VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNMy Lords, in accordance with the notice which I have placed on the Paper. I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government—(1) Whether Patrick Markey purchased in 1889, for £180, which included auction fees, the tenancy in a farm of 10A. 0R. 10p. held under the Earl of Gosford at the yearly rent of £9 4s. 8d., the Poor Law valuation being £9 10s.; and whether in 1897 the Irish Land Commission on re-hearing reduced the rent to £6 10s.; (2) Whether Mr. Justice Bewley in announcing this decision laid it down as the lav, that a deduction should be made on account of what he described as "the occupation interest" of the tenant, although the two other members of the court who had heard the case, one of whom, though a barrister, has no legal status as a member of the court, and the other is a layman, dissented from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, but concurred with him as to the amount of reduction; (3) Whether it has been recently decided by the Court of Appeal in Ireland in other cases, that Mr. Justice Bewley's view of the law, as decided in Markey's case, was erroneous, and that any deduction for ' occupation interest" is illegal: and having regard to the fact that Markey purchased the holding so recently for £180, and that it is assessed for income tax under Schedules A. and B. at the annual value of £12 13s. 4d., will not Her Majesty's Government take the matter into their consideration; (4) Whether any and what steps are intended to be taken as to the illegal deductions that have been made by the Land Commission in the past, and to prevent such a possibility in the future.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHMy Lords, in reply to the Question which has been put down by the noble Viscount, I have to inform him that it appears to be the fact that Patrick Markey purchased the farm in question in 1888 or 1889 for £175. The Land Commission, on rehearing, by order of 31st May 1897, unanimously fixed the fair rent of the holding at the sum of £0 10s. It is not, however, the fact that no improvements were claimed by the tenant or allowed by the court. One of the grounds of appeal stated in the landlord's notice of rehearing was that the deduction made by the Sub-Commissioners in respect of im- 256 provements was excessive. The Land Commission confirmed the (hiding of the Sub-Commission that all the buildings and fences upon the holding were tenants' improvements, but reduced the allowance made by the Sub-Commission in respect thereof.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNThe noble Earl will see that in the Question, as it appears on the Paper to-day, the reference to improvements has been omitted.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHWith regard to the second Question, the judgments of Mr. Justice Bewley and the other members of the court on the question of "occupation interest" are reported in the Irish Law Times Beports,-Vol. 31, p. 97. The Irish Land Commission is a judicial tribunal established and constituted pursuant to the Land Act of 1881, which Act defines the status of the judicial and other Commissioners. The majority of the Commissioners who heard the case, although they concurred as to the amount of fair rent, dissented from the view of Mr. Justice Bewley as to the "occupation interest," and the present Judicial Commissioner has expressed his concurrence with and acted upon the decision of the majority. The Commissioners do not know to what particular decision or decisions of the Court of Appeal the third paragraph refers. There is no reported decision to the effect indicated, but individual members of the Court of Appeal, in the course of their judgments, have expressed approval of the views so expressed by the majority of the Land Commission, and it is not considered that there is anything in the matter calling for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHIf the noble Viscount presses for an answer to the fourth Question, I am bound to say I think the suggestion contained in the Question is open to almost as much objection as the suggestion which was contained in the Questions first of all put down by the noble Viscount, and upon which I remarked the other day; and I can only tell him that no admission at all can be made by Her Majesty's Government, and that suitors must proceed as 257 they may be advised in reference to litigation in which they may happen to be involved.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNThe noble Earl referred me last Session to the Irish Law Times Reports, which I had then examined, and which I have since carefully gone through, but I have failed to find the information which I require. Further, I am informed that there are no public published Reports which will give the information. With reference to Question four, there was no intention on my part, or on the part of those who requested me to put this Question, to ask anything improper of Her Majesty's Government. I express no opinion upon the answers which have been given by the noble Earl on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, because I feel they require very careful consideration.
§ House adjourned at fifty-five minutes after Four of the clock.