HC Deb 25 June 1907 vol 176 cc1142-4
MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland in how many cases during the last three months have prosecutions by his direction been instituted in Ireland in agrarian offences under the provisions of the statute of King Edward III.; and will he state what has been the result in each case of these prosecutions.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange)

During the past three months summonses requiring persons to show cause why they should not be required to find sureties for the peace or good behaviour have been issued in fifteen cases arising out of the agrarian agitation. In all these cases the proceedings were taken by my express direction or with my sanction. Proceedings of this kind in all cases, agrarian or otherwise, are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, taken under the Commission of Peace and the Statute of Edward III. together. The results of the fifteen cases referred to have been as follows: Orders to find sureties were made in five cases, and were refused in two cases; one case was abandoned; one was adjourned for three months; and in six cases the proceedings are pending.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

asked whether it was a fact that in these proceedings the person proceeded against had no power of calling evidence for the defence, and whether that state of things had not been condemned more than once from the Bench by Irish Judges; and also whether proceedings were ever taken under this Statute in England.

MR. CHERRY

With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, as a matter of practice the magistrates do hear witnesses for the defence, but it has been decided by a case in the King's Bench Division that they are not bound to receive that evidence. I understand that proceedings are taken under the same statutory jurisdiction in England. Some of the suffragists wore sent to prison under the same statutory provision.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

But have not the prosecutions under this Act in England reference to an entirely different class of case?

MR. CHERRY

The cases may be different, but the statutory jurisdiction is the same.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Lord Chief Justice had said the exercise of this jurisdiction was an anomaly, but he had no power to change the law.

MR. CHERRY

It may be an anomaly, but it is an anomaly which prevails in both England and Ireland, and this jurisdiction has been exercised for a great number of years.