Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

MR. BRAND said, he distinctly remembered a challenge of this character being addressed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) in the House, and on that occasion the hon. Member said he was not prepared to express to the House any disapproval of it.

MR. HEALY: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. ["Order, order!"]

MR. BRAND, proceeding, said, the Land Leaguers had issued manifestoes more than once. Had they ever issued one to the Irish people advising them to abstain from these outrages?

MR. HEALY: Yes. "Order!"] MR. O'DONNELL: My hon. Friend will reply in due course.

than all the powers of coercion possessed | medies which would put a stop to these by the Government. He challenged the discreditable proceedings. Under the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and asked circumstances, the truth should be told him whether he, or any single Member in this matter; and the truth was that of the Party who were Members of the the Members of the Land League, wheLand League, had ever, by word or ther in or out of that House, who had deed, or by any sign, denounced the out- signed the "no rent" manifesto, were rages and horrors prevalent in Ireland? distinctly responsible for the anarchy MR. O'DONNELL: Yes; every one and disorder now existing in Ireland. of them. No Party had violated their feelings so much as the Liberal Party had doneat least, some of them-in consenting to the passing of the Irish Land Bill; and yet the only answer to their efforts from hon. Gentlemen opposite was a constant endeavour to thwart and obstruct it in every possible way. He contended that if they wanted to show their good faith to the House and the country, and to show the sincerity of their wish to have their Friends liberated from prison, a very simple course was open to them if they chose to take it. The House should disabuse its mind of all superstition in regard to Rules of Procedure and good government in Ireland. So long as there were Representatives in that House whose object was to disintegrate the Empire, they must have Rules to keep them in order; and if Parliament desired peace, order, and liberty in Ireland they must have a strong and capable Government. It was impossible to have a strong and capable Government, if their action was crippled and hampered as that of the present Administration was by perpetual Obstruction. Locking up men on suspicion merely, and without trial, was, in his opinion, contrary to the principles and liberty of the Constitution. It had failed, or at the best it was but milk-and-water coercion. His firm conviction was that crime might be more effectually dealt with by other means than imprisonment without trial. What Parliament should do was to fight these men in Ireland with their gloves off, and to punish those who were guilty of these crimes and outrages. His opinion was that if the Administration only had the time of the House, means would soon be found not to put men in prison without trial, but means to punish the guilty and to relieve the peaceful and orderly inhabitants from the burden of the grievous terrorism under which they were now suffering.

MR. BRAND said, he had watched their proceedings for some time, and had never yet heard of one instance in which hon. Gentlemen opposite had exercised the power they possessed of pacifying their country. He could only say that if the Leaders of the Party had done that, there would be many men on his (Mr. Brand's) side of the House who would make the same sort of speech as the hon. Member for Newcastle, and urge the Government to release these men from imprisonment on suspicion. He felt a sense of indignation at the proceedings of that day. What had been done that day was a waste of time, and was only a repetition of similar proceedings in that House, which had been carried on by a small minority who were determined to exercise their powers in such a way as to make the position intolerable. Over and over again, since the Session began, hon. Members came to the House and considered themselves lucky if they got home by 4 o'clock in the morning, because of the conduct of a small minority. The condition of things had now arrived to be almost a national scandal; and yet there was, he regretted to say, a tendency on the part of some hon. Members of the House to ignore the gravity of the occasion, when the Government were introducing re

MR. HEALY said, he felt bound to contest the assertion that there had been

great wasting of time in the consideration of the Estimates. He was afraid that many of the statements of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) were very inaccurate. That hon. Member had challenged them to say why they had never denounced outrages in Ireland. He would answer the hon. Gentleman by showing that they had strongly denounced outrages; and lest the hon. Member should be inclined to distrust his (Mr. Healy's) assurance, he would reply to him out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman, upon the memorable occasion on which he introduced the Coercion Bill, said, speaking of the decrease of out

rages

"The improvement at first was only slight; but the outrages are now becoming smaller in

number every day. And why are they diminishing? I believe there are two reasons for it. One is, that the gentlemen at the head of the Land League are using every power they possess to put a stop to outrages."-[3 Hansard, eelvii. 1230.]

