The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-01-07 00:00:00

THE AGITATION IN MELAND.

MR. WILFRID BLIINTS APPEAL.

The hearing of the appeal of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt
against the decision of Mr. Dillon, R.M., and Mr.
Sheehy, R.M., for obstructing the police in the dis-
charge of their duty in dispersing a meeting at Wood-
ford, co. Galway, commenced onTuesday at Portumna,
before Mr. Rice Henn, County Court judge. The
Court-house was crowded, those present including,
besides Mr. Blunt and Lady Anne Blunt, Mr. Shaw
Lefevre, M.P., Mr. Evelyn, M.P., Mr. Thomas
Lough (Hon. Sec. English Home Rule Union),
Mr. P. O'Brien, M.P., and Mr. Maclnnes, M.P. A
number of police were stationed in the Courthouse,
about 70 constables in all having been drafted into
the town. Mr. Sheehy, M.P., who had been brought
from Clonmel Gaol, and who is to be examined as a
witness for the defence, occupied a seat in court.
Mrs. Sheehy was accommodated with a seat beside
him. Mr. Blunt and Lady Anne Blunt sat in a side
seat during the early part of the day, but when the
Court resumed after lunch Mr. Blunt took a seat
beside his counsel. As Mr. Blunt and his party passed
to and from the court morning and evening they were
loudly cheered by the crowds which had collected
in the street. The cheers from the outside while
the proceedings were going on were at times so
loud as to interfere with the business of the Court,
and on one occasion Mr. Henn directed the attention
of the county inspector to the circumstance. A
stranger in court, who declared that he was an
English loyalist, spoke from the body of the court,
and said he had never seen anything like the way
the police were maltreating the people. Mr. Henn
remarked that the proceedings of the court must not
be interrupted. Mr. Harrington, M.P., stated that
District-Inspector Wade was causing his men to beat
the people in the most shameful manner, and he
asked the police authorities, if they did not wish to
see bad work, to remove him from being in charge.
The matter, however, dropped.
Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., who with Mr. Carson appeared
For the prosecution, stated the case for the Crown.
He related the circumstances preceding the holding
of the meeting on Sunday, October 23, as showing
the alleged unlawful character of the meeting. A
meeting had, he said, been held on the previous Sun-
day at midnight, at which Mr. Blunt was present.
That meeting was addressed by Mr. W. O'Brien, M.P.,
and others, and was convened for the same purpose—
that of encouraging the tenants in their resistance to
the sheriff. At that meeting Mr. O'Brien reminded
the audience that it was the anniversary of the found-
ing of the Plan of Campaign. Counsel read the
placard convening the meeting for the 23rd. It was
headed "English Home Rule Union," and stated that
an "indignation meeting would be held on Sunday,
the 23rd October, 1887, under the auspices of the
English Home Rule Union, to protest against the
cruel and heartless evictions carried out during the
week by Lord Clanricarde. Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, dele-
gate of the Union, will preside, and several English
members of Parliament will address the meeting."
The placard concluded with the words, "Assemble,
Irishmen, in your thousands to listen to a
message of encouragement from your friends.
God save Ireland I " Counsel read the Lord.
Lieutenant's order proclaiming the meeting, and di-
recting it to be suppressed. Counsel detailed the
circumstances attending the suppression of the meet-
ing, the advent of Mr. Blunt on the platform, his re-
moval from it by the police, Mr. Blunt's mounting it
a second time, and his removal a second time by the
police; and, continuing, submitted that the placard
convening the meeting was merely a thin colourable
pretence, and that the meeting of the 23rd October
was but an adjournment of the illegal midnight meet-
ing of the previous Sunday. In the interval several
evictions had been carried out, and it was clear that
just as the meeting of the 16th October was calculated
to incite the people to resist the sheriff at the pending
evictions, so the meeting of the 23rd was calculated
to incite the people to resist at the evictions, a number
of which still remained to be carried out. Mr. Atkin-
son was proceeding to read from the speeches delivered
at the meeting of the 16th, when The MacDermott,
Q C., who, with Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., appeared
for Mr. Blunt, objected. Mr. Henn ruled that that
could not be evidence against Mr. Blunt. Mr. Atkin-
son rejoined that he only proposed to make them evi-
dence as to the character of the meeting of the 23rd,
in order to show that it was an unlawful meeting.
He then cited a number of cases to show that a
;netting was unlawful if called for an unlawful
purpose, or being called for a lawful purpose was,
through the circumstances surrounding it, calcu-
lated to cause terror or alarm to her Majesty's
subjects. He proposed, he added, to show the
state of the district. The MacDermott, interfer-
ing, said that if that question was opened up they
‘tould be there for a fortnight. Mr. Atkinson, continu-
ing, sa3d there had been 11 undetected murders in the
district, an immensity of boycotting, and injuries to
cattle. Counsel was proceeding to refer to the ques-
WTI of the meeting, a national League meeting under
a colourable pretence, when Mr.. Harrington pointed
out that if it was a National League meeting no pro-
clamation was necessary. The case, moreover, had
not been gone into in the court below. Mr. Henn re-
marked that surely Mr. Blunt had not come there to
sleet this new case. Mr. Atkinson then read the
letter addressed by Mr. Blunt on the morning of the
meeting to Mr. Byrne, the divisional magistrate, in
vrhich he intimated his intention to hold the meeting
hi spite of the proclamation. Counsel concluded by
stating that the defendant had been sentenced to
two months' imprisonment in the court below. On
that point he had nothing to say, but left it entirely
with his Honour should he come to the conclusion
that the finding of the court below was right.
Counsel for the Crown then called police witnesses
to prove that Mr. Blunt persisted in speaking at a
meeting after it had been proclaimed, and forcibly
resisted them in the execution of their duty. All the
policemen denied using any violence towards Mr.
Blunt or his wife, both of whom, they said were
"shamming." The proceedings were then adjourned
until Wednesday.