p. 71

CHAPTER XI.

ARCHDEACON CRAWFORD’S CASES.

To‐day two Sub‐Commissions sat for the hearing of cases—one at Castleblayney, and the other at Belfast. The first, after going through the cause list at Castleblayney, will visit other towns, in various districts of the counties of Armagh, Monaghan, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Londonderry, and Donegal. Its members are Mr. Kane, Mr. Bayley, and Mr. Garland. Mr. Greer, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Ross form the other Sub‐Commission, which sits first at Belfast and afterwards at Newtownards, Downpatrick, Larne, Antrim, Lisburn, Ballymena, and Banbridge. Other Sub‐Commissions will begin work next Tuesday week; one, consisting of Mr. Reeves, Mr. O’Keefe, and Mr. Rice, will have jurisdiction over Clare, Limerick, and Cork; and another, including Mr. J. G. M‘Carthy, Mr. Houghton, and Mr. J. J. O’Shaughnessy, will hear cases in Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, and Leitrim.

The Assistant Commissioners will not, therefore, as has been already pointed out, be sent into districts where they might have to resist personal and social influences, adverse to the maintenance of the judicial temper. They will not accept hospitality from any person, however dignified, lest the fairness of their decisions be questioned, or even suspected. No one, however slightly acquainted with the feelings and opinions of Irish farmers at the present moment, will wonder at the sturdy determination of the Assistant Commissioners to pay their own expenses wherever they go.

p. 72

The Act is now to all appearance, and contrary to the expectation of many interested politicians, to have, at least in some considerable portion of the island, the fair trial demanded, and even enforced for it by its framers. But it must be remembered that, as the strength of a fortress is that of its weakest work, so the reputation of the Commission, in other words its power for good, is altogether dependent upon the discretion of the least wise and careful of its members and subordinates. The Assistant Commissioners act in the presence of popular criticism such as might well enervate the strongest judges, and they bear individually a responsibility such as has rarely been placed upon judicial authorities. Most of them, without any experience of such duties as they have now to discharge, enter upon business that will tax their utmost energies and capabilities. They met in Dublin, and arrived it is said at some agreement upon the general principles of their decisions, so that it is not likely that a hasty pronouncement upon some point of wide interest can bring the new Court into disrepute. But, to make assurance doubly sure, it is now intended that appeals from the Sub‐Commissions shall be entertained as soon as possible after the decree in the first instance.

The delicate question of the breaking of leases made since 1870 will be altogether withdrawn from the cognisance of the inferior tribunal, and will be determined by the full Court of Commissioners. Thus the most remarkable power conferred by the Act, namely, that of annulling numbers of agreements made in the most solemn and binding fashion known to the law, will be retained in the hands of those to whom Parliament first committed it. The Commissioners have, moreover, taken the precaution to retain the power of dismissing an incompetent or wrong‐headed Assistant Commissioner, as will be seen on examining the following copy, the delegation of authority to Sub‐Commission No. 2:

‘Sub‐Commission No. 2, Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.—The Land Commission hereby forms and appoints a Sub‐Commission in and for the counties of Antrim and Down. The Sub‐Commission shall consist of the following Assistant p. 73 Commissioners, namely, Edward Greer, Esq., Thomas Baldwin, Esq., and James M. Ross, Esq. The Land Commission delegates to the Sub‐Commission power to hear, decide, and make orders in the cases under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, mentioned in the schedule hereto appended, and such other cases within the said counties as may from time to time be sent to the Sub‐Commission by the Land Commission for decision; and further delegates to the Sub‐Commission all powers, “except as to appeals,” which the Land Commission itself possesses for the purpose of hearing, deciding, and making orders in all such cases as aforesaid. The powers hereby delegated shall be in force for the period of two months from the date hereof, but the Land Commission may, by order, extend or abridge the said period or any extended period. The expiration of the said period of two months, or such other period aforesaid, shall not prejudice any pending case which may be continued and dealt with by any subsequent Sub‐Commission, as if such period had not expired. The Land Commission reserves power in case of sickness of any member or members of a Sub‐Commission, or for other sufficient reason, to appoint any other person or persons who, under the Act, is competent to be a member of a Sub‐Commission, in substitution for any present or future member or members thereof, and no pending proceedings shall abate, or be in any way affected by such substitution.—Dated this 27th October, 1881.—Seal.

‘Schedule.

‘Landlord.     Tenant.     County.     No. of Case.’

