§ MR. PARNELL (Cork City)I wish to take this opportunity to press further upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the desirability of returning a straightforward answer to the question which was put to him by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (that with regard to a circular alleged to be issued to the Constabulary headed "Very Secret, Agrarian Crime"). I should have thought that that question was capable of a reply—yes or no.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not in order. It is most inconvenient to refer to questions on the Paper which have been disposed of.
§ MR. PARNELLI have always understood that on a Motion of this kind it would be in order to refer to any subject of interest which any Member of the House was desirous of bringing before the House. I have known such a practice as long as I have been a Member.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI was pointing out the inconvenience of going over questions that have been disposed of.
§ MR. PARNELLUnfortunately, on this occasion we did not receive any answer at all to the question. The right hon. Gentleman declined to answer, yes or no, to the question; and I submit, with great respect, that I am not out of order in pressing the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to that question. I fear very much that the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the question indicates that the question is founded on truth and fact. I wish to say at once and most distinctly that I think the Government are perfectly entitled to apply to the police authorities or to their other agents in Ireland for the information described in the question by the hon. Member. But if this were to be done, I submit that it should have been done for the purposes of the Government, and that it should have been done without disguise, in an open and English fashion. In the time of the late Mr. Forster, when he was Chief Secretary—a much more troublesome time, happily, than this which now occupies our attention—a secret Circular of an objectionable character was issued by his Administration. Mr. Forster, when questioned, as the hon. Member for Shoreditch has questioned the present Chief Secretary, admitted that the Circular had been issued, and admitted its objectionable character, and promised to withdraw it. But the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chief Secretary was a straightforward man. The complaint that we make now, without going as far as to say, as we did in those days, that the Circular in question was rubbish, is that if the Government have been acting for the purpose of the Government, they ought not to be and would not be ashamed of admitting what 376 they have done. I trust that we may have from the right hon. Gentleman, before this Motion is agreed to, a reply—an English and straightforward reply—to the question which has been put to him. We know the position which the Government announced that they had taken up with regard to the proceedings before the Commission. But if this Circular has been issued it will be a token and almost a proof that the Statements of the Government with regard to their position in the proceedings before the Special Commission are untrue. I do not wish to find fault with the action of the House last night, but personally I regret that the First Lord of the Treasury thought it his duty to intervene and to ask the House to close the debate which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill). Several of my friends and I myself had taken notes and were desirous of saying something with reference to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had sat down a short time previously, after making the most unfounded and sweeping assertions against the Irish Members. It really looked as if it were intended to prevent any reply to those assertions being given. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary asserted against us on these Benches that we had never made any proposals for the advantage and benefit of these smaller tenants such as are in Donegal. The recklessness of the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman is, notorious to the House. But I think that even he out-Heroded himself on this occasion. If there is one question that we have had more at heart since the distress in 1879 and 1880, which first attracted our attention to these small tenants, it is the means and. remedy to be adopted for the relief of tenants of this kind. And the right hon. Gentleman has no right to tall us that we, forsooth, have never made any proposals for the relief of these tenants. I can recollect in 1880 that we produced a Bill for this express purpose—a Bill brought in by Mr. O'Connor Power, the then Member for County Mayo—which was adopted by Mr. Forster and first joined on to the Relief of Distress Act, and then was introduced as a separate Bill, though subsequently thrown out by the House of Lords. We 377 produced a measure expressly for the relief of the small tenants. Again, in 1881 we pressed upon the House the necessity of settling this question of arrears intimately connected with the question of the position of the small Irish tenants. Again, in 1882 we brought forward another Bill which contained an arrears clause, and succeeded in obtaining from the Legislature the Arrears Act of 1882, which was of enormous advantage to this very district of Donegal, and which has kept that district in peace from that day to this, until the recurrence of distress and partial famine has forced on the present disorder. Again, in 1883 I obtained from the Legislature the introduction of clauses into the Tramways Bill for the express purpose of dealing with the congestion of these districts, where the holdings, as described by the right hon. Gentleman, are too small to enable the tenants to subsist. Those clauses, unhappily, were not successful, but they failed, not owing to our fault, but on account of the exorbitant prices claimed by the landlords for the land which we desired to buy especially for the purpose of these tenants. And certainly the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to tell us we have not at all times and in every circumstance done our best and utmost to deal practically with this question of the relief of the congested districts. What has the right hon. Gentleman done himself? He has now been in office for three years—and the Government of which he is a Member has practically been in office for four years—since the autumn of 1885. What practical proposal has he or his Government made for dealing with this question? I admit that it is a very difficult question; that it is one requiring an intimate knowledge of the conditions existing in those districts. But it is not to be settled by the right hon. Gentleman as he tried to settle it last night—by hurling taunts across the floor of the House against us, and by—to show the inconsistency of the right hon. Gentleman's statements—in one breath talking of the Plan of Campaign as being the cause of all the trouble, and in the next showing, as he truly showed, that it is because the holdings are too small. What I wish to point out is this: that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the battering ram, which has been 378 introduced into Ireland for the first time—this Government battering ram—is to be used for defensive purposes by the police against the poorest and most distressed tenantry throughout the whole of Ireland, ten ants who, as he states himself, are paying rents of only 1s. or so per week. There might be some excuse for the use of the battering ram on the substantial stone houses of the strong farmers of Limerick or Tipperary, but surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognize the unfitness, the cruelty, the barbarity of the introduction of such a weapon, and its trial for the first time upon the miserable cottages which almost a touch would throw down. The right hon. Gentleman says that the difference between the Plan of Campaign and the offer made by the landlord is infinitesimal, and cannot affect the issue.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, EastNo, Sir. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, but what I said was, that the difference between the demands of the Plan of Campaign on this estate and the offer was infinitesimal from the point of view from which I was then speaking, and which was raised by the hon. Gentleman's argument—namely, the bearing which the annual rent which the people had to pay had on their comfort.
§ MR. PARNELLSo I understood the reference of the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not intend to misrepresent him. I admit that it appears to be so; but if it is infinitesimal, if the difference is so small as to make it a matter of no practical importance, so much the more ought the right hon. Gentleman to have hesitated before he adopted those unusual methods in the interests of the landlords of this district. It is true that the rents of these poor creatures are small, and I should tell the right hon. Gentleman I have always said that I believe that if justice were to be done the tenants in these crowded districts ought not to be called on to pay any rent at all. I do not say that from the point of view of the land naturalizer, or from the point of view of the Socialist at all, but I say it from my own knowledge, that the only reason why any rent is payable in respect of those holdings at 379 all, the reason why any value whatever can be attached to them, is owing to the fact that they are occupied by such a class. If you remove the present occupiers from those crowded, barren districts, there is no other occupier or tenant who would give 6d. an acre for this land. No Scotch farmer would go over there and offer 6d. an acre for it for grazing purposes. It is unsuitable for any purpose, except as the place where the homes of those poor people are. If it were not that they had constructed those little cabins, if it were not that they had fenced round those little fields with stone walls—the stones abounding so much that sometimes the fields seem to be all wall and all stone and no arable land at all—if it were not that those bits of mountains and scraps of bog had been reclaimed by the labour of those people, and made useful for their habitation, if it were not the fact that these people go over to England and Scotland to earn annually enough to pay their rent, I say there is no other class of tenant that the ingenuity of the landlord could devise who would give 6d. an acre for the land, for which those people have frequently to pay 6s., 7s., 8s., 9s. and 10s an acre. From the point of view of justice, this land derives its entire value, in the first instance, from the labour of those tenants; and, in the second place, from the fact that they are a class of people who come across to this country annually to earn their living, and leave their wives and children behind in order to till the fields and gather in the scanty crops. This may be, and I believe it is, a partial distress. But I believe in my soul that it is not a gotten-up distress. We have been familiar with the disposition of previous Chief Secretaries to minimize distress. I recollect one of the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, now the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther), who was Chief Secretary in 1879, and who scoffed just in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman did last night at the notion of distress in Ireland, and we saw what followed upon it. But even then some mitigation was extended to those peasants. The outdoor relief rules of the Local Government Board were relaxed. The existence of distress having been denied for months, after a time, as I say, the out-door relief rules were re- 380 laxed, and permission was given to the Boards of Guardians to grant relief in the shape of food and fuel to persons outside the workhouse. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman, in the present instance, the consideration of some such step. The outdoor relief should be extended to the grant of seed potatoes, so that the people might be enabled to put in their crops, and so that the calamity might not be intensified by the lack of any harvest next year. The supply of fresh seed has always been of great advantage to the tenants of those poor districts. The potato seed supplied in 1880 and 1881 secured for those seaboard districts a plentiful potato crop for many years subsequently, and we have no reason to anticipate the approach of any serious distress over large areas from that day to this. It sometimes happens, however, as in the case of Donegal, that parishes over large areas are afflicted with partial failure. And it is not asking too much from the great and rich English Government, that the Chief Secretary should direct his practical attention to this matter, and do what he can, apart from political considerations, and without hurling taunts at his political antagonists, to rescue the unhappy people of those particular districts. I have pointed out what was done in 1880, and I would suggest in addition, that the seed potatoes should also be given to those people in the shape of out-door relief under such supervision as will be necessary to prevent abuse. It is a small matter, and cannot entail any considerable expenditure on the Exchequer. I hope, in any circumstances, that the Chief Secretary will be more alive than he was last night to the state of the case, and to the duties incumbent upon him as the holder of his office.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Member has dealt with two very widely different topics, and I will take them in the order in which he has placed them before the House. The first point referred to is the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart) in reply to a question about an alleged confidential circular which that hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine existed. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appeared to think that I had invented that answer in order to screen the Government from 381 some accusation which might be made against them; and under his somewhat cold style of rhetoric ["Oh, oh!"]—well. I rather thought that by using that phrase I was paying a compliment to the hon. Gentleman—a compliment one cannot always pay to hon. Gentlemen opposite—under his somewhat cold style of rhetoric, I say, he made a distinct charge against me of want of straightforwardness—a charge which, I think, would have justified me if I had thought it worth while to rise to order, and ask for the protection of the Chair. He also compared my conduct with that of the late Mr. Forster entirely to my disadvantage. Well, Sir, I recollect the observations which used to be made about the late Mr. Forster, and I know very well that, though I have not, perhaps, been treated with great moderation of criticism by hon. Gentlemen, they have never said anything of me worse or as bad as they were in the habit of saying about Mr. Forster when he was alive. It seems that Mr. Forster's good qualities have been discovered by hon. Gentlemen subsequent to his leaving the office of Chief Secretary, and I am not without hope that, when I am relieved of my present duties, some traces and scintillations of merit may be found in my character even by hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to this particular charge made against me, I have only to say this. Since I have been Chief Secretary several questions have been put to me with regard to alleged secret circulars issued to the police, They were put to me long before the Times case was ever thought of, and I have invariably returned to those questions precisely the same answer in substance which I returned to the question of the hon. Member to-night. I would ask hon. Gentlemen what motive could I have in this case for concealing the truth, if the truth were that the circular had been issued? Why should the circular not be issued? If it had been issued, and if I thought it a subject which should be discussed in the House, I should have no hesitation in avowing it; I cannot conceive why the Government, if they see fit, are to be prevented from collecting and arranging information in their possession, or in the possession of their officials, "regarding all members of the National League, and of 382 the Land League, convicted of agrarian crime, since September, 1879." That is a perfectly legitimate subject of inquiry. All I say is, I am not going to answer in this House, under any provocation, questions about alleged secret circulars which, if they exist anywhere except in the fertile imagination of hon. Gentlemen opposite, must have been betrayed by a breach of confidence on the part of some official. So much for the least interesting part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I now pass to the second part, which was in reality a continuation of the debate of yesterday evening, and a reply to observations I felt it my duty to make on that occasion. The hon. Member for Cork was not in his place when I spoke, and therefore labours under the disadvantage of having to consult the recollection of his hon. Friends, and such reports of my observations as appear in the daily journals, which, if I recollect rightly, were not first-person reports. The hon. Gentleman was very indignant with me for hurling taunts across the floor of the House at hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a very singular observation for him to have made. As a matter of fact, I got up after the debate had gone on about two hours, and that period had been occupied not by me but by hon. Gentlemen opposite in hurling taunts of the most violent kind against the Government. When a reply was attempted by me, the hon. Member for Cork comes down and says I was the person who hurled taunts across the floor of the House. What were the taunts I was supposed to have hurled? The principle one was that I had accused hon. Gentlemen—this is the version given by the hon. Member for Cork—of never having suggested any solution of the difficulty connected with the congested districts in Ireland. I will remind the House of the arguments which led up to the statement which the hon. Gentleman has thus paraphrased. I was made the object of certain attacks because I was said to have supported the evictions to the best of my ability which are now taking place in Donegal. The hon. Member who dwelt upon this subject appeared to think, as the hon. Member for Cork appears to think, that the poverty of the tenants of this district was of itself a sufficient ground for not insisting that the law should be complied 383 with. The hon. Member attributed by inference, if not by direct assertion, as did the Seconder of the Motion, the poverty of those people to what he described as "landlordism." I stated distinctly in reply that the causes of the poverty of these people, which I did not deny and never attempted to minimize, wherever else they could be found, could not be found in landlordism, and I pointed out, as was, I have since discovered, pointed out on a previous occasion by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan) that the question of rent was absolutely insignificant when you were considering the material prosperity of these people; and that, if the rent taken as a whole was absolutely insignificant, the difference between the terms of the Plan of Campaign and those of the landlord were, if possible, more insignificant. These rents are very often only 30s., £2, £3, or £4 a-year—many of them are less than 1s. a-week. These people are labourers living on allotments. There is no labourer living on an allotment in England who pays only 1s. a-week for his house, and those men, besides their cottages, have gardens from which they obtain a large amount of food for their support, and they are also able to raise a crop which they may sell, and for this land they pay an annual rent enormously less than that paid by any single agricultural labourer in England, however poor or undesirable his cottage and garden or allotment may be. I therefore felt myself justified in saying that, if the lot of these people was a hard one, and poverty existed amongst them, you could not attribute it, with any sense of justice or any apprehension of the obvious facts of the case, to the existence of what is absurdly called landlordism. I then said, "What have hon. Gentleman opposite done to provide a remedy for that state of things?" I said "They have done nothing." The hon. Gentleman traverses that statement, and he enumerates a number of measures—four or five measures—some of which passed, and some of which did not pass, which represent the efforts of hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and, I suppose, represent the programme that they are going to carry out when they have a National Parliament in Dublin. What are those measures? The Compensation for Dis- 384 turbance Bill, which did not pass, in 1880; the Arrears Bill, which did not pass, in 1881; an arrears clause, which passed, in 1882; and a migration company started in 1883. With regard to the first of the two measures which became law, I do not deny that, in order to start the Land Act of 1881 on fair terms, a measure for dealing with arrears was necessary; but to describe that or any possible Arrears Act as a remedy or even a serious palliation of the poverty which exists in congested districts is absolutely to mistake the whole economical conditions which prevail in them. Are 'we to be told that, when the hon. Gentleman has uncontrolled management of Irish affairs, he is going to deal with the congested districts by triennial or biennial Arrears Acts? I tell him that he could not do a crueller kindness to these people. I say the only conceivable result of periodically passing of the sponge over those debts would be that the tendency to sub-divide and multiply, which is the primary root of the evils under which these districts labour, would be augmented and strengthened, and although it would be within the power of the statesmanship of the hon. Member to destroy all regard for obligations of law and contracts it would not, by such methods, be within his power to mitigate in the slightest degree the chronic distress which prevails in those unhappy parts of his country. Then, with regard to the migration company, which is the other remedy that was carried into effect, it is notorious, and was confessed by the hon. Member for Cork himself, that that scheme has been a total and absolute failure. The hon. Member said it was because land was too dear. I suppose that, when the efforts of his Friends have reduced the land of Ireland to prairie value, land may be cheaper there than it is now; but, judged by the price of land in every country in Europe, in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, or Austria, the price of land in Ireland at this moment is low, and to be had in unlimited quantities.
