§ MR. JOHN E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what sum of public money has already been advanced from the Temporary Commissions Vote towards defraying the charges of the Special Commission (Members of Parliament Charges and Allegations) Act, 1888?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe total expenditure to date from the Temporary Commission Vote on account of the Special Commission is as follows:—Salaries, £375 13s. 3d.; travelling, £20 15s. 7d.; shorthand-writing, £920 4s.; incidents, £27 19s. 4d.; imprest outstanding, £40: total, £1,384 12s. 2d. The payments under salaries are for the secretary and some copying clerks employed under him with Treasury authority. The only item of importance under "Travelling" is £8 16s. 2d. to the Commissioner of Police, for the expenses of officers sent by order of the Court after Molloy. "Incidents" represent, almost entirely, postage and telegrams. Besides the above, there is no doubt a heavy charge 593 on the Stationery Vote for printing, &c. The Special Commission is being treated in exactly the same way as any other temporary Commission, with the exception that no money is being found for witnesses.
§ MR. C. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether any moneys have been or will be paid out of the Secret Service Vote to any person or persons for or in connection with the Special Commission now sitting; or for or in connection with the collection of evidence in Ireland to be laid before such Commission; or for or in connection with the investigations made in Ireland or elsewhere as to matters laid before such Commission, or otherwise in connection with the charges and allegations made by the Times against Members of this House.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI do not think it right under ordinary circumstances to make any statements with reference to the application of Secret Service money, but under the special circumstances I feel I ought to reply to the hon. Member. I assure him that no Secret Service money has been or will be spent for the purposes indicated by the hon. Member. It is, of course, the duty of the Government to use Secret Service money for the purpose for which it is principally provided—namely, the prevention and detection of crime; but, I repeat, no money has been or will be used by the Government for the purposes specified by the hon. Member.
§ MR. SEXTONDo the Government intend to make any proposal in regard to the costs of the defence with reference to the forged letters which the Times admitted to-day, they had falsely attributed to Mr. Parnell, Mr. Egan, Mr. O'Kelly, and Mr. Davitt.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. That has no connection with the Question on the Paper.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to point out that the Question on the Paper alludes—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. The Question on the Paper refers to the application of the Secret Service Fund.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the facsimile letter published in the Star of Monday 594 last, purporting to be a letter addressed by Joseph Soames, Solicitor to the Times newspaper, to the Proprietors, announcing the suspension of the usual dividend, and containing the following sentence:—"No provision has been made by 'The Special Commission Act, 1888,' for the payment of any part of the expense incurred by the parties to the present inquiry. What action, if any, Parliament may take in this respect remains to be seen. In view, however, of this uncertainty, and of the heavy expense," &c.; and, whether he, or any other person on behalf of the Government, has given the Times any ground or reason for thus intimating to the Proprietors that their expenses might be recouped to them by a Parliamentary Vote.
§ MR. SEXTONPerhaps under this Question my Question will be relevant. I wish to ask whether the Government propose to defray any of the costs of the defence of the forged letters which the Times admit they have falsely attributed to Mr. Parnell, Mr. Egan, Mr. O'Kelly, and Mr. Davitt, and which were the product of a gross and disgraceful fraud, and also whether, as the Government intend to faciliate the detection of crime, they will aid Irish Members financially to pursue what they claim to be a foul and criminal conspiracy against them, of which the man Houston is one of the instruments.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI will reply at once to the question of the hon. Member, although I think it would have been better if notice had been given. The Government are not in a position to make any recommendation to the House until they have considered the Report of the Commission, which will be presented to Parliament; and, as regards that which is alleged to be a foul conspiracy—
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)Alleged? Admitted.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I can only repeat what I have always stated—that any exertion which the Government can use for the detection of crime and the punishment of crime will be used by the Government. In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say I have not, nor has any person on behalf of the 595 Government, intimated to the proprietors of the Times that their expenses might be recouped by a Parliamentary Vote.
§ MR. P. A. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)Arising out of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, might I ask him whether he will take effective steps to secure that no documents in the possession of any officer of the Government will be destroyed?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI can hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman is serious in asking that. Any Member of the Government who was privy to the destruction of documents which were necessary to the enforcement of justice would deserve to be impeached.
