HC Deb 12 July 1888 vol 328 cc1092-4
MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the charge against Mr. Latchford, J.P., for which he was sentenced at Tralee Petty Sessions to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour on Monday last; why was not the case disposed of before Justices under the ordinary Law, and why was it brought under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act; who were the presiding magistrates on the occasion; and, is it true that Mr. Latchford and Mr. Donovan, both Justices of the County Kerry, were previously reported by one of these magistrates (Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M.) to the Lord Chancellor for alleged sympathy with persons convicted at Tralee under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

Mr. Latchford was charged with riot. He was not sentenced to hard labour. The Justices in ordinary Petty Sessions could not dispose of the case. The presiding magistrates were Messrs. Roche and Massey. If any communications have been made to the Lord Chancellor of the kind indicated they would be of a confidential character, and would not come under my notice.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I should like to ask the Chief Secretary to explain a little further why the ordinary Justices at Petty Sessions could not dispose of this case?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The ordinary Justices at Petty Sessions have not got the power, as I understand, to dispose of a case of riot.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Might I ask whether this disturbance, this alleged riot, did not arise out of a dispute between two competing tradesmen; whether one of the competing tradesmen, finding himself in some difficulty, a crowd did not come to his assistance, while another crowd came to the assistance of Mr. Latchford, and there was some sort of trouble—I want to know on what grounds proceedings of that kind are brought before a Crimes Act Court, instead of before the ordinary Justices?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

This was a case of riot, as the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware; and I believe that he himself concurred with the action of the Government in this case, in proclaiming Belfast under certain sections of the Act for dealing with riot.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I shall bring the matter further before the Notice of the House; and, in the meantime, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the particular circumstances of this so-called riot.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON

I would ask the Chief Secretary whether he admits this fact—that Mr. Latchford, in his capacity of Justice of the Peace, attended a meeting to protest against the conduct of Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., in ordering a baton charge on the people without the slightest provocation; whether Mr. Cecil Roche reported him to the Lord Chancellor for that; and whether this Resident Magistrate, Mr. Roche, now tries him, and sentences him to a month's imprisonment, and refuses to state a case, or to increase the sentence so as to admit of an appeal?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he had no information as to the alleged cir- cumstances. He must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.