in which he says that these statements about his own actions-the use of the cane and so forth-are absolutely without the smallest foundation, with the exception of the statement that the Rev. Father Sheehy's servant may have been struck when a small body of police were rudely and deliberately attacked by some 300 rioters. This is what he writes after seeing the charge against him. But what was the information he gave to the Government in the simple execution of his duty before he knew that any charge was made against him? Here is the report of what happened. He says "Mr. Lloyd wishes particularly the Government to understand what is meant by the term Boycott,' as understood in Kilmallock and the country round, and he speaks now for his own personal observation. On the day of his arrival in Kilmallock, he saw two men being hunted through the streets by a large mob shouting Boycott them, Boycott them!' The men rushed into a publican's house in a state of abject terror, the mob striking at them with their sticks. The door was slammed in the face of the mob, who then commenced to kick in the door, when Mr. Lloyd himself interfered with a few policemen, sent for more, and cleared the street with some difficulty, amid the groans and hoots of the people. After some time, he had the two persons escorted out of the town into the country by an officer and some men of the police, and, from inquiries made, he found that their alleged offence was the statement that they had paid their rents--a high misdemeanour-which, however, they denied having been guilty of." Now, that is the account of the occurrence, not sent in order to meet Father Sheehy's account, but given by Mr. Lloyd in the course of his duty stating what happened after he got there. Mr. Lloyd states that he knows that a man "Boycotted" is in the position that neither his property, person, or life is safe, but all are in immediate danger. He cannot appear in public, for he would receive exactly the same treatment as that already recorded, and that is what members of the Land League are loudly boasting of that, holding and making use of such weapons, they are "masters of the situation." The reason why I state this is to explain the action of the Government. It is sometimes imagined that we can arrest men under this Act simply for "Boycotting," or advising "Boycotting." Where Boycotting simply means exclusive dealing, we cannot do that, and we have not done it; but where Boycotting" means putting any person in danger, we can do it, and have done it in many cases, and shall do it again. MR. O'SULLIVAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the persons "Boycotted?" MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think it would not be right to give the names. The hon. Member knows that if it is not already known who they are, the fact of my stating in the House the names would lead from "Boycotting" to something worse. MR. O'SULLLIVAN: It is in my neighbourhood, and if it had occurred I should have known it. MR. W. E. FORSTER: I give the hon. Member credit for not knowing these circumstances. Well, now as to the attack on the police barrack. Mr. Lloyd reported as follows: "His Excellency will, therefore, not be surprised to hear that last night an attack was made on the police barrack here, which is situated at one extremity of the town. At about 9.45 p.m. a band began to parade the town collecting the rioters. I at once went across to the barrack, which is opposite where I am lodging, and ordered the men to divest themselves of their side-arms and get their bâtons." Here I may say that one reason why I was glad to send Mr. Lloyd down was because I knew that he had a belief that much could be done by the police with their bâtons, and without arms. The Report continues "A very small force was available-only 20 men in all. The horses had to be protected in the rear, and the barrack kept occupied. For these duties I left six men with rifles. Our band began outside the barrack, and the mob arrangements were just completed when the commenced yelling and shouting. With Mr. Sub-Inspector Jennings, I led out 13 men, and was received with a volley of stones; but giving the order at once to clear the street, the small body of police, led by Mr. Jennings, very bravely charged in the very centre of the mob, which numbered from 300 to 400 people, thus dividing it into two portions. The police first charged one way and then the other, using their mob was completely taken aback, and was batons freely and with determination. The utterly routed. The people showed signs of renewing the attack; but I sent up a prominent Land Leaguer to inform them that if they did during the night prepared for any emergency. I need not comment upon such a condition of affairs. At daybreak I had several rioters ar so I should use our fire-arms. We remained rested." MR. O'DONNELL: I want to ask the Chief Secretary-[Cries of "Order!" and interruption.]