HC Deb 11 February 1887 vol 310 cc1233-5
MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the decision in the "Queen v. Dillon, O'Brien, and others," whereby it has been held that, although defendants' solicitor swore that the Grand Jury was irregularly and illegally empanelled, the Judge ruled that the alleged misconduct of the High Sheriff of county Dublin could not be questioned by a challenge to the array, a challenge to the poll, or an appeal to the judicial discretion of the Judge himself; and, whether the Government intend to propose any alteration of the Law on the subject?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

(who replied) said: This Question appears to-day on the Paper for the first time. My only knowledge of the matters referred to in the Question is derived from the public newspapers. I have seen no copy of the affidavit mentioned. It does not appear that there was any finding or decision that the allegation of irregularity or misconduct against the Sheriff was sustained in fact. The learned Judge appears to have ruled that persons returned for trial against whom no bills were found could not, as a matter of law, challenge or remove Grand Jurors, there being no record. The learned counsel for the traversers insisted that they had such right, and their objections were noted by the learned Judge who received the challenges, so that they may have the benefit of them if their contention is well founded. The Government do not intend to propose an Amendment in the existing law. I have to protest against this Question being put to me. ["Order!" from the Home Rule Members.] I protest against Questions being put with regard to pending criminal prosecutions. ["Order!"]

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether a Member of this House is justified in entering into debatable matter in answer to a Question?

MR. SPEAKER

No; that would certainly be contrary to the Rule. What I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to be doing is replying to the principle involved in a series of Questions on the Paper to-day, and laying the foundation for the determination on his part not to reply to Questions which involve legal proceedings now going on.

MR. GIBSON

I must protest against Questions being asked in this House with regard to pending prosecutions, as to matters of law which are likely to be raised in the course of the case, addressed to the prosecuting counsel by an hon. and learned Gentleman who represents some of the traversers.

MR. T. M. HEALY

What the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland has said comes near, to some extent, an imputation upon myself; and I must ask you, Sir, to allow me to state a few words in reply. He refers to a pending matter, and complains of Questions being put upon a pending matter. But the matter to which I referred is closed, and cannot be re-opened; and, therefore, my reference to it refers to a final matter, not a pending matter. I would also ask to be allowed to state, with reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he had not seen the affidavit in which the Sheriff was charged on the oath of the solicitor with fraud and partiality, that the affidavit was refused by the Judge to be allowed to be opened.