(While researching this story I spoke to the late
Jackie Clarke and enquired from him why Mr. Bourke was in this position, and he
informed me that Mr. Bourke was a popular practising solicitor, but when the
Sinn Fein Courts were held around the area
the people then went to these instead of the local courthouse. Mr.
Bourke, among others, then found himself with no clients to represent, so, him
being a pragmatic individual, put his pride in his pocket and went to the
local Town Hall in Ballina, where the courts were held for the area, and (see
below) took part in these proceedings.)
The late Mr. H. C. (Henry Charles) Bourke, who lived
in Amana House, Church Road, Ardnaree (renamed Plunkett Row, by Sinn Fein who
won heavily in the local elections in 1922, and took down all the old English
street names and replaced them with the names of people who gave their lives in
the fight for freedom, was the grandfather of Mrs. Mary Robinson, ex-president
of Ireland. He died on 28th May, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE AT COURTMARITAL OF
MR. H. C. BOURKE, SOLICITOR,
BALLINA
---------------------------------------------
(Ballina Herald, February 17,
1921)
---------------------------------------------
We
reproduce the following from the Connacht Tribune, which gives the evidence at
the courtmartial of Mr. Henry Charles Bourke, solicitor, Ballina:-
“With having taken part in the proceedings of
a Republican Court at Belmullet, County Mayo, on October 19th, 1920,
and for being in possession of Republican summonses, the publication of which
would be likely to cause disaffection, Henry Charles Bourke, Ballina, County Mayo,
was tried before a field general courtmartial, at Renmore, on January 28th,
1921. Accused, who pleaded “not guilty” was defended by Mr. Price, K.C.
A police witness swore that on October 19th,
1920, he was on duty at Belmullet. About 11 a.m. that morning he saw a large
number of people arrive at the town from outlying districts. About the same
time he saw four strange men arrive in a motor car from the Ballina direction
and enter the Royal Hotel. Accused had been in the hotel since the previous
evening. About twelve o’clock accused left the hotel and went in the direction
of the Belmullet workhouse. A short time after that the four strange men who
came in a motor car, and about fifty others, followed accused and entered the
workhouse. Witness with a party of policemen followed the crowd, and when they
entered the Boardroom they found the four strange men sitting at the table, two
of them apparently acting, as magistrates. One man named Heffernan was sitting
on a chair giving evidence in a case in connection with a dispute about
seaweed. He was being examined at the time by the accused. Witness asked the
Chairman if they were holding a court, and he replied that they were. Witness
asked what kind of court, and the reply was: “An Arbitration Court.” Witness
said that he had reason to believe that it was a Sinn Fein Court, and that he
would seize the documents and make arrests if necessary. He then seized a
bundle of papers lying on the table in front of the accused. He also searched
the accused’s person, but found no seditious documents or arms. The Quarter
Sessions were fixed for the following day at Belmullet.
A County Mayo magistrate swore that he knew
Mr. Bourke addressed various meetings during the war. He was a member of the
Old Mayo County Council, but was removed out of public life at the last
election owing to his political opinions.
Mr. Price said it was a serious charge for Mr.
Bourke, who had been a solicitor practising in mayo for the past twenty-four
years. He was a prominent man in ordinary public affairs. He had never been a
politician, but he had been a prominent man otherwise, particularly in the
recruiting campaign of County mayo, and was under very difficult circumstances.
He would be thrown out of every position on account of his anxiety to keep
within bounds of the movement that was going on in this country. In order to
convict the accused of this offence, the court must be satisfied that the
Arbitration Court was set up for ousting the courts in this country, and
preventing them from exercising their jurisdiction, and must be satisfied the
accused took part in that court with a knowledge of its criminality or its
illegal object.
In regard to the mere holding of a court
professing to be an Arbitration Court to settle disputes, it was a notorious
fact that the attorney-general, who was head of the legal profession in
Ireland, could see no evidence that the Arbitration Courts held in this country
were illegal. Solicitors did not know what they were to do last Summer in
connection with these Arbitration Courts. The matter was brought before the
notice of the Incorporated Council of Solicitors, and the reply was that the
Council, under existing circumstances, could see no objection to solicitors
protecting their clients’ interests in the Arbitration Courts. Counsel
submitted that there was nothing wrong or improper for persons, who, instead of
going into court, would submit their dispute to persons selected by them, and
it was nothing improper for a solicitor to act in such cases. Mr. Bourke was
not aware that these courts were illegal. He had not touched these courts since
that date, and would never touch them again, as he would not do anything that
would likely to cause disaffection.
The prosecution said that he must ask the
court to record a conviction in this case if it were satisfied. Was this
particular sitting of a nature calculated to be prejudicial to the maintenance
of law and order, or was it likely to cause disaffection among the civil
population? It was set up on October 19, the day before His majesty’s legal
court. One never heard of a case where a man went to arbitrate in a manner
explained by Counsel himself. Counsel further suggested that it was the duty of
a solicitor to go and assist a person who has been summoned.
When
they found an arbitration court summoning persons to appear before it, as
appeared by the document, that court ceased to be an arbitration court, and was
a court that arrogated to itself the power to appeal to persons to attend. It
was not longer a court of arbitration by consent, but was a court that asserted
the rights to compel people to attend, and once it asserted that, they had
established that the court was an illegal nature. Whether Mr. Bourke was
examining or cross-examining a witness was unimportant, because this showed
that he was taking part in the proceedings of the court. As to whether this man
took part in the court with a knowledge of its illegality, if they believed he
was present in the court he (prosecutor) had described, under the circumstances
that it was proved by the police witness, they were bound to assume that he
knew perfectly well the nature of the work upon which he himself was actually
engaged. “I, therefore, ask you,” concluded the prosecutor, “to find him guilty
on the first, second and third charges, and I also ask you to take into
consideration what has been said about Mr. Bourke’s character.”
Sentence will be promulgated.”
No comments:
Post a Comment