (Gunpowder)* [196].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [206].
Considered as amended—Reformatory Institutions (Ireland)* [190].

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—AR- RESTS AT KILFINANE, CO. LIME- RICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any other charge against Andrew Mortel and Edmond O'Neill (who were arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant at Kilfinane, county Limerick, on the 21st of June), except the fact that they went round the town and collected the sum of three pounds three shillings to pay amount of three fines levied by Mr. Clifford Lloyd on a poor married woman and two other parties in Kilfinane who were accused of obstructing the public thoroughfare in that town; whether he is aware that the persons who subscribed to that fund have written to the public press to show that they gave their subscriptions voluntary; and, under those circumstances, if there is sufficient cause for detaining these two men any longer in prison?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the only answer he could give to the Question was to read the warrant under which these gentlemen were arrested, and which charged them with intimidating persons in order to compel them to contribute towards the payment of certain penalties imposed upon other persons for the commission of particular offences. All he could state was that the Government were perfectly satisfied that the warrant was correct, so far as they could reasonably form any opinion, and that there had been intimidation.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the persons from whom the contributions had been received had stated that the contributions were voluntary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was not prepared to put that interpretation upon what had occurred.

  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS' REGISTRY OFFICE, DUBLIN CASTLE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the representative of a firm of solicitors and the Under Secretary in reference to a complaint made by the former, who alleges that, on the 17th ultimo, on calling at Dublin Castle, at the Petty Sessions Clerks' Registry Office, for information urgently required, it was repeatedly refused him by a subordinate official, James Mackey, unless a written communication were made, involving a loss of time of several days; that, on being asked his name, so that it might be ascertained if he was acting within his instructions, he refused to state it; that, on being reminded that he was a public official, paid out of the public funds, and bound to courtesy, he replied to applicant, "You contribute very little to them except when you are fined for being drunk and disorderly;" that, on being pressed for the information so much needed, he ordered applicant to leave the Office, and threatened to send for a policeman; that, on applicant's refusal to leave, he did actually send for a constable; that, on a complaint hereof being sent to Mr. Burke, Under Secretary, ten days were permitted to elapse before a reply was forwarded; whether there is any sufficient excuse for such delay; whether, on being further pressed, Mr. Burke again allowed ten days to elapse before answering; whether in his last communication he declined to take any further notice of the matter; whether if information is urgently needed from a Dublin Castle Office on an obvious matter, of which ignorance is not alleged or knowledge denied, application in writing is always insisted on; if so, whether it usually takes ten days to reply to such communications; whether Mr. Burke refused to answer five material questions put to him in the
  1002
  first letter; whether the Correspondence has been submitted to the Chief Secretary; whether he approves of the Under Secretary's answers, and of his refusal to cause suitable amends to be made to applicant for the indignities put upon him; whether Mackey was justified in refusing his name and in sending for a policeman; whether, if he does not approve of Mackey's language and conduct, he will state what notice he proposes to take of it; and, on what class of estimates this official's salary becomes a charge?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was sorry the hon. Member had thought fit to take up the time of the House by this Question. He also regretted the manner in which this Question was framed, and the way in which a very respectable man—Mr. Mackey—was alluded to. He had been informed that there was a dispute between a representative of a firm of solicitors and a gentleman who signed himself "A Solicitor's Apprentice," named Mr. Maurice Healy, a near relation of the hon. Member. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] He believed he was his brother. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] He was also informed that Mr. Healy told Mr. Mackey that he intended to commence proceedings against him, and therefore he thought it might have been better to have waited the result of those proceedings. He also thought the way in which the hon. Member alluded to Mr. Mackey, who was a most respectable person, was not in the best taste, though that was not much matter. He was referred to in the Question as Mackey, a "subordinate official." Mr. Mackey was Chief Clerk in the Petty Sessions Clerks' Registry Office, and was a most efficient and deserving officer. He had seen 40 years' service, and during that time there had been no complaint ever made against him by the public for want of courtesy or attention on his part. He (Mr. Mackey) entirely denied the decription of the interview which was given in this Question; but he thought that that was a matter which might fairly be left to the Court of Law to which Mr. Maurice Healy, it seemed, intended to apply.
  MR. HEALYexplained that the reason why he put this Question on the Paper was not because any of the persons concerned were connected with him,

  1003
  but in order to show the way in which business was conducted in Dublin Castle. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true that Mr. Mackey, on being reminded that he was a public official, paid out of the public funds, and bound to courtesy, replied, "You contribute very little to the public funds, except when you are fined for being drunk and disorderly?" He (Mr. Healy) also asked whether, when information was urgently required, a written application was always insisted upon, involving a loss of 10 days?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, Mr. Mackey denied that he made the statement referred to; but he did not think the Question was one with which the time of the House should be occupied. Mr. Mackey stated that the reason he refused the information was because he considered it was information he was not at liberty to give. He was then treated in a most insulting manner, and was obliged to call in a policeman to take care that Mr. Healy went out of the house.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that he should call attention to the matter at an early opportunity.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— PROSPECTS UNDER THE NEW GO- VERNMENT.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is correct, as stated in the Table of Contents, C. 2950, p. vi. (South Africa), that Sir Evelyn Wood, in his Despatch of March 28th, 1881, expressed "anxiety as to the future peace of the Transvaal under the new Government;" and, if it is correct, whether he will add that passage to the Extract from the Despatch given at p. 119, of C. 2950?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that the words in the Table of Contents were not correct, for the passages omitted did not refer to the prospects of the Transvaal under the new Government, but to a possibility, as matters stood in March last, of a breakdown of the peace negotiations. The paragraphs three and four were omitted by inadvertence, and he had no objection to produce them. There were three or four lines omitted that would still be omitted because they related to names.

  THE BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the scheme of reform in the Irish Board of Works will be laid before the House before the Land Bill passes, so that an opportunity for discussing it may arise?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: It is not intended to propose during the present Session any new scheme of reform in the Irish Board of Works. Many of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry in 1878 have already been carried into effect. Other important questions connected with the functions of the Board have been under the careful consideration of the Government; but the present is not considered to be a favourable time for dealing with them. The Laud Law (Ireland) Bill relieves the Board of one large portion of its duties by transferring to the Land Commission all its powers relating to the purchase by tenants of their holdings. On the other hand, some of the other provisions of the Bill will increase the work of the Board. Until the effect of these changes is ascertained, it is not deemed expedient to make further changes in the constitution of the Board.

  STATE OF IRELAND—"ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC CONFEDERATION."
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a speech made by an Englishman named Mr. Fredericks, a member of the English Democratic Confederation, at Loughrea on 8th July, and quoted in the "Daily Telegraph" of 9th July and other papers, in which he is reported to have said "I drink to the health of the Irish Republic," and that he would not be afraid to take up a rifle in defence of Ireland's rights; whether the making use in public of words of that character be in any wise a crime punishable by Law; whether he, as the result of his inquiry, can state whether Mr. Fredericks can be reasonably suspected of having made use of these words or words of a similar character; and, whether he has already caused many Irishmen to be detained in prison on the grounds that they were reasonably suspected of making use of language of a character far less strong and less likely

  1005
  to lead to injurious consequences in the present condition of Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, before action was taken on words uttered at a public meeting, the first question to be considered was whether the words had been used; the second, whether they came within the powers given to the Government by the law; and, thirdly, whether they were spoken by a person of sufficient importance to require notice to be taken of them. The meeting in question was not an important one.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked whether a deputation of English miners had not been travelling for two weeks in Ireland using the same violent language?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was aware that representatives of miners had been travelling in Ireland; but nothing had come to his knowledge that he deemed necessary to take action upon.
  MR. J. W. PEASE, in consequence of what fell from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bellingham), asked the Chief Secretary whether he had received any Report from Ireland in any way complaining of the deputation from the miners of Durham and Northumberland in their tour through Ireland to investigate the state of the country; and, whether there had been anything in their conduct or speeches which tended in any way to promote a breach of the peace, or to encourage others to break the peace?
  MR. MACDONALDinquired if the Chief Secretary could say that the deputation in Ireland to which reference had been made did represent the miners of either Durham or Northumberland, because he (Mr. Macdonald) was in a position to say they did not?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not be expected to settle the disputed question raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macdonald). He understood that these gentlemen stated that they were a deputation from the miners of Durham and Northumberland; but it had not been his business to inquire into their credentials. With regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease), he had no official Report—in fact, he had no Report at all—of anything having been said or done by these gentlemen contrary to the public peace. Of course, it would not be expected that he should enter into any question as to the correctness of their statements, either
  1006
  one way or the other; but he had had no information brought him to the effect that they had created any disturbance of the public peace.
  MR. BURTsaid, he was closely connected with the miners' organizations in Durham and Northumberland, and he could state that no such deputation as that referred to was authorized to represent the miners of those counties.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ORANGE FREE STATE—THE MURDER OF DR. BARBER.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any result has yet been obtained from the communications addressed to the President of the Orange Free State with reference to the murder of Dr. Barber, and what course the Government are pursuing in order to obtain compensation for that gentleman's family?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The documents referred to were laid on the Table yesterday. A telegram was sent to Sir Hercules Robinson yesterday, desiring him to urge upon the Boer leaders that compensation should be given to the orphan children of Dr. Barber.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND— THE SCHEME OF THE SENATE.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Scheme of the Senate of the Royal University for Ireland, and to the unlimited number and high scale of prizes proposed for students in arts and professional schools; and, whether, before the said Scheme is sanctioned, Parliament will have any opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, of course his attention had been called to this matter, and, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Scheme had been laid on the Table of the House. The University Act that was passed instructed the Senate to draw up a Scheme, and, on being communicated to the Lord Lieutenant, it was his duty to put it upon the Table of the House. There was no power given to the Senate to alter the Scheme, and no power given to the Government to propose alterations in it. Whatever was done about the Univer-

  1007
  sity, must depend very much on the Estimates which would be submitted to Parliament. An opportunity would be given to the House to express their opinions; but he was not quite sure whether that would not be on a Bill brought in rather than on a Vote.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—GENERAL OR- DER No. 70, 1881—HISTORIC TITLES OF REGIMENTS.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the General Order No. 70, of 1881, wherein it was ordered that the 7th Regiment should bear the title of "The Royal Fusiliers (City of London) Regiment," and the 8th Regiment the title of "The King's (Liverpool) Regiment," and to General Order No. 86 just issued, wherein it is ordered that in all correspondence these Regiments are to be described by the abbreviated titles "The Royal Fusiliers" and "The Liverpool Regiment," respectively; and, whether he can give any reason why the special favour granted to the 7th Regiment to use its historic title should be refused to the equally distinguished 8th Regiment?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am really sorry that the hon. and gallant Member should think it 'necessary to trouble the House with so trivial a Question. The full titles of the two Regiments are the "Royal Fusiliers (City of London) Regiment," and the "King's (Liverpool) Regiment," and these fully and satisfactorily describe the characteristics of the two Regiments. But it would be mere red-tape to be obliged, in correspondence, to use the full titles which have been abbreviated for that purpose only to the "Royal Fusiliers," and the "Liverpool." Perhaps I may say that to call the latter the "King's" might lead to some confusion; and I trust that the House will not wish to interfere in such matters of mere official detail.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the subject of his Question was considered by no means trivial by many persons who had addressed letters to him with reference to it.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— URGENCY.
  MR. FAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to
  1008
  the daily increasing number of Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, and the advanced period of the Session, the time has not arrived for Her Majesty's Government to declare urgency on that measure?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Without doubt, the greatest inconvenience has been caused to the House in many ways, particularly with respect to the important Notice dependent on the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), by the unexpected prolongation of the proceedings in Committee on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. At the same time, to resort to urgency is a very serious matter, in itself leading to a great deal of difference of opinion as to what may happen. I am inclined to hope still we may be able to get on without making any fresh demands on the time of the House. Certainly, at the present moment we do not intend to make any such fresh demand, though this Question does, I believe, express a feeling which exists, with too good reason, in the minds of many hon. Members.

  CENTRAL ASIA—ADVANCE OF RUSSIA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will inquire by telegraph of the British agents in Northern Persia whether it is a fact, as stated by the Correspondent of the "Daily News," who is now a prisoner at Merv, that the Russians have not only occupied and annexed the whole of the Tekke Turcoman Country, including Askabad, but have also occupied Kuchan, in Persian Khorassan, a most important strategical position on the road to Meshed and Herat, and have extended their frontier along the Attrek Valley up to the Yegend, embracing Derghaea and Kelat, and passing close to Meshed; and, whether he will at the same time ask for and lay before this House exact information as to the extent of territory in that region now in the occupation of Russia, or alleged by the Russian authorities to be under their rule?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Foreign Office cannot communicate by telegraph with Meshed, so it is not possible to make the direct inquiry asked for; but the Agent at Meshed is in constant communication with Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran, through whom his Reports are received. Her

  1009
  Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has already been instructed to send home a map showing the boundaries of the recently annexed territory in the Akhal country for the Library of the House of Commons.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTcomplained that he had been unable to obtain an exact statement on this subject from the hon. Baronet. He would repeat the latter part of the Question early in next week; and if the hon. Baronet would not telegraph for information on this important question he should consider it his duty to bring the matter before the notice of the House in the only way which was now possible for private Members.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL RISING—THE RESOLUTION OF SIR M. HICKS-BEACH.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Last week the Prime Minister intimated that, in the circumstances which then existed, he hoped the Transvaal debate might be taken on Monday next. May I now ask whether he is able to make any definite statement on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I should reply to the right hon. Baronet with pain and almost with shame, were it not that he is as cognizant of the facts of the case as I am. It was not an unreasonable hope that we should have finished the Committee on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill during the present week. I still hope that we may be able to finish it by next week, though I cannot predict anything with confidence. The first moment that is at our disposal shall be given to the right hon. Baronet; but as a good many questions are still open, in which great interest is felt in more than one quarter of the House, it is possible that these questions may lead to a little prolongation of the debates. As many Friends of the right hon. Baronet may take part in the coming discussions, it is possible that an important influence may be introduced by consultation among his Friends as to the policy and expediency of prolonging the discussions. If we should be so happy as to finish the Committee by Wednesday next, Thursday will be at the disposal of the right hon. Baronet. The absolute necessities of the Public Service will compel us to ask for a further Vote on Account on Monday night. We shall propose to report Progress at a little earlier hour than usual,
  1010
  perhaps a little before midnight, in order to submit the Vote to the House. Any time except the time occupied by the debate on the Transvaal will be given to Supply.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: With the indulgence of the House, I should like to say what course it appears to me to be necessary to take after the answer of the Prime Minister. What I am about to say I do not say at all by way of complaint against the Government. I am sensible, as we all are, of the difficult circumstances with which they have had to deal. But the answer of the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to leave the date at which this debate may take place in a state of most absolute uncertainty. Important questions still remain to be discussed in the Committee on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, and I cannot conceive it at all probable that the Committee on the Bill will be concluded by the day named. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman has said appears to me to amount to an indefinite postponement of the Motion of which I have given Notice. I gave that Notice more than three months ago, in the hope that an early discussion might take place, and I have done my best to bring about that result. I think hon. Members will admit that the failure to bring on the debate has been due to no fault of mine. Unquestionably the delay, for which I do not wish to blame anyone, has prejudiced the Motion of which I have given Notice. After the middle of July it is almost impossible to obtain the definite judgment of a full House on a question of this importance. On the other hand, I am bound to say I should not be justified, after what has taken place within the last few days, in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to bring this Motion forward before the Committee on the Bill is concluded. Therefore, in the circumstances, looking also to the fact, which is a fact of undoubted importance, that we have reason to suppose the inquiry of the Royal Commissioners in the Transvaal will, before long, be concluded, and its results announced to the House, it is my intention to consult with those with whom I am in the habit of acting as to whether we shall not be able in some other way, and, perhaps, at a still later period of the Session, to bring on the debate, which I

  1011
  am sure every Member of the House would desire before the Session is concluded.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I need not say I do not rise for the purpose of finding fault with anything said by the right hon. Baronet. On the contrary, I rise to render to him a just tribute as to the temper and tone in which all that he has addressed to the House, from time to time, on this subject has been urged. I can assure him that, for my part, I never had a more difficult, critical, or painful question than the question of my duty in regard to his Motion. It has been one of the most nicely balanced matters that have occurred to me in connection with the Business of this House. Had the right hon. Gentleman pressed me definitely I might, perhaps, have gone further; but as matters now stand, having made this deserved acknowledgment to him, I feel it is better to wait until he is in a condition to communicate the further results of consultation with his Friends.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE—PETITIONS—THE BRADLAUGH PETITIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: As reports are current that it is the intention of the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh to come to this House in numbers, I believe that a declaration from yourself, Mr. Speaker, of the law and of the custom in this matter will conduce to public order and prevent disappointment. I, therefore, beg to ask, Whether persons, not being Members of the House of Commons, but who may have signed, or may be considered to be interested in Petitions addressed to the House, have any right of access to the Lobbies of the House, or to the House itself, before or when such Petitions are presented?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the hon. Member, it is right I should state that according to the Rules and Orders of this House, a Petition can be presented to this House by a Member only, except a Petition from the Corporation of London, or the Corporation of Dublin. With regard to access to the Lobbies, the House is aware that a stranger can be admitted to them only by the introduction of a Member of this House. With regard to keeping open the access to this House, that is a matter regulated by the Sessional Resolution, passed at the commencement of each Session.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to ask you a Question, Sir, in regard to a Question of my own. On Wednesday last I handed to the Clerk a Question respecting certain occurrences in Bulgaria. It was addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Clerk in his judgment has not placed it upon the Paper, and he has told me that he has not done so because it contained an attack upon an individual. I do not wish in any indirect manner to read this Question in asking whether it is a proper one. There are, in fact, two Questions. The first is—["Order !"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I feel bound to interpose between the hon. Member and the House. The Question was brought to the Clerk at the Table; he consulted me about it, and by my authority he informed the hon. Member that such a Question was quite irregular. It was irregular in many respects; and after an intimation of that kind I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should bring the matter forward in the way he has done.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: In these circumstances, I shall conclude with a Motion. My sole object——
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member intends to conclude with a Motion for the purpose of bringing forward, under cover of that Motion, a Question already declared to be irregular, I shall decline to put that Motion to the House. And I trust that the House will support me in so doing.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I really do not wish to raise this question in any offensive way; but I do think there is a very important principle involved in the second Question. It is this, whether——
  MR. SPEAKER: I consider the course taken by the hon. Member to be extremely irregular; and I must caution him that, if he insists upon proceeding, I must take notice of his conduct.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course, I shall not go on if you say that; but I desire to ask whether there is any other way in which I can bring the matter of the second Question to the knowledge of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been already informed that he cannot bring the matter forward in the

  1013
  form of a Question addressed to Ministers. The Question as submitted was full of controversial matter, and was in other respects irregular, and the Clerk at the Table properly informed the hon. Member, by my authority, that the subject of that Question, if brought forward at all, must be brought forward by a Motion on which there could be debate.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I give Notice that I shall bring the subject forward in that way, though I suppose it will be next Session before I can do so.

  SCOTLAND—THE EDINBURGH VOLUN- TEER REVIEW.
  MR. HAMILTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, If he can give any information as to the review of Volunteers in Edinburgh?
  MR. CHILDERS: Her Majesty has permitted me to say that she proposes to hold a review of Volunteers in the Queen's Park, Edinburgh, on Thursday, August 25.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL— CLAUSE 26.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Prime Minister, Whether he considered it consistent with the character and dignity of the proceedings of the House that so important a Clause as Clause 26 of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, one which involved an entirely novel principle of legislation, should be passed at an early hour of the morning, without any discussion of the clause on its merits, and under the pressure of a Government majority?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question of the hon. Gentleman invites me to censure the proceedings of this House in Committee of the Whole House, and I decline to give any answer to it.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Prime Minister, If he intended to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill, on which he could assure him there would be strong opposition?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not had an opportunity of making inquiry; but perhaps the hon. Member would put the Question on Monday.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]

    COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-EIGHTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 14th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-EIGHTH NIGHT.]
      PART V.

        ACQUISITION OF LAND BY TENANTS, RE- CLAMATION OF LAND, AND EMIGRATION.
        Supplemental Provisions.
        Clause 27 (Supply of money to Laud Commission for purposes of Act).
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, as this clause was one of a financial and administrative character, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had given Notice of a Motion for its omission from the Bill, it would, perhaps, be convenient if he agreed to its postponement.
        Clause postponed.
        Clause 28 (Proceedings of Commission).
        MR. MACFARLANEcalled attention to the wording of the second line of this clause, which said that—
        "The Land Commission before buying any estate shall satisfy themselves that a resale can be effected without loss."
        As the clause stood, a loss, however small, would be prohibitory of the purchase on the part of the Land Commission. He therefore presumed that the words meant to convey the idea of substantial loss, and in that sense he proposed to add the word "serious" after "effected," in line 2.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not approve the addition of the word "serious," as proposed to be used by the hon. Member opposite; but was willing to meet his wishes as far as possible by agreeing to the insertion of the word "reasonably" after "shall," in line 1, so as to make the clause run—
        "The Land Commission before buying any estate shall reasonably satisfy themselves that a resale can be effected without loss."
        Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 1, after "shall," insert "reasonably."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the meaning of the word "reasonably" was very vague in England, and was probably much more so in Ireland, and therefore he hoped the word would not be adopted by the Committee. One of the worst form of grants was a loan which was not meant to be fully repaid, and he objected to the introduction of a word which carried with it the slightest doubt that the Land Commission were to be fully repaid for the advances made.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 29 (Transfer of purchase powers of Board of Works to Land Commission) agreed to.
        Clause 30 (Rule as to fixing percentages, purchase moneys, &c.) agreed to.

      PART VI.

