DUBLIN CROWN JEWELS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 660, 10 November 1909, Page 7

DUBLIN CROWN JEWELS.

1 13 THE THIEF SIIIELDED? ALLEGATION BY SIR AKTHTJK VICABS. (By Telesrajih-Prcss Aesoclatlon-CoDjrrlfflit I i Londop, Npvenjber 6 ' (sir Arthur Vicars, late Ulster King of Armi, writing to "The Times" lespecting the theft from Dubha Castle of the Crown jewels (valued , ( at ,£50,Q00), says the Government and the Scot- * land Yard authorities knotv the tljief, but do nothing to bring him to account. liow long, psks Sir Arthur, will the public sllojv Jhis miscarriage of justice? ' THE COMMISSION'S REPORT. The report of (he VioE-regal Commission oppointed to lnyestipate the circumstances of the Joss pf tfio Regalia qf (ho Order of St Patrick, and to inquire whether fj|r Arthur Vicars duu vigilance and proper caro ns the pustodian thereof" describes the locks of the stjong-room and jewel-snfe— neither of whioh bore anjr traco of having Veen tampered wjtfi—and arrives at the. conclusipn that the t>afe could qnlr have been opened by one of two keys, bqth ordjparily jn tho posssssjon of Sjr Arthur Vicars; and the can-, pot pcquit £Sr Arthur of want of proper care 1 in tho custody of these keys. After commenting' unfavqurab.ly ,orj. Sir Arthur Vicarb'e reinn\ fo appear or g(ie evidence before,the coniand stating that there was no evidenco ■whatever winch would support the suggestion that Mr. I\ ft. Bhackleton was the person who Btjole the jewels tho commissioners conclude by reporting that in their oplnjon Sir Arthur Vicars did not excreta due vigilance or proper cure as the custodian of the jewels. Dunne the preliminary inquiry it wa? disclossd that the Government had informed Sir Arthur Vicars that it had decided to ropon,etitijte tjie offico of Ulsfcr King-of-Arms, and to' remove him' from the post. Sir Arthur ■withdrew from the comnnsswn-room nTTh his leflal because the 'inquiry was hold privately, and, demanded t, full pntahc judicial inquiry. , • f