§ Mr. LUNDONI wish to draw the attention of the House to tae question of Ireland. Before going into the details of what I have to say, I would like to refer to an incident which took place on Monday last and explain how it came about. I had no intention of making the observation I did in reference to Sir John Maxwell. I am not saying this because I am being compelled to say it by anybody, but because I believe it is the right thing to do and because I think that observation ought to be withdrawn. What I did mean was that Sir John Maxwell had made charges of murder unjustifiably against the rebels in possession of Dublin, and by doing so he had rendered himself liable to similar charges being made against him by people who desire to do so. I hope the House will accept this explanation of what happened, and now I will go on with what I have to say. I think it is the bounden duty of every hon. Member of, this House, and particularly of those who sit on these benches, to do everything we can in order to bring back Ireland to a normal condition. What I have got to say to the right hon. Gentleman is not going to be said in any spirit of ill-will towards the people I am about to mention, and neither is it going to be said with the object of playing to the gallery in Ireland. We all want to make the path of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government of Ireland as smooth as possible. In his election address at Exeter he said that next to winning the War the most essential duty was the settlement of the Irish question. It is for that reason I am going to offer him one suggestion, a suggestion which I feel sure will help him to clear the way for that settlement which he hopes he will be able to obtain. If he does not accept my suggestion, then it does not matter to me. We have heard much about settlements in the last six weeks, and I dare say that we shall hear a little more when we meet again after the Adjournment in October. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House—and I call a spade a spade—that any settlement of the Irist question at this moment, even if it is Home Rule for all Ireland, will not bring Ireland back to normal conditions as long as you maintain two men in the service of the Government, namely, Sir John Maxwell and Major Price. The right hon. Gentleman says that at the moment it is not possible to withdraw martial law, but 2761 why not, for the sake of Ireland and for the sake of the people of Ireland, withdraw Sir John Maxwell and send somebody else to Ireland to carry out the duties which he is performing at the present time? Have you got no man of Irish sentiment, have you got no man who knows Ireland, and whose sympathies are with Ireland and with the endeavour to bring about a union between the North and South of Ireland and between this country and Ireland? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw Sir John Maxwell at the earliest opportunity. I do not care twopence whom he sends in his place. The right hon. Gentleman may ask me, "Why should Sir John Maxwell be withdrawn?" I will just read him a paragraph from Sir John Maxwell's Report. He says:
Once the rebellion started, the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police…had to be withdrawn or they would have been mercilessly shot down, as indeed were all those who had the bad luck to fall into the hands of the rebels.That statement is absolutely without a shadow of foundation, and it was because of that statement of Sir John Maxwell that I was led into making the observation I made on Monday last. Let me read a passage from the speech made by the Prime Minister on 11th May, on the conduct of the insurgents. He said:I agree as regards the great body of the insurgents that they did not resort to outrage. They fought very bravely. They conducted themselves, as far as our knowledge goes, with humanity; indeed, their conduct contrasts—and contrasts very much to their advantage—with that of some of the so-called civilised enemies with whom we are fighting in the field."— [OKFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1916, col 966, Vol. LXXXIL]Sir John Maxwell stated that any of the police who might have had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the rebels would have been shot down. On Monday last I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and here is his reply:There were 177 members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police on duty in the streets of Dublin on Easter Monday from nine a.m. They were all withdrawn before three p.m. There were in addition eight constables on duty in Sackville Street from nine a.m., and one superintendent, one station sergeant, and twenty constables from twelve noon; the latter party remained in Sackville Street about one hour, and the other eight were withdrawn before three p.m. Two constables were killed and four wounded on Easter Monday. Members of the force were arrested and detained by the rebels at Jacobs' factory and at the Four Courts. The police in uniform, who were all unarmed, were withdrawn from the streets by order of the Chief Commissioner."