Transcriber's note
This text contains punctuation inconsistencies and misspellings which
have been retained. A list of unresolved printer's errors can be found
at the end of the book.
THE
SPEECHES
(IN FULL)
OF
RT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M. P.,
AND
WILLIAM O'BRIEN, M. P.,
ON
HOME RULE,
DELIVERED IN PARLIAMENT,
FEB. 16 AND 17, 1888.
NEW YORK:
AMERICAN NEWS CO.
MR. GLADSTONE'S SPEECH.
MR. GLADSTONE. In following the right honorable gentleman, I shall only
touch those portions of his speech which go the heart of the question.
In my opinion, they constituted a very small part of his address
(_cheers_), the rest being criminatory and incriminatory matter, which,
however amusing to a portion of the House, really assists us very little
in getting at the root of the great question before us. I do this
particularly because there is a great difficulty, owing to the enormous
range of the question, in confining the debate within the narrow limits
to which we all desire to confine it. My honorable and learned friend,
the member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), last night, when no member of the
Government seemed in a condition to follow the speech of the honorable
member for Northeast Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), (_Opposition cheers_),
gallantly stepped into the breach, and performed that office on behalf
of ministers, which has so often been performed by those who are
sometimes termed "Dissenting Liberals"; namely, that of finding
expedients of defence for the Government which they and their adherents
behind them have been unable to discover. (_Opposition cheers._) My
honorable and learned friend said he thought it high time that the
debate should draw to a close. I can perfectly understand reasons why he
should desire that there might be no debate at all on this subject
(_laughter and cheers_), but when he says that the discussion has
extended to unreasonable length, I point to the speech of the
Attorney-General last night, of the length of which I am far from
complaining, but which was evidently in sharp contradiction with the
view of my honorable and learned friend.
Why, sir, it has not been possible to include in this debate a number of
questions which deserve, and may yet have to receive detailed criticism.
For example, the law of public meetings has hardly been touched, and yet
it is gravely involved in the proceedings of the recess. ("_Hear,
hear._") The relations between landlord and tenant have hardly been
touched, and to that notwithstanding a similiar observation will apply.
("_Hear, hear._") The treatment given to prisoners of a particular class
has not been the subject of discussion, and I will make none of these
three matters subject of discussion; but at the same time no one can
doubt that all of them, and many more besides, are fit for the attention
of the House. ("_Hear, hear._") I must proceed by the method of
selection, and I am bound to say that so far as I am personally
concerned, if it had not been for the pointed references to me, and the
perfectly fair and just challenges delivered against certain portions of
my speeches in the recess, I should gladly have remained out of sight. I
am of opinion that such speeches as have been made by the honorable
member for the city of Cork in moving his amendment, and by the
honorable member for East Cork on the memorable occasion of the opening
of last night's debate (_Home Rule cheers_), go more to the heart of the
matter, and more to the mind of the country, than anything that can be
said or urged by those who, whatever else may be said of them, cannot
deny that they stand in the position of leaders of a party, and are
liable to the imputation of party interests. On the other hand, these
gentlemen are in a position to say that they have shown us independence
of party. They have dealt a death blow to Liberal administrations, and
the members of those Liberal administrations never have complained, and
would not have been justified in complaining. They are the advocates and
the organs of a nation. (_Opposition cheers._) They are in a condition
to speak with an effect to which they cannot make any just pretension
when they address themselves to the heart and to the understanding of
another nation on whose judgment they are content to rely. (_"No," from
the Ministerial benches, and counter cheers._)
But, sir, there was a part of the speech of the right honorable
gentlemen which he introduced with an apology, and which I think it
right hriefly to follow. He referred to the communication between Lord
Carnarvon and the member for Cork, and I cannot question for a moment
the denials he has made. But what were those denials? I attended as well
as I could to his statement, and his denials were three. In the first
place, he denied that any engagement or agreement had been made. Sir, I
am not aware of its having been asserted. He denied, secondly, that it
ever had been stated to be the intention of a Conservative Government to
grant a measure of Home Rule. I am not aware, sir, that that has ever
been stated. Thirdly, he denied on the part of Lord Carnarvon, and I
accept the denial with all my heart, that Lord Carnarvon had ever used
any words inconsistent with the maintenance of the Union. (_Ministerial
cheers._) But these three denials leave entirely untouched the material
parts of the case. What are these material parts? If the right honorable
gentleman wishes to dispose of them, I can only say that they are not
disposed of by what he has said to-night, and he must set about with a
new set of statements and denials in order to get rid of them.
(_Opposition cheers._) It was stated by the honorable member for the
city of Cork, that he found himself in substantial--I might say, in
entire agreement with Lord Carnarvon on the question of Home Rule. That
has not been denied. (_Home Rule cheers._) It has been stated that Lord
Carnarvon spoke for himself, and that I do not question, in so far as a
Lord Lieutenant can speak for himself. (_Opposition cheers._) The right
honorable gentleman, the Chief Secretary, did not deny in the speech he
has just made, and certainly there was space in that speech for such
denial, that Lord Carnarvon and the honorable member for Cork were in
substantial agreement on the policy of Home Rule.
