HC Deb 08 April 1892 vol 3 cc986-1004
(4.49.) Mr. W. O'BRIEN (Cork, N.E.)

rose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely:— The harsh and unconstitutional employment of the forces of the Crown in effecting Evictions and Seizures for arrears of rent on Clare Island, whose population was, last year, saved by public relief from a condition of famine; and the danger of widespread destitution and disorder if the impending evictions on the Island are carried out; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

(4.50.) MR. W. O'BRIEN

I regret very much that I am compelled to interrupt the Business of the House, but this is a matter of life and death to an industrious and inoffensive community; and unless the House is asked to devote a short time to save these people from eviction, you will be asked by-and-bye to vote more money to save them from starvation. I was anxious, if possible, to avoid moving the Adjournment of the House, but the reply of the Chief Secretary is so absolutely unsatisfactory that I can do nothing else. He has given us no guarantee that the Sub-Sheriff, the police and the Removable Magistrates will not evict the people in this island for no other crime except that they have made no offer to the landlord of the charitable relief which the British taxpayers were asked for last year, during a time described by the First Lord of the Treasury as a period of exceptional famine. The evictions on this island have already commenced; 19 other processes have been granted within the last few days at the Castlebar Quarter Sessions, and a number of others are pending. Practically speaking, most of these people are already evicted, and have become caretakers, and if they recover their status it will be by stripping themselves of everything they have in the world. We have no hope, I am sorry to say, from the Government; we have no hope from the landlord; we have still less from the Sub-Sheriff; and the only hope left to us is to make a special appeal to the public opinion of this House. Last year the whole population of Clare Island, with the exception of the bailiff and perhaps one or two others, was saved from starvation only by charitable relief. They were enabled to sow their crops only by public charity, and whatever little means they possessed after the harvest they acquired solely by means of charitable relief. The Sub-Sheriff, who is the principal officer of the law in the county, is also the agent for the landlord, and that landlord has for the last five or six months been engaged in a series of attempts to strip these poor people of the funds which they received from charity; and I am sorry to say that the Government by their Sub-Sheriff, their Police, and Resident Magistrates have aided this landlord in stripping these poor islanders of the means of subsistence which this Government felt bound last year in common humanity to give them. The place was formerly owned by an Irish family, who got into difficulties, and the property was purchased as an encumbered estate after a famine time by a landlord of a notoriously grasping character, who was at the time Sub-Sheriff for County Mayo. He went through the usual rent-raising process upon his purchase, and it was to recover arrears that began to accumulate that these evictions were entered upon. Another main fact in this case that we shall have to press upon the notice of the House reveals a scandalous state of things. You have the same gentleman acting in the double capacity of principal officer of the law and official of the landlord. He is earning double fees by carrying out these evictions, representing at one moment the impartiality of the law, and later on in the same day the greed of the landlord. You will find this gentleman as Sheriff requisitioning the forces of the Crown to protect himself as agent of the landlord in plundering these poor tenants, of the relief which the British taxpayer provided for them. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will defend this arrangement, but I submit that this dual rôle introduces a most undesirable state of things, and I shall have to press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Government will allow this state of things to continue and will allow this gentleman to order about the Forces of the Crown for any miserable purpose he pleases. Even the right hon. Gentleman's inexperience in Ireland would be no excuse for permitting this state of things to continue. There can be no controversy about the facts of this case up to this point. The whole population except the priest and the bailiff were dependent for their lives upon public relief, and were employed on the reliefs which were kept going for five or six months, and I must acknowledge that a considerable amount of relief was dispensed and much sympathy expressed with those poor islanders by two distinguished ladies who visited the island as representatives of the fund that was started by the First Lord of the Treasury and by Lord Zetland. This was the state of things when this Sub-Sheriff and landlords' agent made his first raid upon the island. He arrived in his yacht, and on his requisition a force of 20 riflemen arrived at the same time. There were only about 100 able-bodied men on the whole island, and various attempts were made to terrorise the people into giving up to the landlord the wages they had received to enable them to keep their families alive. I shall be curious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will deny this, or will attempt to justify a crime which I regard as about as despicable as robbing a poor box. Apparently, a hint was given to this gentleman that the seizure of the little stock of these poor people at that moment would be a little too glaring, and would revolt those charitable people in England to whom the First Lord of the Treasury was appealing for subscriptions. Accordingly, after a few days, during which time most pressing efforts were made to get these poor islanders to pay blackmail to the landlord, the Sheriff and his expedition took their departure and abandoned their efforts for a time. But only for a time. When the harvest sown by public charity was gathered, the Sheriff despatched to the island a common emergency bailiff to represent himself—and we raise even greater objection than before, because he delegated his dual functions to this man. Another force of police was despatched, and preparations of the most odious character were set on foot to secure what plunder was left for the landlord. And here I charge the Government not only with their responsibility for the action of the Sub-Sheriff, but also with responsibility for the action of the police. We will undertake to prove that the landlord's bailiff was aided in his operations by the very police who, during the summer, had been engaged in distributing relief to these poor people. These policemen had been able, in distributing relief, to obtain confidential knowledge of the poor people's circumstances, and we can prove, by witness after witness, that these policemen went round night by night with the emergency men and pointed out the cabins in which there might be a mountain cow or a mountain pony which might be seized. This occurred to such an extent that these unfortunate people were obliged, for the first time in their lives, to construct some rude sort of window blinds to protect their families from the espionage of these men. Having thus marked out his prey, the emergency bailiff, accompanied by his armed policemen, made a descent on these cabins. The natural result was that these people came out to see where these riflemen were bound, and to find out whose turn it would be next. It is not proved—I do not know that it is suggested—that any of these people threw a stone, or made use of any weapon. It is not pretended that any one of those riflemen sustained the smallest possible injury; on the contrary the only violence used was towards a poor young man who was simply standing by and was knocked down and clubbed by one of these riflemen.