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st August, 1916, col. 2251.]What I want to point out is this, that Dublin was in the possession of the rebels at twelve o'clock on Easter Monday, particularly O'Connor Street. Upwards of 206 police were on duty, according to the 2762 answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Two of them, unfortunately—and we all deplore it—were shot, one at the entrance to Dublin Castle and the other at the entrance to Stephen's Green. Four others were wounded. Dozens of police fell into the hands of the rebels and were taken prisoners at Jacobs' Biscuit Factory and at the Four Courts; and yet, although those 206 police were on duty in the streets of Dublin on Easter Monday for some hours, we are told by Sir John Maxwell that they had to be withdrawn, or otherwise they might fall into the hands of the rebels and be mercilessly shot down. What are the facts? The police who were taken prisoners in Jacob's Biscuit Factory and the Four Courts afterwards, in the Press of Ireland, publicly thanked the insurgents for the treatment meted out to them. I will not go into the question of the executions. My colleagues for the last three months have fully dealt with that. What I will say is that they exercise in the mind of every Nationalist Irishman a feeling of horror, and that feeling was all the more aggravated by the statement which was issued by Sir John Maxwell and for which there is not a shadow of evidence. I say that the man who made that statement wanted to blackmail the men who were incarcerated behind prison walls, and such a man is not worthy to be a governor of any country, much less Ireland. It is for that reason that I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to withdraw him from Ireland for the sake of Ireland, for the good of Ireland, and also for the good of the Chief Secretary himself, because I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has gone over to Ireland seeking to bring peace and prosperity there, for which we all so much long.I will now deal with another gentleman, Major Price, who describes himself as chief military detective in Ireland, and whom I understand to be Sir John Maxwell's right-hand man. From what he said before the Hardinge Commission, we may take it that Major Price is a very important personage in Ireland, and his chief evidence before the Hardinge Commission was an attack upon members of the Irish Parliamentary party and upon the Irish Lord Chancellor. He attacked particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). He also attacked certain magistrates in Ireland, describing them as persons of no 2763 standing and of practically no principle. He also asserted that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been appointing magistrates over the heads of the county lieutenants. In reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) last week with reference to this particular matter, we were informed from the Front Bench by the Chief Secretary as follows:
I am informed that of the magistrates appointed by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the counties mentioned, none were appointed in opposition to the wishes of His Majesty's lieutenants of those counties who, in fact, were consulted in every case. No complaints have been received as to the misconduct or disloyalty on the part of any of these magistrates. One magistrate, appointed by virtue of his office as chairman of an urban district council, was recently superseded by the Lord Chancellor, as also one magistrate appointed for the city of Cork several years ago. As regards the general question of the appointment of magistrates, the Lord Chancellor states that in no case has any magistrate been appointed by him without careful inquiry and deliberation, and that it is his custom to take into consideration the views of His Majesty's lieutenants of the various counties."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1916, col. 2043.]What we want to know is this: Is the Chief Secretary going to rely upon the evidence of Major Price, or upon the Irish Lord Chancellor? I trust that after this Debate, and particularly after having heard the statement which I am now going to read, and which may be absolutely new to the right hon. Gentleman, he will be very cautious of Major Price and those associated with him. I am going to read a statement which was written by Mr. John McNeill a few days before he was tried for his life by court-martial. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about the personality of Mr. John McNeill. If he would ask any officials of the Irish Government in Dublin, they would tell him that, despite the fact that Mr. McNeill was president of the Irish Volunteer movement, there was no more respected man in the city of Dublin. He was a member of the Senate of the Irish University, he was president of the Gaelic League and belonged to an old and respected family. Whatever political opinions he may have held there is not one of us or any of his political opponents who can say of him that he ever used an offensive word to any of his political opponents. Two days before he was tried he wrote this statement. I am going to read it to the right hon. Gentleman. I am almost satisfied it is the first time he ever heard of it, but it is not the first time that members of the Cabinet have heard of it. They were in full possession of the facts weeks and 2764 weeks ago, but I have yet to learn that they took any steps to bring Major Price to justice. This is the statement:I was arrested by Major Price on Tuesday, 2nd May, and the following Thursday I was allowed out for exercise at Arbor Hill Prison and was set to walk up and down in front of men who were exercised with rifles pointed in my direction a few yards distant. Immediately afterwards I was sent to my cell and Major Price at once came into my cell. He began conversation about my getting a death sentence. He then said my life would be spared if I made a statement implicating 'persons higher up than myself.' He said it would be enough to make a statement. I was not expected to support it by giving evidence. I asked what 'persons higher than myself' meant, and he said Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin. I said I could not connect them with the matter in any way. He then told me of Mr. Birrell's resignation, speaking of it with great satisfaction. The remainder of his conversation dealt with matters concerning the volunteers generally. Before leaving he said he hoped mine would not be a capital sentence. The sergeant who brought me back to my cell afterwards came to me and said he had been in conversation with Major Price both before and after the conversation above mentioned, and he said to me 'I will give yon this great tip. I should make a clean breast of it all and you will come off all right.' The name of the sergeant is Jones, and I can identify him at any time.That is the statement made by Mr. John McNeill, and it carries our memories back to the days when the attempt was made to connect other Irish leaders with other movements. