§ Mr. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Davey and Patrick Dawson, shopkeepers, and Martin Davey, hotelkeeper, of Ballymote; Matthew Leonard, of Doocastle; and J. T. M'Douagh, of Sooey, in the County of Sligo, are rigorously boycotted; whether he is aware that at meetings of the National Federation held at Bunninadden, Keash, and Ballymote on 16th April, at Sooey on 4th May, and Doocastle on 21st May, resolutions were passed denouncing these men as land-grabbers; that at meetings of the National Federation hold at Sooey on 16th April, and at Ballymote on 23rd and 30th May, several persons who had been required to attend apologised, and were pardoned, for having had dealings with these men; whether his attention has been drawn to a Nationalist demonstration held at Doocastle on 27th May, at which the hon. Member for North Leitrim denounced those men as land-grabbers, and called upon the people not to deal with them; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to the system of persecution to which the two Daveys, Dawson, 530 Leonard, and M'Douagh are being subjected?
§ MR. P. A. M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.)May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that at the meeting at Doocastle on May 27 I advised the people to abstain from crime and intimidation, and whether it is not a fact that a resolution embodying that advice was adopted unanimously by the meeting?
MR. J. MORLETMy attention has been drawn to the eases referred to and to attempts made to have these men boycotted; but it is not correct to say they are rigorously boycotted. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laugh, but there is a clear distinction drawn by the police in cases of rigorous boycotting. Resolutions have been passed at the meetings specified censuring the individuals named; but with respect to the closing part of paragraph 2, I have no information on the subject, inasmuch as the meetings were private and indoor, to which the police had no access. I have seen a report of the meeting hold at Doocastle on May 27, but no effect is believed to have followed. The police have been instructed carefully to watch the consequences of the meetings. In answer to the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, I can only say that as far as I know the description given by the hon. Member of his speech is a correct description, and no evil effects so far have followed that meeting.
§ MR. P. A. M'HUGHAs I have been personally referred to, may I be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has observed the answer to a question given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the 21st May to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cork, in which he stated that in his opinion the action of a Mr. Gray, in publicly threatening to boycott Messrs. Whitbread and Co., and inviting others to join him in doing so, did not constitute any broach of the law. Is an act considered lawful in England to be considered unlawful in Ireland?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI wish to ask whether of late there has not been a considerable increase of intimidating proceedings like those referred to in the question on the Paper, and whether the Chief Secretary can devise means for the protection of the persons who are the objects of such proceedings?
MR. J. MORLEYThe police have done, are doing, and will do all they can to prevent any evil consequences from following on proceedings of this kind. I cannot answer the first part of the question without notice as I must refer to the figures. In reply to the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I was not aware of the answer of my right hon. Friend to which he refers.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)The right hon. Gentleman says that no evil effects have followed the Doocastle meeting. Have there been any good results?
§ MR. SMITH-BARRYI desire to ask whether, when the hon. Member for North Leitrim, at the meeting at Doocastle, appealed to certain men, whom he named, to re-consider their position and denounced landgrabbers, he was not indirectly, if not directly, inciting to attacks upon the men whom he named. I also wish to ask whether the resolutions passed by the branches of the National Federation, to which I have drawn attention, are not duly reported in different issues of The Sligo Champion, of which paper I believe the hon. Member for North Leitrim is proprietor, if not also editor?
MR. T. M. HEALYIs it not the case that after a recent meeting in Belfast, which was attended by the Leader of the Opposition, 20 Catholic public-houses were looted, and 2,000 Catholics deprived of their employment. I also ask whether the attention of the Chief Secretary has been drawn to the speech of the Marquess of Salisbury, in which he advised the people to beat down the police; and whether there is to be one law for Tories and another for Nationalists?
MR. J. MORLEYAs long as I am responsible for the government of Ireland the law for Tories and Nationalists will, I hope, be the same. In answer to the hon. Member opposite, I have to say that I have not got accurately in mind the exact words used by the hon. Member for North Leitrim, nor do I know whether the resolutions were printed in The Sligo Champion; but my close attention is being given to the whole subject of these meetings.
§ MR. SEXTONIt is admitted by the Chief Secretary that the hon. Member for North Leitrim counselled the people 532 against violence and intimidation. Is it to be understood that an Irish Member is debarred by law from commenting on the action of individuals when he considers that their action is against the public interest?
MR. J. MORLEYMy hon. Friend wishes me to give a legal opinion, and I am hardly competent to do so. Still, I do not think that the law is as he suggests.