§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in connection with the recent evictions on the Fuge estate, near Ballyclough, County Cork; is he aware that the tenants offered to pay the landlord's representative all arrears of rent due up to date upon the spot, and had frequently offered the rent to the landlord; why, under these circumstances, was such a large force of police present on this 758 occasion; and whether he is aware that the Sheriff's representative broke the windows, and when about to effect an entrance was put aside by District Inspector Bell, who was the first man to enter the premises; and, if so, whether he can state if it is the duty of a police officer to discharge the duty ordinarily performed by the Sheriff or the Sheriff's representative?
MR. J. MORLEYI have received a detailed Report of the proceedings connected with these evictions. It is the fact, as stated, that the landlord's representative was offered all arrears due by the two tenants evicted, and that payment of the rent had been previously offered, provided the landlord would consent to make the occupiers agricultural tenants instead of dairy farmers. The evictions, however, were not for non-payment of rent, but were on the title in pursuance of writs of possession issued from one of the Superior Courts. A force of 25 police, under the command of District luspector Bell, was present to protect the Sheriff's bailiff and to preserve the peace. The doors and windows of both houses were barricaded, and in one house was a number of persons who expressed a determination to resist eviction, and who repeatedly refused admission to the bailiff. A window was broken in by the bailiff, and the District Inspector, a man of much tact and intelligence, then entered by the broken window in order to endeavour by his presence to check violence and preserve the Sheriff's representative from apprehended injury. In entering the house before the bailiff Mr. Bell in no way discharged any duty belonging only to the Sheriff or his officers; it was his duty as peace officer to do all in his power to prevent a breach of the peace, and, observing persons inside the house, with the doors barricaded, and fearing serious consequences might ensue should the bailiff enter first, he himself went in for the purpose of warning the inmates of the trouble they would bring on themselves should any violence be used towards the bailiff. Happily no act of violence was attempted, and a breach of the peace was avoided.
§ MR. FLYNNHas the right hon. Gentleman been made aware that the only act of resistance was that the doors were not opened to the Sheriff, and that 759 there is no precedent for the action taken by the Inspector named?
MR. J. MORLEYI think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to there being no precedent, as a case was decided by the Lord Chief Baron at Sligo Assizes in 1887, in which it was ruled that Constabulary officers are responsible for the preservation of peace; and it was entirely with a view to prevent any act of violence that Inspector Bell acted as he did.
§ MR. FLYNNCan the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether any violence was anticipated, because my information is to the contrary?
MR. J. MORLEYI have read the reports of this case very carefully, and I am quite satisfied that the officer did not in any way exceed his duty.