§ MR. BLANE, (Armagh, S.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Mr. John Heaney, a tenant on the estate of Lord Lurgan, signed an agreement with his landlord for the purchase of his holding under Lord Ashbourne's Act: if, afterwards, Mr. Heaney was sued for arrears of rent at Lurgan Quarter Sessions, and a 1080 decree granted by County Judge Kisbey; if Mr. Heaney appealed to a Superior Court against the judgment, and got the amount reduced by the learned Baron on re-hearing; if the Sub-Sheriff of county Armagh proceeded to his house and executed the decree of Judge Kisbey, which was set aside on appeal; if Mr. Heaney was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for resisting the decree so set aside; and, if the Government will consider the case?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I understand that on no occasion did Heaney sign an agreement under the provisions of Lord Ashbourne's Act. He did, a considerable time after the appeal was decided affirming the decree, signify in writing his desire to purchase. The learned Baron who heard the appeal stated in his judgment that the decree was affirmed in every particular except that he varied the amount by a few pounds. The decree appears to have been duly executed. Heaney was, with three others, sentenced to imprisonment for violent resistance with pitchforks, stones, and hot water at the execution of the decree, one of the Sheriff's bailiffs being stabbed with a pitchfork under the eye.
§ MR. BLANEThe gravamen of the question is whether the decree was set aside. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was resisted, and I want to know which version is correct.
§ MR. BLANEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a. re-hearing of the case, and that the former decree was held to be valid.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURQuite so. I say that it was valid, and that it was not set aside.