§ MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the payment of the witnesses for the defence of the Tichborne Case, Whether it is in his recollection that a Motion was made last Session for a Return of Copies of applications to the Solicitor of the Treasury for the payment of such expenses, and that the Right honourable Gentleman did on that occasion specify several of the applications that had been so made; and, whether he adheres to the statement on Monday last that no such application had been made; and, if he do not, whether he will consent to lay Copies of such application upon the Table?
MR. BRUCESir, I entirely adhere to the statement I made on Monday, and it is also in my recollection that a Motion was made last Session, to the effect stated by the hon. Member. I referred to certain Memorials received at the Home Office and the Treasury from Hartlepool, Sunderland, and Southampton, praying that the Government would investigate the "incontrovertible evidence in the defendant's favour." There were two more from Newcastle-on-Tyne and Dewsbury, praying that the Government would pay the expenses of the trial. Now, in answer to the Question 1682 put to me the other day, I stated that the Home Office would readily undertake to consider, in conjunction with the Treasury, any applications made by the persons really concerned in the defence; but I do not consider that representations made by the majorities of public meetings or suggestions from private Members like my hon. Friend can form a proper basis for forming any decision in this matter.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had one further Question to ask. Assuming that he should feel it his duty, as it related to a question of fact, to publish the Correspondence which had passed between the Treasury and himself, would the right hon. Gentleman deem it his duty to prosecute him? He begged leave to point out, in explanation, that anything that was said, printed, or published tending in any way to influence the mind of the jury during the present trial was regarded as a contempt of court. He begged leave, therefore, to repeat the Question, and to ask, Whether, in the event of his publishing the Correspondence, his right hon. Friend would deem it his duty to prosecute him for contempt of court?
MR. BRUCEI must refer my hon. Friend for an answer to the Attorney General, who is the officer of the Government charged with prosecutions in such matters.