§ 77. Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is for the offence of having used the Irish language in Ireland the police at Ballingeary arrested Claude Uasal Chavasse, B.A., of Christ Church, Oxford, imprisoned him, stripped him of his clothes, told him that a man born at Oxford had no right to speak Irish, insulted him, and got him fined; whether it is for that offence alone he maintains that the police treated Mr. Chavasse properly; if not, for what offence, seeing that no other was charged; whether he is aware that the resident magistrate who tried the case is an ex-policeman, and admitted that his reason for not allowing the policeman who had witnessed the whole occurrence to be cross-examined was his fear that the policeman was under the influence of drink; whether he is aware that local gentlemen have applied for Irish-speaking police to be sent to the place; and whether he can state any other reason for the conduct of the police in the neighbourhood of all the Irish colleges than the known hostility of their superiors to the Irish language?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe offence for which Claude Chavasse was arrested was that mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on the 22nd February. The accused after arrest was treated with kindness and consideration by the police and not at all in the manner suggested by the question, and when released he expressed great thanks for the kindness shown to him. No resident magistrate attended the Petty Sessions at which Chavasse was convicted. Requests have been received for Irish-speaking police to be sent to Ballingeary, but compliance with them has not been found practicable or necessary. I have no reason to believe that the conduct of the police in the neighbourhood of Irish colleges has been in any way blameworthy.
§ Mr. GINNELLHas Mr. Chavasse been accused of any crime whatsoever except that of answering a policeman in Irish?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir; but under the Defence of the Realm Act, when a person is asked a question by the police he is bound to answer to the best of his competency.
§ Mr. GINNELLSo he did.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir. Being an Englishman, he was asked a question in English and he replied to it in Irish to a man who does not understand that language.
§ Mr. LYNCHIs the right hon. Gentleman still under the Cromwellian influence he mentioned the other day?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI do not know.
§ 78. Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case under the Defence of the Realm Act against Mr. John M'Galey at Tralee Petty Sessions, the uncorroborated evidence of one recruiting sergeant was accepted, and the evidence of a sergeant of the Munster Fusiliers, who had distinguished himself for bravery during thirteen months at the front, was rejected, though corroborated by three civilian witnesses, and Mr. M'Galey sent to prison for three months with hard labour; whether he is aware that his imprisonment has been unanimously condemned by the Kerry County Council and other representative bodies; and having regard to the means by which it was compassed and the effect of it on recruiting in Munster, what action is being taken with regard to the recruiting sergeant responsible for it and with regard to Mr. M'Galey?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 29th February to a similar question of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, in which it was stated that the decision was confirmed on appeal.
§ Mr. GINNELLIs it not the fact, as stated in the question, that the evidence of one sergeant which was uncorroborated was accepted, while that of another sergeant, who has been fifteen months at the front, and which was corroborated by four civilian witnesses, was rejected?
§ Mr. BIRRELLAll I can say is that the case has been heard twice, and each time the decision has been the same.