§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is this—Whether he is aware that application has been made to the Crown on behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) to have his appeal against a sentence of four months' imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, now fixed for the 22nd instant at the Quarter Sessions, postponed for a day or two, in order to enable the Member for the Division to vote on the Arrears Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and that the application has been refused, solely on the ground that such postponement would be inconvenient to the counsel for the Crown; whether it is not a fact that the Quarter Sessions commence on the 22nd instant, and, in the ordinary course, are likely to extend over three or four days, and that, therefore, no inconvenience could arise to the Judge or the public if the hearing of the appeal was postponed until Monday next; and, if so, whether he will make arrangements to allow the hon. Member to take part and vote on a Bill of vital consequence to his constituents?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Member only reached him about half-past 2 o'clock, and he at once sent over to Ireland to inquire into the facts. He was informed that it was true the hon. Member for North Monaghan applied to have the appeal fixed for the 26th instant; but as the Judge had arranged to commence the criminal business on the 27th, and as the hearing of the appeal was certain to occupy more than one day, he could not accede to the application. Such matters as these were rather for the Judge to decide, and considerable inconvenience might arise if they were to arrange cases 1639 without reference to the Judge. The question of inconvenience to counsel was quite a minor consideration.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to answer a very important point of the Question, and that was, whether the application was refused, not on account of the inconvenience to the Judge, but on account of inconvenience to the Crown counsel?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the information he had received was to the opposite effect. He was informed that the reason the application was refused was because the Judge had arranged to commence the criminal business on the 27th; and if the trial of the appeal commenced on the 26th it would break the arrangements of the Judge. That was the only reason. He had given the hon. Gentleman all the information he possessed on the subject.
§ MR. DILLONThis is really an important matter, and our information is directly opposite to that of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] I think I can claim a little indulgence. I am not going to enter into any argument; but I wish to state we have received a letter in which it is stated that the reason the application was refused was because the Attorney General for Ireland said he would not consent to an adjournment to either Saturday, the 24th, or Monday, the 26th, and there is not a word at all about inconvenience to the Judge. Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, and see whether arrangements cannot be made for postponing the appeal for a day or two?
§ [No reply.]