Notwithstanding all these precautions it is sufficiently obvious to every person brought into contact with the landlords that the Commission is not possessed of the full confidence of that class. The use of the words ‘Live and thrive’ in the written address by Judge O’Hagan describing the ideal condition of successful applicants, has caused much surprise and alarm. The extension of the ‘first occasion’ at which tenants must apply to the Court for relief under Section 60 is felt p. 74 as a serious blow by the rent‐receiving classes. I believe I was the first to point out the absolute necessity of this extension, on behalf of the evicted tenants, whose interests bad been jeopardised, by the sudden suppression of the organisation which had undertaken their cases; and it is probable that the Commissioners will, if need be, extend the time still further for the benefit of such tenants. But it is clear that the case of tenants who, having in many instances the money in their pockets, are applying in large numbers under that Section, stands upon a very different footing. There are now over 8,000 applications before the Commission to fix a fair rent, of which upwards of 4,000 came in on Saturday, and it is no exaggeration to say that the existing machinery of the Commission is blocked for years to come. The Treasury have telegraphed full powers to engage temporary assistance, and the staff are working night and day to keep abreast of the business. Mr. Smith, the Registrar, climbs to his office over piles of applications not yet read. In most cases these are to have a fair rent fixed. The Commission seem to have intimated that the Court would receive applications under Section 60, and record them so as to make the rent payable on the first gale day after the passing of the Act, subject to the reduction, if any, to be afterwards effected by the Court. I have not heard any member of the Court hold this view in any particular case, and it is certainly one altogether at variance with the 2nd Sub‐Section of Section 8, which runs thus:

‘The rent fixed by the Court in this Act referred to as the judicial rent shall be deemed to be the rent payable by the tenant as from the period commencing at the rent day next succeeding the decision of the Court.’

There is no fear of the Court overlooking this sub‐section, but the following passage from the speech of Judge O’Hagan, at the opening of the Commission, no doubt gave some colour to the unfortunate view of their rights under the section, which so many of the farmers entertain:

‘The judicial rent will apply, not only to those gales which may accrue after the date of the order, but to those p. 75 which have accrued since August 22, 1881, the date of the passing of the Act.’

This language, it will be seen, is opposed to the plain construction of the passage just quoted from Section 8; and one cannot be surprised to find that it has since been withdrawn by the learned judge. Another complaint of the landlords is that the list of cases for trial is not published beforehand. It is said that this is as great a grievance upon the tenants as upon the landlords. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the landlords might lose millions a year by a decision suddenly given at some out‐of‐the‐way place by a Sub‐Commission, which decision would be immediately quoted to other Sub‐Commissions, acted upon, and irrevocably established. Hopes are entertained, however, that Sub‐Commission No. 2 will put a list of their cases in the newspapers every morning in the usual way.1

Sub‐Commission No. 2 has not been idle to‐day. Professor Baldwin and Mr. Downing, the Registrar, came up from Dublin this morning by the early mail, and reached the Imperial Hotel at about half‐past eleven. After a short consultation Mr. Greer and Mr. Ross, with the Professor, drove away to the County Civil Bill Court, and took their seats shortly after twelve. The Court was about half full of farmers, all looking anxious, and a little scared. The front rows were closely packed with solicitors and their clerks. On the left hand of the Court sat two ladies, and a number of reporters were busily whittling their pencils at the other side of the solicitors’ table. The Court room was cold and gloomy, and a little mist had been wafted in from the streets. A door opened, and the audience rose as the three Assistant‐Commissioners filed in. After a few words from the Registrar declaring the mission of the Court, the first case was called.

Isabella Sims Campbell brought her landlord, the Rev. Archibald Crawford, into Court, to have a fair rent fixed for her farm. The Defendant, who has clerical duties to perform in Australia, did not answer to his name, but Counsel appeared p. 76 for the agent, Mr. Macauliffe, and admitted service of the originating notice. Mr. M‘Mordie, a local solicitor, represented the applicant, and stated that he was also the legal adviser of two thousand other tenants about to apply to the Court. This is not a surprising number for a north‐country Commission to have upon its lists. Last Saturday I saw fourteen thick bundles of Ulster applications borne in to the Central Offices of the Commission at a single delivery. The bundles of applications lying on the tables sorted into provinces from the envelopes, in post bags on that day, were, however, of very different thickness. The Leinster heap was about three inches thick, including one sheet from County Dublin. The Munster file was perhaps five inches thick, the Connaught bundle seven. But Ulster applications were not less than two feet three inches in thickness.

