§ MR. DILLON, in calling attention to the subject, said, that it might be very unpleasant, but it was his duty to invite the House to return from Egypt to the County Limerick, in Ireland. He had just received a telegram from the Chairman of the Poor Law Board of Guardians, in the city of Limerick, begging him to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) the instant necessity of allowing 500 unfortunate people, who were now houseless, to provide some shelter. The telegram was to this effect—
Resolution passed at the Board to-day, and telegraphed to the Chief Secretary, asking him to permit the erection of huts for 50 families, who are now without shelter on the estate of Lord Cloncurry, otherwise the tenants will be obliged to enter the workhouse, which is already crowded.He had also received telegrams from several other people living in the neighbourhood, praying him not to allow the House to rise for their Holidays without calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter; but all the answer he had been able to get was that the Lord Lieutenant would consider each individual case on its merits. The one point he wished to dwell upon was that these people were evicted by Lord Cloncurry under circumstances of the grossest and most cruel injustice. They were one time in fairly comfortable homes. They were people who gave their children a good education, and were thoroughly respectable and decent in their way, and it was impossible for him to convey to the House any conception of the bitter feelings which would arise in the breasts of these people if they were obliged to enter the workhouse. It would be regarded by them for ever as causing a stain and a contamination scarcely to be described. Were these peasants, who were comfortable and respectable once, with their innocent wives and children, to be driven into the Limerick work-house, to associate with the dregs of so- 1733 ciety from that city? If so, they had better shoot them down, or at least the children. They had now been out of their homes for six weeks, and the Government had not yet decided whether they would be allowed to erect shelter. The request was moderate. If justice were done, they would be put back in their holdings from which they had been evicted. The landlords of the neighbourhood had urged on Lord Cloncurry to withdraw from his position; but he had refused to do so, or to listen to any settlement, although he (Mr. Dillon) considered that the terms offered by the tenants were too unfavourable for them. What he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, whether these people were to be driven into the workhouse or not; and, if the Irish Members undertook that no intimidation would be practised by those tenants, no violence done, the Government would allow the Land League to erect shelter for them upon the farms of their neighbours who might offer sites for the purpose? With regard to the interference of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and the threat to arrest carpenters who had been employed in erecting huts for those people, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated, no doubt on police information, that the farms on which the huts were being erected were only separated by a narrow road from the farms of the evicted tenants. It was said that that statement was entirely untrue—the places were separated by a large grazing farm, which placed them about half-a-mile apart. He thought, however, they were entitled to demand that, no matter where these huts were erected, permission should be given to provide shelter for the evicted people.
§ MR. PLUNKETSir, before the debate proceeds further, I desire to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), unintentionally, no doubt, but most erroneously. I do not intend to enter upon the question between the hon. Member and the Executive with regard to the action of Mr. Lloyd; but I wish the House to understand what really is the transaction which has just been described from the Land League point of view. The hon. Member said that these families had been evicted in the most grossly unjust manner, and spoke of the 1734 consequences that might follow if they were thrown into the workhouse; but the question arises who, after all, is responsible for the evictions? I am, fortunately, in a position to be able to state on authority, very briefly, the facts of the case, and will leave the House to form its own opinion as to the true character of the affair. Now, the tenants who have been evicted held their lands from Lord Cloncurry, at a valuation made in 1870, and at a rent paid for 10 years without any complaint, and there were no arrears previous to the appearance of the edict of the Land League. Upon the institution of the League, and by its advice or order, they refused to pay their rents, and in obedience to the same advice or order, when their farms were offered for sale by the Sheriff, they declined to bid, and let Lord Cloncurry buy in their interests, which he did for a nominal sum. After a reasonable and a considerable time the rights of the landlord were exercised, not only in his own interest, but also in the vindication of law and order, and, at great trouble and expense and odium to himself, he expelled from his estate those people who sought to keep possession of his land without paying a just and fair rent. That is the practical view taken by the landlord himself; but I do not rest my statement on that alone. These matters have been brought before the Courts on two different occasions, and before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and a common jury, and I will now quote from The Freeman's Journal some statements made by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald on the hearing of 27 of these actions. That learned Judge said—
