THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to call attention to a case brought before Mr. Woodlock, one of the Divisional Magistrates of Dublin, on Friday, the 1st of August, when a charge of most serious misconduct appeared to have been established by sworn evidence against two constables of the Metropolitan Police of that city; and to ask, Whether the Irish Government intend to proceed by summons against these officers in order that a full and open inquiry may be made into the matter? said, that the case was remarkable for two circumstances—first, it disclosed very gross misconduct amongst a body of men usually notable for their good conduct; and, secondly, on account of the conduct of the learned magistrate who heard the case arising out of such misconduct, and who appeared to have thought it right to pass the matter over, treating it as a trivial case, although he said the police were clearly wrong. In dismissing the case, the magistrate gave the impression that policemen who had been guilty of serious offences were to go absolutely unpunished. He (the Earl of Milltown) could not conceive anything more injurious to respect for the law than that such an idea should go abroad as that; if it was necessary to protect the police 411 in the execution of their duty, it was equally necessary to protect the public, when the police misused their great powers for purposes of oppression. The circumstances of the case were very short. They were contained in a paragraph in The Irish Times newspaper of August 1. A man named Williams, a letter carrier, was charged with attempting to rescue a woman from the custody of two constables, 119, of the B division, and 137 of the same division. No. 119 swore, in answer to questions put to him in the Court, in cross-examination, that he had not visited any improper house, and that Williams did not accuse him of ill-treating the old woman whom he had arrested. Although the man Williams had not made such an accusation, the other constable, on oath, admitted both offences; but, in addition to that, it was proved by four witnesses—perfectly independent, respectable men—that No. 119 had come out of an improper house with the other constable; that both of them were drunk; that No. 119 was fighting with a man, whom he knocked down; that he tripped up the poor old woman who had a basket of mushrooms for sale, and was standing by perfectly quiet, and dragged her along the ground. Williams, accompanied by another letter carrier, coming up, remonstrated with No. 119, who arrested Williams, and preferred against him the false charge of endeavouring to rescue the old woman from his custody. Thus it was clear that the constable had made a false charge against Williams, committed perjury, and had committed a series of grievous assaults, besides being drunk and frequenting an improper house. Yet the magistrate only said the police were clearly wrong, and he dismissed the case. He (the Earl of Milltown) hoped to hear from Her Majesty's Government that an open inquiry would be held, and that, if found guilty, the constables would be punished for their offences. He must, however, say that the case was not so clear against 137 B.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY (for Lord CARLINGFORD), in reply, said, that the facts of the case were not quite so serious as the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) had been led to believe. There were two policemen. One of them, Constable 119 B, seemed to have behaved very badly—indeed, as badly as possible—and the other constable not 412 so badly. But the magistrate, finding that the policemen had brought an accusation which they could not prove, took the only course open to him, and dismissed the case. The conduct of the police was not before the magistrate. Therefore, there was no ground whatever for censuring the magistrate, who merely discharged his duty by dismissing the case. It was no fault of his that the police were not punished. However, according to the Report furnished to him (the Earl of Kimberley), inquiry was made into the whole circumstances of the case, the result being that 119 B had been dismissed from the force. 137 B was a younger man, and, the case against him not being nearly so bad as that against the other, it was thought that a severe reprimand would be sufficient. As regarded the assaults committed by the constable, there appeared to be conflict of evidence; but it was, of course, open to the person who had been assaulted to proceed against the constable in the usual manner.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNWhat I complained of was, that the magistrate did not direct a summons to be issued, which would have been in accordance with the almost invariable custom.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that that would not rest with the magistrate, who would report the matter to the police authorities. That appeared to have been done, and the conclusion arrived at by those authorities was that 119 B should be dismissed, but that there was not a sufficient case with regard to perjury, nor sufficient evidence of the assaults, to lead to the probability of a conviction on a criminal charge.