§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that counsel for the Times have not produced before the Special Commission certain prisoners who allege that temptations have been held out to them by Mr. Andrews, Governor of Downpatrick Prison, policemen, and other persons acting for the Times, to induce them to concoct evidence against Members of this House and others, he will now consent to afford some means for inquiring into the truth of those allegations, seriously affecting the honour of the 1800 Government on the one part, and those charged before the Special Commission on the other part—namely, by a public investigation on oath?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI imagine the means for inquiring into the truth of the allegations which the hon. Member desires is already provided by the Special Commission, before whom it is in the power of any of the defendants to call M'Nulty and Mullet and examine them upon oath.
§ MR. SEXTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners have decided that their function is simply to inquire into certain charges and allegations made against Members of Parliament and others in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter"; whether they have declared that it is not in their power to extend the scope of their inquiry; and whether it is in the power of the House to ascertain whether officials in the service of the Government have been employed to suborn perjury?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe it is in the power of the Commissioners to call any of these persons before them.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen in the report of the proceedings before the Royal Commission on Tuesday last that Timothy Coffey, a witness for the Times, swore that a member of the Irish Constabulary asked him to make certain statements before the Royal Commission, and assured him that he would be remunerated if he gave valuable information, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of these allegations; whether the solicitor of those who are charged by the Times before the Commission will be allowed access to all official information in regard to the charges made against his clients which, as stated by the Times on Thursday, was placed at the disposal of the solicitor of that journal, and whether, as in the case of the Times, Mr. Anderson will place at his disposal any reports that he has received in regard to the actions of Mr. Lewis's clients; and whether the names of the police constables and the magistrates who furnish the Times with tabulated information will be given on application to Mr. Lewis in order that he may apply for all or any of that tabulated informa- 1801 tion that he may deem if in the interests of his clients to possess?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have not seen the proceedings; but I understand that the witness referred to is the one whom the Commission committed for contempt on the ground that, by his own showing, he was utterly untrustworthy. I have more than once stated in the House the desire of the Government to furnish all legitimate information either to the Commission or to parties charged before the Commission, and I have further stated that the proper method of obtaining such information is the ordinary one of writing a letter to the Irish Government, asking for the information which is required. Any application of that kind from Messrs. Lewis will be dealt with without unnecessary delay.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the Government place in the hands of our solicitors all the information at present placed at the disposal of the Times?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI shall wait until the application is made before I answer it.
§ MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the case of the Times before the Special Commission has closed without Mr. Robert Anderson having been called as a witness, he will now answer the questions which were put to him by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division on March 5th?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI am informed that Mr. Anderson did hand to a witness named Le Caron, certain letters which had been written by Le Caron himself confidentially to Mr. Anderson under a pledge that they should be given to no one but Le Caron himself. Mr. Anderson did give Le Caron a letter of introduction to Mr. Houston, after having unsuccessfully advised him not to come forward as a witness. Mr. Anderson culled out from letters he had received from Le Caron those which related to private matters, and were not necessary for the purpose of giving evidence. Mr. Anderson is not aware whether the documents remained in Mr. Houston's custody. I have not been able, from such reports as I have seen, to verify the whole of the hon. Member's account of Le Caron's evidence, but I must decline to ascertain or to express any 1802 opinion whether Le Caron's evidence is true. That is a matter for the Special Commission to determine. Although Mr. Anderson acted without my knowledge or sanction, I think he acted properly in handing to Le Caron documents which had come from Le Caron, and which were necessary to enable him to give full evidence on any matter that the Commission deemed material.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTMay I ask why Mr. Anderson was not called before the Commission to explain his conduct, according to the pledge given in the House by the Home Secretary?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI gave no pledge on the subject. I stated what Mr. Anderson informed me—that he had been summoned—but I cannot give an explanation why the counsel representing the Times has not called upon him. It is probable that Mr. Anderson will still be called at a later stage.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREDid those papers of Major Le Caron belong to Mr. Anderson or to the Government?
§ MR. COBBDid Mr. Anderson tell Major Le Caron, "that Mr. Houston was a gentleman upon whom he could rely implicitly, and that Houston had been selected as representing the interests of the prosecution?"
§ MR. MATTHEWSI am not aware. I have given all the information in my power. I apprehend that the documents belonged to Le Caron.
§ MR. SEXTONWas Mr. Anderson authorized to hand over to Le Caron documents necessary for his evidence in Court, and what has become of the portions of the documents handed over to Houston which were not used by Le Caron in Court?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI informed the hon. Member that Mr. Anderson acted without my knowledge and without my sanction. If he wishes for further information he must put a question on the Paper.
§ MR. SEXTONThe right hon. Gentleman said that he approved Mr. Anderson's action in handing the papers to Le Caron. Does he also approve of allowing those papers to be further committed to Houston, and what has become of the portion of the papers handed over to him which were not used by Le Caron in Court?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have stated that I thought that Mr. Anderson acted 1803 rightly in giving to Le Caron documents which had emanated from him and which were legitimate ones for him to refer to in order to give fuller and more accurate information to the Commission. To that expression of opinion I adhere. The hon. Gentleman asks about certain other documents, and of those I know nothing.
§ MR. SEXTONWas Le Caron authorized—[Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"]—perhaps you would like the adjournment of the House? Was Le Caron authorized by Mr. Anderson to hand to Houston documents given to Le Caron because they were necessary to his evidence; and what has Houston done with the remainder of the documents handed to him which were not used in Court in his evidence?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have given all the information in my power. The documents were handed to him for the purpose of being used in evidence, and have been published to all the world.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)If these were private documents of Le Caron's, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that the documents which Le Caron swore had been sent, over a period of years, to the Government, and for which he had received money from the Government, remained the property of Le Caron after the payment of the money?
§ MR. MATTHEWSWhen I stated that the letters remained the property of Le Caron I stated the ordinary rule of law—that the writer of a letter does not part with the property in it. As for the rest of the hon. Member's question, I must decline to answer it.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether all the documents were used in the Commission, or whether any of them remained in the hands of Houston?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe hon. Member must put a Question on the Paper, and I will then consider whether I can answer it.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIn view of the answers which have been given in connection with Mr. Anderson, I beg leave to give notice that on the Vote on Account relating to the Metropolitan Police I shall call attention to the conduct of Mr. Anderson in handing over confidential documents without leave from the Secretary of State, and its 1804 bearing upon his position as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan Police.
MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to an allegation in the first leader of the Times of the 14th of March that, while the case for the Times was proceeding before the Special Commission, official information was placed by the Government at the disposal of Mr. Soames; whether the official information has been imparted at the request of the Times, or spontaneously offered; and, if the latter, by whom it has been offered; whether his attention has been directed to the following statement in the article in question:—
We have no doubt similar information will be in like manner at the disposal of Mr. Lewis if he thinks he can make any use of it;and has such information been supplied?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the Question. The information to which the hon. Member alludes was imparted at the request of Mr. Soames. I have observed in the House more than once that the Government desire so far as is possible to deal equally by all parties appearing before the Commission. Some information has been supplied to Mr. Lewis in the manner suggested.
MR. MAC NEILLWas the information supplied to Mr. Soames supplied by the advice of the first law officer of the Crown?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe information has nothing to do with the first law officer of the Crown. The Government acted in accordance with what they conceived to be their duty.