MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a placard posted in Kilkenny, calling a public meeting in the town hall of that city on the 24th instant for the purpose of organising a public fund to secure proper defence and fair trial for a young man named Michael Dwyer, who is returned for trial at next winter asssizes on a charge of sedition, has been torn down by the police; whether he can say on whose authority and for what reason these placards were interfered with; and whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what, action to punish the police officers concerned.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe placard was of a highly objectionable and inflammatory character, evidently offensive to a religious confraternity in the town, and calculated to promote turbulence and disorder. Some of these placards were torn down by members of this confraternity. The police, in order to promote the peace and order of the town, removed the remainder, acting on the instructions of their officers.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThere is no necessity to read it. I take full responsibility for my Answer.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENWas it not a placard calling a meeting for the purpose of organising a fund to secure the proper defence of Dwyer and to prevent the packing of the jury? Is that 939 the seditious part of the placard? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting has actually taken place and that there has been no disturbance in the city?
§ MR. WALTER LONGThat is not the only part of the placard to which objection was taken.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENWas it this, then? "Men of Kilkenny, remember the infamies of ex-Sergeant Sheridan, the infamous. Remember Mitchelstown. Remember Talbot, who was also a confraternity man—a police spy who got into the Church pretending to be a Catholic while entrapping young men in the country into illegal societies." Was that the objectionable part? Why was this placard torn down?
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have said distinctly because I considered it contained undesirable statements.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)This is a somewhat serious matter. Is it contended that the right hon. Gentleman has a right to tear down any placard which contains matter displeasing to him?
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo, Sir, certainly not.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThat is the effect of your Answer.
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENIn consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall later on ask leave to move the adjournment.
§ Subsequently—
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENI beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the interference with the right of public meeting in Ireland by the removal and effacement of placards by the Royal Irish Constabulary in the city of Kilkenny, calling a meeting for organising a fund to secure the proper 940 defence and fair trial, and to prevent the packing of the jury in the case of Michael Dwyer, who has been returned for trial on suspicion to the Wicklow Winter Assizes.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the hon. Gentleman can hardly bring this within the rules of urgency. It appears that the occurrence took place more than a week ago, and the hon. Member himself informed the House that the meeting actually took place which was summoned by these placards therefore, it can. hardly be said to be a matter of urgent public importance.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt is no part of my function to decide whether this placard is likely to cause a breach of the peace or not. I cannot undertake to say that. All I can undertake to say is that the tearing down of this placard a week ago is not a matter of urgent public importance to-day.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENI submit that if the Chief Secretary was in this young man's position he would think it a matter of urgent public importance if he knew someone was preparing to pack a jury and send him to prison.