CLERICAL COERCION.
"THROUGHOUT the course of the Kilkenny election, Mr. Parnell and his supporters have been protesting against the intimidation which they allege has been prac- tised wholesale by the priesthood. Mr. Harrington, in an interview with a reporter, declared that he had " never witnessed such electoral coercion " as had prevailed at Kilkenny—a naively candid statement for the chief official of the National League—and averred in the most positive terms that two important districts had gone against Mr. Parnell "owing to the coercion of the priests." The spec- - tacle of Mr. Parnell and his followers denouncing the undue influence exercised by the priests in an Irish election is not a little amusing, for nothing is more certain or better known than that the Nationalist leader, before the split in his party, habitually invoked priestly influence in order to secure the return of his nominees. The men enfranchised by the Act of 1885 were at once pounced upon by the priests acting as the agents of the National League, and since their endowment with the right to vote, they have never been allowed to exercise a . free choice. Again and again the Loyalists have protested against the manner in which the Irish Roman Catholic clergy habitually interfere with the voters, and have exposed the working of the machinery of intimidation employed. The Parnellites, however, have never even deigned to answer their opponents' accusations, but have cynically persisted in their course without apology or defence. Now, however, that the clergy have begun to turn the weapons which proved so useful in the case of the Loyalists against Mr. Parnell himself, we begin to find the Nationalist leaders admitting the existence of the ".clerical coercion" they have hitherto so persistently ignored. When it is used not in his interests, but against them, Mr. Harrington waxes indignant at the interference of the clergy, and denounces its authors in the bitterest terms.
But though it is impossible to feel much sympathy for Mr. Parnell and Mr. Harrington when they, the arch- intimidators, protest against intimidation—they would not, we imagine, have hesitated to use " clerical coercion " in North Kilkenny, had they been possessed of the power to do so—it is important that Unionists should realise the significance of the incident, and should, if possible, utilise it to emancipate the Irish voter from the tyranny of the priesthood, which overtook him the moment he had been freed from that of the landlord. The modus operandi of clerical coercion in Ireland is simple enough. In the first place, the priest uses his influence with the members of his flock to extort a written or spoken pledge that the voter will cast his suffrage for a particular ;candidate. When we consider the position of an Irish parish priest in relation to his parishioners, we need not wonder that these pledges are largely given. Even if he does not call spiritual terrors to his aid, and let it be known that those who go against the cause espoused. by the Church are in danger of sin, the Irish Roman Catholic priest has plenty of other ways of influencing his parishioners. The ordinary Irishman is exceedingly anxious to stand well with his own parish priest. If he can manage to occupy that enviable position, many little things are made easy for him ; while if he is out of favour, he is liable to find that matters do not go at all smoothly in times of inconvenience. The peasant is perpetually appealing to the man who is both his spiritual and worldly guide, for help and advice of one sort or another, and it is therefore an exceedingly unpleasant thing to disoblige " his reverence " on a matter of great importance. Getting a pledge out of a Celtic peasant, and making him fulfil it, are, however, two very different things. Accordingly, the priest seeks means of assuring himself that the under- takings he has obtained are not violated by means of the secret vote which the law has established for the protection of the voter. Fortunately for the priest who desires to enforce these pledges, the Ballot Act has provided exactly the opportunity he desires for watching over their fulfil- ment. Under its clauses, and those of the other Acts governing elections, each candidate is allowed to appoint polling or personation agents, to be present in the polling- booths throughout the day of the election. Whenever an election of importance takes place in Ireland, Nationalist priests get themselves nominated to this office, and thus become free of the polling-booth. For example, all Sir John Pope Hennessy's personation agents, ex- cept one, are said to have been priests. It is true they cannot actually see how the ordinary voter votes if the regulations of the Ballot Act are observed ; but few Irish peasants would consider this a sufficient security. It is enough for them to see " his reverence " sitting in the polling-booth, and it would be a bold voter who would break a pledge under his very eyes. In the case, however, of specially audacious electors, still more stringent means can be taken to prevent voting against the cause. Men whose intentions are distrusted can be told that they must declare themselves illiterate, however well they maybe able to read in reality, and in this way they are kept from changing their minds. The illiterate voter has to say in the presence of the candidates' personation agents whom he votes for, and the presiding officer marks his paper accordingly. The priestly personation agent is sworn to secrecy, no doubt ; but this is a matter of little importance. He has no need to tell any one else how Pat Murphy used his suffrage,—the important thing is, that he himself shall know whether or not Pat Murphy voted straight. Again, secrecy as regards the