HC Deb 21 February 1906 vol 152 cc356-7
MR. LONSDALE

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in November last, proceedings were instituted against two persons for conspiracy, to injure one John Padden by unlawful means, and that evidence was given that both these persons, advocated publicly that Padden should be boycotted; and whether it is intended to take steps to bring these persons to trial.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool Exchange

At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this Question. Proceedings were instituted against the two persons referred to, and both were tried at the last winter assizes held at Sligo, by the judge of assize and a special jury empannelled under the Crimes Act. The trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury It is not proposed to put the accused persons on trial a second time.

MR. CONOR O'KELLY (Mayo, N.)

Is it not the fact that the persons referred to in the Question were actually tried at the last Winter Assizes in Sligo, and that,, notwithstanding the fact that the jury was shamefully packed by the representative of the late Attorney-General, eight of the twelve jurors were in favour of acquittal.

MR. CHERRY

I am not aware.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

Can the light hon. Gentleman state the number of challenges exercised by the Crown on this trial?

MR. CHERRY

I have no information; I was not then Attorney-General.

MR. LONSDALE

Are we to understand that persons who may be boycotted in Ireland, are not to receive the protection of the law?

MR. CHERRY

No, Sir, certainly not.

MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.)

As one of the criminals referred to, may I ask is it not the fact that the jury was exclusively Orange, and Unionist in its composition; and that all Catholics were ordered to stand aside? Was not the prosecution itself the dying kick of an expiring Government?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order.