§ MR. FLYNNI beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports in the Cork papers, from which it appears that two brothers, Edmond and David Kent, were at Fermoy fair on 6th instant, engaged in selling some lambs, when a constable came and "shadowed" David Kent for a considerable time; that this man, David Kent, then went and stood beside District Inspector Ball, and followed the Inspector about the fair, he himself being followed' meanwhile by the constable; that District Inspector Ball spoke to Mr. Kent, 87 and said, "If you persist in following me I will have you arrested;" and that Kent replied that he had been prevented from doing his business by the Constable shadowing him, and that if the Inspector withdrew the constable he would not follow the Inspector; if it is true, as reported, that the Inspector thereupon ordered the shadowing constable to arrest Mr. Kent, who was kept in custody from 9 a.m. until 3.30, and then summoned; and whether he can state under what authority was Mr. Kent arrested, and why was he shadowed in the manner described?
§ MR. MADDENThe Constabulary Authorities report that David Kent was not shadowed, or in any way interfered with, while engaged with his brother in selling lambs. But, upon his subsequently leaving the place where the lambs were and proceeding through the fair, his movements were watched, as the police had reason to believe, from previous actions of the man, that he would endeavour to prevent the sale of some lambs belonging to a person boycotted for taking an evicted farm, and in connection with whose boycotting David Kent had, on a former occasion, been convicted. The District Inspectors did, after warning Kent twice, order his arrest, his conduct being such as to interfere with the officer in the discharge of his duty. He was detained in custody until the arrival of the Resident Magistrate, who was at once telegraphed for, and who remanded him on bail. The case has since been heard in Court, and it appears that Kent was discharged on giving an undertaking not to so offend again.
§ MR. SEXTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the constable prevented the sale of the lambs, and that the Magistrate declared the course he took to be highly improper? The buyer went up while the bargain was being made, and the buyer walked away, thus producing the very effect which the Chief Secretary so strongly condemns, of preventing a man from earning his living.
§ MR. MADDENThose alleged facts are not before me.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)May I ask why, if it was illegal for David Kent to follow Mr. Ball, it was legal for the constable to follow David Kent; also 88 under what law, common, statute, or otherwise, is it legal for a constable in plain clothes to dog and tread on the heels of any man while the man himself may not follow the constable's superior officer?
§ MR. MADDENI gave a very full answer to that question some days ago. In my opinion the following a constable in plain clothes, who is performing detective duty, from place to place, and pointing him out as a constable, may be carried to such an extent as to amount to the offence of obstructing that constable in the performance of his duty.
§ MR. DILLONThere is no question in this case of a constable in plain clothes. The man followed a constable in uniform.
§ MR. MADDENNo.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to point out that the Government are obliged by statute to take down the evidence in writing when the case is heard. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an account of what took place from his own speculations or has he the depositions before him?
§ MR. MADDENNo, Sir; I am not giving my own speculations, but I have answered from the best information I could obtain. There has been no time to get the depositions.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThen the right hon. Gentleman has given an answer of a purely speculative character, without knowing what the evidence was?
§ MR. MADDENNo, Sir. I stated that I had before me a Report of what occurred in Court. I stated also that I had not seen the depositions. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further he had better put down a question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI fail to see what time is required to obtain a copy of the depositions. The Petty Sessions clerk could copy them out in 10 minutes [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think I know nothing about my daily work. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have made his statement from the sworn evidence.
§ MR. MADDENI have stated that the Court only discharged Kent on his undertaking not to offend again. That was an admission on his part that an offence had been committed. I do not 89 know what the entry in the book was, but I will inquire.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe matter will come up in Supply to-night, and the Irish Members expect to gather information upon it from the answer to the question.
§ MR. W. O'BRIEN (Cork, N.E.)May I ask the Attorney General whether all the information he has given to the House upon the subject is not derived from District Inspector Ball, and whether that officer is not a man against whom a Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of wilful murder?
§ MR. MADDENI have no information from Inspector Ball.
§ MR. DILLONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. J. F. Gibbon, an American gentleman travelling in Ireland, was shadowed by the police, when visiting the town of Tipperary, on 12th July; whether the police constables persisted in listening whenever he conversed with friends in the street; and for what reason Dr. Gibbon was so beset?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am informed that the gentleman referred to was not shadowed. It appears that he spoke to Cullinane, who was shadowed, and it may be that upon that foundation he formed the erroneous impression that he was shadowed himself.
§ MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Hayes, of Portumna, on leaving his house on Sunday the 11th of May, to attend evening service, was shadowed by Constable Murphy, who, when Mr. Hayes met two of his friends and stood to speak to them, stepped in between the three men, and ordered Mr. Hayes who was smoking at the time, to stop doing so; that, upon Mr. Hayes' refusal to obey the order, and telling the constable that if he did not like the smoke he could easily get rid of it by walking away, he was arrested, brought to the barrack, searched, and £87 found in his pocket; that, although Mr. Hayes told the police he had sent on 15 cattle to the fair of Woodford, which was to be held on the following day, and requested that he should be brought before a Magistrate that evening, or early in the morning, so as to allow him to attend to the sale of his 90 cattle, his request was refused, and he was kept in custody until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, and lost the sale of his cattle; whether Constable Murphy is the-same man against whom both Mr. Fahy and Mr. Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions, held at Gort, for false arrest: can he explain how it happened that, although Mr. Hayes was arrested on the 11th of May, the matter was allowed to drop until Fahy and Morrissey had obtained decrees against the constable; whether he has seen that it was proved at the trial that the constable had taken several pints of porter before he arrested Mr. Hayes, and that, after a full hearing, the case was dismissed; and, if so, what compensation is Mr. Hayes to get; and what action he proposes to take in reference to the constable?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until Monday. I have not yet received information upon it.