IMPRISONMENT OF TOM MANN.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20789, 24 February 1933, Page 14

IMPRISONMENT OF TOM MANN.

RELEASE REFUSED. HOME SECRETARY'S DECISION. (raou octs oww coKBESPOTOMre.) LONDON, January 10. The veteran Socialist leader, Tom Mann, who at one time worked in Australia and visited Now Zealand, has been the subject of agitation recently. He is serving a sentence in prison because he declined to enter into a recognisance with sureties to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace. Mr George Lansbury, M.P., and others visited the Prime Minister at Lossiemouth on Mann's behalf, but Mr MacDonald naturally referred the deputation to the Home Secretary. The latter has now given reasons why the sentence of the court should not be interfered with. Sir John Gilmour points out in a letter to Mr Lansbury that the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, of which Mann was treasurer, made no secret that they were responsible for the march on London which culminated iu disturbances on October 27 and 30 and on November 1. Evidence during the trial of Sid Blias, chairman of the movement, for incitement to sedition, "indicated that the National Unemployed Workers' Movement was closely connected with the organisation ia Moscow known as the Profintern," and a letter addressed to Wal Hannington (the organiser) and Llewellyn "clearly showed that the organisation in Moscow was instigating the National Unemployed Workers' Movement to promoto disorder in this country." There was nothing to prevent either or both Mann and Llewellyn from entering into recognisances. "Had they chosen to do so no question of imprisonment would have arisen, and it would have been open to either or both of them to take part in the deputation which took the petition to the House of Commons on December 19. "The proceedings taken in these cases in no way infringo the right of freedom of speech or the right of lawful public meetings," adds the Home Secretary. "In fact, they lie at the very foundation of tho security for civil liberty peacefully enjoyed by the community as & whole. The executive Government would be guilty of the gravest dereliction of their primary duty to the public if they failed at any time to take all proper steps for the maintenance of law and public order threatened by the action contemplated by tho National .Unemployed Workers' Movement, and no Government worthy of the name could shirk its responsibility in this matter. "After giving the most careful consideration to all the circumstances of these cases I have reached the definite conclusion that there are no grounds which would justify me, consistently with my public duty, in recommending and • interference with the decision of the court."