§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Do the Government intend to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by their Land Bill to remedy the hardship resulting from the decision of "M'Conkey v. Robertson "in the Court of Appeal, whereby tenants who have sublet even the smallest portion of their land, for labourers cottages or otherwise, are deprived of the benefit of the Land Act of 1881; has his attention been called to the report in The Freeman's Journal of May 2, of the case of Sarah Keating, tenant, Captain George Bolton, landlord, which was an appeal by the landlord from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners, on the ground that the tenant was not in occupation of the holding in respect of which the fair rent was fixed within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881; and as to which the Court stated—
That it was for the Legislature to decide whether such a state of things should continue, hut they were bound by the decision of 'M'Conkey v. Robertson,' and accordingly they should dismiss this originating notice on that ground;and whether, in view of the fact that the leaseholders, who are now to be admitted to the benefit of the Act of 1881, have nearly all labourers cottages erected on their lands, the Government will take care that such technical "subletting" shall not be allowed to defeat the intentions of Parliament?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University), in reply, said, he had seen 948 the report, and could not concur with the view taken of the result of the case of M'Conkey and Robertson. That certainly was not a decision of the Court that to let even the smallest portion of the holding would deprive the tenant of the benefit of the Land Act, although one of the Judges threw out some such suggestion.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI would like to say that the Question which appears on the Paper is a very different Question from that which I desired to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.