HC Deb 25 February 1884 vol 284 cc1841-2
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there was any evidence given at the inquest to show that Giffen was or had been rioting; whether it was not proved that Giffen met his death by being bayonetted in a field into which he and others had been driven off the high road by a charge of cavalry; whether this field was not on the side of the road the furthest away from the route of the Nationalists, and at the time Giffen was stabbed in the back he was going in a direction the opposite to that along which the Nationalists were moving; whether the surgeon who attended Giffen did not swear that it required the full strength of a man to inflict the wound which perforated the young man's body; whether any one, except the Loyalists bayonetted by the police, of the Nationalists, Loyalists, Constabulary, or Troops, were otherwise hurt or contused; whether the Crown Solicitor did not decline to examine the official witnesses who were in attendance in Court; whether such a refusal is not most unusual, if not unprecedented; and, whether under these peculiar circumstances the Government will lay upon the Table the evidence of the inquest, and the reports of the magistrates present, which the Solicitor Gene- ral quoted in the House on February 21st?

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, I will answer the last part of this Question first. I will lay upon the Table the evidence, and the Reports referred to. In the opinion of the Government, they give satisfactory answers to the first four queries of the noble Lord. It does not appear that, with the exception of the two men stabbed, any persons were seriously injured. A constable was severely wounded over the eye by a stone, and while a party of military were being halted a revolver was discharged at them from the direction of an Orange party. The official witnesses referred to in the Question had been required to be produced by the solicitor for the next-of-kin of the deceased. They were accordingly produced, but he declined to ask them any questions or to examine them. The Crown Solicitor did not consider it necessary to do so.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

Is there any precedent for a Crown Solicitor refusing to examine official witnesses at an inquest?

MR. TREVELYAN

I am informed that there is every precedent in the world. His reason was that he thought the case sufficiently strong without such examination; but I am bound to say that the Law Officers in Dublin had not time to consult with the Crown Solicitor on the subject. It turned out that the evidence was, for his immediate purpose, sufficiently strong.