The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1888.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5211, 4 May 1888, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1888.

Mr T. W. Russell, M.P., in a capital article contributed to a London Liberal contemporary points out that ho long, as the Crimes Act remainH on the Statute Book it is the boundeu duty of the Government to enforce it. And ho asks why liavo ten or twelve- members of Parliament been prosecuted: . Take the euso of Mr William O'Brien as typical of ouo class of offence. Mr O'Brien went to Mitchelstown to au estiito where the Plan of Campaign was in operation, and, as he admits himself, in view of probable evictions, advised tho tenants to clofeiid their homes—to resist the law and its officers. Ho tolls us that the Land Act was about to come to the rescue of these people, and ho gave the advice in view of this fact! This i« the Land Aot which, according to tho Parnellito party, was not worth passing, and which, but for them, might havo been passed six weeks earlier. As a matter of fact, however, and he admits it, the evictions did not come off, and he- was convicted by two resident magistrates, the conviction being upheld on appeal before the learned Recorder of Cork. This otfenco of Mr 0 Brieu's, let it bo distinctly understood, was an offence under the ordinary law, "Wherever such advice has been noted upon, as at "Woodford, Bodyke, and other places, it has meant the barricading of houses, the pouring of boiling water, lime, and even iv ono case of vitriol, on the bailiffs and police. For this oft'enco Hcores of Irish prisoners havo been prosecuted both under the ordinary law, as at Woodford, and under the Crimes Act, us at Bodyke. Car. uny fair-minded man say that tho member of Parliament who gave the ndvice, and who did not attend the actual eviction to share tho perils attendant upon it, should go scot free ? This is the wholo caso as regards this special class of oli'ence. If a member of Parliament troes into the country, and in view of possiblo or oven probablo evictions tells the people to barricade their houses, to dufend their homes, to resist the sheriff and tho officers of the law, and these peasants get six, twelvo, and eighteen months' imprisonment for canying out this advicu—tho plea is that the man who gave the advice, and who did not stay to share his perils, ought to bo treated precisely as his victims are treated. If the offence is political, treat members of Parliament and peasants alike. If it be nonpolitical, lot them both stand on tho same looting. Tho second class of offence for which members of Parliament have been made amenable is that of promoting the Plan of Campaign. Tho Plan of Campaign has been pronounced illegal. Whether it be a new crimo or an old ono to advise men to combine not to pay rent, it is an offence at law, and men who do so break the law with their eyes open. It is all the more unjustifiable now because the Land Courts nro practically i'reo to all, and the reductions being given by the Commissioners are loudly declared to justify thoPlun. Why not, then, avail themselves of the legal process P Tho Land Courts uro open to all. They

are doing substantial justice between man and man, and those who set these courts aside and insist lipon the people paying what rent th"-<- think fit are doing an illegal act. For ti<v-Members of Parliament and Roman Catholic priests havo been prosecuted, and the Government, if it desirod to carry out the Act fairly, could do nothing else. Then there aro tho Press prosecutions. But no man has been prosecuted for anything he lias written in his paper. The did question of seditious writing, out of which so many prosecutions arose in the past, has never once come up. Newspaper editors havo been free to write of the Government and their opponents just as they chose, and havo mado very free use of that freodonu What they have been prosecuted for is an entirely different thing. Tho Executive Government, engaged in a life and death straggle with the National League, find that Parliament has mado it an offence for a newspaper proprietor to publish any reports of any suppressed branch of a dangerous association—provided that these reports are pttbJishcd with a view to promote the ohjects of that dangerous association. Tho National League has been proclaimed.. and its barnchos suppressed over a certain area in tho south and west of Ireland. Forthwith Mr Sullivan and other newspaper proprietors announce' their determination to violate the law. They declare they will publish the said roports in their papers. They invite such reports to be sent by the League officials. They know it was a, sore point to touch the Press, and they were determined tho Government should be compelled to face it. Thoro is some satisfaction in thinking that the Government did not shirk the issue, and that owing to tho impotence of the League in Clare and Kerry they can now afford to pass over bogus or ridiculously exaggerated reports. Of these exaggerations Mr Russell gives an illustration in a, report published by Freeman's Journal of a mectingat Tomgraney. The Freeman's report described it as " a mass meeting " attended by "over 2000 people." Mr Wilfrid Blunt, iv dealing , with this meeting tho other day, on oatli swore tho attendance did not exceed fifty or ! sixty people! Just so! To get at the truth m Ireland is all but impossible, and everything has to be turned upside down and carefully examined before it is pronounced a fact.