§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Leiutenant of Ireland if he will state the facts which prompted the Inspector General of Constabulary, Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Attoruey-General, the Solicitor-General and the Chief Secretary to cause to be altered District Inspector Preston's statement of the 7th September into the form in which it appeared in his subsequent statement of the 11th September; and whether any of them had personally visited the scene of the outrage.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY,) Liverpool, ExchangeThe facts have already been stated in answer to previous Questions. District Inspector Preston's report of 7th September was a report made to the police authorities for police purposes, and it was never altered. The law officers were of opinion that, inasmuch as this report contained suggestions and views of Mr. Preston and some matters outside his own knowledge, it could not be properly submitted to the parties, and they advised that the statement which the District Inspector was to submit to the parties should be confined to the actual matters to which he could personally depose. Neither the Inspector-General nor the Under-Secretary was responsible for this advice, and the Chief Secretary took no part whatever in the matter, None of the officials named had visited the scene of the explosion.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGMay I ask the Attorney-General in view of the fact that this report contained, to use his own words, only those matters to which District Inspector Preston could personally depose, whether it is not a fact that that particular report of 11th September contained other matter than that to which Inspector Preston could personally depose? Did it not contain insinuations and other matters which afterwards were denied?
§ MR. CHERRYNo, Sir, I do not think it did. What I said was that the law officers advised that the statement which he was to submit should be confined to matters to which he could personally depose. The law officers did not interfere with the discretion of District Inspector Preston in carrying out that advice. They allowed him to prepare his own report, and did not in any way alter or touch anything he said. The only conclusions he arrived at in his second statement were in reference to facts connected with the placing of the pot on the window sill, and these were matters to which an expert witness might depose, and he might possibly be considered an expert witness.
§ MR. JONH REDMOND (Waterford)May I ask whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that what is called the second report—the statement of the 11th—was in any respect more prejudicial to the interests of Lord Ashtown than the original report of the 7th, and whether, as a matter of fact, the exact opposite is not the case, and that the second statement of 11th September excludes a number of statements in reference to Lord Ashtown which were included in the first one?
§ MR. CHERRYI think that is to. Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
§ MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid.)Is the right hon. Gentleman able to afford the House any proof of that statement?
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDRead the two documents.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGBut is it not a matter of fact that the second report contained assumptions on the part of District Inspector Preston as well as facts?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member had better see the report.
§ MR. CHAELES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the law officers of the Crown advised that this document should contain nothing but statements of fact, why was it that he did not see to it that those instructions and that advice was carried out by Inspector Preston, 1417 who allowed insinuations and suggestions to enter into the documents?
§ MR. CHERRYI think, if I had directed Inspector Preston to alter his second statement, I know what would have been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reason why, upon the 12th September, the statement of District Inspector Preston of the 11th September, containing the suggestion that Lord Ash town was responsible for, or privy to, the outrage on his own promises, and other insinuations afterwards proved in Court to be false, was furnished to the rural district council, instead of a statement by County Inspector Jennings, who had been on the scene of the outrage for a considerable time previously.
§ MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, is it in order that a statement should be made in a Question, and not an interrogation, that charges had been proved to be false in a Court of justice—because in my opinion that statement is false.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has himself just made a statement with regard to the case. I am afraid I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details to know whether the insinuations were proved in a Court to be false or not. Until the debate takes place I see no reason for refusing the Question.
§ MR. CHERRYI cannot agree with the view of the hon. and gallant Member that the statement of 11th September contains a suggestion that Lord Ashtown was responsible for, or privy to, the outrage on his own promises. District Inspector Preston was the officer immediately in charge of the district, and had been specially recalled from Belfast for the purpose of investigating the case. Moreover, the county inspector had not made a thorough investigation of the matter or furnished a formal and complete report upon it, as the district inspector had done. The county inspector was on the scene on the day of the occurrence, but upon the return of the district inspector on 17th August he was 1418 relieved of the immediate charge of the case.
