§ 43. Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary why no criminal proceedings have been instituted against any of the persons implicated in the Report of Detective Inspector Kane on his special business in Ireland in 1907?
§ Mr. McKENNAThis question should have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I have no evidence whatever that any offence in connection with the Crown Jewels was committed in England.
§ Mr. GINNELLMay I ask, does not the act of pawning the jewels here in London bring the thieves within the jurisdiction of the Home Office?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not aware of any such act.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDDo I understand Inspector Kane is not under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is not the point. The point whether I have any jurisdiction or not would depend whether any offence has been committed in this country, and I have no evidence that any offence has been committed.
§ Mr. WARDDid the right hon. Gentleman personally or did his Department agree that Inspector Kane should be employed in investigating this case?
§ Mr. McKENNAI cannot say I personally agreed; but Inspector Kane was lent for the purpose, but that would not bring the matter within my jurisdiction.
§ Mr. McKENNAOh, yes. That question was answered last week.
§ Mr. McKENNANo.
§ Mr. GINNELLMay I ask if the four persons publicly accused of this crime failed to bring an action against the accuser, thus acknowledging their guilt, and will the ordinary law be put in operation against them?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not aware that any persons have been publicly accused of this crime.
§ Mr. GINNELLIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that four persons have been accused in this House, and that the accuser is under pledge not to avail of privilege if they bring an action?
§ Mr. McKENNAI do not know whether the claim of privilege depends on the accuser or not. I always understood it depends on this House.