§ MR. RICHARD POWER
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Since, in the month of January, 1883, a prosecution was instituted by Her Majesty's Government against Joseph Biggar, M.P., for having stated in Waterford that—The conviction of Francis Hynes was illegal according to British Law, and that fact was known to Earl Spencer, whom he considered a bloodthirsty English Peer;and that, at a public meeting of so-called Loyalists, held at the Rotundo, Dublin, on the 24th of January last, Mr. Hugh Holmes, Q.C., the late Solicitor General for Ireland, said—Let us not forget that, morally if not legally, pre-eminently and in the first degree, the blood of that young man Giffin rests on the head of the Lord Lieutenant, who, to please a rebel faction, deliberately declined to exercise the powers vested in him;and, inasmuch as such a grave charge of 865 murder has since been circulated with the sanction of Mr. Holmes, in a pamphlet form, has any prosecution been directed in reference thereto, and if the Chief Secretary can explain what are the reasons which have led to a different course being adopted in one case from that in the other?
§ MR. TREVELYAN
I must remind the hon. Member that the prosecution of the hon. Member for Cavan was not proceeded with by the Government.
§ MR. TREVELYAN
And it must be remembered that the circumstances of Ireland, and especially of Dublin, at the time when the hon. Member for Cavan made the speech referred to, were such as to make it to be feared that great danger to the Lord Lieutenant, as well as to Judges and jurors, would result from the use of such language. I do not think that the same can be said of the speech of Mr. Holmes, and the Government has no intention of instituting any proceedings against him. I shall not take advantage of this Question to express my own opinion about the language of Mr. Holmes.
§ MR. HARRINGTON
I wish to ask whether Mr. Holmes, when he made that speech, was a member of a secret armed organization in Ireland?
§ [No reply was given.]