HC Deb 26 June 1888 vol 327 cc1280-4
MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the reason why the Government have refused to lay upon the Table a Copy of the shorthand writer's notes of the Judgment of the Court of Exchequer in the Killeagh habeas corpus cases, seeing that a copy of the Chief Baron's address to the jury in "Blunt v. Balfour" has been laid upon the Table; whether the Government will reconsider, in the light of the Killeagh decision, the cases of such prisoners as the Milltown Mal-bay men, whose sentences for refusal to supply goods have been confirmed on appeal, and who are, therefore, deprived of further legal remedy; would it be possible, under the County Courts Acts, for Rules to be framed by the County Court Judges, so that the convictions they affirm under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act should in all cases refer to the evidence on which the convictions were grounded, so that it may be possible for prisoners under sentence after appeal to test the legality of their imprisonment by habeas corpus; will any steps be taken in fulfilment of the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman, last year reported in Hansard, vol. 315, p. 284, as follows:— There will be an appeal in every case to a County Court Judge, and if, on legal technicalities, the County Court Judge is objected to, the Government will be prepared to consider a plan for giving an appeal in cases in which a legal difficulty may be involved to a still higher tribunal; and, if he can state how many persons are still confined under sentences confirmed on appeal for conspiracy to compel and induce others to do or abstain from doing certain acts?

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

(who replied) said: It would be obviously neither possible nor expedient to lay on the Table copies of the Judgments in all the cases which come before the Courts under the Act of last year. There is an obvious distinction between the Charge of the Chief Baron in the case of "Blunt v. Byrne," which has general application to the combination known as the Plan of Campaign, and the Judgments in the Killeagh habeas corpus case, which—except so far as they dealt with legal questions of habeas corpus and certiorari—were only applicable to the particular parts of the case before the Court. In answer to the second paragraph, I have to say that the decision in the Killeagh cases does not affect the cases of the prisoners referred to in the Question. The facts of the cases were entirely different, and the prisoners have availed themselves of the right of appeal. It would not be within the power of the Court and Judges to adopt the course suggested in the third paragraph. The matter referred to in the first paragraph has already been dealt with by the right hon. Gen-man when this Question appeared first on the Paper. There are at present, so far as can be ascertained from the records at head quarters, 10 persons confined under sentence for conspiracy confirmed on appeal. There are also four persons confined for inciting to conspiracy.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman by whose desire the Paper was laid on the Table of the House of Commons containing the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron in "Blunt v. Byrne; "and I wish to ask him was it not a decision at Nisi Prius binding practically on nobody; and was not that decision in the case of the Killeagh prisoners a decision in the Court of Exchequer, final so far as they were concerned, and so far as any Court was concerned; and why a decision that was binding on nobody was laid on the Table of the House, while the Government refuse to give us an authoritative decision in regard to a very great matter of public interest?

MR. MADDEN

said, that if the Judge's Charge in "Blunt v. Byrne "was binding on no one, he could only express his astonishment that it was moved for by an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I should have said binding on any Court.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

The Solicitor General is not asked a Question as to why the Judgment in "Blunt v. Byrne" was laid on the Table of the House, but he is asked why the Judgment in the Killeagh case is refused?

MR. MADDEN

said, in his previous answer he stated distinctly that in the Charge of the Chief Baron, the general combination known as the Plan of Campaign was dealt with, and that was a subject of the greatest public importance; whereas in the Killeagh cases the judgments so far as they went outside the legal questions of habeas corpus and certiorari—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: Oh!]—were only applicable to the facts of the particular case before the Court.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked, did not the Killeagh cases deal with the questions of exclusive dealing, and the principles applicable to that case and the evidence proper to support it?

MR. MADDEN

said, no general principles were laid down; and the judgments were easily accessible to the public, for they were fully reported in the public Press; and they did not deal with the conspiracy known as Boycotting in the sense in which the Judgment in "Blunt v. Byrne "dealt with the combination known as the Plan of Campaign.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

asked, did not the Judgment in the Killeagh cases lay down what were the proper rules to be observed in charges of conspiracy and exclusive dealing under the Crimes Act; and whether, under those circumstances, the Government did not think it important to make public the solemn decision of the Court of Exchequer?

MR. MADDEN

No, Sir. It lays down no general rules on that branch of the case; it simply deals with—

MR. T. M. HEALY

I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he will tell the House what is the objection to lay the notes upon the Table; and I wish to ask him whether at the public expense, because the views of the Government were in harmony with the decision in "Blunt v. Balfour," the notes of the Judgment were laid on the Table, and why he objects to follow the same course in the Killeagh case, which was no more amply reported in the newspapers than was the Blunt and Balfour case; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to lay the Judgment on the Table will he at least lay the portion of the Judgment dealing with the question of conspiracy and exclusive dealing?

MR. MADDEN

said, the objection was the obvious one, that all Judgments could not be laid on the Table of the House; that some discrimination must be observed as to what Judgment should be laid upon the Table. It would be impossible to lay on the Table Reports of all the Judgments. Some rule must be laid down. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: What rule?] The rule was that a Judgment dealing with certain principles, such as that he had stated, might fairly be laid upon the Table; while a Judgment dealing with the facts of a particular case might fairly be refused to be laid on the Table.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to lay upon the Table of the House this Judgment, upon which we may fairly base our decision when we come to vote the salaries of Resident Magistrates?

[No reply.]

MR. SPEAKER

called upon Mr. J. M. Maclean to ask the next Question.

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

rose.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. SEXTON

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the Judgment in this Killeagh case was directly quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General and other Members of the Government in the course of the debate last night; and whether, if that is so, they are not bound, for the information of the House, to lay a copy upon the Table?

MR. SPEAKER

That does not come under the Rule; but I suppose that the Judgment will be accessible to hon. Members. [Cries of "No!"] Of course, if it were not, and if it were only an official document, and they have quoted from it, they would be bound to lay a copy upon the Table.

MR. SEXTON

I beg to give Notice that I shall move for the production of the documents quoted by the Government last night in the debate.

Subsequently,

MR. SEXTON

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the expression of opinion which had been given from the Chair, the Government would, without formal Motion, lay on the Table the Judgments in the Killeagh case?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I think the hon. Gentleman had better put his Notice of Motion on the Paper, and then the Government will decide as to the course they ought to take.