REMINISCENCES OF MR T. P. O'CONNOR. M.P

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20710, 7 May 1929, Page 3

REMINISCENCES OF MR T. P. O'CONNOR. M.P

[Copyright.]

MEMORIES OF “ THE FATHER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS” Eights of Publication Secured by the Otago Daily Times. VOLUME I. CHAPTER IX (Continued). Le me give very briefly a historv of this Land Bill which, after the passage of two Coercion Acts, the Government at last brought in. It was a curious and a characteristic Gladstoninn proposal; it went very far, but it stopped short of the solution which might have finished the whole question, and which ultimately had, though by easy stages and at long intervals, to be adopted by the common consent of all parties in the State —namely, the purchase-out of the landlords and the establishment of peasant proprietary. Parnell subjected his followers to a very severe ordeal. He came down, without any notice and after some days of absence, to a meeting of the party, and there he made to them the startling proposal that either they should abstain or vote against the clause of the new Land Bill which gave the tenants the right to appeal to a land court for the reduction of their rents. The proposal came with a shock to most of the members, and especially to old parliamentarians like O’Connor Power. Ireland bad been clamouring. for a reduction of rents, and, above all,, for preventing the system of rack-renting which kept the peasantry at once enslaved and pauperised. The tragic fact was that on most of the estates in Ireland the rents were being constantly increased, until there came ultimately the predestined ending in the potato as the only food. When the potato failed, famine or emigration were the only alternatives for the majority of the people. And now here was an Irish leader actually proposing to throw away this apaprontly splendid triumph, after generations of agitation, of the great weapon against Ireland’s two greatest perils! I was doubtful myself as to the wisdom of Parnell’s proposal; on the other hand, I stood aghast at the idea of doing anything to oppose, and therefore to weaken, Parnell. I consulted Sexton, and his answer was that Parnell had acted badly, but that wc were bound to support him. I am not sure now that Parnell did act foolishly, because, in order to get peasant proprietary—our final and only practical solution—we were bound not to pledge ourselves in any way to anything which established the perpetuation of rents. The Bill was so complicated that it was with difficulty that anybody understood it. It was said that there were only three.men in the House who really did understand it— Mr Gladstone, Mr Law (the Attorneygeneral), and 'Mr Hcaly. There was the first evidence with regard to that Bill of a fruitful combination between Mr Healy and his brother, Mr. Maurice Healy. Mr Maurice Hcaly was not a member of the House then, hut was in constant communication with his brother. Mr Timothy Hcaly had become an expert shorthand writer in his early days, kept up its practice, and conducted a great deal of his correspondence with some intimates in that abbreviated method of communication. His brother was so different from him in character that they could scarcely be taken as members of the same family. The one was short and somewhat inclined to stoutness, the other was fairly tall-and spectrally thin; the temper of the one brother was hot, and that of the other icily cold. One brother was a master of rhetoric; the other was a most dreary speaker, but had an extremely acute mind. Time after time Mr Healy proposed amendments, while njost of us stood apart, conscious of our ignorance of the complicated measure. One achievement in particular stood to the credit of Mr Healy;' he moved an amendment which insisted that consideration should be given by the law courts to the improvements in their holdings made by the tenants. The Government quickly assented to his proposal. Mr Healy whispered to me, after this unexpected acceptance, that these words of his would put millions into the pockets of the tenants, And, indeed, so it proved to be. _ There was some danger that when the Bill got to the House of Lords it would he mutiliated and some bad changes be made; but, on the whole, the Bill was good enough to be accepted by both Houses. ~ . Tt ! a , ° De of many proofs of how this Irish question overshadowed and i almost obliterated all other questions, all I other discussions, all other party issues, , that two of the most important questions : of British policy were dismissed in a few i n i£htg—not as many altogether as were | spent in the progress of either the Coerj cion Bill or the Land Bill. The first of these questions was the Transvaal, [ annexation of the Transvaal had i been carried out by Lord Carnarvon, W 1 . ,° nly . a cor P°ral guard and a few * officials; it was as unmilitary in opera- ; tion the change of guards on St. ; James’s Palace. For a time it looked ■ as if the Boers themselves were just as ; little interested in it as if they were only I onlookers at the dramatic setting of the i annexation. With the vast interests in- ; volvcd in the gold mines of the Rand, there were very powerful influences which favoured the annexation. There was also among the English population which the mines had attracted there a number of men who, naturally, welcomed the advent of the flag of their own country. There were also British officials who took a roseate view. All these things doubtless helped to create in the Hume Government a false sense of security, and when the new Ministry came into office they found the situation very complcated and very difficult. There came, as a thunderclap upon these roseate dreams of a satisfied and tranquilised Transvaal, rebellion. The rebellion, of course, would ultimately have been easily put down, but meantime there had been several humiliating defeats of British armies, notably that at Majuha Hill. The Government were naturally perplexed and hesitant. The national pride of a great nation, defied and then beaten ; in the field by a small Republic, aroused j a sense of humiliation and national re- | sentmenL But, on the other hand, the ; Government were confronted with innumerable speeches made by the existing Ministry in their days of Opposition, and especially by the speeches of Mr Gladstone, who had been one of the ; severest critics of the action of the previous Government in bringing about the annexation. The Opposition, as usual, had few of those difficulties that confront | every Government. The I'adicnl sec- | tion of their supporters insisted, in season and out of season,.on demanding from the Government the fulfilment of their promises. in Opposition. Several damaging motions were made against the Governj ment from below the gangway, where the Radicals sat. Chief among those assail- ; ants of the Ministry were Mr Peter Rylands, the eager, almost fussy Lancashire member who had been characterised and almost annihilated by one of those chance epithets in which Disraeli was so fertile —ho spoke of him as a “ didactic member.” The name stuck, especially as it fitted the eager, somewhat voluble, somewhat fussy Mr Rylands. Everybody liked him; most people called him “ Peter,” even bis political opponents;

but everybody laughed at him, and sometimes he laughed at himself. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, always a reckless supporter of everything extreme, and fgiven to groat recklessness of speech, was also on the track of the Ministry. Bearded, good-humoured, with laughing face, humorous eyes, and very often humorous speech, he realised all the difficulties of the Ministry and the complications of imperfect human conditions, and was always ready to say the most provocative and most inopportune things, I remember once, when we were walking up Constitution Hill from the House of Commons, that he repeated to me an exchange of views with ir George Trevelyan, a Radical like himself. It had been the rigid rule that no private vehicle should be allowed to ascend Constitution Hill, and the hansoms and four-wheelers of the period had to take the round on going that way to Piccadilly. The rule had been changed, and now hansoms and four-wheelers careered over the once sacred and secluded highway. *' That,” said Sir George, “ is the one reform that you and I have seen carried out in our lifetime.” However, the shots that strayed from their light guns were enough to make uncomfortable a Ministry which contained Gladstone, Bright, and Chamberlain, and which was confronted with its own vehement discourses, made only a short time ago in the freedom of Opposition. In face of the soreness of the national price, the .Government changed its whole policy and practically ;.dniittol the claims of the Boors to tho restitution of their self-government. There were some limitations, which were not seriously considered at the time —they were of the “ face-saving" order; but by and by these unguarded provisos formed one of the terrible complications that led to the disastrous Boer War.