HC Deb 12 July 1889 vol 338 cc266-7
MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether on Tuesday last, at Drogheda, Mr. Hamilton, R.M., the senior member of the Court constituted for the trial of Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., on charges under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, in dismissing the charges, is correctly reported to have declared the chief evidence for the prosecution, that of the police reporter, Constable Robinson, to be untrustworthy; and what course the Irish Government propose to adopt with regard to Constable Robinson; and whether, the prosecution having failed in consequence of the rejection by the Magistrates of the evidence of the Constable as being unworthy of credit, the Irish Government will defray the expenses incurred by Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., in proceeding from the House of Commons to the place of trial, and in returning to Parliamentary duty?

MR. MADDEN

It appears that the evidence in question was described by Mr. Hamilton, P.M., as unreliable, but when counsel for the defence imputed perjury to Constable Robinson, Mr. Hamilton stated that he saw nothing in the constable's evidence to justify the statement. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the latter part of his question, which appeared on the Paper for the first time yesterday. Inquiries will be made as to whether any precedents exist in relation to the matter.

MR. SEXTON

In regard to the first paragraph of the question is it true that the constable produced for the purpose of his evidence an elaborate longhand note of the speeches forming the subject of the charge, but that when tested in Court by a speech being read to him at an unusually slow rate he was unable to complete one single sentence?

MR. MADDEN

The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Gentleman. That was the reason why the Resident Magistrate said the evidence could not be acted upon.

MR. COX (Clare, E.)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a week before the trial came on the solicitors for the defence were informed that the prosecution was based on perjury, that they instructed their counsel accordingly, and that that was the reason why I and my hon. Friend are not now undergoing six months' imprisonment?

No answer was given to this question.