I should hope that there is some prospect of an arrangement between Lord Cloncurry and his tenants. They certainly have been exceedingly badly advised, and are now left in the lurch by their advisers. The tenants must have been advised by someone to let their holdings go, with the view of making a desert of the place.He then suggested that some arrangement should be come to, and when the cases came on again on February 20th, the same Judge said—The tenants acted in concert according to the advice they had received, which was that they should sacrifice the farms.Further on, he said—He saw the ruin and desolation these people had brought upon themselves by this litigation, 1735 and he hoped that whoever the parties were who advised them to adopt that course, they would come forward, and out of their own funds pay the rents and costs, thus recouping Lord Cloncurry for his loss, and enabling him to reinstate the tenants in the farms.The cases were carried to the Superior Court, in which the Judge remarked upon the difficulties and dangers which had been experienced by process-servers in that district, and his Lordship said—He could not shut his eyes to the fact that the tenants had brought all this desolation and misery on themselves, and he believed the parties were obliged to take the course they did in pursuance of the 'no rent' policy or manifesto. The litigation was quite useless and unnecessary.Now, you have all the circumstances of those evictions from the lips of the Judge who tried the case, and it throws a strong light upon the effects of the Land League "no rent" policy; and I appeal to the House, whatever judgment they may come to in respect to the other question of the huts, to recollect what are the real circumstances of the case as between landlord and tenant. It is a case of extreme hardship to the landlord. The question is, who is responsible for these evictions; and, if these people should be obliged to enter the workhouse with the bad results mentioned by the hon. Member for Tipperary, at whose door must the blame justly be laid?
§ MR. PARNELLSir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Plunket) has stated that these tenants of Lord Cloncurry refused to pay any rent; and he has quoted from a report of a judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, made upon ex parte representations, without any information on the part of the tenants, and without the presence of any legal adviser on their behalf, to the effect that these tenants had been acting on the present occasion in obedience to the "no rent" manifesto. All I can say is that there is no truth whatever in the statement. These tenants were sold out in the month of May last year, long before the "no rent" manifesto was thought of. The circumstances are shortly these. They held very poor land in the County Limerick, at a rent of about 40 per cent over the Poor Law valuation. All the surrounding landlords, with the exception of Lord Cloncurry, had given abatements of from 20 to 80 per cent. These tenants asked for an abatement of 20 per cent. but Lord 1736 Cloncurry refused to give it. He served writs upon them, and obtained decrees for judgments in the Superior Courts. He then proceeded to sell their holdings, a most expensive and harsh proceeding against the tenants. In fact, it is the most expensive way in which a tenant can be evicted. The tenants went to the bank, and lodged their rents, less the abatement of 20 per cent which they had asked from Lord Cloncurry on the day after their holdings had been sold. I am informed, on credible authority, that Canon Ward, a Catholic clergyman, went to Lord Cloncurry's solicitor and offered to pay the full rent, provided the tenants were restored in such a way as to enable them to obtain the benefit of the approaching Land Act. That offer was refused. That offer and every subsequent offer made by the tenants, or on their behalf, was also refused by Lord Cloncurry. Lord Cloncurry, too, has made the tenants several offers, but not one which would permit them to have the benefit of the Land Act of last Session. The tenants, I know, were at all times willing to settle, provided they were allowed to come in as "present tenants" under the Act of last Session; but that has always been refused by Lord Cloncurry. The best offer made at any time by him to the tenants—and only after expenses amounting to £30 in each case had been incurred—was, that they should take out leases for 66 years at the old rack rent, which was 40 per cent above the Poor Law valuation, and pay all the costs in addition. These terms meant absolute beggary to the tenants, and they have up to the present rejected them. Under these circumstances, we sent the tenants wooden houses, in which they might obtain shelter; but, according to the idea of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), this was constructive intimidation, and an embargo was placed upon these houses, and they were not permitted to be erected. I believe the carpenters engaged in erecting them were arrested and imprisoned for intimidation. That is how the matter stands at present. It appears to me that in England miners are permitted to strike; and it is permissible—as we have seen in the case of a recent strike near Durham—it is permissible by the law of England, which also applies to Ireland, to erect shelter 1737 for miners on strike; but it appears it is not permissible to erect similar shelter in Ireland. What is legal in England is held to be illegal in Ireland, where no sort of intimidation whatever is intended. The strained constructive interpretation placed upon the law by the arbitrary action of the Irish Executive renders such permission impossible. I think we have proved that, in this case, there was no intimidation as regards the erection of these houses; that it was a perfectly legitimate struggle between the landlord and the tenant for a fair rent, a struggle which has dated back from the earliest commencement of the Land movement before the Act of last Session was passed, and