HC Deb 19 March 1883 vol 277 cc777-8
MR. BIGGAR

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that, at the trials (for attending the Ballamuna meeting) of four reporters at Loughreaen, 29th December, under the Crimes Act, before Mr. Saul, R.M. and Mr. Crotty, R.M. the Chairman, Mr. Saul, R.M. in passing sentence, stated— That the three reporters who were served with the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation forbidding the meeting would be sent to gaol for one calendar month, and that the other reporter, who was not so served, would be imprisoned for three weeks; and, if he will inquire into the case of Edward J. Barrett, one of the three reporters sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, inasmuch as it is alleged that there was no evidence that he was so served with the proclamation?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, Mr. Paul, R.M., informs me that he has no recollection of using the words mentioned in this Question; but, whether he did so or not, the fact of the proclamation having been served upon certain persons only aggravated their offence without making others less guilty. The Act of Parliament only requires that the proclamation shall be served on the promoters of the meeting. I see no special reason for inquiry into the case of Edward Barrett. I may add that I have received the following information on this subject, which, after careful inquiry, I know to be absolutely correct. The so-called reporters, two of whom have been in prison on suspicion of being accessories to murder, were convicted of riotous conduct as well as of defying the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation. They were also proved, in the opinion of the Court, to have been the ringleaders of a large mob of very disorderly persons, inciting them to riot. The police were hooted for over two hours by this mob, which surrounded them. The most disloyal and violent language was used, and altogether the scene was a very tumultuous one.