§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question with reference to an answer he gave on Friday. It refers to the sentence passed on Mr. Blane, M.P. The Chief Secretary said it was originally four months with hard labour, but was extended to six months without hard labour. I have been informed that there is some mistake in this matter, and that hard labour was not included in the first sentence of four months.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)As the hon. Baronet is, perhaps, aware, a Question was asked me yesterday on this subject by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONNo. I was not aware.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAnd I then explained to the House that I was quoting from memory, and, as it turns out, accurately quoting, a Report which I happened to read that morning from the Sessional Crown Solicitor. I confess that even the further inquiry I have made on the subject has not entirely cleared up what ought to be a comparatively easy point to make clear; but what is undoubted is, that the case was argued before the County Court Judge by both sides as if the sentence had been a sentence of hard labour. There is doubt about that. Both the appellant's counsel and counsel for the prosecution assumed, on the hearing of the appeal, that the sentence of the Resident Magistrates was with hard labour.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONBut was it so, without assuming?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is just the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Paper? They ought to have known, I should think.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)Cannot we have the sentence itself? It is, of course, recorded.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUROf course, there is no difficulty in the case, if the House will give me time to get the facts of the case. At present there seems to be some difficulty, which I cannot reconcile, between the facts I have stated to the House and other facts.