§ MR. McCARTANI beg to ask the, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Court valuers at present working for the Land Commission 743 have been, or are liable to act as, Sub-Commissioners; and (2) what additional means of obtaining; information over that of the Sub-Commissioners have these Court valuers for reviewing by their Reports to the Chief Commission on appeals, and without submitting themselves for examination in court, the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, though as a matter of fact none of the Court valuers have been employed as Assistant Commissioners for several years past. The valuers have no greater facilities for obtaining information than the Assistant Commissioners have whose decisions are appealed from. I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the Land Commissioners, and not the valuers, are responsible for the rents fixed on appeal. The Land Commission, at the hearing, have before them the schedules filled up by the Assistant Commissioners as well as the reports of the valuers, and the evidence of the parties, and fix the rents, having regard to all these matters and to the circumstances mentioned in the 8th Section of the Land Act of 1881.
§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Court valuer has in his hands, before making his valuation, the valuation of the Commissioners?
§ MR. CARSONMay I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in any case the Land Commissioners value otherwise than on the amounts fixed by the Court valuer?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI cannot give any answer to the second question. As to the first question, my impression is that the Court valuers have those particulars before them, but I am not sure.
§ MR. MCCARTANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Commissioners never inspect the holding, and that the only additional information they have is the information sent by the Court valuers?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURYes, Sir; I believe that is so.
MR. T. M. HEALYI beg: to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) when the new Purchase Rules of the Land Commission will be issued;
744 (2) is he aware that, after the decision by the Queen's Bench Division in Vickery v. Deane, on the 3rd Section of the purchase Act 1888, the Land Commission instituted proposals to purchase instead of agreements to purchase, with the result that tenants still remain liable to pay arrears of rent instead of interest, as the statute prescribes; (3) will he call the attention of the Land Commission to another result of the use of such proposals instead of agreements in what happened recently on the Aremburg Chute Estate, where the sale was made by the mortgagees to a private person for less than half what the tenants offered, through the Land Commission, although the tenants (from whom the receiver Judge accepted interest in lieu of rent) have no remedy against the mortgagees as they would under agreements; and (4) would he have any objection to lay upon the Table, with a view to discussing the new Purchase Rules and Forms, copies of the following documents relating to the Aremburg Chute Estate, viz., the tenants' agreements lodged in Land Commission by mortgagees; the requisitions on title made by Land Commission; the pleadings and affidavits in Rolls Court in administration suit by mortgagees; the judgment of Court of Appeal thereon; mortgagees' affidavits in Land Judge's Court, and the rulings of Land Judge?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDWith my right hon. Friend's permission I will answer this Question. The Land Purchase Rules, dated 16th March 1897, have been issued, and were presented to Parliament on the 23rd of that month. No change has been made in the forms, either of agreements or of proposals consequent upon the decision by the Queen's Bench Division, in Vickery v. Deane, delivered in November 1892, and which referred to the application of the 3rd Section of the Land Purchase Act 1888, to cases under the Redemption of Rent Act. (See Cherry and Wakeley, page 472.) With regard to the third paragraph, the facts connected with the Chute Estate are as follows:—The tenants in 1892 applied to the Land Commission to purchase the estate under the 5th Section of the Act of 1885 for the purpose of having their respective holdings resold to them, the tenants undertaking in the common form 745 prescribed I to buy their respective holdings at certain prices. Certain rulings were made upon these applications, especially in reference to head rents and incumbrances to which the estate was subject. These rulings were never complied with, and consequently the negotiations for the sale to the Commissioners fell through. The Land Judge in May 1896 sold the property to a private purchaser on terms which he considered advantageous to the interests of all concerned. No requisitions on title were made by the Land Commission. The undertakings of the tenants were all in the common form, one of which I will be glad to furnish to the hon. Member. As to the affidavits of the mortgagees and the rulings of the Land Judge, I have called for certified copies of these and will be also glad to supply them to the hon. Member. The suit in the Rolls Court was one between private individuals on a matter entirely unconnected with the sale of the tenants, and as the files of the Court are open to inspection, it is not considered necessary to lay these documents or copies of them on the Table of the House, but I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member the Report I have received should he desire to see it.
MR. T. M. HEALYIs it not the fact that in consequence of the forms used by the Land Commission, tenants have lost the purchase of their holdings?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDNot at all, Sir. The tenants undertook to purchase from the Commissioners, in case of the Commissioners being declared purchasers. Hut they were not.
MR. T. M. HEALYBut if these forms had been forwarded as direct agreements, would they have been enforced?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDThe agreement is entirely conditional on the fact that the Commissioners themselves were to remain the purchasers.