MR. BALFOUR. I may say that, from the abstract I read, Lord Carnarvon
clearly, in my idea, did not express his opinion about the Home Rule
policy.
MR. GLADSTONE. The honorable member for Cork declared that he had an
interview with Lord Carnarvon, and that he found himself in agreement
with Lord Carnarvon on the subject. The right honorable gentleman has
not denied that. (_Home Rule cheers._)
MR. BALFOUR. I interpreted Lord Carnarvon's statement as distinctly
denying that.
MR. GLADSTONE. I ask for the words of Lord Carnarvon's statement which
contains that denial. (_Cheers._)
MR. BALFOUR. I will obtain them as quickly as I can, but it would take
me out of the House to do so now. (_An honorable member: "Send for
them."_)
Mr. GLADSTONE. It is a very dangerous practice to make statements of
that kind and importance without the material on which they are founded.
(_Ministerial cries of "Oh."_) I affirm that I am in the recollection of
the House that whatever inference or interpretation the right honorable
gentleman made upon the declarations of Lord Carnarvon, there was not a
word in the passage he read which contained, or which approached to
containing, a denial of the statement of the honorable member for Cork,
that he and Lord Carnarvon were in substantial agreement on the policy
of Home Rule.
Now I ask the right honorable gentleman what he thinks of another
statement made by Lord Carnarvon in the House of Lords, and within the
memory of all of us, in which, speaking of the measure of entended
government that ought to be granted to Ireland, he said that they ought
to meet all the just demands of that country for local self-government,
and likewise ought to be directed in some degree towards giving
reasonable satisfaction to national aspirations? Does the right
honorable gentleman say that he is in favor of giving reasonable
satisfaction to national aspirations? On the contrary, it is the very
phrase and the very idea which, on no consideration, will he recognize,
and it is the phrase and the idea which form the basis of the views of
Lord Carnarvon, and here the right honorable gentleman cannot contradict
me. Well, I think, having got so far, I may go farther. Lord Carnarvon,
being Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and being a member of the Cabinet, or
whether he was a member of the Cabinet or not, was absolutely bound to
make kown his views to Lord Sailsbury, if not to the Cabinet at large.
He did make known his views to Lord Salisbury in the fulfilment of a
primary duty. Lord Salisbury continued to repose his confidence in Lord
Carnarvon. For months afterwards Lord Carnarvon continued to be Lord
Lieutenant. When he retired he did so professedly on account of his
health and amid the expressed regrets of his colleagues. Now, sir, we
are called separatists. (_Ministerial cheers._) We are denounced as
such. (_Renewed Ministerial cheers._) I am glad to have any of my
assertions supported by honorable gentlemen opposite, whose approval is
conveyed in that semi-articulate manner which they find so congenial.
(_Opposition cheers and laughter._) But we are called separatists, and
because we wish to give effect to the national aspirations of Ireland
within the limits of the Constitution and with supreme regard to the
unity of the Empire. (_Ministerial cries of "Oh," and Opposition
cheers._) Lord Salisbury, as the head of a Conservative Government, was
content to stand before the country, having in Ireland a Lord Lieutenant
who was prepared to give satisfaction, reasonable satisfaction, as we
are, to national aspirations, and at the same time to give Ireland
everything in the way of local self-government that ought to be conceded
consistently with the unity of the Empire. (_Opposition cheers._)
Now, it appears then that a Tory Lord Lieutenant may dally as he pleases
with the sirens of Home Rule. It appears that when a general election is
pending, the Prime Minister may regard the entertainment of a Home Rule
policy as no object whatever to placing unbounded confidence in a Tory
Lord Lieutenant. But when the election is over (_Home Rule cheers_),
when the Lord Lieutenant is gone, and when Liberals declare that they
desire to meet the national aspirations of Ireland with a reasonable and
safe satisfaction, then, forsooth, they are to be denounced as
separatists. (_Opposition cheers._) I must say a word upon the
entertaining speech of the honorable and gallant member for North
Armagh. I was struck, I confess, when, after all his assaults upon us,
the honorable gentleman gravely concluded with an argument in favor of
law and order, but with an insinuation that his countrymen would not be
very much disposed to adopt that doctrine. Well, I don't agree with him
about his countrymen, but if we were engaged in an endeavor to show that
Irishmen were not sufficiently good to recognize the principles of law
and order, undoubtedly the instance to which I should refer would be the
honorable gentleman himself. The honorable and gallant gentleman is
here, forsooth, to instruct and to educate us on the subject of law and
order, while he reserves to himself the right of declaring, and more
than once declaring, in this House, as far as I remember--(_Col.
