§ MR. CAREW(for Mr. W. J. CORBET) (Wicklow, E.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has 27 been called to a statement in The Wicklow People newspaper of the 3rd September, to the following effect, in reference to an intended eviction on the estate of the Earl of Wicklow:—
William Loughlin, and five others working under the Earl of Wicklow's forester, got notice to attend at the stables after their day's work. … Anthony Stafford (the forester) then told them he got orders from Mr. John Ruskell, J.P., under agent, to take four of his men to an eviction which was to take place the following day … he was to choose them by lot … and any man who refused to go would be turned out of work and out of their houses;''whether he will inquire if it is a fact that the threat has been carried into effect in regard to the three men who refused—namely, William Loughlin, Samuel Kileen, and John Neville; and, whether he will inquire into all the circumstances; and, if the facts are as stated, bring the conduct of Mr. Ruskell, J.P., under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)(who replied) said, he did not read The Wicklow People, and he had not seen the paragraph in question. As the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, he had not time to obtain information on the subject. It appeared, however, to be a simple matter between employer and employed, and not a matter of which the Government were called upon to take notice.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I wish to ask, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that a threat by a magistrate to disemploy men for refusing to do that which they had a legal right to abstain from doing does not come within the Intimidation Clauses of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANNo, Sir. I think an employer has a perfect right to demand those in his employment to do certain work; and if they refuse to dismiss them.