§ MR. PARNELLNot unoccupied land.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know of any difficulty in the way of the hon. Gentleman getting what land he wants. It does not appear how he 385 intends to cheapen land in Ireland. Does he anticipate that when he is at the head of affairs it will he his duty to decrease still further the price of land in Ireland? So much, Sir, for the measures that were passed into law. With regard to the Bill for Compensation for Disturbance, which was not passed into law, I do not wish to revive the controversies which have gathered round that measure ever since its first inception. We know that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian is never tired of referring to the rejection of that measure as the cause of many of the difficulties which have since arisen; but I do not intend to dwell upon that, because it is not relevant to the present controversy. It is not relevant, because, if it had been passed into law, whatever else it might have done, it would not have relieved congested districts in Ireland. If that Bill would have done anything, it would have made it difficult to evict. Now, eviction may be right, or it may not; it may be justifiable, or it may be unjustifiable; but, at any rate, no one can say that to make eviction impossible for a limited or even an indefinite period would by any possibility remove, in the slightest degree, the particular class of evil under which these districts are suffering. I have, therefore, gone through the four remedies suggested by the hon. Gentleman—the panacea which the hon. Gentleman and his friends wish to apply to Ireland. I have weighed them in the balance, and they are all found wanting; and I ask again, when I am reproached for enforcing the law in Donegal, what connection has that with the chronic evil of poverty prevailing in that district? How would that chronic evil be diminished if all law was cast to the winds; and what remedy have hon. Gentlemen opposite at their hand to apply to these distressed parts of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman thinks it a shocking thing that a battering-ram should be used against the tenants of Donegal, because the tenants are poor. I do not see that the two subjects are connected. If hon. Members had studied the newspapers in the month of January, they would have seen that in this very district, and on this very property where the hon. Member for Cork tells us that the houses are so fragile that a touch would knock them down, 386 elaborate fortifications against eviction were erected, and resistance was carried on day after day, accompanied by attacks made on the police of so ferocious a character, that the officer commanding the troops was more than once on the point of giving the order to fire. Had he done so, that might or might not have been a source of gratification to those who live by disorder in Ireland; but I think it would have been a tragic and melancholy necessity; and it was because I desire to avoid any such necessity, and because I do not wish the police to be injured or possibly killed in the execution of their duties, that I took the course I did; and I maintain, in the interests of humanity, as well as in the interests of the law, that there never was a course more justifiable. I do not know that I have anything more to say, except with reference to the extent of the existing distress in Donegal. The reports I have received on the subject admit, what I have more than once stated, that the potato crop is in many parts a deficient crop. They tell me that the oat crop is a good crop, and that prices for cattle and produce have been good. They do not tell me that anything of the character of famine is imminent. They do not tell me that distress has reached an abnormal point. The question is what ought under these circumstances to be the action of the Government. The hon. Member says relax the Poor Law; give us a loan of money; give us seed potatoes. Now, I frankly admit that circumstances may arise, as they have arisen in Ireland, when steps like that become absolutely necessary. But I feel certain that every man in this House who really has the good of these poor people at heart will agree with me that the necessity is from every point of view a lamentable one—that the demoralization produced by these gifts is not conducive to their ultimate and permanent prosperity, and that, however they may tide over a few months of exceptional distress, you pay for that temporary relief by perhaps the permanent aggravation of the evils you wish to deal with. Therefore, nothing but the most overwhelming necessity ought to make the Executive revert to such measures. It would be an easy thing for the Executive to deal with the poor of Donegal by granting the boon, and, as far as I am concerned, nothing 387 would be pleasanter to myself. It would make my path in this House smoother and the administration of Donegal easier to me. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman, if he will think over this matter, not from a political point of view, but from the point of view of permanent benefit to these people themselves, will see that any Government which, in order to obtain any temporary relief for itself, passed measures of this kind likely to create permanent demoralization would be betraying its trust and neglecting its duty. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I shall keep critical watch on what goes on in Donegal. We know enough of the history of public subventions, and I am not at all sure that the impartial observer of these eleemosynary grants is not forced to the conclusion that they have done more harm than good in the long run. I will refer anyone who chooses to the Parliamentary papers relating to distressed Unions issued by myself in 1887. The seed loan is usually quoted as showing what the Irish may do in favourable circumstances in paying back loans. I am far from denying that in a large number of cases the loans have been paid back with admirable honesty and punctuality. But I believe that one of the defaulting districts was this very district in Donegal, and under such circumstances to hastily or unnecessarily revive a public subvention which has thus once failed would not be to teach a lesson to these people of that kind which I am sure they ought to learn. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) was subjected to savage reproach in 1883 because he referred to the existing Poor Law as the proper method of averting the consequences of poverty. I am sure he was influenced by the highest sense of public duty and the merits of the case, and I say that the relaxation of the Poor Law is not a thing to be done by the Executive Government, except in case of overwhelming necessity. If the history of the Poor Law teaches us anything, it teaches us this—that the reckless administration of it is more dangerous than any act of tyranny or oppression ever urged against the most oppressive Government which ever ruled in this country. I hope the House will feel that, while I am alive to all that is going on in Donegal, 388 I do not admit, from the information given to me, that the distress is of exceptional magnitude, and I am sure Gentlemen on both sides will support me in the line I have taken up—namely, that until an overwhelming necessity is demonstrated I should not be at liberty to carry into effect the suggestions made, I have no doubt with the best intentions, by the hon. Member for Cork.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)The right hon. Gentleman began his speech on the subject of the misery of Donegal by a sneer at the cold rhetoric of the hon. Member for Cork. I venture to think that the unhappy poor of Donegal and the people of Ireland, and, I will say, the people of England, will prefer on this occasion the touching appeal of the hon. Member for Cork, sneered at by the Secretary for Ireland—
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURI did not sneer at that part of his speech, nor at any part; but when I was accused of stating what is false I thought the repartee moderate.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTWe are accustomed—the prisoners in Ireland are accustomed—to the moderate repartee of the right hon. Gentleman. We now know what is meant by the moderate repartee of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It means the placing of the Irish Members and Irish people under lock and key in prison, and knocking down the houses of the Irish tenants. I think the public will judge of the moderate repartee. I think the appeal of the hon. Member for Cork on behalf of these unhappy people will be preferred to the passionate invective of the Chief Secretary for Ireland urged in defence of evictions. Listening to that speech, and looking at it from end to end, I ask what is the policy of the Government with reference to this population of Donegal? What are they going to do for it? What assistance are they going to render to the population, which all admit is a most wretched and a most miserable reproach to the Government? What is the policy of the Government? It is, in one word, a policy of extermination. The Irish Secretary is going to destroy their hovels. He has invented a new machine—a machine which he says is to be the instrument of the law. It is not the instrument of the law but of the police. The police have this defensive battering- 389 ram, and the police are the servants of the Government. He says it makes no difference, and he objected, when I said that it made a difference, that the people are in a state of misery and wretchedness. I am speaking in the presence of English Gentlemen opposite, many of whom are landlords. I ask them if they agree with the Irish Secretary on that point? Suppose there were an English village with a few wretched cottages where the people could hardly tolerate existence. Would it make no difference to them if the persons to be evicted were wretched cottiers or well-to-do farmers? In the one case I can imagine them saying—"Here is a farmer who can pay his rent if he chooses, and against him I will invoke all the processes of the law." But I know no English gentleman who would say to the wretched cottiers—"It makes no difference to these poor creatures who are just on the point of starvation. It makes no difference to them, and, therefore, I will have my battering ram and level their houses over their heads." That is the doctrine of the Irish Secretary. It is nothing to him that the tenants are wretched and miserable. Eviction was made for them; that is his logic.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURThat has no resemblance to what I said.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTWhat is your argument? You say that poverty has nothing to do with the evictions. I appeal against that doctrine. I appeal to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Poverty has everything to do with them, and that is why I uttered an exclamation of indignation when I heard the language which came from the lips of the Secretary for Ireland. To say that poverty is no element will, I am sure, shock the sentiment of every man. The right hon. Gentleman, in almost passionate terms, sneered at the notion that a plea of poverty should be a plea for mercy. The right hon. Gentleman says—"These men do not pay their rents; I will level their houses." That is his first moderate repartee. There has been harsh treatment enough of the people of Ireland for generations before. But it was left to the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to invent a new machine for getting rid of the population of the congested districts. That is the first policy of the Govern- 390 ment—to level the houses of the people. We have not yet had the full development of the ram. What is the battering ram for? Is it meant to knock the people down?
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURFor the protection of the police.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTFor the protection of the police! Is it intended to knock the people down and not the houses? I have never before heard of a protective ram. That is a nice Irish bull for an English Secretary to invent. The right hon. Gentleman is, I believe, having an opportunity of ascertaining what this protective ram can do. It has been doing its work to-day, and we shall learn for what purpose. Eviction, then, is the first remedy the Government mean to apply, and the right hon. Gentleman stood up last night as the supporter of the evictions which are now going on in Donegal. That is the first part of the policy of the Government. The hon. Member for Cork made an appeal which might have touched the heart even of the present Irish Secretary. He said that these people are in distress and misery. Well, the right hon. Gentleman will not believe in their distress. He first of all says that the potato crop is deficient; but that is nothing; and he simply denies the distress. Of course, if there is no distress there is no need for assistance. I have before heard this Government making statements with reference to the rents of Ireland. I heard their statements in 1886–7, when the hon. Member for Cork and his colleagues brought forward measures founded on their knowledge of the condition of Ireland. And what happened? The Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the question, and it turned out that the Irish Members were perfectly right, for that Commission endorsed the accuracy of their statements, and showed that the statements made from the Bench opposite, on the faith of official representations, were altogether untrue. And that was their own Commission. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman, who knows nothing about Ireland but what is told him by his subordinates, makes statements in the presence of Irish Members, I prefer the statements of the Irish Members to his official information, and I will assume, therefore, that there is distress in Donegal. 391 The Government are asked, "Will you do anything to alleviate that distress?" and the right hon. Gentleman says "No," and that there are seed potatoes in the local markets. Now, the potato seed loan has been as well repaid as any loan ever was paid in Ireland. Yet the right hon. Gentleman rejects all remedies and will give no assistance. Was I not right, then, in saying that the policy of the Government for Donegal is a policy of extermination? They have now been, as the hon. Member for Cork says, three years in office, and at the beginning of their administration the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) proclaimed that they were going to bring forward large measures for the purpose of dealing with land in Ireland, especially in the congested districts. They have been in office three years. They have done nothing, proposed nothing. In the presence of this condition of things in Donegal, in the presence of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork and the Irish Members, they say—"We have nothing to propose; we reject your proposals, and the remedy we are prepared to sustain is eviction, and nothing but eviction." That is the policy of the Government in reference to these miserable districts of Ireland, and I say that it is a policy of extermination and nothing else. As he is not now in the Chair, I may appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), who has written so many letters and accompanied them with so very little action. Let us know to-night what the right hon. Gentleman has to propose. He is one of the main supporters of a Government who have nothing to say and nothing to do for the people of Ireland. Is he for this negative policy, for this single policy of extermination? Is that the policy of the Party with which he acts, and in reference to which they give their support to the Government? After all we were told of what was going to be done, we see that nothing has been done. When we come to a condition of things such as that which now exists in Donegal, your only remedy is the state of terror which you have created at Gweedore and the ram which you have sent down to Letterkenny. Your policy is the policy of evicting an oppressed and distressed people by the most cruel means, 392 and that is the only remedy which the Secretary for Ireland suggests.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover SquareThe House can see the colour which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gives to the speeches which have been made on this side of the House. Of all the many misrepresentations — unintentional, of course—which are made of the utterances of the Chief Secretary, I do not think there has ever been so glaring a one as that contained in the speech to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the policy of the Government is a policy of extermination, and that this is the only policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman took good care not to examine the arguments of my right hon. Friend, but he spoke of the tone in which the Chief Secretary spoke, and, as usual, he said "the country will judge." But the country, unfortunately, cannot sit in that; Gallery. They can read what is said, but they cannot see the contrast of tone between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Hon. Members below the Gangway cannot for a moment say that my right hon. Friend did not speak with feeling on this question. ["No!"] Even at the risk of that misrepresentation which he knew he would receive, my right hon. Friend preferred that misrepresentation to doing that which he describes as being so easy, and to relieving himself of the calumnies made upon the attitude which he adopts. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, with his great debating ability, fixed upon the one point in the earlier part of my right hon. Friend's speech in which he justified the measures which are being taken. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to English gentlemen, and asked how they would act in such circumstances. No person who listened to him would believe that there exists in Donegal at this moment a Plan of Campaign, which was designed to disturb—and has resulted in disturbing—the whole relations between landlord and tenant, which has upset all the relations which did exist previously, and which has substituted a state of warfare for which hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway are mainly responsible. I 393 believe the majority of the tenants have paid their rents, or a portion of them, to the trustees of the Plan of Campaign. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of that? He spoke of the tenants as being so poor as not to be able to get a shilling to pay their rent. Now, the rent has been paid by the tenants; but in order to carry out the general design, individual tenants are sacrificed over and over again. If there is a policy of extermination, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, it results from the war initiated by hon. Members below the Gangway. The evictions are taking place not because the tenants cannot pay, but because they have paid into other hands than those of the landlords, who are holding the rent against the landlords. That is a very different situation from that which has been depicted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks—"What is this battering ram designed for?" and ignores the strong argument of my right hon. Friend, who showed that, if these houses are to be entered at all, it is far more humane and more likely to save life and limb to use a ram to smash a door than to pour boiling water on the police. The right hon, Gentleman prefers that a policeman's head should be battered rather than that a door should be smashed in by a battering ram. Hon. Members below the Gangway have no pity whatever for the police, whom they call the instruments of the Government. Their heads may be broken as much as they like. Indeed, they hold that the heads of the police ought to be broken. ["No!"] Then why encourage the people to barricade their houses and resent the officers of the law? If the police organize what is properly called a defensive arm as a means of defence against outrageous proceedings undertaken under the auspices of hon. Gentlemen, the country will judge whether it is a more humane and civilized course, when a house is to be entered, to batter in a door than to allow a limited number of police to be battered by persons in the house in defiance of the law. I ask whether my right hon. Friend has not shown conclusively that, if the Government do not think that hasty steps ought to be taken in order to supply doles and charity to the people of Donegal, it is because 394 it would be very demoralizing to enter upon such a course, and would only aggravate their condition. Hon. Members below the Gangway may think honestly that it is a wise plan continually to give relief out of the Exchequer, but it is not, and cannot be, the opinion of right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite may agree with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that there are exceptional cases in which such relief may be given and would be given by any Government. But the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and his friends know that there is no more dangerous proceeding than from time to time to assist by extraordinary charity. The distress has been watched by the Government with great anxiety, and will continue to be watched, and if it be necessary to afford relief certainly it will be our duty to do so, but we do not see any hope of applying such a system of charity as has been suggested. I rose mainly to protest against the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), who accused my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) of callousness to the sufferings of the population, which excite the sympathy of this side of the House quite as much as it does of the other side. We cannot, however, shut our eyes to the fact that these poor people are being made the catspaw of the political aspirations of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and that those relations between landord and tenant which in this country would come to the relief of distress, hon. Members have done their best to destroy.
§ MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)I do not rise for the purpose of making observations on the tone of the debate, although I cannot help remarking that we are constantly hearing a great deal from occupants of the Treasury Bench about the tone adopted by, and the vile intentions and wicked practices of Members below the gangway. The whole of the Irish mischief is constantly attributed to them, and the absurd statement is repeated so frequently that I really believe that those who make it are at last beginning to believe it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the evidence of my own eyes is in direct and blank 395 contradiction to what has been said by speakers on the Treasury Bench. I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) to say that the battering ram was used for the purpose of smashing the door and making an entrance. Now, Sir, the importance of this battering ram performance is that it marks an entirely new phase in principle as well as in action. What the police used to do was to stand on one side while a small army of emergency men did the work. But now the Government are supplying a machine by which the right hon. Gentlemen say entrance is to be made. It is no longer the engine of the landlord, but of the Government, and I congratulate the Government on the fact that after three years of their rule the peasants of Donegal are at this moment arrayed against them, according to their own account, in a state of civil war. I leave the world to judge of the success which has attended and the propriety which has actuated their movements. I wish to point out that the battering ram is used for the purpose, not of effecting an entrance, but of destroying the houses built by the tenants. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a comparison between the English agricultural labourer and the Irish tenant he knew, or ought to have known, that it was illusory. You can not draw a parallel between the houses built by the tenant with his own money and his own hands and the houses built and paid for by the landlord. What is the result? The landlords in this country do not knock down the tenants' houses; they are their own. But in Ireland the battering ram is applied to one part of the house, and when a great gap has been made it is moved to another part, where it is used in the same way, and so on, until there is one wide gaping ruin and the roof must come down. I have seen this done, and it is done because it is the house not of the landlord, but of the tenant, because if you bring down the house you destroy the nest and make the birds fly; because you are determined to carry out completely what is rightly called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) the policy 396 of extermination. If there is any doubt about it, you may go and see for yourselves. Go, if you will, and look to-day at the house of Matthew M'Grath. I have seen it with these eyes. The whole wall is battered down, and the roof is drooping down to the ground, because there is nothing to support it. Go, also, and see a house at Kilrush, and also the house of Thomas Birmingham. That which moves the indignation of the people in Ireland, and ought to move the indignation of the people in England—and would do so if they knew the truth—is that this engine has been invented, not for the purpose of carrying out the law, but for the purpose of destroying the houses and rendering permanently homeless the people who lived in them. But there is another matter as to which I must join issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the question of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart). When the Government has received confidential information, it has a perfect right to say that it believes it is for the best interests of the public that the information should be regarded as privileged. But that is not the point now. The question is whether certain information has been collected and then made use of. Has the Government handed over this information to the solicitor for the Times? It is suggested that the Government has sent out a circular not giving information, but asking certain questions, and they can do no harm in telling the House whether they have done so. Is it true that they have once more made themselves parties as far as they dare, to that of which they, in common with the whole world, are now thoroughly ashamed? Is it true that they have been assisting in a transaction which the whole civilized world looks upon at the present moment with nothing less than odium? If they have been giving information to the Times, will they, at all events, purge themselves of their partizanship by giving it also to the other side? That is a question to which the House has a right to an answer.
§ *MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)I rose at an earlier period in the evening with the object of putting a few questions to the Government on a totally different matter, but I find it impossible 397 to hear the attacks which are being made on the Government, and which are constantly made on landlords in Ireland, and to abstain from replying to some of them. The last speaker referred to transactions in connection with the appointment of the Royal Commission now inquiring into the charges made against hon. Members of this House as things of which the whole world is ashamed. I take leave to tell the hon. Member that he is totally and absolutely mistaken. Speaking for other Members as well as myself, I have to say that we have nothing to retract, and that if the same transactions were to happen again we should take the same course. Since the appointment of the Commission there was not a single occasion on which I ever said a word in public upon the questions which the Commission is now investigating, and I regard the debates which we have had upon it as indecent and irregular in the highest degree. In reply, however, to a distinct challenge by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for the late Government, I did upon one occasion, before the Commission was appointed, state the views which I held, and which I know are shared by the great majority of hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House at the time. I said then, that "we desired to judge no man," and I stated in the House that the feeling on my own side was that we were bound to assume that all our brother Members were absolutely innocent of the charges until they were proved to be guilty. I repeated that statement twice over, and, in face of the attitude we thus took at that time, it is monstrous that charges and recriminations should be made against us for which there never was a shadow of foundation. There is, I wish also to say, no monopoly whatever of sympathy for the poor distressed people in the congested districts of Ireland on the other side of the House, as is constantly assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) asked the Government what they were going to do for the congested districts. Well, I ask, did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) do? He was practically in power for 15 years, when all these things were going on in exactly the same position as now, 398 except that at that time the difficulties of the Government were not increased by the operation of the Plan of Campaign. Over and over again public attention was called to the state of the congested districts in Ireland, and yet all through those years, when the right hon. Gentleman could do almost anything he liked, I am unable to recall to mind that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and associates ever took any effectual measures for the relief of the congested districts. Under these circumstances, whoever else it may lie with it does not lie with any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench to taunt the Government with neglect of their duties in this respect. When the action of English landlords is referred to, I wish to point out again, in justice to Irish landlords, that their position is wholly different from that of landlords in England. Parliament has created the distinction by the legislation of 1881 and previous years, and it cannot too often be repeated that at that time the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian not only deprived the landlord of his power of control over his estates, but at the same time absolved him from his duties, and placed him in the position of a mere rent-charger and nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) ought to look nearer home, to evictions with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) is not altogether unconnected. ["Oh!"] I fully believe that in circumstance such as those which are said to exist in the west of Ireland, English landlords would be very slow, as a general rule, to evict. What the circumstances connected with the Hawarden estate may be I am not in a position to state, nor would I impute to those connected with that estate conduct which which would reflect anything but credit on landlords in any part of the world. But the fact remains that evictions took place on the Hawarden estate because the tenants were poor and unable to pay their rents, and I say that the tenants on the Hawarden estate were in precisely the same position in that respect as the tenants about whom all this discussion is taking place. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby appeals to English landlords in this House and. 399 asks what course they would take under the circumstances referred to, he ought to apply to a right hon. Gentleman from whom he might receive the latest and most perfect intelligence, the Member for Mid Lothian. L" Oh "] I do not think that I have said anything which can justly be called either offensive or inaccurate in any particular. If so, I should be only too ready to withdraw it. It was certainly not my intention to be offensive, and I do not think that in anything I have said I have transgressed Parliamentary practice and manners in every respect. [An ironical cheer from Gladstone.] I am very glad to hear it. I remember it was said by the Member for East Mayo, in one of our debates not long ago, that such agitation as is occurring in Ireland would be impossible here. That is true at present no doubt, because the same means are not taken in England to create agitation as are pursued in Ireland. But I maintain that if the same means were taken, there would be no great difficulty in getting up agitation against landlords upon the estates either of the right hon. Gentleman or any one else. That is why these attacks on Irish landlords are unjust and ungenerous in the highest degree. When the hon. Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy) spoke of the battering ram being used because the houses are not the landlords' property he was incorrect in his statement, because, when the stage for eviction has been reached, the House, as I understand the law, is the property of the landlord. Whether the law is right or wrong I am not arguing, but that is a conclusive answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman. Turning, however, to more prosaic matter, my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) the other day stated that the Government proposed to ask the Royal Agricultural Society to appoint some person or persons to proceed to Holland in order to inquire and ascertain whether, under all the circumstances, it was safe to import animals into the interior of this country from the Netherlands at the present time without being subject to slaughter or quarantine. Well, Sir, I have only to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any further information on this point— 400 that is to say, whether the Royal Agricultural Society have agreed to send somebody, and, if so, who has been appointed. I also desire to know whether we are right in understanding that until the inquiry has been made, and the report has been received, the Order in Council will not be allowed to come into operation. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an assurance on that point it will be a matter of great satisfaction to the agricultural community throughout the country.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, West)I will not trouble the House by referring to what the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down describes as "prosaic," but I will allude to the earlier part of his speech, which I suppose he would describe as "poetic." The right hon. Gentleman has proved on this occasion that, as usual, he is much more courageous than discreet; for, as a Gentleman of considerable experience and undoubted maturity, he possesses a considerable share of the rashness of youth. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done better had he avoided the topic of the Special Commission, because, so far as it has proceeded, the Commission has unearthed, to the condemnation of the world, the foulest plot that was ever directed against the character of public men, or the hopes of a nation. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is satisfied with the result of the Commission.
