§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether sheriffs' sales in Ireland held by auction have not been hitherto open to the public in the freest manner; whether it is not essential to the legal character of a sale by public auction that it should be so open; if the Government have considered whether the action of the Executive in Ireland in issuing proclamations prohibiting public assemblages at sales by auction, under execution by landlords against tenants, is not likely to have a ruinous effect on the tenants by deter- 1219 ring probable purchasers from attending thereat, and thus letting the tenants' property fall into the hands of their landlords at nominal prices; whether the Government will take into consideration the advisability of ceasing to issue such proclamations as those referred to; whether the attention of the Government has been called to the several recent cases in which the police attending sheriffs' sales have, even where no such proclamation was issued, excluded large sections of the public there from, as reported in the public press, on the ground that the people excluded were not "probable bidders;" whether such action on the part of the constabulary is legal; whether, if so, it is part of the functions of the police to discriminate between probable bidders and non-bidders; whether they are possessed of any special information which would enable them to do so; whether he will state to the House the principles on which they exercise such discrimination; whether, if not legal, such proceedings on the part of the police are not actionable, both as against them and as against the sheriff concurring therein; and, whether the Government will issue instructions to the police that such conduct must not be repeated?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERSir, the hon. Member asks me six Questions. In answer to the first two, I have to say that sheriffs' sales have been open to the public hitherto in the freest manner; and it is essential that they should be so. With regard to the third Question, I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted the facts. No proclamation has been issued by the Government prohibiting public assemblages at sales by auction. The proclamation issued was this—It alluded to assemblages and meetings held for the purpose of obstructing by intimidation and threats of violence the execution of certain writs. The Government were determined to prevent any such obstruction, and they gave notice prohibiting any such assemblage for the purpose of so obstructing any sheriffs' sale. The object of the proclamation was to prevent obstructing the sheriff, and we considered that we were carrying out the object of having the sheriffs' sales held in the freest manner by preventing persons obstructing them. [Laughter.] That was the object, and I have not the slightest doubt it has had that effect. If we had 1220 not done so, the sales would have been obstructed; and I believe that what we did has been the means, not of deterring probable purchasers from attending them, but of enabling people to attend who might otherwise be afraid to do so. With regard to the fourth Question, as to whether the Government would consider the advisability of ceasing to issue such proclamations, we shall certainly consider it our. duty to issue them in future, whenever there is the same reason for it. As to the fifth Question, it has not been the practice of the police to exclude large sections of the public from the sheriffs' sales; but, in a few isolated cases, the people have been excluded by order of the sheriff. This was where a proclamation was not in force, and it was done on the ground that the persons had no business at the sale, and might create a disturbance. In these cases the police, from their local knowledge, had no difficulty in discriminating between probable bidders and mere idlers. Persons who represented themselves as intending bidders, or as friends of the persons whose goods were under seizure, were freely admitted. As to the sixth Question, I am informed that whatever has been done on the part of the Constabulary is legal.
§ MR. BIGGARasked, whether it would not be fairer to the House for the right hon. Gentleman to read the proclamation in full instead of giving garbled extracts from it?
§ MR. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would state to the House the principles upon which the police exercised their discrimination in deciding who were probable bidders and who were not?
MR. W. E. FOBSTERSir, the principle is to use the best possible discretion in assisting the sheriff to obtain as fair an assemblage and as unobstructive a sale as is in their power. If a disturbance appeared probable it would be their duty to take measures to prevent it.
§ MR. HEALYwished to know, whether, if the police excluded persons who were willing to become bidders, the right hon. Gentleman would reprimand them?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERconsidered the police deserved no reprimand for the course they pursued.
§ MR. REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman to read the proclamation in full.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he would do so, and the House would then see that the extracts he had already quoted were not "garbled." [The right hon. Gentleman accordingly read the document in full.]