§ MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen in the Cork papers of the 21st of July a report of 1631 the Kilmallock Petty Sessions, where Mr. Weldon, a local magistrate, protested against the injustice of keeping extra police in Kilmallock, which was free from crime and outrage, and further stated from his place on the bench that the only cause he heard at first for sending extra police to that town was because some glass was broken in Pr. O'Connell's windows some time previous; if so, whether this is sufficient ground for using the Prevention of Crime Act to retain a hut there, and to place an extra tax on the people of that district?
§ MR. TREVELYANI have seen the newspaper reports of the case. I find that Mr. Weldon made some observations from the Bench in explanation of his withdrawing from the hearing of a case for the recovery of the extra police tax. It is true that he objected to the presence of the extra police; but he admitted himself to be an interested party in the case. The breaking of Dr. O'Connell's windows is not the only ground upon which the presence of the police is considered necessary. Boycotting and intimidation still exists; and inhabitants of the town of Kilmallock are responsible for this. The Special Resident Magistrate of the district is going back to his duties pretty soon, and I will get a Report from him when he arrives.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that not later than Friday last 55 farmers from this district allowed themselves to be brought into Court rather than submit to this injustice?
[No reply was given.]