IRELAND—THE CLONGOREY PRISONERS. (Hansard, 28 February 1890)

§ MR. SEXTON

I regret, Sir, that the Government has not considered the urgent case of the Clongorey prisoners; but perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) will now be able to make a statement. The House is aware that the tenant on the estate agreed that some of her out houses, which were her own property, should be enlarged for the purpose of affording shelter to a number of evicted tenants who were in a poor and friendless condition. The agent of the estate made an affidavit, to the effect that the enlargement involved unlawful waste. The Act of 1860 defines the manner in which the summons shall be served. It must be served on the occupier or posted on the principal door of the dwelling. It was not served in either way; and the precept was not sent at all to the workmen who were employed. The Government acted under a complete 1615 misapprehension in the case, and on the insufficient basis of an improperly served summons they proceeded with a number of acts of violence—the arrest, the handcuffing, and the housebreaking. Three batches of prisoners were arrested. The first batch was called on to answer a charge of disobeying the precept, and the second a charge of unlawful assembly. In the case of the third, which included Father Kinsella, the magistrate did not proceed to any action on the charge, but, in default of bail, sentenced them to imprisonment for two months—which was double the maximum term to which they could have been sentenced under the precept. The first batch was brought up the day before yesterday before two Castle resident magistrates. It turned out that the precept had not been duly served, and the Government Justices agreed that the case fell to the ground. The Government counsel asked that a case might be stated. The curious thing is that when we ask for a case to be stated we very rarely get it; but in this instance the application was granted, and the proceedings were adjourned for two months. The defendants went free, and the cases pending were adjourned for two months. The second batch was tried yesterday and to-day, the Court being again composed of two stipendiary magistrates. In the event, one of the magistrates held that there was no case against the accused, and the other took the contrary view. The result was that the men went free. The third batch of prisoners were brought before a solitary magistrate. They asked to have a case stated on this very point of whether the precept was duly served. The magistrate refused to state a case, and called on them to give bail. They declined to give bail, were sent to prison for two months, and are suffering imprisonment now. I am not competent, and not disposed, to go into this question in its strictly legal aspects; but I would ask the Government whether it is desirable that this priest and these 17 men should be detained in prison when if the same procedure had been adopted in their case as in the case of the others they would have been free at the present moment. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to order the release of the third batch of prisoners.

(12.43) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALTOUR, Manchester, East)

The hon. Gentleman has imported into this question certain controversial elements which, under other circumstances, I should have thought it my duty to reply to. I think that at this late hour I can pass them by, and I am far from complaining, speaking generally, of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The analysis of facts which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward is one which appears to me to be substantially accurate. It is a fact that two batches of these people have been released, in one case because the Court thought the precept had not been properly served, and in the other because the members of the Court differed on the point whether there was unlawful assembly or not. On both grounds a case has been stated to a Superior Court, and I am far from saying that my opinion is adverse to the action originally taken. But no doubt the substantial conclusion is that two batches of men are free at this moment and the others are in prison. The two batches released cannot be tried afresh for two months, and an interval of indefinite length must elapse before we can learn on proper authority whether or not the precept was properly served. Of course, if no action were taken in the matter the persons imprisoned under the Statute of Edward III. would undoubtedly remain in prison during all that time, with the possibility that at the end of that time it might be held that the precept was improperly served, and therefore the root of the action of the magistrates was not supported by reason or by law. Under these circumstanced, I shall take the opportunity to-morrow of consulting my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as to whether some steps may not be taken for the purpose of releasing the persons still confined to prison. I hope that answer will content the hon. Gentleman.