MR. STEWART HARDYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as reported in the papers on Friday March 3rd, that a tenant at will in Armagh was awarded twenty-two 1868 years' purchase for disturbance in her holding, together with the value of her house and of a sand pit on the land, while the owner in fee simple received only twenty years' purchase; and, whether such a decision is in accordance with the provisions of the Land Bill?
MR. GLADSTONESir, it would not, I think, be any part of my duty to say, with regard to the decision of any Irish Court, whether it was or was not in accordance with the provisions of the Land Act; but I admit that I should have no difficulty in answering any Question as to what were the intentions of the framers of the Land Act, and probably the hon. Member intended to ask me a Question of that kind. I am cognizant of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers as they appear in the public journals. I believe them to be correctly reported, though I do not think they are stated with perfect accuracy in this Question, because I think the sand pit was not a part of the holding. As I understand the statement, the sand pit was embraced in the valuation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have no doubt that the relative value of the interests of tenants and landlords under the Ulster custom, under which this case was tried, was not fixed or determined by the Irish Land Act of last year. That was taken as it was found. There was no option of proceeding otherwise than under the provisions of that Act.