§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the absence of the Home Secretary, of which he had given verbal Notice, but which had not appeared upon the Notice Paper in consequence of some irregularity in its form, in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no action would be taken upon the Petitions which had been presented to the House relating to the proceedings taken for contempt of Court and other incidents of the Tichborne Trial. According to the last reports those Petitions had been signed by upwards of 250,000 persons, and he had reason for believing that they now amounted to upwards of 300,000. He wished to know, Whether the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in the matter had received the approval of the Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges whose conduct had been impugned in those Petitions?
§ MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of Order.
§ MR. WHALLEYventured to ask the permission of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to state what he believed were the irregularities which had occurred in the course of the trial.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that that was precisely the irregularity which, as he had pointed out to the hon. Member, could not be permitted.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished further to ask, with reference to speeches reported in the public journals as having been made by the Lord Chief Justice at public banquets and elsewhere, calling for public indignation against those who had, by Petitions to Parliament or otherwise, expressed dissatisfaction with the proceedings in the Tichborne Trial, and stating that such 586 persons or some of them were seeking for their own purposes to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take notice of that language as being inconsistent with the dignity and authority of the Lord Chief Justice, and whether, in the absence of the inquiry demanded by the numerous Petitions which had been addressed to that House, it was calculated to maintain or restore public confidence in the administration of justice—
§ MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was now asking for an opinion as to the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice, which was irregular.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Peterborough could hardly expect him to answer a Question of that kind which had not been put on the Paper. If it was placed on the Paper, it would no doubt receive the attention of the Home Secretary.