HC Deb 22 March 1897 vol 47 cc1122-3
MR. JOHN ROCHE (Galway, E.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to- the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that a tenant on the Clanricarde Estate, named John Hanly, of Clonmoylan, Woodford, who was evicted in 1888 for two years' rent, was reinstated in April 1895 on payment of two years' rent and costs; that within twelve months after reinstatement Hardy was processed to sessions held at Gort last April for nine years' rent; that the nine years' rent were made out in the following manner, viz., three years that elapsed between date of decree and eviction, during which time Hanly was caretaker (and not liable for rent), together with the six years he was out of his farm; and (2) whether, in view of the landlord's refusal to recognise Part V of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1896, will he introduce or support a Bill making Part V compulsory on the Clanricarde Estate?


In 1888 Hanly was served with a notice constituting him a caretaker under the, 7th Section of the Land Act of 1887, but he I was not evicted until May 1890, and in the interval he was in occupation and had the use of the farm. He was out of the farm for four years and ten months, and was reinstated in March 1895, upon payment of two years' rent and costs, and upon his agreeing to pay arrears, of which £10 was to be paid within six months. Failing to fulfil his agreement he was processed to Gort Quarter Sessions for nine years' rent, when the case, in consequence of the solicitor not having the agreement in Court, was dismissed. An appeal was lodged to the following summer assizes, but meanwhile Haply had effected a settlement with the landlord by agreeing to pay a year's rent forthwith and a further sum of £15 by instalments. The decision at Quarter Sessions was reversed at Assizes; Haply was released from any further obligation, and both he and his counsel acknowledged he had obtained liberal terms. Hanly now states that he is perfectly satisfied with the settlement made with him by the agent. The last paragraph of the Question has no relevancy to the case of Haply, who is now a tenant in full possession. The answer would, in any case, be in the negative.