§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what ground it is stated that Lord Waterford's tenant, Michael Keily, was satisfied to purchase his holding (on being served with an ejectment) on terms involving his paying the Government in instalments more than he paid the landlord in rent; and what is the name of the Court valuer who visited Keily's holding, and certified that the advance was a safe one for the Purchase Department to make?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWith regard to the first part of the question, I understand the matter referred to has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland in an answer which he gave the hon. Gentleman on the 3rd inst. As regards the other inquiry, the name of the Inspector who valued the holding was Mr. Philip Newton.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He stated that Mr. Keily had expressed his satisfaction at having to pay £7 instead of £6 10s. I ask upon what ground?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN, Dublin University)The hon. and learned Gentleman asked if the arrangement was a satisfactory one to the Government. I answered, that whether or not it was satisfactory to the Government, it was eminently satisfactory to the tenant, as it had been entered into at his urgent request.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYYes, under stress of notice of ejectment.
§ MR. MADDENI came to the conclusion that the tenant was satisfied, as he made the request to the landlord, and his request was granted.