T HE main feature of the discussions on Home- rule which
have played so large a, part in the newspapers during the past week is their unreality. Though leader-writers and public speakers debate gravely what the Liberal party could do, or ought to do, or will do in the next Parliament in regard to Home-rule- i.e., the establishment of a separate Parliament in Ireland on the principles laid down in Mr. Gladstone's Bills—it is as clear as anything can be that the next General Election will be fought on the Fiscal issue, and that if a Liberal Government is returned to power, it will be returned as a Free-trade Government. At the contests in English, It may be paraded as a bogey by the Balfourites, and certain Liberals may indulge in platitudes in regard to it out of a desire for political consistency; but for the ordinary elector, and so for the ordinary Member of Parliament, the question will have no vitality. What the country is hot to give its opinion on is not whether the Legislative Union should or should not be dissolved, but whether or not there is to be a revolution in our Fiscal policy. This being so, all discussions of Home- rule are for the moment beside the mark. There- fore, while we approve of Lord Rosebery's declarations as to Home-rule, see little harm in the cautious and balanced warnings of Mr. Morley, and note the violent and irreconcilable attitude taken up by Mr. Redmond, we are not in the least prepared as Unionists to excite ourselves over the so-called revival of the con- troversy. At the present moment no danger to the Union is involved in the aspirations, aims, and objects of the Liberal party. If danger is to come in the future, it will come, not from them, but from Mr. Chamber- lain and his Tariff Reformers, faced with the temptation to obtain power through an alliance with the Nationalists. We trust and believe that this danger will not turn out to be a serious one, owing to the complete character of the catastrophe which will overtake the Chamberlain party at the polls. If, however, we should prove to have been too sanguine in our estimate of the Free-trade majority at the next Election, it may well be that the Union will run a considerable risk from that over-representation with which 'the Unionist party leaders have determined that Ireland shall continue to be endowed.
It is easy to see why there is no danger of the Liberal party carrying legislation which would dissolve the Union. The Liberals may be capable of purchasing the Irish vote ; but even assuming that they are, they are quite incapable of carrying out their contract and paying the purchase- money. This the Irish Nationalists know well enough.
If the Liberals were to promise to give Mr. Redmond the independent Parliament he demands, there would still be no danger to the Union, for the House of Lords would see to it that the bargain was not kept ; and if the country were asked to forbid the exercise of such a veto by the Lords, it would certainly refuse to do any such thing, but would insist on supporting the Upper House in main- taining the Union. This is one of the bed-rock facts of- contemporary politics from which it is impossible to get away. The Irish party, therefore, would infinitely prefer to sell their votes to a purchaser who could pay, and not merely promise the price they ask. But the only person who is ever likely to be in such a position is Mr. Chamberlain, or some other leader of a Unionist party which had been for the time captured by the Tariff Reformers. We do not, of course, desire to say that such a leader would be willing to ally himself with the Irish.
All we say is that he might, and that if he did the Irish would infinitely prefer to deal with him than with the' Liberal party. He conceivably might give delivery of the goods. The Liberals certainly could not. In other words, it is just possible that a Protectionist leader might so far chloroform the House of Lords as to be able to persuade them to consent to a Home-rule Bill as part of a great and comprehensive policy of Imperial Tariff Reform. In all probability, no doubt, the Peers would have nothing to do with any such scheme ; but we must never forget that the temptation to Protectionist Peers to " dish " the Free-traders would be very great, and that many specious arguments might be produced in order to get such a policy carried through. At any rate, even if the chance small ono, it is better than no chance at all, and we may feel sure that in their heart of hearts the Nationalists regard a " deal" with the Protectionists as the one hope that efill lies open to them. If they could see a. Parliament returned to power in which the Free- traders and the anti-Free-traders were about equally balanced, unquestionably they would greatly prefer to do business with the Protectionists, because, as we have said, the Protectionists could conceivably perform as well as promise. This fact gives Unionist Free-traders an extra reason for doing their best to make the victory of Free-trade at the next Eleirtion as complete as possible. If the majority of rule policy being adopted. If, however,-the Nationalists were to possess the power of putting a Protectionist Administration in office, the danger 'to the Union might become a reality. If such a danger were to arise, many Unionists who have, we fear, been bored. and disgusted by what they regard as our tiresome persistence in demanding the reduction of the over-representation of Ireland would realise that, after all, our reiterated exposure of the dangers involved in granting Ireland a prerogative vote in the House of Commons was not un- reasonable. In such circumstances, it is arguable, also, that certain of the party managers might feel that their resistance to the demand for the reduction was justified. A Tariff Reform Ministry rendered possible solely by reason of the over-representation of Ireland would seem to them a standing proof of how wise they were not to allow a Redistribution Bill to be carried in this Parliament. But though we feel bound to point out this danger to the Union, we are ready to admit that it cannot be regarded as very near. It is far more likely that the overthrow of Protection at the polls will be so complete that the Liberal party will have a working majority over both the Irish and the Protectionists combined. In that case, the Liberal Government will be able to pursue a. just and reasonable Irish policy without fear or favour. They will have every right to take up, and carry through, the policy of a sympathetic Irish administration begun by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Wyndham. Is it too much to hope that they may be able to initiate a genuine and comprehensive scheme of Irish administrative reform F Indifferent alike to the criticisms of the extreme Loyalists and of the Nationalists, they might combine with the aboli- tion of that futile symbol of separation, the Lord-Lieutenant and his pinchbeck Court, a thorough and democratic reform of Dublin Castle. Such a policy might not appeal to any class of Irish politicians, but it would undoubtedly tend to the good government of Ireland. Again, the establishment of a University with a Roman Catholic atmosphere, as desired by the Roman Bishops and the vast majority of Irish Roman Catholics, would give to Ireland, not necessarily the best of University education, but the kind of education which her people desire. In a word, a Liberal Government might carry out a policy in Ireland which, though it would be disliked by the extremists in either camp, would commend itself to Irish opinion generally, and would have the merit of being sound and reasonable per se.
We can only end as we began, by declaring our firm conviction that the Union is in no way in dancrer from the Liberal party. If any danger exists in °the present situation, that danger comes from the possibility of a combination between the Tariff Reformers and the ,Irish Nationalists, who not only are personally Protectionists, but who know that an alliance with those who are in touch and sympathy with the majority of the Home of Lords would be far better worth having than one with men who cannot themselves influence the House of Lords, and whom the country would never allow to coerce that Assembly.
Previous page
