§ MR. SEXTONI beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can now state precisely the circumstances connected with the arrests last Friday morning at Clongorey; the legal authority; the refusal of the bailiffs to exhibit a warrant; the limit of punishment; the nature of the order issued by the County Court Judge; and the imprisonment of persons other than the tenant of the holding? I also wish to ask whether the tenant, Mrs. Kelly, a woman 75 years of age, was taken out of her bed at 6 o'clock in the morning?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) University of DublinI have now before me a copy of the order under which the arrests referred to in the question were made, and I am in a position to answer in detail the question of the hon. Member. The proceeding, as I have already stated, is of a civil character, over which the Executive has no control. It appears that Mr. O'Kelly, the landlord of the Clongorey Estate, obtained from the County Court Judge of Kildare an order in an equity civil bill proceeding restraining the defendants Mary Kelly, Michael Morressey, and Mary Morressey, their servants, agents, and workmen, from erecting on the holding of the defendant Mary Kelly any house or hut not suitable for the enjoyment of the holding as an agricultural holding, and from permitting certain buildings complained of in the civil bill to remain on the holding. A further order was made by the County Court Judge on October 14th, 1889, whereby, after stating that it appeared that the buildings mentioned in the civil bill were still standing, the Judge ordered the defendants to remove them within six weeks after personal service of the order upon them. Neither of these orders having been complied with, a' further order was made on January 2, 1890, adjudging the defendants guilty of contempt of Court, and commanding the Sheriff to arrest them. The arrests in question were made by the Sheriff's Officer under the authority of the last-mentioned order. Michael and Mary Morressey were named as defendants in the civil bill decree as having been engaged with the tenant Mary Kelly in committing waste on her holding. I 21 have no information that the bailiffs refused to show the order of the County Court Judge ordering the arrest of the defendants; but it is plain from the terms of that order that the Judge was satisfied before making it that the peremptory order of October 14 had been personally served on the defendants. The limits of imprisonment assigned by the order are until the prisoners are discharged by competent authority and due course of law. Prisoners committed for contempt of an order of the Court may be released on purging their contempt to the satisfaction of the Court. I am informed that Mary Kelly has been already discharged on the ground of ill-health.
§ MR. SEXTONThree persons appear to have been arrested on this order. The tenant who, of course, had power to obey the order, and two others. As the tenant has been released from custody, will the other persons who are liable to be imprisoned for an indefinite time be released?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI imagine that it is a matter which rests entirely with the County Court Judge. The Lord Lieutenant has nothing to do with the matter.
§ Mr. SEXTONThen I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of submitting to the House that this is a case in which it is in the power of the Executive to exercise clemency.