HC Deb 09 May 1887 vol 314 cc1259-60
MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the recent evictions on the Skinners' Estate, near Draperstown, County Derry, on the 19th April last, a tenant named Frank Haughey, his wife, and 11 children (including a baby three months old), were evicted from their home on the mountain top, and left there without food or shelter; whether he is aware that when Haughey purchased the holding it was a mere waste, without even a fence, and that all the improvements had "been made by the tenant at his own expense; and, whether, in such cases, the Government will, pending legislation on the subject, continue to assist in the execution of decrees of ejectment? The hon. Gentleman explained that by the third paragraph of his Question he meant would the Government assist in cases where the rent was proved to have been exorbitant?

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)

(who replied) said: The Irish Government are not aware that Haughey and his family were left as alleged, nor do they consider it probable that they were, as the relieving officer doubtless received the necessary notice of the intended eviction as required by law, and had due provision made to admit them to the workhouse if they had no other shelter. As to the improvements of the tenant, he is entitled under the existing law to obtain full compensation from the landlord for them, no matter what their value may be, and whether he is evicted for nonpayment of rent or not. The Irish Government have nothing to add to the statements already made in the House as to the affording protection to Sheriffs while engaged in the execution of decrees.

MR. M'CARTAN

asked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made any inquiries about the matter?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the Government had made full inquiries respecting the evictions, and they could not find that there had been any case of special hardship. The Board of Guardians had received no complaint of the relieving officer having neglected his duty.