§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can assure the House that, in every case where an individual has been convicted under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," of conspiracy to compel or induce some person not to deal with or work for some other person in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, evidence has been taken to prove not only the refusal of the individual to work or deal as above, but to prove that he was implicated in a conspiracy for some one of the said purposes?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
In all the cases described by the right hon. Gentleman evidence has been taken to prove the conspiracy referred to. In one case, that of Sullivan, the evidence so tendered did not appear to the Court of Exchequer to be of a character to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy. This arose from an error, not of substance, but of procedure, in the Court of First Instance; where evidence implicating five men in the charge of criminal conspiracy, though given in Court, was not, as it should have been, entered separately against each of the defendants.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I am afraid that some misapprehension has arisen between us as to the meaning of my Question. Is it not the fact that 96 evidence of conspiracy was not given, but simply of refusal to deal with particular cases? But I shall bring the matter to an issue by asking the right hon. Gentleman, not to-day, but I will put the Question down for to-morrow or Monday, whichever he may think best—Whether, in the case of Thomas Bailey, who was convicted on the 31st of May, at Castlemartyr, of conspiracy, and sentenced by Resident Magistrates—
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but there is a Rule of the House against giving Notice in this way.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, as a matter of fact, the only evidence of conspiracy in any single case has been the evidence of the refusal of the person prosecuted to supply the goods?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think that is not so; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper, I will be in a position to answer him.