QUESTION. (Hansard, 13 March 1868)

COLONEL STUART KNOX
said, that before putting the Question that he had placed on the Paper, he wished to express his astonishment, as he had already done to Mr. Speaker, that in that day's Votes it appeared in a mutilated condition; he supposed on account of what he might call the unwarrantable attack made upon him yesterday by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith). His (Colonel S. Knox's) only object in putting the Question was to relieve the minds of the loyal inhabitants of the North of Ireland, who, while always ready to obey the law, writhed under the 1592 partial operation of the Processions Act. The Question he wished to put to the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, Whether the Government; having vindicated the Law by obtaining the conviction and punishment of Mr. Johnston, of Ballykilbeg, and other Orangemen, for offences against the Processions Act, (which had not proved itself impartial in its working), will in deference to the feelings and wishes of the loyal inhabitants of the North of Ireland, recommend the clemency of the Crown, and the remission of the remainder of their terms of imprisonment?

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
, said, before the noble Lord answered that Question, perhaps he would allow him to put to him the Question of which he had given notice on the same subject—namely, Whether, with a view to the vindication of the equal and impartial administration of the Law in Ireland, it is the intention of the Government to yield to any Parliamentary solicitations in favour of Mr. Johnston, until he has expressed regret for his late proceedings, and has himself petitioned for the exercise of the mercy of the Crown in his own favour?

THE EARL OF MAYO
said, he hoped the House would permit him to state as briefly as he could what had taken place in that matter, as it was one of considerable importance. On the 28th of February last, at the Downpatrick Assizes, twenty-five or twenty-six persons were indicted for breaches of the Party Processions Act, committed in various districts of the county of Down, and also on two separate occasions—namely, the 12th of July and the 15th of August. All of those twenty-five or twenty-six persons pleaded guilty except three, when the Attorney General, with the full concurrence of the Judge, suggested that they might be allowed to stand out on their own recognizances. Their counsel stated that they regretted extremely having been guilty of those offences, and promised faithfully that they would not be parties to any breach of the law for the future. The twenty-two or twenty-three persons who took that course were thereupon allowed to stand out on their own recognizances. The three others—one gentleman (Mr. Johnston) and two men of humble rank—refusing to take that course were placed upon their trial, which lasted a very short time and ended in their conviction upon three out of the five counts of the indictment. That being the case, the Judge sentenced them 1593 to imprisonment for one month, with a further imprisonment of a month in the event of their being unwilling or unable to enter into recognizances to keep the peace. On the 29th of February Mr. Johnston presented a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, stating that he had refused to accede to the terms offered by the Attorney General, not because he was actuated by any spirit of opposition to the law or the authority of the Government, but because he could not say conscientiously that he had acted inadvertently and without deliberation on the occasion of joining and becoming ft party to the procession of the 12th of July, having attended the meeting after full consideration and with a full knowledge of what he was doing. That he accepted the verdict which had been given by a jury of his countrymen, and did not complain of it; and that, in so far as that portion of the sentence which related to his recognizances was concerned, he was perfectly willing to enter into them at once, and to give bail in the way that was required. He made no request for himself, but requested that his two fellow prisoners, who, he said, acted in the whole matter under his advice and suggestion, should be released. That petition was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, and referred to the Judge, who very naturally said that as it did not come from the prisoners themselves, but from a fellow-prisoner who did not ask for any remission of his own sentence, he did not think it his duty to offer any opinion on the subject. On the next day the Lord Lieutenant returned for answer that, as Mr. Johnston's memorial did not contain any request with regard to himself, his Excellency could not act upon it; but that if Mr. Johnston or the other petitioners memorialized in the ordinary way, their petitions would be considered in the usual course. On the 9th of March the two prisoners M'Whinny and Keatinge petitioned the Lord Lieutenant, stating that they regretted having committed the offence of which they had been convicted, and promised never again to be guilty of any breach of the Law. Their memorial was referred to the Judge, who next day answered that he thought they were entitled to favourable consideration as far as remitting the remainder of the sentence went; but that if they were released they should be required to enter into the necessary recognizances. On the 9th of March the Lord Lieutenant ordered the remainder of the sentence to be remitted 1594 with regard to those two men. He believed that yesterday they entered into recognizances, and he had no doubt they were discharged to-day. On the 9th of March a medical certificate was forwarded by the medical attendant of Downpatrick Gaol, stating that Mr. Johnston was a very delicate man, and that any further confinement would be attended with serious consequences to his health. On the 10th of March the Lord Lieutenant, having taken this representation into consideration, ordered Mr. Johnston's release on completing the recognizances, as, in his memorial, he had offered to do. Yesterday, however, the Lord Lieutenant received the following letter:—