HL Deb 17 August 1894 vol 28 cc1366-7
THE EARL OF COURTOWN,

in the absence of the Earl of Arran, asked Her Majesty's Government whether it was the case that last autumn Mathew Leonard took an evicted farm in County Sligo, that he was then summoned to appear before the Bunnimadden branch of the Irish National Federation, that he refused to obey the summons, that a, meeting of the Federation was shortly afterwards held about a, mile from Leonard's lands, that at that meeting one speaker said— There is a passage of Scripture which says that the lepers came to our Saviour to be cured, some with their toes off and some with their joints loose; they repented, and he cured them of their disease. There are three toes on: Mathew and let him not stay until his ten toes are off, and we will not take him back. He will be fate then, and we will have the farm. The two principal shopkeepers of Tobercurry who are supplying Mathew with goods will be known. So much for grabberism. I will denounce and every one of them. There are good men here who would do seven months—seven years—for a slimy land-grabber like that. Shun him like a mad dog. That another speaker said— There are numerous graveyards around here, but Mathew will hardly be buried in one of them. The limekilns are more numerous and I would venture to say he will be buried, in one of them. That in consequence of that meeting four people (including the above speakers) were, by order of the Attorney General, charged at the Bally mote Betty Sessions with incitement to violence; that no evidence was called for the defendants; that the Bench being equally divided, the order was "No rule"; whether the Attorney General took any further steps?

LORD MONKSWELL

replied that he regretted to say language substantially the same as that quoted was used at a meeting on August 20, 1893. The prosecution to which the noble Earl referred was the subject of a question in the House of Commons on the 6th of November, 1893. On that occasion Mr. J. Morley, in justifying the withdrawal of the prosecution as, in all the circumstances, the best course to be adopted added very significantly that the hands of the Crown were not tied if the defendants should provoke further action against Leonard. Leonard, who had full police protection, had not since been interfered with by the Federation, and no proceedings had therefore been taken. His information was to the effect that Leonard had been severely boycotted, but that he was now relieved to a certain extent. The Magistrates having disagreed, it did not appear to the Executive that there was any certainty that if a prosecution was entered upon it would be successful. The Executive, therefore, came to the conclusion that on the whole the best course would be to drop the prosecution and to trust to the warning given to the men, first by the initial action of the Attorney General, and, secondly, by the answer of Mr. Morley in the House of Commons. That course had so far had the merit of being successful, because the Federation had not since interfered with Leonard. In reply to the further questions asked by the Earl of Courtown, he stated that the speeches referred to were published in the local Nationalist journal, and two Resident Magistrates were in favour of the prosecution. One of the other Magistrates was appointed in August, 1893, three weeks before the proceedings were taken.