Dublin Notes.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XV, Issue 52, 20 April 1888, Page 21

Dublin Notes.

(From the National papers.)

By a freak of the " Bemovables " of Clonmel, tbe case against Mr. Pyne, M.P., was dismissed, on the ground that he waß not at all guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The previous refusal of the authorities to allow Mr. Pyne out on bail, led us to anticipate that condign punishment would be dealt out to the hon. member; but the "Bemovables," strange to say, have decided otherwise.

A banquet was giyen on Tuesday night, February 21, by the Eighty Club to Sir William Harcourt, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, and other guests, in Willis's rooms, London. Sir William made on this occasion one of his usually slashing speeches, in which he said that there was no one who bad rendered such service to the Liberal cause as Mr. Arthur Balfour. He doubted if there was a man amongst them who could hold a candle to Mr. Balfour in the effect he produced. The Government, be continued, and the Unionist party were played out, they had done their worst ; they had shot their last bullet ; they had played all their winning cards ; and they had lost from the beginning I Sir William Harcourt subsequently quoted the confession of a Tory, to the effect that the publication of such papers as " Parnellism and Crime," was, without doubt, one of the greatest mistakes committed by the party to which he belonged. Our opponents, continued the orator, said they had got all the wealth and intelligence on their side. Well they had tried their best with their intelligence, and they had not made much way. He did not see that their money-bags would carry them much further. The Tories said they were going to put down the National League. They might just as well say that they were going to put down the Equator. Tbe League was a perfectly legitimate association, and it was not the Government that was beating the League, but the League that was beating the Government.

Mr: Balfour is interfering with the laurels of Beelzebub" Pether." On Monday night, February 20, in the House of Commons, he declared to Mr. John Dillon that there was no truth in the statement that eleven of the jurors in the Blunt v. Byrne case were in favour of giving the plaintiff a verdiot. Since then one of the jurors unequivocally asserted that there was no truth in Mr. Balfour's denial I " I may tell you," said the juror in question, " that nothing suprised me so much as to find that some of the jurors who are Conservatives were not alone satisfied of the illegality of stopping the sheeting, but they fought their corner most vigorously, and did their utmost to bring around tbe dissentient. The eleven believed that the meeting would so far from endangering the peace of the neighbourhood of Woodford, have had a tranquilhsing effect." A rumour having prevailed in certain quarters, that.the Government had decided on discontinuing their prosecutions of Irish editors, who continue *o insert in their newspapers accounts of the meetings of " suppressed " brancaes of the League, Colonel King-Harm&n, in reply to a question put him on tbe subject, declared the other night in the House of Commons, that there was no foundation for such a report. We are very glad to be able to chronicle such a denial. In the meantime, however, Mr. Bal our is resting on his oars, and leaves the " incriminated " editors severely alone. The same names, the same sentiments, that are cheered in Ireland are cheered in England ; the same names and the same facts that call forth hoots and " boos " in one place, do the same m the other. One has only to speak tbe word " Balfour " at a meeting of English workingmen, to hear such a roar oE such sounds as it would produce in Cork or Dublin. What a marvellous change in the course of a few years I Mr. Gladstone has written a letter to the electors of Deptf ord, in support of Mr. Wilfred Blunts candidacy for the House of Commons. He urges that Mr. Blunt went to Ireland to maintain the law, to vindicate the popular rights, and to encourage the people in an orderly struggle against coercion. He adds: — "To speak of the union affording Irishmen the benefit of equal laws with the British, is mockery. The electors ought to remember that the Tories are aiming to degrade'and oppress another people struggling to be free.

In moving an amendment affirming the necessity of a measure dealing with arrears of excessive renls in Ireland, Mr. Shaw Lefevre charged Balfour with using all the forces of the Government in favour of landlord monstrosities like Olanricarde, and he commended the heroism shown by Mr. Wilfrid Blunt in defending the tenants. Mr. Campbell Bannerman said that the Government had dealt differently with the Scotch crofters, whose arrears were wiped out. Lord George Hamilton, a member of the Cabinet, said that the Government ought not to delay needful legislation for Great Britain by another Irish bill. He deplored the action of Lord Clanricarde, but tnose who had provoked the contest were largely responsible for Clanricarde's course, and the Government was not dispose! to interfere with the operation of the law on his estate (ironical Irish cheers). The arrears of Irish rents, he continued, were largely due to the Plan Of Campaign and the action of the National League. The Government declined to touch the question in any form until tkey had fulfilled their promise to attend the English needs. Mr. John Dillon thanked Lord George Hamilton' for his remarks with reference to Clanricarde. Nothing more calculated to injure the Government could have been said. He (Dillon) could wish his enemies in Dublin Castle no worse fate than the task of governing Galway while evictions, are being carried out. The struggle would attract the attention of the civilised world. The Government supported Clanricarde because they thought his action had not lost them any seats in England, as the Bodyke evictions had. If they still intended to support his evictions they would have to march an army corps into Galway. The Irish were prepared to carry on the struggle two, three or four years to see how long Englishmen would stand patiently aud see English soldiers carry on this war.

