HC Deb 08 August 1905 vol 151 cc621-2
MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the County Down Assizes, on July 12th, two Orangemen, named Halliday and Bingham, indicted for unlawfully assaulting two Nationalists, and causing them serious bodily harm, were acquitted; whether he can state the number of jurors ordered to stand aside in this case; whether he is aware that the jury was composed exclusively of political sympathisers with the prisoners; and whether he can explain why the representatives of the Crown omitted to challenge William J. Dologhan, an Orange politician avid lecturer, who acted as foreman of the jury.

THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

One juror was ordered to stand aside by the Crown, and four were challenged by the prisoner, who apparently saw no reason to object to the jurors sworn, or he could have challenged two more of them. The foreman of the jury was not William J. Dologhan, but one Joseph Anderson. The juror ordered to stand aside came from the locality, and was only ordered to stand by lest he might be prejudiced owing to the strong feelings which prevailed there in reference to the crime. There is no reason whatever to believe that the jury were composed of political sympathisers with the accused.

MR. MACVEAGH

Was Dologhan a member of the jury?

MR. ATKINSON

I believe so.

MR. MACVEAGH

Why was an Orange politician and lecturer allowed to serve on a jury empanelled to try Orangemen?

MR ATKINSON

No juryman is set aside on account of his religious convictions.

MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

Is it not a fact that in the South of Ireland men are ordered to stand aside because they are members of the United Irish League?

MR. ATKINSON

No.

MR. HAYDEN

Why, you have said so in this House over and over again.

MR. MACVEAGH

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what explanation can be offered of the fact that, at the trial at the Down Assizes of two Orangemen named Halliday and Bingham for a stabbing outrage near Banbridge, the Crown omitted to examine two witnesses named Hillen, who assisted in taking the knife from one of the accused; and whether he is aware that the withholding of this evidence secured the acquittal of the accused.

MR. ATKINSON

Edward McGovern, who took the knife from the accused, was examined, as well as three or four other witnesses, who proved that they actually saw the accused use the knife. The evidence that the knife was used by the accused was absolutely conclusive, and, indeed, was so treated by the counsel for the prisoners, who contended that his clients were, under the circumstances, justified in using the knife in self-defence, and the jury acquitted the accused on that plea. The evidence of the Hillens, who had not made any depositions, could not have added to the strength of the Crown case on the point of the use of the knife, as that fact was already established beyond controversy. There is no foundation whatever for the statement in the last query. The accused were acquitted, not because the jury did not believe they had used the knife, but because they believed that, though it was used in fact, its use was justifiable in self-defence.

MR. MACVEAGH

Is it not the fact that the representatives of the Crown wanted to get these men acquitted, and therefore packed the jury and suppressed the evidence?

MR. ATKINSON

No, Sir.