THE LIBERAL PARTY AND HOME-RULE.
IF proof is needed that Home-rule has ceased to be anything but a mere counsel of perfection to the mass of the Liberal party, it is to be found in the debate of Friday week,—the debate on Mr. Redmond's amendment to the Address, advocating an independent Parliament for Ireland. Those who have been called upon to watch closely the trend of opinion in the Liberal party during the past two years cannot have failed to notice the gradual dying out of enthusiasm for the Home-rule cause. No politician or body of politicians has actually repudiated that cause, but on every side there has been a general tendency for the party leaders to turn their backs on Home-rule. A frigid and perfunctory homage has been accorded to Home-rule in programmes and addresses, but the moment such lip-service has been paid, the speaker on popular platforms or the drafter of addresses and programmes has hastily turned, and with an evident sense of relief, to the real business of the party,—to planning the destruction of the House of Lords or the manipulation of electoral reform. All heartiness and determination has disappeared from the references to the Nationalist demand. Instead of burning rhetoric about the sacred cause of justice to Ireland, we see the Liberal speakers nudge themselves not to forget the conventional passage about an Irish Parliament for purely Irish affairs. Under these circumstances, it was inevitable that the Parnellites, whose object it is to show that their rivals have sold the pass and ruined the Nationalist cause by their alliance with the Liberals, should make capital out of the situation. They, like the rest of the world, can see that the heart has gone out of Home-rule, and that from being the essential item in the party programme it has receded to that limbo of really dead, but apparently alive things which profes- sional politicians call "a foremost place." Home-rule, the Parnellites are keen-witted enough to see, has, for the time at any rate, ceased to be a matter of practical politics. The Dillonites would of course be only too glad to conceal the fact. Mr. Redmond was delighted to parade it before the world and to show that the alliance in reality rests on nothing. Practically his Motion asked,—How does Home-rule stand to-day ?
Naturally enough the asking of such a question as this put both the Dillonites and the English Home-rulers in a very uncomfortable position. Practically all that Sir William Harcourt could or would say was that he was sound on the Home-rule question, and that though he was not for an independent Parliament, he stuck to Mr. Gladstone's second Home-rule scheme. As to the problems of urgency and priority, Sir William would only give a most Delphic answer. Priority, he said, depended on majority.—But we will quote his actual words, for Sir William Harcourt suddenly developed so Gladstonian style that it is useless to attempt to summarise his words and yet retain their meaning, if any.—Something had been said, remarked Sir William, about "urgency," "and I think I heard the word priority.' If the hon. Member for Waterford would permit me to observe, as one having had some Parliamentary experience, that priority depends upon majority, and whether the course which the hon. Member has taken for the past seven years, and is taking now, is likely to conduce to the existence of a majority in this House in favour of Home-rule is for him to consider. At all events, it is not my judgment that the course he is taking is likely to advance the question of Home-rule. That is a matter which, as they say, is on the knees of the gods, and we have not arrived yet at that point. I can- not honestly say—to borrow a phrase of the hon. and learned Member—that I have ever looked with any con- fidence to his assistance in the matter. So much for ' urgency ' and priority." Is this, or is it not, intended to mean that Home-rule is to have priority if there is a majority ? We confess that it seems to us that Sir William was more anxious to say something on this matter than to convey any definite meaning. His utterance has in it the note of the perplexed but wary politician made immortal in the "Bigelow Papers " :— " Tell 'em that on the Slavery question
I'm RIGHT, although to speak I'm lawth ; Thet gives you a safe pint to rest on, An' leaves me frontin' South by North."
