MR CHAMBERLAIN AND 1.11E ENGLISH GIRONDISTS.
IT was a good thought of Mr. Chamberlain to address, himself, in his speech of Wednesday at Bradford, first of all to the English Girondists. There are more of them all over the country than is generally suspected, men cultivated and uncultivated, who are Home-rulers, as the Girondists were Revolutionaries, simply from an idea that Home-rule is " Liberal," that it is in " accord with the tendency of things," that it is only " a slight extension of an admitted principle." They are horrified at the word " Separation," they think it unjust even to talk of " civil war," they fight even Mr. Gladstone to secure general representation at Westminster ; but yet they are all ready to vote at the next Election for " Home-rule." Not only do they not see whither their principles lead, but they do not perceive the effect of the law which they were asked to pass. They think that if Ireland retains her representation at Westminster, her Parliament will be a subordinate body, a glorified County Council, able to do nothing serious without the consent of the general, and therefore, as they imagine, the more powerful representative body. They entirely forget that the Par- nellites demand, and that Mr. Gladstone's Bill conceded, a full control of the Executive, and that the work of ad- ministration would be directed not from Westminster, but from Dublin. Westminster would have no power to dismiss. the Irish Ministry, any more than it has power to dismiss the Ministry of the Canadian Dominion. The Government of Ireland, while supported by the Parliament of Ireland, would have power administratively to do what it pleased, —to allow, for instance, the whole population to be drilled, or to let an unpopular tax remain uncollected. The Girondists seem never to think what the possession of power means, but suppose the British Ministry, and the House of Commons, and the police, and the people determined that a, tax—say the dog-tax—should not be collected, would it ever reach the Treasury ? Suppose, then, the Irish Government, as Mr. Chamberlain puts it, to refuse to pay its quota to the National Treasury, or to neglect to punish a refusal of supplies to the Imperial troops, or to decline to levy a tax imposed on account of a great war, what remedy would the Westminster Parliament possess ? Simply none at all, except, in- deed, the use of force,—that is, the reconquest of Ireland, the exact situation which it is intended to prevent for ever. That is the only remedy we should have if Canada on any occasion refused obedience to the Imperial Government, and Ireland would have quite as independent an Executive as the Dominion has, with the additional strength derived from the existence of a strong and closely united body of representatives at Westminster, who in all ordinary times could make and unmake Govern- ments. To assume, as the English Girondists do, that the Irish Government would always be loyal, is a thoroughly Girondist assumption, an assumption that nothing will have its natural results if those results are disagreeable. It is to assume' that the Irish Govern- ment, controlled by men whose boast it is that they " think of nothing but Ireland," will in any grave con- tingency subordinate the interests of Ireland, which must often either be separate or seem separate—as, for instance, in case of a collision with France, or of the imposition of a war-tax on spirits—to those of the Empire at large. Popular Irishmen, if accused of such a purpose, would repudiate it as a treachery, declaring, and 'so far as we can see, declaring justly, if Home-rule is conceded, that their business will be to tare for Irish prosperity and Irish opinion, and that the Westminster managers must preserve their Empire the best way they ean. It is nonsense to say this contingency will not occur, because Ireland will be contented and loyal. English Peers are contented and loyal, but they do not agree with the English House of Commons, and if they had co-ordinate power of legisla- tion, and the control of an Executive of their own, would wander in a totally different direction. It is the very nature of a Parliament to choose a path for itself ; and London, if invested with the rights conceded by the Home- rule Bill, would do it as much as Ireland. Something, probably a tax, would be resisted,.and the central power would be compelled either to yield—as in America it did yield about the Fugitive Slave Law—or to resort to force. There is one matter of dispute from the very first so grave, that both Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell agreed that it ought to be settled before the new Parliament began to work; and tenure is only one of a hundred subjects on which the opinion bf the two countries is practically irreconcilable, and common action is only possible under the compromise in which deliberation by a common Parlia- ment naturally ends. It may be said that this argument has been repeated to weariness, and that it is, therefore, useless for Mr. Cham- berlain to set it forth again ; but the criticism is unsound. There are thousands who do not reject the argument, but who have never caught it. The English Home-rulers may be divided intellectually into three classes. One section, not very strong in numbers, but with great influence, main- tains, like Mr. Parnell, that Ireland is peopled by a nation, that the Irish majority has a right to govern or misgovern that nation, and that this right overrides any consideration of consequences either to the British Empire, or Ireland itself, or the world. They defend Home-rule as they would. defend Emancipation or Religious Liberty, and in theory admit the right of Separation, though they hope it will never arrive. It is useless to argue with this section, for no one can disprove a sentiment, or deny that if the assumption is true, the argument is logical. A second section, im- mensely strong in numbers, are Home-rulers in order that their party may rule, holding Liberalism, the .success of its leaders, and the realisation of its wishes, more important than 'any such question as Home-rule in a small division of the Kingdom. It is useless to argue with such men, for they only repeat that their party is on that side, and they shall adhere to " that great instrument of human progress." But there is a third section, as large probably as the Liberal Unionists, which is Home-ruler only through defect of imagina- tion, which would not like any of the consequences of the measure, and is only unable to see that they mutt arrive. It is still possible to convince them, and it is to them that Mr. Chamberlain has this week been addressing himself. It is of them he inquires what they will do if the Irish Parliament is not the most submissive Par- liament on earth, more submissive than any Colonial Parliament has proved itself. It is to them that he addresses the otherwise useless question, " What is your policy now that your Bill is withdrawn ?" knowing that he appeals to a fear lurking in all their minds lest they should be led too far. And, finally, it is for their behoof that he argues so persistently that Mr. Gladstone is asking them for a free hand, and may, if he gets his vote, carry them far beyond the line at which they propose to stop. He knows there is a line, but knows also that in the swing of a great movement down-hill, men, unless warned by incessant shouting, will never even try to stop themselves. He will fail, we dare say ; at least, history seems to indicate that the doubtful are usually carried in the wake of the convinced ; but it is his duty to go on trying, even at the risk of being told that he never tells the public anything new. Neither does the preacher who tells of the consequences of any pleasant indulgence, yet it is only by an appeal to them that the majority of men can be induced to think. Mr. Chamber- lain is doing more service by compelling his audience to realise the magnitude of the Home-rule proposal—a magnitude which, to do them justice, the Irish Home- rulers never minimise, saying always that they mean by it the right to govern their own country as they please—than by discussing premature plans for Local Self-Government in Irish provinces. Those proposals, too, are addressed to the Girondists, but discussing them just now only makes them fancy that their views and those of the speaker, which are miles apart, may after all be found to be very near together. They are only near as wheels passing are near, for the very essence of Mr. Cham- berlain's argument is that the Girondists are unconsciously travelling on a route which leads to an opposite goal from his. The Girondists think they mean nothing but to apply the principles of Liberalism to Ireland ; but, as Mr. Cham- berlain tells them, they support proposals which" amount, in the first place, to an agrarian 'revolution which would lead to the confiscation of all property in land ; and amount, in the second place, to a political revolution which would end in a separation between Ireland and Great Britain."
Previous page