MR. BRAND: Was that before or after the issue of the "no rent" manifesto?

member of the Land League organization would be guilty of participating in the few cases that had been authenticated, Mr. Davitt used language of condemnation which, probably, the hon. Member for Stroud could not make stronger

"No injustice in the power of Irish landlordism to perpetrate upon our people can justify in the least degree the unfeeling brutality which inflicts injuries or sufferings upon homeless and defenceless animals in return for wrongs done by man."

He supposed it was for penning this circular that Michael Davitt was arrested. The hon. Member for Stroud wanted a denunciation of outrages subsequent to the "no rent" manifesto. If he (Mr. Healy) might intrude a personal matter upon the House, he would inform the hon. Member that since his return

from America he had been writing a series of articles in an English newspaper, and if hon. Members opposite would turn to the pages of The Newcastle Chronicle [Laughter.] He was not aware that The Newcastle Chronicle was not as respectable as the organ of the hon. Member for Northampton. [Mr. BRAND: Are those anonymous articles, or signed?] They were not anonyMR. HEALY said, he would deal with mous; and he might tell the hon. Memthat interposition. The right hon. Gen- ber also that the portion in which he detleman made the statement just quoted nounced outrages in the strongest terms on January 24th, 1881, and the "no was quoted in the London Echo, an rent" manifesto was issued in October organ which might find favour in the of the same year. The original state- eyes of those who discredited The Newment of the hon. Member for Stroud was castle Chronicle. He believed that at the an absolute allegation that at no period present moment those articles were had the leaders of the Land League de- being published in The Freeman's Journal. nounced outrages, and he had never at- When the hon. Member for Stroud tempted to confine it to any space of challenged him to stand up and say time, either before or after the issue of whether he had denounced outrages, he the manifesto. In answer to the hon. refused to do so. They would never find Member, he (Mr. Healy) would give two an Irishman consenting to be dragged proofs to the contrary, one before the on by the tail in answer to the call of any issue and one after. The first was an Englishman for Party purposes. They extract from a circular memorandum of had their own standard of speech, their instructions issued by the League in own standard of conduct, and they were, December, 1880, to the organizers and he was happy to say, in no way insecretaries of branches. He might in- fluenced by English opinion. They deform the hon. Member that the writer spised English opinion, and when he was Michael Davitt, and that within one was asked by any Englishman to stand month afterwards Mr. Davitt found him- up and make a statement, because he self within Portland Prison, which was (John Bull) desired it, and thought he no great encouragement to others to take ought to do so, he (Mr. Healy) begged a similar course. Having noticed that respectfully to tell John Bull, “Mind they could not believe the numerous re- your own business." It was for them ports of outrages upon dumb animals to choose their own way and their own which appeared in the landlord news-time for denouncing outrages. Furtherpapers, and declined to believe that any more, he wished to ask the hon. Mem

ber for Stroud, did Englishmen think contributor to the funds of the Carbonari they could dance upon Irishmen, and in Italy, by whom serious outrages had walk over Irishmen, and slap Irishmen been inflicted. [Laughter.] He (Mr. in the face without getting a blow in Healy) was not the author of the statereturn? That day was past, and if the ment, and he assumed no responsibility "no rent" manifesto had produced for it. The statement had been made in anarchy and outrage, it was those who the House, and outside, that the right put the authors and the leaders of the hon. Gentleman subscribed to the funds Land League in prison who made that of those friends of Italy, who were known manifesto necessary, and who were re- at one time as Mazzinists, and at ansponsible for the crime and outrage in other as Carbonaris. If the constructive Ireland. Was the theory of the hon. theory put forward by the Premier were Member for Stroud this-that no matter to be pursued, was the right hon. Genwhat outrage was committed on the tleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland liberty of Irishmen they were to sit not morally responsible for all the crimes quietly under the rod of the chastiser? and outrages by his friends, the gentleHe declined to accept such a theory, men of Italy, to whom he subscribed even though it had been promulgated money? Hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal by that new prophet of the Liberal Benches had almost wholly devoted their Party, the hon. Member for Stroud. speeches to the outrages in Ireland, beHe had dealt sufficiently with the hon. cause they had no arguments to adMember, and, perhaps, had accorded vance against the liberation on parole more notice to his observations than of the hon. Members for the City of they deserved. The right hon. Gentle- Cork, Tipperary, and Roscommon. He man the Prime Minister had charged congratulated those hon. Members opthe hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) posite upon the ingenuity they had diswith having applied the word "subor- played; but would remind them that dinate" to the Chief Secretary for Ire- they wandered very wide of the question land in an offensive sense; but if the before the House, which was the desiraChief Secretary for Ireland were not ability of liberating on parole three imprisubordinate Member of the Government, soned Members of that House. He had folwhy did the Prime Minister make him-lowed that speech of the Prime Minister self the mouthpiece of the Irish Government on this question, instead of allowing the Minister of the Crown, responsible for affairs in Ireland, to answer for himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, while chastising others for offensive language, did not abstain from using it himself. Having first discharged himself of offensive language, the right hon. Gentleman said that in the remainder of his speech he would use no words calculated to hurt anyone. The right hon. Gentleman did not scruple to say that the hon. Members for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) were responsible for the rapine, murder, and mutilation going on in Ireland, and he made that statement while he said he would say nothing calculated to offend anyone. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, however, might remember that he himself was at one time publicly charged with being a member of an organization which might have been justly charged with rapine, murder, and mutilation. It had been publicly stated that the right hon. Gentleman had been a