— [Second Night.] MR. W. E. FORSTER: I say that others; so that the Government, if they acted this showed great courage, great for- fairly, if they were not cowards, as he believed bearance; and if you compare it with they were, would have the responsibility of arresting the priests first; and then, having the letter of Father Sheehy, you will see arrested the priests and put them into prison, the difference of the account. This their work be on their own heads, because stoning of the police and stoning of the they would then touch a chord in the Irish soldiers is a very serious matter. The heart which has not yet, perhaps, vibrated. police did their duty, and they are ful- He, therefore, dared them to the worst." filling their duty in a most courageous [Cheers from the Irish Members.] I and forbearing manner. But policemen thought that I should find some hon. are men of flesh and blood, and so are Members cheer this statement of a the soldiers, and the soldiers are young clergyman, that he would take advansoldiers; and if we are to have clergy- tage of the religious feelings of the Irish men of the Roman Catholic Church-people, and that he would defy the law, men of position-making speeches to relying that he would not be arrested on bring the people into such a state of ex- account of his position when he endeacitement that stones are hurled at them, voured to strike a chord that would be the consequences may be grave. Now, dangerous to the Government. The GoI have told the House why we could vernment have to consider the effect of not give the grounds upon which we striking such a chord; but, upon the thought it necessary to act on that whole, we believe that we should not be special Warrant in the case of Father acting justly if we respected persons and Sheehy. I can only say that, at some allowed priests, because they are priests, future time, if the general policy of our to incite people to actions of that kind. arrests should be contested, I would Now, Sir, I come to some remarks on gladly let it be tested on the strength our general policy. I can only state to of these grounds. I have shown what the House that when I first went over we had to deal with in Father Sheehy; to Ireland to assist my noble Friend but I will acknowledge that, for rea- the Lord Lieutenant in the prosecutions, sons I have already stated, and also the ground we took was not to arrest for other reasons, we thought that great everyone whose case was brought before forbearance was necessary. We hoped us. Some hon. Members seem to supthat some sense of his Christian duties, pose that we try to create and manusome sense of what would be the suffer- facture outrages. [Interruption from Irish ings of the persons-men of his own Members, and cries of "Hear, hear!"] flock that he was exciting, would Well, the outrages exist, at any rate; prevent a continuance of that conduct; and I may inform hon. Members, aland we also thought that that might though I do not expect some of them happen with him which has happened who say "Hear, hear!" to believe me, with other priests, that he might be ad- but I know that the House generally vised by other persons to be more mo- will believe me, when I state that we derate and careful. But we waited till only arrested a small proportion of the we could wait no longer. We waited cases that were brought before us. We till it was clear that others were follow- only picked out for arrest those whose ing his example, thinking that because apprehension we thought would have they were clergymen and because it was most effect in discouraging and detertheir business to prepare people for the ring others, and those against whom next world, that they might break the the cases were most apparent; and law and incite men to what would lead there were a large number whom them to punishment in this world. And Father Sheehy had boldly stated that he would take that line. I want hon. Members to listen to this. There was a meeting at the National Land League, in Sackville Street, on March 3. Father Sheehy then said "There might be arrests. The priests of the country were determined to take such decisive action that it would be impossible for the Government to pass them over and arrest Then I other persons-not local magistrates- MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Remember, too, that two of them were arrested on suspicion. of the Act. The hon. Member for Dun- | that paragraph. I have no objection to garvan (Mr. O'Donnell), with that accu- state that had I foreseen the critical racy which characterizes him, says that examination of the hon. Member for we have arrested no perpetrators of out- Dungarvan, it would have been worded rages. Well, I have just sent for the otherwise. It is suggested that it was list that was last laid on the Table of necessary for us to guard against the House, and I find that in that list misconstruction; but that was not so, there are 54 persons named, two of them because it was a confidential Circular, for treasonable practices sent only to 18 men, who were certainly not likely to subject us to misconstruction. I may tell you, too, why those words were used. They were used because the Inspector General did not wish the police generally to suppose that there was a censure upon them by the authorities. We did think it desirable to remind them in some degree of their duties; but we did not wish to remind them in a manner that they might think they were censured by the authorities in Dublin. The words "lock and key" are generally used in confidential Circulars, and I think we did perfectly right in telling the police that it was their duty to stop these outrages if they could. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Stick to the Circular. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Galway having interrupted several times in a manner quite unusual, if he does so again I must warn him that he has disregarded the authority of the Chair. MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must next refer to the second paragraph of the Circular, which states MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, they were all arrested on suspicion; they could not have been arrested on anything else. Nineteen of the cases were for inciting to outrage, and 33 for perpetrating outrage. For a time the Act had an effect; then we found out that the outrages were increasing, and we also found out that the organization that had been checked in the first place by the Act, had again become very active. I stated then, and most distinctly, that I hoped, as regarded every bad outrage, every decided outrage, the police would be able to let us know who should be arrested in connection with it. One of the great difficulties the police had to contend with was the completeness of the organization-people, for example, being actually sent from a distance to commit these outrages. I do not think that any hon. Member who has read or heard anything, or knows anything of the worst of these outrages, particularly the murders, can have the slightest doubt about the matter. And now comes this question of the Circular. It was certainly not directly issued by me. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes; but you are responsible for it.] Yes, II admit that I was disappointed at the am responsible for it; but I merely extent of that impunity. The Circular state the fact of its issue by the Chief goes further, and statesInspector, because of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. police, with the knowledge they possess of the The orders were, I may say, those of character and habits of the people among whom the Chief Inspector, made with my they live, are not oftener in a position to know sanction and that of the Lord Lieu-tration of nightly outrages; but if it is diffiat least some of those present at the perpetenant. Taking the Circular, I desire cult to believe this, it is still more difficult to to correct a mistake I made yesterday. understand that they fail in so many instances The last thing I would do would be to give grounds of reasonable suspicion against to avoid any responsibility; and I may anyone." have conveyed to the House that, although I was fully responsible for the substance of the Circular, I was not responsible for the opening paragraph. It was submitted to me in proof; but I was so attentive to the general substance of the Circular, that I lost sight of VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.] "It is to the fact of the impunity with which secret and violent outrages are committed that the Inspector General desires to call attention in a very special manner." "It is most difficult to conceive that the These officers, no doubt, occupy a difficult position; but it is my business and the business of the Inspector General to stir and stimulate them. If it had been a question of manufacturing outrages, then what hon. Members have said would, no doubt, have been perfectly true. But [Second Night.] 2 S they are not manufactured; they are too | Resolution; and I must add a few words certain and too evident. Our business on other charges which have not been is to stop them. We have, not unfre- made to-day, but which I regret were quently, had men sent up to us as being made in the heat of debate by one of suspected without what we considered the Members for the University of Dubreasonable grounds of suspicion. We lin some time ago-that we had not carhave, therefore, naturally asked the police ried out these measures, as we ought to if you really do believe these people have carried them out, with energy and did commit or incite to these outrages, determination. The noble Lord the you ought to have looked out more care- Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph fully and obtained more information that Churchill) says we have carried them would give us some grounds on which to out with caprice. The Circular further states act. "The most active leaders and instigators of popular movements of every description and their respective characters are well known to the police." Had I had to write that, I should probably have qualified that term. Probably, however, everyone knows what it meant. It does not mean popular movements as we understand the term in England, or a movement for Constitutional purposes, but one leading to such acts as Boycotting," for example. The Circular says 66 "The persons who are likely to be led by their influence and advice are also well known; and the Inspector General is, therefore, unable to understand how it so often happens that on the occasion of an outrage admittedly committed at the instigation of the leaders referred to, the police officers and their constables state that they cannot attach any grounds of reasonable suspicion against any individual even as an inciter to outrage." Now, statements with regard to outrages come to us. We have not the slightest doubt that the outrages have been committed. Had we acted as hon. Members have supposed, we should have taken these statements without inquiry, and not have stimulated the police to give the reasonable grounds of suspicion. I know very well what must be the fate of any Minister who attempts to restore order in Ireland. (Interruptions from the Irish Members.) But I expect to be believed by the majority of this House when I say that this would have been a bad Circular to have issued had it not been issued in order to obtain information for persons who were sifting for themselves with the greatest possible care the grounds upon which cases were sent up, and who, in the majority of instances, did not accept those grounds. Now, I think I have said all, or nearly all, I intended to say with regard to the actual charges made under this Mr. W. E. Forster LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes; it is quite apparent. MR. W. E. FORSTER: No doubt, it is apparent to the noble Lord; but the noble Lord recently gave us, as an illustration, that Archbishop Croke LORD RANDOLPH *CHURCHILL : Father Sheehy in my Question. No; nothing of the kind. I referred to the noble Lord does not forget that even MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am glad he has some