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to imagine for a moment the state of feeling which exists amongst the friends of the two hon. Gentlemen whom, according to Mr. McNeill, Major Price wanted to connect with the movement. Imagine the state of feeling in Belfast, to think that the friends of the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), who almost risked his political reputation in drawing recruits for the Army, those who absolutely love him and adore him, men who, at his instigation, joined the ranks of the Army and went to France—imagine the thoughts which entered into their minds when they were told that a man of the stamp of Major Price attempted to associate the hon. Member with a scheme which was in the eyes of a good many people supported and financed from foreign sources! It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say there is unrest in Ireland. Why should there not be unrest? There is scarcely a public man in Ireland, from the North to the South, who will not ask you, "Is it true that this ruffian, Major Price, wanted to associate honest John Dillon with the Sinn Fein movement?" My hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) has spent an honoured life in the service of his country. He has been loved by his friends and respected by his enemies, because, whatever he has to say of his enemies, he does not go behind their backdoors to say it. He is one of the most 2765 respected Members of this House, not alone by his colleagues and his friends among the Liberal and Labour Members, but by his political opponents in Ireland and by hon. Members who sit above the Gangway. What a nice thing that after thirty-five years in the service of Ireland, after his hard work for the last two or three years in trying to reconcile the peoples of these two countries, a man like Major Price should enter the prison of an Irish rebel to try to connect such men as my hon. Friends (Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin) with the Sinn Fein movement! Major Price is and will be of no assistance to you in Ireland. His name stinks in the nostrils of every honest Irishman, whether he be a Nationalist or a Unionist, if this case can be brought home against him. Even if it is not proved—and I am satisfied that he will deny the statements made by Mr. McNeill—every Nationalist is aware of Mr. McNeill's statement, and the water of the River Thames and the Shannon will not free Major Price from it. Therefore I say, for the sake of peace, and in order to bring back Ireland to that position, or near it, which she occupied, it is absolutely essential to get rid of these two gentlemen. I have made these remarks in no spirit of hostility personally to either of these two men. I have not made them in order to make any attack upon the Irish Chief Secretary nor upon those associated in the good work he is doing. I have made them because I know Ireland and I know its people as well as anyone on these benches. I have met them on the football field, the sports field, and the coursing green, and their one word and their last word to me is, "If you want to bring peace and happiness to Ireland, get rid of Maxwell and get rid of Major Price." It is, therefore, because of these opinions and the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend in the Debate yesterday, that I make this appeal to the Chief Secretary to withdraw Sir John Maxwell from Ireland, and to transfer the services of Major Price to some place where he can do less mischief than he has been doing in Ireland.
§ Mr. LYNCHI intervene in this Debate in order to place before the Chief Secretary the broad lines, or, rather, to outline the broad principles of a certain constructive policy which I believe will go far towards a settlement of the Irish question, which therefore is salutary to this country also. I propose to sketch out these 2766 lines with a boldness of conception hitherto unknown in Irish politics. At the very threshold of my remarks I would invite the Chief Secretary and all my hearers to dispossess their minds, as far as possible, of all the prejudices which have become traditional and which are so often kept artificially alive in regard to the relations between the two countries. Before coming to the question of Ireland itself, I propose, however, briefly, to cast an eye upon the progress of the War, because the War is such a dominating event that it is impossible rightly to consider the Irish question divorced from the question of the War. Naturally the problem of Ireland is a very different one if this War results in the complete subjugation of Germany and the complete dominance of England, or if we are face to face with a situation which will simply be prolonged for another two years in order that at the expiry of that time it may result in a situation somewhat similar to that we now perceive finally emerging in an unsatisfactory peace, which will be the first note in the death knell of these dominions. That is the question before Ireland. Hon. Members must see that it is a very practical question to Ireland as to how far they may be prepared to make sacrifices, and the object which may be attained by those sacrifices.
