§ DR. KENEALYI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, On whose authority he stated in his place in Parliament, on the 3rd of August, 1877, that Mina Jury, a witness against the defendant in the Tichborne Case, and who is now in penal servitude for several robberies, was not the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced to seven years' transportation for robbery in Dublin, in 1847; and, whether the person who gave him the information is still in the service of the Government, or receiving a pension; whether it was proved at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey, in September last, by Superintendent Williamson, of Scotland Yard, that Mercivina Caulfield and Mina Jury were one and the same person, and that she had been so convicted in Dublin as alleged?
§ After an interval,
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to point out to the hon. Member and this House, that the hon. Member brought to the Table of the House yesterday a Question which was, in fact, substantially the 670 same Question as that which he now proposes to put to the Secretary of State, with a view to its being put upon the Notice Paper. The hon. Member was informed by my direction that such a Question could not be properly put according to the Rules and Practice of House; and it was pointed out to him that if he desired to raise a question of that character, it must be done by specific Motion. I am surprised, therefore, that, after that intimation, the hon Member should persist in putting his Question.
§ DR. KENEALYUnless my Question is answered, I shall bring the communication I received from you, Sir, before the House, either as a Breach of Privilege, or on a Motion for Adjournment, because I am not prepared to acquiesce in the doctrine that——["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to raise a debate.
§ DR. KENEALYapprehended that, on a question of Privilege, he was entitled to bring the whole facts before the House. He should, therefore, do so, because he contended that no one had a right to interfere with the freedom and independence of Members of the House who, upon their own responsibility, put Questions of an important nature upon the Paper. He should, therefore, treat the matter as a Breach of Privilege, and conclude with a Motion. He wished to state, that it was of great importance in the minds of many people that——
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I rise to Order. I was not at all aware of what had occurred, and I do not now understand precisely what the point is; but, what I understand the hon. Member for Stoke to be doing, is to be calling upon the House to challenge a decision of yours. I think that that would be a course entirely out of Order.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONUpon the point of Order, it appears to me to be extremely doubtful whether it is competent for the hon. Member to treat as a question of Privilege a decision which has been given from the Chair. I apprehend that he has incorrectly described the point, which he wishes to bring before the consideration of the House, as one of Privilege at all.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUIs it not one of the Orders of the House, that if any Member desires to controvert 671 your decision, he is bound to give Notice of his intention to do so, and not raise the question without previous Notice?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member desires to challenge the decision of the Chair, it is open to him to bring the matter forward in a regular way.
§ DR. KENEALYsaid, that being so, he should, on the earliest opportunity, move—
That it is a high Breach of the Privileges of this House to obstruct in any way the freedom and independence of any Member of Parliament in putting Questions to Ministers upon his responsibility and in the execution of his public duty, such Questions being framed in decorous language and having for their object to elicit information on matters of public interest.
MR. GLADSTONEI venture respectfully to ask, whether that Notice itself, or any debate arising upon it, can be treated as a question of Privilege, so as to have precedence of other Business? In my opinion, it is a Question upon the Rules and Procedure of the House, and must take its course in the regular way.
§ MR. SPEAKERUndoubtedly, a Motion of the character of that of which the hon. Member has given Notice, could not take precedence of the other Business on the Paper.
§ DR. KENEALYThen, I shall bring the matter forward on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply on the earliest possible day in next week.