Saunderson: "Yes."_) So much the better. All right. (_Laughter and
cheers._) He declared that "if Parliament passed ant act for granting
to Ireland a carefully guarded portion of the independence she once
possessed, he will be the man to resist and to recommend resistance."
(_Opposition cheers._) He is dealing with gentlemen below the gangway,
and he has the consummate art and the consummate courage to advertise
himself as the apostle of law and order. (_Cheers._) Then the honorable
member referred to a speech of mine in which I referred to the
lamentable murder of Constable Whelehan in the county of Clare. The
Chief Secretary was not ashamed in this House, where he could not be
answered, to say that I had made adverse comments on the conduct of
Whelehan, a man who had lost his life in the service of his country.
Mr. BALFOUR. I said it in this House on Friday last, and I say it again.
(_Ministerial cheers._)
Mr. GLADSTONE. I have no intention of charging the right honorable
gentleman with anything which is not true in fact. I am glad he has
contradicted me. I did not recollect, for I did not hear it. But it was
totally and absolutely untrue. (_Opposition cheers._) Either he had not
read what I said, or if he has read it, and the same applies to the
honorable and gallant member for North Armagh, they have absolutely
misrepresented the purport of the speech they professed to quote. I
never named Whelehan except to deplore his death, and to express the
hope that his murderers would be punished. In my reference to that
speech, there is not a word to show that Whelehan was the man who was
the unhappy organ of the police in ministering pecuniary payment to the
infamous informer, nor is there one word in all that reference of blame
to her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, there is an express
declaration that I laid no blame upon her Majesty's Government with
reference to the case of Whelehan. Why, then, did I refer to it? On this
account: The honorable and gallant gentleman, in the careless way in
which he refers to these things, said I must be cognizant of the fact
that prices were paid for obtaining information I said at Nottingham; I
made no reference at all to the rather difficult question of payment of
prices for obtaining information: but what I referred to was the payment
of prices, not for obtaining information, but for concocting and
concerting crimes. (_Cheers._) After the gradual revelations that were
made to us of the mode in which Ireland is administered, according to
the traditions of that country, it is perfectly possible that such
things may have been done, though I have never heard of them. But when I
did learn in that particular instance of that foul and loathsome
practice of paying money for such a purpose to a man, as far as we are
yet informed, who was to attend a meeting of the criminals for the
purpose of putting a hand to the arrangement and the execution of it
(_loud cheers_), then I did think it was time to protest in the name of
the Liberal party, if not of the whole country, against the practice
which, in my opinion, is in itself odious to the last degree, which
would not be for a moment tolerated in England, and in reference to
which I thought it wise and right to point out that it was dangerous as
well as odious, that when in a similar case the population of England
had become cognizant of similar practices, they themselves had resorted
to the commission of crime for the purpose of marking the detestation
with which they regarded it. ("_Hear, hear._")
I pass on to the remarks of the right honorable gentleman the Chief
Secretary for Ireland, and I feel bound to refer to the observation he
made during the general debate on the address last week, to what he
called the practice of members on this side of the House of making
statements outside this House which they would not repeat within it, and
especially to his adverse and rather angry comments on tne pacific tone
of the speech which I had just delivered. The right honorable gentleman
overflows with pugnacious matter. He is young and inexperienced in
debate, and bold and able as I confess him to be, I think that when he
has been fifty-six years in the service of his country, it is possible
that his stock of contentious eagerness may be a little abated.
(_Laughter and cheers._) I have many reasons, but if I must give a
reason why I was particularly anxious to avoid the needless introduction
of contentious or polemical or accusatory matter in speaking on the
opening debate on the address. I felt that an Irish debate was pending;
and in the second place, the great object I had in view was to assist
and to promote the purpose of the Government,--to promote, I will also
say, the honor, dignity, and efficiency of this House, by giving what I
may call in homely language a good start to the business of the session,
by detaching it from everything like controversy. But if the right
honorable gentleman laments the uncombative character of that
discussion, I think he will derive probably ample satisfaction in the
future. There is no fear, I believe, that Irish debate will be wanting
in animation, possibly in animosity, so long as the right honorable
gentleman continues to be Chief Secretary. (_Opposition cheers and
laughter._) The right honorable gentleman even on that occasion found in
my pacific speech matter deserving of indignant rebuke. I repeat my
lamentations that some of the most difficult and the nicest parts of the
law are removed by the operation of the Coercion Act of last year from
judges and juries to men whom I termed of an inferior stamp. That was
the observation I ventured to make, and the right honorable gentleman
was rather wrathful over it. I fully admit that he is a perfect master
of _tu quoque_. He said, "Whoever they are, they are the men whom Lord
Spencer appointed." In the first place, that is quite inaccurate; and in
the second place, if inaccurate, it was totally irrelevant. It is
perfectly inaccurate.
Mr. BALFOUR. I said that sixty out of seventy-three were appointed
mostly by Lord Spencer, or else were the appointments of previous
Governments revived by him.
