MR. LITTON ON SECESSION.
HE coming discussion on the expediency of establishing a T peasant proprietary in Ireland will, we have little doubt, turn mainly on the social aspect of the change. One side will argue, and argue justly, that it will end the social revolution in the only peaceable way ; while the other will argue, and argue justly, that the new society established may be a most unsatis- factory one. The debate will be bitter, though its end is fore- result of the revolution, if accomplished ? Will the new owners, when freed for ever of their fear of eviction, become, like most other small proprietors, strongly conserva- tive ; or will they sway with their whole weight towards Secession ; or will they demand some compromise between the two ideas, such, for example, as that suggested by the Cana- dian Legislature ? Mr. Litton, the Land Commissioner, has a strong opinion upon that subject, and it is one which all poli- ticians should consider. Mr. Litton is a typical man. He was, while still Member for Tyrone, selected as a Commis- sioner, because he was the ablest man available who, while fit for the position and friendly to the Land Act, sympathised with and understood the special feelings of Ulster. He is believed to possess unusual knowledge of the feelings of the farmers, and he tells the Lords Committee of Inquiry that politically a peasant proprietary will not be conservative, that the new owners of the soil will be hostile to continued connection with Great Britain, and that they will use their new position, with its stability and independence, in favour of "separation." He says this plainly, although his chief, Mr. Justice O'Hagan, had just delivered a contrary opinion, and although Lord Salisbury was obviously expecting, if not wish- ing, to extract a different reply. Nothing can be clearer or more emphatic than his view, and it is not that of a single individual. It must never be forgotten that it was supported by that thoroughly sincere and able secessionist, Michael Davitt ; was accepted, after much hesitation, by Mr. Parnell, who has openly declared that he cared little about the land, but much about separation, and fail- ing to attract the people by separation alone, hopes through a social revolution to make them separatists; and has been expressed, in a somewhat singular form, by every Parnellite. They have not openly said that they expect the new freeholders to be hostile to England, but they have expressed their own hostility with an unreserve, indeed, with a kind of calculated virulence, which proves that they think that sentiment will directly help them to preserve their seats. They assume in the farmers, hostility to England. It comes therefore to this—that the popular leaders think the freeholders will be secessionists, and that one of the most experienced and cool-headed of the Ulster representative men thoroughly agrees with them.
Are they right, or wrong In practice, we fear the question must be and will be decided without reference to results, the revolution marching, as usual, to its goal almost inde- pendently of human calculations ; but for politicians the specu- lation must have a deep interest, although it is one on which, from the nature of the case, only experience can lead to a de- • finite conclusion. Prima facie, almost all the facts are opposed to Mr. Litton's decision. The instinct of masses of freeholders in all countries has been against violent change,and in favour of that
continuity of customariness without which, from their limited knowledge and settled habits, they feel that the world must, in a more or less dangerous fashion, go to pieces. They desire, above all things, to protect property, and they see in every great change a menace to property,—a feeling which, in Ireland will be all the stronger because, without Free Trade with England, agricultural property would lose at least one- third of its value. Independence presupposes a chance of war, and in a war between Britain and Ireland the pecu- niary ruin of the agricultural class in the lesser island would not be a question of time, but would, under the operation of a blockade, be immediate and overwhelming. No article of export would be saleable or valuable, except for food. More- over, the peasantry cannot be blind to the immense advantages they must derive in careers, in prospects, in number of rela- tions with the world, from their connection with so wide and so varied an empire as that of which Britain is the nexus and centre. It is a remarkable fact, much opposed to a priori reasoning, that the peasantry, who might be expected to feel Particularism most strongly, have not, either in Germany or America, displayed any fanaticism of the kind, have, on the whole, been more attracted by the large unity than by the smaller division. It was the body of Northern freeholders who, in the United States, beat-down Secession; and the immense acquiescence which made the German Empire possible came from the same class, who contribute probably two to one of the whole body of soldiers in the ranks. In Poland, so often compared with Ireland, the peasants turned into freeholders have been less disposed to rebel against the dominant powers than they were as tenants, a fact which, it is stated, is the key to the recent comparative quiet in Gallicia. Nor can we forget that in Ireland itself, as Mr. Parnell openly acknowledged, separation, though it would in- stantly have secured all that the tenants wish, never took any effective hold. The peasantry not only refused generation after generation to fight. for it, but they refused to agitate for it, or to support the agitation to which, the moment it became social and the land appeared at stake, they showed themselves devoted. What is there in peasant-proprietorship that, the moment the social conflict is decided, and decided on the peasants' side, they should all be absorbed by a passion which, while the conflict was raging, scarcely governed them at all ? Supposing them to hate Englishmen, which is partly true and partly false, Irishmen never settling in bodies amongst any other race, why should they hate them so much more for doing justice that they should be ready to run indefinite risks, and encounter the endless losses of civil war, in order to secure separation from a State with which they have been linked for centuries ?
We cannot believe it, and are puzzled to account both for Mr. Litton's opinion and for the confidence of the Parnellites; but we presume that both, from dif- ferent points of view, hold an opinion very like this. They hold that dislike or hatred of England is with the mass of Irish peasants a dominant feeling, hitherto held in check by the want of personal independence, arising out of the uncertainties of the tenure, and by the influence of the landlords. Personal independence being secured, they fear, or hope, that this feeling may obtain an unchecked mastery, and so lead, after no long interval, to an agitation directed solely to secession. That is a remarkable view, very much opposed to history, which shows, in the case of the most diverse races, Alsatians, Basques, Bretons, Welshmen, and Highlanders, that, equality once granted and grievances re- moved, the smaller people tends to merge itself in the larger, and even if it remains separate in language, and race, and re- ligion, becomes gradually loyal. The Irish, however, are in many
respects distinct from every other people, and we are bound to
admit that Mr. Litton can quote one very strong piece of evid- ence in his favour. A part of the Irish who have been ex- empted from the landlords are decidedly for secession. The American Irish are under no landlords and have no social grievance, and they proclaim at every turn that their aspira- tion is to make of their country a separate Republic, with an army, a flag, and a history of its own. That is the end for which they subscribe, and not any alleviation of Irish economic misery. On the other hand, the lush Americans share none of the advantages of the British connection, and have broken loose from its habitudes ; while so far as we know, the Irish in England, though friendly to the social revolution and devoted to Home-rule, have never ex- pressed any desire for total separation. Their mot d'ordre is federalism, not total independence ; and though that may
arise from prudence, it may also arise from a more distinct view of the advantages of the connection, which the Irish, once relieved of the social bitterness, will in their turn acquire. We make no pretension to dogmatise upon one of the most complex questions of politics, but we think that, on the whole, while Mr. Litton's opinion should be matter of serious considera- tion, it is in opposition to the bulk of recorded facts.
Previous page
