§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting held at Tagoat, County Wexford, on Sunday, the 20th of May, and reported in The Wexford People on the 23rd of May, which was convened for the purpose of aiding in an effort to rout the grabbers who had taken possession of evicted farms in the locality; whether he is aware that one of the speeches delivered at this meeting was a direct incitement to boycott Mr. Thomas, of Martinstown, who, in the exercise of a legal right, had taken three farms which had been vacant for five years; whether men who incite to, and who join in, a conspiracy to boycott an individual are guilty of an illegal act; and if he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the law was broken at Tagoat on the occasion in question?
§ MR. THOMAS HEALY (Wexford, N.)Is it not the case that the only counsel given at the meeting referred to was that the people should follow the advice generally given by the Primrose League?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-TyneI do not know that that was the sum total of the advice given, but I do not say that it went much, if at all, beyond that. The newspaper report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to in the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone shows that 795 resolutions were passed and language used denouncing the practice known as landgrabbing and recommending exclusive dealing; but the names of individuals are not mentioned in this connection. No reference was made to the name of Mr. Thomas, of Martinstown, at the meeting, and the Law Officers advise me that there is nothing to show that "one of the speeches delivered at the meeting was a direct incitement to boycott him," as alleged in the question. Persons who incite to or join a conspiracy to injure another by boycotting, or other means, are guilty of an illegal act. The Law Officers have advised, however, that a newspaper report is not legal evidence of what occurred at the meeting. Nor are they able to say that the law was broken at this meeting even on the assumption that the newspaper report was accurate, as no particular individual was named or pointed out, and general denunciations of landgrabbing, not directed against an individual, are not evidence of a conspiracy to injure him. I may add that the police report that the meeting has had no effect whatever on Mr. Thomas or anyone else.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLAs the right hon. Gentleman has stated that no one was mentioned by name at this meeting, I must ask him whether he knows that at a committee meeting of the National Federation, held on May 16th, the public meeting on the 20th was arranged for the purpose of taking notice of the action of Mr. Thomas, and that The Wexford People on the 19th directed attention to the meeting as being held for that purpose; and whether, in view of the fact that the committee of the Federation specially singled out this man and advised that the meeting be held, he Still thinks it is correct to say that no person was directly referred to at the meeting?
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Member's question refers to the meeting on Sunday, May 20th. In the proceedings at that meeting, as reported in The Wexford People, there was no reference whatever to Mr. Thomas. I must repeat what I have said frequently—namely, that no ill effect has followed from those proceedings, and it is the opinion of the most competent officers in Ireland that if they hunted up every case of supposed intimidation, as the hon. 796 Member does, and founded a prosecution upon it, the effect would be to increase disorder in Ireland rather than to lessen it. No people are so little pleased with the course taken in connection with these matters by the hon. Member than the people who really wish to see intimidation put down.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWith reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I hold in my hand a letter [Cries of "Order"!], and as a matter of personal indulgence I ask to be allowed to quote from it, on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the people affected object to the course of procedure which I have adopted. I have taken this course of procedure at the direct request of the persons involved. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these people are not injured by the meeting. I desire to read one extract from the letter, upon which I shall ask a further question. The letter says, after the meeting was addressed by the hon. Member for Wexford, the
miller refused to grind corn for us, as he might lose 40 customers if he did so. Two of our workmen have left. Our solicitor has refused to act for us.
§ [Cries of "Order"!]
§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)I rise to Order. Is it a fair use of the practice of interrogation to read without notice passages from a letter introducing matters of fact which we have had no opportunity of testing?
§ *MR. SPEAKERAfter the statements of the Chief Secretary I think some latitude should be allowed to the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman made some statement in the exercise of his discretion—with which I am not finding fault—which the hon. Member is now seeking to rebut in the nature of a personal explanation. Therefore, under the circumstances, I think the hon. Member should be allowed to proceed.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI submit that I am justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman, after reading from the letter, whether he is entitled to stand at the Table and say that those proceedings did not injure anybody?
§ MR. J. MORLEYEven after what the hon. Member has read I think I am entitled to repeat what I first stated—namely, that the police have reported to 797 me that the meeting has had no effect whatever—these are their own words—either on Mr. Thomas or anyone else. The hon. Member has now read a passage which will, of course, induce me to apply for further information.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to ask whether a resolution was not unanimously carried at the meeting in question declaring that landgrabbing should be opposed by legal and constitutional means; whether the chairman, in winding up the proceedings, did not declare that a man who committed an unconstitutional act was worse than the landgrabber himself; and whether public order is not less concerned in meetings which have no ill consequences than in numerous cases in which landgrabbers have first committed outrages and then claimed compensation in respect of them?
§ MR. J. MORLEYI believe a resolution was passed in the terms stated by my hon. Friend.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)Will the Government endeavour to obtain legal evidence of what does occur at these meetings?
§ MR. J. MORLEYThat would depend on the circumstances of the particular meeting. I shall certainly reserve to myself the right of deciding when it is or is not proper to send an official note-taker.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLSeeing that this matter cannot be argued out by question and answer, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when the Motion for the Chief Secretary's salary is to be brought forward? The whole question may then be raised.
§ MR. J. MORLEYA Vote affecting his salary and an Amendment by the hon. Member thereon were before the House not long ago. The hon. Member could have raised the question then.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLYes; but the Motion was closured, and we had no time to bring it on.