SHACKLETON CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1602, 20 November 1912, Page 7

SHACKLETON CASE.

CROWN JEWEL MYSTERY RECALLED QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT. By Telegraph-Press Association-Copyright London, November 18. Tho case of Francis Richard,Shackleton, brother of the Antarctic explorer, who was recently.' arrested in East Africa on charges in connection with the bankruptcy of Lord Ronald Suiherland-Gower, came under notice in the House of Commons to-day. In reply to a Cjuostion by Mr. Ginnell, Independent Nationalist member for Westmentli, the Attorney-General, Sir Rufus Isaacs, declined, while tho cliargo against Shackleton was still sub judice, to state whether he had had access to the room in Dublin Castle from which tho Crown jewels, valued at -650,000, were stolen in 1907. Sir Rufus Isaacs also declined to state whether Shackleton had boasted subsequently thait he would not be prosecuted, as a conviction would involve others. A REMARKABLE CAREER. FAMOUS EXPLORER'S BROTHER, The career of Mr. F. R. Shackleton has teen a remarkable one. In 1911 Mr. Ei.iickluton went tlio i igh the bankruptcy court with liabilities amounting to (vcr jEIOO-.000, and in the com se of Kir nubile examination some details of his previous history. ,' J -'! 1 . e ,<lebtor said that prior to 389.3 he .studied botany and gardening. In 1?99 he was appointed asiittant secretary iunpaw) to the Office of Arms, Dublin, and from 1905 to' 1907 he was Dublin Herald, u , officials resigned in Novemi™. /-?m a , ni J S 1 ® °® co IT as reconstructed. Ihe Official Receiver: I think there was some trouble in 1907? Mr. Shackleton: Yes, the loss of the Crown jewels. ■ The tiebtor also said that ho served eome months in tho South African Waj, being invalided Homo. With a borrowed capital, of over a J 10 ™ 1 " of roses in South Devon, and afterwards formed the West of England, Rose Farm, Ltd. The comWn lllt ? He lost quite ft3ooo Ho subsequently acted as a director of various companies. JSftnn J " ne ' 19 - 10 ', llis ,f«n«ttire,; forth <£5000, was seized, and sold under an execution. l le Y as introduced to I-ord Ronald Sutherland-Gowc'r, who subsequently invited him to his house. Trfir!) 0 Pi-vri i l o ll 3 introduction was that Lord Ronald Sutherland-Gower, who is the Duke of Sutherland, was ? against, by a -firm of stockft j or frt a m : shares which they alleged they had purchased for him on the instruction of Mr. Shackleton. Jncl ? - a PPeared for Lord Ronald Sutherland-Gower, said during the •hearing that this was one of these unfortunate cases in which somebody must be tho loser • by reason of the conduct or misconduct of another party. The defendant had placed his business affairs in a mn nnrf i>ands,,and had lost some -870,000, _ Mr. Shackleton had acted as his adviser in business matters, Wl to somo extent ns his intermediary. Lord Ronald Gower gave evidence- In support of this, and said ho had had no business training, arfd knew nothin" rtbont business. The result of this was, ho believed, thathe had lost tho wholo "f 1,13 fortiiM, between and \£7o- - He never authorised Mr. Shackleton to speculate.. He thought all tho transactions were investments. In reply, to Mr. (Justice Darling, the witness said Mr. Shackleton was Dublin Herald. Be was introduced, to Mr; •Shackleton by his brother, Sir Ernust . Shackleton. , Mr. J'jstice Darling, in his summing ,up, recalled tho mystery still surroundinr the disappearance from Dublin Castle ot the State jewels ,of the Order of St. Pat_9 n tho eve of the departure of King, Edward and Queen Alexandra for ii L i, ln . it was discovered that the jewels, vnlued at .je50.000. had been stolen. In the inquiry which followed, Sir Arthur Vicars. Ulster, King of Arms,, stnted in his evidence before the commission that he suspected Mr. Francis K. bhack eton, whose ofTico (Dublin HerJ'd) ranked next to that of the witnoss. He implied thatwhile Mr. Shackleton T7as i 8 took impressions 0 !\ e while liis host was taking o bath.- A detective, however, found that there to? no cass against Mr. Shackleton. His Lordship said: No .one was ever prosecuted for'the theft |of the Croivn jewels, and no ofie' was iMismissed but Mr. Shackleton, tvlio shortly after set up in Park Lana. ' Referring to the niclcby whieh Lord Konald indicated Mr. Shackleton, his Lordship said that meant petting all someone else s property for onpself, Mr. Shackleton deserved the title. What was Lord Kohaid Sutherland-Gower? He had told them he had, had' no business experience. " For some little time he had been in Parliainont. But that was a, lontj ti.me That was the only pretence he had to a knowledge of business. It was a T-lace where people passed Acts for 'lie good of other "people—n uite'. a different nt-ieo from the Stock Exchange. (Laughter.) From Lord Ronald's own evidence, it was' clear lie had been a dilletante all his life, reading and writing in his garden, or study,. They'would be quite safe in assuming he did not know what was done. There was no question as to who could best afford to pay the loss. Lord Ronald's rnin must nothe allowed to influence them for a moment. Lord Ronald was subsequently made a bankrupt, and his library and effects sold