HC Deb 22 March 1889 vol 334 cc531-3
MR. T. M. HEALY

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether a sentence of six months' imprisonment in default of bail (which was given), was inflicted on Mr. Moore Stack by Captain Welch, R.M., at Tralee on February 12, on the occasion of the trial of Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., upon the evidence of Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., who presided at Mr. O'Brien's trial; (2) whether the following was a correct transcript of the evidence against Mr. Stack given by Mr. Cecil Roche:— I am aware that this town is proclaimed, forbidding all meetings. I hand in a copy of it (sic), signed by Mr. Brown, R.M., whose signature I am acquainted with. I arrived from Petty Sessions at Killarney at a little past 4, and proceeded with a body of police and military, under the command of Colonel Turner, from the station to the gaol at Tralee. They were escorting a prisoner named William O'Brien to the gaol. There was a large and most disorderly crowd, cheering and booing, on the street. They booed for Mr. Balfour and myself. When a little past Benner's Hotel, I saw defendant, Mr. Stack, standing at the door of a house among a group of persons. When the car conveying William O'Brien, the prisoner, passed by, I saw the defendant take off his hat and wave it over his head, and at that time there was mingled cheering and booing from the people in the street. From my knowledge of the town of Tralee as a Resident Magistrate, I think such conduct is extremely likely to lead to a breach of the peace. (Signed), Cecil R. Roche "; (3) whether Mr. Stack was tried in the police barrack for that alleged offence; (4) was there any other evidence save that above given; (6) whether the deposition purported to have been taken under the Petty Sessions Act; (6) was it legal to try such cases out of Petty Sessions; (7) was the result of summarily trying Mr. Stack that the local unpaid Justices, such as Mr. Latchford and Mr. Donovan, J.P.'s were deprived of all opportunity of adjudicating in a case where they had equal jurisdiction with the Resident Magistrates; (8) were there other prisoners similarly dealt with on similar evidence; (8) had the Queen's Bench decided that there was no appeal from a sentence of that kind; (10) and did the Government intend to take any notice of the Resident Magistrates' conduct?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

(1) The sentence mentioned in the question of the hon. Member was given by Captain Welch, R.M., on the occasion mentioned (2) I have not seen a copy of the evidence of Mr. Roche, but I am informed that the transcript of it in the question of the hon. Member is correct. (3) The case was heard in the police barrack, Mr. Stack and his solicitor having applied that it should be disposed of at once. (4) Other evidence was given as to the general state of the town on the occasion, and the arrest of Mr. Stack. (5, 6, and 7) I am not aware whether the deposition purports to have been taken under the Petty Sessions Act, but I am advised that such cases may be disposed of out of Petty Sessions and by a single magistrate, and in this case the matter was so disposed of at the request of Mr. Stack himself. (8) Other prisoners were dealt with at the same time, but I have no information as to their sentences or the evidence given in their cases. (9) The Queen's Bench Division, I am informed, have not decided to the effect mentioned in the question of the hon. Member, but have stated that they would not interfere by certiorari with an order of the kind, except in a strong and clear case of misuse of magisterial authority. (10) In the case of Mr. Stack the action of the Resident Magistrate appears to have been quite regular, and the Government have no intention of interfering.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Wyndham, his private secretary, has stated that no persons have been punished for cheering for Mr. O'Brien or booing for Mr. Balfour? Is it to be understood that Mr. Wyndham excluded the taking off of a hat to salute Mr. O'Brien?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am perfectly aware of the statement made by Mr. Wyndham, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has himself called my attention to it. I do not see that the statement is in any way invalidated by what has taken place under the circumstances referred to.

MR. J. REDMOND (Wexford, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman has said the Queen's Bench have not decided there is an appeal. Perhaps the Solicitor General will say if it is within his knowledge that, in respect to another case under similar circumstances, an appeal did lie?

MR. MADDEN

I believe my right hon. Friend is quite correct in his statement. To the best of my recollection, the principle laid down was that the Court would not interfere unless there was want of jurisdiction or misuse of magisterial authority. But I will inquire.

SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly tell us what in his judgment was the offence for which a sentence of six months' imprisonment was inflicted?

MR. MADDEN

So far as I can see from the facts stated, the offence was conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

MR. J. REDMOND

To elucidate the matter, I will give notice of a question in reference to the decision I refer to.