Page images
PDF
EPUB

MR. GLADSTONE

ON THE IRISH DEMAND.

THE article upon the Irish question which has lately been contributed to this Review by Mr. Gladstone will doubtless receive that attentive consideration which is due to its intrinsic merits as well as to the position and character of its author. It must be highly satisfactory to those Liberals who felt it their duty to resist the Irish legislation recently proposed by Mr. Gladstone to read his candid admission that such legislation was attempted by him before the 'reflective side' of the question had been exhausted. The announcement of the new policy undoubtedly took the country by surprise, and it may well be urged by Mr. Gladstone's opponents as well as by himself that during the whole of last year the question was approached on what may perhaps be termed its impassioned as opposed to its reflective side.' It is therefore with sincere pleasure that I find Mr. Gladstone advising us to betake ourselves to that ' reflective' process which might well have been recommended before legislation of a strange and startling character was proposed, but which even after the proposal and the defeat of such legislation cannot be otherwise than of good result.

One point, at least, has been gained by the publication of the article which I have now under review. Almost every portion of the Home Rule Bill of last year has been held to be an open question,' i.e. a question which might be settled by any compromise which should unite the different sections of the 'Liberal party' in its support. Now, however, we have it clearly and unmistakably laid down that the policy to which Mr. Gladstone is immovably attached' is that of establishing a statutory Parliament in Ireland, with its necessary consequence, a ministry responsible in the colonial fashion, and under proper conditions to secure the just interest of Ireland in Imperial concerns.' The importance of this statement consists in the fact that it enables us to see and recognise beyond all doubt the real, deep, fundamental difference between Mr. Gladstone and the Unionist party. The latter are perfectly ready to give to Ireland, as also to Scotland, Wales, and parts of England distant from the Metropolis, such extended municipal powers, under proper regu

6

lations and with due security, as may remove the practical grievances attendant upon centralised administration, develop and enlarge the principles of local self-government, and confer the power of 'managing their own affairs' upon the people of every county or district in which such powers can be conferred with a due regard to the public safety and the maintenance of the law. The point of difference is in the statutory Parliament and separate Ministry. We who are attached, I believe immovably, to the policy' of maintaining England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as a United Kingdom believe that to the existence of this union a United Parliament is a necessity, and that, in the words of Mr. Bright, to have two legislative assemblies in the United Kingdom would be an intolerable mischief. To establish a separate Parliament for Ireland would be to encourage ideas in the Irish mind which would infallibly create confusion and disorder, and work evils which must be patent to the most ordinary foresight. Every restriction imposed upon such a Parliament would be represented as 'coming in a foreign garb ' and imposed by a foreign' Power, and it is difficult to find a valid ground for dissenting from the concluding words of Mr. Bright's address to the electors of Birmingham, that no sensible man can wish for two legislative assemblies within the limits of the present United Kingdom who does not wish the United Kingdom to become two or more nations entirely separate from each other.'

6

There is one remarkable feature in Mr. Gladstone's article to which I desire to call attention, because it throws a vivid light upon the difference between him and his opponents. I allude to the manner in which, throughout the whole of his argument, he persists in speaking of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as separate countries, and in virtually ignoring that common citizenship in which, according to our Unionist ideas, the inhabitants of these islands are happily blended. It is this craze with regard to individual nationalities, and the apparent inability to understand or recognise their absorption in the larger and nobler aspirations of a united country, which a quarter of a century ago misled Mr. Gladstone in his estimate of the probable outcome of the struggle between the Northern and Southern States of America, and is, I venture to think, misleading him to-day. Mr. Gladstone recognised the local autonomy of the Southern States, their presumed constitutional right to sever themselves from the American Union, and the determination, energy, and perseverance with which they attempted to enforce that right. That which he absolutely failed, on the other hand, to recognise and to appreciate was the intense belief of Americans in the larger nationality of their Union, their inflexible determination to preserve to their country that power and position among the nations of the world which would have been imperilled by the lopping off of the Southern States, and their consequent resolution to maintain at all hazards the

unity of their Republic. It is the same story to-day. Mr. Gladstone not only recognises (as indeed no one disputes) the existence of separate nationalities in Great Britain and Ireland, but he deems it wise and patriotic for ever to harp upon the fact of this existence, to stereotype any possible differences of race and feeling, and to encourage individual as against general nationality. This is a course precisely the reverse of that which commends itself to Unionists. We are far from desiring that either English, Scotch, Irish, or Welshmen should forget their several nationalities, or cease to be proud of whatever may be great, good, and glorious in the traditions of their past. But we contend that, for each and all, it is better and wiser to cling more and more closely to the common citizenship which unites us under one flag and one constitutional sovereign: we recognise the fact (admitted by Mr. Gladstone himself as regards the Irish people) that time has gone far to remove and obliterate the differences of race which formerly existed between us, and we, like our American brethren, are determined not to suffer those bonds of union to be relaxed which bind us together as one people. That is the real issue between us and Mr. Gladstone. To him individual nationality is a fetish to be worshipped, the British Empire the accidental outcome of a grouping of nationalities. To us the British Empire, existing for the general interests of our Home nationalities, and for the wider interests which are sheltered beneath its power or assisted by its influence, is something of greater importance than any individual nationality, too valuable to ourselves and to mankind to be trifled with or imperilled by any sentimental legislation. That this is also the view of the people was tolerably well proved at the last general election.

