2 APRIL 1887, Page 6

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REUNION.

MHERE is one point of grave importance upon which Lord Hartington differs from many of his followers, and upon which, we think, he is far more wise than they. He recog- nises clearly, and has the courage to admit, the practical impossibility of reunion. He made this clear in his speech to the Liberal Unionist Club on Wednesday, when he announced that "the Round-Table Conference" had ceased to sit, and dwelt, not bitterly, but with emphasis, upon the widening chasm between the two divisions of what was once one party. He was evidently quite hopeless of reconciliation, and the sub- stance of his advice to Liberal Unionists was to stand on their own feet, to form a party of their own, and to maintain their place in the country by steadily educating the electors in their own principles. It was high time this should be said, for as the discussion goes on, it becomes more and more clear that the chasm between old Liberals and new Radicals is impassable by honest men. The original difference was, indeed, of the gravest kind, and it has become much wider. The Unionists are not prepared to hand over the sovereignty of Ireland—that is, the power of making laws and the appoint- ment of the Executive—to the Parnellitea, and the Liberals are ; Mr. Gladstone, in his speech at Mr. Barran's dinner-party, showed that he had abandoned no part of his design, and his followers everywhere are as outspoken as himself. There is, therefore, between the two parties a dispute involving the gravest issues of policy, the most serious questions of principle, and the deepest conflicts of morality ; and compromise upon it is, if the truth is spoken, nothing less than impossible. The Liberals will not abandon their position, or accept for Ireland offers which do not include the concession of sovereignty ; and the Unionists are morally disgraced if they abandon theirs, more especially after the debate on the Criminal Law Amend- ment Bill. That debate has brought out a difference which is almost more serious than the original one. It is quite obvious, from all the proceedings in Parliament, that the Liberals do not consider the maintenance of law of first-rate importance ; that they do not care, so long as the government is popular, whether law is maintained or not ; and that, con- sequently, if Home-rule were conceded, they would tolerate lawlessness in Ireland. They are, in fact, binding them- selves to do it ; for if they can tolerate the impunity of murder now, when they are avowedly responsible for the law, they would tolerate it then, when they could plead that lawlessness in Ireland was not the business of English statesmen. With that view no sincere Unionist can hold any terms whatever. The very essence of their policy, the raison d'gre of their existence, is that they are bound, not merely authorised, but bound, to make the lawprevail, and they can no more consent to its habitual infraction than they can consent to its suspension altogether. Compromise upon such a subject is impossible ; and there are, therefore, two quarrels between the two sections of the old party, neither of which can be composed, or even laid tempo- rarily aside. There is nothing for it but severance, and it is far wiser to recognise that troth, than to go on talking as if a via media could be found.. There is no via media, and can be none. A law must be obeyed or disobeyed ; a country must be sovereign over itself or not sovereign ; and on both subjects Liberals take one side and Liberal Unionists the other.

Under the circumstances, Liberal Unionists have but two

practical courses open to them,—to stand alone, whatever the consequenoes, or to declare themselves Conservatives ; and of these two, they must adopt the first, for this simple reason : they are not Conservatives. They may become Conservatives in pure recoil, if the new Radicals continue advancing in their present perilous course, which leads straight towards the dis- memberment of the Empire, and the adoption of State Socialism as an ultimate law ; but at present they are not Con- servatives. The habit of their minds, the tendency of their policy, the objects they seek, the ideals they worship, are all different from those of Conservatives; and in merging them- selves in that party, they would be compelled to make reserves which would be hardly honest. They must therefore stand apart, appeal to the people in their own names, and en- deavour to convert them to their own views. If they can win the people, they can govern for themselves ; if not, they can support and modify the only Government with which on the great questions of the hour they can in the main agree. They will be told—as, indeed, they are told every day —that in so doing they risk extinction, for the English people will reject them as masse at the polls; and if that is true, they must just accept extinction. The people are masters, and if they are foolish enough and corrupted enough to banish advisers for being true to themselves, to the Constitution, and to morality, there is and can be no help. It is better to be politically ex- tinguished than to secure a barely tolerated existence by com- pliances which take all the soul of life out of it, and make of a political career nothing but a shameful trade. For our own part, we do not believe these prophecies of extinction. We do not believe the English people is prepared either to become Conservative or to give up Ireland, or to announce that laws are only to be obeyed by those who approve them. There have always been seats for Whigs, and there will always be seats for Liberals who hold the Kingdom to be one and indivisible, and who maintain that, while obedience to the moral law is imperative, obedience to any law passed by their own repre- sentatives, and not conflicting with that moral law, is of the highest obligation. The English people may be bewildered for a moment, as part of them are bewildered just now ; but they have not changed their national character, and when once they perceive where they are going, neither their virtues nor their vices will lead them to the side of the new Radicals, of whom Mr. Labouchere is, in reality, the most complete and most fitting exponent. At all events, whatever the conse- quences, the Liberal Unionists, seeing that the Liberals not only intend to hand over Ireland to the Parnellites, but intend to condone lawleasness when it is handed over, have but one course to pursue, and it is creditable to Lord Hartington's character not only for farsightedness but for courage, that be has pointed that course out.