5.0 P.M.
With regard to all these questions, I shall endeavour to divert my mind of the clouds of optimism and pessimism, to look at the whole problem in the bold clear light of scientific contemplation, to observe the great play of dynamic forces, and to endeavour in that spirit to realise what will be the outcome. That is the method of regarding problems which, however natural and sensible, is hardly ever adopted by those whose duty it is to lead the nation along these difficult paths. They seem, by a sort of instinct or by Parliamentary habit, to be incapable of thinking apart from a cloud of hypocrisy and make-believe. With the facts as now above the horizon, the whole exterior situation is unsatisfactory. With the factors at present in operation the Allies are not winning the War, if the word "winning" be used in the sense, which alone can bring security in the future, of gaining a decisive victory which will once for all crush the military power of Germany. In order to avoid any kind of misconception whatever I would at this stage say that no one more than myself desires 2767 to see that military power once for all abolished from our modern civilisation. But the whole conduct of the War by the Cabinet has been foolish from the beginning, partly through lack of insight and prevision, and also through lack of character in those who are leading the nation politically. The qualities demanded were a wide outlook, a scientific estimation of the factors at work, a boldness of conception, a great plan of organisation, a clear line of guidance in the execution of that plan, energy of action, and a determined will to break down every obstacle that stood in the way of victory. In place of that we have had a striving for Parliamentary victories, weakness of character, futility of conception, vacillation of policy, and expedients whose standards were not measured by the great exterior problems, but by the victories and manipulations of Parliamentary groups. And I have been so much impressed by that aspect of the matter that I have asked myself the question, "Would not there be something wrong in the whole constitution of the world if those qualities, or rather those negations of great qualities were finally to result in great and splendid victories?"
Months ago—though at that time I was listened to with inattention or scoffed at— I used words which are a reality to-day, while men of so-called judgment, who put judgment in the forefront as the one great quality, have been proved, by the outcome of reality, to have been wrong in nine cases out of ten, even where their judgment was unimportant, or even where it was vital. Even in these last great events, when we measure the actual cost and the actual advantage in military terms, we have seen a hecatomb of life sacrificed for no essential gain. The House was very much shocked, as was the right hon. Gentleman and all members of the Cabinet, when I suggested that the military commander responsible should be replaced. More than once I have demanded the recall of soldiers, men of enormous reputation, and that demand shocked the House at the time. But in due course there followed a response to that demand, and the country then first began to breathe with higher hopes. I say, great as is the reputation of Sir Douglas Haig at this moment, and good and capable soldier though I believe him to be, it seems to me obvious that in the problem before him his talents have proved to be 2768 insufficient. I said months ago that the then situation was such that only a stroke of genius could redeem it from failure. These men, trained in times when all was smooth, whatever their qualities, have, in the actual outcome, shown limitations, and they have been disastrous leaders. I say sacrifice one general after another, judge by results, until at last you do find the man of genius—and I dare say there are many such in the British Army to-day —who, by his first appearance, will immediately begin to change the aspect of the whole campaign and to give the nation, for the first time in these two years, an assurance of final victory.
I have spoken in this way in order to introduce the Irish problem, because it imports greatly to Ireland to know whether Ireland has been asked to sacrifice hosts of men, young men of the country, whom Ireland can so ill-afford to spare, in order to arrive finally at a futile peace, or whether their sacrifice has been demanded of them in order that they can aid this country to a victory in which Ireland itself will fully participate. At the present time, whether you care to recognise it or not, there is a wave of what I should not call Sinn Feinism, but a wave of determined Nationalism sweeping throughout the country, in a manner of which I cannot recollect the like within my whole experience of Irish politics. There are men who a few months ago would have been puzzled to describe as what was Sinn Fein, whose whole thoughts were remote from any feeling of Sinn Fein, and who in their daily lives and political lives had no contact with that movement, but who now, if they have not adopted the name Sinn Fein, have at least absorbed its animating spirit. That is true, not merely of the young men of the country, and not merely of those who are engaged in politics, but of men in high and responsible positions— justices of the peace, well-established and steady-going merchants, and throughout the great body of the clergy. What has been the cause of that recrudescence or rejuveneration of the Sinn Fein movement? It had its origin in the rebellion at Dublin. I have been told by eye-witnesses of that event that at the beginning the greater part of the population of Dublin was incensed and angry at that outbreak, because they saw how prejudicial it was to their material interests, and a great many of them took it to be a movement hostile not merely to the Government of 2769 this country, but to the political direction of the leaders of the Irish party, and the first prisoners taken by the police were, I believe, often insulted by the people of Dublin itself. Then followed the sanguinary repression, and that has brought about a great revulsion of feeling. I myself can fully understand the nature of that revulsion of feeling which has since become so evident. If I were to endeavour to put my finger upon the most essential spot I would be inclined to say that it was not merely the unnecessary cruelty of that repression, and that it was not merely the cold-blooded manner of those executions, after all danger had passed, but that it was that peculiar attitude which has so often characterised English government in the past, and which rouses the very depth of resistance of the Irish nation; and that is the tendency to treat Irishmen as if they were on a lower level than Englishmen and as if you were a kind of ascendency party who thought your ascendency was some superior virtue of your own. It rouses the resentment of Irishmen, and rouses the spirit of pride which makes the deepest jar on the most sensitive feelings. I say that in this respect it is you who are wrong, and the Irishman is right. From my place in this House I will say to the young men of Ireland that now that that spirit has been created in Ireland it is their duty to maintain that spirit at the height even if the direction pointed to the most forward peak of their nationalism.
