HC Deb 23 March 1897 vol 47 cc1179-80
DR MCDONNELL (Queen's Co., Leix)

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, since the publication of the last Report of the Loan Fund Board, Lord de Vesci has made any further offer in settlement of the very serious claim disclosed in the correspondence printed in that report, in view of the fact that it appears from the correspondence that his father, the late Lord de Vesci, being, as trustee of the Abbeyleix Loan Fund, in possession of two sums of £887 18s. 11d. and £1,488, which had been duly appropriated for the charitable purposes of erecting labourers' cottages and a fever hospital, spent the money in erecting buildings on lands held from himself on yearly tenancy or on short leasehold; that, although his agent undertook that this land should be conveyed to trustees for the perpetual benefit of the poor, this undertaking was never carried out; and that the present Lord de Vesci claims to deal with the buildings as his own property; whether, if no settlement has been arrived at, Mr. Attorney General will proceed ex officio in the Chancery Division against the legal personal representative of the late Lord de Vesci?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

Since the date of the Report referred to, Lord de Vesci has not made any further offer of compromise. The facts mentioned in the Question are stated by the Loan Fund Board in the course of the correspondence, but are disputed by Lord de Vesci, and I am not aware what proof of them, if any, is now forthcoming after the lapse of a period of 54 years. I am carefully considering whether there is now any claim against Lord de Vesci which can be enforced by law.

MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is also considering; whether there is a claim against the personal representatives of Lord de Vesci apart from what claim there may be against his landlord?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND

There can be no possible claim against the landlord. The question is, what claim there is against the personal representative of Lord de Vesci?