HC Deb 28 April 1884 vol 287 cc740-2
MR. SEXTON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of James Johnston, a Protestant, tried in the Commission Court, Green Street, Dublin, on a charge of having murdered Philip Maguire, a Catholic, the Crown, in view of the fact that the murder had proceeded from party feeling, arising out of difference of religion, removed the venue from Cavan; but, in Dublin, counsel for the prisoner challenged every Catholic juror who came up to be sworn, and counsel for the Crown, on the other hand, so acted that the jury was exclusively composed of Protestants, the prisoner being also of that creed; whether this jury having, after four minutes' consideration, declared the prisoner not guilty, the Crown immediately thereupon entered a nolle prosequi in the cases of three other persons sent up to be tried on the same capital charge; whether, upon the trials, which closed on Wednesday last, in the same Court, of Catholic prisoners charged in what is known as the Barbavilla conspiracy case, the Crown, acting by the same agents as in the case last cited, made no objection to Mr. Amos Vereker, a juror who admitted that he was a personal friend of the gentleman whom the prisoners were charged with conspiring to murder, and a member of the same Orange lodge with that gentleman; whether the Crown, however, challenged thirty-two jurors, thirty of them being Catholics, and one of those Catholics a gentleman who holds the commission of the peace; and, whether the courses pursued by counsel for the Crown in the two cases cited were authorised by their instructions?

MR. TREVELYAN

It is the fact that the Crown, for the purpose of securing an impartial trial, changed the venue in the case of James Johnston from Cavan to Dublin. Counsel for the prisoner exercised their right of challenge to the full extent, and it is believed challenged Catholic jurors. The Crown has no control over the action of the prisoner's counsel. The fact that the jury was composed of Protestants was not due to any action of counsel for the Crown. One juror, a member of an Orange lodge, was ordered by the Crown Solicitor to stand aside, as the prisoner was an Orangeman. The other gentlemen composing the jury were persons to whose impartiality no exception could be taken. Upon a verdict of acquittal being given, the Crown did enter a nolle prosequi against the other prisoners, as the one against whom the evidence was strongest had been acquitted. With respect to the trial of the prisoners in the Barbavilla conspiracy case, the counsel for the Crown were not aware that Mr. Amos Vereker was an Orangeman when he was called, and the objection to his serving was taken by counsel for one of the prisoners. When that objection had been taken, the regular and legal course was followed of appointing triers, who found him to be impartial. He was then challenged by the prisoner, and accordingly did not serve. Among those ordered to stand aside by the Crown were five Protestants, including one Orangeman. One of the prisoners was a Protestant and Orangeman. The religion of the jurors called in no way influenced the action of those representing the prosecution. It is not known that any Catholic ordered to stand aside was a Justice of the Peace. He may have been so; but we have not been able to ascertain whether it was so. Counsel for the Crown had no special instructions in this matter. They acted on their own discretion and responsibility with the sole object of securing an impartial trial.

MR. SEXTON

Is it within the competence of counsel for the Crown, when a magistrate comes forward to serve as a juror, to order him to stand aside?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Is there the slightest foundation for the insinuation that the gentleman against whose life the attempt was made, Mr. Barlow Smythe, was or ever had been an Orangeman?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he did not know.

An hon. MEMBER

Who said so?

MR. TREVELYAN

I never said so.?

MR. SMALL

After the prisoners had exhausted their challenges could not the Crown go on challenging, and thus secure that Catholics shall not go on the jury?

MR. TREVELYAN

It would be a gross impropriety if a man who impartially was believed in by the Crown should be ordered by them to stand aside on account of his religion.