HC Deb 02 July 1889 vol 337 cc1257-61
MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is to be understood that the only act charged and proved against James Doyle was that he put in his own window the placard "No bum-bailiffs or emergency men shod here"; whether the police entered the man's private shop and took down the said placard; if so, under what warrant or what authority of law; and, whether he is aware that Doyle, at the hearing, frankly promised not to put up this placard again, and was nevertheless sent to prison?

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

Perhaps the hon. Gen- tleman will allow my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, to whom he proposes to address a further question on the same subject, to deal with the matter. In regard to the answer which I gave the other day, I stated that there were other circumstances alleged in reference to Doyle, but I do not think I said that any other overt act was alleged against him.

MR. STOREY

I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman would make that statement now; but I beg to remind him that he was asked specifically if any other act was alleged against Doyle, and he said, "I think there was." I then asked, "Proved on evidence?" and the right hon. Gentleman said, "I suppose so." I beg now to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of James Doyle, who has recently been committed to prison, the only act charged and proved against him being that he put in his own shop window a placard, "No bum-bailiffs or emergency men shod here;" whether this is a legal offence under any law or statute other than the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and whether he will point out to the House under what clause of the Act this is a legal offence punishable by imprisonment?

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

I have inquired into the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member, and I find that there was important evidence before the Magistrate in addition to proof of the act mentioned in the question. It was stated on oath, and not contradicted, that there were emergency men located as caretakers on a farm situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Doyle's shop, on which an eviction had recently taken place; that a very bad state of feeling existed in the neighbourhood against those emergency men, who had since the eviction been refused bread in the neighbourhood; and, further, that the notice exposed in James Doyle's shop was intended and calculated to keep alive this bad feeling, and was calculated to disturb the peace of the locality. Those emergency men were at the time under police protection. Under these circumstances the Magistrate, having asked Doyle to undertake not to do anything calculated to excite ill feeling against the caretakers on the evicted farm, and Doyle, having refused to give such an undertaking, ordered him to find sureties to be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned. Doyle was not convicted of an offence, as the hon. Member appears to assume. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate, both under the Commission of the Peace and under the statute 34 Edward III., to require sureties against conduct calculated to lead to an offence against the law or a breach of the peace is clearly established by a number of cases to which I shall be happy to refer the hon. Member. These cases show that the jurisdiction in question may be exercised as a precautionary measure without proof of the commission of a crime, or even after the acquittal of the person accused of the crime, and ordered to find sureties to be of good behaviour. The police were clearly entitled to remove a placard inciting to the commission of an offence against the law, or calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.

MR. STOREY

Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the police were entitled to enter a man's private shop and to take away a placard of this nature?

* MR. MADDEN

Certainly, under the circumstances which I have stated, if the placard was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace or to boycotting.

MR. STOREY

I do not want to be put to the necessity of taking another course in order to bring the matter before the House. I hope, therefore, that I may be permitted to ask whether there was any evidence against Doyle, except that of the policeman, which was as follows:— I should say that there is an evicted farm about 200 yards from where the defendant Jives, and a notice of this sort was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. It was plainly pointed at the person in charge of the farm.—Mr. Bodkin (to defendant): Do you hear that?—Defendant: Yes, I do.—Mr. Bodkin: What have you to say to it?—Defendant Nothing. I want to know what additional evidence there is to connect Doyle with any other act than the putting up of this placard.

* MR. MADDEN

The evidence which the hon. Gentleman has read to the House clearly shows the existence of a state of things under which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, a notice of this kind was calculated to excite to a breach of the peace and to the commission of the offence known as boycotting. Further, I may mention that there were emergency men at the time, under police protection, and they were in danger of their lives. [A laugh.] At any rate they were in danger of serious injury, and a notice of this kind, directed against emergency men, in possession of a farm only 200 yards distant, was obviously calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.

MR. STOREY

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give me a plain answer to a plain question? Was there any other evidence before the Court against Doyle, of any act whatsoever, except the putting up of this notice?

* MR. MADDEN

The Act proved to have been done by Doyle was what the hon. Gentleman states. But Doyle must be taken to have known the natural consequences of this Act, having regard to the proved state of the district. I leave the House to judge for themselves what would be the effect of putting up such a notice, within 200 yards of where emergency men were in possession of an evicted farm.

MR. STOREY

In regard to another part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, I understood him to say that Doyle refused to give a promise. May I call his attention to the evidence? Mr. Bodkin: You promise not to put this notice up again? Doyle: I do.—Mr. Bodkin: And in no way to interfere with these people? Doyle: It has not been proved that I have interfered with them. I cannot promise not to do a thing I have not been guilty of doing.—Mr. Bodkin: Very well, you are bound over to keep the peace.

* MR. MADDEN

The exact words used by the Magistrate were— If you promise not to put up this notice in your window again, or to interfere with persons you have no right to intimidate or interfere with, I will accept your promise. Even according to the evidence read by the hon. Gentleman Doyle refused to make a promise. The very fact that he refused to give the undertaking asked for showed the purpose for which he had put up the notice.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Did I rightly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there has been any reported case in which the Justices required sureties of the peace to be given under the Statute of 23rd Edward III?

MR. MADDEN

The jurisdiction exists both under the Commission of the Peace and under the Statute of Edward III. I shall be happy to give a Reference to the case under the statute, but I have not got it by me at this moment.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I did not refer to any decision as to the general powers of the Justices; but I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman explicitly whether I understood him to say that there was a decided case in regard to the Justices requiring sureties of the peace under the statute of Edward III? If so, I should like to have the Reference. I know there are plenty of cases under the general powers of the Commission of the Peace.

* MR. MADDEN

Quite so. I am not prepared to say whether there are any decisions under the statute; but this question is irrelevant, for, as I stated to the House, this Magistrate had jurisdiction under the Commission of the Peace.