You have endeavoured to combat that spirit, not by understanding it, but by mere brutal mechanical means of repression. Again and again you have warnings from Irish history and the knowledge of the Irish character that the way in dealing with an Irishman is never to endeavour to crush him under heel. I quite acknowledge that Irishmen may be difficult subjects to deal with, but they are responsive to generous treatment. There is in an impulsive nature often a curious overwhelming response to generous treatment, and the Irish people may be led, but they never can be driven. Again I say from my place in this House that I hope that they never will change their character in that respect. During the last 100 years, during the past 600 years, if it had been possible to crush Irishmen under foot and to obliterate them by coercion there would be no Ireland to stand up against you today, and no Ireland to aid you in your just struggles in foreign lands. There- 2770 fore, I advise the Chief Secretary to recognise that that spirit has come to stay, and, further, that it means the salvation of Ireland.
I would touch on another point. Far too much has been made of the influence of German gold in connection with the rebellion. German gold was never the inspirer or instigator of the rebellion. If you proceed on these mere mechanical clichéswhich may be given you by police officers, you will entirely fail to understand the Irish problem. That movement had deep roots in the finest feelings of patriotism, in the old traditions of Ireland, in the old songs of Ireland, and the old memories of Ireland. Whether we like it or not, these rebels of Dublin and throughout the country are far more akin to the spirit of national Irish heroes than perhaps any others in the whole political movement of Ireland. But apart from national feeling, that rebellion had deep roots also in economic sources. Only a few days ago, passing through some of the side streets of Dublin, observing the poverty, misery, and sheer destitution of the people, and yet seeing in the interchange of a glance the intelligence and a sort of appeal to something higher than themselves, even though it be almost an unconscious appeal, I felt rushing up in my mind, as often before, a desire to do something real and effective to raise these people in the status of comfort or of civilisation. When I go through the country parts of Ireland and see how great is what one may call the raw material of the people—their splendid physical strength, their buoyant spirit, their courage, their generous nature, their lively intelligence—again I am spurred on to use my own exertions to the highest, knowing how much greater is the possibility of achievement of these people than anything yet vouchsafed to them in their terrible and tragic history.
But in what way does the Government of Ireland regard these facts? Never with any kind of appreciation of the problem from the point of view of the people themselves, but always, or in nine cases out of ten, from the police point of view, labelling all these men with what is considered opprobrious epithets such as "rebel" or "Sinn Feiner," and labelling other citizens with eulogistic epithets such as "Unionist" or "Ascendancy party," or "loyalist," with repression for the one, no matter how much they 2771 may represent the real body of the country itself, and encouragement, rewards, and fostering for the other. I may mention a small detail, perhaps within the right hon. Gentleman's administrative capacity, which will pick out this aspect of the question. After the repression of the rebellion the wife of one of the leaders, a hard-working, grey-haired woman with three or four children, came to a prominent citizen in Dublin, not a politician, and asked him for assistance to enable her and her family to proceed to America, where alone it was possible for her to earn a living. General Maxwell himself was willing to accord the necessary passport. But the case was reviewed by a man whose name has been mentioned in the Debate to-day—Major Price—and he put down his veto. The passport was refused That poor woman is unable to obtain a living for herself and her family in Dublin, and has been refused the means of proceeding to America, and that on the ground that she might be exploited in America. She cannot be exploited further than by the recital of facts, and those facts are patent to the world. That is an instance where the Government of Ireland has been controlled, and where its actions have been made mean and petty, not by the counsels of statesmen, but by the indications of one who is practically a police officer.
