On Wednesday, Mr. Arnold-Forster and Mr. T. W. Russell. challenged
the Irish administration of Mr. Morley. The Unionist contention is that Mr. Morley does not do enough to prevent the persecution of the so-called "land-grabbers," and allows intimidation to be practised against them. The instances of boycotting produced by Mr. Arnold-Forster and Mr. Russell were not, perhaps, very numerous ; but it must be remembered (as we pointed out last week) that the policy of ignoring intimidation wherever possible tends to create a false peace. Who dares tempt the boycott if it is known that the police will not notice its application till after shots have been fired or bodily harm done ? Mr. Morley's defence was not a strong one, and his attempts to explain away the boycotting of Mr. Thomas by no means convincing. A solicitor would not act for Mr. Thomas because he was not sure of his fees. Mr. Thomas could get as many workmen as he liked, and the miller merely refused to grind his corn because it was too small a quantity. Has Mr. Morley for- gotten the ingenuity of the Irish race in the matter of excuses ? And does he think that the creed of boycotting has so far advanced under his Secretaryship that people will openly allege that they cannot deal with a man because he has been denounced ? On a division, the Unionists were defeated by 39 (211 to 172).