MR. JACKSON

Will you give me the name of the young man and the date of the occurrence?

MR. W. O'BRIEN

The date is the 23rd November, and the name of the young man is Malley. His Christian name I forget. A much more important name, that of the policeman who clubbed this poor young man, has been refused to us, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be as generous in his information as we have been on our side. The only crime these people committed was that they were anxious to know who was to be the next victim and looked on; and for this crime, practically speaking, the whole adult population were prosecuted under the Coercion Act for unlawful assembly, and for obstructing and overawing the officers of the Crown. The idea of these wretched, famine-stricken people, utterly unarmed, overawing a body of well-fed and well-armed riflemen is too absurd, but 80 prosecutions were instituted. But even after this the treatment of these poor people was most cruel. This trumpery, miserable case was adjourned and adjourned for over three months, and five times these people were dragged to the mainland, who, in the ordinary course of events, only visited the mainland once a year. One of these adjournments, I admit, was because of a terrible outbreak of scarlet fever on the island, and another because storms rendered the sea impassable. But two of these adjournments were caused solely and undeniably by the fault of the Crown officials themselves in failing to secure the attendance of two Removable Magistrates. The first occurred on the 7th December, when only one Resident Magistrate (Colonel Stewart) was in attendance; and by no default of the people, but purely of the Crown, the case had to be put off till the 16th. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question, informed me that the Magistrate had been called away to Sligo on Assize business; but the right hon. Gentleman does not depend upon two Resident Magistrates in Ireland. He has many legions. There are 70 Resident Magistrates at his command, and they are not overburdened with work, but he allowed this miscarriage of justice to take place. On the 16th, the day to which the case was adjourned, the poor islanders turned up, and not even one Removable Magistrate was present. The poor, starving islanders were in attendance; the well-fed and well-paid Removable Magistrates were not; and again the case had to be adjourned through, I say, the direct culpability of the Crown officials in Ireland. Having raised—it almost took a sort of national subscription in that place to raise it—£10 as the fee of their solicitor, their solicitor was in attendance, and they lost their £10 fee, and lost their last chance of having any solicitor to defend them in this matter. I questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to this fact, and asked him who was responsible for the non-attendance of these two Removable Magistrates upon that day, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer me. Well, I have to press him to answer now, and tell us how it is that the Government, who have always plenty of policemen and Resident Magistrates at hand whenever evictions are to be carried out, were not able to secure the attendance of two Magistrates upon this occasion, and caused these poor people all this inconvenience and heavy fine—a fine which I hold should be refunded to these poor people, and out of the salaries of £700 or £800 a year of these Removable Magistrates. I pass from that. After nearly three months' delay we come to the fifth Court day—there was a fourth adjournment owing to the outbreak of scarlet fever on the island. Fresh summonses were issued after the breakdown on the 16th, and one of them was served on a young man who was lying on his death-bed with scarlet fever, and who died within a day or two after. The fifth Court day came; two Magistrates were in attendance at last; the islanders were in attendance; and then it might have been supposed that this, at all events, might have been the end of this miserable trumpery prosecution. Nothing of the sort. The Magistrates deliberately adjourned the hearing of the case from Louisburgh, where these people live, to Westport, a place 13 miles away, for no purpose under Heaven except for the personal comfort and convenience of these Magistrates. All these poor people, cold and hungry, were obliged to march through the snow in the depth of winter on the journey to Westport, and the following morning the Magistrates actually threatened to issue warrants for two old men who lagged upon the way. What does the right hon. Gentleman say in defence of the conduct of the Magistrates on that occasion? The first allegation, and really I was surprised at him, was that the snow was not actually falling. I do not know really——