which the tenants have repeatedly sought to terminate by offering to pay the full rent, and, I believe, the costs. I would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any hut will be permitted to be erected until the Lord Lieutenant has inquired into the circumstances of each case? If so, where a great number of evictions occur, as at Carraroe, if an embargo is placed on each hut until the Lord Lieutenant has had time to inquire into the circumstances of each case, I think it will practically amount to this, that no huts can be erected for any evicted tenants in Ireland. I think we are entitled to a statement of the principle upon which the Lord Lieutenant will act in these cases, in order that we may know what is intimidation in the minds of the Irish Executive. We have no means of knowing that at present; and I shall be glad if some statement is made, giving a definition of the circumstances connected with the erection of these huts which constitutes intimidation, because we desire to avoid it, and act in a bonâ fide way in erecting them.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, that as a Member for the county in which these events had occurred (Limerick), and having some acquaintance with these farms, he desired to confirm the statement as to the attitude of the tenants long before the issue of the "no rent" manifesto, and quite independently of any action of the Land League. At the same time, he would admit that if the tenants were able to buy the holdings, and did not do so, they were ill-advised. It had been suggested that the rents were fair, because they were fixed in 1870; but he 1738 believed that as regarded the setting of land, the year 1870 was the highest year they had since 1850; and the fact that the rents were fixed in these cases in that year afforded prima facie evidence that they were high. He knew the lands, and if they were let at 40 or 50 per cent over Griffith's valuation, he could only say they were let at regular rack rents. Sir Croker Barrington and all the neighbouring landlords had given an abatement of 20 per cent. and although Lord Cloncurry's tenants had asked for the same reduction, he knew, as a fact, that they would have accepted 10 per cent. and even have been satisfied with 5; but Lord Cloncurry would not be satisfied with anything except his pound of flesh; while he had incurred £700 costs, being £30 or £40 in each case, and would not take a farthing of rent unless these costs were paid. Even the lease that had been offered contained a clause that every tenant was to be liable to pay the rents of the other tenants, so that in case of there being one defaulter, the landlord might have the power to evict all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) also defended the course taken by Lord Cloncurry in bringing ejectments in the Superior Courts; but it was well known that no difficulty whatever need be experienced in the districts in serving civil bill ejectments, which would have avoided the payment of these enormous costs by the tenants. He thought Lord Cloncurry in this matter stood isolated in the whole of Limerick, and he hoped no other landlord in Ireland would be guilty of the same despotic proceedings against respectable tenants. All these men, to his own knowledge, were respectable farmers, and it would be scandalous to subject themselves and their families to the contamination of a workhouse. This was a case which demanded the immediate attention of the Government, and the immediate compliance by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) with the request of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Parnell).
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that after the few words spoken by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he wished to trouble the House for a minute or two. There were two questions which had been brought up in this 1739 discussion—one was the circumstances connected with the eviction; the second was the sheltering provided for the evicted people. As regarded the circumstances of the eviction, he could not admit the correctness of what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. There was one fact that the hon. Member alleged which, no doubt, was a mistake on his part. The hon. Member said that the tenants were sold up in May. In his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) belief, they were sold up in August.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, even if that was so, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was certainly mistaken in attributing the action of the tenants to the "no rent" manifesto, yet it was a mistake, not so much in substance as in appearance. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) believed the real fact of the case was this. He was not going into the terms on which the tenants held their holdings; much had been heard on both sides—they might have been high-rented, or they might have been low-rented; on that subject he did not wish to give an opinion—but there could be no doubt that they refused to pay their rents. [Mr. STNAN: Their full rents.] Yes, their full rents; and Lord Cloncurry thought the law enabled him to get them, as the law enabled a man to get his full tailor's bill or any other bill. It must be remembered that these were not cases of cottier tenants, who would be reduced to absolute destitution if they were turned out, but they were well-to-do tenants. They took, he supposed, the advice of the officials of the Land League, or, at all events, they did what those officials strongly recommended, and instead of going into the Land Court and taking advantage of the Land Act——
§ MR. DILLONThere was no Land Court at that time.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERWell, there was a Land Bill introduced with every probability of passing, and there was one actually passed before this matter came to the point.