        COURT AND LAND COMMISSION.
        Description of Court and Proceedings.
        Clause 31 (Court to mean civil bill court, s. 22).
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 20, line 18, insert as a new sub-section:—"(2.) Any proceedings which might be instituted before the Civil Bill Court may, at the election of the person taking such proceedings, be instituted before the Land Commission, and thereupon the Land Commission shall, as respects such proceedings, be deemed to be the Court."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, that although the Government proposed by this clause that the Primary Court to deal with matters arising under the Bill should be the Civil Bill Court of the county where the matter requiring the cognizance of the Court arose, the highest authoritities in Ireland, who had ample opportunities of forming a correct opinion upon the judgments of the Civil Bill Courts, were not satisfied that the County Court Judges were the best who could be selected for the purpose of acting with perfect impartiality between landlord and tenant. Indeed, it was supposed that, situated as they were socially, they might be disposed to look with rather more favour upon the landlord class than upon the tenants. He therefore proposed to associate with the County Court Judges two other persons
        1016
        to be elected by the Parliamentary electors of the county, who should have power to decide cases that came before them, at the option of the Court, but subject to appeal to the Commissioners if it was not considered that the decision of the Primary Court was a just one.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 20, line 18, after "arises," insert "associated with and assisted by two persons elected by the Parliamentary electors of the county in which the property is situate of which the proceedings take cognizance."—(Mr. Biggar.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press this Amendment, which he could not accept on many grounds, but mainly because it was not possible for the Government to admit the principle that either County Court Judges, or their deputies, should be appointed at the instance of persons whose duty it was simply to take part in the election of their Representatives in Parliament, and not in the appointment of persons to judicial offices.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, the criticism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, to some extent, correct. The words of the Amendment did convey the idea that fresh tribunals were to be appointed, and he was disposed to amend it in that respect. His intention was that the two persons appointed by the electors should be permanent assistants to the County Court Judge, so far as cases to be decided in the county were concerned. To the extent he had mentioned, he thought there was weight in the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, although he could not agree that there was any weight whatever in the rest of his argument against the Amendment. It was well known that a much greater expense was involved in settling a case in Dublin, than in settling it on the spot where the question arose. The expense in Dublin would be ruinous to the tenant. The fact remained that it was desirable that the cases should be tried in the County Court of the county in which the cause of action arose, and that being so, it had to be considered what was the best tribunal for impartially carrying the Act into operation. The County Court Judges would, of course, exercise great influence upon the associates, as

        1017
        being learned in the law and competent to direct the attention of their colleagues to precedents bearing upon the cases before them. Still, he thought it advisable that they should be assisted by two men of local knowledge, who would be competent to decide upon matters of fact.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he understood that out of the whole body of County Court Judges there were only three or four whose decisions would be received with satisfaction by the tenants. The question, therefore, properly arose as to whether the County Court Judges should not be associated with assistants. Again, looking at the pressure of business that would occur, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint assistant barristers for the purpose of getting over the difficulty?
        MR. GLADSTONE: It would be extremely wrong in us to call upon the Committee to constitute a great number of officers absolutely for the purpose of meeting the rush of business which it is supposed will follow the passing of this Bill; but the Committee will see that we intend, when we come to deal with the constitution of the Court, to ask them to take some powers for the purpose. I will not discuss that now; but it appears to me that an elastic provision of the kind proposed is the only mode in which we can attempt to meet the rush of business which may take place. The House, having agreed to that proposal, will then have a certain opportunity, when the Estimates come round, of trying the whole question upon the Vote for the Salaries and Establishment of the Commission.
        MR. MARUMcalled the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan to an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), which he suggested the hon. Member should adopt in place of his own. For his own part, he made no insinuation of any kind against the integrity, education, or ability of the County Court Judges; nevertheless, he was bound to say that it was not generally considered that they would form a tribunal satisfactory to the tenants of Ireland. He would recommend the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the question raised by him to be fully discussed on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk?
        MR. HEALYasked how many sub-Commissioners would be appointed?
        MR. GLADSTONE: Our first duty will be to appoint Commissioners; and, with respect to that, the Committee will be parties. I do not propose to name the Commissioners until I have given fair notice to the Committee of the gentlemen we intend to appoint; but we can say nothing of the sub-Commissioners, except that they will be officers of the Commissioners.
        MR. A. MOOREsaid, he thought that the probable effect of strengthening the Civil Bill Court by the association of assessors would be that the Court would be the means of settling a larger number of disputes. With regard to the question of introducing the elective element into the construction of the Courts, he thought the discussion on that subject had better be taken when they came to the appointment of sub-Commissioners.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, he had no intention of proposing to do away with the Civil Court. The Committee had agreed that it should constitute the Primary Court in the cases that would arise under this Act, and he said it was desirable that those cases should be tried in the locality where the cause of action arose, because that would save a great deal of expense to the tenants. In that respect he could not but regard the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland for the removal of the proceedings to the Land Commission, as a mischievous alteration. The question had arisen as to how the County Court Judges were to be assisted. He was not going to bring any wholesale charges against those gentlemen, who had all had considerable experience in the law before they were made County Court Judges, and the Committee might assume that they were persons of fair attainments in that respect. But as regarded agricultural affairs, the case was very different, and it was felt, as a matter of fact, that the County Court Judges alone would not be likely to constitute a tribunal that would be regarded with satisfaction by the tenants. Therefore, it was asked that they should be assisted by persons appointed by the electors of the county. In any case, there would have to be an appeal to the Commission, because no one could wish that the Court of First Instance should not be liable to have its decisions reviewed and, perhaps,

        1019
        reversed by a Superior Court. But the great issue was whether or not it was desirable that the people interested should have confidence in the tribunal. He was disposed to the opinion that the electors of the county were the best judges of the kind of tribunal that would secure their confidence; and, therefore, he proposed that they should have the power of electing two persons to assist—not to supersede—the County Court Judges.
        MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was not sure that the hon. Member for Cavan would be quite satisfied with the two assistants nominated in the way proposed by him. He believed that in Ulster and the Northern parts of Ireland, gentlemen would be nominated who represented the views and opinions of landlords, while the reverse would be the case in the other parts of Ireland. Now, as his idea of a Court was that it should consist of men who were rigidly impartial, he should be compelled to vote against these two assistants if the Amendment was pressed to a division. His opinion was that the Court should have the help of one person only as assessor, and that he should be a man practically acquainted with agriculture.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, that, contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), the people in the North of Ireland approved this Amendment in the tenant's interest. They were quite as much alive to their own interest as the tenants in the South, and they were also quite aware of the nature of the issue between themselves and the landlords. He had no doubt that the tenant's interest would get the preference from the electors in any of the counties of Ireland. In view, however, of the wishes expressed by his hon. Friends, he was willing to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.
        Amendment negatived.
        MR. SHAWsaid, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member. In his opinion, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was very worthy the attention of the Committee. He had a strong opinion that the County Court Judges would be incompetent to deal with many of the
        1020
        questions that came before them; and although he understood that some of these gentlemen were jealous of having any other persons associated with them, for his own part he could see no reason why they should be so very sensitive upon that point. This Bill, so far from creating litigation, as had been suggested, ought to do away with it. There was no need that any attorneys should come near the Court at all, for the purpose of settling any of the questions which the Court could very well deal with without their aid. He thought it would be an easy and proper thing to associate with the County Court Judge one or two assistants to be nominated by the Land Commission as occasion might require, and therefore begged to move the Amendment to which he had referred.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 20, leave out sub-section 4, and insert—"In all matters relating to the fixing of rent or ascertaining the value of a holding or tenancy, or the amount to be awarded as compensation for disturbance or for improvements, there shall be associated with the County Court Judge two persons to be nominated as occasion may require by the Land Commission, each of whom shall have equal voice with the said Judge in pronouncing the decision of the Court on the matters aforesaid."—(Mr. Shaw.)
        MR. GLADSTONE: The authority of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, are undoubtedly great; but I cannot help thinking that this Motion was put on the Paper before that of my right hon. and learned Friend near me, and at a time when there was no distinct declaration before the Committee of the views which have now been adopted with regard to the relations between the parties in the Civil Bill Courts. This plan appears to me to be rather in the nature of an alternative. But if we adopt this Amendment, we should be obliged, in the first place, to appoint a large additional number of Assistant Commissioners. If we had asked the Committee virtually to make the Civil Bill Court exclusively the Court of First Instance, then, I admit, that much might be said in favour of this proposal; but I am sure my hon. Friend will see that it would be a very nice operation to call upon the County Court Judges, who, I must say, discharged their duties under the Land Act of 1870 with considerable efficiency, to submit

        1021
        to a re-constitution of their Courts—a proposal which the most moderate self-love would object to. Under the circumstances, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
        MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the Prime Minister had twice reminded the Committee that the tenant might pass by the local Court and go to the Land Commission. Besides regarding this as an unfortunate arrangement, inasmuch as it would have the effect of diverting the energy of the Superior Court from matters of great importance, he did not think it supplied an adequate remedy for the defects intended to be removed by the Amendment before the Committee. He quite admitted the force of the Prime Minister's objection to neutralizing the County Court Judge by associating with him two other persons; and likewise the force of his objection to the creation of a large staff of officials to be kept in readiness for cases of emergency. But he thought that the first difficulty would be removed by associating only one person with the County Court Judge, as he had already suggested. He repeated his objection to having two persons associated with the County Court Judge. And, moreover, he objected to the Amendment on the further ground that it made no provision that the persons to be so associated should have practical knowledge of the matters upon which they were to give an opinion. The Committee were simply asked to affirm that the Land Commission should send down two persons, who, for anything expressed to the contrary, might be two persons who knew less of the matter in dispute than the County Court Judges themselves. For his own part, he would like to see the words "two persons" omitted from the Amendment, for the purpose of substituting "one person" who should have practical knowledge of the matters to be decided upon—namely, questions of fixing a fair rent, assessing the value of holdings, and the amounts to be awarded as compensation for disturbance and improvements. If the Committee would associate with the County Court Judge one such person having knowledge of these questions, he believed that a tribunal would be constituted whose decisions would at once be accepted, and which would do away with the necessity of going to the Land Court in Dublin. The question raised
        1022
        by the Amendment would, in his opinion, be settled better in this way than by any other arrangement which had been suggested.
        MAJOR O'BEIRNEsupported the Amendment on the ground that if the County Court Judges were left without the aid of skilled agriculturists, the cases would constantly be referred to the Land Commission.
        MR. SYNANregarded the Commission appointed by this Bill as substantially a Court of Appeal, and the proposal in the Amendment as constituting a supplementary Commission. Their experience of the working of the Act of 1870 did not show that the County Court Judges had attracted to themselves the confidence of the tenant farmers of Ireland, and it was the object of this supplementary provision to strengthen the County Courts. The Prime Minister had objected to the Amendment, that if it were adopted a great many officials would have to be appointed; but he apprehended that if the Commission laid down proper rules, this would not be necessary. The Land Commission having the words of this Amendment before it, would require to have notice of every case that was to go before the County Court Judges, and it would then appoint one or two practical men to associate themselves with the County Court Judge for the purpose of settling the amount of rent and the value of the holding—two questions with which the County Court could not deal. He admitted there would be the question of expense; but, in his opinion, this would not be greater than if the County Court Judge were to appoint two Valuers, while the appointment of practical men would produce that confidence which, as the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had pointed out, the County Courts had lost in the eyes of the tenant farmers. He held that the County Courts must be strengthened, in order to constitute a Court of First Instance that the tenant farmers would not pass by, and a Court of First Instance was absolutely necessary if the Commission was to do its work at all.
        MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the Amendment was one which ought not to occupy the time of the Committee any longer, as it appeared to him that the arguments in support of it had lost all cogency since the adoption of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.
        MR. DALYsaid, that with regard to the action of the County Court Judges under the Act of 1870, there had been a great want of uniformity in their decisions. They had had experience of this in the district which he represented, and the result was that the confidence reposed in the judgments was not so great as it should be. It should be borne in mind, also, that a great loss of time would be brought about by the Commissioners having to travel from one place to another viewing the properties. He thought there ought to be somebody appointed in the capacity of Assessor to assist the Judge.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The sub-Commission will do that.
        MR. SHAWsaid, that with the permission of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment, as the proposal of the Government had completely changed the aspect of affairs.
        MR. A. MOOREsaid, he should like to hear something from the Government in the direction which the Prime Minister had indicated when commenting on the speech of the last speaker (Mr. Shaw). As he understood the wording of the clause, the landlord and the tenant practically placed their property in the hands of the Court, and he hoped that that arrangement might succeed. But, as he understood it, the Court would be one of First Instance. When a man wanted his rent valued the Court of First Instance would be the sub-Commission which would go round the country, and there would be an appeal from that Court to the other.
        MR. BLAKEcoincided with the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly) on the subject of the want of uniformity in the decisions of the County Court Judges. It arose, he believed, in a great measure from not having associated with them an expert on the subject of land, as many of them had little practical knowledge on that point. A suggestion had been made, which he considered was a good one, that they should associate with the County Court Judge an Assessor; but he would ask this—in the event of the Assessor and the County Court Judge disagreeing, how was a decision to be arrived at? The Prime Minister was plainly under the impression that it would be an easy matter to apply to the Commission; but, from his knowledge on the point, he could say that it was
        1024
        likely to be very difficult. For 10 years he was a Commissioner of Fisheries, and in many of the cases which they had decided there had been an appeal from their decision. They had very often given away as much as £1,500 at a sitting in one way or another, and very often the interests of very poor people had been concerned. The appeals very frequently were to the Lord Lieutenant in Council; and though the parties very often considered themselves aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners, yet, in consequence of the vast expense necessary in conducting appeals, the privilege was, in many cases, not availed of. In the first instance, the appellants had to travel up to Dublin. ["No, no!"] Well, if they did not they would have to appear by counsel. ["No!"] Surely they would, if they wished their case to be properly put, as counsel would be likely to be employed against them.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The sub-Commission would hear them in the first instance.
        MR. BLAKEsaid, he was speaking of the Fisheries Commission, and he believed the cases to be analogous. He had seen people in the humblest classes appearing in person and pleading before the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, and that entailed enormous loss both in time and money, considering their humble circumstances. That was the reason why he pressed upon the Committee the desirability of making the Court of First Instance as perfect as they possibly could. He did not wish to say anything against the County Court Judges, because he believed that under the Act of 1870 their decisions had been very fair on the whole, with a few exceptions. They might, in some cases, have shown a want of judgment; but that was almost all that could be said against them. They had the power of employing an expert to give evidence at present; and the question now was whether Parliament would confer upon them the same privileges which they had at present, or whether they would associate with them such an officer as had been proposed. If they gave them equal powers, they should appoint, of course, an umpire, otherwise, in case of disagreeing in opinion, how was the difficulty to be settled? And if that umpire should be appointed, the Committee ought to know something as to how he was to be selected.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member (Mr. Shaw), finding that his proposal did not receive general support, has withdrawn it, and, surely, the matter should be allowed to rest here. If hon. Members have anything to propose they can do so at a later stage.
        MR. HEALYsaid, that the Court was the kernel of the whole business. If it was unsatisfactory there would not be a single sale, nor transfer, nor a letting, which the local people would allow to take place, unless local opinion—that was, the opinion of the Land League—were satisfied. If these things were ratified by 100 Courts, unless they had the ratification of the Land League, the people would not allow them to take place. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he would put it in this way—that these things would not be allowed to take place unless public opinion was satisfied—no man would otherwise take a farm, and no man would pay the rent. Unless the Government made some satisfactory statement as to the action of these Commissioners, they would find that they had really done nothing.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The proper time to make that statement would be later on, when we come to the question directly bearing upon it. We have endeavoured to conceive the clause so as to give it the highest elasticity. The cases may be locally decided, either by the Civil Bill Court, the sub-Commission, or by the Commission itself, which would, in cases of sufficient gravity and importance, be able to visit the localities and decide locally.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. BRODRICKsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to provide that instead of one independent valuer, "one, or more," should be appointed. That proposal, it appeared to him, ran, in a certain sense, in the lines of the Amendment which had just been withdrawn. If the Bill passed in its present shape, where a local inquiry took place the decision might depend entirely on the view of one individual. It must be clear to anyone who knew anything of Ireland that it would be difficult to find a class of independent persons such as those contemplated in the Bill; and he should much prefer to see the Government adopt some plan for the appointment of a paid staff of independent men, who would save the Commission a great deal
        1026
        of work, and would obviate the necessity of their having to depend upon the class of functionaries referred to in the clause. The Prime Minister had said that he did not want to widen the scope of the body to be appointed under the Bill; but this matter was not brought in question now, and all hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they sat, would agree with him that it would be a most dangerous and unsatisfactory thing if tenants in a certain district had a valuer who was accounted a "tenant's man," and therefore distrusted by the landlord, and if, in another district, they had a valuer who had the reputation of being a landlord's man. He thought it would certainly tend to the satisfaction of all concerned if the opinion placed before the Commission for their guidance was that, not of one individual, but of two independent men. Their opinions should not represent any one class, but should be the result of the judicial consideration of the interests involved on either side. He did not mean to say that one should be appointed for the tenant and one for the landlord; but where they thought it necessary on a difficult point to have the evidence of more than one independent person, the Commission should have power to appoint "one, or more." If amended as he proposed, he thought the clause would be more satisfactory, and it would be more likely to carry out the intentions of the Government.
        Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 27, to leave out the word "an," and insert the words "one, or more."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'an' stand part of the Clause."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think it would be wise for the Committee to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick). The hon. Gentleman had said with truth that it would be a difficult thing to find a thoroughly independent valuer in the sense that a tribunal would use the words; but he was afraid that if it was difficult to find one independent valuer, it would be still more difficult to get "one, or more." Then there was this difficulty. If two persons were appointed to go round and examine the property, and then came back with their joint Report, the tribunal, whatever it was, either the

        1027
        Civil Bill Court or the sub-Commission, would be more likely to give greater weight to the Reports than the Government contemplated. What the Government intended was that the valuers' Report should be taken as an opinion; but that it should be by no means regarded as binding the Court in its judgment. One valuer would occupy a much more subordinate position than would two if they were sent out together; and whilst the Report of one might not be accepted, it would be a very difficult thing for the Civil Bill Court or the sub-Commission to resist the Report of two. The sub-Commission could themselves visit the property and form an opinion. He did not think, however, as a matter of fact, that this power would be very often exercised by the sub-Commission.
        MR. PLUNKETsaid, the proposition of his hon. Friend seemed to him a reasonable and practical one. In a case that was not of very great importance, where it did not seem necessary to employ the services of a valuer, the Commission need not appoint one. The clause was permissive. Unless some important question arose in regard to which it was desirable that they should have the opinion of a man accustomed to valuing, the Commissioners, in their discretion, might not think it desirable to appoint an expert. In important cases that might occur, his hon. Friend proposed that, in order to give greater effect to the Report, two valuers might be appointed.
        MR. MARUMsaid, he fully appreciated the spirit of fair play which had been manifested by hon. Members who spoke with regard to the valuer; but it must not be forgotten that the landlord and the tenant would each of them have the power to bring forward a valuer. The question would only be one of expense. But the evidence which was now the subject of discussion would not be brought forward on the side of the Commission. True, it would be independent evidence; but it would have no more weight than the evidence of other valuers brought forward by the parties interested.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the subject of value was not so difficult a one as some people appeared to imagine. The duty would not be the valuation of the land for the first time, but the revision of the valuation fixed by Sir Richard
        1028
        Griffith. When Sir Richard Griffith carried out the valuation, he gave specific instructions to his valuers that such and such land, specifying the quality and character of it, should be treated in such and such a way, and the value arrived at by specific computations. What he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) apprehended that the Commissioners would have to do would be to compare the condition of the holdings now with their former condition, and alter, where requisite, the value fixed by the former valuer. The original figures would be taken as the basis, or starting point he might better designate it, and there could be no difficulty in allowing the matter to be decided by an ordinary tribunal.
        MR. BRODRICKsaid, the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) had given the best argument for the acceptance of the proposal, because he said that the opinion of one valuer would carry less weight than the evidence brought up by the other side. And this was what he wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to particularly, because if the evidence of the Government valuer was to be borne down by hard swearing on the part of irresponsible persons his position would be almost untenable in the Court. He was assured that the best county surveyors and valuers could not be got to give evidence at all under the present system; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consider his suggestion from that point of view. It would nullify the whole intention of the clause if the valuers' opinion were to carry no more weight than that of independent witnesses who came into the matter on the one side or the other having no intimate knowledge of general valuation.
        MR. MARUMsaid, that he had not intended for a moment to convey that which the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) attributed to him. What he had intended to point out was that the independent valuer would not have a higher position over and above the evidence of valuers brought forward either for the landlord or the tenant.
        Amendment negatived.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 20, line 34, insert as a new sub-section—"(6.) Where proceedings have been commenced in the Civil Bill Court, any party thereto may, within the prescribed period, apply to the Land

        1029
        Commission to transfer such proceedings from the Civil Bill Court to the Land Commission; and thereupon the Land Commission may order the same to be transferred accordingly."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        THE CHAIRMAN: The following Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of Mr. Givan:—Clause 31, page 20, at end of Clause, add—
        "Provided that after a judicial rent has been first fixed, the Court shall not be at liberty to direct a valuer to make a report in relation to any subsequent determination of a judicial rent; but in fixing a judicial rent to take effect during any statutory term after the first statutory term, the Court shall have regard only to the just increase or diminution in the value of the holding arising from the altered prices of agricultural produce or capital expended by the landlord under agreement with the tenant."
        That Amendment was, on Monday, the 4th of July, negatived in substance, and, therefore, cannot now be put.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 32 (Incorporation of certain Provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870).
        MR. GREGORYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, after the word "court," to insert "section twenty-four, relating to appeals from Civil Bill Court." Great pains had been taken in the Act of 1870 to constitute a strong Court of Appeal for the purposes of it, and he should be sorry to see it superseded. The Bill was to be carried out by the Land Commission, and there was only to be one Chief Commissioner and two other Commissioners, who would, if he read the Bill rightly, be put in the place of the Superior Judges of all the Courts of Judicature in Ireland. If that was the intention of the Government, and if they adhered to it, he did not suppose that anything that he could say would induce them to alter their decision. It might be part of their scheme, and, if so, he should not press his Amendment. But, at the same time, it was desirable that there should be some discussion on the matter. The existing Court of Appeal, he believed, carried out the intentions of Parliament when it was formed—namely, that it should be strong and satisfactory.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 20, line 39, after "Court," insert "section twenty-four, relating to appeals from Civil Bill Court."—(Mr. Gregory.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, there would be a more convenient season for discussing the question of appeals; but he might point out that the 24th section of the Land Act of 1870, which constituted a strong Court of Appeal, had itself been altered and superseded. They would simply be reviving an old provision if they were to reconstitute that Court.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, the matter would not be clear even under the Amendment. It was true, as had been pointed out in the long debates of 1870, that in the drafting of the Act of that year very clear and very fully considered provisions were adopted for regulating appeals. Anyone who took up Clause 24 of the Land Act of 1870, which was now sought to be incorporated in the present Bill, would see from the language of the clause, and from the way in which it dealt with various topics, that the matter was gone into with far more detail and deliberation than was the case in regard to the present Bill. He had no sympathy with the Amendment; but he wished to indicate that he thought it would be reasonable, before they passed from this stage of the Bill, that the Government should satisfy themselves that they had given to the appellate tribunal, whatever it might be, all the powers and guidance that were laid down in Section 24 of the old Act. It was true, as stated by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite the Attorney General for Ireland, that the Court for Land Cases Reserved had been established, and that the Court provided by the Act of 1870 had gone; but then a very good substitute had been provided for it. They had substituted for it the highest Court—namely, the Court of Appeal in Ireland. And, more than that, the question of Appeals under the Land Act had been dealt with as recently as the year 1877. Under the Judicature Act, it was provided that it should be the right of the parties at their own election to have an appeal dealt with in the highest possible way. He did not see any provision like that in this Bill; but, no doubt, as the discussion would have to go very much into detail, the time for taking it in extenso would be on a later clause. He did not wish to discuss the matter now; but he

