페이지 이미지

(No, no.) They shall not starre; and I say from this platform to-day that we will Exp. SEYMOUR compel that Government that prevents them from living in the soil of Ireland to v. DAVITT; support them during the coming winter. (Cheers.) But in case we should not succeed Ex p. BEARNS in getting the Government to do its necessary duty, I propose that we should make v. HEALY; Irish landlordism support the people that it is starving. The suggestion that I make Ex P. SEYMOUR here to-day in view of this contingency will not be very popular among the landlord V. QUINN. ranks in Ireland. I propose, that in case Mr. Gladstone does not apply the surplus of the Arrears Act estimates to save the people, that no rent should be paid. (Cheers.) 1883. That no rent should be paid from November to next May, and that out of this sum portions should be placed in the National Relief Fund, by which to save our people Sureties for from starvation. The highest duty a nation has to perform, is to save its people from good behcviour. starvation. And when we recollect that Archbishop Hughes in 1848 declared in New York that a man threatened with hunger would be justified in seizing upon the bread on the sacrificial altar, how much more will the people of Ireland bo justified in feeding their starving brethren out of the money kept from felonious landlordism? (Cheers.) Mr. Davitt then proceeded:

The time has come when the people of Ireland must be guided, and I am glad that our voice to be uttered here to-day will bo uttered in no measured, in no temporate language. Do not misunderstand me that I am an advocate of anything intemperate. But with the coming crisis our duty is to save our people at all cost, and look to the consequences afterwards. After some reference to Mr. Gladstone he then said:

I hold that these measures were passed when the Land League (Hear, hear, and cheers), by the iron grip of serried organisation, seized Irish landlordism by the throat and compelled it to disgorge some of the rack-rent plunder to the people of Ireland (Cheers.) Then after making some remarks on the Land Act, Mr. Davitt concluded his speech in the following terms :

Oh no; from the homes of 200,000 starving, from the graves of our race, from the murdered shadows of our people, as well as from starving victims, from the regions of the damned, comes forth a supplicating agony demanding the destruction of Irish landlordism (cheers) from the depths of the damned. And all this vengeance has been born of this accursed system and sinking with it in the everlasting infamy of oblivion. (Cheers.)

In the case of T. M. Healy, M.P., the application was grounded on the affidavit of Patrick Bearns, head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Bagnalstown, in the county of Carlow. Patrick Bearns stated that he was present on Sunday, the 26th November, 1882, at a public open-air meeting held in Saint Mullins, in the county of Carlow, which had been convened by public placards announcing that it was to be held under the auspices of the Irish National League, for the purpose of establishing a branch thereof in the parish of Saint Mullins. That the meeting commenced about two o'clock p.m., and that there were about two thousand persons present. That after some persons had spoken the said T. M. Healy spoke, and that he (Bearns) listened attentively to his speech, and read in a copy of the Freeman's Journal newspaper of the 27th of November, 1882, what purported to be a report of the speech of Mr. Healy, and that he believed the report to be a full and accurate report of the speech, and he referred to a copy of the newspaper.

There was also an affidavit by William Weir, a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was also present at the meeting, and who said that he did not write shorthand, but that

Ex p.SEYMOUR he observed a gentleman present on the platform writing short

2. DAYIT hand, and apparently reporting the speeches; that he was Ex p. BEARNS

v. Healy; informed that he was a reporter from the office of the Freeman's Exp. Seymour Journal, and was reporting the speeches for that paper; that v. QUINN.

on the day after the meeting he read in a copy of the Freeman's 1883. Journal newspaper a report of Mr. Healy's speech whilst the

same was fresh in his recollection, and that the same was a full, Sureties for good behaviour. correct, and perfectly accurate report of Mr. Healy's speech to

the best of his recollection and belief. The portions of that speech principally relied upon by the Attorney-General were the following:

He (Mr. Healy) trusted that the distress would not be so intense as was anticipated, but he had no doubt that the labourers would feel keenly the pinch of this present winter. He did not anticipate that the farmers had been so foolish that a single season of distress-one single season—a bad harvest, would bring them back again to the black days of 1847, because they had been warning the farmers that, if they paid the rents which they had hitherto been paying, that simply if they did not save up against a bad season, and allowed a single bad season to reduce them to hunger and starvation, he could not suppose that they had forgotten this season.. (No.). If any farmer in the future, owing to his own payment of a rack-rent, should perish of starvation, he was there to say that it was the man's own fault, and if an inquest was beld, the verdict of a coroner's jury should be “Served him very well right." (Hear, hear.) Let them tell the landlords that they had better just take what they could get now, because with the present bad season, and the effort that many of them had to make to scrape together a year's rent, and take the benefits of the Arrears Act, very likely when next year comes there would be very little for them. (Hear, hear.) There had been Land League courts established in the country; the Government said these were illegal and treasonable—illegal and treasonable because the men at the head of them did not wear wigs. (Laughter.)

