THE RHODE INQUEST.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume X, Issue 491, 8 September 1882, Page 9

THE RHODE INQUEST.

(From the Nation.) The revelations made at the inqurst at Rhode recently would startle the rulers of any other country than Ireland, and spur them into taking instant action towards the complete reformation of the official system. The story made public by the proceedings before the coroner has two leading aspects— one of which is lamentable and the other bitterly irritating. Briefly told it is, as follows : A labouring man named Kavanagh struck for higher wages, as he had a perfect right to do, and was in consequence evicted by his employer who also acted within his legal right. At ths time of the eviction Kavanagh's children were suffering from measles, but that untoward circumstance was overlooked when he and his family were turned out. Kavanagh with his wife and nine sick children took refuge in a windowless and chimney less barn kindly afforded' them for shelter by a good woman of the neighbourhood. Tue place was unfit for habitation by sick children, and two of Kavanagh's died in it. On the second of these the inquest referred to was held, and the jury found that the death was accelerated by exposure and cold on the day of the eviction and by subjection to draughts in the barn. So far for the lamentable part of the story ; now for the irritating one. Kavanagh'B homelessness was brought under the notice of the Ladies Land' League, which, being a charitable association, and recognising no difference between a labourer houseless and a fanner in the same unhappy predicament, sent down to him from Dublin the materials for a wooden structure in which he and his family might dwell without danger to health. The police prevented its erection 1 Nay, more, two men were arrested and imprisoned for six weeks for being guilty of the atrocious crime of bringing the timber I Kavanagh was a man of excellent character. There had never been a police charge against him— he had never been accused of any offence. The oath he swore at the inquest was the first he had ever taken ; from which it may be reasonably inferred that he was a quiet well disposed creature, averse to falling out with his neighbours. Relying on his character, he went before a sub-inspector of constabulary, named Oaulfield, and humbly asked that potentate's gracious permission to erect a house wherein he and his might find fitting shelter. Kavanagh deposed, and Caulfield did not deny, according to the lengthened report of the inquest now before us, that the permission was refused, with the gratuitous information that it was" the same thing over again — intimidation. " So the poor man's two children died. Yet even this is not all. The coroner sent forty summonses for jurors to Mr. Caulfield for service ; and Mr. Caulfield, whose own action in Kavanagh's case would naturally come up for review at the inquest, took it on himself not to serve eleven of ttie summonses. In consequence of this exercise of the sub-inspector's discretion for which we understand there is no warrant— only a jury of eighteen was empanelled. This is typical officialism in Ireland. Yet more. Soon after the death of the first child Chief Secretary Trevelyan on being questioned, gave a version of the eviction proceedings which is now proved on oath to have been wholly at variance with truth. Will Mr. Trevelyan say in the House of Commons who supplied him with the false,information in this matter, and so let in a little light on the sources whence he receives the peculiar intelligence whereon he seems so confidently to rely ? The effect of rampant officialism on the country generally is illustrated by the effect it has had ou Kavanagh himself. This poor man, against whom the police never had a charge, grew desperate when he had lost one child, and thereupon began himself to erect the forbidden dwelling — not caring, as he swore, «• whether he was put in prison or not for it. " This is the kind of temper which every foe of England would wish to see as widely prevalent as possible among the Irish people. Is Kavanagh likely to have ever again the respect for law and order he obviously must have entertained ? Or is any man who has felt the smart of harshness at tbe hands of policemen, magistrates, or other local representatives of the Government ? Are even the friends of the sufferers likely to be well affected towards the system of rule which not only allows, but actually causes, such seriouß mischief as has been wrought at Rhodes? And is it not plain to the humblest intellect, also, tbat the more extensive the powers entrusted to officialism, and the wider the area over which they are exercised, the greater must be the number of acts of official harshness at least, and in consequence the more extensive the area of seething disaffection^? Nevertheless, Ministers, blinded by we know not v what, instead of thinking of a reform of the official system, are actually engaged in an effort to make it more rigorous, more grinding, more odious, and more intolerable lhan ever to the Irish people. They are sowing the wind, ana if they do not reap the whirlwind it will be because they have been hurled from power too eaily. But if they be not laying up a store of trouble for themselves, they are certainly doing so for their successors in office.