        1031
        wished to indicate that the points that were left somewhat in doubt were these. The Committee had decided that they would keep to a voluntary Court of First Instance—that was, if the parties elected to have their cases decided by it—the County Court would be presided over by a Judge, a learned lawyer, and a man of position. Well, at present, he did not see to whom appeals from the decision of that individual were to go. Were the appeals to be to the sub-Commission, or to the Commission itself? If to the latter, it would, no doubt, be more satisfactory. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper declaring that sub-Commissions should not have delegated to them the power of hearing appeals.
        MR. GREGORYsaid, he was satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. FINDLATERsaid, that, in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Litton), he would move the Amendment standing upon the Paper in his name. It was quite clear that new duties would be thrown upon the Civil Bill Courts by this Bill, and he had received several letters from gentlemen who occupied the position of Clerks of the Peace, and who had elected to practice under the provisions of the Act of 1877, saying that their practice would suffer greatly. Their time would be entirely occupied with these matters, and they would have no leisure to attend to their private business. There could be no possible harm attaching to the adoption of this Amendment.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 21, after line 9, insert "section sixty-three, relating to additional salaries to judges and officers of Civil Bill Courts."—(Mr. Findlater.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GLADSTONE: We are not disposed to accept this Amendment. When the Land Act of 1870 was passed we made a provision of the kind suggested, because it was certain that there would be an addition to the duties of these officials; but now the case is very different. We are going to set in motion a new and distinct agency, and we must not forget that since the Act of 1870 the
        1032
        salaries of the County Court Judges have been raised. It would be our first duty, supposing that we found that an appreciable increase of duty does flow into the County Courts, to see that a reasonable arrangement is made. At present, my opinion is that while, under the new arrangement, there was a substantial addition to the salaries of these officials, the addition to their duties has been by no means serious. But if we found that there was a case for an addition to the salaries we should, of course, come to Parliament, either for an Act, or the question could be raised by a Vote on the annual Estimates. I would submit that the question is not at present in such a condition as would justify the Government in accepting this Amendment.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater) dealt with two classes of officers. With regard to Clerks of the Crown, they were divisible into two classes—namely, those who elected to give up their practice and forego their right to superannuation, and those who did not elect to take that step. The time for their selection had now passed; but it would only be reasonable to give those officers who had elected to continue their practice and forego the right to superannuation to have some further time to consider whether, under the new Act, they would not adopt a different course. The point was only a simple one; but a number of men of position were interested, and might be seriously affected.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the further time which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) alluded to, and which he wished to have given to these officers to reconsider their decision, could only be afforded by an Act amending the Act of 1877—the County Officers and Courts Act. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not see his way to amending the clause as proposed. But the question would be for future examination; and if they saw that there was reason that the provision should be altered some steps would be taken in that direction.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, there was a distinction as to County Court Judges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was familiar with the Act of 1877. Some of those Judges who had attained a considerable age had allowed the time for

        1033
        making the selection to pass, thinking that they would be well able to perform the duties that were then cast upon them; but he thought it would be only reasonable to enable those Judges who had served for a long period of time—to consider whether they would not now avail themselves of the terms of the Act of 1877. He quite agreed that the matter was one for the amendment of the Act of 1877, and did not arise upon the present Amendment; but it was a matter for the action of the Government, and not a matter for the action of a private Member. He thought, however, it was desirable to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the subject.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Arbitration.
        Clause 33 (Reference to Arbitration).
        DR. LYONSsaid, he had placed an Amendment to this clause on the Paper, the object of which was to enlarge, as much as possible, the system of arbitration throughout the country in all cases of dispute arising between landlord and tenant. Reference was made to the Act of 1870, and in that Act it was contemplated that all arbitrations should take place under the conditions laid down in the Schedule to that Act, which had in view operations through the Civil Bill Courts. Now, as they had conceded the principle of a direct reference in all cases to the Land Commission, he desired, if possible, to incorporate a system of arbitration independently through that Court, and he believed it would be the most simple and least expensive and the most expedient method for the settlement of disputes. His attention had been called to the fact that the proceedings of that Court were at one time common with all the Superior Courts—that the Court of Common Pleas, the Queen's Bench, and so on, were in the habit of directing individuals throughout the country to constitute temporary Courts of Assize. Those persons had power to examine witnesses, to view premises, and to make reports to the Court, which reports appeared to have been acted on in a large number of instances. His attention had been first called to this system some time ago by a very eminent and learned and most distinguished Judge, who was extremely
        1034
        anxious that the people throughout the country should be discouraged from going into litigation, and that as free an access should be given to them as possible to a system of arbitration. He merely moved the Amendment by way of throwing out a suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 21, line 20, to insert new section—(1.) Where a landlord and tenant agree to arbitration on any matter in dispute, they may send in a joint application in writing, on a form to be furnished by the Court gratis, and the Court shall issue a formal precept of assize to one or more persons, to be named by landlord and tenant respectively, and who shall have power to select an umpire, and the finding of said umpire and his said assistants shall be entered of record in the Court, and shall be binding upon the parties, as if it were a finding by the Court itself."—(Dr. Lyons.)
        Question proposed, "That this section be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think that it was of advantage to accept this Amendment, because he did not see any substantial difference between the arbitration provided for in the Bill and that which the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Lyons) suggested. The Act of 1870 contained all the rules necessary for the appointment of arbitrators and officers, and, in fact, the whole machinery of that Act was followed. Arbitrators were fully provided for without going to the Court at all.
        SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether this provision in the Act of 1870 had ever been exercised, as he had distinct information from Ireland that it had never been made use of at all? If that information was accurate he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring up an Arbitration Clause on Report, because, in his opinion, arbitration was a very proper thing to be adopted in the settlement of these disputes.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he was aware that the Arbitration Clauses of the Act of 1870 had not been extensively availed of; but they had been resorted to in some very important cases. In one case that he knew, the rents of 1,000 tenants were revised. The terms

        1035
        made use of in the provision of the Act of 1870 were those which experience had shown to be the most satisfactory according to Common Law procedure. It was to be hoped that hereafter the clauses would be more extensively made use of.
        DR. LYONSsaid, it had been stated that the arbitration could be carried on through the Land Court, and not through the Civil Bill Courts. He laid stress upon that, because according to the Act of 1870 the arbitration, in case of a dispute, was only to be through the Civil Bill Courts. It would be desirable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to take these things into his consideration, and, on Report, make the reference direct to the Land Commission, instead of rendering it necessary to go to the Civil Bill Courts.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had heard that the arbitration was to be conducted on a system similar to that upon which the Common Law Procedure Act arbitration took place in this country. That statement had given him some alarm, because if there was one thing more detestable than another it was to have to do with an arbitration case in England.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he could assure the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) that they were much more reasonable in these matters in Ireland than they were in England.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Appointment and Proceedings of Land
        Commission.
        Clause 34 (Constitution of Land Commission) postponed.
        Clause 35 (Incorporation of Commission).
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 21, line 30, leave out "Commissioners," and insert the words "Land Commission."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 36 (Appointment of Assistant Commissioners).
        MR. GREGORYsaid, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Errington), he would propose the first Amendment which stood in his name.
        THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member (Mr. Errington) is in
        1036
        his place, and, if he thinks it desirable, he can move the Amendment. He does not move it.
        MR. GREGORYsaid, he would propose the Amendment himself.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 21, line 40, after "Commissioners," insert "such Assistant Commissioners to consist of barristers and persons of knowledge and experience in the value and management of land."—(Mr. Gregory.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he was afraid that the hon. Member did little justice to his own Profession in this specialization.
        MR. LEWISsaid, he could not help thinking that this subject was worthy of a little more consideration than had been given to it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Let them consider what would be the position of the judicial tribunal immediately after the passing of this Act. The chief Commission would be charged with an administrative duty of a most important character. It would have to consider the question of emigration, the question of waste land, the question of the purchase of the property by tenants, and the general arrangement of the business affecting the land of Ireland. A large amount of that part of the duty of the Court which bore upon the fixing of the judicial rent would fall upon the Assistant Commissioners; and it was a matter of vast importance that the first decisions under the Bill should be well considered, and not be decisions that would unduly raise the hopes of the tenants and depreciate the wishes and rights of the landlords. It seemed to him to be a matter of vital importance that they should not leave a carte blanche to the Commissioners as to the qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners; and yet there was no rule whatever with regard to the qualifications of the Commissioners. No doubt, his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) had fallen into the trap prepared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and had done despite to his own Profession by assuming that the only class that would be appointed would be barristers and agricultural experts. But the spirit of the matter was what his hon. Friend

        1037
        wished to deal with; and what he wished to press upon Her Majesty's Government was the desirability of considering this matter very carefully before they launched this measure upon the people of Ireland. He certainly thought there should be some sort of qualification for the Assistant Commissioners pointed out in the Bill. In taking a common-sense view of the matter, they could not but believe that a large amount of business would have to be transacted by the Court—such an amount that it would be impossible for three members of the Court to dispose of it. The result would be that if there was no qualification pointed out in the different counties of Ireland different classes of people would be appointed—in one case barristers, in another case solicitors, in another case farmers, and in yet another case country gentlemen. Assistant Commissioners might be appointed from all ranks of the community. He had no disposition to prolong the debate, or to raise an unnecessary question; but he did think that the whole leverage of this Bill, its suitability to the disease that required remedy, its likelihood of being made acceptable to the community, and its acceptability to the landlords would depend, in the main, not only on the good standing of the persons appointed to act as sub-Commissioners, but on the Committee presenting some specific qualification that would be necessary in order to justify the appointment of this class of persons. He thought it was their duty to take a division upon this question, so that they might have some indication of the views of the Committee upon it.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I shall not quarrel with the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis); but I hope that he will allow me to point out that the Committee has no option but to leave the selection to the responsibility of the Commissioners or the responsibility of the Executive Government. I can give the hon. Gentleman two reasons why we think that the House of Commons is not able to exercise any selection in this matter. If the matters to be settled by the Commission could be dealt with very easily, then I think there would be no difficulty in agreeing to the Amendment; but I must point out that these Assistant Commissioners will have to discharge a great variety of functions, and that, in all probability, it would lead to very
        1038
        serious difficulties if you endeavoured to anticipate all the qualifications which would be required for the administration of this Bill. In the first place, the Assistant Commissioners would have to deal with the relations between landlord and tenant, and it would be most desirable that they should have some practical knowledge of the management of land. But that was only the beginning. In the next place, they would have to deal with the purchase of estates, and here a different class of qualifications would be requisite—namely, the knowledge possessed by land agents—persons engaged in the transfer of land. Then comes the question of reclamation of land, and here we should want not merely agricultural knowledge, but something in the nature of engineering and scientific knowledge. All these matters require a knowledge that is totally distinct from legal knowledge, and which must be possessed by those who would make good Assistant Commissioners. The hon. Member seems to assume that these Assistant Commissioners are all to join in the decisions of the Land Commission. But I take it that we should have a subdivision of labour, and that there are to be a great diversity of qualifications amongst them. These are the grounds upon which I hope the Committee will be satisfied to leave this matter to be dealt with in the manner provided by the clause.
        MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Sussex. As that Amendment was now, in his opinion, unnecessary, he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw it.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he looked upon this part of the Bill as being of supreme importance. By no previous Act of Parliament had such extensive powers ever been given to a Commission as those which would be given by the present Bill to the Commissioners, and far less had it ever been proposed that Commissioners should be able to delegate their important powers to an inferior tribunal. It was, therefore, not only right, but the absolute duty of the Committee, to criticize and examine with the utmost care every line of the present clause, because hon. Members would find the phraseology of the Bill so large that it was impossible to set any bounds to the

        1039
        jurisdiction of the Commission, or any limits to the powers which the Commissioners were authorized to delegate to the Assistant Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had pointed out that it was necessary that the Assistant Commissioners should have a variety of qualifications, and the truth of that statement would commend itself to everyone who heard it; but that did not at all dispose of the Amendment, or of the objections to the clause in its present form. There was nothing in the clause to indicate to the Commissioners that they were to have regard to any special qualifications of the person to be appointed. He did not say that barristers alone should be appointed to the exclusion of solicitors, who, in many cases, might be able to do the work better than barristers. But surely it was right to indicate, at some point or other of the clause, the qualifications which should be possessed by the Assistant Commissioners. He ventured to say that would meet the great difficulty suggested by the Prime Minister. Again, he trusted that the Bill, before it left the Committee, would contain a provision that the doings of the Land Commission should be presented to Parliament in an annual Report. There was no Amendment on the Paper to that effect; and, therefore, he asked the Government within a reasonable time to prepare a clause which would give effect to his wish that the Commissioners should make an annual Report of their proceedings, containing in a Schedule the names of the parties appointed as Assistant Commissioners, as well as the duration of their appointments and the nature of their qualifications. There was another point which impressed him very much in connection with this clause—namely, the dependent position of these Assistant Commissioners. Unbounded power was given to them; but there was nothing, except, perhaps, the words "from time to time," to indicate the length of their employment by the Commissioners. According to the clause, the Assistant Commissioner might be appointed for the job or for six months, or he might be appointed to revise the rental of a district or hear the appeals of a particular Session. It was to the last degree inconvenient, and calculated to excite uneasy feelings in the minds of persons intrusted with the control of property, to find themselves absolutely
        1040
        dependent. Their equitable and judicial functions were immense, and the Government were sending them down without one atom of the protection which the whole history of our Constitution showed it was necessary to throw around everyone invested with judicial powers. He therefore trusted that the Government would furnish this protection in some other way than by merely saying that the Assistant Commissioners might be appointed from time to time. He thought that, in their Report, the Commission should state the names and qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners, and that some information should also be given therein as to the stability of their tenure of office. Looking at the drafting of the Bill, he was bound to say there was nothing in the clause to prevent the delegation of the right and power of appeal by the Commissioners to the Assistant Commissioners. He was certain that it was not the intention of the Government that those powers should be delegated, and therefore urged that the matter should be made clear before the Bill left the Committee.
        MR. GLADSTONE: There has never been any intention that the Commissioners should have the power of delegating their power as a Court of Appeal to the Assistant Commissioners, although if a large development of business occurs it might be right that the sub-Commissioners should have the power of hearing appeals from the Assistant Commissioners. The right hon. and learned Gentleman desires that there should be a general description of the qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners, as an indication to the Commissioners and the Government. This appears to be reasonable, and my learned Friends will do their best to prepare words with that object. But I think it will not be possible to do so with mathematical precision, and therefore it may be necessary to add such words as "or otherwise." It is undoubtedly right and necessary that the Commission should make regular Reports of its proceedings. I think I can improve on the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the names and qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners should be included in the Reports of the Commission. Without waiting for the annual Report, which would necessarily take some time in preparation, I think

        1041
        it would be desirable, as an improvement on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion, that the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners should be made known at once to Parliament. I have no objection to undertake that they and their qualifications should be made known to Parliament. There is a mode by which I think the Government could meet the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the dismissal of any Commissioner—namely, to take care that it be done in the most formal manner by Order in Council. I do not exclude any other suggestion that may be forthcoming; but one of the greatest Administrators ever known in this country—Sir James Graham—held that an Order in Council was a form which would stamp the affair with a character of gravity and importance which would at once bring home the responsibility to the Administration.
        SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the Prime Minister had made a statement which would be, on the whole, satisfactory to the Committee; but he was bound to say—and he believed the right hon. Gentleman would recognize the truth of the statement—that these Commissioners would have an enormous power in their hands—such a power as had never until then been given to any body of men of a like character. As it was necessary, both in the interest of the landlord and in the interest of the tenant, that absolute confidence should be reposed in them, he was glad to hear that the Prime Minister proposed that the requisite qualifications, so far as they could be put into an Act of Parliament, should be inserted in the present Bill. With regard to the appointment and removal of the Commissioners, he saw that the words as they now stood in the clause were—
        "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury as to number, appoint and remove Assistant Commissioners;"
        and the right hon. Gentleman had merely said that the dismissal of any of them should take place by Order in Council. He wished to know for what period of time these appointments would be made, and on what principle their duration was to depend, because, as he understood it, it was not the regulation
        1042
        of the appointments, but simply the dismissal of the Commissioners, that was to be effected by Order in Council—two things entirely different from each other. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not only give some information on that point, but also that he would place before the Committee the number of appointments that would be made. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could show any Act of Parliament authorizing an unlimited amount of money to be expended, which did not contain some provision for controlling that expenditure. The expenditure here was absolutely unlimited. They might have to pay for a number of Commissioners to administer what he would call the "landlord and tenant" portion of the Bill, besides Emigration Commissioners and Reclamation Commissioners, all appointed at the same time. He felt sure the right hon. Gentleman would look closely into the matter; but, in the meantime, the Committee knew nothing of the amount of money that would be expended. Again, if the appointments were not made for a certain time it would be impossible to obtain the services of good men; and, under those circumstances, it would be impossible that the sub-Commissioners should possess the confidence which ought to be placed in them. Again, it was said that one of the Assistant Commissioners would decide on technical points in the Provinces, and that then there might be an appeal. But if one Assistant Commissioner was to decide in the most difficult and delicate matters between landlord and tenant, and an appeal was then to be made to the Commissioners, he could not regard the arrangement as a very satisfactory one.
        THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. and gallant Member was entering upon the discussion of subjects beyond that of the Amendment before the Committee. There were other Amendments on which those subjects might properly be discussed.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSinquired how the appointment of the sub-Commissioners was to be made. Were the sub-Commissioners to be ordinary Civil servants, and for how long would they be appointed?
        MR. GLADSTONE: I wish the Committee to understand that I have been,

        1043
        and am, endeavouring to provide that patronage shall not be brought into unnecessary existence. With reference to the objection of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I am bound to say that it is the almost universal practice in Acts of Parliament to lay down in general terms, subject to the responsibility of the Treasury, the power of appointing the officers necessary for the carrying out of the Act. In the Endowed Schools Act, it is provided that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, beyond the power assigned to the Commissioners, may allow them to employ such Assistant Commissioners' officers and clerks as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may think proper. The Assistant Commissioners under the Endowed Schools Act have to exercise functions which excite as much jealousy as is likely to be roused in any other case.
        MR. H. R. BRANDwished to say a few words with regard to the important announcement made by the Prime Minister that he was prepared to state some of the qualifications necessary for Assistant Commissioners. There was one qualification above all others absolutely essential. He quite admitted that the sub-Commissioners would have various and very heavy duties cast upon them, and among these would be the regulation of rent, and other delicate and intricate matters which, up to the present time, the landlord and tenant had arranged between themselves. Therefore, he trusted that the Government would take into consideration that one qualification which was absolutely necessary to be possessed by the Assistant Commissioners was a practical knowledge of surveying and the valuation of landed property.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsuggested to Her Majesty's Government the importance of freeing these appointments of all connection whatsoever with politics. He thought it should be enacted that for the space of a year, or some reasonable time from the date of the determination of the appointment, the person so appointed should not be capable of sitting in Parliament. Cases would have to be decided by the Assistant Commissioners which would, no doubt, excite the interest of the whole country side, and in which popular feeling would be, perhaps, largely in favour
        1044
        of the tenant—the landlord's view of the question being represented by but a small number of individuals; and, under such circumstances, he was afraid that if the Parliament allowed the Assistant Commissioners to get into their heads the notion that they could achieve the amount of popular applause and confidence which had been referred to by some of the speakers in the course of the debate, it would be, to say the least of it, somewhat unfortunate, and he would therefore suggest that the appointments should be so made as that the Assistant Commissioners should be absolutely free from any taint of the kind, as also from any temptation to suppose that they might lay up a little store of political popularity which would later on be useful to them as candidates for seats in Parliament.
        MR. LAINGsaid, he felt confident that the success of this experiment which was proposed to be tried by Her Majesty's Government would depend mainly upon its being carried out, not by gentlemen who were barristers and nothing more, but by practical men who, if they added a knowledge of law to practical knowledge of the subjects with which the Bill proposed to deal, would have an advantage, perhaps, over men who did not possess their technical legal knowledge.
        MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the insertion in the clause of any Amendment which would fetter the hands of the Government in selecting men for the important offices of Assistant Commissioners. In saying this, he wished to say also that he did not think lawyers, no matter to which branch of the Profession they belonged, were the most fitting persons to fill the offices of Assistant Commissioners contemplated by the Bill. On the whole, he thought it would best to agree to the clause as it stood, leaving the selection of the Assistant Commissioners in the hands of the responsible Advisers of the Crown, who would, he was sure, discharge their responsibility in the best possible manner.
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he thought it a mistake to suppose that the Government of the day might be allowed to choose the sub-Commissioners with a feeling of certainty that the selections they might make would be the best. It would not be possible for those who

