MR. M'CAETANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a copy of a circular sent out by Mr. Fred L. Capron, agent to Lady Wallace, to the tenants on her Antrim and Down estates, in which they are threatened with the enforcement of payment, of all arrears of rent if they do not purchase at the price offered to be taken by Lady Wallace, and in which it is intimated that the tenants so purchasing will be forgiven one year's rent; whether he is aware that this year's rent, which is threatened to be enforced or offered to be forgiven, is rent that lay over as not collectable considerably upwards of 40 years ago, and that was never attempted to be collected in the lifetime of the late Sir Richard Wallace; and whether he will direct the attention of the Land Commission to the matter?
MR. J. MORLEYI have seen a copy of the Circular referred to, which the hon. Member has been good enough to send mo. I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the question. The matter, however, has been brought under the notice of the Land Commission, though I rather think their jurisdiction only extends to the cases which actually come before them.
§ MR. M'CARTANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. Justice Bewley, in the Land Commission Court, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of 25th instant, with reference to the treatment of the purchasing tenants on the County Down estate of Lady Wallace; whether he is aware that, in a number of cases on this estate, the late Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy refused to sanction as being excessive the amount of purchase money mentioned in the agreements, but lesser amounts were named; also that new agreements were made out in which the lesser amounts were stated as the purchase money, but no reference was made to any moneys having been paid by the tenants in excess of the amounts stated in the agreements; is he further aware that it afterwards appeared, though it had been concealed from the Court at 648 the time, that the tenant in each case had paid into the landlord's office additional purchase money to bring it up to the amount which the Court had refused to sanction: that, in the case of John Keman, who applied for £92, only £50 was sanctioned, and in the new agreement it was stated the landlord was selling for £50, notwithstanding that the tenant had to pay the additional £42 to the landlord, and that Mr. Justice Bewley declared the dealings to be cases of the greatest, injustice; and what steps will be taken to protect these and other tenants purchasing through the Court from the payment of prices which the Land Commission had refused to sanction?
MR. J. MORLEYThe subject of the first question has been brought under the notice of the Land Commission, though I rather think their jurisdiction only extends to the cases which actually come before them. With reference to the second matter, I understand that the facts are generally as stated in the question, and that the published report of Mr. Justice Bewley's observations is also substantially correct. The Land Commissioners inform me that the prices named in purchase agreements are for the parties and not for the Commissioners to settle, their duty being to consider the adequacy of the security for the advance applied for. The Commissioners have communicated with the Inland Revenue in reference to the case, and are also at present considering what steps should be taken by them in the matter.
§ MR. SEXTONSeeing that the tenants have been charged an annuity on the basis that the whole of the money is being advanced by the State, and bearing in mind the fact that the Commissioners were not aware it was otherwise, what steps will be taken to reduce the annuity, and thus do justice to the Commissioners?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLIs it the fact that the tenants paid money behind the backs of the Commissioners? Have they not themselves lessened the value of the security to the Land Commission?
MR. T. M. HEALYDid the tenants have to give promissory notes? Does not the Act provide for wiping out 649 all arrears of rent, and will the attention of the Land Commissioners he called to these notes?