A TORY VIEW OF IRELAND.
MR. PLUNKET'S speech in Chelsea, upon the condition of Ireland, is one deserving of special attention. It is, so far as we know, the first in which the policy pursued by Government during the last eighteen months has been arraigned by a Tory from the statesman's, and not the partisan's or the landlord's point of view. Mr. Plunket says nothing of the Land Act, and, we believe, accepts it in principle, either as a measure of justice, or one of imperative political necessity. He not only does not condemn the recent action of the Ministry, but approves it so strongly that he promises to abstain even from criticism. He does not denounce the Ministry, either as cowards, traitors, or hypocrites, and though he makes much of Mr. Gladstone's "unfairness" in cen- suring the Irish landlords for want of spirit, he speaks on that subject rather as a man does when he defends his friends, than as a politician who thinks that a garrison has been betrayed. But, nevertheless, he brings a very grave charge against the Government, a charge which deserves attention, if only because it is the one about which many Englishmen—even of Liberal opinions—retain a latent doubt. Mr. Plunket, passing over all questions of detail, believes that the whole policy of the Government for eighteen months has in the highest sense been unwise, because it has increased the alienation between Ireland and England, and has brought the ultimate idea of Irish agitators—separation-- more clearly to the front. That is the meaning of the whole of the latter part of his speech, compressed into a few words ; and that is also the meaning of all who say that although the Government meant well, the result of their action has been unfortunate, and that it would have been better, as far as the whole kingdom is concerned, if they had done nothing but severely enforce the law. That is, of course, a very grave charge, though not a moral one, for the business of the Ministry was to reduce Irish hatred to England, and to render separation less attractive ; and if they have increased Irish hatred, and brought separation more within the range of prac- tical politics, they have, pro tante, failed. Their objects were the reverse of those,-and their objects are not gained. They may still claim the credit of benevolence, but they cannot claim that of practical and successful statesmanship.
Our answer to the charge is that the greater part of it can- not in the nature of things be true ; and that the little of it which is true is not "a charge " at all, but a statement of a fact full of benefit both for England and Ireland. The part which, as we allege, cannot be true, is that the alienation or hatred between Great Britain and Ireland has been increased
by the policy of the Ministry. To assert that, is to assert that Irishmen are not only unlike all other human beings in their conduct, but in their very nature ; that they are not- only ungrateful, which is possible of all men, but hate an op- pressor after his oppression has ended more than if lee had con- tinued or even increased it, which is impossible of anybody. In other words, the Irish are so separate from all 'other living beings that they are more fatigued by the withdrawal of a load than by its continued imposition. They are aet only "a
one-legged race," as Mr. Gladstone put it, which is impos- sible, but a one-legged race so independent of the laws of gravitation, that heavy loads assist them to run their course with spirit. Is not that nonsense ? Many men of adequate capacity think the load on Irish tenants—that is, we must never forget, on the Irish people—was unjustly taken off, they having contracted to bear it, and many more say its weight has not. been sufficiently reduced ; but nobody denies that, owing to the Ministry, the reduction has been a great one. Lord Salisbury admits that, though he grudges the re- duction ; and Mr. Dillon admits it, though lie fears from the reduction certain evil consequences to his ideal. No creature can be more burdened for a reduction of his burden, and no man can hate harder for the removal of his cause of hatred. He may think for a moment that he does, he may even, as the burden drops, be more conscious of the previous injustice in putting it on, but he cannot retain that increased malignity. It is not in human nature, any more than love of pain. We are not saying that the Irish may not continue to hate the English. There are hatreds which find fuel in the mere presence or existence of the enemy. All we contend is that they cannot hate them more, because the English Government—we purposely speak of it as if it were not also the Irish Government—has for eighteen months exerted itself to remove grievances, has removed them, and has, while intent on that work, tolerated—if it has tolerated —a disorder by which the oppressed have profited. They may not have recognised the work done on their behalf, they may have misconceived and therefore hated individuals, and they may have become, while the work was doing, more keenly sensible of other work remaining to be done, as the man who is starving and frozen feels as he gets warmed the fullest pang of hunger ; but they can- not., as a community, hate more the community which has relieved them. And, as a matter of fact, they do not. The American Irish may, because they have not been relieved of anything ; but the Irish Irish do not. Nothing is more remark- able in the whole of this struggle than the diminution of national hate between the two countries, unless it be, indeed, the extinction of religious hate. Mr. Plunket would not deny, we presume, the immense amelioration of British feeling to- wards Ireland, the increased tolerance