TO THE EDITOR OF THE "STANDARD."

"Sir,--People in England, whatever political party they belong to,

should glance at what is now going on in the town of Tipperary before

finally making up their minds to hand over Ireland body and soul to

the National League. No country town in Ireland--I think I may add or

in England either--was more prosperous three months ago than

Tipperary. The centre of a rich and prosperous part of the country,

surrounded by splendid land, it had an enormous trade in butter and

all agricultural produce, and a large monthly pig and cattle fair was

held there. It possessed (I use the past tense advisedly) a number of

excellent shops, doing a splendid business, and to the eyes of those

who could look back a few years it was making rapid progress in

prosperity every year.

"All is changed now. Many of the shops are closed and deserted, others

will follow their example shortly; the butter market has been removed

from the town, the cattle fairs have fallen to half their former size.

One sees shopkeepers, but a short time back doing capital business,

walking about idle in the streets, with their shops closed; armed

policemen at every corner are necessary to prevent a savage rabble

from committing outrages, and many people avoid going near the town at

all. All this is the result of William O'Brien's speech in Tipperary

and the subsequent action of the National League. The town and whole

neighbourhood were perfectly quiet till one day Mr. O'Brien descends

on it like an evil spirit, and tells the shopkeepers and surrounding

farmers that they are to dictate to their landlords how to act in a

case not affecting them at all. For fear, however, of not sufficiently

arousing them for the cause of others, he suggests that, in addition

to dictating to the landlord what his conduct shall be elsewhere, all

his tenants, farmers and shopkeepers alike, shall demand a reduction

of 25 per cent, on their own rents. As to the farmers' reduction I

will say nothing; if they wished it, they could go into the Land

Court, and if rented too high could get a reduction, retrospectively

from the day their application was lodged. The reduction, however,

that the shopkeepers were advised--nay, ordered--to ask for must have

surprised them more than their landlord. Many of them, at their

existing rents, had piled up considerable fortunes in a few years;

others had enlarged their premises, doubled their business, and

thriven in every way; nevertheless, they had to obey. The landlord

naturally refused to be dictated to by his tenants in matters not

affecting them; he also refused to reduce the rents of men who in a

few years had made fortunes, and some of whom were commonly reputed to

be worth thousands. Legal proceedings were then commenced, and the

tenants' interests were put up to auction. Some of the most thriving

shopkeepers declined to let their tenancies, out of which they had

done so well, be sold; others, in fear of personal violence and

outrage, not unusual results of disobeying the League, did allow them

to be knocked down for nominal sums to the landlord's representative.

Let lovers of liberty and fair-play watch what followed. All the

shopkeepers who bought in their interests were rigorously boycotted;

men who had had a large weekly turnover now saw their shops absolutely

deserted. Plate-glass windows that would not have shamed Regent

Street, were smashed to atoms by hired ruffians of the League, and

the shopkeepers themselves and their families had to be protected

from the mob by armed police, placed round their houses night and day.

All this because they desired to keep their flourishing businesses,

instead of sacrificing them in a quarrel not their own.

"Let us follow still further what happened. The shopkeepers, finding

their trade quite gone, for it was almost worth a person's life to go

into their shops, watched as they were by paid spies, had to

capitulate to the League. An abject apology and a promise to let

themselves be evicted next time were the price they had to pay to be

allowed in a free country to carry on their trade. Ruin faced them

both ways. After having the ban of boycotting taken off them, with

eviction not far distant, most of them held clearance sales, at

tremendous sacrifices, so as to be prepared for moving. One man is

reputed to have got rid of seven thousand pounds' worth of goods under

these circumstances. Of the other division, who allowed their places

to be sold, most of them are now evicted. Dozens of shop assistants,

needlewomen, and others connected with the trade of a thriving town,

are thrown out of employment, and a peaceful neighbourhood has been

changed into a scene of bloodshed and violence.

"I appeal to the English people not to encourage or support a vile

system of intimidation and violence, a system which not only pursues

and ruins its enemies, but refuses to allow peaceably-inclined people

to remain neutral. A case like this should not be one of Party

politics, but should be looked upon as the cause of all who wish to

pursue their lawful vocations peaceably against those who wish to

tyrannise by terror over the community at large.

"I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"FOEDI FOEDERIS ADVERSARIUS."

"December 12."

My private letters strengthen and confirm every word of this account;

and the following letter is again a proof of personal tyranny and

political malevolence not reassuring as qualities in the governing

power:--

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'TIMES.'

"Sir,--I have received a letter from my friend Mr. Edward Phillips, of

Thurlesbeg House, Cashel, and the round, unvarnished tale that he

delivers throws more light upon Ireland than any amount of the windy

rhetoric which is so plentifully displayed on Parnellite and

Gladstonian platforms. Mr. Phillips writes as follows:--

"'I hold 270 acres from Mr. Smith-Barry at a rent of £340 under lease

and tenant-right, which, with my improvements, I valued at £1,000. The

Land League have decided, thinking to hurt Mr. Smith-Barry, that all

tenants must prepare to give up their farms by allowing themselves to

be evicted. They are clearing off everything, and because I refuse to

do this, and forfeit my £1,000, I am boycotted in the most determined

manner. I am refused the commonest necessaries of life, even medicine,

and have to get all from a distance. Blacksmiths, &c., refuse to

work, and labourers have notice to leave, but have not yet done so.

"'Heretofore people were boycotted for taking farms; I am boycotted

for not giving up mine, which I have held for 25 years. A neighbour of

mine, an Englishman, is undergoing the same treatment, and we alone.

We are the only Protestant tenants on the Cashel estate. The remainder

of the tenants, about 30, are clearing everything off their land, and

say they will allow themselves to be evicted.'

"I think this requires no comment. Public opinion is the best

protection against tyranny, and your readers can judge how far the

above narrative is consistent with the opinions expressed by Mr.

Parnell and others as to the liberty and toleration which will be

accorded to the loyal minority when the Land-National League becomes

the undisputed Government of Ireland.

"Your obedient servant,

"R. BAGWELL."

"Clonmell, December 27th."

About Ireland · 第 9 / 13 题