MR. JACKSON

I did not say so. The statement was that they were driven out in a blinding snow-storm. I said I was informed that it was not snowing.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the snow was there: does he deny that the 13 miles of road were there; does he deny that a storm was blowing as it blows for months in the year in that neighbourhood? And if that is so, what is the meaning of this miserable pettifogging? It is much more worthy of the conduct of his Removable Magistrates in general than it is of men like the right hon. Gentleman, to whom we are accustomed to look for something a little better and for something more magnanimous. The second allegation was more important no doubt. He stated that the reason for the adjournment from Louisburgh to Westport was that there was no Court room in Louisburgh. And when I said I happened to know Louisburgh, and contradicted the right hon. Gentleman, he adopted a very majestic tone. Not only did they get the defendants into the Court room at Louisburgh, but the Magistrates continued the hearing of the case the whole day long, and it was only at 5 o'clock in the evening that they adjourned the case to Westport the following morning; so that the excuse they put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman—because I quite acquit him of having any knowledge at all in the transaction—is a dishonest and untrue excuse. One of these Removable Magistrates is a Mr. Home, a gentleman who is lent to the Government by the Times newspaper, and who got up its case for the Times at the Parnell Commission. I congratulate him on his brilliant success. I only wish we could have that gentleman cross-examined himself before the three Judges as to the dealings of landlordism in Clare Island. There is another allegation, but as the right hon. Gentleman has conceived that I misconceived him, I shall not refer further to the point; but he certainly conveyed to my mind, and I think to the minds of many of my hon. Friends, that the adjournment to Westport took place on the application of the defendant's solicitor.

