HC Deb 30 July 1894 vol 27 cc1253-4
MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Clanricarde refused to allow the evicted tenants to remain on the land attached to the church, and by an injunction order had 29 families re- moved on the 1st of this month; whether he is aware that he used threats to those tenants who were on their holdings if they would give shelter to any of the evicted; whether a tenant named Michael Flanery, who was evicted about four years ago, and who had recently gone back to his farm, had allowed an evicted tenant named Fahy to occupy an outhouse in his yard, and, immediately after doing so, he was visited by the bailiff, and warned that, if he did not turn Fahy and his family out, he would be immediately served with a writ for the rent of his farm during the years that the was out of occupation, and, in consequence of such threat, Fahy had to leave; whether he is aware that Fahy next got shelter from a tenant named Michael Hogan, and the moment Clanricarde heard of it the bailiff visited him, and threatened to take legal proceedings if he allowed Fahy to remain in his house; and whether he will state how much it costs the British taxpayer to give Clanricarde protection in proceedings of this character?


It is a fact that in January, 1892, Lord Clanricarde obtained an injunction requiring the removal of huts from the chapel grounds at Looscaun. This injunction was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently the defendants decided not to prosecute the further appeal which had been taken to the House of Lords and agreed to remove the huts. In accordance with this agreement 29 huts were removed early this month. The estate bailiff appears to have warned some of the tenants not to give shelter to the evicted tenants. The statements in the third and fourth paragraphs appear to be in the main accurate though I am informed the warning was given to Hogan before the evicted tenant went to live with him. The bailiff got no protection when warning tenants not to accommodate the evicted tenants.


Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph?


As the bailiff was not under protection there were no costs incurred on this occasion.