All through their Government system, all through the past, one will find that Chief Secretaries of good intention have gone to Ireland, that Lord Lieutenants of good intentions have gone to Ireland, but that they have never manifested themselves before the world as the real governors of Ireland. One searches into the machinery of government for the real pivots, and the real moving and controlling parts, and one finds it in the police system of Ireland. I would invite the present Chief Secretary to be a man so big, so great, and so large-minded that he will have the strength, the courage, and the soul to break through this disastrous system, and to represent his own kindly and generous views, and to see that they I become realised. To give one or two concrete suggestions. We heard in a previous speech the advice to send someone in the place of General Maxwell. I would go much further than that—with- 2772 draw martial law altogether. We have heard in another previous speech also the advice, perfectly good and sound so far as it goes, to have an entire revision by the Advisory Committee of the cases of Irish political prisoners. I go further than that, and say let us have at once a general amnesty. If you can raise yourself out of what I would call the pettifogging grooves, and narrow and petty legal points of view with which this question is so often regarded, you will strike the imagination of the people by that effort alone and obtain by it the most salutary effect.
Wherever, after a severe struggle in which bitter memories have been produced, a great statesman has risen out of the melée and immediately afterwards has declared a general amnesty, you can hardly cite one case in history where such a statesman has had cause to regret his action. On the other hand, you can recite hundreds of cases where evil has resulted, and disaster, trouble, and grief of all sorts have been caused where such questions are unnecessarily kept alive week after week and month after month in their most irritating form. After the great war between the North and South in America, President Lincoln was beset by demands for vengeance. He was great enough to rise higher than all those suggestions and to proclaim a general amnesty, and in a very short time that gigantic struggle had passed into history. At a much later date, after the Philippine war, there were many demands, even in the Press, howling for revenge against the Philippines. President Roosevelt said: No, that is over; let us close it up, and we will do all we can to forget it. He proclaimed a general amnesty, and never has had cause to regret it. In South Africa the Boers had presented to them a problem not greatly dissimilar to that of Ireland, and even of a greater degree of magnitude. General Botha, a man not trained in the orthodox ways of statesmanship, a man of large and great and generous nature, taking a view far beyond that of the lawyers and the tacticians, looking to the great interests of South Africa, said: No, let us cover up this; let us not look into each individual case, but let us wipe all off the slate, so as to begin a new course with happier auspices.
Those are the main lines of my suggestion—a bold, a great, policy: The withdrawal of martial law, the proclamation 2773 of a general amnesty, the abandonment of all attempts to curb and coerce the new spirit in Ireland, but rather to give it free play and free scope, no matter how far it will lead Ireland on the way to nationality. If the Chief Secretary be guided in all his career by those great principles, I believe he will reach a point where he may have sight of the promised land, but if he follows the advice of that ascendancy party which has a constitutional and radical abhorrence of all nationalism, and tries to keep the old traditions of Dublin Castle still alive, to curb the people, to manacle their Press, to browbeat the people, to incite the police to harry them, to secure the continuance of martial law, to keep up the irritation of the imprisonment of men, some of whom may be innocent, for their supposed connection with the Sinn Fein movement, then I may say he is preparing trouble for himself, misery for Ireland, and not less for this country a state of affairs fraught with disaster. The Chief Secretary will recognise that I have spoken not only with boldness, but with sincerity, and not with any attempt whatever to produce what one may call an effect in Ireland. I have sketched out a plan which, I think, is the boldest yet presented, because I would put no limits to the onward march of Irish aspirations at the present time, and I believe, with the utmost sincerity, that that is a plan which can be recommended not merely for the freeing of Ireland, but for the sake of this country also.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Duke)The hon. Member who has just sat down said he had spoken with frankness and without any desire or will to exploit the troubles of Ireland in order to make a sensation. I accept entirely what he himself said in that respect. In the place which I occupy I must attend to representations of one who knows the popular mind in Ireland so well as the hon. Member knows it, and who has so deep a sympathy with movements which are traditional among Irishmen, and which are hard to understand by those who are not Irishmen. If I do riot respond to all the suggestions which the hon. Member has made, I hope he will appreciate that I do not entirely fail to understand him, and I hope he will not think that there is any lack of a desire on my part to take advantage of the hon. Member's suggestions. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out how the rebellion in Ireland 2774 had its roots deep in the life of Ireland, and how it fascinated men, who, he said, breathed a spirit new in the land. We are not accustomed in this country to undervalue the errors which misguided men make, but the hon. Member must allow me to draw his attention to the practical facts which weigh upon my mind, and which seem to me to afford a corrective to the view that the remedy for Irish misfortunes or the satisfaction of Irish demands for progress or of the ambitions of Irish national spirit can be found along the path of violence and war. The finest part of Dubiln is in ruins; hundreds of Irish people, without any will of their own, have been made the victims of a little civil war in which they did not take part; and the feeling of the country has been inflamed to a point which adds to the difficulties of Irish administration.
