THE FIRST DEBATE.
THE first debate of the Session has not been a recon- naissance in force, even if it has been so much as a sounding of the call to arms. Mr. Disraeli and Lord Cairns were alike careful not to permit the members of their party to commit themselves till the voices of their leaders had given them the cue. Mr. Disraeli and Lord Cairns were, moreover, alike careful not to commip even themselves to any explicit censure of the general Irish policy of the Government. Mr. Disraeli declared in so many words, amidst the silent dismay and chagrin of his party, that the bad condition of Ireland was certainly not due to the policy of the Government. Lord Cairns did not go so far as this, but while attacking the Liberal administration of Ireland, he carefully avoided any ex- plicit censure of the Government for not having asked for a Coercion Bill, or a new suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Both the leaders of Opposition eschewed recriminations on the Irish Church Act of last Session. Both of them kept themselves absolutely free of any hampering declarations as to the Land Bill of this Session ; and by shutting the mouths of their followers,—which was effectually managed by the leader of Opposition rising immediately after the Address had been moved and seconded, so that the debate was all but closed by the replies of the Liberal chiefs,—they managed to keep the Conservative party in both Houses from in any way anti- cipating the decision which must be taken next week after the Prime Minister has explained the provisions of his great Irish measure. In short, what the criticism of Mr. Disraeli and Lord Cairns really came to was this,—first, as indeed Mr. Gladstone inferred in the House of Commons, that they were not prepared to assert that special repressive measures in Ireland ought already to have been asked for ; and next, that they still wish to be quite free either to support or attack, and (if the latter) languidly or bitterly in accordance with the prevailing tone of English feeling, the proposed land measure, as shall seem best whenever it is fairly produced. And it was easy to see that this prudent reserve on Mr. Disraeli's part affected his followers in the House of Commons by no means agreeably. The candour with which the leader of Opposition set the example of treating the policy and intentions of the Government, whether it were really a strategical preparation for a more effective attack next week or not, was evidently one of those didactic efforts which, like the arts used by the tame decoy elephants to soothe the wild ones they have entrapped into the corral, are by no means agreeable, however successful they may be, to the subjects of them, who wish to be in a passion and are not allowed. It was very wise of Mr. Disraeli and Lord Cairns to stop the mouths of their party for another week, and give such relief as they could afford to their party's feelings in the shape of vehement censure of comparatively trivial administrative acts. But discipline of this sort must, of course, be painful to a party con- scious of strong feelings and weak judgments, fed on a very stimulating diet by its newspaper press, and now only too accustomed to have its leaders deliberately throw wet blankets
over the enthusiasm so aroused. "No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous." Let us hope that "after- ward " it may "yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness to them which are exercised,"—and evidently very much exer- cised,—" thereby."
It is clear, then, from the debate on the Address, that the leaders of the Conservative party are reserving themselves for Tuesday night's declarations before sketching out their policy for the Session. But what else did the debate bring out ? It brought out undoubtedly the tendency of a state of suspense, especially a state of really hopeful suspense,—when one great remedial measure has been passed, and the agitation of still greater remedial measures is stirring the whole country, to produce, especially in a sanguine race like the Irish, feelings of excitement and dictatorial animation which are by no means favourable to the tranquillity and order of the country.
While Mr. Disraeli insisted on the tendency of a partial
amnesty,—or, as Mr. Gladstone even more correctly termed it, a discriminating amnesty,—to excite the most sanguine hope in the Irish that if they only talked loud enough and long enough they would talk all the Fenian prisoners out of
prison, he criticised what even Liberals may suppose is not the strongest place in the policy of the Government.
Doubtless it was as Mr. Gladstone says, a "discriminating amnesty." But then the Irish people are not a very discri- minating people. They were not at all likely to catch clearly the grounds of the Government's discrimination, and in point
of fact they did not catch them. They were likely to suppose, and no doubt did suppose, that as Government had yielded an inch to popular pressure, a little more popular pressure would secure an al. We do not say that the discriminating amnesty" was wrong ; but we do think that the determination of the Government not to enlarge the discriminating amnesty into an undiscriminating amnesty, forany violent words of popu- lar agitators, should have been firmly declared far earlier in the autumn than it was. It was the people's hope that by agitation carried on under the pressure of a constantly acce- lerated force of excitement, the remnant of the Fenian prisoners would be released. The moment Mr. Gladstone refused positively that demand, that source of agitation and political excitement expired. Hail the refusal been given sooner, half the Irish excitement of the recess would have been avoided. As Mr. Gladstone himself intimated on Tuesday night, agrarian crimes,—indeed, all kinds of violent crime, especially in Ireland,—are more or less stimulated by any epidemic of popular excitement. Political feeling is heightened by it, the imaginative sense of wrong caused by a threatened eviction or raising of rent is intensified by it,—the sympathy with those supposed to be suffering from such a sense of wrong• is deepened by it,—every moral influence which causes an excitable people's temper to effervesce into violence is increased by it, and it was, therefore, highly im- portant, when both a great triumph and a great hope were adding a certain stimulus to the vivacity of Irish popular feeling, that no needless excuse for popular clamour and declamation should have been given. We do not doubt that a pardonable error was committed by the Government in not sooner declaring itself as to the still unamnestied Fenians. The writer of a rather remarkable pamphlet, produced evi- dently from official sources,* gives a curious illustration of the tendency of any great political excitement to stimulate crime. When Catholic Emancipation was passed, " the average of conanittais, not of cases reported by the police, for serious agrarian offences rose from 1,738 to 2,937 " in the year. In the case of the Irish Church Act, partly perhaps because the new sense of power was not unaccompanied by a new sense of hope, and partly because the nation is altogether in so much sounder a moral state,—the increase was nothing like so remarkable,—Lord Cairns' statistics appear to have been quite erroneous ;—and it is encouraging to observe bow wonderful is the contrast between the years which fol- lowed Catholic Emancipation and the present year, as the following statement will show : — " Let us compare the state of agrarian crime in Ireland now with that of Ireland after Catholic Emancipation. Against 521 murders and man- slaughters in one year then, we have to sot six murders and two manslanghters in 1869 up to the end of November. Against 17 conspiracies to murder then, we have to present a blank last year. Against 50 cases of shooting and stabbing, we have to set 8. Against 115 assaults with intent to murder, we have to set 3 ; and 20 aggravated assaults, but with no intent to murder. Against 2,010 cases of riotous assembly, we have to set 1. Against 204 cases of forcible possession of land, we have to set none." Under such circumstances, though the Ministry made a serious mistake, we think, in so long postponing its decision about the release of the remaining Fenian prisoners, it would have been obviously a very needless hazard to resolve hastily on the introduction of a new coercion bill, or the renewal of the old exceptional measures.