In the course of the article with which I am dealing the writer asks and answers eight questions upon the subject under discussion. I am glad to find myself in complete accord with him as regards one important matter-namely, the vast and solid strength of Great Britain.' Confining myself strictly to the point with which we are dealing to-day, I admit at once the possession of a giant's strength, and I recognise the force of the argument which seems to spring naturally from such an admission-namely, that if there should be given to Ireland those legislative powers which are demanded for her, Great Britain would be able effectually to prevent her abuse or misuse of the same. It appears to me, however, that the temptation to use her strength 'like a giant' hardly exists in this case, nor is it by any means necessary to appeal to the innate, ineradicable nobleness of English character.' The temptation is all the other way. Indeed, Mr. Gladstone himself admits and founds an argument upon this fact. He tells us that 'by blocking the way with Irish business we have effectually hindered the progress of British legislation,' and denies that we have any adequate com

[ocr errors]

pensations' for the grave and serious mischiefs' which are entailed by the present system. Surely, then, if this be the case, the 'temptation' to a country conscious of her own strength, and endowed moreover with that nobleness' of character which inclines the strong to be indulgent to the weak, is, not to use her strength 'like a giant,' but to yield to that which is put forth as a legitimate 'Irish demand.' The only reason why she has not so yielded, and why, in my judgment, she will not so yield, is because she believes that concession would be mischievous both to Ireland and to herself. Mr. Gladstone advises that the appeal to England should be made 'to her heart, her reason, and her conscience, not to her fears.' It is a pity that he should not have refrained from asserting, in a previous page, that it is undeniable' that Catholic emancipation, and other specified' great measures' passed with reference to Ireland, • were in the main due to the fears of England.' The assertion is one which is certainly open to question; and with regard to the measure of 1829 it is to be remarked that, although words of the Duke of Wellington have been construed to bear the meaning attached to them by Mr. Gladstone, those words were never intended to imply that the concession to Catholic claims was made through fear, and the Duke himself gave a categorical denial to the charge in a speech of later date. Compliance with popular demands may be at one time unwise and undesirable, and at another time prudent and politic, but to attribute the various concessions' or 'remedial measures' which have from time to time been given to Ireland by the British Parliament to the fears' of that Parliament or of the nation would be a mistake of a graver and more serious nature than to impute Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church Disestablishment measure to those outrages at Manchester and Clerkenwell which in his own words only made it possible' for him to give the Irish question precedence over other pending questions.'

6

[ocr errors]

It was recently my duty to demonstrate the inaccuracy of certain propositions of Mr. Gladstone which had been publicly put forward as facts of Irish history, and which bore materially upon the issues before the country. It is with regret that I find Mr. Gladstone still assuming, as the basis of an argument, statements which cannot bear the test of historical investigation. He speaks of the great series. of measures which made the years between 1778 and 1795 almost a golden age of Irish history.'

[ocr errors]

It was not until 1782 that the new constitution, commonly known by the title of Grattan's Parliament,' was fairly launched. But if we take the period from 1782 to 1795 we shall find that in admitting it to be 'almost a golden age' we shall certainly run counter to the opinion of Grattan and those patriots of Grattan's school who held the views respecting Irish independence' which

'House of Lords, February 15, 1833.

Mr. Gladstone presumably holds to-day. The latter, however, has placed himself in a dilemma from which there is no escape. He has declared that Grattan's Parliament was a free parliament, with which Ireland was satisfied,' and on being confronted with the fact that this same Parliament was notoriously subservient to the British Government, he has fallen back upon a division of the period of this Parliament's existence, counting it as almost a golden age' up to the time of Lord Fitzwilliam's recall, and as something very much the reverse for the remainder of its existence. But does either picture correctly represent the truth? I am not for a moment denying that good measures were passed by the Irish Parliament between the years 1782 and 1795, although it must never be forgotten that they were so passed at the initiation and by the influence of the British Government. But just as recent British Governments have been taunted with passing alternate 'remedial' and coercive measures, so it will be found that the course of the Irish Parliament at the time of which we treat was of necessity in a similar direction. It cannot be too often impressed upon the public mind that it is absolutely untrue to state or to imply that Ireland was tranquil and loyal up to the time of Lord Fitzwilliam's recall, and that it was subsequent to and in consequence of that incident that rebellion was kindled in the country. It was eleven years before Lord Fitzwilliam went to Ireland, i.e. in 1784, that the Whiteboy' outrages became serious. In the three following years houghing, tarring and feathering prevailed, attacks upon Protestant clergymen were frequent, and riotous and disorderly meetings were sufficiently numerous to induce the Parliament to pass in 1787 an Act to prevent tumultuous risings and assemblies.' In 1791 the scene of violence shifted from south to north; murders and outrages still disgraced the country, and in that same year was inaugurated and established the Society of United Irishmen,' which was based upon hatred of England and admiration of French revolutionists.

6

6

Is it credible that, with all these facts before him, any one should calmly tell us that, during the period in which such a state of things existed, any measures of the Parliament could make it almost a golden age,' that Great Britain had to encounter a united Ireland,' and that when the critical year of 1795 opened religious animosities were at their nadir, because the spirit of nationality was at its zenith'?

It appears to me that the man must be wilfully blind who does not see and understand that Ireland was undermined by secret societies, demoralised by religious and political outrages, and infected with a spirit of active disloyalty long before the 'critical year of 1795,' and that although it is a fair subject for argument whether Lord Fitzwilliam's recall did not hasten the rebellion, yet it is beyond argument or doubt that the seeds of that rebellion had long before VOL. XXI.-No. 121.

EE

« PreviousContinue »