§ MR. DILLONBut this incident began in March last, and only concluded in the mouth of June, when the tenants' farms were sold up.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed he was correct in this matter. However, there could be no doubt that there was a Bill passing through Parliament. It was pretty well known that it would become law, and that it would enable a fair rent to be fixed. Following the advice given them by the Land League, the tenants declined to wait and take advantage of the Act, and they refused to pay the rent which was actually due. He was not even stating whether Lord Cloncurry was driving a hard bargain or not; but, if he was asked, his own impression was that he was not. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought that did not very much concern the matter. Respectable, well-to-do tenants, instead of taking advantage of a Bill which they were pretty sure was going to pass, and which, he believed, was passed before the final sale, refused to pay their rents, following the advice of the Land League; and they very foolishly and unwisely declined to buy in their property, as they might have done, and allowed it to go at a nominal price, and in doing so they still followed the advice of the Land League. He was very much mistaken if they did not follow the advice publicly given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, in a speech about that time, but of which he had not got a copy with him then. At any rate, he should at another time be prepared to give the words of a speech of that hon. Gentleman's, in which he strongly recommended tenants to take that line, giving them to understand that the Land League would take care they did not suffer for doing so. Well, the Land League had not taken care that they did not suffer. And he had not the slightest doubt that at the time the poor men declined to bid for their farms they fully expected the Land League would take care that they did not suffer from their neglect to do so. Men refused to pay rent which was legally due, and to buy in their own property at the sale—following in both instances the advice of the Land League, and then they found themselves in the power of Lord Cloncurry. These he believed to be the circumstances in regard to the evictions. If he were called upon to give an opinion as to the Land League, he should say that the Land League was, in the first place, wrong in advising people not to pay their legal debts; secondly, that they were wrong in ad- 1741 vising the tenants not to buy in; and, thirdly, that after the promise made, and having got these poor men into these straits, they were wrong in not out of their funds giving the tenants the means of keeping up their holdings. With regard to the question of the huts, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said this shelter was prevented on account of the policy which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) set on foot. Well, that was not true. ["Order!"] He said it was not true that he ever set on foot such a policy. He was applied to by parties interested to stop the erection of huts, and he always stated that the onus probandi rested with the objectors to show that the huts should not be erected, as, undoubtedly, it was generally legal to erect these huts, and in many cases praiseworthy. He might state with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd that he had talked the matter over with him, and that they both agreed that they ought to put nothing in the way of erecting huts in ordinary circumstances. In regard to this particular case, he had nothing to do with it. This matter in regard to these huts happened, he understood, after he left Office; but he was confident that, in some other cases, huts had been put up solely for the purpose of intimidation, and that the magistrates in those cases were right in preventing their being so erected. He knew of a case in which men were living in huts which were put up for them after they had paid their rent. They had paid their rents quietly and silently, without letting the fact become known. The huts had been put up, and they dared not refuse to go and live in them. No one who really knew what intimidation was practised in these districts would be surprised at such a state of things. In fact, the intimidation in Ireland had been of such a nature that it had been one that absolutely prevented anyone from feeling any sort of liberty to do what he thought he ought to do, to pay his debts or his rent, or to carry on his business in any manner in which a free man should carry it on. With an organization like the Land League, still carried on to some extent by the Ladies' Land League, there could be no doubt that one of the instruments they had used for the purposes of intimidation was the erection of huts. Still it was a matter in which, of course, the magistrates and the police ought to have the 1742 clearest possible proof that the huts were put up for such a purpose, and not merely for the purpose of shelter or for the purpose of benevolence. He was glad to hear that his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) intended to look personally, as far as he could, into these cases. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did so himself—["Oh, oh!"]—and in several cases he prevented any interference being made with the erection of the huts. But he need hardly say that he supposed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) and the Viceroy would remember that these were matters which depended upon the action of the magistrates, and that it would be a very dangerous thing for the Executive to positively interfere with magisterial action, because that would be a great exertion of authority which ought not to be made. It was a most dangerous matter for the Executive to attempt to originate and to control the magisterial action. It had not been done in Ireland, and he did not suppose his right hon. Friend intended to take that course. He must again repeat, that if hon. Members thought that before he left Office he gave any orders or instructions for preventing the erection of huts, there was absolutely no foundation for it. He did not know of a single official in Ireland who had ever advised such a thing; but he knew that in a great number of cases huts had been erected, and no interference had been allowed; and