DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 

 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 . J 
 ' 
 
 M 
 
 * .-t ■ 
 
 
 m> f 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/truthabouthomeru01bade 
 
HANDBOOK 
 
 OF 
 
 HOME 
 
 RULE 
 
 BEING 
 
 ARTICLES ON THE IRISH QUESTION 
 
 BY 
 
 The Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 
 
 Fhe Right Hon. JOHN MORLEY, M.P., Lord THRING 
 JAMES BRYCE, M.P., Canon MacCOLL 
 E. L. GODKIN, AND R. BARRY O’BRIEN 
 
 mrff PREFACE BY 
 
 The Right Hon. EARL SPENCER, K.G. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 JAMES BRYCE, M.P. 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 LONDON 
 
 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., i, PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 
 1887 
 
 [Price One Shilling] 
 

HAN DBOOK 
 
 'I 
 
 OF 
 
 HOME RULE 
 
 BEING 
 
 ARTICLES ON THE IRISH QUESTION 
 
 BY 
 
 The Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 
 
 The Right Hon. JOHN MORLEY, M.P., LORD THRING 
 JAMES BRYCE, M.P., Canon MacCOLL 
 E. L. GODKIN, AND R. BARRY O’BRIEN 
 
 IV/TJ7 PREFACE BY 
 
 The Right Hon. EARL SPENCER, K.G. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 JAMES BRYCE, M.P. 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 LONDON 
 
 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., i, PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 
 1S87 
 
{^The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved) 
 
EDITO^^’S NOTE. 
 
 9 5 ? 
 
 13 ) 9 
 
 Of the articles contained in this volume, those by Mr. 
 Gladstone, Mr. E. L. Godkin on “A Lawyer’s Objec¬ 
 tions to Home Rule,” and Mr. Barry O’Brien appear 
 for the first time. The others are reprinted from the 
 Cotiteniporary Review, the Rfineteenth Century, and the 
 New Princeton Review, to the proprietors and editors of 
 which periodicals respectively the thanks of the several 
 writers and of the editor are tendered. In most of these 
 reprints some passages of transitory interest have been 
 omitted, and some few additions have been made. 
 
 The object of the writers has been to treat the difficult 
 questions connected with the Government of Ireland in a 
 dispassionate spirit; and the volume is offered to the public 
 in the hope that it may, at a time of warm controversy over 
 passing events, help to lead thoughtful men back to the 
 consideration of the principles which underlie those ques¬ 
 tions, and which it seeks to elucidate by calm di,scussion 
 and by references to history. 
 
 October, 1887. 
 
i ; vv,'U. ' -V\'t.*;* 
 
 - ., . V- -. '. "i 
 
 -'■ f'. ■ .'{M 
 
 ':, i' ' , . .... 
 
 '■ -■ i ' '■ ' ' 
 
 lV(i5:rc> ■ ■■ '"r"' ^ ■ ■ ' ' ■•* . 
 
 '■•,14 , 4 - 1 ) ■ ■ •, ■ .' •/■' ■' 
 
 .(■{ifvufj. r>l, W: '■ ’c if.V''.; 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 TACB 
 
 Prefacf. Bf the Right Hon. Earl Spencer, K.G. ... vii 
 American Home Rule. Bv E. L. Godkin ... ... i 
 
 How WE became Ho.me Rulers. By Ja.mes Bryce, H.P. 24 
 
 ^IIoME Rule and Imperial Unity. By Lord Turing 55 
 
 The Irish Govern.ment Bill and the Irish Land Bill. 
 
 By Lord Turing ... ... ... ... 79 
 
 The “Unionist” Position. By Canon MacColl ... 106 
 
 A Lawyer’s Objections to Home Rule. By E. L. Godkin 129 
 The “Unionist” Case for Home Rule. By R. Barry 
 
 O’Brien ... ... ... ... ... ... 154 
 
 Ireland’s Alternatives. By Lord Turing ... ... 194 
 
 The Past and P'uture of the Irish Question. Bv James 
 
 Bryce, M.P. ... ... ... ... ... 214 
 
 So.ME Arguments considered. By the Right Hon. John 
 
 Morley, M.P. ... ... ... ... ... 246 
 
 I^Lessons of Irish History in the Eighteenth Century. 
 
 By the Right Hon, W. E. Gladstone, M.P. .. 262 
 
 b 
 
rREFACE. 
 
 The present seems an excellent moment for bringing for¬ 
 ward the arguments in favour of a new policy for Ireland, 
 which are to be found in the articles contained in this 
 volume. 
 
 We are realizing the first results of the verdict given 
 at the election of 1886. And this I interiDret as saying 
 that the constituencies were not then ready to depart from 
 the lines of policy which, up to last year, nearly all politicians 
 of both parties in Parliament had laid down for their 
 guidance in Irish affairs. 
 
 We have had the Session occupied almost wholly with 
 Lord Salisbury’s proposals for strengthening the power of 
 the central Government to maintain law and order in Ireland, 
 and for dealing with the most pressing necessities of the 
 Land question in that country. 
 
 It is well, before the policy of the Government is 
 practically tested, that the views of thoughtful men holding 
 different opinions should be clearly set forth, not in the 
 shape of polemical speeches, but in measured articles which 
 specially appeal to those who have not hitherto joined the 
 fighting ranks of either side, and who are sure to intervene 
 with great force at the next election, when the Irish ques¬ 
 tion is again submitted to the constituencies. 
 
viii 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 I feel that I can add little or nothing to the weight of 
 the arguments contained in these papers, but I should like 
 to give some reasons why I earnestly hope that they will 
 receive careful consideration. 
 
 The writers have endeavoured to approach their work 
 with impartiality, and to free themselves from those pre¬ 
 judices which make it difficult for Englishmen to discuss 
 Irish questions in a fresh and independent train of thought, 
 and realize how widely Irish customs, laws, traditions, and 
 sentiments differ from our own. 
 
 We are apt to think that what has worked well here 
 will work well in Ireland; that Irishmen who differ from 
 us are unreasonable; and that their proposals for change 
 must be mistaken. We do not make allowance for the 
 soreness of feeling prevailing among men who have long 
 objected to the system by which Ireland has been governed, 
 and who find that their earnest appeals for reform have 
 been, until recent times, contemptuously disregarded by 
 English politicians. Time after time moderate counsels 
 have been rejected until too late. Acts of an exceptional 
 character intended to secure law and order have been very 
 numerous, and every one of them has caused fresh irrita¬ 
 tion ; while remedial measures have been given in a manner 
 which has not won the sympathy of the people, because 
 they have not been the work of the Irish themselves, and 
 have not been prepared in their own way. 
 
 Parliament seems during the past Session to have fallen 
 into the same error. By the power of an English majorit}', 
 measures have been passed which are vehemently opposed 
 by the political leaders and the majority of the Irish nation, 
 and which are only agreeable to a small minority in Ireland. 
 This action can only succeed if the Irish can be persuaded 
 to relinquish the national sentiments of Home Rule; and yet 
 
rRE FACE. 
 
 is 
 
 this was never stronger or more vigorous than at the present 
 time. It is supported by millions of Irish settled in America 
 and in Australia; and here I would say that it has often struck 
 me that the strong feeling of dissatisfaction, or, I might say, 
 of disaffection, among the Irish is fed and nurtured by the 
 marked contrast existing between the social condition of 
 large numbers of the Irish in the South and West of Ireland 
 and the views and habits of their numerous relatives in the 
 United States. 
 
 The social condition of many parts of Ireland is as 
 backward, or perhaps more backward, than the condition of 
 the rural population of England at the end of last or the 
 beginning of this century. The Irish peasantry still live 
 in poor hovels, often in the same room with animals; 
 they have few modern comforts; and yet they are in close 
 communication with those who live at ease in the cities and 
 farms of the United States. They are also imbued with all 
 the advanced political notions of the American Republic, 
 and are sufficiently educated to read the latest political 
 doctrines in the Press which circulates among them. Their 
 social condition at home is a hundred years behind their 
 state of political and mental culture. They naturally con¬ 
 trast the misery of many Irish peasants with the position of 
 their relatives in the New World. This cannot but em¬ 
 bitter their views against English rulers, and strengthen 
 their leaning to national sentiments. Their national aspira¬ 
 tions have never died out since 1782. They have taken 
 various forms; but if the movements arising from them 
 have been put down, fresh movements have constantly 
 sprung up. The Press has grown into an immense power, 
 and its influences have all been used to strengthen the zeal for 
 Irish nationality, while, at the same time, the success of the 
 national movements in Italy, Hungary, Greece, and Germany 
 
r REFACE. 
 
 have had the same effect. Lastly, the sentiment of Home 
 Rule has gained the sympathy of large bodies of electors in 
 the constituencies of Great Britain, and, under the circum¬ 
 stances, it is difficult to suppose that, even if the country 
 remains quiet, constitutional agitation will vanish or the 
 Irish relinquish their most cherished ambition. 
 
 We hear, from men who ought to know something of 
 Ireland, that if the Land question is once settled, and dual 
 ownership practically abolished, the tenants will be satisfied, 
 and the movement for Home Rule will no longer find active 
 support in Ireland. Without going into the whole of this 
 argument, I should like to say two things : first, that I do 
 not know how a large scheme of Land Purchase can be 
 carried through Parliament with safety to Imperial interests 
 without establishing, at the same time, some strong Irish 
 Government in Dublin to act between the Imperial Govern¬ 
 ment and the tenants of Ireland; and, second, that the 
 feeling for Llome Rule has a vitality of its own which will 
 survive the Land question, even if independently settled. 
 
 Home Rule is an expression of national feeling which 
 cannot be extinguished in Ireland, and the only safe method 
 of dealing with it is to turn its force and power to the 
 support of an Irish Government established for the manage¬ 
 ment of local Irish affairs. There are those who think that 
 this must lead to separation. I cannot believe in this 
 fear, for I know of no English statesman who looks upon 
 complete separation of Ireland from Great Britain as 
 possible. The geographical position of Ireland, the social 
 and commercial connection between the two peoples, renders 
 such a thing impossible. The Irish know this, and they 
 are not so foolish as to think that they could gain their 
 independence by force of arms; but I do not believe that 
 they desire it. They are satisfied to obtain the manage- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XI 
 
 ment of their own local affairs under the cegis of the flag 
 of England. The papers in this volume show how this 
 can be done with due regard to Imperial interests and the 
 rights of minorities. 
 
 I shall not enlarge on this part of the subject, but I wish 
 to draw attention to the working of the Irish Government, 
 and the position which it holds in the country, for it is through 
 its administration that the policy of the Cabinet will be carried 
 out. At the outset I feel bound to deprecate the exaggerated 
 condemnation which the “ Castle receives from its oppo¬ 
 nents. It has its defects. Notwithstanding efforts of various 
 ministers to enlarge the circle from which its officials are 
 drawn, it is still too narrow for the modern development 
 of Irish society, and it has from time to time been recruited 
 from partisans without sufficient regard to the efficiency and 
 requirements of the public service. But, on the whole, its 
 members, taken as individuals, can well bear comparison 
 with those of other branches of the Civil Service. They 
 are diligent; they desire to do their duty with impartiality, 
 and to hold an even balance between many opposing in¬ 
 terests in Ireland. Whatever party is in office, they loyally 
 carry out the policy of their chiefs. They are, probably, 
 more plastic to the leadership of the heads of departments 
 than members of some English offices, and they are more 
 quickly moved by the influences around them. Sometimes 
 they may relapse into an attitude of indifference and 
 inertness if their chiefs are not active; but, on the other 
 hand, they will act with vigour and decision if they are led 
 by men who know their own minds and desire to be firm 
 in the government of the countr}’. 
 
 When speaking of the chiefs of the Irish Civil Service, who 
 change according to the political party in office, we must not 
 overlook the legal officers, who exercise a most powerful 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 influence on Irish administration. They consist of the 
 Lord Chancellor, the Attorney and Solicitor General, and, 
 until 1883, there was also an officer called the Law Adviser, 
 who was the maid-of-all-work of Castle administration. In 
 England, those who hold similar legal offices take no part 
 in the daily administration of public affairs. The Lord 
 Chancellor, as a member of the Cabinet, takes his share in 
 responsibility for the policy of the Government. The law 
 officers are consulted in special cases, and take their part 
 from time to time in debates in the House of Commons. 
 In Ireland, however, the Chancellor is constantly consulted 
 by the Lord-Lieutenant on any difficult matter of adminis¬ 
 tration, and the Attorney and Solicitor General are in 
 constant communication with the Lord-Lieutenant, if he 
 carries out the daily work of administration, and with the 
 Chief and the Under Secretary. 
 
 Governments difler as to the use they make of these 
 officials. Some Governments have endeavoured to confine 
 their work to cases where a mere legal opinion has to be 
 obtained; but, when the country is in a disturbed state, even 
 these limited references become very frequent, and questions 
 of policy as well as of law are often discussed with the law 
 officers. It is needless to say that, with their knowledge of 
 Ireland and the traditions of Castle government (it is rare 
 that all the law officers are new to office, and, consequently, 
 they carry on the traditions from one Government to another), 
 they often exercise a paramount influence over the policy 
 of the Irish Government, and practically control it. 
 
 They are connected with the closest and most influential 
 order in Irish society—the legal order, consisting of the 
 judges and Bar of Ireland. This adds to the generel 
 weight of their advice, but it has a special bearing when 
 cases of legal reform or administration are under considera- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xiii 
 
 tion ; it then requires unwonted courage and independence 
 for the law officers of the Crown to support changes which 
 the lay members of the Government deem necessary. 
 
 I have know'n conspicuous instances of the exercise of 
 these high qualities by law officers enabling reforms to be 
 carried, but as a rule, particularly when the initiative of 
 legal reform is left to them, the Irish law officers do not 
 care to move against the feeling of the legal world in 
 Dublin. The lawyers, like other bodies, oppose the diminu¬ 
 tion of offices and honours belonging to them, or of the funds 
 which, in the way of fees and salaries, are distributed among 
 members of the bar; and they become bitterly hostile to any 
 permanent official who is known to be a firm legal reformer. 
 It would be impossible for me not to acknowledge the great 
 service often done to the Government by the able men 
 who have filled the law offices, yet I feel that under certain 
 circumstances, when their influence has been allowed too 
 strongly to prevail, it has tended to narrow the views of the 
 Irish Government, and to keep it within a circle too narrow 
 for the altered circumstances of modern life. 
 
 The chief peculiarity of the Irish Administration is its 
 extreme centralization. In this two departments may be 
 mentioned as typical of the whole—the police and adminis¬ 
 tration of local justice. 
 
 The police in Dublin and throughout Ireland are under 
 the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, and both these forces 
 are admirable of their kind. They are almost wholly main¬ 
 tained by Imperial funds. The Dublin force costs about 
 
 50,000 a year. The Royal Irish Constabulary costs 
 over a million in quiet, and a million and a half in disturbed 
 times. Local authorities have nothing to do with their 
 action or management. Local justice is administered by 
 unpaid magistrates as in England, but they have been 
 
xlv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 assisted, and gradually are being supplanted, by magistrates 
 appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant and paid by the State. 
 
 This state of things arose many years ago from the want 
 of confidence between resident landlords and the bulk of 
 the people. When agrarian or religious differences disturbed 
 a locality the people distrusted the local magistrates, and by 
 degrees the system of stipendiary, or, as they are called, 
 resident magistrates, spread over the country. To maintain 
 the judicial independence and impartiality of these magis¬ 
 trates is of the highest importance. At one time this was 
 in some danger, for the resident magistrates not only heard 
 cases at petty sessions, but, as executive peace officers, to 
 a very great extent took the control of the police in their 
 district, not only at riots, but in following up and discovering 
 offenders. Their position as judicial and executive officers 
 was thus very unfortunately mixed up. Between 1882 and 
 1883 the Irish Government did their utmost to separate 
 and distinguish between these two functions, and it is to be 
 hoped that the same policy has been and will be now con¬ 
 tinued, otherwise grave mischief in the administration of 
 justice will arise. The existence of this staff of stipendiary 
 magistrates could not fail to weaken the influence of the 
 gentry in local affairs, and, at the same time, other causes 
 were at work to undermine still further their power. The 
 spread of education, the ballot, the extension of the fran¬ 
 chise, communication with America, all tended to strengthen 
 the political leaning of the tenants towards the National 
 party in Ireland, and to widen the political differences be¬ 
 tween the richer and poorer classes in the countr)^ The 
 result of this has been, that not only have even the best 
 landlords gradually lost their power in Parliamentary elec¬ 
 tions and on elective boards, but the Government, which 
 greatly relied on them for support, has become isolated. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XV 
 
 The system of centralization is felt all over the country. 
 It was the cause of weakness in the disturbed years of 1880 
 and 1881, and, although the Irish Executive strengthened 
 themselves by placing officers over several counties, on 
 whom they devolved a great deal of responsibility, they did 
 not by these steps meet the real difficulty, which was that 
 everything that went wrong, whether as to police or magis¬ 
 terial decisions, was attributed to the management of the 
 Castle. 
 
 In this country, local authorities and benches of 
 magistrates, quite independent of the Home Office, are 
 held responsible for mistakes in police action or irregu¬ 
 larities in local justice. The consequence is that there is 
 a strong buffer to protect the character and power of the 
 Home Office. 
 
 The absence of such protection in Ireland obviously 
 has a very prejudicial effect on the permanent influence and 
 popularity of the Irish Government. But as long as our 
 system of government from England exists, this centrali¬ 
 zation cannot be avoided, for it would not be possible to 
 transfer the responsibility of the police to local representa¬ 
 tive bodies, as they are too much opposed to the landlords 
 and the Government to be trusted when strong party differ¬ 
 ences arise; nor, for the same reason, would it be possible 
 to fall back on local men to administer justice. The 
 fact is, that, out of the Protestant part of Ulster, the Irish 
 Government receives the cordial support of only the landed 
 proprietors, and a part of the upper middle classes in the 
 towns. The feeling of the mass of the people has been so 
 long against them that no change in the direction of trust in 
 any centralized government of anti-national character can be 
 expected. 
 
 It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find any 
 
XVI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Municipal Council, Boards of Guardians, or Local Boards, 
 in Leinster, Munster, or Connaught, whose members do 
 not consist of a majority of Nationalists. At nearly all 
 such assemblies, whenever any important political move¬ 
 ment takes place in the country, or when the Irish 
 Government take any action which is displeasing to the 
 Nationalists, resolutions are discussed and carried in a 
 spirit of sharp hostility to the Government. 
 
 In Parliamentary elections we also find clear evidence 
 of the strength of the Nationalists, and the extreme weakness 
 of their opponents. This is a test which those who accept 
 popular representative government cannot disregard, par¬ 
 ticularly at an election when for the first time the new 
 constituencies were called upon to exercise the privileges 
 entrusted to them by Parliament. Such was the election of 
 1885, followed in 1886 by another General Election. In 1885 
 contests took place in most of the Irish constituencies. 
 They were between Liberals allied with Conservatives, and 
 Parnellites. In 1886 the contests were between those who 
 called themselves Unionists and Parnellites, and the Irish 
 policy of Mr. Gladstone was specially referred to the electors. 
 
 In regard to the number of members returned on the 
 two sides, the result of each election was almost identical, 
 but in 1886 there were fewer contests. We may, then, 
 assume that the relative forces of Parnellites and Unionists 
 were accurately represented at the election of 1885. 
 If we take the votes at the election of 1885 for candidates 
 standing as Nationalists, we shall find, roughly speaking, 
 that they obtained in round numbers about 300,000 votes, 
 and candidates who stood either as Liberals or Conservatives 
 about 143,000. But the case is really stronger than these 
 figures represent it, because in some constituencies the con¬ 
 tests were between Liberals and Conservatives, and there 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xvii 
 
 can be no doubt that in those constituencies a number of 
 Nationalist votes were given for one or both of such candi¬ 
 dates—votes which, therefore, would have to be deducted 
 from the 143,000, leaving a still heavier majority on the 
 Nationalist side.* 
 
 If we look at individual constituencies, we find that in 
 South Kerry only 133 persons voted for the “Unionist” 
 candidate, while 2742 voted for the Nationalist. In six out 
 of seven constituencies in Cork where contests took place 
 27,692 votes were given for the Nationalists, and only 1703 
 for their opponents. In Dublin, in the division which may be 
 considered the West End constituency of the Irish metropolis, 
 the most successful man of commerce in Ireland, a leader 
 of society, whose liberality towards those in his employment 
 is only equalled by his munificence in all public works, was 
 defeated by over 1900 votes. He did not stand in 1886, 
 but his successor was defeated by a still larger majority. 
 These elections show the numbers in Ireland on which the 
 Government and those who oppose Mr. Parnell’s policy 
 can count for support. 
 
 It is absurd to say that these results are caused by 
 terrorism exercised over the minds of the electors by 
 the agitators in Ireland; the same results occurred in every 
 part of three provinces, and in part of Ulster, and the 
 universality of the feeling proves the dominant feeling of 
 the Irish electors. They show the extreme difficulty, the 
 impossibility, of gaining that support and confidence which 
 a Government needs in a free country. As it is, the Irish 
 Government stands isolated in Ireland, and relies for sup¬ 
 port solely on England. Is a policy opposed to national 
 feeling, which has been often, and by different Ministers, 
 
 * There was one case—North Louth—in which two Nationalists 
 opposed one another, and I have left that c.asc out of the calculation. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xviii 
 
 tried in Ireland, likely to succeed in the hands of a Govern¬ 
 ment such as I have described, and isolated, as I think 
 few will deny it to be? It is impossible in the long run 
 to maintain it. The roots of strength are wanting. 
 
 If we turn from Dublin to London, we do not find 
 greater prospects of success. Twice within fourteen months 
 Lord Salisbury has formed a Government. In 1885 his 
 Gabinet, on taking office, deliberately decided to rule 
 Ireland without exceptional laws; after a few months, they 
 announced that they must ask Parliament for fresh powers. 
 They resigned before they had defined their measures. But 
 within six months Lord Salisbury was once more Prime 
 Minister, and again commenced his administration by 
 governing Ireland under the ordinary law. This attempt 
 did not continue longer than the first, for when Parliament 
 met in 1887, preparations were at once made to carry the 
 Criminal Law Amendment Act, which occupied so large 
 a portion of the late Session. 
 
 This is not the action of men who have strong faith in 
 their principles. Nor can it be shown that the continuous 
 support so necessary for success will be given to this polic}-. 
 
 No doubt it may be urged that the operation of the A.ct 
 is not limited in duration ; but, notwithstanding that, few 
 politicians believe that the constituencies of Great Britain 
 will long support the application of exceptional criminal 
 laws to any part of the United Kingdom. 
 
 This would be wholly inconsistent with past experience 
 in relation to these measures, which points entirely the 
 other way; and the publication in English newspapers and 
 constant discussion on English platforms of the painful 
 incidents which seem, unfortunately, inseparable from a rigid 
 administration of the law in Ireland, together with the pro¬ 
 longed debates, such incidents give rise to, in Parliament, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XIX 
 
 aggravate the difficulties of administration, and lead the 
 Irish people to believe that exceptional legislation will be 
 as short-lived in the future as it has been in the past. 
 
 ! It was this evidence of want of continuity of policy in 
 1885, and the startling disclosure of the weakness of the 
 anti-national party in Ireland at the election in the autumn 
 of that year,which finally convinced me that the time had come 
 when we could no longer turn to a mixed policy of remedial 
 and exceptional criminal legislation as the means of winning 
 the constituencies of that country in support of our old 
 system of governing Ireland. That system has failed for 
 eighty-six years, and obviously cannot succeed when worked 
 with representative institutions. As the people of Great 
 Britain will not for a moment tolerate the withdrawal of 
 representative government from Ireland, we must adopt 
 some new plan. What I have here written deals with 
 but a fragment of the arguments for Home Rule, some 
 of which are admirably set forth by the able men who 
 have written the articles to which this is the preface. I 
 earnestly wish that they may arrest the attention of many 
 excellent Irishmen who still cling to the old traditions 
 of English rule, and cause them to realize that the only 
 way of relieving their country from the intolerable un¬ 
 certainty which hangs over her commercial, social, and 
 political interests and paralyzes all efforts for the improve¬ 
 ment of her people, will be to form a Constitution supported 
 by all classes of the community. I trust that they will join 
 in this work before it is too late, for they may yet exercise 
 a powerful and salutary influence in the settlement of this 
 great question, 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 By E. L. Godkin. 
 
 American experience has been frequently cited, in the 
 course of the controversy now raging in England over the 
 Irish question, both by way of warning and of example. 
 For instance, I have found in the Times as well as in other 
 journals—the Spectator, I think, among the number—very 
 contemptuous dismissals of the plan of offering Ireland a 
 government like that of an American State, on the ground 
 that the Americans are loyal to the central authority, while 
 in Ireland there is a strong feeling of hostility to it, which 
 would probably increase under Home Rule. The Queen’s 
 writ, it has been remarked, cannot be said to run in large 
 parts of Ireland, while in every part of the United States 
 the Federal writ is implicitly obeyed, and the ministers of 
 Federal authority find ready aid and sympathy from the 
 people. If I remember rightly, the Duke of Argyll has 
 been very emphatic in pointing out the difference between 
 giving local self-government to a community in which the 
 tendencies of popular feeling are “centrifugal,” and giving 
 it to one in which these tendencies are “ centripetal.” The 
 inference to be drawn was, of course, that as long as Ireland 
 disliked the Imperial government the concession of Home 
 Rule would be unsafe, and would only become safe when 
 the Irish people showed somewhat the same sort of affection 
 
2 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 for the English connection which the people of the State 
 of New York now feel for the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 Among the multitude of those who have taken part in 
 the controversy on one side or the other, no one has, so 
 far as I have observed, pointed out that the state of feeling 
 in America toward the central government with which the 
 state of feeling in Ireland towards the British Government 
 is now compared, did not exist when the American Consti¬ 
 tution Avas set up; that the political tendencies in America 
 at that time were centrifugal, not centripetal, and that the 
 extraordinary love and admiration with which Americans 
 now regard the Federal government are the result of eighty 
 years’ experience of its working. The first Confederation 
 was as much as the people could bear in the way of sur¬ 
 rendering local powers when the War of Independence 
 came to an end. It was its hopeless failure to provide 
 peace and security which led to the framing of the present 
 Constitution. But even with this experience still fresh, the 
 adoption of the Constitution was no easy matter. I shall 
 not burden this article with historical citations shoAving 
 the very great difficulty which the framers of the Con¬ 
 stitution had in inducing the various States to adopt it, 
 or the magnitude and variety of the fears and suspicions 
 Avith Avhich many of the most influeatial men in all parts 
 of the country regarded it. Any one who wishes to 
 knoAV hoAV numerous and diversified these fears and sus¬ 
 picions were, cannot do better than read the series of 
 papers known as “ The Federalist,” Avritten mainly by 
 Hamilton and Madison, to commend the new plan to the 
 various States. It was adopted almost as a matter of 
 necessity, that is, as the only Avay out of the Slough of 
 Despond in Avhich the Confederation had plunged the 
 union of the States; but the objections to it which Avere 
 felt at the beginning were only removed by actual trial. 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 3 
 
 Hamilton’s two colleagues, as delegates from New York, 
 Yates and Lansing, withdrew in disgust from the Conven¬ 
 tion, as soon as the Constitution was outlined, and did not 
 return. The notion that the Constitution was produced by 
 the craving of the American people for something of that 
 sort to love and revere, and that it was not bestowed on 
 them until they had given ample assurance that they would 
 lavish affection on it, has no foundation whatever in fact. 
 The devotion of Americans to the Union is, indeed, as 
 clear a case of cause and effect as is to be found in political 
 history. They have learned to like the Constitution because 
 the country has prospered under it, and because it has 
 given them all the benefits of national life without inter¬ 
 ference with local liberties. If they had not set up a 
 central government until the centrifugal sentiment had dis¬ 
 appeared from the States, and the feeling of loyalty for a 
 central authority had fully shown itself, they would assuredly 
 never have set it up at all. 
 
 Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the adoption 
 of the Constitution did not involve the surrender of any 
 local franchises, by which the people of the various States 
 set great store. The States preserved fully four-fifths of 
 their autonomy, or in fact nearly all of it which closely con¬ 
 cerned the daily lives of individuals. Set aside the post-office, 
 and a citizen of the State of New York, not engaged in foreign 
 trade, might, down to the outbreak of the Civil War, have 
 passed a long and busy life without once coming in contact 
 with a United States official, and without being made aware 
 in any of his doings, by any restriction or regulation, that 
 he was living under any government but that of his own 
 State. If he went abroad he had to apply for a United 
 States passport. If he quarrelled with a foreigner, or with 
 the citizen of another State, he might be sued in the Federal 
 Court. If he imported foreign goods he had to pay duties 
 to the collector of a Federal Custom-house. If he invented 
 
4 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 something, or wrote a book, he had to apply to the Depart¬ 
 ment of the Interior for a patent or a copyright. But how 
 few there were in the first seventy years of American history 
 who had any of these experiences ! No one supposes, or 
 has ever supposed, that had the Federalists demanded any 
 very large sacrifice of local franchises, or attempted to set 
 up even a close approach to a centralized Government, the 
 adoption of the Constitution would have been possible. 
 If, for instance, such a transfer of both administration and 
 legislation to the central authority as took place in Ireland 
 after the Union had been proposed, it would have been 
 rejected with derision. You will get no American to argue 
 with you on this point. If you ask him whether he thinks 
 it likely that a highly centralized government could have 
 been created in 1879—such a one, for example, as Ireland 
 has been under since 1800—or whether if created it would 
 by this time have won the affection of the people, or filled 
 them with centripetal tendencies, he will answer you with 
 a smile. 
 
 The truth is that nowhere, any more than in Ireland, 
 do people love their Government from a sense of duty or 
 because they crave an object of political affection, or even 
 because it exalts them in the eyes of foreigners. They love 
 it because they are happy or prosperous under it; because 
 it supplies security in the form best suited to their tastes 
 and habits, or in some manner ministers to their self-love. 
 Loyalty to the king as the Lord’s anointed, without any 
 sense either of favours received or expected, has played 
 a great part in European politics, I admit; but, for reasons 
 which I will not here take up space in stating, a political 
 arrangement, whether it be an elected monarch or a con¬ 
 stitution, cannot be made, in our day, to reign in men’s 
 hearts except as the result of benefits so palpable that 
 common people, as well as political philosophers, can see 
 them and count them. 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 5 
 
 Many of the opponents of Home Rule, too, point to 
 the vigour with which the United States Government put 
 down the attempt made by the Soutii to break up the 
 Union as an example of the American love of “ imperial 
 unity,” and of the spirit in which England should now 
 meet the Irish demands for local autonomy. This again 
 is rather surprising, because you will find no one in 
 America who will maintain for one moment that troops 
 could have been raised in i860 to undertake the conquest 
 of the South for the purpose of setting up a centralized 
 administration, or, in other words, for the purpose of wiping 
 out State lines, or diminishing State authority. No man or 
 party proposed anything of this kind at the outbreak of the 
 war, or would have dared to propose it. The object for 
 which the North rose in arms, and which Lincoln had in 
 view when he called for troops, was the restoration of the 
 Union just as it was when South Carolina seceded, barring 
 the extension of slavery into the territories. During the 
 first year of the war, certainly, the revolted States might at 
 any time have had peace on the stains quo basis, that is, with¬ 
 out the smallest diminution of their rights and immunities 
 under the Constitution. It was only when it became 
 evident that the war would have to be fought out to a 
 finish, as the pugilists say—that is, that it would have to 
 end in a complete conquest of the Southern territory—that 
 the question, what would become of the States as a political 
 organization after the struggle was over, began to be 
 debated at all. What did become of them ? How did 
 Americans deal with Home Rule, after it had been used 
 to set on foot against the central authority what the news¬ 
 papers used to delight in calling “ the greatest rebellion the 
 world ever saw ” ? The answer to these questions is, it 
 seems to me, a contribution of some value to the discussion 
 of the Irish problem in its present stage, if American pre¬ 
 cedents can throw any light whatever on it. 
 
6 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 Tliere was a Joint Committee of both Houses of Con¬ 
 gress appointed in 1866 to consider the condition of the 
 South with reference to the safety or expediency of admitting 
 the States lately in rebellion to their old relations to the 
 Union, including representation in Congress. It contained, 
 besides such fanatical enemies of the South as Thaddeus 
 Stevens, such very conservative men as Mr. Fessenden, 
 Mr. Grimes, Mr. Morrill, and Mr. Conkling. Here is the 
 account they gave of the condition of Southern feeling one 
 year after Lee’s surrender :— 
 
 “ Examining the evidence taken by your committee still 
 further, in connection with facts too notorious to be dis¬ 
 puted, it appears that the Southern press, with few excep¬ 
 tions, and those mostly of newspapers recently established 
 by Northern men, abounds with weekly and daily abuse of 
 the institutions and people of the loyal States; defends the 
 men who led, and the principles which incited, the rebellion; 
 denounces and reviles Southern men who adhered to the 
 Union; and strives constantly and unscrupulously, by every 
 means in its power, to keep alive the fire of hate and dis¬ 
 cord between the sections; calling upon the President to 
 violate his oath of office, overturn the Government by force 
 of arms, and drive the representatives of the people from 
 their seats in Congress. The national banner is openly 
 insulted, and the national airs scoffed at, not only by an 
 ignorant populace, but at public meetings, and once, among 
 other notable instances, at a dinner given in honour of 
 a notorious rebel who had violated his oath and abandoned 
 his flag. The same individual is elected to an important 
 office in the leading city of his State, although an unpardoned 
 rebel, and so offensive that the President refuses to allow 
 him to enter upon his official duties. In another State the 
 leading general of the rebel armies is openly nominated for 
 Governor by the Speaker of the House of Delegates, and 
 the nomination is hailed by the people rvith shouts of 
 satisfaction, and openly endorsed by the press. . . . 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 7 
 
 “The evidence of an intense hostility to the Federal 
 Union, and an equally intense love of the late Confederacy, 
 nurtured by the war is decisive. While it appears that 
 nearly all are willing to submit, at least for the time being, 
 to the Federal authority, it is equally clear that the ruling 
 motive is a desire to obtain the advantages which will be 
 derived from a representation in Congress. Officers of the 
 Union army on duty, and Northern men who go south to 
 engage in business, are generally detested and proscribed. 
 Southern men who adhered to the Union are bitterly hated 
 and relentlessly persecuted. In some localities prosecutions 
 have been instituted in State courts against Union officers 
 for acts done in the line of official duty, and similar pro¬ 
 secutions are threatened elsewhere as soon as the United 
 States troops are removed. All such demonstrations show 
 a state of feeling against which it is unmistakably necessary 
 to guard. 
 
 “The testimony is conclusive that after the collapse of 
 the Confederacy the feeling of the people of the rebellious 
 States was that of abject submission. Having appealed to 
 the tribunal of arms, they had no hope except that by the 
 magnanimity of their conquerors, their lives, and possibly 
 their property, might be preserved. Unfortunately the 
 general issue of pardons to persons who had been pro¬ 
 minent in the rebellion, and the feeling of kindliness and 
 conciliation manifested by the Executive, and very 
 generally indicated through the Northern press, had the 
 effect to render whole communities forgetful of the crime 
 they had committed, defiant towards the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment, and regardless of their duties as citizens. The 
 conciliatory measures of the Government do not seem 
 to have been met even half-way. The bitterness and 
 defiance exhibited towards the United States under such 
 circumstances is without a parallel in the history of the 
 world. In return for our leniency we receive only an 
 
8 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 insulting denial of our authority. In return for our kind 
 desire for the resumption of fraternal relations we receive 
 only an insolent assumption of rights and privileges long 
 since forfeited. The crime we have punished is paraded 
 as a virtue, and the principles of republican government 
 which we have vindicated at so terrible a cost are denounced 
 as unjust and oppressive. 
 
 “ If we add to this evidence the fact that, although 
 peace has been declared by the President, he has not, to 
 this day, deemed it safe to restore the writ of habeas corpus, 
 to relieve the insurrectionary States of martial law, nor to 
 withdraw the troops from many localities, and that the 
 commanding general deems an increase of the army indis¬ 
 pensable to the preservation of order and the protection of 
 loyal and well-disposed people in the South, the proof of 
 a condition of feeling hostile to the Union and dangerous 
 to the Government throughout the insurrectionary States 
 would seem to be overwhelming.” 
 
 This Committee recommended a series of coercive 
 measures, the first of which was the adoption of the four¬ 
 teenth amendment to the Constitution, which disqualified 
 for all office, either under the United States or under any 
 State, any person who having in any capacity taken an oath 
 of allegiance to the United States afterwards engaged in 
 rebellion or gave aid and comfort to the rebels. This 
 denied the jus li 07 iorum to all the leading men at the South 
 who had survived the war. In addition to it, an Act was 
 passed in March, 1867, which put all the rebel States under 
 military rule until a constitution should have been framed 
 by a Convention elected by all males over twenty-one,- 
 except such as would be excluded from office by the above- 
 named constitutional amendment if it were adopted, which 
 at that time it had not been. Another Act was passed 
 three weeks later, prescribing, for voters in the States lately 
 in rebellion, what was known as the “ironclad oath,” which 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE 
 
 9 
 
 excluded from the franchise not only all who had borne 
 arms against the United States, but all who, having ever 
 held any office for which the taking an oath of allegiance 
 to the United States was a qualification, had afterwards 
 ever given “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” This 
 practically disfranchised all the white, men of the Souta 
 over twenty-five years old. 
 
 On this legislation there grew up, as all the world now 
 knows, what was called the “ carpet-bag ” Swarms 
 
 of Northern adventurers went down to the Southern States, 
 organized the ignorant negro voters, constructed State con¬ 
 stitutions to suit themselves, got themselves elected to all 
 the chief offices, plundered the State treasuries, contracted 
 Inige State debts, and stole the proceeds in connivance with 
 legislatures composed mainly of negroes, of whom the most 
 intelligent and instructed had been barbers and hotel-waiters. 
 In some of the States, such as South Carolina and Missis¬ 
 sippi, in which the negro population were in the majority, 
 the government became a mere caricature. I was in 
 Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, in 1872, during 
 the session of the legislature, when you could obtain the 
 passage of almost any measure you pleased by a small pay¬ 
 ment—at that time seven hundred dollars—to an old negro 
 preacher who controlled the coloured majority. Under the 
 pretence of fitting up committee-rooms, the private lodging- 
 rooms at the boarding-houses of the negro members, in 
 many instances, were extravagantly furnished with Wilton 
 and Brussels carpets, mirrors, and sofas. A thousand dollars 
 were expended tor two hundred elegant imported china 
 spittoons. There were only one hundred and twenty-three 
 members in the House of Representatives, but the residue 
 were, perhaps, transferred to the private chambers of the 
 legislators. 
 
 Now, how did the Southern whites deal with this state of 
 things ? Well, I am sorry to say they manifested their 
 
10 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 discontent very much in the way in which the Irish have for 
 the last hundred years been manifesting theirs. If, as the 
 English opponents of Home Rule seem to think, readiness to 
 commit outrages, and refusal to sympathize with the victims 
 of outrages, indicate political incapacity, the whites of the 
 South showed, in the period between 1866 and 1876, that they 
 were utterly unfit to be entrusted with the work of self govern¬ 
 ment. They could not rise openly in revolt because the 
 United States troops were everywhere at the service of the 
 carpet-baggers, for the suppression of armed resistance. 
 They did not send petitions to Congress, or write letters to 
 the Northern newspapers, or hold indignation meetings. 
 They simply formed a huge secret society on the model of 
 the “ Molly Ma.guires ” or “ Moonlighters,” whose special 
 function was to intimidate, flog, mutilate, or murder political 
 opponents in the night time. This society was called the 
 “ Ku-Klux Klan.” Let me give some account of its opera¬ 
 tion, and I shall make it as brief as possible. It had 
 become so powerful in 1871 that President Grant in that 
 year, in his message to Congress, declared that “a condition 
 of things existed in some of the States of the Union render¬ 
 ing life and property insecure, and the carrying of the mails 
 and the collecting of the revenue dangerous.” A Joint Select 
 Committee of Congress was accordingly appointed, early in 
 1872, to “inquire into the condition of affairs in the late 
 insurrectionary States, so far as regards the execution of the 
 laws and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens 
 of the United States.” Its report now lies before me, and 
 it reads uncommonly like the speech of an Irish Secretary 
 in the House of Commons bringing in a “ Suppression of 
 Crime Bill.” The Committee say— 
 
 “ There is a remarkable concurrence of testimony to the 
 effect that, in those of the late rebellious States into whose 
 condition we have examined, the courts and juries administer 
 justice between man and man in all ordinary cases, civil 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 II 
 
 ■and criminal; and while there is this concurrence on this 
 point, the evidence is equally decisive that redress cannot 
 be obtained against those who commit crimes in disguise 
 and at night. The reasons assigned are that identification 
 is difficult, almost impossible; that, when this is attempted, 
 the combinations and oaths of the order come in and release 
 the culprit by perjury, either upon the witness-stand or in 
 the jury-box; and that the terror inspired by their acts, as 
 well as the public sentiment in their favour in many locali¬ 
 ties, paralyzes the arm of civil power. 
 
 ***** 
 
 “ The murders and outrages which have been perpetrated 
 in many counties of Middle and West Tennessee, during 
 the past few months, have been so numerous, and of such 
 an aggravated character, as almost baffles investigation. In 
 these counties a reign of terror exists which is so absolute 
 in its nature that the best of citizens are unable or unwilling 
 to give free expression to their opinions. The terror in¬ 
 spired by the secret organization known as the Ku-Klux 
 Klan is so great, that the officers of the law are powerless 
 to execute its provisions, to discharge their duties, or 
 to bring the guilty perpetrators of these outrages to the 
 punishment they deserve. Their stealthy movements are 
 generally made under cover of night, and under masks and 
 disguises, which render their identification difficult, if not 
 impossible. To add to the secrecy which envelops their 
 operations, is the fact that no information of their murderous 
 acts can be obtained without the greatest difficulty and 
 danger in the localities where they are committed. No one 
 dares to inform upon them, or take any measures to bring 
 them to punishment, because no one can tell but that he 
 may be the next victim of their hostility or animosity. The 
 members of this organization, with their friends, aiders, and 
 abettors, take especial pains to conceal all their operations. 
 
13 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 “Your committee believe that during the past six 
 months, the murders—to say nothing of other outrages— 
 would average one a day, or one for every twenty-four 
 hours; that in the great majority of these cases they have 
 been perpetrated by the Ku-Klux above referred to, and 
 few, if any, have been brought to punishment. A number 
 of the counties of this State (Tennessee) are entirely at the 
 mercy of this organization, and roving bands of nightly 
 marauders bid defiance to the civil authorities, and threaten 
 to drive out every man, white or black, who does not submit 
 to their arbitrary dictation. To add to the general lawless¬ 
 ness of these communities, bad men of every description 
 take advantage of the circumstances surrounding them, and 
 perpetrate acts of violence, from personal or pecuniary 
 motives, under the plea of political necessity.” 
 
 Here is some of the evidence on which the report was 
 based. 
 
 A complaint of outrages committed in Georgia was re¬ 
 ferred by the general of the army, in June, 1869, to the 
 general of the Department of the South for thorough inves¬ 
 tigation and report. General Terry, in his report, made 
 August 14, 1869, says *— 
 
 “In many parts of the State there is practically no 
 government. The worst of crimes are committed, and no 
 attempt is made to punish those who commit them. Murders 
 have been and are frequent; the abuse, in various ways, of 
 the blacks is too common to excite notice. There can 
 be no doubt of the existence of numerous insurrectionary 
 organizations known as ‘ Ku-Klux Klans,’ who, shielded by 
 their disguise, by the secrecy of their movements, and by 
 the terror which they inspire, perpetrate crime with impunity. 
 There is great reason to believe that in some cases local 
 magistrates are in sympathy with the members of these 
 organizations. In many places they are overawed by them 
 * Report of Secretary of War, 1869-70, vol. i. p. 89. 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE 13 
 
 and dare not attempt to punish them. To punisli such 
 offenders by civil proceedings would be a difficult task, even 
 were magistrates in all cases disposed and had they the 
 courage to do their duty, lor the same influences which 
 govern them equally affect juries and witnesses.” 
 
 Lieutenant-Colonel Lewis Merrill, who assumed com¬ 
 mand (in Louisiana) on the 26th of March, and commenced 
 investigation into the state of affairs, says (p. 1465)— 
 
 “From the best information I can get, I estimate the 
 number of cases of whipping, beating, and personal violence 
 of various grades, in this county, since the first of last 
 November, at between three and four hundred, excluding 
 numerous minor cases of threats, intimidation, abuse, and 
 small personal violence, as knocking down with a pistol 
 or gun, etc. The more serious outrages, exclusive of 
 murders and whippings, noted hereafter, have been the 
 following —•” 
 
 He then proceeds with the details of sixty-eight cases, 
 giving the names of the parties injured, white and black, 
 and including the tearing up of the railway, on the night 
 before a raid was made by the Ku-Klux on the county 
 treasury building. The rails were taken up, to prevent the 
 arrival of the United States troops, who, it was known, were 
 to come on Sunday morning. The raid was made on that 
 Sunday night while the troops were lying at Chester, 
 twenty-two miles distant, unable to reach Yorkville, because 
 of the rails being torn up. 
 
 Another witness said: “To give the details of the 
 whipping of men to compel them to change their mode of 
 voting, the tearing of them away from their families at night, 
 accompanied with insults and outrage, and followed by their 
 murder, would be but repeating what has been described in 
 other States, showing that it is the same organization in all, 
 working by the same means for the same end. Five 
 murders are shown to have been committed in Monroe 
 
14 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 County, fifteen in Noxubee, one in Lowndes, by the 
 testimony taken in the city of Washington j but the extent 
 to which school-houses were burnt, teachers whipped, and 
 outrages committed in this State, cannot be fully given 
 until the testimony taken by the sub-committec shall have 
 been printed and made ready to report.” 
 
 There are about eighty, closely printed, large octavo 
 pages of this kind of testimony given by sufferers from the 
 outrages. 
 
 Something was done to suppress the Ku-Klux by a 
 Federal Act passed in 1871, which made offences of this 
 kind punishable in the Federal Courts. Considerable 
 numbers of them were arrested, tried, and convicted, and 
 sent to undergo their punishment in the Northern jails. 
 But there was no complete pacification of the South until 
 the carpet-bag governments were refused the support of the 
 Federal troops by President Hayes, on his accession to 
 power in 1876. Then the carpet-bag regime disappeared 
 like a house of cards. The chief carpet-baggers fled, and 
 the government passed at once into the hands of the native 
 whites. I do not propose to defend or explain the way in 
 which they have since then kept it in their hands, by 
 suppressing or controlling the negro vote. This is not 
 necessary to my purpose. 
 
 What I seek to show is lhat the Irish are not peculiar 
 in their manner of expressing their discontent with a 
 government directed or controlled by the public opinion 
 of another indifferent or serai-hostile community which it 
 is impossible to resist in open warfare; that Anglo-Saxons- 
 resort to somewhat the same methods under similar cir¬ 
 cumstances, and that lawlessness and cruelty, considered 
 as expressions of political animosity, do not necessarily 
 argue any incapacity for the conduct of an orderly and 
 efficient government, although I admit freely that they do 
 argue a low state of civilization. 
 
A AIERIC AN HOME RULE. 
 
 15 
 
 I will add one more illustration which, although more 
 remote than those which I have taken from the Southern 
 States during the reconstruction period, is not too remote 
 for my purpose, and is in some respects stronger than any 
 of them. I do not know a more orderly community in the 
 world, or one which, down to the outbreak of the Civil 
 War, when manufactures began to multiply, and the Irish 
 immigration began to pour in, had a higher average of 
 intelligence than the State of Connecticut. Down to 1818 
 all voters in that State had to be members of the Congrega¬ 
 tional Church. It had no large cities, and this, with the 
 aid of its seat of learning, Yale College, preserved in it, I 
 think, in greater purity than even Massachusetts, the old 
 Puritan simplicity of manners, the Puritan spirit of order and 
 thrift, and the business-like view of government which grew 
 out of the practice of town government. A less sentimental 
 community, I do not think, exists anywhere, or one in which 
 the expression of strong feeling on any subject but religion 
 is less cultivated or viewed with less favour. In the matter 
 of managing their own political affairs in peace or war, I do 
 not expect the Irish to equal the Connecticut people for a 
 hundred years to come, no matter how much practice they 
 may have in the interval, and I think that fifty years ago it 
 was only picked bodies of Englishmen who could do so. 
 Yet, in 1833, in the town of Canterbury, one of the most 
 orderly and intelligent in the State, an estimable and much- 
 esteemed lady. Miss Prudence Crandall, was carrying on a 
 girls’ school, when something happened to touch her 
 conscience about the condition of the free negroes of the 
 North. She resolved, in a moment of enthusiasm, to 
 undertake the education of negro girls only. What follows 
 forms one of the most famous episodes in the anti-slavery 
 struggle in America, and is possibly familiar to many 
 of the older readers of this article. I shall extract the 
 account of it as given briefly in the lately publislied life of 
 
i6 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 William Lloyd Garrison, by his sons. Some of the details 
 are much worse than is here described. 
 
 “ The story of this remarkable case cannot be pursued 
 here except in brief. ... It will be enough to say that the 
 struggle between the modest and heroic young Quaker 
 woman and the town lasted for nearly two years; that the 
 school was opened in April; that attempts were immediately 
 made under the law to frighten the pupils away and to fine 
 Aliss Crandall for harbouring them; that in May an Act 
 prohibiting private schools for non-resident coloured persons, 
 and providing for the expulsion of the latter, was procured 
 from the legislature, amid the greatest rejoicing in Canter¬ 
 bury (even to the ringing of church bells); that, under this 
 Act, Miss Crandall was in June arrested and temporarily 
 imprisoned in the county jail, twice tried (August and 
 October) and convicted ; that her case was carried up to 
 the Supreme Court of Errors, and her persecutors defeated 
 on a technicality (July, 1834), and that pending this 
 litigation the most vindictive and inhuman measures were 
 taken to isolate the school from the countenance and even 
 the physical support of the townspeople. The shops and 
 the meeting-house were closed against teacher and pupils, 
 carriage in the public conveyances was denied them, physi¬ 
 cians would not wait upon them. Miss Crandall’s own 
 family and friends were forbidden, under penalty of heavy 
 fines, to visit her, the well was filled with manure and water 
 from other sources refused, the house itself was smeared 
 with filth, assailed with rotten eggs and stones, and finally 
 set on fire” (vol. i. p. 321). 
 
 Miss Crandall is still living in the West, in extreme old 
 age, and the Connecticut legislature voted her a small 
 pension two years ago, as a slight expiation of the ignominy 
 and injustice from which she had suffered at the hands of 
 a past generation. 
 
 The Spectator trequently refers to the ferocious hatred 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 17 
 
 displayed toward the widow of Curtin, the man who was 
 cruelly murdered by moonlighters somewhere in Kerry, as 
 an evidence of barbarism which almost, if not quite, justifies 
 the denial of self-government to a people capable of pro¬ 
 ducing such monsters in one spot and on one occasion. 
 Let me match this from Mississippi with a case which I 
 produce, not because it was singular, but because it was 
 notorious at the North, where it occurred, in 1877. One 
 Chisholm, a native of the State, and a man of good standing 
 and character, became a Republican after the war, and was 
 somewhat active in organizing the negro voters in his 
 district. He was repeatedly warned by some of his neigh¬ 
 bours to desist and abandon politics, but continued reso¬ 
 lutely on his course. A mob, composed of many of the 
 leading men in the town, then attacked him in his house. 
 He made his escape, with his wife and young daughter and 
 son, a lad of fourteen, to the jail. His assailants broke the 
 jail open, and killed him and his son, and desperately 
 wounded the daughter. The poor lad received such a 
 volley of bullets, that his blood went in one rush to the 
 floor, and traced the outlines of his trunk on the ceiling of 
 the room below, where it remained months afterwards, an 
 eye-witness told me, as an illustration of the callousness of 
 the jailer. The leading murderers were tried. They had 
 no defence. The facts were not disputed. The judge and 
 the bar did their duty, but the jury acquitted the prisoners 
 Avithout leaving their seats. INIrs. Chisholm, the widow, 
 found neither sympathy nor friends at the scene of the 
 tragedy. She had to leave the State, and found refuge in 
 Washington, Avhere she now holds a clerkship in the 
 Treasury department. 
 
 Let me cite as another illustration the violent ways in 
 which popular discontent may find expression in communities 
 whose political capacity and general respect for the law and 
 its officers, as well as for the sanctity of contracts, have never 
 
 c 
 
i 8 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 been questioned. Large tracts of land were formerly held 
 along the Hudson river in the State of New York, by a few 
 families, of which the Van Rensselaers and the Livingstons 
 were the chief, either under grants from the Dutch at the first 
 settlement of the colony, or from the English Crown after the 
 conquest. That known as the “ Manor of Rensselaerwick,” 
 held by the Van Rensselaers, comprised a tract of country 
 extending twenty-four miles north and south, and forty-eight 
 miles east and west, lying on each side of the Hudson river. 
 It was held by the tenants for perpetual leases. The rents 
 were, on the Van Rensselaer estate, fourteen bushels of 
 wheat for each hundred acres, and four fat hens, and one 
 day’s service with a carriage and horses, to each farm of 
 one hundred and sixty acres. Besides this, there was a fine 
 on alienation amounting to about half a year’s rent. The 
 Livingston estates were let in much the same way. 
 
 In 1839, Stephen Van Rensselaer, the proprietor, or 
 “Patroon” as he was called, died, with ^400,000 due to 
 him as arrears from the tenants, for which, being a man 
 of easy temper, he had forborne to press them. But he left 
 the amount in trust by his will for the payment of his debts, 
 and his heirs proceeded to collect it, and persisted in the 
 attempt during the ensuing seven years. What then hap¬ 
 pened I shall describe in the words of Mr. John Bigelow. 
 Mr. Tilden was a member of the State Legislature in 1846, 
 and was appointed Chairman of a Committee to investigate 
 the rent troubles, and make the report which furnished the 
 basis for the legislation by which they were subsequently 
 settled. Mr. Bigelow, who has edited Mr. Tilden’s Publk 
 Writings and Speeches, prefaces the report with the following 
 exjDlanatory note:— 
 
 “ Attempts were made to enforce the collection ot these 
 rents. The tenants resisted. They established armed 
 patrols, and, by the adoption of various disguises, were 
 enabled successfully to defy the civil authorities. Eventu- 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 19 
 
 ally it became necessary to call out the military, but the 
 result was only partially satisfactory. These demonstrations 
 of authority provoked the formation of ‘anti-rent clubs’ 
 throughout the manorial district, with a view of acquiring a 
 controlling influence in the legislature. Small bands, armed 
 and disguised as Indians, were also formed to hold them¬ 
 selves in readiness at all times to resist the officers of the 
 law whenever and wherever they attempted to serve legal 
 process upon the tenants. The principal roads throughout 
 the infected district were guarded by the bands so carefully, 
 and the animosity between the tenants and the civil authori¬ 
 ties was so intense, that at last it became dangerous for 
 any one not an anti-renter to be found in these neighbour¬ 
 hoods. It was equally dangerous for the landlords to make 
 any appeal to the law or for the collection of rents or for 
 protection of their persons. When Governor Wright entered 
 upon his duties in Albany in 1845, he found that the anti¬ 
 rent party had a formidable representation in the legislature, 
 and that the questions involved were assuming an almost 
 national importance.” 
 
 The sheriff made gallant attempts to enforce the law, 
 but his deputies were killed, and a legal investigation in 
 which two hundred persons were examined, failed to reveal 
 the perpetrators of the crime. The militia were called out, 
 but they were no more successful than the sheriff. In the 
 case of one murder committed in Delaware County in 1845, 
 however, two persons were convicted, but their sentence 
 was commuted to imprisonment for life. Various others 
 concerned in the disturbances were convicted of minor 
 offences, but when Governor Young succeeded Governor 
 Seward after an election in which the anti-renters showed 
 considerable voting strength, he pardoned them all on the 
 ground that their crimes were political. The dispute was 
 finally settled by a compromise—that is, the Van Rensselaers 
 and the Livingstons both sold their estates, giving quit-claim 
 
20 
 
 AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 deeds to the tenants for what they chose to pay, and the 
 granting of agricultural leases for a longer term than twelve 
 years was forbidden by the State Constitution of 1846. 
 
 This anti-rent agitation is described by Professor Johnston 
 of Princeton, in the Cydopcedia of Political Science, as “ a reign 
 of terror which for ten years practically suspended the 
 operations of law and the payment of rent throughout the 
 district.” Suppose all the land of the State had been held 
 under similar tenures; that the controversy had lasted one 
 hundred years ; that the rents had been high ; and that the 
 Van Rensselaers and the Livingstons had had the aid of 
 the Federal army in enforcing distraints and evictions, and 
 in enabling them to set local opinion at defiance, what do 
 you suppose the state of morals and manners would have 
 been in New York by this time? What would have been 
 the feelings of the people towards the Federal authority had 
 the matter been finally adjusted with the strong hand, in 
 accordance, not with the views of the people of the State, 
 but of the landholders of South Carolina or of the district 
 of Columbia ? I am afraid they would have been terribly 
 Irish. 
 
 I know very well the risk I run, in citing all these pre¬ 
 cedents and parallels, of seeming to justify, or at all events 
 to palliate, Irish lawlessness. But I am not doing anything 
 of the kind. I am trying to illustrate a somewhat trite 
 remark which I recently made : “ that government is a 
 very practical business, and that those succeed best in 
 it who bring least sentiment or enthusiasm to the con¬ 
 duct of their affairs.” The government of Ireland, like 
 the government of all other countries, is a piece of 
 business—a very difficult piece of business, I admit—and 
 therefore horror over Irish doings, and the natural and 
 human desire to “get even with” murderers and moon¬ 
 lighters, by denying the community which produces them 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 21 
 
 something it would like much to possess, should have no 
 influence with those who are charged with Irish government. 
 It is only in nurseries and kindergartens that we can give 
 offenders their exact due and withhold their toffee until they 
 have furnished satisfactory proofs of repentance. Rulers of 
 men have to occupy themselves mainly with the question 
 of drying up the sources of crime, and often, in order to 
 accomplish this, to let much crime and disorder go unwhipped 
 of justice. 
 
 With the state of mind which cannot bear to see any 
 concessions made to the Irish Nationalists because they are 
 such wicked men, in which so many excellent Englishmen, 
 whom we used to think genuine political philosophers, are 
 now living, we are very familiar in the United States. It 
 is a state of mind which prevailed in the Republican party 
 with regard to the South, down to the election of 1884, and 
 found constant expression on the stump and in the news¬ 
 papers in what is described, in political slang, as “ waving 
 the bloody shirt.” It showed itself after the war in unwil¬ 
 lingness to release the South from military rule; then in 
 unwillingness to remove the disfranchisement of the whites 
 or to withdraw from the carpet-bag State governments the 
 military support without which they could not have existed 
 for a day; and, last of all, in dread of the advent of a 
 Democratic Federal Administration in which Southerners 
 or “ ex-rebels ” would be likely to hold office. At first the 
 whole Republican party was more or less permeated by these 
 ideas; but the number of those who held them gradually 
 diminished, until in 1884 it was at last possible to elect a 
 Democratic President. Nevertheless a great multitude wit¬ 
 nessed the entrance into the White House of a President 
 who is indebted for his election mainly to the States formerly 
 in rebellion, with genuine alarm. They feared from it some¬ 
 thing dreadful, in the shape either of a violation of the rights 
 of the freedmen, or of an assault on the credit and stability 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 of the Federal Government. Nothing but actual experiment 
 would have disabused them. 
 
 I am very familiar with the controversy with them, for I 
 have taken some part in it ever since the passage of the 
 reconstruction Acts, and I know very well how they felt, and 
 am sometimes greatly impressed by the similarity between 
 their arguments and those of the opponents of Irish Home 
 Rule, One of their fixed beliefs for many years, though it 
 is now extinct, was that Southerners were so bent on rebel¬ 
 ling again, and were generally so prone to rebellion, that the 
 awful consequences of their last attempt in the loss of life 
 and property, had made absolutely no impression on them. 
 The Southerner was, in fact, in their eyes, what Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone says the Irishman is in the eyes of some Englishmen : 
 “A lusus natura; that justice, common sense, moderation, 
 national prosperity had no meaning for him; that all he 
 could appreciate was strife and perpetual dissension. It 
 was for many years useless to point out to them the severity 
 of the lesson taught by the Civil War as to the physical 
 superiority of the North, or the necessity of peace and quiet 
 to enable the new generation of Southerners to restore their 
 fortunes, or even gain a livelihood. Nor was it easy to 
 impress them with the inconsistency of arguing that it was 
 slavery which made Southerners what they were before they 
 went to war, and maintaining at the same time that the dis¬ 
 appearance of slavery would produce no change in their 
 manners, ideas, or opinions. All this they answered by 
 pointing to speeches delivered by some fiery adorer of “ the 
 lost cause,” to the Ku-Klux outrages, to political murders, 
 like that of Chisholm, to the building of monuments to the 
 Confederate dead, or to some newspaper expression of 
 reverence for Confederate nationality. In fact, for fully ten 
 years after the close of the war the collection of Southern 
 “ outrages ” and their display before Northern audiences, was 
 the chief work of Republican politicians. In 1876, during. 
 
AMERICAN HOME RULE. 
 
 23 
 
 the Hayes-Tilden canvass, the opening speech which fur¬ 
 nished what is called “ the key-note of the campaign ” was 
 made by Mr. Wheeler, the Republican candidate for the 
 Vice-Presidency, and his advice to the Vermonters, to whom 
 it was delivered, was “ to vote as they shot,” that is, to go to 
 the polls with the same feelings and aims as those with which 
 they enlisted in the war. 
 
 I need hardly tell English readers how all this has 
 ended. The withdrawal of the Federal troops from the 
 South by President Hayes, and the consequent complete 
 restoration of the State governments to the discontented 
 whites, have fully justified the e.xpectations of those who 
 maintained that it is no less true in politics than in physics,, 
 that if you remove what you see to be the cause, the effect 
 will surely disappear. It is true, at least in the Western 
 world, that if you give communities in a reasonable degree 
 the management of their own affairs, the love of material 
 comfort and prosperity which is now so strong among all 
 civilized, and even partially civilized men, is sure in the long' 
 run- to do the work of creating and maintaining order; or, 
 as Mr. Gladstone has expressed it, in setting up a govern¬ 
 ment, “ the best and surest foundation we can find to build 
 on is the foundation afforded by the affections, the convictionS;^ 
 and the will of men.” 
 
/low WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 By James Bryce, M.P. 
 
 In the Home Rule contest of the last eighteen months no 
 argument has been more frequently used against the Liberal 
 party than the charge of sudden, and therefore, it would 
 seem, dishonest change of view. “You were opposed to 
 an Irish Parliament at the election of 1880 and for some 
 time afterward; you are not entitled to advocate it in 1886.” 
 “You passed a Coercion Bill in 1881, your Ministry (though 
 against the protests of an active section of its supporters) 
 passed another Coercion Bill in 1882 ; you have no right 
 to resist a third such Bill in 1887, and, if you do, your 
 conduct can be due to nothing but party spite and revenge 
 at your own exclusion from office.” Reproaches of this 
 kind are now the stock-in-trade, not merely of the ordinary 
 politician, who, for want of a case, abuses the plaintiff’s 
 attorney, but of leading men, and, still more, of leading 
 newspapers, who might be thought bound to produce from 
 recent events and an examination of the condition of 
 Ireland some better grounds for the passion they display. 
 It is noticeable that such reproaches come more often from 
 the so-called Liberal Unionists than from the present 
 Ministry. Perhaps, with their belief that all Liberals are 
 unprincipled revolutionaries, the Tories deem a sin more 
 or less to be of small account. Perhaps a recollection of 
 
I/O IF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 25 
 
 their own remarkable gyrations, before and after the General 
 Election of 1885, may suggest that the less said about the 
 past the better for everybody. Be the cause what it may, 
 it is surprising to find that a section commanding so much 
 ability as the group of Dissentient Liberals does, should rely 
 rather on the charge of inconsistency than on the advocacy of 
 any counter-policy of their own. It is not large and elevated, 
 but petty, minds that rejoice to say to an opponent (and 
 all the more so if he was once a friend), “ You must either 
 be wrong now, or have been wrong then, because you have 
 changed your opinion. I have not changed ; I was right 
 then, and I am right now.” Such an argument not only 
 dispenses with the necessity of sifting the facts, but it fosters 
 the satisfaction of the person who employs it. Consistency 
 is the pet virtue of the self-righteous, and the man who 
 values himself on his consistency can seldom be induced 
 to see that to shut one’s eyes to the facts which time deve¬ 
 lops, to refuse to reconsider one’s position by the light they 
 shed, to cling to an old solution when the problem is sub¬ 
 stantially new, is a proof, not of fortitude and wisdom, but 
 rather of folly and conceit. 
 
 Such persons may be left to the contemplation of their 
 own virtues. But there are many fair-minded men of both 
 political parties, or of neither, who, while acquitting those 
 Liberal members who supported Home Rule in 1886 and 
 opposed Coercion in 1887 of the sordid or spiteful motives 
 with which the virulence of journalism credits them, have 
 nevertheless been surprised at the apparent swiftness and 
 completeness of the change in their opinions. It would be 
 idle to deny that, in startling the minds of steady-going people, 
 this change did, for the moment, weaken the influence and 
 weight of those who had changed. This must be so. A 
 man who says now what he denied six years ago cannot 
 expect to be believed on his ipse dixit. He must set forth 
 the grounds of his conviction. He must explain how bis 
 
26 
 
 I/OIV JVE BECAME HOME EULEES. 
 
 views altered, and why reasons which formerly satisfied him- 
 satisfy him no longer. It may be that the Liberal party 
 have omitted to do this as they ought. Occupied by warm 
 and incessant discussions, and conscious, I venture to 
 believe, of their own honesty, few of its members have been 
 at the trouble of showing what were the causes which 
 modified their views, and what the stages of the process 
 •which carried them from the position of 1880 to that of 
 1886. 
 
 Of that process I shall attempt in the following pages 
 to give a sketch. Such a sketch, though mainly retrospec¬ 
 tive, is pertinent to the issues which now divide the country. 
 It will indicate the origin, and the strength of the chief 
 reasons by which Liberals are now governed. And, if 
 executed with proper fairness and truth, it may, as a study 
 in contemporary history, be of some little interest to those 
 who in future will attempt to understand our present con¬ 
 flict. The causes which underlie changes of opinion are 
 among the most obscure phenomena in history, because 
 those who undergo these changes are often only half con¬ 
 scious of them, and do not think of recording that which 
 is imperceptible in its growth, and whose importance is not 
 realized till it already belongs to the past. 
 
 The account which follows is based primarily on my 
 own recollection of the phases of opinion and feeling through 
 which I myself, and the friends whom I knew most inti¬ 
 mately in the House of Commons, passed during the Parlia¬ 
 ment which sat from 1880 till 1885. But I should not 
 think of giving it to the public if I did not believe that 
 what happened to our minds happened to many others also, 
 and that the record of our own slow movement from the 
 position of 1880 to that of 1886 is substantially a record 
 of the movement of the Liberal party at large. We were 
 fairly typical members of that party, loyal to our leaders, but 
 placing the principles for which the Liberal party exists 
 
I/OIV WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 27 
 
 above the success of the party itself; with our share of 
 prepossessions and prejudices, yet with reasonably open 
 minds, and (as we believed) inferior to no other section 
 of the House of Commons in patriotism and in attachment 
 to the Constitution. I admit frankly that when we entered 
 Parliament we knew less about the Irish question than we 
 ought to have known, and that even after knowledge had 
 been forced upon us, we were more deferential to our 
 leaders than was good either for us or for them. But these 
 are faults always chargeable on the great majority of members. 
 It is because those of whom I speak were in these respects 
 fairly typical, that it seems worth while to trace the history 
 of their opinions. If any one should accuse me of attri¬ 
 buting to an earlier year sentiments which began to appear 
 in a later one, I can only reply that I am aware of this 
 danger, as one which always besets those who recall their 
 past states of mind, and that I have done my utmost to 
 avoid it. 
 
 The change I have to describe was slow and gradual. 
 It was reluctant—that is to say, it seemed rather forced 
 upon us by the teaching of events than the work of our 
 own minds. Each session marked a further stage in it; 
 and I therefore propose to examine its progress session by 
 session. 
 
 Session of 1880.—^The General Election of 1880 
 turned mainly on the foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield’s 
 Government. Few Liberal candidates said much about 
 Ireland. Absorbed in the Eastern and Afghan questions, 
 they had not watched the progress of events in Ireland 
 with the requisite care, nor realized the gravity of the crisis 
 which was approaching. They were anxious to do justice 
 to Ireland, in the way of amending both the land laws and 
 local government, but saw no reason for going further. 
 Nearly all of them refused, even when pressed by Irish 
 electors in their constituencies, to promise to vote for that 
 
£8 
 
 I/O IF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 “parliamentary inquiry into the demand for Home Rule,” 
 which was then propounded by those electors as a sort 
 of test question. We (i.e. the Liberal candidates of 1880) 
 then declared that we thought an Irish Parliament rvould 
 involve serious constitutional difficulties, and that we saw 
 no reason why the Imperial Parliament should not do full 
 justice to Ireland. Little was said about Coercion. Hopes 
 were expressed that it would not be resorted to, but very 
 few (if any) pledged themselves against it. 
 
 IVhen Mr. Forster was appointed Irish Secretary in 
 Mr. Gladstone’s Government which the General Election 
 brought into power, we (by which I mean throughout the 
 new Liberal members) were delighted. We knew him to be 
 conscientious, industrious, kind-hearted. We believed him to 
 be penetrating and judicious. We applauded his conduct in 
 not renewing the Coercion Act which Lord Beaconsfield’s 
 Government had failed to renew before dissolving Parlia¬ 
 ment, and which indeed there was scarcely time left after 
 the election to renew, a fact which did not save Mr. Forster 
 from severe censure on the part of the Tories. 
 
 The chief business of the session was the Compensation 
 for Disturbance Bill, which Mr. Forster brought in for the 
 sake of saving from immediate eviction tenants whom a 
 succession of bad seasons had rendered utterly unable to 
 ■pay their rents. This Bill was pressed through the Plouse 
 of Commons with the utmost difficulty, and at an expendi¬ 
 ture of time which damaged the other work of the session, 
 though the House continued to sit into September. The 
 Executive Government declared it to be necessary, in order 
 not only to relieve the misery of the people, but to secure 
 the tranquillity of the country. Nevertheless, the whole 
 Tory party, and a considerable section of the Liberal party, 
 opposed it in the interests of the Irish landlords, and of 
 economic principles in general, principles which (as com¬ 
 monly understood in England) it certainly trenched on. 
 
I/O IF IVE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 29 
 
 AVrien it reached the House of Lords it was contemptuously 
 rejected, and the unhappy Irish Secretary left to face as he 
 best might the cries of a wretched peasantry and the rising 
 tide of outrage. What was even more remarkable, was the 
 coolness with which the Liberal party took the defeat of a 
 Bill their leaders had pronounced absolutely needed. Had 
 it been an English Bill of the same consequence to England 
 as it was to Ireland, the country would have been up in 
 arms against the House of Lords, demanding the reform 
 or the abolition of a Chamber which dared to disregard the 
 will of the people. But nothing of the kind happened. It 
 was only an Irish measure. We relieved ourselves by a few 
 strong words, and the matter dropped. 
 
 It was in this session that the Liberal party first learnt 
 what sort of a sjririt was burning in the hearts of Irish 
 members. There had been obstruction in the last years 
 of the previous Parliament, but, as the Tories were in 
 power, they had to bear the brunt of it. Now that a 
 Liberal Ministry reigned, it fell on the Liberals. At first 
 it incensed us. Full of our own good intentions towards 
 Ireland, we thought it contrary to nature that Irish members 
 should worry us, their friends, as they had worried Tories, 
 their hereditary enemies. Presently we came to understand 
 how matters stood. The Irish members made little 
 difference between the two great English parties. Both 
 represented to them a hostile domination. Both were 
 ignorant of the condition of their country. Both cared so 
 little about Irish questions that nothing less than deeds of 
 violence out of doors or obstruction within doors could 
 secure their attention. Concessions had to be extorted 
 from both by the same devices; Coercion might be feared 
 at the hands of both. Hence the Irish party was resolved 
 to treat both parties alike, and play off the one against the 
 other in the interests of Ireland alone, using the questions 
 which divide Englishmen and Scotchmen merely as levers 
 
30 
 
 BOJF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 whereby to effect their own purposes, because themselves 
 quite indifferent to the substantial merits of those questions. 
 To us new members tliis was an alarming revelation. We 
 found that the House of Commons consisted of two distinct 
 and dissimilar bodies : a large British body (including some 
 few Tories and Liberals from Ireland), which, though it was 
 distracted by party quarrels, really cared for the welfare 
 of the country and the dignity of the House, and would 
 set aside its quarrels in the presence of a great emergency; 
 and a small Irish body, which, though it spoke the English 
 language, was practically foreign, telt no interest in, no 
 responsibility for, the business of Britain or the Empire, 
 and valued its place in the House only as a means of 
 making itself so disagreeable as to obtain its release. When 
 we had grasped this fact, we began to reflect on its causes 
 and conjecture its effects. We had read of the same things 
 in the newspapers, but what a difference there is between 
 reading a drama in your study and seeing if acted on the 
 stage ! We realized what Irish feeling was when we heard 
 these angry cries, and noted how appeals that would have 
 affected English partisans fell on deaf ears. I remember 
 how one night in the summer of 1880, when the Irish 
 members kept us up very late over some trivial Bill of 
 theirs, refusing to adjourn till they had extorted terms, a 
 friend, sitting beside me, said, “See how things come 
 round. They keep us out of bed till five o’clock in the 
 morning because our ancestors bullied theirs for six 
 centuries.” And we saw that the natural relations of an 
 Executive, even a Liberal Executive, to the Irish members 
 were those of strife. Whose fault it was we were unable to 
 decide. Perhaps the Government was too stiff; perhaps 
 the members were vexatious. Anyhow, this strife was 
 evidently the normal state of things, wholly unlike that 
 which existed between Scotch members, to whichever party 
 they belonged, and the executive authorities of Scotland. 
 
H017 WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 31 
 
 Thus the session of 1880, though it did not bring us 
 consciously nearer to Home Rule, impressed three facts 
 upon us : first, that the House of Lords regarded Ireland 
 solely from the point of view of English landlords, 
 sympathizing with Irish landlords; secondly, that the 
 House of Commons knew so little or cared so little 
 about Ireland that when the Executive declared a measure 
 essential to the peace of Ireland, it scarcely resented the 
 rejection of that measure by the House of Lords; thirdly, 
 that the Irish Nationalists in the House of Commons were 
 a foreign body, foreign in the sense in which a needle which 
 a man swallows is foreign, not helping the organism to 
 discharge its functions, but impeding them, and setting up 
 irritation. We did not yet draw from these facts all the 
 conclusions we should now draw. But the facts were there, 
 and they began to tell upon our minds. 
 
 Session of 1881.—The winter of 1880-81 was a terrible 
 one in Ireland. The rejection of the Compensation for 
 Disturbance Bill had borne the fruit which Mr. Forster 
 had predicted, and which the House of Lords had ignored. 
 Outrages were numerous and serious. The cry in England 
 for repressive measures had gone on rising from November, 
 when it occasioned a demonstration at the Guildhall ban¬ 
 quet. Several Liberal members (of whom I was one) went 
 to Ireland at Christmas, to see with our own eyes how 
 things stood. We were struck by the difficulty of obtaining 
 trustworthy information in Dublin, where the richer classes, 
 with whom we chiefly came in contact, merely abused the 
 Land League, while the Land Leaguers declared that the 
 accounts of outrages were grossly exaggerated. The most 
 prominent, Mr. Michael Davitt, assured me, and I believe 
 with perfect truth, that he had exerted himself to dis¬ 
 countenance outrage, and that if, as he expected, he was 
 locked up by the Government, outrages would increase. 
 When one reached the disturbed districts, where, of course, 
 
I/O^V WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 one talked to members as well of the landlord class as of 
 the peasantry, the general conclusion which emerged from 
 the medley of contradictions was that, though there was 
 much agrarian crime, and a pervading sense of insecurity, 
 the disorders were not so bad as people in England believed, 
 and might have been dealt with by a vigorous administra¬ 
 tion of the existing law. Unfortunately, the so-called 
 “better classes,” full of bitterness against the Liberal 
 Ministry and Mr. Forster (whom they did not praise till 
 it was too late), had not assisted the Executive, and had 
 allowed things to reach a pass at which it found the work 
 of governing very difficult. 
 
 When the Coercion Bill of i88i was introduced, many 
 English Liberals were inclined to resist it. The great 
 majority voted for it, but within two years they bitterly 
 repented their votes. Our motives, which I mention by 
 way of extenuation, not of defence, were these. The Execu¬ 
 tive Government declared that it could not deal with crime 
 by the ordinary law. If its followers refused exceptional 
 powers, they must displace the Ministry, and let in the 
 Tories, who would doubtless obtain such powers, and pro- 
 babl}" use them worse. We had still confidence in Mr. 
 Forster’s judgment, and a deference to Irish Executive 
 Governments generally which Parliamentary experience is well 
 fitted to dissipate. The violence with which the Nationalist 
 members resisted the introduction of the Bill had roused 
 our blood, and the foolish attempts which the Radical and 
 Irish electors in some constituencies had made to deter 
 their members from supporting it had told the other way, 
 and disposed these members to vote for it, in order to show 
 that they were not to be cowed by threats. Finally, we were 
 assured that votes given for the Coercion Bill would pur¬ 
 chase a thorough-going Land Bill, and our anxiety for the latter 
 induced us, naturally, but erringly, to acquiesce in the former. 
 
 When that Land Bill went into Committee we perceived 
 
I/O IF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 33 
 
 how much harm the Coercion Bill had done in intensifying 
 the bitterness of Irish members. Although the Ministry 
 was fighting for their interests against the Tory party and 
 the so-called Whiggish section of its own supporters, who 
 were seeking to cut down the benefits which the measure 
 offered to Irish tenants, the Nationalist members regarded 
 it, and in particular Mr. Forster, as their foe. They resented 
 what tliey deemed the insult put upon their country. They 
 saw those who had been fighting, often, no doubt, by 
 unlawful methods, for the national cause, thrown into 
 prison and kept there without trial. They anticipated 
 (not without reason) the same fortune for themselves. 
 Hence the friendliness which the Liberal party sought to 
 show them met with no response, and Mr. Forster was 
 worried with undiminished vehemence. In the discussions 
 on the Bill we found the Ministry generally resisting all 
 amendments which came from Irish members. When these 
 amendments seemed to us right, w'e voted for them, but 
 they were almost always defeated by the union of the Tories 
 with the steady Ministerialists. Subsequent events have 
 proved that many were right, but, whether they were right 
 or wrong, the fact which impressed us was that in matters 
 which concerned Ireland only, and lay within the exclusive 
 knowledge of Irishmen, Irish members were constantly 
 outvoted by English and Scotch members, who knew 
 nothing at all of the merits of the case, but simply obeyed 
 the party whip. This hai)pened even when tire Irish 
 members who sat on the Liberal side (such as Mr. Dickson 
 and his I.ibcral colleagues from Ulster) joined the Nation¬ 
 alist section in demanding some extension of the Bill which 
 the Ministry refused. And we perceived that nothing 
 incensed the Irish members more than the feeling that their 
 arguments were addressed to deaf ears; that they were 
 overborne, not by reason, but by sheer weight of numbers. 
 Even if they convinced the Ministry, they could seldom 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 BOJF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 hope to obtain its assent, because the ^Ministry had to 
 consider the House of Lords, sure to reject amendments 
 which favoured the tenant, while to detach a number cf 
 Ministerialists sufficient to carry an amendment against the 
 Treasury Bench, the Moderate Liberals, and the Tories, 
 was evidently hopeless. 
 
 At the end of the session the House of Lords came 
 again upon the scene. It seriously damaged the Bill by its 
 amendments, and would have destroyed it but for the skill 
 with which the head of the Government handled these 
 amendments, accepting the least pernicious, so as to enable 
 the Upper House without loss of dignity to recede from 
 those which were wholly inadmissible. Several times it 
 seemed as if the conflict would have to pass from West¬ 
 minster to the country, and, in contemplating the chances 
 of a popular agitation or a dissolution, we were regretfully 
 obliged to own that the English people cared too little and 
 knew too little abcut Irish questions to give us much hope 
 of defeating the House of Lords and the Tories upon these 
 issues. 
 
 An incident which occurred towards the end of the 
 session seems, though trifling in itself, so illustrative of the 
 illogical position in which we stood towards Ireland, as to 
 deserve mention. Mr. Forster, still Chief Secretary, had 
 brought in a Bill for extinguishing the Queen’s University 
 in Ireland, and creating in place of it a body to be called 
 the Royal University, which, however, was not to be a real 
 university at all, but only a set of examiners plus some 
 salaried fellowships, to be held at various places of in¬ 
 struction. Regarding this as a gross educational blunder, 
 which would destroy a useful existing body, and create a 
 sham university in its place, and finding several Parliamen¬ 
 tary friends on whose judgment I could rely to be of the 
 same opinion, I gave notice of opposition to the Bill. Mr. 
 Forster came to me, and pressed with great warmth that 
 
//OIF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 35 
 
 the opposition should be withdrawn. The Bill, he said, 
 would satisfy the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and complete 
 the work of the Land Bill in pacifying Ireland. The Irish 
 members wanted it : what business had an English member 
 to interfere to defeat tlieir wishes, and thwart the Executive ? 
 The reply was obvious. Not to speak of the simplicity of 
 expecting the hierarchy to be satisfied by this small conces¬ 
 sion, what were such arguments but the admission of Home 
 Rule in its worst form ? “ You resist the demand of the 
 
 Irish members to legislate for Ireland; you have just been 
 demanding, and obtaining, the support of English members 
 against those amendments of the Land Bill which Irish 
 members declare to be necessary. Now you bid us sur¬ 
 render our own judgment, ignore our own responsibility, 
 and blindly pass a Bill which we, who have studied these 
 university questions as they affect both Ireland and England, 
 believe to be thoroughly mischievous to the prospects of 
 higher education in Ireland, only because the Irish 
 members, as you sa}', desire it. Do one thing or the 
 other. Either give them the power and the responsibility, 
 or leave both with the Imperial Parliament. You are now 
 asking us to surrender the power, but to remain still subject 
 to the responsibility. We will not bear the latter without 
 the former. We shall prefer Home Rule.” Needless to 
 add that this device—a sample of the petty sops by which 
 successive generations of Plnglish statesmen, Whigs and 
 Tories alike, have sought to win over a priesthood which 
 uses and laughs at them—failed as completely as its 
 predecessors to settle the University question or to range 
 the bishops on the side of the Government. 
 
 The autumn and winter of i88i revealed the magnitude 
 of the mischief done by making a Coercion Bill precede a 
 Relief Bill. The Land Bill was the largest concession made 
 to the demands of the people since Catholic Emancipation. 
 It was a de})arture, justified by necessity, bat still a de- 
 
3(5 
 
 f/OJy WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 pavture from our established principles of legislation. It 
 ought to have brought satisfaction and confidence, if not 
 gratitude, with it; ought to have led Ireland to believe in 
 the sincere friendliness of England, and produced a new 
 cordiality between the islands. It did nothing of the kind. 
 It was held to have been extorted from our fears; its grace 
 and sweetness were destroyed by the concomitant severities 
 which the Coercion Act had brought into force, as whole¬ 
 some food becomes distasteful when some bitter compound 
 has been sprinkled over it. We were deeply mortified at 
 this result of our efforts. What was the malign power which 
 made the boons we had conferred shrivel up, “ like fairy 
 gifts fading away”? We still believed the Coercion Act to 
 liave been justified, but lamented the fate which bafiled the 
 main object of our efforts, the winning over Ireland to trust 
 the justice and the capacity of the Imperial Parliament. And 
 thus the two facts which stood out from the history of this 
 eventful session were, first, that even in legislating for the 
 good of Ireland we were legislating against the wishes of 
 Ireland, imposing on her enactments which her representa¬ 
 tives opposed, and which we supported only at the bidding 
 of the Ministry; and, secondly, that at the end of a long 
 session, entirely devoted to her needs, we found her more 
 liostile and not less disturbed than she had been at its 
 beginning. We began to wonder whether we should ever 
 succeed better on our present lines. But we still mostly 
 regarded Plome Rule as a disagreeable solution. 
 
 Session of 1882.—Still graver were the lessons of 
 the first four months of this year. Mr. Forster went on 
 filling the prisons of Ireland with persons whom he arrested 
 under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and never 
 brought to trial. But the country grew no more quiet. At 
 last he had nine hundred and forty men under lock and 
 key, many of them not “ village ruffians,” whose power a few 
 weeks’ detention was to break, but political offenders, and 
 
/fOPF IVE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 37 
 
 even popular leaders. How long could this go on ? Where 
 was it to stop ? It became plain that the Act was a failure, 
 and that the people, trained to combination by a century 
 and a half’s practice, Avere too strong for the Executive. 
 Either the scheme and plan of the Act had been wrong, or 
 its administration had been incompetent. 'Whichever was 
 the source of the failure (most people will now blame both), 
 the fault must be laid at the door of the Irish Executive; 
 not of Mr. Forster himself, but of those on whom he relied. 
 It had been a Dublin Castle Bill, conceived and carried out 
 by the incompetent bureaucracy which has so long pretended 
 to govern Ireland. Such a proof of incompetence destroyed 
 whatever confidence in that bureaucracy then remained to 
 us, and the disclosures which the Phcenix Park murders 
 and the subsequent proceedings against the Invincibles 
 brought out, proved beyond question that the Irish Executive 
 had only succeeded in giving a more dark and dangerous 
 form, the form of ruthless conspiracy, to the agitation it was 
 combating. 
 
 When therefore the Prevention of Crime Bill of 1882 
 was brought in, some of us felt unable to support it, and 
 specially bound to resist those of its provisions which related 
 to trials without a jury, and to boycotting. It was impos¬ 
 sible, on the morrow of the Phoenix Park murders, to deny 
 that some coercive measure might be needed; but we had 
 so far lost faith in repression, and in the officials who were 
 to administer it, as to desire to limit it to what was absolutely 
 necessary, and we protested against enacting for Ireland 
 a criminal code which was not to be applied to Great 
 Britain. Our resistance might have been more successful 
 but for the manner in which the Nationalist members con¬ 
 ducted their opposition. When they began to obstruct— 
 not that under the circumstances we felt entitled to censure 
 them for obstructing a Bill dealing so harshly with their 
 countrymen—Ave Avere obliged to desist, and our experience 
 
38 
 
 HO IF IVE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 of the stormy scenes of the summer of 1882 deepened our 
 sense of the passionate bitterness with which they regarded 
 English members, scarcelypnaking an exception in favour of 
 those who were most disposed to sympathize with them. 
 Many and many a time when we listened to their fierce 
 cries, we seemed to hear in them the battle-cries of the 
 centuries of strife between Celt and Englishman from 
 Athenry to Vinegar Hill; many a time we felt that this rage 
 and mistrust were chiefly of England’s making; and yet not 
 of England’s, but rather of the overmastering fate which had 
 prolonged to our own days the hatreds and the methods of 
 barbarous times : 
 
 OVK aiTlOL €(T/J,{v 
 
 ’AWa Zevs 1(0.1 Moipa ko.i •^epocjyoiTts 'EptiVs. 
 
 So much of the session as the Crime Bill had spared 
 was consumed by the Arrears Bill, over which we had again 
 a “crisis” with the House of Lords. This was the third 
 session that had been practically given up to Irishmen. 
 The freshness and force of the Parliament of 1880—a Par¬ 
 liament full of zeal and ability—had now been almost spent, 
 yet few of the plans of domestic legislation spread before the 
 constituencies of 1880 had been realized. The Government 
 had been anxious to legislate, their majority had been ready 
 to support them, but Ireland had blocked the way; and 
 now the only expedient for improving the procedure of the 
 House was to summon Parliament in an extra autumn 
 session. Here was another.cause for reflection. England 
 and Scotland were calling for measures promised years ago, 
 but no time could be found to discuss them. Nothing was 
 done to reorganize local government, to reform the liquor 
 laws, to improve secondary education, to deal with the 
 housing of the poor, or a dozen other urgent questions, 
 because we were busy with Ireland; and yet how little more 
 loyal or contented did Ireland seem to be for all we had 
 
IiO!F WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 39 
 
 done. We began to ask whether Home Rule might not be 
 as much an English and Scotch question as an Irish ques¬ 
 tion. It was, at any rate, clear that to allow Ireland to 
 manage her own affairs would open a prospect for England 
 and Scotland to obtain time to attend to theirs.* 
 
 This feeling was strengthened by the result of the 
 attempts made in tlie autumn session of 1882, to improve 
 the procedure of the House of Commons. We had cherished 
 the hope that more drastic remedies against obstruction and 
 better arrangements for the conduct of business, might 
 relieve much of the pressure Irish members had made us 
 suffer. The passing of the New Rules shattered this hope, 
 for it was plain they would not accomplish what was needed. 
 Some blamed the Government for not framing a more 
 stringent code. Some blamed the Tory and the Irish Op¬ 
 positions (now beginning to work in concert) for cutting 
 down the proposals of the Government. But most of us 
 saw, and came to see still more clearly in the three succeed¬ 
 ing sessions, that the evil was too deejs-rooted to be cured 
 by any changes of procedure, unless they went so far as to 
 destroy freedom of debate for English members also. The 
 presence in a deliberative assembly of a section numbering 
 (or likely soon to number) one-seventh of the whole—a 
 section seeking to lower the character of the assembly, and 
 to derange its mechanism, with no further interest in the 
 greater part of its business e.xcept that of preventing it from 
 
 * I may mention here another fact whose significance impressed 
 some among us. I’arliament, which usually sinned in not doing for 
 Ireland what Ireland asked, occasionally passed bills for Ireland which 
 were regarded as setting very bad precedents for England. By some 
 bargain between the Irish Office and the Nationalist members, measures 
 were put through which may have been right as respects Ireland, hut 
 which embodied principles mischievous as respects Great Britain. We 
 felt that if it was necessary to enact such statutes, it would be better 
 that they should proceed from an Irish Legislature rather than from the 
 Imperial I’arliament, which might be embarrassed by its own acts when 
 asked to extend the same principles to England. The Labourers’ Act 
 of July, 1SS5, is the most conspicuous example. 
 
40 
 
 //OIF IFE BECAH/E HOME RULERS 
 
 conducting that business—this was the phenomenon which 
 confronted us, and we felt that no rules of debate would 
 overcome the dangers it threatened. 
 
 It is from this year 1882 that I date the impression 
 M’hich we formed, that Home Rule was sure to come. “ It 
 may be a bold experiment,” we said to one another in the 
 lobbies; “ there are serious difficulties in the way, though 
 the case for it is stronger than we thought two years ago. 
 But if the Irishmen persist as they are doing now, they will 
 get it. It is only a question of their tenacity.” 
 
 It was impossible not to be struck during the conflicts 
 of 1881 and 1882 with the small amount of real bitterness 
 which the conduct of the Irish members, irritating as it often 
 was, provoked among the Liberals, who of course bore the 
 brunt of the conflict. The Nationalists did their best to 
 injure a Government which was at the same time being 
 denounced by the Tories as too favourable to Irish claims; 
 they lowered the character of Parliament by scenes far more 
 painful than those of the session of 1887, on which so much 
 indignation has been lately expended; they said the hardest 
 things they could think of against us in the House; they 
 attacked us in our constituencies. Their partisans (for I do 
 not charge this on the leaders) interrupted and broke up 
 our meetings. Nevertheless, all this did not provoke 
 responsive hatred from the Liberals. There could not be 
 a greater contrast than that between the way in which the 
 great bulk of the Liberal members all through the Parlia¬ 
 ment of 1880 behaved towards their Irish antagonists, and 
 the violence with which the Tory members, under much 
 slighter provocation, conduct themselves towards those 
 antagonists now. I say this not to the credit of our temper, 
 which was no better than that of other men heated by the 
 struggles of a crowded assembly. It was due entirely to 
 our feeling that there was a great balance of wrong standing 
 to the debit of England; that if the Irish were turbulent, it 
 
//OI^F WE BECA3IE HOME RULERS. 
 
 41 
 
 was the ill-treatment of former days that had made them so; 
 and that, whatever might be their methods, they were fight¬ 
 ing for their country. Although, therefore, there was little 
 social intercourse between us and them, there was always 
 a hope and a wish that the day might come when the 
 Liberal party should resume its natural position of joining 
 the representatives of the Irish people in obtaining radical 
 reforms in Irish government. And the remarkable speech of 
 February 9, 1882, in which Mr. Gladstone declared his mind 
 to be open on the subject, and invited the Nationalists 
 to propound a practicable scheme of self-government, had 
 encouraged us to hope that this day might soon arrive. 
 
 Session of 1883.—Three facts stood out in the history 
 of this comparatively quiet session, each of which brought us 
 further along the road we had entered. 
 
 One was the omission of Parliament to complete the ' 
 work begun by the Land Bill of 1881, of improving the 
 condition of the Irish peasantry and reorganizing Irish ad¬ 
 ministration. The Nationalist members brought in Bills 
 for these purposes, 'including one for amending the Land 
 Act by admitting leaseholders to its benefits and securing 
 tenants against having their improvements reckoned against 
 them in the fixing of rents. Though we could not approve 
 all the contents of these Bills, we desired to see the Govern¬ 
 ment either take them up and amend them, or introduce 
 Bills of its own to do what was needed. Some of us 
 spoke strongly in this sense, nor will any one now deny . 
 that we were right. Sound policy called aloud for the 
 completion of the undertaking of i88r. The Government , 
 however refused, alleging, no doubt with some truth, that 
 Ireland could not have all the time of Parliament, but must 
 let England and Scotland have their turn. Nor was any¬ 
 thing done towards the creation of new local institutions in 
 Ireland, or the reform of the Castle bureaucracy. We were 
 profoundly disheartened. We saw golden opportunities 
 
42 
 
 7/0 IP' WE 77 EGA ME 770ME RULERS. 
 
 slipping awa5% and doubted move than ever whether 
 Westminster was the place in which to legislate for Irish 
 grievances. 
 
 Another momentous fact was the steady increase in the 
 number of Nationalist members. Every seat that fell vacant 
 in Ireland was filled by them. The moderate Irish party, 
 most of whom had by this time crossed the floor of 
 the House, and were sitting among us, had evidently no 
 future. They were estimable, and, in some cases, able men, 
 from whom we had hoped much, as a link between the 
 Liberal party and the Irish people. But they seemed to 
 have lost their hold on the people, nor were they able to 
 give us much practical counsel as to Irish problems. It was 
 clear that they would vanish at the next General Election, 
 and Parliament be left to settle accounts with the extreme 
 men, whose spirits rose as those of our friends steadily sank. 
 
 Lastly: it was in this session that the alliance of the 
 Nationalists and the Tory Opposition became a potent 
 factor in politics. Its first conspicuous manifestation was 
 in the defeat of the Government by the allied forces on 
 the Affirmation Bill, when the least respectable privates in 
 both armies vied with one another in boisterous rejoicings 
 over the announcement of numbers in the division. I do 
 not refer to this as ground for complaint. It was in the 
 course of our usual political warfare that two groups, each 
 hating and fearing the Ministry, should unite to displace it. 
 But we now saw what power the Irish section must exert 
 when it came to hold the balance of numbers in the House. 
 Till this division, the Government had commanded a 
 majority of the whole House. This would probably not 
 outlast a dissolution. What then ? Could the two English 
 parties, differing so profoundly from one another, combine 
 against the third party ? Evidently not. We must, there¬ 
 fore, look forward to unstable Governments, if not to a total 
 dislocation of our Parliamentary system, 
 
HOW WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 43 
 
 Session of 1SS4.—I pass over the minor incidents of 
 this year, including the continued neglect of remedial legis¬ 
 lation for Ireland to dwell on its dominant and most impres¬ 
 sive lesson. It was the year of the Franchise Bill, which, 
 as regards Ireland, worked an extension, not merely of the 
 county but also of the borough franchise, and produced, 
 owing to the economic condition of the humbler classes in 
 that country, a far more extensive change than in England 
 or Scotland. When the Bill was introduced the question 
 at once arose—Should Ireland be included ? 
 
