27 JULY 1895, Page 5

AN IRISH POLICY FOR THE GOVERNMENT. T HE Government are not

going to make the mistake of being absorbed in Irish affairs, and of neglecting the claims of the larger island. But though Ireland will not block the way, they will have, and will carry into operation, an Irish policy of their own—and a policy which we may be certain will be wise, farseeing, and generous. Mr. Balfour's presence in the Ministry is a guarantee for that. He knows, no man better, that it is not true that the Unionists have no alternative to Home- rule but manacles and Manitoba, and he and his colleagues intend to heal the ills of Ireland, not by the dangerous quackery of an independent legislature, and the inaugura- tion of a permanent faction fight on College Green—a statutory Donnybrook Fair—but by the application to Ireland of measures which, while they build up her material prosperity, will provide a remedy for all her real grievances. The principle upon which the Unionist policy will be based, is that of finding out and giving a wholesome and reasonable expression to all the legitimate aspirations of the Irish people, while at the same time securing the connection between the two countries on a still firmer basis. To begin with, the Unionist Govern- ment should do its utmost to treat the Catholic Church in Ireland with that true justice which comes from complete understanding and sympathy. We do not wish to talk of conciliating the Irish Catholics, or of trying to secure their support for the Unionists. We believe that to be impossible at the present moment ; but the fact that the Catholic Church in Ireland will profess to care little or nothing for Unionist advances, should not deter us for a moment. Our policy must not be to do something which will give immediate relief, or put the Church on the Unionist side at the moment, but to look a generation ahead and try to heal an old sore. There are two things which are wanted to make the Catholics of Ireland feel that they have had justice. One of them is the endowment of a Catholic University ; the other is a modification of the elementary school system in the direction of denominationalism. In both of these we would meet the wishes of the Catholics. We would not, that is, form an abstract, pedantic estimate of what reasonable people placed as the Irish Catholics are, ought to demand. Instead, we would find out what, in fact, they do demand, and would give it them whether they seemed thankful or not, provided, of course, that there was no real infringement of the rights of the Protestant minority. The liberal endowment of a great separate Catholic University entirely under the control of the Roman hierarchy could not of course in any way injure the Protestants. In the case of the National elementary schools, we would not pedantically refuse grants even to schools which insisted on maintaining so Catholic an atmosphere that no Protestant parent could be expected to allow his children to attend them. In the matter of the Church, we would ourselves go further, and would, in some form or other, provide a stipend for every parish priest in Ireland. It is, however, pretty certain that this is a counsel of perfection which cannot at present be adopted.