in vain to perceive any argument against the liberation of those hon. Gentlemen, except these-First, that the division likely to occur on Thursday next was not one of supreme importance; and, second, that if these hon. Gentlemen were released for that division, they might make similar applications once every week; and, finally, that the division in reference to the Lords' Committee was of as great importance, and one upon which those hon. Gentlemen might as properly have been released. With regard to the last argument, the Prime Minister might have perceived a very important distinction, which was this-In the division upon the Lords' Committee, his hon. Friends made no application for leave to vote. In the division to take place on Thursday next, they had asked leave to vote. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know sufficiently the character of those three hon. Gentlemen to perceive that they were not likely to make applications either to him or his subordinates of their own motion, nor were the Irish Party likely to imagine every week that occasions of importance were likely to

[ocr errors]

"The patient watch and vigil long

[ocr errors]

arise to justify them, as reasonable men, | pected" of entertaining that considerain expecting that the Government would tion when they refused to release the favourably entertain such applications, three hon. Members. Of course, such a though they did think that upon this "reasonable suspicion" could not have occasion the application would be suc- the status of one of the right hon. Gencessful. It was undeniable that the ap- tleman's "reasonable suspicions.' The proaching division was without parallel. one was supported by an Act of ParliaSuppose their application were now ment, and the other had only common granted, and that the Government sense at its back. Any way, far stronger should find they abused their parole, grounds existed for that "reasonable what would prevent the Prime Minister suspicion" than for the "reasonable using his Coercion Act to send these suspicion on which those hon. Memhon. Gentlemen back to the Lord Lieu- bers had been deprived of liberty. The tenant's purview, and the Government Government, according to the right hon. would have the moral support of the Gentleman, would be placed in a ridicountry and the House of Commons in culous position if they acceded to this refusing those applications once a week request. He (Mr. Healy), however, which he appeared to dread? The right feared the Government would be placed hon. Gentleman went on to say that the in a worse position by refusing it. Government must be prepared to ad- Ridicule they might withstand; but minister the Coercion Act with consis- scorn and hatred, if they aroused it, tency. That was exactly their claim. would count in future times for someThey claimed that when Dick, Tom, and thing. The Government should rememHarry had been released on parole to ber that— sow their potatoes or attend their shops, Charles Stewart Parnell, the Leader of the Irish race, and his Colleagues, ought at least to be allowed to attend at the House of Commons in order to record their votes on so vital a question. He was sorry to say they were not likely to get the consistency which the Prime Minister seemed to admire so much. Perhaps the discriminating Members on the Liberal Benches would discover the consistency of the Government. At present it appeared to him very microscopic. The Prime Minister ignored the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had frequently, in twopenny-halfpenny cases in some County Court, released "suspects' on parole. But that having been done by the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Party demanded that the three imprisoned hon. Members be permitted to record their votes on an occasion of extreme gravity. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister resented, with noble indignation, the allegation that the Government was influenced by the consideration that three votes were ininvolved. He (Mr. Healy) made the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues a present of that indignation, and, using a phrase which the Liberal Party had imported into political life, and which was likely to be associated with the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some time to come, he would say the Government might be "reasonably susVOL. CCLXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

