COERCION AND THE ORDINARY LAW.
(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR." _I Sin,—To pursue somewhat further your criticism of Mr. Birrell's so-called ordinary law and the Crimes Act, or what he is pleased to call "coercion," may, I think, be of interest. The objection to the Crimes Act was that it created a new tribunal, two Resident Magistrates to try cases where the ordinary Bench and juries by reason of intimidation refused to convict, and this even where, as at present, the offence was admitted. Two objections were made to the tribunal over and above the general one of its being a new tribunal,—first, that some Resident Magistrates had little or no legal training or knowledge; second, that as they were not so independent as ordinary Judges, and things could be made uncomfortable for them by the Executive, there might be a desire to fall in with the wishes of the prosecution, and that they would not be impartial (a quite unjust suggestion). The proceedings which Mr. Birrell has recently instituted, which he calls ordinary law, and of whose success he is proud (as it has enabled him to do without the Crimes Act), are proceedings to bind parties to be of good behaviour, or in default to go to gaol. The comparison between these proceedings and those under the part of the Crimes Act which is now in force without proclamation and is the ordinary law of the land is remark- able. Mr. Birrell's proceedings are taken before one Resident Magistrate, whose legal knowledge and training may be of the smallest. Under the Crimes Act one Resident Magistrate has no power to adjudicate. The proceedings must be before two Resident Magistrates, and the Lord-Lieutenant must be satisfied that one at least has sufficient legal knowledge.* Again, from the decision of the one Resident Magistrate under Mr. Birrell's procedure there is no right of appeal whatsoever. Under the Crimes Act from the decision of the two Magis- trates there is the fullest right of appeal to a Court to which the objections made to Resident Magistrates do not apply. Under the proceedings taken by Mr. Birrell the prisoners in default of giving security can be sent to goal for twelve months or longer (it is not so in England).f Under the • In re Hurley, Qwn's Bench Division, December 19th, HISS, Molloy's Jestice of Peace, p. 327, note x.
f See Molloy's Justice of Peace, p. 341, note p.
1
Crimes Act the punishment is restricted to six months. Again, under Mr. Birrell's procedure, while any number of witnesses can be called for the prosecution, the law does not allow any to be called for the defence,—e.g., there may be the clearest and unquestioned proof that the defendant was out of the county, but that evidence cannot be called.* 'Under the Crimes Act the trial proceeds in the ordinary way, and witnesses can be called for the defence as well as for the prosecution. In the above circumstances one wonders how Mr. Birrell has the hardihood to describe his proceedings under this antiquated Act of Parliament as the ordinary law and to characterise the Crimes Act as coercion. From recent speeches he seems to have been ignorant that portions of the Crimes Act are in force. Is he still in ignorance of the nature of those provisions, or is he only counting on the ignorance of others ?—I am, Sir, &c., A SUBSCRIBER FOR MANY YEARS.
Previous page
