TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE IRISH NONCONFORMISTS.
THE English Nonconformists,—who at least exist, and may, indeed, boast of a very conspicuous form of existence in relation to British politics,—will have this consolation, if they need any, for the part they have played in thwarting the wishes of those of their friends in Ireland who resemble them most nearly in religious creed and organisation,—that by the playing of that part they have given back a sort of posthumous life (or immortality, as the Positivists would call it) to Nonconformists who have no real existence at all ; for as in Ireland there is no Established Church, of course in Ireland there can be and are no Nonconformists. Nevertheless, the very prominent part which the English Nonconformists have taken in sup- porting Mr. Gladstone's policy for Ireland, has galvanised the bodies which once were Nonconformist in Ireland into a new moral and political significance, and has created for them the great political opportunity which they used so admirably in the banquet at the Hotel M6tropole last Wed- nesday. Nothing could be more dignified than the attitude taken up by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church,—the Rev. R. J. Lynd,—in the speech in which he vindicated for himself and the former Nonconformists of Ireland the right to speak out in answer to the challenge of the English Nonconformists who have so warmly supported Mr. Gladstone. He showed that this was not, on his own or his friends' part, in any sense what- ever an anti-Catholic demonstration. On the contrary, they protested against the Irish policy of the English Nonconformists in the name of the most sagacious and intelligent of the Irish Roman Catholics, no less than in their own name They asked for no political ascendency over Roman Catholics, or over Christians of any other Church. They asked for nothing but equal security for all, equal security in civil rights and privileges. They were not indifferent, he said, to the old grievances of the tenant- farmers. On the contrary, they had been in the front rank of the land-reformers, and still held that the reform of the land-tenure goes to the root of Irish discontent, and that if it could be effectually achieved, the Home-rulers would lose all the leverage which they have only obtained by identi- fying the Land question with the Home-rule question. He and his brethren had always wished to keep religion and politics apart, and he himself had never appeared on a party platform till Mr. Gladstone sprang his Parnellite policy on the nation. But when that had been done, and when men of similar theological creeds in England had thought it right to bring their religious convictions to the support of the Parnellite policy for Ireland, it became his duty and that of his colleagues to show that, in their opinion at least, equally deep religious convictions of the same type, when held by those who have a more minute and personal knowledge of the wants of Ireland, do not point to the same conclusion. If they could believe that Home-rule would bring prosperity and peace to Ireland, he and his friends, said the Moderator, would adopt that policy with enthusiasm. But, convinced as they were that it would throw back their country in civilisation for a hundred years, they had thought it their duty as patriots to make their present stand. And why did he hold that such a policy would throw back Ireland in civilisation for a hundred years ? Because the party into whose hands it would throw Ireland. had shown no capacity for anything but agitation of a kind which rested on law-breaking, and "to set law-breakers at the head of affairs, and make them law-makers, would be the height of suicidal folly." Such was the tenor of the Moderator's speech, and it is hardly possible to conceive a more reasonable or temperate plea for breaking the general rule which enjoins political reserve on religious teachers. The English Nonconformists say that it is a religious duty to supersede coercion in Ireland by love. The Irish Nonconformists reply that it is a very strange way of superseding coercion by love in Ireland at large, so to supersede it only in relation to those who deliberately break the law by enforcing boycotting and the "Plan of Campaign," and then to super- sede not love but liberty by coercion in relation to those who now obey the law. If it be said. that Ireland being once endowed with the right of self-government, there could be no reason to fear any consequences of the kind, the reply is that the Land League and National League have exercised the privilege of self-government in the most absolute way for many years past, the Irish priests being very frequently the chairmen or chief administrators of the various branches, and that the result has been very much what Lord Salisbury pithily described. when he remarked that "if three people are sitting upon two people and rifling their pockets, you must not say that they are a group of five enjoying the blessings of self-government." If the Irish priests had not taken the part they have in the politics of the Land League and the National League, there would certainly be less justification for other religious bodies in protesting against Home-rule as a policy which, by throwing immense power into the hands of the Irish priests, would en- danger the civil liberties of the country. But whether the revival of religious bigotry or religious exclusive- ness be or be not probable,—and we are amongst those who heartily hope that this would not be very likely in Ireland,—no one can deny that the other religious denominations have every right to watch with fear and. trembling any policy which would throw into the hands of the Irish priesthood an overwhelming political power, after the experience they have had of the manner in which that political power has been abused in relation to the agrarian agitation. However improbable the revival of religious persecution may be, a thoroughly unscrupulous use by the priesthood of religious influence in relation to secular matters is not only not improbable, but practically certain, after the experience of the last few years. And that being so, the other religious bodies of Ireland cannot feel the smallest moral confidence that even the revival of religious per- secution is outside the bounds of reasonable fear. When you have proved that class-power has been abused, you may reasonably guard against giving it any fresh chance of asserting and wielding a new sort of influence.
And Lord. Salisbury was absolutely right in warning the Irish deputation against the delusion that "if Home-rule is once granted, there is anything that can be hoped for from the checks which may have been put into the Act of Parliament, and. which it is trusted that the vigour and resolution of England will wield. If England once gives way, if she once surrenders at this stage and on this point, she will have announced to the world. that there is nothing to be feared from her resist- ance. And the statesmen under whose influence she will have achieved that surrender, have by their own constant changes of policy, by the promises they have made and systematically broken, by the policies they have promoted and. systematically stultified, informed you beforehand as clearly as if they had given you legal notice of it, that when Ireland demands Separation at your hands, she shall have it." Indeed, that is not the worst. Separation, if it came soon, would be indefinitely, we might almost say infinitely, better, than Separation delayed till England had been defied again and again by the breach of every stipulation she had made for the minority, and. till that minority had had all the heart taken out of it by the fear that the whole power of England. would be used to prevent their mating terms for themselves. Lord. Hartington's remark that he could. get no declaration out of Mr. Gladstone as to whether or not he intended. that the power of England should. be used to compel the submission of -Ulster to an Irish Parlia- ment and Administration, in case an Irish Parliament and Administration were once established, is of special interest because it suggests the true reason why that question is never faced. It is not faced because to face it and answer it in the affirmative would be fatal to the policy, while to face it and answer it in the negative would be equally fatal to the policy. We may be quite sure of this, that the Home-rulers themselves have never seriously put this question to themselves, or ventured to answer it when put. And they are perfectly wise, if they want to carry Irish Home-rule, not to put this question to themselves and not to attempt to answer it. By ignoring the question, they may carry Home-rule ; and. if once they have carried Home-rule, it is quite possible that the question might answer itself. Civil war or revolution in Ireland would probably upset the Government which had carried Home- rule, and then there need be no answer. And. if there were no civil war, why then English interference would have ceased ; and certainly the statesmen who had fought for Home-rule would never care to renew interference. The men who hand over Ireland to the Parnellites will certainly not use the resources of the Empire to snatch back again the prey which they have delivered, bound hand and foot, to their foes.
Previous page
