HC Deb 25 July 1890 vol 347 cc894-6
MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has yet received the depositions in the case of Mr. David Kent, who was charged with "shadowing" District Inspector Ball at Fermoy Fair; whether he has received any further information to show that Mr. M'Causland, concerning whom it is alleged that Mr. Kent went towards him "for the purpose of preventing the sale of his lambs," had no lambs nor anything else for sale at the fair that day; and if further inquiry will be made into the case?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University

I hope I shall be able to answer the hon. Member's question on Monday.

MR. FLYNN

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of David Kent on a charge of obstructing District Inspector Ball of Fermoy, from which it appears that the Magistrates said that there was No evidence to convict, we therefore dismiss the case, but defendant is to give an undertaking not to interfere with Inspector Ball any more; and that defendant thereupon, addressing the Bench, said— The only undertaking I would give would he that if I am not shadowed myself, and my business injuriously interfered with at the fair, that I would not shadow Mr. Ball; and if he can state under what statute or authority had the Magistrates power to ask Mr. Kent to give the undertaking above referred to?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The statements contained in the first paragraph of the question are inaccurate and misleading. The Magistrates did not discharge, but convicted, and the defendant did not give a qualified undertaking, but a distinct and absolute one, not to interfere with District Inspector Ball or the police, and, in consequence of that undertaking, the Bench ordered him to be discharged at the rising of the Court.

MR. FLYNN

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state why was Mr. James O'Brien, at Killeagh Fair, arrested summarily on a charge of shadowing a policeman in plain clothes, instead of being summoned in the ordinary way?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Mr. O'Brien was arrested on a charge of persistently obstructing the police. To have proceeded by summons would not have had the effect of stopping the obstruction by which the police were prevented doing their duty.

MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Royal Irish Constabulary are in the habit of following Mr. Thomas B. Kelly, of Church Street, Claremorris, County Mayo, from house to house in every town he visits in pursuit of his business as a commercial traveller; that in several cases they have followed him into the houses where he has had to call, and have stood by his side while he was transacting his business, even warning shopkeepers against doing business with Mr. Kelly; and whether the police, in pursuing this course, are acting under instructions; and, if so, what are the reasons for placing Mr. Kelly under this police surveillance?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Constabulary Authorities report that, so far as can be ascertained, the police in no instance acted in the manner alleged in the question.