        1045
        were most interested in the matter, if the clause were let pass in its present form, to foresee the class of men who would be appointed to the positions of Assistant Commissioners. They all knew what the Civil Bill Courts were, and they had also great confidence in the manner in which the Chief Commissioners would be appointed, for they would, without doubt, be gentlemen of such position and training that the interests of landowners and tenants would alike be safe in their hands; but, as far as the sub-Commissioners were concerned, they were in the air. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that the chief function of the Assistant Commissioners would be the valuation of the lands; but he was quite sure that no satisfactory result could be hoped for unless a strong staff was attached to the Valuation Committee in Dublin, in order that greater uniformity might be got at in the decisions as to valuation. He was bound to admit the truth of the statement that there had been a want of uniformity in the decisions of the Civil Bill Courts; but that was owing to the fact that there had not been any special system of training, which should enable the Judges to form correct conclusions as to the value of land. Experts might be, and probably were, good and useful gentlemen to be called in to give evidence as to matters which they had made their special study; but he could not admit that they were likely to be the best judges in matters of this kind.
        MR. GREGORYsaid, that, after the discussion which had taken place, he should be glad to withdraw the Amendment he had moved, with the explanation that his conduct, as far as this part of the Bill was concerned, had been in the nature of a self-denying ordinance.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved the insertion in the clause of words to provide that the dismissal should be "by Order in Council."
        MR. BIGGARsaid, he hoped the Government would not preclude themselves from the power of appointing Assistant Commissioners from time to time, who might be either re-appointed or replaced, as the higher authorities might think best, in the interest of the public service, so as not to saddle the country
        1046
        with the cost of a large and, perhaps, owing to circumstances, useless number of public servants.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, a large discretion would be used in order to avoid the creation of a too large body of public servants.
        MR. LEWISsaid, he regarded this as a matter of great importance, and urged that, before the clause was allowed to pass, the Committee should ascertain what degree of non-permanence was to be allowed to remain in connection with these appointments. If it was intended that these appointments should be temporary, what, he should like to ask, was to prevent an Assistant Commissioner from fixing rents in view of a future election? This, he might say, was not an imaginary case, for it was well known that in the United States ex-Judges had not unfrequently claimed the votes of electors on the ground of the decisions they had themselves pronounced in a certain class of cases. Was it intended to say, he would ask further, to exclude the appointments of Commissioners for temporary purposes, and to say to gentlemen who accepted appointments to fix judicial rents that they were to be no longer employed after the particular business they had in hand had been completed? This would open the door to almost every conceivable kind and amount of jobbery; and he could not conceive that the Committee would be doing right in passing the present clause without first having a clear statement on the part of the Government as to what was to be the nature of the tenure of office enjoyed by the Assistant Commissioners.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the question which had been put, and the answer given, could not be held to justify the construction which had been put upon them by the hon. Member, the simple question being whether, if the removal was to be the result of a proceeding as solemn as the issuing of an Order in Council, that would not in itself stand in the way of a decrease in the number if more Assistant Commissioners were appointed than were really required. The answer to this was that the Assistant Commissioners would know on appointment that when so appointed they could be removed by an Order in Council; but

        1047
        this was by no means an extravagant statement, nor was it one that pointed to uncertainty in the tenure of their offices by gentlemen who might be appointed to Assistant Commissionerships.
        MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that, in his view, this clause was being disposed of in a manner which was not at all satisfactory, for the appointment of the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners was one of the most important features of the Bill. The principal duties of the Commission would, without doubt, be discharged by the Assistant Commissioners, who ought, therefore, to be appointed with the utmost care, unless it was intended that the Bill should be the means of continuing, instead of diminishing, the fearful amount of litigation which prevailed in Ireland. It was, no doubt, preferable that the Assistant Commissioners should be, at the outset, few in number; but it was equally important that their appointments should be permanent, and that they should not be removable except on the ground of misconduct. He must say that he could not but regard with regret the postponement of the clause, in which the Government proposed to make vital changes affecting the constitution of the Court, because that was connected closely with the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners. He could not help thinking that temporary appointments would be fatal to the Bill; and he, therefore, pressed the Government to say whether the Assistant Commissioners would be liable to summary dismissal when there was no more pressing work for them to do.
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was wandering a little wide of the Question, which was—whether the words "by Order in Council," should be introduced in the clause.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that when a short time back be put a Question to the Prime Minister, he understood the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to mean that in order to secure permanency the removal from office should only be by Order in Council. If he was right in this impression, the intention would be more clearly expressed by introducing the words "or misconduct" into the clause. If it was intended to take power to get rid of the Assistant Commissioners in a few months by means of a mere Order in Council, he
        1048
        could only say that, in his view, it was resorting to the use of a very grave machinery which ought only to be put in force for a very special purpose.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think it would be wise to insert the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, because, if the removal of an Assistant Commissioners were rendered necessary for any reason, it would place the Commissioners in a difficulty. The first thing to be done would be to ascertain as nearly as possible how many Assistant Commissioners would be required, and it was known that the best men would not apply for appointments unless they had a prospect of permanence in their engagements. It would be exacting too much to say at the outset how many men would be required, and it would be equally unreasonable to urge that if the number required should be exceeded the Government should continue to employ men for whom they had in reality no work.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the solemnity of an Order in Council was a little diminished when it was remembered that a few years ago a cow could not be bought without an Order in Council. Was it, he asked, the intention of the Government to appoint special Commissioners for a special purpose. Did they intend to appoint a special Commissioner in the same way that a barrister was often appointed to go on an Assize, and whose services came to an end when the Assize was concluded?
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, they certainly did not intend to appoint Commissioners for special cases. They intended to appoint Commissioners for certain periods.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Prime Minister had intimated that he would introduce some such words as he (Mr. Gibson) had suggested—namely, that the Commissioners should have prescribed qualifications. He would venture to suggest that those words might be supplemented by adding that the Commissioners should hold office for a prescribed period. That would enable the Government to classify those who held office for a long period, those who held it for a less period, and those the duration of whose office the Government might like to make more prolonged.

        1049
        What they objected to was the absolute uncertainty and precariousness of the tenure. He thought that there should be something to indicate that a gentleman who was to be appointed as a Commissioner should hold his office for sometime.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, there would be no objection to consider the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. There would be an annual Report, not only giving the names of the sub-Commissioners and their qualifications, but also their tenure of office. The Government would also undertake to present the names to Parliament. He thought that to adopt a particular form of words would only be to embarrass the Government; but, at the same time, he quite appreciated the desire to render the position of the sub-Commissioners less variable than it would be if they were at the mercy of any Administration who chose to dismiss them.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he did not think the Government, and particularly the Attorney General for Ireland, were really conscious of the importance of the question under dispute. Every Constitutional lawyer would remember that perhaps the best result of all legislation in past ages had been to secure the permanence of the position of Judges. It was one of the differences between a Constitutional and a Despotic Monarchy that in the latter case the Judges were liable to dismissal on arbitrary grounds; whereas, in the former, they continued in office so long as they conducted themselves well. He thought it was of very great importance that those Judges now under discussion, who would have to discharge functions quite as difficult and quite as important as the Judges of this country, should hold a permanent office. It was a question of the very utmost importance, and not one to be dismissed lightly or carelessly. What he regretted so much to see in the tone of the Treasury Bench was that, after they had heard the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin put before them with that temperateness, moderation, and legal knowledge which always distinguished him, and after those observations had at last made a due impression on the minds of the Premier and of the Attorney General for Ireland,
        1050
        that impression was dissipated, or nearly so, by the unusual questions of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). It was the invariable course of the Government to listen to reason for a time, and then to listen to unreason when it came from the hon. Member for Cavan.
        THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very general in his remarks.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he would yield to the suggestion of the Chairman, because that was a matter of so much importance that he should be very sorry by any slip of his to lose the opportunity of saying what he felt bound to say. Without making any observations that were too general, he must point out that on that very Amendment they had had from the Treasury Bench two very different kinds of expressions. They had heard the Attorney General for Ireland with solemnity admitting the importance of the question, and they had heard him with levity answering the observations of the hon. Member for Cavan. It seemed to him that the common sense of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had solved the difficulty of the question, which was, how were they to know how many Assistant Commissioners would be wanted? That was the secret excuse for any hesitation on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Galway had asked—"Why should you not appoint a few at a time as they are wanted?" It was far better to have even a few appointed if their position was permanent than to have a greater number appointed if they were to be summarily dismissed. It was a matter of great importance that every one of those Judges should be permanent, because, if not, they would be subject to democratic intimidation. They had had it brought before them very distinctly, and the Government had taken no notice of it, that whatever the Courts might determine the Land League would review their decision.
        MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire ( Sir R. Assheton Cross), that he had learned with regret the right hon. Gentleman's indifference to the public interests on that matter. He thought it must be clear to anyone who had attended to the general features of the Bill that under its operation within

        1051
        a period of five or ten years there would be a material change in the amount of business to be performed by the Court; and it was surely plain that if the Assistant Commissioners were appointed for a permanent office, at the end of five or ten years, as the case might be, they would have a claim for permanent endowment or compensation by the State on removal. He thought it was very much better to leave the words of the clause as they stood.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Salford. He considered an appointment for five years was quite long enough provided it was fixed.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, that in consequence of the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford he felt compelled to say a few words. He considered that no more grievous mischief could practically arise in the working of the measure than would be occasioned by the adoption of the suggestion that the tenure of the office of Assistant Commissioner was to be merely temporary, and not for a fixed period. No duty more delicate, or difficult, or which more demanded the exercise of the qualities of trustworthiness and intelligence, was ever imposed by statute on a body of gentlemen than that which by this Bill it was proposed to intrust to these Assistant Commissioners. The main burdens incident to the efficient working would have to be undertaken by them. They would be the persons who would have to go down, value the lands from personal inspection, ascertain what ought to be the fair rent, and, from oral statements, adjust the relations between landlord and tenant. The Chief Commissioners must necessarily act on the Report of their Assistants to a great extent. It was absolutely impossible that the Land Commission sitting at Dublin could discharge these functions. Let them look at what the Land Commission had to do under the Bill. They all saw the serious character of the duties imposed upon them, which would take up the entire of their time, if they were to be performed by three Commissioners with any efficiency. He endorsed every word that had been said by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and also by Conservative Members on the other side of the House, that nothing could be more mischievous in the working of that Act
        1052
        than to have Assistant Commissioners subject to influences of any character on the part of the tenant or of the landlord, or on the part of the Government. More especially, let him point out another practical matter which would result from the appointment of these gentlemen as Assistant Commissioners for very short and temporary periods. A great temptation would be presented that, in order to retain and continue in office, they would be disposed to create and encourage litigation or dispute. He did not mean to say that every officer would do so; but they should remove, as far as possible, this temptation to make work for themselves. He thought it would have been far better if they had had a smaller number of Assistant Commissioners, so long as their appointments were permanent. He asked the Committee very narrowly to scrutinize the clause, and not to allow it in any way to leave the Assistant Commissioners subjected to influences of any kind coming from any source. Personally, he should have considered it far better to have the Assistant Commissioners nominated during Her Majesty's pleasure, and only to be removed upon good ground being shown.
        MR. RATHBONEsaid, he supposed it would be agreed by every Member of the Committee that it was of great importance that the Commissioners should have the entire confidence of the country. He wished to point out that the Inclosure Commissioners were appointed for five years, and surely the Assistant Commissioners were not of less importance, or had less difficult duties to discharge, than the Inclosure Commissioners.
        MR. MACIVERsaid, that he did not think even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) entirely appreciated the importance of the Amendment. He wished not merely to support every word that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), but also to remind his right hon. Friend and the Committee that it was not unreasonable to regard the Assistant Commissioners in the light of Judges, and it was not unreasonable to look on every side and see what the effect of judicial appointments of a temporary character was. Everyone knew that the English Bar and the English Bench held the estimation and confidence

        1053
        of the public in a way that was not equalled by any judicial body in the whole world; and he thought it would be the greatest possible misfortune if these Assistant Commissioners should be appointed for any temporary period. He considered that they ought to be in a position of absolute and entire independence, as the English Judges were. Unless that were done, he felt sure that the posts would be used for purposes of political jobbery, as was the case generally with temporary Government appointments in other countries.
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. GIBSONmoved to insert, after the word "Commissioners," the following words:—"Who shall have prescribed qualifications and hold office for a prescribed period." He said, he did not wish to press the Amendment if the Government would undertake to introduce some words on Report which would have the same effect. He would not pledge himself to the exact words; but it was not very easy, at a moment's notice, to present a better form of words. He wished to be quite clear that before the Bill became an Act of Parliament the clause should contain a reference to qualification, and also a reference to the tenure of the Commissioners. If the Government would introduce such words on Report he would not press the Amendment.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): We will accept the Amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. BRODRICKmoved to insert, after the previous Amendment, the words "and valuers of knowledge and experience in the value of land." He wished to put that point clearly, because it had been suggested that it would be impossible to leave to a local valuer the sole adjudication in those matters. He did not wish to clog the Commission with the duty of deciding between the vast body of valuers, and it seemed to him most important that there should be some final resort in the form of accredited valuers attached to the Commission.
        MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly, a knowledge of the value of land would be one of the qualifications for some portion, at least, of the Assistant Commissioners; but these words, if they
        1054
        were added to the Bill, would lead to the conclusion that it is intended to employ a staff of official valuers who are to be valuers and nothing else. Well, I do not know, but I believe that it is extremely doubtful whether official valuers chosen by anyone in connection with the Government would, or ought to, attract confidence in them. I should consider it a most doubtful experiment.
        MR. LEWISsaid, he could understand the objection of the Prime Minister; but it seemed to him that there was some virtue still left in the Amendment of his hon. Friend. They knew that in all classes of cases that would come before the Court, there was nothing where there would be so much difference of opinion as with regard to the value of property. They would get six or eight valuers on one side, and six or eight on the other; and the North and South Poles would not be further apart, practically, than the values which would be estimated by one side and the other. What was the course commonly pursued in such cases? In many arbitration cases in England, the presiding Judge or arbitrator, after hearing both sides, would say that he would select an independent person to whom he would send the case for his opinion. Now, he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would say that that was exactly the power the Land Court would have, without reference to anything placed in the Bill; and he admitted that there were arguments which went to show that it would be better to have power to appoint Referees for specific cases, than to appoint a class of valuers who should adjudicate on all cases. But it seemed to him that there was still some virtue in the Amendment, and that it was necessary to have one or two official valuers of the highest possible standing, who should act as a kind of assessors with the Court.
        MR. CALLANsaid, he did not think there was any Amendment which would tend more to diminish confidence in the impartiality of the tribunals who were to decide these cases than the proposition which had just been made, and which had only been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. Who were the official valuers of Ireland? They were a class by themselves, who had been in existence for the last 40 years. They

        1055
        were the employés of the landlord, and they had a natural sympathy with their employers, for whom they went down amongst the tenantry and raised the rents. There was no landlord who had raised his rents within the last 40 years who had not brought down an official valuer to re-value his estate. The very name of valuer stank in the nostrils of the Irish people. Whenever there had been a visit of a valuer to an Irish estate, it was sure to be followed by a raising of rent.
        LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had argued that the existing race of valuers were dependent on the landlords. It occurred to him, therefore, that the Amendment might have a tendency to diminish that objection, because valuers appointed under the Bill would no longer be dependent on the landlords, but would occupy an official status, and would be responsible only to the Government. It seemed to him that in proportion to the number of valuers they employed they might diminish the number of Assistant Commissioners.
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, with reference to a previous statement made by him, that it had been called forth by what the Prime Minister himself said, when the right hon. Gentleman observed that it would be necessary to have some Assistant Commissioners who should be qualified to value land. As he was very anxious to limit the number of Commissioners, he had suggested that the point might be met by having some gentlemen as Commissioners who were technically acquainted with the value of land.
        MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he thought the clause had really better remain as it was. Some very grievous mistakes had been made in England by valuers, and he thought it better to have local men called in by the Commissioners.
        Amendment negatived.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to insert, in page 2, line 5, after the words "Assistant Commissioners," the words "or of."
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment which would provide that the powers of the sub-Commission should be defined by the Com-
        1056
        mission and approved by Parliament. The effect of the clause as it stood would be that the Commission might, in fact, delegate all its powers to the sub-Commission. There was no restriction; the words were perfectly general; they might delegate any powers they thought fit, and, of course, any powers might include all powers. As an instance of what might come of this, he referred to the Bankruptcy Act for England. Here the Judge had the same power which they gave to the Commission, to the extent of delegating the whole functions of the Court to the Registrars, and he had exercised it, so that, in fact, an appeal did not lie to the Judge in the London Court of Bankruptcy, but from one Registrar to another. He did not say such would be the case in the present instance; but it might be the effect of the clause; and when it was considered what enormous interests would come within the jurisdiction of the Commission, the power of dealing with the whole landed property of Ireland in adjudicating on the rights of landlord and tenant, the relations of mortgagers and mortgagees, and the expenditure of public money to an unlimited amount, it was well to decide what powers should be delegated to the sub-Commission. He ventured to suggest that the powers of the Commission should be modified and restricted, and his Amendment would provide that the delegation should be made by rules having the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, and that these rules should also be laid before Parliament. Then the House would know what was going on. He did not think the Amendment would militate against the Act—it would only prevent abuses that might be likely to arise.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 22, line 5, leave out from "may," to end of Clause, and insert "by rules to be made from time to time, with the assent of the Lord Lieutenant, define the powers and duties of such sub-Commission, and such rules shall be laid before Parliament, if then sitting, forthwith, or, if Parliament be not sitting, then within three weeks after the meeting thereof."—(Mr. Gregory.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the object of the Amendment was a reasonable and

        1057
        proper one; but there would be great practical inconvenience in the attempt to define the powers of a sub-Commission by a series of rules to operate in a whole class of cases. It was quite possible that the Court might take a county or a group of cases to decide, while the sub-Commission would be detached for the purpose of going to a certain district, and there could not be a series of rules for each Sub-Commission—it must be guided by the class of cases. But he thought that the object would be met if they accepted the qualification that there would be always the power of appeal from the sub-Commission reserved.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 6, after "such," insert "of the."—(Mr. Gibson.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 22, line 6, after "powers," insert "except as to appeals by this Act conferred upon the Land Commission."—(Mr. Gibson.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. HEALYasked would this be the time to make any statement as to whether any Vote would be included in the Estimates for this year?
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could only answer the question by saying that it was not intended to ask for a Vote this year.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 37 (Quorum of Commission).
        MR. GIBSONsaid, as the clause was now the appeal might be loft with one Commissioner; but that power, he thought, should be exercised by more than one. In the Church Act it was provided that there should be three. With the exception of the appeal power let all the powers of the Commission be exercised by one Commissioner. He therefore proposed the following Amendment, in which he apprehended there would be no inconvenience in the drafting, as it was taken from the Church Act.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 22, line 9, before "any," insert "all appeals to the Land Commission under this Act shall be heard by all three Commissioners sitting together, except in the case of
        1058
        illness or unavoidable absence of any one member, when any appeal may, with the consent of the parties, be heard by two Commissioners sitting together, and save as aforesaid."—(Mr. Gibson.)
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government intended to provide that anyone objecting to an order made by one Commissioner or sub-Commissioner should be at liberty to appeal to the Commissioners themselves, and to have the case heard by at least two Commissioners. That, he thought, would meet the whole case; and the proper time for introducing this provision would be when the 45th clause was reached.
        MR. GREGORYasked, would there in all cases be an appeal from the sub-Commission to the Commission?
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes, certainly.
        MR. GIBSON, on the understanding that the subject would be raised again, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 22, line 10, after "Commission," insert "except the power of hearing appeals."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
        The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes before Seven of the clock.
        The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Progress resumed.
  Clause 37 (Quorum of Commission).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 11, to leave out from "by" to end of Clause, and insert "any Sub-Commission, with this qualification, that any person aggrieved by any order of one Commissioner, or by any order of a Sub-Commissioner, may require his case to be returned by at least two Commissioners, one of whom shall be the Judicial Commissioner."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Appointment of Officers).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 16, to insert the words "solicitor and a" before "secretary."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Salaries of Commissioners).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved, in page 22, line 23, to insert, after "Commissioners," the words "other than the Judicial Commissioner."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupposed that the Judicial Commissioner was to be the Chairman of the Commission?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): No.
  MR. HEALY: Do I understand that the salaries are to be fixed before the Bill leaves the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Certainly.
  MR. GIBSONasked if the salaries of the President and the other Commissioners were the same?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): No.
  MR. GIBSON: Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland will be good enough to explain.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): We postpone that. We provide for the salary of the Judicial Commissioner. He is entitled to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The other two Commissioners are not.
  MR. LEWIS: This observation of the Attorney General for Ireland has suggested to me that this clause should not be dealt with until the 34th clause has been disposed of.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The clause cannot be postponed until the Amendments are moved.
  MR. LEWISobserved, that the Committee was placed in a very considerable difficulty, because they had not decided, and could not at present decide, what should be the status of the Commission; and, therefore, they could not say what should be the salary of the President of the Court. They ought to know what was the class of persons to be appointed as Commissioners, if the Committee was to make an alteration from £2,000 to £3,000 in their salaries.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It would be quite impossible to do that now.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made some alterations in the proposition, because he was about to propose that the salaries of each of the lay Commissioners was not to exceed £3,000 a-year, and there was an Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) to make it £5,000. Certainly, considering the immense powers that were to be given to these Commissioners, £2,000 seemed to be absurd.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I propose to make £2,000 into £3,000. That is the Amendment I intend to move shortly.
  MR. GIBSONwished most distinctly to be understood as not criticizing the propriety of postponing Clause 34, nor as objecting to the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. But a question was asked as to whether the judicial member of the Court was to be the President, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was not. He was asked this question—Were the two other Commissioners, who were not to be, either of them, the President of the Court, to have a less salary than the Judicial Commissioner?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It is not provided for in the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked how the President of the Commission was to be appointed? For his part, he entirely objected to a Judge being necessarily the President of the Commission. They did not know who was to be the President, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about to ask them to fix his salary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I am supposing a Judge who has the rank and salary of a Judge of the Supreme Court.
  MR. WARTONprotested against the extraordinary haste with which they were now going. This matter of salary ought to be postponed until after the 34th clause was passed. They had got a Judicial Commissioner in the 37th clause, and now they were about to fix his salary before he was appointed by the Act. It was perfectly clear that the

