Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

The second Irish amendment to the address was one of immense length, moved (Feb. 22) by Mr. W. O'Brien (Cork). It set forth that the aims of the United Irish League, being the creation of an occupying proprietary and the utilisation of large fertile tracts now let to graziers for the provision of adequate holdings to the peasantry of the congested districts, were of vital importance to the welfare of Ireland, and were being pursued by methods essentially identical with those recognised as being lawful when pursued by trade unions in England, but that, nevertheless, the operations of the league were hindered by all kinds of unconstitutional action and a perversion of the machinery of justice on the part of the Executive, which proceedings ought to cease, and trade union liberties be established for the Irish tenants by legislation. The record of the league, Mr. O'Brien maintained, had been virtually, since its formation three years ago, a crimeless one. Lord O'Brien, the Lord Chief-Justice of Ireland, had stated at the recent winter assizes in Munster that there had been no cause for the proclamation of the league as an unlawful organisation. Yet the Crown officials had engaged in the manufacture of bogus crime and the getting up of bogus charges of intimidation and conspiracy, the rights of public meeting had been capriciously suppressed, jury-packing by the Crown had been persistently resorted to, and the liberty of the press had been violated.

Mr. O'Brien's contentions were supported by Nationalist Members from various parts of Ireland (but not in this case by any Irish Unionists nor by any English Liberals). The Irish Attorney-General, Mr. Atkinson (Londonderry, N.), maintained, in a speech which was much and angrily interrupted by the Irish Members, that, while the United Irish League had indeed not been proclaimed, because evidence was absent of illegality in its objects, yet illegal methods, and boycotting in particular, had been resorted to and advocated by its members, from Mr. W. O'Brien downwards. Intimidation and tyranny of a kind which was unquestionably criminal under English law, by whomsoever practised, had been advocated and brought to bear against individuals for exercising, as in the case of so-called grabbers," their undoubted legal rights. The Government were bound to take action for the defeat of such intimidation. As to the alleged jury-packing, the Crown officials had only, as under previous Governments, Liberal and even Home Rule, as well as Conservative, exercised the right of setting aside jurymen whom they had reason to believe likely to act unfairly. No man was set aside on account of his faith.

66

Mr. T. P. O'Connor (Scotland, Liverpool), having scoffed at this contention, claimed that both the present Irish Secretary, in his speech on Mr. Redmond's amendment, and his predecessor (Mr. G. Balfour), in authorising the purchase of the Dillon estate for the purpose of enlarging the small holdings of

peasantry in Mayo, had shown themselves to be converts as to the necessity of the main object of the United Irish League's agitation. In pursuance of that object it was justifiable to use "means of persuasion " falling short of official crime. The United Irish League had united the Irish party after ten years of disorganisation. Mr. Wyndham (Dover) contended that, in fact, the application of the law affecting trade union operations, supposing that it could be made applicable to agricultural combination in Ireland, as the amendment suggested, would be strenuously resisted by all the Nationalist Members. He vindicated in the very few cases where it had happened the prevention of meetings as necessary to the preservation of peace and the protection of individuals against intimidation. As to its objects the United Irish League had plagiarised from the Government, but its illegal action retarded the legal pursuit of those objects by the Congested Districts Board. The League varied, however, in its methods at different places, and therefore could not justly be proclaimed as an illegal conspiracy. He welcomed the prospect of discussing Irish questions in the House with the Irish members. The amendment was rejected by 203 votes to 109.

The subject of the defences of Gibraltar was raised (Feb. 25) by Mr. Gibson Bowles (King's Lynn), who formally moved an amendment asking for further inquiry with regard to the works under construction at Gibraltar and with regard to the dangers to which they were exposed. He anticipated and received a favourable reply from Mr. Balfour, who recognised that the ever-changing conditions of modern warfare rendered it necessary to review from time to time the adequacy of the works at a great naval base like Gibraltar. As the question might raise international and strategical problems which it might not be desirable to thresh out on the floor of the House, an inquiry, in which the Government would ask Mr. Gibson Bowles to take part, would be the best way of dealing with it. After a short discussion the amendment was withdrawn.

On the same day (Feb. 25) an ethical aspect of Imperial questions was discussed for some hours on the initiative of Mr. Caine (Camborne, Cornwall), who called attention to the transference of certain financial charges from the Indian to the British Exchequer in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, and proposed an amendment to the effect that as no provision had been made for the repayment of the arrears of these charges they ought to be repaid in the form of a liberal grant in relief of the Indian famine.

After debate, in the course of which Mr. Schwann (Manchester, N.) and Sir M. Bhownaggree (Bethnal Green, N.E.) supported the amendment, and Sir R. Mowbray (Brixton, Lambeth) opposed it, Lord G. Hamilton (Ealing, Middlesex), Secretary for India, in resisting the proposal, pointed out that the Imperial Government did not make a profit out of any

In

charge imposed upon India. The commissioners having recommended that liberal treatment should be extended to our great dependency, charges hitherto borne by India, amounting to 257,500l., had been transferred to the British Exchequer. As the commissioners declared that the charges had in the main been just, there was no ground for pressing for arrears. But if this claim for arrears were entertained, from what sources, he asked, was the money to come. spite of the famine and other difficulties a surplus was anticipated in India this year, whereas in this country there would probably be a deficiency of many millions. In those circumstances it was preposterous to expect him to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide a large sum for alleged arrears. The terrible sufferings of a portion of the Indian population, which had been dwelt upon by some speakers, were due, Lord George pointed out, to the intensity and extent of the recent drought, and not to any general increase of poverty. But if it could be shown that in any particular district the land assessment was too high, as had been stated, or that the condition of the people was deteriorating, he would cause a thorough inquiry to be made. Whilst he was compelled to oppose the amendment, he hoped he would not be thought wanting in sympathy with the Indian people.

