HC Deb 13 April 1883 vol 278 cc192-4
MR. O'BRIEN

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. M'Cane, solicitor for Joseph Brady, having furnished the Crown Solicitor with the names of the witnesses for the defence, with the object of having them sub-pœned, and their expenses defrayed by the Crown under the Crimes Act, these witnesses were summoned to appear before Mr. Curran, police magistrate, at Dublin Castle, and were subjected to examination by him; whether the list furnished by the prisoner's solicitor was availed of by any official of the Crown in determining upon the examination of these witnesses; and, whether the statements made during these examinations will be used to disparage their testimony on the trial of the said Joseph Brady?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, it was not until the 7th of this month that the Crown Solicitor received notice from the prisoner's solicitor of the witnesses he would require. Some of these witnesses had been long previously examined by Mr. Curran; but not one of them was subsequently communicated with on the part of the Crown or examined by Mr. Curran. They were, of course, cross-examined on their depositions.

MR. PARNELL

When were they cross-examined on their depositions?

MR. TREVELYAN

In Court. The depositions were known in Court to both sides, and cross-examinations were conducted by both sides upon them. These witnesses have not been examined by Mr. Curran after it was known that the witnesses would be called for the defence.

MR. O'BRIEN

In what manner did the Crown learn the substance of their, depositions before their examination in Court?

MR. TREVELYAN

I am not quite clear upon that point. Mr. Curran called before him everyone whom he thought could throw light on the crime. Among them were certain persons who were afterwards called as witnesses for the defence.

MR. DAWSON

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is the custom to have a number of prisoners brought into the dock to hear the whole of the evidence as it goes along, and then to come out of the dock to be sworn as witnesses to prove what they had listened to for days?

MR. PARNELL

Could the right hon. Gentleman give the date or dates on which these witnesses were examined by Mr. Curran, and in what way the Crown ascertained that they were likely to be called as witnesses for the defence; was the information obtained through the presence of a warder at the conference between the prisoner Brady and his solicitor?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, I believe the whole conduct of this case has been as fair and above board as murder trials generally are. As to the date of the examination of these witnesses, I should be unwilling to give a conjecture; but I have a telegram from the Attorney General for Ireland in which he states that it was long before the time that the Crown became aware-that they were to be called for the defence. The manner in which the names of the witnesses who were to be called for the defence came to the knowledge of the Crown was by prisoner's solicitor communicating the names to the Crown Solicitor. ["Oh!"] That is the way. With regard to the Question put to me by the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson), I cannot, of course, answer anything relating to the conduct of the case by the Crown until I have got a statement or explanation from the legal gentlemen conducting the case. Perhaps the hon Member will put the Question on the Paper.

MR. PARNELL

I suppose we may understand that there is no warder within hearing of the prisoner during his interview with his legal adviser in the prepartion of his defence, and that the Crown, consequently, had no means of ascertaining the names of the witnesses on whom this prisoner relied for his defence except by a communication which was made by Mr. M'Cune, his solicitor?

MR. TREVELYAN

I think it would be better if the hon. Member put that in the shape of a Question on the Paper.

MR. O'BRIEN

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to say that it is not the regular system under the Crimes Act that witnesses for the defence whose names are furnished to the Crown are summoned to Dublin Castle for examination prior to their examination for the prisoners?

MR. TREVELYAN

I think Notice should be given of Questions of this extremely critical character.