TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. BALFOUR'S ANSWER TO MR. GLADSTONE.
WE observe that Mr. Gladstone, in his speech at Plymouth, appeared to be as deeply convinced that the Unionists bring no argumentative reply to his defence of Home-rule, as Mr. Balfour. in his speech to the Constitutional Union, appeared to be deeply convinced that Mr. Gladstone usually omits argument for the sake of supplying its place by invective. Let us beware, then, of party assumptions on either side, and recognise fully that a new phase of the controversy has begun since Mr. Glad- stone gave formal sanction to Mr. Asquith's assumption that in future Home-rule would be developed on federal lines, and that not only Ireland, but Scotland and "gallant little Wales," would be encouraged by the Home-rulers to claim the recognition of their separate nationalities, and to federate themselves with England, English questions being reserved for an exclusively English Parliament, just as Irish, Scotch, and Welsh questions will be reserved exclusively for Irish, Scotch, and Welsh Parliaments. It was on this assumption,—though Mr. Balfour, un- wisely as we think, dropped Wales out of account, which he ought not to have done either in courtesy to the Welsh Members or for the sake of logic, since we un- doubtedly often get the most light on the logic of a subject from the extreme cases,—that Mr. Balfour de- livered the very weighty and remarkable speech of last Wednesday at St. James's Hall, in which Mr. Gladstone himself will not deny that a very large mass of effective argument was compressed. In the first place, Mr. Balfour pointed out, what no one can deny, but what hardly any one has as yet insisted on, that the most important of all the consequences of the new emphasis given to nationality in this Home-rule claim is that, if it is to succeed at all, it must vivify and magnify the claim of England to a separate nationality, a nationality that will pit itself against the Irish and Scotch and Welsh nationalities, and insist on its preponderance of claim, whether as regards the overwhelming proportion of population which Eng- land brings to the new Federation, or as regards the still more overwhelming proportion of wealth and power. It has often been suggested,—we have ourselves suggested,—that to make the new Federation work with anything like smoothness, England must be subdivided to carve out new cantons of something like the magnitude of Ireland and Scotland and Wales. But then, as Mr. Balfour points out, this solution is forbidden by the emphasis laid on nationality. England is not to lay down all claim to nationality simply in order that Ireland, Scot- land, and Wales may assert their claim with more con- venience to themselves. If there are to be new assertions of national individuality, "Old England" cannot be shut out in the cold and directed to slice herself into convenient "lengths," as Mr. Balfour put it, that she may not too ostentatiously outweigh Ireland and Scotland and Wales. The flag of "Old England "would also have to be unfurled, and instead of ignoring herself as, in the consciousness of her supreme strength, she has hitherto been content to do, the English party would be stimulated into a new life. And with a separate local Parliament of its own so strong in the numbers it would represent and the wealth it would contribute that it would be able to drag all the other newly constructed nations whithersoever it wished to go, it would claim, and could not be refused, a lead so triumphant that the smaller nationalities would in the com- parison be little more than the boats of the great frigate. Now, asks Mr. Balfour, how would this tell on the new Imperial Parliament which is to determine the policy of the new Federation ? Clearly, it must tell in one of two ways. In the first place, England might be allowed to determine practically everything, so that the Imperial Parlia- ment would be only an alter ego of the English Parliament, with a few complaining and protesting voices to bring out the significance of the immense English prepon- derance. Well, that result would hardly be satisfaction for the wrongs of Ireland. It would, in fact, embitter the Irish sense of inferiority tenfold, and perhaps turn a wail into a curse. Or, again, if that were not the con- sequence, if, with the assistance of an English minority such as Mr. Labouchere might lead and Mr. Conybeare promote, the Irish, Scotch, and Welsh contributories to the Imperial Parliament could be got to ally themselves, and by joining the anti-English representatives of Englami to succeed in manufacturing a majority for the un-English policy, what would be the effect of that on the councils of the Federation ? The Imperial Administration would then be in face of a most paradoxical situation. They would be proposing, say, to increase the Navy in consequence of some European peril. The un-English and Irish party, if they were strategists enough to get the Scotch and Welsh to join them, would, we will suppose, resist this addition to the Navy, just as Mr. Gladstone, prompted by Mr. Labouchere, did the other day, though with only half a heart. And the vote in the Federal Parliament might go in their favour. But, on the other hand, in the English Parliament the Imperialists would have a great majority, a great majority stimulated_ by patriotic feeling into vehement wrath at the petty com- binations by which in the Imperial Parliament they had been defeated. And this great majority would have ample means of its own for doing what it pleased. Would not the English Administration under such circumstances create a separate English Navy to protect the Kingdom ?— and if that were forbidden by the federal law, and England told that her rights as a contributory State did not permit her to raise a separate Navy, would not the English Par- liament reply You have endangered the safety of England by your unpatriotic resistance to the movement for providing against a common dancer, and we are not going to permit England to be extinguished because Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are indifferent to England's peril. Enforce your Imperial rights against us if you can ' ? That, we take it, would be the certain result of such a quarrel as we have supposed, and a result which. would be, in fact, an en absurdo demonstration of the. weakness and folly of this attempt to slice the great block of physical and moral power contained in these islands into a bundle of sticks, only in order to tie that bundle of sticks together again with a federal string that would never hold them tight. The consequence of stimu- lating into life a national jealousy which at present exists. only in Ireland, must be some such preposterous situation as this ; and the quarrel must end in the reassertion, after a most mischievous conflict, of a preponderance which ought never to have been dwelt upon, and which never wilr be dwelt upon if the Unionist policy prevails. We know the reply which will be made to this argument by the fanatical Federalists. They will say that they are- going to call the colonial world into federal existence to- restore the balance between Great Britain and Ireland. The Federal Parliament is not to be a Parliament of the 'United Kingdom alone, but a Parliament representing Australasia,. Canada, South Africa, India, God knows what of paganism and barbarism as well as of colonial civilisation, and in that Parliament, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales will not be out- weighed by the vast preponderance of England. Well, all we have to say to that is, that unless there be a closer legislative tie between the constituent elements of the United Kingdom than is either desirable or possible between the fragments of this widely distributed and loosely knitted. Empire, the United Kingdom will not long continue to exist. We have no wish to lose our Colonies ; but Colonies are Colonies and home is home. You might just as well try to constitute a large family council such as assembles at Christmas from all branches of a widely dis- tributed family, into the governing power of each family there represented, as try to constitute a representa- tive Federal Council including all the Colonies andt Dependencies, into the practical Government of such a country as this. Let there be a Federal Council by all means for deliberating over the common policy of this loosely connected Empire, but for God's sake do not let it attempt to determine the government and policy of such a Kingdom as this, or it will be soon said of the British. Power, that it fell, and great was the fall of it. The federation of England with her Colonies, if it is to mean. anything, must mean a mere affiance for certain specific purposes. The relation between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland cannot mean a mere alliance for certain specific purposes unless we are really on the brink of a great cata- strophe. It is pure moonshine to talk of governing the United Kingdom through the same institutions as those which we use to negotiate with our Colonies and Depen- dencies, and by the help of which we may hope to conclude a few important treaties no doubt, but still treaties which neither can nor ought to assure the safety of the United Kingdom. Mr. Balfour's answer to Mr. Gladstone seems to us triumphant. Home-rule means either the stimulating of petty national jealousies, until the preponderance of England will be felt ten times as much as it now is, even by Ireland, or it means weakness, disintegration, and decay.
Previous page
