On the first night of the session Mr. Forster gave notice of the
introduction of Bills for the protection of life and property in
Ireland. But the Irish members had taken the phrase in the Queen's
Speech that "additional powers are required by the Irish Government
for the protection of life and property," as a declaration of war,
and commenced the policy of obstruction of which they were afterwards
to make so powerful a weapon. They succeeded in protracting the
debate on the Address for eleven days.
Forster's case was a very simple one. The Land League was supreme,
and its power must be crippled. This could only be done by extending
the range of the executive. With {167} the suspension of Habeas
Corpus the authors of the outrages, who were known to the police,
could be arrested and the course of justice would not be interfered
with by corrupt evidence. It was the point of view of the official
responsible for public order, that and nothing more. Mr. Parnell's
view pierced the surface facts of the case. The League did nothing
but organise and express the public opinion of Ireland. The
Government's policy was simply one of coercion, that is, of violence.
Although it was admitted that wrongs were endured, the Government's
policy did not include any method of redressing those wrongs.
Eviction of tenants who could not possibly pay their rent through no
fault of their own was palpable injustice. Let that injustice be put
an end to, and outrages would soon cease. It was clearly the duty of
the representatives of Ireland to put every difficulty in the way of
the passing of such a measure as the Chief Secretary's.
At this stage of his career Mr. Labouchere was not a Home Ruler. In
his first speech to his electors at Northampton,[1] he had said: "I
really have not understood myself what Home Rule means. I should be
exceedingly sorry to see the Union between Great Britain and Ireland
done away with. I think it is absolutely necessary for the
well-being of both countries, but I am myself in favour of as much
local government, not only in Ireland, but in all parts of England as
possible." He was voicing the views of Mr. Chamberlain, whose
trumpet from the beginning had set forth no uncertain sound, for the
member for Birmingham was then, and remained, unalterably opposed to
the separation of the two kingdoms, and to the institution of an
Independent Parliament in Dublin.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account