§
CLASS III.
That a sum, not exceeding £50,577, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ *(5.18.) MR. H. J. WILSON (York, W.R., Holmfirth)In Debate in Committee, language used by Lord Spencer was quoted as approval of the practice of jury-packing as carried out at Mary- 1888 borough last October, and I now wish to point out what I was not prepared to do at the moment that Lord Spencer specially reserved matters referring to three important points, and these reservations show that his words are in no way applicable to the trials at Mary borough. In the first place, Lord Spencer expressly limited himself to Dublin, and did not refer to other parts of the country. Then Lord Spencer said that his Government did tike precautions to prevent publicans and farmers in isolated positions being placed on juries in certain cases. From what I know of Queen's County, and from information furnished me by others better acquainted with the county than I am, I can say that among these jurors, all of whom must be rated at either £50 or £100, there were no such cases of farmers in isolated positions among those who were challenged, and not a single publican appeared on the list. The Attorney General for Ireland would do well to be more careful in his quotations the next time he cites Lord Spencer in defence of such proceedings as those I witnessed at Mary borough. There is another point of considerable importance in reference to the reply made by the Attorney General for Ireland. As justification of the course pursued the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the prisoners, after the trial of two of their number, pleaded guilty, but he did not say to what charge they pleaded guilty, and the context of his speech would give a false impression to those who did not follow the actual facts. In the first case, that of William Coll, the charge of wilful murder, was made, and a verdict of manslaughter, brought in. In the second case, that of Gallagher, the jury disagreed. Now, there were six others who had been sent there on a charge of wilful murder, and these pleaded guilty to manslaughter, getting what may be considered, under the circumstances, very harsh sentences. Against one of the accused, William Ferry, the Crown did not proceed. Then nine other persons pleaded guilty to misdemeanour, obstructing the execution of a warrant, and in four cases the Crown abandoned prosecution. Lastly, there was the case of the Rev. Father M'Fadden. The first charge against him was wilful murder, then the Crown altered 1889 the charge to conspiracy to murder, and what finally he pleaded guilty to was merely obstructing the police, and he was released on his own recognisances. I cannot, therefore, see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman can find any justification for the course pursued in the fact that persons charged with wilful murder were ultimately allowed to plead guilty to a charge of obstructing the police. I have thought it right to make this explanation, because I think the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland might lead people ignorant of the facts to suppose that the prisoners pleaded guilty to the charge of wilful murder.
§ Resolution agreed to.