THE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S SPEECH. T HE Duke of Argyll may,
as his opponents contend, show something of the spirit of the " dominie " in his political utterances, and may perhaps be sometimes inclined to attach a little too much importance to matters more fit for academical discussion than for debate in the regions of practical politics. Still, in spite of this, and in spite of a certain occasional assumption of superiority, it is quite impossible to read such a speech as that delivered by the Duke in the House of Lords on Monday last without is quite impossible to read such a speech as that delivered by the Duke in the House of Lords on Monday last without feeling the strongest sense of regret that he now intervenes so seldom in the political controversies of the day. There is a manliness and a common-sense, as well as an intellectual completeness and a perfection of literary form, about his speeches which makes them clear the dusty air of the party battle-field. It is always pleasant to see a. politician using arguments exactly, and not merely generally, applicable to the case in point ; but there is a sense of positive exhilaration when, like the Duke of Argyll, he puts the best arguments in the best possible way. Again and again in his last speech, the words and phrases employed went through the sophistries and fallacies of the Home- rulers like a rapier through a sheet of brown paper. " Firm as the rock, and clear as the crystal that adorns the rock," was the Duke's description of Lord Hartington's oratory, and it may well be applied to his own. Again borrowing from the same panegyric of the Liberal Unionist leader, we may express our sense of " what a comfort it is to have the speech of a man who knows what he means him- self, and who means you to understand what he intends."
The most interesting and valuable portion of the speech of Monday was that in which the Duke of Argyll grappled with the false history of the Home-rule Party. American newspaper-writers, when referring to any series of untrue accusations or erroneous allegations of fact, sometimes discriminate what they call the " trunk lie." In the Irish controversy, the " trunk " misconceptions or misrepresen- tations—doubtless sincerely believed in by the bulk of the rank and file and by many of the leaders of the Gladstonian Party—are, first, those connected with the penal laws, and secondly, those concerned with the legis- lation restricting the trade of Ireland. Ordinarily, however, Unionist writers and speakers have avoided following their antagonists into the tortuous mazes of Irish history suggested by these points, and have preferred to rest their defence on the ground that even if we ill-treated the Roman Catholics and ruined the trade and agriculture of Ireland in the past, that is no reason why we should now give way to the cry for Home-rule. The men of the present day are not the same as their great-grandfathers, and so long as we ourselves are treating Ireland with per- fect fairness and consideration, there is no force in urging the sins of former generations. against us. But though this line of argument is in reality perfectly sufficient, and makes it possible to admit every historical allegation put forth on behalf of the Home-rulers and yet remain a Unionist, it is exceedingly interesting to know that the premisses from which the Gladstonians argue are as fallacious as their conclusions. The Duke of Argyll, in regard to the penal laws, reminded his audience that they were not so much laws against religion as against a political danger. Arthur Young, who sincerely hated the laws, mentions a curious fact which illustrates the truth of this remark. He tells us that during the continuance of the anti- Roman Catholic legislation, the Protestant landlords were in the habit of giving sites for and subscribing to Roman Catholic chapels. The full force and significance of this fact cannot, however, be really appreciated unless we remember that at the same period in France, where the Reformed religion was under the ban of the law, not only could no Catholic have assisted a Protestant to build a chapel, but any public act of Protestant worship was punished with the galleys, or even with death. That the penal laws were cruel and wicked, we have no wish to deny. They were the hateful offspring of the hateful spirit of intolerance which possessed the whole world at the period during which they were enacted. Everything, however, seems to point to the fact that their severer provisions were practically inoperative. The petition against them drawn up by Edmund Burke, for instance, shows this when it declares : " You have not enforced these laws ; you have administered them most liberally." Without doubt, therefore, the impartial historian would have to admit that, considering the notions entertained as to religious toleration during the eighteenth century, and considering the fact that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been in a condition of chronic rebellion during the fifty years preceding the enactment of the penal laws, the wonder is not that their administration was so harsh, but that it was so mild.