Sir H. Fowler did not approve the financial conclusions of the commissioners. He regarded the arrangement that had been come to as temporary, and looked forward to a time when the House would reconsider the subject in a more liberal spirit than the Commission. He agreed with Lord George Hamilton that no claim could be made on behalf of India for arrears, as suggested in the amendment. He would have been glad if twelve months or two years ago a generous advance had been made to India in connection with the famine. But a good deal had happened since then, as Lord G. Hamilton had pointed

out.

A division was taken, and the amendment was negatived by 204 votes against 112.

Also on February 25, there was a brief and, considering its painful subject, not unsatisfactory debate raised by Mr. Lambert (South Molton, Devon) on the frequent surrenders of considerable bodies of British troops in South Africa. On this question, at least, party feeling was allowed to remain in abeyance. The chief speech was that of Mr. Brodrick (Guildford, Surrey), War Secretary, who said that it was but just to remember that the conditions of the war were very unusual. The enormous extent of the field of operations and the isolation of many of the troops were points which ought not to be lost sight of. Ninety-nine courts of inquiry had been held with regard to twenty different operations. As a result ten officers had been dismissed from the Army or put on half-pay, and penalties had been imposed on others. In some cases officers had been given to understand

that their chances of promotion had been impaired. When an inquiry established a primâ facie case against an officer he ought to be tried by court martial, and in cases of trial by court martial there must be publicity. But the view of the Duke of Wellington was that in the interests of the Army cases of misconduct in the field ought not to be brought before the public unless it was necessary. Lord Roberts was of the same opinion, and held that it was for the Commander-in-Chief to take action by making recommendations in regard to action in the field. He had made a large number of such recommendations which had led to the removal of officers. With regard to the pledges given by the Government to the effect that there would be a full inquiry into the war, he said they would be redeemed if it was desired; but that inquiry could not be held before the war had terminated, for until then many witnesses would, of course, be detained in South Africa. He asked the House to repose some confidence in Lord Roberts, and stated that within a fortnight of his selection as War Secretary he had resolved that no officer, whatever his rank and previous record might be, would be employed in any home command on his return from Africa excepting on the direct recommendation of Lord Roberts or Lord Kitchener. Whilst prompt punishment would follow misconduct, merit would be promptly rewarded.

Urged by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman that the promise by the Government of a full inquiry into the war had not been conditional, Mr. Balfour agreed, and said that they would adhere to their pledge unless absolved from it. It was understood that in all cases of surrender, in regard to which there was sufficient primâ facie evidence against any individual to justify the holding of a court martial, one would be held, and its results published, and any other cases would be included within the general inquiry. On this understanding the amendment to the Address, moved by Mr. Lambert, was, on the advice of Mr. Asquith (Fife, E.), withdrawn.

The end of the debate on the Address, like its beginning and middle, was devoted to the policy and conduct of the war. Among the speakers on the Opposition side there was a great preponderance of the section of British Liberals which had throughout condemned the war, and of Irish Nationalists whose sympathies with the Boers had always been openly declared. Mr. Lloyd-George (Carnarvon District) violently denounced (Feb. 18) various measures of coercion adopted by British generals with a view to the shortening of the war-the burning of Boer farms and villages, and the order reported in a telegram from Pretoria, published in the Times of January 18, that in the concentration camps the families of Boers on commando were to be on a lower scale of rations than those of Boers who surrendered. Mr. Brodrick interjected that there was not a particle of evidence for this report, to which Mr. Lloyd-George retorted that the

telegram could not have come through unless passed by the censor. He proceeded to speak of the "infamy " which was being perpetrated in the name of Great Britain, which, he said, was the real cause of the prolongation of the war. In a very successful maiden speech, Mr. Winston Churchill (Oldham). maintained that the Government would not have been justified in restricting their commanders in the field from any methods of warfare supported by modern European and American precedent, and affirmed, from what he had seen of the war, that, on the whole, it was carried on with unusual humanity and generosity. He strongly deprecated the idea of giving representative institutions to the Transvaal until after the return of the Outlander population. Sir R. Reid (Dumfries Burghs) hoped the Government would see their way to offer the Boers a full amnesty and to promise them local self-government. They ought also to be assured of assistance to repair their farms and to meet their mortgages.

Mr. Chamberlain, in a reply marked at some points by considerable acerbity, refuted the contention of some Opposition speakers that the war could have been brought to an end by an offer of reasonable terms to the Boers after the occupation of Pretoria. Peace could then only have been obtained by an unconditional surrender on our part of all the objects which we had in view. With regard to the policy of the Government he stated that he had nothing to add to what he had said in August and December. The policy of the Government had never varied. When the first shot was fired by the Boers they declared that the Republics should not retain a shred of the independence which they had abused, and that was their policy still. But they also intended to establish equality between the white races and to protect the native population. Self-government would be granted as soon as it could be safely conceded. But there must be an interval. After commenting on the fact that six pro-Boer speeches had been delivered in the course of the debate, he said he regretted the House was not unanimous, because unanimity would certainly strengthen the hands of the Executive, and language such as that which had been used by the leader of the Opposition and others must encourage the Boers. In the absence of unanimity it would be well if they could have a definite issue so that the House might express an opinion upon it; but a definite issue was what the Opposition shirked. To offer the Boers an immediate armistice to be followed without any interval by self-government would be to place in the hands of the Boer population the power of frustrating every object for which the war was undertaken; yet that was the ridiculous policy which he supposed the leader of the Opposition approved. Discussing what could be done to communicate the views of the Government to the Boer rank and file, he said that various means had been tried, and alluded to the ernel usage to which the peace emissaries had been sub

[graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »