TEIE CRISIS AND IRELAND.
WE very much doubt whether those Liberals who are congratulating themselves on having shunted the Irish difficulty, by throwing the responsibility of action on to the Tories, are at all aware how serious a matter it is to risk a renewal of agrarian crime in Ireland. For our own parts, we hold, that, responsible as the proposal is to ask for powers in excess of those inherent in the administration of what is called "the ordinary law" in a country which has for a year or more been virtually free from agrarian crime, it is a still greater responsibility to ignore the circumstances which may make a new outbreak of agrarian crime more than probable, if all the special provisions of the Irish Crimes Act are allowed to expire in September, and allowed to expire just because Mr. Parnell and his party have declared war against those who would renew them. It ought to be remembered by men of both .parties, that free as Ireland. is from liability to ordinary crime, a great proportion of her peasantry do not regard crimes committed with the object of getting the land into their own power as crimes at all, while even among those who are better instructed, a very great number are disposed to find so many excuses for these crimes that they cannot be in the least counted on to take an active part against them. Now, how is it possible, when this is notoriously the true state of the case, to say with any honesty that we cannot properly propose to renew the provisions, which have made the law respected, just because there is at present no crime ? Are not statesmen bound to take all the facts of the case into account, the moral facts as well as the physical facts, and do they not know that the law might not continue to be respected if all the provisions of the Crimes Act were dropped ? Surely the true question to put to ourselves is this,—Is there, or is there not, reason to suppose that the state of popular feeling which produced the outbreak of 1881 has fundamentally changed If it has, in the opinion of good judges like Lord Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan, really changed, and there is no longer the disposition to recur to outrage for any cause, welt and good. Then, and then only, those who object altogether to renewing special provisions for the enforcement of the criminal law in the absence of any specific evidence of criminal excess, are right. But as it is notorious that Lord Spencer at least does not bold this view—that, anxious as he has been to relax the use of coercive provisions, he still believes that a new outbreak of crime might occur if the peasantry once persuaded themselves that they could gain any great end by such an outbreak without running any serious chance of detection, we would ask both moderato Liberals and moderate Conservatives to consider serioudy what the practical consequence of letting Mr. Parnell and his ;followers have their way is likely to be ? In the first place, it is evident enough that the Irish peasantry will take the abandonment of all further legislation after the expiration of the Irish Crimes Act as a tremendous victory for the Parnellite Party, and as showing that whatever Mr. Parnell chooses to 'resist in relation to Ireland, he can really resist with effect. Well, suppose, what is likely enough, that this conviction suggests to some of the many dangerous men through whom Mr. Parnell really communicates with the Irish peasantry, that the time has come for a new strike against the payment of rent. Why should not they persuade Mr. Parnell that unless he issues orders for a new anti-rent agitation, and imposes on all his candidates the demand that the land of Ireland shall be claimed at once for the Irish peasantry, he will lose that position of Irish king which he is said to occupy ? We are not assuming that Mr. Parnell, if left to his own counsels, would be inclined to set light to the prairie afresh. We have no doubt that what he had to go through in 1881 and 1882 was experience of a kind to sicken him very effectually with that most dangerous and ruinous policy. But Mr. Parnell is Irish king only so long as the people are persuaded that he is on their side ; and if once they saw a probability of carrying through a new and successful strike against rent, and Mr. Parnell held back, it is possible enough that he might lose his power for ever. Now, might not they see such a probability at a moment when a Liberal Government had been thrown out of office for proposing a moderate renewal of the Crimes Act, and a Tory Government, after taking its place, had found itself unable to propose any such renewal against the will of the Parnellite Party? We think they would. We think that the brains of Irish agitators without number would be at once inflamed with the notion, that Mr. Parnell is completely master of the situation, and that nothing effectual could be done by the new Administration against his will. Well, if that were the general impression, would not the time seem ripe to a host of agitators for a new effort to get the land for the tenant-farmers without paying for it? We can imagine nothing more dangerous than for the Irish people to be persuaded that Mr. Parnell's ascendency is so complete that he can defeat any English party which proposes for Ireland an unwelcome law,—for undoubtedly without some such law, an anti-rent agitation could no more be effectually resisted in 1885 and 1886 than it was in 1881 and 1882. Yet suppose that a Conservative Administration comes in which avows its intention to waive for the present any renewal of the Crimes Act ; then it is certain that the Irish peasantry will be at once possessed with the conviction that, at least as regards the internal condition of Ireland, neither Liberals nor Conservatives can enforce what Mr. Parnell chooses to resist.
Now, we say that to strengthen this conviction in the Irish people at the present moment, involves the greatest possible danger to the Union. We should have thought comparatively little of the danger if the Liberal Government had spontaneously avowed its belief that the ordinary criminal law would be sufficient for Ireland, and that till crime broke out once more, it ought to seek no further weapons than the usual weapons for coping with crime. That might or might not have been wise, but, at least, it would not have been deferring to the dictation of the dangerous party headed by Mr. Parnell. Now, the situation is very different It is admitted that the Liberals were defeated because they contemplated some moderate renewal of the Crimes Act. IF, in addition to this, it has to be admitted that the Conservatives dare not propose any—however moderate—renewal, in spite of the well-known convictions of the great mass of the Conservative Party, it will really be no wonder if the Parnellites claim the power to dispose of Ireland very much as they will, and if their claim is substantiated in the eyes of the Irish people.
Now, is it for the peace of the empire that this should be so ? Can it be doubted that the result must be one of evil omen for the Union, and for those Irishmen who still cling to the Union ? We will say at least thus much to the Liberals, that it ought not to be their fault should the Conservatives fail to propose whatever moderate Conservatives think really essential to the peace of Ireland during the coming winter. If that party choose to abandon all their principles and to accept the dictation of Lord Randolph Churchill, well and good ; that is nob. our fault, and we at least are absolved from responsibility for the consequences. But if the Conservatives hold fast by their own policy and traditions, there ought not to be any excuse ready to their hand in the supposed reluctance of moderate Liberals to give them independent support. We quite admit the difficulty of the situation. We quite admit that if the provisions needful for the safety and peace of Ireland cannot be extended,—as we think they should be,—to this country, there is great difficulty in enacting them for Ireland only, when Ireland is virtually free from the outrages to be provided against. Still, that is but a pedantic kind of excuse, if practical men who know the country really fear, as Lord Spencer evidently fears, that the expiration of the Crimes Act may be regarded as the signal for a new outbreak. When this is so, prudent statesmen will not shelter themselves behind a mere formal plea, but will take security that that may not happen which appears likely to happen. And perhaps the best of all securities is to show Mr. Parnell that he is not master of the situation, and that the wise precautions recommended by moderate men will be adopted, however vehemently he may object. The danger of the situation arises far more from his recent triumph, and from the hopes which that triumph will inspire, than from any other cause. We hold that far above party objects stands the duty of Liberals and Conservatives alike to prove to the followers of Mr. Parnell that the people of Great Britain will not risk the chance of another carnival of crime, simply because he and his Irish legion threaten that the Government which they oppose shall be defeated, and promise that the Government which they support shall stand.
Previous page
