§ 12. Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, on the 3rd of April, 1919, a youth of twenty named John M'Loughlin was taken into custody in Westport by District-Inspector Victor H. Scott, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and after two days removed to the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at Castlebar, where he was kept in custody till a few days ago; whether his father was refused a permit by the military authorities to go to Castlebar to inquire about his son; whether he is aware that no charge of any nature has been made against him; whether, when a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus was granted by the King's Bench Division, the only excuse put forward by District-Inspector Scott was that John M'Loughlin had made a statement on the murder of Mr. Milling, and consented to be kept in custody for his own safety; whether John M'Loughlin was induced by District-Inspector Scott to make an affidavit stating that he did not object to being detained; whether, in spite of the alleged danger to John M'Loughlin, the Crown applied to the King's Bench Division to be allowed to send him home to Westport; whether, since his release, John M'Loughlin has stated that lie made no statement about the murder, that he never consented to be kept in custody, and that he was induced by threats to swear his affidavit; whether, in spite of the act that no legal excuse was suggested for the action of the Royal Irish Constabulary, no costs were given to the father of John M'Loughlin on his application for habeas corpus; and whether he will have the case inquired into?
§ 13. Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether another habeas corpus writ has been issued against the Irish Government, and in consequence a boy named John M'Loughlin, of Westport, has been re leased from custody and returned to his parents; whether this is the fourth case in which the law has thus been broken by the Government in Ireland; whether the arrest and abduction of these children was authorised by him or by the Law Officers, and, if not, by whom was it 1390 authorised; and whether he is aware that the violation of the law by those responsible for its administration has brought the administration of the law into contempt over a large part of the country?
Mr. BARRIEAn application was made for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of John M'Loughlin, a young man aged twenty and a half years, to the King's Bench Division. M'Loughlin was not taken into custody, but was accommodated by the police at the barrack for his own safety, and afterwards with his consent at Castlebar. M'Loughlin attended the Court and made an affidavit, and the judges, on reading his affidavit, discharged the conditional order for a habeas corpus and refused to give any costs. There is no foundation for the suggestion that M'Loughlin was induced by threats to swear the affidavit. The district inspector reports that he has no knowledge of any refusal of a permit to M'Loughlin's father. The Irish Government have no knowledge of any statements made by M'Loughlin since the matter was before the Court.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHCan the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHCan the hon. Gentleman say when we can have somebody here from the Irish Office who can answer questions?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHHe is never here.