HC Deb 17 August 1883 vol 283 cc953-4
MR. HEALY

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a man named Fenton O'Brien was brought up at Mountrath on the 9th instant, before Messrs. Smith and Le-strange, resident magistrates, charged with a violation of the 9th section of the Crimes Act by having kicked a burning effigy of Carey against the leg of a policeman at Mountrath on the 1st instant; whether the only other policeman present, and whose view of the transaction was wholly unobstructed, failed to corroborate the evidence of complainant; whether three respectable witnesses distinctly contradicted the evidence of the constable, and swore that, instead of kicking the effigy against him, defendant turned it over with his foot, saying, at the same time, "It's out;" whether the magistrates found defendant guilty, and sentenced him to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour; whether counsel for defendant requested the magistrates to increase the term, so that he might have an opportunity of getting the decision reviewed; whether, on refusal, counsel stated that the defendant committed no offence, and immediately left the court; whether the magistrates after wards reduced the term to seven days; and, whether either of the magistrates has been called to the Bar or admitted as a solicitor; if not, which of them is the gentleman "of whoso legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied?"

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, Fenton O'Brien was charged with assaulting a constable in the manner stated. The magistrates believed, on the evidence adduced, that he was guilty, and convicted him. The evidence for the defence was inconsistent and unreliable, and did not disprove the charge; while witnesses as to character produced by the defendant admitted that he had been convicted of perjury as well as assault. The magistrates refused to increase the term of imprisonment to 31 days to give the right of appeal, on the ground that the offence was clearly proved, and they considered 14 day s' imprisonment sufficient punishment. After the defendant's counsel left O'Brien himself addressed the Court in mitigation of his sentence, pleading his circumstances—he being a mason working at a contract—and promising future good conduct, and the magistrates consented to reduce the sentence to seven days. Neither of the magistrates is a barrister or solicitor, nor does the Prevention of Crime Act require it. Mr. Smith, R.M., for many years an officer of Constabulary, is the gentleman of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied.

MR. HEALY

Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise, during the passage of the Prevention of Crime Act, that one of the two magistrates should be of the Legal Profession?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that no promise of that kind was given. What was promised was that the Lord Lieutenant should be satisfied as to the legal qualifications of one of them.