§ LORD F. HAMILTON (Tyrone, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the following facts in connection with the registration of the Parliamentary Division of North Tyrone: that there were 27 appeals by the Nationalist Party from the decisions of the Revising Barrister; that out of these 27 cases, 22 were not only dismissed, but that the Court in dismissing them animadverted strongly on the impropriety of the appeal; that almost all the cases so dismissed were appeals brought in the name of Mr. John Torish, and were dismissed by the Court without argument; that Mr. John Torish is a man of no means, against whom costs cannot be obtained; that the majority of those against whom the appeals were made were Unionist farmers and labourers of small means, who were put to considerable cost in employing solicitors and counsel to preserve their rights to the franchise, which were thus frivolously assailed; and whether he can suggest any action to prevent bonâ fide claims being contested by appeals which the 383 Lord Chief Baron observed were drawn in the teeth of the Act of Parliament?
MR. J. MORLEYI am informed that more than 27 appeals were lodged by Mr. Torish, representing the Nationalist Party, from the decision of the Revising Barrister for North Tyrone. There has not been time to ascertain the precise number of these which were dismissed, but it appears from the Press reports that some of them were dismissed, and also that some observations were made by the members of the Bench, not, as I am advised, on the impropriety of the appeals, but on the form in which the cases were reserved by the Revising Barrister. The Law Officers have no information enabling them to say if they were dismissed without argument, though it appears that some of the cases were fully argued by the hon. and learned Member for Derry. I have no information as to the means of Mr. Torish, or what were the circumstances of the respondents. An appeal from the decision of the Revising Barrister is regulated by Statute, and the Government has no power to interfere with either the Revising Barrister or the Court of Appeal in their administration of the law.
§ LORD F. HAMILTONMay I ask whether it was contemplated by the Act that electors should be penalised by having their claims frivolously contested?
MR. J. MORLEYI am not answerable for the contemplations of Parliament, and I am not prepared to say or admit that those were frivolous claims, without entering into the merits, nor is it part of my duty to inquire into the matter.
§ LORD F. HAMILTONHas the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the remarks of the Chief Baron in The Freeman's Journal of the 15th November, 1893, on those very cases?
MR. J. MORLEYNo, Sir. I do not remember those remarks; but, in any case, I hope the noble Lord will perceive that it would be most improper for the Executive Government to inquire into such matters.
§ MR. SEXTONDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say from the information supplied to him that the animadversions referred to were directed by the Court to the Revising Barrister and not to the appellant? I would also 384 ask did not the Unionist Party appeal, and were not some of their appeals dismissed?
MR. J. MORLEYIt is quite true that the fault found, whatever it was, was not as to the appeal, but as to the form in which these appeals was reserved by the Revising Barrister. As to the Unionist appeals, I really do not know what action was taken.