HC Deb 04 March 1886 vol 302 cc1879-80

who said ho was not responsible for the Question, but as it was on the Notice Paper in his name, he had no objection to put it, asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Daily Express of the 2oth February, in which the following passage occurs: — When the agent of the Kingston Estate appointed a day to meet them, the tenants, and receive the arrears, the priests incited them to stand and resist to the end. At that time many of the tenents were ready and willing to pay. But they were told not to do so, and so they went away and had an orgy. One man, arrested for drunkenness, had on his person a hank deposit receipt and other valuables to the amount of two hundred and twenty pounds. The rent he was asked to pay amounted to three pounds ten; whether he has made inquiries as to the facts of this case; and, whether the facts were substantially as represented?


Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him, Whether it is not true that all these Kingston estate tenants were refused any reduction at all of their rents; and, whether the priest, so far from advising the people not to pay, used his whole influence to effect a settlement?


Might I also ask the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Question?


As to the last Question, I must reply that I really cannot say. In reply to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), I may say that I think I have heard the statements which ho has made, but on other authority. I cannot say of my own knowledge whether they are, or are not, well founded. With reference to the Question on the paper, I have received a Report which shows that, with the exception of the particular amount of rent due by the man arrested—which was £9, and not £3 10s.—the facts are substantially as stated.