1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d6ee6693701e1976a43b153787431a4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=p94OugeeMx3pBYKTjWozAkCug0JjJgSDP3nX52V0vPbmaYSJx6dpBRjLYRAYjuwFus4%7E22EWs1EmzI6WsE6P9s2HkuCfol0UUjf4Z1AKLNX2KUkp0EJ0zkCYMsljhH1R5jjdTFdgtHSG6g7V8FXxVAnltEtvC52H5ZDtu4PP6JnseQpZH8nMxwNmmizDBc1sGhZKhyyYb7RPCev1C6jRQh7-lLcig5SNNZuvIpQAZQF8FTKcrx1QLBoPP3Z-0iHz32xJAVcq1bKDv5XiSr8CaHohgtym6Qg19NRNQnmre1iPsBb3dVS6q1yALxpRTdKWTu-L2U3afNHx2sqlE5Iolg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
98c463e7e02cf485f1ddafb3ab6e672e
PDF Text
Text
too
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
COERCION IN IRELAND
AND ITS RESULTS.
pint for 3'ustixc.
By
ANNIE
BESANT.
-------- 4,--------
On the 24th of January, 1881, Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary
for Ireland, asked leave to introduce a Bill entrusting the
Irish Executive with power to arrest and keep imprisoned
any person “ suspected of treasonable practices,” and any
person “ suspected of agrarian crime in any proclaimed
district.” Mr. Forster explained that the proposed Act was
not directed against fair agitation forredressal of grievances,
but was intended to strike only at those concerned in
agrarian outrages. The classes against whom it was to be
directed were three in number : 1st. Those who belonged to
the old secret societies ; 2nd. Those who belonged to new
secret societies ; 3rd. “ Village ruffians.” It was alleged
that the actors in crimes were often known, but that such
was the terror inspired by the outrages that it was impos
sible to obtain evidence sufficient to lead to their conviction.
In the discussions which took place during the debates on
the Bill, re-iterated assurances were given that these classes
were those really aimed at, that the number of arrests would
be small, and that the most scrupulous care should be taken
to avoid abuse of the powers asked for. Mr. Bradlaugh
spoke strongly against the Bill on its first reading ; he said
in the course of his speech :—
“ No member of the House would, he thought, be found to
deny the fact that all kinds of illegal proceedings should be
strongly reprobated. The Government, through the right hon.
gentleman, said they could make no terms with lawlessness (hear,
hear) ; aye! but while in Ireland criminals were few, the sufferers
were many. And they proposed to suspend the constitutional
rights of all. Were they sure they were not about to make terms
with fear and panie ? Terms with the landlord influence and in
justice, which had made the misery of the people, out of which
�2
the crime spoken of had grown ? It was not asserted that the
ordinary law was insufficient for all purposes ; what was asserted
was that men injured would not prosecute, that evidence
could not be obtained to support prosecutions, and that jurymen
could not be found to convict. But what did that show ? It
showed, that the national feeling was with the crime (hear, hear)
—that is, with one kind of crime, not with all crime ; for it was
admitted that in respect of non-agrarian crime Ireland stood
higher than England did. Why was it that there was one class
of crime sheltered by the people of Ireland? It was because
the people had come by experience to think that the Government
gave them no protection, and that the law afforded them no
remedy. They were now, however, instead of being subject to
remedial legislation, to be subjected to eighteen months’ im
prisonment for any crime charged against them, not before a
court of law, but before a magistrate, and which charge was sus
tained by the word of any petty constable. (Hear, hear.) He
believed that the right hon. gentleman would take all the pre
cautions in his power in applying this law, but what effectual
precautions against wrong-doing could be taken when arbitrary
power was brought to bear upon individual liberty? Neither
the right hon. gentleman, nor the noble lord at the head of the
Irish Government, could personally examine the details of every
case. They must trust to others, and these in turn to others,
until at last perhaps private malice might strike the one whom
this House has stripped of his constitutional right.”
Leave was given to introduce the Bill by 164 votes
against 19, the minority being smaller than it ought to have
been, in consequence of the vote being taken suddenly,
while some English Radicals were away for a brief space
of rest, after sitting sixteen hours continuously.
