HC Deb 06 December 1888 vol 331 cc1254-7
MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camaorne)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as Judge Boyd declines to entertain any application for the release of Mr. Moroney, the Government will now consider the propriety, in order to save his life, of recommending him to the mercy of the Crown?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

As this Question relates to an Irish matter, perhaps I may be permitted to answer it. The Attorney General for Ireland states that he has already written to the Solicitor General to say that Judge Boyd stated in the most emphatic way that he would release Moroney if a case as to health were established, and that he could get out at any moment. The case is for Judge Boyd, not for the Executive, who, having regard to the character of the order, cannot interfere. If Moroney consents to be sworn he will be let out by the Judge, and if he establishes a case by motion in Court as to his health he will also be let out. I understand that the law in Ireland is precisely similar to the law in England.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that in Ireland, as in England, a prisoner cannot be let out of prison on the score of ill-health except a motion is made in Court? I venture to say that such is not the English practice.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman let out any persons committed for contempt of Court; but I am distinctly advised that when a person is in prison for such an offence the Crown clearly has no power to interfere.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I should like to answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. I have had experience of a case of contempt of Court where a prisoner was detained for a long time. I communicated with the Judge, and upon my representation the Judge released the prisoner.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Quite so. It appears to me that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman fully bears out what I have stated.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)

asked, whether, since the recent debate in the House on the case of Moroney, the Government had caused any independent inquiries to be made as to his condition; and whether the right hon Gentleman had considered that, if the statements made in the debate concerning Moroney's health be well founded, that fact would render it impossible for such an application to be made?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No. I gather there would be no impossibility of that kind. With regard to inquiries made as to Moroney's health, nothing has been done in consequence of the recent debate. Long before the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) the matter was being inquired into.

MR. SEXTON

Assuming the condition of Moroney's health to be as stated, is it not obvious that it will prevent inquiries by the Judge?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is no danger of that kind.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Are we to understand that, if Moroney does not make application to the Judge, he is to be allowed to die or go mad in prison?

[No reply.]

MR. DILLON

I think we are entitled to an answer.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I appeal to the House whether the answers I have already given have not been absolutely specific? I am unable to add to the answers I have given. The health of Moroney was examined into nearly three weeks ago by the Prisons Board. The Executive have no power to order his release. The Judge has the power. The Judge has stated publicly in Court that if Moroney's health required it he would be released. I do not know anything that could be added to these three propositions.

MR. CONYBEARE

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there existed any limitation on the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy by the Sovereign; and whether it was not the Constitutional duty of the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty that that power existed?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

It is the duty of the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty in the exercise of Her Prerogative. The practice of the Home Office has been never to interfere in an order of attachment made to enforce some other order; and the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy with regard to attachment for contempt is confined at the Home Office in England to definitive penal sentence inflicted after some accomplished and complete fact. When an order of attachment is made in order to enforce obedience to some other order, it is held at the Home Office that the Sovereign has no right to interfere.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the Question to which he pressed for an answer was whether there existed in the Constitution of this country any limitation on the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy by the Sovereign? He wanted to know distinctly whether the House was to understand that there were certain crimes in regard to which Her Majesty had not the power to exercise Her Prerogative, and that there were other crimes in regard to which she possessed that power.

Several Conservative MEMBERS

Do not answer.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. CONYBEARE

May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the Home Secretary is not to answer the Question I have addressed to him in consequence of the shouts of people below the Gangway?

MR. SEXTON

inquired whether there had been any indication of an increase of the malady in the case of Moroney since the last examination was made; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the Report of the examination on the Table?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the results of any investigation into the health of the prisoner. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is not a matter which comes before me in the ordinary course; but if he will put a Question upon the Piper I shall be able to get the information by to-morrow.