  1061
  Judicial Commissioner, by virtue of his extra salary, whatever the Attorney General for Ireland might say now, would be the President of the Court, and that was implied by the Amendment. Then they must remember that there would be an appeal from one Commissioner, and this appeal would go to a Court where this Judicial Commissioner would be sitting.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give the reason for fixing £3,000?
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have not yet reached that Amendment. The Question is to insert "other than the Judicial Commissioner" after "Commissioners."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I propose now, in page 22, line 24, to leave out "two" and insert "three." The hon. Member (Mr. R. N. Fowler) has asked me the reason for fixing £3,000. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: As against £4,000 or £5,000.] We think it sufficient, and we do not wish to give more than is required.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ERRINGTONmoved, in page 22, line 25, after "Commissioners," to insert "one thousand pounds a-year, and to the." He had had an Amendment down to enlarge the salaries of the first Commissioners. He did not know what the Government thought of fixing the salaries of the Assistant Commissioners.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 22, line 25, after "Commissioners," insert "one thousand pounds a-year, and to the."—(Mr. Errington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I think it much better to leave the appointment and the salaries of the Assistant Commissioners, who will be of various grades, to the Executive under the control of Parliament.
  MR. HEALYasked if the Assistant Commissioners were to get one salary, or to be fixed according to what they did?
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, his desire was to secure a sufficient salary to the Assistant Commissioners.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was desirable to have inserted "not exceeding" a certain amount.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The money must be voted by this House, and the salaries will all be brought under the review of the House.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he did not know, before the Attorney General for Ireland had mentioned it, that the Assistant Commissioners might have salaries according to various qualifications. There was another objection to the very wide discretion given to these Assistant Commissioners. If they had some indication as to the views of the Government with reference to salaries, they might understand what were the class of persons they would seek to appoint. They ought to have some sort of indication of the salary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I think that I cannot give the indication of salary. It must be left to the discretion of the Executive, on their own responsibility, to fix such moderate salaries as the exigencies of the case may require. It is undesirable to have a hard-and-fast line. After all, the matter is entirely under the control of the House.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he scarcely thought that it was entirely under the control of the House; and for this reason, that there had never been an instance of a salary being cut down by the House. They had to bear this in mind, that it put a whole lot of patronage not merely in the hands of the Government, but of Dublin Castle, and the favourites would get the tit-bits, and those who were not in such good odour would get the worst jobs. The whole thing would be in the hands of Dublin Castle, and it would have passed out of the control of Parliament. They knew that it would be on the Estimate. But what would happen? Perhaps the Prime Minister, on Monday next, would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to take a Vote on Account, which would include the salaries of the Commissioners; and a month afterwards, when the exact item came up, it would be at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, when the general body of the House would be away. This was a matter for consideration. They viewed everything with suspicion that took place in Dublin Castle. They knew that in for-

  1063
  mer days it was a hot-bed of corruption, and, at the present time, it was a place that they required to watch; and he thought that when matters affecting salaries came before the House they should insist upon a sum not exceeding so much being placed in the Bill. Unless they did that, they would place the whole matter in the hands of the Government. He should, therefore, move later to insert the amount in the clause.
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PLUNKET (for Mr. GIBSON)moved, in page 22, line 27, after "determine," to insert—
  "The salaries of the Commissioners shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the growing produce thereof; such salaries shall grow due from day to day, but shall be payable to the persons entitled thereto, or to their executors or administrators, on the usual quarterly day of payment, or at such other periods in every year as the Treasury may from time to time determine."
  The object of his Amendment was that the salaries of the Commissioners should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to this—that, as far as regarded that Commissioner, who was to be a legal and judicial person, his salary would be charged on the Consolidated Fund, for that was the practice of the law in such cases. In the case of high judicial persons, in every reform that had taken place, now for a long time that principle had always been adhered to. It had been considered in the interests of the community that any person who had to exercise a high judicial office should have the salary secured on the Consolidated Fund, and that his salary should not be a question to be raised every year on the Estimates whenever they came to be passed. What he wanted to ask was this—were not the other Commissioners included in this Commission not practically and really judicial persons exercising high judicial functions. They had heard that one of these Commissioners, who was to be a Judge, and might become a President of the Supreme Court, was to be President, except so far as his brother Commissioners might choose to give him a certain conceded precedence. But his brother Commissioners were to have the right and power to exercise all judicial
  1064
  functions quite as much as the judicial person who was separated from them by the description, but not separated in any way by the authority which he would have.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Motion proposes to pay the salaries out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. Moneys voted by Parliament cannot be moved except on the recommendation of one of the Ministers of the Crown.
  MR. PLUNKET: Of course I bow to your decision.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYmoved an Amendment in page 22, line 27, after the word "determine," to insert these words—
  "The salaries of such Assistant Commissioners as well as the other officers shall in no case exceed one thousand five hundred pounds."
  The Attorney General for Ireland had given them no statement in the matter. The salaries as fixed for the Commissioners was £3,000 per annum, and he thought that it was necessary to put in the Bill that the salaries of the several officers should in no case exceed the half of that.
  MR. WARTONsaid, there was no such terms to be found in the Bill as "sub-Commissioner." The term was "Assistant Commissioner." A "sub-Commission" was mentioned, but not a "sub-Commissioner."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The word "solicitor" is also mentioned.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the word "solicitor" had been inserted in the Bill. The Amendment was, after the word "determine," to add—
  "And the salaries of such Assistant Commissioners, solicitor, or other officers, shall in no case exceed one thousand five hundred pounds per annum."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment. The solicitor, and secretary, and all the other officers were to be appointed by the Commissioners; and £1,500 a-year would be too much for most, if not all, of those officials who were to be appointed. If an Act of Parliament stated that a salary was not to exceed a certain amount, that amount usually became the minimum as well as the maximum.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would not press the Amendment; but would ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 29, leave out "Commissioners," and insert "Land Commission."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he should like to know if he could now raise the question to which he had already referred. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the inconvenience and inconsistency in making a difference in the salaries of the Commissioners who were to be colleagues and equals. He was not in a position to put it more fairly; but he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would call the attention of the Prime Minister to the matter.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) was under a mistake in supposing that the Commissioners were to be equal, because an Amendment had been placed on the Paper to-day which showed that they were to be totally unequal. That showed the great inconvenience of voting salaries for this Commission before they had determined the status and position of the Commissioners. He did not think such a case could ever have occurred in Parliament before. In this matter he was obliged to refer to a former clause, and the truth was that one of these Commissioners was to remain in the position in which they were assured that all the Commissioners were to be in when the Bill was introduced—that was to say, that he was to be a permanent official. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland very fairly said that he assumed the Commissioners to be of equal rank; but it was clear that they were not to be, for two of them were to be appointed for only seven years.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that that is not the point we are now upon.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, they were discussing the question of salaries,
  1066
  and it was impossible for the Committee to form an opinion as to the salaries of the different Commissioners unless they knew what their status was to be. If some were to be inferior to others, he agreed that their salaries should be smaller; but that had not yet been determined. He would not, however, press the question, beyond saying that this was a most serious change that had been made, and he foresaw that a serious difficulty would spring up if the change was persisted in. They were told that all the Commissioners were to be of the highest character and position; but that was certainly not the case, as one was to be paid a higher salary than the others. He did not think the Committee ought to allow the clause to pass without being told what was the position of these officials.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: That question will come on later. The question now is whether one of the Commissioners is to have a higher salary.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, they were now on Clause 39, which provided that all the expenses should be paid out of monies provided by Parliament. The question was whether this was a proper mode of paying persons who exercised judicial functions.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot make a charge upon the Consolidated Fund without a special Resolution of the House.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was objecting to the proposal to provide, by an annual Parliamentary Vote, for the salary of a person who was exercising judicial functions.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I rise to Order. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) was not present when this question was——
  MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. What is the point of Order the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) wishes to raise?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) wished to move an Amendment upon this question; but the Chairman ruled that he could not do so.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that what he contended for was that a person exercising judicial functions ought to be paid independently of Parliament, and that was the principle on which they dealt with all existing judicial offices, the

  1067
  salaries being charged upon the Consolidated Fund. This was an exception to the general principle, and an exception which, he ventured to think, was in the wrong direction. He did not propose any other mode of payment at present; but he certainly thought that that which was proposed was not the right mode.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the Question was "That the Clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill;" and, therefore, an Amendment could not now be moved. But, on Report, having regard to what had taken place, and knowing now what they did know as to the intentions of the Government, they might bring up an Amendment. The Chairman had ruled that an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his (Mr. Gibson's) name was out of Order, and he had anticipated that that might be so; but he had put it down in order to direct the attention of the Government to the question. It was a matter which he thought it would be well to consider on Report, as it was desirable, whatever they did, to preserve the independence of the Commissioners. They had already secured the independence of the legal member of the Commission in a proper way, and it seemed to him that it would be desirable to have some security for a like independence of the other Commissioners.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he did not understand that the Judicial Commissioner would stand in any peculiar position. Like the Railway Commissioners, he understood that each of the Commissioners would be entitled to £3,000 a-year, and that the Judicial Commissioner, as a Judge, would stand in quite another category.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was not wise that this thing should be wrapped up in this ambiguity. The Commissioner was not to be a Judge. It was a most unfortunate practice for the Government to put down a clause fixing the status of the Commissioners, to give Notice of Amendments to that clause, and then to postpone the whole thing, refusing the Committee liberty of dicussing it. The Commissioner would not be a Judge; but he was to be a barrister of 10 years' standing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee have already decided that Clause 34
  1068
  shall be postponed. It is not, therefore, competent for the hon. Gentleman to discuss it.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was competent for him to discuss the salaries. The Question was that the clause should pass, and it referred to the salaries of the Commissioners.
  THE CHAIRMAN: But the words which the hon. Member refers to in that clause have been passed. This refers to the Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he objected then to the proceeding—he objected to something which looked exceedingly wrong. He would ask the Committee to look at the Bill. It was introduced in a particular way, and then the real working clause upon which everything hung was postponed. That was not the way in which an Act of Parliament of this importance ought to be discussed. He had not the slightest objection in the world to the Commissioners receiving £3,000 or even £5,000 a-year; but what he wished to secure was that which was on the face of the Bill—namely, that the Commissioners should be equal in status. He wished to secure that they should have equal salaries; and if that proposal was not adopted he did not think the measure would prove satisfactory.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) considers these matters important, he can go into them when we come to the clause that has been postponed. I am sorry that what he has objected to has been done in his absence.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that although the words "other than" were required in line 23, it was equally the fact that they were wanted in line 28. That only showed what they came to when they went too fast. They were proceeding with these clauses with the most indecent haste, and were landing themselves into absurdities which by-and-bye they would have to pay for. The Chairman had ruled that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin could not put his Amendment as to the proper way of paying the Judges; yet the Committee must remember that it was in their power to record their opinion by refusing to pass the clause. If the Committee took that course, Her Ma-

  1069
  jesty's Government would soon bring up a proper proposal.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) that they were proceeding too fast. In fact, he was of opinion that for some days they had been proceeding much too slowly. ["Hear, hear!"] He was extremely glad that at last he had been able to say something with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland could agree. With regard to what had been said in this discussion a few minutes before 1 o'clock that morning, he had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—he had asked whether or not the Judge would have precedence of the other Commissioners. He did not know whether he rightly interpreted the motives which actuated the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); but it seemed to him that for some reason or other the hon. Member objected to there being an inequality in the rank of the Commissioners. Well, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) strongly objected to there being any difference in rank; and, if there was any difference in rank, he thought that the last person to whom they should give precedence should be the Judge. If the hon. Member for the County of Galway would move an Amendment to the clause he should be very happy to support him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have passed the point at which the clause can be amended.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not know whether it would be worth while to bring up a new clause on Report on this matter; but the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was quite right in contending that equality in the position of the Commissioners should be measured by equality in their salaries.
  MR. HEALYwanted to know if it was intended that the Judicial Commissioner should receive a less salary than the other members of the Commission?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had already answered that question. The Judicial Commissioner was to be a member of the Supreme Court with the rank and salary of a Judge.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stuck to this matter with such pertinacity. The Judicial Commissioner would certainly have the highest status, because he would be learned in the law, and he would have on that account in the Court a status which the other Commissioners would not possess. He did not object to this functionary having the salary of £3,500, but he thought that the other Commissioners should be paid an equal amount. If this matter were brought up on Report he was sure that the hon. Member for the County of Galway would receive support. Although the Judge would be a barrister of 10 years' standing and learned in the law, the other Commissioners, it was to be hoped, would have some learning on the Land Question. Therefore, they might be equal, in point of learning and of real utility, as Land Commissioners.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that it would only be right that Parliament should have control over the salaries of the Commissioners, because if there was any fault to find with them it would be easy to bring their conduct under criticism in the House.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Powers of Commission).
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had placed in the hands of the Chairman an Amendment which proposed to strike out the first paragraph of the clause. He wished to ascertain what was the object and intention of Her Majesty's Government in inserting that paragraph. He must say, as far as he understood the matter, it would place the Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court in rather an ambiguous position. The case stood thus—the Land Commission was to be composed of three Commissioners, according to the terms of the Bill. One of those was to be supreme Judge, who would act with equal rank with one of the Judges of the High Court of Justice. Why, then, was he or any of his colleagues to tranfer any case which came before them to the Chancery Division of the High Court? The next paragraph went on to say—
  "The Land Commission shall have full power to decide all questions whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which it may be necessary to decide for the purposes of this Act, and they shall not

  1071
  be subject to be restrained in the execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any Court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any Court."
  Why, then, were they to have the power of handing over part of their duty to another Court of an equal authority and dignity to themselves to entertain and decide for them? He did not understand on what principle it was proposed to treat the Chancery Division of the High Court as if it was subservient to the business of the Land Commission. They did not know yet what the matters were that were to be referred to the Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it was intended that they might have a Land Court for investigating titles or for buying and selling. It might be very convenient that the Commission should have power to refer such matters to the Land Court in case they were overburdened or did not feel competent to do this especial work. He did not think there would be any practical difficulty in the reference to the Land Judges.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought the question was not at all so simple as his right hon. and learned Friend suggested, and he could see difficulties of two or three kinds. Was it intended that an Assistant Commissioner should have the power to send to the Landed Estates Court for determination any matter that occurred to him? If not, there was not a syllable in the Act to prevent his doing so, for the powers of the Commission were to be delegated to a single Assistant Commissioner, and his right to avail himself of the Landed Estates Court was left absolutely untouched. He was sure that could not be the intention of the Government, and he would therefore suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend before Report to make that point plain, so that it should be clear that only the Commission, sitting in a judicial capacity, should have the power to evoke the judicial aid of another great Court. There must also be something more definite than "any matter" to indicate what class of business was to be dealt with by the Commission; and it would not be fair that the Commission should take only the easy cases and leave the hard cases to be worked out by the Landed Estates Court. Then, again, where were the appeals from
  1072
  the decisions of the Land Judges in such cases to go? In the Irish Judicature Act of 1877, there was a special power given to make rules regulating the whole practice of the Court. Was that power to be overruled by this present provision? Under that Act there was an absolute right of appeal from any order made by the Land Judges; but was it now intended, if the power to send cases to the Land Judges was exercised, that any suitor who felt aggrieved might appeal from any order made by the Land Judges to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, whether the Land Commission liked it or not? If that was intended, and the drafting remained as it was, the Court of Appeal might be found giving decisions absolutely at right angles to the Commission. The more this was looked at, the more clear it became that it would be surrounded by difficulties, both substantial and technical. He did not think that was the way to preserve proper respect for the Bench; for they were to have no power of asking the assistance of the Lord Chancellor or of any of their Colleagues in the preparation of rules for regulating appeals. If the Government did not care to give this opportunity of participating in the regulation of the Court to all the Judges direct, they most assuredly should give it to the Heads of the Divisions, and, at all events, to the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Land Judges, in order to control, in a moderate way, the references to the Land Court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thought this plan would enable the Commission to send to the Land Judges to clear up some cases in order to insure that a clear good title should be sold; but could that be accomplished directly in the ordinary way in regard to private purchasers in Ireland? At present people in Ireland were able to work very well with the existing machinery, and he thought it would greatly simplify matters if the same system were adopted under this Bill. It was absolutely impossible that this clause could emerge from the House in its present shape. It was too wide and too general. It contained nothing at all to restrain the Land Commission, or to prevent an Assistant Commissioner having powers he was not intended to have; and he thought that if the clause was retained

  1073
  there should be power given either to the Heads of the Divisions, or at least to the Lord Chancellor, to take part in conjunction with the Land Judges in making the rules.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)admitted the force of some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, and would consider the matter before Report with a view to obviate the difficulties pointed out. It was not intended that the power of reference to the Land Judges should be exercised by the Commission by delegation. If the clause could not be satisfactorily amended and reduced in its operation, he would consider whether it could not be dispensed with.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether the Commission, having become owners of an estate, could go into the Court to sell; or, putting the converse, could they go into the Court like an ordinary purchaser and buy an estate from the Court? He wished to get at the relative positions of the Court and the Commission.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied, that the Commission could go and purchase an estate from the Landed Estates Court.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider before the Report whether he could not introduce words making the decision of the Chancery Division final.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he should consider that matter also.
  MR. FINDLATERobserved, that anyone reading this clause would find that exceptional powers were given to the Commission; but he had an Amendment on the Paper with reference to the power of the Commission to refer to the Court, as he considered the terms of the clause rather wide.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he would not press the Amendment to a division, but, before withdrawing it, he wished to mention that under the present practice the Court gave notice to the tenants of an estate about to be sold; but at present it was not clear where the functions of the Commission were to begin in the way of selling holdings on estates and where the functions of the Court ended. At
  1074
  present that was most difficult to make out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 36, before "The," insert "For the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GREGORYasked, what would be the functions of the Commission with respect to appeals?
  MR. COLONEL STANLEYinquired, as a point of Order, whether the position of the Amendment would preclude a discussion of Clause 41?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): No.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 36, after "power," insert "and jurisdiction."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 36, leave out "decide," and insert "hear and determine."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 37, leave out "questions whatsoever," and insert "matters."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 37, leave out "they."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved in page 22, line 41, insert as a new sub-section—
  "3. The Land Commission may, of its own motion, or on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, state a case in respect of any question of Law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland.
  "The decision of the said Court of Appeal on any such question so referred to it shall be final and conclusive.
  "Alter the numbers of subsequent sub-sections."
  Question proposed, "That this new sub-section be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYsuggested the insertion of "shall" after "or" in the second line.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought the word "may" was sufficient, and better than "shall," for he could imagine cases in which an application might be made for a case to be stated where there was small ground for it. It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Court, and, as a rule, the Court would interpret "may" as "shall."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought "may" must mean either may or shall, but not both, and he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member reasonable. No Court worth having would be afraid of having its decisions reviewed. The late Mr. Butt had urged that parties should have an absolute right of appeal whether the Court liked it or not, and in the Judicature Act of 1877 that right was definitely given. He did not say the proposed Commission would not be satisfactory on questions that were non-legal; but it was arrogating an immense power to say that the Judicial Commissioner was so absolutely certain to be right that neither the landlord nor the tenant should have the right of appeal. That would be clothing him with a kind of infallibility, requiring the highest type of man ever put into the exercise of judicial functions. His right hon. and learned Friend said that in proper cases the Judicial Commissioner would interpret "may" as "shall," and in improper cases he would interpret "may" as "may." In other words, the Judicial Commissioner would not allow an appeal from his decision unless he liked. That was a "sham," and they must make up their minds finally whether they meant that there was to be an appeal or no appeal. Was it intended that under no circumstances, without the sanction of the Court, should there be a review of its decision on a legal question in which many thousand pounds' worth of property and the interests of hundreds of tenants might be involved? He protested against that, and would raise the point, not only now, but, if necessary, also at subsequent stages.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he thought it would not be wise to give a right of appeal in all cases, where there might be no ques-
  1076
  tions of law involved. It was assumed that the Judicial Commissioner would be a man of some standing, and that he would not refuse an appeal where there was some legal question. The proposal of the hon. Member would enable the man with the longest purse to appeal when there was no ground for it, and on the broad ground of common sense he thought it would be most objectionable.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsuggested as a way out of the difficulty, and to meet the case of a man with a long purse, the introduction of "upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court may think fit." That would insure justice to the poorer party.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he should be disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) if the words "unless the Court considers the application frivolous" were introduced.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was willing to accept that proposal; but he pointed out that if the Committee knew who would be the Commissioners, they could better judge whether "shall" was necessary or not.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to their own Amendment.
  MR. GIBSONproposed to insert "shall" after the words "before it."
  Amendment proposed, in third line of proposed Amendment, after the words "before it," insert "shall"—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted."
  MR. WARTONobserved, that the Committee were about to create a Court composed of one real Judge and two pseudo-Judges, and he thought it might often happen that the two laymen might overrule the judgment of the legal member of the Court, on the ground that they were right and the lawyer was wrong. The word "vexatious" would have no effect on their minds, and he thought it would be perfectly absurd to allow such a state of things. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in proposed Amendment, after the word "or," in line 2, to insert "shall."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept an Amendment which would enable every litigious person to insist on an appeal, however unreasonable. Even in accepting the words "unless it considers the application frivolous," the Government were going too far; and he would rather have the new Court in the same position as other Courts.
  MR. H. DAVEYremarked, that he believed no Judge would deny that the knowledge that his decisions might be reviewed had a salutary effect on those decisions; and he thought it would be unreasonable to refuse to the parties the right now proposed. Very difficult questions of law might arise before the Commission, and the two lay members might overrule the legal member, although they might be entirely wrong. He supported the Amendment.
  MR. SHAWpreferred the words proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland; but suggested the insertion after "shall" of the words "provided that the Court considers the application reasonable."
  MR. DALYsaid, the real point was to insure that the man who had the most sovereigns should not be able to harass the poorer man; and he believed no Judge would risk his reputation by refusing an appeal on a question of law when he entertained any reasonable doubt. The Amendment was not necessary.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he could understand the kind of bogus feeling of lawyers on this question; but the tenant's interest would not suffer if this Court were conducted on the usual principles which guided Courts, and he advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to insist upon the Amendment to insert "shall."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmentioned that one of the appeals now pending before the House of Lords was an appeal from some fishermen tenants of the Duke of Devonshire; and asked where the tenants would have been if they had not the right of appeal?
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed in proposed Amendment,
  In second line, to insert "unless it considers such application frivolous and vexatious."—(Mr Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GIBSON, observing that immense issues might be involved as to rents, suggested that before Report the Attorney General for Ireland should consider the desirability of providing that the decision of the Commission should only be final up to a certain limit of cases.
  MR. H. DAVEYsuggested the adoption of the Bankruptcy rule, that there should be no appeal to the House of Lords unless the Court of Appeal deemed the matter sufficiently important, and supported the proposal for a limitation made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson).
  MR. CALLANremarked that this discussion was kept up by Chancery lawyers, who knew nothing about Ireland and Irish property.
  Question put, "That the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 25, insert "any" before the word "such."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 29, leave out "aforesaid," and insert "except as by this Act provided."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Appeal to Land Commission).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 23, line 36, after "Act," insert "or under 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. GIBSONasked how this appeal machinery would work, observing that at present the Judges of Assizes were the appellate tribunal, and, through

