LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
AN APPEAL TO UNIONISTS.
(To THE EDITOH OF THE " SPECTATOE."1
SIB,—Are the Unionist Government prepared to give England her fair share of Parliamentary representation ? This ques- tion demands a distinct and a speedy answer. Nor can any Unionist doubt that it ought to be answered in the affirma- tive. The reasons for this conclusion are patent. It is well, however, that they should be clearly stated. A virtual pledge was given in 1895 that the injustice done to England should be remedied. The nature of the grievance is well known. England, whether her rights be measured by population, by wealth, or by her historical position, has a claim to twenty- three more Members than she possesses, and the under- representation of the most flourishing and most powerful part of the United Kingdom is no mere theoretical wrong. The twenty Members who ought to be transferred from Ire- land and the three Members who ought to be transferred from Wales, and given to England, have given an artificial strength to the attack on the unity of the United King- dom. It is to the violation of every democratic prin. eiple that the Nationalists of Ireland, and to a great extent the Radicals of England, owe their Parliamentary power. Had England been dtily represented in 1893 the monstrous proposal, denounced, by the way, years before by Mr. John Morley, to retain the Irish Members at West- minster whilst giving Ireland a separate Parliament, would never have been laid before Parliament. It certainly could never have been passed through the House of Commons. These are assertions which no Unionist can deny. They were in 1895 reiterated again and again on every Unionist platform; they made a great effect on the elector& The statement of England's grievance involved, and was intended to involve, the pledge that if a Unionist Government were- placed in power the wrong should be removed. A Unionist. Governmentis in office, supported by an overwhelming- majority. The pledge given to the electors cannot be violated without gross discredit. This consideration is enough,. and will, we must assume, be enough, to determine the action of the Ministry. The one unanswerable reason- for passing the Irish Local Government Act was that the vast majority of Unionists had pledged themselves to extend so- called local self-government to Ireland. Many of us believed), and still believe, that the promise ought never to have been given ; it is difficult to persuade oneself that the Local Government Act will improve the administration of Irish, local business. It is impossible to deny that it will strengthen the machinery for agitation in favour of Home-rule. The one argument which silenced objectors was that the good faith of, at any rate, most Liberal Unionists was at stake. The argument was cogent, not to say decisive, but it is an argument which tells with overwhelming force in favour of patting an end to an anomaly which one Unionist after another denounced, and which cripples the rightful authority of England.
In this instance, again, the strict fulfilment by the Unionists when in power of expectations which they excites when out of office conduces directly to the very end for the sake of which the Unionist party came into existence. To give England her due Parliamentary power is to take the one- legislative means of strengthening the Union. It will exhibit- as nothing else can do the firm determination of Unionists, that the political unity of the country shall not be relaxed; it will also increase the means of resisting any further attacks,. nor can any one maintain that the possible loss of seats by Irish Separatists will detract from the dignity or the weight of the House of Commons.
At the present moment the Unionist leaders can, if they are willing to make the required effort, carry through a reform which is necessary for the defence of the Union with Ireland. The Ministerial majority remains overwhelming. In this matter English Radicals will find it hard to act with their Separatist allies. A democrat cannot deny the principle that the distribution of representation ought to be in something like proportion to population; a politician who seriously adopts as his shibboleth the unmeaning maxim, "One man, one vote," cannot easily controvert the justice of the more im- portant rule, " One vote, one value." Personally, I must admit, maxims of this kind do not greatly impress me, but it is well worth the consideration of Conservatives whether the time has not come for accepting fatly the doctrines of democracy. Plurality of votes, though probably beneficial, cannot long be retained. As a matter of expediency it would be well to exchange the doubtful gain of allowing one elector to give occasionally votes in different constituencies for the certain benefit of conferring upon England her due Parliamentary authority. The Irish Local Government Bill has inevitably, it may be, provided means for strengthening the forces of Separatism or disloyalty. This is a valid reason for strengthen- ing the rightful power of Unionism. If Unionist Ministers neglect to correct a noxious anomaly in our electoral system all the world will know that the failure is due to want, not of' opportunity, but of vigour.
At the present time the reform can be carried, but if it is not now at least attempted it will in the future become an impossibility. If, say in 1903, it were proposed to diminish the Irish or Welsh representation, it is easy to foresee the line- d argument by which a just proposition would be met. Even in the Parliament of 1895, it would be argued, the strongest of Unionist Governments declined to diminish the number of Irish
representatives, and thereby acknowledged Ireland's constitu- tional right to at least one hundred and three Members. The right, therefore, has been practically placed beyond the reach of legislation. The argument, indeed, is open to reply, but in s country where precedent tells for so much as it does in England its force would be found irresistible. It were better, therefore, that the Ministry should attempt to effect the required reform and fail, than that they should not endeavour to carry it through. The mere attempt would place England's just claim on record, and make its enforcement a permanent principle of Unionist policy. But the determina- tion to carry through a just reform would ensure its success. Whenever the Ministry have acted with boldness they have succeeded. Their one great defect both at home and abroad has, to speak plainly, been want of daring. It is hesitation which has led to failure.