he trusted the House would not come to any judgment on cases where interference had taken place without having the whole of the facts before it, or on any ex parte allegations. It must be recollected that where-ever a magistrate had done such a thing there was an appeal to a higher Court, and he hoped that hon. Members would wait to hear the result of such appeals before they formed a conclusion on the matter. He must now say a word or two about Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and he did not know why he should be called, as he often was, Major Clifford Lloyd, for he believed he had never been a military man at all, or connected with the Army. He had, however, been frequently made the object of attack both out of that House and in it; and he feared hon. Members were beginning to suppose that there was some foundation for those attacks and for what was said about him. The real reason for these attacks upon Mr. Lloyd was that he had been most successful in 1743 putting down disorder, and in establishing liberty and freedom in the districts within his jurisdiction. It was chiefly owing to Mr. Clifford Lloyd that in some parts of Ireland men could go to their daily work from morning until night without the fear of being maimed or murdered, and this they were able to do mainly on account of his action. There would, indeed, be an end to much hope of orderly government in the country if the time should come when the Government or Parliament should not acknowledge the services of men who had done such good work as Mr. Lloyd. He must add that that magistrate had discharged his duties with great moderation and without the use of extreme punishments; and, if the facts were fully made known, it would be found that he had restored order in Limerick, and was beginning to restore it in a very bad part of the much-disturbed county of Clare, very much by his justice and moderation; and, as a proof of that, he might give two instances. Some time ago, having given the Government information which led to the arrest of several persons in Kilfinane and Kilmallock, he said he would make himself responsible for the peace of the district if those persons were released. He was right, and it was found that they could be released with safety. But perhaps the House would be much surprised to hear that almost the last act he (Mr. W. E. Forster) performed as Chief Secretary for Ireland was to sanction, at Mr. Lloyd's request, the release of those who, under his term of magistracy, had been confined under the Coercion Act in the county of Limerick. Such was the confidence of the Government in his power of preserving order, and in the respect that the inhabitants of that county paid to him for his moderation, firmness, and discretion, that by the force of his personal character that step we found could be taken, and was taken, with perfect safety.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that as all the workhouses in Ireland were overcrowded, there would be no shelter for great numbers of evicted tenants but for the efforts of the Ladies' Land League and other organizations in the tenants' behalf. He wished to know whether the Government were going to take any steps for the accommodation and relief of such tenants? He would 1744 impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) the expediency of allowing the huts to be erected, when they had the recommendations of so important a body as the Board of Guardians.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he felt obliged to offer a few remarks to the House upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). That speech was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman in its tone and in its whole substance; it was worthy, too, in the consequences it was likely to produce, of the right hon. Gentleman's whole unfortunate official connection with Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman who had undertaken the serious task of the government of Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) would rather derive his opinions from the Irish people themselves than from a Gentleman who had proved his incapacity to act in connection with his own Cabinet. It would be strange indeed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford could deliver a speech without a eulogium upon Mr. Clifford Lloyd. It had long been recognized in Ireland that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the special favourite of the right hon. Gentleman; and when they heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had not imposed any impediment upon the erection of huts, he (Mr. Sexton) must ask them to remember that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the special favourite of the right hon. Gentleman, had been the one magistrate in Ireland who had continually and tyrannically interfered with the provision of shelter for evicted tenants. The right hon. Gentleman claimed for Mr. Lloyd the credit of having restored order and even peace in the counties of Limerick and Clare. He was ready enough to give figures when they told against the Irish people, but he abstained from doing so when he was praising some official of the Government. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman given them the number of crimes that had been committed for a given period before Mr. Lloyd became special magistrate there, and compared them with the figures for the half-year following his arrival? The right hon. Gentleman knew when to be frank and when elliptical. He attributed the credit to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, instead of attributing it to the 1745 fact that the Government which he had left had led the people for a short time to believe that they were about to return to a policy of conciliation and reason. Although the Government was introducing a new Coercion Bill, there was an improvement in their policy for a short time, which had brought about, to some extent, a better state of things in the country. He (Mr. Sexton) had made strenuous endeavours in that House to bring before it the proceedings of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and other magistrates; but all those endeavours had been met with evasion and suppression. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford whether that moderate magistrate had sent a telegram to a constable, requesting the names of six or seven tenants in a particular locality who had not paid their rents. Mr. Lloyd did not ask whether the tenants were able to pay or not. The right hon. Gentleman had risen and denied that any such telegram had been sent. But he (Mr. Sexton) had received the words of the telegram. He knew the day on which it was sent, and the office where it was handed in; and in that telegram was contained a request for the names of 20 tenants who had not paid their rents. The object of the telegram was to use powers against those tenants which had been obtained for a totally different purpose. There was another case, in which a charge was brought against a lady. The lady was taken into Mr. Clifford Lloyd's private room. She requested the presence of the parish clergyman during the examination. The request was refused. She asked for an adjournment. It was refused. She asked to be allowed to engage counsel. That, also, was refused. And then, without evidence, without witnesses, without the aid of counsel, she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. What was the use of an appeal in such a case? Mr. Justice Fitzgerald had decided that the Queen's Bench could hear no appeal unless some point of law was reserved, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd had taken good care that no point of law should arise, for the unfortunate woman had no counsel to raise it for her. It was hard for him (Mr. Sexton) to restrain his indignation when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say, in that House, that huts had been erected in Ireland for the purpose of intimida- 1746 tion. Was it not a fact that the Ladies' Land League and its branches had been in existence in Ireland for the last 12 months? In the course of these 12 months the right hon. Gentleman had in his hand a Coercion Act which enabled him to arrest any person he chose; and although there were 300 huts erected by the Land League and its branches in 26 out of the 32 different counties in Ireland, many of the huts being in proclaimed districts, and although these huts were occupied by 2,000 evicted tenants, the right hon. Gentleman never once in the course of the 12 months used the Coercion Act for the arrest of any one of those persons on a charge of intimidation.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERasked if the hon. Member was surprised that he did not order the arrest of any lady connected with the League on account of intimidation with regard to the erection of huts? Was not that his question?
§ MR. SEXTONNo. He could not raise such a point as that, because ladies were arrested.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERNot under the Protection Act?
§ MR. SEXTONNo; but in reference to intimidation. He would repeat the question.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that the reason why they were not arrested was because they had not sufficient proof of intimidation; and, therefore, no action had been taken in the matter. That was a confirmation of his previous statement, that no action had been taken in reference to the building of huts for the occupation of evicted tenants, except where there was ample proof that it was connected with intimidation.
§ MR. SEXTON(continuing) said, the right hon. Gentleman had said he had no proof brought before him; but the right hon. Gentleman did not require proof, but only such evidence, if he (Mr. Sexton) might call it so, as might bring his faculty of reasonable suspicion into play. He could have availed himself of the powers conferred upon him by the Coercion Act, and could have arrested the members of the Ladies' League as "suspects;" but he had not thought it right to do so. In the cases in which the right hon. Gentleman had interfered, the huts were erected at such a distance from the evicted lands, and under such circumstances as to render a 1747 suspicion of intimidation improbable to the last degree; and he would ask could tyranny or absurdity further go? These poor evicted tenants were the last to desire that intimidation should be resorted to on their behalf, because their only hope of being saved from ruin lay in their being restored to their farms; and, therefore, it was too absurd to charge them with having used intimidation. How could the right hon. Gentleman talk of tailors' bills in connection with the reduction of rents, when they all knew that the reduction of rents had been effected by the Land Act? With regard to Lord Cloncurry, he (Mr. Sexton) believed that that Nobleman had ignored all the duties attaching to property, and had exacted, not only rack rents, but altogether fancy rents from his tenants. He refused to do what an English landlord would do—he refused to do what an English Gentleman always did with his tenants, and that was share the distress by making an allowance in the rents. No; Lord Cloncurry went upon the principle that he must be paid—that he would have the last penny from his tenants, even though they were ruined in paying it. It must be remembered also that the poor tenants who had been unable to pay their rents had been required to pay, not only the arrears, but also the enormous law costs of the Superior Courts of Dublin to save themselves from eviction. When he (Mr. Sexton) was in Ireland last, in connection with the Land League, he carefully examined into the cases of farms brought to the hammer, and he found this, that three-fourths of the tenants whose farms were put up to auction allowed their farms to go. With three bad years, with no reduction of rent, but forced as they were to pay exorbitant rents, what were they to do? It was impossible for them to pay the costs of the actions in the Superior Courts, the costs of the writs, and of the actions, and so it was simply a choice between one description of ruin and the other. When he consulted with others as to what was to be done under these circumstances, all that he had ever done was to advise the tenants to stand together and to form a united and solid body for their own protection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had told them of tenants he met with tears in 1748 their eyes in some out of the way corners complaining of the Land League. Before these evictions of Lord Cloncurry, he (Mr. Sexton) told the tenants distinctly that the Land League would not bear the expenses of buying the farms. He told them that if the League was to do it, they would be at the mercy of the Property Defence Association, who might issue thousands of writs, and who, in a single week, would empty the coffers of the League. He hoped, in conclusion, that he had been enabled to convey some idea of the truth of this matter, and that in spite of the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) to glorify the landlord at the expense of the tenants, and at the cost of humanity, proving, as he had, that he could neither agree with his Colleagues in Office or be satisfied with them now he was out of Office.