 There were two ways of treating Ireland between which 
 Parliament had to choose. 
 
 One was to leave her out of the Bill, on the ground that 
 the masses of her population could not be trusted with the 
 franchise, as being ignorant, sympathetic to crime, hostile 
 to the English Government. This course was the logical 
 concomitant of exceptional coercive legislation, such as had 
 been passed in iSSi and 1882. It was quite compatible 
 with generous remedial legislation. But it placed Ireland in 
 an unequal and lower position, treating her, as the Coercion 
 Acts did, as a dependent country, inhabited by a population 
 unfit for the same measure of power which the inhabitants 
 of Britain might receive. 
 
 The other course was to bestow on Ireland the same 
 extended franchise which the English county occupiers were 
 to receive, applying the principle of equality, and disregard¬ 
 ing the obvious consequences. These consequences were 
 both practical and logical. The practical consequence was 
 the increase in numbers and weight of the Irish party in 
 Parliament hostile to Parliament itself. The logical con¬ 
 sequence was the duty of complying with the wishes of the 
 enfranchised nation. W'hatever reasons were good for 
 giving this enlarged suffrage to the Irish masses, were good 
 for respecting the will which they might use to express it. 
 If the Irish were deemed fit to exercise the same full 
 
44 
 
 I/OJ^ WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 constitutional rights in legislation as the English, must they 
 not be fit for the same rights of trial by jury, a free press, 
 and all the privileges of personal freedom ? 
 
 Of these two courses the Cabinet chose the latter, 
 those of its members whom we must suppose, from the 
 language they now hold, to have then hesitated, either 
 stifling their fears or not apprehending the consequences 
 of their boldness. It might have been expected, and 
 indeed was generally expected, that the Tory party would 
 refuse to follow. They talked largely about the danger 
 of an extended Irish suffrage, and pointed out that it 
 would be a w'eapon in the hands of disloyalty. But when 
 the moment for resistance came, they swerved, and never 
 divided in either House against the application of the Bill 
 to Ireland. They might have failed to defeat the measure; 
 but they would have immensely strengthened their position, 
 logically and morally, had they given effect by their votes to 
 the sentiments they were known to entertain, and which not 
 a few Liberals shared. 
 
 The effect of this uncontested grant to Ireland of a 
 suffrage practically universal was immense upon our minds, 
 and the longer we reflected on it the more significant did 
 it become. It meant to us that the old methods were 
 abandoned, and, as we supposed, for ever. We had 
 deliberately given the Home Rule party arms against English 
 control far more powerful than they previously possessed. 
 We had deliberately asserted our faith in the Irish people. 
 Impossible after this to fall back on Coercion Bills. Im¬ 
 possible to refuse any request compatible with the general 
 safety of the United Kingdom, which Ireland as a nation 
 might prefer. Impossible to establish that system of Crown 
 Colony Government which we had come to perceive was 
 the only real and solid alternative to self-government. To 
 those of us who had been feeling that the Irish difficulty 
 was much the greatest of all England’s difficulties, this stood 
 
//OJF WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 45 
 
 out beyond the agitation of the autumn and the compromise 
 of the winter as the great political event of 1884.* 
 
 Although this sketch is in the main a record of Parlia¬ 
 mentary opinion, I ought not to pass over the influence 
 which the study of their constituents’ ideas exerted upon 
 members for the larger towns. We found the vast bulk of 
 our suppoiters—English supporters, for after 1882 it was 
 understood that the Irish voters were our enemies—sympa¬ 
 thetic with the Irish people. They knew and thought little 
 about Home Rule, believing that their member understood 
 that question better than they did, and willing, so long as 
 he was sound on English issues, to trust him. But they 
 pitied Irish tenants, and condemned Irish landlords. 
 Though they acquiesced in a Coercion Bill when proposed 
 by a Liberal Cabinet, because they concluded that nothing 
 less than necessity would lead such a Cabinet to propose 
 one, they so much disliked any exceptional or repressive 
 legislation tliat it was plain they would not long tolerate it. 
 Any popular leader denouncing coercion was certain to have 
 the sentiment of the English masses with him, while as to 
 suspending Irish representation or carrying out consistently 
 the policy of treating Ireland as a subject country, there 
 was no chance in the world of their approval. Those of us, 
 therefore, wlio represented large working-class constituencies 
 became convinced that the solution of the Irish problem 
 must be sought in conciliation and self-government, if only 
 because the other solution. Crown Colony Government, was 
 utterly repugnant to the English masses, in whom the 
 
 * At Easter, 1885, I met a number of leading Ulster Liberals in 
 Belfast, told them that Home Rule was certainly coming, and urged 
 them to prepare some plan under which any special interests they 
 conceived the Protestant part of Ulster to have, would be effectually 
 safe-guarded. They were startled, and at first discomposed, but 
 l)resently told me I was mistaken ; to which I could only reply that 
 time would show, and perhaps sooner then even English Liberals ex¬ 
 pected. 
 
46 
 
 //OJV JVE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 Franchise Bill of 1884, completing that of 1867, had vested 
 political supremacy.* 
 
 Session of 18S5.—The allied powers of Toryism and 
 Nationalism gained in this year the victory they had so long 
 striven for. In February they reduced the Ministerial 
 majority to fourteen; in June they overthrew the Ministry. 
 No one supposed that on either occasion the merits of the 
 issue had anything to do with the Nationalist vote: that 
 vote was given simply and solely against the Government, 
 as the Government which had passed the Coercion Acts of 
 1881 and 1882—Acts demanded by the Tory party, and 
 which had not conceded an Irish Parliament. At last the 
 Irish party had attained its position as the arbiter of power 
 and office. Some of us said, as we walked away from the 
 House, under the dawning light of that memorable 9th of 
 June, “This means Home Rule.” Our forecast was soon 
 to be confirmed. Lord Salisbury’s Cabinet, formed upon 
 the resignation of Mr. Gladstone’s, announced that it would 
 not propose to renew any part of the Coercion Act of 1882, 
 which was to expire in August. Here was a surrender 
 indeed ! But the Tory leaders went further. They did not 
 excuse themselves on the ground of want of time. They 
 took credit for their benevolence towards Ireland; they dis¬ 
 covered excellent reasons why the Act should be dropped. 
 They even turned upon Lord Spencer, whose administration 
 they had hitherto blamed for its leniency, and attacked him 
 in Parliament, among the cheers of his Irish enemies. From 
 that time till the close of the General Election in December 
 everything was done, short of giving public pledges, to keep 
 the Irish leaders and the Irish voters in good humour. The 
 Tory party in fact posed as the true friends of Ireland, averse 
 
 * My recollection of a conversation with a distinguished public man 
 in July, 1882, enables me to say that this fact had impressed itself upon 
 us as early as that year. He doubted the fact, but admitted that, if 
 true, it was momentous. The passing of the Franchise Bill made it, in 
 our view, more momentous than ever. 
 
//OIF WE BECAME //OME RULERS. 
 
 47 
 
 from coeicion, and with minds perfectly open on the subject 
 of self-government. 
 
 This change of front, so sudden, so unblushing, com¬ 
 pleted the process which had been going on in our minds. 
 By 1882 we had come to feel that Home Rule was inevitable, 
 though probably undesirable. Before long we had asked 
 ourselves whether it was really undesirable, whether it might 
 not be a good thing both for England, whose Parliament 
 and Cabinet system it would relieve from impending dangers, 
 while leaving free scope for domestic legislation, and for 
 Ireland, which could hardly manage her affairs worse than 
 we were managing them for her, and might manage them 
 better. And thus, by the spring of 1885, many of us were 
 prepared for a large scheme of local self-government in 
 Ireland, including a central legislative body in Dublin.* 
 
 Now when it was plain that the English party which had 
 hitherto called for repression, and had professed itself anxious 
 for a patriotic union of all parties to maintain order and a 
 continuity of policy in Ireland, was ready to bid for Irish 
 help at the polls by throwing over repression and reversing 
 the policy it had advocated, we felt that the sooner Ireland 
 was taken out of English party politics the better. What 
 prospect was there of improving Ireland by the superior 
 wisdom and fairness of the British Parliament, if British 
 leaders were to make their Irish policy turn on interested 
 bargains with Nationalist leaders? Repression, which we 
 
 * Some thought that its functions should be very limited, while large 
 powers were granted to county boards or provincial councils. But most 
 had, I think, already perceived that the grant of a merely local self- 
 government, while retaining an irresponsible central bureaucracy, would 
 do more harm than good. It seemed at first sight a safer e.vperiment 
 than the creation of a central legislative body. But, like many middle 
 courses, it combined the demerits and wanted the merits of each of the 
 e.vtreme courses. It would not make the country tranquil, as firm and 
 long-continued repression might possibly do. Neither would it satisfy 
 the people’s demands, and divert them from struggles against England 
 to disputes and discussions among themselves, as the gift of genuine 
 s.lf-government might do. 
 
48 
 
 I/Oir JVE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 clearly saw to be the only alternative to self-government, 
 seemed to be by common consent abandoned. I remember 
 how, at a party of members in the beginning of July, some 
 one said, “ Well, there’s an end for ever of coercion at any 
 rate,” and every one assented as to an obvious truth. Ac¬ 
 cordingly the result of the new departure of the Salisbury 
 Cabinet in 1885 was to convince even doubters that Home 
 Rule must come, and to make those already convinced 
 anxious to see it come quickly, and to find the best form 
 that could be given it. Many of us expected the Tory 
 Government to propose it. Rumour declared the new Lord 
 Lieutenant to be in favour of it. His government was ex¬ 
 tremely conciliatory in Ireland, even to the recalcitrant cor¬ 
 poration of Limerick. Not to mention less serious and less 
 respected Tory Ministers, Lord Salisbury talked at Newport 
 about the dualism of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy with 
 the air of a man who desired to have a workable scheme, 
 analogous, if not similar, suggested for Ireland and Great 
 Britain. The Irish Nationalists appeared to place their 
 hopes in this quarter, for they attacked the Liberal party 
 with unexampled bitterness, and threw all their voting 
 strength into the Tory scale. 
 
 As it has lately been attempted to blacken the character 
 of the Irish leaders, it deserves to be remarked that whatever 
 has been charged against them was said or done by them 
 before the spring of 1885, and was, practically, perfectly well 
 known to the Tory leaders Avhen they accepted the alliance 
 of the Irish party in the House of Commons, and courted 
 their support in the election of 1885. To those who 
 remember what went on in the House in the sessions of 
 1884 and 1885, the horror now professed by the Tory 
 leaders for the conduct and w'ords of the Irish party would 
 be matter for laughter if it w'ere not also matter for just 
 indignation. 
 
 Why, it may be asked, if the persuasion that Home Rule 
 
//OIF IVE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 49 
 
 was certain, and even desirable, had become general among 
 the Liberals who had sat through the Parliament of 1880, 
 was it not more fully expressed at the election of 1885? 
 This is a fair question, which I shall try to answer. 
 
 In the first place, the electors made few inquiries about 
 Ireland. They disliked the subject; they had not realized 
 its supreme importance. Those of us who felt anxious to 
 explain our views (as was my own case) had to volunteer to 
 do so, for we were not asked about them. The Irish party 
 in the constituencies was in violent opposition to Liberal 
 candidates; it did not interrogate, but denounced. Further, 
 it was felt that the issue was mainly one to be decided in 
 Ireland itself. The question of Home Rule was being sub¬ 
 mitted, not, as heretofore, to a limited constituency, but to 
 the whole Irish people. Till their will had been constitu¬ 
 tionally declared at the polls it was not proper that English¬ 
 men or Scotchmen should anticipate its tenour. AVe should 
 even have been accused, had we volunteered our opinions, 
 of seeking to affect the result in Ireland, and, not only of 
 playing for the Irish vote in Great Britain, as we saw the 
 Tories doing, but of prejudicing the chances of those Liberal 
 candidates who, in Irish constituencies, were competing with 
 extreme Nationalists. A third reason was that most English 
 and Scotch Liberals did not know how far their own dispo¬ 
 sitions towards Home Rule were shared by their leaders. 
 Mr. Gladstone’s declaration in his Midlothian address was 
 no doubt a decided intimation of his views, and was certainly 
 understood by some (as by myself) to imply the grant to 
 Ireland of a Parliament; but, strong as its words were, its 
 importance does not seem to have been fully appreciated at 
 the moment. And the opinions of a statesman whose un¬ 
 equalled Irish experience and elevated character gave him a 
 weight only second to that of Mr. Gladstone—I mean Lord 
 Spencer—had not been made known. AVc had conse¬ 
 quently no certainty that there were leaders prepared to give 
 
 E 
 
I/O IF WE BECAME I/OME RULERS. 
 
 SO 
 
 prompt effect to the views we entertained. Lastly, we were 
 not prepared with a practical scheme of self-government for 
 Ireland. The Nationalist members had propounded none 
 which we could either adopt or criticize. Convinced as we 
 were that Home Rule would come and must come, we felt 
 the difficulties surrounding every suggestion that had yet 
 been made, and had not hammered out any plan rvhich we 
 could lay before the electors as approved by Liberal opinion.* 
 We were forced to confine ourselves to generalities. 
 
 Whether it would have been better for us to have done 
 our thinking and scheme-making in public, and thereby have 
 sooner forced the details of the problem upon the attention 
 of the country, need not now be inquired. Any one can 
 now see that something was lost by the omission. But 
 those who censure a course that ha,s actually been taken 
 usually fail to estimate the evils that would have followed 
 from the taking of the opposite course. Such evils might 
 in this instance have been as great as those we have 
 encountered. 
 
 I have spoken of the importance we attached to the 
 decision of Ireland itself, and of the attitude of expectancy 
 which, while that decision was uncertain, Englishmen were 
 forced to maintain. W^e had not long to wait. Early in 
 December it was known that five-sixths of the members 
 returned from Ireland w'ere Nationalists, and that the 
 
 * Some of us had tried to do so. I prepared such a scheme in the 
 autumn of 1885, and submitted it to some specially competent friends. 
 Their objections, made from what would now be called the Unionist 
 point of view, were weighty. But their effect was to convince me that 
 the scheme erred on the side of caution ; and I believe the experience 
 of other Liberals who worked at the problem to have been the same as 
 my own—viz. that a small and timid scheme is more dangerous than a 
 large and bold one. Thus the result of our thinking from July, 1885, till 
 April, 1886, was to make us more and more dispos;d to reject half and- 
 half solutions. Some of us (of whom I was one) expressed this feeling 
 by saying in our election addresses in 1885, “ the further we go in giving 
 the Irish people the management of their own affairs (subject to the 
 maintenance of the unity of the empire) the better.” 
 
HOW WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 51 
 
 majorities which had returned them were crushing. If ever 
 a people spoke its will, the Irish people spoke theirs at the 
 election of 1885. The last link in the chain of conviction, 
 which events had been forging since 1880, was now supplied. 
 In passing the Franchise Bill of 1884, we had asked Ireland 
 to declare her n\ind. She had now answered. If the 
 question was not a mockery, and representative government 
 a sham, we were bt'und to accept the answer, subject only, 
 ljut subject always, to the interests of the whole United 
 Kingdom. In other words, we were bound to devise such 
 a scheme of self-government for Ireland as would give full 
 satisfaction to her wishes, while maintaining the ultimate 
 supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and the unity of the 
 British Empire. 
 
 Very few words are needed to summarize the outline 
 which, omitting many details which would have illustrated 
 and confirmed its truth, I have attempted to present of the 
 progress of opinion among Liberal members of the Parlia¬ 
 ment of 1880. 
 
 1. Our experience of the Coercion Bills of 1881 and 
 1882 disclosed the enormous mischief which such measures 
 do in alienating the minds of Irishmen, and the difficulty of 
 enlisting Irish sentiment on behalf of the law. The results 
 of the Act of 1881 taught us that the repression of open 
 agitation means the growth of far more dangerous con¬ 
 spiracy; those of the Act of 1882 proved that even under 
 an administration like Lord Spencer’s repression works no 
 change for the better in the habits and ideas of the people. 
 
 2. The conduct of the House of Lords in 1880 and 
 1881, and the malign influence which its existence exerted 
 whenever remedial legislation for Ireland came in question, 
 convinced us that full and complete justice will never be done 
 to Ireland by the British Parliament while the Upper House 
 (as at present constituted) remains a part of that Parliament. 
 
 3. The break-down of the procedure of the House of 
 
52 
 
 ffOlF WE BECAME HOME RULERS, 
 
 Commons, and the failure of the efforts to amend it, proved 
 that Parliament cannot work so long as a considerable 
 section of its members seek to impede its working. To 
 enable it to do its duty by England and Scotland, it was 
 evidently necessary, either to make the Irish members as 
 loyal to Parliament as English and Scotch members usually 
 are, or else to exclude them. 
 
 4. The discussions of Irish Bills in the House of 
 Commons made us realize how little English members knew 
 about Ireland ; how utterly different were their competence 
 for, and their attitude towards, Irish questions and English 
 questions. AVe perceived that we were legislating in the 
 dark for a country whose economic and social condition 
 we did not understand—a country to which we could not 
 apply our English ideas of policy; a country whose very 
 temper and feeling were strange to us. AA^e were really 
 fitter to pass laws for Canada or Australia than for this isle 
 within sight of our shores. 
 
 5. I have said that we were legislating In the dark. But 
 there were two quarters from which light was proffered, the 
 Irish members and the Irish Executive. AVe rejected the first, 
 and could hardly help doing so, for to accept it would have 
 been to displace our own leaders. AVe followed the light 
 which the Executive gave. But in some cases- (as notably 
 in the case of the Coercion Bill of 1881) it proved to be a 
 “ wandering fire,” leading us into dangerous morasses. And 
 we perceived that at all times legislation at the bidding of 
 the Executive, against the wishes of Irish members, was not 
 self-government or free government. It was despotism. 
 The rule of Ireland by the British Parliament was really 
 “ the rule of a dependency through an official, responsible 
 no doubt, but responsible not to the ruled, but to an 
 assembly of which they form less than a sixth part.” * As 
 
 * Quoted from an article contributed by myself to the American 
 Cmtury Magazine, which I refer to because, written in the spring of 
 itiSj, it expresses the ideas here stated. 
 
I/OIV WE BECAME HOME RULERS. S 2 
 
 this assembly closed its ears to the one-sixth, and gave effect 
 to the will of the official, this was essentially arbitrary 
 government, and wanted those elements of success which 
 free government contains. 
 
 This experience had, by 1884, convinced us that the 
 present relations of the British Parliament to Ireland were 
 bad, and could not last; that the discontent of Ireland was 
 justified; that the existing system, in alienating the mind of 
 Ireland, tended, not merely to Repeal, but to Separation; 
 that the simplest, and probably the only effective, remedy 
 for the increasing dangers was the grant of an Irish Legisla¬ 
 ture. Two events clinched these conclusions. One w'as 
 the Tory surrender of June, 1885. Self-government, we had 
 come to see, was the only alternative to Coercion, and now 
 Coercion was gone. The other was the General Election 
 of December, 1885, when newly-enfranchised Ireland, 
 through five-sixths of her representatives, demanded a 
 Parliament of her own. 
 
 These were not, as is sometimes alleged, conclusions of 
 despair. We were mostly persons of a cautious and con¬ 
 servative turn of mind, as men imbued with the spirit of the 
 British Constitution ought to be. The first thing \vas to 
 convince us that the existing relations of the islands were 
 faulty, and could not be maintained. This was a negative 
 result, and while we remained in that stage we were de¬ 
 spondent. Many Liberal members will remember the gloom 
 that fell on us in 1882 and 1883 whenever we thought or 
 spoke of Ireland. But presently the clouds lifted. We still 
 felt the old objections to any Home Rule scheme, though 
 we now saw that they were less formidable than the evils of 
 the present system. But we came to feel that the grant of 
 self-government was a right thing in itself. It was not 
 merely a means of ridding ourselves of our difficulties, not 
 merely a boon yielded because long demanded. It was a 
 return to broad and deep principles, a conformity to those 
 
54 
 
 IJO^F WE BECAME HOME RULERS. 
 
 natural laws which govern human society as well as the 
 inanimate world—an effort to enlist the better and higher 
 feelings of mankind in the creation of a truer union between 
 the two nations than had ever yet existed. When we 
 perceived this, hope returned. It is strong with us now, 
 for, though we see troubles, perhaps even dangers, in the 
 immediate future, we are confident that the principles on 
 which Liberal policy towards Ireland is based will in the 
 long run work out a happy issue for her, as they have in and 
 for every other country that has trusted to them. 
 
 One last word as to Consistency. We learnt in the 
 Parliament of 1880 many facts about Ireland we had not 
 known before; we felt the force and bearing of other facts 
 previously accepted on hearsay, but not realized. We saw 
 the Irish problem change from what it had been in 1880 
 into the new phase which stood apparent at the end of 
 1885, Coercion abandoned by its former advocates. Self- 
 government demanded by the nation. Were we to dis¬ 
 regard all these new facts, ignore all these new conditions, 
 and cling to old ideas, some of which we perceived to be 
 mistaken, while others, still true in themselves, were out¬ 
 weighed by arguments of far wider import? We did not so 
 estimate our duty. We foresaw the taunts of foes and the 
 reproaches of friends. But we resolved to give effect to the 
 opinions we slowly, painfully, even reluctantly formed, 
 opinions all the stronger because not suddenly adopted, 
 and founded upon evidence whose strength no one can 
 appreciate till he has studied the causes of Irish discontent 
 in Irish history, and been forced (as we Avere) to face in 
 Parliament the practical difficulties of the government of 
 Ireland by the British House of Commons. 
 
NOJ/B RULE AND IMPERIAL 
 UNITY. 
 
 By Lord Turing. 
 
 The principal charge made against the scheme of Home 
 Rule contained in the Irish Government Bill, 1886, is that it 
 is incompatible with the maintenance of the unity of the 
 Empire and the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. 
 A further allegation states that the Bill is useless, as agrarian 
 exasperation lies at the root of Irish discontent and Irish 
 disloyalty, and that no place would be found for a Home 
 Rule Bill even in Irish aspirations if an effective Land Bill 
 were first passed. An endeavour will be made in the follow¬ 
 ing pages to secure a verdict of acquittal on both counts— 
 as to the charge relating to Imperial unity and the supre¬ 
 macy of the Imperial Parliament, by proving that the accu¬ 
 sation is absolutely unfounded, and based partly on a 
 misconception of the nature of Imperial ties, and partly on 
 a misapprehension of the effect of the provisions of the 
 Home Rule Bill as bearing on Imperial questions; and 
 as to the inutility of the Home Rule Bill in view of the 
 necessity of Land Reform, by showing that without a Home 
 Rule Bill no Land Bill worth consideration as a means of 
 pacifying Ireland can be passed. 
 
 The complete partisan spirit in which Home Rule has 
 been treated is the more to be deplored as the rubject is 
 
S6 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 one which does not lend itself readily to the trivialities 
 of party debates. It raises questions of principle, not of 
 detail. It ascends at once into the highest region of 
 politics. It is conversant with the great questions of con¬ 
 stitutional and international law, and leads to an inquiry 
 into the very nature of governments and the various modes 
 in which communities of men are associated together either 
 as simple or composite nations. To describe those modes in 
 detail would be to give a history of the various despotic, 
 monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic systems of govern¬ 
 ment which have oppressed or made happy the children of 
 men. Such a description is calculated to perplex and 
 mislead from its very extent; not so an inquiry into the 
 powers of government, and a classification of those powers. 
 They are limited in extent, and, if we confine ourselves to 
 English names and English necessities, we shall readily 
 attain to an apprehension of the mode in which empires, 
 nations, and political societies are bound together, at least 
 in so far as such knowledge is required for the understand¬ 
 ing of the nature of Imperial supremacy, and the mode in 
 which Home Rule in Ireland is calculated to affect that 
 supremacy. 
 
 The powers of government are divisible into two great 
 classes—i. Imperial powers; 2. State powers, using “State” 
 in the American sense of a political community subordi¬ 
 nated to some other power, and not in the sense of an 
 independent nation. The Imperial powers are in English 
 law described as the prerogatives of the Crown, and consist 
 in the main of the powers of making peace and war, of 
 maintaining armies and fleets and regulating commerce, and 
 making treaties with foreign nations. State powers are 
 complete powers of local self-government, described in our 
 colonial Constitutions as powers to make laws “ for the 
 peace, order, and good government of the Colony or State ” 
 in which such powers are to be exercised. 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 57 
 
 Intermediate between the Imperial and State powers are 
 a class of powers required to prevent disputes and facilitate 
 intercourse between the various parts of^an empire or other 
 composite system of States—for example, the coinage of 
 money, and other regulations relating to the currency; the 
 laws relating to copyright, or other exclusive rights to the 
 use and profits of any works or inventions; and so forth. 
 These powers may be described as quasi-imperial powers. 
 
 Having arrived at a competent knowledge of the mate¬ 
 rials out of which governments are formed, it may be well 
 to proceed to a consideration of the manner in which those 
 materials have been worked up in building the two great 
 Anglo-Saxon composite nations — namely, the American 
 Union and the British Empire—for, if we find that the 
 arrangements proposed by the Irish Home Rule Bill are 
 strictly in accordance with the principles on which the unity 
 of the American Union was based and on which the Imperial 
 power of Great Britain has rested for centuries, the con¬ 
 clusion must be that the Irish Home Rule Bill is not antago¬ 
 nistic to tlie unity of the Empire or to the supremacy of the 
 British Parliament. 
 
 In discussing these matters it will be convenient to begin 
 with the American Union, as it is less extensive in area and 
 more homogeneous in its construction than the British 
 Empire. The thirteen revolted American colonies, on the 
 conclusion of tbeir war with England, found themselves in 
 the position of thirteen independent States having no con¬ 
 nection with each other. The common tie of supremacy 
 exercised by the mother country was broken, and each 
 State was an independent nation, possessed both of Imperial 
 and Local rights. 
 
 Tlie impossibility of a cluster of thirteen small indepen¬ 
 dent nations maintaining their independence against foreign 
 aggression became immediately apparent, and, to remedy 
 this evil, the thirteen States appointed delegates to form 
 
58 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 a convention authorized to weld them into one body as 
 respected Imperial powers. This was attempted to be 
 done by the establishment of a central body called a 
 Congress, consisting of delegates from the component States, 
 and invested with all the powers designated above as Impe¬ 
 rial and quasi-imperial powers. The expenses incurred by 
 the confederacy were to be defrayed out of a common fund, 
 to be supplied by requisitions made on the several States. 
 In effect, the confederacy of the thirteen States amounted to 
 little more than an offensive and defensive alliance between 
 tliirteen independent nations, as the central power had States 
 for its subjects and not individuals, and could only enforce the 
 law a^^ainst any disobedientState bycalling on the twelve other 
 Stat( s to make war on the refractory member of the union. 
 A system dependent for its efficacy on the concurrence of 
 so many separate communities contained in itself the seeds 
 of dissolution, and it soon became apparent that one of two 
 things must occur—either the American States must cease 
 as such to be a nation, or the component members of that 
 union must each be prepared to relinquish a further portion 
 of the sovereign or quasi-sovereign powers which it possessed. 
 Under those circumstances, what was the course taken by 
 the thirteen States ? They perceived that it was quite 
 possible to maintain complete unity and compactness as 
 a nation if, in addition to investing the Supreme Govern¬ 
 ment with Imperial and quasi-Imperial powers, they added 
 full power to impose federal taxes on the component States 
 and established an Executive furnished with ample means 
 to carry all federal powers into effect through the medium 
 of federal officers. The government so formed consisted of 
 a President and two elected Plouses called Congress, and, 
 as a balance-wheel of the Constitution, a Supreme Court 
 was established, to which was confided the task of deciding 
 in case of dispute all questions arising under the Constitu¬ 
 tion of the United States or relating to international law. 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 59 
 
 The Executive of the United States, with the President as 
 its source and head, was furnished with full authority and 
 power to enforce the federal laws. The army and navy 
 were under its command, and it w'as provided with courts of 
 justice, and subordinate officers to enforce the decrees of 
 those courts throughout the length and breadth of the 
 Union. Above all, a complete system of federal taxation 
 supplied the Central Government with the necessary funds 
 to perform effectually all the functions of a supreme national 
 government. 
 
 The nature of the Constitution of the United States will 
 be best understood by considering the position in which its 
 subjects stand to the Central Government and their own 
 State Governments. In effect, every inhabitant of the 
 United States has a double nationality. He belongs to one 
 great nation called the United States, or, as it would be 
 more aptly called to show its absolute unity, the American 
 Republic, having jurisdiction over the whole surface of 
 ground comprised in the area of the United States. Pie is 
 also a citizen of a smaller local and partially self-governing 
 body—more important than a county, but not approaching 
 the position of a nation—called a State. 
 
 It is no part of the object of this article to enter into 
 the details of the American government, its advantages or 
 defects. This much, however, is clear—the American Con¬ 
 stitution has lasted nearly one hundred years, and shows no 
 signs of decay or disruption. It has stood the strain of the 
 greatest war of modern times, and has emerged from the 
 conflict stronger than before. Even during the war the an¬ 
 tagonism of the rebels was directed, not against the Union, 
 but against the efforts of the Northern States to suppress 
 slavery, or, in other words, to destroy, as the Southern States 
 believed (not unjustly as the event showed), their property 
 in slaves, and consequently the only means they had of 
 making their estates profitable. One conclusion, then, we 
 
6o 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 may draw, that a nation in which the Imperial powers and 
 the State powers are vested in different authorities is no less 
 compact and powerful, as respects all national capacities, 
 than a nation in which both classes of powers are wielded 
 by the same functionaries; and one lesson more may be 
 learnt from the American War of Secession—namely, that 
 in a nation having such a division of powers, any conflict 
 between the two classes results in the Supreme or Imperial 
 powers prevailing over the Local governmental powers, and 
 not in the latter invading or driving a wedj,e into the 
 Supreme powers. In fact, the tendency in case of a struggle 
 is towards an undue centralization of the nation by reason 
 of the encroachment by the Supreme authority, rather than 
 towards a weakening of the national unity by separatist 
 action on the part of the constituent members of the nation. 
 
 In comparing the Constitution of the United States with 
 the Constitution of the British Empire, we find an apparent 
 resemblance in form as respects the Anglo-Saxon colonies, 
 but underlying the surface a total difference of principle. 
 The United States is an aggregate of homogeneous and 
 contiguous States which, in order to weld themselves into a 
 nation, gave up a portion of their rights to a central authority, 
 reserving to themselves all powers of government which they 
 did not expressly relinquish. 
 
 The British Empire is an aggregate of many communities 
 under one common head, and is thus described by Mr. 
 Burke in 1774, in language which may seem to have been 
 somewhat too enthusiastic at the time when it was spoken, 
 but at the present day does not more than do justice to an 
 Empire which comprises one-sixth of the habitable globe in 
 extent and population :— 
 
 “ I look, I say, on the Imperial rights of Great Britain, 
 and the privileges which the colonies ought to enjoy under 
 those rights, to be just the most reconcilable things in the 
 world. The Parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of 
 
l/OME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 6i 
 
 her extensive Empire in two capacities: one as the local 
 legislature of this island, providing for all things at home 
 immediately and by no other instrument than the executive 
 power; the other, and I think her nobler capacity, is what 
 I call her Imperial character, in which, as from the throne 
 of heaven, she superintends all the several Legislatures, and 
 guides and controls them all without annihilating any. As 
 all these provincial Legislatures are only co-ordinate with 
 each other, they ought all to be subordinate to her, else they 
 can neither preserve mutual peace, nor hope for mutual 
 justice, nor effectually afford mutual assistance.” * 
 
 The means by which the possessions of Great Britain 
 were acquired have been as various as the possessions them¬ 
 selves. The European, Asiatic, and African possessions 
 became ours by conquest and cession; the American by 
 conquest, treaty, and settlement; the Australasian by settle¬ 
 ment, and by that dubious system of settlement known by 
 the name of annexation. Now, what is the link which 
 fastens each of these possessions to the mother country? 
 Surely it is the inherent and indestructible right of the 
 British Crown to exercise Imperial powers—in other words, 
 the supremacy of the Queen and the British Parliament ? 
 What, again, is the common bond of union between these 
 vast colonial possessions, differing in laws, in religion, and 
 in the cliaracter of the population ? The same answer must 
 be given : the joint and several tie, so to speak, is the same 
 —namely, the sovereignty of Great Britain. It is true that 
 the mode in which the materials composing the British 
 Empire have been cemented together is exactly the reverse 
 of the manner of the construction of the American Union. 
 In the case of the Union, independent States voluntarily 
 relinquished a portion of their sovereignty to secure nationai 
 unity, and entrusted the guardianship of that unity to a 
 representative body chosen by themselves. Such a union 
 ♦ Burke’s Speech on American Taxation, vol. i. p. 174 
 
62 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 was based on contract, and could only be constructed by 
 communities which claimed to be independent. Far dif¬ 
 ferent have been the circumstances under which England 
 has developed itself into the British Empire. England 
 began as a sovereign power, having its sovereignty vested at 
 first solely in the .Sovereign, but gradually in the Sovereign 
 and Parliament. This sovereignty neither the Crown nor 
 the Parliament can, jointly or severally, get rid of, for it is 
 of the very essence of a sovereign power that it cannot, by 
 Act of Parliament or otherwise, bind its successors.* This 
 principle of supremacy has never been lost sight of by the 
 British Parliament. Their right to alter or suspend a colonial 
 Constitution has never been disputed. Contract never enters 
 into the question. The dominant authority delegates to its 
 subordinate communities as much or as little power as it 
 deems advantageous for each body, and, if it sees fit, resumes 
 a portion or the whole of the delegated authority. The last 
 point of difference to be noted between the American Con¬ 
 stitution and the Constitution of the British Empire is the 
 fact that as Minerva sprang from the brain of Jupiter fully 
 equipped, so the American Constitution came forth from the 
 hands of its framers complete and, what is of more importance, 
 practically in material matters unchangeable except by the 
 agony of an internecine war or some overwhelming passions. 
 The British Empire, on the other hand, is, as respects its 
 component members, ever in progress and flux. An Anglo- 
 Saxon colony, no less than a human being, has its infancy 
 under the maternal care of a governor, its boyhood subject 
 to the government of a representative council and an Execu¬ 
 tive appointed by the Crown, its manhood under Home 
 Rule and responsible government, in which the Executive 
 are bound to vacate their offices whenever they are out-voted 
 
 * This is the opinion of both English and American lawyers. See 
 Blackstone’s Comm., i. 90; Austin on Jurisprudence, i. 226. As to 
 American cases, see Corley on Constitutional Limitations, pp. 2-149. 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 63 
 
 in the Legislature. Changes are ever taking jilace in the 
 growth, so to speak, of the several British possessions, but 
 what is the result? Nobody ever dreams of these changes 
 injuring the Imperial tie or the supremacy of the British 
 Parliament, that alone towers above all, unchangeable and 
 unimpaired; and, what is most notable, loyalty and devotion 
 to the Crown—that is to say, the Imperial tie—so far from 
 being weakened by the transition of a colony from a state of 
 dependence in local affairs to the higher degree of a self- 
 governing colony, are, on the contrary, strengthened almost 
 in direct proportion as the central interference with local 
 affairs is diminished. On this point an unimpeachable wit¬ 
 ness—Mr. Merivale—says : “ What, then, are the lessons to 
 be learnt from a consideration of the American Constitution 
 and of our colonial system? Surely these: that Imperial 
 unity and Imperial supremacy are in no degree dependent 
 on the control exercised by the central power on its de¬ 
 pendent members.” Facts, however, are more conclusive 
 than any arguments; and we have only to look back to the 
 state some forty years ago of Canada, New Zealand, and the 
 various colonies of Australia, and compare that state with 
 their condition to-day, to come to the conclusion that the 
 fullest power of local government is perfectly consistent with 
 the unity of the Empire and the supremacy of the British 
 Parliament. Under the old colonial Constitutions the 
 Executive of those colonies was under the control of the 
 Crown; and Mr. Merivale says “ that the political existence 
 consisted of a series of quarrels and reconciliations between 
 the two opposing authorities—the colonial legislative body 
 and the Executive nominated by the Crown.” England 
 resolved to give up the control of the Executive, and to 
 grant complete responsible government—that is to say, the 
 Governor of each colony was instructed that his Executive 
 Council (or Ministry, as we should call it) must resign when¬ 
 ever they were out-voted by the legislative body. The 
 
64 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 effect of this change, this relaxing, as would be supposed, of 
 the Imperial tie, was magical, and is thus described by Mr. 
 Merivale: * 
 
 “The magnitude of that change — the extraordinary 
 rapidity of its beneficial effects—it is scarcely possible to 
 exaggerate. None but those who have traced it can realize 
 the sudden spring made by a young community under its 
 first release from the old tie of subjection, moderate as that 
 tie really was. The cessation, as if by magic, of the old 
 irritant sores between colony and mother country is the first 
 result. Not only are they at concord, but they seem to leave 
 hardly any traces in the public mind behind them. Confi¬ 
 dence and affection towards the home, still fondly so termed 
 by the colonist as well as the emigrant, seem to supersede 
 at once distrust and hostility. Loyalty, which was before 
 the badge of a class suspected by the rest of the community, 
 became the common watchword of all, and, with some ex¬ 
 travagance in the sentiment, there arises no small share of 
 its nobleness and devotion. Communities, which but a few 
 years ago would have wrangled over the smallest item of 
 public expenditure to which they were invited by the Execu¬ 
 tive to contribute, have vied with each other in their sub¬ 
 scriptions to purposes of British interests in response to calls 
 of humanity, or munificence for objects but indistinctly heard 
 of at the distance of half the world.” 
 
 The Dominion of Canada has been so much talked 
 about that it may be well to give a summary of its Constitu¬ 
 tion, though, in so far as regards its relations to the mother 
 country, it difl'ers in no material respect from any other self- 
 governing colony. The Dominion consists of seven pro¬ 
 vinces, each of which has a Legislature of its own, but is at 
 the same time subject to the Legislature of the Dominion, 
 in the same manner as each State in the American Union 
 has a Legisl.ature of its own, and is at the same time subject 
 * “ Lectures on the Colonies,” p. 641. 
 
/ 70 M£ RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 65 
 
 to the control of Congress. The distinguishing feature be¬ 
 tween the system of the American States and the associated 
 colonies ot the Dominion of Canada is this—that all Imperial 
 powers, everything that constitutes a people a nation as 
 respects foreigners, are reserved to the mother country. 
 The division, tlien, of the Dominion and its provinces con¬ 
 sists only in a division of Local powers. It is impossible to 
 mark accurately the line between Dominion and Provincial 
 powers, but, speaking generally. Dominion powers relate to 
 such matters—for example, the regulation of trade and 
 commerce, postal service, currency, and so forth—as re¬ 
 quire to be dealt with on a uniform principle throughout the 
 whole area of a country; while the Provincial powers relate 
 to provincial and municipal institutions, provincial licensing, 
 and other subjects restricted to tire limits of the province. 
 As a general rule, the Legislature of the Dominion and the 
 Legislature of each province have respectively exclusive 
 jurisdiction within the limits of the subjects entrusted to 
 them; but, as respects agriculture and immigration, the 
 Dominion Parliament have power to overrule any Act of 
 the provincial Legislatures, and, as respects property and 
 civil rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, 
 the Dominion Parliament may legislate with a view to 
 uniformity, but their legislation is not valid unless it is 
 accepted by the Legislature of each province to which 
 it applies. 
 
 The executive authority in the Dominion Government, 
 as in all the self-governing colonies, is carried on by the 
 Governor in the name of the Queen, but with the advice of 
 a Council: that is to say, as to all Imperial matters, he is 
 under the control of the mother country; as to all local 
 matters, he acts on the advice of his local Council. The 
 result of the whole is that the citizenship of an inhabitant 
 of the Dominion of Canada is a triple tie. Suppose him to 
 reside in the province of Quebec. First, he is a citizen of 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 that province, and bound to obey all the laws which it is 
 within the competence of the provincial Legislature to pass. 
 Next, he is a citizen of the Dominion of Canada, and 
 acknowledges its jurisdiction in all matters outside the 
 legitimate sphere of the province. Lastly, and above all, 
 he is a subject of her Majesty. He is to all intents and 
 purposes, as respects the vast company of nations, an 
 Englishman, entitled to all the privileges as he is to all the 
 glory of the mother country so far as such privileges can 
 be enjoyed and glory participated in without actual resi¬ 
 dence in England. One startling point of likeness in events 
 and unlikeness in consequences is to be found in the history 
 of Ireland and Canada. In 1798 Ireland rebelled. Pro¬ 
 testant and Catholic were arrayed in arms against each 
 other. The rebellion was quenched in blood, and measures 
 of repression have been in force, with slight intervals of 
 suspension, ever since, with this result—that the Ireland 
 of 1886 is scarcely less disloyal and discontented than the 
 Ireland of 1798. In 1837 and 1838 Canada rebelled. 
 Protestants and Catholics, differing in nationality as well as 
 in religion, were arrayed in arms against each other. The 
 rebellion was quelled with the least possible violence, a free 
 Constitution was given, and the Canada of 1886 is the 
 largest, most loyal, and most contented colony in her 
 Majesty’s dominions. 
 
 Assuming, then, thus much to be proved by the Consti¬ 
 tution of the United States that national unity of the 
 closest description is consistent with complete Home Rule 
 in the component members of the nation, and by the history 
 of Canada and the British colonial empire that an Imperial 
 tie is sufficient to bind together for centuries dependencies 
 differing in situation, in nationality, in religion, in laws, in 
 everything that distinguishes peoples one from another, and 
 further and more particularly that emancipation of the 
 Anglo-Saxon colonies from control in their internal affairs 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 67 
 
 strengthens instead of weakening Imperial unity, let us turn 
 to Ireland and inquire whether there is anything in the 
 circumstances under which Home Rule was proposed to be 
 granted to Ireland, or in the measures intended to establish 
 that Home Rule, fairly leading to the inference that dis¬ 
 ruption of the Empire or an impairment of Imperial powers 
 would probably be a consequence of passing the Irish 
 Government Bill and the Irish Land Bill. And, first, as to 
 the circumstances which would seem to recommend the 
 Irish Home Rule Bill. 
 
 Ireland, from the very commencement of her connection 
 with England, has chafed under the restraints which that 
 connection imposed. The closer the apparent union 
 between the two countries the greater the real disunion. 
 The Act of 1800, in words and in law, effected not a union 
 merely, but a consolidation of the two countries. The effect 
 of those words and that law was to give rise to a restless 
 discontent, which has constantly found expression in efforts 
 to procure the repeal of the Act of Union and the re¬ 
 establishment of a National Parliament in Dublin. How 
 futile have been the efforts of the British Parliament to 
 diminish by concession or repress by coercion Irish aspira¬ 
 tions or Irish discontent it is unnecessary to discuss here. 
 All men admit the facts, however different the conclusions 
 which they draw from those facts. What Burke said of 
 America on moving in 1775 his resolution on concilia¬ 
 tion with the colonies was true in 1885 with respect to 
 Ireland:— 
 
 “ The fact is undoubted, that under former Parliaments 
 the state of America [read for America, Ireland] has been 
 kept in continual agitation. Everything administered as 
 remedy to the public complaint, if it did not produce, was 
 at least followed by an heightening of the distemper, until, 
 by a variety of experiments, that important country has been 
 fxought into her present situation—a situation which I will 
 
6 S 
 
 HOME RULE AND UIPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 not miscall, which I dare not name, which I scarcely know 
 how to comprehend in the terms of any description.” * 
 
 At length, after the election of 1885, Mr. Gladstone and 
 the majority of his followers came to the conclusion that an 
 opportunity had presented itself for providing Ireland with 
 a Constitution conferring on the people of that country the 
 largest measure of self-government consistent with the 
 absolute supremacy of the Crown and the Imperial Parlia¬ 
 ment and the entire unity of the Empire. A scheme was 
 proposed which was accepted in principle by the representa¬ 
 tives of the National party in Ireland as a fair and sufficient 
 adjustment of the Imperial claims of Great Britain and the 
 Local claims of Ireland. The scheme was shortly this. A 
 Legislative Assembly was proposed to be established in 
 Ireland with power to make all laws necessary for the good 
 government of Ireland—in other words, invested with the 
 same powers of local self-government as a colonial Assembly. 
 The Irish Assembly was in one respect unlike a colonial 
 Legislature. It consisted of one House only, but this House 
 was divided into two orders, each of which, in case of 
 differences on any important legislative matter, voted 
 separately. This form was adopted in order to minimize 
 the chances of collision between the two orders, by making 
 it imperative on each order to hear the arguments of the 
 other before proceeding to a division, thus throwing on the 
 dissentient order the full responsibility of its dissent, with a 
 complete knowledge of the consequences likely to ensue 
 therefrom. The clause conferring on the Irish Legislature 
 full powers of local self-government was immediately followed 
 by a provision excepting, by enumeration, from any inter¬ 
 ference on the part of the Irish Legislature, all Imperial 
 powers, and declaring any enactment void which infringed 
 on that provision. This exception (as is well known) is not 
 found in colonial Constitutional Acts. In them the restric- 
 * Burke, vol. i. p. 181. 
 
IIORIE RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 69 
 
 tion of the words of the grant to Local powers only has been 
 held sufficient to safeguard the supremacy of the British 
 Parliament and the unity of the Empire. The reason for 
 making a difference in the case of the Home Rule Bill was 
 political, not legal. Separation was declared by the enemies 
 of the Bill to be the real intention of its supporters, and 
 destruction of the unity of the Empire to be its certain 
 consequence. It seemed rvell that Ireland, by her repre¬ 
 sentatives, should accept as a satisfactory charter of Irish 
 liberty a document which contained an express submission 
 to Imperial power and a direct acknowledgment of Imperial 
 unity. Similarly with respect to the supremacy of the 
 British Parliament. In the colonial Constitutions all re¬ 
 ference to this supremacy is omitted as being too clear to 
 require notice. In the case of the Irish Home Rule Bill 
 instructions were given to preserve in express words the 
 supremacy of the British Parliament in order to pledge 
 Ireland to an express admission of that supremacy by the 
 same vote which accepted Local powers. It is true that 
 the wording by the draftsman of the sentence reserving the 
 supremacy of Parliament was justly found fault with as 
 inaccurate and doubtful, but that defect rvould have been 
 cured by an amendment in Committee; and, even if there 
 had not been any such clause in the Bill, it is clear, from 
 what has been said above, that the Imperial Legislature 
 could not, if it would, renounce its supremacy or abdicate 
 its sovereign powers. The executive government in Ireland 
 was continued in the Queen, to be carried on by the Lord 
 I>ieutenant on behalf of her Majesty, with the aid of such 
 officers and Council as to her Majesty might from time to 
 time seem fit. Her Majesty was also a constituent part of 
 the Legislature, with power to delegate to the Lord 
 Lieutenant the prerogative of assenting to or dissenting 
 from Bills, and of summoning, proroguing, and dissolving 
 Parliament. Under these provisions the Lord Lieutenant 
 
70 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 resembled the Governor of a colony with responsible 
 government. He was invested with a double authority— 
 first, Imperial; secondly, Local. As an Imperial officer, 
 he was bound to veto any Bill injuriously affecting Imperial 
 interests or inconsistent with general Imperial policy; as a 
 Local officer, it was his duty to act in all local matters 
 according to the advice of his Council, whose tenure of 
 office depended on their being in harmony with, and 
 supported by, a majority of the Legislative Assembly. 
 Questions relating to the constitutionality of any particular 
 law were not left altogether to the decision of the Governor. 
 If a Bill containing a provision infringing Imperial rights 
 passed the Legislature, its validity might be decided in the 
 first instance by the ordinary courts of law, but the ultimate 
 appeal lay to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 
 and, with a view to secure absolute impartiality in the 
 Committee, it was provided that Ireland should be repre¬ 
 sented on that body by persons who either were or had been 
 Irish judges. Not the least important provision of the Bill, 
 as respects the maintenance of Imperial interests, was the 
 continuance of Imperial taxation. The Customs and Excise 
 duties were directed to be levied, as heretofore, in pursuance 
 of the enactments of the Imperial Parliament, and were 
 excepted from the control of the Irish Legislature, which 
 had full power, with that exception, to impose such taxes in 
 Ireland as they might think expedient. The Bill further 
 provided that neither the Imperial taxes of Excise nor any 
 Local taxes that might be imposed by the Irish Legislature 
 should be paid into the Irish Exchequer. An Imperial 
 officer, called the Receiver-General, was appointed, into 
 whose hands the produce of every tax, both Imperial and 
 Local, was required to be paid, and it was the duty of the 
 Receiver-General to take care that all claims of the English 
 Exchequer, including especially the contribution payable by 
 Ireland for Imperial purposes, were satisfied before a farthing 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 71 
 
 found its way into the Irish Exchequer for Irish purposes. 
 The Receiver-General was provided with an Imperial Court 
 to enforce his rights of Imperial taxation, and adequate 
 means for enforcing all Imperial powers by Imperial civil 
 officers. The Bill did not provide for the representation of 
 Ireland in the Imperial Parliament on all Imperial questions, 
 including questions relating to Imperial taxation, but it is 
 fully understood that in any Bill which might hereafter be 
 brought forward relating to Plome Rule those defects would 
 be remedied. 
 
 An examination, then, of the Home Rule Bill, that 
 “ child of revolution and parent of separation,” appears to 
 lead irresistibly to two conclusions. First, that Imperial 
 rights and Imperial powers, representation for Imperial pur¬ 
 poses, Imperial taxation—in short, every link that binds a 
 subordinate member of an Empire to its supreme head— 
 have been maintained unimpaired and unchanged. Secondly, 
 that, in granting Home Rule to discontented Ireland, that 
 form of responsible government has been adopted which, as 
 Mr. Merivale declares—and his declaration subsequent events 
 have more than verified—when conferred on the discontented 
 colonies, changed restless aspirations for separation into quiet 
 loyalty. 
 
 That such a Bill as the Plome Rule Bill should be treated 
 as an invasion of Imperial rights is a proof of one, or per¬ 
 haps of both, the following axioms—that Bills are never 
 read by their accusers, and that party spirit will distort the 
 plainest facts. The union of Great Britain and Ireland was 
 not, so far as Imperial powers were concerned, disturbed by 
 the Bill, and an Irishman remains a citizen of the British 
 Empire under the Home Rule Bill, with the same obliga¬ 
 tions and the same privileges, on the same terms as before. 
 All the Bill did was to make his Irish citizenship distinct 
 from his Imperial citizenship, in the same manner as the 
 citizenship of a native of the State of New York is distinct 
 
72 
 
 HO:\IE RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 from his citizenship as a member of the United States. Now 
 it has been found that the Central power in the United 
 States has been more than a match for the State powers, 
 and can it be conceived for a moment that the Imperial 
 power of Great Britain should not be a match for the Local 
 power of Ireland—a State which has not one-seventh of 
 the population or one-twentieth part of the income of the 
 dominant community ? 
 
 One argument remains to be noticed which the oppo¬ 
 nents of Home Rule urge as absolutely condemnatory of the 
 measure, whereas, if properly weighed, it is conclusive in its 
 favour. Home Rule, they say, is a mere question of senti¬ 
 ment. “National aspirations” are the twaddle of English 
 enthusiasts who know nothing of Ireland. What is really 
 wanted is the reform of the Land Law. Settle the agrarian 
 problem, and Llome Rule may be relegated to the place 
 supposed to be paved with good intentions. The Irish will 
 straightway change their character, and become a law-abiding, 
 contented, loyal peoide. Be it so. But suppose it to be 
 proved that the establishment of an Irish Government, or, 
 in other words. Home Rule, is an essential condition of 
 agrarian reform—that the latter cannot be had without the 
 former—surely Home Rule should stand none the worse in 
 the estimation of its opponents if it not only secures a safe 
 basis for putting an end to agrarian exasperation, but also 
 gratifies the feeling of the Irish people as expressed by the 
 majority of its representatives in Parliament ? Now, what 
 is the nature of the Irish Land Question ? This we must 
 understand before considering the remedy. In Ireland 
 (meaning by Ireland that part of the country which is in the 
 hands of tenants, and falls within the compass of a Land 
 Bill) the tenure of land is wholly unlike that which is found 
 in the greater part of England. Instead of large farms in 
 which the landlord makes all the improvements and the 
 tenant pays rent for the privilege of cultivating the land and 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 73 
 
 receives the produce, small holdings are found In which the 
 tenant does the improvements (if any) and pays a fixed rent- 
 charge to the owner. In England the tenant does not per¬ 
 form the obligations or in any way aspire to the character of 
 owner. If he thinks he can get a cheaper farm, he quits his 
 former one, regarding his interest in the land as a mere 
 matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. Not so the Irish 
 tenant. He has made what he calls improvements, he 
 claims a quasi-ownership in the land, and has the character¬ 
 istic Celtic attachment for the patch of ground forming his 
 holding, however squalid it may be, however inadequate for 
 his support. In short, in Ireland there is a dual ownership 
 —that of the proprietor, who has no interest in the soil so 
 long as the tenant pays his rent and fulfils the conditions of 
 his tenancy; and that of the tenant, who, subject to the 
 payment of his rent and performance of the fixed conditions, 
 acts, thinks, and carries himself as the owner of his holding. 
 A system, then, of agrarian reform in Ireland resolves itself 
 into an inquiry as to the best mode of putting an end to this 
 dual ownership—that is to say, of making the tenant the sole 
 proprietor of his holding, and compensating the landlord for 
 his interest in the ownership. The problem is further 
 narrowed by the circumstance that the tenant cannot be 
 expected to advance any capital or pay an increased rent, 
 so that the means of compensating the landlord must be 
 found out of the existing rent. 
 
 The plan adopted in Mr. Gladstone’s Land Bill was to 
 commute the rent-charges, offering the landlord, as a general 
 rule, twenty years’ purchase on the net rental of the estate 
 (that is to say, the rent received by him after deducting all 
 outgoings), and paying him the purchase-money in per 
 cent, stock taken at par. The stock was to be advanced by 
 the English Government to an Irish State department at 
 3| per cent, interest, and the Bill provided that the tenant, 
 instead of rent, was to pay an annuity of ^4 per cent, on a 
 
74 
 
 nuME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 capital sura equal in amount to twenty times the gross 
 rental. 
 
 The notable feature which distinguished this plan from 
 all other schemes was the security given for the repayment 
 of the purchase-money: hitherto the English Government 
 has lent the money directly to the landlord or tenant, and 
 has become the mortgagee of the land—in other words, has 
 become in effect the landlord of the land sold to the tenant 
 until the repayment of the loan has been completed. To 
 carry into effect under such a system any extensive scheme 
 of agrarian reform (and if not extensive such a reform would 
 be of no value in pacifying Ireland) presupposes a readiness 
 on the part of the English Government to become virtually 
 the landlord of a large portion of Ireland, with the attendant 
 odium of absenteeism and alien domination.' Under a land 
 scheme such as that of 1886, all these difficulties would 
 be overcome. The Irish, not the English, Government 
 would be the virtual landlord. It would be the interest of 
 Ireland that the annuities due from the tenants shpuld be 
 regularly paid, as, subject to the prior charge of the English 
 Exchequer, they would form part of the Irish revenues. The 
 cardinal difference, then, between Mr. Gladstone’s scheme 
 and any other land scheme that has seen the light is this— 
 that in Mr. Gladstone’s scheme the English loans would 
 have been lent to the Irish Government on the security of 
 the whole Irish revenues, whereas in every other scheme 
 they have been lent by the English Government to the Irish 
 creditors on the security of individual patches of land. 
 
 The whole question, then, of the relation between Home 
 Rule and agrarian reform may be summed up as follows :— 
 Agrarian reform is necessary for the pacification of Ireland ; 
 agrarian reform cannot be efficiently carried into effect with¬ 
 out an Irish Government; an Irish Government can only be 
 established by a Home Rule Bill: therefore a Home Rule 
 Bill is necessary for the pacification of Ireland. It is idle to 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 7S 
 
 say, as has been said on numerous platforms, that plans no 
 doubt can be devised for agrarian reform without Home 
 Rule. The Irish revenues are the only collateral security 
 that can be obtained for loans of English money, and Irish 
 revenues are only available for the purpose on the establish¬ 
 ment of an Irish Government. Baronial guarantees, union 
 guarantees, county guarantees, debenture schemes, have all 
 been tried and found wanting, and vague assertions as to 
 possibilities are idle unless they are based on intelligible 
 working plans. 
 
 The foregoing arguments will be equally valid if. instead 
 of making the tenants peasant-proprietors, it were thought 
 desirable that the Irish State should be the proprietor and 
 the tenants be the holders of the land at perpetual rents and 
 subject to fixed conditions. Again, it might be possible to 
 pay the landlords by annual sums instead of capital sums. 
 Such matters are really questions of detail. The substance 
 is to interpose the Irish Government between the tenant 
 and the English mortgagee, and to make the loans general 
 charges on the whole of the Irish Government revenues as 
 paid into the hands of an Imperial Receiver instead of 
 placing them as special charges, each fixed on its own small 
 estate or holding. The fact that Mr. Gladstone’s land 
 scheme was denounced as confiscation of 100,000,000 of 
 the English taxpayers’ property, while Lord Ashbourne’s 
 Act is pronounced by the same party wise and prudent, 
 shows the political blindness of party spirit in its most absurd 
 form. Lord Ashbourne’s Act requires precisely the same 
 expenditure to do the same work as Mr. Gladstone’s Bill 
 requires, but in Llr. Gladstone’s scheme the whole Irish 
 revenue was pledged as collateral security, and the Irish 
 Government was interposed between the ultimate creditor 
 and the Irish tenant, while under Lord Ashbourne’s Act 
 the English Government figures without disguise as the land¬ 
 lord of each tenant, exacting a debt which the tenant is 
 
76 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 unwilling to pay as being due to what he calls an alien 
 Government. 
 
 An endeavour has been made in the preceding pages to 
 prove that Home Rule in no respect infringes on Imperial 
 rights or Imperial unity, for the simple reason that the 
 Imperial power remains exactly in the same position as it 
 was before, the Home Rule Bill dealing only with Local 
 matters. At all events, Burke thought that the Imperial 
 supremacy alone constituted a real union between England 
 and Ireland. He says— 
 
 “hly poor opinion is, that the closest connection between 
 Great Britain and Ireland is essential to the well-being—I 
 had almost said to the very being—of the three kingdoms; 
 for that purpose I humbly conceive that the whole of the 
 superior, and what I should call Imperial politics, ought to 
 have its residence here, and that Ireland, locally, civilly, and 
 commercially independent, ought politically to look up to 
 Great Britain in all matters of peace and war. In all these 
 points to be joined with her, and, in a word, with her to live 
 and to die.” * 
 
 How strange to Burke would have seemed the doctrine 
 that the restoration of a limited power of self-government to 
 Ireland, excluding commerce, and excluding all matters not 
 only Imperial, but those in which uniformity is required, 
 should be denounced as a disruption of the Empire ! 
 
 It remains to notice one other charge made against the 
 Gladstonian Home Rule Bill, namely, that of impairing the 
 supremacy of the British Parliament. That allegation has 
 been shown also to be founded on a mistake. Next, it is 
 said that the Gladstonian scheme does not provide securities 
 against executive and legislative oppression. The answer is 
 complete. The executive authority being vested in the 
 Queen, it will be the duty of the Governor not to allow 
 executive oppression ; still more will it be his duty to veto 
 * “ Letter on Affairs of Ireland,” i. 462. 
 
HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 77 
 
 any act of legislative oppression. Further, it is stated that 
 difficulties will arise with respect to the power of the Privy 
 Council to nullify unconstitutional Acts. But it is hard to 
 see why a power which is exercised with success in the 
 United States, where all the States are equal, and without 
 dispute in our colonies, which are all dependent, should not 
 be carried into effect with equal ease in Ireland, which 
 is more closely bound to us and more completely under our 
 power than the colonies are, or than the several States are 
 under the power of the Central Government. 
 
 To conclude: the cause of Irish discontent is the con¬ 
 joint operation of the passion for nationality and the vicious 
 system of land tenure, and the scheme of the Irish Home 
 Buie Bill and the Land Bill removes the whole fabric on 
 which Irish discontent is raised. The Irish, by the great 
 majority of their representatives, have accepted the Home 
 Rule Bill as a satisfactory settlement of the nationality 
 question. The British Parliament can, through the medium 
 of the Home Rule Bill and the establishment of an Irish 
 Legislature, carry through a final settlement of agrarian dis¬ 
 putes with less injustice to individuals than could a Parlia¬ 
 ment sitting in Dublin, and, be it added, with scarcely any 
 appreciable risk to the British taxpayer. Of course it may 
 be said that an Irish Parliament will go farther—that Home 
 Rule is a step to separation, and a reform of the Land 
 Laws a spoliation of the landlords. To those who urge 
 such arguments I would recommend the perusal of the 
 speech of Burke on Conciliation with America, and espe¬ 
 cially the following sentences, substituting “Ireland” for 
 “ the colonies : ”— 
 
 “But [the Colonies] Ireland will go further. Alas! alas! 
 when will this speculating against fact and reason end? 
 AVhat will quiet these panic fears which we entertain of the 
 hostile effect of a conciliatory conduct ? Is it true that no 
 case can exist in which it is proper for the Sovereign to 
 
78 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL UNITY. 
 
 accede to the desires of his discontented subjects? Is there 
 anything peculiar in this case to make it a rule for itself? 
 Is all authority of course lost when it is not pushed to the 
 extreme? Is it a certain maxim that the fewer causes of 
 discontentuient are left by Government the more the subject 
 will be inclined to resist and rebel ?” 
 
THE' IRISH GOVERNMENT DILL 
 AND THE IRISH LAND DILL. 
 
 By Lord Turing. 
 
 A MERE enumeration or analysis of the contents of the 
 Irish Government Bill, 1886, and the Land (Ireland) Bill, 
 1886, would convey scarcely any intelligible idea to the 
 mind of an ordinary reader. It is, therefore, proposed in 
 the following pages, before entering on the details of each 
 Bill, to give a summary of the reasons which led to its 
 introduction, and of the principles on which it is founded. 
 To begin with the Irish Government Bill— 
 
 The object of the Irish Government Bill is to confer on 
 the Irish people the largest measure of self-government 
 consistent with the absolute supremacy of the Crown and 
 Imperial Parliament and the entire unity of the Empire. 
 To carry into effect this object it was essential to create a 
 separate though subordinate legislature; thus occasion was 
 given to opponents to apply the name of Separatists to the 
 supporters of the Bill—a term true in so far only as it 
 denoted the intention to create a separate legislature, but 
 false and calumnious when used in the sense in which it 
 was intended to be understood—of imputing to the 
 promoters of the Bill the intention to disunite or in any 
 way to disintegrate the Empire. Indeed, the very object 
 of the measure was, by relaxing a little the legal bonds 
 of union, to drovv closer the actual ties between England 
 
So 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF i8S6. 
 
 and Ireland, in fact, to do as we have done in our Colonies, 
 by decentralizing the subordinate functions of government 
 to strengthen the central supremacy of natural affection and 
 Imperial unity. The example of the effects of giving 
 complete self-government to our Colonies would seem not 
 unfavourable to trying the same experiment in Ireland. 
 Some forty 5'ears ago, Canada, New Zealand, and the 
 various colonies of Australia were discontented and uneasy 
 at the control exercised by the Government of England 
 over their local affairs. What did England do ? She gave 
 to each of those communities the fullest power of local 
 government consistent with the unity of the Empire. The 
 result was that the real union was established in the same 
 degree as the apparent tie of control over local affairs was 
 loosened. Are there any reasons to suppose that the 
 condition of Ireland is such as to render the example of 
 the Colonies applicable ? Let us look a little at the past 
 history of that country. Up to 1760 Ireland was governed 
 practically as a conquered country. The result was- that in 
 1782, in order to save Imperial unity, we altogether relaxed 
 the local tie and made Ireland legislatively independent. 
 The Empire was thus saved, but difficulties naturally arose 
 between two independent legislatures. The true remedy 
 would have been to have imposed on Grattan’s Parliament 
 the conditions imposed by the Irish Government Bill on 
 the statutory Parliament created by that Bill; the course 
 actually taken was that, instead of leaving the Irish with 
 their local government, and arranging for the due supremacy 
 of England, the Irish Legislature was destroyed under the 
 guise of Union, and Irish representatives were transferred 
 to an assembly in which they had little weight, and in which 
 they found no sympathy. The result was that from the 
 date of the Union to the present day Ireland has been 
 constantly working for the reinstatement of its National 
 T.egislature, and has been governed by a continuous system 
 
Ik IS I:! BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 81 
 
 of extraordinary legislature called coercion; the fact being 
 that between 1800, the date of the Act of Union, and 1832, 
 the date of the great Reform Act, there were only eleven 
 years free from coercion, while in the fifty-three years since 
 that period there have been only two years entirely free 
 from special repressive legislation. So much, therefore, is 
 clear, that Irish discontent at not being allowed to manage 
 their own affairs has gradually increased instead of diminish¬ 
 ing. The conclusion then would seem irresistible, that if 
 coercion has failed, the only practical mode of governing 
 Ireland satisfactorily is to give the people power to manage 
 their local affairs. Coming, then, to the principle of the 
 Bill, the first step is to reconcile local government with 
 Imperial supremacy, in other words, to divide Imperial 
 from local powers ; for if this division be accurately made, 
 and the former class of powers be reserved to the British 
 Crown and British Parliament, while the latter only are' 
 intrusted to the Irish Parliament, it becomes a contradiction 
 in terms to say that Imperial unity is dissolved by reserving 
 to the Imperial authority all its powers, or that Home Rule 
 is a sundering of the Imperial tie when that tie is preserved 
 inviolable. Imperial powers, then, are the prerogatives of 
 the Crown with respect to peace and war, and making 
 treaties with foreign nations; in short, the power of regu¬ 
 lating the relations of the Empire towards foreign nations. 
 These are the jura summi imperii, the very insignia of 
 supremacy; the attributes of sovereign authority in every 
 form of government, be it despotism, limited monarchy, or 
 republic; the only difference is that in a system of govern¬ 
 ment under one supreme head, they are vested in that head 
 alone, in a federal governrhent, as in America or Switzerland, 
 they reside in the composite body forming the federal 
 supreme authority. Various subsidiary powers necessarily 
 attend the above supreme powers; for example, the power 
 of maintaining armies and navies, of commanding the 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 militia, and other incidental powers. Closely connected 
 with the power of making peace and war is the power of 
 regulating commerce with foreign nations. Next in im¬ 
 portance to the reservations necessary to constitute the 
 Empire a Unity with regard to foreign nations, are the powers 
 required to prevent disputes and to facilitate intercourse 
 between the various parts of the Empire. These are the 
 coinage of money and other regulations relating to currency, 
 to copyright or other exclusive rights to the use or profit of 
 any works or inventions. The above subjects must be 
 altogether excluded from the powers of the subordinate 
 legislature; it ceases to be subordinate as soon as it is 
 invested with these Imperial, or quasi-imperial, powers. 
 
 Assuming, however, the division between Imperial and 
 local powers to be accurately determined, how is the 
 subordinate legislative body to be kept within its due limits? 
 The answer is very plain,—an Imperial court must be 
 established to decide in the last resort whether the subordi¬ 
 nate legislature has or has not infringed Imperial rights. 
 Such a court has been in action in the United States of 
 America ever since their union, and no serious conflict has 
 arisen in carrying its decisions into effect, and the Privy 
 Council, acting as the Supreme Court in respect to Colonial 
 appeals, has been accepted by all the self-governing colonies 
 as a just and impartial expositor of the meaning of their 
 several constitutions. 
 
 Next in importance to the right division of Imperial and 
 local powers is a correct understanding of the relation borne 
 by the executive of an autonomous country to the mother 
 country. In every part of the British Empire which enjoys 
 home rule the legislature consists of the Queen and the two 
 local legislative bodies. The administrative power resides 
 in the Queen alone. The Queen has the appointment of 
 all the officers of the government; money bills can be intro¬ 
 duced into the legislature only with the consent of the 
 
IlilSH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 Queen. The initiative power of taxation then is vested 
 in the Queen, the executive head, in practice represented 
 by the Governor. But such a power of initiation is of course 
 useless unless the legislative body is willing to support the 
 executive, and grants it the necessary funds for carrying on 
 the government. What, then, is the contrivance by which the 
 governmental machine is prevented from being stopped by 
 a ditference between the executive and legislative authorities ? 
 It is the same in the mother country, and in every British 
 home-rule country, with this difference only—that beyond 
 the limits of the mother country the Queen is represented 
 by a governor to whom are delegated such a measure of 
 powers as is necessary for the supreme head of a local self- 
 governing community. The contrivance is this in the 
 mother country:—the Queen acts upon the advice of a 
 cabinet council; in home-rule dependencies the Governor 
 acts on the advice of a local council. If this cabinet council 
 in the mother country, or local council in a dependency, 
 ceases to command a majority in the popular legislative 
 body, it resigns, and the Governor is obliged to select a 
 council which, by commanding such a majority, can obtain 
 the supplies necessary to carry on the government. The 
 consequence then is, that in a home-rule community, if a 
 serious difficulty arises between the legislative and executive 
 authority, the head of the executive, the governor, refers the 
 ultimate decision of the question to the general body of 
 electors by dissolving the popular legislative body. It has 
 been urged in the discussion on the Irish Government Bill 
 that the powers of the executive in relation to the legislative 
 body ought to be expressed in the Bill itself; but it is clear 
 to anybody acquainted with the rudiments of legislation that 
 the details of such a system (in other words, the mode in 
 which a governor ought to act under the endless variety of 
 circumstances which may occur in governing a dependency) 
 never have been and never can be expressed in an Act of 
 
84 
 
 IRISH' BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 Parliament. But how little difficulty this absence of defini¬ 
 tion has caused may be judged from the fact that neither in 
 England nor in any of her home-rule dependencies has any 
 vital collision arisen between the executive and legislative 
 authorities, and that all the home-rule colonies have 
 managed to surmount the obstacles which the opponents 
 of Home Rule argued would be fatal to their existence. 
 The main principles have now been stated on which the 
 Irish Government Bill is framed, and it remains to give 
 a summary of the provisions of the Bill, the objects and 
 bearing of which will be readily understood from the fore¬ 
 going observations. The first clause provides that— 
 
 “ On and after the appointed day there shall be estab¬ 
 lished in Ireland a Legislature consisting of Her Majesty the 
 Queen and an Irish legislative body.” 
 
 This is the first step in all English constitutional systems, 
 to vest the power of legislation in the Queen and the legis¬ 
 lative body. Such a legislature might have had conferred 
 on it the independent powers vested in Grattan’s Parliament: 
 but the second clause at once puts an end to any doubt as 
 to the subordination of the Irish legislative body ; for while 
 on the one hand it confers full powers of local self-govern¬ 
 ment, by declaring that the Legislature may make any laws 
 for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, it 
 subjects that power to numerous exceptions and restrictions. 
 The exceptions are contained in the third clause, and the 
 restrictions in the fourth. The exceptions are as follows :— 
 “ The Legislature of Ireland shall not make laws relating 
 to the following matters or any of them :— 
 
 “ (i.) The status or dignity of the Crown, or the suc¬ 
 cession to the Crown, or a Regency; 
 
 “ (2.) The making of peace or war; 
 
 “ (3.) The army, navy, militia, volunteers, or other 
 military or naval forces, or the defence of the realm; 
 
 “ (4.) Treaties and other relations with foreign Statds, 
 
IRISH' BILLS OF i8S6. 8? 
 
 or the relations between the various parts of Her Majesty’s 
 dominions; 
 
 “ (5.) Dignities or titles of honour; 
 
 “(6.) Prize or booty of war; 
 
 “ (7.) Offences against the law of nations; or offences 
 committed in violation of any treaty made, or hereafter to 
 be made, between Her Majesty and any foreign State; or 
 offences committed on the high seas; 
 
 “ (8.) Treason, alienage, or naturalization; 
 
 “(9.) Trade, navigation, or quarantine; 
 
 “(10.) The postal and telegraph service, except as here¬ 
 after in this Act mentioned with respect to the transmission 
 of letters and telegrams in Ireland; 
 
 “(ii.) Beacons, lighthouses, or sea-marks; 
 
 “(12.) The coinage; the value of foreign money; legal 
 tender; or weights and measures; or 
 
 “ (13.) Copyright, patent rights, or other exclusive rights 
 to the use or profits of any works or inventions.” 
 
 Of these exceptions the first four preserve the imperial 
 rights which have been insisted on above, and maintain the 
 position of Ireland as an integral portion of that Empire of 
 which Great Britain is the head. The remaining exceptions 
 are either subsidiary to the first four, or relate, as is the case 
 with exceptions 10 to 13, to matters on which it is desirable 
 that uniformity should exist throughout the whole Empire. 
 The restrictions in clause 4 are :— 
 
 “ The Irish Legislature shall not make any law— 
 
 “(i.) Respecting the establishment or endowment of 
 religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
 
 “ (2.) Imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, 
 on account of religious belief; or 
 
 “(3.) Abrogating or derogating from the right to estab¬ 
 lish or maintain any place of denominational education or 
 any denominational institution or charity ; or 
 
 “(4.) Prejudicially affecting the right of any child to 
 
S6 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 attend a school receiving public money witliout attending 
 the religious instruction at that school; or 
 
 “ (5.) Impairing, without either the leave of Her Majesty 
 in Council first obtained on an address presented by the 
 legislative body of Ireland, or the consent of the corporation 
 interested, the rights, property, or privileges of any existing 
 corporation incorporated by royal charter or local and 
 general Act of Parliament; or 
 
 “(6.) Imposing or relating to duties of customs and 
 duties of excise, as defined by this Act, or either of such 
 duties, or affecting any Act relating to such duties or either 
 of them; or 
 
 “ (7.) Affecting this Act, except in so far as it is declared 
 to be alterable by the Irish Legislature.” 
 
 These restrictions differ from the exceptions, inasmuch 
 as they do not prevent the Legislature of Ireland from deal¬ 
 ing with the subjects to which they refer, but merely impose 
 on it an obligation not to handle the specified matters in a 
 manner detrimental to the interests of certain classes of Her 
 Majesty’s subjects. For example, restrictions i to 4 are 
 practically concerned in securing religious freedom; restric¬ 
 tion 5 protects existing charters ; restriction 6 is necessary, 
 as will be seen hereinafter, to carrying into effect the financial 
 scheme of the bill; restriction 7 is a consequence of the 
 very framework of the Bill: it provides for the stability of 
 the Irish constitution, by declaring that the Irish Legislature 
 is not competent to alter the constitutional act to which it 
 owes its existence, except on those points on which it is 
 expressly permitted to make alterations. 4 
 
 Clause 5 is an exposition, so to speak, of the consequence 
 which would seem to flow from the fact of the Queen being 
 a constitutional part of the Legislature. It states that the 
 royal prerogatives with respect to the summoning, proroga¬ 
 tion, and dissolution of the Irish legislative body are to be 
 the same as the royal prerogatives in relation to the Imperial 
 
IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 87 
 
 Parliament. The next clause (6) is comparatively immaterial; 
 it merely provides that the duration of the Irish legislative 
 body is to be quinquennial. As it deals with a matter of 
 detail, it perhaps would have more aptly found a place in a 
 subsequent part of the Bill. Clause 7 passes from the 
 legislative to the executive authority; it declares :— 
 
 (i.) The executive government of Ireland shall continue 
 vested in Her Majesty, and shall be carried on by tlie Lord 
 Lieutenant on behalf of Her Majesty with the aid of such 
 officers and such council as to Her Majesty may from time 
 to time seem fit. 
 
 (2.) Subject to any instructions which may from time to 
 time be given by Her Majesty, the Lord Lieutenant shall 
 give or witlihold the assent of Her Majesty to bills passed 
 by the Irish legislative body, and shall exercise the preroga¬ 
 tives of Her Majesty in respect of the summoning, prorogu¬ 
 ing, and dissolving of the Irish legislative body, and any 
 prerogatives the exercise of which may be delegated to him 
 by Her Majesty. 
 
 Bearing in mind what has been said in the preliminary 
 observations in respect of the relation between the executive 
 and the legislative authority, it will be at once understood 
 how much this clause implies, according to constitutional 
 maxims, of the dependence on the one hand of the Irish 
 executive in respect of imperial matters, and of its independ¬ 
 ence in respect of local matters. The clause is practically 
 co-ordinate and correlative with the clause conferring com¬ 
 plete local powers on the Irish Legislature, while it preserves 
 all imperial powers to the Imperial Legislature. The 
 governor is an imperial officer, and will be bound to watch 
 over imperial interests with a jealous scrutiny, and to veto 
 any bill which may be injurious to those interests. On the 
 other hand, as respects all local matters, he will act on and 
 be guided by the advice of the Irish executive council. 
 The system is, as has been shown above, self-acting. The 
 
ss 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 governor, for local purposes, must have a council which is 
 in harmony with the legislative body. If a council, sup¬ 
 ported by the legislative body and the governor do not 
 agree, the governor must give way unless he can, by dis¬ 
 missing his council and dissolving the legislative body, 
 obtain both a council and a legislative body which will 
 support his views. As respects imperial questions, the case 
 is different; here the last word rests with the mother country, 
 and in the last resort a determination of the executive council, 
 backed by the legislative body, to resist imperial rights, must 
 be deemed an act of rebellion on the part of the Irish people, 
 and be dealt with accordingly. 
 
 The above clauses contain the pith and marrow of the 
 whole scheme. The exact constitution of the legislative 
 body, and the orders into which it should be divided, the 
 exclusion or non-exclusion of the Irish members from the 
 Imperial Parliament, indeed, the whole of the provisions 
 found in the remainder of this Bill, are matters which might 
 be altered without destroying, or even violently disarranging, 
 the Home-rule scheme as above described. 
 
 Clauses 9, 10, and ii provide for the constitution of the 
 legislative body; it differs materially from the colonial legis¬ 
 lative bodies, and from the Legislature of the United States. 
 For the purpose of deliberation it consists of one House 
 only; for the purpose of voting on all questions (except 
 interlocutory applications and questions of order), it is 
 divided into two classes, called in the Bill “ Orders,” each 
 of which votes separately, with the result that a question on 
 which the two orders disagree is deemed to be decided ir_ 
 the negative. The object of this arrangement is to diminish 
 the chances of collision between the two branches of the 
 Legislature, which have given rise to so much difficulty both 
 in England and the colonies. Each order will have ample 
 opportunity of learning the strength and hearing the argu¬ 
 ments of the other order. They will therefore, each of 
 
IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 89 
 
 them, proceed to a division with a full sense of the responsi¬ 
 bility attaching to their action. A further safeguard is pro¬ 
 vided against a final conflict between the first and second 
 orders. If the first order negative a proposition, that negative 
 is in force only for a period of three years, unless a dissolu¬ 
 tion takes place sooner, in which case it is terminated at 
 once; the lost bill or clause may then be submitted to the 
 whole House, and if decided in the affirmative, and assented 
 to by the Queen, becomes law. The first order of the Irish 
 legislative body comprises 103 members. It is intended to 
 consist ultimately wholly of elective members; but for the 
 next immediate period of thirty years the rights of the Irish 
 representative peers are, as will be seen, scrupulously reserved. 
 The plan is this : of the 103 members composing the first 
 order, seventy-five are elective, and twenty-eight peerage 
 members. The qualification of the elective members is an 
 annual income of ^200, or the possession of a capital sum 
 of ;^4ooo free from all charges. The elections are to be 
 conducted in the electoral districts set out in the schedule 
 to the Bill. The electors must possess land or tenements 
 within the district of the annual value of ^^25. The 
 twenty-eight peerage members consist of the existing 
 twenty-eight representative peers, and any vacancies in 
 their body during the next thirty years are to be filled up 
 in the manner at present in use respecting the election of 
 Irish representative peers. The Irish representative peers 
 cease to sit in the English Parliament; but a member of 
 that body is not required to sit in the Irish Parliament with¬ 
 out his assent, and the place of any existing peer refusing to 
 sit in the Irish Parliament will be filled up as in the case of 
 an ordinary vacancy. The elective members of the first 
 order sit for ten years; every five years one half their num¬ 
 ber will retire. The members of the first order do not vacate 
 their seats on a dissolution of the legislative body. At the 
 expiration of thirty years, that is to say, upon the e.xhaustiori 
 
90 
 
 IRISH' BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 of all the existing Irish representative peers, the whole of 
 the upper order will consist of elective members. The 
 second order consists of 204 members, that is to say, of the 
 103 existing Irish members (who are transferred to the Irish 
 Parliament), and of loi additional members to be elected 
 by the county districts and the represented towns, in the 
 same manner as that in which the present 101 members for 
 counties and towns are elected—each constituency returning 
 two instead of one member. If an existing member does 
 not assent to his transfer, his seat is vacated. 
 
 A power is given to the Legislature of Ireland to enable 
 the Royal University of Ireland to return two members. 
 
 The provisions with respect to this second order fall 
 within the class of enactments which are alterable by the 
 Irish Legislature. After the first dissolution of parliament 
 the Irish Legislature may deal with the second order in any 
 manner they think fit, with the important restrictions :—(i) 
 That in the distribution of members they must have due 
 regard to population; (2) that they must not increase or 
 diminish the number of members. 
 
 The transfer to the Irish legislative body of the Irish 
 representative peers, and of the Irish members, involves 
 their exclusion under ordinary circumstances from the Im¬ 
 perial Parliament, with this great exception, that whenever 
 an alteration is proposed to be made in the fundamental 
 provisions of the Irish Government Bill, a mode of pro¬ 
 cedure is devised for recalling both orders of the Irish 
 legislative body to the Imperial Parliament for the purpose 
 of obtaining their consent to such alteration (clause 39). 
 
 Further, it is right to state here that Mr. Gladstone in 
 his speech on the second reading of the Bill proposed to 
 provide, “ that when any proposal for taxation was made 
 affecting the condition of Ireland, Irish members should 
 have an opportunity of appearing in the House to take a 
 share in the transaction of that business,” 
 
IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 91 
 
 Questions arising as to whether the Irish Parliament has 
 or not exceeded its constitutional powers may be determined 
 by the ordinary courts of law in the first instance; the 
 ultimate appeal lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council. An additional safeguard is provided by declaring 
 that before a provision in a Bill becomes law, the Lord 
 Lieutenant may take the opinion of the Judicial Committee 
 of the Privy Council as to its legality, and further, that 
 without subjecting private litigants to the expense of trying 
 the constitutionality of an Act, the Lord Lieutenant may, of 
 his own motion, move the judicial committee to determine 
 the question. With a view to secure absolute impartiality 
 in the committee, Ireland will be represented on that body 
 by persons who are or have been Irish judges (clause 25). 
 
 The question of finance forms a separate portion of the 
 Bill, the provisions of which are contained in clauses twelve 
 to twenty, while the machinery for carrying those enact¬ 
 ments into effect will be found in Part III. of the Land Bill. 
 The first point to be determined was the amount to be 
 contributed by Ireland to imperial expenses. Under the 
 Act of Union it was intended that Ireland should pay-^yths, 
 or in the proportion of i to 7-^ of the total expenditure of 
 the United Kingdom. This amount being found exorbitant, 
 it was gradually reduced, until at the present moment it 
 amounts to something under the proportion of i to ii^. 
 The bill fixes the proportion at iLth, or i to 14, this sum 
 being arrived at by a comparison between the amount of 
 the income-tax, death-duties, and valuation of property in 
 Great Britain, and the amount of the same particulars in 
 Ireland. The amount to be contributed by Ireland to the 
 imperial expenditure being thus ascertained, the more diffi¬ 
 cult part of the problem remained to provide the fund out 
 of which the contribution should be payable, and the mode 
 in which its payment should be secured. The plan which 
 commended itself to the framers of the Bill, as combining 
 
92 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 the advantage of insuring the fiscal unity of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, with absolute security to the British exchequer, 
 was to continue the customs and excise duties under im¬ 
 perial control, and to pay them into the hands of an imperial 
 officer. This plan is carried into effect by the conjoint 
 operation of the clauses of the Irish Government Bill and 
 the Irish Land Bill above referred to. The customs and 
 e.xcise duties are directed to be levied as heretofore in 
 pursuance of the enactments of the Imperial Parliament, 
 and are excepted from the control of the Irish Legislature, 
 which may, with that exception, impose any taxes in Ireland 
 it may think expedient. The imperial officer who is ap¬ 
 pointed under the Land Bill bears the title of Receiver- 
 General, and into his hands not only the imperial taxes (the 
 customs and excise duties), but also all local taxes imposed 
 by the Irish Parliament are in the first instance paid. (See 
 Clauses 25—27 of the Land Bill.) The Receiver-General 
 having thus in his hands all imperial and local funds levied 
 in Ireland, his duty is to satisfy all imperial claims before 
 paying over any moneys to the Irish Exchequer. Further, 
 an Imperial Court of Exchequer is established in Ireland 
 to watch over the interests of the Receiver-General, and all 
 revenue cases are to be tried, and all defaults punished in 
 that court. Any neglect of the local authorities to carry 
 into effect the decrees of the Imperial Court will amount to 
 treason, and it will be the duty of the Imperial Government 
 to deal with it accordingly. 
 
 Supposing the Bill to have passed, the account of the 
 Exchequer in Ireland would have stood thus :— 
 
iJilSII BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 93 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 I. Imperial Taxes : 
 
 (1) Customs.;^i,880,000 
 
 (2) Excise . 4,300,000 
 
 2. Local Taxes: 
 
 (1) Stamps . ^600,000 
 
 (2) Income-Tax at 6L. in 550,000 
 
 3. Non-Tax Revenue: 
 
 (Post Office, Telegraph, etc.) 
 
 ;^6,180,000 
 
 ;^i,150,000 
 
 ;,^I,020,000 
 
 ^8,350,000 
 
 Expenditure. 
 
 I. Contribution to Imperial Ex¬ 
 chequer on basis of ^^tli of 
 Imperial Expenditure, viz. : 
 
 (1) Debt Charge . ;^i,466,ooo 
 
 (2) Army and Navy . 1,666,000 
 
 (3) Civil Charges . 110,000 
 
 -242,000 
 
 2. on jDth of Capital of Debt... 360,000 
 
 3. Charge for Cofistabulary * . 1,000,000 
 
 4. Local Civil Charges other than Con¬ 
 
 stabulary... 2,510,000 
 
 5. Collection of Revenue : 
 
 (1) Imperial Taxes .70,000 
 
 (2) Local Taxes . 60,000 
 
 (3) Non-Tax Revenue . 604,000 
 
 - 834,000 
 
 6. Balance or Surplus . 404,000 
 
 ;^8,35o,ooo 
 
 * Any charge in excels of one million was to be borne by Imperial 
 Exchequer. 
 
94 
 
 BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 The Imperial contribution payable by Ireland to Great 
 Britain cannot be increased for thirty years, though it may 
 be diminished if the charges for the army and navy and 
 Imperial civil expenditure for any year be less than fifteen 
 times the contribution paid by Ireland, in which case ^ih 
 of the diminution will be deducted from the annual Imperial 
 contribution. Apart from the Imperial charges there are 
 other charges strictly Irish, for the security of the payment 
 of which the Bill provides. This it does by imposing an 
 obligation on the Irish legislative body to enact sufficient 
 taxes to meet such charges, and by directing them to be 
 paid by the Imperial Receiver-General, who is required to 
 keep an imperial and an Irish account, carrying the customs 
 and excise duties, in the first instance, to the imperial 
 account, and the local taxes to the Irish account, transfer¬ 
 ring to the Irish account the surplus remaining after paying 
 the imperial charges on the imperial account. On this Irish 
 account are charged debts due from the Government of 
 Ireland, pensions, and other sums due to the civil servants, 
 and the salaries of the judges of the supreme courts in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Some provisions of importance remain to be noticed. 
 Judges of the superior and county courts in Ireland are to 
 be removable from office only on address to the Crown, 
 presented by both orders of the Legislative body voting 
 separately. Existing Civil servants are retained in their 
 offices at their existing salaries; if the Irish Government 
 desire their retirement, they will be entitled to pensions ; on 
 the other hand, if at the end of two years the officers them¬ 
 selves wish to retire, they can do so, and will, be entitled to 
 the same pensions as if their office had been abolished. 
 The pensions are payable by the Receiver-General out of 
 the Irish account above mentioned. 
 
 The supremacy of the Imperial Parliament over all parts 
 of the Empire is an inherent quality of which Parliament 
 
Irish bills of 1886 . 
 
 95 
 
 cannot divest itself, inasmuch as it cannot bind its successors 
 or prevent them from repealing any prior Act. In order, 
 however, to prevent any misapprehension on this point clause 
 37 was inserted, the efficacy of which, owing in great measure 
 to a misprint, has been doubted. It is enough to state here 
 that it was intended by express legislation to reserve all 
 powers to the Imperial Parliament, and had the Bill gone 
 into Committee the question would have been placed beyond 
 the reach of cavil by a slight alteration in the wording of 
 the clause. This summary may be concluded by the state¬ 
 ment that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords 
 over actions and suits arising in Ireland (except in respect 
 of constitutional questions reserved for the determination of 
 the Judicial Committee of the Pri\y Council as explained 
 above), and with respect to claims for Irish Peerages, is 
 preserved intact. 
 
 P'he object of the Land Bill was a political one: to 
 promote the contentment of the people, and the cause 
 of good government in Ireland, by settling once and for 
 ever the vexed question relating to land. To do this 
 effectually it was necessary to devise a system under which 
 the tenants, as a class, should become interested in the 
 maintenance of social order, and be furnished with sub¬ 
 stantial inducements to rally round the institutions of their 
 country. On the other hand, it was just and right that 
 the landlords should participate in the benefits of any 
 measure proposed for remedying the evils attendant upon 
 the tenure of land in Ireland; and should be enabled to rid 
 themselves, on fair terms, of their estates in cases where, 
 from apprehension of impending changes, or for pecuniary 
 reasons, they were desirous of relieving themselves from the 
 responsibilities of ownership. Further, it was felt by the 
 framers of the Bill that a moral obligation rested on the 
 Imperial Government to remove, if possible, “ the fearful 
 exasperations attending the agrarian relations in Ireland," 
 
90 
 
 Irish bills of i8S6. 
 
 rather than leave a question so fraught with danger, and so 
 involved in difficulty, to be determined by the Irish Govern¬ 
 ment on its first entry on official existence. Such were the 
 governing motives for bringing in the Land Bill. 
 
 To understand an Irish Land Bill it is necessary to 
 dismiss at once all ideas of the ordinary relations between 
 landlord and tenant in England, and to grasp a true con¬ 
 ception of the condition of an Irish tenanted estate. In 
 England the relation between the landlord and tenant of 
 a farm resembles, with a difference in the subject-matter, the 
 relation between the landlord and tenant of a furnished 
 house. In the case of the house, the landlord keeps it in 
 a state fit for habitation, and the tenant pays rent for the 
 privilege of living in another man’s house. In the case of 
 the farm, the landlord provides the farm with house, farm- 
 buildings, gates, and other permanent improvements required 
 to fit it for cultivation by the tenant, and the tenant pays 
 rent for the privilege of cultivating the farm, receiving the 
 proceeds of that cultivation. The characters of owner 
 and tenant, however long the connection between them may 
 subsist, are quite distinct. The tenant does no acts of 
 ownership, and never regards the land as belonging to 
 himself, quitting it without hesitation if he can make more 
 money by taking another farm. In Ireland the whole 
 situation is different: instead of a farm of some one hundred 
 or two hundred acres, the tenant has a holding varying, say, 
 from five to fifty acres, for which he pays an annual rent- 
 charge to the landlord. He, or his ancestors have, in the 
 opinion of the tenant, acquired a quasi-orvnership in the 
 land by making all the improvements, and he is only 
 removable on non-payment of the fixed rent, or non- 
 fulfilment of certain specified conditions. In short, in 
 Ireland the ownership is dual: the landlord is merely the 
 lord of a quasi-copyhold manor, consisting of numerous 
 small tenements held by quasi-copyholders who, so long as 
 
IRISH BILLS OF 1886 . 
 
 97 
 
 they pay what may be called the manorial rents, and fultil 
 the manorial conditions, regard themselves as independent 
 owners of their holdings. An Irish Land Bill, then, dealing 
 with tenanted estates, is, in fact, merely a Bill for con¬ 
 verting the small holders of tenements held at a fixed rent 
 into fee-simple owners by redemption of the rent due to the 
 landlord and a transfer of the land to the holders. Every 
 scheme, therefore, for settling the Land question in Ireland 
 resolves itself into an inquiry as to the best mode of paying 
 off the rent-charges due to the landlord. The tenant 
 cannot, of course, raise the capital sufficient for paying off 
 the redemption money; some State authority must, there¬ 
 fore, intervene and advance the whole or the greater part of 
 that money, and recoup itself for the advance by the creation 
 in its own favour of an annual charge on the holding 
 sufficient to repay in a certain number of years both the 
 principal and interest due in respect of the advance. 
 
 The first problem, then, in an Irish Land Bill, is to settle 
 the conditions of this annuity in such a manner as to satisfy 
 the landlord and tenant; the first, as to the price of his 
 estate; the second, as to the amount of the annuity to be 
 paid by him, at the same time to provide the State authority 
 with adequate security for the repayment of the advance, or, 
 in other words, for the punctual payments of the annuity 
 which is to discharge the advance. Next in importance to 
 the financial question of the adjustment of the annuity 
 comes the administrative difficulty of investigating the title, 
 and thus securing to the tenant the possession of the fee 
 simple, and to the State authority the position of a mort¬ 
 gagee. Under ordinary circumstances tire investigation of 
 the title to an estate involves the examination of every 
 document relating thereto for a period of forty years, and 
 the distribution of the purchase-money amongst the head 
 renters, mortgagees, and other encumbrancers, who, in 
 addition to the landlord, are found to be interested in the 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF i8S6 
 
 ownership of almost every Irish estate. Such a process is 
 costly, even in the case of large estates, and involves an 
 expense almost, and, indeed, speaking generally, absolutely 
 prohibitory in the case of small properties. Some mode, 
 then, must be devised for reducing this expense within 
 manageable limits, or any scheme for dealing with Irish 
 land, however well devised from a financial point of view, 
 will sink under the burden imposed by the expense attend¬ 
 ing the transfer of the land to the new proprietors. Having 
 thus stated the two principal difficulties attending the Land 
 question in Ireland, it may be well before entering on the 
 details of the Sale and Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill, to 
 mention the efforts which have been made during the last 
 fifteen years to surmount those difficulties. The Acts having 
 this object in view are the Land Acts of 1870, 1872, and 
 1881, brought in by Mr. Gladstone, and the Land Purchase 
 Act of 1885, brought in by the Conservative Lord Chancellor 
 of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne). The Act of 1870, as amended 
 by the Act of 1872, provided that the State authority might 
 advance two-thirds of the purchase-money. An attempt was 
 made to get over the difficulties of tide by providing that 
 the Landed Estates Court or Board of Works shall undertake 
 the investigation of the title and the transfer and distribution 
 of the purchase-money at a fixed price. The Act of 1881 
 increased the advance to three-quarters, leaving the same 
 machinery to deal with the title. Both under the Acts of 
 1870 and 1881 the advance was secured by an annuity of 
 5 per cent., payable for the period of thirty-five years, and 
 based on the loan of the money by the English Exchequer 
 at 3)/^ per cent, interest. These Acts produced very little 
 effect. The expense of dealing with the titles in the Landed 
 Estates Court proved overwhelming, and neither the Board 
 of Works, under the Act of 1872, nor the Land Commission, 
 under the Act of 1881, found themselves equal to the task 
 of completing inexpensively the transfer of the land j 
 
miSH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 99 
 
 further, the tenants had no means of providing even the 
 quarter of the purchase-money required by the Act of 1881. 
 In 1885 Lord Ashbourne determined to remove all obstacles 
 at the expense of the English Exchequer. By the Land 
 Act of that year he authorized the whole of the purchase- 
 money to be advanced by the State, with a guarantee by 
 the landlord, to be carried into effect by his allowing 
 one-fifth of the purchase-money to remain in the hands of 
 the agents of the State Authority until one-fifth of the 
 purchase-money had been repaid by the annual payments 
 of the tenants. The principal was to be recouped by an 
 annuity of 4 per cent., extending over a period of forty-nine 
 years, instead of an annuity of 5 per cent, extending over a 
 period of thirty-five years. The English Exchequer was to 
 advance the money on the basis of interest at 3^ per cent., 
 instead of at 3^ per cent. Though sufficient time has not 
 yet elapsed to show whether the great bribe offered by the 
 Act of 1885, at the expense of the British taxpayer, will 
 succeed in overcoming the apathy of the tenants, it cannot 
 escape notice that if the Act of 1885 succeeds better than 
 the previous Acts, it will owe that success solely to the 
 greater amount of risk which it imposes on the English 
 Exchequer, and not to any improvement in the scheme in 
 respect of securing greater certainty of sale to the Irish 
 landlord, or of diminishing the danger of loss to the English 
 taxpayer. 
 