But though no man can say whether Sir William Harcourt did or did not commit himself positively in the matter of " urgency " and "priority," it is impossible not to note the want of fervour in his tones. His was not the language in which men speak of a great and burning policy to which they are committed. If there had been any question of Sir William's and his party's loyalty to the policy of Free-trade, think how different would have been the answer, and with what warmth and conviction it would. have been given! Mr. Redmond's Motion did more, how- ever, than make it plain to all the world how lukewarm the Liberal party has grown about Home-rule. It also in effect obliged the Anti-Parnellites to show how im- potent they are in the matter of putting pressure on their allies. There was some talk, no doubt, of thirty constituencies in which the Irish could turn the elections, and of forcing the Liberals to make Home-rule their policy, but it had a very unreal air. And for this reason. At the last Election the Irish voted for the Liberals and they returned to Westminster in a hopeless minority. The threat to withdraw such support cannot be said to be a very terrible one. It reminds one of the man in the play who threatens to withdraw his son's allowance. As some one remarks, the calamity is not so great as it seems, for the son never had the allowance. If the Nationalists were to withdraw their support they would not deprive the Liberal party of power, for they have failed to give it them. The threat to withdraw Parlia- mentary support is never really effective except when made to a party in power. Thus, as we have said, the debate showed the world that Home-rule has ceased to be a matter of practical politics, and that the Nationalists are, for the moment at any rate, quite powerless to prevent the neglect from which their cause is suffering at the hands of the Liberals.
Yet, in spite of this, we do not think that Mr. Redmond made any really strong points against his fellow-country- men. He put them in a dialectical hole, but that was all- What we take to be the real position is this,—a, very un- pleasant one, no doubt, for the Irish Nationalists, but one from which there is no escape. Ineffect, this is what the Liberal party says to them We know that if we bore the electors any more with Home-rule we shall lose the next Election. That is a certainty. At the same time, we know also that we cannot easily win without your support. Still, if we are forced to make an absolute choice, we would rather throw over Home-rule and lose your help- than court certain defeat by making Home-rule the essential thing in our programme. All we can do is this, and you may take it or leave it. We will not formally drop Home-rule, but will keep it running with a lot of other more popular cries like "End the Lords," "One Man, One Vote," " Local Veto,"" Social Reform," and so on, and if we get into power, we will do our best to give you as good. "a show" as we can. Under certain circumstances we might even take Home-rule next after electoral reform, but we can make no promises.' What are the Nationalists to say to this plea, which they know in their hearts rests on the logic of facts. If they reply, 'Home- rule at once, or nothing,' the Liberals can only shrug their shoulders and say, 'We may as well try to reach shore without a boat as with one riddled with holes, for that is certain death.' Thus the Irish Nationalists are left in this position. If they desert their allies, the defeat of Home-rule is certain. If they stick to them, though unsatisfied, there is still a faint, though not very good,, chance for Home-rule. As sensible men, they have therefore no course but to stick to the Liberals. Their opportunity may come later. Suppose the Liberals plus the Irish get a majority of, say, 50 or 60. Then the Irish may threaten desertion, and so change a majority a into minority, unless Home-rule is made the first charge on the new Parliament. Possibly they will be able to play this game, but it is of course by no means certain. Sup- pose, for example, that before the next General Election the party managers—these things are sure to be thought out beforehand—were to ask the Irish for a pledge that. they will not blackmail the party the moment it gets into power. Probably the Nationalists would not give it, but 3 et if they did not, and no arrangement were made as to whether Home-rule was or was not to have priority, there might be considerable friction at the polls. We expect, however, that what will really happen will be that nothing definite will be said on either side about pledges, though the Irish will, wherever possible, try to get individual Members to pledge themselves to priority. The moment the battle is won, if it is won—a very large "if," we may remark—there will be a tug-of- war as to what measures are to have precedence. If the majority is a small one the Irish will, of course, win, for they will hold the balance. If it is a large one, and the Liberals are to some extent independent of the Irish, priority will be given not to Home-rule but to other questions. But naturally all this is purely speculative. What we do know is that Home-rule is ceasing, or has ceased, to be a live policy, and that the Anti-Parnellites have in effect been forced to admit that they are power- less to prevent this disagreeable process in the political evolution of the Home-rule idea.
Previous page
