TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MONDAY NIGHT IN THE COMMONS. THE Irish speeches of Monday night in the Commons, with Sir William Harcourt's remarkable conduct on that occasion, and even more remarkable apology for it at Whitechapel on Wednesday, will either instruct the democracy of this Kingdom as to what Irish Home-rule really means, or will show that the democracy does not care enough about that most important matter to wish to be instructed on the subject. Let us recount exactly what happened. Mr. Sexton, in moving his amendment to the Address, in which he asserted that the British Parliament is altogether too ignorant about Irish affairs to legislate satisfactorily for Ireland, took the greatest possible pains to present no general argument for Home-rule, and no definition as to what he meant by it. He confined himself to attacking the defects of a Land. Act which has not yet been six months in operation, and to declaring that those defects were due to the irremediable ignorance and prejudices of the Legislature which passed it. Further, he professed a vague and perfect confidence in the ability and willingness of the Liberal Party to put Ireland in possession of an effective Home-rule with which she could and would remedy her own disorders. The position he took up was extra- ordinarily weak. By his own confession, the Land Act of 1891 was substantially sound and valuable, and needed only one or two amendments to make it a practical measure of very great value. Considering how many English Acts are passed which betray far more serious blots than any which this hardly as yet operative Act has betrayed, nothing can be more childish than to rest the argument for such a change as Mr. Sexton proposes, on the possible though unproved blots which it contains. The truth is, that Mr. Sexton was extremely anxious to rest the case for Home-rule on a kind of accusation which would not bring out the fundamental differences between the Irish and the prevailing Glad- stonian conception of Home-rule. If he had attacked the Irish Courts of Justice, and the Irish Grand Juries, and the Irish Constabulary, and the Irish Board of Education, and the Irish finance of the British Govern- ment, he would have frightened half the Gladstonian Home-rulers out of their allegiance ; and therefore he pru- dently limited himself to an attack conceived on grounds so narrow, that it almost made his case ridiculous. But it was his cue to profess immeasurable confidence in Mr. Gladstone, and to leave Mr. Gladstone to fight the battle for the legislative independence of Ireland which Mr. Sexton really desires, and no doubt intends to obtain.
But this politic reticence was defeated by the frankness of Mr. John Redmond, the new Parnellite leader. Mr. Redmond explained exactly what the Irish Members (Anti. Parnelliteas well as Parnellite) really mean by Home-rule, and it does not matter a button whether Mr. Redmond is, as his adversaries say, deliberately playing into the hands of the Government, or not. For it is obvious that he could not play into their hands without having Ireland behind him, and not merely Parnellite Ireland, but Anti-Parnellite Ireland. What Mr. Redmond's motive may be, is a matter of absolutely no consequence. He has no power to give the Government a lift, except what the real feeling of the Irish constituencies may confer upon him. What he says is (and he obviously speaks the truth, for Mr. Healy, who professed to answer him, made almost the only unmeaning and impotent speech of his life), that what Ireland, Anti-Parnellite as well as Parnellite, wants, and is determined to have, is a Legislature and Executive that in Irish affairs shall be really independent of the British Parliament, and shall not be liable to be overruled by the British Parliament. Call it a " minor " Parliament, if you please, says Mr. Redmond,—he magnanimously admits that doubtless it will be a minor Parliament,—but in Irish affairs it must have that virtual independence of British legislation which the Colonial Parliaments in self-governing Colonies possess. If it (in British opinion) oppresses the minority, Great Britain must not interfere. If it (in British opinion) plunders a class or oppresses a province, Great Britain must not interfere. Unless the Irish Parliament, and the Executive dependent on it, are to have free scope in the Colonial sense, Ireland will not be pacified. The whole Home-rule Party, whether Dillonite or Parnellite, will reject with scorn the inadequate and worthless gift. And. to this speech, as we said, not a, single member of the Anti-Parnellite Party ventured the least reply. Mr. Healy only reiterated. his unlimited confi- dence in the generous political purpose of Mr. Gladstone.
And what of Sir William Harcourt ? He kept as silent as the grave. He refused to open his mind on the subject. Nothing would induce him to make a speech. Probably he felt sure that he could. say nothing which would. not commit Mr. Gladstone, and. commit him rather awkwardly. He had declared against Mr. Parnell's "Fenian Home- rule ; " but when Mr. Redmond explained what he meant by Mr. Parnell's Home-rule, and asked him if that were "Fenian," Sir William Harcourt held his tongue. The division was snatched without a word from any Glad- stonian leader as to his acceptance or rejection of Mr. Redmond's Home-rule. And what said Sir William Harcourt on Wednesday in Whitechapel ? He said. :—" I listened with satisfaction and instruction to the able and. moderate speeches of Mr. Sexton, Mr. John Redmond, and Mr. Healy." That, of course, commits Sir William Harcourt to nothing, except perhaps that Mr. John Redmond's conception of Home-rule is not "Fenian," for he could. hardly call a demand for " Fenian " Home-rule, "moderate." But it does evince something like a belief that Mr. Gladstone will lean more towards Mr. Redmond's notion of Irish Home-rule than towards the Bill of 1886 as modified by Mr. Gladstone's subsequent concessions.
Now, how does this resolute silence of Sir William Harcourt's, and. the quasi-approbation which he gave in Whitechapel to the " moderate " speech of Mr. John Redmond, bear on the views of the Gladstonian Party ? Mr. Balfour showed, in his able speech at the Constitu- tional Club on Wednesday, that Mr. Maden had. gained his victory at Rossendale by carefully minimising Irish Home-rule till it means nothing but Local Government ; that Sir William Harcourt had once said that he would never be a party to any Home-rule Bill which destroyed the control of the British Parliament over the Irish Parliament ; that Mr. Henry Fowler had admitted that the Irish Parliament would probably do foolish things, but had declared that when it did wrong things, "the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament became an effective force." Now, that is just what Mr. Redmond, in the " moderate " speech which Sir William Harcourt praises, and. which no Irish patriot dared. to repudiate, declares to be intolerable. The supremacy of the British Parliament is to be as formal and inoperative in Ireland. as in self-governing Colonies. If Ulster is driven to revolt, the British Government is not to interfere. If Belfast is harried by the new Irish finance and Cork petted, the British Govern- ment is not to interfere. If the Protestants complain that their children are not effectually protected from propa- gandism at Catholic schools, the British Government is not to interfere. What will Mr. Henry Fowler, what will Mr. Arthur Arnold, what will the whole school of Gla,dstonians who got the Irish Members restored- to the Imperial Legislature in Mr. Gladstone's scheme, on purpose that in such cases the British Legislature and. Government might be competent to interfere, say to this ? If the British democracy has not handed over its conscience absolutely to Mr. Gladstone, we believe that it will waken up at last, and declare that if Mr. Redmond. has rightly formulated the Irish demand, they would, just as soon concede it as exclude Wales or Yorkshire from the authority of the British Parliament and from the executive control of the British Government.
Previous page
