LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PROFESSOR DICEY ON UNIONIST DELUSIONS.—V.
rTo TH. EDITOR OF TON ..SPECTAT0112.1
Ste,—Character is power ; loss of reputation is loss of authority.
This is a truth attested by every page from the annals of Eng- land. It well deserves the consideration of Liberal Unionists. They are tormented by scruples about co-operation with Conservatives ; they are depressed by disappointment at isolated defeats; they are tried by impatience at temporary reverses ; they are perplexed at finding that the party which defends the rights of the people need not for the moment be the party of popularity. Alliance of one kind or another is, they rightly feel, a necessity ; in politics, permanent isolation is final ruin. Two combinations are offered to their choice. The option presented is co-operation with Con- servatives, or coalition with Parnellites ; no other choice is open. From the first some honest Unionists are repelled, because it is called a surrender to Toryism ; towards the second they are attracted, because it is styled the restoration of Liberal unity. Let me try for a moment to get behind phrases, and test the meaning of words by the very trath of facts. Let me insist upon the maxim that, with Englishmen, "character is power," and, guided by my firm belief in its absolute truth, show why it counsels friendship with Conservatives as the path of safety, and warns every true Unionist from the Gladstonian or the Parnellite alliance as from sure destruction.
Co-operation between Liberal Unionists and Conservative Unionists brings no discredit upon either Liberals or Tories. Of principle there is no compromise whatever. As to the end to be pursued, there is absolute agreement ; to every Unionist, the maintenance of national unity is of supreme importance. Nor does any vital difference exist as to the right mane for the attainment of a common end ; no Unionist disputes that every ' citizen of the United Kingdom must enjoy the free exercise of his legal rights, and that, therefore, the law must be enforced throughout the length and breadth of the laud ; no one in the Unionist ranks questions that the Courts ought to obtain the same obedience in Cork or in Kerry as in Midlothian or in Middlesex ; no Unionist of weight doubts that the grievances of Irish tenants, so far as they can be remedied by law, ought to be redressed, or that the tenure of land is the source of Irish discontent; nor does it lie upon Unionists to dispute that Mr. Gladstone's land legislation has failed, partly from its inherent faults, partly from the neglect to enforce that obedience to law which is a necessary condition for any successful reform in the tenure of land. In the desire to abolish dual ownership, Unionists are at one ; they are also at one in the belief that a policy of reform must be a policy of honesty, and that landlords have the same rights as other British subjects. In this matter it is not the bigotry of Conservatism which need excite disquiet. The danger is not that too much, but that too little respect may be paid to rights conferred by law. There is, again, no ground for alleging essential disagreement between Unionists as to matters lying beyond the limits of Irish policy. It is, of course, idle to fancy a kind of unanimity which does not exist; it were folly to imagine that Lord Salisbury is in all or in most questions of the same mind with Mr. Chamberlain ; and no man of
honour or of sense would wish for a sham agreement ; from Tory Democrats or from democratic Tories little benefit can be expected by the English nation. But in matters of statesman- ship, speculative agreement is not needed. All that is necessary is that political allies should honestly agree on the mode of dealing with subjects which imperatively require to be handled ; some questions must wait for their solution till the battle for national unity is fought out and won ; no sane states- man bent on defending the Union would now raise a controversy as to Disestablishment. A Ministry which is truly national will seek to meet the demands of the nation. Many questions exist which can be settled in accordance with something like national agreement. The Land Laws may be reformed, the sphere of local self-government may be extended, the complaints of agricultural labourers may be met, Colonial goodwill may be fostered, a policy of quiet pro- gress at home and of peaceful independence abroad may be maintained, by a Ministry supported by a Ministry and a party resolved to forego the attainment of objects specially desired by Tories or by Liberals, in order to repel an assault on the political integrity of the nation. No doubt the leaders of such a party must abstain from great organic changes in the Constitution. But the mass of the people, now that democracy is triumphant, care far more for social improvements than for constitutional innovation. No calm observer can fail to see that a partyroontaining at once a Conservative and a Liberal element, approaches social problems at a great advantage. In what manner Liberal Unionists may best aid a Unionist Ministry, is a question to be left to the decision of honoured and trusted leaders. Implicit reliance may be placed on the manly honesty of Lord Hartington and the moral intuitions of Mr. Bright. Co-operation between men who have hitherto belonged to different parties has indeed its obvious inconveniences. But it has its compensating benefits. An alliance based on concern for national interest, if it breaks down the lines of party connection, revives a sense of allegiance to the nation ; it is an alliance which, if it requires some sacrifice of private feelings, involves no loss of character ; it adds to the repute and may double the strength of English statesmanship.
