HC Deb 25 July 1893 vol 15 cc485-7
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Gladstone, of County Limerick, in which she affirms that the statements in the question addressed to him on the 17th instant, regarding her property and the treatment she has received, are strictly accurate; and whether he has made further inquiries into the case, and with what result?

MR. T. M. HALY (Louth, N.)

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that the caretaker employed by this lady failed to answer a summons before a Resilient Magistrate for illegally firing a, revolver, and that consequently a Bench warrant was issued for his arrest?

MR. J. MORLEY

I believe that that is so. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that I have received a letter from the lady referred to, in which she makes a general assertion of the nature indicated in the question. I have made further inquiries of the fullest kind, and see no reason to depart from the answer I have already given. It was alleged in the previous questions of the hon. Member that this lady has been boycotted, refused the payment of her rents, and robbed of her property; that hay to the value of £250 was forcibly carried away by Noonan, an evicted tenant, by the aid of a crowd of neighbours from the mountains; that compensation was refused on the ground that the removal was a larceny; that Noonan's farm has since been boycotted; that she has now, according to the hon. Member's question of July 10, about 150 Ions of grass for hay standing on this farm worth nearly £1,000, according to the hon. Member's question of July 17 over 100 tons, and that no one dares purchase or remove the hay. The Constabulary report that, except in the case of Noonan, the relations of this lady with her tenants are good, nor are they aware of any boycotting; that the hay removed in 1892 was not valued at £250. It was sold by Noonan for about £64, and the Grand Jury appear to have measured its value at about £100. The hay was sold as it stood on the farm by Noonan by auction, and the purchasers openly carried away the hay. Noonan was at this time in occupation of the place as caretaker. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, bear!] Yes, and that has never been disputed. A notice under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 was served on him on November 16, 1891. In February last he appears to have been turned out, but thereupon reinstated as caretaker, but not his son, who had been hitherto living with him. The Grand Jury award was traversed before the Judge on the ground that the necessary legal notice had not been served on the secretary of the Grand Jury. It was also contended that the removal was not a malicious injury. The presentment was, according to the records of the Grand Jury, nullified by the Judge on the ground that the legal notice was not served. The police value the present crop as considerably below that suggested. They have no reason to believe that there would be any attempt to interfere with the persons she may employ. But any necessary protection would, of course, lie at once afforded by them.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

Of course, it is impossible for me by way of question and answer to argue upon this statement. ["Order, order!"] I shall not say a single sentence on that now, but I shall take an opportunity on the Estimates to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has by his present statement considerably altered his previous statement—[MR. J. MORLEY: Not at all] —aud confirmed most important parts of my statement. I will not now argue with the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. T. M. HEALY

And on the Estimates I shall call attention to the conduct and threats of this lady's caretaker, to his action in brandishing a revolver, and to the fact that adequate protection is afforded by the police.