THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he had called attention to this case twice already. The circumstances were briefly these:—A young girl, under twenty years of age, determined to cease to he a Roman Catholic, because, as she stated, she had read the Bible. Having been urged by the priests and her friends in vain to change her resolution, she was at last subjected to the violence of a mob, who dragged her over the rugged stones by the hair. The sub-inspector of the district and three other policemen were appealed to for the protection of the girl, but they refused to interfere, and the girl was put into duress, from which she was released only by the interference of the Protestant minister, who stated in a letter that if he had not released her she would have been conveyed that night to a convent. Their Lordships might connect this case with that of Mary Ryan, who, by the connivance of the Home Secretary, had been spirited away to a foreign country. Now, he desired to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, it being true that sub-inspector Mark Burke of the Irish Constabulary having been convicted before a Bench of Magistrates in Ireland in the month of February last of a gross neglect of his duty, and in violation of his oath, in a remarkable case of cruelty and oppression inflicted on a poor female named Catherine Gaughan, and his misconduct having been laid before the Irish Administration for judgment thereon, and the Inspector General of the Irish Constabulary, having in his turn condemned the said Mark Burke, alleging against him 1159 that he had not offered a word in his defence, indicating, he added, that the accused knew how censurable his conduct had been, how it is, and at whose suggestion and influence it is, that the said Mark Burke is retained in his pay and allowances and in the public Service?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the case had already been twice answered. He would only say, in reply to the Question that the sub-inspector had been condemned for the offence to pay a fine of £2 and to be removed from Sligo to Donegal at his own expense. Having fallen ill in Sligo, he sent in his papers and thereby tendered his resignation. It was quite true that the sub-inspector took an oath to preserve Her Majesty's peace, but he had not violated his oath, as the noble Marquess had alleged, but had been guilty of a breach of duty, for which he had been punished. The sub-inspector had been forty-one years in the service, and his superintendent certified that up to the time of the summons in this case he had exhibited the utmost fidelity and zeal in the discharge of his duties. All the details of his case had been sent to the Treasury with a view to granting him a pension for his very long services.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that his charge against the sub-inspector was that, having sworn to preserve the peace, he refused to soil his fingers in doing Be. He would ask, Was it not wrong to give a pension to a public servant who had so misconducted himself?