§ MR. J. HAMMOND (Carlow)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been drawn to the case of a tenant named John Kealy, who was evicted from a farm on the Westenra estate in County Carlow some years ago, whose landlord purported to sell the farm, under the Purchase Acts, to a person named Colclough, for £3,000; is he aware that the Land Commission refused to sanction an advance to this person, 1240 on the ground of insufficient security; that now and their alleged purchaser, named William Haskins, has come forward to buy the farm, notwithstanding the former agreement for sale between the landlord and Colclough; and that Haskins offered to lodge £570 to induce the Land Commission to give the landlord £3,000 for the farm; is it the intention of the Treasury to allow the money of the taxpayers to be spent upon arrangements which are not made with any bona fide occupying tenant, to be perfected; and, will the Land Commission advance £3,000 for the evicted farm?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-TyneThe estate referred to is for sale in the Land Judges Court. On the 26th October, 1893, an undertaking was received from John Colclough, to the effect that in case the Land Commission bought the holding referred to in the question, he would purchase the same under the Land Purchase Acts for the sum of £3,570, of which he proposed to pay £570 in cash, and applied for an advance of £3,000. The agreement set forth that the application was made by him as tenant from year to year under an agreement dated the 14th of February 1891, at a rent of £210. As an advance of £4,000 had already been made to Mr. Colclough in the year 1891 for the purchase of other lands, in the Queen's County, upon another estate, and having regard to the provisions of the Statutes, the application by Mr. Colclough to the Land Commission for an advance could not be entertained. I am informed it is not the case as stated in the question that the application was refused on the ground that the security was not considered sufficient. Subsequently, on the 4th July, 1894, an application in similar terms was received from William Haskins. It appeared from the rental settled in the Land Judge's Court, that W. Haskins had been accepted as the tenant in the place of the said John Colclough, Colclough having by a deed dated the 23rd of June in the same year assigned the holding to Mr. Haskins subject to the rent thereof, in consideration of a sum of £546. 8s. paid by Haskins to him. The holding was then, and not previously, inspected in the usual course, and the security being considered sufficient the Land 1241 Commission on the 11th February 1895, made an order sanctioning the advance of £3,000 which has since been made. The sum of £570, part of the price, has been paid by Haskins into the Land Judge's Court, and the usual guarantee deposit has been retained by the Land Commissioners.