 Such being the state of legislation, and such the cir¬ 
 cumstances of the land question in Ireland in the year 1886, 
 the Irish Government Bill afforded Mr. Gladstone the 
 means and the opportunity of bringing in a Land ' Bill 
 which would secure to the Irish landlord the certainty of 
 selling his land at a fair price, without imposing any 
 practical liability on the English Exchequer, and would, at 
 the same time, diminish the annual sums payable by the 
 tenant; while it also conferred a benefit on the Irish 
 
100 
 
 BILLS OF iSS6. 
 
 Exchequer. These advantages were, as will be seen, gained, 
 firstly, by the pledge of English credit on good security, 
 instead of advancing money on a mere mortgage on Irish 
 holdings, made directly to the English Government; and, 
 secondly, by the interposition of the Irish Government, as 
 the immediate creditor of the Irish tenant. The scheme of 
 the Land Purchase Bill is as follows :—The landlord of an 
 agricultural estate occupied by tenants may apply to a 
 department of the new Irish Government to purchase his 
 estate. The tenants need not be consulted, as the purchase, 
 if completed, will necessarily better their condition, and 
 thus at the very outset the difficulty of procuring the assent 
 of the tenants, which has hitherto proved so formidable an 
 obstacle to all Irish land schemes, disappears. The landlord 
 may require the department to which he applies (called in 
 the Bill the State Authority) to pay him the statutory price 
 of his estate, not in cash, but in consols valued at par. 
 This price, except in certain unusual cases of great good¬ 
 ness or of great badness of the land, is twenty years’ purchase 
 of the nei rental. The rental is tlie gross rental after 
 deducting from that rent tithe rent-charge, the average 
 percentage for expenses in respect of bad debts, any rates 
 paid by the landlord, and any like outgoings. The gross 
 rental of an estate is the gross rent of all the holdings on 
 the estate, payable in the year ending in November, 1885. 
 AVhere a judicial rent has been fixed, it is the judicial rent; 
 where no judicial rent has been fixed, it is the rent to be 
 determined in the manner provided by the Bill. 
 
 To state this shortly, the Bill provides that an Irish 
 landlord may require the State Authority to pay him for 
 his estate, in consols valued at par, a capital sum equal to 
 twenty times the amount of the annual sum which he has 
 actually put into his pocket out of the proceeds of the 
 estate. The determination of the statutory price is, so far 
 as the landlord is concerned, the cardinal point of the Bill, 
 
IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 101 
 
 and in order that no injustice may be done the landlord, 
 an Imperial Commission—called the Land Commission— 
 is appointed by the Bill, whose duty it is to fix the statutory 
 price, and, where there is no judicial rent, to determine the 
 amount of rent which, in the character of gross rental, is to 
 form the basis of the statutory price. The Commission also 
 pay the purchase-money to the landlord, or distribute it 
 amongst the parties entitled, and generally the Commission 
 act as intermediaries between the landlord and the Irish 
 State Authority, which has no power of varying the terms 
 to which the landlord is entitled under the Bill, or of 
 judging of the conditions which affect the statutory price. 
 If the landlord thinks the price fixed by the Land Com¬ 
 mission, as the statutory price inequitable, he may reject 
 their offer and keep his estate. 
 
 Supposing, however, the landlord to be satisfied with 
 the statutory price offered by the Land Commission, the 
 sale is concluded, and the Land Commission make an 
 order carrying the required sum of consols (which is for 
 convenience hereinafter called the purchase - money, 
 although it consists of stock and not of cash) to the 
 account of the estate in their books after deducting i per 
 cent, for the cost of investigation of title and distribution 
 of the purchase-money, and upon the purchase-money being 
 thus credited to the estate, the landlord ceases to have any 
 interest in the estate, and the tenants, by virtue of the order 
 of the Land Commission, become owners in fee simple of 
 their holdings, subject to the payment to the Irish State 
 Authority of an annuity. The amount of the annuity is 
 stated in the Bill. It is a sum equal to per cent, 
 on a capital sum equal to twenty times the amount of the 
 gross rental of the holding. The illustration given by 
 Mr. Gladstone in his speech will at once explain these ap¬ 
 parently intricate matters of finance. A landlord is entitled 
 to the Hendon estate, producing ;£i2oo a year gross 
 
102 
 
 BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 rental ; to iind the net rental, the Land Commission deduct 
 from this gross rental outgoings estimated at about 20 per 
 cent, or ^£240 a year. This makes the net rental ;£g6o 
 a year, and the price payable to the landlord is ;^i9,2oo 
 (twenty years’ purchase of ^^960, or ;^96o multiplied by 
 20), which, as above stated, will be paid in consols. The 
 tenants will pay, as the maximum amount for their holdings, 
 ;,£’4 per cent for forty-nine years on the capitalized value of 
 twenty years’ purchase of the gross rent This will amount 
 to ^g6o instead of ;^i,2oo, which they have hitherto paid; 
 a saving of ^£240 a year will thus be effected, from which, 
 however, must be deducted the half rates to which they will 
 become liable, formerly paid by the landlord. This ^4 per 
 cent charge payable by the tenants will continue for forty- 
 nine years, but at the end of that time each tenant will 
 become a free owner of his estate without any annual pay¬ 
 ment Next, as to the position of the State Authority. 
 The State Authority receives ,-^960 from the tenants; it 
 pays out of that sum ^4 per cent., not upon the gross 
 rental, but upon the net rental capitalized, that is to sa)’, 
 ^^768 to the Imperial Exchequer. The State Authority, 
 therefore, receives ^^960, and assuming that the charge of 
 collecting the rental is 2 per cent, that is to say, ;^i9 4s., 
 the State Authority will, out of ;^96o, have to disburse 
 only ^^787 4s., leaving it a gainer of £i']2 16s., or nearly 
 18 per cent The result then betAveen the several parties 
 is, the landlord receives ;^i9,2oo; the tenantry pay ;^24o 
 a year less than they have hitherto paid, and at the end of 
 forty-nine } 'ars are exempt altogether from payment; the 
 gain of Irish State Authority is ^172 i6r. a year. Another 
 mode of putting the case shortly is as follows : The English 
 Exchequer lends the money to the Irish State Authority at 
 3^ per cent, and an annuity of 4 per cent, paid during 
 forty-nine years will, as has been stated above, repay both 
 principal and interest for every p^ioo lent at 3^ per cent. 
 
IRISH BILLS OF 1886. 
 
 103 
 
 On the sale of an estate under the Bill, the landlord receives 
 twenty years’ purchase; the tenant pays ^£4 per cent, on 
 twenty years’ purchase of the gross rental; the Irish State 
 Authority receives ^^4 per cent, on the gross rental; the 
 English Exchequer receives 4 per cent, on the net rental 
 only. The repayment of the interest due by the Irish 
 Authority to the English Exchequer is in no wise depen¬ 
 dent on the punctual payment of their annuities by the Irisli 
 tenants, nor does the English Government in any way 
 figure as the landlord or creditor of the Irish tenants. The 
 annuities payable by the tenants are due to the Irish 
 Government, and collected by them, while the interest due 
 to the English Government is a charge on the whole of the 
 Irish Government funds; and further, these funds them¬ 
 selves are paid into the hands of tire Imperial officer, 
 whose duty it is to liquidate the debt due to his master, the 
 Imperial Exchequer, before a sixpence can be touched by 
 the Irish Government. It is not, then, any exaggeration to 
 say that the Land Purchase Bill of 1886 provides for the 
 settlement of the Irish Land question without any apprecia- 
 able risk to the English Exchequer, and with the advantage 
 of securing a fair price for tlie landlord, a diminution of 
 annual payments to the tenant with the ultimate acquisition 
 of the fee simple, also a gain of no inconsiderable sum to 
 the Irish Exchequer. In order to obviate the difficulties 
 attending the investigation of title and transfer of the pro¬ 
 perty, the Bill provides, as stated above, that on the com¬ 
 pletion of the agreement for the sale between the landlord 
 and the Commission, the holding shall vest at once in the 
 tenants : it then proceeds to declare that the claims of all 
 persons interested in the land shall attach to the purchase- 
 money in the same manner as though it were land. The 
 duty of ascertaining these claims and distributing the 
 purchase-money is vested in the Land Commission, who 
 undertake the task in exchange for the r per cent, which 
 
104 
 
 IRISH BILLS OF iSS6. 
 
 they have, as above stated, deducted from the purchase- 
 money as the cost of conducting the complete transfer of 
 the estate from the landlord to the tenants. The difficulty 
 of the process of dealing with the purchase-money depends, 
 of course, on the intricacy of the title. If the vendor is the 
 sole unencumbered owner, he is put in immediate posses¬ 
 sion of the stock constituting the price of the estate. If 
 there are encumbrances, as is usually the case, they are 
 paid off by the Land Commission. Capital sums are paid 
 in full; jointures and other life charges are valued according 
 to the usual tables. Drainage and other temporary charges 
 are estimated at their present value, permanent rent-charges 
 are valued by agreement, or in case of disagreement, by the 
 Land Commission; a certain minimum number of years’ 
 purchase being assigned by the Bill to any permanent rent- 
 charge which amounts only to one-fifth part of the rental of 
 the estate on which it is charged, this provision being made 
 to prevent injustice being done to the holders of rent-charges 
 which are amply secured. 
 
 It remains to notice certain other points of some im¬ 
 portance. The landlord entitled to require the State to 
 purchase his property is the immediate landlord, that is to 
 say, the person entitled to the receipt of the rent of the 
 estate ; no encumbrancer can avail himself of the privilege, 
 the reason being that the Bill is intended to assist solvent 
 landlords, and not to create a new Encumbered Estates 
 Court. The landlord may sell this privilege, and possibly 
 by means of this power of sale may be able to put pressure 
 on his encumbrancers to reduce their claims in order to 
 obtain immediate payment. The Land Commission, in 
 their character of quasi-arbitrators between the landlord and 
 the Irish State Authority, have ample powers given to enable 
 them to do justice. If the statutory price, as settled accord¬ 
 ing to the Act, is too low, they may raise it to twenty-two 
 years’ purchase instead of twenty years’ purchase. If it is 
 
IRISH BILLS OF iS86. 
 
 los 
 
 too high, they may refuse to buy unless the landlord will 
 reduce it to a proper price. In the congested districts 
 scheduled in the Bill the land, on a sale, passes to the Irish 
 State Authority, as landlords, and not to the tenants; the 
 reason being that it is considered that the tenants would be 
 worsened, rather than bettered, by having their small plots 
 vested in them in fee simple. For the same cause it is pro¬ 
 vided that in any part of Ireland tenants of holdings under 
 a year may object to become the owners of their 
 holdings, which will thereupon vest, on a sale, in the Irish 
 State Authority. Lastly, the opportunity is taken of 
 establishing a registry of title in respect of all property 
 dealt with under the Bill. The result of such a registry 
 would be that any property entered therein would ever 
 thereafter be capable of being transferred with the same 
 facility, and at as little expense, as stock in the public 
 funds. 
 
THE " UNIONIST' POSITION. 
 
 By Canon MacColl. 
 
 Is it not time that the opponents of Home Rule for Ireland 
 should define their position? They defeated Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone’s scheme last year in Parliament and in the con¬ 
 stituencies ; and they defeated it by the promise of a 
 counter policy -whicli was to consist, in brief, of placing 
 Ireland on the same footing as Great Britain in respect to 
 Local Government; or, if there was to be any difference, it 
 was to be in the direction of a larger and more generous 
 measure for Ireland than for the rest of the United King¬ 
 dom. This certainly was the policy propounded by the 
 distinguished leader of the Liberal Unionists in his speech 
 at Belfast, in November, 1885, and repeated in his electoral 
 speeches last year. In the Belfast speech Lord Hartington 
 said: “ My opinion is that it is desirable for Irishmen that 
 institutions of local self-government such as are possessed 
 by England and Scotland, and such as we hope to give in 
 the next session in greater extent to England and Scotland, 
 should also be extended to Ireland.” But this extension of 
 local self-government to Ireland would require, in Lord 
 Hartington’s opinion, a fundamental change in the fabric of 
 Irish Government. “I would not shrink,” he says, “from 
 a great and bold reconstruction of the Irish Government,” 
 a reconstruction leading up gradually to some real and 
 
Tim ^'UNIONIST" rOSITlON. 
 
 107 
 
 substantial form of Home Rule. His Lordship’s words 
 are: “ I submit with some confidence to you these prin¬ 
 ciples, which I have endeavoured to lay down, and upon 
 Avhich, I think, the extension of Local Government in 
 Ireland must proceed. First, you must have some adequate 
 guarantees both for the maintenance of the essential unity 
 of the Empire and for the protection of the minority in 
 Ireland. And, secondly, you must also admit this prin¬ 
 ciple : the work of complete self-government of Ireland, the 
 grant of full control over the management of its own affairs, 
 is not a grant that can be made by any Parliament of this 
 country in a day. It must be the work of continuous and 
 careful effort.” Elsewhere in the same speech Lord Hart- 
 ington says : “ Certainly I am of opinion that nothing can 
 be done in the direction of giving Ireland anything like 
 complete control over her own affairs either in a day, or a 
 session, or probably in a Parliament.” “ Comjrlete control 
 over her own affairs,” “ the work of complete self-govern¬ 
 ment of Ireland, the grant of full control over the manage¬ 
 ment of its own affairs : ” this is the policy which Lord 
 Hartington proclaimed in Ulster, the promise which he, the 
 proximate Liberal leader, held out to Ireland on the eve of 
 the General Election of 1885. It was a policy to be begun 
 “in the next session,” though not likely to be completed 
 “ in a day, or a session, or probably in a Parliament.” 
 
 Next to Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington the most 
 important member of the Liberal party ac that time was 
 undoubtedly Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Chamberlain’s 
 Irish policy was proclaimed in the Radical Prograinmc, 
 which was published before the General Election as the 
 Radical leader’s manifesto to the constituencies. This 
 scheme, which Mr. Cliamberlain had submitted as a 
 responsible minister to the Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone in 
 June, 1885, culminated in a National Council which was to 
 control a series of local bodies and govern the whole of 
 
io8 THE UNIONIST" POSITION 
 
 Ireland. “ His National Council was to consist of two 
 orders ; one-third of its members were to be elected by the 
 owners of property, and two-thirds by ratepayers. The 
 National Council also was to be a single one, and Ulster 
 was not to have a separate Council. As the Council was 
 to be charged with the supervision and legislation about 
 education, which is the burning question between Catholics 
 and Protestants, it is clear that Mr. Chamberlain at that 
 time contemplated no special protection for Ulster.” * More¬ 
 over, in a letter dated April 23rd, 1886, and published in 
 the Daily News of May 17th, 1886, Mr. Chamberlain 
 declared that he “ had not changed his opinion in the least ” 
 since his first public declaration on Irish policy in 1874. 
 “ I then said that I was in favour of the principles of Home 
 Rule, as defined by Mr. Butt, but that I would do nothing 
 which would weaken in any way Imperial unity, and that I 
 did not agree with all the details of his plan. . . . Mr. Butt’s 
 proposals were in the nature of a federal scheme, and differ 
 entirely from Mr. Gladstone’s, which are on the lines of 
 Colonial independence. Mr. Butt did not propose to give 
 up Irish representation at Westminster.” It is true that Mr. 
 Butt did not propose to give up Irish representation at 
 Westminster; but it is also true that he proposed to give 
 it up in the sense in which Mr. Chamberlain wishes to 
 retain it. Mr. Butt’s words, in the debate to which Mr. 
 Chamberlain refers, are, “ that the House should meet with¬ 
 out Irish members for the discussion of English and Scotch 
 business ; and when there was any question affecting the 
 Empire at large, Irish members might be summoned to 
 attend. He saw no difficulty in the matter.” f 
 
 There is no need to quote Mr. Gladstone’s declarations 
 
 * Speech at Manchester, May 7, 1886, by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who 
 was a member of the Cabinet to which Mr. Chamberlain’s scheme was 
 submitted. 
 
 t Hansard, vol. 220, pp. 708, 715. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST” POSITION 109 
 
 on the Irish question at the General Election of 1885, and 
 previously. He has been accused of springing a surprise 
 on the country when he proposed Home Rule in the 
 beginning of 1886. That is not, at all events, the opinion 
 of Lord Hartington. In a speech delivered at the Eighty 
 Club in March, 1886, his Lordship, with his usual manly 
 candour, declared as follows : “ I am not going to say one 
 word of complaint or charge against Mr. Gladstone for the 
 attitude which he has taken on this question. I think no 
 one who has read or heard, during a long series of years, the 
 declarations of Mr. Gladstone on the question of self- 
 government for Ireland, can be surprised at the tone of his 
 present declarations. . . . When I look back to those 
 declarations that Mr. Gladstone made in Parliament, 
 wliich have not been unfrequent; when I look back to tire 
 increased definiteness given to those declarations in his 
 address to the electors of Midlothian, and in his Mid¬ 
 lothian speeches; I say, when I consider all these things, 
 I feel that I have not, and that no one has, any right to com 
 plain of the tone of the declarations which Mr. Gladstone 
 has recently made upon this subject.” 
 
 So much as to the state of Liberal opinion on the Irish 
 question at the General Election of 1885. The leaders of 
 all sections of the party put the Irish question in the fore¬ 
 ground of their programme for the session of 1886. We all 
 remember Sir Charles Dilke’s public announcement that 
 he and Mr. Chamberlain were going to visit Ireland in the 
 autumn of 1885, to study the Irish question on the spot, 
 with a view to maturing a plan for the first session of the 
 new Parliament 
 
 What about the Conservative party ? Lord Salisbury’s 
 Newport speech was avowedly the programme of his Cabinet 
 It was the Conservative answer to Mr. Gladstone’s Mid¬ 
 lothian manifesto. He dealt with the Irish question in 
 guarded language; but it was language which plainly showed 
 
no 
 
 THE “ UNIONIST' FOSITION. 
 
 that he recognized, not less clearly than the Liberal leaders, 
 the crucial change which the assimilation of the Irish 
 franchise to that of Great Britain had wrought in Irish 
 policy. His keen eye saw at once the important bearing 
 which that enfranchisement had on the traditional policy of 
 coercion: “You had passed an Act of Parliament, giving 
 in une.xampled abundance, and with unexampled freedom, 
 supreme power to the great mass of the Irish people— 
 supreme power as regards their own locality. ... To my 
 mind the renewal of exceptional legislation against a popu¬ 
 lation whom you had treated legislatively to this marked 
 confidence was so gross in its inconsistency that you could 
 not possibly hope, during the few remaining montlis that 
 were at your disposal before the present Parliament expired, 
 to renew any legislation which expressed on one side a 
 distrust of what on the other side your former legislation 
 had so strongly emphasized. The only result of your doing 
 it would have been, not that you would have passed the 
 Act, but that you would have promoted by the very 
 inconsistency of the position that you were occupying—by 
 the untenable character of the arguments that you were 
 advancing—you would have produced so intense an ex¬ 
 asperation amongst the Irish people, that you would 
 have caused ten times more evil, ten times more re¬ 
 sistance to law than your Crimes Act, even if it had 
 been renewed, would possibly have been able to check.” 
 Lord Salisbury went on to say that “ the effect of the 
 Crimes Act had been very much exaggerated,” and that 
 “ boycotting is of that character which legislation has very 
 great difficulty in reaching.” “ Boycotting does not operate 
 through outrage. Boycotting is the act of a large majority 
 of a community resolving to do a number of things which 
 are themselves legal, and which are only illegal by the in¬ 
 tention with which they are done.” 
 
 Next to Lord Salisbury the most prominent member of 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 Ill 
 
 the Conservative party at that date was Lord Randolph 
 Churchill. On the 3rd of January, 1885, when it was 
 rumoured that Mr. Gladstone’s Government, then in office, 
 intended to renew a few of the clauses of the Crimes Act, 
 Lord Randolph Churchill made a speech at Bow against 
 any such policy. The following quotation will suffice as a 
 specimen of his opinion : “ It comes to this, that the policy 
 of the Government in Ireland is to declare on the one hand, 
 by the passing of the Reform Bill, that the Irish people are 
 perfectly capable of exercising for the advantage of the 
 Empire the highest rights and privileges of citizenship ; and 
 by the proposal to renew the Crimes Act they simul¬ 
 taneously declare, on the other hand, that the Irish people 
 are perfectly incapable of performing for the advantage of 
 society the lowest and most ordinary duties of citizenship. 
 
 . . . All I can say is that, if such an incoherent, such a 
 ridiculous, such a dangerously ridiculous combination of 
 acts can be called a policy, then, thank God, the Conser¬ 
 vative party have no policy.” 
 
 Within a few months of the delivery of that speech a 
 Conservative Government was in office, with Lord Randolph 
 Cluirchill as its leader in the House of Commons; and one 
 of the first acts of the new leader was to separate himself 
 ostentatiously from the Irish policy of Lord Spencer and 
 from the policy of coercion in general. Lord Randolph 
 Churchill, as the organ of the Government in the House of 
 Commons, repudiated in scornful language any atom of 
 sympathy with the policy pursued by Lord Spencer in 
 Ireland; and Lord Carnarvon, the new Viceroy, declared 
 that “the era of coercion” was past, and that the Conserva¬ 
 tive Government intended to govern Ireland by the ordinary 
 law. Lord Carnarvon, in addition, and very much to his 
 credit, sought and obtained an interview with Mr. Parnell, 
 and discussed with him, in sympathetic language, the 
 question of Home Rule. In his own explanation of this 
 
II2 
 
 THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION 
 
 interview Lord Carnarvon admitted that he desired to see 
 established in Ireland some form of self-government which 
 would satisfy “ the national sentiment.” 
 
 It is idle, therefore, to assert that the question of Home 
 Rule for Ireland, in some form or other, was sprung on the 
 country as a surprise by Mr. Gladstone in the beginning of 
 1886. The question was brought prominently before the 
 public in the General Election of 1885 as one that must be 
 faced in the new Parliament. All parties were committed 
 to that policy, and the only difference was as to the character 
 and limits of the measure of self-government to be granted 
 to Ireland; whether it was to be large enough to satisfy 
 “ the national sentiment,” as Lord Carnarvon, Mr. Chamber- 
 lain, Mr. Gladstone, and others desired; or whether it was to 
 consist only of a system of county boards under the control of 
 a reformed Dublin Castle. There was a general agreement 
 that the grant to Ireland of electoral equality with England 
 necessitated equality of political treatment, and that, above 
 all things, there was to be no renewal of the stale policy of 
 Coercion until the Irish people had got an opportunity of 
 proving or disproving their fitness for self-government, 
 unless, indeed, there should happen to be a recrudescence 
 of crime which would render exceptional legislation neces¬ 
 sary. The election of 1886 turned almost entirely on the 
 question of Irish government, and it is not too much to say 
 that Conservatives and Liberal Unionists vied with Home 
 Rulers in repudiating a return to the policy of coercion until 
 the effect of some kind of self-government had been tried. 
 Of course, there were the usual platitudes about the necessity 
 of maintaining law and order; but there was a consensus of 
 profession that coercion should not be resorted to unless 
 there was a fresh outbreak of crime and disorder in Ireland. 
 
 Such were the professions of the opponents of Home 
 Rule in 1885 and in 1886. They have now been in office 
 for eighteen months, and what do we behold ? They have 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION 
 
 iij 
 
 passed a perpetual Coercion Bill for Ireland, and the question 
 of any kind of self-government has been relegated to an 
 uncertain future. In his recent speech at Birmingham 
 (Sept. 29), Mr. Chamberlain has declared that the question 
 is not ripe for solution, and that the question of disestab¬ 
 lishment, in Wales, Scotland, and England successively, as 
 well as the questions of Local Option, local government for 
 Great Britain, and of the safety of life at sea, must take 
 precedence of it. That means the postponement of the 
 reform of Irish Government to the Greek Kalends. Wliat 
 justification can be made for this change of front? No 
 valid justification has been offered. So far from there 
 having been any increase of crime in the interval, there 
 has been a very marked decrease. When the Coercion 
 Bill received the royal assent last August, Ireland was more 
 free from crime than it had been for many years past. 
 Nothing had happened to account for the return to the 
 policy of coercion in violation of the promise to try the 
 experiment of conciliation. The National League was 
 in full vigour in 1885-1886, when the policy of coercion 
 was abandoned; boycotting was just as prevalent, and 
 outrages were much more numerous. 
 
 Under these circumstances it is the opponents of Home 
 Rule, not its advocates, who owe an explanation to the 
 public. They defeated Mr. Gladstone’s Bill, but promised 
 a Bill of their own. AVhere is their Bill ? We hear nothing 
 of it. They have made a complete change of front. They 
 now tell us that the grievance of Ireland is entirely economic, 
 and that the true solution of the Irish question is the abolition 
 of dual ownership in land combined with a firm administra¬ 
 tion of the existing law. England and Scotland are to have 
 a large measure of local government next year; but Ireland 
 is to wait till a more convenient season. A more complete 
 reversal of the policy proclaimed last summer by the so-called 
 Unionists cannot be imagined. 
 
 I 
 
114 THE “ UNIONIST” POSITION. 
 
 Still, however, the “Unionists” hope to be able some 
 day to offer some form of self-government to Ireland. For 
 party purposes they are wise in postponing that day to the 
 latest possible period, for its advent will probably dissolve 
 the union of the “ Unionists.” Lord Salisbury, Lord 
 Hartington, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Chamberlain cannot 
 agree upon any scheme which all can accept without a 
 public recantation of previous professions. Mr. Bright is 
 opposed to Home Rule “ in any shape or form.” Mr. 
 Chamberlain, on the other hand, is in favour of a great 
 National Council, on Mr. Butt’s lines or on the lines 
 of the Canadian plan; either of which would give the 
 National Council control over education and the main¬ 
 tenance of law and order. Latterly, indeed, Mr. Chamber¬ 
 lain has advocated a separate treatment for Ulster. But 
 the first act of an Ulster Provincial Assembly would pro¬ 
 bably be to declare the union of that Province with the rest 
 of Ireland. Ulster, be it remembered, returns a majority 
 of Nationalists to the Imperial Parliament. To exclude 
 Ulster from any share in the settlement offered to the other 
 three Provinces -would therefore be impracticable; and 
 Mr. Bright has lately expressed his opinion emphatically in 
 that sense. In any case. Lord Llartington could be no party 
 to any scheme so advanced as Mr. Chamberlain’s. For 
 although he declared, in his Belfast speech, that “ complete 
 self-government ” was the goal of his policy for Ireland, he 
 was careful to explain that “the extension of Irish manage¬ 
 ment over Irish affairs must be a growth from small begin¬ 
 nings.” But this “growth from small beginnings” would 
 be, in Lord Salisbury’s opinion, a very dangerous and mis¬ 
 chievous policy. The establishment of self-government 
 in Ireland, as distinct from what is commonly known 
 as Home Rule, he pronounced in his Newport speech to 
 be “ a very difficult question;” and in the following passage 
 he placed his finger upon the kernel of the difficulty;— 
 
THE ^‘UNIONIST" POSITION. 115 
 
 “A local authority is more exposed to the temptation, 
 and has more of the facility for enabling a majority to be 
 unjust to the minority, than is the case when the authority 
 derives its sanction and extends its jurisdiction over a rvide 
 area. That is one of the weaknesses of local authorities. 
 In a large central authority the wisdom of several parts of 
 the country will correct the folly or the nristakes of one. In 
 a local authority that correction to a much greater extent 
 is wanting; and it would be impossible to leave that out 
 of sight in the extension of any such local authority to 
 Ireland.” 
 
 This seems to me a much wiser and more statesmanlike 
 view than a system of elective boards scattered broadcast 
 over Ireland. A multitude of local boards all over Ireland, 
 without a recognized central authority to control them, 
 would inevitably become facile instruments in the hands 
 of the emissaries of disorder and sedition. And, even apart 
 from any such sinister influences, they would be almost 
 certain to yield to the temptation of being oppressive, 
 extravagant, and corrupt, if there were no executive porver 
 to command their confidence and enforce obedience. 
 Without the previous creation of some authority of that 
 kind it would be sheer madness to offer Ireland the fatal 
 boon of local selfgovernment. It would enormously 
 increase rvithout conciliating the power of the Nationalists, 
 and would make the administration of Ireland by constitu¬ 
 tional means simply impossible. The policy of the Liberal 
 Unionists is thus much too large or much too small. It is 
 too small to conciliate, and therefore too large to be given 
 with safety. All these proposed concessions are liable to 
 one insuperable objection ; they would each and all enable 
 the Irish to extort Home Rule, but under circumstances 
 which would rob it of its grace and repel gratitude. Mill 
 has some admirable observations bearing on this subject, 
 and I venture to quote the following passage : “ The 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 ii6 
 
 greatest imperfection of popular local institutions, and 
 the chief cause of the failure which so often attends them, 
 is the low calibre of the men by whom they are almost 
 always carried on. That these should be of a very miscel¬ 
 laneous character is, indeed, part of the usefulness of the 
 institution; it is that circumstance chiefly which renders 
 it a school of political capacity and general intelligence. 
 But a school supposes teachers as well as scholars; the 
 utility of the instruction greatly depends on its bringing 
 inferior minds into contact with superior, a contact which 
 in the ordinary course of life is altogether exceptional, and 
 the want of which contributes more than anything else to 
 keep the generality of mankind on one level of contented 
 ignorance. ... It is quite hopeless to induce persons of a 
 high class, either socially or intellectually, to take a share of 
 local administration in a corner by piecemeal as members 
 of a Paving Board or a Drainage Commission.” * 
 
 Mr. Mill goes on to argue that it is essential to the safe 
 working of any scheme of local self-government that it 
 should be under the control of a central authority in 
 harmony with public opinion. 
 
 When the “ Unionists ” begin, if they ever do begin, 
 seriously to deliberate on the question of self-government 
 for Ireland, they will find that they have only two practicable 
 alternatives—the maintenance of the present system, or 
 some scheme of Home Rule on the lines of Mr. Gladstone’s 
 much misunderstood Bill. And the ablest men among the 
 “ Unionists ” are beginning to perceive this. The Spectator 
 has in a recent article implored Mr. Chamberlain to desist 
 from any further proposal in favour of self-government for 
 Ireland, because the inevitable result would be to split up 
 the Unionist party; and Mr. Chamberlain, as we have seen, 
 has accepted the advice. Another very able and very 
 logical opponent of Home Rule has candidly avowed that 
 * Considerations on Representative Government, p. 2Sr. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSH ION. 
 
 
 the only alternative to Home Rule is the perpetuation of 
 “things as they are.” Ireland, he thinks, “possesses none 
 of the conditions necessary for local; self-government.” 
 His own view, therefore, is “that in Ireland, as in France, 
 an honest, centralized administration of impartial officials, 
 and not local self-government, would best meet the real 
 wants of the people.” 
 
 “ The name of ‘ Self-government ’ has a natural fascina¬ 
 tion for Englishmen; but a policy which cannot satisfy the 
 wishes of Home Rulers, which may—it is likely enough— 
 be of no benefit to the Irish people, which will certainly 
 weaken the Government in its contest with lawlessness and 
 oppression, is not a policy which obviously commends itself 
 to English good sense.” * 
 
 Well may this distinguished “Supporter of things as they 
 are ” declare: “ The maintenance of the Union [on such 
 ter.ms] must necessarily turn out as severe a task as ever 
 taxed a nation’s energies; for to maintain the Union with 
 any good effect, means that, while refusing to accede to 
 the wishes of millions of Irishmen, we must sedulously do 
 justice to every fair demand from Ireland; must strenuously, 
 and without fear or favour, assert the equal rights of land¬ 
 lords and tenants, of Protestants and Catholics; and must, 
 at the same time, put down every outrage and reform every 
 abuse.” 
 
 What hope is there of this ? Our only guide to the 
 probabilities of the future is our experience of the past. 
 And what has that been in Ireland ? In every year since 
 the Legislative Union there have been multitudes of men 
 in England as upright, as enlightened, as well-intentioned 
 towards Ireland, as Professor Dicey, and with better 
 opportunities of translating their thoughts into acts. Yet 
 what has been the result ? Si moniimetitum txquiris circiim- 
 
 * Dicey’s England’s Case against Home Ride, pp. 25-31, and 
 Letter in Spectator of September 17th, 1887. 
 
ii8 THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 spice. Behold Ireland at this moment, and examine every 
 year of its history since the Union. Do the annals of any 
 constitutional Government in the world present so por¬ 
 tentous a monument of Parliamentary failure, so vivid an 
 example of a moral and material ruin “paved with good 
 intentions”? Therein lies the pathos of it. Not from 
 malice, not from cruelty, not from wanton injustice, not 
 even from callous indifference to suffering and wrong, does 
 our misgovernment of Ireland come. If the evil had its 
 root in deliberate wrong-doing on the part of England it 
 would probably have been cured long ago. But each 
 generation, while freely confessing the sins of its fathers, 
 has protested its own innocence and boasted of its own 
 achievements, and then, with a pharisaic sense of rectitude, 
 has complacently pointed to some inscrutable flaw in the 
 Irish character as the key to the Irish problem. The 
 generation which passed the Act of Union, oblivious of 
 British pledges solemnly given and lightly broken, wondered 
 what had become of the prosperity and contentment which 
 the promoters of the Union had promised to Ireland. The 
 next generation made vicarious penance, and preferred the 
 enactment of Catholic emancipation to the alternative of 
 civil war; and then wondered in its turn that Ireland still 
 remained unpacified. Then came a terrible famine, followed 
 by evictions on a scale so vast and cruel that the late Sir 
 Robert Peel declared that no parallel could be found for 
 such a tale of inhumanity in “ the records of any country, 
 civilized or barbarous.” Another generation, pluming itself 
 on its enlightened views and kind intentions, passed the 
 Encumbered Estates Act, which delivered the Irish tenants 
 over to the tender mercies of speculators and money-lenders; 
 and then Parliament for a time closed its eyes and ears, and 
 relied upon force alone to keep Ireland quiet. It rejected 
 every suggestion of reform in the Land laws; and a great 
 Minister, himself an Irish landlord, dismissed the whole 
 
THE “ UNIONIST” POSITION. 119 
 
 subject in the flippant epigram that “ tenant-right was land¬ 
 lord-wrong.” Since then the Irish Church has been dis¬ 
 established, and two Land Acts have been passed; yet we 
 seem to be as far as ever from the pacification of Ireland. 
 Surely it is time to inquire whether the evil is not inherent 
 in our system of governing Ireland, and whether there is 
 any other cure than that which De Beaumont suggested, 
 namely, the destruction of the system. It is probable that 
 there is not in all London a more humane or a more kind- 
 hearted man than Lord Salisbury. Yet Lord Salisbury’s 
 Government will do some harsh and inequitable things in 
 Ireland this winter, just as Liberal Governments have done 
 during their term of office. The fault is not in the men, but 
 in the system which they have to administer. I see no 
 reason to doubt that Sir M. Hicks-Beach did the best he 
 could under the circumstances; but, unfortunately, bad is 
 the best. In a conversation which I had with Dr. Dollinger 
 while he was in full communion with his Church, I ventured 
 to ask him whether he thought that a new Pope, of Liberal 
 ideas, force of character, and commanding ability, would 
 make any great difference in the Papal system. “No,” he 
 replied, “ the Curial system is the growth of centuries, and 
 there can be no change of any consequence while it lasts. 
 Many a Pope has begun with brave projects of reform; but 
 the struggle has been brief, and the end has been invariably 
 the same: the Pope has been forced to succumb. His 
 entourage has been too much for him. He has found him¬ 
 self enclosed in a system which was too strong for him, 
 wheel within wheel; and while the system lasts the most 
 enlightened ideas and the best intentions are in the long 
 run unavailing.” This criticism applies, mutatis mutandis, 
 to what may be called the Curial system of Dublin Castle. 
 It is a species of political Ultramontanism, exercising 
 supreme power behind the screen of an official infallibility 
 on which there is practically no check, since Parliament has 
 
120 
 
 THE “UNIONIST” POSITION 
 
 never hitherto refused to grant it any power which it demanded 
 for enforcing its decrees. 
 
 There is, moreover, another consideration which must 
 convince any dispassionate mind which ponders it, that the 
 British Parliament is incompetent to manage Irish affairs, 
 and must become increasingly incompetent year by year. 
 In ordinary circumstances Parliament sits about twenty- 
 seven weeks out of the fifty-two. Five out of the twenty- 
 seven may safely be subtracted for holidays, debates on the 
 Address, and other debates apart from ordinary business. 
 That leaves twenty-two weeks, and out of these two nights 
 a week are at the disposal of the Government and three at 
 the disposal of private members; leaving in all forty-four 
 days for the Government and sixty-six for jrrivate members. 
 Into those forty-four nights Government must compress all 
 its yearly programme of legislation for the whole of the 
 British Empire, from the settlement of some petty dispute 
 about land in the Hebrides, to some question of high 
 policy in Egypt, India, or other portions of the Queen’s 
 world-wide empire; and all this amidst endless distractions, 
 enforced attendance through dreary debates and vapid talk, 
 and a running fire of cross-examination from any volunteer 
 questioner out of the six hundred odd members who sit 
 outside the Government circle. The consequence is, that 
 Parliament is getting less able every year to overtake the 
 mass of business which comes before it. Each year con¬ 
 tributes its quota of inevitable arrears to the accumulated 
 mass of previous Sessions, and the process will go on multi¬ 
 plying in increasing ratio as the complex and multiform 
 needs of modern life increase. The large addition recently 
 made to the electorate of the United Kingdom is already 
 forcing a crop of fresh subjects on the attention of Parlia¬ 
 ment, as well as presenting old ones from new points of 
 view. Plans of devolution and Grand Committees will fail 
 to cope with this evil. To overcome it we need some 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 I2I 
 
 organic change in our present Parliamentary system, some 
 form of decentralization, which shall leave the Imperial 
 Parliament supreme over all subordinate bodies, yet relegate 
 to the historic and geographical divisions of the United 
 Kingdom the management severally of their own local 
 affairs. 
 
 I should have better hope from governing Ireland (if it 
 were possible) as we govern India, than from the present 
 Unionist method of leaving “ things as they are.” A Viceroy 
 surrounded by a Council of trained officials, and in semi¬ 
 independence of Parliament, would have settled the Irish 
 question, land and all, long ago. But imagine India 
 governed on the model of Ireland : the Viceroy and the 
 most important member of his Government changing with 
 every change of Administration at Westminster; * his 
 Council and the official class in general consisting almost 
 exclusively of native Mussulmans, deeply prejudiced by 
 religious and traditional enmity against the great mass of 
 the population; himself generally subordinate to his Chief 
 Secretary, and exposed to the daily criticism of an ignorant 
 Parliament and to the determined hostility of eighty-six 
 Hindoos, holding seats in Parliament as the representatives 
 of the vast majority of the people of India, and resenting 
 bitterly the domination of the hereditary oppressors of their 
 race. How long could the Government of India be carried 
 on under such conditions ? 
 
 Viewing it all round, then, it must be admitted that the 
 problem of governing Ireland while leaving things as they are 
 
 * From the beginning of 1880 till now there have been six Viceroys 
 and ten Chief Secretaries in Dublin—namely, Duke of Marlborough, 
 Earls Cowpcr and Spencer, Earls of Carnarvon and Aberdeen, and the 
 Marquis of Londonderry; Mr. Lowther, Mr. Forster, Lord F. Caven¬ 
 dish, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Campbell Bannerman, Sir W. Hart Dyke, 
 Mr. W. 11 . Smith, Mr. J. Morley, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, and Mr. A. 
 Balfour. A fine example, truly, of stable government and continuous 
 policy ! 
 
122 
 
 THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 is a sufficiently formidable one. Read the remarkable admis¬ 
 sions which the facts have forced from intelligent opponents 
 of Home Rule like Mr. Dicey, and add to them all the other 
 evils which are rooted in our existing system of Irish govern¬ 
 ment, and then consider what hope there is, under “ things 
 as they are,” of “sedulously doing justice to every demand 
 from Ireland,” “ strenuously, and without fear or favour, 
 asserting the equal rights of landlords and tenants, Protes¬ 
 tants and Catholics,” “ putting down every outrage, and 
 reforming every abuse; ” and all the “ while refusing to 
 accede to the wishes of millions of Irishmen ” for a funda¬ 
 mental change in a political arrangement that has for 
 centuries produced all the mischief which the so-called 
 Unionist party are forced to admit, and much more besides, 
 while it has at the same time frustrated every serious endea¬ 
 vour to bring about the better state of things which they 
 expect from—what ? From “ things as they are ! ” As well 
 expect grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. While the 
 tree remains the same, no amount of weeding, or pruning, 
 or manuring, or change of culture, will make it bring forth 
 different fruit. Mr. Dicey, among others, has demolished 
 what Lord Beaconsfield used to call the “bit-by-bit” re¬ 
 formers of Irish Government—those who would administer 
 homoeopathic doses of local self-government, but always 
 under protest that the supply was to stop short of what 
 would satisfy the hunger of the patient. But a continuance 
 of “ things as they are,” gilded with a thin tissue of benevo¬ 
 lent hopes and aspirations, is scarcely a more promising 
 remedy for the ills of Ireland. Is it not time to try some 
 new treatment—one which has been tried in similar cases, 
 and always with success ? One only policy has never been 
 tried in Ireland—honest Home Rule. 
 
 Certainly, if Home Rule is to be refused till all the 
 prophets of evil are refuted, Ireland must go without Home 
 Rule for ever. “ If the sky fall, we shall catch larks.” But 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 123 
 
 he would be a foolish bird-catcher who waited for that 
 contingency. And not less foolish is the statesman who 
 sits still till every conceivable objection to his policy has 
 been mathematically refuted in advance, and every wild 
 prediction falsified by the event; for that would ensure 
 his never moving at all. Sedet atermunqiie sedebit. A 
 proper enough attitude, perhaps, on the part of an eristic 
 philosopher speculating on politics in the silent shade of 
 academic groves, but hardly suitable for a practical politician 
 who has to take action on one of the most burning questions 
 of our time. Human affairs are not governed by mathe¬ 
 matical reasoning. You cannot demonstrate the precise 
 results of any legislative measure beforehand as you can 
 demonstrate the course of a planet in the solar system. 
 “ Probability,” as Bishop Butler says, ‘‘is the guide of life;” 
 and an older philosopher than Butler has warned us that 
 to demand demonstrative proof in the sphere of contingent 
 matter is the same kind of absurdity as to demand probable 
 reasoning in mathematics. You cannot confute a prophet 
 before the event; you can only disbelieve him. The 
 advocates of Plome Rule believe that their policy would 
 in general have an exactly contrary effect to that predicted 
 by their opponents. In truth, every act of legislation is, 
 before experience, amenable to such destructive criticism 
 as these critics urge against Home Rule. I have not a 
 doubt that they could have made out an unanswerable 
 “case” against the Great Charter at Runnymede; and they 
 would find it easy to prove on d priori grounds that the 
 British Constitution is one of the most absurd, mischievous, 
 and unworkable instruments that ever issued from human 
 brains or from the evolution of events. By their method 
 of reasoning the Great Charter and other fundamental 
 portions of the Constitution ought to have brought the 
 Government of the British Empire to a deadlock long ago. 
 Every suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, every Act of 
 
124 
 
 THE “UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 Attainder, every statute for summary trial and conviction 
 before justices of the peace, is a violation of the funda¬ 
 mental article of the Constitution, which requires that no 
 man shall be imprisoned or otherwise punished except after 
 lawful trial by his peers.* Consider also the magazines of 
 explosive materials which lie hidden in the constitutional 
 prerogatives of the Crown, if they could only be ignited by 
 the match of an ingenious theorist. The Crown, as Lord 
 Sherbrooke once somewhat irreverently expressed it, “ can 
 turn every cobbler in the land into a peer,” and could thus 
 put an end, as the Duke of Wellington declared, to “the 
 Constitution of this country.” f “ The Crown is not bound 
 by Act of Parliament unless named therein by special and 
 particular words.” X The Crown can make peace or war 
 without consulting Parliament, can by secret treaty saddle 
 the nation with the most perilous obligations, and give 
 away all such portions of the empire as do not rest on 
 Statute. The prerogative of mercy, too, would enable an 
 eccentric Sovereign, aided by an obsequious Minister, to 
 open the jails and let all the convicted criminals in the land 
 loose upon society.j; But criticism which proves too much 
 in effect proves nothing. 
 
 In short, every stage in the progress of constitutional 
 reform has, in matter of fact, been marked by similar pre¬ 
 dictions falsified by results, and the prophets who condemn 
 Home Pule have no better credentials; indeed, much 
 worse, for they proclaim the miserable failure of “ things 
 as they are,” whereas their predecessors were in their day 
 satisfied with things as they were. § 
 
 * Creasy’s Imperial and Colonial Constitutions of the Britannic 
 Empire, p. 155. 
 
 t May’s Const. Hist., i. 313. 
 
 J Blackstone’s Coninietitaries, by Stephen, ii. 491, 492, 497, $07. 
 
 § We need not go far afield for illustrations. A few samples will 
 suffice. “It was natural,” says Mill {Rep. Gov., p. 311), “to feel 
 strong doubts befvre trial had been made how such a provision [as the 
 
THE “ UNIONIST” POSITION. 
 
 125 
 
 It is high time, therefore, to call upon the opponents 
 of Home Rule to tell us plainly where they stand. They 
 
 Supreme Court of the United States] would work ; whether the tribunal 
 would have the courage to exercise its constitutional power ; if it did, 
 whether it would exercise it wisely, and whether the Government would 
 consent peaceably to its decision. The discussions on the American 
 Constitution, before its final adoption, give evidence that these natural 
 apprehensions were strongly felt; but they are now entirely quieted, 
 since, during the two generations and more which have subsequently 
 elapsed, nothing has occurred to verify them, though there have at 
 times been disputes of considerable acrimony, and which became the 
 badges of parties respecting the limits of the authority of the Federal 
 and State Governments.” The Austrian opponents of Home Rule in 
 Hungary predicted that it would lead straight to separation. The 
 opponents of the Canadian Constitution prophesied that Canada would 
 in a few years be annexed to the United States ; and Home Rule in 
 Australia was believed by able statesmen to involve independence at an 
 early date. Mr. Dicey himself tells us “ that the wisest thinkers of the 
 eighteenth century (including Burke) held that the independence of the 
 x\merican Colonies meant the irreparable ruin of Great Britain. There 
 were apparently solid reasons for this belief; experience has proved 
 it to be without foundation.” The various changes in our own Consti¬ 
 tution, and even in our Criminal Code, were believed by “ men of light 
 and leading ” at the time to portend national ruin. All the judges in 
 the land, all the bankers, and the professions generally, petitioned 
 against alteration in the law which sent children of ten to the gallows 
 for the theft of a pocket-handkerchief. The great Lord Ellenborough 
 declared in the House of Lords that “the learned judges were unani¬ 
 mously agreed” that any mitigation in that law would imperil “the 
 public security.” “ My Lords,” he exclaimed, “if we suffer this Bill 
 to pass we shall not know where we stand ; we shall not know whether 
 we are on our heads or on our feet.” Mr. Perceval, when leader of the 
 House of Commons in 1807, declared that “ he could not conceive a 
 time or change of circumstances which would render further concessions 
 to the Catholics consistent with the safety of the State.” (Cfokcr 
 Papers, i. 12.) Croker was a very astute man ; but here is his forecast 
 of the Reform Act of 1832 : “ No kings, no lords, no inequalities in the 
 social system ; all will be levelled to the plane of the petty shopkeepers 
 and small farmers : this, perhaps, not without bloodshed, but certainly 
 by confiscations and persecutions.” “There can be no longer any 
 doubt that the Reform Bill is a stepping-stone in England to a Republic, 
 and in Ireland to separation.” Croker met the Queen in 1S32, con¬ 
 sidered her very good-looking, but thought it not unlikely that “she 
 may live to be plain Miss Guelph.” Even Sir Robert Peel wrote : “If 
 I am to be believed, I foresee revolution as the consequence of this 
 Bill and he “felt that it had ceased to be an object of ambition to 
 any man of equable and consistent mind to enter into the service of the 
 Crown.” And as late as 1839, so robust a character as Sir James 
 
126 
 
 THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION 
 
 claim a mandate from the country for their policy. They 
 neither asked nor received a mandate to support the 
 system of Government which prevailed in Ireland at the 
 last election, and still less the policy of coercion which they 
 have substituted for that system. Do they mean to go back 
 or forward? They cannot stand still. They have already 
 discovered that one act of repression leads to another, and 
 they will find ere long that they have no alternative except 
 Home Rule or the suppression of Parliamentary Govern¬ 
 ment in Ireland. Men may talk lightly of the ease with 
 which eighty-six Irish members may be kept in order in 
 Parliament. They forget that the Irish people are behind 
 the Irish members. How is Ireland to be governed on 
 Parliamentary principles if the voice of her representatives 
 is to be forcibly silenced or disregarded ? Could even 
 Yorkshire or Lancashire be governed permanently in that 
 way? Let it be observed that we have now reached this 
 pass, namely, that the opponents of Home Rule are opposed' 
 to the Irish members, not on any particular form of self- 
 government for Ireland, but on any form ; in other words. 
 
 Graham thought the world was coming to an end because the young 
 Queen gave her confidence to a Whig lUinister. “I begin to share all 
 your apprehensions and forebodings,” he writes to Croker, “with regard 
 to the probable issue of the present struggle. The Crown in alliance 
 with Democracy baffles every calculation on the balance of power in our 
 mixed form of Government. Aristocracy and Church cannot contend 
 against Queen and people mixed ; they must yield in the first instance, 
 when the Crown, unprotected, will meet its fate, and the accustomed 
 round of anarchy and despotism will run its course.” And he prays 
 that he may “ lie cold before that dreadful day.” {Ibid., ii. 113, 140, 
 176, 181, 356.) Free Trade created a similar panic. “Good God!” 
 Croker exclaimed, “what a chaos of anarchy and misery do I foresee 
 in every direction, from so comparatively small a beginning as changing 
 an average duty of 8r. into a fixed duty of 8 j., the fact being that the 
 fixed duty means no duty at all; and no duty at all will be the over¬ 
 throw of the existing social and political system of our country ! ” {Ibid., 
 iii. 13.) And what have become of Mr. Lowe’s gloomy vaticinations 
 as to the terrible consequences of the very moderate Reform Bill of 
 1866, followed as it was by a much more democratic measure ? 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" POSITION. 
 
 127 
 
 they resist the all but unanimous demand of Ireland for 
 what “Unionists” of all parties declared a year ago to be 
 a reasonable demand. No candidate at the last election 
 ventured to ask the suffrages of any constituency as “ a sup¬ 
 porter of things as they are.” Yet that is practically the 
 attitude now assumed by the Ministerial party, both Con¬ 
 servatives and Liberal Unionists. It is an attitude of which 
 the country is getting weary, as the bye-elections have 
 shown. But the “ Unionists,” it must be admitted, are in 
 a sore dilemma. Their strength, such as it is, lies in doing 
 nothing for the reform of Irish Government. Their bond 
 of union consists of nothing else but opposition to Mr. 
 Gladstone’s policy. They dare not attempt to formulate 
 any policy of their own, knowing well that they would go 
 to pieces in the process. Their hope and speculation is 
 that something may happen to remove Mr. Gladstone from 
 tire political arena before the next dissolution. But, after 
 all, Mr. Gladstone did not create the Irish difficulty. It 
 preceded him and will survive him, unless it is settled to 
 the satisfaction of the Irish people before his departure. 
 And the difficulty of the final settlement will increase with 
 every year of delay. Nor will the difficulty be confined 
 to Ireland. The Irish question is already reacting upon 
 kindred, though not identical, problems in England and 
 Scotland, and the longer it is kept open, so much the worse 
 will it be for what are generally regarded as Conservative 
 interests. It is not the Moderate Liberals or Conservatives 
 who are gaining ground by the prolongation of the con¬ 
 troversy, and the disappearance of Mr, Gladstone from the 
 scene would have the effect of removing from the forces of 
 extreme Radicalism a conservative influence, which his 
 political opponents will discover when it is too late to 
 restore it. Their regret will then be as unavailing as the 
 lament of William of Deloraine over his fallen foe— 
 
 “ I’d give the lands of Deloraine 
 Dark Musgrave were alive again.” 
 
128 
 
 THE “ UNIONIST” POSITION. 
 
 The Irish landlords have already begun to realize the 
 mistake they made when they rejected Mr. Gladstone’s 
 policy of Home Rule and Land Purchase. It is the old 
 story of the Sibyl’s books. No British Government will 
 ever again offer such terms to the Irish landlords as they 
 refused to accept from Mr. Gladstone. On the other hand, 
 Home Rule is inevitable. Can any reflective person really 
 suppose that the democracy of Great Britain will consent 
 to refuse to share with the Irish people the boon of self- 
 government which will be offered to themselves next year ? 
 Any attempt to exclude the Irish from the benefits of such a 
 scheme, after all the promises of the last general election, 
 would almost certainly wreck the government; for consti¬ 
 tuencies have ways and means of impressing their wills on 
 their representatives in Parliament even without a dissolution. 
 If, on the other hand, Ireland should be included in a general 
 scheme of local Government, the question of who shall 
 control the police will arise. In Great Britain the police, 
 of course, will be under local control. To refuse this to 
 Ireland would be to offer a boon with a stigma attached 
 to it. The Irish members agreed to let the control of the 
 constabulary remain, under Mr. Gladstone’s scheme, for some 
 years in the hands of the British Government; but they would 
 not agree to this while Dublin Castle ruled the country. 
 Moreover, the formidable dififlculty suggested by Lord Salis¬ 
 bury and Mi. John Stuart Mill (seepp. 115, 116) would appear 
 the moment men began seriously to consider the question of 
 local government for Ireland. The government of Dublin 
 Castle would have to go, but something would have to be put 
 in its place; and when that point has been reached it will 
 probably be seen that nothing much better or safer can be 
 found than some plan on the main lines of Mr. Gladstone’s 
 Bill. 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO 
 HOME RULE. 
 
 By E. L. Godkin. 
 
 Mr. Dicey in liis Case against Home Rule does me the 
 honour to refer to an article which I wrote a year ago 
 on “ American Home Rule,” * expressing in one place 
 “ disagreement in the general conclusion to which the 
 article is intended to lead,” and in another “ inability to 
 follow the inference” which he supposes me to draw 
 “ against all attempts to enforce an unpopular law.” Now 
 the object of that article, 1 may be permitted to explain, 
 was twofold. I desired, in the first place, to combat the 
 notion which, it seemed to me, if I might judge from a great 
 many of the speeches and articles on the Irish question, 
 was widely diffused even among thoughtful Englishmen that 
 the manner in which the Irish have expressed their dis¬ 
 content—that is, through outrage and disorder—was indica¬ 
 tive of incapacity for self-government, and even imposed 
 upon the Englishmen the duty, in the interest of morality 
 (I think it was the Spectator who took this view), and as 
 a disciplinary measure, of refusing to such a people the 
 privilege of managing their own affairs. I tried to show 
 by several noted examples occurring in this country that 
 prolonged displays of lawlessness, and violence, and even 
 
 * Printed in the earlier part of this voluine, 
 
 K 
 
130 A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO LIOME RULE. 
 
 cruelty, such as the anti-rent movement in the State of New 
 York, the Ku-Klux outrages in the South, and the persecution 
 of Miss Prudence Crandall in Connecticut, were not incon¬ 
 sistent with the possession of marked political capacity. 
 I suggested that it was hardly adult politics to take such 
 things into consideration in passing on the expediency of 
 conceding local self-government to a subject community. 
 There was to me something almost childish in the arguments 
 drawn from Irish lawlessness in the discussion of Home 
 Rule, and in the moral importance attached by some 
 Englishmen to the refusal to such wicked men as the Irish 
 of the things they most desire. It is only in kindergartens, 
 I said, that rulers are able to do equal and exact justice, 
 and see that the naughty are brought to grief and the good 
 made comfortable. Statesmen occupy themselves with the 
 more serious business of curing discontent. They concern 
 themselves but little, if at all, with the question whether it 
 might not be manifested by less objectionable methods. 
 
 The Irish methods of manifesting it, I endeavoured to 
 show, were not exceptional, and did not prove either 
 inability to make laws or unwillingness to obey them. 
 I illustrated this by examples drawn from the United States. 
 I might, had I had more time and space, have made these 
 examples still more numerous and striking. I might have 
 given very good reasons for believing that, were Ireland 
 a state in the American Union, there probably would not 
 have been any rent paid in the island within the last fifty 
 years, and that the armed resistance of the tenants would 
 have had the open or secret sympathy of the great bulk of 
 the American people. In truth, the importance of Irish 
 crime as a political symptom is grossly exaggerated by 
 English writers. I venture to assert that more murders 
 unconnected with robbery are committed in the State of 
 Kentucky in one year than in Ireland in ten, and the 
 condition of some other Southern and Western States is 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 131 
 
 nearly as bad. All good Americans lament this and are 
 ashamed of it, but it never enters into the heads of even the 
 most lugubrious American moralists that Kentucky or any 
 other State should be disfranchised and remanded to the 
 condition of a Territory, because the offences against the 
 person committed in it are so numerous, and the punishment 
 of them, owing to popular sympathy or apathy, so difficult. 
 
 There are a great many Englishmen who think that 
 when they show that Grattan’s Parliament was a venal and 
 somewhat disorderly body, which occasionally indulged in 
 mixed metaphor, they have proved the impossibility of giving 
 Ireland a Parliament now. But then, as they are obliged 
 to admit, Walpole’s Parliament was very corrupt, and no 
 one would say that for that reason it would have been wise 
 to suspend constitutional government in England in the 
 eighteenth century. It is only through the pernicious habit 
 of thinking of Irishmen as exceptions to all political rules 
 that Grattan’s Parliament is considered likely, had it lasted, 
 to have come down to our time unreformed and unim¬ 
 proved. 
 
 Those have misunderstood me who suppose that I 
 draw from the success of the anti-rent movement in this 
 State between 1839 and 18.^6 an inference against “all 
 attempts to enforce an unpopular law.” Such was not by 
 any means my object. What I sought to show by the 
 history of this movement was that there was nothing peculiar 
 or inexplicable in the hostility to rent-paying in Ireland. 
 The rights of the New York landlords were as good in law 
 and morals as the rights of the Irish landlords, and their 
 mode of asserting them far superior. Moreover, those who 
 resisted them were not men of a different race, religion, or 
 nationality, and had, as Mr. Dicey says, “ none of the 
 excuses that can be urged in extenuation of half-starved 
 tenants.” Their mode of setting the law at defiance was 
 exactly similar to that adopted by the Irish, and it was 
 
IJ 2 A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 persisted in for a period of ten years, or until they had 
 secured a substantial victory. The history of the anti-rent 
 agitation in New York also illustrates strikingly, as it seems 
 to me, the perspicacity of a remark made, in substance, long 
 ago by Mr. Disraeli, which, in my eyes at least, threw a great 
 deal of light on the Irish problem, namely, that Ireland was 
 suffering from suppressed revolution. As Mr. Dicey says, 
 “ The crises called revolutions are the ultimate and desperate 
 cures for the fundamental disorganization of society. 
 The issue of a revolutionary struggle shows what is the 
 true sovereign power in the revolutionized state. So 
 strong is the interest of mankind, at least in any European 
 country, in favour of some sort of settled rule, that civil 
 disturbance will, if left to itself, in general end in the 
 supremacy of some power which by securing the safety at 
 last gains the attachment of the people. The Reign of 
 Terror begets the Empire; even wars of religion at last 
 produce peace, albeit peace may be nothing better than the 
 iron uniformity of despotism. Could Ireland have been 
 left for any lengthened period to herself, some form of rule 
 adapted to the needs of the country would in all probability 
 have been established. Whether Protestants or Catholics 
 would have been the predominant element in the State ; 
 whether the landlords would have held their own, or whether 
 the English system of tenure would long ago have made 
 way for one more in conformity with native traditions; 
 whether hostile classes and races would at last have 
 established some modus vive?idi favourable to individual 
 freedom, or whether despotism under some of its various 
 forms would have been sanctioned by the acquiescence of 
 its subjects, are matters of uncertain speculation. A con¬ 
 clusion which, though speculative, is far less uncertain, is 
 that Ireland, if left absolutely to herself, would have arrived, 
 like every other country, at some lasting settlement of her 
 difficulties” (p. 87). That is to say, that in Ireland as in 
 
A LAIVYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 133 
 
 New York the attempt to enforce unpopular land laws 
 would have been abandoned, had local self-government 
 existed. For “revolution” is, after all, only a fine name 
 for the failure or refusal of the rulers of a country to persist 
 in executing laws which the bulk of the population find 
 obnoxious. When the popular hostility to the law is strong 
 enough to make its execution impossible, as it was in New 
 York in the rent affair, it is accepted as the respectable 
 solution of a very troublesome problem. When, as in 
 Ireland, it is strong enough to produce turbulence and 
 disorder, but not strong enough to tire out and overcome 
 the authorities, it simply ruins the political manners of the 
 people. If the Irish landlords had had from the beginning 
 to face the tenants single-handed and either hold them 
 down by superior physical force, or come to terms with 
 them as the New York landlords had to do, conditions of 
 peace and good will would have assuredly been discovered 
 long ago. The land question, in other words, would have 
 been adjusted in accordance with “Irish ideas,” that is, 
 in some way satisfactory to the tenants. The very memory 
 of the conflict would probably by this time have died out, 
 and the two classes would be living in harmony on the 
 common soil. If in New York, on the other hand, the 
 Van Rensselaers and Livingstons had been able to secure 
 the aid of martial law and of the Federal troops in asserting 
 their claims, and in preventing local opinion having any 
 influence whatever on the settlement of the dispute, there 
 can be no doubt that a large portion of this State would 
 to-day be as poor and as savage, and apparently as little 
 fitted for the serious business of government, as the greater 
 part of Ireland is. 
 
 There is, in truth, no reason to doubt that the idea of 
 property in land, thoroughly accepted though it be in the 
 United States, is nevertheless held under the same limita¬ 
 tions as in the rest of the world. No matter what the law 
 
134 A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 may say in any country, in no country is the right of the 
 landed proprietor in his acres as absolute as his right in his 
 movables. A man may own as much land as he can pur¬ 
 chase, and may assert his ownership in its most absolute form 
 against one, two, or three occupants, but the minute he began 
 to assert it against a large number of occupants, that is, to 
 act as if his rights were such that he had only to buy a whole 
 state or a whole island in order to be able to evict the entire 
 population, he would find in America, as he finds in Ireland, 
 that he cannot have the same title to land as to personal pro¬ 
 perty. He w'ould, for instance, if he tried to oust the people of 
 a whole district or of a village from their homes on any plea 
 of possession, or of a contract, find that he was going too 
 far, and that no matter what the judges might say, or the 
 sheriff might try to do for him, his legal position was worth 
 very little to him. Consequently a large landlord in America, 
 if he were lucky enough to get tenants at all, w'ould be very 
 chary indeed about quarrelling with more than one of them 
 at a time. The tenants would no more submit to wholesale 
 ejectment than the farmers in Missouri would submit some 
 years ago to a tax levy on their property to pay county bonds 
 given in aid of a railroad. The goods of some of them were 
 seized, but a large body of them attended the sale armed 
 with rifles, having previously issued a notice that the place 
 would be very “ unhealthy ” for outside bidders. 
 
 The bearing of this condition of American opinion on 
 the Irish question will be plainer if I remind English readers 
 that the Irish in the United States numbered in 1880 nearly 
 2,000,000, and that the number of persons of Irish parentage 
 is probably between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000. In short 
 there are, as well as one can judge, more Irish nationalists 
 in the United States than in Ireland. The Irish-Americans 
 are to-day the only large and prosperous Irish community in 
 the world. The children of the Irish born in the United 
 States or brought there in their infancy are just as Irish in 
 
A LAIVVER’S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 135 
 
 their politics as those who have grown up at home. Patrick 
 Ford, for instance, the editor of the Irish World, who 
 is such a shape of dread to some Englishmen, came to 
 America in childhood, and has no personal knowledge nor 
 recollection of Irish wrongs. Of the part this large Irish 
 community plays in stimulating agitation—both agrarian and 
 political—at home I need not speak; Englishmen are very 
 familiar with it, and are very indignant over it. The Irish- 
 Americans not only send over a great deal of American 
 money to their friends at home, but they send over American 
 ideas, and foremost among them American hostility to large 
 landowners, and American belief in Home Rule. Now, to 
 me, one of the most curious things in the English state of 
 mind about the Irish problem is the apparent expectation 
 that this Irish-American interference is transient, and will 
 probably soon die out. It is quite true, as Englishmen are 
 constantly told, that ‘‘the best Americans,” that is, the 
 literary people and the commercial magnates, whom travel¬ 
 ling Englishmen see on the Atlantic coast, dislike the Irish 
 anti-English agitation. But it is also true that the dis¬ 
 approval of the “ best Americans ” is not of the smallest 
 practical consequence, particularly as it is largely due to 
 complete indifference to, and ignorance of, the whole subject. 
 There are probably not a dozen of them who would venture 
 to express their disapproval publicly. The mass of the 
 population, particularly in the West, sympathize, though 
 half laughingly, with the efforts of the transplanted Irish to 
 “ twist the British lion’s tail,” and all the politicians either 
 sympathize with them, or pretend to do so. I am not now 
 expressing any opinion as to whether this state of things is 
 good or bad. What I wish to point out is that this Irish- 
 American influence on Irish affairs is very powerful, and 
 may, for all practical purposes, be considered permanent, 
 and must be taken into account as a constant element in 
 the Irish problem. I will indeed venture on the assertion 
 
136 A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 that it is the appearance of the Irish-Americans on the 
 scene which has given the Irish question its present 
 seriousness. The attempts of the Irish at physical resist¬ 
 ance to English authority have been steadily diminishing in 
 gravity during the present century—witness the descent 
 from the rebellion of 1798 to Smith O’Brien’s rebellion and 
 the Fenian rising of 1867. On the other hand the power 
 of the Irish to act as a disturbing agency in English politics 
 has greatly increased, and the reason is that the stream of 
 Irish discontent is fed by thousands of rills from the United 
 States. Every emigrant’s letter, every Irish-American 
 newspaper, every returned emigrant with money in his 
 pocket and a good coat on his back, helps to swell it, 
 and there is not the slightest sign, that I can see, of its 
 drying up. 
 
 Where Mr. Dicey is most formidable to the Home 
 Rulers, as it seems to me, is in his chapter on “ Home Rule 
 as Federalism,” which is the form in which the Irish ask 
 for it. He attacks this in two ways. One is by maintain¬ 
 ing that the necessary conditions for a federal union between 
 Great Britain and Ireland do not exist. This disposes at 
 one blow of all the experience derived from the working of 
 the foreign federations, on which the advocates of Home 
 Rule have relied a good deal. The other is what I may 
 call predictions that the federation even if set up would not 
 work. Either the state of facts on which all other federa¬ 
 tions have been built does not exist in Ireland, or if it now 
 exists, will not, owing to the peculiarities of Irish character, 
 continue to exist. In other words, the federation will 
 either fail at the outset, or fail in the long run. No one 
 can admire more than I do the force and ingenuity and 
 wealth of illustration with which Mr. Dicey supports this 
 thesis. But unfortunately the arguments by which he 
 assails Irish federalism might be, or might have been, used 
 ^ against all federations whatever. They might have been 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 137 
 
 used, as I shall try to show, against the most successful of 
 them all, the Government of the United States. I was re¬ 
 minded, while reading Mr. Dicey’s account of the impossi¬ 
 bility of an Anglo-Irish federation, of Mr, Madison’s 
 rehearsal in the Fede 7 'alist (No. 38) of the objections made 
 to the Federal Constitution after the Convention had sub¬ 
 mitted it to the States. These objections covered every 
 feature in it but one; and that, the mode of electing the 
 President, curiously enough, is the only one which can be 
 said to have utterly failed. A more impressive example 
 of the danger of d, priori attacks on any political arrange¬ 
 ment, history does not contain. Mr. Madison says: 
 “This one tells me that the proposed Constitution ought 
 to be rejected, because it is not a confederation of the 
 states, but a government over individuals. Another admits 
 that it ought to be a government over individuals to a 
 certain extent, but by no means to the extent proposed. 
 A third does not object to the government over individuals, 
 or to the extent proposed, but to the want of a bill of rights. 
 A fourth concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, 
 but contends that it ought to be declaratory not of the 
 personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved 
 to the states in their political capacity. A fifth is of opinion 
 that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and 
 misplaced, and that the plan would be unexceptionable but 
 for the fatal power of regulating the times and places of 
 election. An objector in a large state exclaims loudly 
 against the unreasonable equality of representation in the 
 Senate. An objector in a small state is equally loud against 
 the dangerous inequality in the House of Representatives. 
 From one quarter we are alarmed with the amazing expense, 
 from the number of persons who are to administer the new 
 government. From another quarter, and sometimes from 
 the same quarter, on another occasion the cry is that the 
 Congress will be but the shadow of a representation, and 
 
I3S A LAIVYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 that the government would be far less objectionable if the 
 number and the expense were doubled. A patriot in a 
 state that does not import or export discerns insuperable 
 objections against the power of direct taxation. The 
 patriotic adversary in a state of great exports and imports 
 is not less dissatisfied that the whole burden of taxes may 
 be thrown on consumption. This politician discovers in 
 the constitution a direct and irresistible tendency to mon¬ 
 archy. That is equally sure it will end in aristocracy. 
 Another is puzzled to say which of these shapes it will 
 ultimately assume, but sees clearly it must be one or other 
 of them. Whilst a fourth is not wanting, who with no less 
 confidence affirms that the Constitution is so far from 
 having a bias towards either of these dangers, that the 
 weight on that side will not be sufficient to keep it upright 
 and firm against the opposite propensities. With another 
 class of adversaries to the Constitution, the language is, 
 that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments 
 are intermixed in such a manner as to contradict all the 
 ideas of regular government and all the requisite precau¬ 
 tions in favour of liberty. Whilst this objection circulates 
 in vague and general expressions, there are not a few who 
 lend their sanction to it. Let each one come forward with 
 his particular explanation, and scarcely any two are exactly 
 agreed on the subject. In the 'eyes of one the junction 
 of the Senate with the President in the responsible function 
 of appointing to offices, instead of vesting this power in the 
 executive alone, is the vicious part of the organization. To 
 another the exclusion of the House of Representatives, 
 whose numbers alone could be a due security against cor¬ 
 ruption and partiality in the exercise of such a power, is 
 equally obnoxious. With a third the admission of the 
 President into any share of a power which must ever be 
 s. dangerous engine in the hands of the executive magistrate 
 is an unpardonable violation of the maxims of republican 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 139 
 
 jealousy. No part of the arrangement, according to some, 
 is more inadmissible than the trial of impeachments by the 
 Senate, which is alternately a member both of the legisla¬ 
 tive and executive departments, when this power so evidently 
 belonged to the judiciary department. We concur fully, 
 reply others, in the objection to this part of the plan, but 
 we can never agree that a reference of impeachments to the 
 judiciary authority would be an amendment of the error; 
 our principal dislike to the organization arises from the 
 extensive powers already lodged in that department. Even 
 among the zealous patrons of a council of state, the most 
 irreconcilable variance is discovered concerning the mode 
 in which it ought to be constituted.” 
 
 Mr. Madison’s challenge to the opponents of the American 
 Constitution to agree on some plan of their own, and his 
 humorous suggestion that if the American people had to 
 wait for some such agreement to be reached they would 
 go for a long time without a government, are curiously 
 applicable to the opponents of Irish Home Rule. They 
 are very fertile in reasons for thinking that neither the 
 Gladstone plan nor any other plan can succeed, but no 
 two of them, so far as I know, have yet hit upon any other 
 mode of pacifying Ireland, except the use of force for a 
 certain period to maintain order, and oddly enough, even 
 when they agree on this remedy, they are apt to disagree 
 about the length of time during which it should be tried. 
 
 Mr. Dicey, in conceding the success of the American 
 Constitution, seems to me unmindful, if I may use the 
 expression, of the judgments he would probably have passed 
 on it had it been submitted to him at the outset were he 
 in the frame of mind to which a prolonged study of the 
 Irish problem has now brought him. The Supreme Court, 
 for instance, which he now recognizes as an essential 
 feature of the Federal Constitution, and the absence of 
 which in the Gladstonian arrangement he treats as a fatal 
 
140 A LAJVYER’S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 defect, would have undoubtedly appeared to him a pre¬ 
 posterous contrivance. It would have seemed to him im¬ 
 possible that a legislature like Congress, with the traditions 
 of parliamentary omnipotence still strong in the minds of 
 the members, would ever submit to have its acts nullified 
 by a board composed of half a dozen elderly lawyers. Nor 
 would he have treated as any more reasonable the expecta¬ 
 tion that the State tribunals, which had existed in each 
 colony from its foundation, and had earned the respect and 
 confidence of the people, would quietly submit to have their 
 jurisdiction curtailed, their decisions overruled, causes torn 
 from their calendar, and prisoners taken out of their custody 
 by new courts of semi-foreign origin, which the State neither 
 paid nor controlled. He would, too, very probably have 
 been most incredulous about the prospect of the growth of 
 loyalty on the part of New-Yorkers and Massachusetts men 
 to a new-fangled government, which was to make itself only 
 slightly felt in their daily lives, and was to sit a fortnight 
 away in an improvised village in the midst of a Virginian 
 forest. 
 
 He would, too, have ridiculed the notion that State 
 legislatures would refrain, in obedience to the Constitution) 
 from passing any law which local sentiment strongly favoured 
 or local convenience' plainly demanded, such as a law im¬ 
 pairing the obligation of obnoxious contracts, or levying 
 duties on imports or exports. The possibility that the State 
 militia could ever be got to obey federal officers, or form an 
 efficient part of a federal army, he would have scouted. On 
 the feebleness of the front which federation would present 
 to a foreign enemy he would have dwelt with emphasis, 
 and would have pointed with confidence to the probability 
 that in the event of a war some of the states would make 
 terms with him or secretly favour his designs. National 
 allegiance and local allegiance would divide and perplex 
 the feelings of loyal citizens. Unless the national sentiment 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 141 
 
 predominated—and it could not predominate without having 
 had time to grow—the federation would go to pieces at any 
 of those crises when the interests or wishes of any of the 
 states conflicted with the interests or wishes of the Union. 
 That the national sentiment could grow at all rapidly, con¬ 
 sidering the maturity of the communities which composed 
 the Union and the differences of origin, creed, and manners 
 which separated them, no calm observer of human nature 
 w'ould believe for one moment. 
 
 The American Constitution is flecked throughout with 
 those flaws which a lawyer delights to discover and point 
 out, and which the framers of a federal contract can only 
 excuse by maintaining that they are inevitable. It is true 
 that Mr. Dicey does not even now acknowledge the success 
 of the American Constitution to be complete. He points 
 out that if the “ example either of America or of Switzer¬ 
 land is to teach us anything worth knowing, the history of 
 these countries must be read as a whole. It will then be 
 seen that the two most successful confederacies in the 
 world have been kept together only by the decisive triumph 
 through force of arms of the central power over real or 
 alleged State rights” (p. 192). 
 
 It is odd that such objectors do not see that the decisive 
 triumph of the central power in the late civil war in 
 America was, in reality, a striking proof of the success of the 
 federation. The armies which General Grant commanded, 
 and the enormous resources in money and devotion from 
 which he was able to draw', were the product of the Federal 
 Union and of nothing else. One of tlie greatest arguments 
 its founders used in its favour w'as that if once established 
 it would supply overwhelming force for the suppression of 
 any attempt to break it up. Tliey did not aim at setting 
 up a government which neither foreign malice nor domestic 
 treason would ever assail, for they knew that this w'as 
 something beyond the reach of human endeavour. They 
 
142 A LAIVYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 tried to set up one which, if attacked either from within or 
 from without, would make a successful resistance, and we now 
 know that they accomplished their object. Somewhat the 
 same answer may be made to the objection, which is sup¬ 
 posed to have fatal applicability to the case of Ireland, that 
 among the “ special faults of federalism” is that it does not 
 provide “sufficient protection of the legal rights of un¬ 
 popular minorities,” and that “ the moral of it all is that the 
 [American] Federal Government is not able to protect the 
 rights of individuals against strong local sentiment” (p. 194 
 of Mr. Dicey’s book). He says, moreover, if I understand 
 the argument rightly, that it was bound to protect free speech 
 in the States because “ there is not and never was a word in 
 the Articles of the Constitution forbidding American citizens 
 to criticize the institutions of the State.” It would seem from 
 this as if Mr. Dicey were under the impression that in 
 America the citizen of a State has a right to do in his State 
 whatever he is not forbidden to do by the Federal Con¬ 
 stitution, and in doing it has a right to federal protection. 
 But the Federal Government can only do what the Con¬ 
 stitution expressly authorizes it to do, and the Constitution 
 does not authorize it to protect a citizen in criticizing the 
 institutions of his own State. This arrangement, too, is 
 just as good federalism as the committal of free speech to 
 federal guardianship would have been. The goodness or 
 badness of the federal system is in no way involved in the 
 matter. 
 
 The question to what extent a minority shall rely on the 
 federation for protection, and to what extent on its own 
 State, is a matter settled by the contract which has 
 created the federation. The settlement of this is, in fact, 
 the great object of a Constitution. Until it is settled 
 somehow, either by writing or by understanding, there is, 
 and can be, no federation. If I, as a citizen of the State 
 of New York, could call on the United States Government 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 143 
 
 to protect me under all circumstances and against all 
 wrongs, it would show that I was not living under a 
 federation at all, but under a centralized republic. The 
 reason why I have to rely on the United States for protection 
 against some things and not against others is that it was so 
 stipulated when the State of New York entered the Union. 
 There is nothing in the nature of the federal system to 
 prevent the United States Government from protecting my 
 freedom of speech. Nor is there anything in the federal 
 system which forbids its protecting me against the establish¬ 
 ment of a State Church, which, as a matter of fact, it does 
 not do. Nor is there anything in the federal system com¬ 
 pelling the Government to protect me against the establish¬ 
 ment of an order of nobility, which, as a matter of fact, it does 
 do. The reason why it does not do one of these things 
 and does the other is simply and solely that it was so 
 stipulated, after much discussion, in the contract. Most 
 thinking men are to-day of opinion that the United States 
 ought to have exclusive jurisdiction of marriage, so that the 
 law of marriage might be uniform in all parts of the Union. 
 The reason why they do not possess such jurisdiction is not 
 that Congress is not fully competent to pass such a law or 
 the federal courts to execute it, but that no such jurisdiction 
 is conferred by the Constitution. In fact it seems to me 
 just as reasonable to cite the ease of divorce in various 
 States of the Union as a defect in the federal system, as to 
 cite the oppression of local minorities in matters not placed 
 under federal authority by the organic law. 
 
 If one may judge from a great deal of writing on American 
 matters which one sees in English journals and the demands 
 for federal interference in America in State affairs which 
 they constantly make, the greatest difficulty Irish Home 
 Rule has to contend with is the difficulty which men bred 
 in a united monarchy and under an omnipotent Parliament 
 experience in grasping what I may call the federal idea. 
 
144 LAIVVER’S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE, 
 
 The influence of association on their minds is so strong 
 that they can hardly conceive of a central power, worthy of 
 the name of a government, standing by and witnessing 
 disorders or failures of justice in any place within its 
 borders, without stepping in to set matters right, no matter 
 what the Constitution may say. They remind me often of 
 an old verger in Westminster Abbey during the American 
 civil war who told me that “ he always knew a govern¬ 
 ment without a head couldn’t last.” Permanence and 
 peace were in his mind inseparably linked with kingship. 
 That even Mr. Dicey has not been able to escape this 
 influence appears frequently in his discussions of federalism. 
 He, of course, thoroughly understands the federal system 
 as a jurist, but when he comes to discuss it as a politician he 
 has evidently some difficulty in seeing how a government 
 with a power to enforce any commands can be restrained 
 by contract from enforcing all commands which may seem 
 to be expedient or salutary. Consequently the cool way 
 in which the Federal Government here looks on at local 
 disorders seems to him a sign, not of the fidelity of the 
 President and Congress to the federal pact, but of some 
 inherent weakness in the federal system. 
 
 The true way to judge the federal system, however, either 
 in the United States or elsewhere, is by observing the 
 manner in which it has performed the duties assigned to 
 it by the Constitution. If the Government at Washington 
 performs these faithfully, its failure to prevent lawlessness in 
 New York or the oppression of minorities in Connecticut 
 is of no more consequence than its failure to put down 
 brigandage in Macedonia. Possibly it would have been 
 better to saddle it with greater responsibility for local peace ; 
 but the fact is that the framers of the Constitution decided 
 not to do so. They did not mean to set up a government 
 which would see that every man living under it got his due. 
 They could not have got the States to accept such a 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 145 
 
 government. They meant to set up a government which 
 should represent the nation worthily in all its relations with 
 foreigners, which should carry on war effectively, protect life 
 and property on the high seas, furnish a proper currency, 
 put down all resistance to its lawful authority, and secure 
 each State against domestic violence on the demand of its 
 Legislature. 
 
 There is no common form for federal contracts, and no 
 rules describing what such a contract must contain in order 
 that the Government may be federal and not Unitarian. 
 There is no hard and fast line which must, under the federal 
 .system, divide the jurisdiction of the central Government 
 from the jurisdiction of eac^ State Government. The way 
 in which the power is divided between the two must neces¬ 
 sarily depend on the traditions, manners, aims, and needs 
 of the people of the various localities. The federal system 
 is not a system manufactured on a regulation model, which 
 can be sent over the world like iron huts or steam launches, 
 in detached pieces, to be put together when the scene of 
 ojieration is reached. Therefore I am unable to see the 
 force of the argument that, as the conditions under which 
 all existing federations were established differ in some 
 respects from those under which the proposed federal union 
 between England and Ireland would have to be established, 
 therefore the success of these confederations, such as it is, 
 gives them no value as precedents. A system which might 
 have worked very well for the New England States would 
 not have worked well for a combination which included 
 also the middle and southern States. And the framers 
 of the American Constitution were not so simple-minded as 
 to inquire, either before beginning their labours or before 
 ending them—as Mr. Dicey would apparently have the 
 English and Irish do—whether this or that style of consti¬ 
 tution was “ the correct thing ” in federalism. Assuming 
 that the people desired to form a nation as regarded the 
 
 L 
 
146 A LAWy£R'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 world outside, they addressed themselves to the task of 
 discovering how much power the various States were willing 
 to surrender for this purpose. That was ascertained, as far 
 as it could be ascertained, by assembling their delegates 
 in convention, and discussing the wishes and fears and 
 suggestions of the different localities in a friendly and con¬ 
 ciliatory spirit. They had no precedents to guide them. 
 There had not existed a federal government, either in ancient 
 or modern times, whose working’afforded an example by 
 which the imagination or the understanding of the American 
 people was likely to be affected in the smallest degree. 
 They, therefore, had to strike out an entirely new path for 
 themselves, and they ended by producing an absolutely new 
 kind of federation, which was half Unitarian, that is, in some 
 respects a union of states, and in others a centralized 
 government; and it was provided for a Territory one end of 
 which was more than a month’s distance from the other. 
 
 It is not in its details, therefore, but in the manner of its 
 construction, that the American Constitution furnishes any¬ 
 thing in the way of guidance or suggestion to those who 
 are now engaged in tryhig to find a modus vivendi between 
 England and Ireland. The same thing may be said of the 
 Swiss Constitution and of the Austro-Hungarian Consti¬ 
 tution. Both of them contain many anomalies—that is, 
 things that are not set down in the books as among the 
 essentials of federalism. But both are adapted to the 
 special wants of the people who live under them, and were 
 framed in reference to those wants. 
 
 The Austro-Hungarian Delegations are another excep¬ 
 tion to the rule. These Delegations undoubtedly control 
 the ministry of the Empire, or at all events do in practice 
 displace it by their votes. It is made formally responsible 
 to them by the Constitution. All that Mr. Dicey can say 
 to this is that “ the real responsibility of the Ministry to the 
 Delegations admits of a good deal of doubt,” and that, 
 
A LAIVYER’S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 147 
 
 at all events, it is not like the responsibility of Mr. 
 Gladstone or Lord Salisbury to the British Parliament. 
 This may be true, but the more mysterious or peculiar it 
 is the better it illustrates the danger of speaking of any 
 particular piece of machinery or of any particular division 
 of power as an essential feature of a federal constitution. 
 
 We are told by the critics of the Gladstonian scheme 
 that federalism is not “ a plan for disuniting the parts of a 
 united state.” But whether it is or not once more depends 
 on circumstances. Federalism, like the British or French 
 Constitution, is an arrangement intended to satisfy the people 
 who set it up by gratifying some desire or removing some 
 cause of discontent. If that discontent be due to unity, 
 federalism disunites ; if it be due to disunion, federalism 
 unites. In the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for 
 instance, it clearly is a “plan for disuniting the parts of 
 a united state.” Austria and Hungary were united in 
 the sense in which the opponents of Home Rule use the 
 word for many years before 1867, but the union did not 
 work, that is, did not produce moral as well as legal 
 unity. A constitution was therefore invented which dis¬ 
 unites the two countries for the purposes of domestic 
 legislation, but leaves them united for the purposes of 
 foreign relations. This may be a queer arrangement. 
 Although it has worked well enough thus far, it may not 
 continue to work well, but it does work well now. It 
 has succeeded in converting Hungary from a discontented 
 and rebellious province and a source of great weakness to 
 Austria into a loyal and satisfied portion of the Empire. In 
 other words, it has accomplished its purpose. It was not 
 intended to furnish a symmetrical piece of federalism. It 
 was intended to conciliate the Hungarian people. When 
 therefore the professional federal architects make their tour 
 of inspection and point out to the Home Ruler what 
 flagrant departures from the correct federal model the 
 
148 A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 Austro-Hungarian Constitution contains, how improbable 
 it is that so enormous a structure can endure, and how, 
 after all, the Hungarians have not got rid of the Emperor, 
 who commands the army and represents the brute force 
 of the old regime, I do not think he need feel greatly 
 concerned. This may be all true, and yet the Austro- 
 Hungarian federalism is a valuable thing. It has proved 
 that the federal remedy is good for more than one disease, 
 that it can cure both too much unity and too little. The 
 truth is that there are only two essentials of a federal 
 government. One is an agreement between the various 
 communities who are to live under it as to the manner in 
 which the power is to be divided between the general and 
 local governments ; the other is an honest desire on the 
 part of all concerned to make it succeed. As a general 
 rule, whatever the parties agree on and desire to make work 
 is likely to work, just as a Unitarian government is sure 
 to succeed if the people who live under it determine that 
 it shall succeed. If a federal plan be settled in the only 
 right way, by amicable and mutually respectful discussion 
 between representative men, all the more serious obstacles 
 are certain to be revealed and removed. Those which are 
 not brought to light by such discussions are pretty sure 
 to be comparatively trifling, and to disappear before the 
 general success of arrangement. But by a “ mutually 
 respectful discussion ” I mean discussion in which good 
 faith and intelligence of all concerned are acknowledged on 
 both sides. 
 
 In w'hat I have said by way of criticism of a book which 
 may be taken as a particularly full exposition of the legal 
 criticism that may be levelled at Mr. Gladstone’s scheme, 
 I have not touched on the arguments against Home Rule 
 which Mr. Dicey draws from the amount of disturbance it 
 would cause in English political habits and arrangements. 
 I freely admit the weight of these arguments. The task of 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 149 
 
 any English statesman who gives Home Rule to Ireland 
 in the only way in which it can be given—with the assent 
 of the British people—will be a very arduous one. But 
 this portion of Mr. Dicey’s book, producing, as it does, the 
 distinctively English objections to Home rule, is to me 
 much the most instructive, because it shows the difficulty 
 there would be in creating the state of mind in England 
 about any federal relation to Ireland which would be 
 necessary to make it succeed. I do not think it an exag¬ 
 geration to say that two-thirds of the English objections to 
 Home Rule as federalism are unconscious expressions of dis¬ 
 trust of Irish sincerity or intelligence thrown into the form of 
 prophecy, and prophets, as we all know, cannot be refuted. 
 For instance, “ the changes necessitated by federalism would 
 all tend to weaken the power of Great Britain ” (Dicey, p. 
 173). The question of the command of the army could not 
 be arranged; the Irish army could not be depended on by 
 the Crown (p. 174); the central Government would be feeble 
 against foreign aggression, and the Irish Parliament would 
 give aid to a foreign enemy (pp. 176-7). Federalism would 
 aggravate or increase instead of diminishing the actual Irish 
 disloyalty to the Crown (pp. 179-80); the Irish e.xpectations 
 of material prosperity from Home Rule are baseless or 
 grossly exaggerated (p. 182); the probability is, it would 
 produce increased poverty and hardship ; there would be 
 frequent quarrels between the two countries over questions 
 of nullification, secession, and federal taxation (p. 184 ); 
 neither side would acquiesce in the decision either of the 
 Privy Council or of any other tribunal on these questions; 
 Home Rulers would be the first to resist these decisions 
 (p. 185). Irish federation “ would soon generate a demand 
 tliat the whole British Empire should be turned into a Con¬ 
 federacy ” (p. 188). Finally, as “the one prediction which 
 may be made with absolute confidence,” “ federalism would 
 not generate the goodwill between England and Ireland 
 
150 A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 which, could it be produced, would be an adequate compen¬ 
 sation even for the evils and inconveniences of a federal 
 system ” (p. 191). 
 
 Now I do not myself believe these things, but what else 
 can any advocate of Home Rule say in answer to them ? 
 They are in their very nature the utterances of a prophet— 
 an able, acute, and fair-minded prophet, I grant, but still a 
 prophet—and before a prophet the wisest man has to be 
 silent, or content himself by answering in prophecy also. 
 What makes the sceptical frame of mind in which Mr. 
 Dicey approaches the Home Rule question so important is 
 not simply that it probably represents that of a very large 
 body of educated Englishmen, but that it is one in which 
 a federal system cannot be produced. Faith, hope, and 
 charity are political as well as social virtues. The minute 
 you leave the region of pure despotism and try any form of 
 government in winch the citizen has in the smallest degree 
 to co-operate in the execution of the laws, you have need 
 of these virtues at every step. As soon as you give up the 
 attempt to rule men by drumhead justice, you have to begin 
 to trust in some degree to their intelligence, to their love of 
 order, to their self-respect, and to their desire for material 
 prosperity, and the nearer you get to what is called free 
 government the larger this trust has to be. It has to be 
 very large indeed in order to carry on such a government 
 as that of Great Britain or of the United States; it has to 
 be larger still in order to set up and administer a federal 
 government. In such a government the worst that can 
 happen is very patent. The opportunities which the best- 
 drawn federal constitution offers for outbreaks of what 
 Americans call “ pure cussedness ”—that is, for the in¬ 
 dulgence of anarchical tendencies and impulses—is greater 
 than in any other. Therefore, to set it up, or even to 
 discuss it with any profit, your faith in the particular variety 
 of human nature, which is to live under it, has to be great. 
 
A LAWYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 151 
 
 No communities can live under it together and make it work 
 which do not respect each other. I say respect, I do not 
 say love, each other. The machine can be made to go a 
 good while without love, and if it goes well it will bring love 
 before long; but mutual respect is necessary from the first 
 day. This is why Mr. Dicey’s book is discouraging. The 
 arguments which he addressed to Englishmen would not, I 
 think, be formidable but for the mood in which he finds 
 Englishmen, and that this mood makes against Home Rule 
 there can be little doubt. 
 
 I am often asked by Americans why the English do not 
 call an Anglo-Irish convention in the American fashion, and 
 discuss the Irish question with the Irish, find out exactly 
 what they will take to be quiet, and settle with them in a 
 rational way. I generally answer that, in the first place, a 
 convention is a constitution-making agency with which the 
 English public is totally unfamiliar, and that, in the second 
 place, Englishmen’s temper is too imperial, or rather impe¬ 
 rious, to make the idea of discussion on equal terms with the 
 Irish at all acceptable. They are, in fact, so far from any 
 such arrangement that—preposterous and even funny as it 
 seems to the American mind—to say that an English states¬ 
 man is carrying on any sort of communication with the 
 representatives of the Irish people is to bring against him, 
 in Engli.sh eyes, a very damaging accusation. When a man 
 like Mr. Matthew Arnold writes to the Times to contend 
 that Englishmen should find out what the Irish want solely 
 for the purpose of not letting them have it, and a journal 
 like the Spectator maintains that the sole excuse for extend¬ 
 ing the suffrage in Ireland, as it has lately been extended in 
 England, Avas that the Irish as a minority would not be 
 able to make any effective use of it; and when another 
 political philosopher writes a long and very solemn letter 
 in which, while conceding that in governing Ireland a 
 sympathetic regard for Irish feelings and interests should 
 
IS2 A LAIVYER'S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 be displayed, he mentions, as one of the leading fiicts 
 of the situation, that in “the Irish character there is a 
 grievous lack of independence, of self-respect, of courage, 
 and above all of truthfulness ”—when men of this kind talk 
 in this way, it is easy to see that the mental and moral con¬ 
 ditions necessary to the successful formation of a federal 
 union are still far off. No federal government, and no 
 government requiring loyalty and fidelity for its successful 
 working, was ever set up by, cu" even discussed between, two 
 parties, one of which thought the other so unreasonable that 
 it should be carefully denied everything it asked for and as 
 unfit for any sort of political co-operation as mendacity, 
 cowardice, and slavishness could make it. 
 
 Finally let me say that there is nothing in Mr. Dicey’s 
 book which has surprised me more, considering with what 
 singular intellectual integrity he attacks every point, than 
 his failure to make any mention or to take any account of 
 the large part which time and experience must necessarily 
 play in bringing to perfection any political arrangement 
 which is made to order, if I may use the expression, no 
 matter how carefully it may be drafted. Hume says on this 
 point with great wisdom, “ To balance the large state or 
 society, whether monarchical or republican, on general 
 laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, 
 however comprehensive, is able by the mere dint of reason 
 or reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must 
 unite in the work, experience must guide their labour, time 
 must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences 
 must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into in 
 their first trial and experiments.” * ; 
 
 This has proved true of the American and Swiss federa¬ 
 tions ; it will probably prove true of the Austro-Hungarian 
 federation and of any that may be set up by Great Britian 
 and her colonies. It will prove still more true of any 
 * Essay on the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences. 
 
A LAiyVER’S OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 153 
 
 attempt that may be made at federation between Great 
 Britain and Ireland. No corrections which could be made 
 in the Gladstonian or any other constitution would make 
 it work exactly on the lines laid down by its framers. Even 
 if it were revised in accordance with Mr. Dicey’s criticism, 
 it would probably be found, as in the case of the American 
 Constitution, that few of the dangers which were most feared 
 for it had beset it, and that some of the inconveniences 
 which were most distinctly foreseen as likely to arise from it 
 were among the things which had materially contributed to 
 its success. History is full of the gentle ridicule which the 
 course of events throws on statesmen and philosophers. 
 
THE UNIONIST" CASE EOR HOSIE 
 RULE. 
 
 By R. Barry O’Brien. 
 
 I AM often asked, What are the best books to read on the 
 Irish question ? and I never fail to mention Mr. Becky’s 
 Leaders of Piihlic Opinion hi Ireland and the History 
 of England in the Eighteenth Ccntujy; Mr. Goldwin 
 Smith’s Irish History and Irish Character., Three English 
 Statesmen, The Irish Question, and Professor Dicey’s admi¬ 
 rable work, Englands Case against Home Rule. 
 
 Indeed, the case for Home Rule, as stated in these 
 books, is unanswerable; and it I'edounds to the credit of 
 Mr. Becky, Mr. Goldwin Smith, and Mr. Dicey that their 
 narrative of facts should in no wise be prejudiced by their 
 political opinions. 
 
 That their facts are upon one side and their opinions 
 on the other is a minor matter. Their facts, I venture 
 to assert, have made more Home Rulers than their opinions 
 can unmake. 
 