Mr. GLADSTONE. And so the right honorable gentleman thinks that what he
calls reviving--that is to say not dismissing--is the same thing as
appointing. (_"Hear, hear," and laughter._)
The gentlemen of whose conduct as resident magistrates I especially
complained, were Mr. Eldon, Captain Seagrave, Mr. Cecil Roche, Mr.
Meldon, and Mr. Carew. These five, and undoubtedly these are the
gentlemen I had specially in view when I spoke of men of an inferior
stamp, not one of these was appointed by Lord Spencer. (_Cheers._) But
supposing they were, the statement of the right honorable gentleman was
absolutely and ludicrously irrelevant. What I was speaking of was not
the discharge by the resident magistrates of their ordinary and
traditionary duties, but the extraordinary duties which the right
honorable gentleman and the Government have insisted in putting upon
them. The right honorable gentleman was especially indignant with me,
because at a given date in the recess, or before the termination of the
session, I telegraphed to some correspondent the words, "Remember
Mitchelstown," and that in a speech at Nottingham I had developed my
meaning of that phrase with all the force I could. The right honorable
gentleman thought fit to point at me the reproach that I was not
disposed to maintain here what I have said elsewhere.
Now I have referred to my own statement at Nottingham about
Mitchelstown, and I can only say I not only adhere to it, but I
strengthen it. I never in my life uttered words, or sent words by letter
or telegram, which I more rejoice to have used, and am better content to
have used, than the words, "Remember Mitchelstown." (_Loud Opposition
cheers._) It was not done inconsiderately. It was done considerately,
for the sake of Ireland and the country, and for the sake of preventing
the enormous mischiefs, probable sufferings, probable bloodshed, and the
consequent resistance to the law that might arise in Ireland in
consequence of what had occurred at Mitchelstown, and of its adoption
and appropriation by the right honorable gentleman. (_Cheers._) What was
it? It was this: A legal meeting ("_Hear, hear_") of 4,000 men
assembled; the police, under the plea of the common practice of having
an official reporter at the meeting, instead of prior communication with
those who held it, instead of going to the platform at a point where it
was open and accessible, formed a wedge of twenty men, and endeavored by
force to drive that wedge into the middle of the crowd. I am here to say
that a public meeting is an orderly assembly; that to observe order in a
public meeting is part of the law of the land ("_Hear, hear_"); that the
driving a wedge into the meeting was an illegality on the part of the
police; and that the police who drove it into the crowd were themselves
guilty of illegality, and ought to have been given into custody.
(_Cheers._)
On this deplorable occasion the agents of the law were the breakers of
the law, and those breakers of the law, acting in the first instance
under subordinate authority, were adopted and sanctioned by the right
honorable gentleman, with the full authority of the Government.
(_Cheers._) What was the second act of the police? Their wedge was not
strong enough; they were pressed back out of the crowd, and it seems to
me with perfect propriety and legality, whereupon they brought a large
force of police and charged the crowd, because the crowd had not
concurred and co-operated in the former illegality. That was a fresh
illegality committed by the police. Then violence began; then began the
use of batons; then began the use of sticks and cudgels; then began the
sufferings of the men in the crowd, and of individual members of the
police, on which the right honorable gentleman is eloquent, and which I
regret as much as he does. But the police in these two illegalities of
attacking and batoning the crowd were defeated. The crowd did not pursue
them. (_Cheers._) According to all the information before us, the crowd
were recalled, and again took their places in the square. A mere
scattering and sprinkling of most probably boys, we know not how and to
what extent, were in the street where the police barracks are to be
found; and among them, those boys or others, succeeded in breaking three
windows of the police barracks. (_Laughter._) Those three windows were
exalted and uplifted by the right honorable gentleman into a general
attack on the barracks, compelling the police, in self-defence, to fire
on the people. In one sense I must say the police did not fire on the
people, for no mass of people was there to fire on. I said at
Nottingham, and it is the result of all the inquiry I have made, that
there was not more than twenty people in the street opposite the
barracks, and under these circumstances the police actually fired into
the windows of the opposite house, where there were peaceful people,
women, and children; and they fired deliberately at individuals, two old
men and one boy, whom they destroyed. That I do not hesitate here to
denounce--I think I did not use the words at Nottingham--as cruel,
wanton, and disgraceful bloodshed (_Loud cheers._) It recalls the period
of Lord Sidmouth, and was bloodshed which, so far as I know, has had no
example in its wantonness and causelessness since the memorable occasion
in Manchester, which is popularly known as the Massacre of Peterloo.
