MR. SEXIONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland, 1970 Whether any landlord, or person in the employment of any landlord, who speaks any word, or does any act, in order to, and calculated to, put any tenant of such landlord in fear of any injury to or loss of his property, business, or means of living, with a view to cause such tenant either to do any act which such tenant has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do, or in consequence of his having done or abstained from doing either of such acts respectively, will be held by the Irish Executive to have offended against the seventh section of the Crime Prevention Act, and will be proceeded against in like manner as if he had been a tenant who had so acted towards any landlord, or any person in the employment of such landlord?
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, if any person wrongfully, or without legal authority, acts in the manner described in the Question, he commits an act of intimidation, and may be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Crime Act. This is the case whether he be a landlord or a tenant, or a person not coming under either of those descriptions. The Executive cannot, however, lay down as a general rule that it will prosecute in every case where aperson—whether landlord or tenant, or otherwise—has brought himself within the provisions of the (Statute, as each case must be considered with reference to its own special circumstances before deciding whether it is one calling for the application of the Act. It is always open to any person aggrieved, or to anyone on his behalf, to institute a prosecution under that Act should he think fit to do so. I am bound to say that if there was primâ facie reason to believe that there had been anything like combined intimidation in the way described in the Question in the case of a Poor Law election, or the election of a Member of Parliament, or if a landlord threatened any tenant over whom he had the power of annoyance, and if we believed that he intended it seriously, I am bound to say that if we were so satisfied I should consider it my duty to tender my advice in favour of a prosecution, especially in the present circumstances of Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONasked whether, as the Executive had hitherto taken the initiative only in the prosecutions of persons 1971 in an humble condition of life, they would for the future take the initiative in the prosecution of persons who belonged to the landlord class when charged with the same offence?
§ MR. TREVELYANMy last remarks were to the effect that in the present state of Ireland, and with the extreme probability that intimidation on the part of persons in the condition of landlords would lead, if not directly, at any rate indirectly, to violence and breaches of the law, I should consider it my duty to advise a prosecution.