§ *MR. CHAPLINI did not say so.
§ MR. SEXTONThen the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the result of the Commission?
§ *MR. CHAPLINI beg to explain. I carefully abstained from expressing any opinion as to the proceedings before the Commission, because, as I said, I regarded the debates that had taken place with regard to it as indecent and irregular.
§ MR. SEXTONThen, in that case, the right hon. Gentleman is in the conspicuous, but undesirable, position of Satan reproving sin; for he takes advantage of a speech which has been delivered to the House on the subject for the purpose of making an elaborate retort. The fact is that the forged letters have been the very bread of life to the Tory party for the past two years, and they had flourished those letters upon every hustings in England, and there 401 are many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches who may be said to have been returned here with the writ in one hand and the forged letters in the other. The right hon. Gentleman has had the courage and audacity to ask the Liberal Party what they have done for Ireland, and, at the same time, he gave the House an idea of the code of ethics which govern his own mind when he said that a house which a tenant has raised up by his own capital and labour becomes the property of the landlord upon his eviction. It would be more just to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had run a horse in a race and had lost, that that horse became the property of the winner.
§ *MR. CHAPLINAllow me to explain. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is intentionally misrepresenting me. What I said was that the law, whether it be right or wrong—on which I did not express any opinion—makes the house, under those circumstances, the property of the landlord.
§ MR. SEXTONYes, the law which the right hon. Gentleman himself helped to make; the law for the iniquity of which himself and his Party are responsible, and every step to remedy which has been persistently and obstinately impeded by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. I ask, how dare the right hon. Gentleman ask the Liberal Party what they have done for Ireland? Does he think that the memory of the past is obliterated and blotted out? Does he think that we know nothing of what has happened in Ireland since 1870? I know very well that perception is not a prominent quality in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman; but there seems to be no limit to his irresponsible and irrational daring. He asks the Liberal Party, forsooth, what they have done for Ireland. Why, Sir, I wonder how it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) to listen to this in mere silent indignation. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has failed to remedy the agrarian situation in Ireland so as to meet such crises as this, it is due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford and his associates on those benches, and his confederates in the House of Lords. Does the right hon. 402 Gentleman forget all that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian? Does he forget that the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill for the purpose of giving compensation for disturbance? Well, what happened to that Bill, which would have met the case of many of the tenants whose position called for such a remedy? That Bill passed this House in the face of the vehement and persistent obstruction of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, by an effort for which the Irish people will ever be grateful, passed that measure for the relief of the small tenants through this House, it was defeated by the associates of the right. hon Gentleman the Member for Sleaford in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian passed a Bill which saved the homes of tens of thousands of poor tenants on whose behalf we plead to-day. He passed the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1881; and if those two Acts have not been—and they have not been—a complete and genuine protection for the tenants of Ireland, the defect is due, not to any fault on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, but to the persistent efforts of the Member for Sleaford and his friends to mutilate those measures, and render them less useful for the purposes they were intended to subserve. Within the limits of Parliamentary experience, it is impossible to cite an example of more measureless audacity than that displayed by the right hon. Gentleman to-night in daring to rise up in this House, and question the Liberal Party as to their efforts on behalf of the Irish tenants. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this, as on many former occasions, constituted himself the Censor of Debate, for which position no man in this House is by temper and disposition worse fitted; for he invariably succeeds in lowering the tone of the Debate. But there is one sentence of the right hon. Gentleman with which I agree. He said "the country will judge." Yes, Sir, the country will judge, and the country is waiting for the chance of judging. We are willing to challenge you at this moment to proceed to a General Election. I should like to hear the hon 403 Gentleman who sneers at this say what was his majority at the last election. We, on this side of the House, call on you to go to a General Election. Who is it that fears the judgment of the country? It is the Government who are afraid to face the verdict of the country. It has been said that this Parliament will continue until 1893, and that nothing will induce the Party in power to appeal to the country, unless it be a hostile vote of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer can argue pleasantly—such are his disposition and nature—over the woes of others; but, in this case, he is speaking of what he does not understand. He has referred to the Plan of Campaign in Donegal. Does the right hon. Gentleman know what has been the action of the Plan of Campaign? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that on 57 estates in Ireland the Plan of Campaign has resulted in settlements under which the landlords have conceded the demands of the tenants? The moneys are lodged in a Trust Fund, and the moment that the landlord is willing to agree to the settlement, every penny of the money lodged in the Plan of Campaign will be ready and at his disposal. Is it not disgraceful, is it not painful that Irish Members, acquainted with the affairs of their country, should have to listen to such a speech as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inspired by contempt for the Irish Members and for the sufferings of their race, and marked at every point by the most absurd ignorance of the state of affairs in Ireland? What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer know about these poor people in Donegal? Irish Members around me will confirm me when I say that this district was naturally rock, mountain, and marsh; the Ordinance survey and valuation of Ireland will confirm me; it was not worth sixpence an acre; it was not worth a penny until these poor squatters came upon it. The value of the land is due to them. They carried soil upon their back from the valley and they brought seaweed from the strand to improve the land; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks eloquently of the Irish landlords, does he think that we are ignorant of how these men have laboured to make the soil, and not only they but their fathers before 404 them? The experience of the Donegal district may be described in this way—that land, naturally worth nothing, spas made worth something by the penal servitude of the tenants. They made it worth something while the landlord, if I might borrow a phrase from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, critically watched from his chateau, or his club in London, until he saw the soil spread up the mountain side and over the rock, and then he raised the rent from 6d. to 1s., from 1s. to 5s., and even 10s. an acre. And after this revolting plunder, sanctified, I suppose, by law, carried on for years, and, in some cases, generations, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up at the Table and tells us that the rent in this case is an insignificant consideration. Little he knows how these people live, and how little they can live upon. Little he knows that the father leaves for the harvest in England, and that the whole family live meagrely that he may be able to use his wages thus earned to satisfy the landlord. I know of a family who depend for sustenance upon the enterprise of a poor girl, the daughter of the house, who, after buying thread, makes a pair of socks, and then, with bare feet, travels along the road to sell these socks for twopence. That is the way they live, and yet the rent of a shilling a-week is described by the right hon. Gentleman as insignificant. Why, these poor people live, many of them, on a shilling a-week. Had they lived under an equitable rent for 10 years, they would have been able to have put by the difference between that and the rack-rent, and would not to-day have been compelled to live on Indian meal. They would have been able to have satisfied the primitive wants belonging to a way of life undiscoverable by a gentleman with £18,000 a-year of private income and £4,000 a-year of salary. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) has said that he would critically watch the case. I think it is a revolting phrase, but I think it is one which very well tests his method of regarding Ireland. Does he know that seeding time has come; does he know that the fate of these people must be settled in a fortnight or a month? The right hon: Gentleman will stand criti- 405 cally by, he will analyze their sufferings, he will watch them in the extremity of their despair and of their hunger, and by the time his critical mind has come to a conclusion he will find that their homes have been levelled by his spiked battering ram—15ft. long, bought with Imperial money, hung upon chains, and surrounded by armour, made to ram horizontally in defence. And when their homes have been levelled by the battering ram, these people will be turned out to starve by the roadside, or drift into the workhouse. That will be the result of the critical examination of the Minister. What information can he give us? What Reports has he received? If he has got any Report, will he lay it on the Table of the House? We know the facts of the situation. People have been eating meal since last September, and the potato crop at that time was a quarter of the average crop. Does he consider what that means? The credit of the tenant is gone. The encouragement given by the right hon. Gentleman to the landlords to proceed to evictions has destroyed the credit of the tenants. They are eating seed potatoes in many instances. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork has asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will provide some seed potatoes for this season. He has replied that he will give the matter his critical observation. Seed potatoes in Donegal are 6d. a stone—which is famine price—or more than 100 per cent in excess of the market price, 2½d. It means that seed potatoes are not in the market at all, that they have been eaten, and that the people have absolutely no seed potatoes. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance upon this subject before the debate concludes. Unless the people are provided with the means to seed their ground, undoubtedly there will be death from famine, and there will be a state of affairs which will cast disgrace upon the British Government, and on which the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any human feeling, could not look upon with equanimity. There is a gulf between the right hon. Gentleman and the late Mr. Forster. Mr. Forster, when he adopted a policy which was considered cruel, felt himself under the necessity of pursuing it, but I think Mr. Forster pursued that policy reluctantly, and I 406 have no doubt he never ceased to be a man of humane instinct. The right hon. gentleman on the other hand is a cold and deliberate inciter to cruelty. Another thing I will say of Mr. Forster, that when you asked him a plain question he gave you a straight answer. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that other Chief Secretaries have been worse treated than he. I do not think we could have another Chief Secretary whose character would display so revolting a combination. I call it a most revolting combination of human character to find the minimum of frankness associated with the maximum of cruelty. I should like for a moment to test the question of frankness. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to day with reference to the issue of a secret circular, about a month after the meeting of the Special Commission. The Chief Secretary has two ways of dealing with Irish affairs—either he point blank refuses to answer, or he gives an answer which is worse than misleading. He boldly refused to answer to-day the allegation about the circular. Now, I have the text of it before me. This circular was issued last November, when the Commission Court sat. It is headed "Very Secret; Agrarian Crime." It is unfortunate for the British Government in Ireland that under the present system, even that which is very secret immediately becomes public. This circular is not simply "private" or "confidential," it is very secret, and has consequently come into our hands. It is from Dublin Castle to the police—
