HC Deb 13 May 1875 vol 224 cc582-4
MR. PENNINGTON

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of The Queen v. Hibbert and others, tried before Baron Cleasby at the Old Bailey on May 5th and 6th instant for conspiracy against the provisions of "The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871," to molest by watching and besetting with intent to coerce, and to the contention by the counsel for the defendants that "to coerce" was not intended to apply to peaceable and orderly watching and persuasion, but was enacted against disorderly conduct calculated to produce fear or intimidation; if he is in a position to give any information to the House whether the sense contended for was in accordance with the intention of Parliament as expressed by the framers of the Act; whether his attention has been called to the charge of the Recorder of London to the Grand Jury, who laid down the Law accordingly, and also to the remarks of the learned Judge, who, in passing sentence, expressed his Feeling that the defendants did what they did, believing that under the Law as it existed they were only doing that which they had a right to do. There were difficulties in regard to the Law on the matter, and they might have acted under such a supposition as he had indicated; whether under all the circumstances, as there is no appeal, the learned judge declining to reserve the case, he will advise the extension of the prerogative of pardon to the defendants; and, whether the Government will in the promised Bill to amend the Law, seek to make clearer the meaning of the Legislature?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for the HOME SECRETARY)

said, his right hon. Friend's attention had been called to the case in question, and to the arguments used by counsel. With regard to the intention of Parliament it did not appear, from the usual records of the debates in the House of Commons, that the framers of the Act intended that peaceable persuasion should be made punishable; but an explanation of the Act was made by the Recorder in charging the Grand Jury. The same explanation was given by Baron Cleasby, in his charge to the jury on the trial of the defendants. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury found a true bill against the prisoners, and the other jury returned a verdict of guilty against them, and in the latter verdict Baron Cleasby expressly concurred. Under these circumstances it would appear that the acts of the prisoners amounted to something more than peaceable persuasion. The Secretary of State saw no reason for dif- fering with the opinions expressed by the Recorder and by the learned Judge, and therefore he did not intend to interfere in the case. His right hon. Friend thought he was not called upon to state the intentions of the Government as to the amendment of the Act until he introduced the Bill, which he proposed to do after Whitsuntide.