When the second reading of the Coercion Bill was moved,
Mr. Bradlaugh moved its rejection ; he urged :
“ Many members of that House were old enough to remember
the time when the landlords, encumbered with debt, encouraged
resistance to civil law when it was set in motion against them
selves. (Hear, hear.) These landlords, who to-day asked for
extraordinary powers, had themselves left a bad example to the
unfortunate and miserable men who to-day threatened and re
peated the bad acts of their superiors. The right hon. gentle
man had said that the effect of this terrorism was to prevent in
jured persons from prosecuting, witnesses from giving evidence,
and juries from convicting ; but the measure now brought for
ward would not ensure that persons should prosecute, that
witnesses should testify, or juries convict. All it would do
would be to give to the Government or to the unfortunate gen
tleman—and unfortunate indeed would be his position, charger]
with this duty—who had the right of arresting, to give to him
the duty of superseding the conscience of the prosecutor and the
�3
evidence of witnesses; to take the place of all juries, and, on
suspicion, to have the power to imprison the person whom he
arrested for eighteen months............ The right hon. gentleman
had told them that the terror was occasioned by two classes—
men from the old secret societies, and men belonging to the
new ones. Would the House pardon him if he pointed out why
the old secret societies existed? They existed because the land
lords extorted unjust rents, and compelled their tenants to pay
an enormous price for rooms—it was a shame to call them rooms,
for he had seen hovels in which hon. members would not kennel
their dogs nor stable their horses—rent which it was impossible
for them to pay. These unfortunate people had no law to
appeal to, nor could they appeal to Parliament, for Parliament
was deaf to their appeals. This was not an evil created to-day
or by the Land League; it was an evil to which years ago the
right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government had directed
his attention, and tried to grapple with, but which had baffled
him, because his generous efforts had been crippled by the very
landlord class now asking for protection by coercive law. What
was the result? These men could not appeal to the law; for
them the statute had no relief, so they made their own laws and,
the courts being shut to them, established their own secret tri
bunals, secret because illegal. The Prime Minister had made
several attempts to remedy this state of things, but the rights of
land were valued in another place at a higher rate than the rights
of life, and so those efforts had proved useless........... It was
said that the Act was directed against treason. Was there trea
son now ? From the words that had fallen from the right hon.
gentleman there was ground to fear that he thought such to be
the case. But, then, Parliament could not act upon what the
right hon. gentleman thought. If such was really the case, the
evidence ought to be there. He trusted the right hon. gentleman
and the Government in every way that a representative could
do, but no representative should entrust the constitutional
liberties of his fellow-citizens to any Government, except the
strongest evidence was placed before him. The Chief Secretary
for Ireland had told them that there was matter which it was
impossible he could explain—matter possibly of wanton malice,
matter, it might be, of actual treason, but for all that matter
certainly growing out of wrongs endured.”
Unhappily the Coercion Bill passed into law, and has
been in action for the last twelve months. Under it, up to
last week, no less than 918 persons have been deprived of
their liberty, and 511 were still in custody on April 1.
The “ reasonable suspicions,” on the ground of which they
are or have been detained, are of very various character ;
of the 511 still in jail 31 are detained on suspicion of
having committed murder, most of them as principals.
Now the charge of murder is not one which should be kept
�4
hanging over a man’s head; clearly, suspected murderers
should be publicly tried, and either convicted or acquitted.
Are these supposed murderers to be let loose on society in
September next, never, if guilty, to be punished, and never,
if innocent of the horrible crime, to have a chance of
proving their innocence, and purging themselves of so fear
ful a suspicion ? Reasonable suspicion of having attempted
to murder, or to do grievous bodily harm, or of having com
mitted assaults, is charged against fifty-seven persons, while
several others are charged with firing into or attacking
dwelling-houses. There are a few cases of arson, and two
or three of maiming cattle. But the vast majority are
detained on reasonable suspicion of having been concerned
in intimidation, no less than 344 persons being kept in j'ail
on this very vague charge. Mr. Parnell is one of this num
ber, but he is also suspected of having “ been guilty, as princi
pal, of treasonable practices.” Mr. O’Kelly is detained on the
same ground, but Mr. Dillon is only charged with intimida
tion. If Mr. Parnell and Mr. O’Kelly have been guilty of
treasonable practices, why are they not put on their trial ?
