HL Deb 12 February 1897 vol 46 cc253-61
*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been drawn to a speech delivered by Mr. William O'Brien at Cahir, Aughamore, county Mayo, on Sunday, January."1st, in which he denounced "landgrabbing" and advocated the boycotting of those persons who availed themselves of their just rights; whether such speech was not a breach of the existing law; and, if so, having regard to the serious consequences that had resulted from such speeches in the past, whether Her Majesty's Government were taking any steps in connection with the above-mentioned speech. He said he had hoped, until he entered the House that evening, that he should receive affirmative answers to the questions he had put upon the Paper; but from a conversation he had had with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he now feared that the answers would be in the negative. He could not say that he felt great surprise at this, for they had seen during the past few months such a curious policy pursued in Ireland that they could hardly be astonished by anything that might occur there. His questions would certainly have been answered in the affirmative by tie Government of 1886, when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. When in that position he never allowed such a speech as the one to which he was calling attention to be made with impunity. Subsequently, when the Unionists were out of office, he had always acted consistently, and had never lost any opportunity of drawing attention in their Lordships' House to speeches of a similar character to that of which he now complained, and of pressing upon the then existing Government the necessity of taking steps to prevent their recurrence. Mr. O'Brien's speech was exceptionally violent in its denunciation of those whom he termed "landgrabbers" and in its advocacy of boycotting. The meeting at which the speech was made was summoned by placard, which announced that the demonstration was to be held "to denounce the recent eases of eviction and landgrabbing at Cahir," and invited Nationalists to attend in order "to show their detestation of the landgrabber who is the only support of the evicting landlord." He wished to know whether this meeting was held on an evicted farm, or, if not, at what distance from it; also whether the local police had sworn information that the meeting was calculated to cause intimidation, and by whose authority the district inspector handed to Mr. O'Brien the letter prohibiting him to hold the meeting. In his speech Mr. O'Brien said that they had assembled "upon the good old business of the Land League." Their Lordships knew what that meant. Then the speaker said:— And I may promise you that we will manage to make the voice of public opinion heard by the grabbers, even if they stood a thousand miles away, and even if they were as deaf as Dublin Castle. Proceeding he said:— The county Inspector's letter informed me that your principal object here to-day was to put down land grabbing. (Voices: 'Down with it.') Well, I am glad to learn that he was right, and as I always like to come straight to the point, I tell you it will depend upon yourselves altogether, and not upon the forces of Dublin Castle, whether men will find it profitable to grab an evicted farm. It is all very well to groan grabbers here, but it is not groaning or a public meeting alone that will make the grabber feel the weight of public opinion. It is in his own daily life amongst yon that you have got to make him feel it. It is when he goes to the fair of Ballyhaunis, or Claremorris, or Ballaghaderreen, or of kiltinagh, and when he finds his beast is left on his hands—when he meets his neighbour on the road and finds that every decent man avoids him as he would avoid the plague; when his children, wherever they may be scattered, in England or America, find that he is a disgrace to his family, and that their checks redden with shame when his name is mentioned. It is no use saying the grabber is the only means of keeping the life in Irish landlordism. That is quite true. But you have got to show him in a practical way that you would as soon choose your friends from a gang of pickpockets as open your lips to the grabber, or buy from or sell to him, or cut, shuffle, or deal with him, until he makes penance for his sins. If every decent man in the community only treats the grabbers to a course of education like that for six months or so to come, I promise you that they will give up the evicted farms very quickly, because, when men find that landgrabbing does not pay, that it involves misery for themselves and for their children, believe you me the same selfish instincts that prompt these men to grab their neighbours' land will prompt them also to drop evicted lands like a hot potato. Now, that is no new doctrine, that is the good old doctrine of the Land League days. It is as true to-day as ever it was. [Cheers.] And what is more, I venture to toll you that in spite of the county Inspector's police battalions, that is a doctrine that can be practised as successfully to-day as over it was. If at the next fair anybody should, give a wink to the neighbours not to touch the cattle of an evicted farm, he can no longer be hauled in before two Removables for giving a humbugging sort of smile.' He will have to be tried before a jury of his fellow-countrymen in the county of Mayo that would not return any other verdict except, 'More power to you. God reward you. Surely speeches of this kind ought not to be allowed. His noble and learned Friend knew well what results had followed such speeches in the past. Before September, 1880, the county of Clare was in a peaceful and normal condition, but directly Mr. Parnell made his famous speech advising that anyone taking an evicted farm should be "shunned like a leper"—words not very unlike those used on this occasion by Mr. O'Brien—many serious crimes were committed. Within five months there were 22 murders or attempted murders; in the following year there were 32, and in 1882, 