HC Deb 01 April 1889 vol 334 cc1234-7
MR. WILLIAM CORBET

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention had been drawn to the report that, on the Rev. Father Farrelly going, on Wednesday evening, to the police barrack in Ark-low to surrender himself to the police, accompanied by his parish priest, the Rev. James Dunphy, Constable Sack-well caught Father Farrelly by the throat, in the presence of an excited multitude; had he received any Report of the reasons given by the police for batoning the people on this occasion, wounding eight men; and, what steps did he intend to take to inquire into the occurrence?

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

May I ask, before the right hon. Gentleman replies, if it is the case that the Rev. Father Farrelly went to the barrack in an excited state, considerably under the influence of drink, and seizing hold of the bell-rope, commenced to ring the bell in order to attract the people; and whether any further force was used than was necessary in order to prevent the rev. gentleman from ringing the bell?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The facts are as follow: Father Farrelly had, it is true, written to the Constabulary stating that he would surrender himself; but he at one time appeared unwilling to do so, and therefore it was that his house was broken open with a view to his arrest. The house was barricaded, and the police were within their legal right in what they did. It is not true that, upon the occasion of Father Farrelly going to the police barracks to surrender himself, he was assaulted by the police.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to answer some questions which the Solicitor General for Ireland was on Wednesday, and he himself on Friday, were unable to answer. Was not a joint letter written to the police authorities by Father Clarke and Father Farrelly announcing their readiness to be arrested; why was the warrant for their arrest held over for five weeks, when the police could have arrested Father Farrelly every day; why was the first step they took the breaking in of Father Farrelly's house in the dead of night; and what was the legal authority under which the police acted?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think it would be more convenient that the right hon. Gentleman should put these questions down upon the paper.

MR. SEXTON

I did.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Although I have seen a report from the police I am unable to answer the questions except from recollection. With regard to the first question I do not know whether a joint letter was sent by the two reverend gentlemen referred to, but the circumstances which transpired showed that they were by no means anxious to be arrested. In regard to the breaking into Father Farrelly's house at the dead of night my belief is that it occurred early in the morning. The police summoned Father Farrelly to come out, and finding that their summons was not responded to, and that the house was barricaded, they broke into it, and did not find that Father Farrelly was there. As to legal authority, I believe that all the police did was entirely within their legal right.

MR. SEXTON

Does the right hon. Gentleman affirm the very unusual suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston)?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no information on the subject.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N)

An intimate acquaintance with Father Farrelly enables me to say that the insinuation conveyed in the question of the hon. Member for South Belfast will be regarded by everybody who knows Father Farrelly as a gross and cowardly calumny.

MR. W. CORBET

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen in a local Tory paper a statement that when the train arrived at Arklow, Father Farrelly went on to the platform and asked the sergeant of police if he had a warrant for his arrest; that the sergeant replied in the negative, and Father Farrelly then went away stating that he would be prepared to give himself up at 10 o'clock on the following morning? A large crowd had assembled who hooted the police, but Father Farrelly advised them to go home.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers, but if it is correct it is in no way inconsistent with the statement I just made, that, notwithstanding the joint letter, Father Farrelly displayed no extreme readiness to be arrested.

MR. SEXTON

Is it the fact that eventually the rev. gentleman went to gaol of his own accord, accompanied by two officers in plain clothes?

MR. JOHNSTON

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say why Father Farrelly rung the bell?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I must respectfully point out to hon. Members that most of the questions put to me have a very indirect reference to the question on the paper. I must ask that notice should be given of them.

Subsequently,

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has stated that the Rev. Father Farrelly was drunk on a certain occasion, and I desire to ask him a question on the subject.

*MR. SPEAKER

I would point out to the hon. Member that that would be a most irregular proceeding. The expression referred to was used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast in a supplementary question, and may be taken as an illustration of the abuse of the practice of putting these supplementary questions. I think it is right that the matter should be allowed to rest there. It would be out of order for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin County to ask any further question on the subject.

MR. CLANCY

It was because I knew I had been somewhat out of order that I rose to put this question; and I now throw myself on the indulgence of the House, in order that I may be enabled to put the question. A gross imputation has been cast on the Rev. Father Farelly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast.

*MR. SPEAKER

There was no doubt an imputation thrown out, but it was irrelevant and arose in a supplementary question, which I should never have allowed to have been put on the Paper had it been submitted to me. It was, however, put before I could interfere, and it was met with a denial by an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, and there the matter ought to be allowed to rest.

MR. CLANCY

I appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast either to give his authority for the statement he has made, or to withdraw it.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether there was anything in the detailed Report of the arrest of the Rev. Father Farrelly that could justify the imputation thrown out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Mr. Johnston)?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have given the whole substance of the Report, and told the House that the rev. gentleman seemed to have been excited, but there was nothing at all that, so far as I know, would in any way bear out the imputation that has been made.