Next in importance to the Church is the Land question. Here we would press on with the policy of purchase. Till i Ireland is a country of occupying owners there will never be peace or security. Fortunately no new machinery is required. The process is bound to be a gradual one, and all that is necessary is to oil the wheels of Mr. Balfour's Purchase Act. At the same time, that transition measure, the Land Act of 1881, must be made to work more easily and with less cost than at present. Less important than the Church and the Land questions, but still important, is the provision of Local or County Government in Ireland. The Unionists four years ago showed that they were per- fectly willing to give to Ireland substantially the same scheme of Local Government as that enjoyed here. There is only one safeguard which is essential. It is one which exists and is made use of in many States of America, and which ought to find a place here. The Central Administration should have the power to dissolve and supersede by Commissioners in the service of the State, any County Council or Municipality which has clearly abused its powers. When the city of Boston fell into bad hands, the State of Massachusetts, if we remember rightly, took away some of the most important functions of government from the city and lodged them in the hands of a Board not elected by the citizens, but appointed by the State. There is nothing undemocratic or unpopular in such a provision as we advocate, and the Unionist Government, when they come to deal with Irish Local Government, need not hesitate to follow the precedent provided by America. Another side of Local Government must not be forgotten. The Unionists should certainly take up and carry through their former proposal for a central body in Dublin, half- judicial, half-administrative, armed with the powers of Parliament in the matter of Private Bill legislation. No doubt this reform will not be popular in Ireland, and will be resisted by the lawyers, witnesses, and clerks, who like a free trip to London ; but for all that it should be per- severed with. The present state of things, under which a tramway-line cannot be laid without an application to Westminster, is a gross scandal, and ought to be put an end to. Not the least of the reforms connected with Local Government which it is to be hoped and believed that the present Government will adopt, is the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy and the provision of a Royal residence in Ireland. The Lord-Lieutenant with his pinchbeck Court is worse than an anachronism or a farce. He is, in Joseph Hume's telling phrase, "a symbol of separation." The existence of a Lord- Lieutenant encourages the idea that Ireland is not merely historically a separate nationality like Scotland, but a genuinely separate Kingdom which has not been incor- porated with Great Britain, although its Parliament has been suppressed. Incorporation is the watchword of Unionism, but there can be no incorporation while the Lord- Lieutenant reigns in Ireland and exercises the prerogatives of the Crown. But though the Lord-Lieutenant must be abolished, and without delay, we would do nothing to deprive Ireland of any of the interest and brightness that is added to life by escorts, Royal salutes, and public shows. We would provide that Ireland should have her fair share of the pomp of Royalty. At present there is no Royal palace in Ireland, and no member of the Royal Family has a home in Ireland. The Unionist Govern- ment can, by using the funds saved by the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenant, provide a Royal palace in Ireland. Why should not a fine Irish county house—they are to be had cheap enough just now—be bought, and made a Royal palace, and that palace put at the disposal of the Duke of York and his family, with a sufficient allowance to keep up the hospitalities practised by the Viceroy ? Instead of the harmful symbol of separation, and without cost to the nation, we might give Ireland the interest and satisfaction of possessing a Royal palace. Depend upon it, many far more ambitious schemes would have less effect in allaying the sense of slight and neglect which is to be found among Irishmen of all classes. The child who, if he lives long enough, must be King, would be brought up in Ireland and among Irishmen, and might some day be hailed as an Irish King. There is another Irish measure and Irish reform which, though it would not be popular in Ireland, must and will be passed by the Unionist Government, not immediately, but before the next appeal to the people. The gross scandal of giving Ireland some twenty or twenty-five Members more than she has any right to must be abated before another appeal is made to the people. It is monstrous that Ireland, with the same, if not with rather less, people than London, should have one hundred and three Members, while London has only sixty-two. To talk of this bare act of justice as the Dis- franchisement of Ireland, as do the Westminster Gazette and the Daily Chronicle, is one of the most extraordinary ( perversions of language ever used. , We shall be told, no doubt, that our schemes for remedying the ills of Ireland are useless, because Ireland will not accept them, and we shall, be asked what is the good of conciliation which does not conciliate. " What is the good of giving Ireland what she does not want, instead of what she does P "—that is the try of the Home-rule. We do not intend to be put of by such sophistries. We will give Ireland what will prove a blessing and not a curse, secure in the belief that he who does what he believes to be right and just and true, will do more good than he who makes the will of the local majority his guiding-light. But Mr. Gladstone has put the true answer to this objection. far better' than we can ever hope to put it. We will quote the words which expressed his Irish aspirations while he was still a Unioniat. Unhappily, he was too restless and impatient to carry them itatd action. Instead of persisting in-the ideas they expressed, he aban- doned theta, in a fit of weariness and annoyance, for the will-o'-the-wisp of Home-rule. " People say," said Mr. Gladstone, in 1871, at Aberdeen, " that we have tried to conciliate Ireland, and that we have failed. -I do not admit that Ireland is not going to be conciliated ; but I say this, that we must always keep in mind that there is a higher law to govern the actions of Parliament and of politicians than the law of conciliation, good as that law may be. We desire to conciliate Ire- land, and we desire to soothe her people—the wounded feelings and painful recollections of her people. We desire to attach her to this country in the silken cords of love ; but there was a higher and paramount aim in the measures that Parliament has passed, and that was that it should do its duty. It was to set itself right with the national con- ,science, with the opinion of the world, and with the principles of justice ; and when that is done, I say fear- lessly that, whether conciliation be at once reached or not, the position of this country is firm and invulnerable." We do not desire to add a word to this noble defence of Unionist policy. It is our answer to those who say that we are not giving Ireland the sort of conciliation she wants, and that therefore our policy mutt fail. It will not fail, as Mr. Gladstone showed, unless persistence in the right is failure,—its abandonment for the wrong, success.