Mr. Gladstone a few nights ago in Parliament said he had heard with extreme satisfaction Sir James Ferguson's assurance that the Government had conducted a policy of harmony with France. He was content with the declaration and wascofident that no disposition existed on the Liberal side to press for undue disclosures. He ; be* lieved that the course taken by Lord Salisbury, had been sometimes entirely in accordance with sound principles for regulating the foreign policy of England. He. earnestly hoped that whatever happened in Europe a unity of sentiment of all parties on thejoreign policy would be obtained, thus doubling the moral force of England and immensely increasing her power when constrained to interfere. Mr. W. H. Smith congratulated the House on the tone of Mr. Gladstone's remarks.

Labouchere, speaking of the war prospects, advised Lord Salisbury to take the country in his confidence, as Bismarck had done. England had every reason to distrust Lord Salisbury, who was willing to drag the country into a war in order to save his policy toward Ireland from criticism. The foreign policy of Lord Salisbury was hatred toward France and jealousy toward Bussia; _JEhe_reasQU he hated Fiance was obvious: - It was a Bepublic, progressing! and* prosperous, without aristocrats, without royalties, and wittadat^heredi* tary ruling families directing the affairs of State. Parliament muse" watch a Minister so biased and refuse to assent to his mingling in Continental matters relating either to 'territorial or dynastic settlements, even if made ia concert with Europe. , „ Lord Randolph Churchill, addressing the Oxford Union Society, denied that be had called the Irish people "foul fiends," He had never said and would never say a' word to discredit th 4 -Irish people. With regard to the Irish question, was an Irish Parliament 9 jopt aspiration of Irishmen I Did England have an English Parliament ? He had known many purely English matters to be decided by Irish and Scotch votes. He reminded his hearers how marvelously Lord-, Harrington's prophecy on the occasion of' Mr. Butt's introduction of a Home-Bole proposal in Parliament had been fulfilled. That prophecy was that any coquetting with the question by English members; would lead to disruption and the loss of more support from England and Scotland than they could ever hope to obtain from Ireland. The chanceß of Home Bale being carried, however, were microscopical. The present Parliament was likely to last nntil 1993. Between now and then many things might happen. The Irish party would pro* bably go to pieces. Where would it be without Mr. Gladstone's oratory 1 The whole project was doomed to failure. A most malicious lie is that uttered by the Daily Chronicle of London, February 6, to the effect that the address delivered by Archbishop Walsh was not ' allowed to be published in the Catholic journals of Borne on account of its pronounced pro-Irish character; The fact is that the address was not published because the only copy ; of it in Borne was that read by Archbishop Walsh, and, afterwards handed to the Pope. Another equally malicious falsehood is "hat asserted by the same journal to the effect that the Holy Father ordered a telegraphic summary of his discourse to be sent abroad lest the' Irish bishops should add their interpretations te it, and so falsify it. These remarkable falsehoods, put forward with special malice, furnish evidence of the means employed by the opponents of Ireland to carry out their tyrannical policy and to represent the bishops of that country as falsifiers of the Pope's words. I refer to the news of the Daily Chronicle— an English Unionist journal — as specially vendmoua and mendacious in this regard. Pether the Packer has modestly assurefl the world that he is incorruptible 1 He asked, during Mr. Blunts trial to see the record-book of the London Home liule Union. It would corrupt you, said Mr. "Walker. Quoth Peter, blandly—" lam incorruptible^" Unlike Robespierre, he is not a sea-green, but a full-blooded, rubicund incorruptible. With the Castle livery on his back, be! is incorruptible; holding briefs to repeat exposed slanders against Father Coen, he is incorruptible ; sold body and soul to the enemies of his country, he is still incorruptible ; making false statements — as, for instance, tha'f l: David Sheeny, M.P., was the paid propagator of the Plan of Campaign — in return for so many guineas apiece, he is, nevertheless, incorruptible ! Mr. Davitt's address to the important public meeting held in Dalkey on Sunday, February 12, was an excellent criticism of Mr. Balfour's Parliamentary oration on Friday night. What Mr. Balfour advisedly omitted to say is referred to in Mr. Davitt's speech, and with telling effect. The Coercion Act was passed to put down the tyrannical League, to punish the robbery of the Plan, to stamp out the campaign, to enable grabbers to take evicted lands, aud to compel, indirectly, the payment of rents to the landlords. Mr. Davitt says not one of these purposes has been effected by the Coercion Act. Tne landlords have been surrendering all round to the Plan of Oam* paign ; they have had to bite the dust, while land-grabbing id more sternly kept down than ever. Then, there was not a word in Mr. Balfour's speech about the Moonlighting of the last few months, no allusion whatever to the murder committed not many days ago within a few yards of policemen: The multiplication of criminal figures was Mr. Balfour's rble last year, it is not his rile now. The tenants of Sir William Yerner— whose name and family became notorious in the Bagot case — say they cannot pay their rents, Ejectment decrees are being served upon them in bundles, and the landlord is determined that they shall pay or go. Sir Wm. Verner is the representative of an old Tory stock. He belongs to the party which blessed the South Tyronians with such a loyal representative as Mr. T. W. Bussell. Unmindful and ungrateful of that favour, the tenants say they are not going to pay their Tory landlord, Sir Wm. Verner. The owners of the Kingston estate have surrendered everything to the plucky, pertinacious tenants who have made such a desperate fight for life. All tenants evicted since the adoption of the Plan will return like conquerors coming back from baitle to enjoy peaceful possession of the ingle nook. Ejectment proceedings are abandoned. The town holders who joined their fellow- tenants of the fields are restored to their property, the costs, which amounted to the fee-simple of the property, being cancelled. Laatly, the 20 per cent, reduction

