§ MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Cullen, tenant, Bunbury, landlord, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 24th instant, in which Judge O'Hagan commented on the "extreme difficulty of the task imposed on the Land Commission" by section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act, which requires the Court, on application, to fix a specified value of a tenancy with a view to a subsequent sale, and expressed a wish that he could, if possible, evade the difficult task thus imposed on the Court; whether he is aware that the same difficulty has arisen before the Sub-Commissions all over Ireland, and resulted in extreme divergence of practice and procedure among those bodies; whether it is the case that one Sub-Commission has decided that its duty, under the circumstances referred to, is to fix the highest market value of the tenancy as the specified value, while Mr. Justice O'Hagan has expressed an opinion that the specified value should not be the highest market value; that another Sub-Commission was in the habit of fixing, as the specified value, the maximum amount of compensation for disturbance which the tenant would be entitled to if arbitrarily evicted, and without any reference to the tenant's improvements, but was subsequently compelled to change this practice; that one of the Sub-Commissions has refused to fix a specified value at all, unless specific evidence on the point is 490 offered, while all the other Sub-Commissions fix the value without any evidence on the point having been offered, and discourage the practice of offering such evidence; whether it is the case that the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, in their respective judgments in the ease of Adams v. Dunseath, expressed contrary opinions as to the meaning of the phrase "true value" of a tenancy; whether it is a fact that the power of fixing a specified value does not apply at all when a holding is subject to the Ulster Custom; and, whether, having regard to the difficulties and contradictions which section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act has given rise to, the Government will take steps to have it repealed?
MR. GLADSTONEI have telegraphed to Dublin; but, unfortunately, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, it is impossible for me to obtain either the verification or the correction of any of the recitals contained in this Question. I may, perhaps, remind the hon. Member that when the Land Act was in Committee, this rather important subsidiary provision of the Act was almost the only one which passed through the Committee without any opposition or discussion whatever. I do not think a single word was said on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman were correct in the allegations contained in the Question, we should be very desirous to know what are the views of the Judges and Commissioners about it—what light their experience may have thrown on the question; and we shall consider all information so obtained on that and other points without any prejudice whatever. With respect to the closing paragraph of the Question, and the engagement to make an amendment on the Act, I must refer the hon. Member to what I ventured to say a few days ago, and repeat that the Government must depend on the co-operation of the House with respect to their passing measures through the House, and be cautious as to engagements on that subject until they have secured an opportunity.