LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEI wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether it is a fact that, in respect to the advances made to landlords in settlement of arrears under the 59th section of the Land Act (Ireland), 1881, although applications were sent in, according to the Act, before 25th of February last, which applications were drawn up in accordance with the rules issued by the Land Commission, tenants' signatures being in each case witnessed by either a Poor Law Guardian, solicitor, or a magistrate, and the whole application duly verified and sworn to by either the landlord, or his agent on his behalf, that since the introduction of the Arrears Amendment Bill, 1882, that the Head Commissioners have thought fit to issue in each case circulars to the tenants, stating that unless he, the tenant, objects, the amount will be paid to the landlord within seven days, and his holding charged with the advance, repayable by instalments, in 15 years; and that is it true, if the tenant replies to this circular objecting, that the Commissioners will not grant the advance to the landlord; and that, in consequence of the issuing of this circular, the tenants, particularly in the county Mayo, have, as a body, objected, and that the landlords cannot get any of the advances 1591 applied for now from the Commissioners; and, if this is true, why it was that the circular was not issued to the tenants immediately after the application was sent in, and not delayed until after the introduction of the Arrears Amendment Bill; and why the Commissioners have paid the amount of some of the applications without issuing these circulars; and now what steps they propose to take in cases where, after the tenant signs the application in the presence of the necessary witnesses according to the Act, and sworn to afterwards by the landlord, or his agent on his behalf, and that he now objects to this advance being made, will the Commissioners hold his objection to be good, and not grant the advance to the landlord, thereby allowing the tenant to set aside and repudiate his contract?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL), in reply, said, the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was a very portentous one, as regarded its dimensions, at first sight; but it was legitimate to ask it. He (Lord Carlingford) had submitted it to the Land Commissioners in Dublin, and they had, he believed, mastered it. The most important part of the information which he had received was that the noble Lord had been entirely mistaken in supposing that the circular referred to in his Question had anything whatever to do with the Arrears Bill. The circular was adopted many months ago, when there was no Bill dealing with arrears before Parliament, and it had been acted upon since. It was true that in many cases there had been considerable delay in issuing the circular—in other words, that the circular had not been sent to the tenant for a considerable time after the first application for a loan. The explanation of that was that in almost every case the application had proved to be inaccurate, and. had been sent back in order that inquiries might be made, and that it might be revised and subsequently dealt with. All this had caused delay in dealing with the cases for loans; but that delay had not arisen from any cause such as was suggested. In every case in which a loan had been issued, or an advance finally sanctioned, the circular had been sent to every tenant interested for signature. The circular itself was framed by the Commissioners as a precaution, as 1592 they were anxious that there should be no misunderstanding when a tenant proposed to bind himself to pay an increase of rent for a considerable number of years for the purpose of those advances. He found that the noble Lord was not accurate in saying that the great bulk of the tenants, particularly in Mayo, had objected upon receiving the circular in question. The contrary was the case; and the Commissioners said, with regard to the two estates from which the largest number of applications came, that from the one there were only 10 objections, while the applications numbered 163; and that from the other there was not one objection, though the number of applications amounted to 112. The Commissioners did not treat an objection as conclusive, but as a ground for further consideration and inquiry. In conclusion, he would repeat that the circulars had nothing to do with the Bill before Parliament. All these cases would be subjected to that Bill if it became law.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.