THE LEADERS IN THE LORDS. T HE speech in which Lord
Rosebery made his very lame apology for Home-rule, and that in which Lord Salisbury answered him, and wound up the case for the Opposition, form together a very complete statement of the rival views of the Irish difficulty as it presents itself to the more moderate and statesmanlike minds on either side. The two men approach the question from a some- what similar standpoint. They have a good deal in .common.,—more probably than a superficial observer might imagine, or so, at least, the remarkable parellelism of their conduct of Foreign Affairs would seem to show. Both have had the training which enables them to view the question in the light of international relations. Both must realise, as hardly any one else can realise, in what a profound sense this Irish difficulty is the problem of problems for the British Empire, how unfailingly it attends us in all our movements, enfeebling our purpose, and para- lysing our strength. Lord Rosebery, we imagine, believes as little as Lord Salisbury in that reading of democratic doctrines which teaches that government can be carried on and politics settled in accordance with the fluctuating wishes of every local and temporary majority. And we should have thought, also, that he would have been no more likely to fall a victim to that shallow optimism which believes that a difficulty can be overcome by shutting your eyes to it ; but his speech hardly justifies that expecta- tion. On the whole, however, he very fairly and ably represents the views of those Gladstonians who are able to regard Home-rule, without any constitutional fanaticism, as a question of policy, and as a practical proposal for solving the problem of Irish Government. What, then, had Lord Rosebery to urge in favour of Home-rule P He was careful, in.the first instance, to dis- sociate himself from all responsibility for the Bill as it left the House of Commons, so that we are not here con- cerned with the special anomalies which that Bill contains. Now, it is easy enough, as the Gladstonians found during the six years they were in opposition, to make out a fairly plausible case for Home-rule as a general policy, but very difficult, as they have discovered in the course of the twelve months they have been in office, to embody that policy in a rational and workable system. But even with this advantage, Lord Rosebery's defence was singularly weak. In substance, it amounted to this :--1 The Union would have been the ideal solu- tion of the Irish problem, if it had succeeded ; and it would have succeeded if Mr. Pitt's policy had been carried mit in its integrity. But, unfortunately, the Act of Union was not accompanied by the remedial measures which would have made it popular; and we have now to deal with a state of things in which, after being in operation for more than ninety years, it has proved a failure. You cannot get from your democracy that strong and steady government, you cannot expect from it that patient con- tinuance in well-doing, which even now, at the eleventh hour, might make the Union a success. The only alterna- tive is some form of Home-rule. I do not look for any great results from that, but it will, at least, be a new experiment, and a large and generous experiment.' His advocacy of Home-rule was founded much less on faith in the democracy of Ireland, than on despair of the democracy of Great Britain. But Lord Rosebery ignored all the circum- stances which, if we accept his argument of despair, make new experiments much more dangerous than the policy of leaving bad-enough alone. His speech was the speech of a man who sees the futility and hopelessness of Home-rule, but either cannot or will not see thaperils with which it abounds, or how greatly it may aggravate our present difficulties. When he came to the question of Ulster, he dismissed it by saying, "I pass by the question of Ulster." But it is the presence of a second or Protestant nation in Ireland which makes all experiments with the government of the country utterly impossible. The Union has not been an unqualified failure. It has won over to its side this Protestant nation, numbering one-third of the entire population, a nation which on the whole was strongly opposed to it at first. It has made loyal subjects of the Presbyterians, who before the grant of legislative independence were ripe for rebellion, and after sixteen years of Grattan's Parliament were in actual revolt. If we cannot augur from these facts the final success of the Union in conciliating the entire population of Ireland, must we throw away what we have already gained, must we make bitter enemies of the strongest, wealthiest, and most intelligent portion of the Irish people in order to embark on a policy for which Lord Rosebery cannot pro- mise the slightest prospect of success in conciliating the remainder But Lord Salisbury was able to show that there are really no grounds for despair as to the ultimate success of the Union, and the ultimate extinction of Irish dis- affection. • As he pointed out, it is only since 1870 that Mr. Pitt's conception of the Union has been realised, a Union from which the bitter thorn of religious inequality has been removed. But even in its imperfect shape the Union has not been an utter failure. There is no com- parison either in regard to economic condition, or in respect for law and order, between the Ireland Of 1893 and the Ireland of 1800. It is true there is still the fact of the eighty Nationalist Members, which cannot be got over ; and the Radicals are able to point triumphantly to this when it is claimed that the Unionist policy of concession is succeeding. With characteristic impatience they expect to reap the harvest the day after they have sown the seed, and will be satisfied with nothing short of a sudden and dramatic transformation of hatred into love, such as they assure us would follow the adoption of their own policy of Home-rule. But as Lord Salisbury reminded them, what we have rather to look for is that " the grandsons will love us because we have been just to the grandfathers." " The opinion of a community changes by those who grow up in one set of opinions dying off, while others take their places who have no cause to grow up in those opinions. To ask within the limits of the Septennial Act that a salutary policy shall be detected in a change of opinion, shows an absolute ignorance of the working of the human mind in the political world, whether in its highest or its lowest developments." The case for the Union, both as to the time during which it has been in operation without any great disturbing influence to counteract it, and as to the results which it has already achieved, might have been, presented in an even more favourable light than Lord Salisbury presented it. It is only since a much later date than 1870 that the sting has been taken out of the Land question, which, in recent years, has been the great motive- force of Irish agitation, and that the experiment of the Union has had a fair field for its trial. And what do we find P We find the Catholic gentry, to a man, on the side of the Union. We find the better-to-do farmers, and especially those who have secured the fee-simple of their farms under the Purchase Acts, showing signs of alarm at the prospect of increased taxation under Home-rule. We find a Home- rule Bill passing through its various stages in Parliament, and no manifestation of enthusiasm for its progress, or sorrow for its defeat, among the great body of the Irish people,---no indication of any depth of feeling equal to that with which it has been watched by the Unionist minority on the other side. We find the power of the League completely broken, the great organiser and leader of the forces of disaffection gone, and no one rising to take his place, his lieutenants retaining their position at the head of the movement and much of their popularity, but with no new men of influence starting up to join them, and the agitation living, as it were, on its accumu- lated capital. The change from the Ireland of 1883 to the Ireland.of 1893 is great indeed; and if we can only make as much progress in the next ten years, we shall be on the fair way to the solution of the difficulty. You cannot make out of all the indications that promise success for the policy of conciliation within the .Union what the late Mr. Bagehot called a " loud " argument, an argument which can be bawled in the ears of the democracy, or which will carry conviction to those who do not wish to be convinced, But to those who are able and willing to look beneath the surface, the drift of the current must be plain.
Previous page