[ocr errors]

But

Of him who treasures up a wrong" was a more powerful thing than any ridiculous position they might occupy. It might be that the votes of the three hon. Gentlemen in prison would decide the fate of the clôture and turn the right hon. Gentleman's Government out of power, and then they would be absolved from all liability in the matter. the right hon. Gentleman, counting on a mechanical majority, and believing his Government would retain Office, refused this request lest he might be in a ridiculous position. Let the right hon. Gentleman take care lest he might find himself not to be in any position at all. The division had yet to take place, and they could not yet know its result. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not be so sensitive about having to occupy a ridiculous position. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said it would be against the spirit of the Act to release these three hon. Gentlemen. They had heard a great deal about the spirit of the Act. The only spirit he could perceive about it was the spirit of malignity. The Chief Secretary for Ireland claimed the Coercion Act to have as its object to imprison village ruffians and dissolute scoundrels, and to put under lock and key men who committed midnight outrages, and he assured the House that it would be used only as a means of prevention. If that was the

H

spirit in which it was obtained, where was the consistency on which the Prime Minister prided himself? The spirit of 1881 was prevention-the spirit of 1882 was punishment and deprivation of Constitutional privileges; and as years rolled on, they would find the Government assuming new spirits and inventing new stories to justify them in their downward course. He confessed it was with reluctance that he, as a Member of the Irish Party, consented to the Resolution asking his hon. Friends to request the Government to release them on parole. He was not in favour of asking the British Government for anything. He was in favour of making them give all that could be forced out of them by the Irish people. He knew that in making the application their Friends would be placing themselves in a position in which they would be refused; but his voice was overborne by the superior consideration which should influence them on occasions like this, and he assented to the Resolution. Perhaps it was as well that the application had been made; perhaps it was as well that the last shred of the garment of decency which might be supposed to surround the Government in this coercion business should be thrown aside; but, for his part, he regretted that any such application should be made to those who were without a shred of feeling in the uses to which they put the Act, and without an idea, except that of tyrants, with regard to those whom they had in their power.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, that in the course of the tenure of his present Office he had had many attacks made upon him, both within and without the House; ; but that was the first occasion on which he had been called a Carbonaro. He was bound to say that the charge of being a Carbonaro was about as true and as false as most of the charges made against him. [Mr. HEALY: I did not make the charge.] He understood the hon. Member to have made the charge. With regard to the application made on behalf of the three Members of Parliament confined in Ireland, the debate had wandered somewhat from the Motion; but the last speaker had brought it back to the original question-the proposed release of the three Members. It was not for him to repeat the arguments of the Prime Minister, with which he

agreed; but a particular appeal was made to him to give the reasons why, having released some of the "suspects," he could not release the three Members, and he now wished to state those reasons. Hon. Members opposite had somewhat exaggerated the grounds upon which the release of private individuals under the Coercion Act had been made. He would at once admit that in that, as in other matters, he had tried to administer the Act with as little suffering to, and as little reasonable cause of complaint by, individuals as was compatible with due regard to their safe custody. In cases of domestic affliction, and when relations were on the point of death, he had consented to liberate prisoners; but he believed the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was not quite fair in his interpretation of the grounds on which certain persons had been released, for he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not recollect that any prisoners had been released on such grounds as that of attending to the stocking of their farms, and so forth.

MR. SEXTON: Mr. O'Toole was allowed out.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he would look into the case of O'Toole.

MR. HEALY: Mr. O'Toole.

MR. W. E. FORSTER: But there was no encouragement to administer the Act with as much consideration as possible, when it was found that every possible advantage was taken of a case to make out illustrations and precedents for using the Act as regarded cases of a totally different nature in a way which Parliament never intended it should be used. That was the way, if it were possible, to compel a harsh administration of the Act; but he did not suppose that was the object aimed at by hon. Members, and, if it was, they would not succeed. The distinction was very manifest between releasing men who could with safety be released upon private grounds and men whose release was claimed on public grounds. It would be impossible for the Government, without bringing themselves into ridicule, to admit that Members of Parliament should be allowed to attend to their duties in the House of Commons in a particular case without allowing them to do so in all cases; and it would also put them in the position of being unable to give a reason for refusing a release in one case or granting it in another. The hon.

« ZurückWeiter »