HC Deb 07 December 1888 vol 331 cc1404-7
MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary, Whether, having regard to the practice which appeared to exist in England of forwarding Petitions received by the Home Office alleging the ill-health of a prisoner committed for contempt of Court to the Judge who committed him, the same course would be taken in the case of Moroney?

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

asked the Chief Secretary, whether the Government were taking steps to carry out the pledge given during the debate last week—in giving the most generous consideration to Moroney's case?

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

Everything that the Government can do to facilitate the release of the man Moroney, if he is proved to be in ill-health, will be done. The exact position of the Moroney case is this. I understand that Judge Boyd says that if a motion be made for the release of Moroney he will sit to hear it at any time, whether it be made by Moroney or any one on his behalf. He further says that the motion will be made publicly in open Court; and, supposing it be proved that this man is suffering from ill-health, Judge Boyd will at once order his release. There is, therefore, no ground for the fear expressed by some hon. Members yesterday that Moroney might not be in a fit state of health to apply personally.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he would conform to what the Home Secretary had now admitted to be the practice at the Home Office in England, and call the Judge's attention to the fact that Moroney was suffering from ill-health?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

All the facts have already been brought to the notice of the Judge.

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

What is the latest information in the hands of the Government as to the condition of Mr. Moroney's health? And I wish also to ask whether the Chief Secretary will allow all the Papers and Prison Reports on the subject, including the Medical Reports, to be open to any person desiring to make an application in the case?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am only able to give the statement which Judge Boyd made publicly, that no obstacle would be thrown in the way of anyone making an application for Moroney's release.

MR. CONYBEARE

asked, whether any motion was required to be made in Bertram's case?

MR. MATTHEWS

required Notice of the Question.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Will the Government have any objection, in view of the necessity for making an affidavit in the case of an application, to allow Members of this House to have access to the Papers which are stated to have been laid before the Judge, and which will, I presume, include the certificate of the medical officer?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he could not give that undertaking.

MR. SEXTON

Will not the reported statement as to the health of Moroney be open for inspection by Members?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot make that promise, considering that they are of a confidential character, and ought not to be made public.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the Judgment delivered in Moroney's case in the Bankruptcy Court on Tuesday last, in which Judge Boyd said— What is the act Moroney has been guilty of? It is not contempt of Court; it is no insult to me; it is simply disobedience to the Act of Parliament. The penalty is fixed by the Act; and I must take it that Moroney knew the penalty when he refused to take the oath, and he must suffer the penalty for it; and he wished to ask the Solicitor General under what authority, judicial or statutory, did the Law Officers for Ireland advise that the Queen's Prerogative of Pardon did not extend to sentences of imprisonment inflicted for disobedience to an Act of Parliament?

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

My attention has been called to the Judgment referred to in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. There is no Statute nor, so far as I am aware, judicial decision on the subject; but the Advisers of the Crown in Ireland, as well as in England, are of opinion that the Prerogative does not apply in the case of a sentence, not of a punitive character, inflicted in respect of continuous disobedience to an Act of Parliament. The language of the Question is somewhat wider in its terms than the proposition which I have stated.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

How can it be contempt of Court when the Judge of that Court states that there was no contempt?

MR. MADDEN

I did not use the words "contempt of Court" in my answer. On the contrary, I described the offence, with regard to which the sentence was inflicted, as continuous disobedience of an Act of Parliament.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

But let me ask the Solicitor General for Ire- land upon that, whether he can state any authority for the proposition that the Crown has not the power of release in all cases except those which are properly contempt of Court.

MR. MADDEN

What I endeavoured to convey was that it is the opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown, both here and in Ireland, that where the punishment of imprisonment is awarded for a continuous disobedience to an Act of Parliament, the act of disobedience continuing from day to day, the Prerogative of Mercy, by way of pardon, is inapplicable.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether, informing that opinion, the Law Advisers took into consideration the fact that under it a sentence of perpetual imprisonment might be inflicted without the power of the Crown to intervene with the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy?

MR. MADDEN

No, Sir; it would be perfectly impossible that anything that could fairly be called a sentence of perpetual imprisonment could be inflicted in the cases to which my answer applies; because in all these cases the person has merely to cease his disobedience in order to terminate his imprisonment.