HC Deb 21 April 1910 vol 16 cc2324-6
Mr. LONSDALE

asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he instructed the Crown Solicitor, in the cases of the King v. Farrell and others, to consent to the defendants' application for an adjournment on Saturday, 16th April, in order that the Member for North Longford might obey the Parliamentary party Whip; and whether, in fact, the said trial on charges of criminal conspiracy was adjourned to enable him to support the Closure Resolutions in this House on Monday last?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)

I was not aware of the intention to apply for an adjournment, and I gave no instructions in relation to the matter. The Crown Solicitor consented to the application, acting on general instructions received from me. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

Mr. J. P. FARRELL

In order to protect Members of the House in my position, may I ask you, Sir, for a ruling whether it is in order for any hon. Member to put on the Paper a question reflecting by innuendo on the character of a defendant in a case before a court of justice; whether in such a case it is not proper that the hon. Member putting the question should give his authority to the clerk at the Table or to you, which, in this case, I believe, was only a lying newspaper report.

Mr. SPEAKER

It did not occur to me that there was the slightest reflection upon the hon. Member's character in his desiring to attend the House of Commons. It seemed to me to be very much to the hon. Member's credit. I cannot see that there is any offensive suggestion in the question.

Mr. FARRELL

That is not quite the point. The point in the question, as I take it, is that there was an understanding between the Crown Solicitor and myself to get an adjournment under false pretences. That is the way I look at it—that there was a corrupt arrangement. It is to that I strongly object, and I fling back the lie in the teeth of the hon. Member.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is nothing whatever to fling back. I cannot conceive why the hon. Member should put any such interpretation upon the question. It does not seem to me to reflect upon the hon. Member in any way.

Mr. FARRELL

May I ask whether in future, when the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh hands in a question reflecting on the character of an hon. Member or refer- ring to a case before the court, you, Sir, will exercise your discretion and examine as to the truth of the question before it is allowed to appear on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER

I did examine the question, and, as I have already told the hon. Member, I cannot conceive that there is any reflection whatever upon his character in endeavouring to obtain an adjournment of the trial in order to attend the House of Commons.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

Is it in accordance with the practice of this House to allow a question to be put with reference to cases that are pending? This case is actually going on at this moment.

Mr. SPEAKER

I gather that that is so, but I do not understand that the question relates to any of the issues in the trial. It is only as to the adjournment.

Mr. DILLON

Does not the question convey the insinuation that the Crown Prosecutor allowed the hon. Member to come to this House in order that he might vote for the Government? The plain intention is to convey the insinuation of a corrupt understanding.

Mr. SPEAKER

If there is such a plain intention I am afraid I am so dense that I cannot see it. I must take the blame for the question's appearing.

Mr. FARRELL

As a personal explanation, will you allow me to say—

Mr. SPEAKER

If it was ever attacked, the hon. Member's conduct in this matter has been completely vindicated. I do not think there is any need to say anything further.