HC Deb 10 July 1882 vol 271 cc1958-60
MR. HEALY

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the fact that in the case of Michael M'Garry v. Earl of Granard the tenant served his originating notice to have a fair rent fixed at the "first sitting" of the Land Commission in October, that the case was listed for hearing at Mohill on 27th February, before the Sub-Commission, of which Mr. Cecil Roche, B. L., is the legal Commissioner, that Mr. Roche, on the landlord's application, against the wishes of the tenant, and after a private interview of considerable duration with Lord Gra- nard's agent, postponed the case without adequate reason; whether Lord Granard made use of the interval to eject the tenant for an old arrear, refusing to readmit him as caretaker, although his family numbers fourteen; whether, in consequence of the judgment in ejectment which followed his postponement of the case, Mr. Roche decided on the 30th ultimo, when it again came before him, that he was then precluded from entertaining the tenant's application, which he accordingly dismissed, though the tenant had not been evicted or even sued for rent when the case was originally listed; and, whether, if these facts are correct, he will consider the necessity of amending the Land Act, so as to prevent a similar failure of justice, and meanwhile will cause the Land Commission to impress on their Assistant Commission the desirability of discouraging groundless applications for postponement made by landlords, and the importance, when such applications are granted against the tenant's wishes, of requiring an undertaking that the delay should not be made use of for the purpose of eviction?

MR. TREVELYAN

I will answer this Question. The case referred to in the Question of the hon. Member was listed for hearing at Mohill for February 27, before the Sub-Commission, of which Mr. Roche is legal Commissioner. No application was made by the landlord for a postponement of the case, and Mr. Roche had no interview with Lord Granard's agent. The reason for the postponement simply was that there was not time to hear all the cases. With regard, to the rest of the Question the Land Commissioners inform me that they are ready now, if M'Garry's time of redemption has not expired—and they have reason to infer that it has not—to hear an application from him to have the time enlarged, so as to have a fair rent fixed with a view to the sale of his holding. This is their invariable practice, and they have taken steps for informing the tenant of it in order that he may take advantage of it if he is in a position to do so. Under these circumstances, the amendment of the Act, as suggested by the hon. Member, does not appear to be wanted. Mr. Roche appears to have taken an erroneous view of the matter when the case came before him on the 30th ultimo; but, no doubt, the Land Commissioners have since pointed out the proper procedure to him for his future guidance.

MR. HEALY

said, that the time of redemption had expired. Mr. Roche admitted his error, and he wished to know what compensation the Government was going to give the tenant? There were some 90,000 cases before the Land Courts; and in many cases the time of redemption had expired owing to these postponements by the Courts. What were the Government going to do? Were they going to appoint a sufficient number of Sub-Commissioners to carry out the Act?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Lord Lieutenant had had repeated interviews with the Land Commissioners with special reference to the progress of their work. With regard to the case of M'Garry, it was the opinion of the Land Commissioners that he had still a chance; but if he had not, the hon. Member for Wexford' might renew his Question.

MR. HEALY

said, that if this tenant was shut out from the operation of the Act, he should ask the Government what compensation they were going to give this man for this error of a Government official?