HC Deb 09 August 1888 vol 330 cc103-5
SIR WILLIAM EWART(for Mr. MACARTNEY) (Antrim, S.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has inquired as to the grounds of the decision of the Court of Exchequer as regards Mr. Latchford, J.P.; and, whether he adheres to the statement that the facts and merits of the case were not gone into, but that the decision turned solely on an error in the form of the order?

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

No information which I have received leads me to doubt in any respect the accuracy of the statements which I have made to the House.

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

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is true that not only was Mr. Latchford convicted by the "Removables" of a "riot contrary to the statute in that case made and provided," although there is no statute making riot an offence, but also that Mr. Latchford was convicted alone of creating a riot, the other persons who had been charged having been acquitted, or the prosecution against them withdrawn; and that it appears, both in substance and in fact, from the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, that Mr. Latchford was convicted by the "Removables" of an impossible offence—namely, the riot by one man?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman appears to be entirely under a mistake. Such a conclusion cannot possibly be drawn from the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, for the Court never went into the evidence at all.

MR. SEXTON

Is the right hon. Gentleman so ignorant of the proceedings as not to be aware that Mr. Baron Dowse stated—["Order!"]—I am simply giving facts without colour—that Mr. Baron Dowse declared in his Judgment that "it is impossible for one man to commit a riot?"

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The ignorance, I think, is not on my side. The Judgment of the Court of Exchequer related only to the form of the order of committal. The Court was of opinion that the order should have contained a more particular account of the riot. They, therefore, objected to it as informal, and on that ground, and that ground alone, the conviction was quashed.

MR. SEXTON

I must refer to the Solicitor General for Ireland on the question of law. I wish to ask him whether it is not a fact that all the other persons who were charged on the same occasion with riot were acquitted, or the charges against them withdrawn, and that Mr. Latchford, therefore, stood alone on the charge of making a riot; and whether it is possible to sustain such a charge against one person only?

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

Yes, Sir; it is quite possible to sustain such a charge against an individual—a charge of having partaken with other individuals who are not charged in a riot. There is no legal difficulty in the matter at all. The observations of Baron Dowse were not upon the facts of the case, which were not before the Court—the depositions were not before the Court in any shape or form—but upon the form of the order which was made by the magistrates.

MR. SEXTON

Just one other Question. I must ask whether it is possible to convict one man of having partaken with other persons in a riot when it is shown that, in the case of every one of the other persons charged with that riot, the charge was withdrawn, or the accused acquitted?

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)

May I ask whether there was any evidence that there was a riot?

MR. MADDEN

That would be going into evidence which was not before the Court, and I am not bound to express an opinion upon it. It is perfectly possible to convict one man of taking part in a riot with other persons who were not charged with that riot, or against whom the prosecution was withdrawn. However, the only question before the Court of Exchequer was the sufficiency of the order taken by itself as an order, without any reference whatever to evidence which was not before the Court.

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN

asked, whether they were to understand that there was evidence of riot because Mr. Latchford was convicted?

MR. MADDEN

Certainly, Sir. I think the hon. Member misunderstood what I said. I said there was no evidence before the Court of Exchequer. By that I meant that the evidence which was taken below of a riot was not brought up before the Court of Exchequer in the habeas corpus proceedings, which related solely to the order.

MR. SEXTON

I beg to give Notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Recess I shall again bring up this case, and shall endeavour to convince the House that Mr. Latchford was convicted by "Removables" of an offence which, so far as the circumstances of the case show, it was impossible for him to be legally convicted of.