MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that on the trial of Michael Kelly, Luke Brown, and Simon Brown, at the last Mullingar Assizes, the Crown applied for a postponement of the trial on the ground of an affidavit sworn by police constable Fitzgerald that he had material evidence from a person named Gibbon, who had, he alleged, disappeared and could not be found; whether it turned out that Gibbon was at the moment sitting in court close by the constable so swearing, who, affecting to look around the court, avoided looking at the place where Gibbon was in waiting; the judge thereupon refusing the postponement; whether it is true that the principal of those Crown witnesses and several others examined for the prosecution swore that they had been frequently, in the course of the summer of 1879, supplied with porter and other intoxicating drinks by the above mentioned constable Fitzgerald and other members of the force in charge of Curraghmore police station, such drinking having gone on both in the station and in the fields; whether constable Fitzgerald admitted that he had so supplied the witnesses with drink, the mother of the principal Crown witness stating to the court that her son Patrick was constantly supplied with whiskey and other drink by constable Fitzgerald, and that she found about her place a large number of bottles, whiskey, beer, and porter, given by Fitzgerald to her son; and, whether any and what censure has been passed upon such practices on the part of the Irish constabulary towards those persons whom they desire to produce as witnesses on criminal prosecutions?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERSir, it is not the intention of the Government to institute any proceedings in connection with this case. The charge against the persons named was one of agrarian outrage, and I fear their acquittal cannot be regarded as otherwise than a failure of justice. I am disposed to think that, although the conduct of the police witnesses was perfectly satisfactory, there was a good deal of perjury committed at the trial; but it would not be the Crown witnesses against whom proceedings should be taken if any were to be instituted at all. It is the case, I understand, that a postponement was applied for upon the ground of the absence of a witness named Gibbon, who, it subsequently transpired, was in Court at the time. This witness eventually gave evidence differing materially from previous statements he had made, and I understand that he was found, after the postponement referred to, in an obscure part of the Court, behind the Crown witnesses, by whom he would not naturally have been seen at the time the affidavit was put in. With reference to the supply of drink to witnesses, I gather from the reports that the statements are considerably exaggerated, though it appears that the constable, when engaged upon special duty of a detective character, had occasion to meet some of the parties who afterwards appeared as witnesses, and supplied them with refreshment. It would manifestly be undesirable to lay down any very definite rule as to the liberty of action in that respect of a constable employed upon detective duty. I have arrived at the conclusion, after considering the report made to me, that the constabulary did not exceed their duty in the matter.
MR. SULLIVANasked, if anyone had contradicted the statement that the police plied the men with drink while getting up their evidence?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that it was admitted at the trial that drink was partaken of by parties at the constable's expense; but it was some time before the trial.