§ MR. P. MEEHANI bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a youth named Thompson has been convicted of perjury in connection with the alleged malicious burning at Knockmay, Queen's County; whether he is aware that County Inspector Tweedy, with the knowledge that Thompson's statement was false, ordered his statement to be taken on oath, with the object of obtaining warrants to arrest three innocent men; whether an inquiry will be held into this officer's conduct; and whether it is part of a police officer's duty to order statements to be taken on oath which, as in this case, he knew had been deliberately concocted.
I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 24th July, at a special Court held at Maryborough, summonses were issued by order of the presiding magistrate, and that 767 County Inspector Tweedy retained the summonses in his office; whether he is aware that the magistrates at the ensuing petty sessions, ordered the return of the summonses; and can he say by what authority the county inspector refused to execute a legal order of a magistrate made in Court.
§ MR. BIRRELLI will answer these two Questions together. On the 24th July last, Thompson, who had made a statement charging three men with a serious crime, was brought before a magistrate, by direction of the county inspector, to have his information sworn and warrants issued if thought desirable. The magistrate decided to issue summonses. The county inspector, finding that Thompson's information differed materially from his previous statement, held over the summonses till he could speak to the magistrate, but had no opportunity of doing so, as the magistrate died. The summonses were withdrawn at petty sessions, on 4th August, and Thompson was subsequently prosecuted for perjury, and convicted. I see no ground for the allegation that the county inspector knew Thompson's original information to be false when he sent him before the magistrate. That officer's action throughout appears to have been in the interests of justice, and there is nothing in his conduct calling for an inquiry.
§ MR. P. MEEHANBy what authority did the county inspector refuse to execute the order of the magistrate?
§ MR. BIRRELLI should think the county inspector, finding a serious difference between the original statement on which the proceedings were taken and the information given at the proceedings, was perfectly entitled to exercise his discretion in the matter until he could refer it to the magistrate. At any rate, I see no harm in it.
§ MR. KILBRIDEHow long has this inspector been in Queen's County, where was he stationed before, and why was he promoted?
§ MR. BIRRELLI cannot say without notice.
§ MR. BIRRELLNo, Sir.