Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

be worth paying laborers to cut, and he was too lazy to cut it himself. Once his wife got so much ashamed of it that she took a scythe and cut it. Husband and wife are young able people with one child, a boy. Another was a publican in Clonakilty, and held 20 acres outside the town. He came to me before harvest to say that his son and daughter-inlaw were so drunken, that shortly before she had got him down on the floor in the house, and seized a kettle of boiling water to pour over him. If he reaped the corn they would give him none of the proceeds, so if I would give him his potatoes, and those he had let in Conacre to the townspeople, and half the corn after I had reaped it, he would give the land up to me, to which I agreed. The other three bad tenants who drink are still on the estate. The priest took the correspondent of the New York Herald to some of the worst tenants, who, of course, had many complaints to make; also to the holders of some town parks who pay good rents for accommodation land, and the complaints and high rents of these people were all taken down as grievances, though many of the tenants are wealthy men.

The Roman Catholic priest wrote letters to some of the London papers, not only containing these complaints, but representing them as the ordinary state of my tenants; and adding a number of mere inventions not having a shadow of truth about them, but worded in such a way as might give me annoyance, whether they were contradicted or not. His letter only appeared in the Times. Other editors destroyed it.

I took care to contradict his statements in such a way as gave him the reverse of satisfaction, so that a very able man here said to a friend, after reading my answer, Well, there is nothing now left for them to do but to shoot him."

[ocr errors]

In due time, since I got to London, I have seen the New York Herald with a full page of a report about us. The facts follow in the same order as in the priest's letter, so as to leave no doubt they had a common origin. But all is exaggerated and embellished, and a large number of additional untruths are added. There are very few good things I ever did, which it is not declared I did not do. And as many things I

never did, because it would have been wrong to do, I am stoutly asserted to have done habitually; while my son and daughter, too, are abused in the grossest way, accused of untruth, and much else. Anything so vulgar and unworthy as the whole report could not be conceived. This report was then copied into the Cork Land League and Roman Catholic papers; it is easy to guess from what influence.

But the end was gained. The report appeared in America about the middle of January. It was known that money to pay our laborers was then running short, but more soon came over from America, it is believed, and they were able to go on paying the men for some weeks longer, until March.

Long before this time, the certainty that we had won made it easy to bear any abuse. We had men enough to work the farm, though they were not the right sort. For example, we had two stout lads from an industrial school in Cork; they were set to help with the sheep. One of them, in carrying some hurdles on his back to shift the fold, managed to fall down, with his arms and legs stretched out, like a spread eagle, and the hurdles on the top of him, fairly imprisoning him as if in a cage, and there he had to stay till somebody else came, who lifted the hurdles off him. The land steward declares that having sent a horse and cart one day on some job with two men, they managed to upset it into a puddle and the horse only just escaped drowning. He often expresses a low opinion of the patience of Job, asking whether Job was ever Boycotted, and had to carry on a large farm with such men as he could pick up. Another day the other lad managed to fall on his face in a heap of stiff mud, and emerged leaving his likeness in it, to the great amusement of those who saw it.

The

We let the Cavan men go home. land steward's sons recovered from scarlatina. The courage of all who had stood by us or helped us grew confident. And after several weeks we were able to thank God that the trouble in substance

was over.

For ourselves we never lost heart. Much the worst part, all through, was the anxiety whether more outrages might not be committed, that would

practically defeat us, hold out as we might. Outrage was the only chance the Land League ever had of success, joined to the contemptible fear of each other, which is so remarkable and curious a fault in Irishmen. There is positively nothing of which they do not believe their own countrymen and neighbors to be capable.

No doubt our resistance prevented many others from being attacked, and defeated and exposed the ignorant van ity and want of sense of the people, who thought themselves to be irresistible. If we had yielded they would have fallen with tenfold violence on our neighbors. I was told afterward by one who had means of knowing, "If they wanted to Boycott you again, they would think ten times before they tried it." The only other they tried it with, in the County Cork, in earnest (except on the border of Tipperary), was Mr. Hagarty, a large and most improving tenant-farmer at Millstreet.