(_Cheers._)
Now, I have given the right honorable gentlemen my views about
Mitchelstown. (_Opposition cheers and derisive Ministerial cheers._) It
was time that I should say, "Remember Mitchelstown." Mitchelstown might
have become what in one particular class of language is termed a
"prerogative instance." The Mitchelstown police, commended by the right
honorable gentleman, were held up to the police in Ireland as the
pattern which they were to follow. (_Cheers._) They were told they had
acted only in self-defence, and the measure and meaning of self-defence,
as exhibited at Mitchelstown, I feared, and it was reasonable to fear,
would be the meaning and the measure of self-defence on every other
occasion, when, by legality or illegality, the police found an
opportunity of coming into collision with the people. (_Cheers._) I tell
the right honorable gentleman frankly that, in my opinion, he had
become, by clear implication, a breaker of the law. (_Cheers._) He had
given to the breaking of the law authoritative countenance and approval,
and not only so, but he had done it under circumstances where that
authoritative approval, conveyed to the mind of the police, would
naturally, justly, and excusably, almost necessarily, have pointed out
to them that that was to be the model and rule of their conduct in every
example of the kind. (_Cheers._) Sir, it was in the interests of law and
order that I denounced the conduct of the police. (_Opposition cheers
and derisive Ministerial cheers, in which Mr. Balfour joined._) It will
be a long time, I think, before he can discover an instance, either on
this bench or among any of those who are our friends, in which the law
and order of the country, and the security and the lives of the people,
had been treated with such recklessness as they then were by the right
honorable gentleman and his colleagues. (_Cheers._) I have done my best
to inform myself, and in conformity with, I believe, uncontradicted and
consentient statements, I contend that the inferences I have drawn from
these facts are just inferences, and that it was not only natural but
necessary to adopt precautions on the part, I will say, of England,
against the fatal imitations which Mitchelstown might have produced, and
to take securities for law and order in Ireland, first of all, as I
pointed out to the people of England, that these things ought to be
watched; and secondly, by making known to the Government, and to their
agents and their organs beyond the the Channel, that if such occurrences
did happen, they would not pass uncensured. (_Cheers._) I believe I
never spoke more useful--I will go further, and say more fruitful--words
than when I telegraphed, "Remember Mitchelstown." (_Loud Opposition
cheers and derisive Ministerial cheers._) I now come to the statistics
of the right honorable gentleman, with reference to boycotting. The
Government are particularly stingy in their statistics, but they have
given some figures as to boycotting. I do not recollect that boycotting
was ever made a portion of Government statistics before.
Mr. BALFOUR. We have made statistics before on boycotting.
Mr. GLADSTONE. Yes; but I am speaking of the ancient and traditional
practice which this Conservative Government are always so indisposed to
follow. (_Opposition cheers and laughter._) Statistics of crime deal
with facts and matter of record; statistics of boycotting, as far as I
understand, are matter of opinion. ("_Hear, hear._") What amounts to
boycotting,--what is the test of it? There must be, and will be, cases
of harsh and unreasonable persecution under the name of boycotting. It
is never to be forgotten, though it is very common to forget it, that
when you have a state of things that prevails in Ireland,--old and sore
relations of friction between class and class, the sense of still
remaining suffering or grievance, and consequent instability of social
order,--the criminal elements that will always subsist in every
community (though I thank God to say that I believe they subsist in
Ireland more narrowly than almost anywhere else), I will find their way
into social questions, and undoubtedly you will have bad, and very bad,
cases exhibited in matters such as these. Therefore the exhibition of
particular instances is a very unsafe and insufficient test. They ought
to be quoted with great accuracy. The right honorable gentleman has been
defending to-night his chosen instruments of the present year. ("_Hear,
hear._") Yes, but he was met immediately with point blank contradictions
on matters of fact, and at present I shall enter no further into that
question, which evidently must be made the subject of further
examination. ("_Hear, hear._") But the right honorable gentleman gave us
last year a case of boycotting which was touching to the last
degree,--the case of the Galway midwife. (_Cheers and laughter._) Does
the right honorable gentleman say that the instance he selected last
year--the instance of the Galway midwife--was well founded? (_Cheers._)
Mr. BALFOUR. Absolutely correct in every particular. (_Ministerial
cheers._)
Mr. GLADSTONE. All I can say is, that here likewise the right honorable
gentleman has been met with a point blank contradiction. ("_Hear,
hear._") But what are we to say of boycotting statistics as a basis for
legislation or for congratulation on the rising felicity of a country,
when the right honorable gentleman, out of the thousands of cases he has
had before him, can only select for us two upon which he is at once met
by having his facts challenged, and his conclusions falsified?
