§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention 1377 has been called to the fact that considerable hardship has been caused to a class of particularly deserving evicted tenants owing to the regulations of 13th February, 1906, under which 2,995 applications have been rejected, one of the reasons for rejection being that applicants are unsuitable to work land by reason of their age and infirmity, or without purpose to work it and not to sell or assign it; will he inquire whether the effect of this regulation has been to deprive of redress, under Section 2 of the Purchase Act of 1903, applicants in broken health or reduced to extreme poverty owing to the length of time during which they have been excluded from their old homes and means of livelihood; whether consequently the rejection of such applications is a contravention of the object of the Act in respect of a class of evicted tenants with special claims to consideration; and whether under the circumstances, he will so modify the regulations as to give the Estates Commissioners a larger discretion in dealing with such cases.
(Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The regulation to which the hon. Member refers is No. VI. of the regulations dated 13th February, 1906, the last paragraph of which provides that the Estates Commissioners shall not sell a parcel of land to any person of whose farming experience, habits of industry, and competence to work the land as a holding the Commissioners are not reasonably satisfied. The Commissioners inform me that they have not rejected applications because of the poverty of the applicants. On the contrary, they have given farms to evicted tenants who had for many years been employed as labourers, and have provided them with houses and stock when they were physically able to work the land and were otherwise suitable. But when the applicant was wholly unfit to work the land, and there were no members of his or her family able or willing to assist in the working of it, the Commissioners have refused the application. In the Commissioners' opinion it would not be in accordance with the intention of the Act to give land to persons manifestly unable to work it in a husband-like manner, with the result that they would merely transfer it to other persons. The procedure of the Estates Commissioners appears to have 1378 been adequately imbued with the spirit of consideration which inspires the hon. Member's Question, and I think he will agree that a modification of the regulations is neither necessary nor desirable.