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that up to the present time he had carefully refrained from expressing any opinion upon this most complicated question, and had merely stated what would be the Executive action or the intentions of the Government with regard to it, and he did not propose to step beyond that line on the present occasion. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to be required to defend the landlords in a complicated case of this kind, he would have equally to condemn them when they unduly strained the law against their tenants. It was for the private friends of the landlords on the one side, and the representatives of the tenants on the other, to state the case according to the best of their power, and to see that the law was duly enforced on both sides; and all that he had to do was to see that the supremacy of the law was asserted. The Government were very sorry for those poor people. They had, according to one account, been much misled and greatly intimidated, and, according to another, they had been greatly misused. It was to prevent hardship of the nature in the future, whether well-founded or not, which had been alleged, that the Land Act had been passed; and it was to prevent intimidation of the class alleged to have been used in the present case, that the Government were determined to pass the Prevention of Crime Bill. If intimidation had been used in this case, he could not too strongly reprobate it. If the tenants 1749 had been persuaded to do anything which was for their ultimate serious disadvantage, he deeply regretted it. It was difficult to speak in a case where the Government had no power. It was deeply to be regretted if the tenants had been tempted to their ruin by refusing to pay their rent; and it was equally to be regretted if the landlords had strained the law with the object of depriving their repentant tenants of the advantages offered them by the Land Act which had been passed by both Houses of Parliament. By whomsoever that system of intimidation had been practised, the Government would do their utmost to put a stop to it. If the huts, wherever they were, were part of a system of intimidatory action, they would also undoubtedly interfere to check that intimidation. He believed hitherto the proceedings connected with the erection of those huts had been connected with intimidation; but he was very sorry a discussion of a warm nature had resulted in regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, because he thought Mr. Clifford Lloyd had, at different times, done a great service in the cause of law and order, and he certainly would be supported by the Government. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did not appear quite to understand what he meant to convey as regarded these huts. The hon. Member, in his speech, had stated that the Government would not allow huts to be erected; but the fact was, that the Government would not allow any interference with their erection until they were satisfied that they were erected for purposes of intimidation. No one wanted permission to do a lawful act; and if the huts were merely erected for shelter, they certainly would not be interfered with. There was one or two points on which his information was not identical with that of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). He understood, and he hoped he was right in the matter, that the number of persons belonging to the families evicted were 215, and not 500, as stated by the hon. Member. He believed, however, that a certain number of them were well-to-do, and had friends to help them. [Mr. PARNELL: A great many of them were cottier tenants.] No doubt, some were; and he saw one was evicted because he was unable to pay £1 on a holding of 10s. a-year. There could, 1750 however, be no doubt that during the 9 or 10 months that had elapsed since the evictions, there had been a great deal of distress and destitution. As regarded the power of the Government, he took it that there could be no doubt about that matter. The Government did not interfere with magistrates in the exercise of their legal powers. But they had a right, and he believed that in the present state of things they were absolutely bound to see that the police did not take the initiative with regard to huts without the permission of His Excellency after the facts had been gone into by him. No doubt, this was a matter which had led to great rivalry of feeling, and to much excess of language. These cases called for inquiry, if ever one did; and if it was still desired, for the purposes of intimidation, to erect the huts, the Executive would sternly repress such a desire; but if they were erected in good faith and for shelter, their erection would be allowed. Government had the undoubted power, and here, as elsewhere, it would be carefully used.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought that the debate had not been without some very useful results. He believed that the case of the unfortunate tenants of Lord Cloncurry stood then in no worse position, or it might be in a better position, than when the debate began, notwithstanding the very plausible statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who had endeavoured to make out that intimidation had been exercised towards them. It had been admitted that Lord Cloncurry was driving the hardest bargain he could with these poor tenants, and that he was endeavouring to make hay while the sun shone by seizing the highest rent that could be extorted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) might be pleased with the illustration he had made use of in his speech as to the payment of the tailor's bill. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) wanted to know whether the course taken by the tenants of Lord Cloncurry did not correspond with the course taken sometimes with a tailor's bill, particularly when that bill was exorbitant? In the case of an extortionate bill, the debtor lodged in the Court of Law the amount he considered fair and 1751 proper, and then he disputed the bill. This was what was substantially done in this case. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the new Chief Secretary for Ireland to be very careful indeed how he listened to the advice or the suggestions of his Predecessor. His heart always sank within him when he heard the right hon. Member for Bradford offering any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It reminded him of one of Hogarth's most famous pictures, that one which represented a waggon arriving at an inn, and from the waggon descended a young woman fresh and innocent, wholly inexperienced as to the perils of London life. Beside her was another woman, neither young in experience nor fresh, but old and very crafty, who was endeavouring to induce the fresh and innocent maiden to take her counsels and walk in her ways. So it was with the right hon. Member for Bradford. But he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) trusted the new Chief Secretary for Ireland would be very careful how he received the advice of his old and experienced Predecessor, who seemed inclined to tempt him away from the path he was taking, and that the right hon. Gentleman, while fresh and inexperienced, would not fall into his wiles.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he wished to bring back the discussion to the original question, seeing that it evinced a tendency to go somewhat wide of it. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had opened up the subject by pointing out the hardship from which certain tenants were suffering, who were once independent men of good character, but were now being forced into the workhouse. Everyone knew with what horror the workhouse was regarded by the people of Ireland; but the House having heard the statements both of the landlords' and the Laud League's Representatives would, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) thought, not hesitate for a moment to say that the persons who were immediately responsible for the present unfortunate position of those tenants were those who gave them the cruel and iniquitous advice to allow their tenant rights—which in many cases represented a considerable amount of money—to be sold at merely nominal sums. That course had been adopted by them, if not at the instigation of the Land League, at the 1752 instigation of those who professed to act for that League. He did not wish to prejudge the case. The rents were, perhaps, such as the Commissioners would lower, or they were not. But the point he wished to urge was—What was the cause of the circumstances which at present existed? He had every reason to believe that at the very time when those tenant rights were about to be sold, other tenants were, in many cases, anxious to bid; but intimidation of the grossest kind was exercised upon them immediately before the sale, if not actually while the sale was taking place. He had it on very good authority that an unfrocked priest was present at the sale, and, while professing to act on behalf of the Land League—but whether so or not, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was unable to say—intimidated the tenants into refusing to bid for the property. In addition to this must be regarded the speeches delivered at the time and in the particular districts by eminent members of the Land League, and which contained like counsel. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), for instance, made a speech on the 9th of September last in Sackville Street, in which, after referring to designing persons who were spreading a panic by speaking of the loss that would be sustained if the tenant allowed his interest in the holding to be sold, he said—
I cannot see that the tenants would lose anything at all, where it is possible for the Land League to keep the farm vacant. This has been our principle from the very commencement.If that was not something like encouragement to the unfrocked priest, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) failed to understand the meaning of words? One of the most effectual steps the Government could take in restoring peace and order in Ireland would be to amend the present technical and expensive system involved in suits relating to rent. Many of the difficulties that arose were but the consequences of the heavy costs incurred in these actions. With respect to the particular case now before the House, Lord Cloncurry might feel assured that his personal character had been practically cleared of the aspersions that had been cast upon it; but might not the words summum jus summa injuria be applicable to the case? He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would sug- 1753 gest to him, as a means of preserving peace and order, that he should re-consider the desirability of reinstating his tenants. If he made such a sacrifice he would have the satisfaction of having made it in the interests of peace and good government—a sacrifice which at this time the Government and the House of Commons had almost a right to ask of any man who had the interest of Ireland at heart.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of taking any part in the discussion, which would be useful, more especially if it should end in the spirit which characterized the speech of his noble Friend who had just sat down (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). He would rather appeal to the House not to consider this matter any further. The whole case had been fully stated on both sides by the parties interested, and it might very conveniently be closed in the spirit of the concluding sentence of the noble Lord. No doubt, the judgment of public opinion would be formed upon the whole discussion, and that was the only judgment which could be formed upon it. He thought he should be expressing the sentiments of the House, if he said he hoped that this discussion would now drop. Of course, if it were continued, there might, to use an old law phrase, be rebutters and surrebutters, and that would not be a very profitable form of proceeding.