HC Deb 01 May 1907 vol 173 cc872-3
MR. CREAN (Cork, S.E.)

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about three years ago the estate of George Bond Low, in the Encumbered Estates Court, and situate in the parish of Grenagh, county Cork, was offered for sale to the tenants; did they agree to purchase, and, if so, on what terms; is he aware that an inspector of the Land Commission was sent to value their holdings at the request of Mr. Justice Ross and recommended sales at prices varying from twelve and a half to nineteen and four-fifth years' purchase; is he aware that this valuation was not accepted by Mr. Justice Ross, and the Land Commission Inspector's report was referred to three Commissioners for their opinions; will he state the names of these Commissioners; whether they visited the tenants' holdings, and, if not, on what basis they made the calculations they subsequently submitted; will he state what the recommendations of these Commissioners were and whether they were accepted by the court; did the majority of the tenants accept the court terms, and are there four, viz., Patrick Murphy, Denis Callaghan, Denis Donovan, and Thomas Donovan, who refused them on the ground that they were in excess of the value of the land; is he aware that the demand made upon Denis Donovan by the court is seven years purchase in excess of the valuation put upon him by the Land Commission Inspector; that these men, who refused to purchase, have since been writted and harassed and intimidatory methods employed to compel them to purchase on terms which they declare would mean ruin to them; and will the Estates Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion under the Land Act of 1903, declare that this is an estate on which intimidatory methods and undue pressure have been used against the tenants mentioned, and refuse to sanction the advance of the purchase money until a satisfactory arrangement of this difference between the court and the tenants who have not yet purchased is come to.

MR. BIRRELL

I do not think it is possible within the limits of an Answer to enter into the numerous details of the hon. Member's Question. I have received reports from the Land Judge and the Land Commission from which it appears that the action taken in the case by these authorites was taken in the exercise of the discretion judicially vested in them. I may, however, state that twelve of the tenants concerned have purchased their holdings and that the remaining six, including those named in the Question, have declined to accept the terms offered to them. The Land Judge informs me that it is not the fact that the tenants who refused to purchase have been harassed and intimidated with the object of compelling them to purchase. These tenants not only declined to purchase, but have refused to pay any rent since 1905 when the terms of purchase were offered to them. In this state of things the Land Judge found it necessary to direct that they should be sued for rent, but ordered on 1st March that the proceedings should be stayed if the tenants should pay half a year's rent at present. As regards the concluding part of the Question I am informed that the matter is not one in which the Estates Commissioners could interfere, having regard to the fact that proceedings are pending under the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896.