§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought under his notice that a trader in Sligo has been severely boycotted, owing to his having evicted a tenant for the non-payment of several years' rent; whether he is aware that two Members of Parliament attended at Sligo and re-commended this gentleman to the consideration of his fellow-countrymen; and whether, on this man's trade being seriously affected, he appealed for protection; and will he explain on what grounds he declined to accede to this appeal, and informed him that, if the Criminal Law had been broken, he had his remedy?
§ MR. P. A. M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.)asked whether it was true that the Lord Chief Justice congratulated the Grand Jurors of Sligo on the peaceful condition of the county; and whether, in reference to the boycotting of a Mr. Campbell, he stated that the offence was trivial, and its effect only transitory?
§ MR. CARSONBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would ask him whether his attention has been called to the Charge of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland at the Assizes; whether the learned Judge stated that now in the Returns before him there was no case of intimidation on the official record, or of boycotting, of conspiracy to boycott, or of unlawful assembly; and whether the case referred to in the question of the hon. Member was put on the record laid before the Lord Chief Justice or not?
MR. J. MORLEYI cannot answer the last question. I had better describe the case referred to in the question. I presume the trader referred to is Mr. Harper Campbell, of Sligo. It is not a fact that he has been severely boycotted for having evicted a tenant of his named Catherine M'Donagh for the non-payment of rent. Some farmers of the locality did undoubtedly cease to call on him for coal, but this only lasted for a very short time, and has long since passed away. 1099 In answer to the second paragraph of the question, I am aware that two Members of Parliament did, at a meeting held at Carhownagh on December 11 last, make use of language concerning the action of the landlord, which language is, in my opinion, in the highest degree reprehensible. The matter came before the Attorney General, who advised that the case was one in which the individual aggrieved should himself proceed to put the Criminal Law in force by summons or by information. It is quite true that the case did not appear in the official record laid before the Lord Chief Justice at the Sligo Assizes. The County Inspector says that as the effects of the partial interruption of business or boycotting had entirely passed away he did not include the case in the Returns. Of course, the official records are the bsais upon which Judges rest their Charges. Referring to the case, the learned Judge said that, as the effect of the action taken with reference to Mr. Campbell was only slight and temporary, he assumed that the matter was trivial. He added that he was anxious to address to the Grand Jury his unqualified congratulations on the condition of the county.
§ MR. CARSONasked how it was that this case of boycotting was never put on the record; and, also, whether Mr. Campbell informed the Executive that he had lost a number of customers in Sligo town and neighbourhood, but that some small ones had returned since the cessation of the boycotting notices?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether Members of the House of Commons were to be allowed to go to Sligo and use "reprehensible language"—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words—against a trader, leading to an interference with his trade, and that the authorities should then tell the trader that he must look after himself?
§ MR.T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the Chief Secretary would take the precaution to have reported language that might turn out to be reprehensible which might be used by Members of both Houses when visiting Belfast?
MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) must see that if Members of the House use language which is reprehensible, in or out of the House, they are responsible for what 1100 they say. As to the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, this case, I presume, was not put upon the record of cases of partial or complete boycotting for the reason which the County Inspector gave to the learned Judge—namely, that the matter was trivial, and that its effects passed away in a very short time.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTONWill the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the two Members of Parliament?
§ [No answer was given.]
§ MR. JORDAN (Meath, S.)Is not Mr. Campbell of Sligo a large whole sale miller, whose trade does not depend on local traders?
§ [No answer was given.]