He then referred to the Land Act and the Land Commission Court, and said:

He would advise them to continue the struggle, and if the rents that the Land Commissioners fixed upon them were rents that they were not able to pay, let them simply tell the Land Commissioners tbat if they were ten times as big men as they are they would not get these rents out of them. There was no more sacredness in a judicial rent than in a rent fixed by the landlord in a back office. His advice, there. fore, would be to them to get what they could out of the judicial rents, and if it gave them a great deal of trouble to pay them, let them give themselves less trouble. Let them continue their organisation in tho future as they had in the past.

After alluding to the question of hunting, he impressed organisation on them, and said :

The British Government in Ireland, which was simply a land piracy, was upheld by organisation. The police they saw there were simply the officers of what they might call the Government League. The Government planted them in every parish and in every district to look at the people-to see what they were doing, and to report it to Dublin Castle. The Government of this country being, as it was, an organi. sation against the will of the people, was simply an organisation of so many pirates and so many brigands. It was entitled to the same moral respect as would be the wishes of a man, of a cut-purse, who held a revolver at your head, and said to you, “ Your money or your life.” And of course, while the bayonet of the British Government was at their throat, they might pretend to be very civil, but they had their own opinion about the gentleman with the bayonet. (Laughter.) How had the Government managed to keep a grip on the country? Simply by organisation and by main force. Unless the people were equally determined, the landlords whom the police were to support—the landlords being, as they were, an association of brigandswould get the better of them. Let them continue these meetings, listening to each other, and looking at each other in the face. It might be said that the meetings in the past had done little good.

The application against Mr. Quinn was grounded on the affidavits of C. E. Seymour, sub-Inspector of the Royal Irish Exp. SEYMOUR Constabulary, and of Michael O’Rorke, a sub-constable of the . DAVITT;

v Royal Irish Constabulary.


v. HEALI; M. O’Rorke stated in his affidavit that he attended a public Exp. SEYMOUR meeting held at Ross, in the county of Meath, on Sunday, the

v. QUINN. 19th day of November, 1882, and that the chairman in opening 1883. the meeting stated that it was called for the purpose of establishing a branch of the Irish National League for that district. Sureties for He also stated in his affidavit that he was able to take full and

good behaviour. copious notes of speeches delivered at meetings, that he had taken full notes of the speech delivered by Mr. Quinn at that meeting, and had transcribed them the next day; and he then set out a full report of the speech, the portions of wbich relied on by the Attorney-General were the following:

I (Mr. Quinn) will not occupy the time of the meeting. Several speakers who have gone before me have fully informed you on the duties you have to practise. Our enemies have boasted that the Land League is dead. Well, it has been declared illegal. True, its flags are not seen here to-day, no banner bears its inscription ; but the banners are carefully rolled up and hidden fast for a future time, when they shall expand themselves once more to the breeze. But the resolution of the Land League is not dead; it is not gone; it is not in the power of British rule to kill it or take it from us. We shall persevere in this movement till the banner of independence floats alone in our land.

Then he said :
A year ago a Land Bill was passed for you. Do you feel thankful for that measure
of so-called justice ? (No, no.) I am glad you do not. Are you feeling yourselves
contented with it? (No, no.) I am glad to hear you say so. I will make one
remark to the farmers of this county. They did not obey our words of advice they
received from the prison-"Pay no rent." Till they come to this, the people have
not come to a right conclusion-pay no rent; and when the agent, the bailiff, and the
satrap of the landlord comes, button up your pockets; when they come again, the
farmers know what to do. The farmers have no right to support landlords living in
debauchery in foreign lands. I hope when the expression “no rent” has again
been raised, the farmers will pay more heed to it, and that the cry will not be raised
in vain.

And then he went on :
Would any man refuse to join the local league ? Our enemies are many.

And he advised them to put an end to hunting :
You are now masters of the situation, and stand boldly forth; stand on the ditch
with, I was going to say, the battle-axe in hand, but you have not liberty to carrá
such weapons in this country; but stand boldly forth with a good stout blackthorn.
Tell them the land is yours, and if they refuse to withdraw from the land after your
warning them, they commit an offence, and it is your legal right to put them out by
the remnant of law which yet remains for you in the land. If then they do not go out
front ways, put them out some way else.

Foxhunting is an institution of the aristocracy, and as you are going to level to the dust everything not based on the wishes of the people, allow no foxhunting. There will come a time when there will be no such institution as landlordism; then will be the time when you will have foxhunting, when every farmer shall have his own horse to ride. Let you have foxhunting, people may say good landlords might be allowed to foxhunt. There has been a good deal of talk about good landlords and bad landlords, but I never saw a good landlord in my life. I do not believe there is one in this country.

