HC Deb 22 June 1888 vol 327 cc977-80
MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of an eviction in Ireland, which is taken from a London paper:— An eviction was carried out yesterday on the property of Mr. Montroy Gledstanes Fardross, Clogher, telegraphs our Dublin correspondent. Nearly 40 police were in attendance. The evicted family numbers six members. One, a blind boy, received the last sacrament last evening, and the father, an old man of 80 years, was so weak and ill as to appear utterly unconscious of what was going on around him. Another son besought the Sub - Sheriff (Mr. McKelvey) to delay the removal of the father from bed till the parish priest might be sent for, as the arrival of Mr. McKelvey had taken the family by surprise, but the officer was inexorable. The old man was then transferred from his bed to a cart, in which he was conveyed to the house of a son-in-law, where he received the last sacrament immediately afterwards from the parish priest; whether his attention has been called to the following statement of the parish priest, which appeared in the newspapers of yesterday, in connection with the eviction in question:—Rev. John M'Kenna, parish priest of Clogher, writes to The Freeman— The blind boy who received the last sacraments of the Church from the curate of this parish the day before the eviction has since made a partial though uncertain recovery. But the father, who received the last sacrament from me immediately after the eviction, continued to sink till yesterday evening, when he departed at the hour of 8 o'clock. It is absolutely certain that Hugh Bogue was in a dying state when he was carried forth from his house on a bed-tick by the Sheriff's officers, and that afterwards he had not any perfectly lucid interval up to the moment of his death; whether the Government will take steps to prevent the eviction of persons who are in a dying condition; and, whether it is in the power of the Government to refuse to allow the forces of the Crown to be used in evicting persons under such painful circumstances?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that the family was six in number; but that the "blind boy" referred to is a man apparently between 30 and 40 years of age. It was stated he had received the last rites of the Church the evening before. He was, however, well enough to walk about the yard, using the most violent language to the agent. As regards the old man, there seems to be no ground for thinking that his death was hastened by the eviction. The sergeant at Clogher saw him on the 4th instant, and he appeared to be in his usual health; and it is the general opinion that he was in no worse health on the day of the eviction than he had been for 18 months previously. On the day of eviction the Assistant Sheriff (Mr. McKelvey) appealed to his family to remove him themselves, but none of them would do so; and the Sheriff's officers then carried him out most carefully on his bed to the front of the house, where he remained about a quarter of an hour, when he was removed in a cart to the residence of his son-in-law, about one mile distant. The responsibility for the eviction seems to rest, not with the landlord, whose conduct appears to have been generous, but with the son of the deceased, who was responsible for the prolonged refusal to meet the legal obligation of the tenant.

MR. W. REDMOND

In reference to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer where he states that the general opinion is that the death of Bogue was not hastened by being carried out, might I ask him whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the parish priest of the district, who said that it was undoubtedly the fact that Bogue was in a dying condition when he was carried out, in spite of the protests of his friends that the unfortunate man might be allowed to remain in his house until he died, and not be cast out?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I was not aware of the opinion of the priest.

MR. W. REDMOND

It appears on the Question.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I say I was not aware of the opinion of the priest till just now; but I cannot believe it to be accurate, in view of the fact that the man's own family refused to carry him out.

MR. W. REDMOND

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not a fact that the reason why the man's own family refused to carry him out was that they could not carry out a man who they saw was in a dying condition; and, also, that they asked the Sub-Sheriff to leave him in the house for a few hours until he died, as it was apparent to everyone that he must?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no evidence at all to confirm that statement.

MR. W. REDMOND

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to his statement that the man's death was not hastened by his being carried out when he was lying sick, in order to satisfactorily come to a conclusion on this particular point, whether he will order an inquest, so that the Sub-Sheriff, who insisted on carrying him out in spite of the protests of his friends that he was dying, may be prosecuted for manslaughter, of which he is undoubtedly guilty?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The ordering or non-ordering of an inquest does not rest with me.

MR. W. REDMOND

I beg to give Notice that I will, on the earliest possible moment, call further attention to the death of this man, whose death undoubtedly lies at the door of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. W. REDMOND

For when he was dying they cast him out.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

rose to put a further Question—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I call upon the hon. Gentleman whose name is next on the Paper to put his Question.