originally demanded is granted to all the tenants. All this the landlords have agreed to, but they cannot restore the lives lost in consequence of their unjust and unreasoning obstinacy. The blood of three victims of landlord rapacity stains the square of Mitohelstown. But that account will be opened in another world. la the course of his speech at the happy meeting in Mitohelstown on Sunday Mr. Condon, M.P., said truly it was to break up their combination the Coercion Act was formed, and as regards the Kingston estate he would make Mr. Balfour a present of the satisfaction he expressed at its working.

Mr. Shaw Lefevre, as he said in his manly speech at Longhrea, has vindicated people's right to freedom of speech. Another public liberty he also established— that of discussing the relations between landlord and tenant, the exaction of unjust rent, and the clearance of a district by eviction. All these were rights which the people possessed, and should exercise when necessary. Yet Mr. Blunt, who had done no more than he (Mr Lefevre) did, was imprisoned and treated as a malefactor. Mr. Lefevre complimented the people upon their moderation, self-control, and freedom from crime under circumstances of a most trying character. He believed that if the Government did not lend Lord Clanricarde the forces of the Crown his lordship would see the wisdom of settling with his tenants. Amongst the resolutions passed was a very warm tribute of gratitude and affection for Mr. Blunt. Altogether the meeting was a great success, for which the people expretsed their profound thanks to Mr. Lefevre. The Moat Rev. Dr. McCarthy, Bishop of Cloyne, in the Lenten Pastoral, has clearly defined the duty of the people under the harsh and unconstitutional treatment to which they are subjected. Patience and absolute freedom from outrage his lordship en joins upon his flock. No revenge, do criminal act of retaliation must the harassed people permit themselves te perpetrate. "But" (writes his lordship) "in thus exhorting you to patience it is by no means my intention to counsel tame and unresisting submission to a harsh and oppressive law, framed for the purpose of depriving you of your rights. Neither yonr duties as Christians or subjects require this of you. No law human or divine, prohibits us from struggling against wrong by every means consistent with the law of God." Ireland owes the Most Rev. Dr. M'Carthy a debt of gratitude for this smashing blow at the Coercion Act.

The one purpose of the Coercion Act was to keep up impossible rents in Ireland. This is Professor Thorold Rogers' opinion, expressed at the annual meeting r,f the Home Rule Union in London on Saturday. The Professor said he had gone over 500 farms in Ireland and he could aver that Irish tenants are paying double what English tenants had to pay for the tame class of land. There is not the least doubt about the truth of this assertion. And the fact proves that the Plan of Campaign was, and is still, a vital necessity for the protection of the plundered peasantry. George Fox (said Mr. Rogers) and his associates wer«, like Wm. O'Brien, sent to prison, but it did net turn them one hair's breadth from their path. They had the same spirit to-day in Ireland, and depend upon it this tyrannical Government would soon come to an end. The Home Rule Union is growing in strength and in hope.