§ MR. SEXTONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on Friday last, bailiffs acting under a decree of fi. fa. at the suit of a landlord against one of his tenants near Listowel, County Kerry, blockaded the house in which the tenant's cattle were, and prevented the necessary feeding of the cattle, and whether, on Saturday, they broke into the house, seized the cattle, and removed them; and whether these proceedings were sanctioned and assisted by a force of police?
MR. J. MORLEYOn the 7th instant four bailiffs seized a quantity of turf belonging to a tenant named Mulvihill, and remained in charge of the seizure. The cattle belonging to the tenant were 1092 in his dwelling-house, which was securely fastened up; but one of the bailiffs, as I understand, formally seized the cattle through the window, and subsequently, acting on the advice of a solicitor, broke open the door of the house, took out the cattle, and removed them to the pound at Listowel. The seizure was made under a writ of fi. fa. at the suit of Mulvihill's landlord for rent, and the bailiffs were special bailiffs appointed by the Sheriff pursuant to the writ. A force of police, numbering 14 men, protected the bailiffs on the first night, but owing to the assembling of crowds the force was increased to 30 men on the 8th instant. The police were present in obedience to the requisition of the Sheriff for the purpose of protecting his bailiffs, but not of assisting them in their proceedings, and they were obliged to remain on the scene, as lit was considered unsafe to withdraw them. It is not, however, the fact, as has been stated in the public Press, that the police fixed bayonets and charged the crowd. The police afforded the ordinary protection to the bailiffs, and in no way rendered them assistance in breaking the door of Mulvihill's house.
§ MR. SEXTONAre Ave to understand it was the duty of the police to remain there two days and two nights—or as long as the bailiffs chose to keep them there?