Very secret! Agrarian crime! Please let me have as soon as you can the particulars asked for on the opposite margin regarding all Leaguers convicted of agrarian crime since September, 1879. Of course 'Leaguers' include members of the Land League as well as of the National League. Be very discreet in collecting this information. From the local knowledge of the police no difficulty is apprehended in the performance of this duty. (a) Where tried and. offence: (b) names of persons, addresses, and witnesses generally, and what each can prove; (c) names and present addresses of persons who can produce records of each conviction as entered; (d) remarks, showing nature of evidence given, and any point of interest showing connection between League and offences.That is the circular issued by the Government, which declared its determination to stand impartially between the parties. Would any honest man—I will not say Chief Secretary—desire to bring 407 into Court a case which he was not prepared to submit to the test of cross-examination? How were we to be prepared with the material for cross-examination when we were unaware that this circular had been issued? Although the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer, we know that his refusal was simply an admission of the existence of the circular. We can all appreciate the advantage it would have been to the Chief Secretary if he could have said, "No such circular has been issued." Why, he would have bounded to the Table if he could have made such a declaration. He could not do so; two things restrained him—a desire to keep within the lines of truth, and the second, a more binding, restraining influence, I imagine, was the knowledge that we had a copy of the circular in our hands. Now, I say, quoting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "the country will judge." A 'Special Commission was given to us to enable us to clear our character. The Government were most anxious that we should clear our character. They loved us more than brothers; they desired that we should prove ourselves worthy of retaining our places in this Imperial Assembly, and, prompted by that desire, they directed the police to set about collecting not merely evidence, but rumour. Why, we had the result offered to the three Judges who form the Special Commission in the very form of this special circular. A District Inspector had a Return in the form of this circular; but the Judges refused to receive it, and the Court was plunged into inextinguishable laughter when the District Inspector was found to have included in his Return of reasons why Irish Members should be expelled from this House—perhaps for disfranchising Ireland—that in one case a Land Leaguer was alleged to be reasonably suspected of having been guilty of "furious driving." Yes; the country will judge as to this Circular, and as to the methods adopted by the Irish Government to assist us in the endeavour to clear our character in this inquiry, and as to the sincerity and frankness of the Chief Secretary. It is too late for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that we never made proposals for an alteration of the condition of things in Donegal. The poor tenants of the district stand on a 408 special footing and must be dealt with in a special manner, and if we were responsible do not doubt but we should deal with the case promptly. We have made many proposals, in the form of compensation for disturbance, for dealing with arrears and on the direction of migration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian kindly and compassionably assented to our proposal in the Bill of 1882, and those proposals have been effectual in saving these poor people in their homes. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so ready to deride the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) and others, had urged upon their Government the concession in the legislation of 1887, of our demand for providing for arrears, and a provision similar to that which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian agreed to in 1882, the distress we lament and deplore to-day in Donegal would not have arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork proposed a system of migration. The Chief Secretary says it is easy to get land. My hon. Friend when defeated in his efforts to embark upon legislation attempted by other means to effect his object and carry out migration for the relief of the crowded districts, but he was boycotted by the landlords; he could not get land at less than 25 years' purchase. If he could have got it at 20 years' purchase, if he could have obtained it on any terms that would not have meant a material loss, he would have bought it, and the question would have been disposed of. The Chief Secretary, who has done nothing to assist in a solution of the difficulty, says you can get land cheap, and I tell him you cannot. There is this special feature attached to these Donegal holdings that whatever value they have belongs to the tenants, and the landlord has no right to rent for such. The tenants cannot pay rent from the produce of the land, they come over to England every year, they labour in the harvest fields here, they carry home the bulk of the wages they thus earn, and out of this they pay the landlord's rent. When the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer speak of the English labourer and his allotment, they simply display their ignorance, for there is no analogy in the cases. 409 Is it the case that an English labourer builds his own house and gives his allotment whatever value it has? A comparison in cases fundamentally distinct is fallacious, and tends only to mislead. Does the House know what occurred in Donegal yesterday? There were seven evictions carried out, the battering ram standing by in a position of self-defence, and in these seven houses there was not found one potato or other food. I challenge contradiction to my statement. In one house broken into was a woman with a babe on her breast; her husband was absent. The first emergency man who entered after the door was burst, without warrant, gave the woman a violent push. The poor woman holding her babe with one arm stooped to seize a stool, and another emergency man gave her a blow on the face with his clenched fist, blood spurting out from the force of the blow. Here was a poor woman, her husband being absent, trying to defend her house against the brutal wretches who were executing a brutal law. She had not in the house a single potato or item of food whatever. With the aid of the battering ram the proceedings were carried out in pursuance of what has at other times been described as a policy of conciliation. I press for a reply before this debate closes. Will nothing be done by special grant of out-door relief, by provision of seed for the tilling of the farms for the present year, to save these people from starvation? What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman opposite standing upon the abstract letter of the law? What has been done has been a direct incitement to landlords to evict. The Government have incited the landlord not to come to a settlement with his tenants, for they have taken away from the tenants their guardian, their benefactor, their protector, their banker—Father McFadden. The right hon. Gentleman will not discuss the arrest of Father McFadden. Does he forget the case in which, the Attorney General having declined to proceed against a policeman who was accused on the finding of a coroner's jury of having killed a man at Middleton, the Chief Baron called attention to the failure of justice, and in the interests of justice the Attorney General was compelled to proceed before a magis- 410 trate? It is a question, in the case of Father M'Fadden, of the exercise of the functions of the Attorney General. What is he about to do? We have a right to know. The materials have been for many days before him; is he going to institute a prosecution or not? The imprisonment of Father McFadden means that the case of the other persons is prejudiced by the closing of the mouth of their principal witness. It means that the accused can make no adequate arrangements for their defence. It means there is no one to look after these poor starving women and children, no one to assist the tenants by endeavouring to promote a settlement with the landlord, should he be willing to come to terms. By your method of arresting Father McFadden you have done more than, in my memory, has ever been done by any Government to plunge the district into confusion and despair, to bring about breach of the law and peril to life and property. The police were planted about the church from an early hour. The warrant for arrest had been held for several days and no attempt was made to execute it—it was held over while Father McFadden went about the parish on his parochial duties. Why, if, as the Chief Secretary says, you are anxious that arrests should be made in a manner and at a time when they are likely to cause the least disturbance, did the police wait until the people were assembled on a Sunday morning? The police were there 100 strong from 7 in the morning, why did they not effect the arrest at an early hour? They waited until he passed into church and until Divine Service was over. Perhaps the House is not aware that on that day Father McFadden, with the near prospect of his own arrest, addressed the people from the steps of the altar with as powerful an address in the interest of peace and on the duties of self-denial, forbearance, and Christian church. Divine Service being over, Father M'Fadden walked out, wearing his soutane and biretta, and carrying his breviary in his hand. Outside the door the people were collected, and the authorities could not have chosen a psychological moment more likely to provoke a riot. Inspector Martin, whose tragic death no man can deplore more deeply than my colleagues 411 and myself—he was known to be a man of excitable disposition and should never have been sent on such an errand—came to the priest and seized him by the arm at the same moment drawing his sword, saying, "Come along with me." With the force used the priest's garment was torn, and as the sword flashed an excitable girl in the crowd cried out that the Inspector had struck the priest with his sword. Father M'Fadden asked for the