§ MR. P. M'DONALD (Sligo, N.)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the recent proceedings in the Irish Court of Bankruptcy, in the case of Mr. Thomas Moroney; whether Mr. Moroney, having been adjudicated a bankrupt by Judge Boyd, and having appealed against that Judge's decision, the bankruptcy proceedings were, nevertheless, continued against him; whether Mr. Moroney was, in consequence, committed to prison by Judge Boyd on the 28th January last for refusing, on his examination in bankruptcy, to answer questions put to him in relation to certain proceedings under what is known as the Plan of Campaign, in connection with which a criminal prosecution is at present pending in Ireland against a number of persons, some of whom are Members of this House; whether the 552 MR. Gerard, Q.C., who acted as Counsel against Mr. Moroney, and who cross-examined him, is the same person who is acting as counsel for the Crown in said prosecution; whether it is the fact that Mr. Gerard, in seeking to procure from Mr. Moroney, under threat of committal, evidence which would be available for the Government against the traversers on the pending prosecution, was acting under the instructions of the Government, or with their sanction; and, whether, having regard to the possibility that the Court of Appeal may reverse Judge Boyd's decision, and annul the adjudication in bankruptcy, the Government propose (pending the appeal) to put the committal order into force against Mr. Moroney?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)The case of Thomas Moroney being a private lawsuit, my sources of information in regard to it are equally open to the hon. Gentleman who puts the Question. I have seen in the newspapers that Thomas Moroney, having been adjudicated a bankrupt, was committed to prison, not for refusing to answer any particular questions, but for declining to be sworn. He was not examined nor cross-examined by any person. Mr. Gerard, Q.C., is not acting in the case under the instructions of the Government, nor has the Government had any communication with him in reference to it, nor can I conceive how any evidence that Thomas Moroney would give could be used in any pending prosecution. I observe that it was stated in Court that an appeal was pending, and that the Judge decided that this circumstance did not justify the bankrupt in declining to be sworn. As to the last clause of the Question, the Government cannot, and ought not, to interfere with the exercise of his jurisdiction by a Judge, or with the means given by the law for enforcing it.