 To put this assertion to the test I propose to quote 
 some extracts from the works above mentioned. These 
 extracts shall be full and fair. Nothing shall be left out 
 that can in the slightest degree qualify any statement of 
 fact in the context. Arguments will be omitted, for I wish 
 to place facts mainly before my readers. From these facts 
 
THE “UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 155 
 
 they can draw their own conclusions. Neither shall I take 
 up space with comments of my own. I shall call my 
 witnesses and let them speak for themselves. 
 
 I.— Mr. Lecky. 
 
 In the introduction to the new edition of the Leaders 
 of Piihlic Opinio?i in Ireland, published in 1871—sevent}'- 
 one years after Mr. Pitt’s Union, which was to make 
 England and Ireland one nation—we find the following 
 “ contrast ” between “ national life ” in the two countries ;— 
 
 “ There is, perhaps, no Government in the world vdiich 
 succeeds more admirably in the functions of eliciting, 
 sustaining, and directing public opinion than that of 
 England. It does not, it is true, escape its full share of 
 hostile criticism, and, indeed, rather signally illustrates the 
 saying of Bacon, that ‘the best Governments are always 
 subject to be like the finest crystals, in which every icicle 
 and grain is seen which in a fouler stone is never per¬ 
 ceived ; ’ but whatever charges may be brought against the 
 balance of its powers, or against its legislative efficiency, 
 few men will question its eminent success as an organ of 
 public opinion. In England an even disproportionate 
 amount of the national talent takes the direction of politics. 
 The pulse of an energetic national life is felt in every 
 quarter of the land. The debates of Parliament are 
 followed with a warm, constant, and intelligent interest by 
 all sections of the community. It draws all classes within 
 the circle of political interests, and is the centre of a strong 
 and steady patriotism, equally removed from the apathy of 
 many Continental nations in time of calm, and from their 
 feverish and spasmodic energy in time of excitement. Its 
 decisions, if not instantly accepted, never fail to have a 
 profound and calming influence on the public mind. It 
 is the safety-valve of the nation. The discontents, the 
 
156 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 suspicions, the peccant humours that agitate the people, 
 find there their vent, their resolution, and their end. 
 
 “It is impossible, I think, not to be struck by the con¬ 
 trast which, in this respect, Ireland presents to England. 
 If the one country furnishes us with an admirable example 
 of the action of a healthy public opinion, the other supplies 
 us with the most unequivocal signs of its disease. The 
 Imperial Parliament exercises for Ireland legislative functions, 
 but it is almost powerless upon opinion—it allays no dis¬ 
 content, and attracts no affection. Political talent, which 
 for many years was at least as abundant among Irishmen 
 as in any equally numerous section of the people, has been 
 steadily declining, and marked decadence in this respect 
 among the representatives of the nation reflects but too 
 truly the absence of public spirit in their constituents. 
 
 “ The upper classes have lost their sympathy with and 
 their moral ascendency over their tenants, and are thrown 
 for the most part into a policy of mere obstruction. The 
 genuine national enthusiasm never flows in the channel of 
 imperial politics. With great multitudes sectarian con¬ 
 siderations have entirely superseded national ones, and their 
 representatives are accustomed systematically to subordinate 
 all party and all political questions to ecclesiastical interests; 
 and while calling themselves Liberals, they make it the 
 main object of their home politics to separate the different 
 classes of their fellow-countrymen during the period of their 
 education, and the main object of their foreign policy to 
 support the temporal power of the Pope. With another 
 and a still larger class the prevailing feeling seems to be 
 an indifference to all Parliamentary proceedings; an utter 
 scepticism about constitutional means of realizing their 
 ends; a blind, persistent hatred of England. Every cause 
 is taken up with an enthusiasm exactly proportioned to 
 the degree in which it is supposed to be injurious to English 
 interests. An amount of energy and enthusiasm which if 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 157 
 
 rightly directed would suffice for the political regeneration 
 of Ireland is wasted in the most insane projects of dis¬ 
 loyalty; while the diversion of so much public feeling 
 from Parliamentary politics leaves the Parliamentary arena 
 more and more open to corruption, to place-hunting, and 
 to imposture. 
 
 “This picture is in itself a very melancholy one, but there 
 are other circumstances which greatly heighten the effect. 
 In a very ignorant or a very wretched population it is 
 natural that there should be much vague, unreasoning dis¬ 
 content; but the Irish people are at present neither 
 wretched nor ignorant. Their economical condition before 
 the famine was, indeed, such that it might well have made 
 reasonable men despair. With the land divided into almost 
 microscopic farms, with a population multiplying rapidly 
 to the extreme limits of subsistence, accustomed to the 
 very lowest standard of comfort, and marrying earlier than 
 in any other northern country in Europe, it was idle to look 
 for habits of independence or self-reliance, or for the culture 
 which follows in the train of leisure and comfort. But all 
 this has been changed. A fearful famine and the long- 
 continued strain of emigration have reduced the nation 
 from eight millions to less than five, and have effected, at 
 the price of almost intolerable suffering, a complete 
 economical revolution. The population is now in no 
 degree in excess of the means of subsistence. The rise of 
 wages and prices has diffused comfort through all classes. 
 
 , . . Probably no country in Europe has advanced so 
 rapidly as Ireland within the last ten years, and the tone of 
 cheerfulness, the improvement of the houses, the dress, and 
 the general condition of the people must have struck every 
 observer.* ... If industrial improvement, if the rapid 
 
 * Omissions here and elsewhere are merely for purposes of space. 
 In some places the omitted parts would strengthen the Irish case ; in 
 no place would they weaken it. 
 
158 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 increase of material comforts among the poor, could allay 
 political discontent, Ireland should never have been so 
 loyal as at present. 
 
 “ Nor can it be said that ignorance is at the root of the 
 discontent. I'he Irish people have always, even in the darkest 
 period of the penal laws, been greedy for knowledge, and 
 few races show more quickness in acquiring it. The 
 admirable system of national education established in the 
 present century is beginning to bear abundant fruit, and, 
 among the younger generation at least, the level of know¬ 
 ledge is quite as high as in England. Indeed, one of the 
 most alarming features of Irish disloyalty is its close and 
 evident connection with education. It is sustained by a 
 cheap literature, written often with no mean literary skill, 
 which penetrates into every village, gives the people their first 
 political impressions, forms and directs their enthusiasm, and 
 seems likely in the long leisure of the pastoral life to exercise 
 an increasing power. Close observers of the Irish character 
 will hardly have failed to notice the great change which since 
 the famine has passed over the amusements of the people. 
 The old love of boisterous out-of-door sports has almost 
 disappeared, and those who would have once sought their 
 pleasures in the market or the fair now gather in groups in 
 the public-house, where one of their number reads out a 
 Fenian newspaper. Whatever else thischange may portend, 
 it is certainly of no good omen for the future loyalty of the 
 people. 
 
 “ It was long customary in England to underrate this 
 disaffection by ascribing it to very transitory causes. The 
 quarter of a century that followed the Union was marked 
 by almost perpetual disturbance; but this it was said was 
 merely the natural ground swell of agitation which followed 
 a great reform. It was then the popular theory that it was 
 the work of O’Connell, who was described during many years 
 as the one obstacle to the peace of Ireland, and whose death 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 159 
 
 was made the subject of no little congratulation, as though 
 Irish discontent had perished with its organ. It was as if, 
 the ^olian harp being shattered, men wrote an epitaph 
 upon the wind. Experience has abundantly proved tlie 
 folly of such theories. Measured by mere chronology, a 
 little more than seventy years have passed since the Union, 
 but famine and emigration have compressed into these years 
 the work of centuries. The character, feelings, and con¬ 
 ditions of the people have been profoundly altered. A long 
 course of remedial legislation has been carried, and during 
 many years the national party has been without a leader 
 and without a stimulus. Yet, so far from subsiding, dis¬ 
 loyally in Ireland is probably as extensive, and is certainly 
 as malignant, as at the death of O’Connell, only in many 
 respects the public opinion of the country has palpably 
 deteriorated. O’Connell taught an attachment to the con¬ 
 nection, a loyalty to the crown, a respect for the rights of 
 property, a consistency of Liberalism, which we look for in 
 vain among his successors; and that faith in moral force 
 and constitutional agitation which he made it one of his 
 greatest objects to instil into the people has almost vanished 
 with the failure of his agitation.”* 
 
 Few Irish Nationalists have drawn a weightier indictment 
 against the Union than this. After a trial of seventy years, 
 Mr. Lecky sums up the case against the Union in these 
 pregnant sentences:— 
 
 “The Imperial Parliament allays no discontent, and 
 attracts no affection ; ” “ The genuine national enthu¬ 
 siasm never flows in the channel of imperial politics; ” 
 the people have “an utter scepticism about constitutional 
 means of realizing their ends,” and are imbued with “a 
 blind, persistent hatred of England.” Worse still, neither 
 the material progress of the country, nor the education of 
 
 * Lccky, Leaders of Puldie Opinion in Ireland, new edit. (1S71), 
 Introduction, pp. viii., xiv. 
 
i6o THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 the people, has reconciled them to the Imperial Parliament. 
 Indeed, their disloyalty has increased with their prosperity 
 and enlightenment. This is the story which Mr. Lecky has 
 to tell. But why are the Irish disloyal ? Mr. Lecky shall 
 answer the question. 
 
 “ The causes of this deep-seated disaffection I have 
 endeavoured in some degree to investigate in the following 
 essays. To the merely dramatic historian the history of 
 Ireland will probably appear less attractive than that of most 
 other countries, for it is somewhat deficient in great charac¬ 
 ters and in splendid episodes; but to a philosophic student 
 of history it presents an interest of the very highest order. 
 In no other history can we trace more clearly the chain of 
 causes and effects, the influence of past legislation, not only 
 upon the material condition, but also upon the character of 
 a nation. In no other history especially can we investigate 
 more fully the evil consequences which must ensue from 
 disregarding that sentiment of nationality which, whether it 
 be wise or foolish, whether it be desirable or the reverse, 
 is at least one of the strongest and most enduring of 
 human passions. This, as I conceive, lies at the root of 
 Irish discontent. It is a question of nationality as truly 
 as in Hungary or in Poland. Special grievances or 
 anomalies may aggravate, but do not cause it, and they 
 become formidable only in as far as they are connected 
 with it. What discontent was felt against the Protestant 
 Established Church was felt chiefly because it was regarded 
 as an English garrison sustaining an anti-national system ; 
 and the agrarian difficulty never assumed its full intensity 
 till by the repeal agitation the landlords had been politically 
 alienated from the people.” * 
 
 Let those who imagine that the Irish question can be 
 
 * Lecky, Leaders of Tublic Opinion in Ireland, new edit. (1S71), 
 Introduction, pp. xiv., xv. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. i6i 
 
 completely settled by the redress of material grievances 
 take those words to heart. 
 
 But, it is said, Scotch national sentiment is as strong as 
 Irish, why should not a legislative union be as acceptable 
 to Ireland as to Scotland ? ^ Mr. Lecky shall answer this 
 question too. 
 
 “It is hardly possible to advert to the Scotch Union, 
 without pausing for a moment to examine why its influence 
 on the loyalty of the people should have ultimately been so 
 much happier than that of the legislative union which, 
 nearly a century later, was enacted between England and 
 Ireland. A very slight attention to the circumstances of 
 the case will explain the mystery, and will at the same time 
 show the extreme shallowness of those theorists who can 
 only account for it by reference to original peculiarities of 
 national character. The sacrifice of a nationality is a 
 measure which naturally produces such intense and such 
 enduring discontent that it never should be exacted unless 
 it can be accompanied by some political or material 
 advantages to the lesser country that are so great and 
 at the same time so evident as to prove a corrective. Such 
 a corrective in the case of Scotland, was furnished by the 
 commercial clauses. The Scotch Parliament was very 
 arbitrary and corrupt, and by no means a faithful represen¬ 
 tation of the people. The majority of the nation were 
 certainly opposed to the Union, and, directly or indirectly, 
 it is probable that much corruption was employed to effect 
 it; but still the fact remains that by it one of the most 
 ardent wishes of all Scottish patriots was attained, that there 
 had been for many years a powerful and intelligent minority 
 who were prepared to purchase commercial freedom even 
 at the expense of the fusion of legislatures, and that in 
 consequence of the establishment of free trade the next 
 generation of Scotchmen witnessed an increase of material 
 
 M 
 
162 THE “ UNIONIST'' CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 well-being that was utterly unprecedented in the history of 
 their country. Nothing equivalent took place in Ireland. 
 The gradual abolition of duties between England and 
 Ireland was, no doubt, an advantage to the lesser countr}', 
 but the whole trade to America and the other English 
 colonies had been thrown open to Irishmen between 1775 
 and 1779. Irish commerce had taken this direction; the 
 years between 1779 and the rebellion of 1798 were 
 probably the most prosperous in Irish history, and the 
 generation that followed the Union was one of the most 
 miserable. The sacrifice of nationality was extorted by 
 the most enormous corruption in the history of representa¬ 
 tive institutions. It was demanded by no considerable 
 section of the Irish people. It was accompanied by no signal 
 political or material benefit that could mitigate or counter¬ 
 act its unpopularity, and it was effected without a dissolu¬ 
 tion, in opposition to the votes of the immense majority 
 of the representatives of the counties and considerable 
 towns, and to innumerable addresses from every part of the 
 country. Can any impartial man be surprised that such 
 a measure, carried in such a manner, should have proved 
 unsuccessful ? ” * 
 
 In the Leaders of Public Opi 7 iion in Ireland Mr. Lecky 
 traces the current of events which have led to the present 
 situation. He shows how the Treaty of Limerick was shame¬ 
 lessly violated, and how the native population was oppressed 
 and degraded. 
 
 “The position of Ireland was at this time [1727] one 
 of the most deplorable that can be conceived. . . . The 
 Roman Catholics had been completely prostrated by the 
 battle of the Boyne and by the surrender of Ifimerick. 
 They had stipulated indeed for religious liberty, but the 
 
 * Lecky, Hisloty of England iti the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii, 
 pp. 59> 60, 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 163 
 
 Treaty of Limerick was soon shamelessly violated, and it 
 found no avengers. Sarsfield and his brave companions 
 had abandoned a country where defeat left no opening for 
 their talents, and had joined the Irish Brigade which had 
 been formed in the service of France. . . . But while the 
 Irish Roman Catholics abroad found free scope for their 
 ambition in the service of France, those who remained at 
 home had sunk into a condition of utter degradation. All 
 Catholic energy and talent had emigrated to foreign lands, 
 and penal laws of atrocious severity crushed the Catholics 
 who remained.” * 
 
 Mr. Lecky’s account of these “ penal laws ” is upon 
 the whole, I think, the best that has been written. 
 
 “ The last great Protestant ruler of England was 
 William III., who is identified in Ireland with the humilia¬ 
 tion of the Boyne, with the destruction of Irish trade, and 
 with the broken Treaty of Limerick. The ceaseless exertions 
 of the extreme Protestant party have made him more odious 
 in the eyes of the people than he deserves to be; for he was 
 personally far more tolerant than the great majority of his 
 contemporaries, and the penal code was chiefly enacted 
 under his successors. It required, indeed, four or five 
 reigns to elaborate a system so ingeniously contrived to 
 demoralize, to degrade, and to impoverish the people of 
 Ireland. By this code the Roman Catholics were absolutely 
 excluded from the Parliament, from the magistracy, from 
 the corporations, from the bench, and from the bar. They 
 could not vote at Parliamentary elections or at vestries ; 
 they could not act as constables, or sheriffs, or jurymen, or 
 serve in the army or navy, or become solicitors, or even 
 hold the positions of gamekeeper or watchman. Schools 
 were established to bring up their children as Protestants; 
 and if they refused to avail themselves of these, they were 
 deliberately assigned to hopeless ignorance, being excluded 
 * Leaders of Public Opinion, pp. 33, 34. 
 
i64 the “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 from the university, and debarred, under crushing penalties, 
 from acting as schoolmasters, as ushers, or as private 
 tutors, or from sending their children abroad to obtain the 
 instruction they were refused at home. They could not 
 marry Protestants, and if such a marriage were celebrated 
 it was annulled by law, and the priest who officiated might 
 be hung. They could not buy land, or inherit or receive 
 it as a gift from Protestants, or hold life-annuities, or leases 
 for more than thirty-one years, or any lease on such terms 
 that the profits of the land exceeded one-third of the rent. 
 If any Catholic leaseholder by his industry so increased 
 his profits that they exceeded this proportion, and did not 
 immediately make a corresponding increase in his payments, 
 any Protestant who gave the information could enter into 
 possession of his farm. If any Catholic had secretly pur¬ 
 chased either his old forfeited estate, or any other land, any 
 Protestant who informed against him might become the 
 proprietor. The few Catholic landowners who remained 
 were deprived of the right which all other classes possessed 
 of bequeathing their lands as they pleased. If their sons 
 continued Catholics, it was divided equally between them. 
 If, however, the eldest son consented to apostatize, the 
 estate was settled upon him, the father from that hour 
 became only a life-tenant, and lost all power of selling, 
 mortgaging, or otherwise disposing of it. If the wife of 
 a Catholic abandoned the religion of her husband, she was 
 immediately free from his control, and the Chancellor 
 was empowered to assign to her a certain proportion of her 
 husband’s property. If any child, however young, professed 
 itself a Protestant, it was at once taken from the father’s 
 care, and the Chancellor could oblige the father to declare 
 upon oath the value of his property, both real and personal, 
 and could assign for the present maintenance and future 
 portion of the converted child such proportion of that 
 property as the court might decree. No Catholic could be 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 165 
 
 guardian either to his own children or to those of another 
 person; and therefore a Catholic who died while his 
 children were minors had the bitterness of reflecting upon 
 his death-bed that they must pass into the care of Protes¬ 
 tants. An annuity of from twenty to forty pounds was 
 provided as a bribe for every priest who would become 
 a Protestant. To convert a Protestant to Catholicism was 
 a capital offence. In every walk of life the Catholic was 
 pursued by persecution or restriction. Except in the linen 
 trade, he could not have more than two apprentices. He 
 could not possess a horse of the value of more than five 
 pounds, and any Protestant, on giving him five pounds, could 
 take his horse. He was compelled to pay double to the 
 militia. He was forbidden, except under particular con¬ 
 ditions, to live in Galway or Limerick. In case of war with 
 a Catholic power, the Catholics were obliged to reimburse 
 the damage done by the enemy’s privateers. The Legisla¬ 
 ture, it is true, did not venture absolutely to suppress their 
 worship, but it existed only by a doubtful connivance— 
 stigmatized as if it were a species of licensed prostitution, 
 and subject to conditions which, if they had been enforced, 
 would have rendered its continuance impossible. An old 
 law which prohibited it, and another which enjoined 
 attendance at the Anglican worship, remained unrepealed, 
 and might at any time be revived; and the former was, in 
 fact, enforced during the Scotch rebellion of 1715. The 
 parish priests, who alone were allowed to officiate, were 
 compelled to be registered, and were forbidden to keep 
 curates or to officiate anywhere except in their own parishes. 
 The chapels might not have bells or steeples. No crosses 
 might be publicly erected. Pilgrimages to the holy wells 
 were forbidden. Not only all monks and friars, but also 
 all Catholic archbishops, bishops, deacons, and other digni¬ 
 taries, were ordered by a certain day to leave the country; 
 and if after that date they were found in Ireland they were 
 
i66 THE “ UNIONIST'' CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 liable to be first imprisoned and then banished; and if after 
 that banishment they returned to discharge their duty in 
 their dioceses, they were liable to the punishment of death. 
 To facilitate the discovery of offences against the code, two 
 justices of the peace might at any time compel any Catholic 
 of eighteen years of age to declare when and where he last 
 heard Mass, what persons were present, and who officiated; 
 and if he refused to give evidence they might imprison him 
 for twelve months, or until he paid a fine of twenty pounds. 
 Any one who harboured ecclesiastics from beyond the seas 
 was subject to fines which for the third offence amounted 
 to confiscation of all his goods. A graduated scale of 
 rewards was offered for the discovery of Catholic bishops, 
 priests, and schoolmasters; and a resolution of the House 
 of Commons pronounced ‘the prosecuting and informing 
 against Papists ’ ‘ an honourable service to the Government.’ 
 
 “Such were the principal articles of this famous code 
 —a code which Burke truly described as ‘ well digested and 
 well disposed in all its parts; a machine of wise and elaborate 
 contrivance, and as well fitted for the oppression, im¬ 
 poverishment, and degradation of a people, and the debase¬ 
 ment in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded 
 from the perverted ingenuity of man.’ ” * 
 
 The effects of these laws Mr. Lecky has described thus : 
 
 “The economical and moral effects of the penal laws 
 M'ere, however, profoundly disastrous. The productive 
 energies of the nation were fatally diminished. Almost all 
 Catholics of energy and talent who refused to abandon their 
 faith emigrated to foreign lands. The relation of classes 
 was permanently vitiated ; for almost all the proprietary of 
 the country belonged to one religion, while the great majority 
 of their tenants were of another. The Catholics, excluded 
 from almost every possibility of eminence, deprived of their 
 natural leaders, and consigned by the Legislature to utter 
 * Leaders of Public Opinion, pp. 120-123. 
 
THE “ UNI 0 N 1 S 7 ” CASE FOR HOME RULE. 167 
 
 ignorance, soon sank into the condition of broken and 
 dispirited helots. A total absence of industrial virtues, a 
 cowering and abject deference to authority, a recklessness 
 about the future, a love of secret illegal combinations, 
 became general among them. Above all, they learned 
 to regard law as merely the expression of force, and its 
 moral weight was utterly destroyed. For the greater part 
 of a century, the main object of the Legislature was to 
 extirpate a religion by the encouragement of the worst and 
 the punishment of some of the best qualities of our 
 nature. Its rewards were reserved for the informer, for the 
 hypocrite, for the undutiful son, or for the faithless wife. 
 Its penalties were directed against religious constancy and 
 the honest discharge of ecclesiastical duty. 
 
 “It would, indeed, be scarcely possible to conceive a more 
 infamous system of legal tyranny than that which in the 
 middle of the eighteenth century crushed every class and 
 almost every interest in Ireland.” * 
 
 But laws were not only passed against the native race 
 and the national religion. Measures were taken to destroy 
 the industries of the country, and to involve natives and 
 colonists, Protestants and Catholics, in common ruin. 
 Mr. Lecky shall tell the story. 
 
 “ The commercial and industrial condition of the 
 country was, if possible, more deplorable than its political 
 condition, and was the result of a series of English measures 
 which for deliberate and selfish tyranny could hardly be 
 surpassed. Until the reign of Charles II. the Irish shared 
 the commercial privileges of the English ; but as the island 
 had not been really conquered till the reign of Elizabeth, 
 and as its people were till then scarcely removed from 
 barbarism, the progress was necessarily slow. In the early 
 Stuart reigns, however, comparative repose and good 
 government were followed by a sudden rush of prosperity. 
 
 * Leaders of rtthUc Ophiiou, pp. 125, 126. 
 
i68 THE “ UNIONIST” CASE FOE HOME RULE. 
 
 The land was chiefly pasture, for which it was admirably 
 adapted ; the export of live cattle to England was carried on 
 upon a large scale, and it became a chief source of Irish 
 wealth. The English landowners, however, took the alarm. 
 They complained that Irish rivalry in the cattle market was 
 reducing English rents; and accordingly, by an Act which 
 was first passed in 1663, and was made perpetual in 1666, 
 the importation of cattle into England was forbidden. 
 
 “ The effect of a measure of this kind, levelled at the 
 principal article of the commerce of the nation, was neces¬ 
 sarily most disastrous. The profound modification which it 
 introduced into the course of Irish industry was sufficiently 
 shown by the estimate of Sir W. Petty, who declares that 
 before the statute three-fourths of the trade of Ireland was 
 with England, but not one-fourth of it since that time. In 
 the very year when this Bill was passed another measure 
 was taken not less fatal to the interest of the country. In 
 the first Navigation Act, Ireland was placed on the same 
 terms as England ; but in the Act as amended in 1663 she 
 was omitted, and was thus deprived of the whole Colonial 
 trade. With the exception of a very few specified articles 
 no European merchandise could be imported into the 
 British Colonies except directly from England, in ships built 
 in England, and manned chiefly by English sailors. No 
 articles, with a few exceptions, could be brought from the 
 Colonies to Europe without being first unladen in England. 
 In 1670 this exclusion of Ireland was confirmed, and in 
 1696 it was rendered more stringent, for it was enacted that 
 no goods of any sort could be imported directly from the 
 Colonies to Ireland. It will be remembered that at this 
 time the chief British Colonies were those of America, and 
 that Ireland, by her geographical position, was naturally of 
 all countries most fitted for the American trade. 
 
 “ As far, then, as the Colonial trade was concerned, 
 Ireland at this time gained nothing whatever by her con- 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 169 
 
 nection with England. To other countries, however, her 
 ports were still open, and in time of peace a foreign 
 commerce was unrestricted. When forbidden to export 
 their cattle to England, the Irish turned their land chiefly 
 into sheep-walks, and proceeded energetically to manufacture 
 the wool. Some faint traces of this manufacture may be 
 detected from an early period, and Lord Strafford, when 
 governing Ireland, had mentioned it with a characteristic 
 comment. Speaking of the Irish he says, ‘ There was little 
 or no manufactures amongst them, but some small beginnings 
 towards a cloth trade, which I had and so should still dis¬ 
 courage all I could, unless otherwise directed by His 
 Majesty and their Lordships. It might be feared that they 
 would beat us out of the trade itself by underselling us, 
 which they were able to do.’ With the exception, however, of 
 an abortive effort by this governor, the Irish wool manu¬ 
 facture was in.no degree impeded, and was indeed mentioned 
 Avith special favour in many Acts of Parliament; and it was 
 in a great degree on the faith of this long-continued legis¬ 
 lative sanction that it was so greatly expanded. The 
 poverty of Ireland, the low state of civilization of a large 
 proportion of its inhabitants, the effects of the civil wars 
 which had so recently convulsed it, and the exclusion of its 
 products from the English Colonies, were doubtless great 
 obstacles to manufacturing enterprise; but, on the other 
 hand, Irish wool was very good, living was cheaper, taxes 
 were lighter than in England, a spirit of real industrial 
 energy began to pervade the country, and a considerable 
 number of English manufacturers came over to colonize it. 
 There appeared for a time every probability that the Irish 
 would become an industrial nation, and, had manufactures 
 arisen, their whole social, political, and economical condition 
 would have been changed. But English jealousy again 
 interposed. By an Act of crushing and unprecedented 
 severity, which was introduced in 1698 and carried in 1699, 
 
170 THE “ UNIOAVST^’ CASE FOE HOME RULE. 
 
 the export^of the Irish woollen manufactures, not only to 
 England, but also to all other countries, was absolutely 
 forbidden. 
 
 “ The effects of this measure were terrible almost beyond 
 conception. The main industry of the country was at a 
 blow completely and irretrievably annihilated. A vast 
 population was thrown into a condition of utter destitution. 
 Several thousands of manufacturers left the country, and 
 carried their skill and enterprise to Germany, France, and 
 Spain. The western and southern districts of Ireland are 
 said to have been nearly depopulated. Emigration to 
 America began on a large scale, and the blow was so severe 
 that long after, a kind of chronic famine prevailed.” * 
 
 Mr. Lecky relates with pride how the penal code was 
 relaxed, and the commercial restrictions were removed, 
 while the Irish Parliament, essentially a Protestant and 
 landlord body, still existed, and shows how the cause of 
 Catholic Emancipation was retarded by the Union. 
 
 “ The Relief Bill of ’93 naturally suggests a coiisideration 
 of the question so often agitated in Ireland, whether the 
 Union was really a benefit to the Roman Catholic cause. 
 It has been argued that Catholic Emancipation was an im¬ 
 possibility as long as the Irish Parliament lasted; for in a 
 country where the great majority were Roman Catholics, it 
 would be folly to expect the members of the dominant 
 creed to surrender a monopoly on which their ascendency 
 depended. The arguments against this view are, I believe, 
 overwhelming. The injustice of the disqualification was 
 far more striking before the Union than after it. In the 
 one case, the Roman Catholics were excluded from the 
 Parliament of a nation of which they were the great majority; 
 in the other, they were excluded from the Parliament of an 
 empire in which they were a small minority. Grattan, Plunket, 
 Curran, Burrowes, and Ponsonby were the great supporters of 
 Leaders of Public Opinion, jjp. 34-37. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 171 
 
 Catholic Emancipation, and the great opponents of the Union. 
 Clare and Duigenan were the two great opponents of 
 emancipation, and the great supporters of the Union. At 
 a time when scarcely any public opinion existed in Ireland, 
 when the Roman Catholics were nearly quiescent, and 
 when the leaning of Government was generally liberal, the 
 Irish Protestants admitted their fellow-subjects to the 
 magistracy, to the jury-box, and to the franchise. By 
 this last measure they gave them an amount of political 
 power which necessarily implied complete emancipation. 
 Even if no leader of genius had arisen in the Roman 
 Catholic ranks, and if no spirit of enthusiasm had animated 
 their councils, the influence possessed by a body who 
 formed three-fourths of the population, who were rapidly 
 rising in wealth, and who could send their representatives 
 to Parliament, would have been sufficient to ensure their 
 triumph. If the Irish Legislature had continued, it would 
 have been found impossible to resist the demand for reform; 
 and every reform, by diminishing the overgrown power of a 
 few Protestant landholders, would have increased that of the 
 Roman Catholics. The concession accorded in 1793 was, 
 in fact, far greater and more important than that accorded 
 in 1829, and it placed the Roman Catholics, in a great 
 measure, above the mercy of Protestants. But this was not 
 all. The sympathies of the Protestants were being rapidly 
 enlisted in their behalf. The generation to which Charle- 
 mont and Flood belonged had passed away, and all the 
 leading intellects of the country, almost all the Opposition, 
 and several conspicuous members of the Government, were 
 warmly in favour of emancipation. The rancour which at 
 present exists between the members of the two creeds 
 appears then to have been almost unknown, and the real 
 obstacle to emancipation was not the feelings of the people, 
 but the policy of the Government. The Bar may be con¬ 
 sidered on most subjects a very fair expoi snt of the educated 
 
172 THE “ UNIONIST” CASE FOE HOME RULE. 
 
 opinion of the nation; and Wolf Tone observed, in 1792,' 
 that it was almost unanimous in favour of the Catholics ; 
 and it is not without importance, as showing the ten¬ 
 dencies of the rising generation, that a large body of the 
 students of Dublin University in 1795 presented an address 
 to Grattan, thanking him for his labours in the cause. The 
 Roman Catholics were rapidly gaining the public opinion 
 of Ireland, when the Union arrayed against them another 
 public opinion which was deeply prejudiced against their 
 faith, and almost entirely removed from their influence. 
 Compare the twenty years before the Union with the 
 twenty years that followed it, and the change is sufficiently 
 manifest. There can scarcely be a question that if Lord 
 Fitzwilliam had remained in office the Irish Parliament would 
 readily have given emancipation. In the United Parliament 
 for many years it was obstinately rejected, and if O’Connell 
 had never arisen it would probably never have been granted 
 unqualified by the veto. In 1828 when the question was 
 brought forward in Parliament, sixty-one out of ninety-three 
 Irish members, forty-five out of sixty-one Irish county 
 members, voted in its favour. Year after year Grattan and 
 Plunket brought forward the case of their fellow-country¬ 
 men with an eloquence and a perseverance worthy of their 
 great cause; but year after year they were defeated. It was 
 not till the great tribune had arisen, till he had moulded 
 his co-religionists into one compact and threatening mass, 
 and had brought the country to the verge of revolution, 
 that the tardy boon was conceded. Eloquence and argu¬ 
 ment proved alike unavailing when unaccompanied by 
 menace, and Catholic Emancipation was confessedly granted 
 because to withhold it would be to produce a rebellion.” * 
 Many people will think that this is a sufficiently weighty 
 condemnation of the Union, but what follows is a still 
 graver reflection-on that untoward measure. 
 
 * Leaders of Ptihlic Ofinion, pp. I 34 -I 37 > 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 173 
 
 “ In truth the harmonious co-operation of Ireland with 
 England depends much less upon the framework of the 
 institutions of the former country than upon the disposi¬ 
 tions of its people and upon the classes who guide its 
 political life. With a warm and loyal attachment to the 
 connection pervading the nation, the largest amount of self- 
 government might be safely conceded, and the most defective 
 political arrangement might prove innocuous. This is the 
 true cement of nations, and no change, however plausible 
 in theory, can be really advantageous which contributes to 
 diminish it. Theorists may argue that it would be better for 
 Ireland to become in every respect a province of England; 
 they may contend that a union of Legislatures, accom¬ 
 panied by a corresponding fusion of characters and iden¬ 
 tification of hopes, interests, and desires, would strengthen 
 the empire; but as a matter of fact this was not what was 
 effected in 1800. The measure of Pitt centralized, but it 
 did not unite, or rather, by uniting the Legislatures it 
 divided the nations. In a country where the sentiment 
 of nationality was as intense as in any part of Europe, it 
 destroyed the national Legislature contrary to the manifest 
 wish of the people, and by means so corrupt, treacherous, 
 and shameful that they are never likely to be forgotten. 
 In a country where, owing to the religious difference, it was 
 peculiarly necessary that a vigorous lay public opinion 
 should be fostered to dilute or restrain the sectarian spirit, 
 it suppressed the centre and organ of political life, directed 
 the energies of the community into the channels of sec¬ 
 tarianism, drove its humours inwards, and thus began a 
 perversion of public opinion which has almost destroyed 
 the elements of political progress. In a country where the 
 people have always been singularly destitute of self-reliance, 
 and at the same time eminently faithful to their leaders, it 
 withdrew the guidance of affairs from the hands of the 
 resident gentry, and, by breaking their power, prepared the 
 
174 the “ UNIONIST'-' CASE TOR HOME RULE. 
 
 ascendency of the demagogue or the rebel. In two plain 
 ways it was dangerous to the connection : it incalculably 
 increased the aggregate disloyalty of the people, and it 
 destroyed the political supremacy of the class that is 
 most attached to the connection. The Irish Parliament, 
 with all its faults, was an eminently loyal body. The Irish 
 people through the eighteenth century, in spite of great 
 provocations, were on the whole a loyal people till the recall 
 of Lord Fitzwilliam, and even then a few very moderate 
 measures of reform might have reclaimed them. Burke, 
 in his Letters on a Regicide Peace, when reviewing the 
 elements of strength on which England could confide in her 
 struggle with revolutionary France, placed in the very first 
 rank the co-operation of Ireland. At the present day, it 
 is to be feared that most impartial men would regard 
 Ireland, in the event of a great European war, rather as 
 a source of weakness than of strength. More than seventy 
 years have passed since the boasted measure of Pitt, and 
 it is unfortunately incontestable that the lower orders in 
 Ireland are as hostile to the system of government under 
 which they live as the Hungarian people have ever been to 
 Austrian, or the Roman to Papal rule ; that Irish disloyalty is 
 multiplying enemies of England wherever the English tongue 
 is spoken; and that the national sentiment runs so strongly 
 that multitudes of Irish Catholics look back with deep 
 affection to the Irish Parliament, although no Catholic could 
 sit within its walls, and although it was only during the last 
 seven years of its independent existence that Catholics 
 could vote for its members. Among the opponents of the 
 Union were many of the most loyal, as well as nearly all 
 the ablest men in Ireland ) and Lord Charlemont, who died 
 shortly before the measure was consummated, summed up 
 the feelings of many in the emphatic sentence with which 
 he protested against it. ‘ It would more than any other 
 measure,’ he said, ‘ contribute to the separation of two 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 175 
 
 countries the perpetual connection of which is one of the 
 warmest wishes of my heart’ 
 
 “In fact, the Union of 1800 was not only a great crime, 
 but was also, like most crimes, a great blunder. The manner 
 in which it was carried was not only morally scandalous; 
 it also entirely vitiated it as a work of statesmanship. No 
 great political measure can be rationally judged upon its 
 abstract merits, and without considering the character and 
 the wishes of the people for whom it is intended. It is now 
 idle to discuss what might have been the effect of a Union 
 if it had been carried before 1782, when the Parliament 
 was still unemancipated; if it had been the result of a 
 spontaneous movement of public opinion ; if it had been 
 accompanied by the emancipation of the Catholics. Carried 
 as it wi7s prematurely, in defiance of the national sentiment 
 of the people and of the protests of the unbribed talent 
 of the country, it has deranged the whole course of political 
 development, driven a large proportion of the people into 
 sullen disloyalty, and almost destroyed healthy public 
 opinion. In comparing the abundance of political talent 
 in Ireland during the last century with the striking absence 
 of it at jiresent, something no doubt may be attributed to 
 the absence of protection for literary property in Ireland 
 in the former period, which may have directed an unusual 
 portion of the national talent to politics, and something 
 to the Colonial and Indian careers which have of late years 
 been thrown open to competition; but when all due allow¬ 
 ances have been made for these, the contrast is sufficiently 
 impressive. Few impartial men can doubt that the tone 
 of political life and the standard of political talent have been 
 lowered, while sectarian animosity has been greatly increased, 
 and the extent to which Fenian principles have permeated 
 the people is a melancholy comment upon the prophesies 
 that the Union would put an end to disloyalty in Ireland.” * 
 
 * Leaders of Ptiblic Opinion, pp. 192-195. 
 
176 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 Mr. Lecky’s views as to what ought to have been 
 done in 1800 deserve to be set forth. 
 
 “ While, however, the Irish policy of Pitt appears to 
 be both morally and politically deserving of almost unmiti¬ 
 gated condemnation, I cannot agree with those who believe 
 that the arrangement of 1782 could have been permanent. 
 The Irish Parliament would doubtless have been in time re¬ 
 formed, but it would have soon found its situation intoler¬ 
 able. Imperial policy must necessarily have been settled by 
 the Imperial Parliament, in which Ireland had no voice; and, 
 unlike Canada or Australia, Ireland is profoundly affected by 
 every change of Imperial policy. Connection with England 
 was of overwhelming importance to the lesser country, while 
 the tie uniting them would have been found degrading by 
 one nation and inconvenient to the other. Under such 
 circumstances a Union of some kind was inevitable. It 
 was simply a question of time, and must have been de¬ 
 manded by Irish opinion. At the same time, it would not, 
 I think, have been such a Union as that of 1800. The 
 conditions of Irish and English politics are so extremely 
 different, and the reasons for preserving in Ireland a local 
 centre of political life are so powerful, that it is probable 
 a Federal Union would have been preferred. Under such 
 a system the Irish Parliament would have continued to 
 exist, but would have been restricted to purely local sub¬ 
 jects, while an Imperial Parliament, in which Irish repre¬ 
 sentatives sat, would have directed the policy of the 
 empire.” * 
 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith. 
 
 None of the recent opponents of Home Rule have 
 written against that policy with more brilliance and epi¬ 
 grammatic keenness than Mr. Goldwin Smith. But no one 
 
 * Leaders of Public Opinion, pp. 195, 196. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 177 
 
 has stated with more force the facts and considerations 
 which, operating on men’s mind for years past, have made 
 the Liberal party Home Rulers now. His coup d'cxil 
 remains the most pointed indictment ever drawn from the 
 historfcal annals of Ireland against the English methods 
 of governing that country. Twenty years ago he anticipated 
 the advice recently given by Mr. Gladstone. In 1867 he 
 wrote :— 
 
 “ I have myself sought and found in the sjtudy of Irish 
 history the explanation of the paradox, that a people with so 
 many gifts, so amiable, naturally so submissive to rulers, and 
 everywhere but in their own country industrious, are in 
 their own country bywords of idleness, lawlessness, disaffec¬ 
 tion, and agrarian crime.” * He explains the paradox thus : 
 “ But it is difficult to distinguish the faults of the Irish from 
 their misfortunes. It has been well said of their past indus¬ 
 trial character and history,—‘We were reckless, ignorant, 
 improvident, drunken, and idle. We were idle, for we had 
 nothing to do ; we were reckless, for we had no hope ; we 
 were ignorant, for learning was denied us; we were im¬ 
 provident, for we had no future; we were drunken, for we 
 sought to forget our misery. That time has passed away 
 for ever.’ No part of this defence is probably more true 
 than that whicli connects the drunkenness of the Irish 
 people with their misery. Drunkenness is, generally speak¬ 
 ing, the vice of despair; and it springs from the despair of 
 the Irish peasant as rankly as from that of his English fellow. 
 The sums of money which have lately been transmitted by 
 Irish emigrants to their friends in Ireland seem a conclusive 
 answer to much loose denunciation of the national character, 
 both in a moral and an industrial point of view. . . . There 
 seems no good reason for believing that the Irish Kelts are 
 averse to labour, provided they be placed, as people of all 
 races require to be placed, for two or three generations in 
 • Gokbvin Smitli, Three English Slalesmcn, p. 274. 
 
 N 
 
I7S THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 circumstances favourable to industry.” * He shows that 
 the Irish have not been so placed. “Still more does 
 justice require that allowance should be made on historical 
 grounds for the failings of the Irish people. If they are 
 wanting in industry, in regard for the rights of property, in 
 reverence for the law, history furnishes a full explanation 
 of their defects, without supposing in them any inherent 
 depravity, or even any inherent weakness. They have 
 never had the advantage of the training through which 
 other nations have passed in their gradual rise from bar¬ 
 barism to civili2ation. The progress of the Irish people 
 was arrested at almost a primitive stage, and a series of 
 calamities, following close upon each other, have prevented 
 it from ever fairly resuming its course. The pressure of 
 overwhelming misery has now been reduced; government 
 has become mild and just; the civilizing agency of education 
 has been introduced; the upper classes are rapidly return¬ 
 ing to their duty, and the natural effect is at once seen 
 in the improved character of the people. Statesmen are 
 bound to be well acquainted with the historical sources 
 of the evil with which they have to deal, especially when 
 those evils are of such a nature as, at first aspect, to imply 
 depravity in a nation. There are still speakers and writers 
 who seem to think that the Irish are incurably vicious, 
 because the accumulated effects of so many centuries 
 cannot be removed at once by a wave of the legislator’s 
 wand. Some still believe, or affect to believe, that the 
 very air of the island is destructive of the characters and 
 understandings of all who breathe it.” f 
 
 Elsewhere he adds, referring to the land system : 
 
 “ How many centuries of a widely different training 
 have the English people gone through in order to acquire 
 their boasted love of law.” X 
 
 * /risk History and Irish Character, pp. 13, 14. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 194. J Ibid,, p. 142. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 179 
 
 Of the “ training ” through u hich the Irish went, he 
 says— 
 
 “ The existing settlement of land in Ireland, whether 
 dating from the confiscations of the Stuarts, or from 
 those of Cromwell, rests on a proscription three or four 
 times as long as that on which the settlement of land 
 rests over a considerable part of France. It may, therefore, 
 be considered as placed upon discussion in the estimation 
 of all sane men; and, this being the case, it is safe to 
 observe that no inherent want of respect for property is 
 shown by the Irish people if a proprietorship which had its 
 origin within historical memory in flagrant wrong is less 
 sacred in their eyes than it would be if it had its origin in 
 immemorial right.” * 
 
 The character which he gives of Irish landlordism 
 deserves to be quoted : 
 
 “ The Cromwellian landowners soon lost their religious 
 character, while they retained all the hardness of the fanatic 
 and the feelings of Puritan conquerors towards a conquered 
 Catholic people. ‘ I have eaten with them,’ said one, ‘ drunk 
 with them, fought with them ; but I never prayed with them.’ 
 Their descendants became, probably, the very worst upper 
 class with which a country was ever afflicted. The habits of 
 the Irish gentry grew beyond measure brutal and reckless, and 
 the coarseness of their debaucheries would have disgusted 
 the crew of Comus. Their drunkenness, their blasphemy, 
 their ferocious duelling, left the squires of England far 
 behind. If there was a grotesque side to their vices which 
 mingles laughter with our reprobation, this did not render 
 their influence less pestilent to the community of which the 
 motive of destiny had made them social chiefs. Fortu¬ 
 nately, their recklessness was sure, in the end, to work, to 
 a certain extent, its own cure; and in the background of 
 
 * Iris// Ilis/of’y and Irish Chare.,’sr, p. loi. 
 
iSo THE ^'UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 their swinish and uproarious drinking-bouts, the Encumbered 
 Estates Act rises to our view.” * 
 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith deals with agrarian crime thus; 
 
 “ The atrocities perpetrated by the Whiteboys, especially 
 in the earlier period of agrarianism (for they afterwards grew 
 somewhat less inhuman), are such as to make the flesh creep. 
 No language can be too strong in speaking of the horrors of 
 such a state of society. But it would be unjust to confound 
 these agrarian conspiracies with ordinary crime, or to sup¬ 
 pose that they imply a propensity to ordinary crime either 
 on the part of those who commit them, or on the part of the 
 people who connive at and favour their commission. In 
 the districts where agrarian conspiracy and outrage were 
 most rife, the number of ordinary crimes was very small. 
 In Munster, in 1833, out of 973 crimes, 627 were Whiteboy, 
 or agrarian, and even of the remainder, many, being crimes 
 of violence, were probably committed from the same motive. 
 
 “In plain truth, the secret tribunals which administered 
 the Whiteboy code were to the people the organs of a wild 
 law of social morality by which, on the whole, the interest 
 of the peasant was protected. They were not regular 
 tribunals; neither were the secret tribunals of Germany in 
 the Middle Ages, the existence of which, and the sub¬ 
 mission of the people to their jurisdiction, implied the 
 presence of much violence, but not of much depravity, con¬ 
 sidering the wildness of the times. The Whiteboys ‘ found 
 in their favour already existing a general and settled hatred 
 of the law among the great body of the peasantry.’ f We 
 have seen how much the law, and the ministers of the law, 
 had done to deserve the peasant’s love. We have seen, 
 too, in what successive guises property had presented itself 
 to his mind: first as open rapine; then as robbery carried 
 on through the roguish technicalities of an alien code; finally 
 
 * Irish History and Irish Character, pp. 139, 140, 
 
 t Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Irish Disturbances, p. 97. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST'' CASE FOR HOME RULE. i8i 
 
 as legalized and systematic oppression. Was it possible 
 that he should have formed so affectionate a reverence 
 either for law or property as would be proof against the 
 pressure of starvation?” * “A people cannot be expected 
 to love and reverence oppression because it is consigned to 
 the statute-book, and called law.” f 
 
 These extracts are taken from Irish History and Irish 
 Character, which was published in i86i. But in 1867 Mr. 
 Goldwin Smith wrote a series of letters to the Daily News, 
 which were republished in 1868 under the title of The Irish 
 Question; and these letters form, perhaps, the most states¬ 
 manlike and far-seeing pronouncement that has ever been 
 made on the Irish difficulty. 
 
 In the preface Mr. Goldwin Smith begins : 
 
 “The Irish legislation of the last forty years, notwith¬ 
 standing the adoption of some remedial measures, has failed 
 through the indifference of Parliament to the sentiments 
 of Irishmen; and the harshness of English public opinion 
 has embittered the effects on Irish feeling of the indifference 
 of Parliament. Occasionally a serious effort has been made 
 by an English statesman to induce Parliament to approach 
 Irish questions in that spirit of sympathy, and with that 
 anxious desire to be just, without which a Parliament in 
 London cannot legislate wisely for Ireland. Such efforts 
 have hitherto met with no response ; is it too much to hope 
 that it will be otherwise in the year now opening ? ” J 
 
 The only comment I shall make on these words is : they 
 were penned more than half a century after Mr. Pitt’s 
 Union, which was to shower down blessings on the Irish 
 people. 
 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith’s first letter was written on the 23rd of 
 November, 1867, the day of the execution of the Fenians 
 Allen, Larkin, and O’Brien. He says— 
 
 * Irish History and Irish Character, pp. 153-157. 
 t Ibid., pp. 70, 71. J The Irish Question, Preface, pp. iii., iv. 
 
iS2 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 “ There can be no doubt, I apprehend, that the Irish 
 difficulty has entered on a new phase, and that Irish disaffec¬ 
 tion has, to repeat an expression which I heard used in Ireland, 
 come fairly into a line with the other discontented nation¬ 
 alities of Europe. Active Fenianism probably pervades only 
 the lowest class ; passive sympathy, which the success of the 
 movement would at once convert into active co-operation, 
 extends, it is to be feared, a good deal higher. 
 
 “ England has ruin before her, unless she can hit on a 
 remedy, and overcome any obstacles of class interest or of 
 national pride which would prevent its application, the part 
 of Russia in Poland, or of Austria in Italy—a part cruel, 
 hateful, demoralizing, contrary to all our high principles and 
 professions, and fraught with dangers to our own freedom. 
 Our position will be worse than that of Russia in this 
 respect, that, while her Poland is only a province, our 
 Fenianism is an element pervading every city of the United 
 Kingdom in which Ii'ish abound, and allying itself with 
 kindred misery, discontent, and disorder. Wretchedness, 
 the result of misgovernment, has caused the Irish people to 
 multiply with the recklessness of despair, and now here are 
 their avenging hosts in the midst of us, here is the poison of 
 their disaffection running through every member of our 
 social frame. Not only so, but the same wretchedness has 
 sent millions of emigrants to form an Irish nation in the 
 United States, where the Irish are a great political power, 
 swaying by their votes the councils of the American 
 Republic, and in immediate contact with those Trans¬ 
 atlantic possessions of England, the retention of which 
 it is now patriotic to applaud, and will one day be patriotic 
 to have dissuaded. 
 
 “. . . That Ireland is not at this moment, materially 
 speaking, in a particularly suffering state, but, on the con¬ 
 trary, the farmers are rather prosperous, and wages, even 
 when allowance is made for the rise in the price of provi- 
 
THE “ UNIONIST” CASE FOR HOME RULE. 1S3 
 
 sions, considerably higher than they were, only adds to the 
 significance of this widespread disaffection. 
 
 “ The Fenian movement is not religious, nor radically 
 economical (though no doubt it has in it a socialistic 
 clement), but national, and the remedy for it must be one 
 which cures national discontent. This is the great trutli 
 which the English people have to lay to heart.” * 
 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith then dispels the notion that the Irish 
 question is a religious one. 
 
 “ When Fenianisra first appeared, the ^Orangemen, in 
 accordance with their fixed idea, ascribed it to the priests. 
 They were undeceived, I was told, by seeing a priest run 
 away from the Fenians in fear of his life.”t 
 Neither was it a question of the land. 
 
 “ The land question, no doubt, lies nearer to the heart 
 of the matter, and it is the great key to Irish history in 
 the past; but I do not believe that even this is funda¬ 
 mental.” 
 
 He then states what is “ fundamental.” J 
 “ The real root of the disaffection which exhibits itself at 
 present in the guise of Fenianism, and which has been 
 suddenly kindled into flame by the arming of the Irish in 
 the American civil war, but which existed before in a 
 nameless and smouldering state, is, as I believe, the want of 
 national institutions, of a national capital, of any objects 
 of national reverence and attachment, and consequently of 
 anything deserving to be called national life. The English 
 Crown and Parliament the Irish have never learnt, nor have 
 they had any chance of learning, to love, or to regard as 
 national, notwithstanding the share which was given them, 
 too late, in the representation. The greatness of England 
 is nothing to them. Her history is nothing, or worse. The 
 success of Irishmen in London consoles the Irish in 
 Ireland no more than the success of Italian adventurers in 
 * The Irish Question, pp. 3-5. t Ibid., p. 6. J Ibid., p. 7. 
 
iS4 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 foreign countries (which was very remarkable) consoled the 
 Italian people. The drawing off of Irish talent, in fact, 
 turns to an additional grievance in their minds. Dublin is 
 a modern Tara, a metropolis from which the glory has 
 departed; and the viceroyalty, though it pleases some of 
 the tradesmen, fails altogether to satisfy the people. ‘ In 
 Ireland we can make no appeal to patriotism, we can have 
 no patriotic sentiments in our schoolbooks, no patriotic 
 emblems in our schools, because in Ireland everything 
 patriotic is rebellious.’ These were the words uttered in 
 my hearing, not by a complaining demagogue, but by a 
 desponding statesman. They seemed to me pregnant with 
 fatal truths. 
 
 “If the craving for national institutions, and the disaffec¬ 
 tion bred in this void of the Irish people’s heart, seem to us 
 irrational and even insane, in the absence of any more 
 substantial grievance, we ought to ask ourselves what 
 would become of our own patriotism if we had no national 
 institutions, no objects of national loyalty and reverence, 
 even though we might be pretty well governed, at least in 
 intention, by a neighbouring people whom we regarded as 
 aliens, and who, in fact, regarded us pretty much in the 
 same light. Let us first judge ourselves fairly, and then 
 judge the Irish, remembering always that they are more 
 imaginative and sentimental, and need some centre of 
 national feeling and affection more than ourselves.” * 
 
 And all this was written sixty-seven years after the 
 Union of 1800. 
 
 INIr. Goldwin Smith then deals with the subject of the 
 Irish and Scotch unions much in the same way as Mr. 
 Lecky. 
 
 “ The incorporation of the Scotch nation with the 
 English, being conducted on the right principles by the 
 great Whig statesman of Anne, has been perfectly success- 
 * The Irish Question, pp. 7-9. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 1S5 
 
 ful. The attempt to incorporate the Irish nation with the 
 English and Scotch, the success of which would have been, 
 if possible, a still greater blessing, being conducted by very 
 different people and on very different principles, has un¬ 
 happily failed. What might have been the result if even the 
 Hanoverian sovereigns had done the personal duty to their 
 Irish kingdom which they have unfortunately neglected, it 
 is now too late to inquire. The Irish Union has missed its 
 port, and, in order to reach it, will have to tack again. W^e 
 may hold down a dependency, of course, by force, in 
 Russian and Austrian fashion; but force will never make 
 the hearts of two nations one, especially when they are 
 divided by the sea. Once get rid of this deadly inter¬ 
 national hatred, and there will be hope of real union in 
 the future.” * 
 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith finally jaroposes a “plan ” by which 
 the “deadly international hatred” might be got rid of, and 
 a “ real union ” brought about. Here it is. 
 
 “ I. The residence of the Court at Dublin, not merely 
 to gratify the popular love of royalty and its pageantries, 
 which no man of sense desires to stimulate, but to assure 
 the Irish people, in the only way possible as regards the 
 mass of them, that the sovereign of the United Kingdom is 
 really their sovereign, and that they are equally cared for 
 and honoured with the other subjects of the realm. This 
 would also tend to make Dublin a real capital, and to 
 gather and retain there a portion of the Irish talent which 
 now seeks its fortune elsewhere. 
 
 “ 2. An occasional session (say once in every three years) 
 of the Imperial Parliament in Dublin, partly for the same 
 purposes as the last proposal, but also because the circum¬ 
 stances of Ireland are likely to be, for some time at least, 
 really peculiar, and the personal acquaintance of our legis¬ 
 lators with them is the only sufficient security for good Irish 
 * The Irish Question, p. 10. 
 
iS6 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 legislation. There could be no serious difficulty in holding 
 a short session in the Irish capital, where there is plenty of 
 accommodation for both Houses. 
 
 “ 3. A liberal measure of local self-government for 
 Ireland. I would irot vest the power in any single assembly 
 for all Ireland, because Ulster is really a different country 
 from the other provinces. I would give each province a 
 council of its own, and empower that council to legislate 
 (subject, of course, to the supremacy of the Imperial Par¬ 
 liament) on all matters not essential to the political and 
 legal unity of the empire, in which I would include local 
 education. Tire provincial councils should of course be 
 elective, and the register of electors might be the same as 
 that of electors to the Imperial Parliament. In England 
 itself the extension of local institutions, as political training 
 schools for the masses, as checks upon the sweeping action 
 of the great central assembly, and as the best organs of 
 legislation in all matters requiring (as popular education, 
 among others, does) adaptation to the circumstances of par¬ 
 ticular districts, would, I think, have formed a part of any 
 statesmanlike revision of our political system. Here, also, 
 much good might be done, and much evil averted, by com¬ 
 mitting the present business of quarter sessions, other than 
 the judicial business, together with such other matters as 
 the central legislative might think fit to vest in local hands, 
 to an assembly elected by the county.” * 
 
 Thus it will be seen that twenty years ago Mr. Goldwin 
 Smith anticipated Mr. Chamberlain’s scheme of provincial 
 councils, and got a good way on the road to an Irish 
 Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Dicey. 
 
 A fairer controversalist, or an abler supporter of the 
 paper Union,” than Mr. Dicey there is not; nevertheless 
 * The Fish Question, pp. 16-18. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 1S7 
 
 no man has fired more effective shots into hlr. Pitt's 
 unfortunate arrangement of 1800. 
 
 How well has the “failure” of that arrangement been 
 described in these pithy sentences—“ Eighty-six years have 
 elapsed since the conclusion of the Treaty of Union between 
 England and Ireland. The two countries do not yet form 
 an united nation. The Irish people are, if not more 
 wretched (for the whole European world has made progress, 
 and Ireland with it), yet more conscious of wretchedness, 
 and Irish disaffection to England is, if not deeper, more 
 widespread than in 1800. An Act meant by its authors to 
 be a source of the prosperity and concord which, though 
 slowly, followed upon the Union with Scotland, has not 
 made Ireland rich, has not put an end to Irish lawlessness, 
 has not terminated the feud between Protestants and 
 Catholics, has not raised the position of Irish tenants, has 
 not taken away the causes of Irish discontent, and has, 
 therefore, not removed Irish disloyalty. This is the indict¬ 
 ment which can fairly be brouglit against the Act of 
 Union.” * 
 
 What follows reflects honour on Mr. Dicey as an honest 
 opponent who does not shrink from facts; but what 
 a wholesale condemnation of the policy of the Imperial 
 Parliament! 
 
 “ On one point alone (it may be urged) alt men, of whatever 
 party or of w'hatever nation, who have seriously studied the 
 annals of Ireland are agreed—the history is a record of in¬ 
 cessant failure on the part of the Government, and of incessant 
 misery on the part of the people. On this matter, if on no 
 other, De Beaumont, Froude, and Lecky are at one. As to 
 the guilt of the failure or the cause of the misery, men may 
 and do differ; that England, whether from her own fault 
 or the fault of the Irish people, or from perversity of cir¬ 
 cumstances, has failed in Ireland of achieving the elemen- 
 * Dicey, England's Case against Home Rule, p. 128. 
 
i88 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 tary results of good government is as certain as any fact of 
 history or of experience. Every scheme has been tried in 
 turn, and no scheme has succeeded or has even, it may be 
 suggested, produced its natural effects. Oppression of the 
 Catholics has increased the adherents and strengthened the 
 hold of Catholicism. Protestant supremacy, while it lasted, 
 did not lead even to Protestant contentment, and the one 
 successful act of resistance to the English dominion was 
 effected by a Protestant Parliament supported by an army 
 of volunteers, led by a body of Protestant officers. The 
 independence gained by a Protestant Parliament led, after 
 eighteen years, to a rebellion so reckless and savage that it 
 caused, if it did not justify, the destruction of the Parliament 
 and the carrying of the Union. The Act of Union did not 
 lead to national unity, and a measure which airpeared on 
 the face of it (though the appearance, it must be admitted, 
 was delusive) to be a copy of the law which bound England 
 and Scotland into a common country inspired by common 
 patriotism, produced conspiracy and agitation, and at last 
 placed England and Ireland further apart, morally, than 
 they stood at the beginning of the century. The Treaty of 
 Union, it was supposed, missed its mark because it was not 
 combined with Catholic Emancipation. The Catholics were 
 emancipated, but emancipation, instead of producing 
 loyalty, brought forth the cry for repeal. The Repeal move¬ 
 ment ended in failure, but its death gave birth to the 
 attempted rebellion in 1848. Suppressed rebellion begot 
 Fenianism, to be followed in its turn by the agitation for 
 Home Rule. The movement relies, it is said, and there is 
 truth in the assertion, on constitutional methods for obtaining 
 redress. But constitutional measures are supplemented by 
 boycotting, by obstruction, by the use of dynamite. A 
 century of reform has given us Mr. Parnell instead of 
 Grattan, and it is more than possible that Mr. Parnell may 
 be succeeded by leaders in whose eyes Mr. Davitt’s policy 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. i 89 
 
 may appear to be tainted with moderation. No doubt, in 
 each case the failure of good measures admits, like every 
 calamity in public or private life, of explanation, and after 
 the event it is easy to see why, for example, the Poor Law, 
 when extended to Ireland, did not produce even the good 
 effects such as they are which in England are to be set against 
 its numerous evils; or why an emigration of unparalleled 
 proportions has diminished population without much dimin¬ 
 ishing poverty; why the disestablishment of the Anglican 
 Church has increased rather than diminished the hostility to 
 England of the Catholic priesthood j or why two Land Acts 
 have not contented Irish farmers. It is easy enough, in 
 short, and this without having any recourse to theory of 
 race, and without attributing to Ireland either more or less 
 of original sin than falls to the lot of humanity, to see how 
 it is that imperfect statesmanship—and all statesmanship, it 
 should be remembered, is imperfect—has failed in obtaining 
 good results at all commensurate with its generally good 
 intentions. Eailure, however, is none the less failure be¬ 
 cause its causes admit of analysis. It is no defence to 
 bankruptcy that an insolvent can, when brought before the 
 Court, lucidly explain the errors which resulted in disastrous 
 speculations. The failure of English statesmanship, explain 
 it as you will, has produced the one last and greatest evil 
 which misgovernment can cause. It has created hostility to 
 the law in the minds of the people. The law cannot work 
 in Ireland because the classes whose opinion in other 
 countries supports the actions of the courts, are in Ireland, 
 even when not law-breakers, in full sympathy with law¬ 
 breakers.” * 
 
 No Home Ruler has described the evils of English mis¬ 
 rule in Ireland with such vigour as this. 
 
 “Bad administration, religious persecution, above all, a 
 thoroughly vicious land tenure, accompanied by such sweep- 
 * Dicey, England's Case against Home Rule, pp. 72-74. 
 
igo THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 
 
 ing confiscations as to make it, at any rate, a plausible assertion 
 that all land in Ireland has during the course of Irish history 
 been confiscated at least thrice over, are admittedly some of 
 the causes, if they do not constitute the whole cause, of the one 
 immediate difficulty which perplexes the policy of England- 
 This is nothing else than the admitted disaffection to the 
 law of the land prevailing among large numbers of Irish 
 people. The existence of this disaffection, whatever be the 
 inference to be drawn from it, is undeniable. A series of 
 so-called Coercion Acts, passed both before and since the 
 Act of Union, give undeniable evidence, if evidence were 
 wanted, of the ceaseless and, as it would appear, almost 
 irrepressible resistance in Ireland offered by the people 
 to the enforcement of the law. I have not the remotest 
 inclination to underrate the lasting and formidable character 
 of this opposition between opinion and law, nor can any 
 jurist who wishes to deal seriously with a serious and 
 infinitely painful topic, question for a moment that the 
 ultimate strength of law lies in the sympathy, or at the 
 lowest the acquiescence, of the mass of the population. 
 Judges, constables, and troops become almost powerless 
 when the conscience of the people permanently opposes 
 the execution of the law. Severity produces either no effect 
 or bad effects; executed criminals are regarded as heroes 
 or martyrs; and jurymen and witnesses meet with the 
 execration and often with the fate of criminals. On such 
 a point it is best to take the opinion of a foreigner un¬ 
 affected by prejudices or passions from which no Englishman 
 or Irishman has a right to suppose himself free. 
 
 “ ‘ Quand vous en etes arroes h ce point, croyez bien que 
 dans cette voie de regueurs tons vos efforts pour retabler 
 I’ordre et la paix seront inutiles. En vain, pour reprimer 
 des crimes atroces, vous appellerez h votre aide toutes leg 
 sevdrites du code de Dracon; en vain vous ferez des lois 
 cruelles pour arreter le coins de rdvoltantes cruautes; vaine- 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 191 
 
 ment vous frapperez de mort le moindre delit se rattachant 
 h, ces grands crimes; vainement, dans I’effroi de votre 
 impuissance, vous suspendrez le cours des lois ordinaries 
 proclamerez des comtes entiers en etat de suspicion legale, 
 voilerez le principe de la liberte individuelle, creerez des 
 cours martiales, des commissions extraordinaires, et pour 
 produire de salutaires impressions de terreur, multiplierez h 
 I’exces les executions capitales.’ ” * 
 
 The next passage is a trenchant condemnation of the 
 “ Union.” 
 
 “ There exists in Europe no country so completely at 
 unity with itself as Great Britain. Fifty years of reform 
 have done their work, and have removed the discontents, 
 the divisions, the disaffection, and the conspiracies which 
 marked the first quarter, or tlie first half of this century. 
 Great Britain, if left to herself, could act with all the force, 
 consistency, and energy given by unity of sentiment and 
 community of interests. The distraction and the uncer¬ 
 tainty of our political aims, the feebleness and inconsistency 
 with which they are pursued, arise, in part at least, from 
 the connection with Ireland. Neither Englishmen nor Irish¬ 
 men are to blame for the fact that it is difficult for com¬ 
 munities differing in historical associations and in political 
 conceptions to keep step together in the path of progress. 
 For other evils arising from the connection the blame must 
 rest on English Statesmen. All the inherent vices of party 
 government, all the weaknesses of the parliamentary system, 
 all the evils arising from the perverse notion that reform 
 ought always to be preceded by a period of lengtliy and 
 more than half factitious agitation met by equally factitious 
 resistance, have been fostered and increased by the inter¬ 
 action of Irish and English politics. No one can believe 
 that the inveterate habit of ruling one part of the United 
 
 * Dicey, Englands Case agautst Home Rule, pp. 92-94.—The 
 foreigner is De Beaumont. 
 
192 THE “ UNIONIST" CASE TOR HOME RULE. 
 
 Kingdom on principles which no one would venture to 
 apply to the government of any other part of it, can have 
 produced anything but the most injurious effect on the 
 stability of our Government and the character of our public 
 men. The advocates of Home Rule find by far their 
 strongest arguments for influencing English opinion, in the 
 proofs which they produce that England, no less than 
 Ireland, has suffered from a political arrangement under 
 which legal union has failed to secure moral union. 
 These arguments, whatever their strength, are, however, it 
 must be noted, more available to a Nationalist than to an 
 advocate of federalism" * 
 
 The words which I have italicised are an expression of 
 opinion; but nothing can alter the damning statement of 
 fact—“legal union has failed to secure moral union.” Never¬ 
 theless, Mr. Diccy advocates the maintenance of this legal 
 union as it stands. 
 
 “ On the whole, then, it appears that, whatever changes 
 or calamities the future may have in store, the maintenance 
 of the Union is at this day the one sound policy for England 
 to pursue. It is sound because it is expedient; it is sound 
 because it is just.” f 
 
 I shall not discuss the question of Home Rule with the 
 eminent wuiters whose works I have cited. It is enough 
 that they demonstrate the failure of the Union. So con¬ 
 vinced was Mr. Lecky, in 1871, of its failure, that he 
 suggested a readjustment of the relations of the two countries 
 on a federal basis; J and Mr. Goldwin Smith, in 1868, con¬ 
 tended that the Irish difficulty could only be settled by the 
 establishment of Provincial Councils, and an occasional 
 
 * Dicey, England’s Case against Home Ride, pp. 151, ^52. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 288. 
 
 J I hope I am not doing Mr. Lecky an injustice in this statement. 
 I rely on the extract quoted from the Leaders of Public Opinion in 
 Ireland, at p. 176 of this volume; but see Introduction, p, xix. 
 
THE “ UNIONIST" CASE FOR HOME RULE. 193 
 
 session of the Imperial Parliament in Dublin. Mr. Dicey 
 clings to the existing Union while demonstrating its failure, 
 because he has persuaded himself that the only alternative 
 is separation. 
 
 Irishmen may be pardoned for acting on Mr. Dicey’s 
 facts, and disregarding his prophecies. The mass of Irish¬ 
 men believe, with Grattan, that the ocean protests against 
 separation as the sea protests against such a union as was 
 attempted in 1800.* 
 
 * Irish House of Commons, January 15th, iSoo. 
 
 O 
 
IRBLA.VD'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 By Lord Thring.* 
 
 Ireland is a component member of the most complex 
 political body the world has yet known; any inquiry, then, 
 into the fitness of any particular form of government for 
 that country involves an investigation of the structures of 
 various composite nations, or nations made up of numerous 
 political communities more or less differing from each other. 
 From the examination of the nature of the common tie, and 
 the circumstances which caused it to be adopted or imposed 
 on the component peoples, we cannot but derive instruction, 
 and be furnished with materials which will enable us to take 
 a wide view of the question of Home Rule, and assist us in 
 judging between the various remedies proposed for the cure 
 of Irish disorders. 
 
 The nature of the ties which bind, or have bound, the 
 principal composite nations of the world together may be 
 classified as— 
 
 1. Confederate unions. 
 
 2. Federal unions. 
 
 3. Imperial unions. 
 
 A confederate union may be defined to mean an alliance 
 between the governments of independent States, which 
 agree to appoint a common superior authority having power 
 
 * Reprinted by permission, >Yith certain omissions, from the Con¬ 
 temporary Review, August, 1887, 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 19S 
 
 to make peace and war and to demand contributions of men 
 and money from the confederate States. Such superior 
 authority has no power of enforcing its decrees except 
 through the medium of the governments of the constituent 
 States; or, in other words, in case of disobedience, by 
 armed force. 
 
 A federal union differs from a confederate union in the 
 material fact that the common superior authority, instead 
 of acting on the individual subjects of the constituent States 
 through the medium of their respective governments, has a 
 power, in respect of all matters within its jurisdiction, of 
 enacting laws and issuing orders which are binding directly 
 on the individual citizens. 
 
 The distinguishing characteristics of an imperial union 
 are, that it consists of an aggregate of communities, one of 
 which is dominant, and that the component communities 
 have been brought into association, not by arrangement 
 between themselves, but by colonization, cession, and by 
 other means emanating from the resources or power of the 
 dominant community. 
 
 The above-mentioned distinction between a Govern¬ 
 ment having communities only for its subjects, and in¬ 
 capable of enforcing its orders by any other means than 
 war, and a Government acting directly on individuals, must 
 be constantly borne in mind, for in this lies the whole 
 difference between a confederate and federal union ; that is 
 to say, between a confederacy which, in the case of the 
 United States, lasted a few short years, and a federal union 
 which, with the same people as subjects, has lasted nearly 
 a century, and has stood the strain of the most terrible war 
 of modern times. 
 
 The material features of the Constitution of the United 
 States have been explained in a previous article.* All that 
 
 * “ Hume ' Rule and luipeiial Unily : ” Conlcmporaiy Rcviciv, 
 March, 1887. 
 
196 
 
 IRE LAND'3 ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 is necessary to call to mind here is, that the Government of 
 the United States exercises a power of taxation throughout 
 the whole Union by means of its own officers, and enforces 
 its decrees through the medium of its own Courts. A 
 Supreme Court has also been established, which has power 
 to adjudicate on the constitutionality of all laws passed by 
 the Legislature of the United States, or of any State, and to 
 decide on all international questions. 
 
 Switzerland was till 1S48 an example of a confederate 
 union or league of semi-independent States, which, unlike 
 other confederacies, had existed with partial interruptions 
 for centuries. This unusual vitality is attributed by Mill * 
 to the circumstance that the confederate government felt 
 its weakness so strongly that it hardly ever attempted to 
 exercise any real authority. Its present government, finally 
 settled in 1874, but based on fundamental laws passed in 
 1848, is a federal union formed on the pattern of the 
 American Constitution, It consists of a federal assembly 
 comprising two Chambers—the Upper Chamber composed 
 of forty-four members chosen by the twenty-two cantons, 
 two for each canton ; the Lower consisting of 145 members 
 chosen by direct election at the rate of one deputy for every 
 20,000 persons. The chief executive authority is deputed 
 to a federal council consisting of seven members elected for 
 three years by the federal assembly, and h.aving at their 
 head a president and vice-president, who are the first 
 magistrates of the republic. There is also a federal tribu¬ 
 nal, having similar functions to those of the supreme court 
 of the United States of America, consisting of nine members 
 elected for six years by the federal assembly. 
 
 The Empire of Germany is a federal union, differing 
 from the United States and Switzerland in having an here¬ 
 ditary emperor as its head. It comprises twenty-six Slates, 
 who have “ formed an eternal union for the protection of 
 * Mill on Rep-esentative Government., p. 310. 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 197 
 
 the realm, and the care of the welfare of the German 
 people.” * The King of Prussia, under the title of German 
 Emperor, represents the empire in all its relations to foreign 
 nations, and has the power of making peace and war, but 
 if the war be more than a defensive war he must have 
 the assent of the Upper Plouse. The legislative body of 
 the empire consists of two Houses—the Upper, called the 
 Eundesrath, representing the several component States in 
 different proportions according to their relative importance ; 
 the lower, the Reichstag, elected by the voters in 397 
 electoral districts, which are distributed amongst the con¬ 
 stituent States in unequal numbers, regard being had to the 
 population and circumstances of each State. 
 
 The Austro-Hungarian Empire is a federal union, differ¬ 
 ing alike in its origin and construction from the federal 
 unions above mentioned. In the beginning Austria and 
 Hungary were independent countries—Austria a despotism, 
 Hungary a constitutional monarchy, with ancient laws and 
 customs dating back to the foundation of the kingdom in 
 895. In the sixteenth century the supreme power in both 
 countries—that is to say, the despotic monarchy in Austria 
 and the constitutional monarchy in Hungary — became 
 vested in the same person; as might have been anticipated, 
 the union was not a happy one. If we dip into Heeren’s 
 Political System of Europe at intervals selected almost 
 at random, the following notices will be found in relation to 
 Austria and Hungary:—Between 1671 and 1700 “political 
 unity in the Austrian monarchy was to have been enforced 
 especially in the principal country (Hungary), for this was 
 regarded as the sole method of establishing power; the 
 consequence was an almost perpetual revolutionary state of 
 affairs.” t Again, in the next chapter, commenting on the 
 period between 1740 and 1786: “Hungary, in fact the 
 
 * See Sta/csmau's Year-Book: Switzeiland and Germany. 
 
 t Ileeren’s Totilical System of Europe, p. 152. 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 rgS 
 
 chief, was treated like a conquered province; subjected to 
 the most oppressive commercial restraints, it was regarded 
 as a colony from which Austria exacted what she could for 
 her own advantage. The injurious consequences of this 
 internal discord are evident.” Coming to modern times we 
 find that oppression followed oppression with sickening 
 monotony, and that at last the determination of Austria to 
 stamp out the Constitution in Hungary gave rise to tlie 
 insurrection of 1849, which Austria suppressed with the 
 assistance of Russia, and as a penalty declared the Hun¬ 
 garian Constitution to be forfeited, and thereupon Hungary 
 was incorporated with Austria, as Ireland was incorporated 
 with Great Britain in 1800. Both events were the conse¬ 
 quences of unsuccessful rebellions ; but the junction which, 
 in the case of Hungary, was enforced by the sword, was in 
 Ireland more smoothly carried into effect by corruption. 
 Hungary, sullen and discontented, waited for Austria’s 
 calamity as her opportunity, and it came after the battle of 
 Sadowa. Austria had just emerged from a fearful conflict, 
 and Count Beust * felt that unless some resolute effort was 
 made to meet the views of the constitutional party in Hun¬ 
 gary, the dismemberment of the empire must be the result. 
 Now, what was the course he took ? Was it a tightening of 
 the bonds between Austria and Hungary ? On the contrary, 
 to maintain the unity of the empire he dissolved its union 
 and restored to Hungary its ancient constitutional privileges. 
 Austria and Hungary each had its own Parliament for local 
 purposes. To manage the imperial concerns of peace and 
 war, and the foreign relations, a controlling body, called the 
 Delegations, was established, consisting of 120 members, of 
 whom half represent and are chosen by the Legislature of 
 Austria, and the other half by that of Hungary; the Upper 
 House of each country returning twenty members, and the 
 Lower House forty.t Ordinarily the delegates sit and vote 
 
 * Memoirs of Count Beust, vol. i.. Introduction, p. xliii. 
 
 t Statesman's Year-Book, 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 199 
 
 in two Chambers, but if they disagree the two branches 
 must meet together and give their final vote without debate, 
 which is binding on the whole empire.* 
 
 The question arises, What is the magnetic influence 
 which induces communities of men to combine together in 
 federal unions ? Undoubtedly it is the feeling of nationality; 
 and what is nationality? Mr. Mill says,t “a portion of 
 mankind may be said to constitute a nationality if they are 
 united among themselves by common sympathies which do 
 not exist between them and any others; which make them 
 co-operate with each other more willingly than other people ; 
 desire to be under the same government, and desire that it 
 .should be a government by themselves or a portion of them¬ 
 selves exclusively.” He then proceeds to state that the 
 feeling of nationality may have been generated by various 
 causes. Sometimes it is the identity of race and descent; 
 community of language and community of religion greatly 
 contribute to it; geographical limits are one of its causes ; 
 but the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents : 
 the possession of a national history and consequent com¬ 
 munity of recollections—collective pride and humiliation, 
 pleasure and regret— connected with the same incidents in 
 the past. 
 
 The only point to be noted further in reference to the 
 foregoing federal unions, is that the same feeling of nation¬ 
 ality which, in the United States, Switzerland, and the 
 German Empire, produced a closer legal bond of union, 
 in the case of Austria-Hungary operated to dissolve the 
 amalgamation formed in 1849 of the two States, and to 
 produce a federal union of States in place of a single State. 
 
 One conclusion seems to follow irresistibly from any 
 
 * The Emperor of Austria is the head of the empire, with the title 
 of King in Hungary. Austria-Hungary is treated as a federal, not as 
 an imperial union, on the ground that Austria was never rightfully a 
 dominant community over Hungary. 
 
 t RepresetUative Gcn'ernment, p. 295. 
 
200 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 review of the construction of the various States above 
 described : that the stability of a nation bears no relation 
 whatever to the legal compactness or homogeneity of its 
 component parts. Russia and France, the most compact 
 political societies in Europe, do not, to say the least, rest on 
 a firmer basis than Germany and Switzerland, the inhabitants 
 of which are subjected to the obligations of a double 
 nationality. Above all, no European nation, except Great 
 Britain, can for a moment bear comparison with the United 
 States in respect of the devotion of its people to their 
 Constitution. 
 
 An imperial union, though resembling somewhat in 
 outward form a federal union, differs altogether from it both 
 in principle and origin. Its essential characteristic is that 
 one community is absolutely dominant while all the others 
 are subordinate. In the case of a federal union independent 
 States have agreed to resign a portion of their powers to a 
 central Government for the sake of securing the common 
 safety. In an imperial union the dominant or imperial 
 State delegates to each constituent member of the union 
 such a portion of local government as the dominant State 
 considers the subordinate member entitled to, consistently 
 with the integrity of the empire. The British Empire 
 furnishes the best example of an imperial union now 
 existing in the world. Her Majesty, as common head, is 
 the one link which binds the empire together and connects 
 with each other every constituent member. The Indian 
 Empire and certain military dependencies require no 
 further notice in these pages; but a summary of our various 
 forms of colonial government is required to complete our 
 knowledge of the forms of Home Rule possibly applicable 
 to Ireland. 
 
 The colonies, in relation to their forms of government, 
 may be classified as follows :— 
 
 I. Crown colonies, in which laws may be made by the 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 201 
 
 Governor alone, or with the concurrence of a Council 
 nominated by the Crown. 
 
 2. Colonies possessing representative institutions, but 
 not responsible government, in which the Crown has only a 
 veto on legislation, but the Home Government retains the 
 control of the executive. 
 
 3. Colonies possessing representative institutions and 
 responsible government, in which the Crown has only a 
 veto on legislation, and the Home Government has no 
 control over any public officer except the Governor. 
 
 The British Colonial Governments thus present an 
 absolute gradation of rule; beginning with absolute 
 despotism and ending with almost absolute legal inde¬ 
 pendence, except in so far as a veto on legislation and the 
 presence of a Governor named by the Crorvn mark the 
 dependence of the colony on the mother country. 
 
 It is to be remembered, moreover, tliat the colonies 
 which have received this complete local freedom are the 
 great colonies of the earth—nations themselves possessing 
 territories as large or larger than any European State— 
 namely, Canada, the Cape, New South Wales, Victoria, 
 Queensland, South Australia, New ^Zealand, Tasmania. 
 And this change from dependence to freedom has been 
 effected with the good-will both of the mother country and 
 the colony, and without it being imputed to the colonists, 
 when desiring a larger measure of self-government, that 
 they were separatists, anarchists, or revolutionists. 
 
 Such are tire general principles of colonial government, 
 but one colony requires special mention, from the circum¬ 
 stance of its Constitution having been put forward as a 
 model for Ireland ; this is the Dominion of Canada. The 
 Government of Canada is, in effect, a subordinate federal 
 union; that is to say, it possesses a central Legislature, 
 having the largest possible powers of local self-government 
 consistent with the supremacy of the empire, with seven 
 
202 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 inferior provincial Governments, exercising powers greater 
 than those of an English county, but not so great as those 
 of an American State. The advantage of such a form of 
 government is that, witliout weakening the supremacy of 
 the empire or of the central local power, it admits of con¬ 
 siderable diversities being made in the details of provincial 
 government, where local peculiarities and antecedents' 
 render it undesirable to make a more complete assimilation 
 of the Governments of the various provinces. 
 
 Materials have now been collected which will enable 
 the reader to judge of the expediency or inexpediency of 
 the course taken by Mr. Gladstone’s Government in dealing 
 with Ireland. Three alternatives were open to them— 
 
 1. To let matters alone. 
 
 2. To pass a Coercion Bill. 
 
 3. To change the government of Ireland, and at 
 
 the same time to pass a Land Bill. 
 
 The two last measures are combined under the head of 
 one alternative, as it will be shown in the sequel that no 
 effective Land Bill can be passed without granting Home 
 Rule in Ireland. 
 
 Now, the short answer to the first alternative is, that no 
 party in the State—Conservative, Whig, Radical, Unionist, 
 Home Ruler, Parnellite—thought it possible to leave things 
 alone. That something must be done was universally 
 admitted. 
 
 The second alternative has found favour with the 
 present Government, and certainly is a better example of 
 the triumph of hope over experience, than even the pro¬ 
 verbial second marriage. 
 
 Eighty-six years have elapsed since the Union. During 
 the first thirty-two years only eleven years, and during the 
 last fifty-four years only two years have been free from 
 special repressive legislation ; yet the agitation for repeal of 
 the Union, and general discontent, are more violent in 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 203 
 
 1887 than in any one of the eighty-six previous years. In 
 the name of common-sense, is there any reason for sup> 
 posing that the Coercion Bill of 1887 will have a better or 
 more enduring effect than its numerous predecessors ? The 
 prima fade case is at all events in favour of the contention 
 that, when so many trials of a certain remedy have failed, it 
 would be better not to try the same remedy again, but to 
 have recourse to some other medicine. What, then, was 
 the position of Mr. Gladstone’s Government at the close of 
 the election of 1885 ? What were the considerations pre¬ 
 sented to them as supreme supervisors and guardians of 
 the British Empire ? They found that vast colonial empire 
 tranquil and loyal beyond previous expectation—the greater 
 colonies satisfied with their existing position; the lesser 
 expecting that as they grew up to manhood they would be 
 treated as men, and emancipated from childish restraints. 
 The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were contented 
 with their sturdy dependent independence, loyal to the 
 backbone. One member only stood aloof, sulky and dis¬ 
 satisfied, and though in law integrally united with the 
 dominant community, practically was dissociated from it by 
 forming within Parliament (the controlling body of the 
 whole) a separate section, of which the whole aim was to 
 fetter the action of the entire supreme body in order to 
 bring to an external severance the practical disunion which 
 existed between that member and Great Britain. This 
 member—Ireland—as compared with other parts of the 
 empire, was small and insignificant; measured against 
 Great Britain, its population was five millions to thirty-one 
 millions, and its estimated capital was only one twenty- 
 fourth part of the capital of the United Kingdom. Measured 
 against Australia, its trade with Great Britain was almost 
 insignificant. Its importance arose from the force of public 
 opinion in Great Britain, which deemed England pledged to 
 protect the party in Ireland which desired the Union to be 
 
204 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 maintained, and from the power of obstructing English 
 legislation through the medium of the Irish contingent, 
 willing and ready on every occasion to intervene in English 
 debates. The first step to be taken obviously was to find 
 out what the great majority of Irish members wanted. The 
 answer was, that they would be contented to quit the British 
 Parliament on having a Parliament established on College 
 Green, with full powers of local government, and that they 
 would accept on behalf of their country a certain fixed 
 annual sum to be paid to the Imperial Exchequer, on con¬ 
 dition that such sum should not be increased without the 
 consent of the Irish representatives. Here there were two 
 great points gained without any sacrifice of principle. 
 Ireland could not be said to be taxed without representa¬ 
 tion when her representatives agreed to a certain fixed 
 sum to be paid till altered with their consent; while at the 
 same time all risk of obstruction to English legislation by 
 Irish means was removed by the proposal that the Irish 
 representatives should exercise local powers in Dublin 
 instead of imperial powers at Westminster. 
 
 On the basis of the above arrangement the Bill of Mr. 
 Gladstone was founded. Absolute local autonomy was 
 conferred on Ireland; the assent of the Irish members to 
 quit the Imperial Parliament was accepted; and the Bill 
 provided that after a certain day the representative Irish 
 peers should cease to sit in the House of Lords, and the 
 Irish members vacate their places in the Plouse of Com¬ 
 mons. Provisions were then made for the absorption in 
 the Irish Legislative Body of both the Irish representative 
 peers and Irish members. 
 
 The legislative supremacy of the British Parliament was 
 maintained by an express provision excepting from any 
 interference on the part of Irish Legislature all imperial 
 powers, and declaring any enactment void which infringed 
 that provision; further, an enactment was inserted for the 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 205 
 
 purpose of securing to the English Legislature in the last 
 resource the absolute power to make any law for the govern¬ 
 ment of Ireland, and ^therefore to repeal, or suspend, the 
 Irish Constitution. 
 
 Technically these reservations of supremacy to the 
 English Legislature were unnecessarj^, as it is an axiom of 
 constitutional law that a sovereign Legislature, such as the 
 Queen and two Houses of Parliament in England, cannot 
 bind their successors, and consequently can repeal or alter 
 any law, however fundamental, and annul any restrictions on 
 alteration, however strongly expressed. Practically they 
 were never likely to be called into operation, as it is the 
 custom of Parliament to adhere, under all but the most 
 extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances, to any compact 
 made by Act of Parliament between itself and any subordi¬ 
 nate legislative body. The Irish Legislature was subjected 
 to the same controlling power rvhich has for centuries been 
 applied to prevent any excess of jurisdiction in our Colonial 
 Legislatures, by a direction that an appeal as to the con¬ 
 stitutionality of any laws which they might pass should lie 
 to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This 
 supremacy of the imperial judicial power over the action of 
 the Colonial Legislatures was a system which the founders 
 of the American Constitution copied in the establishment of 
 their supreme Court, and thereby secured for that legislative 
 .system a stability which has defied the assaults of faction 
 and the strain of civil war. 
 
 The Executive Government of Ireland was continued in 
 her IMajesty, and was to be carried on by the Lord Lieu¬ 
 tenant on her behalf, by the aid of such officers and such 
 Council as her Majesty might from time to time see fit. The 
 initiative power of recommending taxation was also vested 
 in the Queen, and delegated to the Lord Lieutenant. These 
 clauses are co-ordinate and correlative with the clause con¬ 
 ferring complete local powers on the Irish Legislature, 
 
2o6 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 while it preserves all imperial powers to the Impeiial Legis¬ 
 lature. The Governor is an imperial officer, and will be 
 bound to watch over imperial interests with a jealous 
 scrutiny, and to veto any Bill which may be injurious to 
 those interests. On the other hand, as respects all local 
 matters, he will act on and be guided by the advice of the 
 Irish Executive Council. The system is self-acting. The 
 Governor, for local purposes, must have a Council which is 
 in harmony with the Legislative Body. If the Governor 
 and a Council, supported by the Legislative Body, do not 
 agree, the Governor must give way, unless he can, by dis¬ 
 missing his Council, and dissolving the Legislative Body, 
 obtain both a Council and a Legislative Body which will 
 support his views. As respects imperial questions, the case 
 is different; here the last word rests with the mother country, 
 and in the last resort a determination of the Executive 
 Council, backed by the Legislative Body, to resist imperial 
 lights, must be deemed an act of rebellion on the part of the 
 Irish people, and be dealt with accordingly. 
 
 In acceding to the claims of the National Party for 
 Home Rule in Ireland another question had to be con¬ 
 sidered : the demands of the English garrison, as it is called 
 ■—or, in plain words, of the class of Irish landlords—for 
 protection. They urged that to grant Home Rule in 
 Ireland would- be to hand them over to their enemies, their 
 tenants, and to lead to an immediate, or to all events a 
 proximate, confiscation of their properties. Without admit¬ 
 ting the truth of these apprehensions to the full extent, or 
 indeed to any great extent, it was undoubtedly felt by the 
 framers of the Home Rule Bill that a moral obligation 
 rested on the Imperial Government to remove, if possible, 
 “ the fearful exasperations attending the agrarian relations 
 in Ireland,” rather than leave a question so fraught with 
 danger, so involved in difficulty, to be determined by the 
 Irish Government on its first entry on official existence. 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 207 
 
 Hence the Land Bill, the scheme of which was to frame a 
 system under which the tenants, by being made owners of 
 the soil, should become interested as a class in the main¬ 
 tenance of social order, while the landlords should be 
 enabled to rid themselves on fair terms of their estates, in 
 cases where, from apprehension of impending changes, or for 
 pecuniary reasons, they were desirous of relieving themselves 
 from the responsibilities of ownership. Of the land scheme 
 brought into Parliament in 1886, it need only here be said that 
 it proposed to lend the Irish Government 3 per cent, stock 
 at 3J- per cent, interest, the Irish Government undertaking 
 to purchase, from any Irish landlord desirous of selling, his 
 estate at (as a general rule) twenty years’ purchase on the 
 net rental. The money thus disbursed by the Irish Govern¬ 
 ment was repaid to them by an annuity, payable by the 
 tenant for forty-nine years, of 4 per cent, on a capital sum 
 equal to twenty times the gross rental; the result being 
 that, were the Bill passed into law, the tenant would become 
 immediate owner of the land, subject to the payment of an 
 annuity considerably less than the previous rent—that the 
 Irish Government would make a considerable profit on the 
 transaction, inasmuch as it would receive from the tenant 
 interest calculated on the basis of the gross rental, whilst it 
 would pay to the English Government interest calculated on 
 the basis of the net rental—and that the English Govern¬ 
 ment would sustain no loss if the interest were duly received 
 by them. 
 
 The effect of such a plan appears almost magical: Ireland 
 is transformed at one stroke from a nation of landlords into 
 a nation of peasant proprietors—apparently without loss to 
 any one, and with gain to everybody concerned, except the 
 British Government, who neither gain nor lose in the matter. 
 The practicability, however, of such a scheme depends 
 altogether on the security against loss afforded to the British 
 tax-payer, for he is industrious and heavily burdened, and 
 
20S 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 cannot be expected to assent to any plan which will land 
 him in any appreciable loss. Here it is that the plan 
 of Mr. Gladstone’s Land Bill differs from all other previous 
 plans. Act after Act has been passed enabling the tenant 
 to borrow money from the British Government on the 
 security of the holding, for the purpose of enabling him to 
 purchase the fee-simple. In such transactions the British 
 Government becomes the mortgagee, and can only recover 
 its money, if default is made in payment, by ejecting the 
 tenant and becoming the landlord. In proportion, then, 
 as any existing purchase Act succeeds, in the same propor¬ 
 tion the risk of the British taxpayer increases. He is ever 
 placed in the most invidious of all lights; instead of posing 
 as the generous benefactor who holds forth his hand to 
 rescue the landlord and tenant from an intolerable position, 
 he stands forward either as the grasping mortgagee or as the 
 still more hated landlord, who, having deprived the tenant 
 of his holding, is seeking to introduce another man into 
 property which really belongs to the ejected tenant. Such 
 a position may be endurable when the number of purchasing 
 tenants is small, but at once breaks down if agrarian reform 
 in Ireland is to be extended so far as to make any appre¬ 
 ciable difference in the relations of landlord and tenant; 
 still more, if it become general. Now, what is the remedy 
 of such a state of things ? Surely to interpose the Irish 
 Government between the Irish debtor and his English 
 creditor, and to provide that the Irish revenues in bulk, not 
 the individual holdings of each tenant, shall be the security 
 for the English creditor. This was the scheme embodied 
 in the Land Act of 1886. The punctual payment of all 
 money due from the Government of Ireland to the Govern¬ 
 ment of Great Britain was to have been secured by the 
 continuance in the hands of the British Government of the 
 Excise and Customs duties, and by the appointment of an 
 Imperial Receiver-General, assisted by subordinate officers. 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 209 
 
 and protected by an Imperial Court. This officer would 
 have received not only all the imperial taxes, but also the 
 local taxes; and it would have been his duty to satisfy 
 the claims of the British Government before he allowed any 
 sum to pass into the Irish Exchequer. In effect, the British 
 Government, in relation to the levying of imperial taxes, 
 would have stood in the same relation to Ireland as 
 Congress does to the United States in respect to the levying 
 of federal taxes. The fiscal unity of Great Britain and 
 Ireland would have been in this way secured, and the 
 British Government protected against any loss of interest 
 for the large sums to be expended in carrying into effect in 
 Ireland any agrarian reform worthy of the name. 
 
 The Irish Bills of 1886, as above represented, had at 
 least three recommendations : 
 
 1. They created a state of things in Ireland under which 
 it was possible to make a complete agrarian reform without 
 exposing the English Exchequer to any appreciable risk. 
 
 2. They enabled the Irish to govern themselves as 
 respects local matters, while preserving intact the supremacy 
 of the British Parliament and the integrity of the Empire. 
 
 3. They enabled the British Parliament to govern the 
 British Empire without any obstructive Irish interference. 
 
 To the first of these propositions no attempt at an answer 
 has been made. The Land Bill was never considered on 
 its merits; indeed, was never practically discussed, but was 
 at once swept into oblivion by the wave which overwhelmed 
 the Home Rule Bill. 
 
 The contention against the second proposition was 
 concerned in proving that the supremacy of the British 
 Parliament was not maintained : the practical answer to this 
 objection has been given above. Pushed to its utmost, it 
 could only amount to proof that an amendment ought to 
 have been introduced in Committee, declaring, in words 
 better selected than those introduced for that purpose in the 
 
 p 
 
210 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 Bill, that nothing in the Act should affect the supremacy of 
 the British Parliament. In short, the whole discussion here 
 necessarily resolved itself into a mere verbal squabble as to 
 the construction of a clause in a Bill not yet in Committee, 
 and had no bottom or substance. 
 
 It was also urged that the concession of self-government 
 to Ireland was but another mode of handing over the 
 Loyalist party—or, as it is sometimes called, the English 
 garrison—to the tender mercies of the Parnellites. The 
 reply to this would seem to be, that as respects property 
 the Land Bill effectually prevented any interference of the 
 Irish Parliament with the land; nay, more, enabled any 
 Irishman desirous of turning his land into money to do 
 so on the most advantageous terms that ever had been— 
 and with a falling market it may be confidently prophesied 
 ever can be—offered to the Irish landlord; while as respect 
 life and liberty, were it possible that they should be endan¬ 
 gered, it was the duty of the imperial officer, the Lord Lieu¬ 
 tenant, to take means for the preservation of peace and 
 good order; and behind him, to enforce his behests, stand 
 the strong battalions who, to our sorrow be it spoken, have 
 so often been called upon to put down disturbance and 
 anarchy in Ireland. 
 
