HC Deb 28 July 1887 vol 318 cc371-2
MR. CAREW (Kildare, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention had been called to the fact that Mr. Justice Harrison, in his Charge to the Grand Jury of County Kildare at the recent Assizes, said— There is nothing in the statistics of the county, or in any of the Returns, that calls for any remark from me as reflecting on the peace and good order in this fine County of Kildare; and, whether, if the information which he has received as to the condition of the county does not agree with the information received by the Judge, he will state the grounds upon which the county has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)

(who replied) said: Sir, in proclaiming the county under the two clauses of sub-section 3 the Government were influenced by the considerations already described in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond). I may add also that there are 59 persons, more or less, Boycotted in the county, and that intimidation in the county is sufficiently proved by the Nationalist Press itself.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

With respect to the case of Kildare, I have to ask how it is the Government have proclaimed it under the clauses relating to forcible possession and assaults upon constables, &c, seeing that the Inspector General reports there has not been for the last six months one case of forcible possession or assault upon any minister of the law, or one case of intimidation either by threatening letter or otherwise? I would further ask if intimida- tion exists in the County Kildare, why the Government did not proclaim it under Sub-sections 1 and 2, which relate to intimidation, and not under Sub-sections 2 and 3, in respect of which no offences have been committed in the county?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that the Government did not wish to impose the more severe provisions with regard to Kildare, because only certain portions of the county were in a bad state, the other parts being fairly well conducted. [The right hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted a case from a Nationalist newspaper, in which a man was stated to have attended a meeting in order to apologize for having shod the horse of a land-grabber, and in order to make a pledge that he would not again work for such a person.]

MR. SEXTON

On that case—[Interruptions]—hon. Members must have patience, for this concerns the liberties of our people—I have to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the case cited in justification of the Proclamation dons not come under the subsections of Clause 2, and not under the sub-sections under which the county is proclaimed?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

If the hon. Gentleman desires that the county should be proclaimed under the more severe section it can be done.