66. Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Chief Secretary whether he has official information showing who, in the course of the rioting which took place in Limerick recently, wrecked a number of shops, broke the windows of or otherwise injured several churches and other public institutions, and assaulted many persons, including Archdeacon Hackett; and what steps he is taking to secure the punishment of those responsible for these outrages?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe police inform me that at Limerick Petty Sessions on the 18th ultimo two boys were convicted for looting during the riot, and the case against a third was adjourned with a view to sending him to a reformatory school. On the 25th ultimo one man was prosecuted for window breaking, but the case was dismissed for want of evidence. On the 1st instant one man was fined 40s. for assault. Three others will be prosecuted on the 8th instant for assault, and proceedings are being taken by warrant against twelve others for riot.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, I do not think so.
67. Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked if the counsel for the Crown prosecuting prisoners charged with rioting at Belfast acted under the instructions of the Government in withdrawing the case from the Belfast Petty Sessions Court; and if, with a view to securing a conviction, it is now intended to hold the trial of these persons in Londonderry?
§ Mr. BIRRELLCounsel for the Crown appearing in the Belfast riot cases acted under the direction of the Attorney-General. The cases were not withdrawn from the Petty Sessions Court as they were never before the Petty Sessions. If the accused are returned for trial, the place of trial will be a matter for consideration.
Mr. F. HALLIs this a specimen of the justice that is likely to be meted out to Ulster men under the Home Rule Bill?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI have before stated that it is one which is habitually taken in Ireland, and for which there is the highest legal authority, and nothing illegal or contrary to the course of justice has been done.
§ Mr. MOOREIs it a fact that these prisoners were put in the dock before six magistrates sitting at Petty Sessions and ordered to be withdrawn by the Crown Solicitor, and can the right hon. Gentleman say they were not before the Petty Sessions Court after that?
§ Mr. BIRRELLAs has been decided in the Irish Courts, these persons were on the warrants returnable before a single magistrate.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThey ought not to have been.
§ Mr. LARDNERMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fact that for years past it has been the custom for the Belfast magistrates at the beginning of each year to meet and form a panel of magistrates to sit by rota, and that on the occasion in question magistrates other than those selected for the panel attended?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI believe it is a fact that a number of magistrates attended who had not been seen there before for some considerable time.
Mr. FRED HALLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these justices are not allowed to sit when they desire?
§ Mr. BIRRELLAs the hon. Member has raised a point of law, I would refer him to the case of Bransfield and a magistrate, which is to be found in the current number of the "Irish Law Times." In the report of that case he will find the judgment of Lord O'Brien and the Chief Baron, in which they go so far as to say that magistrates who appear in cases of this sort on a warrant returnable before a single magistrate may not improperly be called intruders?
§ Mr. MOOREMay I ask if there has been a single case in which these prosecutions in the South and West of Ireland have proved abortive owing to the action of the majority of the magistrates where the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted their decision?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not see how that arises out of the answer.