TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE REAL BLUNDER AT LEEDS.
WE cannot understand the petulant criticism passed by some of the Unionist journals on the Leeds decision, —the decision, we mean, of the National Liberal Federa- tion,—not to withdraw the demand for a separate Irish Legislature for Irish affairs, as formulated by Mr. Gladstone. Anything more futile than an attempt to compromise matters with the Unionist Liberals we cannot conceive. Where was there any room for compromise ? How could Lord Hartington, with the faintest show of principle, accept an Irish Legislature in Dublin ? How could Mr. Gladstone, with the faintest show of principle, recede from his demand for it ? To our minds, Mr. John Morley made the best of a very bad situation when he identified the National Liberal Federation with this unfortunate policy of Mr. Gladstone's. There was nothing else to do, if the representatives of the Liberal Asso- ciations all over the country were not to cover themselves with disgrace by an ostentatious display of feebleness and vacillation of purpose. Moreover, the Unionist Liberals would equally cover themselves with the same disgrace if they were to yield any ground at all to the Home-rulers. Mr. Henry Fowler, indeed, professes to see some way of securing the practical supremacy of the British Parliament, consistently with yield- ing the control of Irish affairs to an Irish Parliament ; but in all the discussions which have taken place, no one has ever been able to offer any coherent plan for reconciling these intrinsically incompatible objects. Practical supremacy means that the Power which has it, is really expected and able to intervene, wherever it sees injustice, flagrant imprudence, or perilous conduct of any kind, and by its intervention to prevent that injustice, or flagrant imprudence, or perilous conduct. If that is not the case, there is no practical supre- macy. If that is the case, there is no pretence of inde- pendence. But Mr. Morley and his associates must be assumed to mean that Irish aspirations are to be satisfied, whether they amount to a waiver of British supremacy or not, for nothing else certainly will content the Irish representa- tives whose assent and consent is made so prominent a factor in the Leeds programme. This is what the Unionists will not for a moment permit. They hold that it is no use to claim a nominal right which cannot be exercised. Such a right might just as well be surrendered. Further, they consider it to be a grave blunder,—the gravest of all blunders,—to offer in appearance what we do not intend to give in reality. If practical legislative independence is to be accorded to Ireland, the United Kingdom is broken up. If it is not, the concession of an appearance of legislative independence which is no more than a name, will be the beginning of quarrels far more serious and far better justified than the quarrels of the last half-century. Therefore, the only fault we find with the Leeds decision is, that while it really amounts to acceptance of legislative independence for Ireland in all matters which are in any sense strictly Irish, that was not openly confessed. Mr. Fowler, for example, held the old language that their Home-rule plan " would maintain the integrity of the Empire," and would not impair " that magnificent instrument of political freedom, the great English Parliament, the best of Parliaments that the world had ever seen." That is high-sounding nonsense. If the country grants only as much as this, it will grant what Mr. Parnell will never accept. But Mr. Fowler knows as well as anybody that he intends to give a great deal more. He intends to give the Irish Parliament the power of doing what the great majority of the British Parliament might think unjust and mischievous in the highest degree, but would be practically utterly unable to prevent or redress. If the Leeds decision does not mean that, it means nothing at all. And we have no doubt that it does mean that ; and very little that Mr. John Morley would admit that it does mean that. But if so, the only fault at Leeds was not that the Federation held by Mr. Gladstone and Home- rule, but that they did not confess frankly what they really meant by that phrase, and were willing to cheer Mr. Henry Fowler when he cloaked their real design under vague but thoroughly misleading words. It was just the same with the Scottish Liberal Association yesterday week at Glasgow. They insisted that the Home-rule to be given to Ireland should be of a kind " to satisfy the just aspirations of the Irish people, and promote true unity and consolidation of the Empire." The two things are simply incompatible. If, at least, "the just aspirations of the Irish people" are represented by Mr. Parnell, it is certain that nothing will satisfy him which does not leave the Irish Parliament free to do as it likes in what he may choose to call Irish affairs, even when that which it likes to do, is heartily disapproved by the great majority of the Members of the British Parliament. There is a certain want of candour in not confessing this boldly. But there is no reproach to be cast on the Leeds Conference for holding to the policy to which all its constituent elements were already deeply committed, and for ackndwledging openly that that policy would not admit. of any compromise with the Unionists.
The only other feature in the Leeds Conference which is of any serious importance is the great step made towards identify- ing the Liberal policy with the Radical policy on other subjects besides the subject of Irish Home-rule. If the recognition of " the principle of religious equality in the relations between the State and all forms of religious belief" is meant to be acted on, the National Liberal Federation is committed to Disestab- lishment. And if the resolution laying down that the foreign policy of England should be such as to afford some prospect of " a reduction of the present expenditure upon Army and Navy" is to be acted on, we do not see how the recognition by England of her responsibilities "to India and the Colonies" can be as practical as the Committee of the National Federa- tion desire to make it. They want both to have their cake; and eat it, to get the reputation of defending a world-wide• Empire without incurring the necessary cost. We fear that if the wishes of the Colonies are to be really consulted on all' such questions as the annexation of islands by foreign powers, the first duty of the Empire would be to increase, and increase substantially, the cost of naval defences, not to diminish it.. But here, again, there is the tendency which we have noted in relation to the Irish policy of the National Liberal Federation, —not to look steadily at unwelcome facts. We confess that this seems to us a great mistake. The British people are not such cowards as to be unwilling to count the cost of what they really wish for. If they can be brought to wish for Irish Home-rule, they will not shrink from being told that what it means is this,—that if we Britons see the Irish people• doing what we think to be unjust and dangerous, even though it be on a large scale, we are to let them reap the consequences of injustice and dangerous experiments without interfering to forbid or remedy the evil. And, again, if they can be brought to think that the adequate defence of the Colonies, as well as the policy needful to secure the loyalty of the Colonies, is binding on them, they will not shrink from spending even a good deal more on naval defences than they spend now. It seems to us a great mistake to try and hide a new policy under worn- out formulas which were once favourites, but which are no longer applicable to the new state of affairs. Yet when the leaders try to reconcile the Home-rule policy for Ireland with the old phrases of panegyric on the unity and integrity of the Empire, and the supremacy of the British Parliament, and, again, when they attempt to gasp out in the same breath, that the full responsibilities of our growing Colonial Empire must be courageously borne, and that a prospect of reducing the Naval Estimates should also be secured, they do, as it seems to us, assume the cowardice of the democracy they are address- ing, and shrink from the plain duty of confessing the disagree- able incidents of that which they nevertheless hold to be a wise and righteous policy. This is not dealing with the democracy as they ought to deal. We trust that the Liberal Unionists, when they appear in the field, will set a better example than the National Liberal Federation.
Previous page