degree of influence as a Member of Parliament. He forgets, however, that he may convey an insinuation by asking a Question, without the remotest foundation for it, and an insinuation which may equal in effect and intention any statement. I am now about to speak to Members from Ireland on the Benches opposite me behind the Front Bench. This Act, though the widest ever passed, has its limits, and we cannot go beyond its limits. It is our belief that anyone in our position would have acted as we have done. You who stand by and look on cannot tell what we were obliged to consider when putting into operation an Act with regard to which we were pleged not to arrest persons except we believed they came within its terms. Speeches which were comparatively innocent at first have now be come very dangerous, and the effects which have followed and follow from them are so frequent, and they must be, or ought to be so well known, that I admit, and we accept, the responsibility that we have to deal with speeches in a different manner from that in which we had to deal with them at first. Again, if we had strained the law, if we had not shown some forbearance in exercising it, we might very probably have set public opinion against the law. But we resolved to err on the safe side. I may say, here, that nothing I have heard from any Member of the House gave me so much pain as the words used by the right Was elto go to America; | persuaded to take forcible possession of particular case on the holding, defying the law, the landhad been laid-the lord, the agent, and everybody else. med Murphy. And That happened on an estate upon which Greumstances of his landlord and tenants had always been ut certainly had not on the best possible terms. Then came ng tenant for the last this unfortunate influence, and they saw his farm had never been the consequence. The remainder of the y condition. He paid a story was brief. The man was prosecuted 4-year; so he was not one for his illegal re-entry into the premises; all and helpless tenants. but the jury disagreed, notwithstanding IMBER: What is the valua- the man's own admission. Judge Barry impossible to proceed on the occasion remarked that this was 1 these interruptions. another of those discreditable scenes LAKER: I have distinctly that had taken place during the Spring it these interruptions are dis- Assizes, and went to justify the remark d I must take serious notice that all over Ireland trial by jury had it they continue. become a farce. It was so in the county PLUNKET, resuming, said, that of Limerick. He would not occupy time 1825 there had been no alteration further; but he would leave it to the rent of this man's holding, and justice and honour of the House to say ..it was reduced by £8. What were whether the charges against this gencircumstances of this eviction, on tleman and his agent, so recklessly Count of which the whole County made, had been fairly or justly mainrick was to be raised, and in refer- tained. to which such strong language had used by the rev. gentleman? In May, 10, an ejectment process for non-payIent of rent was obtained, the tenant being £160 in arrears. It should be sid also that the landlord would incur a loss of £250 by the ejectment, because in addition to the amount of arrears the landlord recently expended £90 upon an addition to the dwelling-house and the offices, the latter of which had been allowed to fall into disrepair; and in October, 1880, he offered £100 to the tenant to assist him to emigrate. This was the man whose case was brought forward as the test case from the county of Limerick. What happened? At last one of these two ejectments took place, the tenant owing £160. The sheriff took possession under the decree, and a caretaker was put in, pending redemption. There was some arrangement, by which a certain amount of the redemption was secured by the letting of the grass, and shortly after the tenant came and offered the balance. By this time an addition to the rent had accrued, and the landlord said "I will willingly accept you, if you will get security for the balance of the amount." The tenant went away apparently with the intention of obtaining the security; but then there came about one of those occurrences with which they were now too familiar. The Land League came into operation, and the tenant was MR. O'SULLIVAN said, that as his county had obtained so much notoriety during this debate, it would not be out of place if he said a few words on the subject. He knew every inch of the property and every tenant upon it for the last 25 or 30 years, and he was prepared to say, without fear of contradiction, that though there were many rack-rented estates in Limerick, not one was half so rack-rented as the estate of Mr. Coote. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had said that the rents had not been raised for 25 years. But what were those rents? He would give some instances, and would mention names. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman never hear of a tenant named Walsh, who had his rent raised from £4 an acre to £4 88., or of Widow Duggan, evicted from her holding? There was no more rackrented or persecuted tenantry in the County Limerick. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman never hear of Widow O'Donnell, of the Abbey Farm, Kilmallock, who, for a farm of 22 acres, paid £96 a-year, the valuation being about £56? Was that a rack-rented farm? True it was that the rent on the farm had not been increased much during the last 25 years; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) had known the family for 33 years as hard working, industrious and honest as any in the parish, and during all that time [Second Night.] |