HC Deb 28 August 1893 vol 16 cc1202-3
MR. CLANCY) (Dublin Co., N.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Mackay, of Newrath, Waterford, who was evicted from his holding on Saturday, 12th August; and whether he is a ware that Mr. Mackay applied to have a fair rent fixed, but that the application was refused on the ground that the lease under which he held was made by the present landlord's father in excess of his powers; that the landlord thereupon served a writ of ejectment, and proceeded to eviction, although Mr. Mackay and his ancestors had occupied the holding for generations, and had executed all the improvements upon it; and that all his interest and improvements have been confiscated on the technical ground mentioned; and, if so, whether the Government intend to propose an amendment to the law to prevent the recurrence of such cases?

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. John Mackay, as reported in The Waterford Star, and copied into the daily paper, who was recently evicted from his holding at Newrath near Waterford; whether he is aware that Mr. Mackay, during the lifetime of the late landlord, served an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed, but before it came on for hearing the landlord died, and his son, Mr. John H. Jones, the present landlord, came into possession; that, on the ground that his father was only life owner of the lands by a deed executed at his marriage, which provided that his tenancy in the lauds ceased at his death, it was argued that the tenant's tenancy terminated at the same time; and that the landlord's contention has been upheld by the Land Sub-Commission and the Chief Land Commission; and whether, considering the vital interest of the question to large numbers of tenants in Ireland, and that the tenant was refused leave to go to the Court of Appeal, the Government will afford facilities for testing in the superior Courts the ruling of the Land Commission on this important point?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-Tyne

The facts are generally as stated in this question, and in the similar question standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Waterford. I am informed by the Land Commission that the legal point involved was decided six years ago by the Court of Appeal in Ireland in the case of "Massy v. Norse," and that it has since been followed by the Court of Appeal in other cases. On the 24th March last an application was made on behalf of the tenant to the Court of the Land Commission for liberty to appeal to the Court of Appeal; but the Laud Commission Court, in exercise of its discretion, refused the application on the ground that the only legal question raised had already boon decided by the Court of Appeal.

MR. CLANCY

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of making a change in the law?

MR. J. MORLEY

It seems to me that the consequences of this decision defeat the intention of the Parliament which passed the Act of 1881. This is not the moment to say whether the time has arrived for a change in the law; but I am quite sure this was not the kind of thing intended by Parliament.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this decision affects at least 100,000 tenants in Ireland?

MR. J. MORLEY

I do not know how many it affects.