§ MR. BELLOCIs the right hon. Gentleman or the Government prepared to accept that word "proved" in the Question as distinguished from the word "decided?"
§ MR. CHERRYI should rather not give an opinion upon that. It is a matter upon which anybody can form his own judgment.
§ MR. MOONEY (Newry)Is it not a fact that the whole case before the Courts was whether or not a malicious outrage had been committed, and that the Court had no power to go into the question of who committed the outrage?
§ MR. CHERRYThat is so.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGIs it not a fact that Inspector Jennings spent four hours in examining the results of the explosion immediately after it took place, and does the right hon. Member consider that the report of the county inspector was not of sufficient importance to be supplied to the parties in the case?
§ MR. CHERRYI do not know exactly how long he spent there, but undoubtedly he was there on the day of the occurrence. The entire matter was handed over to the district inspector when he returned, and he forwarded to the Government a complete report of the whole circumstances of the case, which was in his charge and not in that of the county inspector.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence on oath of District Inspector Preston at the trial in Water-ford, on appeal, of the Glenahiery case, when he stated that he signed, at the bidding of a superior officer, a document clearly conveying an inference which he knew and admitted had no foundation in fact; and whether he can give the names of those persons present when District Inspector Preston was bidden to attach his signature to the document in question.
§ MR. CHERRYMy attention has been called to the evidence of District 1419 Inspector Preston. My right hon. friend has already, in answer to questions on the 11th instant, expressed his view as to the manner in which the district inspector was induced under cross-examination to assent to statements so entirely at variance with the facts. Mr. Preston was not directed by any superior officer or any other Government official to attach his signature to any document whatsoever.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the statement of District Inspector Preston, dated the 7th September, circulated as a White Paper, is word for word as drawn up by him, or was the original in any way altered; and, if so, to what extent and by whom.
§ MR. BIRRELLMr. Speaker, I have taken the responsibility of laying upon the Table a document which, upon the face of it, purports to be a copy of the Report of District Inspector Preston dated 7th September. In the circumstances, and subject to your ruling, I do not propose to answer this Question.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGCan the right hon. Gentleman give a better reason now than he gave before for the non-production of that document of the trial in Court?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of the Question.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGHas it not been already admitted that the document was altered, and will the right hon. Gentleman put the House in possession of the original document?
§ MR. BIRRELLI had the document in my hand on the last occasion and I said that anyone could come and see it. But no one accepted the invitation.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Preston received any verbal or written instructions, when ordered to Glenahiery, as to the form his report should take; and, if so, from whom.
§ MR. BIRRELLNo, Sir.
§ MR. LONSDALEOn behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if on the 29th February, 1908, four days before the date fixed for the hearing of the recent appeal in Lord Ashtown's case, the Assistant Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant wrote to the solicitor for Lord Ashtown to say that he was directed by the Lord Lieutenant to state that it was impossible to comply with his request for the production, on the hearing of the appeal, of any reports received from District Inspector Preston or other police officers prior to the date of the document of the 11th September, to which the signature of District Inspector Preston was attached; to what extent, if at all, was this decision modified by any subsequent instructions to the Inspector-General; can he explain why no notice of the modification, if any, was given to Lord Ashtown or his solicitor; and will he, having regard to the unexplained refusal of the Inspector-General upon the hearing of the appeal to produce any antecedent report by District Inspector Preston, lay upon the Table all the instructions given to the Inspector-General on the subject.
§ MR. BIRRELLIn reply to a request from Lord Ashtown's solicitor that all reports of District Inspector Preston made prior to the report of 11th September should be produced in court, the Assistant Under-Secretary wrote on 29th February that it was not possible to agree that, in the public interest, privilege should not be claimed against the production of the documents. On 2nd March, the Inspector-General was informed upon the advice of the law officers that he was at liberty to produce District Inspector Preston's original report of 7th September, if circumstances should require. There was no reason why this fact should have been communicated to Lord Ashtown. The liberty to produce that document was given solely because of the imputations which had been made that the District Inspector had allowed the report to be altered with a view to making unfounded charges against Lord Ashtown. It would, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, be entirely contrary to practice to publish instructions given by the Government to the Inspector-General.
