HC Deb 12 July 1887 vol 317 cc504-5
MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS (Cardiganshire)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Daily News of Friday, 8th July, which states that— The trial of prisoners charged with being concerned in the Llangwm Riots was resumed yesterday at Ruthin.…The wife of one of the defendants having died, permission for him to go home was asked; but as the prosecution opposed it the Bench could not permit him so to do. The defendant afterwards fainted; whether the prosecution has been instituted or is being conducted by or on behalf of the Government; and, whether the Government will in any case inquire into the truth of the above statement; and, if found to be true, take any action in the matter?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I have obtained a Report from the Clerk to the Justices on this matter. He informs me that, after some discussion in Court, he advised the Justices that, according to Statute, the accused must be present in Court when the depositions were taken. The Justices thereupon, after expressing their sympathy with the defendant, declined to let him go home, as it would be illegal to take the case in his absence. The case was then proceeded with for about two hours, when the defendant had a slight fainting fit. He was immediately removed, and proper remedies having been applied he returned into Court, and during the remainder of the sitting was accommodated with a seat on the Bench near a window. Subsequently the Court agreed to adjourn over Monday to enable the defendant to attend the funeral of his wife, and accordingly on Friday evening the Court was adjourned. The defendant then came forward and said he desired to thank the Bench for the consideration they had shown towards him and for their kind expressions of sympathy. The prosecution was instituted, and is being conducted, by the Solicitor to the Treasury.

MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS

said, the right hon. Gentleman had hardly answered the Question which he put— whether the Justices had declined to adjourn? He wanted to know why they did not postpone taking the depositions until the defendant had an opportunity of going home, and of recovering from the shock, and making arrangements with regard to his wife's funeral?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that the answer which he had just given showed that although the Justices did not adjourn at once, they adjourned after two or three hours, and for several days, to enable the defendant to go home.

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

inquired, how it was that the Court did not adjourn, especially in view of the fact that the defendant had only three days' notice of the trial?

MR. MATTHEWS

I am not able to answer that Question.