HC Deb 17 July 1893 vol 14 cc1700-2
MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the trial of John Thomas, at the Cardiganshire Assizes, on 11th July, when the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for assaulting Robert Lewis, the County Court Bailiff, in the tithe riots at Penrhyn, on 5th May; whether he is aware that it was stated in evidence that the crowd on that occasion numbered 100 people, armed with sticks, while the force protecting the bailiff consisted of only three policemen and one County Councillor, and that the bailiff, in consequence of the resolute look of the crowd, refrained from attempting to execute the order; whether any attempt has since been made to execute this order; whether there are many other orders not executed; and if steps have been taken to provide an adequate protecting force in future?

MR. ASQUITH

This is the case in which I stated the other day that I had directed the Public Prosecutor to bring the charge, which had been dismissed by the Magistrates, before the Grand Jury. Two men—John Thomas and Watkin Griffiths—wore accordingly indicted, and charged with assaulting the bailiff so as to cause him actual bodily harm and with a common assault. Thomas was acquitted of the graver charge, and convicted of a common assault. Griffiths was acquitted altogether. The facts proved appear to be substantially as stated in the second paragraph, except that, according to the bailiff's evidence, the demeanour of the crowd was (as he described it) "not particularly threatening." I am not aware whether this order has since been executed. As I stated the other day, there are, I believe, a number of orders unexecuted. But. so far as my information goes, it would not be fair to attribute this state of things wholly or mainly to the bailiff's fears of violence; it is, as I explained the other day, more probably due to the inconvenient and imperfect remedy given by the Act of 1891. I have directed that the special attention of the Chief Constable should be called to this case, with an expression of my opinion that the bailiff on the occasion in question was inadequately protected, and that such a failure to prevent violence should not be permitted to recur.

MR. REES DAVIES (Pembrokeshire)

Is it not a fact that the Chief Constables of both Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire have deprecated the use of a large police force as the least likely method of collecting the tithe?

MR. ASQUITH

I believe they have; but then, it is the duty of Chief Constables to protect bailiffs in the execution of legal process.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what length of time the orders of the County Court have remained unexecuted in consequence of this resistance?

MR. ASQUITH

I cannot answer that without notice. I will make inquiry.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

In view of the fact that the Constabulary is subsidised out of money voted by Parliament on the assurance that it performs its duty efficiently, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary shall report on the manner in which the Chief Constable of Cardigan has performed his duty before the Constabulary Vote is presented?

MR. ASQUITH

There is no sufficient ground for any such inquiry.