THE IRISH GADFLY.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, having unfortunately been ordered abroad for his health, addressed last Saturday week a letter of advice and consolation to his people. Being nothing if not the uncrowned King and unanointed priest of his party, he adopted the manner of an Imperial rescript, and weighed out censure, praise, and counsel with a Royal dignity. Whether or not he will lead the Irish party in the coming Session is still an uncertain thing, but in any case he is sure of a large and loyal following. Mr. O'Brien, as a rule, hardly calls for very serious criticism, but the fact that he has an audience which listens to him with devout attention gives a certain importance to his otherwise inconsiderable remarks. And in the present case these remarks of his have a basis in sound policy, and are so certain to be 'acceptable to most of his hearers, that they are worth a, passing notice. " To pierce the dead weight of English stolidity,"—this is the keynote of his purpose. The Irish policy is to be that of the gadfly, stinging the inert and selfish English Ministers into attention. The old tactics of obstruction have unfortunately been made impossible by recent changes in the pro- cedure of the House of Commons ; but if Mr. O'Brien may not obstruct, he and his friends will still criticise, seriously or captiously as it may be. but in any case per- sistently. "Trouble the enemies of Ireland " is still his war-cry, and the Daughter of the Horse-leech and the Importunate Widow are his exemplars. And why ? Mr. O'Brien has generously made plain the reason. That relentless taskmaster, the United Irish League, is always behind the unfortunate Irish party, holding the sword of Damocles over each Member's head, and ready to let it fall should he grow slack in the " fight for Ireland."
We trust Mr. O'Brien and his friends will not be dis- appointed, but we regard the threat with composure, nay, with positive satisfaction. There is a supreme value in criticism, even when it is captious and unreasonable. Our greatest fear for a secure Government such as the present is that it may settle, like Moab, upon its lees and perish of inanition. The gadfly, in its most troublesome form of a. boisterous Irish Nationalist, is often a wholesome reminder. To be compelled to state and restate a point of policy may be irritating, but is rarely valueless, for it compels maturer consideration. Such criticism at its best is supplied by a sober and united Opposition ; but, when this is wanting, there is no reason why the same tonic in a cruder form should not be supplied by the guerilla bands who are united on a particular grievance. More, the Parliamentary history of the last decade shows that Nationalist criticism need not always, or necessarily, be captious and futile in results, whatever it may be in intent. Irish Nationalism on its native soil is handicapped, so far as English appreciation is concerned, by an inseparable element of farce. The same newspaper which printed Mr. O'Brien's rescript contained an account of a tea-party given to the Nationalist children who had testified to the purity of their principles by refusing to attend the children's parade in the park on the occasion of the Qtaeen's visit. But this farcical side is on the whole less apparent in Nationalism in the House of Commons. The Irish Members as a body show a high level of debating power. A chance visitor is always impressed by their acumen and vigour, and, apart from the Treasury and front Opposition benches, may well consider them the most energetic part of the House. We do not wish to be understood as advocating a tornado of vexatious criticism. But we do believe that any criticism, even " with intent to annoy," is better than none, and that the avowed attitude of the Irish party may mean something more than mere captious trifling. Criticism, however malicious, has in politics something of the quality of mercy, and blesseth him that gives and him that takes. Witness Mr. Healy. He may be said to have educated himself into a certain kind of statesmanship in the persistent practice of political and administrative criticism. It is a salutary experience, as we have said, for the Government, for it prevents stagnation, it compels minute reconsideration of details, and in certain cases it may discover some serious abuse. It is equally valuable for the Irish Members, for we trust the necessity of formulating clearly their demands and the defects in the existing system may open their eyes to the possibility that the right is not all ou their side, and that the emotional rhetoric so effective on the platforms of Cork and Waterford is not so con- vincing when reduced to the bare terms of question and answer.
We, therefore, regard Mr. O'Brien's proposed campaign of unceasing criticism as by no means a bad thing for either party. We would go further, and suggest that the forthcoming Session will give a chance to the private Member which he has long been without. The nominal Opposition is too busily engaged quarrelling within itself to make any effective concerted attack. They are far too intent on criticising each other to be able to find time and energy efficiently to criticise the Government. Now, if ever, is the opportunity for the sane and competent private Member. We do not refer to the faddist, who is always with us ; every day is his opportunity, and he requires no encouragement ; but to the modest man, who may have made some subject peculiarly his own, and who at ordinary times is pre- vented from giving the House the benefit of his knowledge by fidelity to his party. A private Member may be, say, a specialist in some branch of foreign affairs. If he be an adherent of the Government and that Government is weak, he may be obliged to refrain from judicious criticism lest he further weaken his party ; if he be in Opposition, he may refrain from supporting the Government in a sound policy out of the same party loyalty. But in the next Session we shall have the spectacle of a very strong Govern- ment singularly in need of expert advice and strenuous criticism ; and an Opposition so fluid and embarrassed that loyalty is out of the question. To the private Member of the old school, the business man, the expert, the traveller, the thinker, who in entering the House has not sold his soul for a stereotyped party creed, whatever be his politics, there is a real chance of useful work in the present Parliament, for the conventional loyalties, so valuable at other times, for the moment scarcely apply, except on one or two questions. We should be glad to see such a habit of criticism revived, and, meantime, in the Nationalists, who are simply private Members organised otherwise than on the current party lines, we see foes who may unconsciously do the work of friends.