HC Deb 29 June 1888 vol 327 cc1720-3
MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Dublin Court of Exchequer on Wednesday last, on an application for a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that there was no evidence to convict Cornelius Curtain and 10 others, who had been sentenced to a month's imprisonment by two Resident Magistrates for unlawful assembly; whether the Lord Chief Baron is correctly reported to have said that the order ought to be granted; that the questions raised were fit and proper to be argued before the Court; that it ought to be argued whether the assembly was illegal; that another— Question was whether the real object and meaning of the Plan of Campaign, as developed in the speech of Mr. Dillon in October, 1886, was matter that could be taken judicial notice of by the Judges without evidence, and that he would like to have that question argued; that— The police themselves stated that the people were orderly, and did not use offensive expressions; whether Baron Dowse dissent from the Lord Chief Baron on the jurisdiction of the Court, and whether, in consequence of this division of opinion, no Rule could be made; and, whether the 11 persons accused are thus left without any means of testing the legality of the sentence that they are now undergoing, notwithstanding the view of the Lord Chief Baron that it ought to be argued before his Court, whether the magistrates had taken the evidence required for a conviction?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University)

(who replied) said: The facts are substantially as stated; but I am unable to vouch for the strict accuracy of the report of the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron. The result of the application to the Exchequer Division, referred to in the Question, is that the accused cannot have recourse to the proceeding by habeas corpus for the purpose of testing the legality of their sentences. This arose from the difference of opinion prevailing among the Judges as to their jurisdiction in such cases, the Court being equally divided in the particular case referred to.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Then, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he still stands by the statement which he made very recently, which was that so long as the decision in Sullivan's or Brosnan's case—I forget which—stands it is in the power of anyone, so long as he is under sentence of Resident Magistrates, to go to the Court of Exchequer and have the case decided by that Court on a point of law?

MR. MADDEN

Yes, Sir; I adhere to that statement as regards the full Court of Exchequer; but if the accident occurs that one of the Judges who hold that the jurisdiction exists is absent, there will then be an equal division of opinion, and no Rule can be obtained.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Then, are we to understand that in consequence of an accident happening these 11 persons are to be deprived of any chance of their case being authoritatively decided?

MR. MADDEN

In consequence of their application having been made at a time when the full Court was not sitting.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Then I will ask the Chief Secretary whether this case is to be left as it now stands?

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

I suppose they could have gone to the Court of Queen's Bench.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as it is admitted in the answers of the Solicitor General that the Chief Baron stated that he would like to have argued before him the question whether the Judges could take official knowledge of the Plan of Campaign as being illegal without evidence being offered, whether, in the case of Mr. Dillon, no evidence of a conspiracy was offered, and no evidence of the Plan of Campaign was offered; and whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will submit a case to his legal advisers as to whether Mr. Dillon is legally detained or not?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not accept the statement of facts just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but if he desires any further answer he should put the Question on the Paper.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON

Which statement of fact does the right hon. Gentleman not accept?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not agree that no evidence was given.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

As this unfortunate division of the Court of Exchequer affects the liberty of the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman take some means by a test case of obtaining an opinion which shall be binding on all?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There is no conceivable method of doing that. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. These prisoners had two methods of obtaining a re-hearing of their case on the legal point. They might have gone to the Court of Queen's Bench, and they refused to do so; or they might have gone to the Court of Exchequer, and they went; but they chose to go at such a time that they did not get the full benefit that they might have obtained at another time. But that leaves the other remedy entirely untouched.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON

Has not the Court of Queen's Bench declared that it will not go behind the order of the Resident Magistrates, and will not look into the depositions in a case of certiorari or habeas corpus? Did not the Solicitor General tell us that eight Judges of the Queen's Bench had already declared that?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The point was that they could go to the Queen's Bench to have a case stated.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON

But this was not upon a case stated. The magistrates did not state a case.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Are these 11 persons assumed to know beforehand that Mr. Justice Andrews would chance to be sitting at Nisi Prius on Wednesday?

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON

Was there any case stated in these cases at at all—was it not an application for habeas corpus?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not apprehend the point, and I shall explain it. The magistrates refused to have a case stated, and counsel for the prisoners might have gone to the Court of Queen's Bench and compelled the magistrates to state a case if they so thought fit. That is the point.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my Question—whether we are to assume that these persons were to know beforehand that Mr. Justice Andrews would be sitting at Nisi Prius?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I presume the counsel might have known.