authority for his arrest, and the warrant was produced. From that moment—and the evidence of the police is unanimous on this—Father M'Fadden did as he was desired, and went in the direction of his house, went on so fast indeed that he stumbled by the way. Father M'Fadden, as well as the officer, was struck in the burst of irrepressible uncontrollable fury which seized the people when, as they thought, they witnessed an attack upon their best friend and protector, whom they loved and almost worshipped. They rushed forward with the tragic result we all deplore. Father M'Fadden called out in English and Irish to the people to preserve peace and return to their homes. We have it from Father M'Fadden himself that in the course of his 10 years' administration of the parish he had never before in many crises found the people escape from his control, and the only occasion on which they failed to respond to his appeal was when he was powerless, because the people saw him made the victim of outrage. This holy priest, this devoted man who has given his time and his substance to the service of these poor and wretched people, stands charged with murder. Now, I beg the House of Commons to try and consider these things apart from all political feeling—I appeal to every Member, no matter what his political opinion, what is the possibility of convicting such a man, who all his life has behaved in the interests of peace and for the welfare of his people, of such a crime? The release of this priest is necessary for the preparation of the defence of the other persons accused, he is the one moral bulwark between the desperate people of his parish and the teachings of despair. I most unfeignedly declare that I have nothing but the interests of public peace at heart when I say that justice is outraged by the indefinite 412 postponement of proceedings. If the Attorney General, having the evidence before him, finds it is not sufficient to sustain the charge, let him fulfil the duty he owes at once to justice and to his Government and withdraw the charge, giving thereby the best security he can for the preservation of peace in Donegal. How long is the military occupation of the country to continue? Forty-six men have been arrested; you hold 23 of them in prison. Every reasonable man, every lawyer, must be aware that this is far in excess of any number that can be criminally concerned. Cordons were drawn around an area of 16 miles, and soldiers and police dragged the country into a net, searching every house, stable, and field for evidence. The ordinary course of procedure is subverted; instead of collecting evidence and making arrests as suspicion pointed, the police swept the country with a drag net, and having got their prisoners then searched for evidence. The whole thing is scandalous to the last degree. We had a drunken constable on the witness table giving his testimony in a matter of life and death, but the magistrates saw nothing wrong until his ribaldry became so intolerable they were obliged to censure him. We had a prisoner identified in the dock by a constable, and when the accused changed places with another, the constable a few minutes afterwards declared an entirely different person to be the same man. We have had a policeman who knew the names of prisoners telling them to the witnesses. We have had throughout the whole proceedings the most flagrant examples of that tendency among official witnesses to have less regard for truth and justice than esprit de corps, and the desire to procure convictions. What is to be the sequel? When is this system of oppression and military terrorism to cease? It is bad enough that these poor peasants should suffer hunger as the result of your system of rule; but if they must live in hunger, at least let them live in peace. Hunger and ease are the rights of a dog; but you not only condemn these poor people to starve, you deny them ease. The men have sought shelter in the mountains and caves, and so you institute a system of passes. I have heard of two men gathering seaweed being asked for 413 passes—for their authority to be at work. They had no passes; they were taken to the police station and examined, and subsequently set at liberty; but they were fined for working without permission, for when they came back the tide had washed away the result of their day's labour—the seaweed they had collected. We have heard of midnight visits to the house of a poor woman who was in that condition that ought to excite the sympathy of any man. Three nights before the birth of her infant was she visited, and again three nights afterwards. Upon her bed, which lay upon the ground, did the police trample in carelessness, in wantonness, or reckless search for something. The police went to the bed where the children were and turned down the clothes—we have all this on undoubted evidence—it is not sufficient to say it is not true—and finally they went to the bed of a girl of thirteen, and held a gun to her head while they put a series of questions to her. Is this conciliation? Is this civilization? Is this the Unionist policy for Ireland; or is it rank, undiluted, revolting barbarism? I trust, at any rate, the arrests are completed; that, under these conditions of hunger and destitution, the people are at liberty to live, and that we have heard the last of these military cordons, domiciliary visits, and passes. It is high time that a district so scourged by nature should have relief from the terrorism of man. I wish Members would pay a visit to the district and see these miserable houses, built of mud and wattles, which are being levelled to the ground by the battering ram of self-defence. There is not on the face of the earth a district more bleak and stern. It has been well described by the correspondent of the Daily News. Whoever sees the place must be convinced a policy is being there pursued unworthy of a statesman, of a Christian, of a man—a policy repugnant to the feelings of humanity and the sense of justice dominant in the breasts of Englishmen; and I believe the British people will yet avenge on the Chief Secretary at the first opportunity the contempt with which he treats those principles they hold sacred, and which they endeavour to carry into effect all over the globe wherever the British Empire holds sway.
§ *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN.) Dublin UniversityI do not rise to interpose for any considerable time between the House and the termination of this debate, but merely to make a few observations, having regard to the direct challenge or appeal from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, to the Government, and especially to myself, and to make some statement with regard to the concluding portion of his speech. The right hon. Gentleman put forward a number of circumstances or alleged facts upon which in express terms he asked the House to conclude the innocence of Father M'Fadden. I only wish to point out that it is absolutely impossible for any Member of the Government to enter into that question at all. What is the position? We are invited to enter into the consideration of circumstances which are alleged to point towards the innocence of Father M'Fadden and other persons awaiting trial in connection with the lamentable murder of Inspector Martin. Let the House consider what the position would be if we accepted this challenge and entered into circumstances and considerations that might be considered as pointing to the guilt of the reverend gentleman or of any of the accused; surely every fair-minded man must see at once that would be in the highest degree improper? I think I may venture to say every fair-minded man on either side will understand why it is no Member of the Government can enter into a discussion of the matter in regard to which we have been challenged. Let it be clearly understood I do not in the least degree contend that the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman has with power and eloquence brought before the House are unfounded in fact, or that they do not point in the direction in which he asks the House to believe they point; I say I am precluded in the discharge of my duty from discussing the question at all, or considering the hearings of any of the circumstances mentioned. But, before I sit down, there are one or two other matters as to which there is no such obligation of silence imposed. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward two specific allegations, one in relation to the alleged treatment of men who were engaged in the collection of 415 seaweed, and the other as to domiciliary visits made by the police to make arrests or collect information. I merely wish to remind the House that both these allegations were made the subject-matter of distinct questions in the House, and both questions were answered by my right hon. Friend or myself upon information we obtained. That information satisfied us, and upon it we founded our statements that, in substance, the allegations were in their main features without foundation.
§ MR. SEXTONI repeat the statements deliberately and emphatically, and I challenge inquiry.
§ *MR. MADDENThe statements Laving been embodied in questions and put on the Paper in the ordinary way, inquiry was made, and we gave the result. Inquiry was made through the usual sources for obtaining information, and everyone must recognize that it is the only way by which a Member of the Government, whether it is the Home Secretary as representing the English Government, or the Chief Secretary as representing the Irish Government, can, when questions are asked, procure the necessary information to answer them. I do not ask the House to judge as between the statements in the questions and the answers given; but when those statements are repeated, as they have been, let the House remember that when those statements were made previously the information we obtained, in the only way in which we could obtain it, was in contradiction of those statements. Another reference was that in relation to what occurred after the Middleton inquest, and it is my duty to refer to this, as the right hon. Gentleman cast a distinct slur on my learned colleague the Attorney General for Ireland's conduct in the matter. The allegation was that the Attorney General was to blame in not putting a person on his trial in consequence of the result of a Coroner's inquisition, and it was suggested that the course taken by the Attorney General met with the disapproval of the Lord Chief Baron. I say distinctly, without wearying the House by going into details, the course taken by the Attorney General in refraining from putting the man on his trial on the Coroner's inquisition was in accordance with the practice which prevails both in this country and 416 in Ireland. He took a course which met with the entire approval of the Chief Baron—namely, that of having a magisterial inquiry into the facts of the case, with the result which is known to the House. The Lord Chief Baron at no time animadverted on the fact that the man was not put on his trial upon the inquisition of the Coroner's jury, and that was in accordance with the practice his predecessors had followed, and which is followed in England.
§ MR. SEXTONI did not say anything about the approval or disapproval of the Lord Chief Baron.
§ *MR. MADDENThe action of the Attorney General for Ireland was in no way the result of the debates in this House, neither has the Lord Chief Baron at any time animadverted on the fact that the man was not put on the trial on the inquisition of the coroner's jury. I must repeat that the course taken by the Attorney General in this case was the usual course. But I have simply risen to explain to the House, in regard to the portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) in which ho challenged me to meet certain charges, that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the matter is one which cannot possibly be discussed in the House at this moment.