To return to the Belfast Court House. The dispute was at first confined to a discussion as to whether the Sub‐Commission should adjudicate in the absence of the Defendant and of his wife, who is possessed of a life estate in the lands, but it ultimately became a simple question whether the tenant was paying too much rent. Mrs. Isabella Campbell is the widow of James Campbell, who, with his father, grandfather, and more distant progenitors, had lived and died upon the family holding of five acres three roods and thirty‐five perches. James had a lease, dated 1842, at 5l. 15s.; but in 1866, at the end of the term, the rent was raised to 9l. 4s. 4d. The valuation is 6l. It was admitted that the tenant and her family had rebuilt the dwelling‐house, but it was contended by Mr. Overend, an ingenious and ready advocate, on behalf of Mr. Crawford, that the house had been rebuilt under a covenant in the lease, and that at the end of the lease it had become the property of the landlord. Mrs. Campbell, an old, bright‐eyed dame, was very clear and precise in her answers to Mr. M‘Mordie; but she shone chiefly in cross‐examination. She was asked by the young advocate how many children her husband had left her when he died? ‘Four,’ said she, sharply. ‘I have them yet, and I have no more.’ She thought twelve shillings per English acre would be a fair rent p. 77 for the land. ‘But is not the house a good one?’ inquired Mr. Overend. ‘We made it good,’ rejoined Mrs. Campbell. It appearing by her evidence that her husband had left no will, and that no one had taken out letters of administration, it was submitted that she was not tenant, and that one of her two sons might, on the day after the decision of the Sub‐Commission, take out letters and defeat the proceedings. The Court, however, held that she was the present tenant, and three other tenants of Mr. Crawford, who is sued by nineteen altogether, were called to corroborate her statement that twelve shillings an acre would be a fair rent, The last witness, an honest, intelligent farmer, put the yearly value at nineteen shillings, and explained his method of arriving at that figure to Professor Baldwin. He had only valued the land, assuming that the fences and the house were the property of the tenant, and he thought the tenant‐right worth fifteen pounds an acre. The land, he said, might produce corn, but with a light head; it might grow light mangold wurzel, but oats and potatoes would be the good crops.

After his evidence, which greatly displeased Mr. M‘Mordie, the Sub‐Commission determined to visit the farm forthwith; but, first, Professor Baldwin took occasion to say, in an emphatic manner, referring to a suggestion that the farm might be worth more because it was near some bleaching works, ‘in determining the value of land, all these matters are beside the question. All we want to know is the agricultural value of the land.’

At about half‐past two o’clock the Sub‐Commission started to visit the applicant’s farm, which is situate at Carnmoney, in the townland of Ballycraigie, at a distance of about seven miles from Belfast. It was announced in Court that the Commissioners would only allow the litigants and their solicitors to be present, but by special permission I was also of the party.2 The way was long, the wind was cold; but at p. 78 last we were on the land, and were speedily joined by the litigants. The house was a long, low, dark dwelling, divided into four compartments, two of which were appropriated to human, and two to bovine occupants. The tall, shapely daughter of the house fetched her brother, a crushed‐looking, feebly‐built young man, to go over the fields with us. With the exception of a patch of turnips, and another of potatoes, the holding was entirely under pasture. In every field Professor Baldwin had spadefuls of earth taken out and carefully examined. The farm, which is wretchedly cultivated, lies on a slope. The upper part is dark‐coloured loam on a light, tilly subsoil, which must get rid of any quantity of manure. But the lower part is on clay, and might, the Professor thought, be made to render large returns for tillage. This part was, however, insufficiently drained. It was wet and slippery, and a rank growth of rushes rose upon it. All the Commissioners showed an intelligent appreciation of the state of cultivation in different parts of the holding, and I thought they seemed a little shocked at the obvious neglect on the part of the occupants of what might be made very good land indeed. It does not seem, however, that any judgment will be possible for a day or two in this case, or any other of the Belfast cases, as no professional valuers have yet been procured, and it might be open to objection if their services were not sought for in accordance with the suggestions of the Act. In the Appendix will be found a report of this case.

---

1. This suggestion was, after some opposition, finally adopted upon all the Sub‐Commissions.

   ⏎

2. Upon some of the Sub‐Commissions there is great objection made, I understand, to the presence of newspaper correspondents. Any Assistant Commissioner entertaining such an objection would seem to require a little enlightenment upon the situation. Many powers are in these days p. 78entrusted by Parliament to comparatively obscure individuals, solely because the vigilance of the Press is relied upon to prevent the abuse of such powers. Does any Assistant Commissioner really suppose that Parliament would consent to turn a number of untried judges loose upon the estates of Irish proprietors, to range in secret; merely obliging the landlord, perhaps, with a copy of his new rent‐roll, as amended?

   ⏎