Putting on one side for the moment the people suspected of
intimidation, the whole of the other prisoners have a
right to demand that they shall at once be tried for the
offences alleged against them. To imprison men on a vague
charge of suspicion of intimidation is to commit a cruel
injustice ; if there is solid evidence that they have committed
this offence, let them be tried. If there is none, let them
be set free. Four hundred and seven persons have been
arrested under this Act and have been liberated. Were they
guilty or not of any crime ? If yes, why are they set free
untried ? If no, why has a heavy punishment been inflicted
on them ? They have been torn from their homes, their
farms have in many cases remained untilled, for to till the
farm of a “ suspect” was to incur suspicion ; their businesses
have in some cases been ruined by their absence. These
heavy penalties should be inflicted on no one without open
trial, without public judgment. Can Mr. Forster be sure that
every one of the 918 persons arrested is a criminal? If
one of them should be innocent, should be a victim of
private malice, of false witness boldly given because secrecy
ensured safety to the liar—if only one of these be wrongly
suspected, is not a very terrible crime being committed in
the punishment inflicted, and are not bad citizens being
made by wrong committed under sanction of the law ?
�5
Do the men lying in jail come within the classes specified
as those against which the Act was to be directed ? Mr.
Parnell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O’Kelly, cannot fairly be described
as “ village ruffians,” and if two of them have been guilty
of treasonable practices no Coercion Act was needed for
their arrest. If Englishmen read that in Russia, in Turkey,
in Spain, 918 persons had been arrested during twelve
months on suspicion, that the Government neither put them
on their trial nor released them, a very torrent of righteous
indignation would be poured on the head of the peccant
rulers. Even in Russia they at least try their Nihilists;
they do not punish them “ on suspicion” without trial. How
ever abandoned the criminal, he should have justice. If
some foreign State shut up our citizens on some suspicion of
crime, refusing to try them, refusing to release them,
Englishmen would go mad with fury, and no minister would
keep his place for a month who did not insist on justice
being done. Unhappily, English people are very quick to
see the wrongfulness of their neighbors’ tyranny, but are re
markably dense as to the wickedness of their own.
Putting aside the bad nature of the Coercion Act, it may
be well to note that it has been a most complete failure.
Murder is far more frequent than it was; the most odious
and revolting outrages are committed; neither man nor
woman, rich nor poor, is safe from the blow of the assassin.
The “ village ruffians ” appear to have multiplied, and the
criminals, who are making the name of Ireland shameful in
the eyes of the world, go on their way unscathed.
The Coercion Act is not the only coercive measure now
being largely used in Ireland. By 34 Edw. III., c. 1,
justices of the peace are empowered to “ bind' over to the
good behavior ” “ all them that be not of good fame.” This
statute is being utilised in the most cruel way in Ireland,
more especially against women. If the accused person is
unable, or refuses to enter into recognisances, the justices
can imprison. Now, it must be remembered that the
justices belong to the landlord class, that the persons
arraigned before them belong to the class now struggling to
gain the right to live, and the “justice ” meted out will be
readily understood. Thus, the other day, they ordered a
married woman, Mrs. Moore, to enter into recognisances,
and committed her in default. A married woman is legally
incapable of entering into recognisances, and Mrs. Moore
was imprisoned because her legal incapacity made it impos
�6
sible for her to give the required sureties. Miss Reynolds
was the first lady imprisoned under this most evil law,
which, in Ireland, puts the liberty of the workers at the
mercy of persecuting landlords. She was prosecuted for
advising a man not to pay his rent. I am informed that the
following are the facts of the case : Patrick Murphy lived in
a cottage bought by his father from the man who built it;
it stood on a plot of grass in the middle of cross-roads, and
no rent and no taxes were paid for it during the more than
twenty-one years since it came into the Murphys’ hands.
Rent for three years for this cottage was suddenly claimed
by a landlord from whom Murphy held other land, and to
whom he was in debt. Murphy was advised that if he paid
it, he would lose the right acquired by his long and undis
turbed possession. Miss Reynolds apparently counselled him
not to pay under these circumstances ; she was sent to jail,
and Murphy was turned out of his house.
Miss O’Carroll and Miss Curtis were sent to prison for a
month, charged with belonging to an illegal association, the
Ladies’ Land League. This conviction was quashed on an
informality on the day that their sentence expired.
Miss McCormick was sentenced by Major Lloyd—on the
evidence of a policeman that he believed she had been going
about inciting the people to discontent—to three months
imprisonment in default of bail. The judges, on application,
held that Miss McCormick’s admission that she was a mem
ber of the Ladies’ Land League was a proof of the truth of
the charges. My informant complains that “ in Ireland the
fact of her being a member of the Ladies’ Land League was
held to be a proof of her criminality, while in England, in
the House of Commons, the Attorney-General cited the
fact of her imprisonment as a proof of the criminality of the
League.”
