HC Deb 21 April 1884 vol 287 cc130-1
MR. BIGGAR

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that complaints were made to the Constabulary of Ballymacarrett, Belfast, by the Rev. Patrick Farrelly, that his windows were broken on 26th December last, and again within a week of that date; was the stone-throwing on 17th March an attack on the Catholic Congregation leaving the Church on the National Holiday, and is it a fact that the only individual made amenable was caught, not by the police, but by the Priest, the Rev. Patrick Farrelly himself; is it a fact that the Constabulary suffered the individual to be at liberty though caught in flagrante delicto, and allowed him to be brought before magistrates on summons; did District Inspector Bull, on being personally informed by the Rev. P. Farrelly of the stone-throwing at his Congregation on 17th March last, reply to that gentleman that such a case was trivial; and, did Hon. Captain Forbes, R, M., when adjudicating on the case of stone-throwing on 17th March, express an opinion that it should have been at once brought up in the Custody Court?

MR. TREVELYAN

I am informed that the Rev. Mr. Farrelly complained that one pane of glass was broken in his window on the 26th of December last, and another on the 31st. The stone-throwing on the 17th of March was not an organized attack on the Catholic congregation. The allegation is that the Catholic boys called the others names, and thus provoked the disturbance. It is the fact that the only person made amenable was caught by the Rev. Mr. Farrelly, who witnessed the disturbance. The reason this boy was not arrested when the police came up was that they did not know what he was charged with, and the Rev. Mr. Farrelly asked the policeman to tell him the boy's name, but refused to say why he wanted to know it. Subsequently the police ascertained what the boy was accused of, and had him summoned. It is not the case that Colonel Forbes, when adjudicating, said that the case should have been at once brought up in the Custody Court. Neither did the District Inspector, upon being informed by the Rev. Mr. Farrelly of stone-throwing at his congregation, say that such a case was trivial. What he states he did say was that he advised the rev. gentleman not to make a State case out of the matter, as no one was hurt, and no harm done.