2 JANUARY 1886, Page 13

MR. LABOUCHERE'S PLAN FOR IRELAND.

MR. LABOUCHERE'S scheme of Home-rule, described in his letter published in the Times of December 28th, is the worst we have yet seen. It is worth attentive study, because Mr. Labouchere has been a consistent Home-ruler, and probably understands some of the floating Parnellite ideas, and because he does try to devise strong checks upon confisca- tion; but it is hopelessly unworkable. It would, in fact, be far worse for Great Britain than either the Colonial plan, which Mr. Labouchere in a subsequent letter suggests as an alternative, or than a total separation. In the first place, Mr. Labouchere releases Ireland as to her internal affairs from the control of the Imperial Parliament altogether. He specifically refuses to allow to that body the veto which it retains over the Canadian Dominion and the Australian Colonies, and which has been repeatedly exercised, and expressly declines to allow it even to impose a war-tax. The Irish contribution to the Empire is to be paid as a lump sum, and might in the event of war be increased ; but the mode of levying the tax would be left to the Irish Parliament. If they adopted no mode, there would be no remedy, except the one which would not be tried, and which could be adopted now,—namely, to treat Ireland as a country under military occupation, and govern with a state of siege. That is not a Constitutional remedy, but merely a provision for y artially legalising a method of declaring Civil War. /allre plan, therefore, amounts to this : That an Irish /?ornament is to be absolute in Ireland, is to pass ali.t repeal all civil and criminal laws, is to control all forces except the Army and Navy, is to levy all taxes (except, possibly, the Customs, as to which treaties might override local authority), and is to be, in short, as independent as our own Parliament now is. The single 'Abe exercised by the Vioeroy--avho is not to ,bea. statesman, Omit only-a Prince of the Blood—with the assent of a-much yenlarged and Hibernicised Privy Council. We need not haay that such a veto would be utterly illusory. The Irish Parliament would only have to refuse supplies, or the =popular Premier would only have to resign, to reduce the Aunlucky Prince to one of three alternatives,—instant obedience, a tolerance of a dissolution of society through all officers being left unpaid, or a resort to . martial law in the name and with the assistance of Great Britain. Such a veto wauld be, except in the event of Great Britain intending a reconquest, a pure formality, and Ireland would, for internal purposes, be inde- pendent. She could pass any laws she pleased, repeal the Decalogue if she liked, and pay or refuse Imperial taxes at .her own discretion. In what would her internal position differ -from independence ? Only in this, that Great -Britain would -have to maintain at her own expense a garrison which could never legally act, except on the demand of the Irish Parlia- ment, and in practice would never be asked to act, except to put down any civil war the Irish Parliament might by its -:internal legislation provoke. Great Britain would have no control over Ireland, but would be, as heretofore, bound to -save her people from the consequences of their own excesses. Separation would be far preferable to such a situation.

But, says Mr. Labouchere, "I offer guarantees for Imperial frights." What are thesights? They .-are limited to the control of the Army and-Navy, of foreign .policy, including commercial treaties, and of—nay, there is-ncemore, Imperial taxation having been struck out. Great Britain is to protect Irish- men in all seas, to guard Ireland from invasion, and to fight her diplomatic battles and in return is to have,—what? The right of recruiting Irishmen in.Dublin instead of in Liverpool, and of

• being thwarted.at every turn in her own policy. For, on.the plea idhat Ireland-will pay a contribution. towards Imperial expenses, .11r. Labouchere retains the Irish Members in Parliament in all -their strength and unity. Mr. Parnell, in the intervals of , governing Ireland as he. pleases, is to come over here and -threaten that unless this or that is done for Ireland, unless this veto is lifted or that loan is guaranteed, he will upset the Government in power, or with a war, perhaps, in progress, obstruct the Mutiny Act. It is vain to say that he would not do it, for Ireland would compel him to think of her exclusively; and foolish to say he could not do it, for he does do it -now, and Home-rule is a grave question only because he does. We bear it now, so far as we bear it, because men hope for alternatives, or are unwilling to give up Ireland ; but with Mr. Parnell pro- tected against eapulsiom by the written Constitution, and Ireland already independent, how long would such a situation endure ? Not through a single Session, and the nations would part in bitter anger against each other. It would be better, if this is the scheme to be propounded, to part now. If Irish Members are to sit in an Imperial Parliament, nothing is gained for Great Britain by any system of Federation. We should be only where we are now,—victims bound in Constitutional withes to bear all tortures that an unreasoning national animosity can inflict on us.

We have said that Mr. Labouchere offers certain guarantees against confiscation,—a point on which he differs from Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and Mr. Justin M'Carthy, who either object to guarantees as insulting, or consider that their idea of the future temper of -an Irish Parliament is a sufficient guarantee. Let us look at the guarantees he offers. They are two in number. One is the American provision that the new State shall not have -power by legislation to invalidate a contract. That would prevent, let us admit, the passing of a law lowering rent, say, three-fourths, or transferring all railway shares to the Treasury ; but how would it prevent special taxation upon landowners, or crushing stamp-duties upon transEirs to any but tenants, or a Tenants' Bankruptcy Act to be worked through the ageacy-of juries? Or how would it punish a hint to the. police from the Irish Home Secretary that in the event of outrages arising out of agrarian quarrels, the less evidence they discovered the better ? Indeed,-the hint would -not be required. The police would have only to be let alone, and would find it pleasant to be the favourites instead of the enemies of all the oountry•side. In fact, it is impossible to frame a legal guarantee which a Parliament controlling all ..legislation, and an Executive determined to gratify the voters, -could not evade ; and we ■suspect Mr. Labouchere sees this -diffictilty himself, for he- proposes another solution. He would allow any discontented alancilord to demand that the State alhoutl -buy his-estate . at ea. oreasonsible . price :and. letehina

so. In -words, ,that '48 ifair sprovisioa, for ithe ',age; would thus compensate -the landlords, -and by !reselling to the tenants, create the new 'tenure Ireland desires ; -but in practice how would it work ? The Irish Treasury could- not give cash, for it would never be rich ennngh, not even Sir G. Duffy hoping that it would ever command X150,000,000 sterling ; and without the :British guarantee, -what-would its bonds be worth ? We say -nothing of the difficulty of fixing -a fair price, of the perversion of Irish opinion.as to a,fair price, or of the rage of the tenantry if the State compelled them to pay a fair price, and only ask, in the brutal English way,-where is the money to come from? The Irish Exchequer would only have to plead poverty, and plead it truly, and there would be an end of that Constitutional clause. The proposal is -nothing but the old one, that Ireland shall buy out the landlords ; and the answer to it is the old one, that Ireland has not the means unless the tenants furnish the capital-value of the rent, which is precisely what Irish tenants—half of whom believe that, subject to a small quit-rent, the land ought to be theirs —are steadily refusing to do. We put aside Call ideas of legal confiscation, and ask Mr. Labouchere whether he really believes that Irish tenants will like paying rent under one law better than another, or whether an Irish Parliament will demand rent more rigorously than an English one ? If he does not so believe, his proposal is a mere form of words, intended to soothe British disgust at being asked to abandon men to whom they have given centuries of continuous pledges. Except from the rental of Ireland, Ireland cannot buy out the rent-receivers ; and his clear per- ception of that fact is one of the reasons why Mr. Parnell insists so incessantly upon ".the prairie value."