Eugene Sullivan was accused by an “ Emergency man ”
of putting pins in his potatoes ; Sullivan was arrested, but
there was no proof of the charge offered ; the man then
said he went in fear of his life, the only reason therefor
being that when he met Sullivan the latter used to grin
and say “ Three cheers for Parnell.” For this crime
Sullivan was bound over in bail so heavy that he had to go
to jail (for six months).
Miss O’Connor is now in prison at Mullingar. This
young lady—the sister of Mr. T. P. O’Connor, M.P.—is only
twenty years of age, and suffers from weakness of the lungs.
�7
She is imprisoned on the evidence of a constable, who swore
that he heard her tell the people to pay no rent until the
suspects were released. On cross-examination, however, he
swore that she told them to come to a settlement with the
landlord if he would take what was a fair rent; that she
had strongly denounced outrages, quoting O’Connell’s words,
that “ he who commits a crime gives strength to the
enemy.” Surely this poor young delicate girl, so young,
moved by the misery around her to protest, and trying to
restrain the starving from desperate deeds, ought not to be
left in jail. What sort of Government is it in Ireland that
needs such acts as these to be done in its support ?
Imprisonment under this vile statute of Edward III. is of
a far more cruel character than under the Coercion Act.
The prisoners spend twenty-two hours out of the twentyfour in their cells, and during the two hours’ exercise are
not allowed to speak to each other. Imprisonment can be
avoided by entering into heavy recognisances, but the diffi
culty is that the same justices who condemn on suspicion,
estreat the recognisances on suspicion.
I have spoken of one class of outrages committed in
Ireland, but the outrages committed by the landlord order
must also come in for condemnation. During the quarter
ending March 31st, 7,020 persons have been evicted. Of
these, 3,050 persons have been re-admitted as care-takers,
that is, they can be turned out again at any moment, and
seventy-eight have been re-admitted as tenants. Thus,
during the last three months, the landlords have finally
turned out from their homes, 3,892 persons. The number
of evictions in comparatively peaceful Ulster is higher than
in the other provinces. I never shrink from denouncing
the horrible murders and mutilations committed in Ireland,
but horror of crime should not deter us from seeking its
cause. The evictions are the seeds which grow up into
agrarian outrages, and justice will lay on the head of Irish
landlords the heavier share of the guilt of Irish crimes.
Is it hopeless to appeal to the Government to return to
the paths of constitutional liberty in Ireland ? Let them
try their prisoners, and deal out justice; Ireland asks no
more. She does not desire that murders should go un
punished ; bring to open trial the men now imprisoned on
suspicion of having committed murder.
She does not
approve of midnight assault, brutal injury, atrocious wound
ing, malicious arson ; bring out the men charged with these
�8
wicked deeds; try them and condemn them to heaviest
legal punishment if their guilt be proved. Set free the 344
charged with intimidation only ; in such a struggle as that
between the landlords and the tenants of Ireland, the
intimidation is not all on one side, and unless the landlords
are put on their trial for their share of it, those who took
the tenants’ side may well go free. The working of the
Land Act has revealed some of the cruel wrongs done by
the landlords, the exorbitant rents wrung by threat from
the helpless and often starving tenants ; surely some latitude
should be allowed to men fighting before the Land Act
against the wickedness which the Land Act is trying to
prevent.
For the “ treasonable practices ”—judgment is
harder ; I suppose every Government has the right of de
fending itself against treason, but the English are always
very lenient in their judgment of foreign political offenders,
nay, even honor them as heroes when stirred to their
treason by tyranny. The misery of Ireland is the cause of
her disaffection. Let England be generous, and let the
remedial measure have fair play, by giving bill of indemnity
for the past, and “ starting clear.” Mr. Parnell’s treason
able practices cannot be so terribly dangerous to the State,
when he is let out on parole for a fortnight to attend a
funeral. But no chance is given for the healing measures
to cure the sore of Irish disaffection, until not only are
the prisoners in Ireland set at liberty, but until brave, un
fortunate Michael Davitt stands once more a free man on
Irish soil.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1882.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Coercion in Ireland and its results : a plea for justice
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 p.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1882]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N063
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ireland
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Coercion in Ireland and its results : a plea for justice), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Coercion Acts
Ireland
Ireland-History-1837-1901
NSS