HC Deb 30 November 1882 vol 275 cc401-2

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the Land Act of 1881 makes the drainage loan the first charge on the tenant's holding, and as the tenant must execute a deed of covenant for the due application of the money, and repayment of the loan, and the works are inspected from time to time by the Inspector of the Board of Works, the Treasury is sufficiently protected, without subjecting the tenant to the expense, delay, and difficulty of getting two solvent sureties to execute a deed of covenant for the repayment of the loan; and, whether he will, under these circumstances, recommend the last condition to be dispensed with?


, in reply, said, that in an argumentative Question the hon. Member suggested that there was sufficient security for the loan in the value of the holding; but in cases where the Treasury in England would be brought in immediate relation with small holders of land in Ireland, he must consider what position they would be placed in if they looked to the value of the land alone as their security. He was not prepared at present to take the course proposed; but he might, at the same time, assure the hon. Member that any suggestion having for its object the easy working of the Act in this particular would be carefully examined, and its practicability considered.


asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can afford facilities, before the end of the Session, for a discussion upon the administration and defects of the Land Law Act of 1881?


The administration and defects, real or assumed, of the Land Act form a subject of great interest, to which this House may not seem disinclined to recur from time to time; but I am bound to say—particularly when I remember the discussions which we have already had—that I do not think that the question stands in a position which would justify me in asking the House to depart from its present plan of proceeding in order to meet the views of the hon. Member.


gave Notice that he would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land, Whether it was true that Lord Ventry had intimated to his tenants that he would not join them in making applications to the Court under the Act unless they should first have repaid to him the money allowed as abatement in past periods of distress?