MR. JACKSON

No, I did not.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

Well, the right hon. Gentleman has explained away that impression; but that was the impression I decidedly got. What was the solemn assurance given by these men to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by him solemnly stated to this House? That, indeed, these islanders were extremely pleased with their treatment—were most grateful to the Magistrates, because they only bound them to keep the peace. These poor people actually had to go through Westport begging for the one shilling necessary to pay for their bail bond; and, in one case, the man actually got it advanced by a policeman in Court through compassion. No sooner had these poor people returned home than they were served with processes to Castlebar Quarter Sessions—30 of them were served with processes; whole sheaves of them were sent flying amongst them. They had to meet these at Castlebar Quarter Sessions—many miles from their own place. There were 19 decrees given, and more are to follow. Practically speaking, the whole island is doomed. The first eviction has been already carried out; and I daresay that it was to blunt the edge of British sympathy that the first man they selected for eviction was the relieving officer. I venture to say that unless this House comes to their rescue, the whole population of that island is, practically speaking, exterminated. I venture to say that this persecution is a disgrace to the Government that in any manner permits or allows it; and I ask them to say that they will not, in the interest of Irish landlordism, permit this landlord to pounce down and take away the only little means of livelihood belonging to those poor people. We are constantly told in this House that, when the tenants suffer in Ireland it is because they are our dupes. Well, the Clare islanders are not our dupes; it would be well for them if they were. Our dupes have safely in their pockets, nearly two millions a year, rack-rents that the landlords once carried off in plunder from them; but these poor people in Clare Island never held a public meeting, never established a branch of our Organisation there. They were as dumb and patient as sheep; and their reward is that within the last twelve years they have passed through three or four periods of famine, and the moment there was any relief from the charitable public or the taxpayers of these Kingdoms, that money was instantly appropriated by the representatives of their landlords, with, the connivance and assistance of the officials of Dublin Castle. That is the sort of mercy Irish landlordism shows where its victims are too poor to offer resistance. I do not want to make anything like political capital out of the case of these poor islanders. It is not a case of politics; it is a case of common humanity. I submit to the House that whatever little means these poor people possess, they have received from the taxpayers of these Kingdoms not to pay rent to the landlords, but to put food in the mouths of themselves and their children. I say the landlord has no more right or title to appropriate whatever little stock or property they may have and to turn them out on the roadside than he would have to knock them down and rob them. It is a scandal for any landlord who attempts it, and I say it is a tenfold scandal and a shame that the power of this great Empire should be employed in carrying out a system of oppression of that sort. I shall not detain the House further, but this is a subject you will hear of again if you do not dispose of it. And I venture to submit to every respectable man in the House that we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for a categorical and an unmistakeable declaration—first, that he will not allow these evictions to be carried out, and that he will deal with the landlord of this island in the same way as the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol dealt with Lord Clanricarde; secondly, that we have a right to ask him that he shall not allow this arrangement by which the same man by whom the warrant is issued is the evicting Sheriff and the landlord's agent; and, thirdly, I submit we have a right to put it to the right hon. Gentleman's humanity whether or not the case of these poor people is not a case not for the Criminal Law, but for the Congested Districts Board? I would put it to him to recognise that what is wanted in Clare Island is not police expeditions, or eviction campaigns, or coercion prosecutions; but what is wanted is some reasonable project that would increase these poor people's means of livelihood—instead of robbing them—that would give them something like seaworthy boats to carry on the fishing industry, that would establish something like regular communication with the main land, and thereby help to make this island, as it could be made, one of the most beautiful islands in the Kingdom, I ask the House to say that the Government ought not, in the interest of Irish landlords, to exterminate these unfortunate people. I now move the adjournment of the House.

