§ MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a recent outrage upon a man named Shea, of Athea, a labourer in the service of John Danaher; (2) whether he is aware that previous to the attempted murder a series of resolutions denouncing Danaher by name, and generally denouncing land grabbers in the neighbourhood, had been passed, and that such a resolution was passed by the Athea branch of the Irish National Federation in May 1894, and a similar resolution passed in the same mouth by the Guardians of the Newcastle West Union; (3) whether he is aware that a third resolution was passed by a meeting of delegates from Limerick and Kerry, held at Athea in June; that a fourth resolution was passed by the Athea branch of the Irish National Federation in September; that on September 16 the branch actively boycotted persons working for Danaher; that at a meeting held at Athea on October 14 the hon. Member for West Limerick attended and declared that he would have no hesitation in speaking for West Limerick that the grabber would get a hot time of it for the next few weeks; (4) whether he is aware that, in December, Danaher's premises were fired into by Moonlighters; that a sixth meeting was held on January 20th, 1895, for the purpose of denouncing Danaher; that on March 3rd a seventh meeting was held for the purpose of further boycotting Danaher; and that on the 14th instant Shea was shot and dangerously wounded; (5) and, if he can state what protection, if any, was accorded during the past six months to the people thus threatened?
MR. J. MORLEYMy attention has been called to the recent outrage on Timothy Shea referred to in the first paragraph of the question. Proceedings are now pending against one person who was arrested in connection with the outrage the day after its committal. It is 330 the fact that meetings have been held, as stated, at which resolutions were passed directed against Danaher, but there is no evidence of what transpired at these meetings, all of which, with the exception of that held on October 14, were held indoors. With regard to the alleged firing into the premises of Danaher in December last, it is true that it was alleged that, on December 4, a shot was fired for the purpose of intimidation in the yard of the house of John Danaher, father of the man who has taken the evicted farm, but the police entertain doubts about the genuineness of the alleged outrage. In reference to the last paragraph, I am informed that John Danaher would not allow police into his house for his protection, nor would he allow them to accompany him on a car. He receives, however, protection by patrols both by day and night, and his son, who occupies the evicted farm is similarly protected. Shea was also protected in the ordinary manner.