THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked Her Majesty's Government whether, in their opinion, any pressure was being put upon farmers and labourers in Ireland to induce them to refrain from signing Petitions against the "Government of Ireland Bill;" whether any foundation of fact existed for the alleged intimidation of farmers and labourers by landowners for the purpose of procuring signatures against that Bill? and moved that the evidence, if any, be laid upon the Table of the House. He said their Lordships were doubtless aware that there had been rumours, accentuated by questions and answers in another place, to the effect that landowners in Ireland, armed with the powers they possessed, wore engaged in intimidating their unfortunate slaves — the tenants and labourers on their properties — into signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill. Several questions upon this subject had boon asked in the other House, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland was reported to have said that he did not know whether it was true, but that he thought it was very likely, and he went on to say that he thought the statement was within the reasonable probabilities of the case. Therefore, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, it was very likely, reasonable, and probable that the owners of land in Ireland were pursuing a course which every honest man would consider a very dishonourable course, in endeavouring to compel men to take up a political position and to express political opinions which they did not conscientiously hold and feel. Their Lordships might perhaps think he was attaching too much 354 importance to utterances of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant. That, of course, depended a great deal upon the estimation which many evidently held of the knowledge and judgment of the Chief Secretary, but they must also bear in mind the character of the gentlemen who had made these allegations in another place. These accusations were made by hon. Gentlemen who were, it must be admitted, great authorities on the subject of intimidation—Mr. Sexton, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Flynn, all convicted by the Special Commission of having incited to intimidation leading to crime and outrage, and of promoting agrarian agitation by coercion and intimidation. It was obvious, therefore, that those hon. Gentlemen were past masters in the art of intimidation; they understood it thoroughly, and their opinion must command the respect of the House. The only thing he would venture to doubt about the matter was their strict impartiality, because these hon. Gentlemen were inclined, perhaps from native modesty, to under-estimate their own success in intimidating the people of Ire-land, and it was possible that, for political reasons, they might exaggerate the success of their opponents, even if any attempt had been made, which he greatly doubted, to carry out this kind of intimidation in that country. He did not wish to comment on the utterances of the Chief Secretary, but it appeared to him that it was a somewhat hard thing to accuse a whole class of one's fellow-countrymen of a most dishonourable action without sufficient information and knowledge of the fact. He therefore asked Her Majesty's Ministers in that House what their opinion of the matter was—whether they knew anything about it? The noble Earl opposite (Lord Spencer) had immense experience of Ireland. Probably the noble Earl knew more of Ireland than any man who was not resident in the country and to the manner born. Did the noble Earl think it likely, reasonable, and probable that the landowners in Ireland were intimidating their farmers and their labourers? did he think that they were in such affluent circumstances that they could afford to evict tenants for the sake of their political opinions; whether, if landlords were willing to do this dishonourable action, they had the power? Anyone who 355 knew anything of Ireland would say it was impossible this system of intimidation could be carried on—he would not say so much about the system of intimidation on the other side. Their Lordships were aware of the terrorism that had been exercised over large districts in Ireland by the Land League and other Associations of that kind, and of the nature of the Charges made by Judges to Grand Juries in Clare and other counties; and The Times, and other newspapers, had published letters giving many instances where the tenants and labourers had been intimidated and prevented from signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill. He should be content if some Minister of the Crown would state, as an English gentleman, that the expression of public opinion was perfectly free in the South and West of Ireland; that in Clare, Kerry, Limerick, and other districts, public opinion was so free that such men as tenant-farmers and labourers and small tradesmen would dare to sign Petitions against the Bill if they wished to do so. If he were told that they were so free from clerical influence, secret societies, and armed ruffianism that they dare express their opinion, he would say no more on the subject, though he should be very much surprised. The reason of these accusations was obvious; it was to discount that expression of public opinion which he was proud to say was making itself heard in the South and West of Ireland in spite of all obstacles. He had the greatest respect and gave the greatest honour to those men who were brave enough in that part of Ireland to express their honest opinion, and these allegations of an impossible intimidation being exercised over them by landlords was a mere foolish attempt to detract from the value of that opinion. Unless it could be substantiated this very grave charge should not have been made against a whole class of men in Ireland, and he therefore asked that the evidence, if it existed, should be laid on the Table of the House.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, before the noble Earl rose to reply, he should like to ask him a question of a similar nature—whether Her Majesty's Government was aware that in some of the Roman Catholic churches of the South of Ireland those Catholics who had 356 signed the anti-Home Rule Petition had been denounced from the altar, and whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government not being aware that such was the case, and if reliable evidence on the subject was tendered to them, they would take steps to prevent intimidation of that character?
