§ 16 Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary (1) the date of the report made by Detective-Inspector Kane on his special business in Ireland in 1907; why that report was not submitted to the Vice-regal Commission appointed to investigate the same matter in 1908, why it is not included in the documents printed with that Commission's Report; (2) who was the occupant of Dublin Castle specified by Detective-Inspector Kane in his report in 1907, and in his evidence before the Vice-regal Commission in 1908, as better entitled to be in the Castle than Inspector Kane himself, and in his opinion guilty of the theft of Crown jewels; whether it is the usual practice in criminal cases to give no heed to such a report of an expert, and, if not, at whose instance it was followed in this particular case; and (3) why Inspector Kane's report, dated 16th July, 1907, was withheld from the Vice-regal Commission investigating the same matter; whether an independent examination of it will be allowed now, and, if not, "will he state the reason?
§ Mr. BIRRELLInspector Kane's report was dated 16th July, 1907. He helped the Dublin police to investigate the theft of the jewels, but no evidence was found on which a criminal charge could be brought against any person. His evidence and that of the other police officers concerned was taken orally, and not in writing, by the Committee, and is published in the Appendix to their Report. Mr. Kane's oral evidence before the Commission did not indicate that he had any particular person in his mind when he made the remark he did that the man who stole the jewels must have had a knowledge of the building. Mr. Kane's evidence received full attention. His report is a confidential document and an 590 independent examination of it cannot, therefore, be permitted.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the report was not submitted to the Commission?
§ Mr. BIRRELLMr. Kane appeared before the Commission and gave full evidence, answering any question that was put to him on the subject.
§ Mr. GINNELLWhy were the Commissioners not allowed to examine the report and compare it with the evidence?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe report being a confidential report, and the inspector being there to give any evidence he was asked, and answer any questions put to him, it was not thought necessary.
§ Mr. GINNELLThat is no answer.
§ 27. Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary what official connected with Dublin Castle in 1907 desired the theft of the Crown jewels to be made the subject of a public inquiry upon oath; at whose instance that course was refused and an inquiry into the conduct of one official substituted; what was the reason for this; and whether he intends to hold any inquiry into the theft of the Crown jewels?
§ Mr. BIRRELLCounsel on behalf of Sir Arthur Vicars at the opening of the Crown Jewels Commission asked for a public inquiry on oath into this matter. The inquiry which took place was the only form of inquiry that could be held without statutory authority as no Commission, whether Royal or Vice-regal, has authority to administer an oath without the sanction of Parliament. The theft of the Crown Jewels has been fully investigated by the police, and I see no reason for any further inquiry.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir.