IN ORGANIZED HYPOCRISY. No. II. — HOME RULE.
NOT only is the Liberal Government and Party "an organized hypocrisy" in its treatment of Home Rule, but the Home Rule Bill may in itself be described by these words. Indeed, in that Bill political hypocrisy has reached its apotheosis. What is the ground upon which we are asked to break up the incorporating Union of these islands, the system of government which was completed by the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800 ? The advantages of that incorporating Union are obvious. The Union not only increased our military and naval power and safety, but immensely simplified our fiscal system. A common system of taxa- tion and a common purse were not only a source of strength in themselves, but enabled the richer parts of the United Kingdom to help the poorer parts. Without violating the principle of representation and taxation or making one portion of the kingdom tributary to another part, Ireland has, especially during the last thirty years, gained financially by her incorporation and part- nership with the rest of the 'United Kingdom. But in spite of these obvious advantages it is argued that since the majority of the people of Ireland want to put an end to the legislative Union and have a Parliament and Executive of their own, we ought to bow to their wishes and break up the Union. The will of the local majority in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland is in favour of a separate Parliament and a separate Executive. Therefore, say the Liberal Party, they should be given what they want. The local majority, they go on, should always have great consideration shown to it, and when, as in Ireland, its claim to determine its own destiny and exclusively control its own affairs is enforced by a difference of creed from the rest of the United Kingdom and a difference of race, it becomes irresistible. The demand must be accorded not merely as a matter of convenience or expediency, but of principle. That shortly is the case for Home Rule—the case upon which is based the tremendous and revolutionary upheaval of the Bill now before Parliament—the breaking up and tearing apart of the legislative, administrative, and financial system which has prevailed in the United Kingdom for the last hundred years.
Fiat justitia ruat coelum. Let justice be done to the demand of the local majority, be the consequences to the fabric of government what they may. That is the profes- sion made by the Liberals. That is the sacred principle by which they guide their action. Let us see how it bears the test of practical application. What happens when the Ulster people, who are quite content with the status quo, ask the Liberals to apply to them also the principle that the will of the local majority ought to prevail ? "If on your principle," they argue, "the Southern Irish have a right to say under what system of government they will live, how about us ? We also are a local majority, and if you are going to put your principle in operation we claim to have it applied fairly and all round. Further we are as different in creed from the rest of Ireland as southern Ireland is from England and Scotland. We are, again, quite as different from them in race as they are from the rest of the United Kingdom. By the same principle then by which they claim separation from you we claim separation from them, and the right to decide our own system of government. On what possible grounds do you deny to us what you grant to them ?" The answer of the Liberal Party is an astonishing one. In effect it comes to this. "What is sauce for the Celtic goose not sauce for the Teutonic gander. What is good enough for the south of Ireland is much too good for the north. You Ulstermen have got to be sacrificed for the general good of Ireland. We are not going to hear any nonsense from you either about inherent rights, or again as to Ireland as a whole being sacrificed for the good of the rest of the United Kingdom. We shall apply our principle when we like and as we like, and we choose that it shall apply to Ireland as a whole but not to North-East Ulster. You can make what you like of that answer, but we warn you that if you dare to disobey our will you shall be treated in the way which we have so often declared it was cruel and wicked to treat the southern Irish. The local majority, that is, will be coerced by horse, foot, and artillery to acquiesce in the views of Ireland as a whole. Now you know and can shape your course accordingly."
Can there be a better example of organized hypocrisy ? The Liberals have not even got the excuse that Ireland is an ancient and sacred political unit which it would be sacrilege to break up, for at no time in its history was the island of Ireland a single and indefeasible political entity-, as for example was the kingdom of Scotland. For a short time there may have been some shadowy system of hege- mony among the Irish kinglets, but as a matter of fact Ireland, before she was conquered by England, was nothing but a geographical expression, and since the conquest of Strongbow there has always been a division of political interests in Ireland, a division caused first by the Pale, and later strengthened by the plantations of Elizabeth, of James, and of Cromwell. The only plea that the Liberals can with any decency put forward to cloak their political hypocrisy in according the principle of the will of the local majority with one hand and refusing it with the other, is that Ireland is an island, that an island must always be treated as a whole, and that it would be right to let blood flow like water—or, at any rate, Protestant blood—to vindicate this sacred principle. But this pitiful excuse is no sooner stated than it breaks down utterly. The very men who use it tell us that they are preparing to break up the island of Great Britain, i.e., are preparing to treat the island not as a single political entity but as several. Scotland is to have a Parliament and Executive of its own on the Irish model. Wales is to receive "most favoured nation treatment" in the matter of Home Rule. Even the "ancient homogeneous king- dom " argument is to be violated. Has not Mr. Winston Churchill told us, without any reproof from his colleagues, that when Home Rule all round is accomplished, as it will be before long, England is to be broken up into four or five sub-kingdoms or cantons.
