HC Deb 02 August 1894 vol 27 cc1566-7
MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in The Irish Daily Independent of the 12th July, 1894, from which it appears that Lord de Freyne's tenants have offered, as a settlement of the dispute, that the taxed costs of the injunction motion shall be paid by the tenants; that the tenants who have been evicted and the tenants against whom eviction proceedings were pending previous to January, 1894, are to pay (where judicial rents have been fixed) two years' judicial rent, less payment on the last year's rent, and to receive a clear receipt to May, 1894; that on holdings where judicial rents have not been fixed the future rents shall be settled by arbitration; that half the cost of ejectment shall be paid by the tenant and half by the landlord; and that in case the arbitrators cannot fix the rents by 20th July, the time for payment of the first year shall be extended until 20th August, 1894, but that Lord de Freyne has refused to entertain these terms on the ground that they were inadequate; whether, in view of the refusal of Lord de Freyne to entertain as a voluntary settlement the terms proposed, he will endeavour to secure that the Evicted Tenants Bill shall so pass as to provide that the tenants on the French-park property shall be able to avail themselves of its benefits; and whether, pending the passing of the Bill, he will con- sider the advisability of withholding the assistance, by their presence, of the forces of the Crown, at the further trampling down by Lord de Freyne's cattle of the crops sown by the tenants for their maintenance during the coming winter?


asked whether it was a fact that Archbishop Walsh and the Trustees of Maynooth College were mortgagees of this property; whether they were not the real evictors; and whether, therefore, there was any ground for the persistent allegations that had been made as to the evictions on this estate?

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I would ask whether that question is in Order? I may say that the charge that has been made is, as I know, an absolutely false one.


I cannot say now as to whether it is in Order or not; but as the information is not known to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I think the question had better be put down on the Paper, when I shall be able to judge of it.


It is quite true I do not know the facts. In answer to the question on the Paper, I have to say I am informed that the terms offered by the tenants and refused by Lord de Freyne are summarised with substantial accuracy in the first paragraph. With regard to the second paragraph, I am not aware of any reasons why the evicted tenants on this estate should not participate in the benefits to be conferred by the Bill now before Parliament. As regards the last paragraph, the Constabulary will give no assistance whatever to the agent of Lord de Freyne in trampling down by cattle the crops sown by the tenants, though, of course, the Executive cannot in any way abdicate its duty of maintaining the public peace, whatever the Executive may think of the action of the landlord's agent.


asked whether it was not the fact that Lord de Freyne had brought in more cattle in order to trample down the crops of other tenants who had been evicted?


That is a fact of which I am not informed.