Take it that there were men in this movement of the purest life and highest aspirations. We now see what the practical disaster is which their course of conduct has produced. I listened with appreciation to the speech which the hon. Member, with the best of good temper and feeling, has made to the House; but I am bound, in the interests of this archipælego in which English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish are destined to live and work out their destiny, to point out the practical consequences of such an event as that which took place in Easter week. When men speak of Easter week in Ireland I wish they would look at its practical outcome. Let them look at the shattered homes, the ruined lives, and the misery brought upon their fellow-countrymen who had no part in the rebellion. If Irishmen moved by the profound patriotism of their race will only look to the well-being of their fellow-Irishmen, then, I think, they will be persuaded that the statesmen of Ireland were right who for a hundred years have brought Ii eland back time and again to the path of constitutional progress along which alone civilised states can proceed, and who saw that the true road of progress is the road in which with goodwill, with devotion, with some sacrifice of ideal, but with a desire for the common good, men may labour together in order that the happy results of national effort may be obtained. I do not know any intelligent man who grudges to Irishmen the development and the exposition of what are called national ambitions, but let it be upon lines and within limits in which it does not throw Ireland into flames or 2775 drench Ireland in blood. That is my appeal with regard to the adjurations we hear in these times as to the sentiment of nationalism detached from practical considerations. No man values more than I do manly independence, and it is a lamentable thing if an Irishman in his own country should not be able to feel proud of himself and of his country, or should not be able to regard himself as the equal of any man who can be found upon that soil. The hon. Member spoke of the ascendancy party, and matters of that kind. They are as distasteful to my mind as they are to his. It is a long while since the ascendancy party was doomed to equality. There may be members of it who do not see their way to walk in the road upon equal terms with their fellow countrymen, but they have got to learn. I pass from these generalities with the sincere assurance to the hon. Member and those who sympathise with him that in every effort by which not merely the material well-being but the patriotic sentiment of Irishmen can be legitimately satisfied, they will find on my part not only the sympathy of sentiment, but I hope practical effort. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Lundon) prefaced the contribution which he made to this Debate by the withdrawal of what I said last night was the most "odious epithet" which could be applied to a man in the circumstances of Sir John Maxwell. No one ever cavils at the terms of a withdrawal frankly and spontaneously made in this House. I was very glad that the hon. Member made his explanation. I pass from that to his practical proposal. He said to me again that which has been said to me with constant and not unnatural reiteration ever since I have held the office of Chief Secretary, "Withdraw Sir John Maxwell." He also said, "Dismiss Major Price."
§ Mr. LUNDONI did not say "Dismiss Major Price." Transfer him to some other post.
§ Mr. LUNDONAnywhere out of Ireland.
§ Mr. DUKEHe cannot be so bad as I fear I am supposed to regard him if he is to be continued in the public service of this country. If you take the person- 2776 ality of Sir John Maxwell and the "transgressions," as it is said, of Major Price out of the atmosphere in which they have been discussed, hon. Members will agree they are men who have rendered, public service and are capable of rendering public service. No intelligent person, after an event such as that of last April, is surprised that there is bitterness. The true ground of astonishment is that there is no more. I want to say with regard to Sir John Maxwell that there is no ground at the present time in the matters which have been presented to me which I think could, in the mind of an administrator, be supposed to disqualify Sir John Maxwell from performing his duties.