(_Cheers._) Let me point out this. My right honorable friend, the member
for Newcastle, well remarked on a former occasion, that there is a
chapter of statistics which, if the right honorable gentleman had chosen
to enter it, would have been far more to the purpose on this occsion
than these he has laid before us, though they are not wholly without
value; and that is the statistics of evicted or derelict land. ("_Hear,
hear._") There could be no difficulty whatever for the right honorable
gentleman to have called for returns of the acreage on farms, which, in
different counties in Ireland, either all over Ireland or in selected
counties, had been derelict a year, two years, or three years ago, in
the time of Lord Spencer and down to the present date, and had shown us
how, under the recovered liberty of the Irish people, about which he
boasts, the acreage of these derelict farms had gradually been
diminished. The right honorable gentleman has not only avoided but
shirked that question (_cheers_), and he shirked it because he
substituted for any attempt at a rational answer to my right honorable
friend, a jeremiad upon the state of feeling which he thought might be
produced in Ireland when he found my right honorable friend using
language which, in his opinion, was capable of being interpreted into
sympathy with the operations of the Land League. ("_Hear, hear._") A
more unjust charge never was made. (_Opposition cheers_). But, just or
unjust, it has nothing to do with the question.
The right honorable gentleman found himself, and the Queen has been
instructed to found herself in her speech, and the organs of the
Government have based themselves in their articles, upon the assertion
that liberty, as they phrase it, is returning to the people of Ireland.
If that liberty were returning, it would be exhibited in a proportionate
diminution of derelect farms. (_"Hear, hear," from Mr. Balfour._) Then
why have you not shown it? (_Opposition cheers._) There is one part of
the statistics that we have read with increased satisfacfaction, that is
the diminution in the amount of crime, limited as that diminution is. I
thought when the right honorable gentleman constructed his artificial
return, he had some very special purpose in view. It is the first time
that I have known the month of January do such good service, and when I
look into the return, I find out the cause: The return of offences
reported to the constabulary are reported under three major
heads,--offences against the person, offences against property, and
offences against the public peace. With regard to the offences against
the person and property, I find that if I take the five months only of
last year, after the passing of the Coercion Act, and compare them with
the corresponding five months of the year before, there is no diminution
whatever. ("_Hear, hear._") But in the month of January there was in
offences against the person a sudden, a most well-timed, and fortunate,
and rapid decline, for they fell from ten to three. The right honorable
gentleman drew January into his service; by means of that declension, he
was able to show a diminution of six per cent of offences against person
and property. I am extremely glad of it, and wish there had been a great
deal more. The offences which have sensibly and really diminished are
those against the public peace, and I rejoice that they have diminished.
But why? The right honorable gentleman stands up and says that the cause
of the diminution is the Coercion Act, but I think I have shown that
whereas the diminution of crime proper, as directed against person and
property, is an exceedingly small diminution, the diminution of offences
against the public peace is much larger. I make it out to be that that
they fell in these six months from three hundred and twenty-four to two
hundred and thirty-eight, or a diminution of about twenty-five per cent.
These are exactly the offences that would diminish under the operation
of a conciliatory Land Act. (_Opposition cheers._)
The right honorable gentleman has the boldness to say that we, on this
side of the House, never gave any credit to the Land Act. Why, sir, the
Land Act, grossly imperfect as it was, culpably imperfect in the matter
of arrears (_cheers_), contained a great and important provision which
the member for Cork in vain had demanded in the September before, which,
if it had then been granted, you probably never might have heard of the
Plan of Campaign. (_Cheers._) It was denounced to the House by the
Government of that day as being a provision totally incompatible with
that morality, forsooth, on which right honorable gentlemen prided
themselves. (_Laughter._) I speak of the provision which, under a great
responsibility, her Majesty's Government, though far too late,
introduced as a most valuable gift. It was quite evident that, so far as
offences against the public peace were concerned, the reopening of the
judicial rents, and the concession made to leaseholders, could not but
operate in the most powerful manner in favor of that diminution.
(_Cheers._) There are two other questions to be considered, viz., how
the law has been administered, and how the administration of the law has
succeeded. Has the administration of the law been of a character to
reconcile, or has it been of a character to estrange, or has it been
calculated to teach respect for the Government, or to bring the
Government into increasing hatred or contempt? I am not going into
details of prison treatment, but I am going to touch the case of two
members of Parliament, with reference to a matter other than prison
treatment. I am not cognizant by direct and personal knowledge of the
facts, but I have received them from quarters thought to be thoroughly
informed. Unless I had so received them, I would not think of laying
them before the House.
Mr. Sheehy, a member of this House, has been arrested and remanded
without bail. It was a misfortune which might have been taken into
consideration at the time that his wife was ill of a disease known as
scarlatina, or scarlet fever. He was offered bail by the Government if
he would promise not to open his lips in public. By Government--that, I
presume, means the Executive Government. I want to know what title the
resident magistrate had to make such a condition as that. (_Opposition
cheers._) Most dangerous is this introduction of the new discretion of
resident magistrates,--a discretion of imposing new restrictions upon
prisoners. Why is it necessary to impose these conditions? If Mr.
