HC Deb 26 June 1919 vol 117 cc313-4
21. Lieut.-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many girls were arrested in Killarney on a recent occasion for selling flags, and how many soldiers and policemen were employed in this operation?

23. Mr. MacVEAGH

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that four young ladies have been arrested in Killarney on a charge of selling flags on labour day; whether, after the magistrates had dismissed the cases on the ground that the Defence of the Realm Act was never intended to operate in such a case, the young ladies were re-arrested, and on the same charge were sent to prison in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour; whether there is any precedent in England or Scotland for such proceedings; and whether the young ladies are still in prison?

Mr. SAMUELS

Five females were summoned to ordinary Petty Sessions at Killarney on the 20th May last on a charge of selling flags without a permit. The magistrates by a majority dismissed the charges without prejudice. The prosecution was not brought under the Defence of the Realm Act, but under the Act 6 and 7 George V., Chapter 31, Section 5. As there was a clear breach of the law directions were given that the defendants should be brought before a resident magistrate. This was done on the 3rd June, and an application was then made to bind them to the peace. As the defendants refused to give bail they were committed to custody for fourteen days. They were released on the 14th instant.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Is there not a danger that this policy of petty persecution will drive the Irish people beyond all endurance?

Mr. MacVEAGH

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether there is any precedent in England or Scotland for such a proceeding?

Mr. SAMUELS

I have not looked up precedents, but I should think there is no doubt whatsoever that where a case has been dismissed without prejudice other proceedings may be taken.

Mr. MacVEAGH

As I gave notice of this question, and as the right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, can he not answer the question as to whether there is any precedent for putting people on trial for the second time on the same charge as that upon which they were acquitted the first time?

Mr. SAMUELS

These people were not acquitted, but the case was dismissed without prejudice. I do not think it is necessary to search for precedents.

Mr. MacVEAGH

There is none, and you could not find one.