The Attorney-General (Porter, Q.C.) (with him the SolicitorGeneral, James Murphy, Q.C., T. P. Law, Q.C., and J. N. Gerrard), in support of the applications. In these cases there are two questions for the consideration of the court: First, has

[ocr errors]

Exp.Sermote the court the preventive jurisdiction which it is now asked to

. DAVITT; exercise ? Secondly, are the present proper cases for its exercise ? Er p. BEARNS

v. 'HEALY; This preventive jurisdiction has been exercised very recently by Ex p. Seymour the magistrates' court throughout the country, and with the

sanction of this court : (Reg. (Reynolds) v. The Justices of Cork, 10 1883. L. Rep. Ir. 1; Reg. (Feehan) v. The Justices of the Queen's County,

10 L. Rep. Ir. 294 ; ante, p. 149). The jurisdiction was conferred Sureties for good behaviour.

on the magistrates by the 34 Edw. 3, c. 1. Under it the justices were given power to bind over such persons as “be not of good fame. It might be contended that the jurisdiction conferred on the justices by that statute was not conferred upon this court; but all doubt on this subject is removed by referring to the statute of 21 Jac. 1 (Eng.) the corresponding statute in Ireland being the 10 & 11 Car. 1, c. 10, which expressly recognises the jurisdiction in this court. The mode of proceeding under the Act of 34 Edw. 3, c. 1, is regulated by the Act of 10 & 11 Car. 1, c. 10. The latter statute did not confer any new jurisdiction. It enacted that “all process of the peace or good behaviour to be granted or awarded out of the Courts of Chancery or Queen's Bench against any person or persons whatsoever should be void and of no effect unless such process should be so granted or awarded upon motion made before the judges sitting in open court” upon oath, and the complaint being exhibited in court in writing, all of which has been done in these three cases. Applications to bind to good behaviour in the Superior Courts have been very few. [May, L.C.J.-I have made inquiry on that point, and I have been supplied by Mr. Maybury, one of the officers of this court, with a reference to one case coming from Belfast, where, on the complaint of a wife, this court ordered a husband to enter into sureties to be of the peace towards his wife, and that is the only instance the officer can find in the records of this court. (a) 'I believe there is no instance at all of an application of the precise nature of the present one.] The Court of Queen's Bench in England have, in a recent case, exercised their original jurisdiction in a case of articles of the peace : (Reg. v. Mallinson, 16 Q. B. 367.) The court had jurisdiction to make the order now sought for: (Haylock v. Sparke, 1 Ell. & Bl. 471.) If the court had the jurisdiction, then the maxim Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem applies, the meaning of which is that the court will not abandon any of the powers it possesses. The words complained of were spoken in a public place on a public occasion, and were not spoken in haste, but advisedly and deliberately, and they are sufficient to cause the persons using them to be bound to give bail for their future good behaviour.

Adams, on behalf of P. J. Quinn, opposed the application.This application is without precedent, and is an attempt to graft upon the ancient jurisdiction of this court when articles of the

(a) This was a case of Reg. V. John Woodside, which happened on the 12th day of June, 1856.


peace were exhibited against a person, an entirely new jurisdic- Ex P. SEYMOUR tion, namely, to compel persons stated to be of "evil fameto v. Davit;

Ex p. BEARNS give sureties for good behaviour. The jurisdiction of the

v. HEALY; Queen's Bench only exists in the case of articles of the peace. Ex p. SKYMOUR In articles of the peace the defendant could not go into evidence,

0. QUINN. but it is entirely different in the case of requiring sureties for good behaviour, in such cases the defendant could go fully into his defence. The proceedings here are all only applicable to a

Sureties for

good behaviour. case of articles of the peace. The right to require sureties for good behaviour is altogether a creation of the statute. The ancient jurisdiction of requiring sureties to keep the peace was only between subject and subject: (Reg. v. Dunn, 12 A. & E. 599; 2 Fisher's Digest, col. 2884, tit. « Articles of the Peace"; Reg. v. Doherty, 13 East, 171.) In all cases of exhibiting articles of the peace the exhibitant must prove that he is in bodily fear of harm from another. Articles of the peace are the only instances that I can find in the reports in which the Court of Queen's Bench have exercised a jurisdiction to require sureties of the peace. The statute only gives the right to require sureties for good behaviour to the magistrates, and this court has no power to require them. [May, L.C.J.-How do you get rid of the statute of 10 & 11 Car. 1, c. 10, because the words used in that statute are “good behaviour or sureties for the peace.”'] These are the same words that are used in the commission of the peace, and these words in the commission of the peace aro conceded not to apply to such an application as this. Counsel relied on an affidavit of Mr. Quinn which the counsel for the Crown did not object to his using.

James Murphy, Q.C. in reply.

On a subsequent day Messrs. Davitt and Healy, M.P., were, at their request, heard on their own behalf.

Cur. adv. vult. Jan. 24, 1883.-MAY, L.C.J.-In these cases application has been made in this court by the Attorney-General that Michael Davitt, Timothy M. Healy, and P. Quinn should be ordered to enter into security for their good behaviour. The motion was made on the 5th of last December, and affidavits were then sworn in the presence of the respondents. On that occasion Mr. Davitt applied for time to prepare his defence, and, as I understood, to obtain the assistance of counsel. This application the Crown did not oppose, and accordingly the hearing was postponed for ten days. It appeared, however, that a divisional court could not be constituted at the time then fixed, and the hearing was postponed till these sittings. On the second day of these sittings the Attorney-General mentioned the case, but the hearing was again postponed owing to the absence of Barry, J. at the winter assizes. Upon that occasion a gentleman stated in court that Mr. Davitt was then absent in England, and was expected to be in Dublin on the Tuesday following; and on that Tuesday the hearing took place. I mention these dates as it was

« 이전계속 »