§ MR. HAYDEN (Leitrim, S.)I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what steps were taken to recover from Mr. Percy Magan, J.P. for the Counties of Roscommon, Westmeath, and Wexford, the amount he was alleged to have obtained under the Arrears Act of 1882 by false representations; what amount, if any, has been recovered, arid in the case of what tenants; what amount of rent was sworn by Mr. Magan to be due by these tenants up to 1st November, 1881; what is the actual amount which has been found to be due; whether any inquiries have been made as to whether money may have been similarly obtained in the case of other tenants on the same estate; has Mr. Magan's conduct in this matter been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; does he still hold the Commission of the Peace and act as a Magistrate; have any steps been taken to prosecute Mr. Magan and recover the penalties provided under the Arrears Act; and in how many cases have prosecutions under the Arrears Act been instituted; what were the charges, and what was the result?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN, Dublin University)said an action was brought by his directions against Mr. Magan at the suit of the Crown under the provisions of the 7th section of the Arrears Act of 1882 to recover two sums of £31 and £15 respectively, paid to him by the Land Commission in respect of two tenancies. Mr. Magan did not defend the action, and the amount was paid over to the Land Commission. The application under the Arrears Act was a joint one by the landlord and the two tenants, and the amount sworn by both landlord and tenants to be due up to 1st November, 1881, was given as £62 in the one case and £31 in the other. The result of an investigation showed that in the former case £15 10s., and in the latter one nothing, was legally recoverable by the landlord from the tenants at the date of the claim. The residue was 1086 made up of a penal rent which was certainly reserved by lease, and might, as contended by the landlord, have been due, but it was not recoverable as between landlord and tenant at the time of making the claim. It appeared the applications were verified by the tenants as well as the landlord, and the Commission had now no reason to make any further inquiries. The answers to paragraphs six and seven were in the affirmative, and the answer to paragraph eight in the negative. He had come to the conclusion that the case was clearly not one for a criminal prosecution, but for a proceeding, the nature and result of which he had stated. He was informed that there had been three prosecutions for misrepresentations under the Arrears Act. In two of these cases there had been convictions and sentences of one and two months respectively, whilst the third case was dismissed.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had found that Mr. Magan had defrauded the State, that he had made no defence to the action brought against him, and he desired to know did, the right hon. Gentleman approve of a person who had so acted continuing in the Commission of the Peace?
§ MR. MADDENsaid the hon. Member was not to draw the inference from his statement that there had been any defrauding of the State. There were complicated transactions in regard to a penal rent between Mr. Magan and the tenant, and he (Mr. Madden) came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord was in law unsustainable, and the amounts he claimed were not recoverable. He did not come to the conclusion that Mr. Magan and his tenants had entered into a conspiracy to defraud the State. If he had come to that conclusion he should have directed a criminal prosecution against the landlord and the tenants. He did not, however, come to that conclusion.
§ MR. HAYDENIs there any foundation for the statement that a penal or any other rent was due?
§ MR. MADDENrepeated the terms of his answer. He said the transaction was a complicated one, but it did not follow that there was anything in the nature of a fraud on behalf of the landlord or of the tenants.
§ MR. SEXTONWe shall claim on the Vote for the Civil Service the discharge of this gentleman from the Commission of the Pence.
§ MR. M. KENNYWhy did the right hon. Gentleman reserve the investigation of a complicated case of this description to himself, and not give Mr. Magan the opportunity of clearing his Character before a Bench of Magistrates?
§ MR. MADDENsaid the matter was brought before him, and very properly as the result showed. He came to the conclusion that, under the Act, the amount paid to Mr. Magan was recoverable from him. He accordingly brought an action against him, which Mr. Magan did not defend, but paid the money. He also came to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy to defraud the State, and the matter ended.
§ MR. HAYDENOn my furnishing the right hon. Gentleman with documents showing that no rent was due whatever, will he further inquire into the matter?
§ [No answer.]