HC Deb 13 March 1877 vol 232 cc1860-1
MR. WHALLEY

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross), in reply to my Question, said, very justly, that my Question as printed on the Paper is not grammatical or intelligible. That, Sir, is owing to the omission of certain words. I will, if necessary, conclude with a Motion; but, at any rate, I trust I may be permitted to make the Question intelligible, so that I may obtain from the right hon. Gentleman an answer somewhat more intelligible than that which I have received. I would venture to appeal to your indulgence, Sir, to make a short statement—

MR. SPEAKER

The Question that has been put by the hon. Member being, according to his own statement, not intelligible, it is open to him now to put it in an intelligible form to the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. WHALLEY

The non-intelligibility of the Question arises from the omission in the print of certain words which were—or ought to have been—in the manuscript. The Question, Sir, is this—whether the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me two days since as to the practice of the Home Office in the discharge of its duty in criminal cases, is a general rule adopted by him in all cases, or whether it is a rule adopted by him in this particular case; that rule being distinctly stated by him in contradiction of what was said by him a year ago, to the effect that when evidence is brought before the Home Office on behalf of any person suffering from a conviction, it is not considered that he is justified in submitting it to the Judges by whom the convict or prisoner was tried, if it be such evidence as the prisoner could have produced on his trial. The hon. Member was proceeding to address some remarks to the House, when—

MR. SPEAKER said

I must request the hon. Member to put his Question according to the altered phraseology.

MR. WHALLEY

It is of some importance to know whether that is the rule of the Home Office. I would further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that the evidence of a man named Charles Orton, which has been laid before him on affidavit, together with the evidence of other members of that family—whether, under these circumstances—here, under the very droppings of this sanctuary of justice—this Charles Orton—

MR. SPEAKER

intimated that the hon. Member in asking a Question could not enter into a debate upon it.

MR. WHALLEY

I wish to know the reason that, although evidence has now been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and is evidence that the convict — ["Order, order!"] — might have been—["Order, order!"] Really, I do not know how to make myself intelligible. I think, if I may be permitted to get to the end of my statement, that it will be clear what I am about to state—that although under the rule as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the convict might have called this man, yet there was a very particular reason for not calling him—namely, that he was retained by the prosecution and was paid by the prosecution. ["Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I have repeatedly called upon the hon. Member to put his Question, and he has declined to do so. The Business of this House cannot be interrupted, and if any other hon. Member has any Question to ask, I call upon him to put it.