The facts adduced by the Duke of Argyll in regard to the allegation that the economic miseries of Ireland are entirely due to England, are exceedingly strong. From the beginning of the reign of George I., the trade between the two islands in regard to agricultural produce was entirely free. Let us see what use the Irish Parliament made of the advantages they thus enjoyed. Before we abuse England for not having adopted an enlightened fiscal policy towards Ireland, we must consider what was the course pursued by the Irish themselves. Unfortunately, the Irish Parliament adopted a policy which was directly calculated to produce the economic ruin of their country. Arthur Young, when he visited Ireland towards the end of the last century, noticed that Ireland had too much tillage, and that though the Western pastures of Ireland were capable of turning out the finest cattle and sheep, they were being converted into bad tillage. This evil tendency, as may be imagined, was not due to natural causes. The Irish Parliament, possessed by some terrible infatuation, persisted in giving heavy bounties to encourage the cultivation of amble land. The record of this disastrous legislation is thus summarised by the Duke of Argyll :—" In 1707, heavy bounties were given for the export of grain. In 1727, the Irish Parliament passed a compulsory law that every proprietor should have 5 per cent. of his land in tillage, whether it consisted of the richest pasture or not. In 1756, there was a large increase in the bounty. Then came an Act of the Dublin Parlia ment giving a large bounty upon grain brought to Dublin by land, not by ship. This bounty was put in the form of so much a mile, so that the corn grown in the most distant and wretched part of Ireland paid better than corn grown in the best and nearest part. Arthur Young says he saw a ship in Cork lying empty, while a vast number of horses were being yoked to enormous waggons to carry the grain
inland The result was that pasture was damaged, the land was wasted, and in the remotest parts enormous mills were raised, the most wretched grain was mixed up with sand and gravel, and received those enormous bounties."
The farmers, thus bribed to cut up and so devastate their best land, adopted the disastrous system of " burning the land," and soon contrived to do injuries to the soil which have never since been repaired. Lest, perhaps, those who are inclined to attribute all that is evil in Irish history to English influence should see in these bounties the wicked policy of the Saxon, we may mention that after the Dublin Legislature became entirely independent, as it did in 1783, the bounties on tillage were actually increased, and the ruinous system begun under a subservient Parlia- ment, was emphasised in that which is admitted on all hands to have been entirely national in its aims and aspirations. As to what the Duke of Argyll had to say on the method of influencing voters pursued by the Irish priests, who force their dupes to declare themselves illiterate, in order that they may be certain that they vote in accordance with instructions, we have only space for a few words of comment. The Gladstonians, it may be observed, as a party, deny that the Irish priests intimidate the voters as alleged, but at the same time declare that the country squires and clergy in England commit the same offence. That occasionally agricultural labourers have been so intimidated, we are willing to admit, though, since the illiterate voters in England are an entirely insignificant number, it can only have been to a very small extent. Still, if the Gladstonians are sincere in their allegations of unfairness, why do they not propose that when a voter desires to make a declara- tion of illiteracy, the polling-booth should be cleared, and that only the presiding officer should be allowed to be present ? If a Liberal Unionist were to introduce such an amendment of the Ballot Act, he would be certain to be held up to odium as having devised a scheme for depriving the Irish illiterate of the protection of the priest, and for handing him over to the tender mercies of the presiding officer. Suppose, however, that the initiative were taken by the Gladstonians. The Irish Party could then hardly venture to use such argu- ments. That the Government would do everything to assist the passage of such an enactment, we may feel quite sure. If, therefore, the English Radicals are as anxious as they ought to be to procure the complete secrecy of the ballot, they should join hands with the Irish Loyalists and the Liberal Unionists to secure an alteration in the law which would protect voters in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Before leaving the Duke of Argyll's speech, we must not forget to point out the very remarkable fact that the present Parnellite Members intend, if Home-rule is carried, to reintroduce the policy of granting bounties which, as has been shown above, proved so disastrous to Irish agriculture- in the past. Probably a, Parliament on College Green would now give its bounties, not for tillage, but for various forms of manufacture ; but the result would be none the less disastrous. To encourage the people of Ireland to establish manufactories which could not be maintained without Government support, would have quite as ill effects as to induce them by heavy bribes to plough up old pastures, and instead of producing good live stock, to cultivate inferior corn. As long as Mr. Parnell, Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Healy are for the granting of bounties, so long will the past history of Irish finance afford an armoury of arguments against Home-rule.
Previous page