The other point in connection with Irish policy illustrated by the debate of Tuesday is Mr. Disraeli's evident hope that he may reconcile his party to a tolerably strong land measure, so long as it is called by some mild name. Nothing was more curious than the difference between Mr. Disraeli's treatment of Mr. Butt's old proposition made in 1868 for compulsory 63- year leases at valuations made by the Poor Law Board and 20 per cent. added, the improvements to belong to the land- lord at the end of the term,—and his treatment of Sir John Gray's proposition made last year for " fixity of tenure " with periodical revisions of rent. The former proposition Mr. Disraeli said, though "irreconcilable with principle," was clearly "not outrageous," and " as everyone would admit," "not revolution- ary,"—we suppose because once in every two generations or so it gives the landlord a chance of arbitrarily evicting a tenant who pays his rent regularly, and transfers to him also the value of all unexhausted improvements; but the latter proposition, Sir John Gray's, on the other hand, Mr. Disraeli repeatedly de- scribed as pure " confiscation," as " the transferring of one man's property to another." Now, inasmuch as no one, as • Is Liberal Policy a Failure? By Exyertus. London: Longman.
far as we know, has ever proposed that if fixity of tenure were granted the. revision of rent should not happen very much more frequently than at intervals of 63 years,— we believe intervals of only seven years have usually been proposed and usually accepted,—what Mr. Disraeli's distinc- tion comes to is this,—that, " as everyone will admit," it is "not outrageous," "not revolutionary," to take away from every alternate landlord in a given family succession the power of ejectment, and also from every alternate landlord all advantages accruing from tenants' improvements and from the rise of the value of the land, to whatever cause it might be due ;—but that it is " revolutionary," it is " outrageous," it is " confiscation," and the " transferring of one man's property to another," to take away the power of arbitrary ejectment and the value of tenant's improvements from every landlord in the same succession, even though giving not only to every landlord, but to every landlord on an average some four or five separate times during his life-tenure, all the advan- tage which would accrue from a rise of rent due to any cause whatever except the improvements made by the tenant. Now, can there be a more pitiable case of respect for the mere name of landlords' rights than such a distinc- tion as this ? Allow an arbitrary, and if the landlord chooses, even unreasonable exercise of landlord power once in every two generations, and no one will call your proposal " outrageous " or "revolutionary." Give the landlord an infinitely better security for profiting by all rise in the value of land that is due to any cause except his tenants' industry and investment, but deny him all exercise of such arbitrary power, and you are simply pillaging him, confiscating his property If the Tories will allow themselves to be so hood- winked by mere names as that implies,—if they are fright- ened by the mere word " fixity," not by the thing it implies, if they will take their medicine meekly so long as it is not labelled by its right name, the rumoured Courts of arbitration, which would certainly not introduce fixity eo nomine, and almost as certainly would, in the majority of cases, introduce something uncommonly like it, will be easily accepted by them. At all events, we are cheered by observing that Mr. Disraeli evidently wishes to accustom his party to thinking mildly of very strong measures indeed, and tries to reconcile them thereto by vituperating in the most unreason- able language proposals differing from those for which he suggests at least every excuse, only as far as we can see by sounding stronger, though actually being decidedly less strong. We argue, at all events, from Mr. Disraeli's language that he is preparing his party to concede a good deal,—that he is teaching them to object chiefly to the name of a strong measure on the land tenure, not to the reality,—and that he wishes to use that " bustling " politician Sir John Gray as a sort of Me noire to frighten his followers into acquiescence in any measure which has no alarming sound about it. If you are not reasonable,' he seems to us to say to his party, as nurses say to children, the black man will come for you. Lord Gr•anard and Sir John Gray, with their fixity of tenure, are already waiting for you. Mr. Isaac Butt, after all, was not so outrageous,' not so 'revolutionary.' If the Govern- ment are only as mild as Mr. Isaac Butt, much more if they ask for what sounds milder still, you will be very unwise to be violent. You might go farther and fare much worse.' On the whole, a line of this kind is of good augury.
Previous page
