HC Deb 04 July 1904 vol 137 cc474-6
MR. ROCHE

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether five of the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, Woodford, have been served with notices to quit in consequence of their asserting their right to the game on their lands.

MR. ROCHE

I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can say if the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, Woodford, are non-judicial and in possession of their holdings as tenants from year to year for many years; and (2) whether there is any agreement in writing or otherwise made by them with their landlord in respect to game; and (3) whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, he will take steps to insure that the police shall not be allowed in future to accompany poachers on the lands, seeing that such proceedings are calculated to intimidate the tenants.

MR. WYNDHAM

Five notices to quit have been served. No cause was assigned for their issue. I understand that no judicial rents have been fixed on this property in the locality mentioned. This being so, I am unable to say whether there exist any agreements, such as referred to; nor have I at my disposal any effective means of ascertaining the fact. In the absence of any information I presume the tenants are entitled under the Ground Game Act of 1880 to kill ground game. The fact that a notice to quit has been served upon a tenant does not prevent him from selling his holding or applying to have a fair rent fixed, and should any proceedings, founded on the notices, be taken to evict him from his holding he may apply to the Court in which the proceedings have been instituted to suspend the proceetings pending the result of the fair-rent application. Should the proceedings be suspended and the application to fix a fair rent be granted, the tenant will be in the same position as if his rent had been fixed at the date of the application, and will be protected from eviction from any cause other than one of those statutory conditions for which a judicial tenant may be evicted. Should the landlord in the case be not entitled to the right he seeks to exercise, of course the tenant has his remedy at law in any action of trespass.

MR. KILBRIDE

The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the last part of the Question—what instructions will you give to the police on the 12th August next? Are they to protect the poachers going on the lands of these tenants who, as he admits, are entitled to the game under the Act?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

If these are yearly tenants does not that constitute them future tenants and, if so, what is the use of talking of fair rents when future tenants cannot get fair rents fixed?

MR. WYNDHAM

The hon. Member has put the Question correctly. They are not judicial tenants. They are tenants at will. They are precisely the same as tenants at will in this country. I cannot tell if they have any right by agreement with their landlord or not other than the right conferred under Lord Cairns' Act.

MR. ROCHE

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that under the law the game belongs to the tenants, and in face of that assumption—

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! If the hon. Member states any particular in which the Question has not been fully answered he is at liberty to ask, but—

MR. ROCHE

Under these circumstances, if they go on the land on the 12th August next, will he be responsible for the consequences?

MR. WYNDHAM

I have answered that. I decline, by any act upon my part, to decide a right which is not before me. If the right, as the hon. Gentleman says, is a clear one, the tenants can prosecute.