§ MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that a labourer on the estate of Earl Fitzwilliam, named Bryan Merriman, was evicted from his dwelling on the 16th instant, at Newcastle, county Wicklow, with wife and eight children; 1787 whether Merriman Look an active part in getting up a requisition to the sanitary authorities for building labourers' cottages under the Act; whether Earl Fitzwilliam opposed the project on the ground that additional cottages are not wanted; whether Merriman was proceeded against by means of the Sanitary Act; whether the sanitary authority refused to evict him; and, whether there are any vacant cottages in the district for labourers of the class to which Merriman belongs?
§ MR. TREVELYANMerriman was not a tenant of Earl Fitzwilliam's; nor, indeed, was he a tenant of anybody. He lived in the gate lodge of a widow lady, who is a tenant on Earl Fitzwilliam's estate. He had no legal right to this lodge, and he refused to pay rent for it. Although he had no claim on Earl Fitzwilliam, he has, through that nobleman's agency, been provided with another house, which he occupies as caretaker at 1d. a-week, until such time as one can be built for him. I am not aware that Merriman took an active part in getting up a representation under the Labourers' Act, beyond the facts which I mentioned in replying to a former Question—namely, that he took some steps to obtain the benefits of the Labourers' Act himself, but that his application did not fulfil the requirements of the Act, and could not be complied with. As to Earl Fitzwilliam's action with regard to the proposed schemes under the Act in that district, I am informed that he dissented from the taking of his lands; but having undertaken to build himself, the Sanitary Authority accepted his proposals, and did not proceed with those cases in which they had intended erecting cottages on his property. On a previous occasion I stated that several months ago proceedings were taken against Merriman under the Public Health Act, and an order was made for the closing of his house on sanitary grounds; but that subsequently the Sanitary Authority did not desire that the order should be carried out, and the matters complained of having been abated, the man was not at the time disturbed. Though I have no positive information, I think it unlikely that there are many vacant cottages in the district; but it appears that one was made available for this man, and I hope that through the operation of the La- 1788 bourers' Act other deficiencies are in course of being supplied.