§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the persons who have for years been renting the grazing farms of Ardglass, County Westmeath, have been so terrorised by the agitation against the letting of grazing lands that they have been afraid to renew their lettings; that when the owner endeavoured to graze his own stock on the land his cattle were driven off the farm on several occasions, the gates were smashed, and walls pulled down, and that, although the police were present when these illegal acts were being committed and reported to the authorities no action was taken and no person proceeded against, and that as a last resort the receiver of the estate had to apply to the Court to attach fifteen persons who formed part of the crowd, and whom the police were able to identify; whether he is aware also that thirteen of these were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by Mr. Justice Ross; and whether the Government will take steps to ensure that the same justice shall be meted out to those who drive cattle off ordinary farms as is meted out to those who committ this offence on farms which are under the care of the Land Judges or the Court of Chancery.
§ MR. BIRRELLI am informed that the three persons who had held the Ardglass farms on grazing tenancies did not renew their tenancies this year. One of these persons was the agent of the estate. In May last a receiver was appointed over the property by Mr. Justice Ross, and the lands were stocked with cattle. Three policemen have since been quartered in the herd's house on the farm with the object of protecting the cattle. The owner's cattle have not been driven off, but on 20th May, the police came upon a party of men in the act of throwing down part of a boundary wall on the farm. It was dusk at the time, and the police were unable to distinguish the men who were actually committing the damage, but they succeeded in taking the names of a number of the persons. The Government were advised that the evidence available was not sufficient to sustain a prosecution for malicious injury or for unlawful assembly. Mr. Justice Ross has since sentenced thirteen of these persons to imprisonment for contempt of Court. One man has undergone two months' imprisonment upon the prosecution of the police in connection with this estate, and proceedings have been instituted and are pending against twelve men for intimidating the agent and his servants on 12th May and 10th June. Ten of these persons are identical with those sentenced by Mr. Justice Ross.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross, one of the Judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, made when sentencing certain persons for cattle-driving at Ardglass, County Westmeath, when he delivered it as his opinion that binding over to keep the peace in cattle-driving cases was an imposture, and that it was his duty to inform the Government that their refusal to deal with these cases was regarded as proof that the offenders were acting with the approval of the authorities, and that their leniency was looked on as imbecility, cowardice, and connivance; and whether, in view of the knowledge which Mr. Justice Ross has of agrarian questions, and in view of the steady increase of cattle-driving and other 100 forms of lawlessness in Ireland, the Government will adopt the views and carry out the suggestions of Mr. Justice Ross in the matter of dealing with this form of crime.
§ MR. BIRRELLSo far as the newspaper reports have enabled me to acquaint myself with the views and suggestions of Mr. Justice Ross, I can only say that the Government are not prepared to adopt those views or to carry out those suggestions.
§ MR. MOOREasked if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been drawn to similar language used by Mr. Justice Kenny at Galway Assizes.
§ MR. BIRRELLsaid he had already answered a Question on the subject.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGIs it not the fact that not only Mr. Justice Ross but other Judges have charged juries in the same direction, and that the view of every one of the Judges is—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now making a speech.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGBut the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question on the Paper.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe Question has been answered, and whether it has been satisfactory to him or not, the hon. Member is not in order in making a series of statements in the form of further Questions.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Justice Ross acquired his special knowledge on agrarian matters by being legal agent to the Duke of Abercorn and by acting as Crown Counsel in the coercion prosecutions?
§ MR. BIRRELLI am not disposed to hear any words said as to Judge Ross's judicial character.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLThe right hon. Gentleman has stated he is not prepared to adopt the Judge's suggestions. Is there any precedent for a 101 Judge making suggestions from the Bench to a Cabinet Minister or to the Executive Government on a question of policy?
§ *MR. SPEAKERI believe that Question was put down and struck out.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIf so, I forgot it,
§ MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross in the Land Judge's Court, on Friday, 10th July, in reference to the refusal of a person to give up possession of land under the control of the Court, that the case was typical of the general lawlessness prevailing in the country in respect of agrarian matters; that even in cases where persons have no right or claim of any kind they hold the land in defiance of everybody and get the assistance of what is called local feeling, which means a riot; and that, although the police are present, the authorities with their usual ineptitude do nothing, and this state of affairs is getting worse; and what steps he intends to take to put a stop to this condition of lawlessness.
§ MR. BIRRELLI have seen a newspaper report of the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross in the case referred to. The facts of the case are that two brothers named Richard and Edward Kennedy held a farm in the Queen's County as joint tenants. A dispute arose between them as to the working of the farm and litigation in the Land Judge's Court ensued, with the result that Mr. Justice Ross appointed a receiver over the farm and Edward Kennedy was left in possession. On 26th May last, Mr. Pattison, the receiver, called at Stradbally police station, stating that he was going to the Kennedys' farm to remove some old hay, and would like a constable to go with him as he expected that Edward Kennedy would object to the removal of the hay, and he could then report accordingly to Mr. Justice Ross. A constable was sent to the farm with Mr. Pattison. The latter told Edward Kennedy the object of his visit, and 102 Kennedy expressed his objection to the removal of the hay, whereupon Mr. Pattison at once withdrew. He made no demand for the possession of the farm. The constable has reported that no violence or threats of any kind were used, and that there was not the slightest semblance of a riot on the occasion. In the circumstances the ineptitude of the police authorities appears to have been inevitable.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware this expression "ineptitude" was used by the Judge from the Bench?
§ [No Answer was returned.]