§ MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd ordered four respectable young ladies to be summoned and brought before the Kilmallock Petty Sessions on the 8th instant, for simply standing on the public street in that town; and, if it is a fact that on several occasions during the last four weeks, when four or five respectable farmers and shopkeepers happened to be conversing together, that he (Mr. Lloyd) 1253 had sent policemen to take down their names; and, if so, how long will this official be allowed to act in this manner? The hon. Member also asked, If it is true that in the case of the old woman Colman (sent to prison by Mr. Clifford Lloyd) that bail was offered at the time and refused by Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the ground that the parties were Land Leaguers; whether, on further inquiry, he has ascertained that this woman was sent to Limerick Prison and detained there for a fortnight, and not for one night; and, whether Mr. Lloyd has afterwards accepted the same bails for this woman which he refused a fortnight before?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERSir, as regards the first Question, it is not a fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd ordered four young ladies to be summoned for simply standing in the public street at Kilmallock. Four persons were summoned on the 8th instant for obstructing the public thoroughfare, under the following circumstances:—A police constable made a complaint that a number of women completely blocked up the thoroughfare, and rendered it necessary for the passengers to go off the footway into the road. Mr. Lloyd at first refused to grant summonses; but on the constable further complaining that although all the other young women, on being told to go off the footway, did so, these four refused to do so, and that they used insulting language, Mr. Lloyd granted a summons against them. On hearing the case, however, it did not appear to Mr. Lloyd to be one in which any punishment was called for, and the justices present concurring, the case was dismissed. There is absolutely no foundation for the allegation that on several occasions within the last four weeks four or five respectable farmers and shopkeepers happened to be conversing together, when Mr. Lloyd sent a policeman to disperse them and take down their names. Up to quite lately roughs used to collect at the corners, and hoot and insult and stone the police whenever opportunity offered. The police had distinct orders to prevent such persons assembling, and equally distinct orders never to interfere with respectable people standing about the streets. As to the second Question, I find in the case of Mrs. Colman that it is not a fact that bail was refused because the parties 1254 offering it were Land Leaguers. The fact was, the bailsmen originally offered did not qualify as such. I find that this woman was detained in prison from the 28th of June till the 8th of July, when she was released on security being found which was approved by the police. I am reported to have stated, and probably I did state, that she was only in prison for a night. That is entirely a mistake of my own, for which Mr. Lloyd is in no way responsible. I regret it; but I find, on looking over the Papers, that I misread them, and it was entirely my mistake. It is not the fact that the same bailsmen were accepted as had been previously refused. Having answered these Questions about Mr. Lloyd, I must say one word about that gentleman. These Questions have frequently appeared in the public newspapers in a form which excludes them, unless modified, from appearing on the Journals of the House. They are disseminated widely in the district over which Mr. Lloyd has charge, and convey a wrong impression of his action. I must say that Mr. Lloyd has had a most anxious and responsible position, and it is due to him for me to state my firm belief that, by his energy and his fearless and discreet discharge of his duties, he had changed the condition of the district to which he was sent, and has restored peace and order where, a short time ago, violence and intimidation ruled.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANI beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is not the fact that, on the hearing of the case against the four ladies, it was proved distinctly by a policeman that Mr. Lloyd had ordered him to issue the summons; and further, whether he did not refuse to take the bail of a farmer named Thomas O'Donnell, who pays a rent of £60 a-year, and also that of an owner of property in Kilmallock, James Walter?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERAs regards the second Question, the hon. Member must give me Notice. As to the first, I distinctly stated that Mr. Lloyd told the policeman on the information to issue a summons.
§ MR. CALLANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the late Member for Newry, Mr. William Whitworth, who is a magistrate for the borough of Drogheda, and his brother 1255 who is now the Representative of that ancient borough, have not publicly and privately intimated to the right hon. Gentleman that they consider that the appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to any Southern district would be that of a firebrand, and calculated to lead to a breach of the peace?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI have no information whatever from Mr. Whitworth, a gentleman not in this House.
§ MR. CALLANHas the right hon. Gentleman received any intimation?—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has put his Question and has received an answer.
§ MR. CALLANPardon me, Sir; not to the second part of the Question—namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any information from the present Member for the borough of Drogheda.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI certainly have received no official information. ["Oh, oh!"] Pray, one moment. I cannot remember that I have received any information whatever; but neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Gentleman has a right to ask me about private information.
§ MR. CALLANI was not asking about any private information. I was asking in reference to information which was perfectly public, and which was well known to the right hon. Gentleman not to be private.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANOn Thursday next, I will ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is not the fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd refused four substantial bails in the case of Mrs. Colman?
§ MR. HEALYasked, whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the same man who, on the testimony of a Roman Catholic priest, said, on the 1st of January, to that priest, when dispersing a meeting in Drogheda—"If you don't be off at once I will have you shot down?" He (Mr. Healy) was in Drogheda at the time, and heard Mr. Lloyd use that expression.
[No reply.]