209 Protection of Person and

{MAY 10, 1881} Property (Ireland) Act, 1881. 210
He (Mr. Gibson)
sponsibility of the Irish Executive was
of the gravest kind.
concurred in that, and should not, at the
proper time, hesitate to criticize frankly
Before the Irish officials were
and fully the conduct of that Execu-
tive.
strengthened by the addition of excep-
tional powers, they did not apply until
on the very eve of the meeting of Par-
liament the powers left in them by the
ordinary law with anything like adequate
vigour. Before the meeting of Parlia-
ment the Executive in Ireland had, in
fact, been so administered that it did not
command proper respect in that country.
For a short period after the passing of
the Peace Preservation Act many people
thought that a quieter state of things
was going to arise; but the fact remained
at that moment, that with the powers of
the ordinary law and of the exceptional
law at their disposal, the administra-
tion of the country had been such that
the Irish Executive was not regarded
by the community, from the Giant's
These,
Causeway to Cape Clear, with anything
approaching to due respect.
of course, were matters to be gone into
when they should come regularly before
the House for discussion, and the Govern-
ment had the opportunity of defending
themselves. He should then, probably,
He would admit that the
not hesitate to take part in the dis-
cussion.
position of those responsible for the
maintenance of law and order was a
difficult and responsible position, and
that every fair allowance should be
made in reference to their conduct; but,
at the same time, they must expect that
their conduct would be jealously scanned
and anxiously scrutinized by those who
had to look to the law for their vindica-
tion and protection.

mind of the hon. Member towards the close of his speech, when he said no one could tell at present whether the evictions were just or unjust. That thought should have suggested to him some caution, when he said just before the real culprits were the landlords; that they were trying to clear the land from tenants as from vermin. What proof did he offer of that, or of his other statements, that they were seeking for ill-gotten and legalized plunder, and that what they reckless outrages. were doing were ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] He did not object to applause from any quarter. He desired to point out that those were strong statements to be made in that House without any proof, especially as they culminated in the statement that the speaker was unable to tell the House whether evictions were just or unjust. In the name of common sense, what did the hon. Member for Ipswich think the Irish landlords should do when they were not paid their rents? Had the hon. Member the faintest conception that, at the present moment, on many thousands of holdings in Ireland rents were deliberately, without reason, justice, or cause, withheld from the landlords? Were the landlords to remain idle in those circumstances? Was it to be suggested for a second that the landlords, face to face with an organization whence came unjust and improper teaching, were to remain utterly quiescent, and not to seek to recover their legal rights? The proposition of the hon. Member, when seen from a sensible point of view, was utterly absurd. Did the hon. Member deny that in thousands of cases rents were improperly and unTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR justly withheld? Did he mean that the landlords so treated were to do nothing? Why, there must, in the very nature of IRELAND (Mr. LAW) said, that his things, be a substantial increase of evic- right hon. and learned Friend the tions. That would of necessity be so, Member for the University of Dublin unless the landlords were, in the words (Mr. Gibson) had made some very of the hon. Member for Ipswich, to sub-natural observations on the strange dimit to be made the victims of legalized plunder and legalized outrage. regretted that there was some truth in one sentence used by the hon. Member | for Ipswich. The hon. Member had said that the condition of Ireland was worse now than when the Peace Preservation Act was passed. He held also that the state of things in Ireland now was grave and serious, and the re

vergence of the debate from its original He purpose. It might, accordingly, have been expected that his right hon. and learned Friend would have kept in mind the principles which, according to him, ought to have guided the hon. Member for Ipswich, and, at all events, would not so far have forgotten his position as to make the Motion for adjournment the occasion for a somewhat fiery