64. In the same way the famous speech made by Mr. Dillon at Nenagh, when he declared that it was easy to keep an evicted farm empty, was followed within a fortnight by the brutal murder of Donovan, the Earl of Cork's caretaker. He hoped their lordships would see the danger to which honest and innocent people would be exposed if a non possumus attitude were taken up and if speeches of this wicked character were allowed to be made with impunity. Was not a speech like Mr. O'Brien's a breach of the law, and, if it was, why was he not Prosecuted? When he was Lord Lieutenant speeches of a far less violent character led to prosecutions. The present First Lord of the Treasury was then Chief Secretary. Mr. O'Brien himself in 1887 was prosecuted for delivering a speech of a much less violent character, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Similarly, Mr. Finucane and Mr. Sheehy were prosecuted for less violent speeches in 1889, and were sentenced to four and five months' imprisonment respectively. If the present Chief Secretary held that Mr. O'Brien's speech was not illegal, then the prosecutions and convictions for less violent speeches which took place when Mr. Arthur Balfour was Chief Secretary could not have been legal. He would leave Mr. Gerald Balfour to settle that point with his brother. But his noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne) was Lord Chancellor when Mr. Arthur Balfour was Chief Secretary, and he was Lord Chancellor now, and he wanted the noble and learned lord to tell him which of the two brothers had acted legally. If the speech to which he had called attention was not a breach of the law, then Mr. Arthur Balfour must have acted illegally in prosecuting and imprisoning men for making speeches which were not nearly so violent as that. It might, perhaps, be said that the condition of Ireland was so peaceful at the present time, that the people were so law-abiding in all parts, that the Government did not wish to prosecute any individual person for making a solitary speech. But if those speeches were to be made with impunity, remembering the consequences of such speeches in the past, he should like to ask the Government how long this peaceful condition of Ireland would continue. The condition of Clare was peaceful until "shun the leper" speech was made in 1880, and no one knew better than his noble and learned Friend what was the condition of the country when they undertook its government in 1886. There existed in Ireland at that time a state of anarchy amounting almost to rebellion; and they had to appeal for powers to cope with the disaffection due to the speeches of the leaders of the Nationalist party in advocating the Plan of Campaign, which bought in its train boycotting and all its attendant miseries be maintained that it was futile and childish to argue that a man like Mr. O'Brien was justified in making a speech of this violent character because Ireland was in a calm and peaceful condition. What were the laws made for? Were they made to be broken one day and not to be recognised as having been broken the next? Were they made only to be administered according to the condition of the country or the mood in which the Executive found itself? If speeches of this kind were to be permitted the Government might find in one part of Ireland either that farms were left absolutely derelict at Mr. O'Brien's bidding or that derelict farms were only taken by law-abiding citizens at the risk not only of the loss of their property, but of their lives. ["Hear, hear!"] If he were asked what was the opinion of the supporters of the Government in Ireland with regard to the policy which has been adopted, he should have no difficulty in answering the question. He should say that the line taken was in pursuance of the motto assumed and the policy followed by the Chief Secretary. The followers of the Prime Minister in Ireland would not contradict him when he said that they believed the motto of the present Chief Secretary was "Give peace in our time, O Lord;—with an emphasis on the "our"—and "I am utterly regardless of the future." The Chief Secretary's policy was to conciliate at any cost his political opponents, even at the sacrifice and expense of his political friends. When the present Chief Secretary undertook the responsible duties connected with his office, the right hon. Gentleman entered upon them with a prospect which was second to none. He could boast that he was the bearer of a name which was respected by all classes in Ireland—the name of the most able and most brilliant Chief Secretary who had ever discharged responsible duties in a most critical time. But the present Chief Secretary in addressing his constituents held out to the Unionists of Ireland great hopes; he was going to "kill Home Rule by kindness." He assured his right hon. friend that never were words more warmly welcomed, but they imagined that "killing Homo Rule by kindness "meant the bringing forward of remedial measures for Ireland, in assisting the Irish people to develop the resources of their country, and in enabling the occupier and owner to come to terms by facilitating purchase on terms agreeable to both. They believed, in short, that there was about to dawn for Ireland a millennium; but they had been disappointed. They had found out that "killing Home Rule by kindness" had meant the killing of the landowning interests; and if speeches like the speech delivered by Mr. O'Brien were to be continued, not only would they mean the killing of some of the agricultural classes, but of the poorer classes as well. He trusted that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government would investigate and examine for himself the question he had raised. He assured the noble Marquess that if he would only consult his own supporters in Ireland they would tell him almost unanimously, that never had a Conservative Chief Secretary initiated a policy so ruinous to Irish interests as the so-called method of the present Chief Secretary to "kill Home Rule by kindness."