We all know the reasons which suggest themselves to politicians for the evasion of a plain political duty. "The fight for the Union," we are told, "is over. No one talks of Home- rule ; the Bills of 1886 and 1893 are buried in Mr. Gladstone's -coffin. It is folly, therefore, to fight over a dead issue." This plea, were it true, is irrelevant. The Parliamentary weakness of England may at any moment work evil to the -whole United Kingdom. Separatists may make demands of which justice forbids the concession, but the intrigues or transactions are a warning which cannot be forgotten. Respectable Parliamentarians are slaves to Parliamentary .exigencies ; they reck little of justice, they yield anything to a resolute faction which holds the balance of Parliamentary power. Members of Parliament have many merits, but among them cannot be numbered the courage to resist pressure. It is well, at any rate, to keep them out of temptation; it is absolute folly to leave in the hands of a minority a power to which they have no claim, and which they have never hesitated to use without any regard to the interest of England. But the plea put forward is not true. Home- rule is not dead. The Separatists are for a moment .discouraged. The Irish Nationalists hold together ; they have not renounced any one of their objects. Mr. Dillon, Mr. Redmond, and Mr. Davitt are to-day exactly what they were when the agitators for Home-rule appeared before the Special Commission. The English Radicals, it is said, hate the name of Home-rule. I can well believe it. They were never fervent Home-rulers, and the Home-rule Bills have brought the English Separatists to ruin. But the very fact that the alliance with Irish Nationalists is distasteful to English democrats makes it all the more ominous that Radicals have not ventured to renounce the creed or heresy which has deprived them of popularity. The bolder among their leaders avow honestly enough that they are still Home- 'rulers. The rank-and-file detest the name of Home-rule, but are quite willing to concede Parliamentary independence to Ireland provided it can be given under some less unpopular name. Observe Mr. Phillips, the Liberal candidate for Darlington. He omits to mention Home-rule because be desires "to condense his remarks." When charged with the omission, and asked whether he had dropped Home- rule out of his programme, he answers that he is "in favour of granting a liberal measure of self-government to Ireland, leaving the integrity of the Empire unimpaired and securing the absolute supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." I know not whether the silence or the words of Mr. Phillips are most instructive. The one betrays the desire to persuade innocent Unionists that Home-rule is dead, the other discovers the wish to tell Irish voters that tie is at heart a Home-ruler. The formula he chooses would, in the eyes of Gladstonians, justify supporting a measure such as the Home-rule Bill of 1893. A Unionist may well prefer the open advocacy of Separatism to the devices of shuffling ambiguity. On this point we must insist. English- men have a prejudice for gradual innovation, it savours of -compromise and moderation ; but, in reality, to concede Home-rule bit by bit is the most perilous of all courses, and this for a very simple reason. It deprives England of the possible chance, slight though it be, that the granting to Ireland of Parliamentary independence may completely terminate the era of agitation. It ensures that while the control of Ireland should be handed over to an Irish faction, England shall not gain any of the guarantees or advantages Which might protect her against the admitted dangers of Irish Parliamentary independence; it means, in short, that England will have to incur the risks involved in the policy of 1886, without attaining any of the advantages offered to her by Mr. Gladstone.
It is a pity, it is urged, to force into prominence the difference between Unionists and Separatists ; even though the Home-rule agitation be not dead it is certainly a-dying. Let us practise a policy of judicious forgetfulness and recon- ciliation.
This idea, though not stated in so many words, influences, I suspect, a good number of well-meaning Liberal Unionists, but never was any notion entertained by respectable and well-meaning men more utterly groundless. Forgetfulness and reconciliation may be wise enough when your opponents have renounced or forsaken their errors, but to offer an amnesty whilst an enemy retains his arms and continues to fight is nothing better than holding out the white flag. Unionists have no ground to fear a battle in which Home- rule and Unionism are the watchwords ; in such a contest they would win a victory as complete as that of 1856 or 1895. What they have reason to dread is a conflict in which all the issues are confused and no man knows what is the cause for which he is fighting. Wherever Unionism has been clearly at issue Unionists have won a victory. It is English Home- rulers who dread the name of Home-rule, and tremble at the just reproach of being Separatists, or the allies of Separatists. In the matter with which we are concerned, duty and policy go hand in hand. Nothing would so much reinvigorate the energy of the whole Unionist party as raising a question which would force the supporters of the Union and the advocates of legislative separation to stand once more in opposed ranks.
The reasons why the question I have asked should be answered in the affirmative are, from a Unionist point of view—and it is to Unionists alone that I address myself— conclusive ; but the reply ought to be not only decisive but immediate. Time flies; the Parliament is growing old; it will not gain in strength as it nears its end. Action which will be easy in 1899 will become difficult in 1900, and im- possible in 1901. Public opinion, too, needs preparation ; in England important measures cannot be carried by a coup de main. A Unionist demonstration at Manchester is announced for November. Then, if not before, the question I have asked should receive its authoritative answer.—I am, Sir, Sze.,
A. V. D.
Previous page
