THE DUBLIN UNIVERSITY ELECTION.
IT is long since a contest for a University seat has excited much notice beyond the limits of the con- stituency. In the case of Dublin, this indifference is due in great measure to the connection which has so long existed between the representation of the University and the Irish Bar. Eminence among Dublin graduates has counted for little in comparison with eminence in the Four Courts, and this limitation of the candidates to a single profession has not disposed the public to pay much attention to so uniform a series of results. The present contest, however, is in every way exceptional. Mr. Lecky's appearance in the field breaks a stereotyped tradition, and restores to the Dublin University contest an interest which has long been wanting to it.
Unfortunately, this fact tells us nothing with regard to the issue of the election. Mr. Lecky is an admirable candidate, and, we do not doubt, will make an admirable Member of Parliament. But these merits have not, as they might reasonably have been expected to do, secured his unopposed return, and it is not even certain that they will secure his return at all. A correspondent of the Times, who writes with evident knowledge, has analysed the motives to which Mr. Wright's supporters chiefly appeal, and finds that they are three in number,—local patriotism, professional feeling, and religious passion. The first is aggrieved because Mr. Lecky does not live in Ireland,—an objection which is, to say the least, remarkable in a constituency more than half of which is resident in England. We have little doubt, however, that if Mr. Lecky were a man of narrower views on Irish ques- tions, it would matter little where he made his home. His fault is that he looks upon the problems of Irish politics in a large and generous spirit. He is not con- vinced that landlordism is necessarily the best system for Ireland because it has worked well in England. He is not prepared to vote for increased grants to de- nominational schools in England, and at the same time to object to any recognition of the denominational prin- ciple in schools supported by the State in Ireland. He is not impressed with the supreme importance of maintain- ing the supremacy in Irish politics of a ruling religion, a ruling race, or a ruling province. We are not going to waste our time in reasoning with electors of this type. Our only reason for referring to them, is to re- mind those of our readers who may have votes for the University of Dublin, that this temper of mind is not one to be despised. If it really animates any consider- able section of the electorate, it may be trusted to drive them to the poll. Narrowness of view often implies in- tensity of view, and electors who think that Mr. Leck-y is indifferent or hostile to the Ireland which they have known in the past, and desire to know in the future, may prove very obstinate opponents. They may be fewer in number than the more enlightened section of the con- stituency but it is the voters, not the electors, who count in an election.
The second consideration which tells against Mr. May's success is of a more respectable kind. The Irish Bar has always played a larger part in Irish, and especially in Dublin, life than the English Bar has played in English or London life, and we can understand to some extent the feeling that successful advocacy is the natural and legiti- mate method by which a man becomes Member for Dublin University. It is argued on behalf of this theory that there are few avenues to Parliament which are open to Irish barristers, unless they happen to be Home-rulers, and that it is not fair to shut one of them in the face of those who claim to use it by a sort of hereditary right. Of course, electors who choose to regard the function of representing them in Parliament as a privilege attached to a particular profession, will go on voting for a member of that profession, no matter who may be his opponent. But the notion is so destitute of foundation, and so en- tirely opposed to any rational theory of electoral duties, that we cannot believe that it will survive examination. That barristers should support a barrister as a. matter of course is natural, though not very creditable ; but that the clergy should act in the same way is less intelligible. We hope that even now any electors who remain unpledged will rise to a higher conception of the use to which a vote should be put. The constituencies which will give a welcome to able and popular advocates, are not so few that it can be right to allot them one of the few University seats in per- petual succession.
There remains in religious passion a motive for oppcsing Mr. Lecky which may be supposed to exert a more direct influence over the clerical voters. We have not ourselves seen the "malevolent and inquisitorial" correspondence of which the writer in the Times speaks. But we have no difficulty in imagining its character. If the assumption that no politician is worthy of confidence who does not exactly agree with your own theological position is once admitted, Mr. Lecky's title to the support of those graduates of Dublin who are also clergymen is a small one. When we see these voters equally exclusive in the choice of their doctors and solicitors, we shall have more respect for their consistency in making this demand upon their Parliamentary representative. They can see clearly enough that the men who make their wills or write their prescriptions may be agnostics or sceptics without being, for that reason, any the worse counsellors. But when they are asked to apply the same rule to the men who make their laws, they stop short. Yet in what single respect do the cases differ ? If we were still living under a system of religious disabilities, the objection would have some meaning. Mr. Lecky certainly could not be trusted to vote for the maintenance of the Penal Laws, or for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament. But all important ques- tions of this kind have long since been got out of the way. The only concern that Parliament now has with religion is to secure to every denomination the freedom it needs to develop its own life without let or hindrance from the State. There is no reason to fear any resistance on the part of Mr. Lecky to this reasonable process. He is not a Radical of the French type. He does not hold it to be the business of the State to discourage every form of religious enthusiasm that he does not himself share. His election for Dublin University will have no influence whatever upon religious controversies, it will simply en- rich the House of Commons by a Member singularly well qualified to take part in political controversies. At this date we can hardly hope that any word of ours wilt influence the electors. But if this were possible, we would urge any of them who are still doubtful which way they shall vote, to remember how largely the credit of their University and its permanence as an element in our Parliamentary system depends on their action next week.
Previous page
