§ MR. O'REILLYwho had given Notice to call attention to the Papers laid on the table of the House relative to the case of Patrick Donohue, county of Longford, and to move for Copy of any Correspondence on the subject between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or Lord Lieutenant and the magistrates who acted in the case, said, that the facts were that the house of a gentleman of the name of Thompson had been burnt down on the night of the 20th of June, 1864. On the following day he had some reason to suspect a certain labourer of the name of Donohue had been concerned in the affair, and accordingly, on the 21st of June, Donohue was arrested without a warrant, and another man who was wanted as a witness was also arrested without a warrant. On the 22nd of June, four magistrates assembled in the ordinary sessions house, although it was not the regular petty sessions day, for the purpose of investigating the charge. No summons to attend the meeting was issued to the other magistrates, and the hearing took place with closed doors. In fact, it was not an open court of justice. The accused person was not allowed to call witnesses, or to give 468 bail—no evidence was given of the arson —and Patrick Burke, the person who had been arrested to give evidence as a witness, said he had no evidence to give. Notwithstanding, Donohue was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. This was done, not by the great unpaid, but the stipendiary magistrate, who received £800 a year for his presumed knowledge of the law. The Lord Lieutenant subsequently commuted the sentence and directed the man to be discharged. He had received some compensation, and the conviction was quashed by the Irish Court of Queen's Bench. He wanted to know what steps had been taken by the Lord Chancellor with regard to the magistrates who had acted in this manner, and how far it was legal to arrest a man without a warrant. He understood that the rules of the House precluded his moving the Resolution which stood on the paper, but he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to answer the question satisfactorily.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the papers which had been laid upon the table showed that the case was one which called for the attention of the Government. No doubt this Patrick Donohue was harshly condemned to imprisonment, illegally undoubtedly—as was stated by the Lord Lieutenant in his communication to the magistrates. It happened that at that time several incendiary fires had taken place in the neighbourhood, and that a positive information was sworn that this person, whose name was given at the time, had threatened to burn the farmstead.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, that there was no such statement as this in the papers.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that though it did not appear in the papers, it was nevertheless the facts.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to ask why such an important fact had not been published.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it would not do for the Government to produce private information. They could not produce confidential communications made by a servant of the Government to the Government itself in such a matter as this. The man was sentenced to be imprisoned for three months by a bench consisting of one stipendiary and three local magistrates, and was committed to prison. But there was some illegality in the forms that had been employed; and directly the Lord Lieutenant, the late Lord Carlisle, heard of it, he took the opinion of the Law 469 Officers of the Crown, and on their advice the prisoner was at once liberated, after about fifteen or twenty days' confinement. The Lord Lieutenant, moreover, administered a censure to the stipendiary magistrate, and expressed a hope that he would be more careful in future. No communication passed between the Lord Chancellor and the local magistrates; but the Government did take the matter up, and considered that the magistrates acted illegally in the matter.