§ MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that, on the night of the 14th July last, a party of Nationalists on their way home from a demonstration held in Derrygonnelly, County Fermanagh, were fired at, as alleged, by an Orangeman named James Kerr at a place called Dromore, near Derrygonnelly; whether the said James Kerr was prosecuted by the Crown at Derrygonnelly Petty Sessions on Friday, 30th July, 1886, for this offence, when the following witnesses, John Gallagher, John M'Glone, and Patrick Cox, swore in the most positive manner that they distinctly saw James Kerr fire three shots in quick succession at them; whether the majority of the magistrates on the Bench refused informations against Kerr, and whether any of the magistrates so refusing are friends of the accused; whether the Attorney General, on reading the evidence taken before the magistrates, ordered a new trial; whether, when the Crown Solicitor for Fermanagh (Mr. Alexander), by order from the Attorney General, brought up the case a second time before the magistrates at Derrygonnelly Petty Sessions on the 26th November, 1886, the magistrates on the Bench refused to accede to the order made by the Attorney General; whether two of the magistrates were from another Petty Sessions district, and is it true that one of them never sat at Petty Sessions in Derrygonnelly previous to the hearing of the charge preferred against James Kerr; is it a fact that the Crown had three additional witnesses to examine in this case, and that the magistrates refuse to hear them; why was a new trial ordered, and on what grounds did the Attorney General recede from the order he made for a new trial; and, will he order a fresh trial, or explain the reason why he declines to do so?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)Proceedings were taken by the police at the time, and under the circumstances mentioned in the Question. Some witnesses supported, while others rebutted, the charge by direct evidence, and the Bench refused to send the accused for trial. On reading the 943 papers, I thought it possible that the Justices had fallen into the same mistake as the hon. Gentleman seems to have done in his Question, and that they had regarded the proceedings as a trial, and not as a preliminary investigation with a view to trial. I accordingly directed the Sessional Crown Solicitor to have fresh summonses issued, and the case brought forward again. This was done; but although some further evidence was forthcoming, the Justices declined to alter their former ruling, or to re-open the inquiry, and I have no power to interfere further. I would add that it is not to be understood that Justices have not considerable discretion as to sending a case for trial, or that the magistrates exercised this discretion improperly in the case; but I thought that they ought to have an opportunity of further considering it. I am unable to give the information asked for as to the composition of the Bench.
§ MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been directed to the language used by Mr. Carson, one of the magistrates on the occasion, to the effect that the action of the Attorney General ordering a new trial was shameful and an insult to the Bench, and that the Bench would not review again their former decision at the beck of any official; whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that proper language for a magistrate to use towards the Representative of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland; and, whether he had directed the attention of the Lord Chancellor to it?
§ MR. HOLMESsaid, he had no power to order the magistrates to alter their decision.
§ MR. W. REDMONDDoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman not consider the language of Mr. Carson an insult to him?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!