§ Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners had considered the application of John D. M'Auliffe, an evicted tenant on the estate of D. Smith, at Ballygibbon, Blarney; whether this tenant was evicted on 27th July, 1905, for one year's rent; whether he is in every sense a person to whom the provisions of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, apply; whether the present occupant of the farm is willing to surrender in favour of M'Auliffe; and would he, therefore, state the reasons why the Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action in the matter?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Estates Commissioners have considered this man's application. He was evicted subsequent to the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the provision of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, do not therefore apply in his case, and the Commissioners have decided to take no action in the matter.
§ Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from James Crawley, who was evicted from his holding at Shanachrane, Dunmanway, parish of Inchigeelagh, in 1883 by the representatives of William Beamish Lane; whether the rent which this tenant paid formerly for seventy-five acres of land and twenty acres of commonage was £30 a year, although the present annual value was only £14; would he say if the present occupier has it at present for £12 a year; did the tenant in 1880 obtain and pay for a lease for a term of thirty-one years; were all the circumstances of this man's eviction inquired into by an inspector of the Estates Commissioners; had his application been refused; and, if so, would he state the definite grounds for the denial of his claim to reinstatement?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Estates Commissioners received an application from this man for reinstatement in a holding now in the occupation of his brother, and decided to take no action in the matter. The statements in the question as to the acreage and rent of the holding correspond with those made by applicant, and were before the Commissioners when they came to their decision. It would be contrary to the established practice to state the grounds of that decision, which was made in the exercise of the discretion vested in the Commissioners.