§ MR. LONSDALEOn behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if County Inspector Jennings, of county Waterford, the superior officer of District Inspector Preston, after an exhaustive examination of the scone upon the very day of the Glenahiery explosion, furnished to the Inspector General a detailed report of the results of his examination and did he subsequently furnish a second report, in which he expressly stated his disagreement with the conclusions of District Inspector Preston; whether the Inspector-General, in declining to produce upon the recent hearing of the appeal either of these reports, was acting in accordance with instructions, and can he explain if, as stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland, the Inspector-General was given instructions to produce the antecedent report of District Inspector Preston, why he was forbidden to produce either of the reports of County Inspector Jennings; and whether, having regard to the fact that the two documents, dated the 7th September and 11th September, 1907, respectively, and bearing the signature of District Inspector Preston, have already been presented to this House, he will, in fairness to Lord Ashtown, and in view of the Motion standing in the name of the honourable Member for King's County for Wednesday, 1st April, lay upon the Table the two reports of County Inspector Jennings.
§ MR. BIRRELLCounty Inspector Jennings arrived at the scene of explosion at a quarter past one on the day of the occurrence, and he furnished to the Inspector-General, by that evening's post, what he describes as a very hasty report giving the main features. Hs submitted a further report on 17th August, in which he stated that District Inspector Preston had then returned and would have every opportunity of fully inquiring into and investigating the occurrence. On the following day, 18th August, he submitted, without comment, a short report of the district inspector in which the latter stated that he was satisfied that the window and door of the room were open and that the shutters were not shut. It was not until after the district inspector's statement of 11th September, which states the same conclusions, had been 1422 communicated to the parties that the county inspector submitted a report expressing his dissent from those conclusions. This report was received on 16th September, and the county inspector was at once directed to communicate to the parties his statement indicating dissent from District Inspector Preston, which he did by letter on 18th September. It has already been stated that the Inspector-General in declining to produce the police reports was not acting upon instructions, but upon his own authority in accordance with the usual practice. The Attorney-General has not stated that the Inspector-General was given instructions to produce the antecedent report of District Inspector Preston, but, for reasons already stated, the Inspector General was informed that he was at liberty to produce the document if the circumstances should require it. As the right hon. Gentleman asks for the publication of the two reports of County Inspector Jennings, in fairness to Lord Ashtown as he says, and I presume with his authority, I will lay those documents upon the Table at once.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what were the reasons which prompted him to instruct the Inspector-General of Constabulary to depart from the usual practice and to produce in Court District Inspector Preston's report of 7th September, whereas no instructions were given to depart from the usual practice of claiming privilege in respect of County Inspector Jennings's reports.
§ MR. CHERRYThe Question does not correctly state the facts. The Inspector-General was not instructed to produce in Court District Inspector Preston's report of 7th September, but as I have already stated he was informed upon the advice of the Law Officers, that he was at liberty to produce the original report in question if circumstances should require. The reason for giving this advice was that District Inspector Preston's character had been personally assailed, and it had been repeatedly alleged, contrary to the fact, that he had allowed the report to be altered with a view to making unfounded charges against Lord Ashtown. No such question arose in regard to any report of County Inspector Jennings.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGWill the right hon. Gentleman ascertain from the Inspector-General why he objected to the production of the document at the trial, and on what ground he objected to do so?
§ MR. CHERRYThe Inspector-General states that during the course of the trial this advice was not present to his mind; in fact he forgot the instructions.
§ MR. LONSDALEI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether County Inspector Jennings made any report or communication to the authorities at Dublin Castle with respect to the Glenahiery explosion before his report dated 14th September, other than the communication accompanying the report of the district inspector dated 18th August.
§ MR. CHERRYYes, Sir. The facts have now been stated in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin.
§ MR. WALTER LONGWhy has the right hon. Gentleman been so long in admitting it?
§ MR. CHERRYThe Question was not asked before.