The right hon. Gentleman, however, had always been perfectly consistent in one respect. He disliked the landed interest of this country. He (Mr. Mac Iver) had no desire to make any lengthened remarks; but he wished to say that he thought the Government had been very lax. They ought either to have arrested Mr. Dillon before or not at all; but they allowed the time to go by, and they had now arrested him when he was coming to take his seat in that House. He cordially supported the views expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle. thing which the hon. and learned Member desired to impede the discussion of more than another it was an Irish griev ance. The line taken that evening by the Government was altogether inconsistent with their arguments when the Coercion Bill was passing through the House. The Government had said that they could not give the House further information, because, if they did, the person who had supplied it would be liable to be intimidated by his neigh bours. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had now changed his ground completely. Who MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he had could intimidate those who had given been much astonished by the speech of the information on which the hon. Memthe Prime Minister, which was a re- ber for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had been markable instance of the way in which arrested? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) a great master of Parliamentary Forms took it that his hon. Friend had been could evade the real issue. The right put in prison because of certain speeches hon. Gentleman said that was an irregu- which he had made openly at a Land lar mode of bringing forward that sub- League meeting in Dublin. That speech ject, and because he considered it to be had been published in all the newsso he declined to enter into it. He fur- papers, and there could be no fear of ther challenged them to bring a sub- anyone being intimidated in consequence stantive Motion before the House, when of the information given against him. they might discuss the whole trans- Therefore, the whole reason for the abaction; but when the Government were solute silence and secrecy urged in reasked to give facilities for the discus- gard to the nature of the information sion of a substantive Motion they with- disappeared in the case of his hon. held all such facilities. The Irish Mem- Friend. The hon. Member for Birkenbers had been prevented at all points head (Mr. Mac Iver) had said the arrest from bringing forward the matter in a should have taken place sooner, or not regular way; and the right hon. Gentle- at all. If his hon. Friend were engaged man the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in in the utterance of speeches which were the face of all the facts they had had to exciting to public disorder, he ought never confront, had risen in his place and de- to have been allowed to make a second clared that the Irish Members were speech, and accordingly they were driven afraid to bring the subject forward. He to this conclusion-that the hon. Gentle had told them they could have brought man was arrested for a speech made on the Motion that night; but if he had months ago, or he was arrested for a looked at the Order Book he would have speech made two or three weeks ago. seen that there were seven Notices of If the arrest was in respect of a speech Motion down for that night, four of made months ago, it had come too late; which were opposed. One of them re- but there could be no doubt it was made lated to police superannuation, and the on account of a speech delivered only hon, and gallant Member in whose name two or three weeks ago. The only recent it stood (Colonel Alexander) took too speeches made by his hon. Friend that deep an interest in the subject to give he knew of which had attracted notice way in favour of the Irish Members. To during the last few weeks were two, one another of those Motions Notice of oppo- of which was made on a Sunday, and the sition had been given by the hon. and other at a Land League meeting in Dublearned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-lin. The speech made on the Sunday could ton), who, though his career in the House had not been long, had already acquired a reputation for unyielding and relentless hostility to any proposition which he wished to prevent from coming before the House. If there was any Mr. Mac Iver not have been the cause of his arrest, because his hon. Friend was in prison before the report of it could have come before the Dublin authorities. He was, therefore, forced to the conclusion that it was in consequence of his speech be fore the Land League meeting that his hon. Friend had been arrested. But, on April 7, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald stated in a Charge to the Grand Jury that Dublin was in an unusually peaceful and orderly condition. For himself, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had never seen Dublin in anything but a peaceful and orderly state. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was questioned with regard to the Charge, and his reply was that since the Charge of Judge Fitzgerald one or two speeches had been made in the Land League. Was the Metropolis of Ireland to be proclaimed in a state of siege, and were the liberties of 300,000 people to be placed at the mercy of every policeman, because one man made speeches which it was sought to prevent? If such a thing were heard of as occurring at Berlin, or even at St. Petersburg, English Members would receive it with disgust, and would hardly believe it possible. What was the speech of his hon. Friend? