HC Deb 05 March 1889 vol 333 cc972-4
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how long Captain Plunkett and other Divisional and Resident Magistrates have been in London during the sitting of the Parnell Commission; what was the object of their protracted residence here beyond the time necessary to give their evidence; and, whether any of the Divisional or Resident Magistrates have collected evidence in Ireland, communicated with witnesses in London, or with the agents and counsel for the Times newspaper; and, if so, by what authority they absented themselves from their duties for such a purpose?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my answer to a previous Question that I cannot give a Return—at least, at the present time—with regard to the officials connected with the Irish Government who have been summoned to London on subpoena by the Court. He will also have gathered that their prolonged absence from Ireland has been a cause of inconvenience to the Irish Government, in respect of which we have strongly protested. They have resided in London for no other purpose than to give their evidence before the Commission. It does not rest with the Government to decide either the date at which they were summoned from Ireland or the date on which they have been or will be required to give their evidence in Court. I have no doubt that all the witnesses summoned by the Times have communicated with the agents and counsel of the Times.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question as to how long Captain Plunkett had been in London.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I did not answer that part of the Question because it appeared to me that the particulars required would be exactly of that kind which would be included in the Return asked for, among others, by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Longford, and by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I can, however, find out for the right hon. Gentleman how long Captains Plunkett and Slacke have been in London. They were here simply on subpoena, and solely for the purpose of giving evidence; and allow me to say that the length of time these and other persons subpœnaed by the Times have been kept in London has been a cause of great inconvenience to the Government, against which we have seriously protested on more than one occasion.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will repeat my Question as to how long Captain Plunkett has been in London. I will now ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Royal Irish Constabulary have been employed to collect evidence, pay money to, and take the proofs of witnesses for the Times newspaper before the Parnell Commission; whether there is any precedent for such a course being followed, and the Constabulary being so employed, in proceedings between private persons or when the case was not one of a Crown prosecution; by whose authority the Constabulary have been so employed; and, whether he will give a Return of the number of Irish constables who have been in London since the commencement of the Commission; how long each has been detained from his duties; and what has been the nature of his employment?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not believe that any Divisional or Resident Magistrates have absented themselves from duty for the purposes indicated in the Question; but I have already stated that, in my opinion, it is the duty of the Government to give all the assistance in their power to the Commission. The Royal Irish Constabulary have not, so far as I know, been employed to pay money to, or take the proofs of, witnesses for the Times newspaper. With regard to the Return, I have already said that I do not think it can be laid on the Table of the House, at all events before the Commission ceases to sit.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that several witnesses for the Times actually swore that their evidence was taken by some of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary? In proof of that, I may mention the name of the witness Iago.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware of that fact. I believe that something of the kind was done at the original trial of "O'Donnell v. Walter." I lay down no general proposition on the point; but, as far as my information goes, no such transaction has taken Place.

* SIR W. HARCOURT

I will also repeat this Question on Thursday, and meanwhile I will ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the matter of fact to consult the Attorney General, who sits by his side.

MR. CLANCY

Does the Attorney General deny that the agents of the Government have taken down evidence?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The House will, of course, understand—I do not wish that there should be any misapprehension on this point—that if a witness is called, be he connected with the Irish Government or not, it is his business to review in his own mind such information as he has got, and to confirm it in every possible way.

MR. CLANCY

I ask the Attorney General to answer that Question.