Party attack upon the Irish administra- | Mr. Dillon. He quite admitted that tion of the law during the last six Mr. Dillon was, to the Government, a months, at a time when he knew that the great annoyance and a great inconresponsible Minister who could best an- venience. The Chief Secretary for Ireswer him must sit with his month closed. land did not want him in Ireland, and The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Demust have known, indeed had called at- partment did not want him in the House tention to the circumstance, that the Chief of Commons. The Chief Secretary for Secretary for Ireland was one of the two Ireland imagined he saw in him a great principal Ministers now present who, conspirator against his authority in that having already spoken, could not be country; and he (Mr. R. Power) could heard again on the question before the not help thinking that the Secretary of House. Knowing, however, that this State for the Home Department imagined was not the proper occasion for such a that he saw in Mr. Dillon a second Mr. speech, his right hon. and learned Friend John Devoy, who might come into that had delivered an angry philippic with House and put a cask of dynamite the not very amiable object of destroy- under the Government Bench and blow ing any respect that might be enter- it up, thereby sending the right hon. and tained for the present Administration. learned Gentleman to another place. His right hon. and learned Friend, after Was Ireland in a disturbed state at administering his gentle rebuke to the present, and was it on account of Mr. hon. Member for Ipswich, might, without Dillon? He did not think it was on any disadvantage, have wandered back to account of Mr. Dillon; and he was very the particular subject under considera- glad indeed that the right hon. and tion, and not have proceeded to make a learned Gentleman the Attorney General gratuitous attack upon the conduct of for Ireland (Mr. Law) gave them, the the Government under cover of a Motion other night, the reason why Ireland was such as this. A proper occasion would, in a disturbed state. He said that no doubt, soon arise for the discussion "Rapacious landlords keep the country of that question; and the Government in a state of disturbance." He (Mr. R. would be then perfectly ready to meet the Power) should like to know why the charges made by his right hon. and right hon. and learned Gentleman did learned Friend and take the judgment not put into Kilmainham some of those of the House upon them. gentlemen who, he said, kept the country in a state of disturbance? He himself should be sorry, in Ireland, to say, in the Land League rooms in Dublin, for instance, that the rapacious landlords kept the country in a state of disturbance. He did not think it would be a safe thing to say under the present circumstances. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had certainly qualified himself to become an honorary member of the Land League by that statement. He did not remember any speech made in Ireland which would excite people more than to tell them that the rapacious landlord was the man who created all this disturbance

MR. R. POWER said, he did not think that Her Majesty's Government ought to regret the discussion which had taken place, as it had been turned into a very good debate upon the Irish Land Question. If, however, they did regret it, he could only say that they could at any moment have stopped it by giving an honest and straight answer to an honest and straightforward question. The question was-why did they arrest Mr. Dillon? They defied the Government to give them an answer there that night. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said this was a question of the greatest gravity, he (Mr. R. Power) said that was all the more reason why the Government should give them an opportunity for discussing it. Would the Government give them an opportunity for discussing the question? He thought they would not. He thought the Government had too much common sense to allow them to discuss the arrest of The Attorney General for Ireland

the man who turned them out on the road-side, and had no mercy for his tenants in any respect. But he would ask seriously--what was the feeling that the arrest of Mr. Dillon had created in Ireland? If there was one man in Ireland whom the people looked up to for counsel and advice-if there was a man who, by his character and his acts ever since he came into public life, merited

and obtained the confidence of his countrymen-it was Mr. Dillon; and the arbitrary arrest of that man could not but weaken the hold of the Government, if they ever had any, upon the affection of the Irish people more than all the Coercion Bills they had ever passed in that House. He had just received a resolution from the Dungarvan Board of Guardians condemning the Government for what they had done, and they might expect similar resolutions of condemnation from the various Boards and public bodies in Ireland. They might depend upon it that by his arrest they had done more to create disloyalty and disaffection in Ireland than anything Mr. Dillon ever could or ever did do.

it to a farmer residing in the neighbourhood. No one had, in fact, been arrested under the Acts answering to the character of those who were described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland during the debates on the Bills. The Government secured the passing of the Coercion Acts by false pretences; the grounds they gave to the House did not and do not exist; the whole story was shown to have been a mass of exaggeration by the manner in which the Acts had been carried out. The Government should have been slow to arrest Mr. John Dillon at any time, and especially at the time they did. At the commencement of his political career he was grossly attacked in his absence by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The most serious outrages in Ireland were those that were being committed under cover of the Act. The real criminals nestled in Dublin Castle, and their "head centre" was the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

MR. T. C. THOMPSON said, he would ask the Government to remember that clemency was far more powerful than cruelty. What was the result of the course the Government had pursued? Had any good ensued? Was Ireland any quieter, were the peasantry more contented, or were there fewer evictions? No; the evictions were increasing day by day, proving that the policy the Government had pursued was a bad policy. Everybody was sorry that Mr. Dillon was