 Competing plans have been put forward, with more or 
 less detail, for governing Ireland. The suggestion that 
 Ireland should be governed as a Crozofi colony need only 
 be mentioned to be rejected. It means in effect, that 
 Ireland should sink from the rank of an equal or indepen¬ 
 dent member of the British Empire to the grade of the 
 most dependent of her colonies, and should be governed 
 despotically by English officials, without representation in 
 the English Parliament or any machinery of local self- 
 government. Another proposal has been to give four pro¬ 
 vincial Governments to Ireland, limiting their powers to 
 local rating, education, and legislation in respect of matters 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 211 
 
 which form the subjects of private Bill legislation at present; 
 in fact, to place them somewhat on the footing of the 
 provinces of Canada, while reserving to the English Parlia¬ 
 ment the powers vested in the Dominion of Canada. Such a 
 scheme would seem adapted to whet the appetite of the Irish 
 for nationality, without supplying them with any portion of 
 the real article. It would supply no basis on which a system 
 of agrarian reform could be founded, as it would be impos¬ 
 sible to leave the determination of a local question, which is 
 a unit in its dangers and its difficulties, to four different 
 Legislatures; above all, the hinge on which the question 
 turns—the sufficiency of the security for the British tax¬ 
 payer— could not be afforded by provincial resources. 
 Indeed, no alternative for the Land Bill of 1886 has been 
 suggested which does not err in one of the following points: 
 either it pledges English credit on insufficient security, or 
 it requires the landowners to accept Irish debentures or 
 some form of Irish paper money at par; in other words, it 
 makes English taxes a fund for relieving Irish landlords, or 
 else it compels the Irish landowner, if he sells at all, to 
 sell at an inadequate price. Before parting with Canada, it 
 may be worth while noticing that another, and more feasible, 
 alternative is to imitate more closely the Canadian Consti¬ 
 tution, and to vest the central or Dominion powers in a 
 central Legislature in Dublin, parcelling out the provincial 
 powers, as they have been called, amongst several provincial 
 Legislatures. This scheme might be made available as 
 a means of protecting Ulster from the supposed danger 
 of undue interference from the Central Government, and 
 for making, possibly, other diversities in the local adminis¬ 
 tration of various parts of Ireland in order to meet special 
 local exigencies. 
 
 A leading writer among the dissentient Liberals has inti¬ 
 mated that one of two forms of representative colonial 
 government might be imposed on Ireland—-either the form 
 
212 
 
 IRELAND'S ALTERNATJVES. 
 
 in which the executive is conducted by colonial officials, or 
 the form of the great irresponsible colonies. The first of 
 these forms is open to the objection, that it perpetuates 
 those struggles between English executive measures and 
 Irish opinion which has made Ireland for centuries un¬ 
 governable, and led to the establishment of the union and 
 destruction of Irish independence in 1800; the second 
 proposal would destroy the fiscal unity of the empire— 
 leave the agrarian feud unextinguished, and aggravate 
 the objections which have been urged against the Home 
 Rule Bill of 1886. A question still remains, in relation 
 to the form of the Home Rule Bill of 1886, which would 
 not have deserved attention but for the prominence given 
 to it in some of the discussions upon the subject. The 
 Bill of 1886 provides “that the Legislature may make laws 
 for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland,” but 
 subjects their power to numerous exceptions and restric¬ 
 tions. The Act establishing the Dominion of Canada 
 enumerates various matters in respect of which the Legis¬ 
 lature of Canada is to have exclusive power, but prefaces 
 the enumeration with a clause “that the Dominion Legis¬ 
 lature may make laws for the peace, order, and good govern¬ 
 ment of Canada in relation to all matters not within the 
 jurisdiction of the provincial Legislatures, although such 
 matters may not be specially mentioned.” In effect, there¬ 
 fore, the difference between the Irish Bill and the Canadian 
 Act is one of expression and not of substance, and, although 
 the Bill is more accurate in its form, it would scarcely 
 be worth while to insist on legislating by exception instead 
 of by enumeration if, by the substitution of the latter form 
 for the former, any material opposition would be conciliated. 
 
 What, then, are the conclusions intended to be drawn 
 from the foregoing premises ? 
 
 I. That coercion is played out, and can no longer be 
 regarded as a remedy for the evils of Irish misrule. 
 
IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 213 
 
 2. That some alternative must be found, and that the 
 only alternative within the range of practical politics is some 
 form of Home Rule. 
 
 3. That there is no reason for thinking that the grant of 
 Home Rule to Ireland—a member only, and not one of the 
 most important members, of the British Empire—will in 
 any way dismember, or even in the slightest degree risk the 
 dismemberment of the Empire. 
 
 4. That Home Rule presupposes and admits the supre¬ 
 macy of the British Parliament. 
 
 5. That theory is in favour of Home Rule, as the 
 nationality of Ireland is distinct, and justifies a desire for 
 local independence ; while the establishment of Home Rule 
 is a necessary condition to the effectual removal of agrarian 
 disturbances in Ireland. 
 
 6. That precedent is in favour of granting Home Rule 
 to Ireland— e.g. the success of the new Constitution in 
 Austria-Hungary, and the happy effects resulting from the 
 establishment of the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 7. That the particular form of Home Rule granted is 
 comparatively immaterial. 
 
 8. That the Home Rule Bill of 1886 may readily be 
 amended in such a manner as to satisfy all real and un¬ 
 partisan objectors. 
 
 9. That the Land Bill of 1886 is the best that has ever 
 been devised, having regard to the advantages offered to 
 the new Irish Government, the landlord, and the tenant. 
 
THE PAST AND FUTURE OF THE 
 IRISH QUESTION! 
 
 By James Bryce, M.P. 
 
 For half a century or more no question of English domestic 
 politics has excited so much interest outside England as 
 that question of resettling her relations with Ireland, which 
 was fought over in the last Parliament, and still confronts 
 the Parliament that has lately been elected. Apart from its 
 dramatic interest, apart from its influence on the fortune of 
 parties, and its effect on the imperial position of Great 
 Britain, it involves so many large principles of statesman¬ 
 ship, and raises so many delicate points of constitutional 
 law, as to deserve the study of philosophical thinkers no 
 less than of practical politicians in every free country. 
 
 The circumstances which led to the introduction of the 
 Government of Ireland Bill, in April, 1886, are familiar to 
 Americans as well as Englishmen. Ever since the crowns 
 and parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland were united, 
 in A.D. 1800, there has been in Ireland a party which pro¬ 
 tested against that union as fraudulently obtained and inex¬ 
 pedient in itself. For many years this party, led by Daniel 
 O’Connell, maintained an agitation for Repeal. After his 
 
 * This article, which originally appeared in the American N'e"cii 
 Princeton Revieiv, has been added to in a few places, in order to 
 bring its narrative of facts up to date. 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 215 
 
 death a more extreme section, which sought the complete 
 independence of Ireland, raised the insurrection of 1848, 
 and subsequently, under the guidance of other hands, 
 formed the Fenian conspiracy, whose projected insurrection 
 was nipped in the bud in 1867, though the conspiracy con¬ 
 tinued to menace the Government and the tranquillity of 
 the island. In 1872 the Home Rule party was formed, 
 demanding, not the Repeal of the Union, but the creation 
 of an Irish Legislature, and the agitation, conducted in 
 Parliament in a more systematic and persistent way than 
 heretofore, took also a legitimate constitutional form. To 
 this demand English and Scotch opinion was at first almost 
 unanimously opposed. At the General Election of 1880, 
 which, however, turned mainly on the foreign policy of 
 Lord Beaconsfield’s Government, not more than three or 
 four members were returned by constituencies in Great 
 Britain who professed to consider Home Rule as even an 
 open question. All through the Parliament, which sat from 
 1880 till 1885, the Nationalist party, led by Mr. Parnell, 
 and including at first less than half, ultimately about half, 
 of the Irish members, was in constant and generally bitter 
 opposition to the Government of Mr. Gladstone. But 
 during these five years a steady, although silent and often 
 unconscious, process of change was passing in the minds of 
 English and Scotch members, especially Liberal members, 
 due to their growing sense of the mistakes which Parliament 
 committed in handling Irish questions, and of the hoire- 
 lessness of the efforts which the Executive was making to 
 pacify the country on the old methods. The adoption of a 
 Home Rule policy by one of the great English parties was, 
 therefore, not so sudden a change as it seemed. The pro¬ 
 cess had been going on for years, though in its earlier stages 
 it was so gradual and so unwelcome as to be faintly felt and 
 reluctantly admitted by the minds that were undergoing it. 
 In the spring of 1886 the question could be no longer 
 
2 i6 past ant future OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 evaded or postponed. It was necessary to choose between 
 one of two courses ; the refusal of the demand for self- 
 government, coupled with the introduction of a severe 
 Coercion Bill, or the concession of it by the introduction of 
 a Home Rule Bill. There were some few who suggested, 
 as a third course, the granting of a limited measure of local 
 institutions, such as county boards; but most people felt, as 
 did Mr. Gladstone’s Ministry, that this plan would have had 
 most of the dangers and few of the advantages of either of 
 the two others. 
 
 How the Government of Ireland Bill was brought into 
 the House of Commons on April 8th, amid circumstances 
 of curiosity and excitement unparalleled since 1832; how, 
 after debates of almost unprecedented length, it was defeated 
 in June, by a majority of thirty; how the policy it em¬ 
 bodied was brought before the country at the General 
 Election, and failed to win approval—all this is too well 
 known to need recapitulation here. But the causes of the 
 disaster have not been well understood, for it is only 
 now—now, when the smoke of the battle has cleared 
 away from the held—that these causes have begun to stand 
 revealed in their true proportions. 
 
 Besides some circumstances attending the production 
 of the Bill, to which I shall refer presently, and which told 
 heavily against it, there were three feelings which worked 
 upon men’s minds, disposing them to reject it. 
 
 The hrst of these was dislike and fear of the Irish 
 Nationalist members. In the previous House of Commons 
 this party had been uniformly and bitterly hostile to the 
 Liberal Government. Measures intended for the good of 
 Ireland, like the Land Act of 1881, had been ungraciously 
 received, treated as concessions extorted, for which no 
 thanks were due—inadequate concessions, which must be 
 made the starting-point for fresh demands. Obstruction 
 had been freely practised to defeat not only bills restraining 
 
FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 217 
 
 the liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other 
 measures. Some few members of the Irish party had 
 systematically sought to delay all English and Scotch 
 legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work of Parliament to 
 a dead stop. Much violent language had been used, even 
 where the provocation was slight. The outbreaks of crime 
 which had repeatedly occurred in Ireland had been, not, 
 indeed, defended, but so often passed over in silence by 
 Nationalist speakers, that English opinion w'as inclined to 
 hold them practically responsible for disorders which, so it 
 was thought, they had neither wished nor tried to prevent. 
 (I am, of course, expressing no opinion as to the justice of 
 this view, nor as to the excuses to be made for the Parlia¬ 
 mentary tactics of the Irish party, but merely stating how 
 their conduct struck many Englishmen.) There could be 
 no doubt as to the hostility which they, still less as to that 
 which their fellow-countrymen in the United States, had 
 expressed toward England, for they had openly wished 
 success to Russia while war seemed impending with her, 
 and the so-called Mahdi of the Soudan was vociferously 
 cheered at many a Nationalist meeting. At the Election of 
 1885 they had done their utmost to defeat Liberal candi¬ 
 dates in every English and Scotch constituency where there 
 existed a body of Irish voters, and had thrown some twenty 
 seats or more into the hands of the Tories. Now, to many 
 Englishmen, the proposal to create an Irish Parliament 
 seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to hand over 
 to these Irish members the government of Ireland, with all 
 the opportunities thence arising to oppress the opposite 
 party in Ireland and to worry England herself. It was all 
 very well to urge that the tactics which the Nationalists had 
 pursued when their object was to extort Home Rule would 
 be dropped, because superfluous, when Home Rule had 
 been granted ; or to point out that an Irish Parliament 
 would contain different men from those who had been sent 
 
2iS FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 to Westminster as Mr. Parnell’s nominees. Neither of these 
 arguments could overcome the suspicious antipathy which 
 many Englishmen felt, nor dissolve the association in their 
 minds between the Nationalist leaders and the forces of dis¬ 
 order. The Parnellites (thus they reasoned) are bad men ; 
 what they seek is therefore likely to be bad, and whether 
 bad in itself or not, they will make a bad use of it. In 
 such reasonings there was more of sentiment and prejudice 
 than of reason, but sentiment and prejudice are proverbially 
 harder than arguments to expel from minds where they have 
 made a lodgment. 
 
 The internal condition of Ireland supplied more sub¬ 
 stantial grounds for alarm. As everybody knows, she is 
 not, either in religion or in blood, or in feelings and ideas, 
 a homogeneous country. Three-fourths of the people are 
 Roman Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, and this Protestant 
 fourth subdivided into bodies not fond of one another, who 
 have little community of sentiment. Besides the Scottish 
 colony in Ulster, many English families have settled here 
 and there through the country. They have been regarded 
 as intruders by the aboriginal Celtic population, and many 
 of them, although hundreds of years may have passed since 
 they came, still look on themselves as rather English than 
 Irish. The last fifty years, whose wonderful changes have 
 in most parts of the world tended to unite and weld into 
 one compact body the inhabitants of each part of the earth’s 
 surface, connecting them by the ties of commerce, and of a 
 far easier and swifter intercourse than was formerly possible, 
 have in Ireland worked in the opposite direction. It has 
 become more and more the habit of the richer class in 
 Ireland to go to England for its enjoyment, and to feel 
 itself socially rather English than Irish. Thus the chasm 
 between the immigrants and the aborigines has grown 
 deeper. The upper class has not that Irish patriotism 
 which it showed in the days of the National Irish 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 219 
 
 Parliament (1782-1800), and while there is thus less of a 
 common national feeling to draw rich and poor together, 
 the strife of landlords and tenants has continued, iiritating 
 the minds of both parties, and gathering them into two 
 hostile camps. As everybody knows, the Nationalist agita¬ 
 tion has been intimately associated with the Land agitation— 
 has, in fact, found a strong motive-force in the desire of the 
 tenants to have their rents reduced, and themselves secured 
 against eviction. Now, many people in England assumed 
 that an Irish Parliament would be under the control of the 
 tenants and the humbler class generally, and would therefore 
 be hostile to the landlords. They went farther, and made 
 the much bolder assumption that as such a Parliament 
 would be chosen by electors, most of whom were Roman 
 Catholics, it would be under the control of the Catholic 
 priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. Thus they supposed 
 that the grant of self-government to Ireland would mean the 
 abandonment of the upper and wealthier class, the landlords 
 and the Protestants, to the tender mercies of their enemies. 
 Such abandonment, it was proclaimed on a thousand plat¬ 
 forms, would be disgraceful in itself, dishonouring to Eng¬ 
 land, a betrayal of the very men who had stood by her in 
 the past, and were prepared to stand by her in the future, 
 if only she would stand by them. It was, of course, replied 
 by the defenders of the Home Rule Bill, that what the so- 
 called English party in Ireland really stood by was their 
 own ascendency over the Irish masses — an oppressive 
 ascendency, which had caused most of the disorders of 
 the country. As to religion, there were many Protestants 
 besides Mr. Parnell himself among the Nationalist leaders. 
 There was no ill-feeling (e.xcept in Ulster) between Pro¬ 
 testants and Roman Catholics in Ireland. There was no 
 reason to expect that either the Catholic hierarchy or the 
 priesthood generally would be supreme in an Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment, and much reason to expect the contrary. As regards 
 
220 FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 Ulster, where, no doubt, there were special difficulties, due 
 to the bitter antagonism of the Orangemen (not of the Pro¬ 
 testants generally) and Catholics, Mr. Gladstone had under¬ 
 taken to consider any special provisions which could be 
 suggested as proper to meet those difficulties. These 
 replies, however, made little impression. They were pro¬ 
 nounced, and pronounced all the more confidently the 
 more ignorant of Ireland the speaker was, to be too 
 hypothetical. To many Englishmen the case seemed to 
 be one of two hostile factions contending in Ireland for 
 the last sixty years, and that the gift of self-government 
 might enable one of them to tyrannize over the other. 
 True, that party was the majority, and, according to the 
 principles of democratic government, therefore entitled to 
 prevail. But it is one thing to admit a principle and another 
 to consent to its application. The minority had the sym¬ 
 pathy of the upper classes in England, because the minority 
 contained the landlords. It had the sympathy of a part of 
 the middle class, because it contained the Protestants. And 
 of those Englishmen who were impartial as between the Irish 
 factions, there were some who held that England must in 
 any case remain responsible for the internal peace and the 
 just government of Ireland, and could not grant powers 
 whose possession might tempt the one party to injustice, 
 and the other to resist injustice by violence. 
 
 There was another anticipation, another forecast of evils 
 to follow, which told most of all upon English opinion. 
 This was the notion that Home Rule was only a stage in 
 the road to the complete separation of the two islands. The 
 argument was conceived as follows; “ The motive passions 
 of the Irish agitation have all along been hatred toward 
 England and a desire to make Ireland a nation, holding her 
 independent place among the nations of the world. This 
 design was proclaimed by the Young Irelanders of 1848 and 
 by the Fenian rebels of 1866; it has been avowed, in inter- 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUES 7 I 0 N. 221 
 
 vals of candour, by the present Nationalists themselves. 
 The grant of an Irish Parliament will stimulate rather than 
 appease this thirst for separate national existence. The 
 nearer complete independence seems, the more will it be 
 desired. Hatred to England will still be an active force, 
 because the amount of control which England retains will 
 irritate Irish pride, as well as limit Irish action; while all 
 the misfortunes which may befall the new Irish Government 
 will be blamed, not on its own imprudence, but on the 
 English connection. And as the motives for seeking 
 separation will remain, so the prospect of obtaining it 
 will seem better. Agitation will have a better vantage- 
 ground in an Irish Parliament than it formerly had among 
 the Irish members of a British Legislature; and if actual 
 resistance to the Queen’s authority should be attempted, it 
 will be attempted under conditions more favourable than 
 the present, because the rebels will have in their hands the 
 machinery of Irish Government, large financial resources, 
 and a prima facie title to represent the will of the Irish 
 people. As against a rebellious party in Ireland, England 
 has now two advantages—an advantage of theory, an advan¬ 
 tage of fact. The advantage of theory is that she does not 
 admit Ireland to be a distinct nation, but maintains that in 
 the United Kingdom there is but one nation, whereof some 
 inhabit Great Britain and some Ireland. The advantage of 
 fact is that, through her control of the constabulary, the 
 magistrates, the courts of justice, and, in fine, the whole 
 administrative system of Ireland, she can easily quell in¬ 
 surrectionary movements. By creating an Irish Parliament 
 and Government she would strip herself of both these 
 advantages.” 
 
 I need hardly say that I do not admit the fairness of this 
 statement of the case, because some of the premises are 
 untrue, and because it misrepresents the nature of the Irish 
 Government which Mr. Gladstone’s Bill would have created. 
 
222 FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION 
 
 But I am trying to state the case as it was sedulously and 
 skilfully presented to Englishmen. And it told all the 
 more upon English waverers, because the considerations 
 above mentioned seemed, if well founded, to destroy 
 and cut away the chief ground on which Home Rule had 
 been advocated, viz. that it would relieve England from 
 the constant pressure of Irish discontent and agitation, and 
 bring about a time of tranquillity, permitting good feeling to 
 grow up between the peoples. If Home Rule was, after all, 
 to be nothing more than a half-way house to independence, 
 an Irish Parliament only a means of extorting a more com¬ 
 plete emancipation from imperial control, was it not much 
 better to keep things as they were, and go on enduring evils, 
 the worst of which were known already? Hence the advo¬ 
 cates of the Bill denied not the weight of the argument, but 
 its applicability. Separation, they urged, is impossible, for 
 it is contrary to the nature of things, which indicates that 
 the two islands must go together. It is not desired by the 
 Irish people, for it would injure them far more than it could 
 possibly injure England, since Ireland finds in England the 
 only market for her produce, the only source whence capital 
 flows to her. A small revolutionary party has, no doubt, 
 conspired to obtain it. But the only sympathy they received 
 was due to the fact that the legitimate demand of Ireland 
 for a recognition of her national feeling and for the manage¬ 
 ment of her own local affairs was contemptuously ignored by 
 England. The concession of that demand will banish the 
 notion even from those minds which now entertain it, 
 whereas its continued refusal may perpetuate that alienation 
 of feeling whiclr is at the bottom of all the mischief, the one 
 force that makes for separation. 
 
 It is no part of my present purpose to examine these 
 arguments and counter arguments, but only to show what 
 were the grounds on which a majority of the English voters 
 refused to pronounce in favour of the Home Rule Bill. The 
 
PASr AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 223 
 
 reader will have observed that the issues raised were not only 
 numerous, but full of difficulty. They were issues of fact, 
 involving a knowledge both of the past history of Ireland and 
 of her present state. They were also issues of inference, for 
 even supposing the broad facts to be ascertained, these facts 
 were susceptible of different interpretations, and men might, 
 and did, honestly draw opposite conclusions from them. A 
 more obscure and complicated problem, or rather group of 
 problems, has seldom been presented to a nation for its 
 decision. But the nation did not possess the requisite 
 knowledge. Closely connected as Ireland seems to be with 
 England, long as the Irish question has been a main trouble 
 in English politics, the English and Scottish people know 
 amazingly little about Ireland. Even in the upper class, 
 you meet with comparatively few persons who have set foot 
 on Irish soil, and, of course, far fewer who have ever 
 examined the condition of the island and the sources of her 
 discontent. Irish history, which is, no doubt, dismal read¬ 
 ing, is a blank page to the English. In January, 1886, one 
 found scarce any politicians who had ever heard of the Irish 
 Parliament of 1782. And in that year, 1886, an English¬ 
 man anxious to discover the real state of the country did 
 not know where to go for information. AVhat appeared 
 in the English newspapers, or, rather, in the one English 
 newspaper which keeps a standing “own correspondent” 
 in Dublin, was (as it still is) a grossly and almost 
 avowedly partisan report, in which opinions are skilfully 
 mixed with so-called facts, selected, consciously or uncon¬ 
 sciously, to support the writer’s view. The Nationalist 
 press is, of course, not less strongly partisan on its own side, 
 so that not merely an average Englishman, but even the 
 editor of an English newspaper, who desires to ascertain the 
 true state of matters and place it before his English readers, 
 has had, until within the last few months, when events 
 in Ireland began to be fully reported in Great Britain, 
 
224 FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 no better means at his disposal for understanding Ireland 
 than for understanding Bulgaria. I do not dwell upon this 
 ignorance as an argument for Home Rule, though, of course, 
 it is often so used. I merely wish to explain the bewilder¬ 
 ment in which Englishmen found themselves when required 
 to settle by their votes a question of immense difficulty. 
 Many, on both sides, simply followed their party banners. 
 Tories voted for Lord Salisbury; thorough-going admirers 
 of Mr, Gladstone voted for Mr. Gladstone. But there was 
 on the Liberal side a great mass who were utterly perplexed 
 by the position. Contradictory statements of fact, as well 
 as contradictory arguments, were flung at their heads in dis¬ 
 tracting profusion. They felt themselves unable to determine 
 what was true and who was right. But one thing seemed 
 clear to them. The policy of Home Rule was a new policy. 
 They had been accustomed to censure and oppose it. Only 
 nine months before, the Irish Nationalists had emphasized 
 their hostility to the Liberal party by doing their utmost to 
 defeat Liberal candidates in English constituencies. Hence, 
 when it was proclaimed that Home Rule was the true 
 remedy which the Liberal party must accept, they were 
 startled and discomposed. 
 
 Now, the English are not a nimble-minded people. 
 They cannot, to use a familiar metaphor, turn round in 
 their own length. Their momentum is such as to carry 
 them on for some distance in the direction wherein they 
 have been moving, even after the order to stop has been 
 given. They need time to appreciate, digest, and compre¬ 
 hend a new proposition. Timid they are not, nor, perhaps, 
 exceptionally cautious, but they do not like to be hurried, and 
 insist on looking at a proposition for a good while before they 
 come to a decision regarding it. It is one of the qualities 
 which make them a great people. As has been observed, 
 this proposition was novel, was most serious, and raised 
 questions which they felt that their knowledge was insuf- 
 
FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 225 
 
 ficient to determine. Accordingly, a certain section of 
 the Liberal party refused to accept it. A great number, 
 probably the majority, of these doubtful men abstained 
 from voting. Others voted against the Home Rule Liberal 
 candidates, not necessarily because they condemned the 
 policy, but because, as they were not satisfied that it 
 was right, they deemed delay a less evil than the committal 
 of the nation to a new departure, which might prove 
 irrevocable. 
 
 It must not, however, be supposed that it was only hesita¬ 
 tion which drove many Liberals into the host arrayed against 
 the Irish Government Bill. I have already said that among 
 the leaders there were some, and those men of great influ¬ 
 ence, who condemned its principles. This was true also of 
 a considerable, though a relatively smaller, section of the 
 rank and file. And it was only what might have been 
 expected. The proposal to undo much of the work done 
 in 1800, to alter fundamentally the system which had for 
 eighty-six years regulated the relations of the two islands, by 
 setting up a Parliament in Ireland, was a proposal which not 
 only had not formed a part of the accepted creed of the 
 Liberal party, but fell outside party lines altogether. It 
 might, no doubt, be argued, as was actually done, and as 
 those who understand the history of the Liberal party have 
 more and more come to see, that Liberal principles recom¬ 
 mended it, since they involve faith in the people, and faith 
 in the curative tendency of local self-government. But this 
 was by no means axiomatic. Taking the whole complicated 
 facts of the case, and taking Liberalism as it had been prac¬ 
 tically understood in England, a man might in July, 1886, 
 deem himself a good Liberal and yet think that the true 
 interests of both peoples would be best served by maintain¬ 
 ing the existing Parliamentary system. Similarly, there was 
 nothing in Toryism or Tory principles to prevent a fair-minded 
 and patriotic Tory from approving the Home Rule scheme. 
 
 Q 
 
226 FAST ANT FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 It was a return to the older institutions of the monarchy, and 
 not inconsistent with any of the doctrines which the Tory 
 party had been accustomed to uphold. The question, in 
 short, was one of those which cut across ordinary party lines, 
 creating new divisions among politicians; and there might 
 have been and ought to have been Liberal Home Rulers 
 and Tory Home Rulers, Liberal opponents of Home Rule 
 and Tory opponents of Home Rule. 
 
 But here comes in a feature, a natural but none the less 
 a regrettable feature, of the English party system. As the 
 object of the party in opposition is to turn out the party in 
 power and seat itself in their place, every Opposition regards 
 with the strongest prejudice the measures proposed by a 
 ruling Ministry. Cases sometimes occur where these 
 measures are so obviously necessary, or so evidently ap¬ 
 proved by the nation, that the Opposition accepts them. 
 But in general it scans them with a hostile eye. Human 
 nature is human nature; and when the defeat of Govern¬ 
 ment can be secured by defeating a Government Bill, the 
 temptation to the Opposition to secure it is irresistible. 
 Now, the Tory party is far more cohesive than the Liberal 
 party, far more obedient to its leaders, far less disposed to 
 break into sections, each of which thinks and acts for itself. 
 Accordingly, that division of opinion in the Tory party which 
 might have been expected, and which would have occurred 
 if those who composed the Tory party had been merely so 
 many reflecting men, and not members of a closely com¬ 
 pacted political organization, did not occur. Liberals were 
 divided, as such a question would naturally divide them. 
 Tories were not divided; they threw their whole strength 
 against the Bill. I am far from suggesting that they did so 
 against their consciences. Whatever may be said as to two 
 or three of the leaders, whose previous language and conduct 
 seemed to indicate that they would themselves, had the 
 election of 1885 gone differently, have been inclined to a 
 
FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 227 
 
 Home Rule policy, many of the Tory chiefs, as well as the 
 great mass of the party, honestly disapproved Mr. Gladstone’s 
 measure. But their party motives and party affiliations gave 
 it no chance of an impartial verdict at their hands. They 
 went into the jury-box with an invincible prepossession 
 against the scheme of their opponents. When all these 
 difficulties are duly considered, and especially when regard 
 is had to those which I have last enumerated, the sudden¬ 
 ness with which the new policy was launched, and the fact 
 that as coming from one party it was sure beforehand of the 
 hostility of the other, no surprise can be felt at its fate. 
 Those who, in England, now look back over the spring and 
 summer of 1886 are rather surprised that it should come so 
 near succeeding. To have been rejected by a majority of 
 only thirty in Parliament, and of little over ten per cent, 
 of the total number of electors who voted at the general 
 election, is a defeat far less severe than any one who knew 
 England would have predicted. 
 
 That the decision of the country is regarded by nobody 
 as a final decision goes without saying. It was not regarded 
 as final, even in the first weeks after it was given. This Avas 
 not because the majority was comparatively small, for a 
 smaller majority the other way would have been conclusive. 
 It is because the country had not time enough for full con¬ 
 sideration and deliberate judgment. The Bill was brought 
 in on April 14th, the elections began on July ist; no one 
 can say what might have been the result of a long discussion, 
 during which the first feelings of alarm (for alarm there was) 
 might have Avorn off. And the decision is Avithout finality, 
 also, because the decision of the country A\’as merely against 
 the particular plan proposed by Mr. Gladstone, and not in 
 favour of any alternative plan for dealing Avith Ireland, 
 most certainly not for the coercive method which has since 
 been adopted. One particular solution of the Irish problem 
 was refused. The problem still stands confronting us, and 
 
228 FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 when other modes of solving it have been in turn rejected, 
 the country may come back to this mode. 
 
 We may now turn from the past to the future. Yet the 
 account which has been given of the feelings and ideas 
 arrayed against the Bill does not wholly belong to the past. 
 They are the feelings to which the opponents of any plan of 
 self-government for Ireland still appeal, and which will have 
 to be removed or softened down before it can be accepted 
 by the English. In particular, the probability of separation, 
 and the supposed dangers to the Protestants and the land¬ 
 lords from an Irish Parliament, will continue to form the 
 themes of controversy so long as the question remains 
 unsettled. 
 
 What are the prospects of its settlement ? What is the 
 position which it now occupies ? How has it affected the 
 current politics of England ? 
 
 It broke up the Liberal party in Parliament. The vast' 
 numerical majority of that party in the country supported, 
 and still supports, Mr. Gladstone and the policy of Irish self- 
 government. But the dissentient minority includes many 
 men of influence, and constitutes in the Plouse of Commons 
 a body of about seventy members, who hold the balance 
 between parties. Eor the present they are leagued with the 
 Tory Ministry to resist Home Rule, and their support insures 
 a parliamentary majority to that Ministry. But it is, of 
 course, necessary for them to rally to Lord Salisbury, not 
 only on Irish questions, but on all questions; for, under our 
 English system, a Ministry defeated on any serious issue is 
 bound to resign, or dissolve Parliament. Now, to maintain an 
 alliance for a special purpose, between members of opposite 
 parties, is a hard matter. Agreement about Ireland does not, 
 of itself, help men to agree about foreign policy, or bimetallism, 
 or free trade, or changes in land laws, or ecclesiastical affairs. 
 When these and other grave questions come up in Parlia¬ 
 ment, the Tory Ministry and their Liberal allies must, on 
 
/’AST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 229 
 
 every occasion, negotiate a species of concordat, whereby 
 the liberty of both is fettered. One party may wish to 
 resist innovation, the other to yield to it, or even to antici¬ 
 pate it. Each is obliged to forego something in order 
 to humour the other ; neither has the pleasure or the 
 credit of taking a bold line on its own responsibility. There 
 is, no doubt, less difference between the respective tenets of 
 the great English parties than there was twenty years ago, 
 when Mr. Disraeli had not yet completed the education of 
 one party, and economic laws were still revered by the 
 other. But, besides its tenets, each party has its tendencies, 
 its sympathies, its moral atmosphere; and these differ so 
 widely as to make the co-operation of Tories and Liberals 
 constrained and cumbrous. Moreover, there are the men 
 to be considered, the leaders on each side, whose jealousies, 
 rivalries, suspicions, personal incompatibilities, neither old 
 habits of joint action nor corporate party feeling exist to 
 soften. On the whole, therefore, it is unlikely that the 
 league of these two parties, united for one question only, 
 and that a question which will pass into new phases, can be 
 durable. Either the league will dissolve, or the smaller 
 party will be absorbed into the larger. In England, as in 
 America, third parties rarely last. The attraction of the 
 larger mass is irresistible, and when the crisis which created 
 a split or generated a new group has passed, or the opinion 
 the new group advocates has been either generally dis¬ 
 credited or generally adopted, the small party melts away, 
 its older members disappearing from public life, its younger 
 ones finding their career in the ranks of one of the two great 
 standing armies of politics. If the dissentient, or anti- 
 Blome Rule, Liberal party lives till the next general election, 
 it cannot live longer, for at that election it will be ground 
 to powder between the upper and nether millstones of the 
 regular Liberals and the regular Tories. 
 
 I'he Irish struggle of 1886 has had another momentous 
 
230 jPASr AND FUTVRR OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 consequence. It has brought the Nationalist or Parnellite 
 party into friendly relations with the mass of English 
 Liberals. _ When the Home Rule party was founded by 
 Mr. Butt, some fifteen years ago, it had more in common 
 with the Liberal than with the Tory party. But as it 
 demanded what both English parties were then resolved to 
 refuse, it was forced into antagonism to both; and from 
 1877 onward (Mr. Butt being then dead) the antagonism 
 became bitter, and, of course, specially bitter as toward the 
 statesmen in power, because it was they who continued 
 to refuse what the Nationalists sought. Mr. Parnell has 
 always stated, with perfect candour, that he and his friends 
 must fight for their own hand unhampered by English 
 alliances, and getting the most they could for Ireland from 
 the weakness of either English party. This position they 
 still retain. If the Tory party will give them Home Rule, 
 they will help the Tory party. However, as the Tory party 
 has gained office by opposing Home Rule, this contingency 
 may seem not to lie within the immediate future.' On the 
 other hand, the Gladstonian Liberals have lost office for 
 their advocacy of Home Rule, and now stand pledged to 
 maintain the policy they have proclaimed. The Nationalists 
 have, therefore, for the first time since the days immediately 
 following the Union of A.r>. 1800 (a measure which the Whigs 
 of those days resisted), a great English party admitting the 
 justice of their claim, and inviting them to agitate for it by 
 purely constitutional methods. For such an alliance the 
 English Liberals are hotly reproached, both by the Tories 
 and by the dissentients who follow Lord Hartington and Mr. 
 Chamberlain. They are accused of disloyalty to England. 
 The past acts and words of the Nationalists are thrown in 
 their teeth, and they are told that in supporting the Irish 
 claim they condone such acts, they adopt such words. 
 They reply by denying the adoption, and by pointing out 
 that the Tories themselves were from 1881 till 1886 in 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 231 
 
 a practical, and often very close, though unavowed. Parlia¬ 
 mentary alliance with the Nationalists in the House of 
 Commons. The student of history will, however, conceive 
 that the Liberals have a stronger and higher defence than 
 any tu qiioque. Issues that involve the welfare of peoples 
 are far too serious for us to apply to them the same senti¬ 
 ments of personal taste and predilection which we follow 
 in inviting a dinner j^arty, or selecting companions for a 
 vacation tour. If a man has abused your brother, or got 
 drunk in the street, you do not ask him to go with you to the 
 Yellowstone Park. But his social offences do not prevent 
 you from siding with him in a political convention. So, in 
 politics itself, one must distinguish between characters and 
 opinions. If a man has shown himself unscrupulous or 
 headstrong, you may properly refuse to vote him into 
 office, or to sit in the same Cabinet with him, because you 
 think these faults of his dangerous to the country. But 
 if the cause he pleads be a just one, you have no more 
 right to be prejudiced against it by his conduct than a 
 judge has to be swayed by dislike to the counsel who 
 argues a case. There were moderate men in America, 
 who, in the days of the anti-slavery movement, cited against 
 it the intemperate language of many abolitionists. There 
 were aristocrats in England, who, during the struggle for 
 the freedom and unity of Italy, sought to discredit the 
 patriotic party by accusing them of tyrannicide. But the 
 sound sense of both nations refused to be led away by such 
 arguments, because it held those two causes to be in their 
 essence righteous. In all revolutionary movements there 
 are elements of excess and violence, which sober men may 
 regret, but which must not disturb our judgment as to the 
 substantial merits of an issue. The revolutionist of one 
 generation is, like Garibaldi or Mazzini, the hero of the 
 next; and the verdict of posterity applauds those who, even 
 in his own day, were able to discern the justice of the 
 
232 PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 cause, under the errors or faults of its champion. Doubly 
 is it the duty of a great and far-sighted statesman not to 
 be repelled by such errors, when he can, by espousing a 
 revolutionary movement, purify it of its revolutionary 
 character, and turn it into a legitimate constitutional struggle. 
 This is what Mr. Gladstone has done. If his policy be in 
 itself dangerous and disloyal to the true interests of the 
 people of our islands, let it be condemned. But if it be 
 the policy which has the best promise for the peace, the 
 prosperity, and the mutual good will of those peoples, he 
 and those who follow him would be culpable indeed were 
 they to be deterred by the condemnation which they have so 
 often expressed, and which they still express, for some of 
 the past acts of a particular party, from declaring that the 
 aims of that party were substantially right aims, and from 
 now pressing upon the country what their conscience 
 approves. 
 
 However, as the Home Rule Liberals and Nationalists, 
 taken together, are in a minority (although a minority which 
 obtains recruits at many bye-elections) in the present Par¬ 
 liament, it is not from them that fresh proposals are 
 expected. They will, of course, continue to speak, write, 
 and agitate on behalf of the views they hold. But practical 
 attempt to deal with Irish troubles must for the present 
 come from the Tory Ministry; for in the English system of 
 government those who command a Parliamentary majority 
 are responsible for legislation as well as administration, and 
 are censured not merely if their legislation is bad, but if it 
 is not forthcoming when events call for it. 
 
 Why, it may be asked, should Lord Salisbury’s Govern¬ 
 ment burn its fingers over Ireland, as so many governments 
 have burnt their fingers before? Why not let Ireland 
 alone, giving to foreign affairs and to English and Scottish 
 reforms all the attention which these too much neglected 
 matters need ? 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 233 
 
 Well would it be for England, as well as for English 
 Ministries, if Ireland could be simply let alone,‘_her maladies 
 left to be healed by the soft, slow hand of nature. But 
 Irish troubles call aloud to be dealt with, and that promptly. 
 They stand in the way of all other reforms, indeed of all 
 other business. Letting alone has been tried, and it has 
 succeeded no better, even in times less urgent than the 
 present, than the usual policy of coercion followed by 
 concession, or concession followed by coercion. 
 
 There are three aspects of the Irish question, three 
 channels by which the troubles of the “ distressful island ” 
 stream down upon us, forcing whoever now rules or may 
 come to rule in England to attempt some plan for dealing 
 with them. I will take them in succession. 
 
 The first is the Parliamentary difficulty. In the British 
 Plouse of Commons, with its six hundred and seventy 
 members, there are nearly ninety Irish Nationalists. They 
 are a well-disciplined body, voting as one man, though 
 capable of speaking enough for a thousand. They have no 
 interest in English or Scotch or colonial or Indian affairs, 
 but only in Irish, and look upon the vote which they have 
 the right of giving upon the former solely as a means of 
 furthering their own- Irish aims. They are, therefore, in the 
 British Parliament not merely a foreign body, indifferent to 
 the great British and imperial issues confided to it, but 
 a hostile body, opposed to its present constitution, seeking 
 to discredit it in its authority over Ireland, and to make 
 more and more palpable and incurable the incompetence 
 for Irish business whereof they accuse it. Several modes 
 of doing this are open to them. They may, as some of 
 the more actively bitter among them did in the Parliaments 
 of 1874 and 1880, obstruct business by long and frequent 
 speeches, dilatory motions, and all those devices which in 
 America are called filibustering. The House of Commons 
 may, no doubt, try to check these tactics by more stringent 
 
234 A/i'r AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 rules of procedure, but the attempts already made in this 
 direction have had but slight success, and every restriction 
 of debate, since it trenches on the freedom of English and 
 Scotch no less than of Irish members, injures Parliament as 
 a whole. They may disgust the British people with the 
 House of Commons by keeping it (as they have done in 
 former years) so constantly occupied with Irish business as 
 to leave it little time for English and Scotch measures. 
 They may throw the weight of their collective vote into the 
 scale of one or other British party, according to the amount 
 of concession it udll make to them, or, by always voting 
 against the Ministry of the day, they may cause frequent 
 and sudden changes of Government. This plan also they 
 have followed in time past; for the moment it is not so 
 applicable, because the Tories and dissentient Liberals, 
 taken together, possess a majority in the House of 
 Commons. But at any moment the alliance of those two 
 sections may vanish, or another General Election may leave 
 Tories and Liberals so nearly balanced that the Irish vote 
 could turn the scale. Whoever reflects on the nature of 
 Parliamentary Government will perceive that it is based on 
 the assumption that the members of the ruling assembly, 
 however much they may differ on other subjects, agree in 
 desiring the strength, dignity, and welfare of the assembly 
 itself, and in caring for the main national interests which it 
 controls. He will therefore be prepared to expect count¬ 
 less and multiform difficulties in working such a Govern¬ 
 ment, where a large section of the assembly seeks not to use, 
 but to make useless, its forms and rules—not to preserve, 
 but to lower and destroy, its honour, its credit, its efficiency. 
 In vain are Irish members blamed for these tactics, for they 
 answer that the interests of their own country require them 
 to seek first her welfare, which can in their view be secured 
 only by removing her from the direct control of what they 
 deem a foreign assembly. Now that the demand for Irish 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 233 
 
 self-government has obtained the sympathy of the bulk of 
 English Liberals, they are unlikely forthwith to resume the 
 systematic obstruction of past years. But they will be able, 
 without alienating their English friends, to render the 
 conduct of Parliamentary business so difficult that every 
 English Ministry will be forced either to crush them, if it 
 can, or to appease them by a series of concessions. 
 
 The second difficulty is that of maintaining social order 
 in Ireland. What that difficulty is, and whence it arises, 
 every one knows. It is chronic, but every second or third 
 winter, when there has been a wet season, or the price of 
 live stock declines, it becomes specially acute. The tenants 
 refuse to pay rents which they declare to be impossible. 
 The landlords, or the harsher among them, try to enforce 
 rents by evictions; evictions are resisted by outrages and 
 boycotting. Popular sentiment supports those who commit 
 outrages, because it considers the tenantry to be engaged in 
 a species of war, a righteous w’ar, against the landlord. 
 Evidence can seldom be obtained, and juries acquit in the 
 teeth of evidence. Thus the enforcement of the law strains 
 all the resources of authority, while a habit of lawlessness 
 and discontent is transmitted from generation to generation. 
 Of the remedies proposed for this chronic evil the most 
 obvious is the strengthening of the criminal law. We have 
 been trying this for more than one hundred years, since 
 Whiteboyism appeared, and trying it in vain. Since the 
 Union, Coercion Acts, of more or less severity, have been 
 almost always in force in Ireland, passed for two or three 
 years, then dropped for a year or two, then renewed in a 
 form slightly varying, but always with the same result of 
 driving the disease in for a time, but not curing it. Mr. 
 Gladstone proposed to buy out the landlords and then 
 leave an Irish Parliament to restore social order, with that 
 authority which it would derive from having the will of 
 the people behind it; because he held that when the 
 
236 PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 peojjle felt the law to be of their own making, and not 
 imposed from without, their sentiment would be enlisted on 
 its side, and the necessity for a firm Government recognized. 
 This plan, has, however, been rejected, so the choice was left 
 of a fresh Coercion Act, or of some scheme, necessarily a 
 costly scheme, for getting rid of the source of trouble by 
 transferring the land of Ireland to the peasantry. The 
 present Government, while guided by Sir M. Hicks-Beach, 
 who had some knowledge of Ireland, did its best to per¬ 
 suade the landlords to accept reduced rents, while the 
 Nationalist leaders, on their side, sought to restrain the 
 people from outrages. But the armistice did not last. The 
 Ministry yielded to the foolish counsels of its more violent 
 supporters, and entrusted Irish affairs to the hands of a 
 Chief Secretary without previous knowledge of the island. 
 An unusually severe Coercion Act has been brought in and 
 passed by the aid of the dissentient Liberals. And we- 
 now see this Act administered with a mixture of virulence 
 and incompetence to which even the dreary annds of Irish 
 misgovernment present few parallels. The feeling of the 
 English people is rising against the policy carried out in 
 their name. So far from being solved, the problem of 
 social order becomes every day more acute. 
 
 There remains the question of a reform of local govern¬ 
 ment. For many years past, every English Ministry has 
 undertaken to frame a measure creating a new system of 
 popular rural self-government in England. It is the first 
 large task of domestic legislation which we ask from Parlia¬ 
 ment. When such a scheme is proposed, can Ireland be 
 left out of it? Should she be left out, the argument that 
 she is being treated unequally and unfairly, as compared 
 with England, would gain immense force; because the 
 present local government of Ireland is admittedly less 
 popular, less efficient, altogether less defensible, than even 
 that of England which we are going to reform. If, there- 
 
FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 237 
 
 fore, the theory that the Imperial Parliament is both anxious 
 and able to do its duty by Ireland is to be maintained, 
 Ireland, too, must have her scheme of local government. 
 And a scheme of local government is a large project, the 
 discussion of which must pass into a discussion of the 
 government of the island as a whole. 
 
 Since, then, we may conclude that whatever Ministry is 
 in power will be bound to take up the state of Ireland— 
 since Parliament and the nation will be occupied with the 
 subject during the coming sessions fully as much as they 
 have been during those that have recently passed—the next 
 inquiry is. What will the tendency of opinion and legislation 
 be ? Will the reasons and forces described above bring us 
 to Home Rule ? and if so, when, how, and why ? 
 
 There are grounds for answering these questions in the 
 negative. A majority of the House of Commons, including 
 the present Ministry and such influential Liberals as Mr. 
 Bright, Lord Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, stand pledged 
 to resist it, and seem—such is the passion which con¬ 
 troversy engenders—more disposed to resist it than they 
 were in 1885. But this ground is less strong than it may 
 appear. We have had too many changes of opinion—ay, 
 and of action too—upon Irish affairs not to be prepared for 
 further changes. A Ministry in power learns much which 
 an Opposition fails to learn. Home [Rule is an' elastic ex¬ 
 pression, and some of those who were loudest in denouncing 
 Mr. Gladstone’s Bill will find it easy to explain, should they 
 bring in a Bill of their own for giving self-government to 
 Ireland, that their measure is a different thing, and free 
 from the objections brought against his. Nor, if such a 
 conversion should come, need it be deemed a dishonest one, 
 for events are potent teachers, and governments now seek 
 rather to follow than to form opinion. Although a decent 
 interval must be allowed, no one will be astonished if the 
 Tory leaders should move ere long in the direction indicated. 
 
23S FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 Toryism itself, as has been remarked already, contains 
 nothing opposed to the idea. 
 
 Far greater obstacles exist in the aversion which (as 
 already observed) so many Englishmen of both parties have 
 entertained for any scheme which should seem to leave the 
 Protestant minority at the mercy of the peasant and Roman 
 Catholic majority, and to carry us some way toward the 
 ultimate separation of the islands. These alarms are 
 genuine and deep-seated. One who (like the present writer) 
 thinks them, if not baseless, yet immensely overstrained, is, 
 of course, convinced that they may be allayed. But time 
 must first pass, and the plan that is to allay them may 
 have to be framed on somewhat different lines from those 
 of Mr. Gladstone’s measure. It is even possible that a 
 conflict more sharp and painful than any of recent years 
 may intervene before a settlement is reached. 
 
 Nevertheless, great as are the obstacles in the way, bitter 
 as are the reproaches with which Mr. Gladstone is pursued 
 by the richer classes in England, there is good reason to 
 believe that the current is setting toward his policy. In 
 proceeding to state the grounds for this view, I must frankly 
 own that I am no longer (as in most of the preceding pages) 
 merely setting forth facts on which impartial men in England 
 would agree. The forecast which I seek to give may be 
 tinged by my own belief that the grant of self-government 
 is the best, if not the only method, now open to us of 
 establishing peace between the islands, relieving the English 
 Parliament of work it is ill fitted to discharge, allowing 
 Ireland opportunities to learn those lessons in politics which 
 her people so much need. The future, even the near future, 
 is more than usually dim. Yet, if we examine those three 
 branches of the Irish question which have been enumerated 
 above, we shall see how naturally, in each of them, the con¬ 
 cession of self-government seems to open, I will not say the 
 most direct, but the least dangerous way, out of our troubles. 
 
FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 239 
 
 The Parliamentary difficulty arises from the fact that the 
 representatives of Ireland have the feelings of foreigners 
 sitting in a foreign assembly, whose honour [and usefulness 
 they do not desire. While these are their feelings they 
 cannot work properly in it, and it cannot work properly 
 with them. The inconvenience may be endured, but the 
 English will grow tired of it, and be disposed to rid them¬ 
 selves of it, if they see their way to do so without greater 
 mischief. There are but two ways out of the difficulty. 
 One is to get rid of the Irish members altogether; the 
 other is to make them, by the concession of their just 
 demands, contented and loyal members of a truly united 
 Parliament. The experience of the Parliament of 18S0, 
 which was mainly occupied with Irish business, and began, 
 being a strongly Liberal Parliament, with a bias toward the 
 Irish popular party, showed how difficult it is for a House 
 of Commons which is ignorant of Ireland to legislate 
 wisely for it. In the House of Lords there is not a 
 single Nationalist; indeed, up till 1886, that exalted 
 chamber contained only one peer. Lord Dalhousie (formerly 
 member for Liverpool), who had ever said a word in favour 
 of Home Rule. The more that England becomes sensible, 
 as she must become sensible, of the deficiencies of the 
 present machinery for appreciating the needs and giving 
 effect to the wishes of Irishmen, the more disposed will she 
 be to grant them some machinery of their own. 
 
 As regards social order, I have shown that the choice 
 which lies before the opponents of Home Rule is either to 
 continue the policy of coercing the peasantry by severe 
 special legislation, or to remove the source of friction by 
 buying out the landlords for the benefit of the tenants. 
 The present Ministry have chosen the former alternative, 
 but they dangle before the eyes of their supporters some 
 prospect that they may ultimately revert to the latter. Now, 
 the only way that has yet been pointed out of buying out 
 
240 FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 the landlords, without imposing tremendous liabilities of 
 loss upon the British Treasury, is the creation of a strong 
 Home Rule Government in Dublin. Supposing, however, 
 that some other plan could be discovered, which would 
 avoid the fatal objections to which an extension of the plan 
 of the (Salisbury) Land Purchase Act of 1885 is open, such 
 a plan would remove one of the chief objections to an Irish 
 Parliament, by leaving no estates for such a Parliament to 
 confiscate. As for coercion every day, I might say, every 
 bye-election shows us how it becomes more and more odious 
 to the British democracy. They dislike severity; they dislike 
 the inequality involved in passing harsher laws for Ireland 
 than those that apply to England and Scotland. They find 
 themselves forced to sympathize with acts of violence in 
 Ireland which they would condemn in Great Britain, 
 because these acts seem the only way of resisting harsh 
 and unjust laws. When the recoil comes, it will be more 
 violent than in former days. The wish to discover some 
 other course will be very strong, and the obvious other 
 course will be to leave it to an Irish authority to enforce 
 social order in its own way—probably a more rough-and- 
 ready way than that of British officials. The notion which 
 has possessed most Englishmen, that Irish self-government 
 would be another name for anarchy, is curiously erroneous. 
 Conflicts there may be, but a vigorous rule will emerge. 
 
 Lastly, as to local government. If a popular system is 
 established in Ireland—one similar to that which it is pro¬ 
 posed to establish in England—the control of its assemblies 
 and officials will, over four-fifths of the island, fall into 
 Nationalist hands. Their power will be enormously in¬ 
 creased, for they will then command the machinery of 
 administration, and the power of taxing. What with taxing 
 landlords, aiding recalcitrant tenants, stopping the wheels 
 of any central authority which may displease or oppose 
 them, they will be in so strong a position that the creation 
 
PAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 241 
 
 of an Irish Parliament may appear to be a comparatively 
 small further step, may even appear (as the wisest Nationalists 
 now think it would prove) in the light of a check upon the 
 abuse of local powers. These eventualities will unquestion¬ 
 ably, when English opinion has realized them, make such a 
 Parliament as the present pause before it commits rural local 
 government to the Irish democracy. But it could not refuse 
 to do something; and if it tried to restrain popular repre¬ 
 sentative bodies by the veto of a bureaucracy in Dublin, 
 there would arise occasions for quarrel and irritation more 
 serious than now exist.* Those who once begin to repair an 
 old and tottering building are led on, little by little, into 
 changes they did not at starting contemplate. So it will be 
 if once the task is undertaken of reforming the confessedly 
 bad and indefensible system of Irish administration. We 
 may stop at some half-way house on the way, but Home Rule 
 stands at the end of the road. 
 
 Supposing, then, that the Nationalist party, retaining its 
 present strength and unity, perseveres in its present 
 demands, there is every prospect that these demands will 
 be granted. But will it persevere ? There are among the 
 English Dissentients those who prophesy that it will break 
 up, as such parties have broken up before—will lose hope and 
 wither away. Or the support of the Irish peasantry may be 
 withdrawn—a result which some English politicians expect 
 from a final settlement of the land question in the interest 
 of the tenants. Any of these contingencies is possible, but at 
 present most improbable. The moment when long-cherished 
 aims begin to seem attainable is not that at which men are 
 disposed to abandon them. 
 
 There are, however, other reasons which suggest the 
 likelihood of a change in English sentiment on the whole 
 
 * The experience of the last few months, which has shown us rural 
 Boards of Guardians and municipal bodies over four-fifths of Ireland 
 displaying their zeal in the Nationalist cause, has amply confirmed this 
 anticipation, expressed nearly a year ago. 
 
 R 
 
242 PAST AND FUTURE OF 'THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 matter. The surprise with which the Bill of last April was 
 received has worn off. The alarml is wearing off too. 
 Those who set their teeth at what seemed to them a sur¬ 
 render to the Parnellites and their Irish-American allies, 
 having relieved their temper by an emphatic No, have begun 
 to ponder things more calmly. The English people are 
 listening to the arguments from Irish history that are now 
 addressed to them. They will be moved by the solid 
 grounds of policy which that history suggests; will under¬ 
 stand that what they have deemed insensate hatred is the 
 natural result of long misgovernment, and will disappear 
 with time and the removal of its causes. Many of the best 
 minds of both nations will be at work to discover some 
 method of reconciling Irish self-government with imperial 
 supremacy and union free from the objections brought 
 against the Bills of 1886. It is reasonable to expect that 
 they may greatly improve upon these measures, which 
 were prepared under pressure from a clamorous Oppo¬ 
 sition. What Mr. Disraeli once called the historical 
 conscience of the country will appreciate those great 
 underlying principles to which Mr. Gladstone’s policy 
 appeals. It has been accused of being a policy of despair; 
 and may have commended itself to some who supported it 
 as being simply a means of ridding England of responsibility. 
 But to others it seemed, and more truly, a policy of faith ; 
 not, indeed, of thoughtless optimism, but of faith according 
 to the definition which calls it “ the substance of things 
 hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Faith, by 
 which nations as well as men must live, means nothing less 
 than a conviction that great principles, permanent truths of 
 human nature, lie at the bottom of all sound politics, and 
 ought to be boldly and consistently applied, even when 
 temporary difficulties surround their application. Such a 
 principle is the belief in the power of freedom and self-govern¬ 
 ment to cure the faults of a nation, in the tendency of re- 
 
FAST ANT FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 243 
 
 sponsibility to teach wisdom, and to make men see that 
 justice and order are the surest sources of prosperity. Such a 
 principle is the perception that national hatreds do not live 
 on of themselves, but will expire when oppression has ceased, 
 as a fire burns out without fuel. Such a principle is the 
 recognition of the force of national sentiment, and of the duty 
 of allowing it all the satisfaction that is compatible with 
 the maintenance of imperial unity. Such, a.gain, is the appre¬ 
 ciation of those natural economic laws which show that 
 nations, when disturbing passions have ceased, follow their 
 own permanent interests, and that an island which finds its 
 chief market in England and draws its capital from England 
 will prefer a connection with England to the poverty and 
 insignificance of isolation. It is the honour of Mr. Gladstone 
 to have built his policy of conciliation upon principles like 
 these, as upon a rock; and already the good effects are 
 seen in the new friendliness which has arisen between the 
 English masses and the people of Ireland, and in the better 
 temper with which, despite the acrimony of some prominent 
 politicians, the relations of the two peoples are discussed. 
 When one looks round the horizon it is still far from clear; 
 nor can we say from which quarter fair weather will arrive. 
 But the air is fresher, and the clouds are breaking overhead. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 What has happened since the above paragraphs wei'e 
 written, ten months ago, has confirmed more quickly and 
 completely than the writer expected the forecasts they 
 contain. Home Rule is no longer a word of terror, even 
 to those English and Scotch voters who were opposed to it 
 in July, 1886. Most sensible men in the Tory and Dissen¬ 
 tient Liberal camps have come to see that it is inevitable; 
 
244 AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 
 
 and, while they continue to resist it for the sake of what 
 is called consistency, or because they do not yet see in 
 what form it is to be granted, they are disposed to regard 
 its speedy arrival as the best method of retreat from an 
 indefensible position. 
 
 The repressive policy which the present Ministry are 
 attempting in Ireland—for in the face of their failures one 
 cannot say that they are carrying out any policy—is render¬ 
 ing Coercion Acts more and more detested by the English 
 people. The actualities of Ireland, the social condition 
 of her peasantry, the unwisdom of the dominant caste, 
 the incompetence of the bureaucracy which affects to 
 rule her, are being, by the full accounts we now receive, 
 brought home to the mind of England and Scotland as they 
 never were before, and produce their appropriate effect 
 upon the heart and conscience of the people. The recogni¬ 
 tion by the Liberal party of the rights of Ireland, the visits 
 of English Liberals to Ireland, the work done by Irishmen 
 in English constituencies, are creating a feeling of unity and 
 reciprocal interest between the masses of the people on 
 both sides of the Channel without example in the seven 
 hundred years that have passed since Strongbow’s landing. 
 
 This was the thing most needed to make Home Rule 
 safe and full of promise, because it affords a guarantee that 
 in such political contests as may arise in future, the division 
 will not be, as heretofore, between the Irish people on the 
 one side and the power of Britain on the other, but between 
 two parties, each of which will have adherents in both 
 islands. We may now at last hope that national hatreds 
 will vanish; that England will unlearn her arrogance and 
 Ireland her suspicion; that the basis is being laid for a 
 harmonious co-operation of both nations in promoting the 
 welfare and greatness of a common Empire. 
 
 Many of the Irish patriots of 1798 and 1848 desired 
 Separation, because they thought that Ireland, attached to 
 
FAST AND FUTURE OF THE IRISH QUESTION. 245 
 
 England, could never be more than the obscure satellite of 
 a greater State. When Ireland has been heartily welcomed 
 by the democracy of Great Britain as an equal partner, the 
 ground for any such desire will have disappeared, and Union 
 'will rest on a foundation firmer than has ever before existed. 
 Ireland will feel, when those rights of self-government have 
 been secured for which she has pleaded so long, that she 
 owes them, not only to her own tenacity and courage, but 
 to the magnanimity, the justice, and the freely given 
 sympathy of the English and Scottish people. 
 
 Octobert 18S7. 
 
SOAf£ ARGUAIENTS CONSIDERED^ 
 
 i By John Morley. 
 
 It is a favourite line of argument to show that we haVe’no 
 choice between the maintenance of the Union and the 
 concession to Ireland of national independence. The evils 
 of Irish independence are universally reckoned by English¬ 
 men to be so intolerable that we shall never agree to it. 
 The evils of Home Rule are even more intolerable still. 
 Therefore, it is said, if we shall never willingly bring the 
 latter upon our heads, a fortiori we ought on no account 
 to invite the former. The business in hand, however, is not 
 a theorem, but a problem ; it is not a thesis to be proved, 
 but a malady to be cured; and the world will thank only 
 the reasoner who winds up, not with Q.E.D., but with 
 Q.E.F. To reason that a patient ought not to take a given 
 medicine because it may possibly cause him more pain than 
 some other medicine which he has no intention of taking, is 
 curiously oblique logic. The question is not oblique; it is 
 direct. Will the operation do more harm to his consti¬ 
 tution than the slow corrosions of a disorder grown invete¬ 
 rate? Are the conditions of the connection between 
 
 * The following pages, with one or two slight alterations, are 
 extracted, by the kind permission of Mr. James Knowles, from two 
 articles which were published in the N'imteeiith Cetiiury at the begin¬ 
 ning of the present year, in reply to Professor Dicey’s statement of the 
 English case against Home Rule. 
 
SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 247 
 
 England and Ireland, as laid down in the Act of Union, 
 incapable of improvement ? Is the present working of these 
 conditions more prosperous and hopeful, or happier for 
 Irish order and for English institutions, than any practicable 
 proposal that it is within the compass of statesmanship to 
 devise, and of civic sense to accept and to work ? That is 
 the question. 
 
 Some people contend that the burden of making out 
 a case rests on the advocate of change, and not on those 
 who support things as they are. But who supports things 
 as they are ? Things as they are have become insupport¬ 
 able. If you make any of the constitutional changes that 
 have been proposed, we are told, parliamentary government, 
 as Englishmen now know it, is at an end; and our critic 
 stands amazed at those “ who deem it a slighter danger 
 to innovate on the Act of Union than to remodel the pro¬ 
 cedure of the House of Commons.” As if that were the 
 alternative. Great changes in the rules may do other good 
 things, but no single competent authority believes that in 
 this particular they will do the thing that we want. We 
 cannot avoid constitutional changes. It is made matter of 
 crushing rebuke that the Irish proposals of the late Govern¬ 
 ment were an innovation on the old constitution of the 
 realm. But everybody knows that, while ancient forms 
 have survived, the last hundred years have witnessed a long 
 succession of silent but most profound innovations. It was 
 shortsighted to assume that the redistribution of political 
 power that took place in 1884-5 was the last chapter of the 
 history of constitutional change. It ought to have been 
 foreseen that new possessors of power, both Irish and 
 British, would press for objects the pursuit of which would 
 certainly involve further novelties in the methods and 
 machinery of government. Every given innovation must 
 be rigorously scrutinized, but in the mere change or in the 
 fact of innovation there is no valid reproach. When one of 
 
248 SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 the plans for the better government of Ireland is described 
 as depriving parliamentary institutions of their elasticity and 
 strength, as weakening th-e Executive at home, and lessening 
 the power of the country to resist foreign attack, no careful 
 observer of the events of the last seven years can fail to see 
 that all this evil has already got its grip upon us. Mr. Dicey 
 himself admits it. “Great Britain,” he says, “if left to 
 herself, could act with all the force, consistency, and energy 
 given by unity of sentiment and community of interests. 
 The obstruction and the uncertainty of our political aims, 
 the feebleness and inconsistency with which they are pur¬ 
 sued, arise in part at least from the connection with Ireland.” 
 So then, after all, it is feebleness and inconsistency, not 
 elasticity and strength, that mark our institutions as they 
 stand; feebleness and inconsistency, distraction and un¬ 
 certainty. The supporter of things as they are is decidedly 
 as much concerned in making out a case as the advocate 
 of change. 
 
 The strength of the argument from Nationality is great, 
 and full of significance; but Nationality is not the whole 
 essence of either the argument from History or the argu¬ 
 ment from Self-government. Their force lies in considera¬ 
 tions of political expediency as tested by practical experience. 
 
 The point of the argument from the lessons of History is 
 that for some reason or another the international concern, 
 whose unlucky affairs we are now trying to unravel, has 
 always been carried on at a loss : the point of the argument 
 from Self-government is that the loss would have been 
 avoided if the Irish shareholders had for a certain number 
 of the transactions been more influentially represented on 
 the Board. That is quite apart from the sentiment of pure 
 nationality. The failure has come about, not simply because 
 the laws were not made by Irishmen as such, but because 
 they were not made by the men who knew most about 
 Ireland. The vice of the connection between the two 
 
SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 249 
 
 countries has been the stupidity of governing a country 
 without regard to the interests or customs, the peculiar 
 objects and peculiar experiences, -of the great majority of 
 the people who live in it. It is not enough to say that the 
 failures of England in Ireland have to a great extent flowed 
 from causes too general to be identified with the intentional 
 wrong-doing either of rulers or of subjects. We readily 
 admit that, but it is not the point. It is not enough to 
 insist that James L, in his '’plantations and transplanta¬ 
 tions, probably meant well to his Irish subjects. Probably 
 he did. That is not the question. If it is “absolutely 
 certain that his policy worked gross wrong,” what is the 
 explanation and the defence ? We are quite content with 
 Mr. Dicey’s own answer. “ Ignorance and want of sym¬ 
 pathy produced all the evils of cruelty and malignity. An 
 intended reform produced injustice, litigation, misery, and 
 discontent. The case is noticeable, for it is a type of a 
 thousand subsequent English attempts to reform and im¬ 
 prove Ireland.” This description would apply, with hardly 
 a word altered, to the wrong done by the Encumbered 
 Estates Act in the reign of Queen Victoria. That memor¬ 
 able measure, as Mr. Gladstone said, was due not to the 
 action of a party, but to the action of a Parliament. Sir 
 Robert Peel was hardly less responsible for it than Lord 
 John Russell. “We produced it,” said Mr. Gladstone, 
 “ with a general, lazy, uninformed, and irreflective good 
 intention of taking capital to Ireland. What did we do? 
 We sold the improvements of the tenants” (House of 
 Commons, April 16). It is the same story, from the first 
 chapter to the last, in education, poor law, public works, 
 relief Acts, even in coercion Acts—lazy, uninformed, and 
 irreflective good intention. That is the argument from 
 history. When we are asked what good law an Irish 
 Parliament would make that could not equally well be 
 made by the Parliament at Westminster, this is the answer. 
 
250 
 
 SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 It is not the will, it is the intelligence, that is wanting. We 
 all know what the past has been. Why should the future 
 be different ? 
 
 “It is an inherent condition of human affairs,” said Mill 
 in a book which, in spite of some chimeras, is a wholesome 
 corrective of the teaching of our new jurists, “that no inten¬ 
 tion, however sincere, of protecting the interests of others 
 can make it safe or salutary to tie up their own hands. 
 Still more obviously true is it, that by their own hands only 
 can any positive and durable improvement of their circum¬ 
 stances in life be worked out” {Repres. Government, p. 57). 
 It is these wise lessons from human experience to which the 
 advocate of Home Rule appeals, and not the wild doctrine 
 that any body of persons claiming to be united by a sense 
 of nationality possesses an inherent and divine right to be 
 treated as an independent communit}'-. It is quite true that 
 circumstances sometimes justify a temporary dictatorship. 
 In that there is nothing at variance with Liberalism. But 
 the Parliamentary dictatorship in Ireland has lasted a great 
 deal too long to be called temporary, and its stupid shambling 
 operations are finally and decisively condemned by their 
 consequences. That is a straightforward utilitarian argu¬ 
 ment, and has nothing whatever to do with inherent and 
 divine rights, or any other form of political moonshine. 
 
 There are some who believe that an honest centralized 
 administration of impartial officials, and not Local Self- 
 Government, would best meet the real wants of the people. 
 In other words, everything is to be for the people, nothing 
 by the people—which has not hitherto been a Liberal prin¬ 
 ciple. Something, however, may be said for this view, 
 provided that the source of the authority of such an 
 administration be acceptable. Austrian administration in 
 Lombardy was good rather than bad, yet it was hated and 
 resisted because it was Austrian and not Italian. No 
 rational person can hold for an instant that the source of 
 
SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 251 
 
 a scheme of government is immaterial to its prosperity. 
 More than that, when people look for success in the govern¬ 
 ment of Ireland to “honest centralized administration,” we 
 cannot but wonder what fault they find with the administra¬ 
 tion of Ireland to-day in respect of its honesty or its 
 centralization. What administration ever carried either 
 honesty or centralization to a higher pitch than the Irish 
 administration of Mr. Forster ? What could be less success¬ 
 ful ? Those who have been most directly concerned in the 
 government of Ireland, whether English or Irish, even while 
 alive to the perils of any other principle, habitually talk of 
 centralization as the curse of the system. Here, again, why 
 should we expect success in the future from a principle that 
 has so failed in the past ? 
 
 Again, how are we to get a strong centralized administra¬ 
 tion in the face of a powerful and hostile parliam.entary 
 representation ? It is very easy to talk of the benefits that 
 might have been conferred on Ireland by such humanity 
 and justice as was practised by Turgot in his administration 
 of the Generality of Limoges. But Turgot was not con¬ 
 fronted by eighty-six Limousin members of an active 
 sovereign body, all interested in making his work difficult, 
 and trusted by a large proportion of the people of the 
 province with that as their express commission. It is 
 possible to have an honest centralized administration of 
 great strength and activity in India, but there is no Parlia¬ 
 ment in India. If India, or any province of it, ever gets 
 representative government and our parliamentary system, 
 from that hour, if there be any considerable section of 
 Indian feeling averse from European rule, the present 
 administrative system will be paralyzed, as the preliminary 
 to being revolutionized. It is conceivable, if any one 
 chooses to think so, that a body of impartial officials could 
 manage the national business in Ireland much better with¬ 
 out the guidance of public opinion and common sentiment 
 
252 SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 than with it. But if you intend to govern the country as 
 you think best—and that is the plain and practical English 
 of centralized administration—why ask the country to send 
 a hundred men to the great tribunal of supervision to inform 
 you how it would like to be governed ? The Executive can¬ 
 not set them aside as if they were a hundred dummies; in 
 refusing to be guided, it cannot escape being harassed, by 
 them. You may amend procedure, but that is no answer, 
 unless you amend the Irish members out of voice and vote. 
 They will still count. You cannot gag and muzzle them 
 effectually, and if you could, they would still be there, and 
 their presence would still n\ake itself incessantly felt. Partly 
 from a natural desire to lessen the common difficulties of 
 government, and partly from a consciousness, due to the 
 prevailing state of the modern political atmosphere, that 
 there is something wrong in this total alienation of an 
 Executive from the possessors of parliamentary power, the 
 officials will incessantly be tempted to make tacks out of 
 their own course; and thus they lose the coherency and 
 continuity of absolutism without gaining the pliant strength 
 of popular government. This is not a presumption of what 
 would be likely to happen, but an account of what does 
 happen, and what justified Mr. Disraeli in adding a weak 
 Executive to the alien Church and the absentee aristocracy, 
 as the three great curses of Ireland. Nothing has occurred 
 since 1844 to render the Executive stronger, but much to 
 the contrary. There is, and there can be, no weaker or less 
 effective Government in the world than a highly centralized 
 system working alongside of a bitterly inimical popular 
 representation. I say nothing of the effect of the fluctua¬ 
 tions of English parties on Irish administration. I say 
 nothing of the tendency in an Irish government, awkwardly 
 alternating with that to which I have just adverted, to look 
 over the heads of the people of Ireland, and to consider 
 mainly what will be thought by the ignorant public in 
 
SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 253 
 
 England. But these sources of incessant perturbation must 
 not be left out. The fault of Irish centralization is not 
 that it is strong, but that it is weak. Weak it must remain 
 until Parliament either approves of the permanent sus¬ 
 pension of the Irish writs, or else devises constitutional 
 means for making Irish .administration responsible to Irish 
 representatives. 
 
 If experience is decisive against the policy of the past, 
 experience too, all over the modern world, indicates the 
 better direction for the future. I will not use my too scanty 
 space in repeating any of the great wise commonplaces in 
 praise of selfgovernmenL Here they are superfluous. 
 In the case of Ireland they have all been abundantly 
 admitted in a long series of measures, from Catholic 
 Emancipation down to Lord O’Hagan’s Jury Law and the 
 Franchise and Redistribution Acts of a couple of years ago. 
 The principle of self-government has been accepted, ratified, 
 and extended in a hundred ways. It is only a question of 
 the form that self-government shall take. Against the form 
 proposed by the late Ministry a case is built up that rests 
 on a series of prophetic assumptions. These assumptions, 
 from the nature of the case, can only be met by a counter¬ 
 statement of fair and reasonable probabilities. Let us 
 enumerate some of them. 
 
 I. It is inferred that, because the Irish leaders have 
 used violent language and resorted to objectionable ex¬ 
 pedients against England during the last six years, they 
 would continue in the same frame of mind after the reasons 
 for it had disappeared. In other words, because they have 
 been the enemies of a Government which refused to listen 
 to a constitutional demand, therefore they would continue 
 to be its enemies after the demand had been listened to. 
 On this reasoning, the effect is to last indefinitely and 
 perpetually, notwithstanding the cessation of the cause. 
 Our position is that all the reasonable probabilities of 
 
254 SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 human conduct point the other way. The surest way 
 of justifying violent language and fostering treasonable 
 designs, is to refuse to listen to the constitutional demand. 
 
 2. The Irish, we are told, hate the English with an 
 irreconcilable hatred, and would unquestionably use any 
 Constitution as an instrument for satisfying their raaster 
 passion. Irrational hatred, they say, can be treated by 
 rational men with composure. The Czechs of Bohemia are 
 said to be irreconcilable, yet the South Germans bear with 
 their hatred ; and if we cannot cure we might endure the 
 antipathy of Ireland. Now, as for the illustration, I may 
 remark that the hatred of the Czechs would be much too 
 formidable for German composure, if the Czechs did not 
 happen to possess a provincial charter and a special 
 constitution of their own. If the Irish had the same, their 
 national dislike—so far as it exists—might be expected to 
 become as bearable as the Germans have found the feeling 
 of the Czechs. But how deep does Irish dislike go ? Is it 
 directed against Englishmen, or against an English official 
 system ? The answers of every impartial observer to the 
 whole group of such questions as these favour the con¬ 
 clusion that the imputed hatred of England in Ireland has 
 been enormously exaggerated and overcoloured by Ascen¬ 
 dency politicians for good reasons of their own; that v.'ith 
 the great majority of Irishmen it has no deep roots; that 
 it is not one of those passionate international animosities 
 that blind men to their own interests, or lead them to 
 sacrifice themselves for the sake of injuring their foe ; and, 
 finally, that it would not survive the amendment of the 
 system that has given it birth.* ^ 
 
 * The late J. E. Cairnes, after describing the clearances after the 
 famine, goes on to say, “I own I cannot wonder that a thirst for 
 revenge should spring from such calamities; that hatred, even undying 
 hatred, for what they could not but regard as the cause and symbol of 
 their misfortunes—English rule in Ireland—should possess the sufferers. 
 , . . The disaffection now so widely diffused throughout Ireland may 
 
SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 255 
 
 3. It is assumed that there is a universal desire for 
 Separation. That there is a strong sentiment of nationality 
 we of course admit; it is part of the case, and not the 
 worst part. But the sentiment of nationality is a totally 
 different thing from a desire for Separation. Scotland 
 might teach our pseudo-Unionists so much as that. No¬ 
 where in the world is the sentiment of nationality stronger, 
 yet there is not a whisper of Separation. That there is 
 a section of Irishmen who desire Separation is notorious, 
 but everything that has happened since the Government 
 of Ireland Bill was introduced, including the remarkable 
 declarations of Mr. Parnell in accepting the Bill (June 7), 
 and including the proceedings at Chicago, shows that the 
 separatist section is a very small one either in Ireland or 
 in America, and that it has become sensibly smaller since, 
 and in consequence of, the proposed concession of a 
 limited statutory constitution. The Irish are quite shrewd 
 enough to know that Separation, if it were attainable— 
 and they are well aware that it is not—would do no good 
 to their markets; and to that knowledge, as well as to 
 many other internal considerations, we may confidently 
 look for the victory of strong centripetal over very weak 
 centrifugal tendencies. Even if we suppose these centrifugal 
 tendencies to be stronger than I would allov/ them to be, 
 how shall we best resist them—by strengthening the hands 
 and using the services of the party which, though nation¬ 
 alist, is also constitutional; or by driving that party also, 
 in despair of a constitutional solution, to swell the ranks of 
 Extremists and Irreconcilables ? 
 
 possibly in some degree be fed from historical traditions, and have 
 its remote origin in the confiscations of the seventeenth century; but 
 all that gives it energy, all that renders it dangerous, may, I believe, be 
 traced to e.xasperation produced by recent transactions, and more 
 especially to the bitter memories left by that most flagrant abuse of 
 the rights of property and most scandalous disregard of the claims of 
 humanity—the wholesale clearances of the period following the 
 famine .”—Political Essays, p. 19S. 
 
SOAf£ ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 256 
 
 4. Whatever may be the ill-feeling towards England, it 
 is at least undeniable that there are bitter internal animosi¬ 
 ties in Ireland, and a political constitution, our opponents 
 argue, can neither assuage religious bigotry nor remove 
 agrarian discontent. 
 
 It is true, no doubt, that the old feud between Protestant 
 and Catholic might, perhaps, not instantly die down to the 
 last smouldering embers of it all over Ireland. But we 
 may remark that there is no perceptible bad blood between 
 Protestant and Catholic, outside of one notorious corner. 
 Second, the real bitterness of the feud arose from the fact 
 that Protestantism was associated with an exclusive and 
 hostile ascendency, which would now be brought to an 
 end. Whatever feeling about what is called Ulster exists 
 in the rest of Ireland, arises not from the fact that there 
 are Protestants in Ulster, but that the Protestants are anti- 
 National. Third, the Catholics would no longer be one 
 compact body for persecuting, obscurantist, or any other 
 evil purposes ; the abatement of the national struggle would 
 allow the Catholics to fall into the two natural divisions of 
 Clerical and Liberal. What we may be quite sure of is that 
 the feud will never die so long as sectarian pretensions are 
 taken as good reasons for continuing bad government. 
 
 It is true, again, that a constitution would not necessarily 
 remove agrarian discontent. But it is just as true that you 
 M'ill never remove agrarian discontent without a constitution. 
 Mr. Dicey, on consideration, will easily see why. Here 
 we come to an illustration, and a very impressive illustration 
 it is, of the impotence of England to do for Ireland the 
 good which Ireland might do for herself. Nobody just 
 now is likely to forget the barbarous condition of the broad 
 frinare of wretchedness on the west coast of Ireland. Of 
 this Lord Dufferin truly said in 1880 that no legislation 
 could touch it, that no alteration in the land lav/s could 
 effectually ameliorate it, and that it must continue until 
 
SOJ/E ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 257 
 
 the world’s end unless something be contrived totally to 
 change the conditions of existence in that desolate region. 
 Parliament lavishly pours water into the sieve in the shape 
 of Relief Acts. Even in my own short tenure of office 
 I was responsible for one of these terribly wasteful and 
 profoundly unsatisfactory measures. Instead of relief, what 
 a statesman must seek is prevention of this great evil and 
 strong root of evil; and prevention means a large, though 
 it cannot be a very swift, displacement of the population. 
 But among the many experts wuth whom I have discussed 
 this dolorous and perplexing subject, I never found one 
 of either political party who did not agree that a removal 
 of the surplus population was only practicable if carried 
 out by an Irish authority, backed by the solid weight of 
 Irish opinion. Any exertion of compulsory power by a 
 British Minister would raise the whole country-side in 
 squalid insurrection, government would become impossible, 
 and the work of transplantation would end in ghastly 
 failure. It is misleading and untrue, then, to say that there 
 is no possible relation between self-government and agrarian 
 discontent, misery, and backwardness; and when Mr. 
 Dicey and others tell us that the British Parliament is able 
 to do all good things for Ireland, I would respectfully ask 
 them how a British Parliament is to deal with the Congested 
 Districts. 
 
 Nearly as much may be said of the prevention of the 
 mischievous practice of Subdivision. Some contend that 
 the old disposition to subdivide is dying out; others, how¬ 
 ever, assure us that it is making its appearance even among 
 the excellent class who purchased their holdings under the 
 Church Act. That Act did not prohibit subdivision, but 
 it is prohibited in the Act of 1881. Still the prohibition 
 can only be made effective, if operations take place on 
 anything like a great scale, on condition that representative 
 authorities resident on the spot have the power of enforcing 
 
 s 
 
25S so.vE As:GrMi:xTS coxsidi:i?£d. 
 
 it, and have an interest in enforcing it. Some of the pseudo- 
 Unionists are even against am* extension of local self- 
 government, and if it be unaccompanied by the creation of 
 a central nadve authority they are right. 'What such people 
 fail to see is that, in resisting political reconstruction, they 
 are at tlie same time resisting the only available remedies 
 for some of tlie worst of agrarian maladies. 
 
 The ruinous interplay between agr.trian and political 
 forces, each using the other for ends of its own, will never 
 cease so long as the political demand is in ever}- form 
 resisted. That, we are told, is all the fault of the poli¬ 
 ticians. Be it so; then the Government must either 
 suppress the politicians outright, or else it must interest 
 them in getting the terms of its land settlement accepted 
 and respected. Home Rule on our scheme was, among 
 other things, part of an arrangement for “ settling the 
 agrarian feud.” It was a means of interposing between 
 the Irish tenant and the British State an authority interested 
 enough and strong enough to cause the bargain to be kept. 
 It is said that the Irish authority would have had neither 
 interest nor strength enough to resist the forces making 
 for repudiation. "Would those forces be any less irresistible 
 if the whole body of tlie Irish peasantty- stood, as Land 
 Purchase minus Self-Government makes them to stand, 
 directly face to face with the British State ? This is a 
 question that our opponents cannot evade, any more than 
 they can evade that other question, which lies unnoticed 
 at the back of all solutions of the problem by way of 
 peasant ownership—"Whether it is possible to imagine the 
 land of Ireland handed over to Irishmen, and yet the 
 government of Ireland kept exclusively and directly by 
 Englishmen ? Such a divorce is conceivable under a rule 
 like tliat of the British in India ; with popular institutions 
 it is inconceivable and impossible. 
 
 5. It is argued that Home Rule on Mr. Gladstone’s 
 
^OME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 259 
 
 plan would not work, because it follows in some respects 
 the colonial system, whereas the conditions at the root of 
 the success of the system in the Colonies do not exist in 
 Ireland. They are distant, Ireland is near; they are 
 prosperous, Ireland is poor; they are proud of the con¬ 
 nection with England, Ireland resents it. But the question 
 is not whether the conditions are identical with those of 
 any colony; it is enough if in themselves they seem to 
 promise a certain basis for government It might justly 
 be contended that proximity is a more favourable condition 
 than distance ; without it there could not be that close and 
 constant intercommunication which binds the material 
 interests of Ireland to those of Great Britain, and so 
 provides the surest guarantee for union. If Ireland were 
 suddenly to find herself as far off as Canada, then indeed 
 one might be very sorrj’ to answer for the Union. Again, 
 though Ireland has to bear her share of the prevailing 
 depression in the chief branch of her production, it is a 
 great mistake to suppose that outside of the margin of 
 chronic wretchedness in the west and south-west, the con¬ 
 dition not only of the manufacturing industries of the north, 
 but of the agricultural industry in the richer parts of the 
 middle and south, is so desperately unprosperous as to 
 endanger a political constitution. Under our stupidily 
 centralized system. Irishmen have no doubt acquired the 
 enervating trick of attributing ever)' misfortune, great or 
 small, public or private, to the Government. When they 
 learn the lessons of responsibility, they will unlearn this 
 fatal habit, and not before. 
 
 I do not see, therefore, that the differences in condition 
 between Ireland and the Colonies make against Home 
 Rule. What I do see is ample material out of which would 
 arise a strong and predominant party of order. The bulk 
 of the nation are sons and daughters of a Church which has 
 been hostile to revolution in every country but Ireland, and 
 
26o some arguments CONSIDERED. 
 
 which would be hostile to it there from the day that the 
 cause of revolution ceased to be the cause of self-govern¬ 
 ment. If the peasantry were made to realize that at last 
 the land settlement, wisely and equitably made, was what 
 it must inexorably remain, and what no politicians could 
 help them to alter, they would be as conservative as the 
 peasantry under a similar condition in every other spot 
 on the surface of the globe. There is no reason to expect 
 that the manufacturers, merchants, and shopkeepers of 
 Ireland would be less willing or less able to play an active 
 and useful part in the affairs of their country than the same 
 classes in England or Scotland. It will be said that this 
 is mere optimist prophesying. But why is that to be flung 
 aside under the odd name of sentimentalism, while pessimist 
 prophesying is to be taken for gospel ? 
 
 The only danger is lest we should allot new responsi¬ 
 bilities to Irishmen with a too grudging and restrictive 
 hand. For true responsibility there must be real power. 
 It is easy to say that this power would be misused, and 
 that the conditions both of Irish society and of the proposed 
 Constitution must prevent it from being used for good. 
 It is easy to say that separation would be a better end. 
 Life is too short to discuss that. Separation is not the 
 alternative either to Home Rule or to the status quo. If 
 the people of Ireland are not to be trusted with real power 
 over their own affairs, it would be a hundred times more 
 just to England, and more merciful to Ireland, to take 
 away from her that semblance of free government which 
 torments and paralyzes one country, while it robs the other 
 of national self-respect and of all the strongest motives and 
 best opportunities of self-help. The status quo is drawing 
 very near to its inevitable end. The two courses then 
 open will be Home Rule on the one hand, and some shy 
 bungling underhand imitation of a Crown Colony on the 
 other. We shall have either to listen to the Irish repre* 
 
SOME ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED. 
 
 261 
 
 sentatives or to suppress them. Unless we have lost all 
 nerve and all political faculty we shall, before many months 
 are over, face these alternatives. Liberals are for the first; 
 Tories at present incline to the second. It requires very 
 moderate instinct for the forces at work in modern politics 
 to foresee the path along which we shall move, in the inter¬ 
 ests alike of relief to Great Britain and of a sounder national 
 life for Ireland. The only real question is not Whether we 
 are to grant Home Rule, but How, 
 
LESSONS OF IRISH HISTORY IN 
 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 Bv W. E. Gladstone. 
 
 Ireland for more than seven hundred years has been part 
 of the British territory, and has been with slight exceptions 
 held by English arms, or governed in the last resort from 
 this side the water. Scotland was a foreign country until 
 1603, and possessed absolute independence until 1707. 
 Yet, whether it was due to the standing barrier of the sea, 
 or whatever may have been the cause, much less was known 
 by Englishmen of Ireland than of Scotland. Witness the 
 works of Shakespeare, whose mind, unless as to book-know¬ 
 ledge, was encyclopedic, and yet who, while he seems at 
 home in Scotland, may be said to tell us nothing of Ireland, 
 unless it is that— 
 
 “ The uncivil kerns of Ireland are in arms.” * 
 
 During more recent times, the knowledge of Scotland on 
 this side the border, which before was greatly in advance, 
 has again increased in a far greater degree than the know¬ 
 ledge of Ireland. 
 
 It is to Mr. Lecky that we owe the first serious effort, 
 both in his Leaders oI Public Opinion and in his History oI 
 England in the Eighteenth Century, to produce a better 
 
 ** 2 Henry VI., act iii. sc. i. 
 
LESSOm OF IRISH HISTORY, 
 
 263 
 
 
 state of things. He carefully and completely dovetailed the 
 affairs of Ireland into English History, and the debt is one 
 to be gratefully acknowledged. But such remedies, address- 
 ing themselves in the first instance to the lettered mind of 
 the country, require much time to operate upon the mass, 
 and upon the organs of superficial and transitory opinion, 
 before the final stage, when they enter into our settled and 
 familiar traditions. Meantime, since Ireland threatens to 
 absorb into herself our Parliamentary life, there is a greatly 
 enhanced necessity for becoming acquainted with the true 
 state of the account between the islands that make up the 
 United Kingdom, and with the likelihoods of the future in 
 Ireland, so far as they are to be gathered from her past 
 history. 
 
 That history, until the eighteenth century begins, has a 
 dismal simplicity about it. Murder, persecution, confiscation 
 too truly describe its general strain; and policy is on the 
 whole subordinated to violence as the standing instrument 
 of government. But after, say, the reign of William HI., 
 the element of representation begins to assert itself. Sim¬ 
 plicity is by degrees exchanged for complexity; the play of 
 human motives, singularly diversified, now becomes visible 
 in the currents of a real public life. It has for a very long 
 time been my habit, when consulted by young political 
 students, to recommend them carefully to study the characters 
 and events of the American Independence. Quite apart 
 from the special and temporary reasons bearing upon the 
 case, I would now add a twin recommendation to examine 
 and ponder the lessons of Irish history during the eighteenth 
 century. The task may not be easy, but the reward will 
 be ample. 
 
 The mainspring of public life had, from a venerable 
 antiquity, lain de jwe within Ireland herself. The heaviest 
 fetter upon this life was the Law of Poynings ; the most 
 ingenious device upon record for hamstringing legislative 
 
264 
 
 ZESSOA’^S OF IRISH HISTORY 
 
 independence, because it cut off the means of resumption 
 inherent in the nature of Parliaments such as were those of 
 the three countries. But the Law of Poynings was an Irish 
 Law. Its operation effectually aided on the civil side those 
 ruder causes, under the action of which Ireland had lain 
 for four centuries usually passive, and bleeding at every pore. 
 The main factors of her destiny worked, in practice, from 
 this side the water. But from the reign of Anne, or perhaps 
 from the Revolution onwards, 
 
 “ Novus srecorum nascltur ordo.” 
 
 Of the three great nostrums so liberally applied by 
 England, extirpation and persecution had entirely failed, 
 but confiscation had done its work. The great Protestant 
 landlordism of Ireland * had been strongly and effectually 
 built up. But, like other human contrivances, while it held 
 Ireland fast, it had also undesigned results. The repressed 
 principle of national life, the struggles of which had thereto¬ 
 fore been extinguished in blood, slowly sprang up anew in 
 a form which, though extremely narrow, and extravagantly 
 imperfect, was armed w’ith constitutional guarantees; and, 
 the regimen of violence once displaced, these guarantees 
 were sure to operate. What had been transacted in England 
 under Plantagenets and Stuarts was, to a large extent, 
 transacted anew by the Parliament of Ireland in the 
 eighteenth century. That Parliament, indeed, deserves 
 almost every imaginable epithet of censure. It was corrupt, 
 servile, selfish, cruel. But when we have said all this, and 
 said it truly, there is more to tell. It was alive, and it was 
 national. Even absenteeism, that obstinately clinging curse, 
 though it enfeebled and distracted, could not, and did not, 
 annihilate nationality. The Irish Legislation was, moreover, 
 compressed and thwarted by a foreign executive j but even 
 
 * Lecky’s History of England in the Eighteenth Ce 7 ihiry, chap, vii, 
 vol. ii. p. 205. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 263 
 
 to this tremendous agent the vital principle was too strong 
 eventually to succumb. 
 
 Mr. Lecky well observes that the Irish case supplied 
 “one of the most striking examples upon record”* of an 
 unconquerable efficacy in even the most defective Parlia¬ 
 ment. I am, however, doubtful whether in this proposition 
 we have before us the whole case. This efficacy is not 
 invariably found even in tolerably constructed Parliaments. 
 Why do we find it in a Parliament of which the constitution 
 and the environment were alike intolerable? My answer 
 is, because that Parliament found itself faced by a British 
 influence which was entirely anti-national, and was thus 
 constrained to seek for strength in the principle of nation¬ 
 ality. 
 
 Selfishness is a rooted principle of action in nations not 
 less than in single persons. It seems to draw a certain 
 perfume from the virtue of patriotism, which lies upon its 
 borders. It stalks abroad with a semblance of decency, 
 nay, even of excellence. And under this cover a paramount 
 community readily embraces the notion, that a dependent 
 community may be made to exist not for its own sake, but 
 for the sake of an extraneous society of men. With this 
 idea, the European nations, utterly benighted in comparison 
 with the ancient Greeks, founded their transmarine depen¬ 
 dencies. But a vast maritime distance, perhaps aided by 
 some filtration of sound ideas, prevented the application of 
 this theory in its nakedness and rigour to the American 
 Colonies of England. In Ireland we had not even the title 
 of founders to allege. Nay, we were, in point of indigenous 
 civilization, the junior people. But the maritime severance, 
 sufficient to prevent accurate and familiar knowledge, was 
 not enough to bar the effective exercise of overmastering 
 power. And power was exercised, at first from without, to 
 
 * Lecky’s History of En^iastd in the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii. 
 p. 227. 
 
266 
 
 Z£SSOjVS of IRISH HISTORY 
 
 support the Pale, to enlarge it, to make it include Ireland. 
 When this had been done, power began, in the seventeenth 
 century, to be exercised from within Ireland, within the 
 precinct of its government and its institutions. These were 
 carefully corrupted, from the multiplication of the Boroughs 
 by James I. onwards, for the purpose. The struggle became 
 civil, instead of martial; and it was mainly waged by agencies 
 on the spot, not from beyond the Channel. When the 
 rule of England passed over from the old violence into legal 
 forms and doctrines, the Irish reaction against it followed 
 the example. And the legal idea of Irish nationality took 
 its rise in very humble surroundings ; if the expression 
 may be allowed, it was born in the slums of politics. 
 Ireland reached the nadir of political depression when, at 
 and after the Boyne, she had been conquered not merely 
 by an English force, but by continental mercenaries. The 
 ascendant Protestantism of the island had never stood so 
 low in the aspect it presented to this country; inasmuch 
 as the Irish Parliament, for the first time, I believe, de¬ 
 clared itself dependent upon England,* and either did not 
 desire, or did not dare, to support its champion Molyneux, 
 when his work asserting Irish independence was burned in 
 London. It petitioned for representation in the English 
 Parliament, not in order to uplift the Irish people, but in 
 order to keep them down. In its sympathies and in its 
 aims the overwhelming mass of the population had no 
 share. It was Swift who, by the DrapieRs Letters^ for the 
 first time called into existence a public opinion flowing 
 from and representing Ireland as a whole. He reasserted 
 the doctrine of Molyneux, and denounced Wood’s halfpence 
 not only as a foul robbery, but as a constitutional and as a 
 national insult. The patience of the Irish Protestants was 
 tried very hard, and they were forced, as Sir Charles Duffy 
 states in his vivid book, to purchase the power of oppress- 
 * Duffy’s Bird's-Eye View, p. 164. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 267 
 
 ing their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen at a great 
 price.* * * § Their pension list was made to provide the grants 
 too degrading to be tolerated in England. The Presby¬ 
 terians had to sit down under the Episcopal monopoly; 
 but the enjoyment of that monopoly was not left to the 
 Irish Episcopalians. In the time of Henry VIII. it had been 
 necessary to import an English Archbishop Browne f and 
 an English Bishop Bale, or there might not have been 
 a single Protestant in Ireland. It was well to enrich the 
 rolls of the Church of Ireland with the piety and learning 
 of Ussher, and to give her in Bedell one name, at least, 
 which carries the double crown of the hero and the saint. 
 But, after the Restoration, by degrees the practice degene¬ 
 rated, and Englishmen were appointed in numbers to the 
 Irish Episcopate in order to fortify and develop by nume¬ 
 rical force what came to be familiarly known as the English 
 interest. So that the Primate Boulter, during his govern¬ 
 ment of Ireland, complains t that Englishmen are still less 
 than one-half the whole body of Bishops, although the 
 most important sees were to a large extent in their hands. 
 The same practice was followed in the higher judicial 
 offices. Fitzgibbon was the first Irishman who became 
 Lord Chancellor. § The Viceroy, commonly absent, was 
 represented by Lords Justices, who again were commonly 
 English; and Primate Boulter, a most acute and able man, 
 jealous of an Irish Speaker in that character, recommends 
 that the commander of the forces should take his place. || 
 When, later on, the Viceroy resided, it was a rule that the 
 Chief Secretary should be an Englishman. On the occasion 
 when Lord Castlereagh was by way of exception admitted 
 
 * Bird's-Eye Vieiv, p. 166. 
 
 t See Ball’-s History of the Church of Ireland, a valuable work, 
 deserving of more attention than it seems to have received. 
 
 J Boulter’s Letters, i. 138, et alibi. 
 
 § Lecky’s History of Euiiland in the Eighteenth Century, ii. 
 
 11 Boulter’s Letters, vol. ii. 
 
268 
 
 Z£SSOA^S OF IRISH HISTORY 
 
 to that office, an apology was found for it in his entire 
 devotion to English policy and purposes. “ His appoint¬ 
 ment,” says Lord Cornwallis, “gives me great satisfaction, 
 as he is so very unlike an Irishman ! ” * Resources were 
 also found in the military profession, and among the voters 
 for the Union we find the names of eight f English generals. 
 
 The arrangements under Poynings’s Law, and the com¬ 
 mercial proscription, drove the iron ever deeper and deeper 
 into the souls of Irishmen. It is but small merit in the 
 Irish Parliament of George I. and George IL, if under 
 these circumstances a temper was gradually formed in, and 
 transmitted by, them, which might one day achieve the 
 honours of patriotism. It was in dread of this most health¬ 
 ful process, that the English Government set sedulously to 
 work for its repression. The odious policy was maintained 
 by a variety of agencies; by the misuse of Irish revenue, a 
 large portion of which was unhappily under their control; 
 by maintaining the duration of the Irish House of Commons 
 for the life of the Sovereign j and, worst of all, by extending 
 the range of corruption within the walls, through the 
 constant multiplication of paid offices tenable by members 
 of Parliament without even the check of re-election on 
 acceptance. 
 
 Thus by degrees those who sat in the Irish Houses 
 came to feel both that they had a country, and that their 
 country had claims upon them. The growth of a com¬ 
 mercial interest in the Roman Catholic body must have 
 accelerated the growth of this idea, as that interest naturally 
 fell into line with the resistance to the English proscriptive 
 laws. But the rate of progress was fearfully slow. It was 
 hemmed in on every side by the obstinate unyielding 
 pressure of selfish interests: the interest of the Established 
 Church against the Presbyterians; the interest of the 
 
 * Cornwallis’s Correspondence, ii. 441. 
 
 t Grattan’s Life and Times, v. 173. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 269 
 
 frotestant laity, or tithe-payers, against the clergy; the 
 bold unscruptilous interest of a landlords’ Parliament against 
 the occupier of the soil; which, together with the grievance 
 of the system of tithe-proctors, established in Ireland 
 through the Whiteboys the fatal alliance between resistance 
 to wrong and resistance to law, and supplied there the yet 
 more disastrous facility of sustaining and enforcing wrong 
 under the name of giving support to public tranquillity. Yet, 
 forcing on its way amidst all these difficulties by a natural 
 law, in a strange haphazard and disjointed method, and 
 by a zigzag movement, there came into existence, and by 
 degrees into steady operation, a sentiment native to Ireland 
 and having Ireland for its vital basis, and yet not deserving 
 the name of Irish patriotism, because its care was not for 
 a nation, but for a sect. For a sect, in a stricter sense than 
 may at first sight be supposed. The battle was not between 
 Popery and a generalized Protestantism, though, even if it 
 had been so, it would have been between a small minority 
 and the vast majority of the Irish people. It was not a 
 party of ascendency, but a party of monopoly, that ruled. 
 It must always be borne in mind that the Roman Catholic 
 aristocracy had been emasculated, and reduced to the 
 lowest point of numerical and moral force by the odious 
 action of the penal laws, and that the mass of the Roman 
 Catholic population, clerical and lay, remained under the 
 grinding force of many-sided oppression, and until long 
 after the accession of George III. had scarcely a con¬ 
 sciousness of political existence. As long as the great 
 bulk of the nation could be equated to zero, the F.piscopal 
 monopolists had no motive for cultivating the good-will of 
 the Presbyterians, who like the Roman Catholics main¬ 
 tained their religion, with the trivial exception of the 
 Regium Do 7 iuin, by their own resources, and who differed 
 from them in being not persecuted, but only disabled. And 
 this monopoly, which drew from the sacred name of religion 
 
r;o LESSONS OF IRISH HISTORV 
 
 its title to exist, offered through centuries an example of 
 religious sterility to which a parallel can hardly be found 
 among the communions of the Christian world. The 
 sentiment, then, which animated the earlier efforts of the 
 Parliament might be Iricism, but did not become patriotism 
 until it had outgrown, and had learned to forswear or to 
 forget, the conditions of its infancy. Neither did it for a 
 long time acquire the courage of its opinions; for, when 
 Lucas, in the middle of the century, reasserted the doctrine 
 of INIolyneux and of Swift, the Grand Jury of Dublin took 
 part against him, and burned his book.* And the Parlia¬ 
 ment,! prompted by the Government, drove him into exile. 
 And yet the smoke showed that there was fire. The infant, 
 that confronted the British Government in the Parliament 
 House, had something of the young Hercules about him. 
 In the first exercises of strength he acquired more strength, 
 and in acquiring more strength he burst the bonds that had 
 confined him. 
 
 “ Es machte mir zu eng, icli niusste fort.” J 
 The reign of George IV. began with resolute efforts of 
 the Parliament not to lengthen, as in England under his 
 grandfather, but to shorten its own commission, and to 
 become septennial. Surely this was a noble effort. It 
 meant the greatness of their country, and it meant also 
 personal self-sacrifice. The Parliament which then existed, 
 elected under a youth of twenty-two, had every likelihood of 
 giving to the bulk of its members a seat for life. This they 
 asked to change for a maximum term of seven years. This 
 from session to session, in spite of rejection after rejection in 
 England, they resolutely fought to obtain. It was an English 
 amendment which, on a doubtful pretext, changed seven 
 years to eight. Without question some acted under the 
 pressure of constituents; but only a minority of the members 
 
 * Lccky, ii. 430. t Duffy, p. 177. 
 
 % Schiller’s Wallenstein, 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 271 
 
 had constituents, and popular exigencies from such a quarter 
 might have been bought off by an occasional vote, and 
 could not have induced a war with the Executive and with 
 England so steadily continued, unless a higher principle had 
 been at work. 
 
 The triumph came at last; and from 1768 onwards the 
 Commons never wholly relapsed into their former quiescence. 
 True, this was for a Protestant House, constituency, and 
 nation; but ere long they began to enlarge their definition 
 of nationality. Flood and Lucas, the commanders in the 
 real battle, did not dream of giving the Roman Catholics 
 a political existence, but to their own constituents they 
 performed an honourable service and gave a great boon. 
 Those, who had insincerely supported the measure, became 
 the dupes of their own insincerity. In the very year of this 
 victory, a Bill for a slight relaxation of the penal laws was 
 passed, but met its death in England.* Other Bills followed, 
 and one of them became an Act in 1771. A beginning had 
 thus been made on behalf of religious liberty, as a corollary 
 to political emancipation. It was like a little ray of light 
 piercing its way through the rocks into a cavern and supply¬ 
 ing the prisoner at once with guidance and with hope. 
 Resolute action, in withholding or shortening supply, con¬ 
 vinced the Executive in Dublin, and the Ministry in London, 
 that serious business was intended. And it appeared, 
 even in this early stage, how necessary it was for a fruitful 
 campaign on their own behalf to enlarge their basis, and 
 enlist the sympathies of hitherto excluded fellow-subjects. 
 
 It may seem strange that the first beginnings of suc¬ 
 cessful endeavour should have been made on behalf not of 
 the “ common Protestantism,” but of Roman Catholics. 
 But, as Mr. Lecky has shown, the Presbyterians had been 
 greatly depressed and distracted, while the Roman Catholics 
 had now a strong position in the commerce of the country, 
 '' Lecky, iv. 4891 
 
272 LESSONS OF IF/SJL IflSTOEY 
 
 and in Dublin knocked, as it were, at the very doors of the 
 Parliament. There may also have been an apprehension of 
 republican sentiments among the Protestants of the north, 
 from which the Roman Catholics were known to be free. 
 Not many years, however, passed before the softening and 
 harmonizing effects, which naturally flow from a struggle for 
 liberty, warmed the sentiment of the House in favour of the 
 Presbyterians. 
 
 A Bill was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1778, 
 which greatly mitigated the stringency of the penal laws. 
 Moreover, in its preamble was recited, as a ground for this 
 legislation, that for “a long series of years” the Roman 
 Catholics had exhibited an “ uniform peaceable behaviour.” 
 In doing and saying so much, the Irish Parliament virtually 
 bound itself to do more.* In this Bill was contained a clause 
 which repealed the Sacramental Test, and thereby liberated 
 the Presbyterians from disqualification. But the Bill had 
 to pass the ordeal of a review in England, and there the 
 clause was struck out. The Bill itself, though mutilated, 
 was wisely passed by a majority of 127 to 89. Even in 
 this form it excited the enthusiastic admiration of Burke.t 
 Nor were the Presbyterians forgotten at the epoch when, 
 in 1779-80, England, under the pressure of her growing 
 difficulties, made large commercial concessions to Ireland. 
 The Dublin Parliament renewed the Bill for the removal of 
 the Sacramental Test. And it was carried by the Irish 
 Parliament in the very year which witnessed in London the 
 disgraceful riots of Lord George Gordon, and forty-eight 
 years before the Imperial Parliament conceded, on this side 
 the Channel, any similar relief. Other contemporary signs 
 bore witness to the growth of toleration ; for the Volun¬ 
 teers, founded in 1778, and originally a Protestant body, 
 after a time received Roman Catholics into their ranks. 
 
 * Lecky, iv. 477-479 ; Brown, Laivs against Catholics, pp. 329-332. 
 t Lecky, pp. 499-501. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 273 
 
 These impartial proceedings are all the more honourable 
 to Irish sentiment in general, because Lord Charlemont, its 
 champion out of doors, and Flood, long the leader of the 
 Independent party in the Parliament, were neither of them 
 prepared to surrender the system of Protestant ascendency. 
 
 In order to measure the space which had at this period 
 been covered by the forward movement of liberality and 
 patriotism, it is necessary to look back to the early years of 
 the Georgian period, when Whiggism had acquired a de¬ 
 cisive ascendency, and the spirits of the great deep were let 
 loose against Popery. But the temper of proscription in the 
 two countries exhibited specific differences. Extravagant 
 in both, it became in Ireland vulgar and indecent. In 
 England, it was Tilburina,* gone mad in white satin; in 
 Ireland it was d’ilburina’s maid, gone mad in white linen. 
 The Lords Justices of Ireland, in 1715, recommended the 
 Parliament to put an end to all other distinctions in Ireland 
 “ but that of Protestant and Papist.” f And the years that 
 followed seem to mark the lowest point of constitutional 
 depression for the Roman Catholic population in par¬ 
 ticular, as well as for Ireland at large. The Commons, in 
 1715, prayed for measures to discover any Papist enlisting 
 in the King’s service, in order that he might be expelled 
 “ and punished with the utmost severity of the law.” J 
 When an oath of abjuration had been imposed which pre¬ 
 vented nearly all priests from registering, a Bill was passed 
 by the Commons in 1719 for branding the letter P on 
 the cheek of all priests, who were unregistered, with a red- 
 hot iron. The Privy Council “ disliked ” this punishment, 
 and substituted for it the loathsome measure by which safe 
 guardians are secured for Eastern harems. The English 
 Government could not stomach this beastly proposal; and, 
 says Mr. Lecky,§ unanimously restored the punishment of 
 
 * Sbei'idan’s Critic, act iii. »c. l. t Plowden’s History (1S09), ii. 70. 
 
 t Brown, Laws against CathcEcs, p. 289. § Lecky, i. 297. 
 
 1 ' 
 
274 
 
 LESSOJVS OF IRISH HISTORY 
 
 branding. The Bill was finally lost in Ireland, but only 
 owing to a clause concerning leases. It had gone to 
 England winged with a prayer from the Commons that it 
 might be recommended “ in the most effectual manner to 
 his Majesty,” and by the assurance of the Viceroy in reply 
 that they might depend on his due regard to what was 
 desired.* In the same-year passed the Act which declared 
 the title of the British Parliament to make laws for the 
 government of Ireland. On the accession of George II., a 
 considerable body of Roman Catholics offered an address 
 of congratulation. It was received by the Lords Justices 
 with silent contempt, and no one knows whether it ever 
 reached its destination. Finally, the acute state-craft of 
 Primate Boulter resisted habitually the creation of an “ Irish 
 interest,” and above all any capacity of the Roman Catholics 
 to contribute to its formation ; and in the first year of 
 George II. a clause was introduced in committee into a 
 harmless Bill * for the regulation of elections, which disfran¬ 
 chised at a single stroke all the Roman Catholic voters in 
 Ireland who up to that period had always enjoyed the 
 franchise. 
 
 It is painful to record the fact that the remarkable pro¬ 
 gress gradually achieved was in no way due to British 
 influence. For nearly forty years from the arrival of Arch¬ 
 bishop Boulter in Ireland, the government of Ireland was in 
 the hands of the Primates. The harshness of administration 
 was gradually tempered, especially in the brief viceroyalty 
 of Lord Chesterfield; but the British policy was steadily 
 opposed to the enlargement of Parliamentary privilege, or 
 the creation of any Irish interest, however narrow its basis, 
 while the political extinction of the mass of the people was 
 complete. The pecuniary wants, however, of the Govern¬ 
 ment, extending beyond the hereditary revenue, required 
 a resort to the national purse. The demands which were 
 
 * Plowden, i. 297. * i Geo. II. c. ix. sect. 7. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 275 
 
 accordingly made, and these alone, supplied the Parliament 
 with a vantage-ground, and a principle of life. The action 
 of this principle brought with it civilizing and humanizing 
 influences, which had become clearly visible in the early 
 years of George III., and which were cherished by the 
 war of American Indejrendence, as by a strong current of 
 fresh air in a close and murky dungeon. 
 
 The force of principles, and the significance of political 
 achievements, is to be estimated in no small degree by 
 the slenderness of the means available to those who promote 
 them. And the progress brought about in the Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment is among the most remarkable on record, because 
 it was effected against the joint resistance of a hostile 
 Executive and of an intolerable constitution. Of the three 
 hundred members, about two-thirds were nominated by 
 individual patrons and by close corporations. What was 
 still worse, the action of the Executive was increasingly 
 directed, as the pulse of the national life came to beat more 
 vigorously, to the systematic corruption of the Parliament 
 borough pensions and paid offices. In the latter part of 
 the century, more than one-third of the members of Parlia¬ 
 ment were dismissible at pleasure from public emoluments. 
 If the base influence of the Executive allied itself with the 
 patriotic party, everything might be hoped. For we must 
 bear in mind not only the direct influence of this expendi¬ 
 ture on those who were in possession, but the enormous 
 power of expectancy on those who were not. Conversely, 
 when the Government were determined to do WTong, there 
 were no means commonly available of forcing it to do right, 
 in any matter that touched either religious bigotry or selfish 
 interest With so miserable an apparatus, anc^ in the face 
 of the ever-wakeful Executive sustained by British power, 
 it is rather wonderful how much than how little was effected. 
 I am not aware of a single case in which a measure on 
 behalf of freedom was proposed by British agency, and 
 
276 
 
 ZESSOJVS OF IRISH HISTORY 
 
 rejected by the Irish Parliament. On the other hand, we 
 have a long list of the achievements of that Parliament 
 due to a courage and perseverance which faced and over¬ 
 came a persistent English opposition. Among other ex¬ 
 ploits, it established periodical elections, obtained the writ 
 of Habeas Corpus, carried the independence of the Judges, 
 repealed the Test Act, limited the abominable expenditure 
 on pensions, subjected the acceptance of office from the 
 crown to the condition of re-election, and achieved, doubt¬ 
 less with the powerful aid of the volunteers, freedom of 
 trade with England, and the repeal of Poynings’s Act, and 
 of the British Act of 1719.* 
 
 All this it did without the manifestation, either within 
 the walls or among the Roman Catholic population, of any 
 disposition to weaken the ties which bound Ireland to the 
 empire. All this it did; and what had the British Parlia¬ 
 ment been about during the same period, with its vastly 
 greater means both of self-defence and of action ? It had 
 been building up the atrocious criminal code, tampering in 
 the case of Wilkes with liberty of election, and tampering with 
 many other liberties; driving, too, the American Colonies 
 into rebellion, while, as to good legislation, the century 
 is almost absolutely blank, until between 1782 and 1793 
 we have the establishment of Irish freedom, the economical 
 reform of Mr. Burke, the financial reforms of Mr. Pitt, the 
 new libel law of Mr. Fox, and the legislative constitution 
 of Canada, in which both these great statesmen concurred. 
 
 But we have not yet reached the climax of Irish advance¬ 
 ment. When, in 1782 and 1783, the legislative relations 
 of the two countries were fundamentally rectified by the 
 formal acknowledgment of Irish nationality, the beginning of 
 a great work was accomplished ; but its final consummation, 
 though rendered practicable and even easy, depended wholly 
 on the continuing good intention of the British Cabinet. 
 
 * See Lecky, vi. 521. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 277 
 
 The Acts of 1782 and 1783 required a supplemental arrange¬ 
 ment, to obviate those secondary difficulties in the working 
 of the two Legislatures, which supplied Mr. Pitt with his 
 main parliamentary plea for the Union. What was yet 
 more important was the completion of the scheme in 
 Ireland itself. And this under three great heads: (i) The 
 purification of Parliament by a large measure of reform ; 
 (2) the abolition of all Roman Catholic disabilities; (3) 
 the establishment of a proper relation between the Legis¬ 
 lative and the Executive powers. It is often urged, with 
 cynical disregard to justice and reason, that with the 
 Grattan Parliament we had corruption, coercion, discontent, 
 and finally rebellion. But the political mischiefs, which 
 disfigure the brief life of the Grattan Parliament, and the 
 failure to obtain the two first of the three great purposes 
 I have named, were all in the main due to the third grand 
 flaw in the Irish case after 1782. I mean the false position, 
 and usually mischievous character, of the Irish Executive, 
 which, with its army of placemen and expectants in Parlia¬ 
 ment, was commonly absolute master of the situation. Well 
 does Mr. Swift MacNeill,* in his very useful work, quote the 
 words of Mr. Fox in 1797: “ The advantages, which the form 
 of a free Government seemed to promise, have been counter¬ 
 acted by the influence of the Executive Government, and 
 of the British Cabinet.” 
 
 'Phere were five Viceroys between 1782 and 1790. 
 Then came a sixth. Lord Westmoreland, the worst of them 
 all, whose political judgment was on a par with his know¬ 
 ledge of the English language.t The great settlement of 
 1782-3 was in the main worked by men who were radically 
 adverse to its spirit and intention. But they were omnipotent 
 in their control of the unreformed Parliament of Ireland, 
 more and more drenched, under their unceasing and pesti- 
 
 * The Irish Tarliamnit, p. 64. Cassell: 1885. 
 
 t See Lecky, vi. 492, 493. 
 
278 
 
 LESSONS OF IRISH HISTORY 
 
 lent activity, with fresh doses of corruption. Westmoreland 
 and his myrmidons actually persuaded Pitt, in 1792, that 
 Irish Protestantism and its Parliament were unconquerably 
 adverse to the admission of Roman Catholics to the fran¬ 
 chise ; but when the proposal was made from the Throne in 
 1793, notwithstanding the latent hostility of the Castle, the 
 Parliament passed the Bill with little delay, and “ without 
 any serious opposition.” * The votes against it were one 
 and three on two divisions f respectively. A minority of 
 sixty-nine supported, against the Government, a clause for 
 extending the measure to seats in Parliament. That clause, 
 lost by a majority of ninety-four, might apparently have been 
 carried, but for “ Dublin Castle,” by an even larger majority. 
 
 I shall not here examine the interesting question, whether 
 the mission of Lord Fitzwilliam was wholly due to the 
 action of those Whig statesmen who were friendly to the 
 war, but disinclined to a junction with Mr. Pitt except 
 on condition of a fundamental change in the administration 
 of Ireland. Nor shall I dwell upon his sudden, swift, and 
 disastrous recall. But I purpose here to invite attention to 
 the most remarkable fact in the whole history of the Irish 
 Parliament. When the Viceroy’s doom was known, when 
 the return to the policy and party of ascenden'cy lay darkly 
 lowering in the immediate future, this diminutive and 
 tainted Irish Parliament, with a chivalry rare even in the 
 noblest histories, made what can hardly be called less than 
 a bold attempt to arrest the policy of retrogression adopted 
 by the Government in London. Lord Fitzwilliam was the 
 declared friend of Roman Catholic Emancipation, which 
 was certain to be followed by reform; and he had struck 
 a death-blow jat bigotry and monopoly in the person of 
 their heads, Mr. Beresford and Mr. Cooke. The Bill of 
 Emancipation was introduced on the 12th of February,! 
 with only three dissentient voices. On the 14th, when the 
 
 * Lecky, vi. 567. t Plowden’s Historical Review, ii. 335. 
 t Ibid., ii. 353. 
 
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 279 
 
 London Cabinet had declared dissent from the proceedings 
 of their Viceroy without recalling him, Sir L. Parsons at 
 once moved an address, imploring him to continue among 
 them, and only postponed it at the friendly request of Mr. 
 Ponsonby.* On the 2nd of March, when the recall was a 
 fact, the House voted that Lord Fitzwilliam merited “ the 
 thanks of that House, and the confidence of the people.” f 
 On the 5th the Duke of Leinster moved, and the House of 
 Peers carried, a similar resolution. J 
 
 At this epoch I pause. Here there" opens a new and 
 disastrous drama of disgrace to England and misery to 
 Ireland. This is the point at which we may best learn the 
 second and the greatest lesson taught by the history of 
 Ireland in the eighteenth century. It is this, that, awful 
 as is the force of bigotry, hidden under the mask of religion, 
 but fighting for plunder and for power with all the advan¬ 
 tages of possession, of prescription, and of extraneous 
 support, there is a David that can kill this Goliath. That 
 conquering force lies in the principle of nationality. 
 
 It was the growing sense of nationality that prompted 
 the Irish Parliament to develop its earlier struggles for 
 privilege on the narrow ground into a genuine contest for 
 freedom, civil and religious, on a ground as broad as 
 Ireland, nay, as humanity at large. If there be such things 
 as contradictions in the world of politics, they are to be found 
 in nationality on the one side, and bigotry of all kinds on 
 the other, but especially religious bigotry, which is of all the 
 most baneful. Whatever is given to the first of these two 
 is lost to the second. I speak of a reasonable and reasoning, 
 not of a blind and headstrong nationality; of a nationality 
 which has regard to circumstances and to traditions, and 
 which only requires that all relations, of incorporation or 
 of independence, shall be adjusted to them according to 
 the laws of Nature’s own enactment. Such a nationality 
 
 * Plowden’s Historical Review, ii. 498. 
 
 t ibid., ii. 357. . J Ibid., ii. 505. 
 
28 o 
 
 LESSOm OF IRISH HISTORY. 
 
 was the growth of the last century in Ireland. As each 
 Irishman began to feel that he had a country, to which 
 he belonged, and which belonged to him, he was, by a 
 true process of nature, drawn more and more into brother¬ 
 hood, and into the sense of brotherhood, with those who 
 shared the allegiance and the property, the obligation 
 and the heritage. And this idea of country, once well con¬ 
 ceived, presents itself as a very large idea, and as a frame¬ 
 work for most other ideas, so as to supply the basis of a 
 common life. Hence it was that, on the coming of Lord 
 Fitzwilliam, the whole generous emotion of the country leapt 
 up with one consent, and went forth to meet him. Hence 
 it was that religious bigotry was no longer an appreciable 
 factor in the public life of Ireland. Hence it was that 
 on his recall, and in order to induce acquiescence in his 
 recall, it became necessary to divide again the host that 
 had welcomed him—to put one part of it in array as 
 Orangemen, who were to be pampered and inflamed; and 
 to quicken the self consciousness of another and larger mass 
 by repulsion and proscription, by stripping Roman Catholics 
 of arms in the face of licence and of cruelty, and, finally, by 
 clothing the extreme of lawlessness with the forms of law. 
 
 Within the last twelve months we have seen, in the streets 
 of Belfast, the painful proof that the work of Beresford and 
 of Castlereagh has been found capable for the moment of 
 revival. To aggravate or sustain Irish disunion, religious 
 bigotry has been again evoked in Ireland. If the curse be 
 an old one, there is also an old cure, recorded in the grand 
 pharmacopoeia of history; and if the abstract force of policy 
 and prudence are insufficient for the work, we may yet find 
 that the evil spirit will be effectually laid by the gentle 
 influence of a living and working Irish nationality. Quod 
 faxit Deus. 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES, 
 

 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 - ' r - '.O. 
 
 ■■ 
 
 V 
 
 L 
 
RECENTLY PUBLISHED. 
 
 BY THE Right Hon. G. SHAVV-LEFEVRE, M.P. 
 
 PEEL AND O’CONNELL 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE IRISH POLICY 
 OF PARLIAMENT FROM THE ACT OF UNION TO 
 THE DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. 
 
 Demy Sz>o, cloth, i05'. 6d. 
 
 By R. BARRY O’BRIEN. 
 
 IRISH WRONGS 
 
 AND 
 
 ENGLISH REMEDIES 
 
 WITH OTHER ESSAYS. 
 
 Crown %vo, cloth, 5 ^. 
 
 LONDON; KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO. 
 
Price Is.; or bound in doth Ump, Is. 6d. 
 
 r. 
 
 THE 
 
 Home-Rulers 
 Manual 
 
 BY 
 
 E. BARRY O’BRIEN 
 
 (of the middle temple, barrister-at-law) 
 
 AUTHOR OF “FIFTY YEARS OP COXCESSIONS TO IRELAND 
 “THOMAS DRUMMOND’S LIFE AND LETTERS,” ETC. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 KEG AX PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Lt'.’ 
 
 1890 
 
THE 
 
 HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL 
 
 R. BARRY O’BRIEN 
 
 (of the middle temple, barrister-at-law) 
 
 AUTHOR OF “FIFTY YEARS OF CONCESSIONS TO IRELAND” 
 “THOMAS DRUMMOND’S LIFE AND LETTERS,” ETC. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Lt'.' 
 
 1800 
 
(77ie rights of trcmslalion and of reproduction are reserved.') 
 
PREFATORY. 
 
 The object of this little book is to place some facts 
 and figures on the Irish Question before English 
 readers, and to do so in a spirit of fair play. 
 
 Whatever side we take in this great controversy, 
 let us, at least, observe the golden rule : inquire and 
 tolerate. 
 
 R. Barry O’Briex. 
 
 Lincoln’s Inn, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAKT I. 
 
 HOME EULE. 
 
 I. 
 
 I'AliK 
 
 WlIAT IS MEANT BY HoME ItULE ?. I 
 
 Definition of Homo Kule . . .. .. .. . . 1 
 
 Irish Affairs .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 1 
 
 Imperial Affairs .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 
 
 Irish Eepresciitativcs at Westminster .. .. .. 2 
 
 Mr. Gladstone on the Retention of Irish Members .. h 
 Mr. Parnell on the Irish Demand .. .. .. 1! 
 
 II. 
 
 Do THE Masses op the Ihish People want Home Rule ? .. 4 
 
 Irish Parliamentary Representation .. .. .. 4 
 
 Lord Spencer on Irish Elections .. .. .. .. o-T 
 
 General Election, 1885 .. .. .. .. .. 7-9 
 
 Irish Representative Bodies for Home Rule .. .. 9 
 
 Irish Census, 1881 . . .. .. .. .. .. 10 
 
 The Masses of tlie People in favour of Home Rule .. 11 
 
 III. 
 
 Why the Ikish want Home Rule .. .. .. .. 11 
 
 Mr. Goldwiu Smith on the Irish Question .. 11-13 
 
 Mr. Carlile on National Government .. .. . 13 
 
 Character of the Irish Government since 1801 .. . . 14 
 
 Lords-Lioutenant since 1801 .. .. .. 14, 15 
 
 Chief Secretaries since 1801 .. .. .. 15-17 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mr. Clifford Lloyd on “ the Castle ” .. . ., 17 
 
 Imperial Legislation for Ireland .. .. , . .. 18 
 
 Catholic Emancipation .. ,. .. .. 18-21 
 
 Disfranchisement of Forty-shilling Freeholders .. 21 
 
 “ National ” Education .. .. . . . . 21-23 
 
 Parliamentary Reform .. .. .. .. 24-20 
 
 County Electors of Ireland, 1832-1889 .. .. .. 26 
 
 Total Irish Electorate, 1889 .. .. .. .. 26 
 
 Tithe Reform .. .. . . ,. .. 26, 27 
 
 Poor Law .. .. .. .. . . . . .. 27 
 
 Municipal Refoi ni .. . . . . . . . . .. 27 
 
 Disestablishment .. , . . . .. .. 27, 28 
 
 Land Question .. .. .. .. .. .. 28 
 
 Lord Derby and Mr. Bright on Tenants’ Improvements 28, 29 
 Devon Commission .. .. .. .. .. .. 29 
 
 Encumbered Estates Act .. .. .. .. .. 30 
 
 Deasy’s Act .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 31 
 
 The Bessborough Commission on Deasy’s Act.. .. 32 
 
 Land Bills and Land Acts from 1829 to 1870 .. 32, 33 
 
 Land Act of 1870 .. .. .. .. .. .. 33 
 
 Land Act of 1881 . .34-36 
 
 Arrears Act, 1882 .. .. .. .. .. .. 36 
 
 Land Purchase Act, 1885 .. .. . . .. 36, 37 
 
 Land Act of 1887 .. .. .. .. .. .. 38 
 
 The Spectator on the Concessions of 1881-1887 and the 
 Land League .. .. .. .. .. .. 38 
 
 The Tories and the Land Legislation of 1881-1887 39, 40 
 
 The Failure of Imperial Legislation .. . . 40, 41 
 
 Coercion Acts since the Union .. .. .. 41,42 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain on British Rule in Ireland . . .. 42 
 
 PART II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO HOME EULE. 
 
 I. 
 
 Home Rule will lead lo Separation . .. 44 
 
 Irish Political Movements in the Past .. .. .. 44 
 
 The Volunteers, 1779-1782 .. .. .. . . 44 
 
 The United Irishmen .. .. .. .. 44,45 
 
CONTENTS. ix 
 
 TAGE 
 
 Eobert Emmett .. .. .. . . . . . . 45 
 
 O’Connell .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 45 
 
 Young Ireland .. . . . . . . .. .. 45 
 
 The Fenians .. . . .. .. .. 45, 4G 
 
 Mr. Parnell on Home Rule and Separation . . 46, 47 
 
 II. 
 
 Home Rule aot) Religious Persecution .. .. .. 47 
 
 Mr. Lecky on Irish Tolerance .. .. .. 47, 48 
 
 Lord Redesdale on the Absence of Religious Feeling in 
 Irish Politics .... .. .. .. .. 48 
 
 The Irish Question is not Catholic and Protestant .. 49 
 
 O’Connell on the Irish Question . . . . . . . , -lO 
 
 Popular Heroes—Protestants .49 
 
 Irish Rebels—Protestants.50 
 
 Constitutional Agitators — Catliolics . . .. .. 50 
 
 Lord Dufferin on the Fenians . . .. . . .. 50 
 
 Rebel Belfast .. .. .. .. . . .. 51 
 
 Republican Feeling of Ulster in the Eighteenth Century 51 
 
 Public ]\Ien in Ireland since the Union .. .. .. 52 
 
 Mr. Lecky on the Rebellion of 1641 and the Parliament 
 of 1689 52-69 
 
 PART HI. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOME EULE. 
 
 1 . 
 
 Irish Nationality .. .. .70 
 
 What is a Nation? .. .. .. .. .. .. yp 
 
 The Factors of Nationality . . .. .. .. 70 
 
 Race .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 71 
 
 Religion .. .. .. .. .. .. 72 
 
 Language .. .. .. . . .. .. 72 
 
 Geography .. .. .. .. .. .. 72 
 
 Population .. .. .. .. .. .. 72 
 
 History .. .. .. . . ., .. .. 72 
 
 Irish History .. .. .. .. .. 73-93 
 
X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 II. 
 
 Ulstisi!. ,. . . .. .. 93 
 
 The Plantation of Ulster . . .. . . . . .. 93 
 
 The Colony and the Nation . . .. . . . . 93 
 
 Ulster Census, 1881 . . . . . . . . 91,95 
 
 Catholic.s and Protestants .. .. . . . . 91, 95 
 
 Ulster in Parliament .. . . .. .. .. 95 
 
 Tory County of Ulster .. .. .. . . . . 95 
 
 Home Eule Counties . . .. . . . . .. 90 
 
 Divided Ulster—Counties . . .. . . .. 90 
 
 Tory Boroughs .. .. .. . . .. . . 90 
 
 Home Eule Boroughs .. . . . . .. .. 90 
 
 Divided Ulster—Boroughs .. . . .. .. 90 
 
 Political Boundary of‘‘Unionist” Ulster .. .. 90 
 
 The Imperial Parliament and Ulster .. .. 97, 98 
 
 The Tranquillity of Ulster .. .. .. .. 99 
 
 Ulster Tenant-right .. .. .. . . 100, 101 
 
 Cause of Agrarian Outrages .. .. .. .. 101 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Froude on Agrarian 
 Outrages .. .. .. . . .. .. 101-103 
 
 Evictions and Outrages between 1819 and 1881 .. 104 
 
 Evictions in Ireland and Elsewhere .. .. 105, 106 
 
 Occupations of the Irish People .. .. .. .. 100 
 
 Occirpations of the British People .. .. 106,107 
 
 Lord Dutferiii on the Destruction of Irish Manufac¬ 
 tures .. .. .. .. .. .. 107-109 
 
 The Ulster Case summed up .. .. .. .. 109 
 
 III. 
 
 Home Eule and Eemedial Measuhes . 110-111 
 
 IV. 
 
 The “ Eespectable ” Membei-ts of the Community and Home 
 
 Eule .. .. . .. .. .. .. 112 
 
 The TMire.s and O’Connell.. .. .. .. 113-118 
 
 The Times and Drummond .. . . . . 118, 119 
 
 Mr. Cobden on the Times .. .. .. .. .. 120 
 
 “ Eespectable ” Ulster and Irish Eeforms .. 120,121 
 
 The House of Lords and Irish Eeforms .. .. 121-125 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XI 
 
 r AO E 
 
 The Part played by tlie “ Respectable ’ ’ Classes generally 
 
 in the History of Reform .. .. .. 125,120 
 
 V. 
 
 The PnosPERTTY op Ireland since the Union.. .. .. 120 
 
 The Condition of the Irish Peasantry sinee the Union 120 
 Authorities cited— 
 
 Newenham .. .. . . .. .. . . 120 
 
 ATakefield .. .. .. . . .. . . 127 
 
 Gongh .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 127 
 
 Select Committee, House of Commons, 1810 .. 127 
 
 Wiggins (agent to Lord Headfort) .. .. .. 127 
 
 Annual Register, 1822 .. .. .. . . 127 
 
 Select Committee, House of Commons, 1823 127, 128 
 
 Mr. Ninimo .. .. .. .. .. .. 128 
 
 Poor Law Commissioners, 1830 .. . . .. 128 
 
 Sir George Cornewall Lewis . . .. .. .. 128 
 
 Thomas Drummond .. .. .. .. ..129 
 
 Gustave de Beaumont . . .. . . .. 129 
 
 The Devon Commission .. .. .. . . 129 
 
 Sir Gavan Duffy .. .. .. .. .. 130 
 
 Joseph Kay. 130-132 
 
 liord Dufferhi .. .. .. .. .. • .. 132 
 
 General Gordon .. . . .. . . 132, 133 
 
 Decline of Population since 1847 .. . . . . .. 133 
 
 Emigration since 18.51 .. .. .. .. .. 1.34 
 
 Money sent from America by Irish Emigrants .. 1.34, 13.5 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 MR. BALFOUR, IRELAND, AND THE LEAGUE 
 
 I. 
 
 Mr. Balpol'r and the Tranquillity of Ireland .. .. 137 
 
 Agrarian Crime and Political Discontent .. . . 137 
 
 Agrarian Crime during the Fenian Movement . . 138-140 
 
 Mr. Balfour and Home Ride . . . . . . . . 140 
 
 Bye-elections in Great Britain . . 140 
 
 Mr. Balfour and Agrarian Crime .. .. . . .. 141 
 
 Dr. Doyle on Coercion .. .. .. .. ..142 
 
XU 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 II. 
 
 Irish Agrarian Societies and the Land League 
 The Land War in Ireland .. 
 
 Whiteboys, 1761-1762 
 Hearts of Steel, 1771 
 Whiteboys, 177.5 
 Rightboys, 1785 
 Thrashers, 1806 
 Whiteboys, 1807 
 Whitefeet 
 Blackfeet 
 Terry Alts 
 Lady Clares 
 Molly Maguires 
 Rookites 
 
 Ribbonism, 1835-1889 
 
 Lord Hartington on the Ribbon Society in 1871 
 Agrarian Crime and Landlordism 
 Witnesses against Landlordism, 1718-1881 .. 145, 
 
 III. 
 
 The ViOLigNCE op the Land League 
 
 The Land Question in Parliament prior to the Estab¬ 
 lishment of the Land League .. 
 
 The Land Question in Parliament after the Establish¬ 
 ment of the Land League 
 
 The Violence of Irish Agitators generally—O’Connell.. 
 The Story of the Clare Election .. .. .. 147- 
 
 Lord Anglesey’s Reasons for favouring Catholic Eman¬ 
 cipation 
 
 Sir Robert Peel’s Reasons for granting Catholic Eman¬ 
 cipation .. .. .. .. .. .. 150, 
 
 Lord Derby on Irish Violence and English Concessions 151- 
 
 PART V. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS IN IRELAND. 
 
 Irish Paeliajibnts .. 
 
 Section I., 1171-1495 
 
 Hallam on the Early Institutions of Ireland .. 
 
 |> 1830-1835 
 
 PAGE 
 
 143 
 
 143 
 
 143 
 
 143 
 
 143 
 
 143 
 
 144 
 
 144 
 
 144 
 
 144 
 
 145 
 
 146 
 
 146 
 
 146 
 
 147 
 147 
 •150 
 
 150 
 
 151 
 ■153 
 
 154 
 
 154 
 
 154 
 
CONTENTS. Xlll 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Leading Dates .. .. .. .. .. •. 155 
 
 1171-1172 .155 
 
 1295 .. 155, 156 
 
 1310.156 
 
 1316.156 
 
 1341.156 
 
 1359 156 
 
 1367 157 
 
 1459 157 
 
 Summary of Section I. .. .. . . .. 157, 158 
 
 Section II., 1495-1782 .. . . .. .. .. 158 
 
 Leading Dates—1495 (Poynings’ Law) .. .. 158, 159 
 
 1537 .. .. ’.159 
 
 1560 159 
 
 1569 160 
 
 1576 160 
 
 1613. 161,162 
 
 1640 162 
 
 1654 162 
 
 1661 162,163 
 
 1689 163 
 
 1692 163 
 
 1695-1714 163, 164 
 
 1719.164 
 
 1719-1774 164 
 
 1774-1781 164, 165 
 
 Summary of Section II. .. .. .. . . .. 165 
 
 Section III., 1782-1800 .. . . . . . . .. 165 
 
 Leading Dates — 1782 . . . . . . . . 165,166 
 
 1783 167 
 
 1792 167 
 
 1793 168 
 
 1795 168 
 
 1800 . 168 
 
 Summary of Section III. .. .. .. .. 168, 169 
 
 Mr. Leckyou the Last Years of the Iriah Parliament 169, 170 
 The Irish Debt before and after the Union .. .. 170 
 
 The Catholic Question in the Irish and in the Imperial 
 Parliament .. .. .. .. .. 170,171 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 r.\fiE 
 
 ir. 
 
 The Stohy of the Uniox .. .171 
 
 The Unbribed Intellect of Ireland against the Union .. 172 
 
 Plnnket’s Speech .. .. .. .. .. 172,171! 
 
 Sanrin .. . . .. .. .. . . .. 17;! 
 
 Burrowes .. . . .. . . . . .. .. 173 
 
 Unparalleled “ Corruption ” .. .. . . .. 171 
 
 Lord Cornivallis’s Opinion of his Duties .. . . 175 
 
 Irish Opinion against the Union. . . . .. 175, 17G 
 
 Ireland and Poland .. .. .. .. .. 17() 
 
 The Union “ a Crime of the Deepest Turpitude ” 17G, 177 
 
 The Effect of the Union .. .. . . . . 177,178 
 
 “ A Great Crime and a Great Blunder ”. . . . .. 178 
 
 III. 
 
 Conclusion. .. .. .. 178 
 
 Summary of the Whole Case .. .. .. 178-181 
 
 Progress of Home Eule in Ulster .. .. .. 181-184 
 
THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 PAET I. 
 
 HOME RULE. 
 
 I. 
 
 WHAT IS MEANT BY HOME RULE ? 
 
 The Irish mean by Home Rule the government of 
 Ireland by men possessing the confidence of the 
 masses of the Irish people. 
 
 This is the sum total of their demand. 
 
 But how is such a government to be obtained ? By 
 the establishment of an Irish Parliament, and an Irish 
 Executive for the control and management of purely 
 Irish affairs, reserving to the Imperial Parliament the 
 control and management of Imperial affairs. But 
 what are Irish, what Imperial affairs ? 
 
 Irish Affairs. 
 
 The Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin should deal 
 with the following subjects;—Education, land, justice, 
 commerce, customs, police. 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Imperial Affairs. 
 
 The Imperial Parliament at Westminster should 
 continue to deal with the graver questions affecting 
 foreign policy, peace or war, the army and navy, 
 mattei’s relating to the Crown (including, if the 
 occasion should arise, the appointment of Regent), the 
 currency, the post office. 
 
 The Irish Lord-Lieutenant should be api)ointed by 
 the Crown; the Irish judges, by the Irish Executive; 
 the police should be regulated on the same principle 
 as they are now regulated in English municipalities. 
 
 The Lord-Lieutenant should have a veto on Irish 
 legislation. 
 
 The Irish Parliament should have no voice in ques¬ 
 tions affecting the empire at large; no control over 
 the army or navy, no vote on peace or war. 
 
 Irish Representatives at Westminster. 
 
 But Ii’ish representatives should (if the English 
 people so wish it) sit at Westminster, to vote on Im¬ 
 perial questions. How many Irish membei'S should sit 
 at Westminster, and whether they should be permitted 
 to vote on Imperial questions only, taking no part in 
 the discussion of British affairs, are matters which the 
 Irish people are willing to leave entirely in the hands 
 of their British fellow-citizens; their chief aim being 
 the management of their own affairs, and the building 
 up of their own nation, consistently with the integrity 
 and welfare of the Empire. 
 
KETENTION OF IKISH MEMBERS. 
 
 8 
 
 Mr. Gladstone on the Retention of Irish Memhers. 
 
 On the subject of the retention of Irish meniber.s 
 ]\Ir. Gladstone said in July, 1888— 
 
 “ It [the retention of Irish members] is a matter on 
 which I never had the slightest intention or disposi¬ 
 tion to interpose an objection. As to the mode of 
 doing it, it is obvious that there are many—there may 
 be a score—of modes of doing it. You may retain the 
 present number of Irish representatives, or you may 
 reduce it; you may elect Irish members to Westminster 
 directly, or you may elect them indirectly—that is, 
 have them chosen by an intermediate body such as 
 the Irish representatives. You may allow them to sit 
 in Parliament with the right to vote on all subjects, 
 or you may give them a limited right to sit with 
 power to vote on certain subjects. As to the practica¬ 
 bility of making a plan, there is no question at all 
 about it.” * 
 
 ilfr. Parnell on the Irish Demand. 
 
 Speaking of the disposition of the Irish to consider 
 the interests of the empire in putting forward their 
 own claims, Mr. Parnell said in March, 1889— 
 
 “ It is possible to arrange such a system as will 
 permit Ireland to have the power of dealing with all 
 those matters which concern herself, and herself alone, 
 without the slightest shadow of danger or risk to the 
 interests of the empire. All I ask is that you on your 
 side should be willing to consider and deal with this 
 * Bailij News, July 20, 1888. 
 
4 
 
 THE HOME-KULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 question as if it were an open question; that you 
 should consider how far you can give to Ireland the 
 right to legislate for herself with safety to your own 
 greater, and undoubtedly more overpowering interests. 
 It is legitimate and right that we, being the smaller 
 country, should endeavour to conciliate you in every 
 possible manner, and yield to you, and agree to such 
 safeguai’ds as you may think necessary or desirable 
 for the security of your own interests. We have 
 always been anxious for this, and we are still.” * 
 
 11 . 
 
 DO THE MASSES OF THE IRISH PEOPLE WANT HOME 
 RULE ? 
 
 This question may be answered in alleged Irish 
 fashion by asking another. What is the test of public 
 opinion in constitutional countries ? Unquestionably 
 the Parliamentary representation, when based on popu¬ 
 lar suffrage. Taking this test, how does the case stand ? 
 
 The Parliamentary Representation. 
 
 By the Reform Act of 1884 the Parliamentary suf¬ 
 frage was extended to the masses of the people in Ire¬ 
 land. In 1885 a general election took place. Result-— 
 
 Home Rulers .. .. .. .. .. .. 85 
 
 Auti-Home Rulers .. .. .. .. .. 18 
 
 lost 
 
 * House of Commons, March 1, 1889. 
 
 f At the Union the number of Irish members was fixed at 105. In 
 1870 two boroughs (Sligo and Cashel) were disfranchised. The 
 number of members was thus reduced to 103. 
 
IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION. 
 
 5 
 
 In 1886 another general election took place. Result— 
 
 Home Rulers .. .. .. .. .. . • 
 
 Anti-Home Rulers—Conservatives, 17 ; Dissentient 
 Liberals, 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. 19 * 
 
 103 
 
 In three provinces—Leinster, Munster, and Con¬ 
 naught—no county or borough returned a “Unionist” 
 candidate in 1885 or 1886.f 
 
 Wherever “Unionists” appeared in these provinces 
 in 1885, they were defeated by overwhelming majori¬ 
 ties in 1886 they scarcely attempted any serious 
 opposition at all. In Ulster, where alone the 
 
 “ Unionists ” have a stronghold, they only gained six¬ 
 teen seats in 1885, against seventeen gained by Home 
 Rulers, In 1886 the position of the parties remained 
 the same. In a word, three and a half provinces out 
 of four have declared by their Parliamentary repre¬ 
 sentatives in favour of Home Rule. 
 
 Lord Spencer has dealt ably and fairly with this 
 subject of Parliamentary elections in the “ Handbook 
 of Home Rule.” He says— 
 
 “ In Parliamentary elections we also find clear evi¬ 
 dence of the strength of the Nationalists, and the 
 extreme weakness of their opponents. This is a test 
 which those who accept popular representative govern¬ 
 ment cannot disregard, particularly at an election 
 when for the first time the new constituencies were 
 
 * One Unionist was unseated, and the seat was given to a Home 
 Ruler, thus reducing the Unionist number to 18. 
 
 t The University of Dublin returned two Conservatives. 
 
 J Dublin University, of course, excepted. 
 
6 
 
 THE HOME-RULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 called upon to exercise the privileges entrusted to 
 them by Parliament. Such was the election of 1885, 
 followed in 1886 by another General Election. In 
 1885 contests took place in, most of the Irish con¬ 
 stituencies. They were between Liberals allied with 
 Conservatives, and Parnellites. In 1886 the contests 
 were between those who called themselves Unionists 
 •and Parnellites, and the Irish policy of Mr. Gladstone 
 was specially referred to the electors. 
 
 “ In regard to the number of members returned on 
 the two sides, the result of each election was almost 
 identical, but in 1886 there were fewer contests. We 
 may, then, assume that the relative forces of Parnellites 
 and Unionists were accurately represented at the 
 election of 1885. If we take the votes at the election 
 of 1885 for candidates standing as Nationalists, we 
 •shall find, roughly speaking, that they obtained in 
 round numbers about 300,000 votes, and candidates 
 who stood either as Liberals or Conservatives, about 
 143,000. But the case is really stronger than these 
 figures represent it, because in some constituencies 
 the conte.sts were between Liberals and Conservatives, 
 and there can be no doubt that in those constituencies 
 a number of Nationalist votes were given for one or 
 both of such candidates—votes which, therefore, would 
 have to be deducted from the 143,000, leaving a still 
 heavier majority on the Nationalist side.* 
 
 “ If we look at individual constituencies, we find 
 that in South Kerry only 133 person.s voted for the 
 
 * “There wns one case—North Louth—in -which two Nationalists 
 opposed one another, and I have left that case out of the calculation.” 
 
GENEEAL ELECTION, 1885. 7 
 
 ‘ Unionist ’ candidate, while 2742 voted for the 
 Nationalist. 
 
 “ In six out of seven constituencies in Cork where 
 contests took place, 27,692 votes were given for the 
 Nationalists, and only 1703 for their opponents. In 
 Dublin, in the division which may be considered the 
 West-end constituency of the Irish metropolis, the 
 most successful man of commerce in Ireland, a leader 
 of society, whose liberality towards those in his 
 employment is only equalled by his munificence in 
 all public works, was defeated by over 1900 votes. 
 He did not stand in 1886, but his successor was 
 defeated by a still larger majority. These elections 
 show the numbers in Ireland on which the Govern¬ 
 ment and those who oppose Mr. Parnell’s policy can 
 count for support.” * 
 
 This statement may be supplemented by the follow¬ 
 ing figures :— 
 
 O O 
 
 General Election, 1885. 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Anti-Home 
 Rule Vote. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Majority. 
 
 Carlow County 
 
 4801 
 
 751 
 
 4050 
 
 Cavan, West 
 
 642.5 
 
 1779 
 
 4646 
 
 Clare, East 
 
 6224 
 
 289 
 
 59,35 
 
 „ West 
 
 6763 
 
 289 
 
 6474 
 
 Cork, East .. 
 
 4314 
 
 266 
 
 4048 
 
 „ Mid. 
 
 5033 
 
 106 
 
 4927 
 
 „ North 
 
 4982 
 
 102 
 
 4880 
 
 „ South 
 
 4823 
 
 195 
 
 4628 
 
 „ South-East .. 
 
 4620 
 
 661 
 
 3959 
 
 ■„ West . . 
 
 3920 
 
 373 
 
 3547 
 
 * “ Handbook of Home Rule ” (Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner am) 
 Co.), Preface, pp. xvi., xvii. 
 
THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 8 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Anti-JIome 
 Rule Vote. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Majority. 
 
 Cork City (uudivided) 
 
 (6682 
 
 ^6497 
 
 1456 
 
 1392 
 
 5226 
 
 5105 
 
 Donegal, North 
 
 4597 
 
 952 
 
 3645 
 
 „ South 
 
 5055 
 
 1369 
 
 3686 
 
 Dublin County, North .. 
 
 7560 
 
 1425 
 
 6135 
 
 „ City, College Green 
 
 6548 
 
 1518 
 
 5030 
 
 „ „ Harbour Division .. 
 
 6717 
 
 1628 
 
 5089 
 
 „ „ St. Patrick’s 
 
 5330 
 
 1162 
 
 4168 
 
 Galway County, East 
 
 4866 
 
 352 
 
 4514 
 
 „ City . 
 
 1335 
 
 164 
 
 1171 
 
 Kerry, West 
 
 2607 
 
 262 
 
 2345 
 
 „ South 
 
 2742 
 
 133 
 
 2609 
 
 „ East 
 
 3169 
 
 30 
 
 3139 
 
 Kildare, North 
 
 3168 
 
 467 
 
 2701 
 
 Kilkenny, North .. 
 
 4084 
 
 174 
 
 3910 
 
 „ South .. 
 
 4088 . 
 
 222 
 
 3166 
 
 King’s County, Tullamore 
 
 3700 
 
 323 
 
 3377 
 
 „ Birr 
 
 3408 
 
 760 
 
 2648 
 
 Leitrim, North 
 
 4686 
 
 541 
 
 4145 
 
 „ South 
 
 4525 
 
 489 
 
 4286 
 
 Limerick City 
 
 3098 
 
 635 
 
 2463 
 
 Longford, North .. 
 
 2549 
 
 163 
 
 2386 
 
 „ South .. 
 
 3046 
 
 321 
 
 2725 
 
 Mayo, West 
 
 4790 
 
 131 
 
 4659 
 
 „ South 
 
 4953 
 
 75 
 
 4878 
 
 Monaghan, South .. 
 
 4375 
 
 963 
 
 3412 
 
 Queen’s County, Leix 
 
 3750 
 
 507 
 
 3243 
 
 „ Ossory .. 
 
 3959 
 
 293 
 
 3666 
 
 Roscommon, North 
 
 6102 
 
 366 
 
 5736 
 
 „ South 
 
 6033 
 
 338 
 
 5695 
 
 Sligo, North 
 
 5216 
 
 772 
 
 4444 
 
 „ South 
 
 5151 
 
 541 
 
 4610 
 
 Tipperary, North .. 
 
 4789 
 
 252 
 
 4537 
 
 „ Mid. 
 
 3804 
 
 255 
 
 3549 
 
 „ South .. 
 
 3572 
 
 122 
 
 3450 
 
 „ East .. 
 
 4064 
 
 196 
 
 3868 
 
 Waterford County, West .. 
 
 3746 
 
 359 
 
 3387 
 
 „ „ East .. 
 
 3291 
 
 314 
 
 2977 
 
 „ City 
 
 Westmeath, North 
 
 2420 
 
 276 
 
 2144 
 
 3648 
 
 255 
 
 3393 
 
 „ South 
 
 3618 
 
 200 
 
 3418 • 
 
 Wexford, North 
 
 6531 
 
 917 
 
 5614 
 
 Wicklow, West 
 
 3721 
 
 871 
 
 2850 
 
 „ East 
 
 3385 
 
 1000 
 
 2385 
 
ULSTER CONSTITUENCIES. 
 
 9 
 
 Taking Ulster constituencies, we find— 
 
 O 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Anti-Home 
 Rule Vote. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Majority. 
 
 Donegal, East 
 
 4089 
 
 2992 
 
 1097 
 
 Fermanagh, North 
 
 3255 
 
 2822 
 
 483 
 
 „ South 
 
 3574 
 
 2181 
 
 1393 
 
 Londonderry, South 
 
 4723 
 
 41.58 
 
 565 
 
 Monaghan, North. . 
 
 4055 
 
 2685 
 
 1370 
 
 Tyrone, Mid 
 
 4299 
 
 2657 
 
 1642 
 
 „ East 
 
 3919 
 
 3361 
 
 558 
 
 „ South 
 
 3435 
 
 3382 
 
 53 
 
 We have seen that in four of the divisions of 
 Dublin the Nationalists were retui’ned by overwhelm¬ 
 ing majorities. In the two following divisions the 
 majorities were smaller. 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 1 Vote. 
 
 Anti-Home 
 Rule Vote. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Majority. 
 
 Dublin County, South 
 
 5114 
 
 3736 
 
 1378 
 
 „ City, Stephen's Green 
 
 . ! 5277 
 
 3334 
 
 1943* 
 
 The Munic^yal Corporations. 
 
 But the Home Rulers are not only in a majority in 
 Parliament; they are in a majority in almost every 
 representative body in the country. Says Lord 
 Spencer— 
 
 “ It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find 
 any Municipal Council, Boards of Guardians, or local 
 Boards, in Leinster, Munster, or Connaught, whose 
 members do not consist of a majority of Nationalists. 
 
 * Parliamentary (election) return 1885. See also Sir Charles 
 Russell, Speech before the Special Commission. 
 
ro 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 At nearly all such assemblies, whenever any important 
 political movement takes place in the country, or 
 when the Irish Government take any action which is 
 displeasing to the Nationalists, resolutions are dis¬ 
 cussed, and carried in a spirit of sharp hostility to the 
 Gov^ernment.” * 
 
 The Popular Church. 
 
 It may be added that the bishops and priests of the 
 Catholic Church, to which three-fourths of the people 
 belong, are, almost to a man, zealous supporters of 
 Home Rule. 
 
 The Irish Question is not a religious question, as 
 will appear more clearly later on;t but it is correct 
 to say that, in the main. Catholics are Home Rulers, 
 Protestants are not. This being the case, what is the 
 proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the country ? 
 According to the census of 1881, the figures stand :— 
 
 Catholics.. 
 
 . . 3,951,888 
 
 Protestant Episcopalians 
 
 635,670 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 485,503 
 
 Methodists 
 
 47,669 
 
 Independents 
 
 6,014 
 
 Baptists .. 
 
 4,894 
 
 Society of Friends 
 
 3,696 
 
 Jews 
 
 453 
 
 Thus it will be seen that, of the total population in 
 1881, about 76‘6 per cent, were Catholics, 12‘4 per cent. 
 Protestant Episcopalians, 9T per cent. Presbyterians, 
 and 1 per cent. Methodists, Of course, there are some 
 Catholics against Home Rule, as there are some 
 
 * ■* Handbook of Home Rule,” Preface, pp. x v., xvi. t Post, pp. 47,69. 
 
MR. GOLDWIN SMITH ON IRISH LEGISLATION. 11 
 
 Protestants in favour of it; though it may be said 
 that the national line is, upon the whole, coincident 
 with the religious line. This is so because the masses 
 of the people belong to one particular religion ; and it 
 must be remembered that some of the best of Irish 
 Nationalists have belonged to the religions of the 
 minority. 
 
 Then, judging by every fair test that can be taken, 
 the fact is clear that the masses of the Irish people 
 are in favour of Home Rule. 
 
 III. 
 
 WHY THE IRISH WANT HOME RULE. 
 
 The Irish have been driven to demand Home Rule 
 by the incompetence of the Imperial Parliament to 
 redress material grievances, or to satisfy national 
 aspirations. No one has stated the case better than 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith. He says — 
 
 “ The Irish legislation of the last foi’ty years,* not¬ 
 withstanding the adoption of some remedial measures, 
 has failed through the indifference of Parliament to 
 the sentiments of Irishmen; and the harshness of 
 English public opinion has embittered the effects on 
 Irish feeling of the indifference of Parliament. Occa¬ 
 sionally a serious effort has been made by an English 
 statesman to induce Parliament to approach Irish 
 questions in that spirit of sympathy, and with that 
 anxious desire to be just, without which a Parliament 
 * Written in 18C8. 
 
THE HOME-RULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 ]2 
 
 in London cannot legislate wisely for Ireland. Such 
 efforts have hitherto met with no response.” * 
 
 Again : “ The real I’oot of the disaffection, which it 
 exhibits itself at present in the guise of Fenianism, 
 and which has been suddenly kindled into flame by 
 the arming of the Irish in the American civil war, but 
 which existed before in a nameless and smouldering 
 state, is, as I believe, the want of national institutions, 
 of a national capital, of any objects of national refer¬ 
 ence and attachment, and, consequently, of anything 
 deserving to be called national life. The English 
 Crown and Parliament the Irish have never learnt, 
 nor have they any chance of learning, to love, or to 
 regard as national, notwithstanding the share that 
 was given them, too late, in the representation. 
 
 “ The greatness of England is nothing to them. Her 
 history is nothing or worse. The success of Irishmen 
 in London consoles the Irish in Ireland no more than 
 the success of Italian adventurers in foreign countries 
 (which was very remarkable) consoled the Italian 
 people. The drawing off of Irish talent, in fact, turns 
 to an additional grievance in their mind. Dublin is 
 a modern Tara, a metropolis from which the glory has 
 departed ; and the viceroyalty, though it pleases some 
 of the tradesmen, fails altogether to satisfy the people. 
 ‘ In Ireland we can make no appeal to patriotism; we 
 can have no patriotic sentiments in our school-books, 
 no patriotic emblems in our schools, because in Ireland 
 everything patriotic is rebellious.’ These were the 
 words uttered in my hearing, not by a complaining 
 * “ The Irish Question,” Preface, pp. iii., iv. 
 
MR. CARLILE ON NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 13 
 
 demagogue, but by a desponding statesman. They 
 seemed to me pregnant with fatal truths.” * 
 
 Mr. Garble, a Scotch Presbyterian and the able 
 organizer of the National Schools of Ireland, said in 
 1833— 
 
 “The Government of any nation must necessarily 
 partake of the character, particularly of the religious 
 character, of the nation. We do not expect to find 
 a Christian Government in _^a heathen country, nor 
 a heathen Government in a Christian country; a 
 Roman Catholic Government in a Protestant country, 
 nor a Protestant Government in a Roman Catholic 
 country. This is more obviously true as it respects free 
 countries, in which the governing power is constituted 
 by a direct representation of the principles and feel¬ 
 ings of the people; for, as all classes naturally desire, 
 for their own interest, to obtain as great a share in 
 the making and executing of laws as possible, each 
 class will, in exact proportion to its influence in 
 society, obtain its share of representation in the legis¬ 
 lative and executive departments of Government. 
 
 “If the people be Protestant, the Government will 
 be so also; if the people be Roman Catholics, such 
 will be the Government; if the people be both de¬ 
 nominations, so also will the Government. . . . Pre¬ 
 cisely as is the people, so Avill the governors be.” f 
 
 Taking these words as our text, let us see if the 
 Government of Ireland since the Union has “partaken 
 of the character of the nation.” 
 
 * “ The Irish Question,” pp. 7, 9. 
 
 t Carlile, “Thoughts on the Mixed Character of Government Insti¬ 
 tutions in Ireland,” etc., pp. 3, 4. 
 
li 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Character of the Irish Executive since the Ur ion. 
 
 The Governors o£ Ireland have been, practically, the 
 lords-lieutenant and chief secretaries. How many 
 of these have been Irish; how many Catholics ; hovv 
 many, whether Irish or British, Protestant or Catholic, 
 have been in touch with the masses of the people ? 
 
 Lords-Lieutenant. 
 
 The names in italics are Irish ; those with an asterisk were Catholics ; 
 those with an obelisk were in harmony with Irish opinion and feeling. 
 
 1801. Earl Hardwicke. 
 
 1806. Duke of Bedford. 
 
 1807. Duke of Richmond. 
 
 1813. Earl Whitworth. 
 
 1817. Earl Talbot. 
 
 1821. Marquis of Wellesley. 
 
 1828. Marquis of Anglesey.! 
 
 1829. Duke of Northumberland. 
 
 1830. Marquis of Anglesey.^ 
 
 1833. Marquis of Wellesley I 
 1834). Earl of Haddington. 
 
 1835. Earl of Mulgrave.f 
 1839. Lord Ebrington. 
 
 1841. Earl de Grey. 
 
 1844. Lord Heytesbury. 
 
 1846. Earl of Besshorough. 
 
 1847. Earl of Clarendon. 
 
 1852. Earl of Eglinton. 
 
 ’ The Marquis of Anglesey was recalled while he was popular, and 
 sent back after he had ceased to be popular. 
 
 ^ Came to administer a Coercion Act, and ceased to be popular. 
 
THE IRISH EXECUTIVE SINCE 1801. 
 
 15 
 
 1853. Earl of St. Germains. 
 
 1855. Earl of Carlisle. 
 
 1858. Earl of Eglinton. 
 
 1859. Earl of Carlisle. 
 
 1864. Earl of Kimberley. 
 
 1866. Duke of Abercorn. 
 
 1868 Eai’l Spencer. 
 
 1874. Duke of Abercorn. 
 
 1876. Duke of Marlborough. 
 
 1880. Earl Cowper. 
 
 1882. Earl Spencer. 
 
 1885. Lord Carnarvon. 
 
 1886. Lord Aberdeen, f 
 Marquis of Londondevrij. 
 
 Chief Secretaries. 
 
 1801. Lord Castlereagh. 
 
 Mr. Abbot (afterwards Loi’d Colchester). 
 
 1802. Mr. Wickham. 
 
 1804. Sir E. Nepean. 
 
 1805. Mr. Vansittart (afterwards Lord Bexley). 
 
 1806. Mr. Elliot. 
 
 1807. Sir Arthur Wellesley. 
 
 1809. Mr. Dundas (afterwards Lord Melville). 
 
 Mr. Wellesley Pole (afterwards Earl of Morn- 
 ington). 
 
 1813. Sir R. Peel. 
 
 1818. Mr. Grant (afterwards Lord Glenelg). 
 
 1821. Mr. Goulburn. 
 
 1827. Mr. Lamb (afterwards Lord Melbourne). 
 
 1828. Lord F. L. Gower. 
 
16 
 
 THE HOME-EULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 1830. Sir H. Hardinge. 
 
 1831. Mr. (afterwards Lord) Stanley. 
 
 1833. Sir J. C. Hobhouse. 
 
 Mr. Littleton (afterwards Lord Hatherton). 
 Sir. H. Hardinge. 
 
 1835. Viscount Morpeth.f 
 1841. Lord Elliot. 
 
 1845. Sir T. Freemantle. 
 
 1846. Earl of Lincoln. 
 
 Mr. Labouchere. 
 
 1847. Sir William Somerville. 
 
 1852. Lord Naas. 
 
 1853. Sir John Young. 
 
 1855. Mr. Horsman. 
 
 1857. Mr. Herbert. 
 
 1858. Lord Naas. 
 
 1859. Mr. Cardwell. 
 
 1861. Sir E. Peel. 
 
 1865. Mr. Chichester Fortescue (Lord Carlingford). 
 
 1866. Lord Naas. 
 
 1868. Colonel John Wilson Patten. 
 
 Mr. Chichester Fortescue. 
 
 1870. Marquis of Hartington. 
 
 1874. Sir M. Hicks Beach. 
 
 1878. Mr. Lowther. 
 
 1880. Mr. Forster. 
 
 1882. Lord Frederick Cavendish. 
 
 Mr. Trevelyan. 
 
 1884. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman. 
 
 1886. Sir W. Hart-Dyke. 
 
 Mr. John Morley. t 
 
MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD ON THE “CASTLE.' 
 
 17 
 
 1886. Sir M. Hicks Beach. 
 
 1887. Mr. Balfour. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that, out of twenty-six different 
 Lords-Lieutenant, there was not a single Catholic,* 
 there were only three Irishmen, and only four who 
 possessed the confidence of the people—the Marquis 
 of Wellesley, the Marquis of Anglesey, the Earl of 
 Mulgrave, and Loi'd Aberdeen. 
 
 Out of forty-two different Chief Secretaries there 
 was not a single Catholic, there were only eight Irish¬ 
 men, and only two men who possessed the popular 
 confidence—Lord Morpeth and Mr. John Morley. 
 
 But the character of the Irish Executive has recently 
 been summed up by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, himself a re¬ 
 markable Irish official. He says— 
 
 “ As to the ' Castle,’ it represents a system impos¬ 
 sible to please even the best disposed. Unsympathetic 
 and irritating in times of peace, it is inefficient in the 
 hour of trouble. The institution will die unmourned 
 and unregretted, except by a few Dublin tradesmen.” f 
 
 Let Englishmen picture to themselves what might 
 have been the fate of their country if the Spanish 
 Armada had not been scattered to the winds three 
 hundred years ago; let them think of England con¬ 
 quered by Spain, and governed from Madrid by 
 Spanish grandees, or Englishmen wholly out of .sym¬ 
 pathy with the feelings and aspirations of the English 
 people; then they will have some idea of what the 
 government of Ireland has been, and is. 
 
 * It is still contrary to law that there should be. 
 t Times, March 18,1889. 
 
 C 
 
IS 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Imperial Legislation. 
 
 The character of English legislation for Ireland 
 since the Union may be inferred from the character of 
 the Executive Government. The Executive disre¬ 
 garded Irish opinion. So did the Legislature. “ The 
 complaints [of the Irish],” says Mr. Bright, “have been 
 met—-complaints of their sufferings have been met— 
 often by denial, often by insult, often by contempt.” * 
 This sentence sums up the case, as an examination 
 of details will show. 
 
 Catholic Emancipation, 1829. 
 
 At the Union the population of Ireland was— 
 
 Catholics . 5,395,436 
 
 Protestants .. .. .. .. .. 1,080,000 1 
 
 The one million Protestants alone enjoyed the 
 rights and privileges of a free people. The five million 
 Catholics were excluded by law or in practice from 
 all positions of emolument and power in the State. 
 By law they were excluded from Parliament, from 
 the Bench, from the highest rank at the Bar,t from 
 the Lord-Lieutenancy and many minor posts; in 
 practice they were excluded from almost all the 
 
 * House of Commons, October 17, 1866. 
 
 + Newenham, “A View of the Natural, Political, and Commercial 
 Circumstances of Ireland,” p. 242; and, by the same author, “A Statis¬ 
 tical and Historical Inquiry into the Progress and Magnitude of the 
 Population of Ireland,” pp. 307, 320. 
 
 % Attorney or Solicitor General, King’s Counsel. 
 
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 
 
 ]9 
 
 municipalities, from the magistracy, the grand juries, 
 and some three thousand other important offices.* 
 Between 1801 and 1829 constant efforts were made 
 for Catholic Emancipation — for the admission of 
 Catholics to Parliament, to the Bench, to the highest 
 rank at the Bar, and to other civil rights enjoyed by 
 the Protestant minority—but in vain. The Legisla¬ 
 ture turned a deaf ear to the demands of the vast 
 masses of the Irish people. At length (1829) Eman¬ 
 cipation was granted under circumstances which Sir 
 George Cornewall Lewis has described. “ The 
 Catholic Association [formed by O’Connell] had brought 
 matters to a pass which rendered it necessary for Eng¬ 
 land to choose between the concession of the Catholic 
 claims and the reconquest of Ireland. ‘ Such is the 
 extraordinary power of the association,’ wrote the 
 Lord-Lieutenant in 1828,‘or rather of the agitators, 
 of whom there are many of high ability, of ardent 
 mind, of great daring—that I am quite certain 
 they could lead on the people to open rebellion at a 
 moment’s notice, and their organization is such that, 
 in the hands of desperate and intelligent leaders, they 
 would be extremely formidable.’ ‘ I have little doubt,’ 
 said the Chief Secretary, ‘ that the peasantry of the 
 South at present look forward to the period of 
 O’Connell’s expulsion from the House of Commons 
 [after being elected for Clare in July, 1828] as the time 
 
 * See Parnell, “Penal Laws,” pp. 116 and 120, note; Hansard, 3rd 
 Series, vol. xxxi. p. 1020. The Francliise Act passed by the Irish 
 Parliament in 1793 admitted Catholics to the municipal corporatiou.s, 
 bnt they were practically excluded until 1840. 
 
20 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 of rising, but any occurrence in the interval which 
 should appear to be adverse to the Roman Catholic 
 body might precipitate the result.’ ” Sir George 
 Cornewall Lewis adds: “ Catholic Emancipation was 
 carried because the Catholic Association and the Clare 
 election had convinced Sir Robert Peel and the Duke 
 of Wellington that Ireland had become ungovernable, 
 and that the choice lay between concession and civil 
 war.” * “I have for years,” said Sir R. Peel in 1829, 
 “attempted to maintain the exclusion of the Roman 
 Catholics. I resign the struggle because it can no 
 longer be advantageously maintained.” f “ Concession 
 from Mr. Canning,” said Sir Robert Inglis in 1829, 
 “would have been alms from the merciful—a debt 
 from the just. Concession from the right honourable 
 gentleman [Peel] is his purse surrendered to a foot¬ 
 pad. This surrender to the Roman Catholics is a 
 direct premium to intimidation.” J My readers will 
 judge from these extracts whether the Irish people 
 owed Emancipation to the justice or the fears of the 
 English Parliament; whether it was a boon graciously 
 given, or a surrender reluctantly made. 
 
 Catholic Emancipation, passed in 1829, remained 
 practically a dead letter until 1835. § Between 1835 
 and 1840—during the Irish administration of Thomas 
 Drummond ||—it became a reality. But from 1840 
 
 * Cornewall Lewis, “ Administrations of Great Britain,” pp. 454, 
 455, 467. 
 
 t “ Two Centuries of Irish History,” p. 311. 
 
 X House of Commons, May 30, 1829. 
 
 § Lecky, “ Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland,” p. 260. 
 
 11 During the ministry of Lord Melbourne, Drummond (then filling 
 
DISFKANCHISEMENT OF FREEHOLDERS. 
 
 21 
 
 onward it has been but fitfully carried out. No 
 Catholic could be Lord Chancellor in Ireland till 1867. 
 To this day no Catholic can be Lord-Lieutenant. 
 
 Disfranchisement of the Forty-Shilling Freeholders, 
 
 1829. 
 
 Catholic Emancipation was accompanied by an act 
 which deprived it of all grace—the disfranchisement 
 of the forty-shilling freeholders. In 1793 the Irish 
 Parliament conferred the Parliamentary franchise on 
 all forty-shilling freeholders, Catholic and Protestant 
 alike. This Act was allowed to remain in force as 
 long as these freeholders voted at the bidding of the 
 landlords. But in 1828 they as.serted their independ¬ 
 ence by returning O’Connell for Clare, and were, in 
 consequence, disfranchised. 
 
 “ The forty-shilling freeholders,” said Lord Anglesey, 
 “ were first created for electioneering purposes. As 
 long as they allowed themselves to be driven to the 
 hustings like sheep to the shambles without a will of 
 their own, all was well; not a murmur was heard. 
 But the moment these poor people found out the value 
 of their tenure, the moment they exercised their power 
 constitutionally, that instant they were swept out of 
 political existence.” * 
 
 “ National ” Education. 
 
 Up to 1831 Protestant schools were supported by 
 the State in Ireland. But not a shilling of the public 
 
 the post of Under-Secretary at the Castle) was practically the ruler of 
 Ireland. 
 
 ♦ Spencer Walpole, “History of England,” vol. ii. p. 519. 
 
09 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 money was given to any Catholic school. In 1831 a 
 system of “ national ” education was established by the 
 State for Protestants and Catholics, and maintained 
 by Parliamentary grants. 
 
 The Irish people—Catholics, Protestant Episcopalians, 
 and Presbyterians—wanted denominational education. 
 Parliament gave them mixed schools. According to 
 the new system, four days in the week were to be 
 devoted to moral and literary, and one or two days to 
 separate religious instruction. A Board, composed 
 partly of Catholics and partly of Protestants, was to 
 have the entire management and control of the schools. 
 The Catholics acquiesced in the new system as an 
 improvement on former methods. But the Presby¬ 
 terians and Protestant Episcopalians opposed it. The 
 latter practically held aloof from the schools, while 
 the former tried to convert them into sectarian 
 establishments: and they succeeded. Gradually, the 
 safeguards which Parliament had set up to keep the 
 schools non-sectarian were removed, and many of the 
 Ulster schools became practically Presbyterian.* 
 
 The Presbyterians having commenced the conflict 
 in the north, it was carried on by the Catholics and 
 Protestant Episcopalians throughout the rest of the 
 country, where the schools Anally became Catholic or 
 Protestant Episcopalian. 
 
 Thus the determination of the people defeated the 
 
 * For details, see “Fifty Years of Concessions to Ireland,” vol. i. 
 p. 214. The Presbyterians {inter alia) objected to the rule by which 
 one day in the week was given to separate religious instruction. The 
 rule, with many other.s, was abolished. 
 
THE “NATIONAL” SCHOOLS. 
 
 23 
 
 designs of Parliament, and denominational education 
 was practically established in spite of the Legislature. 
 
 These “ national ” schools have done much good. 
 But it is to be regretted that the “ concession ” was 
 marred by the unwillingness of Parliament to consult 
 Irish opinion on the subject of Irish education, and 
 by the efforts long sustained to make the schools 
 anti-national. The original Board consisted of four 
 Protestants and two Catholics, in a country where 
 C’atholics were to Protestants as five to one. A Scotch 
 l^resbyterian practically managed the system. The 
 books, with one exception, were prepared by Eng¬ 
 lishmen or Scotchmen. Irish history and national 
 ])oetry were boycotted. Patriotic songs Avere sup¬ 
 pressed. Even Scott’s “ Breathes there a man,” was 
 replaced in one of the books by these lines— 
 
 “ I thank the goodness and the grace 
 That on my birth liave smiled. 
 
 And made me in these Christian days 
 A happy English child.” 
 
 It has only been since 18G0 that the schools have 
 been conducted on fair and rational lines. 
 
 But the authorities are even yet afraid to teach 
 national history in the “ National Schools ” of Ireland. 
 A significant commentary on the government of the 
 country.* 
 
 * The character of the “National” Schools may be gathered from 
 the following statistics, collected in 1870 :— 
 
 Mixed Schools ender Catholic Teachers exclusively. 
 
 Schools .. .. .. .. .. .. 2707 
 
 Catholic pupils, per cent. .. .. .. .. 377'4 
 
 I’rotestant pupils, per cent. .. .. .. 22'0 
 
24: 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Parliamentary Reforri, 1832-1884 
 
 The Irish Reform Act of 1832 was narrow and 
 inadequate. The franchises proposed by ■ the Irish 
 members were— 
 
 40s. freeholders. 
 
 £5 leaseholders. 
 
 £10 leaseholders. 
 
 The franchises passed by ministers— 
 
 £10 freeholders. 
 
 £20 leaseholders. 
 
 £10 leaseholders. 
 
 O’Connell declared that the Act would be a failure; 
 that it would leave the people practically unenfran¬ 
 chised. He was right. In 1844 Sir W. Somerville, 
 subsequently Chief Secretary for Ireland, said— 
 
 “ The House well remembered that by the Reform 
 Act a £10 franchise was conferred on Ireland, and the 
 
 Mixed Schools undeu Protestant Teachers exclusively. 
 
 Schools .1269 
 
 Catholic pupils, per cent. .. .. .. .. 84 5 
 Protestant pupils, per cent. .. .. .. 315'5 
 
 Mixed Schools under Catholic and Protestant Teachers 
 
 CONJOINTLY. 
 
 Schools .. .. . .. .. .. .. 102 
 
 Catholic pupils, per cent. .. .. .. .. 181 
 
 Protestant pupils, per cent. .. .. .. .. 219 
 
 Unmixed Schools attended exclusively by Protestants or 
 Catholics. 
 
 Schools .. .. .. .. .. .. 3300 
 
 Catholic pupils .. .. .. .. .. 422,900 
 
 Protestant pupils .. .. .. .. .. 60,165 
 
 —Bevan Statistical Atlas, p. 18. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 25 
 
 general opinion at the time of passing the measure 
 was that under that franchise a very extensive con¬ 
 stituency would be created in Ireland. This expecta¬ 
 tion has entirely failed.” 
 
 In the same year the Marquis of Normanby said— 
 Your lordships are not aware of the extent of the 
 inequality which prevails between the franchise in 
 Ireland and England. If you take the population of 
 Great Britain, including Wales, in round numbers at 
 18,000,000, and the population of Ireland in round 
 numbers at 8,000,000, you will find the proportion of 
 the population between the two countries as 2^ to 1 ; 
 but the number of electors in England is 820,000, 
 while the number of electors in Ireland is only 100,000; 
 there is, therefore, a proportion of 8J electors to 1 be¬ 
 tween the two countries, with a population of 2J to 1.” 
 
 In 1850, when Mr. Bright declared that “ the repre¬ 
 sentation of Ireland was virtually extinguished,” the 
 proposal made by O’Connell in 1832 was accepted, 
 and the £10 franchise was reduced to £5. By the 
 Irish Reform Bill of 1868, the principle of “ equality ” 
 between the franchise in both countries was still 
 maintained, and while household suffrage was estab¬ 
 lished in English boroughs, the right to vote in Irish 
 boroughs was limited to £4 ratepayers. It was not 
 until 1884 that the English and Irish franchises were 
 assimilated and household suffrage established in both 
 countries.* 
 
 Prior to the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling 
 freeholders the county constituency of Ireland con- 
 
 * Vote by ballot was given to Ireland in 1872. 
 
26 
 
 THE HOME-KULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 sisted of 200,000 voters. Since that time the numbers 
 Iiave been— 
 
 Registered 
 coutfty electors. 
 
 1832 .. 
 
 1847 .. 
 
 1848 .. 
 1850 .. 
 1866 -1868 * 
 1881 .. 
 1888 .. 
 
 about 52,000 
 .. 61,000 
 .. 34,000 
 
 .. 27,000 
 
 .. 174,000 
 
 .. 165,997 
 
 .. 654,095t 
 
 Tithe Beform, 1838. 
 
 The Tithe Commutation Act (1838) was only passed 
 after a fierce “ war,” in which peasants were mercilessly 
 shot and bayoneted. And what did the tithe system 
 mean ? It meant that 6,000,000 Catholics should, in 
 opposition to their religious convictions, support the 
 Church of 800,000 Protestant Episcopalians. 
 
 Even the reform of 1838 was but half-hearted and 
 incomplete. The Whigs, who came into office in 1835 
 by the help of the Irish members, were pledged to 
 convert tithes into a rent-charge at £68 per cent, of the 
 tithe, and to appropriate the surplus revenues of the 
 then Established Church .to purposes of general edu¬ 
 cation in Ireland. But they were unable to keep their 
 pledge, owing to the opposition of the House of Lords, 
 where Bill after Bill (passed in the Commons) was 
 thrown out. Finally, in 1838, a measure was carried 
 converting tithe into a rent-charge at £75 per cent, 
 of the tithe, and containing no clause for appropriating 
 
 * Irish Eeform Act passed. 
 
 t The total Irish electorate is now about 763,145 (Statesman’s Year 
 Book, 1889). 
 
MUNICIPAL EEFORM. 
 
 27 
 
 the surplus revenues of the Church to educational 
 purposes. 
 
 Poor Law, 1838. 
 
 There was no Poor Law in Ireland until 1838, though 
 there had been a Poor Law in England since the time 
 of Queen Elizabeth. 
 
 The Legislature, in passing the Irish Poor Law, 
 ignored Irish public opinion (though a Commission of 
 Irishmen had been appointed to inquire on the sub¬ 
 ject), and acted on the report of a Scotch gentleman, 
 Mr. Nicholls, who was a stranger to the country. 
 
 When e.stablished, the S 3 'stem was worked by men 
 who were not in touch with Irish popular opinion. 
 
 Municipal Reform, 1840. 
 
 Sir Eiiskine May has described the Irish Municipal 
 Keform Act as “ virtually a scheme of municipal dis¬ 
 franchisement.” The facts justify the description. 
 Prior to 1840, there were sixt}'-eight municipal cor¬ 
 porations in Ireland. By the Act of 1840 fifty-eight 
 of these were disfranchised, and a restricted franchise 
 was given to the remaining ten. By the English 
 Municipal Reform Act all the English municipalities 
 were preserved, and all were given an enlarged 
 franchise. 
 
 The Disestablishment of the State Church in 
 Ireland, 1869. 
 
 This was the only complete measure of justice passed 
 for Ireland since Catholic Emancipation. But it took 
 sixty-nine years of “Union,” forty years of agitation. 
 
•28 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 and, at tlie end of all, a formidable insurrectionary 
 conspiracy, to bring it about. Says Lord Dufferin-— 
 
 “ I entirely agree with the noble earl (Granville), 
 and with the late Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, that the 
 attention of this country and the conscience of Eng¬ 
 land with respect to this question [the disestablish¬ 
 ment of the Church] were much stimulated, if not 
 altogether awakened, by the fact of Fenianism.” * 
 
 Land Legislation, 1849-1887. 
 
 The Land question, perhaps, affords the fairest test 
 of the capacity of the Imperial Parliament to legislate 
 for Ireland. 
 
 There has been a land war in Ireland since the 
 Union, f The Imperial Parliament has been power¬ 
 less to end it. Over and over again it was proved 
 before Royal Commissions and Pai'liamentary Com¬ 
 mittees that the system of land tenure was a source 
 of evil, and even danger; but Parliament did nothing 
 to remove the evil, to avert the danger. 
 
 What was the system of land tenure ? The land¬ 
 lord let “ land.” The tenant improved it—built, 
 drained, fenced, made the land a “ farm.” J The land- 
 
 * Lord Dufferin, “ Addresses and Speeches,” p. 83. 
 
 ■f Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, “ Irish Disturbances.” 
 t Lord Dououghmore said that the difference between the practice 
 of landlordism in England and Ireland was, “ In England the landlord 
 let farms, in Ireland he let land.” 
 
 The late Lord Derby pointed out tlie difference between English 
 and Irish tenants in 1845: “ The relative circumstances of landlord 
 and tenant are not the same in Ireland as in England. Every tenant- 
 farmer on talring a farm in England, and, I believe, in Scotlaml, looks, 
 as a matter of course, to the landlord to place the farm, before he 
 
LAND LEGISLATION. 
 
 29 
 
 lord raised the rent to the enhanced value. The 
 tenant, who had exhausted his resources in bringing 
 the land under cultivation, was unable to pay. The 
 landlord evicted him, and appropriated his improve¬ 
 ments without allowing him one shilling’s compensa¬ 
 tion for them. In 1845 the Devon Commission—a 
 Commission of landlords—condemned this system and 
 recommended legislation, in order to secure to the 
 evicted tenant compensation for his improvements. 
 But Parliament did nothing to carry out these recom¬ 
 mendations until 1870, when Mr. Gladstone’s first 
 Land Bill became law. 
 
 enters, in tenantable repair—that is, in regard to the fences, the drains, 
 the dwelling-houses and buildings, and, in short, in regard to all 
 those things which, in England, are considered as the necessary 
 accompaniments of a farm. But in Ireland the case is not only dis¬ 
 similar, but exactly the reverse.” 
 
 On the second reading of the Land Bill of 1881, Mr. Bright said, 
 “ Hon. members assume that we are giving a great deal to the tenant, 
 and that we are taking all this without any compensation from the 
 landlord. ... If you complain that the Bill gives too much to the 
 tenants, and takes all that it does give from the landlords, I should 
 make this answer :—If, at this moment, all that the tenants have done 
 were gone, and all that the landlords have done were left, that is the 
 sort of map I should very much like to see, for its publication would 
 finish this discussion in five minutes. Well, if that'were to take place, if 
 all that the tenants have done were swept off the soil, and all that the 
 landlords have done were left upon it, the land would bo as bare of 
 house and barn, fences and cultivation, as it was in pre-historic times. 
 It would be as bare as an American prairie where the Indian now 
 roams, and where the white man has never trod. ... I believe, 
 and I think I am within the mark, that nine-tenths, excluding the 
 towns, of course, of all that is to be seen on the farm land in Ireland— 
 the houses, barns, fences, and whatever you call cultivation, or freeing 
 land from the wilderness—have been placed there by the labour of the 
 tenantry of Ireland, and not at the expense of the landlord.” 
 
 See also an able article on the position of the Irish tenant, by 
 Mr. Clancy, M.P., in the Contemporary Review, July, 1889. 
 
30 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 No doubt the Encumbered Estates Act was passed 
 in 1848-1849, and “Deasy’s Act” was passed in 1860. 
 But what was the effect of these Acts ? Sir Charles 
 Bussell shall answer. 
 
 The Encumbered Estates Act. 
 
 “ It is hardly conceivable that a Legislature in 
 Avhich Ireland was represented—imperfectly, it is 
 true—that a Legislature purporting to deal with 
 Ireland should have so misconceived the position as 
 to have passed that Act. For what did it do ? It 
 sold the estates of the bankrupt landlords to men 
 with capital, who were mainly jobbers in land, with 
 the accumulated improvements and interests of the 
 tenants, and without the slightest protection against 
 the forfeiture and confiscation of these improvements 
 and interests, at the hands of the proprietor newly 
 acquiring the estate. It was intended, I doubt not, 
 to effect good. It proved a cause of the gravest evil, 
 for it is literally true to say that amongst the worst 
 cases of landlord-oppression in Ireland have been the 
 cases of men who, with their fresh capital, came in 
 and bought these estates, looking to the percentage of 
 return which they could get for their money—jobbers 
 in land, who were not restrained by any feelings— 
 and such feelings did, to a certain extent, exist—of 
 kindness, because of ancient connection between an 
 ancient peasantry and an ancient proprietary house. 
 And I have seen, as my learned friends have all seen, 
 rental after rental of property sold in the Encumbered 
 Estates Court, in which, as an inducement to the 
 
DEASY’S ACT.’ 
 
 31 
 
 intending buyer, were held forth the alleged low 
 rentals at which the property was then let, and the 
 possibility held out to the expected purchaser that he 
 might, by another turn of the screw, raise the rent 
 and increase his percentage return for the land he was 
 buying. My lords, it is a sad, pitiable, remarkable 
 proof of the utter ignorance which prevailed—I say it 
 broadly and boldly—even among men well intentioned, 
 as to what the needs of the Irish question in this 
 regard demanded.” * 
 
 “ Deaf^y’s Act,” 1860. 
 
 “ This was an Act passed to help the landlords, and 
 not one passed for the protection of the tenants. It 
 turned the relation between landlord and tenant from 
 relation by tenure into relation by contract; f it gave 
 certain facilities in the matter of proceedings in eject¬ 
 ment ; it recognized and formulated what had been 
 an existing law in Ireland—going back for a long 
 period—a state of law unknown in this country. I 
 mean the right of ejectment, pure and simple, for 
 non-payment of rent. There is no such thing 
 known to our law. Our law is, that you can recover 
 as for condition broken, if you have a clause of re¬ 
 entry in your contract; but upon a letting pure and 
 simple of land without that clause (which is the state 
 
 * Speech before Special Commission. 
 
 t And this when there was no freedom of contract between land¬ 
 lord and tenant in Ireland I “ In Ireland,” said Lord Normanby, 
 “ the landlord has the monopoly of the means of existence, and has a 
 power of enforcing his bargains which does not exist anywhere—the 
 power of starvation.” This was said in the House of Lords in 1844, 
 sixteen years before Deasy’s Act was passed. 
 
THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 of things in Ireland), you could not maintain the 
 action of ejectment merely for non-payment of rent.” 
 Sir Charles Russell then quotes the opinion of the 
 Besshorough Commission (1881) on this Act:— 
 
 “ This enactment has produced little or no effect. 
 It may be said to have given utterance to the wishes 
 of the Legislature, that the traditional rights of tenants 
 should cease to exist, rather than to have seriously 
 affected the conditions of their existence.” 
 
 The Devon Commission had recommended legisla¬ 
 tion for the protection of the tenants. Parliament 
 had legislated in the interests of the landlords, and 
 of the landlords alone. Well might Mr. Bright have 
 asked, in reviewing the action of Parliament with 
 respect to this very subject of Irish land, “ The ques¬ 
 tion is. Can you expect the cats to legislate well and 
 judiciously for the mice ? ” 
 
 The following list will show that the “ cats ” took 
 care of themselves only:— 
 
 Land Bills and Land Acts prior to 1870. 
 
 1829. Brownlow Bill for the reclamation of waste lands .. Lost. 
 
 1830. Grattan Bill „ „ „ .. „ 
 
 1835. Sharman Crawford Bill for giving compensation for 
 
 improvements .. .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1836. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1845. Lord Stanley Bill for compensation for improvements.. „ 
 
 1845. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1846. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1846. Lord Lincoln (Irish Secretary) Bill for compensation 
 
 for improvements .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1847. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. . . .. „ 
 
 1848. Sir W. Somerville (Irish Secretary) Bill for compensa¬ 
 
 tion for improvements . . .. .. .. .. „ 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1870. 
 
 33 
 
 1848. Slianuan Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. Lost. 
 
 1849. Encumbered Estates Act (for the relief of the landlords) Passed 
 
 18r)0. Sir W. Somerville Bill .. .. .. .. . • Lost. 
 
 1850. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1851. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1852. Sharman Crawford Bill .. .. .. .. .. „ 
 
 1853. Napier (Irish Solicitor-General) Bill for compensation 
 
 for improvements .. .. .. .. •. „ 
 
 1853. Serjeant Shee Bill for compensation for improvements „ 
 1855. Serjeant Shee Bill .. .. .. .. • • •. 
 
 1S5G. G. H. Moore Bill for compensation for improvements.. „ 
 
 18.57. G. 11. Moore Bill.. 
 
 1858. J. F. Maguire Bill for compensation for improvements „ 
 18(50. Deasy Land Act in the interest of landlords .. .. Passed, 
 
 18(50. Fortescue Bill to amend Act of 1800 in the interest of 
 
 the tenants .. .. .. .. .. .. Lost. 
 
 1807. Fortescue Bill . » 
 
 The Land Act of 1870. 
 
 Finally, in 1870, Mr. Gladstone’s Land Act became 
 law. It provided that tenants, when evicted, should 
 receive compensation for improvements, and in certain 
 eases for disturbance. It also contained clauses for the 
 creation of a peasant proprietary, and “ recognized and 
 legalized ” the Ulster custom of tenant-right. But the 
 Act was a failure. The peasant-proprietary clauses did 
 not work ; rack-renting continued, evictions increased, 
 and the general discontent remained the same as ever.* 
 
 * Mr. Edward William O’Brien, a landlord, said that “ security 
 under the Act for the tenant’s improvements totally broke down, and 
 that the Act provided no guarantee, direct or indirect, that the rent 
 should not bo screwed up until the tenant was reduced to tljo verge of 
 ruin, and the value of his improvements became the property of the 
 landlord.”—Mr. O’Brien, as quoted by Mr. Butt (Hansard, 3rd Series, 
 vol. 230, p. 711). 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain : “ The Land Act of 1870 has been a failure iu 
 most districts .”—Annncil Brgister, 1881, p. 102. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 THE HOME-EULET’S MANUAL. 
 
 In these circumstances the Irish members introduced 
 several Bills, between 1876 and 1881, to amend the 
 law and to afibrd the tenant the protection which the 
 Act of 1870 had failed to give. These Bills were all 
 rejected by overwhelming majorities. 
 
 The Land Act of 1881. 
 
 At length, in 1881, a new Land Act was passed 
 under the pressure of famine and revolution.* 
 
 “ The pivot of this measure,” to use the language of 
 Mr. Forster,! was “the Land Court,” established to 
 stand between landlords and tenants, to fix “ fair ” or 
 judicial rents. Previously, the landlord was master of 
 the situation. The competition for land placed the 
 tenant at his mercy, and he accordingly fixed the rent 
 at his own pleasure. But henceforth rent was to be 
 
 * The state of distress may be gathered from the following facts 
 and figures:— 
 
 
 Potato Crop. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1876 .. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 4,154,784 
 
 £12,464,382 
 
 1877 .. 
 
 1,7.57,274 
 
 5,271,822 
 
 1878 .. 
 
 2,526,504 
 
 7,579,512 
 
 1879 .. 
 
 1,113,676 
 
 3,341,028 
 
 General Crop. 
 
 ' Value. 
 
 1870 .. ... .. .. £36,000,000 
 
 1877 28,000,000 
 
 1878 .32,000,000 
 
 1879 22,000,000 
 
 —Sir C. Bussell’s Speech before the Special Commission, Macmillan 
 & Co. Popular edition, Is. 
 t Annual Register, 1881, p. 93, 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881. 
 
 35 
 
 fixed by legal tribunals; and while the tenant paid 
 the rent so fixed, he could not be disturbed in his 
 holding for a period of fifteen yeai’s.* Eoughly speak¬ 
 ing, the Act changed Irish tenancies from tenancies 
 at will to leaseholds, renewable every fifteen years, 
 subject to revision of rent by the Land Courts. It 
 also recognized the tenant’s right to sell his holding, 
 and provided facilities for the creation of a peasant 
 propi’ietary. 
 
 The working of this measure fully justified the 
 position taken up by the tenants prior to its enact¬ 
 ment. They had demanded a reduction of rent. The 
 landlords refused to grant it, contending that the 
 rents were not excessive. Tlien the Act came into 
 operation, and rents were at once reduced nearly 
 twenty per cent. 
 
 Nevertheless the measure did not settle the Land 
 Question ; in fact, it only irritated the landlords with¬ 
 out satisfying the tenants. The one complained of 
 the reductions in rent as “ confiscation,” the other as 
 inadequate. The tenants also objected — 
 
 (1) That leaseholders were not admitted to the 
 benefits of the Act. 
 
 (2) That the question of arrears was not adequately 
 dealt with.t 
 
 (3) That the Land Purchase clauses were useless. 
 
 Under the pressure of these objections, the Govern- 
 
 * There were certain statutory conditions to be observed by tlio 
 tenant; for instance, he could not commit iJersistent waste, could not 
 .sublet without the landlord’s consent, etc., etc. 
 
 t The Act contained a clause dealing with arrears, but it did not 
 work. 
 
30 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’F! MANUAL. 
 
 ment consented to legislate on the question of arrears, 
 but refused to admit the leaseholders to the benefit of 
 the Act, or to amend the Land Purchase clauses.* 
 
 The Arrears Act, 1882. 
 
 By this Act the tenants’ arrears were to be cancelled 
 on these conditions :— 
 
 1. That the tenant should pay the rent due in 1881. 
 
 2. That of the antecedent arrears he should pay 
 one year’s rent; the State another. 
 
 3. That the tenant should satisfy a legal tribunal f 
 of his inability to pay the whole of the arrears. 
 
 The Act applied only to tenancies under £30 a 5 mar, 
 and the payments made by the State Avere taken from 
 the Surplus Fund of the Disestablished Church. 
 
 About two millions of arrears were wiped out under 
 this Act. $ 
 
 The Land Purchase {Lord Ashhourne’s) Act, 1885. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone having taken up the question of 
 arrears in 1882, Lord Salisbury took up the Land 
 
 * Mr. Parnell took no responsibility on himself for the Land Act of 
 1881. He described the Bill as “ a miserable dole ” (^Annual Begister, 
 p. 99). Twenty-four Horae Piulers voted for the second reading; 8 
 against; 35, with Mr. Parnell at their head, abstained (Ibid.). In 
 committee the Home Eulers took an active part in resisting prejudicial 
 amendments. The bulk of the Irish members voted for the third 
 reading, but Mr. Parnell, with about half a dozen followers, abstained 
 {Ibid., p. 110). 
 
 t Land Court or County Court. 
 
 X Mr. Parnell’s evidence before the Special Commission, q. 58,843. 
 
THE LAND PUKCHASE ACT OF 1885. 
 
 37 
 
 Purchase question in 1885, when Lord Ashbourne’s 
 Act was passed. 
 
