HC Deb 15 July 1897 vol 51 cc173-5
MR. P. FFRENCH (Wexford, S.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the matter of Murphy's estate, county Wexford, where the Land Judge sent a special valuer to visit the holding of Mr. Walker, which he reported to be value for £5,400, but the Land Commission refused after inspection to advance more than £3,000; (2) whether he is aware that subsequently, on condition that the tenant found £1,000, they agreed to lend £4,000; and that, as the tenant was unable to raise the £1,000, the sale in the Land Judges Court fell through, upon which the Land Commission wrote to the tenant's solicitor on 2nd July, stating that no appeal lies from this decision, although it was that of a single Commissioner and not of the full court; and (3) whether, seeing that Judge Ross has frequently complained of the action of the Purchase Department in the matter of advances to tenants, he will take steps to make the law on the subject clear?


The application made in this case was that the Land Commission should buy the holding referred to for the purpose of re-selling it to Mr. Walker at the price of £5,000. The Commissioners in refusing in the first instance to advance more than £3,000, named the amount specified in Section 2 of the Land Act of 1888, which limits the amount of an advance to one tenant to a sum not exceeding £3,000, unless it is expedient to advance a larger amount with a view to carrying out other sales on the estate. Subsequently (it having been represented to the et commissioners that it was so expedient to make a larger advance), an application was made on behalf of Mr. Walker for an advance of £4,000, he agreeing to pay £1,000 in cash; but this application, with which the Commissioners were prepared to comply, fell through in consequence of the inability of Mr. Walker to obtain the sum of £1,000. The Commissioner then refused to purchase the holding in the Land Judge's Court on the basis of the undertaking, as having regard to all the circumstances of the case he did not consider an advance of more than £4,000 should be made. The decision of the Commissioner is not open to appeal in cases such as this. As regards the last paragraph, the Commissioners alone are responsible for determining the question of the security for advances to be made by them.