§ MR. FLYNNI beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen from the report in the Cork papers of the trial of Mr. James O'Brien, at Youghal, on the 27th ultimo, that a policeman named Quinn, disguised in plain clothes, gave Mr. O'Brien in charge to another constable, on a charge of obstruction, and Mr. O'Brien was thereupon arrested and taken to the police barracks; and, if the fact be as above stated, will he state under what authority the constables acted; why was not Mr. O'Brien summoned for the alleged offence, instead of being summarily arrested; and have the Constabulary in Ireland power to summarily arrest persons at the request of a constable? The hon. Member had also the following questions on the Paper relating to the same subject: To ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could state what was the nature of the obstruction complained of; and, in view of the fact that the Magistrates inflicted no punishment on Mr. O'Brien, and that he was imprisoned in Cork Gaol for seven days without trial, what compensation will be awarded him? To ask further whether the Attorney General could now state why was Mr. O'Brien summarily arrested by a policeman; what charge was made against him; and why was he' not summoned in the ordinary manner?
§ *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin UniversityI am informed that the circumstances under which James O'Brien was arrested at Youghal were these: He was engaged in wilfully and persistently obstructing a constable while engaged in the proper discharge of his duty, by persistently following the constable about, pointing him out as a policeman in plain clothes, and calling public attention to him, thereby preventing him from discharging 806 the detective duty on which he was employed. Constable Quinn, who was thus obstructed, thereupon called on Constable Blake to arrest O'Brien for such offence, and for conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. The police have power to arrest in order to prevent an apprehended breach of the peace. When taken before a Magistrate, O'Brien is stated to have grossly misconducted himself in Court by abusing the Magistrate and the constable who was being examined as a witness. Having refused to give bail for his good behaviour pending the hearing of the charge, he was committed in custody from June 16 to 20. The charge against him was then heard in Court, and he was convicted. The Magistrates who heard the case were apparently of opinion that the law had been sufficiently vindicated by the imprisonment the man had already undergone white awaiting trial, and that the merits of the case would be met by ordering his further detention in custody until the rising of the Court.
§ MR. FLYNNMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the wilful and persistent obstruction to which he has referred consisted of Mr. O'Brien's merely referring to the fact that the constable who was following him was as well entitled to buy beasts, at the fair as he was; and that the constable in his sworn information admitted that this man had neither intimidated nor interfered with him more than that. Also, whether he is aware that two other men who were brought up on the same charge were merely summoned; and, if so, why Mr. O'Brien, who was a well-known shopkeeper in the locality, was not treated in a similar manner?
§ *MR. MADDENI am informed that there were two other men charged with obstructing this constable in the discharge of his duty, but their conduct was not so offensive as Mr. O'Brien's, and, in the opinion of the constable, was not likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and therefore they were summoned and not arrested. With reference to what, occured at the fair I have no details before me, but I assume, from the conclusion to which the Magistrates came, that the evidence brought before them was of a different character to that which 807 has been laid before the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether the detective was following Mr. O'Brien, or whether Mr. O'Brien was following the detective?
§ *MR. MADDENThe detective was not following Mr. O'Brien. He was at the fair for the purpose of generally preventing boycotting. A question was asked yesterday to that effect, but I am informed that he was not shadowing Mr. O'Brien.
§ MR. SEXTONIf the detective had a right to follow people at the fair, had not Mr. O'Brien as good a right to follow the detective?
§ *MR. MADDENYes, Sir; unless he did so in such a way as to obstruct him in the discharge of his duty.
§ MR. FLYNNThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered a portion of the question. Why was it that this man, O'Brien, who was well-known to the police, was not summoned, as the other two men were, instead of being summarily arrested and taken to gaol?
§ *MR. MADDENI think I have answered that question. I said that this man was arrested because his conduct was such as was likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
§ MR. FLYNNBreach of the peace on the part of whom? On the part of Mr. O'Brien or on the part of the constable? Was not a breach of the peace as likely to arise on the part of those persons whom the detective was following as on the part of Mr. O'Brien, who was alleged to be following the detective?
§ *MR. MADDENIt is impossible for me to argue this question across the floor of the House. If Mr. O'Brien has been illegally arrested and imprisoned he has his remedy.
§ MR. W. REDMONDMight I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he approves that system of imprisoning men first and trying them afterwards?
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That as a matter of opinion.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that when a complaint is made that an officer of the Government, under their immediate direction and control, has been guilty of an excess of power towards a private 808 individual, it is quite enough answer for the Government to say that he has his legal remedy?
§ *MR. MADDENThe right hon. Gentleman asked the question in substance whether I laid down the principle that a person aggrieved by the act of an official of the Government who has done wrong ought to be left by the Government to his legal remedy. I laid down no such principle. In the present case the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that the Magistrates endorsed the action of the constable in this matter, by ordering the person arrested to find surety to be of good behaviour, and, in default, committing him to prison. Of course, I must assume the action of the Bench and the constable to be right, and therefore I submit that I was justified in giving the answer which I did. I may add, for the information of the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that, so far from the Irish Government acting on the principle which the right hon. Gentleman assumed, only yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in answer to a question with relation to the illegal detention of some person in consequence of a mistake made by the Governor of the gaol, stated that he would not leave the person so detained to his legal remedy, but would consider what ought to be done.