FROM THE ARCHIVES:Anna Parnell, the sister of Charles Stewart Parnell, explained to the Ladies Land League in London why her brother would not condemn the maiming of animals during the Land War.
THERE COULD be no doubt that there had been such things in Ireland as the “houghing” of cattle, the maiming of sheep, and there had been instances in which cows’ tails had been cut off, but what would have been the position of her brother had he taken upon himself the duty of denouncing perpetrators of such atrocities?
As President of the National Land League, as leader of the National movement, if he were to do what Mr Jesse Collings seems to think he ought to have done, if he were to take upon himself the duty of denouncing outrages upon cattle, he would make it appear that he was under the impression that such outrages were committed by the persons with whom he has influence in Ireland, and who have made him their leader. As a matter of fact the outrages were not committed by these persons. It might be asked then, by whom were they committed? Well, in the first place she believed the Royal Irish Constabulary had a great deal to do with them. (Hear, hear.) In spite of Mr [William] Forster, she held the belief that the constabulary cut off the cows’ tails, because the Irish Chief Secretary [Forster] had made it their interest to “discover” as many outrages as possible in order to justify the coercive legislation for Ireland.
A member of the constabulary who discovered an outrage earned for himself a distinguished mark of promotion, and if no outrages were committed it was the simplest thing in the world to perpetrate outrage in order to discover it afterwards. (Laughter.) A constable wicked enough to do such things could always rely upon being protected. It would never do to discourage a young constable in the discovery of outrages, because if that were done no outrages would be discovered, and where then would be the justification of Mr Forster’s policy of coercion? (Hear, hear.) There was also another class of persons who were distinctly tempted to commit the outrages. She referred to the people in Ireland who were subjected to what was called Boycotting. These people were in this position, if they took their cattle to the market or to the fair they could get no one to buy them, but if they mutilated them in such a manner as to render their destruction necessary, they could go to the grand jury and get compensation for all the animals maliciously injured. In this lay the secret of the fact that the man who displeased his neighbours was generally found to be the man who had his cattle houghed, but they were not houghed by the people he had displeased, because that would neutralise the effect of the “Boycotting” by entitling him at the cost of his neighbours to get the full value of the cattle, which he could not otherwise dispose of. (Hear, hear.)