§ MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the Secretary for Ireland with reference to a Parliamentary Paper which was laid on the table on the 29th of June. The paper in question was one of four letters written thirty years ago relative to a charge of forgery against Mr. O'Malley Irwin, and which had hitherto been withheld from the House. It appears that a copy has been found by Sir Thomas Larcom in the Irish Office, and it was pro- 2021 duced when moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir Fitz Roy Kelly) in the course of the late debate. On Friday night a doubt was cast on the authenticity of this Letter by the Irish Attorney General. He (Mr. Hennessy) wished to know, Whether there is a Copy of that Letter in the Chief Secretary's Office, and whether the original has been abstracted from the Crown Solicitor's Papers during the trial of Mr. Irwin for forgery in 1834, and also whether this Copy is authentic?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he believed he might state that if the letter dated the 4th October was a copy of an original, its authenticity might be asserted. Thirty years ago was rather a long time to carry inquiries back, and to speak with accuracy on such a matter.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, a correspondence had passed between Sir Thomas Larcom and himself on this subject, and he distinctly stated that the original letter was not in the Office. He was not prepared to say this was a copy of an original letter.
§ MR. HENNESSYsaid, reverting to the subject of his Question, he wished to know. Who is responsible for the Note appended to the Return, as to the Original Letter having been abstracted from the Crown Solicitor's papers, and whether the statement made in that Note is correct?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, of course the Irish Office was responsible. He was responsible for it to that House.