IRISH UNIONISTS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—When I read week after week the admirable articles in the Spectator upon the great questions of the day, I often regret that upon one question it sometimes writes as if it were not really familiar with the facts. I allude to the Irish question, upon which I am quite sure that it is your desire to be thoroughly fair and just, while, of course, no Unionist dreams for one moment of doubting the absolute sincerity of your Unionism. But the complaint which Mr. Lloyd- George made the other day of the hopelessness of attempt-
ing to overtake a statement that is not in accordance with the facts may justly be made by Irish Unionists against some of the Spectator's repeated utterances with regard to them. Writing in your article on "Lord Dunraven and the Mac- Donnell Mystery' " in the last issue, you say : " The last thing that is likely to make for permanency in any settlement of the Irish question is a disregard of all political opinions save those of the old Ascendency extremists." Now, in the name of truth, may I ask you who are " the old Ascendency extremists," and where are they to be found ? With more justice you might dub the Conservative wing of the Unionist Party old- fashioned Tories, since here and there a professing Tory may still be found, whereas no one in Ireland who was not fit for a lunatic asylum could be described as an " old Ascendency extremist." Speaking generally, the Protestants of Ireland are Unionists; and being one of them myself, and knowing my countrymen well, I assert that there is not amongst them a single person who desires to turn back the hands of the clock, or who is not rejoiced to feel that every disability under which his Roman Catholic countrymen once suffered has been long since removed. What, then, are the political opinions which you speak - of as being those of " the old Ascendency extremists"? I am at a loss to know, but, as you refer to Sir Edward Carson in connexion with Mr. Wyndham's resignation, I can only assume that because he is absolutely opposed to anything in the nature of Devolution, you would class opinions which are hostile to this policy amongst the political opinions referred to. But, if so, your observation applies, not to a mere section of the Pro- testant Unionists of Ireland, but to the entire body.
Irish Unionists, barring a handful of faddists, consider that under the existing administrative and financial system Irish affairs can bo better managed than they would be under any other system within the Union which could be devised, while the great danger of establishing for Ireland a different administrative and financial system is that, safeguard it as you may, it is a step in a new direction, and we have the Prime Minister's authority for saying that it will be one in the direction of the "larger policy" which is the avowed goal of the Nationalist Party.
A Council partly nominated by the Lord-Lieutenant and partly elected, upon whose advice public Departments will be administered and their expenditure controlled, has, surely, within it the principle of development, and the first evidence of growth would probably bo seen in the efforts of the elected members to dominate the Council. The authors of a measure are powerless to control the development of its underlying principle, whose final form is in its own keeping. Hence, on the principle of obsta principiis, I venture to think that it would be nothing short of political insanity for the Unionist Party to agree to any measure which has for its object any change in the administrative , and financial system which Ireland has now in common with England and Scotland. I therefore most earnestly trust that you are not expressing the views of the vast majority of English and Scottish Unionists when you write that, " for our part, as Unionists, we were not greatly alarmed when it was proved that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been helping Lord Dunraven in his attempt to frame a scheme of Devolution, for, although there was much in that esssentially inchoate scheme to which we should find ourselves strongly opposed, we have every sympathy, on general lines, with those Unionists who are trying to get Irish affairs better managed, and Irish wishes more generously granted,—that is, of course, without in any way im- perilling the Legislative Union."
But while we Irish Unionists have no kind of sympathy with such views in so far as they would approve of any change in the existing system of government that would enable measures to be
adopted in Ireland which would be impossible if left to the determination of the representatives of the United Kingdom, we should all be rejoiced to see the Irish question solved by the Nationalist leaders taking office under the Crown. Whoever is Chief Secretary for Ireland governs Ireland ; and if, let us say, Mr. Redmond were Chief Secretary, and Mr. Healy Attorney-General, with the full approval of their political supporters, what is there which they could get under Devolu- tion, as it would commend itself to the Spectator, which they could not get equally well under the existing system P So far as local self-government is concerned, Ireland has it in as ample a measure as England or Scotland, and it is solely because the Nationalist Members prefer to sulk in their tents as a protest against the Union that they have no direct voice in the government of their country. To talk, then, as some members of the Government have been talking, as if Irishmen were now to a great extent debarred from taking part in the administration of their own affairs is to mislead the public and to state the thing which is not. The great public Departments are largely manned by Irish Catholics who have won their posts by open competition, and, the chief positions being in the gift of the Government of the day, the Nationalists would have it all their own way in this particular if their leaders would but accept office under the Crown, and take their share in the government of their country, which is denied to them by none but themselves. But you may say this is a counsel of perfection, and there is no use offering them what they will not take. This retort, however, surely cuts both ways, for if they will not accept office under the Crown, do you imagine they will be content with Devolution, or accept any such scheme as a final settlement of the Irish question, or as anything but a stepping-stone towards the attainment of the larger policy ?
In fairness to the Irish Unionists, I trust you will find room for this letter.
—I am, Sir, &c., A READER. OF THE " SPECTATOR " FOR FORTY YEARS.
[We gladly publish our correspondent's letter, and agree with him in his wish that the Nationalists should take office under the Crown. We also agree that their refusal to do so must be taken into consideration in gauging the meaning of demands for legislation in the direction of the government of Ireland according to Irish ideas. At the same time, we are bound to add that a certain section of Irish Unionists show in their writings and speeches a harshness, not to say truculence, of spirit which has a very unfortunate effect on English opinion.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
