§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the common jury panel for the County of Dublin at the forthcoming commission, at which the trial of the case of the "Queen v. John Dillon, 1092 M.P.," and others is to take place, has been increased to 250 names, the ordinary number being 90; whether the power of the Crown to order jurors to stand by on the first calling of the panel will be thereby enormously increased; whether the Sheriff, in making the alteration in question, acted under the instructions of the Government; and, whether there has been any change made in the form of the precept addressed to the Sheriff; and, if so, on whose recommendation, and by whose authority?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)(who replied) said: The common jury panel for the County of Dublin at the pending Commission consists of 250 names—a number unusual in that county, but it is not unusual elsewhere. Power of the Crown to direct jurors to stand by is the same whether the number of jurors on the panel is large or small. The Sheriff received no instructions from the Government; and I am not aware of any change in the form of the precept, with the preparation and issuing of which the Crown has nothing to do.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYWill the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the ordinary panel in the County Dublin is so; and whether on a small panel the Crown are not sooner compelled to fall back on jurors who had already been told to stand by?
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not aware of the exact number of jurors on the County Dublin panel as a rule. He believed it had been increased. With regard to the remainder of the Question, it was a matter of arithmetic.
§ MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)Might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that both on the Grand Jury panel and on the Petty Jury panel of the County of Dublin, the great majority of the jurors on the panels are summoned out of the rotation?
§ MR. GIBSONI am not aware of anything of the kind; and I wish to say at once that I think it a matter of very great inconvenience to the administration of justice, that Questions should be asked in this House as to matters of law which are pending in the Courts in Dublin, and which must be decided by the Judge upon his own responsibility 1093 there, and upon exception which will be taken to the record.
§ MR. T. C. HARRINGTONMight I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Question I have asked him is a matter of fact, and not a matter of law?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, on the empanelling of the jury in the case of the "Queen v. John Dillon, M.P." and others, now pending, the prisoners, though five in number, will between them only have six challenges; whether the Crown will have an unlimited right of ordering jurors to stand by, the panel being now for the first time increased to 250 names; and, whether he will consent that the trial shall take place according to the English practice, under which the Crown and the accused have an equal right of objecting to jurors on the first calling of the panel?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)(who replied) said: The traversers in the case referred to are entitled to six peremptory challenges in all, and to as many others as they can assign cause for. The Crown has no right of peremptory challenge; but it is entitled to direct any juror to stand by until the panel is exhausted. I cannot consent to introduce into criminal procedure in Ireland a practice hitherto unknown there.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)Might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to amend his answer by informing the House whether in England the prisoner, on the first calling of the panel in trials for misdemeanour, is not entitled to an unlimited right of peremptory challenge?
§ MR. GIBSONI am not acquainted with the English law; but I believe that there is no doubt whatever that in England there is no right whatever of peremptory challege in misdemeanours. That right was given in Ireland to the extent of six in favour of the prisoner, and it is a right which exists in Ireland and does not exist in England.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)said, he would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to reply to a Ques- 1094 tion of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman private Notice. It was, Whether it was correct that the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin had rejected the fifth count in the indictment contained in the Bill sent up to them in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) and others; whether this count charged the traversers with having entered into an unlawful conspiracy to compel tenants not to pay rents which they were lawfully bound to pay, and to compel tenants to combine and confederate together to obstruct and defeat the service of writs and processes for the non-payment of rent; and, if the above statement was correct, whether it was not the essence of the indictment and the main purpose of the Crown in instituting the proceedings to prevent the offences charged in the count; if not, what was the real intention of the Crown; and whether, in the face of the rejection of the fifth count, the Government would still persist in going on with the prosecution; and, if so, what useful purposes they hoped to achieve?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)(who replied) said: I have no information on the matter referred to, except the report in The Standard. I have no copy of the fifth count (which is one of 11 counts), and, therefore cannot say what is contained in it; but I can say, from internal evidence, that the report in The Standard must be inaccurate. I may state that the Grand Jury, on the 10 counts in which they have round a true bill against the traversers, have two counts for an unlawful conspiracy to solicit tenants to refuse to pay rents; and there is a count for conspiracy to solicit tenants to resist and obstruct the execution of lawful writs. All those counts have been found by the Grand Jury, and I do not know the reason why they refuse to find the fifth, but perhaps it was because they considered the 10 counts sufficient.