  1079
  them, appeals could be heard in the country with little trouble and expense to the parties. But this was apparently to be changed, and he would be glad to know how the Government proposed that the new tribunal should work—whether in Dublin, or in the country?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he expected that the Commissioners would be able to go round the country and hear appeals from Courts of First Instance at convenient times. The idea was that the appeal work should be generally done in the country, as near as possible to the poor man's door.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Amendment an excellent one; but regretted that the 21st section of the Act of 1870 was to be repealed, because that would cause great practical inconvenience.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 23, line 40, at end of Clause, add "The twenty-fourth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment to which he attached very great importance. It was to suggest that decisions of the Land Commission sitting in an appellate capacity should not be final in certain clearly defined cases. He did not seek to encourage or facilitate reckless appeals, where there was no foundation for them; he sought only to give an appeal in certain clearly defined cases, where every reasonable man would say it was only reasonable, and where the Land Commission were not unanimous. The Judicial Commissioner might be overruled by the lay Commissioners, and where there was a difference on a point of law there ought to be an appeal. He would also give the right of appeal in cases where a certain sum of money was involved; but he had left the amount blank, being mainly desirous of getting the principle accepted; the amount could be agreed on afterwards. The third case in which he would give a right of appeal was when the Court itself desired it. It was a very important thing to set up this tribunal to deal with important legal points, and to say there
  1080
  should be no appeal from it to a higher tribunal; and he was not at all impressed by the contrary argument of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), whose common sense he would trust in any matter of business, but whose judgment he would not equally accept in a matter of law. It was not unreasonable to give such appeal where there was a difference of opinion, and it was not unreasonable to give an appeal where a great estate was dealt with, the owner claiming at the peril of costs. This was the law of the land in reference to every other tribunal; and he should be glad if the Government could see their way to modify the clause so as to make it meet the cases he had referred to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 23, line 40, after "same," insert "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order upon any question of law made by the Land Commission under this Act may, in case the members of the Land Commission were not unanimous as to such decision or order, or in case such decision or order affects an amount of not less than pounds, or in case the Land Commission consents thereto, require the Land Commission to reserve such question of law by way of case stated for the consideration of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, and the same shall thereupon be heard accordingly in such manner and form as may be prescribed by Rules of Court to be made for carrying into effect the provisions of this section with respect to appeals to the said Court of Appeal, in accordance with the provisions of 'The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877.'
  "The said Court of Appeal shall make such decision or order as ought to have been made by the Court below, and such decision or order shall be of the like effect as if it were the decision or order of the said Court, or the said Court of Appeal may remit the case, with such directions as they think fit, to the Court below: Provided always, That the judgment of the said Court of Appeal shall be subject to appeal to the House of Lords, in like manner and under the same conditions as the judgment of the said Court of Appeal in cases from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice is made, subject to appeal to the House of Lords by 'The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877:' "—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had confined his remarks to the earlier part of the Amendment, which was rendered unnecessary by the Amendments that had been already made in the Bill. It

  1081
  had been already provided that either of the parties concerned should have a right of appeal provided the grounds on which it was asked for were not frivolous. This right was granted without reference to any difference of opinion in the Court or to the value of the property at stake. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said nothing about the concluding part of his Amendment, which was the most important of all. It proposed that the appeal might be carried to the House of Lords, and that was inconsistent with what the Committee had already done. They had provided that a man could have his case stated in the Court of Appeal; but they had also enacted that the decision of the Court of Chancery upon his case so stated should be final and conclusive. A new departure was now proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government could not accept the proposition, because they thought they had provided for all that was required.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had a strong conviction that too much had been thrown into the hands of the lawyers, and that if the Bill was tied up by too many legal points and bonds great injury would be done to this great Act of reconciliation.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HEALYmoved, in page 23, at end of Clause, to insert the following sub-section:—
  "Every solicitor of the Court of Judicature in Ireland may appear, act in, and plead any proceedings before the Land Commission or any of said Sub-Commissions, without being required to employ counsel; and all laws now in force concerning solicitors shall extend, as far as the same may be applicable, to solicitors so practising as aforesaid."
  The hon. Gentleman explained that the sub-section was taken from the Irish Bankruptcy Act. Of course, he presumed the tenants would have to employ lawyers of some kind. It was very desirable they should employ the cheapest; and under the sub-section he now proposed the Court could allow any solicitor to bring a tenant's ease before them. As the words were taken from the Bankruptcy Act he imagined the Attorney General for Ireland would not object to the Amendment.
  Question proposed, "That the sub-section be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, although he considered the addition of the sub-section unnecessary, he saw no objection to it.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was very sorry to find the Attorney General for Ireland assenting to an Amendment absolutely at variance with existing legislation on the subject. The hon. Member for Wexford had gone back to the old Bankruptcy Act of 1857, and the sub-section he had abstracted had not the smallest reference to Land Courts. The 68th section of the County Officers and Courts Act of 1877 was far more beneficial to the suitors than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be, for it enabled the parties themselves, or the fathers or brothers of the parties, by the sanction of the Chairman, to appear in the County Court to argue the case, or it enabled them to appear by solicitor, or by barrister, if instructed by a solicitor. If the Amendment were adopted, taken as it was from an old Act of Parliament, which did not even now govern the proceedings, it would lead to the greatest complications, because it might be possible that the tenants would desire not to appear by counsel or attorney, but to appear in person, or by father or other person. He wanted to preserve these rights of the people as they were at present. Let the parties come in, if they pleased, without any professional man; let them come in with solicitors, if they so desired; let them come in with counsel if they so desired, and they sometimes would desire to do one thing and sometimes another. In his opinion, the Amendment was not necessary, and it would not be advisable to accept it in its present shape.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely beside the question. It did not matter one pin whether the Amendment was taken from an old Act or not. The Committee ought to make it clear that the people could employ the cheapest form of counsel if they chose. There was nothing in the Amendment taking away from the people the right to plead for themselves if they wished to do so. The Attorney General for Ireland would bear him out that if the Bill passed without Amendment in this respect the Court might, as a matter of practice, exclude solicitors from plead-

  1083
  ing before them, and might insist upon solicitors employing counsel. What would be the result? If a claim were made in the Court for a solicitor would have to be employed, and he would have to employ counsel, and the costs would exceed the original claim by hundreds per cent. He was glad to think the Government had accepted the Amendment, which he was sure would be well received in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had already stated that he considered the Amendment entirely unnecessary, though he did not think it would do any harm, indicating as it did the spirit in which they intended the Court to act.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he understood that the Railway Commissioners excluded solicitors, because their right to plead was not specified in the Act.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he was afraid the Amendment, if it would have any operation at all, would have a mischievous operation, because the circumstances under which the clause under discussion was introduced in the Bankruptcy Act were these—that counsel had the right of audience in the Bankruptcy Court while solicitors had not. That was not the case with the proposed Commission. In his opinion, even without any Amendment, solicitors, and counsel employed by solicitors, and even the parties themselves, would have the right to come in and practice before the Commission; but to remove any doubt in the matter there could be no objection to the insertion of a properly framed clause. He was sure his hon. Friend wished to lighten the expenses of going into Court. He would not like the Amendment to be accepted for fear its adoption would leave it open to argument that no other persons save counsel instructed by solicitors, or solicitors could practice before the Commission.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. It was well known there were many solicitors practising in the County Courts who were far more competent to cross-examine witnesses and address the Court than any junior barrister possibly could be. These gentlemen could be employed at a much lesser fee, and it was unjust that an humble suitor should be excluded from availing himself of their services for the purpose of preserving the monopoly of
  1084
  the Bar. The Bar had had matters all their own way for a long time, and it was hard a solicitor should not have as equal a right to address a Judge as any barrister.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he was in favour of the principle asserted by the Amendment. He could not agree in some of the reasons apparently pressed against the Committee now agreeing to its adoption. It was not desirable that employment of counsel by the attorney should be required in every case in a Bill of the character of the present. A suitor could appear in any Court to plead his own cause, and there was no necessity for any formal words to show what his inherent right was in this respect. There was nothing in the Bill to say that an attorney might appear without being required to employ counsel. They all knew that counsel did enjoy peculiar privileges, including the privileges of pre-audience. It might fairly be contended that the words of the County Court Act passed in 1877 would not refer to a newly constituted Court; and what they did, by the proposed clause, was to say that an attorney without—in the words of the clause—"being required to employ counsel" should have the right of appearing in Court, that he should have the right of pre-audience now enjoyed by counsel.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they were all agreed that it was desirable to allow solicitors or the parties themselves to plead before the Court. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) was firmly convinced that if the present Amendment were adopted what they desired would not result; and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had also doubts upon the point. He thought that if the Attorney General for Ireland would take care that on Report some words would be introduced making it perfectly clear that the parties could appear themselves, or by solicitors, or counsel instructed by solicitors, they might close the discussion at once, for that was what they all wanted.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would prefer that the words should be inserted now, and then, if the Government saw any reason to make them more precise on Report, it would be competent for them to do so.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he considered the Amendment highly unnecessary and

  1085
  also misleading. It was the opinion of the Committee that the parties should be allowed to appear in Court themselves, as well as by counsel or solicitor. The Amendment implied that a solicitor was the natural person to take proceedings, and it added that he should be allowed to do so without employing counsel. If the Government thought it necessary to insert any words on this subject, he trusted the words adopted would not have a misleading effect.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it would, perhaps, be more convenient if the hon. Member for Wexford would withdraw his Amendment. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) would undertake on Report to introduce words which would improve the purpose of the hon. Gentleman, and make the point perfectly clear.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was happy to withdraw the Amendment under these circumstances.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Rules for carrying Act into effect).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, this clause enabled the Committee to frame rules for the regulation of their proceedings. He begged to move in page 24, after line 3, to insert—
  "(b.) The proceedings on the occasion of applications to fix judicial rents under this Act."
  Question proposed, "That this paragraph be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment appeared quite reasonable as far as it went; but it would be well to add after rents "and the withdrawal of such applications."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)assented.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved, in page 24, after line 7, to insert—
  "(e.) The proceedings in respect of cases stated for the decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland under this Act;
  "(f.) The proceedings on the occasion of applications for transfer of cases for the Civil
  1086
  Bill Court to the Land Commission under this Act.
  "Altering the letter of other paragraphs accordingly."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HEALYsaid, in proposing the next Amendment, they all knew that, under the present unfortunate circumstances of Ireland, the only resource which the unfortunate tenant often had was that he was obliged to compel the landlord to incur the odium of sending down 3,000 or 4,000 police and soldiers to serve writs where exorbitant rent was exacted, knowing that public opinion was so strong and the process-server so obnoxious that no landlord, unless prepared to go to the bitter end, would care to serve writs on his tenants. This was owing to the influence of public opinion brought about by the Land League; but, in former days, when no such influence existed, despotism was only tempered by the blunderbuss. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh, oh!" but he was quoting the opinion of Mr. James Anthony Froude, an Englishman, whose opinion ought to be accepted by that House. Public opinion and the blunderbuss had, indeed, been the only force by which the tenants were enabled to redress their grievances. The Government said that the mode of serving civil bill processes for the recovery of rent should be placed at the discretion of the Court, and that not merely in cases where the tenant came in as a statutory tenant, but in all cases it was provided that the Land Commission should circulate forms of application and directions as to the mode in which application was to be made, and they might even amend or add to the rules and regulations. Now, he wished to understand what, under these circumstances, was the position of the learned Attorney General for Ireland. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to tell the Committee that the Land Commission was to be constituted and to have this power in the case of men who were not statutory tenants at all, and who, therefore, claimed none of the benefits under the Bill? Were the Land Commission, from time to time, to make such rules as would alter the mode of serving writs for people altogether outside the Bill? If so, why did not the Government put their proposal into the Bill honestly and fairly?

  1087
  A more insidious attempt to alter the processes of law in Ireland he had never seen. He should move an Amendment to omit the words giving the Land Commission power to make rules affecting the service of civil bill processes in ejectment and for the recovery of rent, and he expected that he should have the support of both the Members for the University of Dublin, because they all knew that, as Conservatives, those Members had fought for the old régime and must be in favour of the existing order of things. Both those right hon. and learned Gentlemen would contend that the Land Laws of Ireland, from their point of view, had worked in the most excellent manner; and the method of serving writs must, as part of those Land Laws, have worked excellently also. However, he simply wished to learn from the Government whether the provision was to apply simply to statutory tenancies, or whether it was to apply to all cases in Ireland, and he was surprised that the Government should have attempted to smuggle through in this manner a most important provision which would have a most far-reaching effect upon the tenantry of Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 24, leave out lines 15 and 16.—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)pointed out that the clause had reference only to the serving of processes, about which there had been difficulties during the recent crisis. He was sure the hon. Member did not wish to oppose the enforcement of the payment of fair rents; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was perfectly willing, on the part of the Government, to confine the provision to judicial rents under the Bill.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had met him very fairly. He agreed that if the Act worked fairly and the Court gave satisfaction, the man who took land from a landlord ought to pay a fair rent for it. It was desirable that the landlord should get that rent in the speediest possible way. An Amendment to the effect that the provision should simply affect the case of a judicial rent would entirely meet his view.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, the statement made by the Attorney General for Ireland led to a very curious conclusion. This Land Law Bill, as he understood it, was supposed to cover all cases, and to redress all the shortcomings of the law, and to make exceptions in the way now proposed was not entirely fair. If the present method of serving processes of ejectment was inconvenient in the case of a fair or judicial rent, he did not see why it should not also be inconvenient in the case of other rents, which were only not declared to be judicial rents because they were believed to be fair rents without any such declaration. Either the system of serving these notices was or was not a good and proper one; and if it was not, it should be put an end to. Now, there was a fair opportunity of putting an end to it. In any case, both classes of rents should be subject to the same system, for in future, under this admirable Bill, there were to be no unfair rents at all.
  MR. HEALYexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALY: I now beg to move that before the word "rent" the word "judicial" be inserted, and that after the word "rent" the words "under this Act" be inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the word "judicial."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'judicial' be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSONobjected to the Amendment, and wished to know why the words of the clause had been put in the Bill? They must have been put in, because it was well known last year that there were immense difficulties in the way of the serving of civil bill processes. The section was deliberately put in, and it had been referred to, he believed, in the course of debate by the Chief Secretary, who had pointed out the simplicity of service that might be effected under this measure. That must have been the governing principle in the minds of the Government when the section was inserted in the Bill. There was no attempt at the suggestion of any distinction between the two cases; but the power was taken of drawing up rules

  1089
  for the service of ejectment for the recovery of rent in all cases. They all knew that there was a power in the Superior Courts of directing substitution of service, and that compelled the landlord to go to the great expense of suing in the Superior Courts. The great difficulty of proceeding now in the cheaper jurisdiction of the County Courts was that it was a cumbrous and roundabout method of procedure. What reason was there for cutting down this provision and limiting it to cases where there was a judicial rent declared under the Bill? What justification could possibly be suggested? They all knew that, in the present state of Ireland, the greatest difficulty which the Executive had to meet was found in the service of processes; and yet, in the face of that, the Government were deliberately saying—"We will leave all these difficulties as they are at present; we will leave the Executive face to face with the difficulties they have experienced during the last nine months, and we will not simplify the service of processes." The Government were doing this with their eyes wide open, and leaving the Executive in the future, as in the past, to be put to endless expense and trouble. They would not be able to say, for the future, that this was owing to any defect of the law or to any obstruction on the part of the landlords; but they were deliberately doing this after the plainest notice, and excluding the possibility of the simplicity of service from being applied to the present system.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the Court would have nothing to do with anything except judicial rents, and why should it step outside its own domain? It had been established to find a judicial rent; why should it have given to it any functions outside that? If the Court were confined to the matter of judicial rent, would any landlord in Ireland have the audacity to apply to that Court for a special rule with regard to ordinary rents? The position of the Government should be this, that the Court should be enabled to say to any such landlord, at once—"If you want your writs served, you must be able to show that your rent is a fair one; in fact, that it is a judicial rent under the Act." In that case, the
  1090
  Court would have power to change the mode of service of writs. The Bill was intended to deal with cases coming before the Court, and why should the Court have given to it a power extraneous to its own proper duties? The Bill worked in a particular groove, and the objections now urged from the Front Opposition Bench were an attempt to shunt it off the track to a siding where it had no business at all. The words "judicial rent" would keep the matter exactly within the scope of the measure.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman, as they all knew, had found the greatest possible difficulty in the service of these processes, and the one thing which the right hon. Gentleman wanted, as the Representative of the Executive Government, was to get rid of all that difficulty. The hon. Member for Wexford had said that when a judicial rent was fixed the Court had power to fix how the processes should be served; but how were those rents to be fixed? Any tenant who was dissatisfied with his rent, would apply to the Court and get a judicial rent fixed; but, presumably, unless the tenant did so apply, he was satisfied. The effect of the present Amendment was this—that were the tenant showed, by not applying to the Court, that he was content, the Executive were to be put to all the trouble that now existed in regard to the serving of these processes; and it was only where the tenant showed he was dissatisfied by applying to the Court that the Executive were to be relieved from that trouble. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would see to this matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not see how they could avoid making this matter clear, and inserting the words which were thought necessary, and thereby carrying out what appeared to him to be the intention of the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the beginning of the clause, he would find the words "application to be made under this Act," and it was quite clear that the spirit and the meaning of the clause was that the Court were to make rules with regard to the application of the Act. It would be a good thing to have rules made which should affect the

  1091
  serving of processes generally; but he did not see how they could give the Court power to make rules for something quite outside its jurisdiction.
  MR. MULHOLLANDpointed out that the words "this Act" were distinctly mentioned throughout, except in respect of these rules in regard to the recovery of rent, as to which there was no such limitation. Surely, nothing could be more absurd than the position to which they would be reduced by the insertion of this Amendment. Take, for example, the case of two neighbouring landlords. One let his land at 20 s. an acre, and the other let his land at 25 s. an acre; but the rent of the latter had been reduced to the "judicial rent" of 20 s. an acre under the Act. The landlord who had had his rent reduced by the interposition of the Court would have facilities for the recovery of that rent; but the other, who was so good a landlord that he had never been called before the Court at all, would be without such facilities. Could anything be more absurd? He wondered that the Chief Secretary, who must have been brought into contact with all the difficulties connected with the serving of processes, should now take up so extraordinary a position, which was most illogical. He could not see any ground whatever for the concession announced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and he hoped the Government would, on re-consideration, change their minds.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the functions of the Land Commission were to fix a judicial rent, and not to collect it. When the rent was fixed, the parties would come under the ordinary processes of the law. It was very difficult to make any distinction between one kind of rent and another. If they went beyond the immediate scope of the Bill, where were they to stop? He would, however, like to see provided, in reference to the power of the landlord to carry the tenant into an expensive Superior Court, and to load him with costs that both parties should be put on the same footing, and that the costs of the Superior Court should not be allowed, unless that Superior Court certified that it was a fit case to take before it.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it might or might not be desirable to make a reform
  1092
  which in effect would be an amendment of the County Offices and Courts Act of 1877; but such an amendment would be entirely beyond the scope of this Bill, and if amendments in one direction tending to an alteration of the rules and methods of procedure of the local Courts were suggested or attempted by Conservative Gentlemen, the Irish Members on their side would also bring forward amendments and suggestions which they would otherwise refrain from introducing, because they conceived that such alterations were entirely beyond the scope of the measure.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to remind the Attorney General for Ireland that this was a Bill "To further amend the Law relating to the Occupation and Ownership of Land in Ireland." The hon. Member for Wexford had said that a fair landlord had a right to a fair rent; but it must be remembered that, in the 22nd section, the Government had introduced words making it impossible for a landlord to go into Court to get a fair rent unless he had previously demanded an increase of rent.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary would consider the very grave question here raised. The title of the Bill distinctly recognized the amendment of the law generally, and here was an admitted evil which required to be remedied, and which was intended by the draftsman to be remedied by this clause, or else he would not leave the terms of this sub-section general while the terms of all the other sub-sections were particular. It would be very disastrous if a great benefit to the public and relief to the State could not be accomplished because it did not come within the assumed purposes of this particular clause.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is true that the word "and" is not quoted. It gives the Commission power entirely outside their general jurisdiction, and it should be in a separate clause.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: It is clearly an admitted evil; and the arguments of those behind me are unanswerable, and the Government have not attempted to answer them. It is the most absurd proposition that I have ever heard. If the Prime Minister had been present he would not have taken up the position.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The matter is not so simple as the right hon. Gentleman would suggest. Under this rule you would be regulating the process, not of this Court, not of the Civil Bill Court under this Act, but regulating the general process of the Civil Bill Court. The Act provides that the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman shall regulate them. That being so, it would be a strange way to abrogate that power. You cannot have one procedure fixed by the Chancellor and five Chairmen, and another procedure by the Land Court, over-ruling the other. I do not mean to say that it is a serious question, or one of importance; but I do not think that it is so simple in a clause of this kind to give the power of the Land Commission, not the process of the Civil Bill Court, but a process which has been already regulated by another body. It is a matter, of course, deserving of consideration; but it is not so clear.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had never known in his life efforts shown by a Government to induce the House to arrive at a conclusion that the Executive were entitled to remain encumbered by all the difficulties which have been surrounding them for the last three months. They deliberately put into the middle of the clause sub-section "G," for the very express purpose of getting them out of the difficulty of the service of processes. That was a statement which had not been denied; and he ventured to think that it could not be denied, and would not be denied, before this debate closed. And what was the meaning of this remarkable and astounding and absurd change of front? They had in their Bill, as the result of deliberate thought, an Amendment to save the country thousands of pounds in the employment of military and police, which would, at the same time, simplify the service process and save the chance of outrage; and, having all these advantages in the Bill in clear English and in unmistakeable simplicity, they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, who said that it was not fair to free matters from existing complications. [Mr. HEALY: I never used the expression.] He admitted that it was a paraphrase. But if that were not the meaning of the argument of the hon. Member for Wexford, he was at a loss to indicate what it
  1094
  was. What was the argument of the last Government change? It was that of the Solicitor General. He said that there was a certain want of jurisdiction here. But the argument that he had used went too far, and did not go far enough. If they proposed to confine it to the power of regulating the processes for the non-payment of judicial rent merely, that was a matter which could be equally well dealt with under the Act of 1877, if the County Court Judges pleased to deal with it, and they merely superadded it to a better tribunal in a better way. What were the absurd results? In the first place, they saw the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who was the Officer answerable for the peace of the country and the administration of the law, struggling for the Amendment which would leave him in his difficulties, and leave the country exposed to outrage and expense. They had the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for England contending for an Amendment which would leave them face to face with results so absurd that they could not and would not be defended, because the position was this—that they were willing to direct the service of civil bill process for judicial rents, leaving uncovered under the existing law "the service of processes other than judicial." What was the result? Where was the reason which justified the distinction? A judicial rent could only be arrived at by a landlord if he asked for an increase. The landlord had not got the power of going into Court to have the rent measured simpliciter—he must ask for an increase; so that they gave the landlord whose title to it was that he asked for the increase of rent, the benefit of the now process, and they left the old cumbrous process to the landlord who had not asked the tenant to pay the increase. The tenant who brought his landlord into Court evidenced by that act that he was not satisfied with what he had to pay, and therefore they would give that tenant who had so shown that he was not satisfied with the rent that he had to pay, and asked to have it re-assessed, the benefit of a simple process; but they left the tenants outside this clause who did not make any complaint with reference to the rent under the old process. He asked, was the Bill confined to the tenants paying judicial rents? It

