§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made by His Honour Judge Kelly, and by Mr. J. F. Cullinan, Crown Solicitor, at the Ennis Quarterly Sessions, on the 12th instant, reported in The Daily Express of the 14th instant, from which it appears that Judge Kelly, referring to the state of Clare, said that he did not believe that in any other country in the world such a state of things existed; there were only two cases of 1654 assault to go before the jury, and His Honour decided to send the defendants for trial to the Assizes; trial by jury there was a farce; the jurors were canvassed in Court, and when they went out or went home they drank with the prisoners; they would have a jury, but would get no verdict; that he would try no case by jury; it was perfect nonsense to do so there; it was a disgrace to the County Clare; and whether, in view of these statements, it is proposed to send Clare prisoners for trial by Clare juries at the Clare Assizes?
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that at the last Quarter Sessions at Ennis there were only three cases which were sent to the Assizes in the ordinary way; that no jury was empannelled to try any case before Judge Kelly, and that, consequently, there is no foundation for these statements?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-TyneI have seen the newspaper report referred to. The language of His Honour Judge Kelly was not founded upon anything convoyed to him officially, and the police are unaware of the facts upon which the Judge's remarks were based. It appears that there were three cases for trial at the Sessions in question. Two of these were sent on to the Assizes at the instance of the prosecuting Crown Solicitor exclusively on the ground of the absence of material witnesses. The third ease was one of assault committed in the course of a dispute respecting the right of turbary. The Crown Solicitor informs me that when he was about to proceed with the trial in this third case, and when the jury was about being called, the Judge remarked that there was no use in proceeding with the trial, and that it would only be a waste of time, as the jury would not agree. This case was thereupon also sent for trial to the Assizes. It will be seen, therefore, that the learned Judge's observations were not based upon anything that actually took place on the occasion, nor, as I have already stated, upon any facts communicated to him by the police. I will only add that if in England a judicial person permitted himself to deliver opinions of this kind under the circumstances, I do not think that 1655 his conduct would be regarded as very becoming.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last paragraph of the question; and is it not a fact that the Crown Solicitor stated that he entirely concurred in the opinion of the learned Judge?
§ MR. J. MORLEYAfter what I have stated, I should have thought that the last paragraph did not require an answer. It is quite true that the Crown Solicitor did make some such remark; but I beg the hon. Member to observe that no jury had been empannelled, and no case had been heard. What I understand the Crown Solicitor to have done is to have concurred—after hearing the Judge's observations—in the view that the case should go to the Assizes.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)Is there any foundation for the allegation that the juries were canvassed?
§ MR. J. MORLEYWhat juries? Is the hon. Member referring to a jury that was never empannelled?
§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)May I inquire whether, having regard to the great age of the learned Judge, it would not be well to consider if the ease is not one for an Address from both Houses to the Crown?
§ MR. BARTON (Armagh, Mid)I wish to know whether the observations of the learned Judge were not made upon an application for the adjournment of the case; whether the remarks of the Judge were not spoken in such a low tone that it was difficult for the reporters to catch them; and whether the Judge does not deny that he said he would try no case by jury; whether the learned Judge is not a Roman Catholic, appointed by a Liberal Government; and whether there is any foundation for saying that he has ever been accused of partiality? Is he not the most respected County Court Judge in Ireland?
§ MR. J. MORLEYI do not deny the propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the learned Judge to express an opinion. I confess I never heard of the learned Judge until this case was mentioned. I believe that what the hon. Member says as to the remarks being extra-judicial, and uttered, therefore, in a low tone, may probably be true. But, however that may be, the remarks 1656 did not properly apply, and that, after all, is the gravamen of the charge.
§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the learned Judge?
§ MR. J. MORLEYI have not, but I have had a full account of what took place from the Crown Solicitor, who was present, and who has no animus whatever against the Judge. He has no desire to disparage anything the learned Judge said or did. I am not aware that I have said anything to which the learned Judge can object.
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)Is it in accordance with the Rules of the House that an hon. Member should put a question imputing words to a learned Judge without first finding out whether the Judge used them?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think that as the statement has been denied, on the authority of the Minister, the matter might rest here.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to make a statement concerning the learned Judge without first communicating with him?
§ [No reply.]