§ MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been 1834 called to the cases of Dillon and Hanrahan versus Knight of Glin, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 31st ultimo, in which the landlord appealed to the Land Commission from the judicial rent fixed by the Sub-Commission, and in which Mr. Justice O'Hagan stated that the Land Commission found themselves compelled to increase the judicial rents, as fixed by the Sub-Commission, by sums of £4 a year and £3 a year respectively, in consequence of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Adams versus Dunseath, deciding that, as regards tenants' improvements made prior to the Land Act of 1870, mere user of them by the tenant must be regarded as to some extent a compensation for them; whether he is aware that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Attorney General, in refusing to consent to an amendment to the recent Land Act proposed by Mr. Parnell, which would have prevented this, declared it "absurd" to think that the Courts could come to such a decision; whether he himself expressed an equally strong opinion; whether, in spite of this, the tenants Dillon and Hanrahan will now be compelled to pay the increased judicial rent for fifteen years; whether he can give any assurance that, in the vast number of applications to fix a fair rent now pending, steps will be taken to prevent decisions contrary to what has been stated to have been the intentions of the Government when the Act was passed; whether any amending legislation which the Government may bring in to carry out these intentions will be retrospective, so as to give tenants like Messrs. Dillon and Hanrahan the benefit of it; and, whether it can be speedily introduced to prevent further cases of the same kind?
MR. GLADSTONEI must avail myself of the aid of arithmetic to follow the paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's Question. The first paragraph is, I believe, perfectly accurate. With regard to the second, I do not think it is quite accurate. I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he does not recollect using the expression quoted in the Question; and as a reference to the reports of the debates shows—so far as they can be considered an authority, and, of course, in connection with the discussion of details, they cannot be taken as an absolute authority—it does 1835 not appear that he took part in the discussion referred to by the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, however, he had no apprehension that any such decision would, be arrived at. Thirdly, I believe my own expression was that I had no doubt that this was nothing short of impossible. Perhaps that was too strong a term to use about the interpretation of an Act of Parliament; but I did contend that the matter was perfectly plain, and did not admit of doubt. The answer to paragraph 4 is, "Yes." The answer to paragraph 5 is, that I am not able to give the desired assurance, inasmuch as fresh legislation would be required, and as in considering the expediency and policy of introducing amending legislation at this early date we must necessarily take into view the comparative importance of different subjects and the difficulty of adjusting them. With regard to paragraph 6, as far as I am advised by the best legal authorities, the case which the hon. Member has very naturally, and not unfairly, quoted, is very much in the nature of an isolated case, and is not likely to form a fair or probable representation of the ordinary working of the law.
§ MR. HEALYremarked, that it was a mistake for him to have represented that the Lord Chancellor's statement was in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). It was in reply to himself (Mr. Healy).