§ MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter from the Estates Commissioners to John Purcell, Esq.,D.C., Arless, Queen's County, representing Mr. P. J. McLaughlin, an evicted tenant now in America, in which it is expressly stated that the Estates Commissioners have no power to compel the tenant in occupation of the evicted farm to give it up, or to compensate him for doing so; and, if so, whether, in view of the statements to the effect that such persons could be compensated, made during the passage of the Irish Land Bill last session and since, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to give such power to the Estates Commissioners.
(Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The hon. Member has been good enough to furnish me with a copy of the letter in question. But some misunderstanding seems to exist because the apparently simple question, "can the Estates Commissioners make an advance for the purpose of compensating a tenant for leaving his holding?" raises several issues which in reality are distinct. (1). In the case of a holding forming part of an estate which is not "purchased or proposed to be purchased" no advance can be made. Such a case is outside the scope of Section 12 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. (2.) In the case of a holding forming part of an estate "purchased or proposed to be purchased," compensation may be paid, under Sections 12 and 43, for the "benefit or improvement" of that estate, or "generally for the purposes" of the Act, one of which is the restoration of evicted tenants in connection with a transaction for sale, but not otherwise. (3.) The suggestion that compensation may be paid for this purpose seems sometimes to be made in respect of a third category of cases, viz., where the present holder has purchased under a previous Land Act. On such cases I express no opinion, and refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19th July 517 to the hon. Member for Tipperary, South.†