§ EARL SPENCERWith regard to the question just put, I may say that the matter is entirely new to me. I have not heard of it until this moment, and I must therefore ask the noble Lord to give notice of his question. As to the question asked by the noble Earl opposite, I have only to say that Her Majesty's Government have no evidence on the subject whatever.
§ LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, he had only asked whether the noble Earl would make inquiry, and whether, if he found that evidence existed, he would lay it on the Table?
§ LORD ASHBOURNEI venture to think that is rather a meagre statement to be made by the noble Earl, considering the present condition of things. I do not think, with great respect to noble Lords opposite, that what occurred in the House of Commons on the 14th March, and this is now the 17th, St. Patrick's Day, so that there has been an opportunity to get information, was either just, or generous, or fair to the Irish landlords living in the South and West, struggling for their safety, for the security of their lives and property, and for their whole future. There has been every opportunity to enable the Government to say whether they would re-assert their words or frankly withdraw, and state that they regretted them as they had no foundation. An hon. Member from Ireland put the matter plainly: he asked the Chief Secretary whether the landlords, having been refused by their tenants signatures to the Petition against the Home Rule Bill, had gone to the tombstones in the neighbouring churchyards and copied the names on them, and the Chief Secretary in reply admitted his ignorance. That was the question put in the first instance, and then a further question was put by another Member: Whether the police had informed him that the landlords were going round to the labourers and farmers in arrear and compelling them to sign, and to the answer then given my noble Friend has drawn attention. "I daresay that 357 is so; I have no knowledge of the fact." Then when his attention was drawn to the injustice of taking away men's characters in that way, his answer was, "I thought it was within the reasonable prohabilities of the case." I put it to your Lordships, is it reasonable or fair? Is it just or is it generous? These men are fighting, as they believe, for their lives. It may be that noble Lords opposite think they are wrong, but these men believe that their whole future, the future of themselves and their families, their security and their property, are all involved. These men living in the South of Ireland are in a very small minority, surrounded by a majority who are hostile to them in many ways. Is it reasonable when a question is asked of the present Chief Secretary, whose duty it is to hold the scale evenly between all parties, to say lightly, as he did when this accusation was made against these men, "I daresay it is so"? I venture to think that had any of your Lordships committed yourselves to such a statement, you would, on consideration, be glad of an opportunity of withdrawing it, and explaining that in the baste of the moment, not seeing its significance, you were hurried into it and regretted it; but not so the right hon. Gentleman, for he goes on to say when he is asked how he came to make such a statement when he had no knowledge of the fact, "Because I thought it lay within the reasonable probabilities of the case." Then, when Her Majesty's Government are afforded an opportunity in this House of saying something reasonably conciliatory and fair within the fair requirements of what might be legitimately expected even in a contest like the present, I think the opportunity might have been availed of to explain the words, and to express regret that they should have been used without any foundation for doing so.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I do not at all complain of the tone in which the noble and learned Lord has just spoken, but he will forgive me for saying in a matter of this kind that the question should be addressed to Mr. Morley, in the House of Commons, in order that he may make any explanation he may have to give. I have no authority to say anything myself for Mr. Morley, but from my knowledge of my right hon. 358 Friend, I am perfectly certain he cannot, have intended to pass what may be supposed to be an affront upon all the landlords in the South and West of Ireland, and I think if he had the opportunity of himself stating what he intended, he would not at all shrink from expressing his views, and would say that he did not intend that which has been supposed to be his intention. With regard to the rest of the matter as to the evidence, Mr. Morley himself distinctly stated there was no evidence; and as to the gravestones, I must confess I do not understand in the least what it means. Why the landlords should go round the graveyards and take down some names from the tombstones seems to me inexplicable. If anything of the kind was done, I daresay it was a very wrong thing to do, but as I do not understand what it was that was done I can give no explanation of it. I put it to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether he attributes to us—I think he is not disposed to attribute tons—that we are desirous of bearing hardly upon men in the position of the landowners in the South and West of Ireland? While I do not admit that they are fighting for their lives, I acknowledge that they are fighting for a cause, and for what they think is very important to them; and,, for my part, I have no desire that any false charges should be brought against them, imputations which they do not really deserve, or that any affront should be put upon them.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the noble Lord had answered the larger part of the question, and asked if he would see whether there was any information which could be obtained on the subject, as it was not a light matter. The answer given in another place gave the impression—and could not fail to give the impression—that this intimidation had been practised, and, therefore, he was not making an unreasonable request in asking the Government to see what evidence there was in support of the allegations, and, if they found there was any, to give the information to the House at some future time.