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, that when the Coercion Bills were being passed through the House, he warned the Government that those measures would be used for the purpose of vengeance by the Irish landlords, and used by the Government for the purpose of suppressing political feeling in Ireland; and he thought the result had proved the perfect truth and justice of those forewarnings. It was a notorious fact that the men now arrested and imprisoned in Kilmainham and Galway were not the class of men described to the House by the Government as the persons whom they desired to arrest. The Government alleged that they desired to arrest the inciters to outrage, the midnight marauders, the village ruffians, and all the rest of it; but they, the Irish Mem-arrested; but the question was whether bers, alleged, on the other hand, that his imprisonment had been for good or that was not their intention, and that evil. He was as much interested in the their intention was to arrest the young success of the policy of the present men who were carrying on in a spirited, Government as anyone, believing the but in a perfectly legitimate and Con- failure of it would be a misfortune to stitutional way, the organization and the the country; but he must admit that agitation of the Irish Land League, and Mr. Dillon's arrest was producing no that was really the case. With respect good in either Ireland or England. Let to his hon. Friend the Member for Tip-them remember how English public perary (Mr. Dillon), it was a remarkable fact that he was not arrested until the eve of the second reading of the Land Bill, and after he had made a speech which did not differ in character from many of those he had previously delivered. He must say that that looked very like foul play. Only last week a young man of excellent character, named Higgins, was arrested for signing, as honorary secretary, a resolution passed at a meeting of a local branch of the Land League, and sending a copy of

opinion was aroused in regard to the trial of Governor Eyre for proceedings in Jamaica. The English people disliked the trickery used in that case; they resented the manner in which, in Jamaica, Gordon was arrested in a district not subject to martial law, and then transferred into a district where martial law had been proclaimed, and there tried by subaltern officers under such law and hanged. What was the feeling of England in this case? Was it not that the proclamation of the City

of grappling with the Government case.
It certainly appeared that the pro-
bability of his appearing in the House
to express the opinion of a very large
body of the Irish people on the Land
Law (Ireland) Bill had something to do
with his arrest. Mr. Dillon had said
nothing within the last few weeks pre-
ceding his arrest in any way different to
what he had been saying months before;
and the matter required a little more
explanation than the right hon. Gentle
man the Chief Secretary for Ireland had
given it, for he had simply defended
himself for not giving information by
reference to the bare letter of the Coer-
cion Act. But an engagement had been
given, when that Bill was under discus-
sion, that the causes which led to every
arrest should be laid upon the Table,
and the breach of that engagement
ought to bring a blush to the face of
every Member of the Government. He
saw that he was still more unfavourably
situated than when he rose to address
the House, because now there was not a
single Member of the Government pre-
sent. But he must say that there was
as much intelligent knowledge of the
affairs of Ireland on the Treasury Bench
now as at any time since the Govern
ment came into Office.

of Dublin was made with a view of en-tunity, in a straightforward manner, trapping Mr. Dillon? Was it not also felt that he was arrested at a time when of all others he should have been left free, when he was coming over to England to discharge his duty, and when he considered his person safe. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) said the feeling of the people of England was a feeling of indignation. The Government had many opportunities of arresting him. They had heard Mr. Dillon say many things in that House for which, supposing the Government had done their duty now, they ought to have arrested him then. Why did they arrest him now? A belief had gained ground that it was simply because his evidence on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill would have been most important? The Land Law (Ireland) Bill was a middle-class Bill, and there were few men in that House who represented anything but middleclass people, while Mr. Dillon represented a class he would have been proud to represent the peasantry of Ireland. The blot upon that Bill was that there was no provision made in it in favour of the peasantry, no provision to prevent eviction in bad seasons, and Mr. Dillon would have spoken strongly against such an omission. They might pass hundreds of measures to relieve Ireland; but if no relief against evictions in such seasons as the peasantry had gone through lately was included in them they would be of no use. He appealed to the Government to let one of their first acts be the release of Mr. Dillon from prison, and the next the repeal of the odious Coercion Acts.

Mr. O'DONNELL rose to address the House, when

Notice taken, that 40 Members wore not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. O'DONNELL resumed, by saying he wished to utter a few words upon the matter. It appeared hopeless to expect that either the English or Irish Government, so amply represented on the Treasury Bench at the present moment, would give anything like a satisfactory reply to the request of the Irish Party that evening. They had asked for facilities to discuss the case of Mr. Dillon. It was admitted on all hands that various suspicious circumstances attended that arrest; and they wanted an oppor

Mr. T. C. Thompson

MR. WARTON said, he had no sympathy with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but he must say he.had. at least, been consistent in delivering exactly the same kind of speeches five months ago as three weeks ago; and it was the duty of the Government to have arrested him long before they had done. He (Mr. Warton) had himself brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireber's speeches; but he was always met land many passages from the hon. Memby the right hon. Gentleman in & shuffling manner, and told that the passages cited were correctly given, though in some cases he had produced reports from different sources. right hon. Gentleman was inconsistent in his conduct, and deserved the epithet he (Mr. Warton) had applied to him long ago.

Question put, and agreed to.

The

The House was adjourned accordingly at a quarter before Nine o'clock.