HC Deb 22 July 1909 vol 8 cc599-601
Sir WALTER NUGENT

asked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the fact that at a recent special court held at Moate, county Westmeath, when the chairman of the local rural district council and others were charged under the statute of Edward III. with unlawful assembly, the defendants were not allowed to call witnesses in their defence, with the result that the chairman of the council, who is also a magistrate, was, with others, sent to goal for two months, although it was contended on his behalf that he had, as in duty bound, striven solely to maintain the peace; and whether, under these circumstances, he will have the case reopened and give the persons charged an opportunity of re-establishing their innocence?

Mr. BIRRELL

I have no power to reopen the case as suggested. It has been judicially decided that upon an application to bind to the peace or to be of good behaviour the person against whom the application is made is not entitled to be examined or to call witnesses in his own behalf. The law on the subject can only be amended by legislation.

Sir W. NUGENT

In view of the fact that exceptional circumstances no longer exist in Ireland, and that the country is, as was admitted yesterday, now perfectly free from any agrarian disturbances, will the right hon. Gentleman farther restore confidence by discontinuing the application of this Statute of Edward III., and rely on the ordinary law of the country?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is making a speech, and not asking a question.

Mr. H. BELLOC

I never heard of this in my life before. Is it the fact that under the British Crown a man can be arrested and tried for a criminal offence and not be allowed to call witnesses?

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

Certainly; I got six months.

Mr. BIRRELL

It is not for the first time in this House that this subject has come up. It is the fact that under this particular Statute of Edward III. persons against whom an application is made are not entitled to be heard. I quite admit that is very much to be regretted, but, at the same time, when the hon. Member says they are tried for criminal offences without being heard, that is not so; they are not tried at all: they are simply called upon, as any person in this country may be, to give security for their future good behaviour. If they do so, there is an end of the matter.

Sir W. NUGENT

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept my suggestion that, now the country is in a peaceful state, he will no longer depend on this Statute, but will rely on the ordinary law?

Mr. BIRRELL

I have no passion for the Statute of King Edward III., although it is an old Statute of the realm which in this country is read over every year at the Assizes before the Judge proceeds with the business. It is part of the common law of this country. I would be glad to abandon the use of this Statute, and certainly, as far as I possibly can, I shall avoid its use.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

Is it the fact that some time ago one of the judges of the High Court in Dublin condemned the Statute of Edward III., and said it was wrong not to allow a prisoner to offer evidence in his own defence, and hoped the law would be specially changed? If that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman speedily change it for him?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.