HC Deb 04 August 1887 vol 318 cc1134-5
MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Rev. Matthew Macaulay, Presbyterian clergyman, late minister of a congregation at Castleblaney, in the County Monaghan, has, in a letter which appeared in The Pail Mall Gazette of the 23rd April, and on several previous occasions in the public Press, stated that he was obliged to resign his congregation at a loss of income of £50 per annum, because of a combination among certain members of his late congregation to "Boycott" him on account of his late public action in support of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, and in consequence of which alleged combination 50 families withdrew from his church; and, whether the Rev. Mr. Macaulay is one of the 136 persons reported to be more or less affected by 'Boycotting'" "or one of the nine persons under police protection, or protected by police patrols in the County Monaghan, and in consequence of which that county has been proclaimed?

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask him if there is any law which compels loyal Presbyterians to attend the ministrations of a Parnellite minister; and, whether, if any Roman Catholic priest were to declare in favour of the Marquess of Salisbury's Government, he would nut lose more than fifty families?

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

(who replied) said, he could hardly answer for the action of a congregation under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member, nor was he aware that there was any such law. With regard to the Question on the Paper, he begged to inform the hon. Member that all the circumstances connected with this case had been fully explained in reply to a Question put on the 14th of April last. The rev. gentleman is not one of the 136 persons reported to be more or less affected by "Boycotting'," neither is he one of the nine persons under police protection.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

said, the rev. gentleman was, practically, under police protection; and he would like to know, therefore, why the case was not included in the Returns?

COLONIEL KING-HARMAN

We do not consider that the rev. gentleman requires police protection.