§ MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report which appeared in The Galway Observer of the 5th instant, of a case brought by Pat Joyce against Stephen Joyce, at the Clonbur Petty Sessions, in which it is stated that, according to the oath of the clerk of Potty Sessions, the cuts which appeared on Pat Joyce's forehead at the time of the trial, and which he swore had been inflicted by the defendant, were not there when the complainant applied to the clerk for the summons, and must have been caused since then; whether the presiding magistrates are reported as having made the following observations from the Bench:—
Mr. Lynch, J.P.—During my whole experience as a magistrate I have never heard or seen such a glaring ease of perjury, I certainly would be for sending the blackguard to gaol with hard labour.Mr. Jackson, J.P.—I must certainly agree with you, that he deserves the severest punishment we can inflict;whether these statements are true; whether Pat Joyce was a Crown witness at the Maamtrasna trials; whether he is the son of Anthony Joyce, who was a Crown witness at same trials; and, whether, under these additional circumstances, the Government will now cause an inquiry to be made into the cases of the Maamtrasna prisoners, with the view to consider the justice of their continued imprisonment?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)I am informed that the facts are substantiall 713 as stated, except that the observations of the clerk of Potty Sessions wore not on oath, and that the relationship between the two Joyces is not as described. I am advised, that there is nothing in these circumstances to call for any reopening of the Maamtrasna case, the result of which depended in no way on the evidence of any single witness.
§ MR. M'CARTANasked whether this man Joyce was not a witness for the Crown in the Maamtrasna cases?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe he was.