§ MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was true that in December, 1888, the Sheriff of Limerick, with a body of police under the command of Major Rolleston, R. M., visited the lands of Michael Moloney, of Abbeyfeale, and evicted him there from; under what colour of legal authority was this eviction carried out; were the facts as follow, namely, that, on 9th February, Molony was served with an eviction notice by his landlord, the Rev. Conyngham Ellis, of Cranbourne Vicarage,. Windsor, for a year's rent, £21 17s. 6d., converting him into a caretaker; that, on 31st July, Moloney sent a cheque for the amount to the agent, R. D. O'Brien, 16, Mallow Street, Limerick, who sent a receipt for the rent due, dated 3rd August, and that this payment redeemed the lands, as the six months for redemption would not expire till 9th August; if so, upon what warrant did the sheriff act; was a magistrate's order for the eviction of a caretaker obtained under Section 86 of the Land Act, 1860, or was even a summons to show cause served on Moloney; upon whose requisition were the forces of the Crown supplied for the eviction, and what was the number and cost of the force; did Major Rolleston, R. M., or any official, take any trouble to ascertain whether the eviction was legal or illegal, or examine the sheriff's authority before setting out on the eviction expedition; did Moloney warn all concerned that his rent was paid and the land redeemed, and why did the authorities pay no attention to his protests, but insist on turning him out; and, if the Government were advised that the eviction was illegal, will they make the tenant any compensation for their share in the transaction?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR saidMichael Moloney was one of several tenants evicted in December, 1888, a force of police being present at the requisition of the sheriff for his protection, but I am informed that the Resident Magistrate had 1365 not arrived at the time of Moloney's eviction. Moloney stated at the time, and still alleges, that his rent was paid. If this is so, he has, of course, his remedy at law for any wrong he may have suffered. I understand that proceedings are threatened at the suit of Moloney against the sheriff and agent, and it would be therefore improper for me to enter into any discussion of the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYSurely the right hon. Gentleman can say whether, as a matter of fact, before the forces of the Crown were supplied for the purpose of carrying out the eviction, the authorities took the trouble to ascertain whether the eviction was legal or illegal, or examine the Sheriff's authority before setting out on the eviction expedition?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs far as I know, the usual practice was followed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desires further information, he should give notice of a Question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI only ask that the right hon. Gentleman shall answer the Question on the Paper, of which he has had notice for some days. I want to know by what authority the forces of the Crown were employed for an illegal purpose?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know that the purpose was illegal, and I presume that the ordinary practice was followed.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYagain read the Question upon the Paper, and remarked that it was clearly the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, for the performance of which he was paid a salary, to obtain the information that was necessary to enable him to answer the Questions of hon. Members.