[ocr errors]

A very intelligent and able land-agent, who thoroughly knew the country, said to me lately, "You are the most improving landlord in Munster, and Hegarty the most improving tenant, so they chose you two out to Boycott you. I left home when the trouble was over, because there was no more good I could do there, and I hoped things might settle down better in my absence. But I or my son are ready to go back at any time if wanted. Knowing the tenants and their farms, almost every field, thoroughly, I can direct my solicitor what to do in enforcing rent and dealing with

tenants.

The Land League, of course as silly people of that sort always do-keeps up all the petty spitefulness it can. I could not take back the laborers who had left me, except a very few who were especially good and quiet; so they paid a lawyer to try and hinder me from getting the use of my own cottages for other laborers. They are also still try ing to prevent my tenants from paying rent. A good number, however, have paid, and more drop in weekly. On the whole, I expect no serious present loss, and in future gain.

I lately sent four fat cattle to be sold at Bandon fair. In consequence of our precautions, three were sold before they

found out they belonged to me. They stopped the fourth: it had to be sent home.

William Brown-who, once our gardener, had stood by me-had a house just outside Bandon, and in front of it a very pretty garden where he could gather flowers every day in the year. His son-in-law and daughter live there since he came to me last winter. They came one night, pulled up the paling and hedge, his box edging, and all his flowers, and broke thirty-eight panes of glass in his house, only because he worked for

[graphic]

me.

The kindness and sympathy we have received from every one in England, both during the time of our trouble and since, far exceed anything that could have been looked for, or was deserved by us. That a man, not far short of seventy, should have had such a chance at the end of his life of winning the good opinion of his countrymen, passes any reasonable expectation, and must be a cause of thankfulness as long as I live.

In Ireland it suits the purpose of the Land League to tell lies about me, for the very same reason that it suited the Roman Catholic priest to do so. They hope that some will believe them, and so their lies will neutralize some part of what I say, and the influence I might have. I am not myself afraid of much loss of usefulness in this way.

I have several times been met by men of position who know both countries well, and have said "I am so glad they attacked you. It was very lucky, and has done good many times greater than if they had attacked others of greater social position than yours, but who were less well-known in England. So many know you, or know about you here, that your wrongs have damaged them greatly." This is rather of the nature of having one's head broken by their precious balms, like King David, though one is forced to agree to the truth of what he said.

But I must come to a close. One

moral I wish to draw. The outrage upon me was tried in order to force me to reduce my rents. The movement was wholly from outside, and not at all spontaneous from my tenants. in substance, wholly the work of a few Roman Catholic priests, as has been the

[graphic]

It was,

case in so many other places where they were unchecked by their ecclesiastical superiors. What I should have lost would have gone into the pockets of my tenants, who were not poor, nearly all being well off before. After all, their outrage thus only put me to some inconvenience by postponing the payment of my rent. I shall get the most of it, except of a few tenants, who will beggar themselves by the delay, and have to give up their land.

Then they thought to injure me by taking away all my laborers. Again, they caused me some inconvenience and present loss, which will, as I have said, be more than repaid by more economical working in future. But they have injured the unhappy thirty laborers who left me greatly; very few can get as good places as they had with me. None can get better places; for I was always ready to raise their wages when times made it right, or any one showed exceptional industry. Thus the true loss of the whole disturbance has fallen on the laborers, and no one else. It has brought home to me more clearly than I saw before that none are really so much interested in law and order as the laboring classes. Though others may have more to lose by a disturbance, they do not, like the laborers, lose their daily bread.

I would further observe that this outrage has been suffered to go on in the end of the nineteenth century-in these wonderful days of education and inventions, of railway, and immediate communication by telegraphs, without one single offender being punished for it. I am not entering into party politics. I believe party politics are the cause of half our troubles. Men of both sides are thinking of their party, and the effect this or that will have on party interests; and forgetting the good old honest principle that the interests of England are those of truth and honesty, and are immensely above all party considerations, and that by keeping these principles alone the happiness of all classes can be promoted.

Any who endured such an outrage as we went through last winter in Ireland, cannot help feeling this to their heart's

core.

