THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FENIANS.
WHY everybody seems to expect Mr. Gladstone to act weakly, and is surprised when he acts,—as he always does,—with strength and pertinacity, it is not very easy to -say. Perhaps because everyone knows him to be a con- scientious Minister,—a morbidly conscientious Minister,—and the world is apt to have a gentle contempt for conscience. And doubtless a scrupulous conscience such as Mr. Gladstone's is apt to delay decisions,—sometimes unduly. A man who wants to see his duty clearly is a long time weighing the pros and cons of the case, while a man whose conscience is chiefly In his under-jaw, like Lord Palmerston, will rap out his decision, and very often the right decision, without any con- sideration at all. But it is a vast mistake to suppose that because Mr. Gladstone ponders and hesitates with scrupulous anxiety over questions of moment, he will either come to the wrong conclusion, or be at all likely to change it when he has come to it. We don't believe Lord John Russell himself was less likely to have given in about Dr. Hampden than is Mr. Gladstone about Dr. Temple. We are quite sure that Lord Derby would have been oven less unlikely to have given in about the Fenians -than Mr. Gladstone now that he has made up his mind, and set the seal of the Government on a policy of firm re- pression. Conscience is apt, no doubt, to be a dilatory prin- -eiple, for it is a kind of artistic sense, and all artistic sense takes time and musing to work itself clear. But once clear, it is far less liable to be unsettled and swayed by noisy clamour than the mere fiat of a man of strong will and pre- possessions, which the tardy lights of subsequent reasonings may only too easily shake.
We are quite clear—indeed, we were five weeks ago—that in this matter Mr. Gladstone's decision is the right one. Any- thing more absurd than the assertion of some of the Irish papers that a Government which wishes to govern Ireland in -the same spirit in which, without a Union, Ireland would -govern herself, must pardon the Fenians, we never heard of. Would such an Irish Government pardon causeless and danger- ous insurrection against itself? And did anyone ever hear of an absurder dogma than that the existing Government should initio so completely concede its own injustice as to re-
fuse to use on its own behalf the ordinary penal weapons which any substitute for it—Fenian. American, what you please—would inevitably apply with the greatest stringency and determination ? If we are to govern Ireland, as Ireland, if separate, would govern itself, or as England now governs itself, we should never for a moment entertain a question of releasing men who not only do not regret the crime of which they were guilty, but whose sup- porters speak of it as a merit, and are ready to cry encore if their heroes should be released to-morrow. The "gentle and loving soul of Kickham," as Mr. Henry Matthews, the Fenian representative for Dungarvan, was pleased, if we remember rightly, to describe the spiritual principle of one of the con- spirators, is still, no doubt, as gentle and loving to Fenians, and as much the reverse towards the Government, as when the body belonging to it was first immured. We do not say, and denot think, that this attitude on the part of Mr. Kickham's soul involves any deep—perhaps, looking to the man's life and education, any—amount of moral guilt. But we do hold that to release the bodily organization through which that "gentle and loving soul" speaks to other likeminded souls not under such artificial restraints, without any pretence even that the purpose which animates it is changed, and with Ire- land still in a highly inflammable condition, would be the act of a government which did not feel its heavy responsibility for the peace of the Empire.
Indeed, when people say that any government should be in- fluenced, in administrative acts, like the use of the prerogative of the Crown in regard to mercy, by public opinion, they com- pletely forget that public opinion in the vague form in which it appears as the outcome of public meetings, articles in the press, and other such indications of public sentiment, is a totally different thing from the public opinion which instructs mem- bers of the Legislature and indirectly makes laws. The latter is a responsible public opinion, which is sifted and moulded with a view to action, and is expressed by men who know that the consequence of a mistaken policy will probably recoil upon themselves before long. But these ebullitions of popular wishes, never deliberately canvassed in relation to the effect on society,—all the responsibility of weighing con- sequences of that kind is always left to the Government memorialized,—is a very different matter. An irresponsible public opinion is entitled to no sort of constitutional power, and should be regarded by a minister merely as an index of the tendencies actually at work, and not in the least as an authority to which any deference is due. The responsibility belongs wholly to the Administration, which could not throw off any part of it on this inorganic and incoherent form of public opinion, in case the issue should be mischievous. Now, bearing in mind the vast difference between deferring to a public opinion legislatively expressed under all due sense of responsibility, and deferring to a public opinion of the uncer- tain, inchoate, and irresponsible kind, it is obvious that the Government could only rightly regard the Amnesty speeches which have been reported, and the amnesty memorials which it has received, as the subject of a sort of politico-chemical analysis, to determine whether or not the public sentiment was in such a state as to menace any danger to the peace of Ireland as a consequence of the release of the Fenians. Looked at in this light, no doubt the speeches and memorials were matters of great moment. No one doubts that if these probably much more unfortunate than guilty men could be discharged at once, without evil consequences, it would be both a generous and wise policy to discharge them. But it is essential to know that lenient treatment and remissions of punishment would not lead to greater audacity and speedier rebellion. If the meetings, and the speeches, and the line of the agitation generally had shown that, though these men were greatly pitied and liked in Ireland, there is now no practical sympathy with their aims,—that the society into which they were discharged would prove a non-conductor, so to speak, for
their aspirations, then it might have been as safe to let them out, as it is said to be to distribute grains of gunpowder, according to Mr. Gale's process, through the powdered glass which prevents it from accumulating into inflammable masses. But, as everyone knows, the analysis of the Amnesty agita- tion has only shown the exact reverse of this. The language used towards the Fenian sufferers has been too often the language of hearty sympathy. Even Members of Parlia- ment like Mr. G. H. Moore have all but defended and panegyrized their actions, have quite defended and pane- fiYrized their spirit. The Government have found that to liberate prematurely the Fenian prisoners would be-
not to distribute gunpowder through powdered glass, but to distribute sparks through gunpowder, and their evidence for this fact is the Amnesty agitation itself. The very speeches and addresses made to obtain the liberation of the prisoners were so many telling warnings to the Government not to acquiesce. Like the words of a man in delirium who calls out for his horse, the very sentences which urge pardon contain the amplest evidence that to grant it would be insanity. Mr. Gladstone's refusal does not come too soon ; but it is admir- able in tone, and will strengthen immeasurably the apprecia- tion felt for any boon he may offer to Ireland. Ireland herself would not value justice extorted from a Minister so weak as to ignore his responsibility for Ireland's peace. From the man who has firmly refused to release the Fenians, the land measure will come with a double grace.
Previous page