  1095
  was nothing of the kind. The Government's own glossary made a distinction between ordinary and other tenants; and they had dealt with all classes of tenants. They dealt with tenants paying judicial rents and those who were not—and here, when they were both comprised in the same class and in the same sub-section, they accepted an Amendment from the hon. Member for Wexford, who, very naturally, moved the Amendment from his point of view, which would make a distinction which the Government ignored in the previous sections; and the sole effect was to leave the Executive Government of the country exposed to expense, to difficulty, and to delay. Let not the Government say hereafter, if there were difficulties in the way of service of process, if it led to outrage and expenditure, and to the necessity of sending thousands of military and police, that it was in consequence of this Amendment here and elsewhere, that these results followed. It had followed by the deliberate acceptance of the Government after warning, and with notice of an Amendment that prevented them from obtaining a simple and cheap service of process. Let the matter be understood by the country and the Committee that the Government under this clause as it stood unamended were entitled to have a simple and clear service of process which could be obtained at the expense of a few shillings, which could be enforced without military and police, and which would obviate the chance of outrage; and, with these clear advantages on one side, the Chief Executive Officer of the country, advised by the Law Officers of Ireland and of England, insisted on remaining under a condition which at present they all deplored. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had taken an intelligent interest in these proceedings, had compared it, not very happily, to a Bill which was opposed by the Conservatives and thrown out—a Bill for the Limitation of Costs. It passed this House without discussion or debate. [Mr. HEALY: No.] He was present; and he would give the reason in one minute. It was passed on a Wednesday afternoon, in that quarter of an hour which was such an unhappy time for some people, on an occasion when he himself was absent. He would be quite willing that it should be made law on one condition, that they
  1096
  would say to the Civil Bill Court, to whom they asked the landlords to have their resort in certain cases, that they would give to them the same power for the service of processes that existed in the Superior Courts. But it was unjust and unreasonable to tell the landlords that they would penalize their application to a Superior Court, and, at the same time, to deny the Inferior Courts the same simplicity of service. He feared that he was not speaking strictly in Order, and therefore he would not pursue the subject further. He did not himself understand the reasoning—he supposed that was the word—which had operated on the mind of the Government. They had not explained their action; they had not defended their conduct; they had not attempted to show that they were not doing one of the most inexplicable things that ever was done by a responsible Government. He, for himself, could say something more on this subject; but he forebore. He was sorry that the Prime Minister was not present. He believed that if he were he would suggest some way out of the difficulty, which he felt himself to be very serious, and which he would be glad to see his way out of.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he forebore, though he could say a great deal more. Now, I really do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say much more. I should say that the heat of the day must rather have affected him for the last few minutes. The real state of the matter is this. Here is a clause, the object of which is to give the Land Commission power to make laws for working their Act. There is one section of it, which, it has been pointed out to the Government, goes outside the object of the Bill. It seems a natural and reasonable thing to ask that it should not be put in, especially when we bear in mind that I do not believe there is a single other case in which the Land Commission have power given them by this Bill to go outside their general duties. Now, I quite admit that it would be a good thing to have a change; but I cannot think that the way in which it has been pointed out to us is the right way. It seems to me perfectly clear that we have no right to be smuggling in a provision into the middle of the clause for another

  1097
  purpose. I do not see how we are to support the argument that the civil bill processes are to be made to apply outside the Act. The question is a very important one; and I am not sure that this Bill is the right place to deal with it. I think that better regulations might be made than under the present law; but I do not think that in a matter which would affect such a thing as the recovery of rent in Ireland, that we ought to change it in a clause apparently for another purpose, and simply by being inserted amongst several other clauses, so that it would hardly be suspected by anybody that it meant to apply to anything outside. If the thing is to be done, it should be done in a separate clause. I shall certainly bring the case before the Prime Minister. I have not had any conversation with him about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that I had alluded to it in the debate; but I do not remember having done so. I think that the matter is well worth examining; but I am certainly still of opinion that if it should be done that it should not be done in this clause.
  SIR ASSHETON CROSS: I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that, at all events, he agrees with us as to the merits of the case. He cannot defend the law as it as present stands, as he suggests that it should be amended, and he is with us entirely on the merits. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not quite admit that. But he says that the law is in an unsatisfactory state. Well, it is in an unsatisfactory state, and it would be in a still more unsatisfactory state if the Amendment is allowed to be carried; and the only ground for not retaining the section in the clause is that it does not belong to this clause. All that we ask leave to say is that the draftsman intends that this clause shall meet this case. Of course, any Court would naturally say that these words have not been left out of this particular clause for this special purpose. But if the right hon. Gentleman will go one step further, and say that the Government will consider this matter, and that he will bring in a separate clause, because he does not admit that this is a proper clause for it to be inserted in, we shall be content. The whole scope of the Act is
  1098
  relative to the operation of laud in Ireland and other purposes. It is absolutely within the scope of this Act, and no one can possibly think otherwise. What I am saying is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has put my argument before the Committee. The Government have admitted the whole strength of our case; but they are resting their defence on this—that this clause is not the place for it. If the Government will say that they will consider this matter, and bring up a separate clause, then we shall be content. If they will not, then I think that it is necessary for us to report Progress, in order to give them an opportunity to re-consider the matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot say more than this, that I shall bring the matter before the Prime Minister; but I cannot say that I shall bring in a separate clause. If we put in the words "judicial rent," I do think, with the right hon. Gentleman, that it will leave things worse than they are at the present moment. I do admit, on the other hand, that there is an objection to there being two forms of collection. But the real question to be considered is this—is this a matter of sufficient importance that we should introduce it as a separate clause in this Bill, independently of the general Act? That is not so perfectly easy a matter to decide, and it is a matter which me and my right hon. Friend will have to consider, and it is not a matter upon which the Committee will expect me to pledge myself at present. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman objects to the passing of the clause with "judicial rent." [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS objected.] Well, if the right hon. Gentleman objects, we must take a division.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Under these circumstances, I have no alternative but to move to report Progress, and with every desire to promote the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman talks of introducing the words "judicial rent;" but that deserves very serious consideration, and, under these circumstances, it seems to me necessary that Progress should be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I should like to understand what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to report Progress for now? Is it that he objects to these words "judicial rent" being in? [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Yes.] Well, then, there is another mode—namely, to strike out the words, on the understanding that they will be brought in again, but, probably, not in that clause. It appears to me there is plenty of time for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the question hereafter. I think we must take a division.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped that when the Chief Secretary brought the question before the Prime Minister he would also bear in mind the admission made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that he considered this matter of so much importance that he would be willing to allow the Limitation of Costs Bill to pass if he could retain this reform in the law; and the right hon. Gentleman also would recollect that if he opened this gate and permitted a form of procedure under the Civil Bill Court in one direction, the Irish Members would be entitled to suggest procedure being made in other directions, and also of reforms in the Superior Courts.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not introduce the Limitation of Costs Bill at all. He was dealing with an interruption, and he had a very short explanation of the matter. He would say one word on the present proceedings. How and why did the Government accept the measure, when the right hon. Gentleman had said two or three times over that he would like to consult the Prime Minister on the subject? They had fully a right now to have Progress reported.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I did say was that I should like to consult the Prime Minister on the question of whether I would answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that we would bring up a clause. That was the point.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a desire to consult the Prime Minister who was in charge of the Bill, and who had taken a most active interest in every single one of these clauses. For his own part, he expressed regret that the
  1100
  Prime Minister was not now present; and he considered that when they had got through 15 clauses with rapidity it was a tolerably reasonable request, after having given their reasons on the subject, that Progress should be reported.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he hoped it would not be necessary to take a division on the Motion to report Progress. He did not think the right hon. Gentlemen apprehended the position which had been placed before him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The position was this. His right hon. and learned Friend objected to the insertion of the word "judicial" in the clause now before the Committee, unless it were qualified by the admission on the part of the Government that they would bring up a clause in some other part of the Bill more appropriate in their view. In answer to that the right hon. Gentleman said—"I am not very clear in my own opinion; it is impossible to decide without consulting the Prime Minister." Well, that being so, could there be anything more reasonable than that Progress should be reported in order to enable the Goverment to consult their Leader and Chief on this point of considerable importance. It was the more necessary to do this, because, as everybody knew, no important point was ever raised in the Bill that any Member of the Government would venture to decide without a direct appeal to the Prime Minister. Under the circumstances, he hoped Progress would be now reported.
  MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he would just add to what had been said that they were not suggesting any change whatever; they were resisting change, and supporting a proposal that had received the support of the Prime Minister and the Government against a change that, as he thought, had been too hastily admitted by the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not dispute the Motion to report Progress, for what he saw induced him to think that they would not be allowed to decide the question raised.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the Salary and Retiring Pension of the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, to be appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to the Land Law of Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sale and Use of Poisons* (159); Erne Lough and River* (149).
Committee—Report—Commons Regulation (Shenfield) Provisional Order* (132); Alsager Chapel (Marriages)* (153).
Third Reading—Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure* (140); Water Provisional Orders* (102), and passed.

AFFAIRS OF THE TRANSVAAL—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the present position of the business, the procedure, and the probable duration of the Royal Commission for the settlement of the affairs of

  979
  the Transvaal; further, to inquire what progress has been made towards the determination of the compensation to be awarded to the loyalist inhabitants of the Transvaal, and of the securities to be taken for the protection of the natives in the province; and what steps have been taken for bringing the murderers of Captain Elliott, Mr. Barber, and other Englishmen to justice, said: My Lords, I am not about to call your Lordships' attention particularly to the state of the Transvaal at this moment. I have already had an opportunity in this House of expressing my opinion on that point, and what I desire now to do is to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the House very briefly to some points which seem to me to be of such urgency that they brook no delay. I need not tell the House that, as far as I am concerned, I shall be very careful in stating no fact which I do not believe to be accurate, and I trust my noble Friend opposite will be able to give a clear answer to the Questions I am about to put; and I think it is all the more important that the House should understand the position of this question, because in this country, at the present moment, very little is known of the true state of affairs in the Transvaal. Without adverting to any point which ought not to be touched upon in this House, I may observe that my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has been precluded from obtaining information in the House of Commons on the subject. A Motion of my right hon. Friend's is on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons; but it has been twice postponed in consequence of the state of Public Business in that House, and it is very questionable indeed whether, at this late period of the Session, it will be possible for the other House to enter upon this question. The House of Lords, therefore, is really the only place in which we may obtain any information from Her Majesty's Government on these subjects. Now, my Lords, the first question to which I desire to call the attention of the noble Earl opposite has reference to the Commission which is now sitting at Pretoria. That Commission consists of three members—Sir Hercules Robinson, Sir Evelyn Wood, and Chief Justice Villiers, with the addition of Mr. Brand, the President of the Orange Free States,
  980
  who sits, as far as I understand it, in the capacity of amicus curiæ. I do not desire to criticize the constitution of that Commission; but if any criticism were necessary, I should say that it is of an extremely Dutch character. I certainly am not the person to find fault with Sir Hercules Robinson, with whose distinguished career in the Colonial Service I have long been familiar; nor again with Sir Evelyn Wood, that brilliant General; nor with Chief Justice Villiers, whom I believe to be a most excellent lawyer and a man of the highest character. But it must be obvious to the House that on that Commission there is not one single person who is qualified to represent the English view of the case by long local experience; while, on the other hand, the real force and power of the Commission are exclusively Dutch. The next point to which I wish to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government is the serious public inconvenience which must arise from the continued presence of Sir Hercules Robinson on this Commission. Sir Hercules Robinson has now been at Pretoria for a considerable time. During his absence a change of Government has taken place, and questions with regard to Basutoland, and other matters of grave importance have arisen; and I feel confident that, if ever the presence of a Governor was necessary anywhere, it is necessary at this moment in the Cape Colony. I next desire to ask Her Majesty's Government what amount of progress the Commission has made? When they commenced their labours they were strongly pressed, as appears from the Blue Book, to limit their work to six months; but I think either Sir Hercules Robinson or Sir Evelyn Wood expressed an opinion that the work might be done in four months. The Commission was issued on the 16th of April, and, therefore, the period of four months is rapidly running out. Lastly, with regard to that Commission, I should very much like to know what the powers are with which it is armed. In the Instructions given to the Commissioners by my noble Friend, I cannot detect anything which will really strengthen their hands or invest them with actual power in enforcing their decisions. If the decision of the Commissioners should be in a Dutch sense and favourable to the Boers, I have no doubt that decision will be respected; but if it should

  981
  be in the opposite direction then I will give the probable result in Sir Evelyn Wood's own words, to which I conclude no objection will be taken—
  "Mr. Joubert spoke of the difficulty he had with his men in obtaining their acquiescence to the terms accorded to them by the telegram of the 17th. In point of fact, he gave me to understand that the question of peace or war lay very much in the hands of those who had taken up arms under his leadership. I believe this to be the case, and I think it not impossible that these men, who have the prestige which attaches to men as yet unconquered, may at any future time make their voices heard in the event of the Royal Commission giving decisions unpalatable to them or which may fall short of their expectations."
  What authority, then, have the Commissioners for enforcing their decisions? Sir Evelyn Wood adds—
  "I consider it essential, while the Royal Commission is sitting, to keep a large force at Newcastle, within striking distance of the Transvaal."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My noble Friend cheers; but does he intend to keep that force there in permanence? If so, we shall find ourselves in the presence of a new and very unsatisfactory development of this strange transaction. But I pass on to another matter. The noble Earl has given in a previous Paper some very clear instructions for the guidance of the Royal Commissioners. The points on which he instructed them were six in number, and they may be briefly stated as follows:—(1.) Self-government under the suzerainty of the Queen; (2) a British Resident; (3) protection of Native interests; (4) severance of portions of the country now included in the Transvaal; (5) no molestation for political opinion and a complete amnesty; (6) the question of compensation to either side. I do not propose to touch upon several of these points. They are matters which I think are of very serious moment; but they cannot be discussed with advantage till we have the Report of the Royal Commission before us. I will say nothing with regard to self-government, or the appointment of a Resident, important as the questions are, nor even as to the severance of any portion of the Transvaal, except this—that the necessity of that severance has been dwelt upon very strongly at different times, has formed so considerable a part of the pro-
  982
  gramme or understanding of what is intended, is in itself probably so essential to the protection of the Native races, whom we have undertaken to support, that it can hardly be abandoned without a great loss of credit and even safety; but there are at this moment in the Transvaal and in South Africa generally rumours which are acquiring strength that that severance will not be insisted on. I do not discuss the question; but I deeply deprecate our being driven in this sort of way from one point to another, until at last there is no standpoint left. The subjects, however, to which I draw attention are such as can well be discussed at the present stage of the negotiations. I desire to know on what terms and conditions compensation is to be awarded to the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal; what securities the Government are about to take for the protection of Natives; and, lastly, what steps have been taken for bringing to justice men who have been guilty of the foulest possible murders? With regard to the loyalists, I would remind the House that over and over again assurances were given to them that the annexation of the Transvaal would never be reversed. These assurances were given by myself, by the present Colonial Secretary, and, though the Prime Minister disputes the fact that he gave categorically the same assurance, there can be no doubt about the pledge given by the Government as such. Sir Bartle Frere distinctly promised that English rule would be maintained. Sir Garnet Wolseley told the loyalists that as long as the sun shone on the Transvaal the English ascendancy would be maintained, and Sir Owen Lanyon used language almost as strong. On the faith of these assurances numbers of loyal Boers, and of Englishmen and Scotchmen, remained in the country or settled in it. They invested their money there; sometimes their all, and in the course of three years they grew prosperous, and as they prospered so did the country of their adoption. In 1877, at the time of the annexation, there was 12 s. 6d. in the Exchequer of the Transvaal; in 1878, there was £82,000; in 1879, £93,000; and in 1880, £174,000. These figures speak volumes as to what English rule has done in the Transvaal. Then came the war, and some of the loyalists took refuge with Native Tribes, others went

  983
  to Potchefstroom or Pretoria. They threw in their lot with us, shared all our hardships and dangers, and suffered largely in killed and wounded. No less than 700 volunteers mustered in Pretoria. I want to know what will be the fate of the survivors of those 700 men? But at last peace came, and in the Instructions sent by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), we find a clause saying there is to be no molestation for political opinion on either side; and that a complete amnesty is to be accorded to all who have taken part in the war, excepting only persons who have committed, or are directly responsible for, acts contrary to the rules of civilized warfare. The noble Earl also said that the Government were bound to take care that those who had been faithful to the British cause should not suffer any detriment in consequence of their loyalty; and that it would be the duty of the Commission to secure to all loyalists, whether Dutch or English, full liberty to reside in the country, with full civil rights, their person and property being protected. But what is the state of things at present? From private, but perfectly reliable information, I hear that the country at this moment is full of rapine and pillage, and that those who have remained loyal to us are subjected to every sort of hardship by the orders of the functionaries of the Transvaal themselves. In some cases, their houses have been looted and their property confiscated, and even sold, by order of a public functionary. If that is done now, when you have your Army within striking distance of the Transvaal, and while the Commission is sitting, what do you expect will be the state of things six months hence when that Army is withdrawn? I will mention three eases, which may be taken as samples of what is now passing. A Mr. Struben has lived in the Transvaal for 16 years. He was respected, rich, and loyal to each Government in turn, just as in France of recent years many a Frenchman has been loyal to each Government in succession. But now, in consequence of his allegiance to the English Government, his property is confiscated, and he is a proscribed man. I believe that agricultural implements worth £4,000, which were on their way to him, were seized and confiscated on their arrival in the Transvaal.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: May I ask the noble Earl the date of that confiscation?
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I cannot say.
  EARL GRANVILLE: From what document is the noble Earl quoting these words?
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I have already stated that this information is private, but, as I believe, quite reliable. Then there is the case of a Mr. M'Hattie, who has also resided for many years in the Transvaal. The Boers seized all his breeding stock, and cut the throats of all the animals they could not carry off. He brought an action in the High Court, and was granted an interdict, which, in Roman law, is, I believe, equivalent to our injunction; but the Boer leaders against whom the injunction was directed took advantage of a clause in the Instructions of the noble Earl, under cover of which the property was detained. If the Boer leaders themselves, if Joubert and the others act in this way now, what chance will there be of fair and equitable treatment for the loyalists when your troops are withdrawn? Another case is that of Mr. Forsmann, who was Consul General for Portugal. He had lived in the Transvaal for 30 years, and was on excellent terms with the Boer community until, on an unfortunate day for himself, he joined the Legislative Council of Natal. Since the hostilities broke out he has been a persecuted and plundered man. His house has been looted and confiscated by order, as I understand; and his losses, if they may be judged by his claims, on which I do not express an opinion, amount to £200,000. The truth is, that the loyal population in the Transvaal at this moment are in a most painful position. They are terrorized, and are obliged either to fly or to remain in their residences at the peril of their lives and property, and hardly venture to give evidence of their own wrongs or losses. It is, of course, true that among those who demand compensation are men who have speculated in land; but if they are to be refused compensation on that ground, you might as well refuse compensation to a man who has dealt in Consols. Further, I want to know from what source this compensation is to be paid? I presume my noble Friend will not say

  985
  it is to be charged upon the Transvaal. That would be a simple mockery, as everybody knows. I presume he will not tell me it is to be paid in money issued by the Transvaal Government, because just before the annexation they issued "Blue-backs," which were of the value of not quite 2s. in the pound. I have this additional reason for this question. There are many persons to whom the faith and honour of this country are pledged, as deeply as it is conceivable that the honour of a country could be pledged. Of Sir Theophilus Shepstone's salary, half or two-thirds is charged upon the Transvaal. The half, if not the whole, of President Burgers's salary is, I believe, also charged upon the Transvaal. It is important, as regards this and other cases, that we should know whence these payments are to be made. Mr. Gladstone has written a letter which has been published in the last issue of Papers. I am not going to criticize that letter, because I admit the distinction which he draws; but I should be, at the same time, glad if he had more distinctly stated the sources from which compensation was to be derived; and all the more that a gentleman has been sent from the Treasury whose presence is a guarantee, at all events, that very great and rigid severity will be observed in estimating the claims of those unfortunate loyal Boers. There is another point upon which I should be glad of the attention of the noble Earl. I mentioned it to him a fortnight ago, so that he should have time to satisfy himself of the accuracy of the statement, and until I hear that this Report to which I allude is true I refrain from criticism. I am told that the Royal Commission, while it was at Newcastle, sat with closed doors, and that the Boer leaders, and even their representatives or substitutes, were allowed freely to enter the room; whereas, on the other hand, the loyal Boers, who were at hand in crowds, were not allowed to be present. I really cannot believe that that statement can possibly be true. I can only say, if it were possible, it would be as great an error of judgment on the part of these gentlemen as could possibly be committed. I hope to hear from my noble Friend opposite that he is perfectly satisfied that there is no truth in that report at all; and not only that there is no truth in it, but that the loyalist Boers have had such opportuni-
  986
  ties of stating their case, cross-examining witnesses, sifting evidence, and placing their claims and interests before the Commission in a fair and reasonable way, as is due to them of all men in the world. I pass now to the next point—the amount of protection which we have given on behalf of the Natives. There is an ambiguity in one despatch in the recent issue of Papers on this point. I believe myself that the Government are prepared to give their protection to all the Natives within the Transvaal. But there is an impression which is ambiguous. I understand, however, that the Government intend to include under their protection all the 700,000 or 800,000 Natives in the country. To all these Natives assurances were given of precisely the same nature as those given to the English and European population, and given by the same persons and in the same way. During all this time those Natives had remained firm in their loyalty to England. They paid their taxes; they were subjected to every sort of temptation by the Boers to rise against us, and were reduced to great straits in consequence of their loyalty. Notwithstanding, they remained unswervingly true and loyal to us. I think there has not been a single exception. They have accepted the orders given them, and their one single trust has been the Queen, or, in their own touching language, "The lady who hears, though very far off;" their one single entreaty has been not to be abandoned, and they have always, I believe, without exception, spontaneously appealed to us for protection against the Boer rule which they saw coming upon them. There are more than 700,000 or 800,000 Natives, and if their voices are allowed to count an overwhelming majority in the Transvaal is in favour of the English rule. Now, my Lords, we know very well—my noble Friend will not deny it—that these men are already subjected to threats and menaces by the Boers and their leaders. They are threatened by the Boers with expulsion from the land on which they have lived for ages. One case was so bad that even my noble Friend opposite thought it necessary—though at this juncture he thinks it essential to remain on good terms with the Boers—to remonstrate with Mr. Kruger—one of the Triumvirate—and to caution and

