*SIR CHARLES DILKE () Gloucestershire. Forest of DeanI beg to ask the 220 Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the course pursued in the prosecution of Major Studdert and his sons; and what steps he proposes to take on account of the refusal of the Grand Jury at the Munster Assizes to find a true Bill, for reasons concerning the evidence of Colonel St. Quentin given by the Grand Jury in writing.
§ MR. BRODRICKI do not propose to take any further steps in this matter. The other points will be taken up by my right hon. friend the Attorney General for Ireland, in replying to the Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Leitrim.
*SlR CHARLES DILKEDo I understand that the Government, thinking this man to be guilty, will take no further steps of any kind?
§ MR. BRODRICKI think the reply of my right hon. friend will deal with that Question.
§ MR. TULLY() Leitrim, S.I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why Colonel St. Quentin was not produced by the Crown before the Grand Jury at the Munster Winter Assizes in the Studdert Remount Case; and whether it is proposed to grant any compensation to the defendants for being subjected to proceedings.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.As I had charge of this prosecution, my right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It is almost impossible in reply to a Question to state with such fulness as to be intelligible the several considerations which, in accordance with well established principles of law and unbroken precedent, and the express provisions of the Irish statutes now in force (56 Geo. Ill, ch. 87, 1 and 2 Vic.—37), required that the Crown should not send Colonel St. Quentin before the Grand Jury as a witness in the Studdert case; so far, however, as they can be condensed into an answer, I may state they were as follows: Colonel St. Quentin was a most important, if not the most important, witness for the defence. He had been examined on behalf 221 of the accused at the preliminary magisterial investigations. His evidence, and his evidence alone, was directed to establish an excuse, or kind of plea in confession and avoidance for the accused, to the effect that though the contract under which the accused was employed as purchasing agent was contained in written documents, a secret, not contemporaneous, arrangement or understanding had been come to between him and Colonel St. Quentin, never disclosed to the common principals, whereby Major Studdert was authorised to purchase horses from his sons, under assumed names, and to falsely represent to his principals that these counterfeited persons were independent, bona fide dealers. To have satisfied the desire of the Grand Jury (which apparently was not to confine themselves to their proper functions, but—to use their own words—to thoroughly investigate the case) and send one of the principal witnesses for the defence before them would, in effect, have been to have consented to transfer the hearing of this issue in the cause from the Public Court to the Grand Jury Room, and to have enabled the Grand Jury to decide it upon its merits, in secret, behind the back of the parties, without affording to the Crown any opportunity of cross-examining Colonel St. Quentin, or of pointing out the manifold contradictions, inaccuracies and other defects in his evidence which, according to their contention, rendered it unreliable, or of insisting on its insufficiency in law or fact to sustain the defence sought to be based upon it. Such a course would have been contrary to law, have been inconsistent with every principle of justice, and been of most mischievous example. I shall be only too pleased, should the occasion offer, to call attention in this House to the nature of Colonel St. Quentin's testimony, and to justify the action of the Crown in reference to him in every particular. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEHas it been considered if a prosecution for conspiracy 222 would lie against the Studderts and Colonel St. Quentin?
§ MR. ATKINSON. That particular point has not been specifically considered, but I think it right to say, however, that as far as the evidence has been laid before me—and I am thoroughly accquainted with it—I see no reason to suppose that Colonel St. Quentin's action was criminal. I rather think that he was befooled and practised upon.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONHas he incurred any civil liability?
§ MR. ATKINSONI decline to give any answer to that.
§ MR. ATKINSONThere is no precedent, in modern times, for going on with proceedings after a Bill has been thrown out.