HC Deb 18 February 1884 vol 284 cc1182-3
MR. HEALY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in The Freeman's Journal of 12th February:— Colonel King-Harman's Estate, From our Correspondent, Longford, Monday. During the hearing here of the 90 fair rent cases listed for hearing before Mr. J. Adye Curran, Q.C. County Court Judge, a case in which Colonel E. R. King-Harman was landlord, Michael Killian tenant, was heard. The tenant, it appeared, enjoyed the right of free turbary until recently, when he voted for the election of a Poor Law guardian whose opinions were different from those of his landlord. It was alleged that for this he was deprived of turbary. The old rent was £14 0s. 2d., the judicial rent fixed was £12, and 5s. for turbary, if the landlord gave it; if he did not, the judicial rent to be £9. His Honor strongly condemned the action of the landlord in depriving the tenant of turbary; whether the eighth section of the Crimes Act provides for the punishment of any one who uses intimidation to any person in consequence of his having done any act which he had a legal right to do; and, whether the Government propose to prosecute the landlord; and, if not, what steps they intend to take to secure freedom of election in such cases?

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

asked whether the Chief Secretary was aware that since the last case a similar case on the same estate had come under the notice of the Court, and that the Judge commented strongly on the matter?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he is aware that the bog from which Killian had been for some time past allowed to supply himself with turf at a nominal payment is the exclusive property of the landlord, and that the landlord has full power and rights to sell, give, or refuse permission to anyone to cut turf thereon; whether the 8th section of the Prevention of Crime Act provides for the punishment of anyone who uses intimidation to any person in consequence of his having done an act which he had a legal right to do; and, whether the Government intended to prosecute Mr. John Adye Curran and the hon. Member for Monaghan; and, if not, what steps they intend to take to prevent further attempts to intimidate landlords when dealing with their own property according to law?

MR. TREVELYAN

I am informed that it did appear, by the evidence adduced during the hearing of one of the cases referred to, that a tenant had been deprived of the privilege of free turbary in consequence of having voted at a Poor Law election against a nominee of his landlord. This appeared by the evidence of a sub-agent on the estate. [Mr. HEALY: Liberty of conscience.] Assuming this statement to be accurate, and that the landlord was directly answerable for it, I am advised that no prosecution could be sustained in respect of it. There is no mode of preventing an act such as that mentioned, which appears to have been the withdrawal of a voluntary allowance. The Government are asked what steps they intend to take to secure freedom of election. In Poor Law cases, in which there is considerable interference on both sides, the only remedy is vote by ballot.