Sheehy chose to commit an offence while he was under bail, he could be
taken up for that, and I want to hear from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, or some member of the Government, a distinct account of the
new doctrine that those conditions may be imposed, which are written, I
believe, neither in law nor in custom, which have been set in action in
Ireland, but which in England, we know, are not heard of, and would not
be heard of or tolerated for a moment. (_Cheers._) Mr. Sheehy, I must
say, very properly entirely declined to accede to that condition, and he
was tried and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He appealed, as
he was entitled to do, and bail was accepted for his appearance at
quarter sessions, so that he would have been able to obey the almost
sacred domestic form of tie which was at the time incumbent upon him.
But as he was going out of the door of the court he was arrested again
on another charge, and brought away immediately to a distant part of the
country, his wife being in the very crisis of her illness, and her life
seriously threatened. On the second charge he was sentenced, not to
three months, which would have enabled him to appeal, but to one months
imprisonment, (_Nationalist cheers_), depriving him of the power of
appeal.
Mr. CHANCE. Which had been promised by the right honorable gentleman to
the House.
Mr. GLADSTONE. The right honorable gentleman, the Chief Secretary, is
perfectly aware of that promise. He is perfectly aware that in the
debate last year he was charged by my right honorable friend near me
(Sir W. Harcourt) with breech of faith with regard to that promise, and
to that charge of breach he has remained, I must say, very patiently
silent. (_Opposition cheers._) Now, is that the sort of administration
of the act of last year which her Majesty's Government are prepared to
defend? (_Opposition cheers._) Is it thus that Ireland is to be
reconciled? (_Nationalist cheers._) Is it thus that the Irish nation is
to be converted? Is it in this House of Commons, the most ancient and
the noblest of all the temples of freedom, that such operations as this
are to be either passed over in silence or defended by those engaged in
them? (_Loud Opposition cheers._) I cannot understand the extreme
severity of treatment in certain particulars, if I am rightly informed,
meted out to this gentleman; but I wish to keep for the present to what
relates most distinctly to the administration of the law as apart from
prison discipline, and in that view alone I would mention the case of
Alderman Hooper and others. Alderman Hooper was sentenced for publishing
reports of the National League branches that had been suppressed,
although, as I understand, there are plenty of these reports published
within the cognizance of the Government, with respect to which those who
publish them have not been sentenced and have not been proceeded
against.
Well, Mr. Alderman Hooper was proceeded against, and was sentenced for
publishing these reports for a term of one month. He would have had
there no right of appeal, but was again simultaneously charged for
publishing another report; another sentence of one month was pronounced
upon him. These sentences, though cumulative with regard to him, were
not cumulative with regard to the right to appeal. (_Cheers._)
Therefore, while the right honorable gentleman professed to give the
right of appeal for all sentences above a month, by this clever device
he has contrived to inflict upon Alderman Hooper, a member of this
House, an imprisonment of two months, and yet that Alderman Hooper
should have no right of appeal. And there again, sir, I say I am sorry
to use strong words, but I am tempted to do so outside this House, and I
will do so in this House. (_Opposition cheers_) This was explained to be
not only a constitutional violence, not only a clear evasion of the
spirit of the law, but an incredible meanness (_loud Opposition
cheers_), a meanness in the method of administering the Crimes Act, and
a spirit is displayed which, if the Irish people had only a hundredth
part of the courage, the pluck, and perseverance which they had shown
through seven centuries, could only tend to alienate and estrange them
from those who attempt so to govern them. (_Opposition cheers._) The
word that I have thus used I am going to use again. (_Ministerial
laughter._) I am very desirous to invite the concurrence of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the propriety of my application of it, or
whether he considers that nobleness would be a better description of the
circumstances which I am about to describe. Without knowing what I am
going to say, the right honorable gentleman accepts my challenge, and,
therefore, I am justified in exhibiting a specimen of the nobleness with
which this administration of Ireland is conceived and executed.
I have before me a list of six people prosecuted, not for publishing
reports of suppressed branches, but for selling them. Their names are:
Macnamara, at Tralee; Mahony, Tralee; Molloy, Tralee; Brosman,
Killarney; Green, at Killarney, also; and at Ennis, another Macnamara.
(_Irish honorable members: "This same man twice."_) Two of the cases
were dismissed, but four of them were sent to prison,--one for a month
with hard labor, another for a month with hard labor, another for two
months with hard labor, and another released on a promise not to do it
again. Again this method of interfering with private freedom by
arbitrary restriction, governed by no law, justified by no usage,
devised by this spirit of Irish administration (_cheers_), and with
respect to which I want to know how far this importation into the law
and jurisprudence of the country is to be carried under the auspices of
her Majesty's Government. Well, now, sir, I want to know from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is to speak to-night, does he see
nobleness in the prosecution of these men? ("_Hear, hear._") Does he
think it rational to prosecute these men? (_Cheers._) Does he think it
right to require of the vender of a newspaper that he should read its
contents? Does he think it right to require that he should have formed
his judgment of those contents, that he should have made up his mind
whether the proceedings described in the newspaper were legal or
illegal? and is that the responsibility which he thinks ought to be
imposed on the vender of a newspaper under pain of being condemned to
one month or two months' imprisonment? This administration of the Crimes
Act, to which I must advisedly apply, until I am better instructed, the
term "meanness," has yet, at any rate, had no defence offered in the
course of this debate. (_Cheers._) The remaining point of the
administration of the law on which I will comment is of a different
character. It is with respect to exclusive dealing.
