HC Deb 22 March 1889 vol 334 cc512-3
MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution reported in the Cork papers as having been unanimously passed by the City Grand Jury, protesting against the injudicious use which the Crown has made of its power under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, in summoning three hundred jurors of the city and county for the trial of three cases of no conspicuous importance; and to the following remarks of Baron Dowse thereupon, who said, For the trial of only one case! It is a monstrous proceeding, and I will receive your protest. The idea of summoning three hundred jurors to try one case! The weight of that is upon Mr. Hennessy's head. I will receive the protest, and hand it to the Crown Solicitor; who is responsible for the proceedings so strongly condemned by the learned Judge; and will any steps be taken to relieve the jurors of Cork from the severe strain of frequent attendance in large numbers, of which they have often to complain?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University

My attention has been called to this matter by the question of the hon. Member. The Grand Jury is reported to have passed the resolution, and the Judge to have used the language referred to in the question. The resolution of the Grand Jury as reported is founded upon error, as the Special Jury was not summoned from the County of Cork as well as the City. The Jury was summoned from the City alone, pursuant to the Order in Council, and under this Order 300 jurors, or the entire panel if it does not exceed 300, must be summoned. The inconvenience to them and to common jurors summoned from the same venue is identical. As regards the cases for trial, one of them, at all events, cannot fairly be described as of no conspicuous importance, for the prisoners were charged with being two of a gang of men who broke into a house by night and shot the proprietor in the legs, in the presence of his wife and child. The case was tried twice in the City of Cork before the Chief Baron by a common jury, who, on both occasions, disagreed. The Chief Baron on the occasion of the last disagreement refused to admit the prisoners to bail, and the Attorney General, who is exclusively responsible for having a Special Jury ordered, having regard to the gravity of the case, and to the fact of two disagreements by common juries, decided that an order should be obtained to have the case tried by a Special Jury. As regards the last paragraph, the Attorney General will exercise the greatest care in endeavouring to relieve the common jurors of the City of Cork. The special jurors to whom the question relates have had comparatively very few cases to try.

MR. LANE

May I ask if the Government have received a Memorial from the Grand Jury of the County of Cork protesting against the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury; and what action is intended to be taken?

*MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member must give notice of the question.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

The Solicitor General did not answer the second paragraph of the question of my hon. Friend—namely, who is responsible for the proceedings condemned by Baron Dowse?

MR. MADDEN

The Attorney General is responsible for having the case tried by a Special Jury.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Is it not the fact that in Wicklow the Grand Jury passed a similar resolution?

MR. MADDEN

As long as the Order in Council is in force it is imperative that it should be obeyed.

MR. LANE

Now, if 300 jurors were summoned in the ordinary course, can the Solicitor General account for the learned Judge having spoken of the proceeding as a monstrous one?

MR. MADDEN

The remark of the learned Judge had no reference to the number of jurors. If it did, he must have spoken in ignorance of the circumstances.

MR. SEXTON

Was the statement of Baron Dowse brought to the notice of the Privy Council?

*MR. MADDEN

I cannot answer that question.