§ COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been directed to a letter signed by 897 a Mr. Thomas Webb, which appeared recently in the Dublin "Daily Express," from which it appears that the Solicitor to the Treasury has demanded payment in full of all drainage instalments on all estates where the Arrears Act has cancelled the arrears, and the Land Act has lowered the rents; and, whether the Treasury would consider the justice of cancelling these drainage charges in proportion to the amount of arrears cancelled, and in proportion to the judicial rent where it is below the former rent?
§ MR. COURTNEYSir, I have read the letter referred to. The Question of the hon. and gallant Member raises two quite distinct points, with which I will deal separately. As regards the case where instalments of drainage loans are claimed, although some arrears, may have been cancelled, I have to observe that the Legislature has dealt with this question in Section 17 of the Arrears Act; and as it has not included drainage instalments among the public charges there provided for, it must be assumed to have intended to leave them untouched. The case of a permanent reduction of rent by the Land Commission is different. Here it must be presumed that the Court, in fixing the fair rent, had before it the improvements effected on the land by drainage, and also the charge payable by the landlord on account of them; and the question of remission cannot, therefore, be properly raised. In both cases it is to be observed that recent legislation has only affected the distribution as between landlord and tenant of the profits of the land. But these drainage charges are the repayment of money which has been actually spent in improving that land, and could not be affected by such legislation. It must, therefore, continue to be paid, although the distribution of the charge as between landlord and tenant may be somewhat changed in its incidence.