§ MR. SUMMERS (Huddersfield)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Attorney General acted as leading counsel for The Times in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," he will undertake that the hon. and learned Gentleman shall not be in attendance at any Cabinet Council at which any question relating to Parnellism and Crime is under consideration?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)No, Sir. I must absolutely decline to give any undertaking of the kind indicated.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on matters of fact. I wish to ask him whether it is true, as stated, I observe, in an evening paper on Thursday, the 12th—the day on which the right hon. Gentleman announced the Commission of Judges Bill—that on that day, during the sitting of the Cabinet, Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney General, attended?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI decline to answer any Question of that sort.
§ MR. SUMMERSasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform the House what will be the future position of Mr. Attorney General with regard to the progress and operation of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe future position of Mr. Attorney General must depend on the course taken by hon. Members in relation to the Bill and its operation.
§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was with the assent of the Attorney General that the Government last year offered the Attorney General as counsel to certain Members of this House, if they, or any of them, instituted legal proceedings against The Times; whether it was with the assent of the Government that the Attorney General became counsel for The Times in the recent action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another;" whether the Government supplied to the Attorney General any of the material used by him in his speech as counsel in that action; whether the Government will continue to consult the Attorney General in reference to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, and the constitution of the Special Commission; whether it will be open to the Attorney General to appear before the Special Commission as counsel for The Times; and, whether the offer of the Government to allot the Attorney General as counsel for the Irish Members is to be regarded as still open?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe offer referred to by the hon. Member, and made by me last Session, was that, should the Members affected by the charges then made desire that the matter should be investigated in a Court of Law, proceedings should be taken in the name of the Attorney General, and be conducted by any counsel and solicitor selected by the Members themselves. This offer was made with the assent of the Attorney General. It was neither with the consent nor dissent of the Government that the Attorney General was retained by The Times. The Attorney General was retained by The Times in his private capacity, and in the ordinary course of practice. The Government did not directly or indirectly supply to the Attorney General any of the materials used by him in his speech as counsel in that action. I repeat, that I decline to make any statement as to the course the Government will think fit to pursue in consulting the Attorney General in reference to the Bill in question, or to the con- 1776 stitution of the Special Commission. It will, I apprehend, be in the power of The Times to engage the Attorney General to appear at the Special Commission as their counsel, if they think fit, in accordance, I believe, with professional practice. The offer of the Government, to which I have referred, is, of course, no longer open. It applied to an entirely different state of things—namely, an investigation in the Courts of Law. Besides that, inasmuch as the Attorney General, as counsel for The Times, may have acquired information relating to the matters in question, it would, of course, be unsuitable that he should appear as counsel for the Irish Members.
§ MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to his statement that he refuses to give any information whatever as to the past action of the Attorney General in relation to the action of the Government, he will reconsider that determination, in order that the question may be raised, as I propose it, by moving to strike the Attorney General's salary out of the Estimates?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHNo, Sir.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I wish to ask, whether the Government propose to make any provision—any special provision—for the expenses of the Commission itself, or with respect to the proceedings before it, or with respect to the displacement of the Judges from their ordinary duties during the continuance of the Commission; and, if so, whether it will be necessary to take a Resolution in Committee?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think it would be better that I should have Notice of a Question of that character, which may be more properly raised when the Bill is in Committee of the Whole House.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Attorney General, as the Legal Adviser of the Home Office, had an opportunity of obtaining information at that Office with regard to the facts that were discussed at the recent trial which would not have been enjoyed by other Members of the Bar?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe Attorney General is not specially the Legal Adviser of the Home Office; and he has had 1777 no information whatever from the Home Office in relation to those matters.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, considering that the Attorney General has acted for The Times in the recent case, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it is open to the Attorney General to be counsel for The Times before the Special Commission, the Government will consider themselves entitled to consult the Attorney General as to the persons who shall constitute the Commission?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have already fully answered the Questions which were addressed to me on this subject. I retain for the Government full liberty of action, upon their own responsibility, as to any course they may pursue.
§ MR. PARNELLI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he intends to place the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill as the first Order for Monday next?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have no intention of doing so.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)With regard to the Question whether the Government supplied to the Attorney General any of the materials used by him in his speech as counsel in the recent action, I wish to ask whether he is not the very official who himself possessed the information?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)Certainly not.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHNo, Sir.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill is put down for second reading, he will lay upon the Table, and circulate for the information of Members, a Paper showing what are the charges and allegations that have been made against certain Members of Parliament and others by the defendants in the course of the proceedings in an action entitled "O'Donnell v. Walter and another"?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHIt is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary to circulate any such Paper. The charges and allegations, as the hon. Member is well aware, are contained in the pamphlet entitled Parnellism and Crime and the articles of The Times newspaper, all of which are referred to in the pleadings 1778 delivered in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another."
§ MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, he will have printed and circulated among Members of the House the pleadings in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another"; and, whether, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he will state the names of the three Commissioners proposed to be inserted in Clause 1?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI must refer the hon. Member, as regards the first part of his Question, to the answer I have just given. In answer to the last paragraph, I am not yet in a position to say whether it will be in the power of the Government to comply with his suggestion.
§ MR. HUNTERDoes the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean that hon. Members are to purchase some kind of pamphlet, of which I know nothing, and are to peruse an indefinite number of the columns of The Times, in order to be in a position to know what we are asked to vote upon on Monday?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI am sure that the hon. Member will recognize that the charges are matters of public notoriety. ["No, no!"] The Charge of the Lord Chief Justice has been reported verbatim in all the London newspapers; and Her Majesty's Government cannot put the House in possession of further information than that.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI stated that we were not in a position to comply with the suggestion made.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI did, Sir, at the same time.
§ MR. SEXTONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the pleadings of The Times, which are material to the issue, are not contained in full in any document available to Members of the House?
§ [No reply.]
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I suggest that the right hon. 1779 Gentleman should consult the counsel for The Times on the subject.
§ MR. HUNTERIn consequence of the answer which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that when the second reading of this Bill is taken I shall move an Amendment, to the effect that its consideration be postponed until the House is put in possession of the alleged charges.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian); I wish to ask, for the convenience of the House, whether we are to understand distinctly that arrangements have been made for taking the second reading of what I may call the Commission Bill at a convenient hour on Monday?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think, Sir, that I indicated on Monday last that I proposed to take it about 9 or 10 o'clock on Monday, an arrangement which, I think, will be for the convenience of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLI wish to ask the hon. Member for South Monaghan (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) with reference to the Notice of opposition he has placed on the Paper to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, whether, before putting down that Notice, he consulted any Irish Members?
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)I consulted no Irish Member on the subject. I put the Notice on the Paper in consequence of an article in The Times the day before; and because I think it important that from some quarter of the House or other a protest against such legislation should at any rate be entered solemnly.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as the First Lord of the Treasury contemplated the possibility of the debate on the second reading of the Royal Commission Bill taking no more than two or three hours, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the debate did take more time than that, and was not finished on Monday, he proposed to take it de die in diem?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHNo, Sir. I have not contemplated the possibility of the debate taking more than two or three hours. The alternative open to us would be to suspend the Standing Order with regard to the Twelve o'clock Rule; and I should be very sorry, indeed, to have to take that course.