§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the offence of which Joseph B. Walsh is said to be reasonably suspected, and for which he is detained in Kilmainham, would not, if committed in England, come under sec. 7, 38 and 39 Vic. c. 86, sub-section 1, known as the Picketing Section of the Conspiracy Act, and would, in case of conviction, be punishable by a maximum sentence of three months' imprisonment; and, whether the Whiteboy Acts, under which Joseph 564 B. Walsh would be liable to penal servitude or three years' imprisonment, do not order periodic flogging?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, referred to by the hon. Member, applies to Great Britain and Ireland alike; but the offence of which Walsh is suspected is not one of the minor character contemplated by that statute; it is a crime of the much more serious character under the Act 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 44. This Act authorizes the Court to order whipping in addition to imprisonment; but, as far as I know, it never forms part of the sentence.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, If the charge contained in the warrant on which Mr. Walsh was arrested was not an offence which, if committed in England, would come under the Conspiracy Act; and whether the Whiteboy Act was not an Act of such barbarity, and if it applied to Ireland alone?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it would not be an offence under the Conspiracy or Picketing Act, to which the hon. Member referred. The Whiteboy Act was intended to meet cases of a very serious character, such as firing into or attacking peoples' houses, or compelling them to abandon some employment or business in which they were engaged.
§ MR. PARNELLasked, Under what Act would the offence of which Mr. Walsh was suspected be a crime if committed in England?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)I should say that that is a Question which would more properly be put to the Attorney General for England.