§ MR. CLANCYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant 1585 of Ireland whether, on the night of Wednesday, the 27th March, 13 houses from which tenants had just been evicted were burnt or levelled to the ground by crowbars and other appliances on the Clongorey Estate of Mr. Penthony O'Kelly, in the County of Kildare; whether the agent of the estate, a person named Routledge, under whose superintendence the houses referred to were given to the flames, and also the cart on which was carried the petroleum used in firing the dwellings, were guarded as they passed from house to house by police, in addition to those constables engaged on "protection" duty; whether, when the sparks from the burning roof the home of an evicted tenant, John Connolly, seemed likely to set on fire other thatched houses in close proximity, and a crowd of people showed a desire to prevent such an occurrence, the police on duty ordered them off the scene; whether a man named Peter Fullam went to the burning house of his friend and neighbour, an evicted tenant named Andrew Fox, to take away some articles of furniture that had been left in the house after the eviction, but was hustled back with violence by emergency men and policemen; whether, when he afterwards asked to be allowed to take the sashes out of the windows that they might not be destroyed with the rest of the fittings of the dwellings, he was again violently thrust back by the same persons; whether in all 30 policemen armed with rifles and eight policemen armed with batons were engaged protecting the emergency men; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to continue to extend the protection of the forces of the Crown to persons engaged in burning the houses of evicted tenants?
§ DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid)May I ask whether these Clongorey tenants are not the same people who have had their crops destroyed time after time by floods during the course of the last few years?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not aware of the state of things suggested by the hon. Gentleman, With regard to the question on the Paper, I have to say I am informed that la houses on the Clongorey estate, from which tenants had been evicted, were either levelled or burned. No police protection was furnished 1586 to the persons engaged in this proceeding, which was quite unexpected By the police authorities. The force of police present in the locality is greatly overstated in the question—there were, in all, eight armed with rifles (and not 30 as alleged), and eight armed with batons. These 16 men were in the evicted houses protecting the caretakers. There were also four men armed only with batons on patrol in the neighbourhood. It is not true that the agent with a cart carrying petroleum for the burning was guarded from house to house by the police, but a cart carrying provisions to the caretakers was going round to the houses, and two constables whose duty it was to convey provisions to their comrades who were in the houses on protection duty availed themselves of this opportunity of doing so. The statements in the third paragraph are altogether incorrect. The burning of John Connolly's house originated accidentally; the police gave all the assistance in their power to put it out; there was no danger of the flames spreading from it as there was no house nearer than 30 yards distant, and the wind was blowing in the opposite direction. The statements in paragraphs four and five are not true as regards the police, and they have no knowledge of their being true as regards the emergency men. I may perhaps say, in answer to the question which stands next in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton), it is not true that all the houses except one were burned.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my question, namely: Whether the Government authorize the employment of police in the destruction of property after the decrees of the Courts have been fully executed by the eviction of tenants; and also by whose authority the police accompanied the emergency men on this errand?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot lay down any general rule as to police protection on occasions of this sort; each case must be dealt with on its own footing. As I pointed out, this action on the part of the agent was wholly unexpected, and the presence of the police on the spot was not at all due to the anticipation that the houses were to be destroyed, but to the fact that they had 1587 to be there in order to protect the caretaker.
§ MR. CLANCYWill the right hon. Gentleman inform us how it was that the inspector of police went round the day before to all the houses with the agent and indicated what might be left standing and what might not?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am sceptical as to the accuracy of that statement.
§ MR. SEXTONMay I ask whether, as the emergency men took crowbars and combustible materials with them the night before, the police were not aware of the object of the enterprize?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROf course there was a point at which the police became cognizant of what was going on, but there was no notice given to them.
MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)May I ask whether the police would not be discharging their duty by affording protection to any person engaged in a legal act?
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions for the guidance of the police in any future cases of a similar kind?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo. I have already said that no general rule can or ought to be laid down for these cases. Each one must be considered on its merits.
§ MR. CLANCYPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman's scepticism would be removed if I ask him whether the reason given—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. CLANCYIf the reason given—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder! The hon. Gentleman is now making a certain statement.
§ DR. TANNERMay I ask—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!