(3.31.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I rise to second the Motion. This is the same island upon which Lady Zetland and Miss Balfour descended, and upon the beach of which they received that remarkable address—from which the Times gave us so many beautiful passages in August last—thanking Mr. Balfour for his kindness, his benevolence, and his charity, and contrasting his heroic and noble conduct with that of the miserable agitators who had only brought devastation and spoliation in their track. It was an address which the First Lord of the Treasury probably has framed and glazed over his chimney-piece at home, although I am sure he has not many such documents as a souvenir of his administration in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cork without feeling that the other and the real side of the picture was being presented to the House. The address was got up for him by the Local Resident Magistrates; but I would ask, is there to be no other fruit from the visit of these benevolent ladies to the island than that address and the articles which appeared in the London journals? In those articles the manners and customs, the rugged wildness and the native simplicity of the people of the district were very nicely and touchingly depicted, but, Sir, not one word as to the real circumstances under which these unfortunate people live, move, and have their being has not been allowed to reach the outer world as the result of that visit to that far-off locality; and when, for the first time, my hon. Friend lays the complete story before the House, the First Lord of the Treasury is not present with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to listen to it. I would venture to say that if the Attorney General for England had been present he would not have attempted to defend the holding of the dual offices of Sheriff and of agent such as were held by Mr. Routledge. A Sub-Sheriff is not allowed to act as a solicitor, so that he should not be able to put into his pocket as Sub-Sheriff fees arising out of transactions which as a solicitor he might promote. Should it not be the same, à fortiori, in the case of Sheriff and agent? I further find in the list of District Receivers in the Court of Chancery in Ireland—that Court of Equity before which we are all asked to bow—the name of James F. Rout-ledge, of Castlebar, as a District Receiver in the County of Mayo. Now, I say, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought not to allow for one instant a man to hold the position of Sub-Sheriff and District Receiver in one, who is carrying out the process of the law. It is forbidden in the case of Sheriff and solicitor, and there is a far stronger objection to it in the case of Sheriff and agent. Let the Government defend the holding of these dual offices if they can. Why should Mr. Routledge as an agent be able to levy the forces of the Crown for the assistance of a Sub-Sheriff? This scandal has gone on now for at least twelve years, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast made some years ago one of his most powerful speeches on this very same question—the treatment of the people of Clare Island. The remedial measures about which the Government have boasted so much at their Primrose League meetings has passed on in procession; Act after Act during these twelve years; and yet not one single benefit has been conferred on these islanders beyond that which has been given in the way of a little extra charity. That is the first branch of the case, and what is the second? I think that the Misses Macdonald are I the ladies to whom Lord Carnarvon, when Viceroy of Ireland, sent a letter of special remonstrance with regard to their conduct as landladies. It was not till the distress of last year that the Government set about doing something for the Islanders. One of the things they did was to construct a road for the horses and carts, the only result being a macadam track for the bare feet of the poor people where they formerly had a comparatively level road. But that is not the point that I wish to insist upon. I contend that the Government ought not to have allowed these unfortunate people, who required relief in order to prevent them from starving, to have been marked out for eviction. We have been told that the charity of last year, and of the year before, was administered upon a basis of strictness and foresight such as never was practised in the administration of any previous relief; but instead of the Lord Lieutenant relying upon the local priest and parson as the almoners of charity he himself said that he relied upon Resident Magistrates, and upon the police and other officials as administrators of it. Is it likely, then, that that charity should find its way into the pockets of deserving persons? Is it not absolutely certain that it was misused when we consider who the almoners were? Is it not intolerable that these officials should, when finding out worthy recipients for the charity, mark down others to be dealt with by the law? Are not the Misses Macdonald on a par with Lord Clanricarde in the treatment of their tenants? I venture to say that they are even worse. I know from my own experience how the people suffered under the Crimes Act in Tipperary. How much graver and more serious is it when you prosecute the whole population of a distant island in a stormy sea, and compel them to go before their tyrants in the nearest town on the mainland over 13 miles of road in the depth of winter! If these islanders had had a little more devil in them you would not have got them to do it. If they had been of the Tipperary spirit and strain they would not have been harried in this way. The agents of the Government always adapt their methods to the character of the population. They treat the Sikhs and the Ghoorkas of India in a different way to that in which they treat the Parsee and the Hindoo; they treat the peasants in the West of Ireland in a very different way to that in which they treat the farmers of Wicklow and Wexford and Tipperary. The lesson to be drawn from this is not a lesson of patience or toleration or charity; but a lesson of vigour, and of determination, and of defiance. I believe that if these poor islanders had risen up against such oppression, if they had adopted some of the methods of the Scotch Crofters, attention would have been drawn to their case much more quickly. It is because they have been meek, because they have been humble, because they have been patient, that they have been persecuted. I ask the Government to give these unfortunate people something more than magazine articles. I ask the Government to let us have some statement that will bring hope and succour to them, and I venture to think that if some method is not soon adopted there will be further serious trouble. Strong remonstrances should be sent to the Misses Macdonald and to the Sub-Sheriffs, and justice should be done to these people. A remonstrance should also be sent to Mr. Horn of the Times. I do not know, however, whether this Government is strong enough to deal with that matter. Mr. Horn has been for months the organ of the Times, and probably he may have more influence at Printing House Square than a decrepit and dying House. I would suggest that he should be strongly blamed and reprimanded for the enormons hardships he has inflicted upon these unfortunate people. Finally, I say that if the Government have anything left of the fund in Dublin Castle about which we have heard so much, but the balance-sheet of which has not been presented to the public, it could not be better employed than by enabling these poor people in some way to meet the necessitous position in which they have been placed. I hope, Sir, that the Government will act as the really paternal Government, and not as the stony stepmother of Dublin Castle, and that it will show that the Union has some blessings in its train and is of some value and efficacy to these islanders.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. O'Brien.)

