§ MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in reference to his statement that the Mulranny forgery charge was investigated at Sligo, he is aware that in the county of Sligo, where there is a population of 89,000 Roman Catholics and 8,500 Protestants, the jury who tried the accused sergeant was composed exclusively of Protestant Unionists, and that every Roman Catholic juror who came to the box was challenged by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Malachy Kelly, who was supposed to be conducting the prosecution; and that one of the jurors stated openly in the box that the jury had made up their minds for an acquittal before hearing the evidence of Constable Curtin, who was the most important witness for the prosecution?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe respective numbers of the Roman Catholic and Protestant population of Sligo are correctly stated. Those of the Roman Catholic religion who are qualified to be jurors are, like their Protestant fellows, placed upon the panel in their regular rotation according to the provisions of the statute. The jury panel in the present instance was prepared in the ordinary course for Winter Assizes without any reference to Sullivan's case, and I believe before it was known that the case would be tried at the Winter Assizes. No record is kept of the religion of jurors who serve or of those who are set aside. In exercising his right of challenge, the Crown Solicitor acted in strict conformity with the directions contained 972 in the circular of February, 1894, issued by the late Government to Crown solicitors, and was not influenced in any way by the religious or political opinions of the jurors. No inquiries were made by the Crown Solicitor into the religious or political views of jurors. Not before Constable Curtin was examined, but after he and all the other witnesses for the Crown had been examined and cross-examined, and the Crown case had been closed, and the prisoner's counsel had stated the prisoner's case, the jury, through their foreman, and acting within their rights, informed the judge that they had on the Crown case made up their minds to acquit the prisoner. I may mention that a civil action has been brought by the prosecution in the criminal trial against the accused for libel in respect of the very letter upon which the prosecution was based with the view of having the question of the authenticity of the letter determined, and that, although the criminal trial took place in December, the honourable Member's question in reference to it had only been asked since notice of trial in the civil action has been served. I think that the honourable Member will see that Questions such as this, with whatever intention they may be put, are in the result calculated to prejudice the trial, and are unfair to at least one of the litigants.