§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Tomgraney, County Clare, Petty Sessions on the 27th July, when a number of men were prosecuted for not on the occasion of a seizure for rent at Bodyke; whether he is aware that the Resident Magistrate desired to send six of the men for trial, declaring that the offence was an indictable one; that the District Inspector of Police intervened and said that this course had been found unsatisfactory in the past; and that these six men, against whom the Magistrates held there was a primâ facie case for an indictable offence, were discharged after being bound over to keep the peace; whether the District Inspector, in referring to the unsatisfactory method of procedure in the past, had any reference to the refusal of juries to convict in such cases at the Assizes; and whether, in pursuing the course he did, the Inspector was acting under instructions from Dublin Castle?
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe facts connected with this case are as follows:—On the 13th June two caretakers on the Bodyke Estate, with their police escort, went out for the purpose of mapping some farms. A crowd was attracted, and assembled round; at no time did it exceed 30 persons. Several members of the crowd hooted and groaned the caretakers, and on being cautioned by the police the greater number of those assembled desisted from any demonstration. When the caretakers moved away the crowd followed them, but on the police advising the people to go back they all did so with the exception of five or six, who persisted in following. After proceeding some distance this party was joined by a number of children, and three stones were thrown in the direction of the police and caretakers without, however, striking anyone. The whole matter was reported by the Constabulary Authorities, who recommended the case as one in which the persons identified as 1197 having been members of the disorderly crowd should be proceeded against, with a view of having them bound over. The Divisional Commissioner approved and directed that proceedings be taken, and summonses were issued accordingly. It appears, however, that the Petty Sessions Clerk omitted to enter in the Order Book laid before the Magistrates that portion of the notice to the defendants which called upon them to give sureties of the peace, and the Magistrate did not think, therefore, he had power to comply with the application of the District Inspector in this respect; but on being shown the summons the Magistrate at once acceded to the District Inspector's application, at the same time remarking to the defendants that their conduct was of an aggravated character, and that it was fortunate for them they were not proceeded against on the more serious charge. The District Inspector denies that he made any allusion to the action of Juries, or assigned, as a reason for his application to the Magistrates, that cases of a similar character had been sent for trial with unsatisfactory results. No instructions were given in the case from Dublin Castle.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLMay I ask whether the Magistrate who presided at this trial used words to the effect that on the evidence it was clearly an unlawful assembly and an indictable offence; and if the prosecution had been brought in any other part of Ireland save the County Clare, the defendants would have been found guilty and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment?
§ MR. J. MORLEYI cannot say that that language was used by Mr. Hodder, the Magistrate; but I am warned that the newspaper reports of these proceedings are gravely inaccurate. I have given my hon. Friend what information has been supplied to me.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI hope to deal with this case also to-night.