shown of insult and injury, the additional strength of the effort to understand Irish wishes on all subjects whatever. We have not seen throughout the struggle in any secular British journal an allusion to the creed of Irishmen as the cause of their perversity, and though we did see one such allusion in a religious newspaper, it was in the comical shape of an audible sigh that the Land League's action for evil could not be clearly traced "this time" to the Catholic priesthood. The difference of tone on that subject is amazing, and it is nearly as great upon national grievances. Whenever before did the British bear such language in their own streets and squares as Lon- doners and citizens of Glasgow have borne with patient tolera- tion? That is only one side of the matter, though a great side, for one old difficulty was British hatred ; but look at the other. Iiishmen have been guilty in the eighteen months past of number- less assaults, murders,and menaces more or less criminal. Have they ever attacked one man because he was "a bloody Saxon" or "a murdherin' Prodesdan ?" Has there ever been a minute when an English tourist could not walk about in Ireland as safely as in Suffolk ? Has there ever been one when Irishmen were not expecting, and hoping to find, allies among Englishmen and Scotchmen, or when the people in Ireland itself were paying the smallest attention to any " patriot's " race, creed, or usual habitation ? We say no ; and in that change, great since 1848, incredibly great since 1798, is the proof, proof-positive, that the action of the Ministry has not deepened the fissure be- tween the two countries. They have both, strange as it may seem to choose this moment for such an assertion, become more lenient at heart in their judgment of each other, less in- capable from rage of discovering the modes vivendi which they must discover. The improvement may not be due to Mr. Gladstone, but, at least, no action of his has impeded it, as Mr. Plunket believes.
But the Irish are speaking of separation more plainly than ever ? So much the better, if, as those who say this assert, the Irish have always been thinking of it. It has been, perhaps, the greatest misfortune of Ireland that all through her modern struggle with Britain—the struggle, we mean, of this century—she has always had an arrib-e pende, a desire beyond the wish she expressed, a grievance behind the grievance put forward, a concealed or half-concealed aspiration. It is that, and the consciousness of that., which made Irishmen seem so encroaching and Englishmen so hard, made Irish- men style every reform "an instalment," and Englishmen consider every reform useless, because an impossible request lay behind. If removable grievances are cleared away, till only the irre- movable grievance remains, and stands out clear and full in sight of all men, so much the better, for so much the closer will be the appreciation in both countries of the chasm between them, and of the necessity, as it can never be filled up, of building some bridge across it. It would be far better that Irishmen were not Secessionists, but if they are Seces- sionists, it is far better they should recognise it, and we should recognise it, and not be fidgetting one
another into hatred over non-essentials. Man and wife should cleave together, but if they want to part, unreal squabbles about the cookery only make the house less habit- able. If independence is the secret passion of Irishmen—as Lord Derby believes, and as we do not believe—let it come to the front, let its terms be stated and its consequences weighed, and let every other grievance sink back to its natural posi- tion, as one to be calmly discussed, fitted to circumstances, and granted or refused. An agreement could be come to, then, if it were only an agreement that Irish independence could never be achieved without hard fighting in the field, and that, consequently, till the field could be sot, the duellists might as well live together on terms of politeness and respect.. Believers are better than infidels, but of all infidels the most hopeless is the man who clamours against this or that insignificant dogma, to conceal that he believes in none. The mere recognition by Irishmen that they are Seces- sionists, that they want nothing less than independence, and that they cannot have independence, as Sir Gavan Duffy told them a quarter of a century ago, without fighting, would im- prove the situation, as every recognition of a fact in politics invariably does. The secret view of Mr. Plunket, and of those who think with him, that it would bring independence nearer, rests upon no basis whatever, either in history or fact. The British would hold on all the same, only they would hold on intelli- gently, and without their present absurd though decaying idea that whenever an abuse is reformed in Ireland, separation is so much nearer ; that we must not reform a tenure, or grant a liberty, or permit a movement, because, if we do, the ulti- mate demand will be separation. Let it be recognised, if it be a truth, that the present demand is separation; and let us move forward from the basis that the Irish make one, and but one, impossible, though far from ignoble, demand. We should at least be free from suspicion, for we should know the worst ; and be free also from that absurd demand for " Home-rule " which invariably means one of two things,—either that the speaker wants independence, but fears the charge of treason, or wants that Irishmen should govern Ireland through an Irish Parliament, and Great Britain through a Parliament in London. We should not at least be asked, as we are now, to give up Ireland, but keep the Irish Members.
Previous page