rest of the world is no good to Murphy, since the one person from whom he wished to conceal how he voted knows the fact with absolute certainty. It may be said, perhaps, that Pat Murphy should refuse to make the declaration of illiteracy. A moment's reflection, however, will show that this would not help him. Such recalcitrancy would be taken as a sure sign that he intended to vote wrong. Possibly we shall be told that we are greatly exaggerating the scandal in regard to the Irish elections. We do not, however, believe that any person who knows Ireland, and who is not disinclined to speak the truth, will doubt our view of the matter. In proof, too, of what we allege, we can point to the speeches of the Parnellite leaders at the Kilkenny election. In them, the intimidation practised by the priests was again and again de- nounced, and on the day of the poll, in at least one instance, the presence of a priest in the polling-booth was made the subject of a vigorous public protest. Again, the very high per-centage of illiterates in the Parnellite constituencies makes for our contention. It has been calculated that, of the votes actually cast for the Parnellites in 1886, 40 per cent. were those of illiterates. This may be too high a calculation ; but it is certain that in some constituencies, nearly 50 per cent. of the total poll was given by persons who professed not to be able to read. There seems ground to believe that such a proportion is much too high. Irish- men are not so ignorant as this, and a considerable amount of the alleged illiteracy must clearly be put down to fear. What is the remedy for this clerical coercion, which, now that it has been turned against them, has become odious to the Parnellites, but which is not therefore less odious in itself. In our opinion, it is the abolition of the right of illiterates to have their ballot-papers marked for them. We do not propose to deprive voters of the suffrage because they cannot read. All we wish to do is to insist that they must learn how to mark their papers for themselves. Their friends will tell them beforehand whose name stands first, and then all that is required is the placing of a cross opposite the top or bottom name. The elector who cannot compass this feat, in our opinion does not deserve a vote, and need not be considered. If he spoils his paper, he only does what plenty of educated people do ; and if he votes for the wrong man or votes for both candidates, he will not have erred more egregiously than the famous Head of a House at Cambridge, who got over his doubts as to who would be the best man to represent him, by voting for both. In truth, however, the abolition of the right of the illiterate to have his paper marked for him by the presiding officer in the presence of the agents of the candidates, would cause the loss of very few votes. What with Parliamentary, County Council, Local Board, and School Board elections, the country electors, whether they can read or not, understand perfectly well how to fill up a voting-paper. Every day, too, the effects of twenty years of compulsory elementary education are tending more and more to reduce the bond-fide illiterates to a neglectable quantity. Not the least of the advantages produced by getting rid of the illiterate clauses from the Ballot Act would be the banishment of the personation agents from the polling-booths. The elector would then really vote in secret, and, free froth all suspicion of intimi- dation, would drop his paper into the ballot-box without even the sense of being watched. It may be said that it might not be possible to trust the presiding officer to act alone; but those who argue thus can never have voted by ballot. The voter gets his paper at the presiding officer's table, goes to a place protected from observation, where he marks it, and then himself drops it into the locked ballot- box. Agents are not wanted in the booth to prevent fraud, and the moment the poll is closed, they might be called in to see that the boxes were properly sealed. Is there no hope that Parliament may be induced to take the necessary steps for the protection of voters ? The Gladstonians allege that in English rural constituencies, clergymen of the Church of England often behave just as badly as the Irish priests. If this is the case, why will they not join the Unionists in taking action devised to get rid of so grave a scandal ? We are perfectly willing to admit that the presence of the vicar or rector in an English rural polling-booth is grossly unfair to the voter. Many agricultural labourers, we can well believe, hesitate to enter the booth when they know that they will find the parson sitting inside, and sitting as the representative of the party against which they want to vote. The Unionist Party would, we feel sure, be glad to change the law in such a way as to put down clerical coercion in Ireland, England, and Wales. Will the Glad- stonians help them ? We fear not. Since their affiance with the Parnellites, they have dropped their efforts to get the parson out of the polling-booth ; for they know that their Nationalist allies would not tolerate for a moment any such proposal. Just as no Gladstonian now dares to speak a word in praise of Cromwell, or to object to the Roman Catholic demands in regard to education, so he is chary of demanding protection for the voter from the undue influence of the priesthood. No doubt this charge will be denied by the Gladstonians ; but if it is not true, a simple means of proving us in the wrong lies ready to their hands. Let some responsible member of their party bring in a Bill for repealing the illiteracy clauses of the Ballot Act, and for forbidding the polling-booths to any persons but the presiding officers and their clerks.
Previous page
