HC Deb 20 July 1899 vol 74 cc1384-5
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Alexander Hopkins, Wesley Street, Belfast, who summoned two constables named Downes and O'Donnell for assaulting him on 3rd June; whether he is aware that on a cross case, tried also on the 6th July, brought by the constables against Hopkins, two Roman Catholic magistrates, Messrs. John Burke and Charles M'Lorinan, refused to believe evidence given in favour of Hopkins, who is a member of the Salvation Army, of excellent character, and sentenced him to a fine of 20s. and costs, declining to allow an appeal; and whether a memorial has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant, praying for a re-hearing of the case, and what has been the decision of his Excellency.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central

My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, the facts of which, I am informed, are substantially as stated, except that I am not aware that the magistrates refused to believe the evidence given in favour of Hopkins. The summonses against the two constables were dismissed on their merits, and there were no witnesses examined for Hopkins except as to general character. The constables denied on oath that they assaulted Hopkins, or saw anyone assaulting him. A woman who was with him on the occasion swore, however, that she assaulted and struck him in the face. As regards the third paragraph, it is not in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to direct a re-hearing of the case, but a memorial, if received, in favour of a remission of the fine will of course be considered in the usual way.

MR. DILLON

Was not the summons in this case one for indecent behaviour in the streets, and was it not issued under the Borough Act? Was not the man discovered by the police in company with a woman in a low quarter of the city, and was not the police testimony confirmed by the woman's own statement? Is it not the fact that under the Act Hopkins had a right of appeal up till the 13th July, and did not act upon it?

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

As to the last question, I cannot say, but the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. YOUNG (Cavan, E.)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are two of the most respectable—

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The question on the Paper has been fully answered, and also the supplementary question.

MR. DAVITT

On a point of order, is it in accordance with the usual practice of this House to make reference to the religious persuasion of magistrates on questions pertaining to their administration of the law?

* MR. SPEAKER

Such questions are sometimes asked, and I think it is unfortunate that they should be asked.