§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the House had had discussions on every nationality of the world—German, Danish, Hungarian, Polish, and even that of the New Zealanders and the Taepings. But there was another oppressed nationality to which he wished to call its attention, and that was the old nationality of Ireland. Though, whenever it was mentioned, the House manifested its indifference, the subject he wished to bring under its notice was of more importance than any of the nationalities that had been discussed. A case of oppression had occurred in the county of Donegal, that he contended could not be paralleled in any part of the world out of Ireland. The hon. Member then read from the Dublin Evening Press and the Londonderry Standard an account of an eviction that took place on the town-land of Derrybaugh, in Donegal, on the morning of April 8, by which forty-five families, numbering about 280 persons, were turned out of their homes, and their houses levelled to the ground. Some information ought to be given to the House by the Government respecting the scene which had taken place in this part of Her Majesty's dominions, and some means should be devised which would at least throw difficulties in the way of landlords who "did what they liked with their own" in this arbitrary way. The police had no option than to act as they did, and they were reported to have conducted themselves with urbanity and consideration towards the unhappy people evicted. Such scenes, however, were a scandal to civilization and to any form of Christianity. He should conclude by asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland has he received information 524 that on Monday the 8th of April instant, a resident magistrate, with a Sub-Inspector and 200 Police, assisted the Sheriff of the county of Donegal to evict forty five families, numbering about 280 persons, from the townland of Derrybaugh in that county?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that no official account had been received by the Government of the matter to which his hon. Friend had called the attention of the House, and from the recent day when the notice was given he had not had an opportunity of obtaining any information. But it appeared that the circumstances under which this gentleman acted was in the exercise of certain civil rights which were not within his (Mr. Card well's) cognizance. With regard to the charge against the officers of the police, they were supported by his hon. Friend from paragraphs which had appeared in newspapers. It appeared, however, that what had happened had occurred in the discharge of their regular duty, acting under the authority of the sheriff, who, in the exercise of his duty, was levying a civil process. These officers, it appeared, had not in any manner interfered in the exercise of that civil process; they simply attended to keep order, and they had discharged this duty, as has been admitted, in a humane manner. With regard to the exercise by this gentleman of his private rights, he would not express an opinion founded on the statements in the newspapers, and there was no official information before him. Neither he nor any hon. Member of that House, he was sure, would say a word in vindication of any indiscriminate and inconsiderate evictions. In this particular case, however, it was only right to bear in mind that the steward of this gentleman was recently murdered, the murderers not having been convicted, and that on a recent occasion, when this gentleman himself visited the district, the house in which he was staying was set on fire, and the perpetrators of the outrage again were not discovered. He should certainly refrain from expressing any opinion upon the exercise of private rights until all the facts were officially before him in a definite shape. He regarded the expression of any opinion on private rights as a delicate matter. He should be sorry that their enforcement had entailed any hardship on any class of persons, but he was not now in a position to pass an opinion upon the conduct of the gentleman referred to.