Perhaps this forecast of an affiance between the Pro- tectionists
and the Irish will be regarded as impossible. Those who are inclined to raise such an objection will be interested in a passage which appeared in a leading article in the Daily Telegraph about a year ago. It runs as follows :— "They themselves [i.e., the Unionist Free-traders], at the bidding of the Duke, while professing their devotion to the Union, put Cobdenism before Unionism ; but there is a large and growing number of politicians who, likewise professing devotion to the Union, put Fiscal Reform before Unionism. There is an unsuspectedly large number of Tories whose sympathy with Home Rule was scotched but not absolutely killed by the methods adopted by various National Leagues to obtain it. If Ireland continues as free from lawlessness and oubragemongering in the future as she is at present, these scotched Tory Home Rulers may again raise their heads. Strong as our sympathy with the Unionist cause as such is, there is no good living in a fool's paradise."
Clearly this passage was meant to prepare the mind of the public for future action of the kind we have indicated. Coming from such a paper as the Daily Telegraph, its significance cannot be ignored.
People sometimes talk as if the Liberal party might forfeit a great many seats by losing the Irish vote in English and Scotch constituencies. As a matter of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. For every Irish vote that is lost in a British constituency owing to disagreement between the Nationalists and the Liberals a hundred other votes are gained. The knowledge that the Liberals, though they mean, and rightly mean, to act sympathetically and justly towards Ireland, have ceased to be under Nationalist influences, and are no longer pledged to do the bidding of Mr. Redmond and his followers, has brought voters out of the ground, as it were, to support the Liberal candidates. A minatory speech by Mr. Redmond does not lose a single English or Scotch vote to the Liberals, and gains them a great many neutrals and waverers. But though we say this, it must not be iupposed that we wish to encourage the Liberal leaders to take the line adopted. by Lord Rosebery at Bodmin. In our opinion, that speech was most unwise and unnecessary, and entirely unjustified. by any provocation from Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. To us the original speech of the leader of the Liberal party was quite clear and satisfactory, and gave us not a moment of anxiety. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said—what we all knew before—that in the abstract, and as a matter of personal opinion, he was a Home-ruler ; but he also made it abundantly evident that neither he nor those who work with him had any intention of intro- ducing a Home-rule Bill in the next Parliament, or going to the country with a Home-rule cry. It was for this reason that he very sensibly cautioned the Nationalists, and• advised them to take what they could get and not to clamour for the impossible. It was also because of the absence of any indication that a Home-rule _Bill would be beard of in the next Parliament that the Nationalist Press originally denounced the speech. Personally, we have not the slightest objection to Liberal statesmen calling them- selves Home-rulers, or declaring that they do not in the least regret the support they gave to. Mr. Gladstone's Bills, nor do we believe that the country at large desires to offer any objection to the Liberal leaders so describing them- selves. All that it is important to know is that no Home- rule Bill is to be introduced in the coming House of Commons. This fact, and the likelihood that the force of circumstances is almost certain to bring the Protectionists and the Irish into a working alliance, are a complete guarantee that the Union will suffer no danger.
Let us say in conclusion that we hold that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has shown both good sense and good temper, as well as true statesmanship, in refusing to reply to Lord Rosebery's speech. Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman has told us that he remains a Home-ruler in the abstract ; but since there is no possibility of the dissolution of the Legislative Union becoming a vital question for the next five or six years, it is very much better that the subject should not be discussed further on public platforms, and that all Free-traders, whether Home-rulers or Unionists, should concentrate their efforts on the great struggle which is before them. Remember that it is not enough to win a moderate victory for Free- trade. The next General Election must be a plebiscite so complete for Free-trade and against Protection that Protection will not be able to lift its head again for at least another generation. Free-trade is the one matter of vital import before the country, and every possible vote must be polled in its favour regardless of all sectional issues. If Free-traders on both sides will remember this, and will refuse to be led astray by the obvious tactics of the Protectionists, who are at their wits' end to discover some means for obscuring the true issue, the highest political interests of the nation may be made secure. If, on the other hand, Free-traders allow false issues to be raised, we may only get a half-and-half victory for Free- trade,—a result which must be fraught with the most serious consequences to the nation and the Empire.
" PLAYING WITH FIRE." UNDER the above title Sir John and Sir Richard Strachey, one a civilian and the other a soldier, contribute to the National Review for December an article which fully bears out all we have said in regard to the fateful blunder made by the Government in permitting military influences to prevail over civilian in the govern- ment of India, and in allowing—for that is what it was in fact, though not in name—Lord Kitchener to send home the Viceroy. of India because he, would not subordinate his views to those of the Commander-in-Chief. Our views in this respect are reinforced both in general and in specific terms by the writers of the article in the National Review. Before, however, we deal in detail with their arguments, we may point out that Sir John and Sir Richard Strachey, owing .to their long and varied experience in India, and to the very high positions which they.have both held, have an exceptional right to speak on the question at issue. Sir John Strachey was Lieutenant-Governor of the North- West Provinces, was on the Council both in India and in London, and for three or four months was acting Viceroy. Sir Richard in early life had a distinguished career as a
Previous page
