HC Deb 04 June 1883 vol 279 cc1631-3
MR.T. P. O'CONNOR

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the memorial recently presented to the Land Commissioners on behalf of sixty-two tenants of the Marquess of Clanricarde and others, asking that their cases be heard in the town of Portumna instead of at Galway; whether the majority of these tenants have small holdings, on which the reductions have averaged from 10s. to £5 annually; and, whether he is aware that the tenants have announced that, in case the Land Commissioners persist in refusing to sit in Portumna, they will not go to Galway, the possible benefit not exceeding the probable cost of the journey? The hon. Member added: I wish to supplement this Question by one or two others, and I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to answer them. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, pending an appeal, the old rent continues to be paid; whether, pending these appeals, processes for the non-payment of the old rent, which the Sub-Commissioners declared to be rack rents, have been issued; and, whether processes of ejectment in cases heard before an investigator under the Arrears Act have not been so issued, and of which, if my information be correct, nothing further was heard after the investigation?

MR. TREVELYAN

I am afraid I can only answer the Question of which the hon. Member has given Notice. Certain tenants, whose cases are to be re-heard on appeal, have asked, by memorial, that they may be heard at Portumna instead of Galway; but the Land Commissioners have informed them that they regret it is out of their power to comply with this request. In the majority of these cases the holdings are small, and the average reduction made by the Sub-Commissioners was £2 10s. annually. The Land Commissioners have no knowledge of any intention having been expressed by the memorialists of not attending at Galway. If the hon. Gentleman will put down the other Questions on the Paper, I will inquire into the matter.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

asked if there was any reason why the Commissioners could not try cases in the neighbourhood where they arose? Access from Portumna to Galway was exceedingly difficult, there being no railway communication, and the poorer the tenant the greater facilities ought to be afforded for hearing his case.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had no power over the Commissioners in this matter; but he thought it must be obvious to the House that a single tribunal of Judges of a high and elevated class sitting all over Ireland could not be expected to sit in anything like the same number of districts as the very numerous tribunals of first instance—the 17 Sub-Commissioners—might be naturally expected to sit. He thought that would be too much to ask of the Commissioners. There were many places certainly where it would be inconvenient to them to sit.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

asked whether it was not a fact that Portumna possessed a good Petty Sessions Court, in which magistrates sat regularly?

[No reply was given.]