* MR. JACKSON

This is, perhaps, not a very convenient form of raising a subject which is certainly not, so far as I am able to judge, so pressing as to necessitate the absorption of the time of the House on an occasion like this. I have listened with very great attention to the speeches which have been made, and I think I may say that it is not the first time that we have heard these impassioned statements as to what may happen unless immediate steps are taken for the relief of these particular tenants. The hon. Member who raised this question dealt with it in its two-fold aspects. He devoted most of his speech to a subject that cannot be considered urgent, because it is a question that has already been discussed in this House. The hon. Member has again gone over the incidents of the story connected with the prosecutions for unlawful assembly, and I would remind the House that these prosecutions were for resistance to the action taken by the executive officers in the discharge of their duty; and I would further remind the House that in reference to what took place on that occasion, that these persons pleaded guilty to the charge made against them. Surely there was no great hardship in prosecuting them for offences to which they pleaded guilty? Now, Sir, it is not necessary for me to go into all the details connected with these prosecutions, but I should like briefly to refer to one or two statements made by the hon. Member who introduced this question to the House. The hon. Member said that on the 23rd November a man of the name of Malley had been clubbed to the earth by a policeman with the stock of his rifle. This is the first occasion on which I have heard the matter mentioned. I have read carefully all the papers on the action of the police on the island; and, so far as my recollection goes, there is not the smallest foundation for any such charge as that which the hon. Member brings, against the police.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

Did the right, hon. Gentleman read a letter from Father Malloney, the priest of the island?

* MR. JACKSON

Oh, yes! I do not question his authority, but I want to deal with one or two points to which he referred. I was quite aware, when I heard the speech of the hon. Member, that he was giving us statements which came from the reverend gentleman. Well, Sir, I will say that I believe there is no foundation whatever for the statement that a man was clubbed to the earth by a policeman; that disposes, of that point. But the hon. Gentleman also said that one young man, lying on his deathbed with fever, was served on his deathbed with a summons. I am in a position to say that there is not the smallest foundation for that statement.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

What is your authority?

* MR. JACKSON

My authority is the Report of those by whom the process of serving the summons was carried out. There is no reason whatever to doubt their authority. The hon. Member made the statement most positively.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

I repeat it most positively. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's point is that this young man had not a bed to die upon.

* MR. JACKSON

The hon. Member repeats the statement on the strength of the letter to which I have referred. I have examined carefully into the question, and I say without fear of contradiction that there is absolutely no truth in the statement. Well now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the hearing of these summonses was adjourned on several occasions; he has again referred to the fact that the hearing was adjourned from Louisburg to Westport, and he has referred to the statement that in the opinion of the Magistrates it was much more convenient and much more in the interests of the persons concerned that that adjournment should take place from Louisburg to Westport. It is quite true that on the first day the room at Louisburg was packed with these people, and it must be borne in mind that at this time one of the adjournments took place in consequence of an outbreak of fever among the islanders. On the first day they were packed into this room in rows, and they had to stand the whole time, as there was no possible accommodation for seating them. I have heard on the authority of those who were present that it was dangerous to the health of everybody concerned that they should be kept in such an atmosphere. On the first day it seemed probable that the case would be finished before the rising of the Court. I believe it is admitted that certain recommendations were made by the priest, and at one time it was somewhat probable that the case would be decided before the end of the day. Towards the close of the day, however, when the question came up as to these men, it was found that if an examination by each of the individual witnesses brought forward was to be continued in the manner in which it had began, a reasonable estimate would show that it would probably take five or six days before being finally settled. It was in view of that fact that there were no means of accommodation at Louisburg, and it was in the interest of everybody concerned that the cases were adjourned to Westport. I think I may say that, so far from there having been any unnecessary harshness in dealing with these people, I believe that they themselves admitted that the course taken had been a course which was marked by great leniency. Now, Sir, reference has been made to Mr. Horne, and, unless I am very much mistaken, Mr. Horne is a very popular man, one of the most popular Magistrates in Ireland, and a man in whom the people have perfect and complete confidence; and certainly I have ascertained nothing that would in any degree show that the feeling towards Mr. Horne is other than that I have described.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Magistrates did not attend?

