HC Deb 11 July 1884 vol 290 cc823-4
MR. HEALY (for Mr. O'BRIEN)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In view of the sworn evidence in the case of Cornwall v. O'Brien, that detective head constables Cottingham and Irwin were employed by direction of James Ellis French, late county inspector, in baffling the investigation into the charges against him, what action the Government propose to take with respect to the Inspector General's refusal to grant an inquiry into the conduct of these officers?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

, in reply, said, it did not appear from the evidence in the case of "Cornwall v. O'Brien" that two detectives were employed in baffling the charges against Mr. French. They were employed in protecting Mr. French, and with no reference to Meiklejohn. The entire cicumstances were fully stated in a letter, dated March 11, from the Inspector General of Constabulary, to the solicitor of the hon. Member for Mallow. The Government did not consider it necessary to review the decision then arrived at.

MR. HEALY

As the gentlemen in question reiterate their statement, do the Government, seeing that this is a very important matter, intend to take action which would have the practical effect of screening men guilty of disgraceful offences? Will they not grant an inquiry into the statement made, which amounts to a charge? [An hon. MEMBER: A charge?] Yes, a charge.

[No reply.]