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had himself declared that if the Irish people had the control of their own affairs, either justice would be done to the Irish tenants, or the Irish tenants would exterminate the landlords. If he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) were to act the part of a plagiarist, and to give as his own, in the Council of the Land League in Dublin, some of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year, with regard to the horrors of eviction, with regard to the process of eviction, with regard to the threats of violence, and the difficulty of preserving and maintaining the public peace, he had no doubt he would have an uncomfortable lodging in Kilmainham before 24 hours were over; but if he were to adopt some of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he did not think he would even be let off with a lodging in Kilmainham, but believed that he would be brought before a packed jury, if a packed jury could be got in Ireland now, and sentenced to penal servitude for inciting to riot. No one could deny the truth of what the hon. Member for Tipperary had said; but its very truth was its guilt in the eyes of the Government. His hon. Friend had said that there were 10,000 persons threatened with eviction; and that was true. The hon. Member was understating rather than overstating the case. Was he to be put in prison because he spoke what was true? Did anybody suppose that the public peace and order could be preserved in Ireland if the Government were criminal enough to allow evictions to be made? No one who knew the animosity which the present action of the landlords in Ireland created, or the feeling of the people towards them, could fail to be aware that 10,000 or 12,000 evictions could not take place without resistance. If that were so, could his hon. Friend, knowing the fact, be blamed for stating it? As a chief officer of the Land League, it was his duty to proclaim the facts; and instead of having been imprisoned for doing so, he ought to be thanked for it; if he had abstained from doing so, he would not have been performing his duty as a citizen. Instead of that, there could be no doubt that that was the speech which led to his hon. Friend's arrest. It was deplorably strange, but it was true, as had been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that the Irish people had never gained anything from England except by violence or threatened insurrection, and the Land Bill was no exception to the rule; whereas his ideal was that of a country where legitimate ends were pursued by Constitutional and legitimate means. Indeed, a country could scarcely be said to be civilized in which the means did not exist of influencing public opinion by peaceful meetings or through the Press; while violence was the miserable concomitant of English rule in Ireland. He charged that upon the Government as one of the worst and most demoralizing influences which they exercised in this country; and, in conclusion, he begged to say that if the Government gave the Irish Members facilities for discussing the arrest of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), the question would be discussed in a frank, full, and fair manner; but if the Government demurred to or denied that reasonable request, then they would be compelled to take such means as the Forms of the House might afford of securing attention for a matter which lay near to millions of Irish hearts. MR. JESSE COLLINGS said, he had opposed the passing of the Coercion Bill, and he now regretted some of the conse 50 policemen, at which the most painful scenes were witnessed. And who was Mr. M Geough? Why, a gentleman who, according to the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission, was one of those who had brought Ireland into the condition in which she was now placed. It appeared that one of his tenants, a widow, wished to sell her tenant right in a farm for which she paid £20 a-year; but that he refused to accept a man as tenant who was ready to take it, unless he consented to have the rent increased to £27 a-year. Those terms were refused. The widow, in consequence, could not sell her tenant right, and she was evicted without any compensation. That such proceedings should create a deep feeling of irritation in the minds of the Irish people was scarcely matter for wonder. He (Mr. Collings) gave the Chief Secretary for Ireland credit for his humanity; but he must say people were tempted to commit offences in their despair. They might say that that view was not logical; but then they were dealing with a people who thought they had no right to be turned out on the roadside. When they talked about sending large forces to be present at these evictions, so as to prevent resist ance, they lost sight of the fact of what human nature would do under such circumstances. They must not forget that the very beasts would fight for their lair and young ones when driven to desperation; and these evictions must be stopped, unless they were to increase even the disorder which they had now. There had been the greatest misconception in this country as to the character of the agitation in Ireland, and it seemed to quences of that Bill. He did not rise to criticize the policy of the Government with regard to the arrests that had taken place in Ireland, because he was not in a position to say whether or not any of the action taken there was justified. There was, however, abroad, he thought, a very general feeling of regret that, as the Government had stayed their hands so long, they had not found it consistent with their duty at the last moment to avoid arresting Mr. Dillon. No one that had read the speeches of Mr. Dillon could doubt that he had made statements which would justify his arrest; but what he (Mr. Collings) wished to ask the Government was this-when were they to stop in the