§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it the fact that Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., after presiding at the trial of Mr. Wm. O'Brien, M.P., at Killarney, proceeded with the accused to Tralee, and followed the vehicle containing the prisoner through the streets of Tralee; that Mr. Roche, finding the townspeople cheering Mr. O'Brien, ordered them to be prosecuted, and, in the case of at least one of them (Mr. M. Stack), swore a deposition before another Resident Magistrate (Capt. Welch); that upon Mr. Roche's evidence, Mr. Stack was sentenced to six months' im- 1270 prisonment, or to give bail for his good behaviour, for cheering for Mr. O'Brien; was this trial held in the police barracks, and was this legal under the Petty Sessions Act; can the deposition made by Mr. Roche be laid upon the Table; and, is there any precedent under the Crimes Act of 1882 for this blending of judicial and administrative functions by Resident Magistrates, or for their acting in this way in cases where they have sat as Judges?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am informed that Mr. Roche, on the occasion in question, accompanied on his way home Captain Welch, who was in charge of the forces, and who was going in the same direction. Mr. Roche did not take any part in the management of the forces, nor did he direct any prosecution. He did, when required to do so, give sworn testimony as to the riotous behaviour of Mr. Stack. Mr. Stack was ordered to find bail to be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned. He found bail, as did the others charged on that occasion. I see no ground to adopt the unusual course suggested of laying the deposition on the table.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the part of the Question which asks if the trial was held in the police barracks, and whether that was legal under the Petty Sessions Act?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNotice of the Question was not given me in time to get those particulars.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt has been on the Paper the last two days. I will put it down for Monday. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why did Mr. Cecil Roche cease to be employed as Legal Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, 1881, when he received £1,000 per annum travelling expenses; and, is it the case that since he was disemployed under the Land Commission other Legal Sub-Commissioners have been appointed by that body, although Mr. Roche's salary as Resident Magistrate is only £425 and allowances?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe appointment held by Mr. Roche as Legal Assistant Commissioner was an annual one. He was re-appointed by Lord Spencer no less than four times, and, I 1271 understand, was informed by all the heads of the Commission that they were perfectly satisfied with the manner in which he had discharged his duties. He was not appointed by the present Government as an Assistant Commissioner, nor did he subsequently seek to be so re-appointed. His present remuneration as a Resident Magistrate is £425 and allowances.