HC Deb 06 July 1882 vol 271 cc1610-2
MR. FITZ-PATRICK

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the case of Owen v. Day, it is a fact that the tenant Day, after the fair rent was fixed, left the farm, owing three hundred pounds (more than two years' rent), a portion of which ought to have been lodged in Court before the appeal was heard; whether he can state on what grounds the Chief Commissioners departed in this case from the rule laid down by them (as stated in evidence given by Mr. Justice O'Hagan before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the working of the Land Act) of requiring a portion of the rent due to be lodged in Court before the appeal was heard; and, whether, in consequence of this usual rule being departed from in this case, he is prepared to advise that compensation should be granted to Mrs. Owen for the loss she has now sustained?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

, in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Member was a repetition of one asked the other day by him. The present Question, however, proceeded further than the last one on the same subject. As regarded the first part, he had no information other than that which appeared in the Question, and he assumed that the statement therein appearing was correct. As regarded the second part, he had already stated what occurred. There had been no violation of the usual rule. The tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent, and during the period for redemption he applied to the Commission to have the rent fixed. It was fixed at £80, and the landlady, as she was perfectly entitled to do, being dissatisfied with the decision, appealed. Before the appeal could have been heard, the tenant would have been excluded from his equity of redemption by the expiration of the six months. Accordingly, in common justice, the Land Commission extended the time to cover the appeal. The appeal was then heard, and the rent raised to £100. The tenant appeared, from the information which the hon. Gentleman had furnished, not to have thought it worth while to redeem. Under these circumstances, he saw no reason for altering his opinion or for advising any revision of the decision.

MR. FITZ-PATRICK

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the second portion of the Question. The tenant had gone off leaving £300 rent and costs unpaid. If the rule that a portion of rent should be deposited in Court had been adhered to, that would not have occurred.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked whether it was not the fact that the rent of this farm was formerly £46, and that it was raised to £88 under threat of eviction?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

As to the Question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), I do not know, because my knowledge of the facts have been derived from what the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) furnished to me. With reference to the other Question, I thought I had already answered it fully. There is no such rule, as I am informed, in operation by the Land Commission. It would, I think, be a very unjust rule in a case of this kind to require the tenant to lodge a rent which the landlady refused to take. If there was an arrear of rent due on the farm, I fancy it must have been the fault of the landlady. I have informed the House, as plainly as I could, that the only reason why the term was extended in this case was owing to the act of the landlady, who would have excluded the tenant from the right of redeeming unless the Land Commissioners extended the time.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, if there was no such rule as that referred to by his hon. Friend, Mr. Justice O'Hagan had stated in evidence that which was not the fact.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

I do not know that anything I have said justifies an imputation of that kind, or that any such inference can be drawn from the language I have used. I have stated that there was no such rule applicable to this case; and if the hon. Member will read Mr. Justice O'Hagan's evidence he will find that there is no such rule.

MR. FITZ-PATRICK

said, in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he should call attention to this matter on going into Committee of Supply.