HC Deb 22 June 1888 vol 327 cc985-8
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

(for Mr. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN) (Stirling, &c.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that in the case of the four Killeagh shopkeepers sentenced by Resident Magistrates, three to one month's and one to a fortnight's imprisonment, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for refusing to supply the police on the Ponsonby Estate, an application was made to the magistrates to state a case to the Court of Exchequer as to the legality of the conviction for a "conspiracy to induce others not to deal with the police;" whether the Resident Magistrates refused the application in the following terms,—namely:— In reply to your notice served on us on the 2nd instant, calling on us to state a case for the opinion thereon of the Exchequor Division of H.M.'s High Court of Justice in Ireland, we have considered your application, and now acquaint you that we refuse to state such case, and we now sign and deliver to you this certificate of our refusal. (Sd.) H. E. REDMOND, R.M., (Sd.) J. C. GARDINER. R.M., The Resident Magistrates who heard and determined the complaint. Dated at Cork, 4th June, 1833; whether the Act allows such refusal, except on the ground that the application was "frivolous;" whether the Court of Exchequer has ordered the discharge of the prisoners on habeas corpus, on the ground that "there was absolutely no evidence to support the charge;" whether, as the prisoners by the refusal of an appeal were compelled to undergo many days of illegal custody, any compensation will be made to them; and, whether the Irish Government intend to notice in any way the action of these magistrates?

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

The Question is identical with one that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson). This is one of those Questions as to which I should be glad to have Notice. As the right hon. Gentleman will see, this Question is one as to which it is absolutely necessary I should apply to Dublin for the information he desires.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I would ask this Question, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me any other information, whether these two Resident Magistrates are magistrates who have been, under the terms of the Crimes Act, "certified by the Lord Lieutenant as persons of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge he is satisfied;" whether, after the remarks of the Judges upon their conduct, the Lord Lieutenant is still satisfied as to their legal knowledge; and, whether the Irish Government intend to keep them as persons to administer the exceptional powers of the Crimes Act?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I speak under correction, and without absolute cognizance of the fact; but my belief is that these gentlemen have been certified as legally competent so long ago as the year 1883.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I wish—["Order!"]

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I believe they were certified by Earl Spencer.

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

Not under the Crimes Act.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was under the Crimes Act.

MR. T. E. ELLIS

Ridiculous.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

With regard to the second part of the Question, the fact that a decision of an Inferior Court has been over-ruled by a Superior Court, is not, in my opinion, sufficient reason for making any complaint against the magistrates.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Arising out of my Question, and in face of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him whether, until the Act of last Session, there was any jurisdiction given to these magistrates on questions of conspiracy; and I would also ask him whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer as to the treatment of these cases, and the refusal of the magistrates to state a case.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Sir, the Act of 1882, for which these magistrates were, as I have already stated to the House, certified as being competent in the matter of legal knowledge, was quite as difficult an Act to administer as this Act. [Cries of "Answer the Question!"] That is the answer to the Question. ["No!"] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the Question.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I should like to know really whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the strictures of the Court of Exchequer on the conduct of the magistrates in this particular case, to the decision given that there was no evidence to support the charge, and that the magistrates refused to state a case for the opinion of the Court above?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have seen a report, but I do not know how far it is authentic, of the observations of one Judge making comments of the nature indicated by the right hon. Gentleman; but I would point this out—that if it had been the opinion of the prisoner's counsel that the refusal to state a case was a frivolous one, he could have applied to the Court of Queen's Bench and compelled him to state a case.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the prisoner's counsel. Allow me to say—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to put a Question to elucidate any point he is entitled to do so, but he cannot introduce any matter of argument.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman, Sir, has referred to me. He has stated that if the prisoner's counsel held a particular opinion he ought to have done so and so.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I said, could.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Well, could. I think I am entitled to state that on a former application made to the Court of Queen's Bench in the Brosnan case—a man whom the right hon. Gentleman was afterwards compelled to liberate unconditionally—an application was made for a mandamus to the magistrates to state a case, and it was dismissed by the Court as frivolous; and that afterwards, in the case of Sullivan, who was released by the Court of Exchequer on habeas corpus, the Queen's Bench Division refused a certiorari. No counsel for any prisoner would have any chance of getting any satisfactory decision—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! Mr. Schwann.