HC Deb 27 August 1895 vol 36 cc892-4
MR. J. F. HOGAN (Tipperary, Mid)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a decision of the Court of Petty Sessions at Templemore, County Tipperary, on 22nd August, committing Mr. Rody Gleeson, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir John C. Carden, to one month's imprisonment for preventing Sir John Carden's steward effecting a sale at Templemore Fair of a number of sheep which had been grazed on Mr. Gleeson's evicted farm; (2) whether he is aware that the steward admitted under cross-examination that Mr. Gleeson did not threaten him or attempt any violence, and that his interference was limited to remarking to the bystanders that these sheep ought to be good, they were grazed on his evicted farm; (3) whether he is aware that the steward's evidence in this respect was corroborated by other witnesses; and (4) whether under these circumstances he will institute an immediate inquiry into the legality of the magisterial decision?

* MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The prosecution referred to in the Question was an application to the magistrates to exercise the powers conferred upon them by their Commission, as well as by a Statute of Edward III., to require Gleeson to give sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. The steward admitted that Gleeson had not threatened him personally, but that by his action on the occasion he prevented the sale of the sheep, and that if it had not been for Gleeson's action he would have sold the sheep. On cross-examination he swore that Gleeson remained beside the sheep for three hours, and that during that time he spoke to each intending buyer, using words to the effect stated in the Question, and followed each intending buyer till he went away. The evidence of the steward that Gleeson, by his conduct, had prevented the sale of the sheep, was corroborated by other witnesses. The magistrates unanimously made an order calling upon the defendant to give sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour; but this he has declined to do, and has elected to go to prison for a month. With regard to the concluding paragraph, there seems no doubt whatever about the legality of the magistrates' decision, but if the defendant is so advised he can apply to the Queen's Bench Division to review this decision.

* MR. FLYNN

asked whether a Statute of Edward III. had not been revived for the purposes of these proceedings, or whether he was to understand that the overt act committed was that he said these sheep were fed on his land, and under these circumstances the man had been sent to prison?

* MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said the Statute referred to had never been abrogated, and was constantly used by his predecessor.

* MR. FLYNN

repeated his question as to the overt act, and asked whether the steward did not admit that the man used no violence or intimidation?

* MR. GERALD BALFOUR

There was no violence, but, as I have shown, there was a clear act of boycotting.

MR. JAMES DALY (Monaghan, S.)

asked whether this unfortunate tenant would be afforded means to carry his case to the Court of Queen's Bench?