process of arresting various Leaders of the Land League? He could not help regretting that the Government had chosen that particular time to create a feeling of irritation by their action in Ireland, a time when a Land Bill had been brought in, which redeemed the promise of the Government. It was a Bill which throughout the whole of England had been received with favour, and generally in Ireland with thankfulness and appreciation. ["No, no!" The Bill was generally received with appreciation, and in a manner better than the Government could have expected; and by doing what they had, they were likely to destroy, to a great extent, their remedial legislation. The state of Ireland appeared to be now even worse than it was a few months ago as regarded the feelings of the people; and a word ought, he thought, to be said about those who were the real culprits in the case, and without whom the Dillons could not exist in Ireland. He meant the men who were evicting the ten-him that the Chief Secretary for Ireland ants from their farms. By arresting 50 Dillons the Government would not secure the object which they seemed to have in view. It had been said by the Prime Minister that "crime dogged the steps of the Land League; but anyone who had read the statistics of crime in Ireland would see at once that crime dogged the steps of eviction, and if crime was to be stopped evictions must be seen to. The Government must be aware that the Coercion Bill was being put to a purpose which they never contemplated. A week or two ago, evictions were enforced at the instance of a justice of the peace for the county of Armagh, Mr. M'Geough, with the aid of Mr. Jesse Collings had been duped by the Tory landlords in Dublin Castle. The story which had been placed before thousands of people by the English Press as to the roasting alive of a process-server had turned out false. The Times, a short time ago, represented the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to have told the Irish people to stick to their arms; but, on turning to the Dublin Freeman, he (Mr. Collings) found that what the hon. Member really had said was— "Your organization has given you the bene fits you have gained, and I advise you to stick to the arm which has done so much for you." What was to be done? He strongly advised the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to publicly signify his intention of making the Bill retrospective in its clauses. Even this Bill might not pass this Session, and the landlords would be protected in their legalized plunder. MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Member was travelling into a Bill which was appointed for a future day. people were our own flesh and blood? [Several Irish MEMBERS: No, no!] Oh, yes, they were. He was sorry the Irish Members were so parochial that they could not understand his meaning. In a wider sense the Irish people were their own flesh and blood. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to hold out some hope to these poor MR. JESSE COLLINGS, apologizing, creatures who were turned out of their said, he was led away from the question homes every day, and who, if they by a consideration of the injustice done left the country, left with curses on to the Irish people while the Land Bill England. The Government dare not was being delayed in the House. The logically carry out the Coercion Act; right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secre- if they did they would be compelled to tary for Ireland, speaking last August, shoot down the people. [An Irish MEMstated that if the landlords used their BER: They have done so already.] He powers in such a manner as to force the maintained that the people of England Government to support them in injus- were not prepared to approve of any tice, the Government would accompany such extremities. The Government their request for special powers with a were in the position of an unskilful Bill which would prevent them being physician dealing with a skin disease. obliged to support injustice. After that They were taking steps to spread that speech, one might have hoped that some- disease inwards, and, by casting into thing would be done to prevent the in- prison the leaders of the Land League, justice which the Government would not they were leaving the whole thing in deny was at present taking place in Ire- the hands of the ruffian part of the land. He did not know, for instance, population. He therefore appealed to whether it would not be possible to re- the right hon. Gentleman to say somefuse the use of troops and Constabulary thing whereby the bad landlords would at evictions, until the justice of the case be taught that if they persevered in the of the Irish tenants was first settled. He course which led to crime they would would appeal to the Prime Minister to have to make restitution. He was saysay one word of comfort to these poor ing nothing against the Government; Irish people, every one of whom, as well but he was asking that they should give as every one of the people of England, effect to their good intentions. He rebelieved in the right hon. Gentleman. gretted that the Coercion Act was being [Cries of" No!" from the Irish Members.] used simply for the purpose of evictions He would say yes, and, speaking from and of collecting rents whether those rents experience of public meetings in Eng-were just or unjust, in a most barbarous land, he said the mention of the name of Gladstone always raised unbounded enthusiasm. MR. HEALY: No, no! MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I say, yes. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Not lately. MR. JESSE COLLINGS maintained that even recent proceedings had not destroyed the popularity of the Prime Minister. He made the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman from a sense of pity for the poor people of Ireland, and could assure the House that, if he were the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he could not sleep in his bed for thinking of the injustice inflicted on these unfortunate persons. He would remind the Prime Minister of the theory he propounded long ago, but which was still well remembered - namely, that the manner, and with a total disregard to the position and poverty of the poor people who were evicted. Let the House remember that the Irish people were turned out of their homes for resisting a law which Parliament was about to proclaim an unjust law. Insisting on those evictions, bad landlords were doing that which they knew two months hence it would be unlawful for them to do; and what was more natural than that the people of Ireland should refuse obedience to the law which gave them no protection in return? Mr. GIBSON and Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT rose together; but Mr. SPEAKER called upon SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, who said, that he did not rise to reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings), MR. GIBSON said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in thinking that no good object would be gained by discussing the matter further. He would have been glad if the discussion had terminated before the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings) had spoken; but a new direction had been given to it by that hon. Member, who had made a peculiar, not to say extraordinary speech. The Motion had been introduced unexpectedly by the hon. Memher for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell. Thereupon the hon. Member for Ipswich, watching his opportunity, had risen and produced a mass of letters and documents which he fired away for half-an-hour, and pleaded earnestly for a reply from a Minister. He avoided calling upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who the hon. Member knew was always ready to speak; and, indeed, he looked thoroughly put out when the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up to say a few words on the subject. He (Mr. Gibson) had no intention of making an elaborate speech; but he should like to make a few remarks in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Ipswich. The hon. Member from one of his documents drew comfort, which he found in the speech made last August by the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he forgot to draw the obvious moral, when the right hon. Gentleman stated last August that if he saw occasion for interfering with the landlords he would not hesitate to take action. It must therefore be fairly and honestly assumed that he had found nothing since that time, with all the vast information at his disposal, that would but to ask the House to consider the Position in which it had been placed by the hon. Member. He would admit, as fully as the hon. Member could desire, that the evictions in Ireland, and the consequences to which they led, were a very serious question; but he could not help thinking that the hon. Member had ingeniously intended to do the Government a good turn by continuing the debate on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. That evening was devoted to private Members; but his hon. Friend had managed to make a speech which would have been very suitable for the second reading of that Bill, but was scarcely appropriate to a Motion for the adjournment of the House. He did not propose to follow up the discussion introduced by his hon. Friend. That would be very irregular on the part of the Government. The debate had been diverted into that channel, and that was why he rose at the same time as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), who, he rather thought, was about to make an elaborate reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich. There was no doubt the discussion had been raised upon another matter, and no doubt it was a very serious and grave matter that a Member of the House should be arrested and imprisoned. So serious a matter was it that it was a most unsatisfactory thing to attempt to deal with it upon a Motion for adjournment, for on such a Motion no decision of the House could be taken. If there ever was a question upon which the House should definitely pronounce, it was upon the conduct of the Government in arresting a Member of that House; but it was quite clear that no definite and distinct opinion could be pronounced upon such a Motion as that, however willing anyone might be to give an opinion. How, on a mere in-justify him as a responsible Minister terlocutory Motion, could the Government enter on the details of the grounds of the arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary? That was a question of the gravest gravity, and the Government were not entitled to go into it except upon the most urgent grounds, and after a distinct challenge of their conduct had been given, and a decision of the House invited. He thought that, in the circumstances, the House would, upon reflection, agree with him that no advantage could be gained by continuing the debate. Sir William Harcourt in submitting to the House a proposal on the subject. But the case did not rest on that obvious inference; for, within the last two months, the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated in the House there was nothing whatever in the conduct of the landlords as a class calling for objection from him, and similar remarks were made on a recent occasion by the Prime Minister. What, then, was the meaning of the extraordinary remarks about landlords made by the hon. Member for Ipswich? Some glimmering of what was due to justice appeared to have crossed the |