COLONEL NOLAN (Galway)I should like to bring the discussion hack to what, I think, is the most important point of the statement of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and which to a great extent has been lost sight of. The hon. Gentleman has specially warned the Chief Secretary that there is very great distress in the districts, and has implored the right hon. Gentleman to make some provision to meet it. I think it would be impossible for the Poor Law Authority in the district to find funds to afford adequate relief, and therefore it is imperative that the Chief Secretary should afford relief. The right hon. Gentleman has said that for the Government to afford relief would amount to an encouragement to what he called the congested districts. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the fact that there is no multiplying in the West of Ireland. The marriage and birth rate there is only about half what it is in England; indeed, there is no possibility of the population increasing. A second reason which the 417 right hon. Gentleman gives is that the original seed rate has not been paid. But of the £700,000 94 per cent has been repaid, and it is only in the exceptionally poor districts where the money has not been repaid.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURI said the seed rate has been exceedingly well paid, compared with other Irish loans, but that it has not been particularly well paid in that part of Donegal.
COLONEL NOLANAnyhow, all over Ireland 94 per cent has been paid, and there is every probability that another 3 per cent will be paid. A loss of 3 per cent on the whole loan is not very great, all the circumstances considered. Suppose you now advance £7,000 or £8,000 for the same purpose, and £4,000 or £5,000 was not repaid, I do not think that would be an extreme case. The right hon. Gentleman talks about eleemosynary aid, but I do not look upon the matter in that light at all. I never forget that we in Ireland contribute £8,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer, and that we only get back for any useful purpose whatever about £2,000,000. Instead of asking for alms on this occasion, we are only asking for a small portion of our own money.
§ MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)I rise to emphasize the fact that the Government's reply to what has been brought before it has been a reply of shreds and tatters. The Solicitor General for Ireland did not refer to the Circular about which questions have been put to the Chief Secretary. I put on the Paper a question upon the subject very reluctantly, because I felt that if the charge happened to be baseless, it was very undesirable it should remain on the Paper for even the short time a question may appear on the Paper. I made up my mind to put the question on the Paper owing to the circumstances under which the Circular came into my hands, and because I felt the Government would have an opportunity of denying its correctness. Up to this moment its correctness has not been denied. The Government, too, appear to be wanting in appreciation of the point raised by us. They say they will not deal with the case of Father M'Fadden. Why have we raised the case? Here there is a population in the extremity of distress; they cannot even get seed potatoes; and you will not do anything for them. 418 Who helped them in their trouble before? Father M'Fadden and Father Stephens, whom you are about to send to prison. When the people were evicted, who received them and comforted them? Father M'Fadden and Father Stephens. It is because you have removed what the people relied on. that you are called on and implored by us to take some steps for meeting the difficulties of the people. One would have thought from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Plan of Campaign commenced all the trouble in Donegal. That is not the case at all. The Plan of Campaign has helped to stop evictions not only in Donegal, but all over Ireland. Last night the Chief Secretary seemed to think that an attack on the right of private property is what I and others mean when we speak against the system of landlordism. He asked what I meant by landlordism. I can show by a short quotation what landlordism in Gweedore, with which the Government are identifying themselves, is. I hold in my hand a letter addressed to Father M'Fadden by a landlord in the neighbourhood of the Olphert estate.
It is useless," this gentleman writes, "to deal kindly any longer with these tenants. I may tell you that I would not now accept 99 per cent. of all rents and costs due to me, as I am going to clear out the two townlands, and it is my land I want now. Remember, they are merely living on my land as long as I let them, and I will not regard cost in carrying out my plans. I have ample private means and will set aside a sum yearly until all are out of that. In doing this I am only following out the Scriptural precept that 'a man may do what he likes with his own.' I am determined on this, and in five or at the most ten years' time there will probably not be a single family left there.This is an example of the "iron sleet of arrowy shower" which in my remarks yesterday I referred to, and against which Father M'Fadden has been a rock of defence, and it is an example of the unjust system which the Donegal peasantry have been taught by our administration to identify with the Government of the Queen.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland Division)I wish to call the attention of the House to another estate on which the Government or their agents are acting in a somewhat different fashion. The Plan of Campaign has been raging on the Massereene estate some time, and there is still a dis- 419 pute there. In the Down Recorder an advertisement in the following terms has appeared:—
Vacant farms, important to Protestant tenant farmers and their sons. There are several vacant farms to let in the counties Louth and Meath in close proximity to the important seaport and market town of Drogheda. None but Protestants need apply. Special advantages offered to suitable tenants. For further particulars apply to Messrs. Dudgeon and Emerson, Land Agents and Solicitors, 14, Upper Sackville Street, Dublin.I think that advertisement might almost be left to speak for itself. I believe that four Protestant tenants have already gone down to the estate. so that actually the Government or their allies are endeavouring to break down the combination of tenants by appealing to the devilish passion of religious prejudice.
§ MR. GILL (Louth, S.)I hope the Government will pay some attention to the matter just brought under their notice by my hon. Friend. The Massereene estate is about to become the scene of one of the worst struggles that the country has witnessed since the régime of the right hon. Gentleman began. A number of Catholic tenants on this estate have been expelled from their holdings, to which Orangemen are being imported. This is a new policy, so far as the present crisis is concerned; but it is not novel in the agrarian history of Ireland. It is an attempt to work on the sectarian animosities which have wrought so much misery in Ireland. These sectarian animosities, wherever they have been fostered and not discouraged and put down with a strong hand, have always resulted in bloodshed and outrage, and scenes that every friend of Ireland and humanity must deplore. If the landlord of this estate succeeds in the course he is now pursuing, the result must be that the Catholic tenants will be driven to despair, because they will be deprived of that hope, and that self-confidence, and that aid which they now receive from being banded together — a fact which has served to keep their hands free from crime. This experiment has been tried in Ireland before. One of the most notorious cases of the kind was that of Lord Lorton in County Longford. Men were driven to despair, and the result was that a series of outrages and murders took place upon that estate 420 which wrought ruin to everyone concerned, ruin and death to the Protestant farmers who had come there, and ruin and crime to the unfortunate Catholics who had previously been at peace with the rest of the population. The experiment proved a failure from every point of view. Yet the Chief Secretary is now about to lend encouragement to a scheme ostentatiously insulting to the feelings of the people of one particular religion—and that the chief religion of the country. He proposes to lend his countenance to a scheme which involves the expropriation of tenants whose demands the Land Courts have admitted to be perfectly just. What has taken place during the last month has proved that we, the Irish Parliamentary Party, and those who have the control of the National movement in Ireland, would and do deplore as much as anyone the terrible consequences which must follow this policy, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that terrible consequences must ensue if he allows a policy of this kind to be carried out. The Massereene dispute could have been brought to an end long ago if the right hon. Gentleman had not lent encouragement to the emergency agents of Lord Massereene. We have seen recently how, through the Plan of Campaign, settlements have been arrived at on several estates, and how willing the tenants have been to submit to arbitration. The Massereene tenants have been equally willing; terms could be easily arrived at, but it seems that the landlord intends to exclude certain of the tenants from the arrangement, and wishes to make victims of them. I say this is a case in which the Government should take some steps to bring the landlord to his senses—steps such as were successfully adopted by the immediate Predecessor in office of the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary. Now, Sir, I feel confident in the strength of the tenants' organization on that estate; I am sure that the proposed experiment cannot succeed, and I urge that it is the duty of the Government, in the interests of the peace of the country, to check the unjust and oppressive conduct of the landlord.
§ MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)On the estate of Lord Lurgan in my county, the tenants were recently invited by the landlord to purchase under Lord Ashbourne's Act, and I believe some of 421 them signed agreements to do so at 16½ years' purchase. Now one of these tenants was in arrears with his rent, and at the time I questioned the Chief Secretary as to this man's position and liability. The right hon. Gentleman would not answer me at the time, as he said a case raising a similar question was pending before the Courts. To-day I have received a communication to the effect, that this tenant was sent to Armagh Gaol yesterday because he resisted an execution for arrears which, certainly, was not contemplated under Lord Ashbourne's Act. This man's house was surrounded by constables with fixed bayonets, and because he resisted he was carried off to the county gaol. I think it was most unreasonable for the landlord to take these steps after the man had signed au agreement to purchase at 16 years' purchase. Why will not the Chief Secretary interfere to prevent action like this? 'We can never get any information from him; when we put a question in this House we are invariably met with platitudes and commonplaces; but if Lord Ashbourne's Act is to work successfully tenants must not be entrapped in this way. I do not think the Chief Secretary could have really understood the facts of this case. He allowed the law to take its course; the Attorney General directed the prosecution to take place; and when the appeal was heard, instead of the Government remaining neutral, they actively maintained the prosecution. I say it is a grave public scandal that a tenant should have been treated in this way. A certain Member of the Conservative Party was returned to this House for the express purpose of resisting every reform and maintaining every abuse, and I believe that not a few Members of the Party act upon that principle. In this particular case the Resident Magistrates said they had grave doubts as to whether the action taken against the man was legal. In England, I believe, the prisoner receives the benefit of the doubt, but in Ireland the reverse is the case, and the benefit is refused to the accused. I have no doubt in my own mind that this man was perfectly justified in resisting the execution, as he had signed a purchase agreement under Lord Ashbourne's Act. Lord Ashbourne's Act does not contemplate the collection of arrears at all. It is, however, rather a hopeless thing to 422 draw attention in this House to abuses in Ireland, because the Tory Party is interested in the maintenance of every abuse, and in resistance to every reform.
Question put, and agreed to.