Alliance with Gladstonians and Parnellites is nothing else than surrender by Unionists of all attempt to defend the Union. Respect for a distinguished career forbids the supposition that Mr. Gladstone would consent to lead the Liberal Party on con- dition of renouncing the policy of Home-rule. Such a renuncia- tion would either betray a laxity of principle of which he is in- capable, or involve the confession of such an error of judgment as would disqualify him for leadership. Assume, however, that Unionists were willing to surrender the Union, or could accept a compromise, are they willing to pay the price of the Parnellite alliance P What this price is we know by experi- ence. The career of the Gladstonians tells the result of a coalition between a body of constitutional Liberals and a body of revolutionary Separatists. The Gladstonians came to terms with the Parnellites under favourable conditions ; Mr. Glad- stone was an honest convert to Home-rale ; his followers brought themselves to believe that they believed in the creed of their leader ; Mr. Gladstone's immense influence held out the hope that the Parnellites might become Gladstonians, and that under constitutional guidance, revolutionists might adopt consti- tutional methods. What has happened is matter of history. English Liberals have from the necessity of things followed the lead of their Irish confederates. Gladstonians, headed by a trained Parliamentarian, once reverenced Parliamentary govern- ment; they have now sanctioned tactics which destroy the dignity and menace the authority of Parliament. Not long ago, they rated high the rights of property and the claims of individual freedom, and, with Burke, entertained "no idea of liberty unconnected with honesty and justice ;" they have now given to the "Plan of Campaign," resting as it does on theft and oppression, first the consent of ominous silence, next the countenance of mild reprehension, then the benefit of sophistic apology, and lastly, the stimulus of all but applausive sympathy. Time was when Liberalism plumed itself on cultivated intelligence and high independence ; of recent days, Liberal doctrine has inculcated on the uneducated masses that ignorance may neglect the guidance of knowledge, and Liberal sympathy, by soothing the conscience of Irish agitators, has involved English politicians in the worst guilt of Parnellism. For in the day of national judgment, the heaviest charge brought by history against the Parnellites will not be that they have injured England—for England they have regarded, and from their own point of view, not without justii- cation, as a foe—but that they have inflicted deadly wrong upon Ireland. Their unpardonable offence is the moral degradation of the people whom they meant to serve. In this they stand in hideous contrast with the patriots of past days. Grattan and the Volunteers, O'Connell and the Repealere, Smith O'Brien and Younglreland, all strove to found national independence upon the elevation of national morality. For the heroes of the Land League it was reserved to recommend to an impoverished peasantry covetousness, cruelty, and suspicion, as sentiments to be nurtured by patriots desirous of new national life. To sit by while landlords are attacked, as though to be a landlord was to be a criminal, to allow or suffer the denunciation of hirers or purchasers of land as "land-grabbers," is, say what apologists will, to countenance immorality. Teach a tenant that it is laudable to covet his neigh- bour's land, if that neighbour be a landlord ; teach him that it is a duty to steal, if only the money stolen be rent,—and it is not in human nature but that he should improve upon the lesson. He has learnt that it is a duty to violate the eighth and tenth commandment ; he will infer that it is no heavy sin to break the sixth or the ninth. Respect for law and hatred of violence has hitherto been the proud characteristic of English Liberalism ; under the influence of the Parnellite alliance, Liberals have assaulted the character of the Bench, have questioned the im- partiality of juries, have palliated outrage, have shrunk from every effort to strengthen the action of the law, and have used language which suggests that the tribunals of the League possess a higher moral authority than the Courts of the Queen. Gladstonians have in truth at times gone further, and have avowed the favourite dogma of revolution,—that law is of no obligation on any man who challenges its justice. What, again, has become of the seriousness which once marked English statesmanship ? Plain men are astounded at the levity or light-heartedness of reputable politicians ; deliberate asser- tions of responsible officials are lightly held of no account ; grave charges, made by respected Judges, are lightly set aside as entitled to small respect ; to underrate the capacity of the magistracy, or to charge the law itself with injustice, is deemed a trifle. Meanwhile, the vehement contradictions of unscrupu- lous partisanship are esteemed worthy of credit, and elaborate arguments are based on the off-hand denial of notorious facts ; statesmen of high character believe with easy credulity, and assert with confident readiness, that men who but a year or two ago needed to be checked in the career of crime by all the resources of civilisation, have now undergone a permanent change in their words, actions, and convictions. Whoever, after glancing at a few numbers of United Ireland, or after reading the recent speeches delivered at the Rotunda, can believe " that Irishmen" (and Irishmen must be taken here to mean Parnellites) " look to political means for reform and the redress of grievances, and that their object is no longer to defy, but to persuade and con- ciliate their countrymen on this aide the Channel," may well enough place faith in the sudden and permanent transformation of revolutionary conspiracy into lawful agitation. But to an observer under no temptation to take the strength of a wish as the guarantee for its own fulfilment, " conversions " which would be suspicious in the realm of religion are incredible in the world of polities. Nor to such an one will the assertion that Ireland is filled with strong, vivid, and buoyant hope bear con- viction; one thing it does prove,—namely, that Gladstonians see the darkest objects in the light thrown upon them by the re- viving hope of Gladstonian triumph. This sanguine dis- position is favoured by boundless capacity for the substitution of words for facts ; boycotting is stripped of all its odious- ness by being dubbed with the comparatively respectable alias of "exclusive dealing ;" on a similar principle, assassinations which have made the Phoenix Park a place of horror may some day be freed from obloquy by being called " acts of warfare." To men who sincerely wish to palliate actions which their con- science condemns, such changes of name may give true com- fort; but Englishmen or Irishmen who note the condition of public opinion, will feel deep alarm at the facility with which statesmen of ability and virtue play with language in order that they may ignore facts. Nor are the pleas which candour urges in defence of the conduct of Glad- stonian Liberalism reassuring. " Respectable Liberals dis- approved obstruction." So be it ; but the disapproval was silent, and the party profited by the indiscretions of its more violent members ; that the receiver is worse than the thief, is a maxim of wide application, and extends to matters not within the juris-
diction of the Old Bailey. "Approval of Irish agitation was expressed with many reserves, and subject to many conditions." Provisoes and reservations may save the character of the speaker, but in no way tell on the effect of the speech ; every boycotter in Ireland can say and believe with plausibility, if not with truth, that his system of exclusive dealing has the sanction of Mr. Gladstone, and every boycotter in Ireland will take com- fort. "Mr. Gladstone and many of his followers are influenced by good motives, and are men of high character." I admit that this is so. The admission is part of my argument ; my very case is that excellent persons who coalesce with revolutionists catch in spite of themselves the revolutionary disease, and are compelled to adopt revolutionary methods. What has befallen one branch of the Liberal Party would, under like circumstances, befall the other. Let Liberal Unionists who dread the contact of Toryism, look on the Gladstonians and see the result of alliance with Parnellites. The Gladstonians boast they are gaining in numbers. So be it; they are nevertheless losing the reputation which is the ultimate source of authority.
The case, then, stands thus :—Liberal Unionists may co-operate with Conservatives, and thus, at the price of possibly retarding specific Liberal reforms, preserve the unity of the nation and maintain the traditions of Liberalism. They may, by alliance with Parnellites, hasten some Liberal reforms at the price of breaking up the national unity, and sacrificing that weight of character which ie the tree foundation of power and authority.—
Previous page