Rely upon it the Irish trouble is not

caused by any real grievance, but is nothing else than the outcome of the low moral and social state of the people. Here in London there are few who do not know the condition of a great many Irish that live around us. Many have lived here from childhood, and have never even been in Ireland. Why do they differ from the English and Scotch among whom their lives are passed? Is it possible they can be improved by yielding to their bad habits and bringing down all around them to meet their low ways? That is just what we at least resisted in Ireland. We simply acted in Ireland as we should have done in my native county of Suffolk, or my wife's county of Somerset, except that we have made not a few sacrifices to do right by living there. Yet Mr. Gladstone can venture to say we should have done more good, if we had acted more according to the usages of the Irish. Can he know what Irish usages are? They are such as I have described in this paper.

The result has been, every effort has been made by many of those around us to destroy as much as possible the good we have done. And persecution and hatred, and the coarsest of ill-speaking and falsehood, have been used toward us personally, in hope that if they cannot upset what we have done, they may deter others from doing the same.

The one thing that is required of any Irish Government is, that it should punish crime. When coercion is denounced in Ireland, it only means the wish that crime should be unpunished.

There is no need to make nay new crimes-i.e., to make anything a crime that has not hitherto been a crime. There is no need of any extra punishments; all that is wanted of coercion is, that the same offences which a judge and common jury would punish as a matter of course here, should somehow be equally punished in Ireland.

By the scheming and ingenuity of the people, offences are not now punished in Ireland. As several judges stated at the late assizes, however clear the evidence, juries will not find verdicts against many criminals. Trial by jury is made only a means of insuring that culprits shall escape punishment.

Witnesses, too, are intimidated by threats of violence.

Can any sensible man doubt, when such things happen, that the law must be strengthened enough to insure the punishment of such offences, unless society is to be broken up and barbarism put in its place?

In Canada, in consequence of many Irish being there, and having the same faults as at home, when a jury willing to act honestly cannot be found, offenders are tried before three judges without a jury.

Intimidation of witnesses can only be met by the Habeas Corpus Act being suspended.

The true question is, whether honest, quiet men like myself are to be punished and injured with impunity in the manner I have described, or those who commit the outrages on them are to be made amenable to the law of the land, as all men are in England, and the same punishment to follow the same offences in Ireland, as would fall upon those who committed them here?

Let me say, in conclusion, prosperity

[ocr errors]

can only come in Ireland or anywhere else, by true and honest dealing. Industry and uprightness will rule the world.

With the habits of drinking, and debt, and untruth, and want of industry that now prevail there, no possible change can do them any real and permanent good. More employment and better wages, for which the undrained land of the country gives full scope, are the best way of helping, with industry and uprightness, to make the country prosperous.

I beg every one to think over the facts that I have stated, and to ask himself if people who could act in this way are the simple innocents in favor of whom all the sound principles of free dealing that have ruled among us for thirty years past are to be set aside, that they may be protected in doing to others, who may be less able to resist than I was, the same outrages they tried to inflict on me? Contemporary Review.

A REVISER ON THE NEW REVISION.

BY THE REV. G. VANCE SMITH.

IN the following remarks on the revised version of the New Testament it is scarcely necessary to say that I propose to speak only as one of the multitude of readers usually designated as "the public," to whose perusal and judgment the work is now at length committed. Although from the commencement a member of one of the Revision Companies," I have no right to speak as from any special knowledge which that position may have given me; for it was a rule acted upon throughout that the work done in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as the opinions expressed by the members, with the results arrived at, and the grounds on which changes were either made or left unmade, should all be considered private and confidential. This rule was understood to apply to all that took place, and it was carefully observed-except only as regarded such little details as were given each month in some of the newspapers, respecting So called after the example of 1611.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the days of meeting, the members present, and the passages gone over from time to time.