* MR. JACKSON

In the first place, one of the Magistrates was summoned to the Assizes at Sligo. If this had been foreseen, arrangements would have been made which would have obviated the necessity for an adjournment. It was not possible in the circumstances to hear the charges, and it was through no fault of the Magistrate or anyone concerned that he was unable to attend on that day. In the other case the cause of adjournment was this. The first summonses were adjourned to a particular day, subsequent to the first case other summonses were issued against persons who had previously evaded service, and the second batch was made returnable on the same day as the adjourned summonses. It was found then that the day fixed was not a formal Petty Sessions day, and that, consequently, the new summonses could not be taken on that day. I admit that that was a blunder. No doubt the inconvenience of the second adjournment was caused by that fact. It would have been possible to have taken the adjourned summonses, but it was not possible to take the new summonses on that particular day, and I suppose that they thought it was better to adjourn them both rather than proceed with the adjourned summonses. I think a mistake was made in that case, and although I do not pass any severe censure on the officials, I make that admission to show the House that I desire to state the case as fairly as I can. Now, Sir, really what am tasked to do? In the first place, I am asked by the hon. Member whether I will undertake that the Forces of the Crown shall not be used for the purpose of protecting the Sub-Sheriff in carrying out these evictions; in the second place I am asked whether I consider it is right that a person occupying the position of a land agent should at the same time fill the position of Sub-Sheriff, and practically carry out the decrees obtained in those cases in which he acts as agent for the landlord. Taking the second point first, I believe the Lord Lieutenant has no power in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Longford says in vigorous language that the Lord Lieutenant should threaten the High Sheriff that unless he appoints another Sub-Sheriff he, the Lord Lieutenant, will supersede the High Sheriff. That is the only remedy which the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Longford can suggest as being within the power of the Government, and it is a course that would be certainly very unusual and extremely irregular. On the merits of the case itself, I do not hesitate to express my own personal conviction that it does appear on the face of it a little contrary to the position that we should like to see, that a man who has to carry out the decrees of the Law Courts should seem to occupy the dual position of bailiff and executioner. I do not hesitate to give it as my opinion that it is not desirable that a man should occupy that double position. But I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that that has nothing whatever to do with the question of carrying out the decrees of the Court, or of the duty of the Government in connection with those decrees. Certainly, so far as any influence I have can go, I say it is not desirable; but I say, at the same time, that in this particular district the most suitable man in the district has been selected. I believe Mr. Routledge to be a highly respectable man, and, apart from this particular case, nobody would raise a question of his suitability for the position of Sub-Sheriff. The Government, however, as I have said, have no power to interfere. The appointment rests with the High Sheriff.

MR. T. M. HEALY

He is a nominee of the Crown.

* MR. JACKSON

Yes, but the appointment rests with the High Sheriff, and the Government have no power to do that which the hon. Member asks us to do. Now, Sir, with regard to the carrying out of these decrees, it is, I believe, true that there have been 19 processes issued. I would ask the House to consider, just for one moment, what it is I am asked to undertake. I am asked to undertake that the Forces of the Crown shall not be used under any circumstances in this case in order to protect a Sheriff in carrying out his duty. If the Government gave that undertaking it would mean nothing more nor less than a distinct announcement and a distinct intimation to those people on Clare Island to resist the carrying out of those decrees, and we know perfectly well that in these circumstances it would be absolutely impossible to carry out the law.

MR. W. O'BRIEN

I only asked the right hon. Gentleman to follow the precedent set by the President of the Board of Trade when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland.

* MR. JACKSON

I am asked to declare in Parliament that the Government will come under an undertaking or obligation not to use the Forces of the Crown for the purpose of protecting those officers in carrying out the law. I say, in reply, that it only needs to be stated to the House that whatever the view of the Government be, it would be absolutely impossible to carry out the law if that course were adopted. I say it is not possible for a moment to give such an undertaking. The hon. Member raises this question at a time when these processes have been taken out. I know nothing of the circumstances, but shall certainly deem it my duty to make inquiry into the facts of the case. But, so far as I am able to inform myself, I am bound to say that I hope the House will support the Government in the declaration I have made—that it is absolutely impossible, that it would be extremely unwise, that it would be cutting at the root of all the authority of the law in Ireland if, in answer to a demand made across the floor of the House, in a case where there has been no pretence that anything has taken place that has not been completely justified, in a case where there is no pretence that any injury has been done—that the Government should make a declaration that they would refuse that protection which the officers of the law are entitled to in carrying out the law. I say it is impossible for the Government to make any such declaration.

(4.15.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 188.—(Div. List, No. 76.)