 By this measure the State was empowered to advance 
 a part or the whole of the purchase-money to tenants 
 who had agreed with their landlords to purchase their 
 holdings; forty-nine years were allowed for repayment 
 of the jiurchase money, at the rate of four per cent, 
 per annum. £5,000,000, also taken from the Surplus 
 Fund of the Disestablished Church, Avere at once set 
 aside for the purposes of the Act. The whole of this 
 sum has, I believe, now been applied. 
 
 But the Land Purchase Act of 1885 no more settled 
 the Land Question than the Land Law Act of 1881. 
 In the latter year the Irish members demanded that 
 leaseholders should be admitted to the benefit of the 
 Land Act. In 1883 Mr. Parnell declared that the 
 rents “ now being fixed are rack-rents, and cannot be 
 paid ” owing to the fall in prices.* 
 
 But the Legislature heeded neither the demands of 
 1881 nor the Avarning of 1883. In 1886 Lord Salis¬ 
 bury said, “I am not at all sure that the judicial 
 rents were not fixed Avith a perfect cognizance of 
 the fall in prices. The fall has been going on for 
 many years, and it is highly improbable that the 
 courts, in assigning judicial rents, have not taken 
 that into consideration.” Again: “We do not con¬ 
 template any revision of judicial rents. We do not 
 think it Avould be honest, in the first place, and we 
 think it Avould be exceedingly inexpedient.” 
 
 * Annual Recjhter, 1884, jip. 7, 8. 
 
38 
 
 THE IIOME-EULEE’.S MANUAL. 
 
 Twelve niontlis after this speech, Lord Salisbury- 
 passed a measure authorizing “the revision of judicial 
 rents.” 
 
 TIlg Land Act of 1887. 
 
 This measure admitted leaseholders to the benefits 
 of the Act of 1881, and authorized the revision of the 
 judicial rents fixed during the years 1881, 1882, 1883, 
 188d, and 1885, “in accordance with the difference in 
 prices between those years and the years 1887, 1888, 
 and 1889.” “ In other words,” says a recent Unionist 
 
 publication, “it was alleged, and alleged with truth, 
 that some ‘ fair rents ’ fixed between 1881-85 had since 
 become too high in consequence of the continued fall 
 in prices.” Just so. The thing which, in 1883, Mr. 
 Parnell said ought to have been done, but which, in 
 1886, Lord Salisbury said it would not be “honest” 
 to do, was done in 1887, and done by Lord Salisbury, 
 
 Such, in the main, have been the “ concessions ” to 
 Ireland during the past sixty years. 
 
 Irish agitation from 1829 to 1881 tells its own tale. 
 But to whom are the Irish people indebted for the 
 “ concessions ” passed between 1881 and 1889 ? Let the 
 Spectator answer. Writing on June 8, 1889, the lead¬ 
 ing Unionist organ said, “Mr. Balfour [speech at 
 Portsmouth], though he dwelt with a good deal of 
 pride on the measures of relief which he had brought 
 in for Ireland, did not dwell, as he might have dwelt, 
 upon the pressure which had been put on the Adminis¬ 
 trations both of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Salisbury, 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1887. 
 
 39 
 
 by the mere existence of the Land and the National 
 Leagues, to propose remedial measures which, but for 
 that pressure, no one believes that they would have 
 had the power to force through.” 
 
 It is notorious that Lord Salisbury denounced the 
 Land Bill of 1S81, but he did not oppose it for the 
 same reason that Sir Robert Peel did not oppose 
 Catholic Emancipation in 1829. “In view of the 
 prevailing agitation, and having regard to the state 
 of anarchy [in Ii’elandJ, I cannot recommend my fol¬ 
 lowers to vote against the second reading of the 
 Bill.” * So said Lord Salisbury in 1881. 
 
 The Tory party opposed the Arrears Bill. Mr. 
 Sclater Booth, representing the Opposition in the 
 Commons, described the measure as “demoralizing, 
 and destined to teach the Irish people a lesson full of 
 evil for the future.” He divided the House on the 
 second reading,t with the result: for, 2G9; against, 
 loT.t 
 
 In the Lords, Lord Salisbury denounced the Bill. 
 “ I believe it to be a pernicious Bill; an act of simple 
 robbery, which will bear the gravest fruits in the 
 legislature of the future. If I had the power, I would 
 have thrown out the Bill. I find myself, however, in 
 a small minority, and therefore I shall not divide the 
 House.” § 
 
 In 1884 Lord Salisbury protested against the exten¬ 
 sion of the franchise to Ireland, and Mr, W. H. Smith 
 said the measure would entail “ confiscation of pro- 
 
 * Annual Eegister, 1881, p. 111. 
 
 t Tins was practically the effect of his amendment. 
 
 X Annual liegMer, 1882, pp. 81, 82. § Ihul., 1882, p. 124. 
 
40 
 
 THE IIOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 perfcy, vuiu of industry, withdrawal of capital, misery, 
 wretchedness, and war.” 
 
 But the best commentary on British remedial legis¬ 
 lation for Ireland during the past sixty years will 
 he found in the Times of March 28, 1889. 
 
 The leading journal quoted these words, used hy 
 Mr. Bright in the House of Commons in 1848 : “You 
 have toiled at this Irish difficulty session after session, 
 and some of you have grown almost from boyhood to 
 grey-headed old men since it first met you in your 
 legislative career; and yet there is not in ancient 
 or modern history a picture so humiliating as that 
 which Ireland presents to the world at this moment.” 
 The Times added: “ This was Mr. Bright’s language 
 just after the potato famine; and it is, unhappiljq 
 language which is not wholly inapplicable in 1889.” 
 
 The fact remains undisputed and indisputable, that 
 the efforts of the Imperial Parliament to conciliate the 
 Irish people have signally failed. 
 
 No one has made this point more clear than the dis¬ 
 tinguished “Unionist” writer, Mr. Dicey. He says— 
 
 “ Eighty-six years have elapsed since the conclusion 
 of the Treaty of Union between England and Ireland. 
 The two countries do not yet form an united nation. 
 The Irish people are, if not more wretched (for the 
 whole European world has made progress, and Ireland 
 with it), yet more conscious of wretchedness, and Irish 
 disaffection to England is, if not deeper, more wide¬ 
 spread than in 1800. An Act meant by its authors 
 to be a source of the prosperity and concord which, 
 though slowly, followed upon the Union of Scotland, 
 
COEUCION ACTS. 
 
 41 
 
 has not made Ireland rich, has not put an end to Irish 
 lawlessness, has not terminated the feud between 
 Protestants and Catholics, has not raised the position 
 of Irish tenants, has not taken away the causes of 
 Irish discontent, and has, therefore, not removed Irish 
 disloyalty. This is the indictment which can fairly 
 be brought against the Act of Union.” * 
 
 O O 
 
 This statement of Mr. Dicey may be supplemented 
 by a list of the principal Coercion Acts passed during 
 the last eighty-nine years. They, too, bear witness to 
 the failure of Imperial legislation. They prove that 
 Ireland has not been conciliated, has not been made a 
 willing partner in the “ Union ” of 1800. 
 
 Cuci'cion Acts since the “ Union.” 
 
 ISOO, 1801. Insurrection Act, Habeas Corpus 
 Suspension Act, and martial law. 
 
 1803-1804. Insurrection Act, Habeas Corpus 
 Suspension Act. 
 
 1807-1810. Insurrection Act, martial law. 
 
 1814-1817. Imsurrection Act, martial law. 
 
 1822-1824. Insurrection Act. 
 
 182G-182!). Act for the Suppression of Catholic 
 Association. 
 
 1831, 1832. Stanley’s Arms Act. 
 
 1833, 1834. Grey’s Coercion Act. 
 
 1834, 1835. Grey’s Coercion (Continuance) Act. 
 
 (April) 1835-1841. A “ Public Peace Act ” and 
 
 other measures of exceptional legi.slation were enacted, 
 
 * Uicc}‘, “England’s Case against Home Eulc,” p. 128. 
 
42 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 but no coercion was enforced. Thomas Drummond 
 governed. 
 
 (Aug.) 1843-1845. Arms Act. 
 
 (Dec.) 1847. Crime and Outrage Act. 
 
 1848, 1849. Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, 
 Crime and Outrage Act, Removal of Aliens Act. 
 
 1850-1855. Crime and Outrage (Continuance) Act. 
 
 1856, 1857. Peace Preservation Act. 
 
 1858-1864. Peace Preservation (Continuance) Act. 
 
 1865. Peace Preservation (Continuance) Act. 
 
 1866-(part) 1869. Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. 
 
 1870, 1871. Peace Preservation Act. 
 
 1873-1880. Peace Preservation Act, or Protection 
 of Life and Property Act. 
 
 1881, 1882. Mr. Foster’s Coercion Act. 
 
 1883-1886. The Crimes Act. 
 
 1887-1889. Mr. Balfour’s Coercion Act. 
 
 Well might Mr. Chamberlain have said, in 1885— 
 
 “ I do not believe that the great majority of English¬ 
 men have the slightest conception of the system under 
 which this free nation attempts to rule a sister 
 country. It is a system which is founded on the 
 bayonets of thirty thousand soldiers encamped perma¬ 
 nently as in a hostile country. It is a system as 
 completely centralized and bureaucratic as that with 
 which Russia governs Poland, or as that which was 
 common in Venice under Austrian rule.” * 
 
 These sentences sum up the case against the Imperial 
 Parliament. As the government of Russia is in 
 Poland, as the government of Austria was in Venice, so 
 * Speech at Islington, June, 1885. 
 
THE CASE AGAINST HOME EULE. 
 
 43 
 
 we learn, upon the authority of a leading “ Unionist ” 
 statesman, has the g'overnment of the Imperial Par¬ 
 liament been in Ireland. 
 
 Assuredly the force of condemnation can no further 
 go. 
 
 But it is said there arc grave objections, strong 
 arguments against Home Rule. 
 
 Objections. 
 
 1. It would lead to separation ; 
 
 2. To religious persecution. 
 
 Arguments. 
 
 1. It is but an ejdiemeral cry, not founded in 
 national sentiment; because Ireland is not a nation, 
 and never was, and never can be. 
 
 2. Ulster is against Home Rule; Ulster has always 
 been loyal, peaceable, Protestant, and English; Ulster 
 must not be deserted. 
 
 3. The Irish only want the removal of material 
 grievances; these removed, the cry for Home Rule will 
 die away. 
 
 4. The respectable classes of the community are 
 against Home Rule. 
 
 5. Ireland has been prosperous since the Union. 
 
 I shall deal with these objections and arguments in 
 detail. 
 
PART II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO HOME RULE. 
 
 I. 
 
 HOME KULE WILL LEAD TO SEPARATION. 
 
 We can only forecast the future, if at all, by our 
 knowledge of the past. In the past, Irish national 
 sentiment has not tended to separation. Take the 
 principal political movements since the Revolution. 
 
 The Volunteers, 1779-1782, 
 
 The volunteers demanded a free Parliament. In 
 lieu of it they were prepared to fight. With it they 
 were prepared to be loyal, and were loyal. 
 
 The United Irishmen, 1791-1798. 
 
 The United Irishmen at first demanded constitu¬ 
 tional reforms, chiefly the reform of Parliament and 
 Catholic Emancipation. These demands were refused, 
 and they became Separatists. It is probable that 
 Wolfe Tone (one of the founders of the society) was, 
 almost from the start, a Separatist. He certainly 
 showed a strong feeling of hostility to England from 
 
HOME RTH.E AND SEPARATION. 
 
 45 
 
 an early date. But we know from himself that he 
 was in a minority in the councils of his colleagues 
 until 1794-1795. Then, when constitutional redress 
 seemed hopeless, he gained the ascendency, and the 
 movement became avowedly rebellious. In 1795 
 also, when Catholic Emancipation had been refused, 
 the Catholics joined the organization. Of course, 
 there was from the beginning a spirit of repub¬ 
 licanism in Ulster. But that spirit was unknown in 
 the south. The whole country rallied to the move¬ 
 ment of the volunteers ; but only a despairing multi¬ 
 tude joined the United Irishmen. 
 
 Robert Emmett, ISOo. 
 
 Emmett’s " rising ” in Dublin was a flicker of the 
 ’98 movement. He had scarcely any followers. 
 
 O’Connell, 1800-1847. 
 
 It is unnecessary to say that O’Connell was not a 
 Separatist. He lived and died a Repealer. Millions 
 followed him during the agitation for Repeal in 
 1842-184G, not because he preached separation, hut 
 because he promised legislative independence. 
 
 Youvg Ireland, 1842-1848. 
 
 The Young Irelanders joined O’Connell in the 
 demand for Repeal. When Repeal seemed hopeless, 
 they became Separatists. They were x’ebels, not from 
 conviction, but in despair. 
 
 Tlie Fenians, 1858-18G7. 
 
 The Fenians alone were Separatists from the start. 
 They never had faith in the British Parliament. 
 
46 
 
 THE IIOME-RULER’S MANUAL, 
 
 They believed that legislative independence could 
 only be obtained by fighting, and they said, in effect, 
 “ If we fight at all, we shall fight for complete 
 separation.” 
 
 The Young Irelanders may fairly be described as the 
 political descendants of the volunteers. 
 
 The Fenians were the political descendants of 
 Wolfe Tone. 
 
 O’Connell stood alone. He was “ the son of 
 Marengo.” Averse to separation, the champion of 
 legislative independence, he, above all men, embodied 
 the sentiments of the nation. He was, as has well 
 been said, “ the incarnation of the whole people.” 
 
 But what says Mr. Parnell on the subject of Home 
 Rule and Separation ? This 
 
 Mr. Parnell on Home Rule and Separation. 
 
 “ Have you not still all the power of the empire, 
 supposing Irishmen were so mad as to abuse, to 
 wilfully throw away and spurn the important advan¬ 
 tages that you would confer upon them—have you 
 not still the power to protect yourselves in your 
 imperial might, just as you have it now ? In what 
 way do we make you weaker ? In what way are we 
 stronger to injure you ? What soldiers should we 
 have, what armed police should we have, what 
 single means should we have behind the Constitution 
 that we have not now, to work you injury? We 
 should have none. But your strength would be 
 greater to resist injustice for weak and little Ireland 
 against great and powerful Britain if we tried it. 
 
HOME RULE AND RELIGIOUS RERSECUTION. 47 
 
 Your strength would be greater, because you would 
 have the moral power to put doAvn rebellion before 
 the world that you have not now got in Ireland.” * 
 
 The “ strength ” of Glreat Britain consists in 
 30,000,000 of people, with the military and naval 
 resources of a great empire at their back ; the strength 
 of Ireland in 5,000,000, with no naval or military 
 resources at all. 
 
 “ Eleven men well armed,” says Swift, “ will certainly 
 subdue one single man in his shirt.” 
 
 11 . 
 
 HOME RULE AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 
 
 No one has described the religious character of the 
 Irish people so well as Mr. Lccky. He says— 
 
 The Irish not Intolerant. 
 
 “ The Irish have not generally been an intolerant or 
 persecuting people. The early history of the intro¬ 
 duction of Christianity into Ireland, though not, as 
 has been said, absolutely bloodless, was at least un¬ 
 usually pacific, and it was an old reproach against 
 Irishmen that their country, which had produced 
 innumerable saints, had produced no martyr. During 
 the atrocious persecutions of Mary, the English Pro¬ 
 testants were perfectly unmolested in Ireland. The 
 massacre of Protestants in 1G41-42 was .so little 
 due to religious causes, that the only Englishman of 
 * Jlr. Parnell in Edinburgli, .July 21, 18S9. 
 
48 
 
 THE nOBIE-RULER’S IMANUAL. 
 
 eminence who was treated by the rebels with rever¬ 
 ence and care was Bishop Bedell, who was one of 
 the most energetic Protestants of his age, and the 
 first Irish bishop who attempted to proselytize 
 among the Catholics. The Irish people have always 
 been more superstitious than the English, and perhaps 
 than the Scotch, but their superstitions have usually 
 taken a milder form. Many hundreds of unhappy 
 women have perished on the charge of witchcraft 
 both in England and Scotland since the Reforma- 
 tion, but I am not aware of the witch mania having 
 ever raged in Ireland to a degree at all comparable 
 to that in England under James I. and the Puritans, 
 and in Scotland during a great part of the seventeenth 
 century. Whatever animosity the penal laws pro¬ 
 duced had in a great measure subsided towards the 
 end of the eighteenth century, and it would be diffi¬ 
 cult to find in any country more moderate or liberal 
 members of their respective faiths than Kirwan, the 
 greatest preacher among the Irish Protestants, and 
 O’Leary, the greatest writer among the Irish Catho¬ 
 lics.” * 
 
 No Religious Feeling in Politics. 
 
 To show how little religious feeling enters into 
 Irish politics, the words of Lord Redesdale (Lord 
 Chancellor of Ireland, 1802-180G) may be quoted. 
 He said, “ ‘ If a revolution were to happ.en in Ireland, 
 it would in the end be an Irish revolution, and no 
 Catholic of English blood would fare better than a 
 
 * “Leaders of Public Opinion.” 
 
THE IIHSH POrULAR HEROES. 
 
 49 
 
 Protestant of Eno-lisli blood.’ So said Lord Castle- 
 
 O 
 
 haven, an Irish Catholic of English blood, one hun¬ 
 dred and seventy years ago, and so said a Roman 
 Catholic of Irish blood to me confidentially twenty 
 years ago.” * Again: “ The question is not simply 
 Protestant and Catholic, but English and Irish.” f 
 These words were written in 1824. Nearly a century 
 and a half before (1685), Lord Clarendon, then Lord- 
 Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote to Rochester: “ The 
 contest here is not about religion, but between 
 English and Irish, and that is the truth.” J 
 
 In 1829 O’Connell addressed a meeting of Irish 
 Catholics in Clarendon Street Catholic Church, Dublin. 
 He said, “ We want political excitement in order that 
 we may insist upon our rights as Irishmen, biit not 
 as Catholics.” This sentence of O’Connell strikes tlie 
 keynote of Irish agitation. Irishmen have always 
 struggled for their rights as Irishmen, not as Catholics, 
 The fact is notorious that the Irish people have no 
 hostility to Protestants as such. Almost all the 
 popular heroes have been Protestants—Molyneux, 
 Swift, Flood, Grattan, Charlemont, Curran, Wolfe 
 Tone, Hamilton Rowan, Lord Edward FitzGerald, 
 Robert Emmett, Thomas Davis, John Mitchel, Smith 
 O’Brien, Isaac Butt, Mr, Parnell. The volunteers 
 were Protestants; so were the founders of the 
 United Irishmen. The Young Ireland movement 
 was Protestant in spirit, and so was the Fenian move- 
 
 * Martineau, “ History of the Peace,” i. p. 385. 
 t Lord Redesdale to Lord Eldou (Twiss, “ Life of Eldou,” ii. p. 530}. 
 f Liugaid, “ History of England,” x. p. 235. 
 
 K 
 
50 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 luent.* The Catholic Church in Ireland was opposed 
 to both movements. The Fenians were denounced 
 by it, and the Young Irelanders scarcely possessed 
 its confidence. To show horv little religious sympathy 
 has affected political movements, it may be stated that 
 the greatest rebels have been Protestants, the most 
 loyal agitators Catholics. Thus— 
 
 Irish Rebels — Protestants. 
 
 Wolfe Tone, Parson Jackson (who was, I believe, the 
 first man indicted for high treason in Ireland since 
 the Revolution), Thomas Russell, Hamilton Rowan, 
 Samuel Neilson, Henry Joy McCracken, Lord Edward 
 FitzGerald, Robert Emmett, Thomas Addis Emmett, 
 Arthur O’Connor, John and Henry Sheares, Thomas 
 Davis,f John Mitchel, Smith O’Brien, T. C. Luby. 
 
 Irish Loyal Agitators — Catholics. 
 
 Curry, Wyse, O’Connor, John Keogh, Daniel O’Connell. 
 
 To this day, when Englishmen Avant to point to a 
 model Irish agitator, they must name a Catholic— 
 Daniel O’Connell. They cannot name Grattan, for 
 Grattan was a volunteer, and the volunteers were pos¬ 
 sible rebels. $ Mi'. Lecky says that, if ever there were 
 a time when Ireland could have been wrested from the 
 grasp of England, it was in the time of the volunteers— 
 a time of complete Protestant Ascendency, 
 
 Loi'tl Dufferin said of the Fenians in 1869, “ The designs of the 
 Fenians are directed as much against the moral suijremacy of the 
 Catholic priesthood, as against the material emoluments of the Estab¬ 
 lished Church.”—“ Speeches and Addresses,” jj. 62. 
 
 f A possible rebel, whose poems have made actual rebels. 
 t To what extent the volunteers were rebels, see antej p, 15. 
 
KEBEL BELFAST. 
 
 51 
 
 Rebel Belfast. 
 
 Next to Dublin, when Dublin was under Protestant 
 influence, the only town in Ireland that can fairly be 
 said to have a rebellious record is Belfast.^ The 
 United Irishmen organization Avas founded in Belfast. 
 Belfast was, in fact, a hotbed of treason a hundred 
 years ago. Says Mr. Froude; “ The most dangerous 
 and the best organized of the United Irishmen were 
 
 O 
 
 the Ulster republicans.” Again : " Belfast was going- 
 fast and far.” Lord Camden “ chiefly dreaded Ulster.”! 
 We read in a State paper (1793), “At Belfast, bodies 
 of men in arms are drilled and exercised for several 
 hours almost every night by candle-light; and attempts 
 have been made to secure the soldiery.” J 
 
 Says Mr. Lecky: “ [The adherents of the French 
 Revolution] in Ireland were at first chiefly Protestants. 
 What little Republicanism existed in Ireland was 
 mainly among the Presbyterians of Ulster. Wexford 
 Avas the only county Avhere the rebellion Avas distinctly 
 Roman Catholic, and even there Bagenal Harvey, its 
 leader, Avas a Protestant.” Again, he says; “ The mass 
 of the Catholics Avere, no doubt, considerably and most 
 naturally discontented, but their leaning Avas strongly 
 toAvards authority, and the contagion of the disloyal 
 spirit that was agitating the Presbyterians of the 
 north did not seriously aflect them till the recall of 
 Lord FitzWilliam. On this point we ha\"e the evidence 
 
 * Cork is uow ciillccl “ Rebel Cork;” with what justice or injustice 
 I am uuable to say. 
 
 t “English ill irelaiid.” 
 
 Record Office. 
 
52 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 of the most competent of witnesses, the three leaders 
 of the United Irishmen. . . . ‘ Whatever progress this 
 United system had made among the Presbyterians of 
 the north,’ they say, ‘ it had, as we apprehend, made 
 but little way amongst the Catholics until the recall 
 of Lord FitzWilliam.’ ” * 
 
 Piihlic Men since the Union. 
 
 Amongst the prominent public men in Ireland since 
 the Union have been Henry Grattan, Sir Henry 
 Parnell, Daniel O’Connell,, Shell, Sharman Crawford, 
 Gavan Duffy, Thomas Davis, John Mitch el, John 
 Martin, Smith O’Brien, G. H, Moore, J. F. Maguire, 
 A. M. Sullivan, Sir John Gray, James Stephens, Thomas 
 Clarke Luby, John O’Leary, Isaac Butt, Mr. Parnell— 
 nineteen. Of these eleven have been Protestants— 
 Grattan, Sir H. Parnell, Sharman Crawford, Thomas 
 Davis, John Mitchel, John Martin, Smith O’Brien, 
 Luby, Sir John Gray, Isaac Butt, Mr. Parnell; eight 
 have been rebels—Gavan Duffy, Thomas Davis, John 
 Mitchel, John Martin, Smith O’Brien, James Stephens, 
 Luby, O’Leary; and of the eight rebels, five have been 
 Protestants—Davis, Mitchel, Martin, O’Brien, and 
 Luby. 
 
 But two events of Irish history are fastened upon 
 to prove the “ religious bigotry ” of the Irish people-^ 
 the Rebellion of 1641, and the legislation of 1689. Mr. 
 Lecky has dealt with these subjects, and I shall briefly 
 summarize what he says; my object being, not to justify 
 the conduct of the “rebels” of 1641, or the legislators 
 * “ Leaders of Public Opinion.” 
 
ELIZABETHAN WARS. 
 
 53 
 
 of 1689, but to show that their acts (good or bad) were 
 uninfluenced by religious feeling. 
 
 It is rio-ht, at the outset, to deal with the events 
 which preceded the Rebellion and the Parliament, viz. 
 the wars of Elizabeth preceding the one, the war of 
 Cromwell preceding the other. I shall take the four 
 events in order. (1) The Elizabethan war; (2) the 
 Rebellion; (3) the Cromwellian war; (4) the Par¬ 
 liament. 
 
 Elizabethan Wars. 
 
 This story is told by Mr. Lecky as, perhaps, no one 
 but he could tell it. 
 
 “It was not until the reign of Henry VIII. that the 
 royal authority became in any degree a reality over 
 the whole island, but its complete ascendency dates 
 only from the great wars of Elizabeth, which broke 
 the force of the semi-independent chieftains, crushed 
 the native population to the dust, and established the 
 complete ascendency of English law. The suppression 
 of the native I’ace, in the wars against Shane O’Neil, 
 Desmond, and Tyrone, was carried on with a ferocity 
 which surpassed that of Alva in the Netherlands, 
 and was hardly exceeded by any page in the blood¬ 
 stained annals of the Turks. Thus a delibei’ate 
 attempt was made by a servant of the British 
 Government to assassinate in time of peace the 
 great Irish leader Shane O’Neil, by a present of 
 poisoned wine; and although the attempt failed, and 
 the assassin was detected and arrested, he was at 
 once liberated by the Government. Essex accepted 
 the hospitality of Sir Brien O’Neil. After a banquet, 
 
54 
 
 THE HOME-RULEB’S MANUAL. 
 
 when the Irish chief had retired unsuspiciously to rest, 
 the English general surrounded the house with soldiers, 
 captured his host, with his wife and brother, sent 
 them all to Dublin for execution, and massacred the 
 Avhole body of his friends and retainers. An English 
 officer, a friend of the Viceroy, invited seventeen 
 Irish gentlemen to supper, and when they rose from 
 the table had them all stabbed. A Catholic arch¬ 
 bishop named Hurley fell into the hands of the 
 English authorities, and before they sent him to the 
 gallows they tortured him to extort confession of 
 treason by one of the most horrible torments human 
 nature can endure—by roasting his feet with fire. 
 But these isolated episodes, by diverting the mind 
 from the broad features of the war, serve rather to 
 diminish than to enhance its atrocity. The war, as 
 conducted by Carew, by Gilbert, by Pelham, by 
 Mountjoy, was literally a war of extermination. The 
 slaughter of Irishmen was looked upon as literally 
 the slaughter of wild beasts. Not only the men, but 
 even the women and children who fell into the hands 
 of the English, were deliberately and systematically 
 butchered. Bands of soldiers traversed great tracts 
 of country, slaying every living thing they met. The 
 sword • was not found sufficiently expeditious, but 
 another method proved much more efficacious. Year 
 after year, over a great part of Ireland, all means of 
 human subsistence was destroyed, no quarter was 
 given to prisoners who surrendered, and the whole 
 population was skilfully and steadily starved to 
 death. The pictures of the condition of Ireland at 
 
ELIZABETHAN WABS. 
 
 55 
 
 this time are as terrible as anything in human history. 
 Tlius Spenser, describing what he had seen in Munster, 
 tells how, ‘out of every corner of the woods and glens, 
 they came creeping forth upon their hands, for their 
 legs could not bear them. They looked like anato¬ 
 mies of death; they spoke like ghosts ciying out of 
 their graves; they did eat the dead carrion, happy 
 when they could find them; yea, and one another 
 soon after, inasmuch as. the very carcases they spared 
 not to scrape out of their graves.’ The people, in 
 the words of Holinshed, ‘ were not only driven to eat 
 horses, dogs, and dead carions, but also did devour 
 the carcases of dead men, whereof there be sundry 
 examples. . . . The land itself, which before these 
 wars was populous, well inhabited, and rich in all the 
 good blessings of God—being plenteous of corn, full of 
 cattle, well stored with fish and other good commodi¬ 
 ties—is now become ... so barren, both of man and 
 beast, that whoever did travel from the one end of all 
 Munster, even from Waterford to the head of Smeere- 
 weeke, which is about six score miles, he would not 
 meet any man, woman, or child, saving in towns and 
 cities; nor yet see any beasts, but the very wolves, 
 foxes, and other like ravening beasts, many of them 
 laie dead, being famished, and the residue gone else¬ 
 where.’ ‘ From Dingle to the Rock of Cashel,’ said an 
 Irish annalist, ‘ not the lowing of a cow nor the voice 
 of the ploughman was that year to be heard.’ The 
 troops of Sir Richard Percie ‘ left neither come, nor 
 horse, nor house unburnt between Kinsale and Ross.’ 
 The troops of Captain Harvie ‘ did the like between 
 
56 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Ross and Bantry.’ The troops of Sir Charles Wilmot 
 entered without resistance an Irish camp, where they 
 ‘found nothing hut hurt and sick men, whose pains 
 and lives by the soldiers were both determined.’ The 
 Lord President, he himself assures us, having heard 
 that the Munster fugitives were harboured in certain 
 parts of that province, diverted his forces thither, 
 ‘ burnt all the houses and corn, taking great preys, . . . 
 and, harassing the country, killed all mankind that 
 were found therein.’ From thence he went to other 
 parts, where ‘ he did the like, not leaving behind him 
 man or beast, corn or cattle, except such as had been 
 conveyed into castles.’ Long before the war had 
 terminated, Elizabeth was assured that , she had little 
 left to reis'n over but ashes and carcases. It was 
 
 O 
 
 boasted that in all the wide territory of Desmond not 
 a town, castle, village, or farmhouse was unburnt; 
 and a high English official, writing in 1582, computed 
 that in six months, more than thirty thousand people 
 had been starved to death in Munster, besides those 
 who were hung or who perished by the sword. Arch¬ 
 bishop Usher afterwards described how women were 
 accustomed to lie in wait for a passing rider, and to 
 rush out like famished wolves to kill and to devour 
 his horse. The slaughter of women as well as of men, 
 of unresisting peasants as well as of armed rebels, was 
 openly avowed by the English commanders. The 
 Irish annalists told, with horrible detail, how the 
 bands of Pelham and Ormond ‘ killed blind and feeble 
 men, women, boys and girls, sick persons, idiots, and 
 old people;’ how in Desmond’s country, even after 
 
REBELLION OF IGIl. 
 
 57 
 
 all resistance had ceased, soldiers forced men and 
 women into old barns, which were set on fire, and if 
 any attempted to escape they were shot or stabbed; 
 how soldiers were seen ‘ to take up infants on the 
 point of their spears, and to whirl them about in their 
 agony; ’ how women were found ‘ hanging on trees 
 with their children at their breasts, strangled with 
 their mother’s hair.’ ” * 
 
 The war of Elizabeth was followed by the confis¬ 
 cation of Ulster, and the confiscation of Ulster by the 
 Rebellion of 1641. 
 
 The Rebellion of 1641, 
 
 Mr. Lecky states the causes :—“ The rebellion was 
 not, however, due to any single cause, but represented 
 the accumulated wrongs and animosities of two gene- 
 rations. The influence of the ejected proprietors, who 
 were wandering impoverished among the people, or 
 who returned from military service in Spain; the 
 rage of the septs, Avho had been deprived of their pro¬ 
 prietary rights and outraged in their most cherished 
 customs; the animosity Avhich very naturally had 
 grown up between the native population and the 
 alien colonists planted in their old dominions; the 
 new fanaticism which was rising under the preaching 
 of priests and friars; all the long train of agrarian 
 wrongs, from the massacre of IMullaghamast f to the 
 latest inquisitions of Wentworth; all the long suc- 
 
 * Lccky, “ History of England in the Eighteenth Century,” vol. i. 
 pp. 94-97. 
 
 t The massacre of natives by Euglisli. 
 
58 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 cession of religious wrongs, from the Act of Uni¬ 
 formity of Elizabeth to the confiscation of the Ii'ish 
 College under Charles — all these things, together 
 with the opportunity caused by the difficulties of 
 England, contributed to the results. Behind the 
 people lay the maddening recollections of the wars 
 of Elizabeth, when their parents had been starved 
 by thousands to death, when unresisting peasants, 
 when women, when children, had been deliberately 
 massacred, and when no quarter had been given 
 to the prisoners. Before them lay the gloomy and 
 almost certain prospect of banishment from the land 
 which remained to them, of the extirpation of the 
 religion Avhich Avas fast becoming’ the passion as 
 AAmll as the consolation of their lives; of the sentence 
 of death directed against any priest who dared to 
 pray beside their bed of death. To the most sober 
 and unimpassioned judgment, these fears Avere reason¬ 
 able ; but the Irish Avere at this time as far as possible 
 from being sober and unimpassioned. The air Avas 
 hot, feverish, charged with rumours. In this case 
 there was no safety in quiet, and there Avas no power 
 on Avhich they could rely.” 
 
 The rebellion broke out in Ulster, in the recently 
 confiscated counties, on October 22, 1641. “ [It] Avas 
 
 speedily disgraced by crimes Avhich, though they have 
 been gros.sly, absurdly, and mendaciously exagge¬ 
 rated, were both numerous and horrible. Hardly 
 any page of history has been more misrepresented 
 than that which we are noAV describing, and it is 
 
BISHOP BEDELL. 
 
 59 
 
 extremely difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. 
 . . . It has been asserted by numerous Avriters, and 
 still generally believed, that the Ulster rebellion began 
 with a general and indiscriminate massacre of the 
 Protestants, who were living without suspicion among 
 the Catholics, resembling the massacre of the Danes 
 by the English, the massacre of the French in the 
 Sicilian Vespers, or the massacre of the Huguenots 
 at St, Bartholomew, Clarendon has asserted that 
 there Avere ‘40,000 or .50,000 of the English Protestants 
 murdered before they .suspected themselves to be in 
 any danger, or could provide for their defence,’ and 
 other Avriters have estimated the victims Avithin the 
 first tAvo months of the rebellion at 150,000, at 
 200,000, and even at 300,000. It may be boldly 
 asserted that this statement of a sudden surprise, 
 immediately folloAved by a general organized massacre, 
 is utterly and absolutely untrue. As is almost alAA’ays 
 the case in a great popular rising, there were, in the 
 first outbreak of the rebellion, some murders, but 
 they AA^ere very fcAv; and there Avas at this time 
 nothing Avhatever of the nature of a massacre.” Later 
 on, hoAvevei-, “ the English Avere eA'eryAvhere driven 
 from their homes, and their expulsion Avas soon 
 accompanied by horrible barbarities,” 
 
 Bkhop Bedell. 
 
 In the midst of these barbaritie.s, the person of one 
 prominent Englishman Avas sacred to the rebels—the 
 Protestant Bishop Bedell —“ the first Irish bishop who 
 engaged actiA^ely in proselytisni,” and Avho Avas “ one 
 
GO 
 
 THE liOME-RULER’S MANUAL, 
 
 of the most conspicuous and uncompromising oppo¬ 
 nents then living of the Catholic faith.” 
 
 “ When the whole county [of Cavan] was in the 
 hands of the rebels, [he] was sufiered to receive and 
 shelter multitudes of poor Protestants. The fugitives 
 were, indeed, after a time, obliged to leave him; 
 but, though they passed through the midst of the 
 rebels, not one miscarried, and not a thread of 
 their garments was touched. After living for eight 
 months in a country wholly occupied by the rebels, 
 the family of Bedell, and among its members his 
 biographer [Clogy], was escorted, together with about 
 twelve hundred English, who had been compelled 
 by want of provisions to surrendei’, to the English 
 garrison at Drogheda. The escort consisted of two 
 thousand rebels. The journey lasted seven days. 
 “ The rebels,” says Clogy, “ offered us no violence— 
 save in the night, when our men were weary with 
 continual watching, they would steal away a good 
 horse, and run off—but were very civil to us all the 
 way, and many of them wept at our parting from 
 them, that had lived so long and peacefully amongst 
 them, as if we had been one people with them.” 
 
 Bedell “was afterwards subjected for about three 
 weeks to an easy confinement in a castle on Lough 
 Erne. [But] he ended his days in almost absolute 
 liberty. During the short period of his captivity, as 
 his biographer informs us, he and his companions 
 had perfect liberty ‘ to use Divine exercises of God’s 
 worship, as to pray, read, preach, and sing the songs 
 of Zion in a strange Imid, as the three children; though 
 
CllOMWELLIAN WAU. 
 
 01 
 
 in the next room the priest was acting the Baby¬ 
 lonian Mass.’ He died in February, 1642, while his 
 diocese was still in the full possession of the rebels, 
 and his dying wish to be buried beside his wife in 
 the churchyard of a cathedral, was conceded by the 
 Catholic bishop. A guard of honour attended his 
 body to the grave. The Irish fired a volley over 
 it, crying, as they lowered the coffin into the tomb, 
 ‘ Recjuiescat in pace ultinius anglorum.’ ” 
 
 This episode, which is related with the fullest detail 
 by an eye-witness who was animated by a furious 
 hostility to Catholicism, took place in Ulster in the 
 midst of a rebellion which is constantly compared to 
 the massacre of St. Bartholomew. * 
 
 So much for the religious character of the rebellion 
 of 1041. 
 
 The rebellion was followed by the Cromwellian 
 war. 
 
 Cromwellian War. 
 
 Mr. Becky, in a single paragraph, tells, with graphic 
 power, the result of Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland. 
 
 “ Famine and the sword had so done their work 
 that in some districts the traveller rode twenty or 
 thirty miles without seeing one trace of human life, 
 and fierce wolves—rendered doubly savage by feeding 
 on human flesh—multiplied with startling rapidity 
 through the deserted land, and might be seen prowl¬ 
 ing in numbers within a few miles of Dublin. Liberty 
 
 * Lccky, “ History of England in the Eighteenth Century,” vol, ii. 
 1)1). 123-169. 
 
02 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 was given to able-bodied men to abandon the country 
 and enlist in foreign service, and from thirty to 
 fort}'' thousand availed themselves of the permission. 
 Slave-dealers were let loose upon the land, and many 
 hundreds of boys and of marriageable girls, guilty of 
 no offence Avhatever, were torn away from their 
 country, shipped to Barbadoes, and sold as slaves to 
 the planters. Merchants from Bristol entered keenly 
 into the traffic. The victims appear to have been for 
 the most part the children or the young widows of 
 those who were killed or starved; but the dealers 
 began at length to decoy even Englishmen to their 
 ships, and the abuses became such that the Puritan 
 Government, which had for some time cordially 
 supported the system, made vain efforts to stop 
 it. How many of the unhappy captives became 
 the prey of the sharks, how many became the 
 victims of the planters’ lusts, it is impossible to say. 
 The worship which was that of almost the whole 
 native population was absolutely suppressed. Priests 
 continued, it is true, with an admirable courage, to 
 move disguised among the mud cottages of the jDOor, 
 and to hold up the crucifix before their dying eyes; 
 but a large reward was offered for their apprehension, 
 and those who were taken were usually transported 
 to Barbadoes or confined in one of the Arran Isles. 
 Above all, the great end at which the English adven¬ 
 turers had been steadily aiming since the reign of 
 Elizabeth, was accomplished. All the land of the 
 Irish in the three largest and richest provinces was 
 confiscated, and divided among those adventurers 
 
PAULIAMENT OF 1689. 
 
 63 
 
 who had lent money to the Parliament, and among 
 the Puritan soldiers, whose pay was greatly in arreai’, 
 
 ‘ Innocent papists,’ who could prove that they had taken 
 no part whatever in the struggle, were assigned land 
 in Connaught, and that province, which rock and 
 morass have doomed to a perpetual poverty, and which 
 was at this time almost desolated by famine and by 
 massacre, rvas assigned as the home of the Irish race. 
 The ploughmen and labourers who were necessary for 
 the cultivation of the soil were suffered to remain, 
 but all the old proprietors, all the best and greatest 
 names in Ireland, were compelled to abandon their 
 old possessions, to seek a home in Connaught, or in 
 some happier land beyond the sea. A very large pro¬ 
 portion of them had committed no crime whatever; 
 and it is probable that not a sword would have been 
 drawn in Ireland in rebellion if those who ruled it 
 had suffered the natives to enjoy their lands and their 
 religion in peace.” * 
 
 The Cromwellian war and confiscations were fol¬ 
 lowed by the Parliament of 1689. 
 
 The Parliament of 1689. 
 
 It is, perhap.s, scarcely exaggeration to say that 
 the true history of this Parliament is only to be found 
 in the pages of Mr. Lecky. I shall summarize what 
 the eminent historian says. 
 
 Prior to the rebellion of 1611, two-thirds of “ffood 
 
 * Lecky, “History of England in the Eiglileeiith Century,” vol. ii. 
 pp. 173, 171. 
 
6J: 
 
 THE riOl^rE-EULER’S MANUx^L. 
 
 ground, capable of cultivation,” was, according to 
 Petty, possessed by Catholics. After the rebellion, 
 after the confiscations of Cromwell as adjusted by the 
 Act of Settlement and Explanation in the reign of 
 Charles II., four-fifths of the whole kingdom was, 
 according to Lawrence, possessed by the Protestants.* 
 Of the Protestant landowners in 1689, two-thirds, 
 according to Archbishop King, held their estates under 
 the Act of Settlement. “ Upwards of three thousand 
 old proprietors were, without trial, excluded for ever 
 from the inheritance of their fathers.” 
 
 In May, 1689, the Parliament met. It proceeded at 
 once to restore the balance of property which had 
 been upset by Cromwell and Charles. 
 
 “ The members of the House of Commons were 
 almost all new men, completely inexperienced in public 
 business, and animated by the resentment of the bit¬ 
 terest wrongs. Many of them were sons of some of 
 the three thousand proprietors who, without trial and 
 without compensation, had been deprived by the Act 
 of Settlement of the estates of their ancestors. To all 
 of them the confiscations of Ulster, the fraud of 
 Strafford, the long train of calamities that followed 
 were recent and vivid events. Old men were still 
 living who might have remembered them all, and 
 there was, probably, scarcely a man in the Irish 
 Parliament of 1689 who had not been deeply injured 
 by them in his fortunes or his family.” 
 
 Parliament began its work “ by an Act which was 
 far in advance of its age.” It “established perfect 
 * Rather more than two-thirds of the good land, according to Petty. 
 
PAKLIAMENT OP 1689. 
 
 65 
 
 religious liberty in Ireland.” “ By another Act, re¬ 
 pealing Poynings’ Law, and asserting its own legisla¬ 
 tive independence, it anticipated the doctrine of Moly- 
 neux. Swift, and Grattan, and claimed a position 
 which, if it could have been maintained, would have 
 saved Ireland from at least a portion of those com¬ 
 mercial restrictions which a few years later reduced 
 it to a condition of most abject wretchedness.” A 
 third measure abolished payments to Protestant clergy 
 in the corporate towns; a fourth ordered Catholics 
 to pay tithes to their own priests, and not to the 
 Protestant clergy. But “ Protestants were still to 
 pay their tithes to their own clergy.” The transfer 
 of the tithes from the Protestant to the Catholic 
 clei'gy—that is to say, from the clergy of a small 
 minority to the clergy of the nation—was made with¬ 
 out compensation. But “the principle of compensation 
 was as yet wholly unknown. . . . No compensation had 
 been granted in any of the transfers of Church property 
 in England. The really distinctive feature of the Irish 
 legislation on this subject was that the spoliated 
 clergy were not reduced to the category of criminals, 
 but were guaranteed full liberty of professing, prac¬ 
 tising, and teaching their religion.” Se'veral measures 
 were passed for developing the resources of the country 
 —(1) for encouraging strangers to plant in Ireland; 
 (2) for the relief of distressed debtors; (3) for the 
 x’emoval of the incapacities of the native Irish ; (4) 
 for the recovery of waste lands ; (o) for the improve¬ 
 ment of trade, shipping, and navigation; and (6) for 
 the establishment of free schools. 
 
 F 
 
G(i THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 These Acts were accompanied by a measure for the 
 repeal of the Act of Settlement; that is, by a measure for 
 declaring null and void the confiscations of Cromwell, 
 which had been confirmed and settled by Charles II. 
 The Act of Settlement had been passed only twenty-four 
 years before, and the Irish legislators declared that these 
 twenty-four years had not annulled the rights of the 
 old proprietors or their descendants. They accordingly 
 enacted that “ the heirs of all pei’sons who had possessed 
 landed property in Ireland on October 22, 1641, and 
 who had been deprived of their inheritance by the 
 Act of Settlement, should enter at once into posses.sion 
 of their old properties.” This Act was, of course, 
 a great hardship on the new proprietors, some of whom 
 held by purchase, and not as military adventurers. 
 But those who held by purchase were to be given 
 compensation. _ “ The statute notices that some persons 
 who were strangers to those to whom some of the 
 confiscated lands were distributed had come into 
 possession of the same after the Act of Settlement, 
 ‘ for good and valuable consideration, and not considera¬ 
 tions of blood, affinity, or marriage,’ and it declares that 
 these persons ' are hereby intended to be reprised for 
 such their purchases in the manner hereafter to be ex¬ 
 pressed.’ ” But how ? “ In 1689 the great bulk of the 
 English proprietors of Irish soil were in actual corre¬ 
 spondence with William, and were therefore legally 
 guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now 
 proceeded to follow the example of the British Govern¬ 
 ments, and by a clause of extreme severity they pro¬ 
 nounced the real estates of all Irish proprietors 
 
PAKLIAMENT OF 1689. 
 
 67 
 
 who dwelt in any part of the three kingdoms which did 
 not acknowledge King James, and who aided, abetted, 
 or corresponded with the rebels, to be forfeited and 
 vested in the Crown, and from this source they pro¬ 
 posed to compensate the purchasers under the Act 
 of Settlement.” 
 
 Mr. Lccky comments on this Act: “ The Act must 
 be judged in the light of the antecedent events 
 of Irish history, and with a due allowance for the 
 passions of a civil war, for the peculiar position of 
 the legislators, and for the extreme difficulty of all 
 legislation on this subject.” 
 
 But this Act was followed by a much more sweep¬ 
 ing and violent injustice ”—an Act of attainder which 
 aimed at the complete overthrow of the existing land 
 system of Ireland. By this measure two thousand 
 landowners were to be attainted of high treason. Mr. 
 Lccky comments— 
 
 “ Few persons will question the tyranny of an 
 Act which in this manner made a very large propor¬ 
 tion of the Irish landlords liable to the penalties 
 of high treason, unless they could prove their inno¬ 
 cence, even though the only crime that could be 
 alleged against them was that of living out of Ii-eland 
 at a time of civil war. ... Its injustice, however, 
 cannot reasonably be denied, and it forms the great 
 blot on the reputation of the short Parliament of 
 1689, though a few things may be truly said to pal¬ 
 liate it and explain it.” 
 
68 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 “ There is no ground for the assertion that it was 
 of the nature of a religious proscription. It was in¬ 
 evitable that Protestant landlords should have usually 
 taken the side of William, and .Catholic landlords 
 the side of James; but religion is not even mentioned 
 in the Act, and among the attainted persons a few 
 were Catholics. Nor is it probable that it was ever 
 intended to put in force the more sanguinaiy part of 
 the sentence. It is not alleged that a single person 
 was executed under the Act. . . . 
 
 Real Aim of the Act. 
 
 “ The real aim of the Act was con6scation; and 
 in this resjject, at least, it was by no means un¬ 
 exampled. Every political trouble in Ireland had 
 long been followed by a confiscation of Irish soil. . , . 
 If more than two thousand persons were conditionally 
 attainted by the Irish Parliament in 1689, more than 
 three thousand had been absolutely deprived of their 
 possessions without trial by the Parliament in 1665 ; 
 and the Parliament which committed the one injustice 
 consisted mainly of the sons of the men who had 
 suffered by the other,” * 
 
 Such is the story of the rebellion of 1641, and of 
 the Parliament of 1689. 
 
 In conclusion, let me repeat that my object is, 
 not to discuss the question whether the “rebels” of 
 1641 and the legislators of 1689 were or were not 
 
 * Lecky, “History of England in the Eighteenth Century,” vol. ii, 
 jip. 178-190. 
 
NO DANGEK OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. 69 
 
 guilty of faults or crimes, but to show that, whether 
 right or wrong, their conduct was not influenced by 
 religious feeling. 
 
 I may, perhaps, close this subject of religious “ per¬ 
 secution and Home Rule ” by quoting an extract from 
 the able and outspoken organ of the Tory party in 
 Ireland—the Dublin Evening Mail. 
 
 Writing on December 30, 1885, and commenting on 
 a proposal that a new Irish Constitution should con¬ 
 tain a clause declaring that no system of education 
 should be endowed by the State to the exclusion of 
 any other, the Mail said ; “ If this be meant as a 
 protection of Irish Protestants against religious per¬ 
 secution, we think it is superfluous. There is no 
 danger that Protestants will be persecuted as such. 
 It is their worldly goods and chattels that are coveted, 
 not the salvation of their souls, and they will be not 
 a bit worse off than the Catholics, who possess the 
 like plunderable commodities.” 
 
 It may be natural for the Mail to object to Home 
 Rule, and to think the worst of Home Rulers. But it 
 is important to bear in mind that this representative 
 organ of Protestant opinion should hold that religious 
 feeling does not enter into Irish politics. 
 
PART III. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOME RULE. 
 
 I. 
 
 miSH NATIONALITY. 
 
 Fifty years ago it was said to Mazzini, “ Italy is not 
 a nation.” Mazzini replied, “ Italy strives for nation¬ 
 hood.” * It is often said now, “ Ireland is not a 
 nation.” Irishmen may reply, “ Ireland strives, and 
 has ever striven, for nationhood.” “ The sentiment of 
 nationality,” says Mr. Lecky, “ lies at the root of Irish 
 discontent.” 
 
 What is a nation ? A people bound together by 
 historical associations. Of course there are other 
 factors ; e.g. race, religion, language, geography, popu¬ 
 lation (taken in connection with geography); never¬ 
 theless history is the determining factor. Many,in¬ 
 stances can be given of peoples separated by race, 
 religion, language, who are, nevertheless, held together 
 
 * Metternicli’s saying is well known: “ Italy is a geograjjliical 
 expression.” 
 
IRISH NATIONALITY. 
 
 71 
 
 by a common history.* But lei, us take all the factors 
 into account in dealing with Ireland. 
 
 1. Race .—The majority of the Irish people are Celts, 
 but there is a Teutonic element, the result mainly of 
 Danish and Anglo-Norman conquest. Despite dif¬ 
 ferences in blood, the Irish are, almost as a whole 
 united by common historical bonds. Foremost among 
 Irish popular heroes have been Hibernicized Teu¬ 
 tons. “ Hibernis Hiberniores ” is the fond saying by 
 which Celtic Irish peasants to this day recall the 
 memory of the Norman, “ Geraldines.” f It is needless 
 to say that the Irish patriots and rebels of the 
 eighteenth century were chiefly men of Teutonic 
 origin, e.g. the volunteers and the United L-ishmen. 
 The greatest of Irish rebels and the purest of Irish 
 patriots were both men of English blood—Wolfe 
 Tone and Henry Grattan. J The old Irish Parliament, 
 to which Irish Celts look back with pride, was in the 
 main an assembly of Irish Teutons. But Celt and 
 Teuton, though separated by race, have, as a whole, 
 been united by the memory of common wrongs and 
 common struggles. England not only failed to Angli¬ 
 cize the Irish, but she could not prevent the Irish from 
 Hibernicizing the settlers. However, one part of Ire¬ 
 land, though Hibernian enough in temperament, is still, 
 to some extent, separated from the rest not only by 
 
 * Community of race, language, and religion did not prevent tlio 
 revolt of England’s American colonies. Difference of race, religion, 
 and language have not broken up the Swiss Republic. 
 
 t Tlie popular name for the great Anglo-Norman family, tlic Fitz¬ 
 Geralds, famous as Earls of Kildare. To this family the pojnilar hero 
 and rebel. Lord Edward FitzGerahl, belonged. 
 
 ^ On bis mother’s side, Grattan was of French extraction. 
 
72 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 race, but by feeling and history; e.g. the unnationalized 
 colonists in the north-east corner of Ulster.* The case 
 of these colonists will be fully dealt with later on; but, 
 leaving them for a moment out of account, it may be 
 generally affirmed that the different races of Ireland 
 have, like the different races of England, mingled in 
 the stream of common historical association. 
 
 2. Religion. —The percentage of the various religious 
 denominations in Ireland are— 
 
 Per cent. i 
 
 Catholics .. .. .. .. .. 76'6 
 
 Protestant Episcopalians .. .. .. 12’4: 
 
 Presbyterians .. .. .. .. 91 
 
 Methodists .. .. .. .. .. 1-0 f 
 
 3. Language. —English, it is known, is the common 
 language of the country. 
 
 4. Geography. —Geographically Ireland has the most 
 distinct of national boundaries—the sea. 
 
 5. Population. —The area of Ireland is 32,531 square 
 miles ; the population, 5,174,836. How does she com¬ 
 pare in these respects with some other European 
 nationalities ? 
 
 
 Area. 
 
 Square Miles. 
 
 Population. 
 
 Belgium 
 
 11,.373 
 
 5,520,009 
 
 Netherlands 
 
 12,648 
 
 4,012,693 
 
 Switzerland .. 
 
 15,992 
 
 2,846,102 
 
 Denmark 
 
 13,784 
 
 1,969,039 
 
 Greece 
 
 19,941 
 
 1,679,775 
 
 6. History .—From the earliest period of her history, 
 
 * Post, pp. 92, 93. t Ante, ji. 10. 
 
IRISH HISTORY. 
 
 73 
 
 Ireland has struggled to preserve political existence, 
 fii’st threatened by the Danes, then by England; and 
 it is the memory of this struggle which binds the 
 Irish people together as a nation. 
 
 A brief sketch of the outlines of Irish history is 
 necessary to make this point clear. 
 
 Irish Historij. 
 
 Early Irish History .—The Irish, like all early 
 European communities, were divided into tribes. 
 Provincial kings reigned in Munster, Leinster, Ulster, 
 and Connaught. A supreme king, whose seat was at 
 Tara, and whose special domain was Meath, reigned 
 over all. 
 
 After the establishment of Christianity (about A.D. 
 450) Ireland took her place in the van of civilization, 
 and Irish missionaries spread the light of the gospel 
 over Europe. In 908-1014 the greatest of Irish kings, 
 Brian—the “ Egbert of Ireland ”—tried to break up the 
 tribal system and consolidate the nation. His death 
 at the battle of Clontarf (1014), where Ireland, almost 
 as a nation, rallied around him, and where the power of 
 the Danish invaders was for ever broken, checked the 
 work of national consolidation which he had begun. 
 He had no worthy successors, and Ireland, once more 
 distracted by tribal divisions, fell an easy prey to the 
 Anglo-Norman adventurers. 
 
 A'aylo-Normam. —InllG9-1172 the Anglo-Normans 
 settled in Ireland. They were too weak to conquer 
 the country, and the Irish were too disorganized to 
 
74 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 drive them out. In such circumstances there was but 
 one hope for Ireland—the amalgamation of the Irish 
 and Anglo-Norman races, the union of the two peoples 
 as one political power. This amalgamation, this union 
 England used all her resources to prevent, lest Ireland 
 might become a strong nation at her door. The Irish 
 and Anglo-Norman races to some extent mingled; 
 Norman settlers in some instances became “more 
 Irish than the Irish themselves; ” * but no lasting 
 political union took place. England was too strong 
 for this. She sowed seeds of discord between Norman 
 and Irish; urged the former to “root out” the latter, 
 and in the end subdued both. 
 
 Sir John Davis says, “ It is manifest that such as 
 had the government of Ireland under the Crown of 
 England did intend to make perpetual separation and 
 enmity between the English [Anglo-Norjnans] and 
 Irish; pretending no doubt that the English should 
 in the end root out the Irish, which the English not 
 being able'to do, did cause perpetual war between 
 the nations.” t 
 
 Mr. Lecky: “ The English rule as a living reality 
 was confined and concentrated in the narrow limits 
 
 * “ The Anglo-Normans became Irish; they exchanged their feudal 
 titles of earl and baron for patronymic surnames; the Du-Bomrgs called 
 themselves MacWilliam-Bourg; the Be Veres, hlacSwine; the De- 
 langles, MaoOostilagh; the EitzUrses, MacMahon; and the Fitz- 
 Geraalds, MacGheroit. They acquired a taste for Irish song and 
 poetry; they invited the bards to their tables, and entrusted their 
 children to women of tlie country. The Normans of England, so 
 haughty towards the Saxons, termed this degeneration.”—Thierry, 
 “ Norman Conquest,” i. p. 320. 
 
 t “ Discovery of the True Causes why Ireland was never Subdued. 
 
THE ANGLO-NORMANS. 
 
 75 
 
 of the Pale. * The hostile power planted in the 
 heart of the nation destroyed all possibility of central 
 government, while it was itself incapable of fulfilling 
 that function. Like a spear-point embedded in a living- 
 body, it inflamed all around it, and deranged every 
 vital function. It prevented the gradual reduction of 
 the island by some native Clovis, which would neces¬ 
 sarily have taken place if the Anglo-Normans had not 
 ai’rived; and instead of that peaceful and almost silent 
 amalgamation of races, customs, laws, and languages 
 which took place in England, and which is the source 
 of many of the best elements in English life and 
 character, the two nations remained in Ireland for 
 centuries in hostility.” f 
 
 Sir Henry Maine: “The Anglo-Norman settlement 
 acted like a running sore on the east coast of Ireland, 
 constantly irritating the Celtic regions beyond the 
 Pale, and deepening the confusion which prevailed 
 there. If the country had been left to itself, one of 
 the great Irish tribes would almost certainly have 
 conquered the rest.” f 
 
 Hallam: “We may be led by the analogy of other 
 ^ countries to think it probable that if Ireland had not 
 tempted the cupidity of her neighbours, there would 
 have arisen in the course of time some Egbert or 
 Harold Harfager to consolidate the provincial kingdoms 
 into one hei’editary monai’chy. ...” § 
 
 t In the reign of King John, the English possessions in Ireland 
 were 'paleil oif, hence the phrase. These possessions were confined to 
 Dublin, Meath, Louth, and Kildare. 
 
 t “ History of England in the Eighteenth Century,” ii. j). h.3. 
 
 t “ History of Early Institutions,” p. 55. 
 
 § “ Constitutional History,” iii. p. 4G3. 
 
76 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 If it be said that Ireland is a country with an 
 arrested national development, the question may be 
 asked, Wlio is responsible ? The authorities we have 
 cited answer—England. 
 
 The Tudors. — On the accession of Henry VII. 
 (1485) the English possessions in Ireland were still 
 limited to the Pale; * on the death of Elizabeth 
 (1603) all Ireland was conquered. The conflict was 
 flerce and brutal. Norman and Celt combined against 
 the common foe. The Geraldines in the south, the 
 O’Neils in the north, fought for their common country 
 and common faith; for the Irish had rejected the 
 Reformation, and remained true to the old creed. 
 The struggle was national and religious. It ended 
 in the defeat of the Irish, and the subjugation of the 
 island by the most ruthless of wars; f but the catas¬ 
 trophe was not brought about until the inhabitants 
 had been welded together as one people by community 
 of the strongest feelings and interests—love of country, 
 fidelity to creed, attachment to property. Norman 
 and Celt had defended all, and lost almost all. The 
 national faith alone survived the national wreck. 
 
 Confiscation and religious persecution followed con- • 
 quest. In the reign of Mary the territories of the 
 
 ' * “The real supremacy of the English laws was not probably 
 estabhshed beyond [the counties of Dublin and Louth], from Dublin 
 to Dundalk on the coast, and for about thirty miles inland.”—Hallam, 
 “Constitutional History,” iii. p. 478. 
 
 t “ Whoever did travel from the one end to the other all Munster 
 would not meet any man, woman, or child, saving in towns or cities; 
 nor yet see any beast. So the generals of Elizabeth left Ireland.”— 
 Holinshed, “ Chronicle of England, Holland, and Leland,” Anno 1577. 
 
TUDOES AND STUAKTS. 
 
 77 
 
 Celtic O’Moores and O’Connors in Leinster were 
 forfeited; in the reign of Elizabeth the vast estates 
 of the Norman Desmond in Munster shared the same 
 fate.* A new colony from England took the forfeited 
 possessions. They came to exterminate the old races 
 and the old religion. “ The iron ago of Ireland ” f 
 had commenced. 
 
 The Stuarts . — Confiscation followed confiscation. 
 Elizabeth had filched 574,000 acres! from Normans 
 and Celts in Leinster; James I. filched 2,836,837 acres 
 from Celts in Ulster. Another new set of colonists 
 were introduced from England and Scotland, and the 
 old proprietors were driven from their homes. In the 
 reio-n of Charles I. fresh schemes of confiscation were 
 
 o 
 
 laid in Connaught by Wentworth, but rebellion in Ire¬ 
 land and civil war in England arrested this policy of 
 “public plunder” in full career. Forty years (1641) 
 after James I. had stripped the Celts of Ulster of 
 their lands, and sent them forth to wander and 
 starve in mountain, wood, and morass, the sons of 
 these Celts rose in arms to recover the inherit¬ 
 ance of their fathers. Fearful was this war of ven¬ 
 geance. “The pent-up fury of a people brutalized 
 by long oppression broke out at last. They fought 
 as men will fight who had been despoiled of their 
 property, whose religion was under the ban of the 
 law, who expected no quarter from their adversaries, 
 
 * 7'liese estates nunibere<l 295,370 acres. 
 
 t “ The Tudor, uot the riantagcuet, introduced the iron ago of 
 Ireland.” — Cardinal Newman, “Hist. Sketches,” iii. p. 257. 
 
 i Lecky, “ England,” ii. p. 105. 
 
78 
 
 THE IIOME-KULBE’S MANUAL. 
 
 whose parents had been hunted down like wild 
 beasts.” * 
 
 Crom'ivell .—Then Oliver Cromwell came (1649), and 
 all was over. “ He vanquished [the Irish]; he knew 
 that they Avere in his power; and he regarded them as 
 a band of malefactors and idolaters, who were merci¬ 
 fully treated if they were not smitten with the edge 
 of the sword. On those who resisted he made war as 
 the Hebrews made war on the Canaanites. Drogheda 
 was as Jericho; and Wexford as Ai. To the remains 
 of the old population the conqueror granted a peace, 
 such as that which Israel granted to the Gibeonites. 
 He made them hewers of wood and draAvers of Avater.” f 
 
 More confiscations followed. Eleven million acres 
 (reduced subsequently to 7,800,000 J) were forfeited, 
 and another set of English adventurers poured into 
 the country. 
 
 In the reign of Charles II. there was tranquillity in 
 Ireland, “the ghastly tranquillity of exhaustion and 
 despair.” 
 
 In the reign of James II., as in the reign of Charles 
 I., civil war in England gave the Irish once more a 
 chance of Avresting their country from the grasp of the 
 conqueror; and thirty years (1689) after the confisca¬ 
 tions of Cromwell and Charles IT. they rose again to 
 recover the inheritance of their fathers. § 
 
 * Lecky, Macmillan's Magazine, January, 1873. 
 
 t Macaulay, “ Essays,” ii. pp. 526, 527. 
 
 X Sigerson, “ Irish Land Tenures,” p. 96; also Hardinge’s paper 
 on the civil war in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 
 December 11,1865. One can only expect to be approximately accurate 
 in dealing with these figures. 
 
 § The upshot of the settlements of Cromwell and of Charles II. was 
 
THE IRISH PARLIAMENT OF. 1089. 
 
 79 
 
 In 1689 an Irish Parliament met in Dublin—(1) to 
 "rant religious toleration to all creeds; (2) to reverse 
 the forfeitures of Cromwell and Charles; (3) to attaint 
 of high treason the English settlers who opposed the 
 Irish interest. For the two latter acts this Parliament 
 has been censured. Says Lord Macaulay, a hostile 
 authority on the subject: “They [the Iri.sh Parliament] 
 acted unmercifully, unjustly, unwisely. But it would 
 be absurd to expect mercy, justice, or wisdom from a 
 class of men first abased by many years of oppression, 
 and then maddened by the joy of a sudden deliverance 
 and armed with irresistible power. The representa¬ 
 tives of the Irish nation were, with few exceptions, 
 rude and ignorant. They had lived in a state of con¬ 
 stant irritation. With aristocratical sentiments they 
 had been in a servile position. With the highest 
 pride of blood, they had been exposed to daily aftronts 
 such as might well have aroused the choler of the 
 humblest plebeian. In sight of the fields and castles 
 which they regarded as their own, they had been glad 
 to be invited by a peasant to partake of his whey and 
 his potatoes. Those violent emotions of hatred and 
 cupidity which the situation of the native gentleman 
 could scarcely fail to call forth, appeared to him under 
 the specious guise of patriotism and piety. For his 
 enemies were the enemies of his nation, and the same 
 tyranny Avhich had robbed him of his patrimony had 
 robbed his Church of vast wealth bestowed on her by 
 the devotion of an earlier age. How was power likely 
 
 this; in 1041 papists and sequestered Protestants held .5,200,000 acres; 
 in 1672 the Irish held 2,280,000 (Petty, “ Political Anatomy 
 
80 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 to be used by an uneducated and inexperienced man, 
 agitated by strong desires and resentments wbicli he 
 mistook for sacred duties ? And when two or three 
 hundred such men were brought together in one 
 assembly, what was to be expected but that the pas¬ 
 sions which each had long nursed in silence would be 
 at once matured into fearful vigour by the influence 
 of sympathy ? ” * 
 
 William and Many ; Anne .—The war of 1689-1691 
 ended with the Treaty of Limerick. The Irish had 
 lost all but honour, and by this treaty honourable 
 terms were granted to them. They were guaranteed 
 the free exercise of all civil and religious rights, 
 secured in the possession of their property. But the 
 treaty was broken. In defiance of its terms, confisca¬ 
 tion again followed war, and religious persecution 
 followed confiscation. The penal laws were passed.f 
 The Irish were deprived of all civil and religious 
 
 * “ History of England,” iii. pp. 209, 210. It should be noted that 
 during “ the fearful vigour ” of those times, Keating, the Chief Jus¬ 
 tice of the Common Pleas, was a Protestant. Though strongly opposed 
 to the policy of the Irish Parliament, he was not removed from his 
 post. ‘‘That the Irish Parliament of King James did in some par¬ 
 ticulars, though feebly, imitate the rigour which had been used to¬ 
 wards the Irish is true enough. Blamable enough they were for 
 what they had done, though under the greatest possible j^rovocation.” 
 —Arnold, “ Burke on Irish Aifairs,” p. 370. 
 
 t Burke’s description of the penal code cannot be too often quoted : 
 “ It was a complete system, fall of cohesion and consistency, well 
 digested and well fitted in all its parts; it was a machine of wise and 
 elaborate contrivance, and as well fitted for the oppression and im¬ 
 poverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them 
 of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity 
 of man.” 
 
THE PENAL CODE. 
 
 81 
 
 rights; their estates were forfeited; 1,060,692 acres 
 were confiscated; and a third set of English settlers 
 replaced the old proprietors. 
 
 The Penal Code. 
 
 The penal code needs more than a passing reference. 
 The enactments of the code are well known. How 
 Catholics were excluded from Parliament and de¬ 
 prived of the elective franchise, plundered of their 
 landed estates, and stripped of their personal wealth ; 
 driven from the army and navy, the magistracy, 
 the municipal corporations, the bench, the bar, the 
 university; prevented from becoming schoolmasters, 
 or sending their children abroad to be educated; pro¬ 
 hibited from acting as solicitors or solicitors’ clerks, 
 and not allowed even to hold the positions of game- 
 keepers or watchmen: how the whole Catholic hier¬ 
 archy and the regular clergy were expelled: how 
 Catholic Divine service could only be celebrated under 
 galling restrictions by “ registered ” priests, limited in 
 numbers and watched by Government spies : how no 
 papist could keep a horse above the value of £5 : how 
 papists had to pay double to the militia, and, “ in case 
 of war with a Catholic power, to reimburse the damage 
 done by the enemy’s privateers: ” * how, while prose¬ 
 lytizing institutions were subsidized by the State 
 to make Protestants of papists, it was held a capital 
 offence for a papist to convert a Protestant to the 
 Catholic faith: f how, in a word, the national religion 
 was proscribed and the native race robbed and de- 
 * Lecky. f Lecky, Macmillan's, Jaunary, 1873. 
 
 O 
 
82 
 
 THE HOME-EULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 graded:—these are familiar facts. But how were the 
 penal laws carried out ? 
 
 In 1692 the House of Commons addressed William 
 III.: “ We most humbly beseech your Majesty that no 
 outlawries of any rebels in Ireland may be reversed, 
 or pardons granted to them, but by the advice of your 
 Parliament, and that no protection may be granted to 
 any Irish papist to stop the course of justice.” 
 
 “ It must be a great mistake in policy,” urged the 
 Lords Justices about the same time, “ to lose the oppor¬ 
 tunity of changing the [landed] proprietors from 
 papists to Protestants, as this will be.” They added, 
 “ The Protestants of Ireland would be in perfect despair 
 if [the papists] are restored.” 
 
 In 1704 no papists were allowed by law to dwell 
 in the town of Galway. 
 
 In 1704-1705 the House of Commons resolved 
 “ that the prosecuting and informing against papists 
 was an honourable service,” “that the saying or 
 hearing of Mass by persons who had not taken the 
 oath of abjuration” tended to defeat the “succession 
 to the Crown,” and that all magistrates who neglected 
 to put the laws against papists into execution were 
 “ betrajmrs of the liberties of the kingdom.” 
 
 In 1706 the Lord-Lieutenant urged the enforcement 
 of the penal code against “ our domestic enemies.” 
 
 In 1708 several papists, “ merchants and gentlemen,” 
 of Galway, were flung into gaol, and others driven 
 outside the walls. “I have,” writes Richard Wall, 
 the mayor, to Dublin Castle, “pursuant to order of 
 last night’s post, turned adl the popish inhabitants 
 
THE PENAL CODE. 
 
 83 
 
 out of the town and garrison, and have committed 
 several popish priests to gaol. I have also taken care 
 to remove the market outside of the walls, and have 
 given orders to prevent Mass being said in the town.” 
 
 In 1709 the Lord-Lieutenant again recommended 
 the gentlemen of the House of Commons “ seriously 
 to consider whether any new Bills are wanting to 
 enforce and explain those good laws which you have 
 already passed against the common enemy.” 
 
 In 1711 the necessity of enforcing the penal laws 
 was again enjoined by public proclamation. 
 
 The Secretary of State wrote to the Mayor of 
 Galway to express a hope that he would continue 
 his exertions “ to banish priests, those enemies of our 
 constitution, out of the town, and cause those you 
 have apprehended to be prosecuted by law with the 
 utmost rigour.” 
 
 In 1712 Sir Constantine Phipps, the Lord Chan¬ 
 cellor of that day, urged upon the corporation of 
 Dublin “ the duty of preventing the public Mass 
 being said contrary to law by priests not registered, 
 and that will not take the oath of abjuration.” 
 
 In 1713 the sergeant-at-arms was ordered “to take 
 into custody all papists who should presume to come 
 into the gallery of the House of Commons.” 
 
 Between 1713 and 1714, the national clergy were 
 hunted down like rats. 
 
 In 1714 a priest lay for weeks in the gaol of 
 Galway because the mayor could not get “a Pro¬ 
 testant jury of freeholders to try him.” 
 
 In 1715 the papists were again driven from the town. 
 
84 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Catholic chapels were closed; priests were seized, 
 dragged sometimes even from the altar, and flung into 
 gaol. In the same year the Lords Justices recom¬ 
 mended “such unanimity as may once more put an 
 end to all other distinctions but that of Protestant 
 and papist; ” and the House of Commons resolved, 
 “It is the indispensable duty of all magistrates to 
 put into immediate execution the laws against popish 
 priests who shall officiate contrary to law, and that 
 such magistrates as shall neglect the same he looked 
 on as the enemies of the constitution.” In 1716 the 
 Lord-Lieutenant urged that “ the laws against papists 
 should be strictly enforced,” and in 1719 “union 
 among all Protestants against the common enemy ” 
 was once more enjoined. 
 
 In this latter year a brutal proposal was made by 
 the Irish Privy Council to the English cabinet for 
 the torture of popish regulars returning from the 
 continent to Ireland. Here is the letter Avhich accom¬ 
 panied the Bill, embodying this proposal, to England. 
 It is characteristic of the times. 
 
 “ Dublin Castle, August 29, 1719. 
 
 “ Webstek (secretary to the Lords Justices), to 
 Delaffe. 
 
 “ I hope you will find [the public Bills] will occasion 
 no great trouble on your side, unless the penalty of 
 [mutilation] of priests in the Popery Bill be thought too 
 severe. It came from the Commons with no greater 
 than burning in the cheek, but it being observed, 
 that, when that punishment was inflicted in this 
 
THE PENAL CODE. 
 
 85 
 
 kingdom in other cases, that the Rapparees and other 
 felons had branded several innocent men Avith that 
 mark in order to. destroy the distinction, it was 
 thought by the Privy Council that no punishment 
 less than [mutilation] would be effectual to prevent the 
 frequent arrival of priests here, though I think the 
 manner of doing it is left undetermined. However, 
 as the Bill has several very material clauses of another 
 kind in it, and very beneficial to the Protestant 
 interest here, my Lord-Lieutenant hopes that it will 
 be returned, whatever alterations mE!,y be made in that 
 particular. . . 
 
 “ Alterations ” were made “ in that particular.” The 
 clause was struck out by the English Cabinet. 
 
 In 1723 the Lord-Lieutenant again recommended 
 “the vigorous execution of the laws against popish 
 priests.” In 1725 a priest named Henderson pene¬ 
 trated to Ulster, and had the courage to preach a 
 sermon at “ the Mass place of Arline,” declaring, to 
 use the language of Archdeacon Walter Bell, who 
 supplied the. information to the Castle, that “the 
 Romans in this kingdom were depressed, and their 
 clergy obliged to go to ditches and glens to celebrate 
 their Mass; but if they would shed their blood and 
 fight for their religion, and become martyrs, they 
 Avould flourish, as they did when they had their 
 temples and abbeys.” Henderson was finally arrested, 
 and indicted (1) for using blasphemous words, and (2) 
 for riotous and tumultuous assembly and assault. 
 “On the first indictment,” to use the words of Mr. 
 Justice Parnell who tried him, “he was found guilty 
 
86 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL 
 
 on full evidence, and sentenced to stand on the pillory 
 with his crime wrote on his breast, to be whipped 
 four times through the streets of the city of Derry, 
 and to be burnt in the face with the letter B; all 
 which was strictly executed.” On the second indict¬ 
 ment he was acquitted. He was then sent to Tyrone 
 and tried for sedition. He was found guilty, and 
 sentenced as at Derry. Finally, the grand jury 
 “presented against him as a vagabond, and prayed 
 that he might be transported to America, which was 
 done.” 
 
 In the same year the House of Commons ad¬ 
 dressed the king against the reversal of outlawries, 
 dwelling on “the fatal consequences which will in¬ 
 evitably follow from the reversal of an}'- of the out¬ 
 lawries of the rebellious Irish papists.” “We beg 
 leave,” they say, “ to lay before your Majesty that the 
 greatest part of the titles which your British and 
 Protestant subjects of Ireland have to their estates 
 are derived under attainders for the rebellions in 1641 
 and 1688. And as the Irish, by the forfeitures of 
 their estates, became less able to put in execution 
 their treasonable designs, so by corrupting the blood 
 of their nobility, and depriving them and their 
 posterity of their hereditary titles and honours by 
 force of the outlawries for high treason, they have 
 had less power and credit with their followers to lead 
 them into rebellion. And this was so well understood, 
 that no outlawry of any person guilty of the rebellion 
 of 1641 was re^rsed till the time of the government 
 of Earl Tyrconnell in 1687.” 
 
THE PENAL CODE. 
 
 87 
 
 Two years later, Lord Carteret, the Lord-Lieutenant, 
 wrote to the English cabinet on the same subject, 
 begging that no outlawries may be reversed. “ The 
 English,” he says, “who settled themselves in Ire¬ 
 land upon the suppression of the rebellion of 1641- 
 1649, have much the greatest part of the property of 
 the kingdom, and look upon the Acts of Parliament 
 which confirm the attainder of the rebels, and secure 
 the forfeitures to the Protestant purchasers, as their 
 fundamental constitution, and the greatest securities 
 of their religion, liberties, and properties.” In 1728, 
 it was declared from the judicial bench that “the 
 intention of the Legislature was to disable papists 
 from enlarging their landed interest, and to settle 
 what lands they already had so as it should moulder 
 away in their hands.” 
 
 In 1731 the Mayor of Galway was once more 
 ordered to expel all priests and nuns from the town, 
 and purge the place of popery. 
 
 In the same year the Commons, in an address to 
 the king, declai’ed that “ the great number of papists 
 in Ireland must at all times justly alarm your loyal 
 Protestant subjects,” and resolved once again that the 
 popery laws should be vigorously enforced. In 1733 
 the Lord-Lieutenant urged upon Parliament the neces¬ 
 sity of securing “ a firm union amongst all Protestants, 
 who have one common interest and the same common 
 enemy.” 
 
 In 1735 there lived, in a village on the Bog of Allen, 
 Dr. Gallagher, the Catholic Bishop of Raphoe. His 
 life is a picture of the “ penal days.” “ Sixty or seventy 
 
88 
 
 THE HOME-KULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 years ago,” writes a Protestant historian of our own 
 time, “the aged inhabitants of the district used to 
 speak of his exertions on their behalf. ‘ There,’ they 
 would say, ‘ he administered confirmation; here he 
 held an assembly of clergy; on that hill he ordained 
 some young priests whom he sent to France, Spain, 
 Italy; and we remember, or we heard, how he lived 
 in yonder old walls in common with the young priests, 
 whom he prepared. He sometimes left us with a 
 stafi" in his hands, and, being absent for months, we 
 feared he would never return, but he always came 
 back, and closed his days amongst us.’ ” * 
 
 In 1739 the papists petitioned the king for “the re¬ 
 laxation of the most severe laws passed against us, con¬ 
 trary to the Treaty of Limerick.” “ Two-thirds of the 
 business of the law courts,” they say, “ consist of popish 
 discoveries;” and they add, “We are daily oppressed 
 by the number of idle and wicked vagrants of this 
 nation, informing against our little leases and tene¬ 
 ments, if the law gets any hold thereof.” This petition 
 was treated with contemptuous silence. “Though 
 little attention is to be given to this paper,” wrote 
 the Duke of Newcastle, “[yet] keep a strict watch 
 on the behaviour of the papists.” 
 
 In fine, so weU had the penal code worked as an 
 instrument for plundering the native race, that, in 
 1739, there were not twenty Catholics in Ireland 
 who possessed each £1000 a year in land, while the 
 estates belonging to others of less yearly value were 
 
 * Killen, “ Eccles. Hist, of Ireland; ” algo Fitzpatrick, “ Life of Dr. 
 Doyle.” 
 
THE HOUSE OF HANOVER. 
 
 89 
 
 proportionably few. “ It is no matter to the public,” 
 said the prime sergeant of the day, in 1747, “in whose 
 hands the estate is, provided it is not in the hands 
 of a papist.” And ten years later a judge declared 
 from the bench, “that the laws did not presume a 
 papist to exist, nor could they breathe without the 
 connivance of Government.” In these circumstances, 
 it is not surprising to learn, at a later period, on the 
 authority of Lord Townshend, that “ the laws against 
 popery have so far operated, that there is no popish 
 family at this day [1772] remaining, of any gi’eat 
 weight from landed property.” 
 
 But to resume the main narrative. 
 
 The House of Hanover .—Lord Clare has described 
 the situation of Ireland at the Revolution and since: 
 “ What, then, was the situation of Ireland at the Revo¬ 
 lution, and what is it to this day ? The whole power 
 and property of the country have been conferred by suc¬ 
 cessive monarchs of England upon an English colony 
 composed of three sets of English adventurers, who 
 poured into the country at the termination of three 
 successive rebellions. Confiscation is their common 
 title, and from their first settlement they have been 
 hemmed in on every side by the old inhabitants of 
 the island, brooding over their discontents in sullen 
 indignation.” * It was the policy of England to keep 
 the “colony ” and the “ old inhabitants ” apart, to pro- 
 
 * Speech on the Union in 1800. Roughly speaking, the “colony” 
 were English in race, Protestant in religion; the old inhabitants, con¬ 
 stituting the nation, Celts or Normans in race, Catholic in religion. 
 
90 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAIj. 
 
 vent the absorption of the colony by the nation. This 
 policy was successful. For more than three-quarters 
 of a century the nation was oppressed, persecuted, 
 outlawed by the colony and England. But the op¬ 
 pressors quarrelled among themselves. 
 
 England, jealous even of the prosperity of her own 
 children, had attacked the trade of the colony.* The 
 colonists armed, and in a “ moment of supreme danger 
 for the empire ” (during the American War of 1775- 
 1779) wrenched commercial freedom from the mother- 
 country. Commercial freedom was followed by poli¬ 
 tical liberty. In 1782 the colonists, still armed, ob¬ 
 tained an independent Parliament.f In this quarrel 
 between England and the colony the Irish supported 
 the latter. England tried to win the “old inhabit¬ 
 ants ” to her side, but in vain. In 1778 she gave 
 them the right to hold landed property. They took 
 the boon, but rallied to the colony in the struggle for 
 legislative independence in 1780-1782. An Irish party 
 grew up in the colony. Further concessions were 
 granted to the representatives of the nation. In 1793 
 they gained the elective franchise. In 1795 the Irish 
 party in the colony (who, like the old Norman settlers, 
 
 * In 1G96 the direct importation of any sort of goods from the 
 British colonies [i.e.. America) to Ireland was prohibited. In 1698-1699 
 the export of Irish woollens to England or any country was forbidden. 
 Even dyed or chequered Irish linens were excluded from the colonies 
 till 1777, and were subject to a prohibitive duty if imported to Eng¬ 
 land.—Lecky, “ Leaders of Public Opinion,” pp. 35-40. 
 
 f During the American War Ireland was denuded of troops. The 
 colonists armed, as volunteers, to defend their shores from foreign in¬ 
 vasion. No invader came, so they turned their arms against England, 
 and awed her into submission to their claims. 
 
THE UNION. 
 
 91 
 
 had now become more Irish than the Irish themselves) 
 offered them almost complete emancipation, but Eng¬ 
 land stepped in and stopped the boon.* In 1792- 
 1795 a party among the Ulster colonists formed a revo¬ 
 lutionary organization for the overthrow of English 
 power in the island. In 1795-1798 the old inhabitants 
 threw themselves into the movement. Rebellion 
 (1798) was the result. The rebellion was crushed, the 
 Union was carried. The legislative independence of 
 Ireland was destroyed (1800-1801). 
 
 The Union. 
 
 Sir George Cornewall Lewis has summarized the 
 means by which the Union was carried: “ There is 
 no doubt that a majority in the Ii’ish Parliament 
 was obtained for the Union by purchase; by places, 
 pensions, peerages, and compensation for suppressed 
 seats; the tx-ansaction was a bargain, but it was a 
 bargain in market overt. The means employed were 
 not unobjectionable; but they wei’e less objection¬ 
 able than force, which was the only practicable 
 alternative.” f 
 
 * In 1705 a Bill in favour of admitting Catholics to Parliament was 
 read a first time, practically without opposition. The measure was 
 defeated by Mr. Pitt, who recalled the popular viceroy, Lord Fitz- 
 William, and formed an administration hostile to the Catholic claims 
 —that is, to the claims of the great bulk of the nation. 
 
 t Lewis, “Administrations of Great Britain,” p. 197. About a 
 million and a quarter w'as given as “ compensation ” for suppressed 
 seats. But no “compensation” was given for “suppressed seats” in 
 England at the time of the great Eeform Bill in 1832. Mr. Lecky has 
 dealt with the point. 
 
 “ The precedent of 1800 was afterwards remembered when the 
 
92 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 The Union checked the process of political fusion. 
 The nation and the colony were parted. Both were 
 deceived. The one was promised emancipation; the 
 other ascendency. Emancipation was withheld for 
 twenty-nine years (1829). Since emancipation, mea¬ 
 sure after measure has been passed, undermining the 
 predominance of the colony. The colonists * are now, 
 practically, shut up in the north-east corner of Ulster, 
 while the power of the nation is paramount throughout 
 the rest of the land. 
 
 Historical Summary. 
 
 To summarize. During the reign of King Brian, 
 it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Ireland was 
 almost consolidated as a nation. After his death tribal 
 feuds revived, and the national strength was weakened. 
 In the twelfth century the Normans came, still further 
 to distract and divide. Gradually, however, they 
 
 English nomination boroughs were abolished in 1832; but all parties 
 indignantly repudiated the notion of recognizing such a principle in 
 England.”—“ Leaders of Pubhc Opinion,” p. 179. 
 
 In some cases “ compensation ” was given to the owners of boroughs 
 who had voted against the Union. This was a blind. The bribery 
 would have seemed too glaring if all the money had been distributed 
 among Unionists only. Hence the compensation to anti-Unionists. 
 
 * In using the word “ colonists,” I mean men who, being English 
 or Scotch by blood, are anti-Irish in feeling. There have been Ulster¬ 
 men, of English or Scottish blood, who have been intensely Irish in 
 feeling. Those men belong to the nation, and have ever been among 
 the foremost of her champions. Of whom is the nation more proud 
 than the volunteers? Limerick alone excepted, what town is more 
 honoured than Dungannon, where the volunteers met to pass the 
 famous resolutions in favour of legislative independence ? 
 
ULSTER. 
 
 93 
 
 mixed to a considerable extent with the native popu¬ 
 lation. In the sixteenth century Normans and Celts 
 combined against England. They were beaten; their 
 lands were forfeited, and a new English colony came 
 in. But these, too, in time began to mix with the 
 old inhabitants. In the eighteenth century there was 
 another combination (1775-1782 and 1793-1798) of 
 colonial and native interests against England. The 
 combination was completely broken up in 1800; and 
 the north-east corner of Ulster remains to this day a 
 colony, and, as a colony, resists the national demand. 
 This brings us to Ulster. 
 
 II. 
 
 ULSTER. 
 
 In the reign of James I. a colony of Scotch and 
 English settlers were planted in Ulster—planted on 
 the lands from which the old proprietors were driven. 
 The descendants of those settlers now exercise para¬ 
 mount influence only in three out of the nine counties 
 of Ulster—Antrim, Down, Armagh.* To show the 
 strength of the colony and the nation respectively the 
 Ulster census of 1881 may be given. 
 
 The colonists are in the main Protestants; the 
 nationalists in the main Catholics. 
 
 * Six counties were confiscated : T}'rone, Armagli, Donegal, Fer¬ 
 managh, Derry, Cavan. 
 
94 THE HOME-EULBE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Ulster Census, 1881. 
 
 Antrim County. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 .. 108,344 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 .. 98,161 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 .. 183,940 
 
 Methodists .. 
 
 11,842 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 19,656 
 
 Armagh County. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 .. 75,709 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 .. 53,390 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 .. 26,077 
 
 Methodists 
 
 4,884 
 
 Other denominatieiis 
 
 3,109 
 
 Cava^ County. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 .. 104,685 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 19,022 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 4,396 
 
 Methodists .. 
 
 1,088 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 285 
 
 Donegal County. 
 
 Catjiolics 
 
 .. 157,608 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 .. 24,759 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 20,784 
 
 Methodists .. 
 
 2,014 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 870 
 
 Doan County. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 81,080 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 63,721 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 . . 109,220 
 
 Methodists 
 
 5,055 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 .. 12,957 
 
 Derry County. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 .. 73,274 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 .. 31,596 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 .. 54,727 
 
 Methodists .. 
 
 938 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 4,426 
 
ULSTER. 
 
 95 
 
 Fermanagh County. 
 
 Catholics 
 Episcopalians 
 Presbyterians 
 Metliodists .. 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 Monaghan County. 
 
 Catholics 
 Episcopalians 
 Presbyterians 
 Methodists .. 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 Tyrone County. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 . 109,793 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 . 44,256 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 . 38,564 
 
 Methodists .. 
 
 . :5,597 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 . 1,499 
 
 To sum up : — 
 
 Total population 
 
 . 1,743,075 
 
 Catholics 
 
 . 833,566 
 
 Episcopalians 
 
 . 379,402 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 . 451,629 
 
 Methodists 
 
 . 34,825 
 
 Other denominations 
 
 . 43,332 
 
 Jews .. 
 
 . 82 
 
 Thus it will be seen 
 
 that, in Ulster, the Catholics 
 
 constitute 47‘8 per cent, of the total population. 
 
 Ulster in Parliament. 
 
 At the general election of 1886 Ulster returned — 
 
 Home Eulers—Counties, 14; Boroughs, 2 .. .. 1(5 
 
 Tories — Counties, 11; Boroughs, 4 .. .. ..15 
 
 Dissentient Liberals—Counties, 2; Boroughs, none .. 2 
 
 Tory County of Ulster. 
 
 Antrim .. . . .. . . .. 4 members. 
 
 47,359 
 
 30,874 
 
 1,708 
 
 4,863 
 
 57 
 
 75,714 
 
 13,623 
 
 12,213 
 
 544 
 
 652 
 
96 
 
 THE HOME-KULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Home Kule Counties. 
 
 Donegal .. 
 
 Monaghan 
 
 Cavan 
 
 Fermanagh 
 
 4 members. 
 2 „ 
 
 2 
 
 Londonderry 
 
 Armagh 
 
 Down 
 
 Tyrone 
 
 Divided Ulster. 
 Counties. 
 
 ( 1 Dissentient Liberal * 
 \ 1 Tory 
 ( 2 Conservatives 
 ( 1 Home Ruler 
 ( 3 Conservatives 
 i 1 Home Euler 
 
 ! 1 Dissentient Liberal * 
 2 Home Rulers 
 1 Tory 
 
 2 members. 
 
 3 members. 
 
 4 members. 
 
 4 members. 
 
 Tort Boroughs. 
 None. 
 
 Home Rule Boroughs. 
 
 Londonderry .. .. .. .. 1 membei-.f 
 
 Newry .. .. .. .. .. 1 „ 
 
 Divided Ulster. 
 
 Boroughs. 
 
 (■3 Tories t 
 
 Belfast ( i Home Euler / 4 members. 
 
 These data will, probably, give a sufficient idea of 
 the political position of Ulster. 
 
 In fact, the colony is bounded on the north-west 
 and south by the nation; on the north-east by the sea. 
 
 ■* Mr. Lea, the Dissentient Liberal member for Londonderry, holds 
 his seat by a majority of 138 ; Mr. Russell, the Dissentient Liberal 
 member for Tyrone, his by a majority of 99. 
 
 t At the General Election of 188G, Mr. C. E. Lewis (Tory) was 
 returned by a majority of three; but he was unseated on petition, and 
 the seat was given to his opponent, Mr. Justin McCarthy (H.E.). 
 
IMPERIAI; PARLIAMENT AND ULSTER, 
 
 97 
 
 The Imperial Parliament and Ulster. 
 
 The English anti-Home Ruler says that the Imperial 
 Parliament is the natural protector of the “ Loyalists ” 
 of Ulster. But what do the Ulster “ Loyalists ” think 
 of the Imperial Parliament ? How has Parliament 
 protected them ? 
 
 Forming a small aninority of the population of 
 Ireland, the Ulster “ Loyalists ” have ever thought 
 that they could only hold their ground by the main¬ 
 tenance of Protestant Ascendency. “ Give power,” 
 they said in effect, “ to the masses of the Irish people 
 and we are undone.” 
 
 For twenty-nine years after the Union, Parliament 
 stood by “ loyal ” Ulster. Ireland was governed upon 
 Protestant Ascendency principles. In 1829 Catholic 
 Emancipation was granted, and a policy of “sui-- 
 render” commenced. The nation and the colony 
 stood face to face. Parliament sometimes supported 
 one, sometimes the other, according to the pressure 
 which either could bring to bear. Catholic Eman¬ 
 cipation was a “ boon ” to the former; but to console 
 the latter the Irish county electorate was reduced 
 (by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling free¬ 
 holders) from about 200,000 to about 26,000 voters.* 
 The struggle of the franchise which followed, has 
 vitally affected the interests of the opposing forces. 
 
 It was the aim of the colony to keep the franchise 
 hish and the number of voters small; it was the aim 
 
 * I do not. pretend to absolute, lint to approximate, accuraey in any 
 of these electoral figures. 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 TFTE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 of the nation to make the franchise low and the 
 number of voters large. 
 
 In 1830 the registered countj^ electors of Ireland 
 were 26,000. In 1832 the Reform Bill was passed, 
 and the number of county electors increased to 
 52,000. In 1847 the number had risen to 61,000. 
 Then came the famine, and in 1850 the number fell 
 to 27,000. Thus in the struggle between 1829 and 
 1850 the colony had, upon the whole, held its own. 
 In 1850 another Irish Reform Bill was passed in the 
 teeth of Orange opposition, and under its operation 
 the number of county electors increased (1867) to 
 174,000. In 1868 a third Irish Reform Bill was 
 passed. Under its operation, however, the number of 
 county voters fell to 165,997 (1881).* In 1884 
 a fourth Reform Bill was passed, and the number of 
 registered county electors is now 654,095. 
 
 Thus the campaign of the franchise, lasting fifty 
 years, has ended in the triumph of the national cause. 
 The effect of this triumph on the Parliamentary repre¬ 
 sentation of Ulster is remarkable. 
 
 
 Tories. 
 
 Liberals or 
 Dissentient 
 Liberals. 
 
 Home 
 
 Rulers. 
 
 1867 
 
 29 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1868 (Reform Bill) 
 
 26 
 
 3L 
 
 0 
 
 1874 
 
 20 
 
 7L 
 
 2 
 
 1880 
 
 18 
 
 9L 
 
 2 
 
 1885 (Reform Bill) 
 
 16 
 
 0 
 
 17 
 
 1886 
 
 15t 
 
 2DL 
 
 16 
 
 * The number of voters in boroughs increased from 30,700 to 58,021. 
 t By the unseating of Mr. Lewis the number has been reduced to 
 fourteen, and the nnml)erof Home Eulers increased to seventeen (ante, 
 
 p. 06). 
 
THE TRANQUILLITY OF ULSTER. 
 
 99 
 
 Looking at these figures, well may the LTlster 
 “ Loyalist ” ask, “ How has the Imperial Parliament 
 protected us ? Has not the upshot of the struggle of 
 the past fifty years been to take almost all power out 
 of our hands, and to place it in the hands of our 
 enemies ? Is this protection ? ” 
 
 The Ulster colony, then, represents, it will be seen, 
 a comparatively weak force in Irish politics. The 
 nation has upon the whole conquered. But the ques¬ 
 tion still is, “ Shall the Ulster colony dominate all 
 Ireland?” So far the tide of events has flowed in favour 
 of the nation. Is the tide to be turned back ? Is the 
 “ whisper of a faction ” to prevail against “ the voice 
 of a nation ” ? 
 
 To pass to another phase of the Ulster question. 
 
 'Travqiiilliti/ of Ulster. 
 
 There is a notion that Ulster has always been 
 tranquil, always free from agrarian crime. But one 
 of the most formidable agrarian organizations of the 
 eighteenth century, the “ Hearts of Steel,” belonged 
 to Ulster. The Protestant historian, Gordon, says of 
 the “ Steelmen ”: “ When the Marquis of .Donegal upon 
 one occasion refused to renew the leases on his estate, 
 some of the tenants rebelled, and were taken to jail; 
 whereupon fifty thousand persons marched into the 
 town of Belfast, and took them out. The Protestant 
 juries acquitted the men, first in Ulster, and afterwards 
 in Dublin, to which city the venue had been removed 
 by the Government.” 
 
100 
 
 THE HOME-BULER’S MANUAIi. 
 
 Ulster Tenant-right. 
 
 No doubt there has been, upon the whole, less 
 agrarian crime in Ulster than in the other provinces. 
 But why ? Because tenant-right existed in Ulster, 
 but not generally elsewhere. What was the Ulster 
 tenant-right ? Mi’. Hancock, the agent of Lord Lurgan, 
 has defined it:—- 
 
 ‘'Tenant-right I consider to be the claim of the 
 tenant and his heirs to continue in undisputed pos¬ 
 session of the farm so long as the rent is paid; and in 
 ease of an ejectment, or in the event of a change of 
 occupancy at the wish of either landlord or tenant, 
 it is a sum of money which the new occupier pays 
 to the old one for the peaceable enjoyment of his 
 holding.” 
 