  987
  warn him as to the conduct he has adopted, and to say that the statements made respecting him required serious consideration. Again, I say that if these things occur in the green tree, what will be done in the dry? If they are possible now, what will happen when your arms are withdrawn? I wish to call attention to another point. There is a despatch of Sir Owen Lanyon on the affairs of the Transvaal, issued in April of this year, in which there is a Minute by Mr. Shepstone. I must say that Minute ought never to have seen the light of day. It is obviously a confidential document. It recites the cases of, I think, some 16 or 17 Native Chiefs, who have been loyal to the British Government, and who had made offers of assistance to us. Their names are given in extenso. Thereby, when the day of reckoning comes, they will be handed over to the vengeance of the Boers. I am quite aware that this must have been an oversight, but a grievous oversight, which will bring a terrible retribution on these unfortunate men. I hope the Government will take some special means for the protection of these men. We may have volumes of paper schemes for the Transvaal; but what you want is some real security. But what security is possible? A neutral zone, or, as I before said, a severance of territory on the East, was proposed in which the Natives might reside. But there are reports that this neutral zone is to be abandoned. If you look to the promises of the Boer leaders, you have Sir Evelyn Wood's statements, you have their own conduct, to guide you to a true estimate of the value of such assurances, when even the Colonial Secretary himself is obliged to deal with them with a somewhat high hand. Do you look to a renewal of the Sand River Convention? Why, the Sand River Convention is not, and never has been, worth the paper it is written on. It was a dead letter almost as soon as it was signed. Do you look to your Resident, to use an Indian term? But our Indian Resident and a Resident among the Boers are very different things. The Indian Resident has always at hand to support him the weight of an English Army, and that, to all who know India, is the real secret of his influence. But when your Army is drawn from the Transvaal, your Resident among the Boers will be utterly helpless. There are
  988
  three things which I apprehend are now beyond recovery. First, as it has been in the past, so will it be in the future, with respect to slavery in the Transvaal. The Boers were slaveowners, and will be slaveowners. They may not call the Natives slaves, slavery may be disguised under the title of apprenticeship; but anyone who knows anything at all of the state of the case knows that, to all intents and purposes, they are slaves. At this moment, no Native will dare to move from the land in which he is fixed without the permission of his master. Secondly, you have, and still will have, all those brutalities consequent on the system. You will have public and private floggings. You will have cases sometimes resulting in the loss of life, and you will always find that the jury will refuse to convict. You will find that Natives treated as inferior races always are the hewers of wood and drawers of water. So long as they submit patiently they will have an immunity from cruelty; but let them assert the smallest amount of independence and they will be treated like beasts of the field. And, thirdly, you have, at this moment, in the Orange Free State, a law which forbids the Natives holding an acre of land. That law existed in the Transvaal when we annexed it, and it will, no doubt, be re-enacted as soon as we leave it. I want to know, therefore, are you going to hand these Natives over to the Boers? Are you prepared to hand them over to the lash and the bullet? Are you prepared to abandon all those traditions which have been upheld by the Liberal as well as by the Conservative Party, and which have been the glory of the English name all over the world? There is another matter, and a very disagreeable one, to which I wish to refer, and that is the case of the murders. We have heard a great deal in the public papers on the subject of the forbearance shown by the Boers in this conflict. I do not deny that they have shown many high qualities in war; but there is another side to the story. There is evidence in the Papers of very doubtful proceedings—the firing by the Boers while the white flag was hoisted, and the use of explosive bullets. I hope there will be some answer given to the statements made under these heads; but they have been described fully and repeatedly by credible witnesses, and there ought to be some autho-

  989
  ritative answer on the facts. There are officers of high position, Colonel Winslow and others, who have made Reports on the subject, and it will be desirable to know whether the explosive bullets were used or not. We know, again, that Englishmen were obliged to work in the trenches where the Boers would not expose themselves, and that they were blown to pieces by English shot and shell. Then we have the evidence as to the vast number of cold-blooded murders of Natives. Besides those, there are certain cases of very foul murder committed upon Englishmen. I will not go through them all. But I will specify the murder of Captain Elliott, who was shot by his escort when swimming the Vaal River, the murder of Mr. Barber, the murder of Mr. Green, of Mr. Malcolm, and, I am afraid, of several other Englishmen. These murders were committed in broad daylight, and the murderers were perfectly well known. Months have gone by since those murders occurred; but as yet the murderers have had complete immunity. Even if they should be arrested, and tried by a jury of Boers, I leave your Lordships to guess the prospect of a conviction. My Lords, I have completed my task, and I thank your Lordships for having listened to me so patiently. I have abstained from all reference to past policy, though I utterly disagree with it, and I simply ask these Questions—First of all, as to the present position of the business, the procedure, and the probable duration of the Royal Commission for the settlement of the affairs of the Transvaal; next, what progress has been made towards the determination of the compensation to be awarded to the loyalist inhabitants of the Transvaal, and of the securities to be taken for the protection of the Natives in the province; and, further, what steps have been taken for bringing the murderers of Captain Elliott, Mr. Barber, and other Englishmen to justice? I hope my noble Friend, in answering these Questions, will not say that he must wait until the close of the Commission, and in thus declining to answer give us mere generalities. I wait with some anxiety for one of those clear statements which the noble Earl is well able to make.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, my noble Friend ended his observations by saying he hoped I should
  990
  not shelter myself under the fact that the Commission was still sitting, and that I should give him an explicit answer to all his Questions. He will be able to judge after I have spoken whether I have given him the answers which he has a right to expect; but I am bound to say at the outset that there are some matters which it is absolutely impossible to answer in detail while the proceedings of the Commission are still going on. Your Lordships have long had in your hands the Instructions given to the Commissioners with regard to these matters; and, at the present moment, I can only say that the Commissioners have been proceeding within the lines of the Instructions which we gave to them. As to a great part of my noble Friend's statement, I have no difficulty in giving him an answer at once. My noble Friend commenced, in a fashion which is not unusual where you wish to bring a particular case forward, by endeavouring to cast doubts upon the efficacy of those who are intrusted with the settlement of the case, and I think he rather went the length of insinuating that they were too Dutch. I confess I heard that with intense surprise. I should have thought that no two men were less likely than Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Evelyn Wood to sacrifice the interests of their own country to those of foreigners. As regards the third gentleman, who worthily represents the loyal subjects of the Queen—Chief Justice Villiersߞalthough I do not deny that doubtless he has Dutch sympathies, I feel perfectly certain, knowing him as I do, that he will exercise his influence fairly and impartially. I believe the Commission is really a good one, and as fair a Commission as could be appointed under all the circumstances. Then there is President Brand, against whom suspicions are aroused. Well, he appears there as amicus curiæ. Surely he is entitled to be present. He represents a very important State in South Africa. He has played a very friendly part, and there is no man more likely to exercise a more ameliorating and soothing influence than he. I hope the Commissioners, whatever may be their decision, will be allowed to have endeavoured to do their duty fearlessly and impartially. But I am asked how are the decisions of the Commission to be enforced, and the noble

  991
  Earl said he had looked through the Papers, but had not found the powers given to the Commission to enforce their decisions, and he referred to the despatches of Sir Evelyn Wood, in which it was pointed out that in the course of the negotiations difficulties might arise—difficulties from the want of control of the leaders of the Boers over their followers—difficulties even from the Dutch population in Natal and the Cape Colony. He says—
  "The general situation is by no means clear, and difficulties of serious import may arise at any moment, against which it is necessary to be forewarned."
  And then the noble Earl quoted with approval, and with something of an air of triumph, these words—
  "Under these circumstances I cannot recommend any reduction for two or three months of the military force at present in this country. So strongly do I feel on this subject, that I consider it essential, while the Royal Commission is sitting, to keep a large force at Newcastle, within striking distance of the Transvaal."
  Surely the noble Earl must have perceived that the whole of Sir Evelyn Wood's observations in that despatch have reference to the state of things while the Commission is going on. And he says that while the negotiations are going on, that force, which we have previously heard was uselessly sent to South Africa, should be kept in readiness in order that, if the negotiations should fail, we may have it in our power to enforce our views. I may, in passing, refer to a very small matter and explain why I have laid on the Table a despatch which was given before only in extract. Certain portions of the despatch were not given because they were entirely of a personal nature. A portion was left out by inadvertence, and it has now been laid on the Table. The noble Earl adverted next to the very important question of the loyalists. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I feel a great sympathy for those who boldly and loyally supported the Queen's Government during the recent troubles. I agree in much which the noble Earl said on that subject, and I think it is our bounden duty to obtain just and fair compensation for the losses they have suffered. But I must not be supposed to admit that such a claim as that of the Portuguese Consul in the Transvaal to £219,000 can be regarded
  992
  as anything but absurd and preposterous. It may be that his losses were real and considerable; but when the items of his bill come to be properly examined, I shall be astonished if they amount to anything like the sum of £219,000, and I think that the putting forward of such a demand is only calculated to prejudice other claims. The noble Earl asks whether it is true that the Commission has been sitting with closed doors in constant communication with the leaders of the Boers, and not admitting to their deliberations any of the loyalist party? My Lords, I have not specific information on the point; but I can answer him, I have no doubt, correctly. I have not the smallest doubt that the Commission did admit to constant communication with them the Boer leaders. If the noble Earl will refer to the Instructions, he will find that an essential part of them was that the Commissioners were to be in communication with those who were to represent the Boers. The original proposition was that the Boer leaders should be on the Commission. That we distinctly refused; but we thought it only reasonable that the Commission should be in communication with the Boer leaders, in order to agree with them on the various points on which the ultimate Convention might be founded. But if the noble Earl thinks that these claims to compensation are to be disposed of with closed doors, and without every fair opportunity for the claimants being heard, he is mistaken; the claims will be referred to a sub-Commission of an official nature, which will thoroughly examine and decide upon them; and the proceedings of the Royal Commission, so far as they relate to the question of compensation, are only of a preliminary character. The noble Earl put a very natural question, in which, no doubt, many persons feel a deep anxiety—;namely, from what fund this compensation is to come. That is one of the important points which have to be settled. I can tell him that the claims will certainly not be paid in Transvaal "Bluebooks." The mode of payment is not yet settled; but I know sufficient of the intentions of the Government to be able to say that whatever compensation is awarded will undoubtedly be secured in good sterling money. The noble Earl spoke of the terrible treatment which might be ex-

  993
  pected hereafter, as measured by the treatment which the loyal White inhabitants of the Transvaal are now suffering; and he read to us two or three cases. I asked for the dates, because it is of great importance to know whether these occurrences took place before or after the peace. A gentleman, whose name my noble Friend did not mention, but who has been in communication with me, suffered a severe loss by all his horses being taken by the Boers for the purposes of war. His case clearly falls under the class of those which will be heard by the sub-Commission. Although I cannot pledge myself—for I cannot be acquainted with all these details—yet I think it is, at all events, probable that it will be found that many of these cases occurred during the war, or immediately after it. I fear that it is also possible, in the state of disorganization into which the country has fallen through the absence of settled government—there being, in fact, a provisional state of things, pending the settlement—that cases may have occurred which have given reason for complaint on the part of some who have been loyal to the Queen. They have not come directly to my knowledge; but they may possibly exist. But my noble Friend says the important question is what provision we intend to make for the future. He read a passage from my instructions, and it will be my duty, to the best of my ability, to see that effect is given to those instructions. Every point which he has mentioned will be carefully attended to. The noble Earl may say that the Convention will be only waste paper; but as far as a distinct agreement can go, we shall overlook no point on which the loyal subjects of the Queen may feel concerned. Then, my noble Friend referred to the case of the Natives, and he found fault with me for having produced an interesting Memorandum of Mr. Shepstone. Does the noble Earl really think that the proceedings of such Native Chiefs as those alluded to in that Memorandum were not entirely known to the Boers? The Boers were far too well acquainted with what had gone on in the country to require to be enlightened by that Memorandum. My noble Friend next adverted to the communication which I addressed to the Commission, because every possible at-
  994
  tempt is made by those who wish to destroy that peaceful settlement to discredit Mr. Kruger, Mr. Pretorius, Mr. Joubert, and, in fact, everyone who is concerned in it. The hope of those who set about lying calumnies of every kind is that by some means or other they may bring about a renewal of the war. And when I saw those accusations against Mr. Kruger, of having done and said certain things that would have been most discreditable, although believing those statements to be untrue, I thought it only due to him and to myself, considering that Mr. Kruger is a very important person in connection with the negotiations going on, to give him every possible opportunity of denying the statements thus made. Mr. Kruger answered at once. My noble Friend did not refer to it. Mr. Kruger denied the accuracy of the statements alleged to have been made by him, and gave the specific engagement which has been mentioned. My noble Friend said why did we ask for such a specific engagement? It was because if Mr. Kruger was acting honestly and truly, as we believed, he would show it at once, and he immediately, without reserve and without difficulty, gave such an engagement. We have received the answer that we expected. It is honourable to the man, and a fair test of his honesty and sincerity. As to the condition affecting the Natives, I cannot enter into details at this moment; but I almost think that when my noble Friend sees the various arrangements that we have made, supposing they are ultimately adopted, as we hope they will be, in their final shape, he will find that we have not forgotten the case of the Natives. I believe I have answered most of the questions which my noble Friend asked. But there is one point which I ought to have mentioned. He said, look at the great result which had followed from the great influx of English into the Transvaal, and as evidence, a remarkable balance-sheet was produced. He said that when the English took the Transvaal over there was only 12 s. 6d. in the Boer Treasury chest, while year after year this balance increased, until last year it stood at £180,000. I admit that the improvement in the Transvaal is very encouraging under English rule and creditable to the administration of Sir Owen Lanyon; but I must point out

  995
  that the latter balance-sheet does not represent the real expenditure, inasmuch as it does not contain a single farthing for the military establishment of the country. The whole of the military expenditure must be debited against that £180,000. Moreover, when the 12 s. 6d. was in the Treasury the Boers had just been engaged in an unsuccessful expedition against Secocoeni. Were the last balance-sheet to contain the items of the two British expeditions against Secocoeni, the result would be very different, because the successful one cost £368,000, and the unsuccessful one must have cost a considerable sum also. The noble Earl has spoken of the unfortunate murders which have taken place, and referred to them as of vast number.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I think I said a great number. I meant a great number.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is such an extraordinary amount of exaggeration with regard to everything concerning the Transvaal that one is obliged to take notice even of an adjective. But I am afraid that a considerable number of Natives have lost their lives. With respect to the particular murders to which my noble Friend refers, the best answer I can give the noble Lord is contained in two or three of the most recent telegrams I have received on the subject. With regard to Mr. Barber, who was murdered, not in the Transvaal, but in the Orange Free State, we applied to President Brand to have justice done. The answer, dated 1st May, was—"President Brand has taken steps to bring to trial the persons accused of murder." Mr. Barber left two children, I am sorry to say, orphans, and that may form a fair subject for compensation from the Transvaal. With regard to Captain Elliot we sent a similar telegram, pressing for the murderers to be brought to justice, and the answer was, that on the 4th July two of the party who fired at him were committed for trial before the High Court. Then there was the case of Mr. Malcolm, and the persons accused in that case were committed for trial on the same day. The question with regard to Mr. Green's case is whether or not it comes within the amnesty. The Attorney General, we are informed, has undertaken to collect evidence. When the facts ate established it will be seen whether or
  996
  not it is covered by the amnesty. Then a very general accusation is made that the Boers, during these disturbances, had acted in a discreditable manner by firing upon the white flag. Nobody will contest that it is a dishonourable action to fire upon a white flag; but before your Lordships pass judgment on this charge against the Boers, it is well to hear what is said on the subject on the one side and the other. This charge reminds me of what happened to myself on the subject of firing on a white flag. I had the honour to be intrusted with a mission to St. Petersburg after the conclusion of the Crimean War, and one of the first things said to me by a person very high in position when I arrived was this—"We are glad the war is over, and we wish to be on good terms; but it is lamentable to think of the frightful atrocities which you committed during the war." And when I inquired what the atrocities were, the answer was—"Oh, repeatedly firing on the white flag." On which I replied—"If I were you I would not say anything about that, because that is precisely the charge that the people of England make against the Russians, and they think they have the strongest ground for that charge." Undoubtedly, there have been cases in war in which the white flag has been deliberately fired on; but there have been more cases in which this has happened from mistakes, or from disobedience, or in the hurry of action, and I trust that no stronger censure will, on this account, be dealt out to the Boers than is dealt out to other nations engaged in a European war. I regret as much as anyone can that, owing to circumstances over which neither I nor any of us have any control, there has not been in "another place" a full discussion of this subject. But I wish to express my belief that the more the conduct of the Government is inquired into the less it will be found to merit the reprobation which has been passed upon it.

INDIA—COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE— CIVIL ENGINEERS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD BELPERrose to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state the reasons which have led to the change in the scheme of manage-

  997
  ment of Cooper's Hill College; and to move for a
  "Copy of the new scheme, and also a copy of any correspondence that may have taken place between the Governor General in Council and the Secretary of State for India on the subject; also for a Return of—1. The annual expenditure of the college since its foundation; 2. Anuual receipts from the students; 3. The number of students who have entered the college in each year since its foundation; 4. The number of students in each year who, having passed through the college, have received appointments as civil engineers in India."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he took very great interest in Cooper's Hill College, which was founded during the time of his administration at the India Office. If a great school of engineering had existed in India capable of supplying a sufficient number of competent men to execute economically the public works undertaken in India, it would have been folly on the part of the Government to start an institution like Cooper's Hill College. But the Indian Government had lost annually enormous sums of money by the carelessness and incompetence of many of the civil engineers in India, and when holding the Office of Secretary of State for India he found that it was hardly possible to obtain in the open market a sufficient number of competent men to conduct the public works in India on a scale such as that on which they were then being undertaken. Some of the civil engineers in India at the time to which he referred were very distinguished persons; but there were also a number of inferior men who might have been called "hard bargains." On one occasion, some millions were spent under the direction of the engineers of India in the construction of new barracks. It turned out, however, that these buildings had been erected in accordance with entirely erroneous principles, and that they were mere "sun traps." They were tremendously hot, and in consequence the health of the troops quartered in them suffered severely. Many of them were so insufficiently built that it was found they would not last for more than a few years, and in some cases even the lime that had been used was pronounced to be bad. In this way the Indian Government were annually losing hundreds of thousands of pounds in bad engineering. The insufficiency of the engineering service having been brought prominently before the notice of the India Office, the authorities formed the idea of the erec-
  998
  tion of Cooper's Hill College. The project was opposed by a number of persons, including many Members of Parliament, but eventually it was successfully carried out. He had always heard that it was considered that the College was a very thriving institution; but he quite understood that during the financial difficulties which India had recently felt fewer public works had been erected, and that, consequently, there had been a diminution in the demand for the services of such engineers as were trained at Cooper's Hill. In conclusion, he wished to assure their Lordships that the foundation of the College was not agreed to until a most thorough investigation had convinced the Indian Department of the insufficiency of the previous system.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, his noble Friend behind him (Lord Belper) wished to know what had induced the authorities to make a change in the character of the institution known as Cooper's Hill College. The reason of the change was generally to extend its advantages, and this would, it was hoped, prove of use both at home and in India. A reduction was being made in the Public Works expenditure in India, and corresponding with that reduction there had been a diminution in the number of appointments on the staff of the Public Works Department. Cooper's Hill College having been established for exclusive training for civil engineers in India, it was not now possible to maintain it on its original footing, with the reduced number of men now required for engineering service in that country. It had in former years met with decided success. Rather than take steps which might eventually lead to its being closed, the authorities had determined, after consultation with and with the support of certain eminent engineers in this country, to try the experiment of making the College a general training institution for the civil engineering profession, offering the students at the close of their course of study the number of appointments required to fill up the vacancies which might occur each year in the Indian Public Works and Telegraph Departments. These appointments would be competed for among themselves. The College could receive 150 students, and the number of Indian appointments annually competed for would vary from 10 to 20. Correspondence had

  999
  taken place between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Government of India on the whole subject of the future strength of the Indian Public Works Department and its recruitment; but as this Correspondence was still under consideration, he could not, speaking for the Secretary of State, undertake to produce it at the present time. There would be no objection to give the other Returns moved for, including a copy of the new scheme for Cooper's Hill College.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that Cooper's Hill College at the time of its establishment was a very necessary institution, as just at that time great Public Works were being constructed in India; but as time advanced the famines which periodically occurred in India made it inevitable that the amount spent on Public Works should be reduced, and it necessarily followed that the number of engineers required for the public service should be restricted also. As far as he had been able to observe, the education given at the school was of the highest character, and the results had been exceedingly satisfactory. He thought it should be very clearly understood that if there were more people being educated in England at this College than places could be found for in India, the inevitable result must be one of those periodical blocks which occurred in the service, and which always ended in the most disastrous manner for the Indian Exchequer. He believed the Government were acting wisely in the step they had taken; but he hoped the difficulties would not induce them to close altogether an institution which had done so much good service in the past.
  Return, as amended, agreed to.
  Address for—
  Copy of the new scheme of management of Cooper's Hill College:
  Also Return of—

  1. The annual expenditure of the college since its foundation;

  2. Annual receipts from the students;

  3. The number of students who have entered the college in each year since its foundation;

  4. The number of students in each year who, having passed through the college, have received appointments as civil engineers in India.—(The Lord Belper.)

  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.