§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what was the charge preferred against the four men, named John and Daniel Scannell, John Cahill, and Humphrey Moyniham, who were arrested on November 21, and taken before Mr. M'Dermott, R.M., at Rathmore, County Kerry; why was bail refused in these cases; and, if he will inquire into the practice that has recently been adopted, as is alleged, in this part of Kerry by the Constabulary of making arrests without warrant or other legal authority?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said (Dublin University)The men referred to were arrested under a sworn information made by one John Cronin, charging them with serious intimidation and assault. The object was apparently to compel him to join the Plan of Campaign, which had been recently started in the district. The District Inspector of Police, having regard to the serious nature of the charge and to the circumstances of the case, opposed bail in the exercise of his discretion. The District Inspector at the second remand consented to the prisoners' release on substantial securities to appear at Rathmore Petty Sessions on the 13th of December.
§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)Was there a warrant issued on the sworn informa- 840 tion, and on what ground did District Inspector Creagh refuse to admit these men to bail?
§ MR. MADDENsaid, he was not aware of the grounds upon which District Inspector Creagh refused bail. As to whether proceedings were taken by summons or by warrant he had no information.
§ MR. SEXTONasked if the police arrested persons merely upon sworn information without a summons or a warrant?
§ MR. MADDENI have no reason to assume that no warrant or summons was issued in this case.
§ MR. FLYNNasked if it was a fact that there had been a dozen arrests recently in the South of Ireland without the authority of either warrant or summons?
§ MR. MADDENsaid, he was not aware that such was the case.