THE DILLON PROSECUTION.
ON Tuesday last, the defendants in the prosecution insti- tuted by the Government against Mr. Dillon, Mr. William O'Brien, and their fellow-workers in the carrying out of the " Plan of Campaign," were formally committed to take their trial. They were, however, allowed, on entering into their own recognisances of X500 each, to remain at liberty. The preliminary investigation has been long and tedious, and used throughout by the Parnellites as a means for political demonstration,—Mr. Healy, in particular, using his nominal position as counsel to air the principles of the National League.
Yet, notwithstanding this, the result of the trial has been good. It has shown that the action of the Executive in Ireland during the last six months has been reasonable, moderate, and wisely calculated to restore order in Ireland,—necessarily the chief aim of any Government at the Castle. Above all, it has proved that the rumours, set on foot by an English Home-rule paper, that the Government was empowering its officers to make use of a dispensing power of the kind Mr. Morley was accused of employing, were absolutely without foundation.
The evidence with which the Government sought to obtain a committal consisted of the writings of Mr. W. O'Brien in United Ireland, in which paper the " Plan of Campaign " was first produced and elaborated, and in the speeches of Mr. Dillon and his associates. The defence was more remarkable for its ingenious impudence than for any attempt to deny the charge preferred. The charge against the defendants was, in essence, that they, intending to injure the Irish landlords (or, in the words of the summons, " owners of farms in Ireland let at rents to tenants "), had unlawfully conspired to solicit large numbers of tenants, in breach of their contracts, to refuse to pay the rents which they, the tenants, were lawfully bound to pay. To this, Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien and the rest replied, in substance :---‘ We found many of the landlords of Ireland asking im- possible rents, and we therefore devised a plan for putting pressure on them to lower their rents. In doing so, however, we were only following the example set us by the Irish Execu- tive. They themselves, as the Chief Secretary has admitted, put pressure on the landlords in order to induce them to lower their rents. Why, then, should not we ?' Notwithstanding the constant absurdities into which the organs of Home-rule opinion in England are habitually led in their efforts to find excuses for their new allies, it is indeed a little astonishing to find the Daily News apparently accepting this defence without hesitation or misgiving, and considering that the admission by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Sir Redvers Buller, and Captain Plunkett that the Government, in well-ascertained cases of hardship, used its influence to get rents reduced and evictions stopped, will make it " impossible for the Executive to proceed further against them [i.e., Mr. Dillon and his fellows] with any regard for decency." There is so much danger in all Irish questions of the public being very imperfectly informed, that it will be worth while to expose in detail the folly of this view, though such exposure must be so obvious that it will require an apology for its utterance.
The Parnellites say that the pressure brought to bear by the Government to obtain reductions of rent excuses them for their action in carrying out the " Plan of Campaign." Perhaps, if the pressure used in both cases had been the same, the point would be a good one ; but mark the difference. The Government try to induce a man to do what he has a perfect legal right to do if they can so induce him,—namely, to reduce his rents. The Parnellites, on the other hand, in carrying out the " Plan of Campaign," try to induce the tenants to do what they have no legal right to do, but rather what they are bound by law not to do,—namely, to withhold their rents from the man to whom they have agreed to pay them. The idea that the use of legitimate pressure excuses that of illegiti- mate pressure, is so childish and absurd a contention, that it really hardly deserves notice. To put, however, an exact analogy by way of further illustration. Nothing is more common in the English Courts of Law than for a Judge to say :—' This suit should never have come into Court. It ought to be settled. It is absurd that a matter which can easily be settled by a compromise should waste the time of the Court. You must see if you can't settle it.' In language often stronger than this, and with a determination stronger again than his language, a Judge thus constantly brings the greatest possible pressure to bear on one of the two litigants, who may all the time be very anxious to claim his full legal rights, in order that a compromise may be arrived at. Does the Daily News contend that, in the event of no compromise being arrived at, this pressure by the Judge would justify a third person in going to the litigant in whose interest the com- promise would have worked, and in inciting him to withstand the execution of the decree of the Court ? Such is really the defence of the Parnellites, and a more worthless and illogical defence was never put forward. By the Irish themselves it, of course, is only used as a means of wasting time and abusing the landlords. When, however, it is gravely repeated in parrot- like phrases by the English Home-rulers, the effect is suffi- ciently ridiculous.
So far from the evidence given by the heads of the Irish
Executive damaging the Government, it is likely, in the eyes of unprejudiced people, to give an assurance of the sound and reasonable policy pursued by them in Ireland. It is obvious that they consider the pacification of Ireland their first duty. Evictions, they find, lead to outrage and disturbance. They therefore instruct their officers to use all legitimate means to get compromises arrived at in cases of impending eviction. If, however, no compromise can be arrived at, they then at all costs see that the law is carried out, order preserved, and life and property protected. Of course, the insinuation of the Parnellites is that the Executive tried to stop evictions by threats of withdrawing police protection. That this was so, not one iota of evidence has been produced. Indeed, the notion is utterly absurd. Irish landlords do not hide their grievances, and the most distant hint of such action would have led to an outburst of public complaints. As it was, the necessary demand by the police that proper notices of the pro- tection required by the Sheriff should be sent to them—(not casual messages or telegrams of the kind forwarded by Sheriff Gale, and quoted during the late trial : "Direct four police to meet me below Ballynore Barracks at 4 o'clock to-morrow morning.—GALE ")—were made the subject of bitter complaint. Yet how could the organisation of the police be maintained if it was always to be at the mercy of such peremptory demands It is just as well in this context to quote the clear and perfectly straightforward words of so honourable and honest a man as Sir Redvers Buller :—" I never refused police protection to any Sheriff." He goes on to state that the " police inquiries," which were stated as the reason for the demand for ten days' notice in the case of evic- tions, were solely for the purpose of finding out whether the proceeding was an ejectment or a distraint, as in the latter case an escort would be required to bring in the cattle seized. Sir Redvers Buller's evidence throughout is perfectly reasonable and consistent as to the representations he made to the land- lords. "Any individual case of hardship I heard of from the police I sent to the landlord or agent, and said, ' This is what is reported to me.' " Captain Plunkett's evidence is to the same effect. He, in substance, states that he " never " brought pressure (meaning by that illegitimate pressure, such as threats of withdrawing protection) to bear upon landlords to prevent evictions; but that he used his influence to get evictions stopped, wherever possible, by suggesting a compromise, or by bringing facts known to him, and perhaps not known to the landlord, to the latter's notice. That any reasonable person can possibly read the full evidence given during the late prosecution—it is reported at length in the Freeman's Journal—and can then condemn the Government policy of putting down the admittedly illegal proceedings of the Parnellitea, not apparently because the Plan of Campaign " is held right in itself, but only because it is supposed to be excused by the Government policy, seems almost incredible. Such a frame of mind, indeed, differs in no way from that of a man who thinks that because the Prince of Wales asks strongly for subscriptions for the Imperial Institute, he is justified in knocking people down and robbing them of their purses for the same object.
Previous page