It was said of the complicated legislative and matri- monial projects of Henry VIII. that in order to get what he wanted he was first obliged to deny the right of a man to marry his 'deceased brother's wife and then to affirm that right, with the result that the marriage laws of England were left a complete wreck. The Liberal Government, to carry out their policy, have got to tread in the footsteps of the portly Tudor hypocrite. In order to carry out their plan of Home Rule they have first to affirm the principle of the will of the local majority so that they can give Ireland a Parlia- ment and Executive of her own. They then have to deny this principle in order to resist the claim of Ulster. They next have to reaffirm the principle in order to give the ancient Kingdom of Scotland and the Principality of Wales Parliaments of their own, while at the same time they must repudiate the argument as to the indivisibility of islands upon which they relied to stop the mouth of Ulster. Finally they must deny the plea. that only ancient kingdoms are entitled to Parliaments of their own in order to account for the breaking up of England into cantons, which is so obviously necessary to their scheme of "Home Rule all round." And then they tell us that their Irish policy is based upon reason, upon justice, upon history, and upon humanity ! One must ransack the records of mankind to find a precedent for such organized hypocrisy as this.
If we turn from this general foundation of hypocrisy on which Home Rule rests and come to the details of the Bill itself, we shall find it absolutely riddled with essential hypocrisies. Take, for example, the question of the reten- tion of the Irish members. Upon any coherent, logical, and just principle, if the Irish are to rule themselves and we are not to interfere with their domestic concerns, then we, the larger island, ought at any rate to be allowed to rule our- selves and to manage our domestic internal affairs without interference from Ireland. But that is not in the least like the system which we find in the Bill. The Irish are to rule themselves and to rule us also. Besides having their own Parliament they are to send to us almost as ninny members as they are entitled to if they have no Parliament of their own. Even when the Irish representa- tion is cut down to forty-two, the Englishman in London, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire will have no more electoral power at Westminster than the voter in Cork or Wicklow. To put it in another way. The Irish member, retained for all purposes and not merely for Imperial purposes, will have as much voice in deciding what system of education is to be applied in London as will the London member. And yet we are told that under the Bill Ireland is only having pure and belated justice done her. Quite as hypocritical are the financial arrangements of the Bill. In theory the Exchequers of the two countries are to be separated, and Ireland in future is to settle her own financial affairs just as do our colonies, spend her own money as she likes, and, except for Customs, raise it as she likes. That is the theory. As a matter a fact, the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Wales are to pay a great annual tribute which, whatever may be said to the contrary, will in practice amount to some two millions a year. The picture rises before us of the noble high-souled Irish patriot demanding justice and freedom —but all the time loudly asserting that he will not accept these priceless gifts unless lie is allowed at the same time to keep his hand in the breeches pocket of his oppressor. "Hands off for you, but hands in for me!" is the cry of the liberated Irishman.
If we ask how this extraordinary farrago of paradox, sophistry, and hypocrisy which is entitled the Home Rule Bill has come into existence and been founded upon the alleged principles of liberty and justice, there can only be one answer. The Bill has its origin neither in the principle of justice nor of liberty nor of political expediency. Its origin is solely in the Nationalist vote. That is its fountain-head. The present Govern- ment could not remain in office without the Irish vote. The Irish vote would not be given to them unless they produced a Home Rule Bill of the kind which the Nationalists would accept. But the Nationalists would not accept a Bill which applied to Ulster the principle of local self-government upon which the Home Rule Bill is founded. Therefore while the rights of Southern Ireland must be respected, the rights of North-East Ulster must be violated. Next, the Nationalists would not accept a Bill in which they were left to manage their own financial affairs in their own way and to live on their own resources. They would at no price consent to be Home Rulers "on their own." They must be subsidized Home Rulers if anything. Therefore a tribute must be paid to Ireland of two millions a year. In other words, every Irish man, woman, and child must have a pension of some 10s. a year before they will accept Home Rule.
There is an old story of an Irishman being accused of taking a pension from the British Government. He denied the impeachment with a great deal of vehemence and righteous indignation, and declared his intention of telling the truth and the whole truth, and so silencing his traducers. A pension, he explained, had been offered him, but he had rejected the accursed thing and "scornfully commuted." The Nationalists have not even scornfully commuted. They have extorted a pension of two millions a year. Yet the present Government and the Liberal Party tell us in effect that they are only applying to Ireland the principles which have been applied to our Colonial Empire, and last of all to South Africa, with such signal success— principles which later they are going to apply to Wales and Scotland. But Scotland will presumably not be content with worse financial terms than Ireland, nor will Wales. Therefore we may presume that another three, or probably four, millions of inverted tribute will have to be found. Out of whose pockets the pension for England is to come is never stated. Of course, under the Bill there should have been, on the Colonial precedent, no Irish members at Westminster, or else they should only be capable of voting on Imperial affairs. That, however, would not have suited the Nationalists.
But in truth there is no need for further elaboration. The Home Rule Bill is in every detail a dishonest and hypocritical measure. It is built upon a foundation of cant. It originated, not, as is supposed, in the desire to do belated justice to the people of Ireland, but merely in the desire to keep the present Ministry in office. That is its sole object, aim, and use. The razor is not meant to cut but to sell, and to sell to a particular customer ; there- fore it was shaped as it is shaped. It would not do, however, to tell this secret to the public at large. There- fore a whole series of hypocritical arguments had to be invented to account for its very peculiar proportions. That is an unpalatable truth, and one which our contem- porary the Westminster Gazette may be relied on to find specially obnoxious, but it is the truth nevertheless.
Previous page