While this was the case, however, it is equally true that every individual member of the company is left now at liberty, in his private character, to judge and criticise the completed work of the whole body of revisers. The results arrived at were determined by vote, as the preface to the volume now published informs us; no alteration being finally made as against the Authorized Version except by a majority of two to one of the members present. The minority, however, although outvoted, were not supposed to be also silenced for all future time, or prohibited from expressing their dissent or the reasons for it; but, on the contrary, naturally retained their right to do so, on and after the publication of the volume. Of this privilege I propose simply to avail myself; but I shall endeavor of course to guard against any breach of the understanding

[ocr errors]

indicated by the old and familiar words "private and confidential, printed upon all the different sections of the work, as they were successively issued for the use of the two companies during the progress of the revision. I have nothing therefore to tell respecting anything said by any one at the meetings, or the numbers of the votes given either for or against any alteration made, or anything of this kind. I have simply to take the work as it is now issued, and, so far as may be practicable within the limited space at my command, to express my own individual judgment on the new text, basing this simply upon such general knowledge of the subject as is familiar, or easily accessible, to every critical student of the New Testament.

[ocr errors]

The volume which gives occasion to these remarks is a handsome octavo of 594 pages, without counting the preface or the American suggestions, which will make up some forty to fifty pages more, according to the size of the edition in which they are printed. The work professes to be the version set forth A.D. 1611, compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1881. This latter date might have been more fully given as A.D. 1870 to A.D. 1881, for the task has been close upon eleven years in hand, including the time occupied in printing, having been commenced on the 23d of June, 1870, and being now published on the 17th of May, 1881. Time enough certainly for its preparation, enough too for no small amount of elaborate over-correction, such as I greatly fear many readers will find in its pages.

The preface forms a very interesting and valuable introduction to the volume, and to this our attention must in the first instance be turned. After giving a brief account of the origin and character of the Authorized Version, the imperfections of which are fully acknowledged, it proceeds to speak of the formation of the two companies for its revision, and of the rules that were laid down for the execution of their undertaking. These were drawn up in May, 1870, by a commitee of the Convocation of Canterbury,* and were in substance

*The following members of Convocation constituted this committee for the New Testament:- Bishops Ellicott, Moberley, and Wil

[ocr errors]

as follows: (1) To introduce as few alterations as possible consistently with faithfulness; (2) Alterations to be expressed in the language of the authorized and earlier English versions; (3) To go twice over the work; (4) The text to be adopted to be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; (5) To make or retain no change on the second or final revision, unless two-thirds of those present approved of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities; (6) Refers only to postponement of a decision in certain cases; (7) To revise the headings of chapters and pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation; (8) When considered desirable, to refer to others not in the company for their opinions. It does not appear from the preface that berforce, the Prolocutor Dr. Bickersteth (now Dean of Lichfield), Deans Alford and Stanley, and Canon Blakesley (now Dean of Lincoln). This Committee had authority to invite the co-operation of others to whatever nation or religious body they might belong '- -a wise and just provision considering the interest which all

sects and parties have in the book to be revised. Accordingly, the following were invited to take part in the work:- Dr. Angus (Baptist), Archbishop Trench, Dr. Eadie (Scotch United Presbyterian), Rev. Dr. Hort (of Cambridge), Rev. W. G. Humphry, Professor Kennedy (of Cambridge), Archdeacon Lee, Dr. Lightfoot (now Bishop of Durham), Professor Milligan (Scotch Church), Professor Moulton (Wesleyan Methodist), Dr. J. H. Newman (now Cardinal), Professor Newth (Congregationalist), Dr. A. Roberts (Scotch Church), Dr. Vance Smith (Unitarian), Dean Scott (of Rochester), Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Tregelles (Congregationalist), Dr. C. J. Vaughan (now Dean of Llandaff), Professor Westcott. To these some additions were subsequently made, namely, Bishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews), Dr. D. Brown, (Scotch Free Church), Dean Merivale. The last named withdrew from the work before it had made much progress. Dean Alford, Bishop Wilberforce, Dr. Tregelles, and Dr. Eadie all died previous to 1876; and Dr. Newman declined the invita

tion. On the death of Bishop Wilberforce, his place was taken by Professor (now Archdeacon) Palmer. The number of members has throughout been about twenty-four, of whom the average attendance has been sixteen, during the ten and a half years of working time. The Company has met monthly, under the presidency of Bishop Ellicott, ten times each year, with one or two exceptions only, and has made a total working time of 412 days, of about seven hours each, to say nothing of the time necessarily spent in private study connected with the work. Clearly the revisers deserve a good name for application and industry.

« VorigeDoorgaan »