It will be remembered that we, in our charges against the bill last
year, did not say that it justified the proceedings of exclusive
dealing. I do not believe the act does justify them; but this I am bound
to say, that the interpretation of the act appears to be deliberately
applied in a variety of instances for the punishment of simple exclusive
dealing. The right honorable gentleman ought to know, if he does not,
for I delivered the speech in his hearing, that when I spoke of the
dismissal of curates by rectors and the deprivation of their daily
bread, that men with wives and children were to be turned out upon the
world, I was not, as the right honorable gentlemen charged me, comparing
them with cases of conspiracy, but I was comparing them with cases of
exclusive dealing, which, while they are practised freely both in
Ireland by the opponents of the Nationalists, and in England by the
party of the right honorable gentleman (_Opposition cheers_), unpunished
by the law, I believe it is stretching and straining even the deplorable
and shameful act of last session to make it include such cases. Now,
sir, I wish to mention eight cases, but first I find I was quite wrong
in saying that two of the cases for selling newspapers had been
dismissed. They were not. The defendants were released upon promise, and
the other four punished. I have now before me eight cases of exclusive
dealing, two of which were dismissed, but in all of which the Government
proceeded. In one of these cases a man was punished with a month's hard
labor for refusing to shoe a horse for a boycotted person; another, for
refusing to sell groceries to a boycotted person; a third, for refusing
to shoe a horse; and a fourth, for declining to deal with emergency men.
Those are all cases of exclusive dealing. They are not cases of
conspiracy. In fact, these men have been punished for doing in Ireland
that which would be perfectly lawful in England, and which, I believe,
is perfectly lawful even in Ireland, under any fair interpretation of
the act. Now, has the act succeeded, or it has failed? I do not think
gentlemen will object to the proposition that its real object was to put
down the National League and the Plan of Campaign.
Now I come again to the speech of the honorable member for East Cork
(Mr. W. O'Brien) which, I venture to say, was a memorable speech.
(_Cheers_). To him, as I have never had the privilege of private or
personal communication, I will say publicly in this House that though,
as he says, imprisonment under the condition he describes is a hard and
severe thing, which drives the iron into the soul of a man and leaves
him such that he hardly can be again what he was before, yet I trust
that the right honorable gentleman has derived some consolation and
encouragement to persevere, at least, in lawful and patriotic efforts
for setting right the wrongs of his country. I hope he has derived it
from the enthusiastic reception that he encountered in this House and
out of it, and, I will add, for the credit of honorable gentlemen
opposite, from the respectful, and, to some extent, I think, the
symathetic silence with which they also accorded him a kindly reception.
(_Cheers._) The speech of the honorable member was of an importance
which has not in the smallest degree been appreciated by the Chief
Secretary. The right honorable gentleman has argued the case in his old
manner; and whereas the honorable gentleman charged him with having said
that he pleaded ill-health against the prison dress, what appears is
that the Chief Secretary says that the honorable member had sheltered
himself by ill-health against the demand to wear prison dress. For that
statement of the right honorable gentleman, as amended and admitted,
there is not a shadow of foundation. (_Irish cheers._) That you cannot
contradict, although you have plenty of myrmidons, and, perhaps, some
minions. You cannot show that either by word or act, the honorable
member entered this ignominious plea. Why has the right honorable
gentleman passed by in silence another personal statement of the
honorable member, which I tell him he had no right to pass by, and with
respect to which I will now put it to him and the House, that after he
has had an opportunity of making Lord Salisbury's defence, he has
utterly failed to tender any defence at all? (_Cheers._)
Mr. BALFOUR. He did not require any.
Mr. GLADSTONE. That is just the matter I am going to argue, and we will
see how it stands. The statement of the member for Cork was to this
effect, that Lord Salisbury in one of his speeches, after some jocose
references which exhibit the tase of the Prime Minister (_Opposition
cheers_), and which are a great deal too common in speeches proceeding
from such quarters, held up to British indignation the illegality of the
conduct of the member for East Cork, and stated that it had led to
disturbances, to attacks upon persons which even placed life in danger,
and to gross outrages. In reply, the honorable gentleman stated that his
intervention at Mitchelstown produced no act of violence whatever, but
on the contrary averted it. The Chief Secretary has not been able to
controvert that statement. (_Cheers._) Not being able to controvert it,
he has passed it by. He has neither the courage to prosecute, nor the
generosity to withdraw. (_Cheers._) Lord Salisbury made an allegation of
a gross and grievous character, which his nephew in this House cannot
say a word in support of.