THE EIGHT APOLOGISTS FOR MR. GLADSTONE. [To THE EDITOR OF
THE "SPHGVATOP-1
Sin,—In an article published in the Spectator of August 6th, dealing with "The Eight Apologists for Mr. Gladstone," you say that Home-rule in Ireland "must undoubtedly tend to throw Ireland into the hands of those gentlemen whose enthu- siasm for treating a great many industrious tenant-farmers like lepers, has been published and even paraded to the world." The Home-rule view of the Irish agrarian problem may be put thus : —For a long period a large portion of the landed classes of that country treated their tenants unfairly, by exacting severe rents and not living on their estates. The bitter feeling which this action caused was enhanced by their being, to a certain extent, of a different nationality to the tenants. The tenants showed this feeling at one time by boy- cotting those who were willing to take the farms of the evicted. You condemn the boycotting. The reply is,—(1), the wrong done by boycotting was inferior in quality and quantity to the antecedent injustice of many years; (2) the question to be settled first is : Is it right to give Home-rule ? If one feels sure that it is, one should not be diverted from giving it by the unjust acts which have been a feature of the agitation. The course of all great political movements has been marked by some deplorable incidents.
Secondly, you say that we ignore "the much more impres- sive evidence that Ireland has no gift for governing herself well." It is hard to see to what evidence you refer. Ireland has not had much chance in the past of self-government, and Mr. Gladstone's Irish Parliament, if it ever comes into existence, will be a very different body in all ways to Grattan's Parliament. In any case, the best way to educate people in the art of self-government is to allow them to try it. Most moderate men sincerely sympathise with the present French Republic, for example. It is easy to be sarcastic at the ex- pense of our neighbours ; but it is better that they should govern themselves, however imperfectly, than be debauched by despotism, as they were under the second Empire.
I cannot think that you are fair in dealing with the question of ecclesiastical influence. On a well-known occasion, the people of Ireland and their priests defied the Pope's com- mands. You infer : the people of Ireland were then under another ecclesiastical influence,—i.e., that of their priests. The juster inference is that the priests of Ireland were then following, instead of leading, their flocks. There is reason to suppose that all along this has been largely the case.
As to "disintegration," one argument in favour of it is drawn from population. At the time of the Act of Union, the population of Great Britain was ten and a half millions; that of Ireland may be estimated at five and a half. It is reasonable to suppose that the business of the House of Commons re- quires delegation now, when the population to be legislated for is more than double what it was in 1801. We know, as a matter of fact, that legislation is now too expensive and too much blocked, and many men of both parties are in favour of dealing with this difficulty by delegation of powers. Ireland, Wales, and Scotland are the countries which would gain by delegation, and the majority for Home-rule in these three countries is very decided.—I am, Sir, &c., A. H. CRUICKSHANK.
[We do not understand how the " justice " of giving Home- rule, or any other political institution, can be entirely separated from the consideration of the consequences of giving it. What would be said of the justice of giving India Home-rule without even taking into consideration the consequences to Native civilisation P What we referred to was the evidence afforded by the conduct of the National League. Mr. Cruickshank's letter is of a piece with the eight Gladstonian apologists' papers. It shows the extreme weakness of his case.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
