HC Deb 18 February 1884 vol 284 cc1192-3
MR. SEXTON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether three men, members of the Orange Society, charged at Ballymote, county Sligo, with having fired revolver shots at a crowd proceeding along the highway to a public meeting, on Sun-day, the 3rd instant, were admitted to bail by Mr. Moloney, P.M., although the application for bail was opposed by Mr. Valentine B. Dillon (Sessional Crown Solicitor), appearing on the part of the Attorney General; and although there was medical evidence given at the time of the admission of the prisoners to bail that the life of one of the men wounded by the revolver shots was not out of danger; whether Mr. Dale, D.I.R.I.C. set one person at liberty without any magisterial authority, after his arrest; whether a man named Joseph Murray, respecting whom it was sworn that he had a revolver in his hand at the time of the shooting, has not yet been indicted or arrested; whether two of the men wounded by the shots have been since arrested on a charge of striking a member of the Orange Society on the same occasion; whether they were placed for identification among a number of young men, every one of whom was well known to the person alleged to have been assaulted, and to the members of his family; whether Mr. Moloney, P.M., although he had heard the grave charge against the Orangemen in public, and had admitted them to bail, heard the charge against these men in private, excluding even the press, refused to hear evidence tendered on their behalf, and sent both men to prison on remand, refusing bail for either, though one of them had not been identified by the men assaulted; and, what explanation can be given of the proceedings in relation to this affair?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Might I ask why Mr. Dillon was instructed in this case instead of Mr. Peyton, the ordinary Crown Solicitor?

MR. TREVELYAN

It would be impossible in all cases to give the reason why a case was put into the hands of a particular Crown Solicitor. I do not know whether these reasons existed in the present case. In answer to the hon. Member for Sligo, I have to say that the Orangemen were bailed only at the earliest stage of the inquiry. On the last day of the inquiry a certificate was produced that the life of one of the men whom they were charged with injuring was in danger. Bail was then refused, and they were committed for trial, and have since remained in prison. Bail was not accepted, as stated, in opposition to the Sessional Crown Solicitor. The man set at liberty by Mr. Dale was one against whom there was no charge at the time. He was arrested with a revolver; but it was found, on examination, not to have been fired, and he subsequently produced a licence to carry it. Joseph Murray, mentioned in the Question, has not been arrested, because on the occasion of the firing he was found, when searched, to have no arms about him. Two of the wounded Nationalists have been arrested on a charge of assaulting one of the opposite party—an old man, named Murray, whose life is in danger. They were arrested on the sworn information of the son of the injured man (one of the Orange prisoners), and one of them was fully identified by the injured man himself. There was, I am informed, nothing irregular as stated in the manner of the identification. The old man's life being in danger, the prisoners have not been allowed out on bail. They have not yet been brought before the magistrates. It is therefore not correct to say that the charge against them was heard in private. The Resident Magistrate distinctly states that he did not on any occasion refuse admission to the Press, and that he did not refuse evidence for the defence—none having been tendered.