§ MR. CHANCEThat is not answering my question, Sir. My question was whether the Government would see that effective steps were taken that no officer of the Government—no Government official—should be permitted to destroy documents.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think it is hardly necessary for me to answer that question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to ask whether the Government has reconsidered the offer they formerly made to Members on this side of the House—namely, to lend the Irish Nationalist Members the services of Her Majesty's Attorney-General to prosecute the Times in connection with the criminal publication of the forged letters.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think the hon. and learned Member would hardly wish me to answer that question. At all events, if he does think it necessary, it will be desirable he should put it on the paper.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if Her Majesty's Attorney General persists in the making of criminal charges and allegations against Members of this House, Her Majesty's Government, in view of the withdrawal by that official of the forged letters, alleged by him to have been written by the hon. Member for Cork, will continue him in his office of Attorney General; can he state what portion of his time has been devoted to his office of Attorney General during the sittings of the Royal Commission; and whether any previous Attorney General has been allowed exclusively to devote himself for several months to private practice?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHIt is notorious that any charges which the Attorney General has advanced have been made in his capacity as counsel for the Times, and in strict accordance with the rules which regulate the conduct of counsel. He has not departed, so far as I am aware, in any respect from the practice which has prevailed with regard to the Law Officers of the Crown. It is not in my power to say what time he has recently devoted to the special duties of his office: but he has discharged them with assiduity and to the satisfaction of the Government. Former Attorney Generals have certainly undertaken private practice to the full extent to which the present holder of that office has done.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the fact that, so far back as the beginning of the month of November, now nearly four months since, the learned Attorney General, who, as he says, was discharging his functions to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government, had, under the hand of Richard Pigott, a statement that he was unable to bear cross-examination, and that, if produced as a witness, the most damaging admissions would have to be made by him in regard to his previous character; and whether he has referred that statement to the learned Attorney General, and whether the Government retain that confidence in the learned Gentleman to which the right hon. Gentleman has just given expression?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I must, therefore, ask him, if he desires an answer, to put the Question on the paper. I have referred to the way in which the Attorney General has discharged his duties qua Attorney General.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to give notice that at the first opportunity I will move,—Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, Mr. Attorney General has forfeited its confidence.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Attorney General, speaking as the Attorney General from the Front Bench, did not, in the discussion upon the Special Commission Bill, 597 say as an argument for passing that Bill, that if he were counsel for the Times again he would prove one of those forged letters to be genuine.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir E. E. WEBSTER,) Isle of WightMr. Speaker: May I be allowed to answer that Question myself? I never made any such statement, or anything which, by any distortion of my words, is capable of that interpretation.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI will put the words down in a Question for to-morrow.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the First Lord of the Treasury ask the learned Attorney General whether he adopts the conclusion stated in open court by his clients, the Times—that the letters were the product of a gross and disgraceful fraud?
§ MR. SPEAKER["Order, order!"] These are not proper questions to ask in the House of Common; they ought to be asked elsewhere.
MR. J. W. PHILIPPSI wish to ask the Home Secretary what precautions he has taken that neither Houston nor any other of the Times witnesses shall be able to escape out of the jurisdiction.
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe practice of making suggestions against private individuals under cover of questions of this kind appears to me to be open to the very gravest objection. I must absolutely decline to state what steps I take against any individual whatever. I may inform the hon. Member that it is no part of my duty, and it is not within my power, to look after persons whom he styles witnesses. The duty of the Home Secretary and of the police of the Metropolis is to look after and prevent the escape of persons charged with crime. Whenever notice of any charge of crime comes to my ears I shall act as the law requires.
MR. PHILIPPSWith reference to the objection of the Home Secretary as to the form of my Question, I should like to remind him that the same Question—
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member will ask a question he will be in order.
MR. PHILLIPSMy Question is whether the same Question was not put to the Home Secretary yesterday, and whether he did not promise to answer it to-day.
§ MR. MATTHEWSNo; I gave no such promise.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMay I ask the Home Secretary with reference to the steps taken to apprehend Pigott, at what hour telegrams were sent out from Scotland Yard to British agents at home and abroad to aid in the capture of Pigott?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI must take leave to say that, if the hon. and learned Member desires to facilitate the escape of Pigott, the effect of Questions in this House as to the action of the police undoubtedly tend in that direction. I must, therefore, in the discharge of my duty, decline to say more than that the police are taking all the steps that are usual and proper in a case of perjury and forgery.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYHow will it facilitate in any way the escape of Pigott?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. The hon. and learned Member is proceeding to argue with the right hon. Gentleman. The question is a purely argumentative one.