§ Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether they are prosecuting the Syndicalists under the Act of 1797; and whether he can state the date of the latest previous prosecutions under this Act?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The prosecution is for an offence under the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797, and also for a common law misdemeanour. The latest previous prosecution under that Act was in 1804.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words which were complained of by the prosecution were printed at length in the "Daily Mail" and "Daily Express," and will he proceed against those papers?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am not aware of it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, and is he aware that these identical words have been printed in at least a hundred newspapers, and two poor printers have been prosecuted, and none of the other people are being prosecuted?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe prosecution is against those who were responsible for the publication and printing of the newspaper, and who are the only persons against whom there is any evidence, at present of a criminal offence. Other newspapers have published it, but I have, advisedly, not proceeded against those newspapers because it is desired to establish that to publish a manifesto of this kind, which appeared first in the "Syndicalist," is a grave offence. The matter was brought to my notice, and it is in the nature of a manifesto which I have not seen published anywhere else.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe offensive words are very long. They call upon the soldiers to refuse to obey the orders of their officers should they be called upon to fire at any time in case of disorder or riot.
§ Mr. W. THORNEMay I ask when detectives raid a person's house, if they find papers and documents in type, are they not supposed to leave them intact?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat hardly arises out of the question.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the prosecution of the "Syndicalist" newspaper had been taken by direction of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether he would take steps to protect the free expression of Sydicalist or other political views?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe prosecution in question was authorised by me in the ordinary course of my official duties. These proceedings do not prevent the free expression of Syndicalist or other political views, they are taken to prevent the incitement of soldiers to disobey the orders of their officers, offences for which soldiers would incur grave penalties.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs it not usual in the case of a political prosecution for the Attorney-General to consult the Government before taking action?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSYes, Sir, but I do not look upon this as a political prosecution. It is a very rare but a very serious offence, and it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to take the steps he considers necessary.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider it a rare offence to ask Christians not to kill?
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the Attorney-General whether he has taken any steps to prevent Privy Councillors and others inciting people in Ulster to take such action as would bring about "dire consequences"?