HC Deb 26 July 1888 vol 329 cc538-40
MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, in the Vandeleur evictions on Wednesday last, 18th instant, possession of the house of Michael Cleary, of Carrowdoty, was obtained by means of a "battering ram," and that the whole back side wall, 30 to 40 feet in length, was battered down; whether he is also aware, that in gaining possession of Cleary's house, and Pat Spellassy's and James Madigan's, of Carnaculla, on the 19th instant, the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, and his Emergency bailiffs tore down their furniture, threw it into the yard, and broke it into pieces; whether he has been informed that the Sheriff was remonstrated with at Spellassy's without effect; whether he will state the statute or authority warranting such destruction of tenants' scant chattels; and, whether, if further evictions occur, he will take steps to prevent such recurrence?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. T. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The Divisional Magistrate reports that access was obtained by a battering-ram because the tenants resisted with violence and threw boiling water, the house being strongly barricaded. The wall was battered down, as, owing to strong barricading and violent resistance, it had to be largely breached. All the houses were barricaded and prepared for resistance, and nearly all the furniture had been removed by the tenants. What was left was removed as carefully as possible by Captain Croker's men. The Divisional Magistrate does not know whether the Sheriff was remonstrated with; but he is aware that he always performs his difficult duties with great humanity and moderation.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in some cases, the agent and the bailiffs have actually destroyed houses after the people have been put out; and I also wish to ask if the Irish Government are of opinion that the armed forces of the Crown should be engaged in such operations?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware whether that is the case or not. I may remind the House also that the Question is not one arising out of the original Question.

MR. JORDAN

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the fourth paragraph of my Question.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University)

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, from the answers given to Questions of fact by my right hon. Friend, it appears to rue what was done was done legally. The chattels were carefully removed, and the landlord was entitled to be put in clear possession of the house.

MR. JORDAN

asked, whether it was really a fact that the chattels were removed carefully. He saw thorn with his own eyes thrown out on the road, and he personally remonstrated with the Sheriff for breaking the man's furniture.

MR. MADDEN

asked for Notice of the Question.

MR. JORDAN

I beg to ask, Sir, for an answer, and permit me to say that I have these specific charges on the Paper; and it is most important to my constituents that they should be answered fairly and honourably.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would answer the question of law on the supposition that the facts stated by his hon. Friend were correct?

MR. MADDEN

said, that would be a most inconvenient precedent. The question of fact had been clearly and distinctly answered by his right hon. Friend that there was no destruction of property. He answered the question of law, that what occurred was perfectly legal. If further information was wanted with respect to a question of fact, he must ask the hon. Member to put a Question on the Paper.

MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would state that the chattels were carefully removed, inasmuch as his hon. Friend had distinctly stated that he had seen them thrown out on the road? Who gave the right hon. Gentleman his information?

[No reply.]