HC Deb 16 August 1883 vol 283 cc725-6
MR. KENNY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a decision made by Mr. Justice O'Hagan, at the Land Commission Court, Dublin, on January 19th, 1883, as follows:— Mr. Hugh O'Doherty said he appeared on behalf of a number of poor tenants in Donegal and Leitrim, whose rents had been judicially fixed, but who had appealed from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners. The appeals were very far down on the list, and the tenants had absolutely refused to pay the judicial rents, and wanted to know from the Court what rent they should pay; Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must pay the old rent; Mr. O'Doherty.—The cases are very far down on the list; Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must take their turn; if any subsequent decision has been given nullifying that of Mr. Justice O'Hagan; and, if he is aware that the landlords throughout Ireland continue to demand the old rents?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain the apparent discrepancy between the ruling of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, on the 19th of January last— Land Commission Court, Dublin, Friday, January 19, 1883. Mr. Hugh O'Doherty said he appeared on behalf of a number of poor tenants in Donegal and Leitrim whose rents had been judicially fixed, but who had appealed from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners. The appeals were very far down on the list, and the tenants had absolutely refused to pay the judicial rents, and wanted to know from the Court what rent they should pay; Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must pay the old rent; Mr. O'Doherty.—The cases are very far down on the list; Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must take their turn; and the statement made by himself that the judicial rent only could be recovered?

MR. TREVELYAN

Mr. Justice O'Hagan states distinctly that he never made such a statement as is attributed to him in the report quoted from. The Land Commissioners have in very numerous cases stated, in reply to inquiries, both to landlords and tenants, that, in their opinion, the rent fixed by a Sub-Commission is in force until varied on rehearing.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not caught the point of the Questions. Supposing the old rent to be £12, and that the Sub-Commissioners reduced it to £7, but that it was raised, on appeal, to £10, what rent was the tenant entitled to pay, the judicial rent or the old rent, in the interval of appeal?

[No answer was given.]

MR. KENNY

asked the Chief Secretary, in connection with this subject, whether he was aware that landlords continue to demand the old rents, that this judgment of Mr. Justice O'Hagan had been passing current through the country as good, and that the old rents were extracted, though illegal?

MR. TREVELYAN

Mr. Justice O'Hagan is not responsible for the blunders in newspapers; but I am glad to have had this public opportunity of putting the public mind at rest on this question.

MR. HEALY

Will the right hon. Gentleman state to Mr. Justice O'Hagan that it would greatly convenience the public if some definite statement were made by the Land Commissioners as to whether it is the old rents or the new rents that are to be paid pending the hearing of appeals?