§ MR. CARSONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the 66 cases out of the 712 in which he alleges police protection was given by the late Government to Sheriffs in Ireland while executing civil bill decrees between sunset and sunrise, he is able to say cattle or goods were actually taken and carried away so as to render the action of the Sheriff illegal; whether in some of the 66 cases the defendants had no goods or cattle and a return to that effect was made on the decree; whether he is aware that all the Sheriffs of the counties mentioned by him deny that any such illegal seizures took place; and whether, under the circumstances, he will furnish to the said Sheriffs a list of the cases in which they are alleged to have acted illegally, so as to enable them to inquire into, and, if possible, refute the charges made by him against them in this House?
MR. J. MORLEYSome of the 66 cases were attempted seizures only, and in such cases there would be no removal. These are probably the cases referred to in the second part of the question. In the other cases the reports, affirming the execution of the decrees, justifies the conclusion that both the taking and the carrying away were effected without regard to the statutory hours. As regards the third paragraph, I accept the statement in the question that the Sheriffs deny that seizures took place within the prohibited hours. I do not as to the fourth paragraph understand that they admitted seizure, and only deny removal. To follow the course indicated in the last part of the question would involve an inquiry, and this inquiry would in turn involve the production of confidential Official Reports, as the inquiry could lead to be just or satisfactory results unless these Reports and evidence in support of them were produced. Such use could not legitimately be made of Reports of this character. The Constabulary allege certain acts; the Sheriffs deny them. The situation will remain the same under any circumstances short of a judicial 508 inquiry, such as I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose.
§ MR. CARSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state in how many cases the goods have actually been removed and taken away. Did he ascertain that before he accused the Sheriffs of being guilty of the misdemeanour?
MR. T. M. HEALYDoes not the fact of the Sheriff and his party encamping on the ground during the night, in order to effect the seizure at daybreak, render the proceedings just as illegal as if the seizures were actually made?
MR. J. MORLEYI do not like to pronounce a definite opinion on such a point of law, but I understand that it would be illegal for the Sheriff to encamp for the purpose of executing Civil Bill Decrees on the land during prohibited hours; it would be illegal, I suppose, as trespass. I cannot say off-hand in how many of those cases the goods were actually removed. I cannot, as at present advised, commit myself to the assumption that removal is essential to illegality under the Statute.
§ MR. CARSONI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words of the Act are not "shall take and carry away"?
MR. T. M. HEALYAnd I will ask whether it has not been decided in England that it is illegal for the Sheriff to remain on the ground one moment longer than is necessary to effect the seizure?
MR. J. MORLEYThe House will perceive that a nice point of legal construction has now arisen. I have been advised by those in whom I have every confidence that it would be rash to commit oneself to the doctrine that removal is essential to constitute illegality under the Act.
§ MR. CARSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he took advice as to the meaning of the words "shall take and carry away," before making the statement that police protection was given in the 712 seizures which he alleges have taken place?
§ [No answer was given.]