§ MR. O'REILLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether on the occasion of an inquest held at Sutton, in he county of Dublin, before Dr. Davys, Coroner, on the body of the boy David Farrell, who was killed at Baldoyle Races, in consequence of falling under the railway carriages, a witness named Strahan gave the following evidence:—
There was a very large crowd assembled on the platform, and amongst them five or six respectably dressed men, who had formed themselves into a kind of triangular wedge, and were pushing along the crowd, parallel to railway line. Their conduct, he believed, was monstrous, and, as the result of the pushing, he saw people thrown off the platform on to the rails. Almost directly directly afterwards he heard the shout that a boy was killed. He knew one of the men engaged in pushing, but as he was a brother Freemason, he could not reveal his name;whether the witness was justified in refusing to reveal the name of the incriminated person on the ground that he 1855 was a "brother Freemason," or whether there is any such legal privilege for Freemasonry; if not, whether the Coroner was right in not requiring the witness to state the name of the person whose improper conduct he stated led to the fatal result?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, reference was made in the Question of the hon. Member to a statement that had been made at the Coroner's Inquest held on the body of a boy named David Farrell, who was killed at Baldoyle Races in consequence of falling under the railway carriages. A witness stated that he knew one of the men engaged in pushing when several persons fell off the platform, but that as he was a brother Freemason he could not reveal his name. In reply to the Question he (Mr. Dowse) had to say that this witness was not justified in refusing to reveal the name of the person on that ground, neither had he ever heard of any such privilege being claimed before. The Coroner had placed himself in communication with the Government, and had pointed out that no evidence had been given incriminating any of the five persons who had been pushing, and to whom the witness Strahan referred, adding that it was on this account he had not thought it necessary to insist upon the witness revealing the name. The Report which had been received from the Constabulary substantially confirmed the Coroner's statement. He might add that the gentleman referred to by Mr. Strahan had written to the papers, giving his name, and admitting that Freemasons had no such exemption as had been claimed for them. The Coroner was not justified in declining to ask the name, and instructions had been given to the Crown Solicitor to see whether there was ground for proceeding farther in the matter, and no doubt, if there was, Mr. Strahan would see cause to state the name of the person he referred to at the inquest.