MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Land Commission have received a memorial, signed by thirty of the tenants on the Earl of Egmont's property, near Kanturk, protesting against the retention of Sub-Commissioner Walpole on the Cork Sub-Commission, alleging that he has fixed rents on lands which he never visited; that, in the cases of two of the tenants, Thomas Sampson, of Annagh, and Daniel Sullivan, the tenants have surrendered their holdings rather than pay the rack-rents imposed upon them; that Sub-Commissioner Walpole habitually adopts the valuation of the landlord's valuer, who is a cousin of his own; that he is an intimate friend and neighbour of the Earl of Egmont's agent, Captain Trench, stops at the same hotels with him, and has travelled on the same car with him when engaged in the work of the Commission; and, whether these charges of partiality have been inquired into; and, if so, what steps will be taken by the Government?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am informed by the Land Commissioners that they did receive the Memorial mentioned, and, with all the allegations contained in it fully before them, the Commissioners replied that they do not believe that any valid reason exists in the case of any of their Sub-Commissions to prevent either landlords or tenants desirous of availing themselves of the Land Act from doing so. The Commissioners have full confidence that Messrs. Doyle, Walpole, and Guiry, who form the Cork Sub-Commission, will discharge their duty with the utmost impartiality.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, that was not a reply to his Question. He had asked whether these charges of partiality had 787 been inquired into by the Commissioners themselves examining those very serious and specific charges, or did they merely reply, without making any inquiries, that they saw no valid reason for doing so?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am not aware of what steps the Land Commissioners took. They are a body quite independent of the Government, and they have expressed in their reply the conclusion at which they have arrived.
§ MR. KENNYasked, Upon what principle the dying declaration of Patrick Slattery was supplied to a Member of this House, while the dying declarations of Patrick Joyce and Patrick Casey (which, as it is alleged, exculpate Myles Joyce and others) are withheld, although repeatedly asked for?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), in reply, said, the declaration of Slattery stood on an entirely different footing from that of the other declarations referred to in the Question. That of Slattery was a statement that he was the instrument of suborning a witness to give false evidence at a trial. The others were declarations of men under sentence of death, which it was the uniform practice in England and Ireland not to make public.
§ MR. KENNYIs it not the fact that both declarations were taken before Resident Magistrates; and, if so, are not the proceedings the same? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give any further explanation, considering that the declarations withheld are of greater consequence than those which have been supplied?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)That makes them declarations if they had been sworn; but it does not make them declarations made under similar circumstances.