It is said that he stigmatised Sinn Feiners as being organised for murder and a policy of murdering the police. I do not think he did. I think what he said was that there was a reasonable apprehension of murder. I am speaking of facts, not of particular expressions. Hon. Members should bear in mind that Sir John Maxwell is not an expert witness but a soldier, and a soldier is apt to use blunt terms of speech upon a matter which is in his mind and which a more adroit person might easily avoid. But the gist of the matter was that the police in Dublin were exposed to the risk of murder in the streets. I do not think that Sir John Maxwell suggested, I do not believe that he intended, that the men who planned the rising were men who desired murder. It is a totally different thing to consider whether the police in Ireland were safe of their lives in the streets from those who had taken advantage of the rising and who bathed their hands in blood in a shocking way. Let me remind hon. Members of two instances. There is one which I suppose is the most notorious incident of the whole rebellion. There was a policeman at Castle Gate—I knew the outlines of the incident before I went to Ireland—there was a policeman posted in the ordinary way outside a gate leading only to Government offices, not to any fortified place, at a time when armed men had been drilling about the city and making sham manœuvres. He saw a body of them advancing and attempting to enter the Castle Gate, and lie put up his hand to arrest their advance. A volley was shot at him and he dropped dead. There is not a Member of this House who can stigmatise a transaction of that kind by any other word but one. That is one 2777 transaction. The hon. Member for the City of Galway (Captain Gwynn) spoke last night of a transaction in which a relative of his was affected. His relative was at Stephen's Green, and he saw a person with a revolver hold up a carriage in which there was a lady, and threaten her. He intervened as any man would, danger or no danger, and he was shot down. An incident of that kind if it is fresh in the mind of a blunt soldier, is very apt to lead to some severe expression which might not have been used after reflection; and I would ask hon. Members not to attach consequences to an expression which is used about an event which they deplore, as we all deplore it, but look at the facts of the conduct of a public servant. With regard to Sir John Maxwell I ask them to consider whether at a time when the earnest desire of the Government is that the stigma of martial law—because there is no real offence in it—but that the stigma of it should be withdrawn from Ireland, is it a reasonable thing to suggest that, by way of preliminary, you should dismiss Sir John Maxwell, with something like disgrace, from a post in which he has tried to do his best? I ask hon. Members to consider that. I now pass from that topic to that of Major Price, who has been spoken of as the Intelligence Officer, and I have had an opportunity of making inquiry about him this morning, and I understand that he is the Intelligence Officer of the Irish Command at the present time.
§ Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENWanting the intelligence.
§ Mr. DUKEThat is a condemnation which it is very easy to pass upon any of us; I will not discuss it. I have not had the opportunity of discussing that with his military superiors or the civil authorities in Ireland, but how is it, if he is so unfit for his post either in intelligence or in honesty, that he retains it? I will tell the hon. Member, from a very short acquaintance with Sir John Maxwell, that, if I were an inefficient soldier or an inefficient servant, one of the last men under whom I should wish to serve would be Sir John Maxwell. The hon. Member has made a specific charge in regard to John McNeill, a charge of gravity—I might almost say a charge of extreme gravity. The hon. Member says it will evidently be denied. What a position this is in which the hon. Member places me 2778 when he asks me plainly to transfer Major Price from duties in which, so far as I know, his military superiors—
§ Mr. LUNDONIn my speech I referred to the fact that the statement made by Mr. McNeill was in the full possession of the Government eight weeks ago, and I asked what steps they have taken to bring Major Price to justice.
§ Mr. DUKEEight weeks ago I was not in a position to suppose that the Cabinet would have possession of me, whatever else they might have had in their possession.
§ Mr. LUNDONI do not attach the smallest blame to you.
§ Mr. DUKEThe hon. Member will see what I am confronted with in a matter of that kind. He tells me that the moment I investigate the matter there will be one statement on one side and another statement on the other side. Does the hon. Member feel that an administrator would be wise, that being the state of the case, when there is very likely to be a conflict of testimony, to dismiss or transfer a public servant?
§ Mr. DUKESo far as I am concerned, this matter does not rest here. I shall want to know the truth, and find out what I can about it. Is the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) right? The real question here is not who is going for a few days or a few weeks to administer martial law, but how soon can you free Ireland, not from any oppression of martial law, but from the stigma that martial law exists. That is the question which obliterates and eclipses these little personal questions. That is the question to which I have devoted time, and to which I shall devote time—whatever labour is required—in the sympathetic desire that as soon as possible the stigma of martial law shall be withdrawn from the sister Island.
§ Mr. MORRELL rose—
§ Notice taken that forty Members were not present.
§ Mr. LYNCH (seated and covered):On a point of Order. May I make an appeal to the Government to keep the House, in view of their bargain yesterday?
§ Mr. LUNDONIs the hon. Gentleman entitled to raise a point of Order with another man's hat on?
§ House counted, and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at eight minutes before six o'clock.
§ House Adjourned till Tuesday, 10th October, 1916, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day (Wednesday).