§ MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the remarks by Baron Dowse on the informer Walsh, as follows:—
A worse specimen of humanity, if the word humanity could be applied to such a person, never in the whole course of my experience, which I am sorry to say is rather long, have I met with than this man Walsh. The jury should be careful before they believe the evidence of such a man;779 and, whether it is the fact that the informer was the chief witness, that the jury acquitted the prisoners; and, who is responsible for employing Walsh in the case?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, he had seen the remarks quoted by the hon. Member, and, no doubt, the quotation was accurate. Walsh was the chief witness in the case; but there were others, and their evidence was all considered by the jury in acquitting the prisoners. It was, nevertheless, in his opinion, the bounden duty of the Advisers of the Crown to have the case fully and fairly investigated; and it by no means followed, because a man by his own confession had been implicated in a great crime, that he was not truthful, although the jury was perfectly justified in declining to act upon his evidence, as in this case.
§ MR. HEALYThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question—who is responsible for employing Walsh, and also how much Walsh will get for the job?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he entirely demurred to the use of the word "employed." The authorities entrusted with the investigation of crime, when they found a man could give important information in reference to atrocious crimes like murder, were bound to take his evidence; and if they considered there was a case to go to the jury they were bound to submit it. As to the other portion of the Question he could not answer.