§ Mr. CHARLES DUNCANI desire to ask the Attorney-General if he can inform the House what are the charges preferred against Mr. Tom Mann, who was arrested in London yesterday?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)Mr. Tom Mann is charged with the publication of the "Syndicalist," containing the "Open Appeal to Soldiers" —that is, for the offence of incitement to mutiny and for a common law misdemeanour. Within the last few days application was made by the police authorities at Salford for the prosecution of Mr. Mann, based upon certain statements made and acts done by him at Salford, establishing that he was chairman of the committee which issued the "Syndicalist," and was responsible for the publication. After consideration of the evidence supporting the application, I authorised this prosecution in the ordinary course of my official duties.
§ Mr. O'GRADYWhy was Mr. Mann taken to Salford, in view of the statement now made by the Attorney-General that, he has not been arrested in connection with any events at Salford, but because he was president of the Syndicalist Education Lague?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is not quite so. I have referred to certain statements made and certain acts done by Mr. Mann at Salford which were of the essence of publication?
§ Mr. O'GRADYAm I to understand that the Attorney-General gave instructions for his arrest on the ground that he is president of the Syndicalist Education League?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNo, Sir; quite the contrary. I was aware of the fact that he was president of that League, but, in my opinion, that was not sufficient in itself to make him responsible to a criminal charge for publication of that particular article. But in consequence of further evidence that came before me in the last few days and certain things which happened at Salford—I cannot discuss them now as the matter is sub judice—I came to the conclusion that I was bound, in the ordinary course of my duty, to allow the Chief Constable of Salford to institute the prosecution he desired.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWill the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the prosecution 1896 against the two Bucks and Bowman in consequence of this prosecution?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNo, Sir. They are made responsible because they are the publishers and printers of it, and it will be open to them to make their defence when the case comes to trial at the Old Bailey. I am desirous also of prosecuting the person who is mainly responsible, and consequently I have authorised this prosecution.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTCan the right hon. Gentleman say what are the words which are construed as an incitement to mutiny?
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIECan the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps were taken to make the provisions of this ancient law known to the printers, and, further, whether the offence for which Mr. Mann is indicted is bailable?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSOf course, the question of bail is a matter entirely for the magistrates. They can undoubtedly admit him to bail. The question which my hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott) asks me is the same question put to me recently. I have not got the document in my hands, but the substance of it is an appeal to soldiers to disobey their officers if they are commanded to fire under certain circumstances.
§ Mr. O'GRADYCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for the action now taken, and who has placed the interpretation upon the Act that brings the action of Mr. Mann within the scope of that Act?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is a matter which has to be decided by the judge when the question arises. If there is any other interpretation than the one which has been taken the judge will so decide.
§ Mr. LANSBURYCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the police authorities are legally entitled to discriminate between persons who break the law in this respect, and why it is that no proceedings have yet been taken against those persons who successfully conspired together to prevent the First Lord of the Admiralty from speaking in Belfast?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat matter does not directly arise out of this question. If the hon. Member has a question to ask, and if he will put it down upon the Paper, I have 1897 no doubt that he will receive an appropriate answer, but it does not arise out of these other questions.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I respectfully ask whether the law discriminates between Privy Councillors and humble printers— that is the burden of my question—and if the Attorney-General sees it his duty to prevent humble people breaking the law, is it not also his duty to prevent Privy Councillors inciting to break the law?