*THER LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)

said he had listened to his noble Friend with close attention. The candour of his noble friend had even exceeded the usual candour of a candid friend. The Chief Secretary, to whose motives he thought the noble Lord had done very great injustice, had, of course, his attention drawn to this question; but, the Executive having considered all the circumstances of the case, having considered, as any Executive would consider, the condition of the country, the position of the county, the state of the locality, and all the surrounding circumstances, it arrived at the conclusion that it was not wise or expedient or necessary that he should stop the meeting; but the Chief Secretary gave the most distinct and full directions that police protection of the most ample character should be given to those who had taken evicted farms in the neighbourhood, so as to protect them against all possibility of danger or intimidation—a course which he would steadily and consistently follow, being determined to insure that everyone in Ireland should be permitted to exercise his rights and follow his affairs in a state of security and peace. In answer to his noble Friend's question as to whether it was an evicted farm, he had to say that he had no minute knowledge of the place, but he believed that the meeting was not held on the evicted farm, but near it. His noble Friend also asked by whose authority a letter was handed from a police officer to the chairman of the meeting. He believed that there was a misconception as to the intentions in reference to this meeting on behalf of the police authorities. After information was sworn, and acting on his own misconception, the police officer did hand to Mr. O'Brien a letter; but at no time did the Irish Executive entertain the intention to interfere with the meeting, and the handing of the letter was a misconception entirely local on the part of the police. It had also to be borne in mind as to a prosecution that there was no shorthand note taken of the proceedings at this meeting. ["Why not?"] There being thus no means of bringing home to Mr. O'Brien responsibility for the report in the Freeman's Journal, it was obvious that the position was different from that which prevailed when his noble Friend was Viceroy. At the meeting three Resolutions were drawn up to be passed. One was an expression of renewed confidence in the Irish party under the leadership of Mr. Dillon, and pledging the meeting to the moral and material support necessary to successfully fight the battle in Parliament; another condemned land-grabbing, and expressed a determination by all legitimate means to stamp out dishonest practices; while the third demanded the release of the political prisoners whose only crime was love for Ireland. He had read the speech complained of, and he found that the larger part of it was taken up with a criticism of the present divisions in Mr. O'Brien's party, while there was a great deal of very free, frank, and candid criticism of the action of Mr. Healy. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary, of course, disapproved the language which had been quoted by his noble Friend, and everyone who had heard the language must disapprove it; but, fortunately, on reading the speech one did not find that any parties were named, or that any specified individuals were pointed out. Mr. O'Brien pointed out that neither in that parish nor in the adjoining parish, nor for miles near the place at which he was speaking, was there any faction in support of land-grabbing. As far as he knew, everything was quiet at the meeting; and he was disposed to think that but for the publicity given to the speeeh by his noble Friend, the matter would probably have been entirely forgotten by this time. It was his duty, privilege, and pleasure to read the Irish newspapers closely, and he had not found a leading article or a paragraph with reference to this speech; and he had not heard that a report of it had appeared in the local papers. Necessarily the discussion now going on in this House would bring notice again to the matter. In the circumstances it was not intended to take any proceedings. In the absence of any report of the speech it was difficult to see how the proceedings could be taken. He had to remind his noble Friend who referred with legitimate pride to the time when he filled the great position of Lord Lieutenant and the prosecutions then instituted, that at that time the machinery of the Crimes Act was in operation and shorthand writers' notes were always available, whereas now the appliances of the ordinary law had to be considered, and there being no notes taken and no way of bringing the report home the position was entirely different. The Irish Government took the entire responsibility for permitting the meeting and for not prosecuting. In all cases and under every Administration it was necessary to exercise a prudent and a wise discrimination in these matters, and in the present case all the circumstances of position, neighbourhood, place, and time were taken into consideration by the Irish Executive. Ireland was now in a very peaceful state, for which they should all be very thankful. There was a decrease of general crime and a large decrease of agrarian crime, and his noble Friend might rest assured that the present Irish Executive would steadily apply themselves to maintaining law and order, to prevent any form of intimidation or danger to any of Her Majesty's subjects, and to protect every class of I the community in the enjoyment of their property and the exercise of their legal rights.

THE EARL OF ARRAS,

as Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo, could not condemn too strongly the words made use of by Mr. W. O'Brien, in the speech he was reported to have made. It was a speech of the most dangerous character, and to show the effect it might have in the district he should like to read a telegram which he had received from a gentleman in the county, whose authority, he thought, all their lordships would accept, though, as permission had not been given, he would not give the name: "The county of Mayo generally satisfactory, one limited area, parish Aughamore, causing anxiety presently. That in itself showed how dangerous it was to allow a speech of the sort to be made. But at the same time, having said that, he could not help thinking that this debate was to be regretted. He did not think the speech had had any wide currency in Ireland at all, and certainly not in the county. He had in his hand three papers which were published directly after the speech was made—that was to say on the 4th and 6th of the month, the speech having been made on the 31st ult.—and in none of them, representing as they did all shades of politics, was there any mention made of the speech. Therefore, this was somewhat of a storm in a tea-cup—["Hear, hear!"]—and if the speech had been allowed to die a natural death, it would be less dangerous than it might now become.