HC Deb 20 March 1884 vol 286 cc300-1
MR. SEXTON

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article, on the trial of Thomas Doherty at Sligo, in The Londonderry Sentinel of last Thursday, declaring the charge of Mr. Justice Murphy to have been "a one-sided charge," accusing him of "displaying an amount of ill-concealed hostility to the loyalists," and of "attempting to cast odium and discredit on the party of peace and order," and, specially, whether his attention has been drawn to the following expressions:— The jury bargaining with Crown Counsel as to the verdict they would be allowed to bring in, the Judge winking at this utterly unjudicial transaction, giving his tacit sanction to an irregular compromise, and finally wringing from an unwilling jury a verdict of 'guilty,' which they were plainly not prepared to give. This was what was witnessed in the Courthouse at Sligo. It is as clear as noonday that the jury did not return a verdict of guilty, and that poor Doherty was not legally convicted of the crime charged against him. But the Government demanded a victim, and they have not been disappointed: and, what conclusion the Irish Executive have come to upon consideration of this language?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, the article referred to appears to be an extremely unfair comment upon the proceedings at the trial of the prisoner Doherty. The evidence as to his guilt appears to have been convincing, and both Judge and jury seem rightly to have discharged their duty. Articles of the nature referred to, of which there has been a vast number in Ireland, are, in the interests of justice, much to be deplored. It is not, in the opinion of the Government, a case in which any action should be taken further than this expression of opinion.

MR. LEWIS

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the trial of Doherty at the recent Sligo Assizes, for unlawfully wounding a boy named Durwin, at Derry, on the 1st November last, the jury being unable to agree, applied to the sub-sheriff to know if a verdict of guilty of the lesser offence in the indict- merit was returned whether the punishment would be light, stating that, if such were to be the case, the jury would agree; whether the sub-sheriff, without the knowledge or intervention of the judge, did not thereupon put himself in communication with the Crown counsel, and obtain his assurance that the punishment would be light, which was stated to the jury, and followed by their finding a verdict of guilty; and, what, if any, steps the Lord Lieutenant intends to take in the matter?

MR. TREVELYAN

, in reply, said, he was informed that there was no foundation whatever for those allegations. A similar charge was made in open Court by counsel for the prisoner, and the Judge asked the jury if there was any foundation for it, saying, at the same time, that if there were he would discharge them and try the case with another jury. The jury repudiated the charge, and assured the Judge that the verdict was disinterested.

MR. HEALY

asked whether they were now to regard it as judicially laid down that if a jury communicated with any person they would be discharged and the prisoner tried by another jury? In the ease of Hynes, the jury was allowed to separate, and yet Hynes was hung on their verdict.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, this was a communication of a definite nature, which, if the jury had accepted it, must have influenced their verdict.