 By the observance of this custom, the peace has 
 been kept in Ulster. The evidence on the point is 
 conclusive. 
 
 Mr. Nassau Senior—“I attribute almost entirely 
 to the custom of tenant-right the absence of agrarian 
 outrage in the north.” 
 
 Mr. Porter (Presbyterian clergyman)—“There are 
 just three instances in which there were agrarian 
 outrages since I settled in this county, and these 
 originated in the total denial of tenant-right.” 
 
 Mr. McCartan (land agent)—“There have been a 
 few agrarian outrages in the county Down. I think 
 they can be clearly traced to disputed tenant-right, 
 where the landlord refused to acknowledge it.” 
 
 Mr. Hancock—“ In fact, tenant-right is one of the 
 
AGKAEIAN OUTKAGES. 
 
 101 
 
 sacred rights of the country which cannot be touched 
 with impunity; and if systematic attempts were made 
 amongst the proprietors of Ulster to invade tenant- 
 right, I do not believe there is a force at the disposal 
 of the Horse Guards sufficient to keep the peace of 
 the province.” 
 
 Mr. Andrews (agent to Lord Londonderry )—“A 
 curtailment of tenant-right cannot be carried out 
 without danger to the peace of the country. You 
 would have a Tipperary in Down if you attempted 
 it.” 
 
 Mi\ Lindsay, J.P. — “ Some landlords recognize 
 tenant-right, and some do not; but where they do not 
 recognize it they are very generally defeated, and 
 liave been obliged to do it, after risking life in some 
 instances, in my neighbourhood.” 
 
 The landlords i-ecognized tenant-right in the north^ 
 and the peace was kept; they did not recognize it in 
 the south, and the peace was broken. 
 
 T/ie Catise of Agrarian Outrages in the SotUhern 
 Provinces. 
 
 Evictions without compensation—without paying 
 the tenant for the capital he put into the land, and by 
 which he converted the land into a farm—have, in 
 the main, caused agrarian outrages in the south of 
 Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone—“ I would be sorry to be driven to 
 an examination of the character which in many cases 
 Irish evictions have borne. I think that of the crimes 
 
102 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL, 
 
 arising out of these evictions, no small number is to be 
 traced to an interference with what the people believe 
 to be their rights—interferences which were in some 
 cases imprudent, and which in others, without a 
 doubt, deserve a much stronger epithet.” * 
 
 Mr. Bright:—“ The first thing that ever called my 
 attention to the state of Ireland was the reading an 
 account of one of those outrages. I thought of it for 
 a moment, but the truth struck me at once, and all 
 I have ever seen since confirms it. When law refuses 
 its duty, when Government denies the right of the 
 people, when competition is so fierce for the little 
 land which the monopolists grant to cultivation in 
 Ireland, when, in fact, millions are scrambling for the 
 potatoes, these people are driven back from law, and 
 from the usages of civilization, to that which is termed 
 the law of nature, and if not of the strongest, the law 
 of the vindictive; and in this case the people of 
 Ireland believe, to my certain knowledge, that it is 
 only by these acts of vengeance periodically com¬ 
 mitted, that they can hold in suspense the arm of 
 the proprietor, of the landlord, and the agent, who, in 
 too many cases, would, if he dared, exterminate them. 
 Don’t let us disguise it from ourselves, there is a war 
 between landlord and tenant in Ireland—a war as 
 fierce and relentless as though it were carried on by 
 force of arms.” f 
 
 Again : “ It was in the eternal decrees of Providence, 
 that, so long as the population of a country are pre- 
 
 * House of Commons, April 30, 1870. 
 
 t Mr. Bright, in Kay’s “ Social Condition of the European People.” 
 
AGKAKIAN OUTKAGES. 
 
 103 
 
 vented from the possibility of possessing any portion 
 of their native soil by legal enactments and legal 
 chicanery, these outrages should be committed, were 
 they but as beacons and warnings to call the Legis¬ 
 lature to a sense of the duties it owed to the country 
 which it governed.” * 
 
 Mr. Froude—“The landlord may become a direct 
 oppressor. He may cai-e nothing for the people, and 
 have no object but to squeeze the most that he can 
 out of them, fairly or unfairly. The Russian Govern¬ 
 ment has been called despotism tempered with assassi¬ 
 nation. In Ireland landlordism was tempered with 
 assassination. . . . Every circumstance combined in 
 that country to exasperate the relations between 
 landlord and tenant. The landlords were, for the 
 most part, aliens in blood and in religion. They 
 represented conquest and confiscation, and they had 
 gone on from generation to generation with an in¬ 
 difference for the welfare of the people which would 
 not have been tolerated in England or Scotland. The 
 law had to interfere at last to protect the peasantry 
 in* the shape of Mr. Gladstone’s Land Act—the best 
 measure, perhaps the only good measure, which has 
 been passed for Ireland for the last two hundred 
 years.” f 
 
 The following figures will show that evictions and 
 agrarian crimes have in the main risen and fallen 
 together :— 
 
 * H.'iusard, 3rd Series, vol. cxix. p. 3G8. 
 
 t Mr. Froude, " Short Studies on Great Subjects.” 
 
104 
 
 THE HOME-RULEK’S MANUAL, 
 
 Evictions and Outrages in Ireland between 1849 
 
 
 
 
 and 
 
 1881 (Police 1 
 
 'eturns). 
 
 
 Year. 
 
 1849 
 
 
 Evictions. 
 
 Evicted 
 
 Persons. 
 
 90,440 
 
 1 
 
 Year. 
 
 1849 
 
 Outrages. 
 
 Agrarian 
 
 Outrages. 
 
 957 
 
 1850 
 
 
 
 
 104,163 
 
 1850 
 
 
 . 1,362 
 
 1851 
 
 
 
 
 68,023 
 
 1851 
 
 
 . 1,013 
 
 1852 
 
 
 
 
 43,494 
 
 1852 
 
 
 913 
 
 1853 
 
 
 
 
 24,589 
 
 1853 
 
 
 469 
 
 1854 
 
 
 
 
 10,794 
 
 1854 
 
 
 334 
 
 1855 
 
 
 
 
 9,338 
 
 1855 
 
 
 255 
 
 1856 
 
 
 
 
 5,114 
 
 1856 
 
 
 287 
 
 1857 
 
 
 
 
 5,475 
 
 1857 
 
 
 194 
 
 1858 
 
 
 
 
 4,643 
 
 1858 
 
 
 235 
 
 1859 
 
 
 
 
 3,872 
 
 1859 
 
 
 221 
 
 1860 
 
 
 
 
 2,985 
 
 I860 
 
 .. 
 
 232 
 
 1861 
 
 
 
 
 5,288 
 
 1861 
 
 
 229 
 
 1862 
 
 
 
 
 5,617 
 
 1862 
 
 
 363 
 
 1863 
 
 
 
 
 8,695 
 
 1863 
 
 
 349 
 
 1864 
 
 
 
 
 9,201 
 
 1864 
 
 
 304 
 
 1865 
 
 
 
 
 4,513 
 
 1865 
 
 
 178 
 
 1866 
 
 
 
 
 3,571 
 
 1866 
 
 
 87 
 
 1867 
 
 
 
 
 2,489 
 
 1867 
 
 
 123 
 
 1868 
 
 
 
 
 3,002 
 
 1868 
 
 
 160 
 
 1869 
 
 
 
 
 1,741 
 
 1869 
 
 
 767 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 
 2,616 
 
 1870 
 
 
 1,329 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
 
 2,357 
 
 1871 
 
 
 373 
 
 1872 
 
 
 
 
 2,476 
 
 1872 
 
 
 256 
 
 1873 
 
 
 
 
 3,078 
 
 1873 
 
 
 254 
 
 1874 
 
 
 
 
 3,571 
 
 1874 
 
 
 213 
 
 1875 
 
 
 
 
 3,323 
 
 1875 
 
 
 136 
 
 1876 
 
 
 
 
 2,550 
 
 1876 
 
 
 212 
 
 1877 
 
 
 
 
 2,177 
 
 1877 
 
 
 236 
 
 1878 
 
 
 
 
 4,679 
 
 1878 
 
 
 301 
 
 1879 
 
 
 
 
 6,239 
 
 1879 
 
 
 863 
 
 1880 
 
 
 
 
 10,457 
 
 1880 
 
 
 2,590 
 
 1881 
 
 
 
 
 17,341 ' 
 
 1881 
 
 .. 
 
 4,439 
 
EVICTIONS. 
 
 105 
 
 Evictions in Ireland and Elsewhere. 
 
 Attempts are sometimes made to confuse evictions 
 in Ireland with evictions elsewhere. But evictions in 
 Ireland cause a degree of misery which they do not 
 cause out of it. Lord Palmerston put this case well. 
 Referring to some Irish evictions, he said, “ This 
 might he done in England without causing the same 
 amount of suffering and misery. If they removed any 
 ])ortion of the population of England from its position, 
 they would go to Manchester or Birmingham, or some 
 of the great manufacturing districts of the kingdom, 
 and they might at once find profitable occupations in 
 our manufactories. In Ireland there were no manu¬ 
 facturing towns. The people, when turned out of 
 their homes—without the chance of obtaining a home 
 —were driven to perish on the roadside, or to eke out 
 a lingering existence as squatters on the fringe of a 
 brook, or in the outskirts of some iieighbouring town. 
 This is a great grievance.” * 
 
 Lord Dufierin has spoken to the same efi’ect. “If 
 you cut away the land from beneath [the tenant’s] 
 feet, his next step must be into space, or at best, into 
 the limbo of beggardom. To each man the possession 
 of a patch of land becomes absolutely necessary to 
 existence. Out of this miserable peculiarity arose 
 those two great evils from which most of the crimes 
 and misfortunes of Ii’eland may be deduced, namely, 
 so intense a competition for the land as to make its 
 owners the absolute lords of the market, and leave to 
 * Hansard, 3rJ Series, vol. Ixs., p. 281. See post, p. 107. 
 
106 
 
 THE HOME-EULEK’S MANUAL. 
 
 the occupier no alternative but to submit to whatever 
 conditions the former chose to exact.” * 
 
 Mr. Nassau Senior may also be quoted to show 
 the exceptional position of the Irish tenant, to whom 
 “the bit of land meant life, the want of it death.” 
 He says, “ The Heaty between landlord and tenant in 
 Ireland is not a calm bargain in which the tenant, 
 having offered what he thinks the land worth, cares 
 little whether his ofier be accepted or not; it is a 
 struggle like the struggle to buy bread in a besieged 
 land, or to buy water in an African caravan.” 
 
 The following figures will show how Ireland is 
 circumstanced with respect to manufactures and 
 agriculture:— 
 
 NciiBEK OF Persons engaged in the Principal Occupations op 
 
 Ireland. 
 
 Population 
 
 .. 5,174,83(1 
 
 Agricultural . . 
 
 997,956 
 
 Industrial 
 
 691,509 
 
 Commercial .. 
 
 72,245 
 
 Professional . . 
 
 198,684 
 
 Domestics 
 
 426,161 
 
 Indefinite and non-productive 
 
 .. 2,788,281 
 
 A similar list relating to Scotland and England 
 may be given. 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 Population 
 
 
 .. 3,735,573 
 
 Agricultural .. 
 
 
 269,537 
 
 Industrial 
 
 
 932,653 
 
 Commercial .. 
 
 
 132,126 
 
 Professional .. 
 
 
 96,103 
 
 Domestic 
 
 
 176,565 
 
 Indefinite and non-productive 
 
 .. 2,128,589 
 
 * Hansard, 3rd series, vol. cxxxi. p. 38. 
 
DESTKUCTION OF lEISH MANUFACTUKES. 107 
 
 England and Wales. 
 Population .. 
 
 25,974,439 
 
 Agi-icultural 
 Industrial 
 Commercial .. 
 
 Professional .. 
 
 Domestic 
 
 Indefinite and non-productive 
 
 1,383,184 
 6,373,367 
 980,128 
 647,075 
 1,803,810 
 14,786,875 * 
 
 How Ireland has become so completely an agri¬ 
 cultural country, Lord Dufierin has told us in forcible 
 language. 
 
 o o 
 
 Destruction of Irish Manufactures. 
 
 “ From Queen Elizabeth’s reign until within a few" 
 years of the Union, the various commercial confrater¬ 
 nities of Great Britain never for a moment relaxed 
 their relentless grip on the trades of Ireland. One 
 by one, each of our nascent industries was eithei' 
 strangled in its birth, or handed over, gagged and 
 bound, to the jealous custody of the rival interest in 
 England, until at last every fountain of wealth was 
 hermetically sealed, and even the traditions of com¬ 
 mercial enterprise have perished through desuetude. 
 The owners of England’s pastures opened the campaign. 
 As early as the commencement of the sixteenth 
 century the beeves of Roscommon, Tipperary, and 
 Queen’s County undersold the produce of the Eng¬ 
 lish grass counties in their own market. By an Act 
 of the 20th of Elizabeth, Irish cattle were declared 
 ‘ a nuisance,’ and their importation was prohibited. 
 Forbidden to send our beasts alive across the Channel, 
 
 * Statesman's Year Book, 1884. 
 
108 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S ^MANUAL. 
 
 we killed them at home, and began to supply the 
 sister country with cured provisions. A second Act 
 of Parliament imposed prohibitory duties on salted 
 meats. The hides of the animals still remained, but 
 the same influence soon put a stop to the importation 
 of leather. Our cattle trade abolished, we tried sheep 
 farming. The sheep breeders of England immediately 
 took alarm, and Irish wool was declared contraband 
 by a Parliament of Charles II. Headed in this 
 direction, we tried to work up the raw material at 
 home, but this created the greatest outcry of all. 
 Every maker of fustian, flannel, and broadcloth in the 
 country rose up in arms, and by an Act of William III. 
 the woollen industry of Ireland was extinguished, and 
 twenty thousand manufacturers left the island. . 
 
 “ The easiness of the Irish labour market and the 
 cheapness of provisions still giving us an advantage, 
 even though we had to import our materials, we 
 next made a dash at the silk business; but the silk 
 manufacturer proved as pitiless as the wool staplers. 
 The cotton manufacturer, the sugar refiner, the soap 
 and candle maker (who especially dreaded the 
 abundance of our kelp), and any other trade or 
 interest that thought it worth its while to petition, 
 was received by Parliament with the same partial 
 cordiality, until the most searching scrutiny failed to 
 detect a single vent through which it was possible for 
 the hated industry of Ireland to respire. 
 
 “ But although excluded from the markets of Britain, 
 a hundred harbours gave her access to the universal 
 sea. Alas! a rival commerce on her own element was 
 
DESTKUCTION OF IRISH MANUFACTURES. 109 
 
 still less welcome to England, and as early as the 
 reign of Charles II., the Levant, the ports of Europe, 
 and the oceans beyond the Cape were forbidden to the 
 flag of Ireland, The colonial trade alone was, in any 
 manner, open—if that could be called an open trade, 
 which for a long time precluded all exports whatever, 
 and excluded from direct importation to Ireland such 
 important articles as sugar, cotton, and tobacco. 
 What has been the consequence of such a system 
 pursued with relentless pertinacity for two hundred 
 and fifty years ? This: that, debarred from every other 
 trade and industry, the entire nation fiung itself back 
 upon ' the land ’ with as fatal an impulse as Avhen a 
 river, whose current is suddenly impeded, rolls Imck 
 and drowns the valley it once fertilized.” * 
 
 To sum up the case of Ulster very briefly: (1) The 
 Ulster colony is now confined mainly to the north-east 
 corner of the province. (2) The Nationalists have 
 gained a footing in ever}^ county,t except Antrim, and 
 in every borough. (3) The colonists belong chiefly to 
 the Tory-Orange party, and, under the existing fran¬ 
 chises, this party is doomed to extinction. (4) The 
 history of the past sixty years teaches us that the 
 colony cannot, in the long-run, stand between the 
 Imperial Parliament and justice to the masses of the 
 Irish people. 
 
 * Lord Duft’erin, “Irish Emigration and Irish Laud.” 
 
 t Mr. Healy was elected for >South Derry in 1885; the scat which 
 Mr. I.ea now holds by a majority of 128. 
 
1.10 
 
 THE HOME-KULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 III. 
 
 .HOME RULE AND REMEDIAL MEASURES. 
 
 It is said that the concession of remedial measures 
 will put an end to the demand for Home Rule. Does 
 history encourage this hope ? Let us follow the 
 course of the concessions of the past sixty years 
 and see. 
 
 In 1829 Catholic Emancipation was granted; in 
 1831 the National Schools were established; in 1832 
 the Irish Reform Bill was passed. What happened ? 
 There was a general election in 1832, and forty-five 
 Repealers were returned. There was another general 
 election in 1834, and the same number were again 
 returned. 
 
 Between 1835 and 1841 the Poor Laws were inti’o- 
 duced, the corporations were reformed, and the Tithe 
 Commutation Act was passed. What happened ? In 
 1842 the great agitation for Repeal began—a move¬ 
 ment, be it remembered, which was not complicated 
 by social or economical questions, which was purely 
 national, and which took deep root in the hearts of 
 the people. The Repeal movement was stopped by 
 the famine (1846-1847) and the death of O’Connell 
 (1847). 
 
 In 1849 the “ concessions ” began again. The En¬ 
 cumbered Estates Court Act was passed. In 1850 
 the second Irish Reform Act Avas passed; in 1868 a 
 third Irish Reform Act was passed; in 1869 the 
 
HOME RULE AND REMEDIAL MEASURES. Ill 
 
 Protestant Episcopalian Church was disestablished; 
 in 1870 the Land Act was passed; in 1872 vote by 
 ballot was introduced. What hap^iened ? In 1874 
 there was a general election, and fifty-one Home 
 Rulers were I'eturned. 
 
 In 1878 the Intermediate Education Act was passed ; 
 in 1879 the Royal University was established. What 
 happened ? In 1880 there was a general election, 
 and sixty-one Home Rulers were returned. 
 
 In 1881 the second great Land Act was passed; in 
 1882 the Arrears Act was passed; in 1884 the fran¬ 
 chise was again lowered; in 1885 Lord Ashbourne’s Act 
 was passed. What happened ? There was a general 
 election in 1885, and eighty-five Home Rulers were 
 returned. In 1886 another general election took 
 place, and Ireland again returned eighty-five Home 
 Rulers. 
 
 Anti-Home Rulers may say that the Irisli are 
 “ ungrateful,” that they have a “ double dose of 
 original sin,” that they are “ Hottentots.” But can 
 it be said that Irish history encourages the hope that 
 remedial measures will ever put an end to the Home 
 Rule movement ? 
 
 It may be urged that the “concessions” were 
 granted under circumstances which made it impossible 
 for the Irish to be "grateful.” But what assurance 
 have we that the Imperial Parliament Avill ever grant 
 “concessions” under circumstances calculated to make 
 the Irish people grateful and loyal ? 
 
112 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE “ RESPECTABLE ” MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY 
 AND HOME RULE. 
 
 It is said that the “ respectable ” members of the 
 community are against Home Rule. But was it not 
 said that the respectable members of the community 
 were against O’Connell ? 
 
 Who voted for the great agitator at the Clare 
 election of 1828—the turning-point in the struggle 
 for Catholic Emancipation ? 
 
 “ I have/’ wrote Mr. Vesey FitzGerald, a former 
 opponent, to Sir R. Peel, “ polled all the gentry and all 
 the fifty-pound freeholders—the gentry to a man.” 
 Whom did O’Connell poll ? The forty-shilling free¬ 
 holders—wretched peasants who had scarcely a rag 
 to cover them. 
 
 “ The terror,” wrote Lord Anglesey during the 
 election to Sir Robert Peel, “ which these assemblies 
 [of O’Connell] have produced among the peaceable 
 and well disposed of the Catholics, as well as the 
 Protestants, is very great.” 
 
 But turning from the Clare election to the general 
 career of O’Connell, what were the relations which 
 existed between him and that great organ of the 
 “ respectable ” classes in the country—the Times f 
 
THE TIMES AND O’CONNELL. 
 
 113 
 
 The “ Times ” and O’Connell. 
 
 The Times wrote of O’Connell: January 2, 1835— 
 “ We ask the people of Ireland, will they submit 
 to an inquisitorial and revengeful tyranny like this 
 [O’Connell’s authority] ? If from the dread of mur¬ 
 der or famine, they dare not raise a cry against 
 such brutal degradation — if they will vote thus 
 with the knife at their throats for the Parliamen¬ 
 tary tools of such a miscreant [as O’Connell]—we 
 appeal to the people of England, and to the minis¬ 
 ters, whether they will suffer their fellow-subjects of 
 the sister island to be tormented by this system of 
 organized ruffianism avowed by an Irish Catholic 
 lawyer, and furtively promoted by confederates in 
 priestly garb. ... We hope there will be no truck¬ 
 ling to O’Connell or his gang; there will be no 
 bullying by O’Connell, there will be no stupid and 
 puerile attempt to govern Ireland through the co¬ 
 operation or instrumentality of men who profess the 
 first object of their lives to be the sepai’ation of the 
 two countries, and the breaking-up of the empire.” 
 
 February 13, 1835—“We have already pointed out 
 the desperate condition of any English party which 
 first leans for support on the Irish repeal rebel 
 and his gang, and next has to pay them the wages 
 of their service by taking them into partnership. But 
 the embarrassments of the Whigs are thickening by 
 every post. . . . They dui'st not refuse [^this unprin¬ 
 cipled ruffian [O’Connell] whatever office he chose to lay 
 his hand on. They could not carry on the Govern¬ 
 ment without the aid of O’Connell and his crew.” 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL 
 
 Novemher 26, 1835— 
 
 “ THE WHIG MISSIONARY OF 1835. 
 
 “ Scum condensed of Irish bog! 
 
 Ruffian.—coward—demagogue ! 
 
 Boundless liar—base detractor ! 
 
 Nurse of murders—treason’s factor ! 
 
 Of Pope and priest the crouching slave, 
 
 While thy lips of freedom rave ; 
 
 Of England’s fame the vigorous hater, 
 
 Yet wanting courage for a traitor, 
 
 Ireland’s peasants feed thy purse. 
 
 Still thou art her bane and curse. 
 
 Tho’ thou liv’st an empire’s scorn, 
 
 Lift on high thy brazen horn— 
 
 Every dog shall have his day. 
 
 This is thine of brutish sway. 
 
 Mounted on a premier’s back, 
 
 Lash the ministerial pack; 
 
 As they nod they hold their places. 
 
 Crack their sinews—grind their faces. 
 
 Tho’ thy hand had stabbed their mother. 
 
 They would fawn and call thee brother. 
 
 By their leave pursue thy calling. 
 
 Rend thy patriot lungs with bawling, 
 
 Spout thy filth—effuse thy slime; 
 
 Slander is in thee no crime. 
 
 Safe from challenge—safe from law. 
 
 What can curb thy callous jaw ? 
 
 Who would sue a convict liar ? 
 
 On a poltroon who would fire ? 
 
 Thou may’st walk in open light, 
 
 Few will kick thee—none can fight. 
 
 Then grant the monster leave to roam. 
 
 Let him slaver out his foam, 
 
 Only give him length of string. 
 
 He’ll contrive himself to swing.” 
 
 January 19, 1837—“At length the huge Irish 
 impostor is thoroughly detected—the political knave 
 
THE TIMES AND O’CONNELL. 
 
 115 
 
 is universally despised—the lying mountebank is 
 hooted and scouted on all sides.” 
 
 Januarij 9, 1837—“ It has long been the well-known 
 practice of O’Connell to assume for himself and his 
 immediate followers that they are the whole people of 
 Ireland.” 
 
 January 13, 1837—“ The man, O’Connell, is the 
 grievance which now calls most loudly to be abated. 
 
 . . Let it be well noted, that Mr. Oi’ator Shell 
 descends the other day from the political platform to 
 meet Lord Morpeth at an ofhcial dinner given by Mr. 
 Drummond, the Under-Secretary for Ireland.” 
 
 January 23, 1837—“ The speech of Lord Morpeth 
 is just what might have been expected from his pure 
 and enviable reputation. It has quite as much truth, 
 as much reason, as much honesty, and as much moral 
 dignity as have long characterized this subaltern of a 
 subaltern, this understrapper to a nominal Viceroy of 
 Ireland, who is himself the menial servant of him 
 [O’Connell] who lives by disturbing the peace of 
 Ireland.” 
 
 Febraary 13, 1837—“ Who was the chief guest ? 
 [at Dublin Castle]—Daniel O’Connell, reeking from 
 the barbarous orgies of Carlow.” 
 
 A23ril 1, 1837—“ Her Royal Highness the Princess 
 Victoria will not be fairly dealt Avith by those 
 around her, if the character and conduct of O’Connell, 
 and of his catspaws, the rest of the rebellion repeal 
 agitators, be not faithfully and truly depicted to her. 
 And if the description of the agitator and his gang be 
 truly given, let us see how it would run. Your 
 
116 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Royal Highness must understand that this Daniel 
 O’Connell is an able-bodied elderly person, who, 
 having been bred to a calling by which he might have 
 earned his own livelihood, has abandoned his craft, 
 and subsists by asking alms of those who will give 
 them, and by getting the Papist priests of Ireland to 
 extort what they can for him, even from the poorest 
 of the most needy peasantry in the world. Like other 
 lusty beggars, he is false and filthily foul-mouthed. 
 
 . . . The leisure which is afforded him by the alms he 
 begs or extorts from a homeless, a half-naked, and a 
 half-famished peasantry, has been employed by him in 
 an endeavour to rob your Royal Highness of one of the 
 brightest jewels in the crown, the kingdom of Ireland, 
 which he insists shall be withdrawn from the sceptre 
 of Great Britain, and be governed by a Parliament of 
 its own. In the prosecution of this traitorous project, 
 he has by inflammatory harangues so worked upon an 
 ignorant and easily excited populace, that the mis¬ 
 guided men have frequently broken out into outrages 
 and insurrections which have caused so great a loss of 
 life either in actual conflict with the military and 
 armed police or upon the scaffold, that, were the 
 history of his life appropriately written, if would be 
 recorded in characters of blood—the blood of these 
 victims of his accursed [agitation. . . . These unblush¬ 
 ing quibblers take the oath of allegiance, but what 
 security has your Royal Highness that they will 
 not seize upon the royal palaces, and rob you of the 
 Crown lands, withhold the civil list, and turn jmur 
 Royal Highness barefoot into the streets, insist before 
 
THE TIMES AND O’CONNELL. 
 
 117 
 
 God and man that they have not violated the obliga¬ 
 tions of that oath, for that mercy is not the monarchy, 
 nor Crown lands the Crown, nor palaces the preroga¬ 
 tives thereby ? ” 
 
 July 17, 1837—“Deducting the respectable portion 
 of the Catholics of England and Ireland, we do not 
 believe that the bog-trotting serfs, men, women, and 
 children, who obey the orders of O’Connell and his 
 Papist priests, amount to 5,000,000. This phalanx is 
 no match for the 17,000,000 of the inhabitants of 
 Great Britain.” 
 
 July 19, 1837—“ Hurrah for Queen Victoria ! is the 
 cry with which that ruffian, Daniel O’Connell, inflames 
 the barbarous multitude to shake off the dominion of 
 the sovereign, thus mocked and insulted. Hurrah for 
 Queen Victoria! is the watchword of the English 
 Radicals whose aim has been the establishment of a 
 republic on the ruins of the throne. Hurrah for 
 Queen Victoria ! in feebler accents, echo the lickplates 
 of Downing Street.” 
 
 June 30, 1838—“All who know anything of the 
 matter were long ago satisfied that the most generally 
 loathed and detested being in this country was no 
 other than Daniel O’Connell.” 
 
 August 25, 1838—“The dog returns to his vomit, 
 and the sow that is washed to her Avallowing in the 
 mire. O’Connell, after ejaculating a loathsome mass 
 of blasphemous and seditious filth in Dublin, pro¬ 
 ceeded to a Trappist monastery, partly with the 
 superstitious hope of wiping off his atrocious offences 
 against social order and religious duty, and partly to 
 
118 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 delude the poor, ignorant, priest-ridden Irish, who 
 require from time to time the priestly influence to 
 stimulate them to political violence. The half bigot, 
 the half hypocrite, and entire nuisance, has, it seems, 
 spent his penance in planning sins anew. He is about 
 to issue from his retirement to renew his work of 
 mischievous agitation. Such is the result of religious 
 meditation on a base and profligate spirit. . . . He 
 bursts from the baneful place dedicated to devotion 
 with a demoniacal yell, which may be the prelude of 
 mutiny and murder, of agitation, agitation, agitation.” 
 
 The “ Times ” and Thomas Drummond. 
 
 Thomas Drummond was the best British ruler ever 
 sent to Ireland. He startled the “ respectable classes ” 
 by the now-famous aphorism, “ Property has its duties 
 as well as its rights.” 
 
 How did the Times, as the organ of “ respectability,” 
 treat him ? 
 
 January 15, 18.39—“A meeting of the Lord-Lieu¬ 
 tenant and magistrates of the King’s County has been 
 held to pass resolutions expressive of the sense enter¬ 
 tained by the magistracy of the horrible crime which 
 has been committed [the murder of Lord Nor bury], 
 declaratory of their anxious willingness to co-operate 
 with the Executive Government in whatever efforts 
 it might be induced to make for detecting the mur¬ 
 derers, and bring them fo condign punishment— 
 acknowledging, however, their strong reprobation of 
 the insolence displayed by Mr. Drummond, Under¬ 
 secretary, at the Castle, in his treatment on a former 
 
THE TIMES AND DRUMMOND. 119 
 
 occasion of the Tipperary magistrates, when, instead 
 of heartily assisting them to discover and punish the 
 authors of murderous atrocities perpetrated within their 
 county, and to preserve the peace thereof, this Jack¬ 
 in-office had taken upon himself to lecture the vast 
 body of its landed proprietors in the discharge of their 
 duties as landlords, and to more than insinuate that 
 all the evils they complained of had been caused by 
 their own misconduct.” 
 
 January 25, 1839 —“ Mr. Drummond’s famous letter 
 to the magistrates of the county Tipperary had the 
 merit of holding up [the landlords] to the popish 
 multitude as offenders against the most important 
 obligations of society, and as justly amenable to 
 whatever punishment or persecution the vengeance 
 of that multitude might dictate. Whatever acts of 
 violence or outrage — whatever attacks on life or 
 dwelling:—whatever robberies or ferocious murders 
 have been perpetrated since the publication of that 
 letter, it is not too much to say, have been abetted, 
 encouraged, and stimulated by its abuse of the country 
 gentlemen, under the eyes of the peasantry, who were 
 thus vindicated ex cathedra in their lawless conduct, 
 as being no more than a righteous retaliation for the 
 wrongs inflicted on them. It remains to be seen 
 whether Mr. Drummond’s letter may not have had 
 its influence in the propagation throughout the Queen’s 
 County of that diabolical spirit out of which arose 
 Lord Norbury’s lamentable murder.” 
 
120 
 
 THE HOME-KULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Mr. Cobden on the “ Times.” 
 
 The Times, we have said, is the organ of “ respecta¬ 
 bility ; ” but what is the character of the Times ? Let 
 Richard Cobden answer. 
 
 “By its truculent—I had almost said ruffianly— 
 attack on every movement while in the weakness of 
 infancy, it has aroused to increased efforts the energies 
 of those it has assailed; while, at the same time, it 
 has awakened the attention of a languid public, and 
 attracted the sympathy of fair and manly minds. It 
 is thus that such public measures as the abolition of 
 the corn laws, the repeal of the taxes on knowledge, 
 the negotiation of the treaty of commerce with France, 
 triumphed in spite of these virulent, pernicious, and 
 unscrupulous attacks, until at last I am tending to 
 the conviction that there are three conditions only 
 requisite for the success of any great project of reform 
 —namely, a good cause, persevering advocates, and 
 the hostility of the Times.” 
 
 “ Respectable ” Ulster. 
 
 The Ulster colony is eminently the most “ respect¬ 
 able ” part of Ireland. But has not this colony been 
 almost for eighty-nine years in the van of opposition 
 to nearly every measure introduced for the welfare 
 and freedom of the country ? Catholic Emancipation, 
 Parliamentary reform, tithe reform, municipal reform, 
 Church reform, land reform, all found among the 
 “respectable” classes of Ulster bitter and persistent 
 
THE HOUSE OF LOEDS AND IRELAND. 121 
 
 foes.* Take a test question, the Established Church 
 in Ireland. On the 30th of March, 1868, Mr. Glad¬ 
 stone moved his famous resolutions in favour of dis¬ 
 establishment. How did Ulster vote ? How did the 
 non-“ respectable ” provinces of Leinster, Munster, and 
 Connaught vote ? Thus :— 
 
 Leinster .. .. 23 members voted for Mr. Gladstone’s motion. 
 
 
 12 
 
 „ 
 
 against 
 
 
 Munster 
 
 .. 22 
 
 5) 
 
 for 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ?? 
 
 against 
 
 
 Connaught .. 
 
 .. 10 
 
 
 for 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 „ 
 
 against 
 
 
 Ulster .. .. 29 (the full representation) against. 
 
 The House of Lords and Ireland. 
 
 But the most “ respectable ” institution in the land 
 is the House of Lords. Has the House of Lords been 
 remarkable for the part it has played in promoting 
 reform, and ameliorating the condition of the masses 
 of the people ? 
 
 It is not too much to say that this most respectable 
 institution is largely responsible for the condition of 
 things which exists in Ireland to-day. 
 
 Between 1835 and 1841—during the administration 
 of Lord Melbourne—O’Connell suspended the demand 
 for repeal to give the Union a last trial, to see if it 
 were possible for the British Parliament to legislate 
 beneficially for Ireland. The ministry of Lord Mel¬ 
 bourne promised to reform the Iri.sh municipal cor- 
 
 * It must not be forgotten that, in 1850-18.52, a number of Ulster 
 Presbyterians joined with Gavan Duffy and Frederic Lucas in fight¬ 
 ing the battle of the tenant-farmers throughout Ireland (see Sir 
 Gavan Duffy, “ League of North and South ”). 
 
122 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 porations—then in the hands of the Protestant 
 Ascendency—and to relieve the Catholic peasantry 
 from the burden of tithes. 
 
 In 1836 a Municipal Keform Bill passed the Com¬ 
 mons by 260 to 199 votes. It was rejected in the 
 Lords by 203 to 119 votes. The Government then 
 expressed its willingness to accept a compromise—to 
 agree to the disfranchisement of all the corporations 
 except thirteen, if the House of Lords would consent 
 to grant these a ten-pound household franchise; * the 
 disfranchised bodies were to be governed by commis¬ 
 sioners, and given a five-pormd household franchise. 
 This compromise scheme passed the Commons by 384 
 to 232 votes. It was rejected in the Lords by 220 to 
 123 votes. In 1837 the Bill again passed the Commons 
 by 302 to 247 votes. It was rejected in the Lords by 
 205 to 119 votes. In 1838 the Bill once more passed 
 the Commons by 169 to 134 votes. It was once more 
 rejected in the Lords by 144 to 67 votes. In 1839 
 the Bill again passed the Commons, and was again 
 rejected in the Lords. Finally, in 1840, the House of 
 Lords consented to a Bill abolishing fifty-eight of 
 the Irish municipalities, and granting a ten-pound 
 rateable franchise to the remaining ten. Sir Erskine 
 May, as Ave have already said, has described this 
 measure as “ virtually a scheme of municipal disfran¬ 
 chisement.” So much for the House of Lords and 
 municipal reform in Ireland. 
 
 But how did their loi’d ships deal with the tithe 
 question ? 
 
 * There were at the time sixty-eight corporations in Ireland. 
 
THE HOUSE OP LORDS AND IRELAND. I’^o 
 
 In 1835 the Government introduced a Bill convert¬ 
 ing tithes into a rent-charge of £68 per cent..of tithes, 
 and containing a clause for appropriating the surplus 
 revenues of the Church to purposes of general educa¬ 
 tion in Ireland. The Bill passed the Commons by 
 319 to 282 votes. It was rejected in the Lords by 
 138 to 41 votes. In 1836 the same Bill passed the 
 Commons by 300 to 261. It was rejected in the 
 Lords by 138 to 47 votes. Finally, in 1838, the Lords 
 consented to a Bill converting tithes into a rent-charge 
 of £75 per cent, of the tithe, and omitting the most 
 important part of the original Bill—the appropriation 
 clause. 
 
 But this was not all. 
 
 The Government sent Thomas Drummond to Ireland 
 to govern on popular principles—to govei-ii without 
 coercion—to govern by putting himself, as Shell said, 
 “ in contact, and not in collision with the people.” 
 No one did more to win over the Irish people to the 
 English connection, and even, if it were possible, to 
 the Union, than Drummond. Yet from the moment 
 he put foot in the country, until he died at his post in 
 1840, the Lords pursued him with implacable hostility. 
 In 1839 their lordships passed what was practically 
 a vote of censure on his administration by 63 to 58 
 votes. But this vote was quickly reversed in the 
 Commons by 318 to 226. 
 
 Finally, on the important question of the land, the 
 Lords proved a stumbling-block on two critical 
 occasions. In 1845 Lord Stanley introduced a Bill 
 to carry out tlie recommendations of the Devon 
 
124 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Commissioners to give to tlie Irish tenants com- 
 pensatioR for improvements on evictions. Lord 
 Stanley has told us himself that this Bill had to be 
 abandoned in consequence of the opposition of the 
 Lords. 
 
 In 1852 the Tory Irish Attorney-General of the 
 day—Mr. Napier—introduced a Bill practically on 
 the same lines as Lord Stanley’s Bill of 1845. It 
 passed the Commons, hut had to be abandoned owing 
 to the hostility of the Lords. “ It is notorious,” said 
 Mr. Napier in 1855, “that the House of Lords will 
 pass no such measure, and that for a Government to 
 propose it to them, or to pretend to support it, is an 
 imposture and a .sham.” 
 
 One more case. 
 
 In 1880 Mr. Forster (then Irish Secretary) intro¬ 
 duced a Bill to stay evictions in Ireland. He proposed 
 that the County Court judges should, in certain cases, 
 order the landlord to compensate the tenant on evict¬ 
 ing him even for non-payment of rent. But the tenant 
 was bound to prove four things to the satisfaction of 
 the court: 
 
 1. That he was unable to pay the rent. 
 
 2. That he was unable to pay it, not from thriftless¬ 
 ness or idleness, but on account of the bad harvest of 
 the preceding year. 
 
 3. That he was willing to continue the tenancy on 
 just and reasonable terms as to rent and otherwise. 
 
 4. That these terms were unreasonably refused by 
 the landlords. 
 
 Mr. Forster said that this Bill would stop violent 
 
THE HOUSE OP LOEDS AND IRELAND. 
 
 125 
 
 agitation in Ireland. “ The fire,” he said, “ has 
 begun to burn, but if you pass this Bill it .will put 
 it out.” 
 
 The Bill (called the “ Compensation for Disturbance 
 Bill ”) passed the Commons by 304 to 237 votes. It 
 was rejected in the Lords by 282 to 51 votes and 
 lost. 
 
 In 1881 Mr. Forster wi’ote, “ It is no use crying 
 over spilt milk, but I believe that the passage of my 
 ‘ Compensation for Disturbance Bill ’ last year would 
 have stayed the strike against rent.” * 
 
 But is it necessary to say that, if Parliament had 
 been wholly influenced by the “ respectable ” classes 
 in legislating for Ireland during the past sixty years, 
 not a single one of the conces.sions which have been 
 passed within that time, in the interests of the masses 
 of the people, would have found its way to the Statute 
 Book? 
 
 Assuredly’', the history of the world shows that great 
 movements tending to the well-being of mankind have, 
 in the main, come, not from above, but from below— 
 not from the cultured and leisured few, but from the 
 untutored and toiling millions. Who fought the 
 battle of freedom and progress in these islands for 
 half a century ? Where did O’Connell find supporters 
 in the struggle for Catholic Emancipation ? Where 
 did Lord Grey find supporters in the struggle for 
 Parliamentary reform ? Where did Bright and Cobden 
 find'supporters in the struggle for Free Trade ? 
 
 * Wcmyss Eciil, “ Life of Forster.” 
 
126 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 All that is generous, all that is just, all that is self- 
 devoted in human action, has ever found sjmipathy 
 and support, not in the castle, but in the cabin; not 
 among the proud and wealthy, but among the lowly 
 and the poor. 
 
 Y. 
 
 THE PROSPERITY OF IRELAND SINCE THE UNION. 
 
 It is said that Ireland has progressed materially 
 since the Union. That is perfectl}’ true. The whole 
 world has progressed materially during the past 
 eighty-nine years, and Ireland has to some extent 
 joined in the general movement. But the difference 
 between the prosperity of Great Britain and the 
 prosperity of Ireland is this : while all classes of Great 
 Britain have benefited, more or less, by the general 
 advance, the peasantry of Ireland—constituting an 
 important, if not the most important, portion of the 
 community—have remained sunk iu the deepest 
 poverty and degradation.* 
 
 This statement admits of easy proof. 
 
 The Condition of the Irish Peasantry since the Union. 
 
 Newenham, 1807—“The habitations of the Irish 
 peasantry, it must be admitted, are, for the most part, 
 little better than the huts of savages. The accommo¬ 
 dations of the former in few respects only surpass 
 those of the latter.” 
 
 * See Mr. Dioey, ante, p. 40. 
 
THE IRISH PEASANTRY SINCE THE UNION. 127 
 
 Wakefield, 1809-1812—“ Those who wish to become 
 acquainted with the real state of the country will 
 lament to see human nature degraded to the lowest 
 misery.” 
 
 John Gough, 1813-1814—“ The general condition of 
 the labouring poor in Tipperary and the neighbouring 
 counties is certainly very wretched; seldom treated 
 by their employers with that humanity and attention 
 their useful labours so justly merit.” 
 
 Report of Select Committee of the House of Com¬ 
 mons, 1819—“ The general distress and deficiency of 
 employment are so notorious as to render the pro¬ 
 duction of any particular evidence to establish the 
 extent and variety of the evil unnecessary.” 
 
 John Wiggins (agent to the Marquis of Headfort), 
 1822—“ Poverty and misery have in manj;" instances 
 goaded [the Irish peasantry] to become bad Christians, 
 bad subjects, and bad tenants.” 
 
 Annual Register, 1822—“ The whole provinces of 
 Connaught and Munster are in a state of actual 
 starvation. In the month of June there were in the 
 county Clare alone (the whole population of which 
 is little more than 200,000) 99,639 persons subsisting 
 on charity from hour to hour; in Cork there were 
 122,000 individuals in the same situation ; and in the 
 city of Limerick, out of a population of 67,000, there 
 were 20,000 who had not a morsel to eat save what 
 pity gave.” 
 
 Report of Select Committee of the House of Com¬ 
 mons on the employment of the poor of Ireland, 1823 
 —“One-half of the population of the distressed dis- 
 
128 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 tricts [which contained 2,907,000 souls and 5,544,000 
 acres of land] depended upon charitable assistance for 
 support. 
 
 “ The cabins [of the peasantry] scarcely contain 
 an article that can be called furniture; in some fami¬ 
 lies there are no such things as bed-clothes, and the 
 greater part [of the peasantry] drink nothing but 
 water.” 
 
 Mr. Nimmo (civil engineer engaged on works in Ire¬ 
 land), 1825—“I conceive the peasantry of Ireland to 
 be in general in the lowest possible state of existence. 
 Their cabins are in the most miserable condition, and 
 their food potatoes without water, and without even 
 salt.” 
 
 Poor Law Commissioners, 1836 — “ Their [the 
 Irish peasants’] habitations are wretched hovels; 
 several of a family sleep together upon straw, or 
 upon the bare ground, sometimes with a blanket, 
 sometimes without even so much, to cover them ; their 
 food commonly consists of dry potatoes, and with 
 these they are at times so scantily supplied as to be 
 obliged to stint themselves to one spare meal a day. 
 There are even instances of persons being driven by 
 hunger to seek subsistence on wild herbs.” 
 
 o 
 
 Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 1837 — “Arthur 
 Young describes the physical state of the Irish peasant 
 in 1776-1778, which might with scarcely an altera- . 
 tion be applied to them at the present time (1837). 
 The engraving of an Irish cabin contained in his work 
 is an exact representation of the hovels in which the 
 Irish peasants still live.” 
 
CONDITION OF THE PEASANTEY. 
 
 129 
 
 Thomas Drummond, 1838—“Their [the peasants 
 of the Western districts] food consists of the potato 
 alone, without meal, and in most cases without milk. 
 Their cabins are wretched hovels, their beds straw. 
 The wages of labour are reduced to the lowest point, 
 on an average not more than sixpence a day. Poverty 
 and misery have deprived them of energy, labour 
 brings no adequate reward, and every motive to exer¬ 
 tion is destroyed.” 
 
 Gustave de Beaumont, 1838—“To see Ireland 
 happy you must carefully select your point of view, 
 look for some narrow, isolated spot, and shut your 
 eyes to all the objects that surround it; but wretched 
 Ireland, on the contrary, bursts upon your view every¬ 
 where. ... I have seen the Indian in his forests and 
 the negro in his chains, and thought, as I contem¬ 
 plated their miserable condition, that I saw the very 
 extreme of human wretchedness, but I did not then 
 know the condition of unfortunate Ireland.” 
 
 The Devon Commission, 1845 —“ A reference to 
 the evidence of most of the witnesses will show that 
 the agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to suffer 
 the greatest privations and hardships; that he con¬ 
 tinues to depend upon casual and precarious employ¬ 
 ment for subsistence ; that he is badly housed, badly 
 fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for his labour. Our 
 personal experience and observations during our in¬ 
 quiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of 
 these statements, and we cannot forbear expressing 
 our strong sense of the patient endurance which the 
 labouring classes have generally exhibited under 
 
 K 
 
180 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S MANUAL 
 
 sufterings greater, we believe, than the people of any 
 country in Europe have to sustain.” 
 
 Sir Gavan Duffy, 1847—•“ The condition of Ireland 
 at the opening of the year 1847 is one of the most 
 painful chapters in the annals of mankind. An in- 
 dusti'ious and hospitable race were now in the fangs 
 of a devouring famine. Deaths of individuals, of 
 husband and wife, of entire families, were becoming- 
 common. The potato blight had spread from the 
 Atlantic to the Caspian, but there was more suffering 
 in one parish in county Mayo than in all the rest of 
 Europe. From Connaught, where distress was greatest, 
 there came batches of inquests, with the horrible 
 verdict, ‘ Died of starvation.’ In some cases the 
 victims were buried wrapt in a coarse coverlet, a coffin 
 being too costly a luxury. The living awaited death 
 with a listlessness which Avas at once tragic and 
 revolting. Women, Avith dead children in their arms, 
 Avere seeking for a coffin to bury them.” 
 
 Mr. Joseph Kay, Q.C. (the son-in-laAV of Thomas 
 Drummond), 1850—“ Let us end'eavour to describe 
 the present state of Ireland in as few words as 
 possible. Ireland itself is splendidly situated, in a 
 commercial point of view, commanding the direct 
 route betAveen Northern Europe and America, with 
 some of the finest harboin-s in the world. Its soil 
 is proverbially rich and beautiful, and has won 
 for it throughout the world the appellation of the 
 ‘ Emerald Isle.’ Its rivers are numerous, large, and 
 well adapted for internal commerce. Its people 
 are physically and intellectually considered one of 
 
CONDITION OF THE PEASANTEY. 
 
 131 
 
 the most active and restless in the world. In 
 every colony of our empire, and among the motley 
 multitude of the United States, the Irish are dis¬ 
 tinguished by their energy, their industry, and their 
 success. They make as good soldier.s, colonists, and 
 railway constructors as anj”^ other people. They are 
 industrious and successful everywhere but in Ireland. 
 Nearly one-third of this rich island is wholly uncul¬ 
 tivated, and is nothing more than bogs, moors, and 
 waste lands; the cultivation of the remaining parts is 
 generally of the most miserable kind. Most of the 
 great proprietors have no capital to invest in the 
 improvement of their estates, or in bringing any 
 of their waste lands into cultivation. Few even of 
 those who have capital are energetic enough or in¬ 
 telligent enough to extend it in so rational a manner. 
 
 . . . Nor is cultivation in Ireland merely stationary. 
 It is actually going backwards. In the last few 
 years hundreds of thousands of acres have actually 
 been thrown out of cultivation, owing, on the part 
 of the landlords, to inability to sell, and to want of 
 capital and activity; and, on the part of the farmers, 
 to want of security, and to being prevented purchasing 
 any part of the strictly entailed estates. Many of 
 the great landlords know little or nothing of the 
 state of the peasantry or farming on their estates; 
 they receive as much of their rentals as po.ssible, in 
 England * or abroad, and leave their agents to enrich 
 themselves, too often, at the expense of the poor 
 
 * Jolm Mitchell described an Irish landlord as “ a sponge filled in 
 Ireland and squeezed in England.” 
 
132 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 tenantry. The condition of the peasantry is some¬ 
 thing which none but those Avho have actually wit¬ 
 nessed it for themselves can possibly realize. At the 
 mercy of sub-agents of the agents of the landlords-— 
 with no interest in the soil—liable to be evicted from 
 their holdings by the agents—totally uneducated for 
 the most part—they live more wretchedly than any 
 other people on the face of the earth. ...” “ The 
 
 miserable tenants are subject to the tender mercies 
 of a bailiff, without any remedy or appeal except to 
 HeaAmn. . . . More than fifty thousand such evictions 
 took place in 1849. More than fifty thousand families 
 were in that year turned out from their wretched 
 dwellings, without pity and without a refuge! Is 
 it a wonder that fathers, and husbands, and brothers, 
 should often be driven to madness, desperation, and 
 revenge ? ” 
 
 Lord Dufferin, 18G7—“Some human agency must 
 be accountable for the perennial desolation of a lovely 
 and fertile island, watered by the fairest streams, 
 caressed by a clement atmosphere, held in the em¬ 
 brace of a sea whose affluence fills the richest har¬ 
 bours of the world, and inhabited by a race valiant, 
 tender, generous, gifted beyond measure with the 
 power of physical endurance, and graced with the 
 liveliest intelligence.” 
 
 General Gordon, 1880 — “I must say from all 
 accounts, and from my own observation, that the state 
 of our fellow-countrymen in the parts [of Ireland] I 
 have named is worse than that of any people in the 
 world, let alone Europe. I believe that these people are 
 
CONDITION OF THE PEASANTRY. 
 
 133 
 
 made as we are, that they are patient beyond belief,— 
 loyal, but at the same time broken-spirited and 
 desperate, living on the verge of starvation in places 
 in which we would not keep our cattle. The Bul¬ 
 garians, Anatolians, Chinese, and Indians are better 
 off" than many of them are. ... I am not well off, 
 
 but I would offer-or his agent £1000 if either 
 
 of them would live one week in one of these poor 
 devils’ places, and feed as these people do.” 
 
 The perennial distress thus described has been 
 attributed by all competent authorities to the system 
 of land tenure in Ireland. Yet Parliament did 
 nothing to reform this system'until 1870—seventy 
 years after the Union. But the Act of 1870 was a 
 failure. Another Act was passed in 1881. But the 
 Irish Land question still occupies the attention of 
 the Legislature. Seventy years of neglect, followed 
 by nineteen years of inadequate effort. What a com¬ 
 mentary on the “Union!” 
 
 Decline of the Population of Ireland since the 
 Famine. 
 
 The decline of the population of Ireland within the 
 past forty years is a fact not to be lost sight of in 
 considering the condition of the country. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1841 
 
 1851 
 
 1861 
 
 1871 
 
 1881 
 
 Population. 
 
 8,175,124 
 
 6,574,278 
 
 5,798,967 
 
 5,412,377 
 
 5,174,836 
 
134 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Emigration. 
 
 The statistics of emigration ave of equal importance. 
 
 Total Number of 
 Kmigrants. 
 
 1851-1885 . .. 3,051,361 * 
 
 Taking the annual averages, we 
 
 find this result:— 
 
 
 Average Annual 
 
 
 Number. 
 
 1852-1855 . . 
 
 148,985 
 
 '1856-1865 .. 
 
 88,272 
 
 1866-1875 .. 
 
 74,607 
 
 Taking the years 1876, 1880, 
 
 1882, 1883, 1884, 
 
 and 1885, we find this result:— 
 
 ■ Number of 
 Emigrants. 
 
 1876 
 
 37,587 
 
 1880 
 
 95,517 
 
 1882 
 
 89,506 
 
 1883 
 
 108,724 
 
 1884 
 
 75,803 
 
 1885 
 
 62,064 t 
 
 One bright gleam, throwing 
 
 light on the Irish 
 
 character, relieves' the gloom of 
 
 this dark picture. 
 
 Between 1848 and 1864 the Iri.sh emigrants in 
 America sent £13,000,000 to their fellow-countrymen 
 at home.. Lord Dulferin gives the figures year by 
 
 year:— 
 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Year. 
 
 £ 
 
 1848 
 
 460,000 
 
 1849 
 
 540,000 
 
 1850 
 
 957,000 
 
 1851 
 
 990,000 
 
 * Thom's Almanac, 1887, p. 629. 
 t The Statesman’s Year Booh, 1884-1887. 
 
miSH EMIGRATION. 
 
 135 
 
 Year. 
 
 1852 
 
 1853 
 185-1 
 1855 
 18.56 
 
 1857 
 
 1858 
 
 1859 
 
 1860 
 1861 
 1862 
 
 1863 
 
 1864 
 
 Amount. 
 
 £ 
 
 1,404,000 
 
 1,439,000 
 
 1,730,000 
 
 873,000 
 
 951,000 
 
 593,165 
 
 472,610 
 
 575,378 
 
 576,932 
 
 [426,285 
 
 381,901 
 
 412,053 
 
 416,605 
 
 Besides these amounts sent from Irish emigrants 
 in America, the following amounts were sent from 
 
 Australia" :— 
 
 Year. 
 
 1859 
 
 1860 
 1861 
 1862 
 
 1863 
 
 1864 
 
 Amount. 
 
 £ 
 
 45,798 
 
 66,713 
 
 78,095 
 
 81,123 
 
 48,058 
 
 44,631* 
 
 Well might Mr. Joseph Kay have said, “In every 
 colony of our empire, and among the motley mul¬ 
 titude of the United States, the Irish are distin¬ 
 guished by their energy, their industry, and their 
 success. They make as good soldiers, colonists, and 
 railway constructors as any other people. They 
 are industrious and successful everywhere but in 
 Ireland.” Why ? Because everywhere but in Ireland 
 they have had fair play. 
 
 * Lord Duffcrin, “ Irish Emigration and Irish Land,” p. 36. 
 
136 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 But the question is, not only whether Ireland has 
 been prosperous or the reverse since the Union, but 
 whether that measure satisfies, or ever can satisfy^ 
 the national aspii’ations of the people ? 
 
PART IV^ 
 
 MR. BALFOUR, IRELAND, AND THE 
 LEAGUE. 
 
 I. 
 
 MR. BALFOUR AND THE TRANQUILLITY OF IRELAND. 
 
 Mr. Balfour says that Ireland is becoming tran¬ 
 quil, and points to the fact that, in 1888, the number 
 of agrarian outrages was 660, as against 944 in 188.5, 
 and 883 in 1887. But agrarian outrages are only 
 a test of social disorder. They are not a test of 
 political discontent — a feature of graver import. 
 There may, in fact, be little social disturbance and 
 much political disaffection, and vice versa. A few 
 figures will make this point clear. 
 
 In 1850 and 1851 Ireland was comparatively free 
 from political movements. The number of agrarian 
 outrages was— 
 
 1850 . 1362 
 
 1851 .1013 
 
 Between 1863 and 1866 inclusive, the greatest 
 political movement which had existed since the death 
 of O’Connell was^at its height—the Fenian organiza- 
 
138 
 
 THE HOBIE-RTJLER’S MANUAL. 
 
 tion. The number of agrarian outrages during those 
 years was— 
 
 1863 . 
 
 349 
 
 1864 . 
 
 304 
 
 1865 . 
 
 178 
 
 1866 . 
 
 87 
 
 But this is not all. The number of ao-rarian crimes 
 
 O 
 
 was not only smaller than in most other years, but 
 the character of the crime was less heinous, as the 
 followino; table will show 
 
 o 
 
 Agrarian Outrages between 1844 and 1880. 
 
 Analysis showing Character of Crime. 
 
 Y’ear. 
 
 1 Total Agrarian 
 
 I Outrages. 
 
 Homicide 
 (Murder and 
 Manslaughter). 
 
 ' 
 
 Firing at the 
 Person. 
 
 Incendiary 
 Fires. | 
 
 1 
 
 Maiming 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 Firing into 
 Dwellings. 
 
 Threatening 
 
 Letters and 
 
 Notices. 
 
 1844 
 
 1,001 
 
 18 
 
 26 
 
 121 
 
 54 
 
 31 
 
 417 
 
 1845 
 
 1,920 
 
 18 
 
 46 
 
 113 
 
 87 
 
 55 
 
 970 
 
 1846 
 
 1,303 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 73 
 
 60 
 
 54 
 
 541 
 
 1847 
 
 620 
 
 16 
 
 35 
 
 108 
 
 46 
 
 39 
 
 202 
 
 1848 
 
 795 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 201 
 
 52 
 
 25 
 
 267 
 
 1849 
 
 957 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 238 
 
 54 
 
 24 
 
 271 
 
 1850 
 
 1,362 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 311 
 
 69 
 
 20 
 
 517 
 
 1851 
 
 1,013 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 185 
 
 56 
 
 18 
 
 395 
 
 1852 
 
 913 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 222 
 
 50 
 
 26 
 
 370 
 
 1853 
 
 469 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 97 
 
 34 
 
 17 
 
 170 
 
 1854 
 
 334 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 72 
 
 38 
 
 8 
 
 *114 
 
 1855 
 
 255 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 56 
 
 28 
 
 7 
 
 66 
 
 1856 
 
 287 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 51 
 
 32 
 
 7 
 
 99 
 
 1857 
 
 194 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 27 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 78 
 
AGRAKIAN CRIME AND FENIANISM. 
 
 139 
 
 Year. 
 
 Total Agrarian 
 
 I Outrages. 
 
 Homicide 
 
 I (Mui'der and 
 
 1 Manslaughter). 
 
 Firing at the 
 
 Person. 
 
 1 Incendiary 
 
 i Fires. 
 
 1 
 
 Maiming 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 Firing into 
 
 Dwellings. 
 
 Threatening 
 
 Letters and 
 
 Notices. 
 
 1858 
 
 
 235 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 35 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 98 
 
 1859 
 
 
 221 
 
 ' 0 
 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 3 
 
 91 
 
 18G0 
 
 
 232 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 25 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 87 
 
 1861 
 
 
 229 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 46 
 
 17 
 
 8 
 
 105 
 
 1862 
 
 
 363 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 61 
 
 17 
 
 9 
 
 211 
 
 1863 
 
 
 349 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 63 
 
 19 
 
 3 
 
 166 
 
 1864 
 
 1865 
 
 •s'S 
 
 1.-S 
 
 304 
 
 178 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 48 
 
 29 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 145 
 
 72 
 
 1866 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 3 
 
 31 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 30 
 
 1867 
 
 
 123 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 12 
 
 
 50 
 
 1868 
 
 
 160 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 65 
 
 1869' 
 
 
 767 
 
 10 
 
 16 
 
 38 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 397 
 
 1870 
 
 
 1,329 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 21 
 
 493 
 
 1871 
 
 o 
 
 a • • 
 
 373 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 28 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 173 
 
 1872 
 
 > 
 
 256 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 25 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 125 
 
 1873 
 
 o 
 
 •5 • ‘ 
 
 254 
 
 5 
 
 ,4 
 
 26 
 
 15 
 
 13 
 
 112 
 
 1874 
 
 fl .. 
 
 ► o 
 
 a •• 
 
 213 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 78 
 
 1875 
 
 136 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 35 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 54 
 
 1876 
 
 
 212 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 86 
 
 1877 
 
 ’3 • • 
 
 236 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 40 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 81 
 
 1878 
 
 . . 
 
 301 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 60 
 
 22 
 
 7 
 
 125 
 
 1879 
 
 
 863 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 210 
 
 25 
 
 13 
 
 473. 
 
 1880 
 
 .. 
 
 2590 
 
 8 
 
 24 
 
 43 
 
 101 
 
 67 
 
 1337 
 
 In 1866 agrarian outrages reached the lowest figure 
 on record. That was the very year before the Fenian 
 rising. The rising took place in March, 1867, and 
 was quickly put down. Between 1867 and 1870 in¬ 
 clusive, the number of agrarian outrages was— 
 
140 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 1867 . 
 
 .123 
 
 1868 . 
 
 .160 
 
 1869 . 
 
 .767 
 
 1870 . 
 
 .1329 
 
 These figures certainly prove that there may he 
 acute political discontent though comparatively little 
 agrarian crime, and vice versa. 
 
 But the main question is—Has Mr. Balfour won 
 over the Irish people to the Union ? Is Mr. Parnell 
 less popular in Ireland now than he was in 1886 ? 
 Has Mr. Balfour gained any bye-elections in Ireland ? 
 Has anything happened to show that the Irish people 
 are less eager in their demand for Home Rule than 
 they were when Mr. Balfour took office ? All these 
 questions must be answered in the negative. So far 
 as bye-elections—the only test of opinion we can take 
 —Mr. Balfour has not only made no way in Ireland, 
 but he has lost way in Great Britain. 
 
 Bye-Elections in Great Britain since 1886. 
 
 Anti-Home Rule Gains. 
 Doncaster .. .. 1 
 
 Home Rule Gains. 
 
 Ayr 
 
 .. 1 
 
 Burnley .. 
 
 .. 1 
 
 Coventry ,. 
 
 .. 1 
 
 Edinburgh 
 
 .. 1 
 
 Govan 
 
 .. 1 
 
 Kennington 
 
 .. 1 
 
 North Bucks 
 
 . , 1 
 
 North wich 
 
 .. 1 
 
 Peterhorough 
 
 . . 1 
 
 Rochester 
 
 . . 1 
 
 Spalding .. 
 
 , , 1 
 
 Southampton 
 
 .. 1 
 
 12 
 
MR. BALFOUR AND AGRARIAN CRIME. 141 
 
 Besides these gains at the bye-elections, three 
 members of Parliament, who were returned as Unionists 
 in 1886, have, I believe, since become Home Rulers— 
 Mr. Winterbotham, Mr. Hingley, Sir Thomas Grove. 
 
 Tried by any test, there is not a particle of evidence 
 to show that Ireland is becoming Unionist. And if 
 this be so, what avails a reduction in the number of 
 agrarian crimes, so far as the main question—the 
 maintenance of the Union—is concerned ? 
 
 A reduction in the number of agrarian crimes—the 
 maintenance of social order—is, however, a good thing 
 in itself, apart altogether from the question of the 
 Union. But— 
 
 (1) How much credit does Mr. Balfour really deserve 
 for this reduction ? 
 
 (2) What is its precise value as an indication of 
 popular goodwill ? 
 
 (1) The reduction may have been brought about 
 by causes independently of Mr. Balfour’s government, 
 viz., less distress; more prosperity; belief in the 
 coming of Home Rule; fear to injure Mr. Gladstone 
 and the Liberal party in England by the commission 
 of outrages in Ireland; a desire to place the Liberal 
 party in a position to say to the English nation, “ See, 
 the Irish people are peaceful, because they have hope 
 in you! ” 
 
 (2) But if these are not the causes; if outrages 
 are only kept down—if order is only maintained— 
 by the Crimes Act, by the imprisonment of popular 
 members of Parliament, and the partial suspension of 
 trial by jury, then it is quite clear that the reduction 
 
14-2 
 
 THE HOME-RITLERVS MANUAL. 
 
 in the number of agrarian crimes is of no value 
 as an indication of popular goodwill. And the suc¬ 
 cess of a constitutional minister, who maintains law 
 and order by putting himself in collision instead of 
 in contact with the masses of the people, is as¬ 
 suredly a Pyrrhien victory. When, my lord,” wrote 
 Dr. Doyle, the Catholic Bishop of Kildare, to Lord 
 Anglesey when he was governing Ireland as Mr. 
 Balfour governs now—“ when, my lord, the dervish 
 was asked by Alexander the Great what he thought 
 of the conquest of India by that warrior, he took 
 the dried sheepskin from off his shoulders, spread it 
 on the floor of Alexander’s tent, and, having walked 
 upon it—the skin yielding to the pressure of the foot, 
 and rising when the foot was removed—he said, ‘ Such 
 will be your conquest of India.’ The allegory may 
 be instructive to your Excellency.” And it may be 
 instructive to Mr. Balfour. 
 
 In brief, order may be maintained in Ireland by 
 perpetual coercion, but perpetual coercion is impossible 
 under constitutional government. Mr. Balfour feels 
 this himself, and has been obliged to concede as well 
 as coerce—to adopt the old policy of “alternating 
 kicks and kindness”—a policy which has been tried 
 for more than half a century, and which has signally 
 failed. 
 
IKISH AGRAEIAN SOCIETIES. 
 
 143 
 
 II. 
 
 IRISH AGRARIAN SOCIETIES AND THE LAND LEAGUE. 
 
 People sometimes write and speak as if agrarian out- 
 rao-es were unknown in Ireland until the Land League 
 began operations. The fact, unhappily, is otherwise. 
 For more than a century there has been war between 
 landlord and tenant in Ireland—“war as fierce and 
 relentless as if it were carried on by force of arms.” * 
 In 17G1-1762 this war began. The Whiteboys rose 
 in Tipperary to prevent the enclosure of commons, and, 
 generally, to regulate the relation between landlord 
 and tenant in the interest of the latter. This insur¬ 
 rection lasted for nearly ten years. Then there was 
 a truce in the south. But in 1771 the “Hearts of 
 Steel ” rebelled in Ulster, because a landlord refused 
 to renew leases without exacting heavy fines from the 
 tenants. In 1775 the Whiteboys were again “up” in 
 Leinster and Munster, protesting against tithes as 
 well as rents. This time they kept the field again 
 for several years, and were followed, in 1785, by the 
 Rightboys, who carried on operations until 1787. 
 From 1787 to the Union there was a truce more or 
 less. Then the war again broke out with renewed 
 fierceness. In 1806 the Thrashers rose in Connaught, 
 and spread to Cavan and Longford. So formidable 
 were these insurgents, that “the king’s judges, on 
 special commission, could not move through the 
 country except under military escort.”! The Thrashers 
 
 * Mr. Bright. f i^ii' G. C. Lewis, “Irish Disturbances.” 
 
144 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 were followed by the Whiteboys, who, from 1807 to 
 1821, terrorized almost the whole province of Munster. 
 In 1822 there was a truce. In 1823 hostilities were 
 renewed. From 1829 to 1830 there was another truce. 
 From 1830 to 1835 the war was carried on with more 
 fierceness than ever—Whitefeet, Blackfeet, Terry Alts, 
 Lady Clares, Molly Maguires, and Rockites overran 
 the land. 
 
 About 1835 Ribbonism absorbed all other agrarian 
 societies, and there has scarcely been a truce in the 
 deadly struggle from that time to the present. 
 
 In 1871, eight years before the establishment of 
 the Land League, Lord Hartington, speaking of Irish 
 disturbances, said: “ All these acts of violence are, 
 we have reason to believe, the work of the Ribbon 
 Society. The reports which we receive show that 
 such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has 
 only to issue an edict to secure obedience. Nor has 
 it even to issue its edict; its laws are so well known, 
 an infringement of them is followed so regularly by 
 murderous outrage, that few indeed can treat them 
 with defiance. Ribbon law, and not the law of the 
 land, appears to be that which is obeyed. It exercises 
 such power that no landlord dares to exercise the 
 commonest rights of property. No farmer or other 
 occupier dare exercise his own judgment and discre¬ 
 tion as to whom he shall employ. In fine, so far 
 does the infiuence of the society extend, that a man 
 scarcely dares to enter into open competition in fairs 
 or markets with any one known to belong to the 
 society.”. 
 
WITNESSES AGAINST LANDLOEDISM. 
 
 145 
 
 Who is to blame for this unfortunate condition of 
 things—landlord or tenant ? 
 
 The evidence against the landlord is overwhelming, 
 and the witnesses are unimpeachable. Here is a list of 
 them, beginning with the Protestant Bishop N icholson 
 in 1718, and ending with Mi-. Bright in our own day. 
 
 Ante-Union Period. 
 
 Bishop Nicholson (1718), Archbishop King (1719), 
 Archbishop Synge (1719), Swift (1720-1727), the Lord 
 Primate Boulter (1727), Prior (1729), Arthur Dobbs 
 (1729-31), Bishop Berkeley (1735), Madden (1738), 
 Skelton (1741), John Wesley (1760-17G2), Lord Charle- 
 mont (1770), Arthur Young (1776-1778), and Lord 
 Clare (1787). 
 
 Union Period. 
 
 Lady Morgan (1807), Wakefield (1808-1810), Judge 
 Fletcher (1814), Mr. Wiggins (agent to the Marquis of 
 Headfort) (1822), Sir Frankland Lewis (1825), Mr. 
 Nimmo (1825), Daniel O’Connell (1825-1843), Mr, 
 Becheno (1829), Poulett Scrope (1834-1846), Sir George 
 Cornewall Lewis (1836), the Marquis of Normanby 
 (1837), the Times, Lord Morpeth (1837), Lord John 
 Russell (1837-1844), Thomas Drummond (1838), Mr. 
 Nassau Senior (1843-1858), Lord Palmerston (1844), 
 Sir Matthew Barrington (1844), the Devon Commis¬ 
 sion (1845), Lord Derby (1845), Lord John Manners 
 (1847), Mr. Bright (1848-1881), Joseph Kay (1850), 
 Lord Dufterin (1867), Mr. Gladstone (1870); and 
 every Parliamentary Committee appointed to inquire 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 into the state of Ireland and the condition of the 
 poor,* 
 
 Yet one more witness must be named—^Parliament 
 itself. 
 
 The Acts passed by Parliament for the protection 
 of the Irish tenant testify abundantly to the wrong¬ 
 doing of the Irish landlord. No such Acts have been 
 found necessary to protect British tenants from British 
 landlords. In Ireland alone the Legislature was forced 
 to step in and strike at the “ lights ” of the landlord 
 in order to save society. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE VIOLENCE OF THE LAND LEAGUE. 
 
 It is said that the Land League agitation was violent 
 and rebellious. Unfortunately, moderation and purely 
 constitutional action have never been successful in 
 obtaining reforms for Ireland. 
 
 Take what happened prior to the passing of the 
 Land Act of 1881. 
 
 In 1876 Mr. Butt (the leader of a moderate party) 
 introduced a Bill practically on the same lines as 
 Mr. Gladstone’s Bill of 1881. How was it received ? 
 It was rejected in the Commons by 290 to 56 votes. 
 In 1877 Mr. Crawford (an Ulster member) introduced 
 a Bill to extend the Ulster custom of tenant-right 
 to the rest of Ireland. It was talked out. In 1878 
 
 * The opinions of these antliorities are given in “ Fifty Years of 
 Concessions to Ireland.” 
 
IRISH AGITATION AND o’CONNELL. 
 
 147 
 
 Mr. Crawford’s Bill was rejected by 85 to 60 votes, 
 and Mr. Butt’s (reintroduced by Mi'. McCarthy Down¬ 
 ing) by 286 to 86 votes. In 1879 Mr. Butt’s Bill 
 (reintroduced by Mr. Shaw) was rejected by 263 to 
 91 votes. Then came the Land League, and the Land 
 Act of 1881. “ What does not happen at the right 
 
 time,” says Prince Albert, “ is, by force of circum¬ 
 stances, sooner or later brought about, and then with 
 a crash.” 
 
 The Example of O'Connell. 
 
 When Irish agitators are censured for their violence 
 they point to O’Connell, and ask. How was Catholic 
 Emancipation carried ? The story of the Clare 
 election—" the turning-point in the Catholic ques¬ 
 tion”*—is not an edifying one. Here it is as told in 
 the memoirs of Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 Mr. Vesey FitzGerald was sent, in June, 1828, by 
 the Government of the Duke of Wellington, to contest 
 the county Clare. He was opposed by O’Connell. 
 Sir R. Peel said of Mr. FitzGerald ; “ He was supposed 
 to have an influence in the county Clare, from pro¬ 
 perty, station, and past services to his constituents.” 
 The narrative may be given in the words of the 
 Government candidate and his friends— 
 
 Mr. FitzGerald to Sir R. Peel (June 17): “ I am sorry 
 to tell you that I have every reason to fear a violent 
 and exasperated contest. There is a great schism 
 [in the Catholic Association, but] O’Connell and the 
 violent ones have carried it all their own way.” 
 
 * Sir R. Peel. 
 
148 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Sir R. Peel to Mr. FitzGerald (June 21): “ I shall be 
 glad to hear from you when you have had some little 
 experience of the county of Clare. Disregard entirely 
 all personalities, whether proceeding from O’Connell 
 or others of his stamp. It is really quite unnecessary 
 for a gentleman and a minister of the Crown to 
 notice the low slang of a county election. It gives a 
 vast advantage over the gentlemen of a county if 
 they are to place themselves on a level with every 
 blackguard who wantonly attempts to provoke them.” 
 
 Mr. FitzGerald to Sir R. Peel (no date): “Nothing- 
 can equal the violence here. The proceedings of 
 yesterday were those of madmen, but the county is 
 mad, and they have been allowed to proceed in the 
 career of revolution. It will not, cannot end well. 
 An ineffectual attempt was made to resist Mr, 
 O’Connell, but all were borne down by the violence 
 of the meeting. I only hope that some man whom 
 I can notice without dishonour may repeat the calum¬ 
 nies and the language which Mr. O’Connell, in the 
 impunity which he enjoys, has dared to address to 
 me.” 
 
 Mr. Gregory (Under-Secretary at the Castle) to 
 Sir R. Peel (June 29): “ O’Connell [has] excited the 
 Roman Catholic population to madness. , . . The 
 accounts from Clare and Limerick are filled v/ith 
 great alarm. . . . [All the gentlemen support Fitz¬ 
 Gerald.] . . , The long-suspended threat of numerical 
 strength against property will be carried into effect.” 
 
 Lord Anglesey to Sir R. Peel (July 1): “I have 
 had [a] letter from Mr. Fitzgerald this morning; he 
 
THE CLAKE ELECTION. 
 
 149 
 
 appears to think that he is not sufficiently protected 
 by a military force. I think he could not be aware 
 of that by which he is surrounded. There are at 
 Ennis near 
 
 300 constabulary 
 
 At Clare Castle, close at hand— 
 
 47 artillery with 
 2 six-pounders 
 120 cavalry 
 415 infantry 
 
 Within a few hours— 
 
 183 cavalry 
 1313 infantry 
 
 Within thirty-six hours— 
 
 28 cavalry 
 1367 infantry 
 2 six-pounder.s 
 
 At a further distance— 
 
 1 regiment of cavalry 
 800 infantry.” 
 
 Mr. FitzGerald to Sir R. Peel (July 5): “ The elec¬ 
 tion, thank God, is over. I have polled all the gentry 
 and all the fifty-pound freeholders—the gentry to a 
 man. All the great interests broke down, and the 
 desertion has been univer.sal. Such a scene as we 
 have had. Such a tremendous prospect as it opens 
 to us. For the degradation of the county I feel 
 deeply, and the organization exhibited is so complete 
 and so formidable, that no man can contemplate 
 without alarm what is to follow in this wretched 
 country.” 
 
150 
 
 THli HOME-KULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Sir R. Peel’s comment on this letter reads curiously 
 enough sixty years after the event; “ The Clare elec¬ 
 tion supplied the manifest proof of an abnormal and 
 unhealthy condition of the public mind in Ireland.” 
 
 The reasons given by Lord Anglesey and Sir Robert 
 Peel for granting Catholic Emancipation have taught 
 Irish agitators a lesson which has never been forgotten. 
 Are the agitators to blame ? 
 
 Lord Anglesey’s Beasons for favouring Catholic 
 Emancipation. 
 
 “ Such is the extraordinary power of the Associa¬ 
 tion, or rather of the agitators, that I am quite 
 certain they could lead on the people to open re¬ 
 bellion at a moment’s notice; and their organiza¬ 
 tion is such, that, in the hands of desperate and 
 intelligent leaders, they would be extremely formid¬ 
 able. There may be rebellion, you may put to death 
 thousands, you may suppress it, but it will only be to 
 put off the day of compromise ; and in the mean time 
 the country is still more impoverished, and the minds 
 of the people are, if possible, still more alienated, and 
 ruinous expense is entailed on the empire.” 
 
 Sir K. Peel’s Reasons for granting Catholic 
 Emancipation. 
 
 Wliitelaall, February 8, 1829. 
 
 “ In the course of the last six months England, 
 being at peace with the whole world, has had five- 
 sixths of the infantry force of the United Kingdom 
 
LORD DERBY ON ENGLISH CONCESSIONS. 151 
 
 occupied in maintaining the peace, and in police duties 
 in Ireland. I consider the state of things which 
 requires such an application of militaiy force much 
 worse than open rebellion. ... If this be the state of 
 things at present, what would he the condition of 
 England in the event of war ? Would an English 
 Parliament tolerate for one moment a state of things 
 in Ireland which would compel the appropriation of 
 half her militaiy force to protect, or rather to control, 
 that exposed part of the empire ? 
 
 “ Can we forget, in reviewing the history of Ireland, 
 what happened in 1782 [and] 1793 ? It is easy to blame 
 the concessions that were then made, but they were 
 not made without an intimate conviction of their 
 ab.solute necessity in order to prevent greater dangers.” 
 
 But what happened in the struggle for Catholic 
 Emancipation has happened in every struggle for 
 justice between Ireland and England. Lord Derby 
 has summed up the case. 
 
 Lord Derby on Irish Violence and English 
 Concessions. 
 
 “It is by no means clear to the unprejudiced 
 observer that any gratitude has been earned [on the 
 part of the Irish to England]. Why have we altered 
 the land laws ? To put an end to Irish agitation. 
 Why have we cared to put an end to Irish agitation ? 
 Because it was not only discreditable to England as a 
 ruling power, but a practical obstruction to the trans¬ 
 action of English business. Fixity of tenure has been 
 the direct result of two causes—Irish outrage and 
 
152 
 
 THE HOME-KULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 Parliamentary obstruction. The Irish know it as well 
 as we, Not all the influence and eloquence of Mr. 
 Gladstone would have prevailed on the English House 
 of Commons to do what has been done in the matter 
 of Irish tenant-right if the answer to all objections 
 had not been ready, ‘ How else are we to govern 
 Ii-eland ? ’ . . . In the history of English relations 
 with Ireland it has always been the same. By an 
 unfortunate fatality every concession made to the 
 weaker State has been under pressure. Take as a 
 sample the creation of the almost wholly independent 
 Irish Parliament in 1780-1782. Was that a sponta¬ 
 neous gift ? Notoriously it was the reverse. English 
 resources were exhausted by the unsuccessful war 
 Avith America ; the Irish volunteers mustered stronger 
 than any force which could have been brought together 
 at short notice to oppose them; the alternative was 
 to yield to the Irish demands or to engage in a san¬ 
 guinary civil war, exactly resembling that which had 
 ended so disastrously on the other side of the Atlantic; 
 and the decision taken, probably a wise one, was to 
 let Ireland have her own way. Not very dissimilar 
 was the history of Catholic Emancipation, except that 
 at that date it was a humane and rational aversion to 
 civil war, not an actual disability to carry it on, which 
 determined the issue. Sir R. Peel and the Duke of 
 Wellington did not rest their cause on the alleged 
 justice of the Catholic claims; they could not well do 
 so, having for many years opposed these claims as 
 unfounded. But they could and did say that the 
 mischief of yielding to them was less than the mischief 
 
LOED DERBY ON ENGLISH CONCESSIONS. 153 
 
 of having to put down an Irish insurrection. The 
 same argument that had prevailed in 1782 prevailed 
 in 1828-1829. A third example of the same mode of 
 procedure is in the memory of everybody. The Fenian 
 movement agitated Ireland from 1864 to 1867, pro¬ 
 ducing among other results the Clerkenwell explosion. 
 Mr. Gladstone’s statement as to the effect of this and 
 similar attempts on the public mind of England, 
 though too significant to be ignored, is too familiar to 
 be repeated. I have too often heard that speech cen¬ 
 sured as unwise; to me it has always seemed a gain 
 that the exact and naked truth should be spoken, 
 though at the cost of some unpleasant criticism. A 
 few desperate men, applauded by the whole body of 
 the Irish people for their daring, showed England 
 what Irish feeling really was; made plain to us the 
 depth of a discontent whose existence we had scarcely 
 suspected; and the rest followed of course. Few 
 persons will now regret the Disendowment of the 
 Irish Church or the passing of the Land Act of 1870; 
 but it is regrettable that, for the third time in less 
 than a century, agitation, accompanied with violence, 
 should have been shown to be the most effective 
 instrument for redressing whatever Irishmen may be 
 pleased to consider their wrongs.” * 
 
 * Nineteenth Century, October, 1881. 
 
PART V. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS IN IRELAND. 
 
 I. 
 
 IRISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 Section I.—1171-1495. 
 
 “ [Ireland] was divided into five provincial kingdoms, 
 Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Connaught, and Meath; one 
 of whose sovereigns was chosen King of Ireland in some 
 general meeting, probably of the nobility, or smaller 
 chieftains, and of the prelates. But there seems to be 
 no clear tradition as to the character of this national 
 assembly, though some maintain it to have been 
 triennially held.” So writes Hallam of pre-Norman 
 Ireland.* 
 
 Whether the “ national assembly ” mentioned by the 
 English historian would in time have developed into 
 a Parliament in the sense in which the word is now 
 used, I shall not stop to inquire. I shall take it that 
 Parliaments, as we now understand them, were intro¬ 
 duced into Ireland by the Norman settlers. 
 
 The complaint of the Irish people is, not that they 
 owe the institution of Parliament to Norman settlers, 
 hut that they were deprived of that institution by 
 English statesmen. 
 
 * Hallam, “ Constitutional History of England,” iii. pp. 456, 457. 
 
IRISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 155 
 
 It is beyond, the scope of this book to enter at any 
 length into the history of the Parliaments of Ireland, 
 but I shall give a few leading dates, which may be 
 helpful to the reader desirous of going more fully into 
 the subject. 
 
 1171-1172 {Hennj II.). 
 
 The councils or conventions summoned by Henry II. 
 cannot be called Parliaments, any more than the 
 councils of the Irish kings could be called Parlia¬ 
 ments ; perhaps much less. Henry is said to have 
 held a council—some writers called it a Paidiament 
 —at Lismore in 1172. We learn that “Rotherick, 
 king of all Irishmen, with all the princes *and men 
 of value of the land, of their own good wills,” were 
 summoned. 
 
 Monck Mason says that this “ Parliament ” ex¬ 
 tended beyond the Pale.* Probably it did, so far as 
 it was a Parliament. But I think it would be more 
 accurate to describe it as a convention of chieftains, 
 brought together by Henry to consider the condition 
 of the country, and perhaps the probability of making 
 terms with the Irish. 
 
 1295 (Edtvarcl I.). 
 
 The Lord Deputy Wogan held what Hallam calls 
 a “ Parliament.” “ The sheriff of each county and 
 liberty ” was directed to return two knights. There 
 were no burgesses summoned. Perhaps this may 
 
 * Matthew Paris in Monck Mason, “Antiquity of Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment.” 
 
156 
 
 THE HOME-EULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 fairly be spoken of as the first Irish or Norman 
 Parliament.* 
 
 1310 {Edward II.). 
 
 “ The earliest [Irish] statutes on record are of the 
 year 1310; and from that year they are lost until 
 1429, though we know many Parliaments to have 
 been held in the mean time, and are acquainted with 
 their provisions.” f 
 
 1316 {Edvjard II.). 
 
 “De Clare went to the session of Parliament held 
 at Dublin: . . . and Murtagh O’Brien also, under the 
 protection of Butler, went to the same session, to 
 counteract De Clare’s intention, and left his kingdom 
 under the regency of his brother.” ]: 
 
 1341 {Edivard III.). 
 
 Burgesses appeared in this Parliament. § 
 
 1359 {Edward III.). 
 
 “ The Commons are mentioned as an essential part 
 of Parliament in an ordinance of 1359; before which 
 time, in the opinion of Lord Coke, ‘ the conventions in 
 Ireland were not so much Parliaments as assemblies 
 of great men.’ This, as appears, is not strictly correct; 
 but in substance they were, perhaps, little else long 
 afterwards.” || 
 
 * The counties named were Dublin, Louth, Kildare, Waterford, 
 Tipperary, Cork, Limerick, Roscommon; the liberties, Meath, Wexford, 
 Kilkenny, Ulster (Ball, “ L’ish Legislative Systems ”). 
 
 f Hallam. % Monck Mason. § Hallam. 
 
 II “ An Irish Parliament originally, like an English one, was but a 
 more numerous council, to which the more distant as well as the 
 
IRISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 157 
 
 1367 {Edward III.). 
 
 The Duke of Clarence held a Parliament at Kilkenny. 
 The famous “ Statute of Kilkenny ” was passed to 
 prevent the fusion of English and Irish. Having 
 recited that the English of the realm of Ireland were 
 become mere Irish in their language, names, and 
 apparel, and manner of living; that they had rejected 
 the English laws and allied themselves by inter¬ 
 marriage with the Irish; it prohibited, under the 
 penalties of high treason, or at least of forfeiture of 
 lands, all these approximations to the native inhabit¬ 
 ants.* 
 
 1459 {Henry VI.). 
 
 The Irish Parliament, acting independently of Eng¬ 
 land, appointed Richard Duke of York Viceroy, assert¬ 
 ing its right to be bound only by its own laws, and 
 declared that writs could issue only under the Great 
 Seal of Ireland, t 
 
 Summary of Section I. 
 
 1295 may, perhaps, be fairly fixed as the date of the 
 first Irish Parliament. From that time until 1485 
 Irish Parliaments were free from English control, 
 though not from English influence. The statutes 
 passed to prevent the political fusion of English and 
 
 neighbouring barons were summoned, whose consent, though dispensed 
 with in ordinary acts of state, was both the pledge and the condition 
 of tlieir obedience to legislative provisions” (Hallam, iii. 473). 
 
 # Hallam. 
 
 t Walpole, “ Kingdom of Ireland,” p. 74 ; 37 Henry VI., Irish 
 Statutes. 
 
158 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Irish were, probably, inspired by England, but 
 Parliament was constitutionally free to pass these 
 statutes or not. No law made in England was bind¬ 
 ing in Ireland; and the consent or supervision ol the 
 English Parliament was in no wise necessary to ratify 
 Irish statutes.* 
 
 How were these early Parliaments composed—of 
 settlers or natives ? Almost entirely of settlers; but 
 the natives, who accepted the English connection, do 
 not seem to have been excluded. 
 
 Section II.—1495-1782. 
 
 1495 {Henry VII). 
 
 From about 1295 to 1495, the Irish Parliament was 
 free. That freedom was now to be destroyed. In 1495 
 the deputy, Poynings, summoned a Parliament at 
 Drogheda, and “Poynings’ Law” was passed. It 
 provided (1) that all Acts hitherto passed in England 
 should thenceforth be binding in Ireland; (2) that no 
 Parliament should in future be summoned in Ireland 
 until the viceroy had obtained the king’s licence for 
 its being held; (3) that the heads of Bills to be intro¬ 
 duced in the Irish Parliament should first be submitted 
 to the English Privy Council; (4) that the consent of 
 
 * Ill the reign of Eichard III. the English judges “are reported to 
 have pronounced their opinion that the Irish were not bound by the 
 statutes of England, ‘because the land of Ireland had a Parliament 
 and all other courts of its own as in England, and did not send repre¬ 
 sentatives to the English Parliament.’ A distinction, however, seems 
 to have been drawn between statutes relating to lands and affairs in 
 Ireland, and statutes relating to matters done out of it” (Ball, 
 pp. 20, 21, and generally). 
 
IKISH PARf-IAMENTS. 
 
 159 
 
 the king and Privy Council should be obtained before 
 such Bills were introduced. 
 
 These were the chief provisions of the important 
 enactment which practically made the Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment a court for registering the decrees of the English 
 Privy Council. 
 
 1537 {Henry VIII.). 
 
 Lord Leonard Grey summoned a Parliament in 
 Dublin to pass the Act of Supremacy. “ In a nation 
 so ill predisposed, it was difficult to bring about a 
 compliance with the king’s demand of abjuring their 
 religion; ignorant, but not indifferent, the clergy, 
 with Cromer, the primate, at their head, and most of 
 the Lords and Commons, resisted the Act of Supremacy, 
 which was nevertheless ultimately carried by the force 
 of Government.” * 
 
 1560 {Elizabeth). 
 
 The Earl of Sussex summoned a Parliament to 
 establish the Protestant religion. “ In the House of 
 Commons pains had been taken to secure a majority; 
 ten only out of twenty counties, which had at that 
 time been formed, received the writ of summons, and 
 the number of seventy-six representatives of the 
 Anglo-Irish people was made up by the towns, many 
 of them under the influence of the Crown, some, per¬ 
 haps, containing a mixture of Protestant population.” f 
 The laws of supremacy and uniformity were enacted, 
 and the Book of Common Prayer appointed to be read 
 
 t Ihnl, p. 488. 
 
 * ITallam, iii. 487. 
 
THE HOME-KULER’S MANUAL. 
 
 3 60 
 
 (in Latin where the minister did not know English) 
 instead of Mass. 
 
 1569 (Elizabeth). 
 
 Sir Henry Sidney summoned a Parliament—“ the 
 first after that which had reluctantly established the 
 Protestant Church.” * In this Parliament “ a strong 
 country party,” opposed to the Crown, sprang up. 
 They complained, with much justice, that the elections 
 had been tampered with, that the franchise had been 
 given to towns not incorporated, and that mere 
 English strangers had been returned for places they 
 had never seen. They opposed Bills brought in by 
 ministers, and generally resisted the royal prerogative. 
 The prerogative was defended by Hooker, “ an Eng¬ 
 lishman chosen for Athenry.” He said, in effect, that 
 the queen might do what she liked without the aid 
 of Parliament, which, in fact, had only been summoned 
 as a matter of courtesy. This speech raised such a 
 storm that Hooker had to fly from the House under 
 the protection of a guard, and the ministerial Bills 
 were laid aside. 
 
 1576 (Elizabeth). 
 
 Sidney summoned another Parliament, which was 
 more stormy even than the last. The deputy attempted 
 to impose taxes “ by order of the Council.” The Com¬ 
 mons resisted resolutely, and the deputy was forced 
 to give way. 
 
 * Hallam. 
 
IRISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 161 
 
 1613 {James I.). 
 
 Sir John Davis summoned one of the most impor¬ 
 tant of the Irish Parliaments. An extract from his 
 speech in opening it will best describe its character:— 
 
 “ And now, by way of comparison, it may easily 
 appear unto your lordships how much of this first 
 Parliament, now begun under the blessed government 
 of our most gracious King James, is like to excel all 
 former Parliaments, as well in respect of the cause 
 and time of calling it, as of the persons that are called 
 unto it. For this Parliament is not called to repel 
 invasion, or to suppress a rebellion, or to reduce [dis¬ 
 affected] subjects to their obedience. It is not sum¬ 
 moned to pass private Bills only, or to serve private 
 leaders, or for any special service of the Crown, though 
 such have been the occasions and causes of calling- 
 most part of the former Parliaments. But now, since 
 God both blessed the whole island with an universal 
 peace, together with plenty, civility, and other feli¬ 
 cities more than it ever enjoyed in any former age, 
 this General Council of the whole realm is called now 
 principally to consider and establish these blessings 
 unto us, and to make them perpetual to our posterity. 
 ... It is not called in such time as when the four 
 shix’es of the Pale only did send their barons, knights, 
 and burgesses to the Parliament, when they alone 
 took upon themselves to bind the whole kingdom. . . . 
 But it is called in such time when all Ulster and Con¬ 
 naught, as well as Leinster and Munster, have voices 
 in Parliament by their knights and burgesses, when 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 THE HOME-KULEK’S MANUAL 
 
 all the inhabitants of the kingdom, English of birth, 
 English of blood, the new British colony, and the old 
 Irish natives, do all meet together to make laws for 
 the common good of themselves and their posterity.” 
 
 The number of the Commons in this Parliament 
 was 226, of which 125 were Protestants and 101 
 Catholics.* 
 
 1640 {Charles I.). 
 
 In a Parliament summoned by Strafford the Catho¬ 
 lics were in a majority.! On the fall of Straffoi’d, and 
 the meeting of the Long Parliament, “ Catholics and 
 Protestants united ” in demanding from the king cer¬ 
 tain “ graces ” which he had promised, but not given, 
 in return for a grant of money made soon after his 
 accession to the throne.J The king again (1641) pro¬ 
 mised ; but the civil war came, and the promise was 
 never carried into law. 
 
 1654. 
 
 Cromwell summoned the Irish and Scotch members 
 to Westminster: Irish members, 30 ; Scotch, 21.§ 
 
 1661 {Charles II.). 
 
 A Parliament met in Chichester House, College 
 Green, Dublin, to consider the settlement of the coun¬ 
 try. There was but one Catholic returned to this 
 Parliament. A question arose as to whether the settle¬ 
 ment should be carried out by the English or Irish 
 
 * See Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. xiii. p. 125. 
 
 t Gardiner’s “ Fall of the Monarchy of Charles I„” ii. 286. 
 
 J Hallam. 
 
 § Whiteside, “ Irish Parliament,” p. 67. 
 
IRISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 163 
 
 Parliament. Finch, the Irish chancellor, said the 
 latter, as an Act passed in England would not be 
 binding in Ireland.* 
 
 The country was “ settled ” (1662-1665) by this Par¬ 
 liament in the interest of the English Protestant colony. 
 
 1689 {James II.). 
 
 In May, a Parliament met to undo the work of the 
 Parliament of 1661-1665, and to settle the country in 
 the interests of the native and Catholic population; 
 that is, in the interest of the masses of the people. 
 
 There was but one Catholic returned to the Parlia¬ 
 ment of 1661; thei’e were only six Protestants returned 
 to the Parliament of 1689. 
 
 The work of that Parliament was interrupted by 
 civil war. 
 
 1692 {William and Mary). 
 
 At the end of the war, and in violation of the Treaty 
 of Limerick, by which civil and religious liberty was 
 secured to the Catholics, Parliament nfet to take up 
 the work of penal legislation commenced by England. 
 
 “ The beginning of the Irish penal code,” says Mr. 
 Lecky, “ was a law passed in 1691 by the English 
 Parliament for excluding all Catholics from the Irish 
 one.” t 
 
 1695-1714; {William III.; Anne.) 
 
 The penal code was passed. “ The victorious party 
 saw no security but in a system of oppression, contained 
 
 * Whiteside, “ Irish Parliament,” p. 69. 
 t “ Leaders of Public Opinion,” p. 124. 
 
164 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 in a sei'ies of laws during the reigns of William and 
 Anne, which have scarcely a parallel in European his¬ 
 tory, unless it he that of the Protestants in France 
 after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, who yet 
 were but a feeble minority of the whole people.” * 
 
 1719 {George I.). 
 
 The G George I. passed in England, declaring “ that 
 the king’s majestj'-, by and with the advice of the Lords 
 spiritual and temporal and Commons of Great Britain, 
 had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and 
 authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force 
 and ability to bind the people and kingdom of 
 Ireland.” t 
 
 1719-1774. 
 
 From 1693 to 1774 the penal code remained 
 wholly unrepealed. 
 
 ^1774-1781 {George III.). 
 
 In 1774 the work of repealing the penal code began, 
 and other beneficial legislation followed. 
 
 1774. Catholics were allowed to take the oath of 
 allegiance. 
 
 1778. Catholics were allowed to hold landed pro¬ 
 perty on lease of 999 years. 
 
 1779. Free Trade was obtained. 
 
 1780 (April 19). Grattan moved: “That his most 
 excellent Majesty, by and with the consent of the 
 Lords and Commons of Ireland, is the only power 
 * Hallam, iii., 532. t Hallam; 6 Geo. I. cap. 5. 
 
lEISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 165 
 
 competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.” On the 
 suggestion of Flood a division was not taken. 
 
 1781. Catholics were allowed to keep a school on 
 condition of obtaining the licence of the Protestant 
 bishop of the diocese. 
 
 Summary of Section II. 
 
 From the passing of Poynings’ Act to 1781, the 
 Irish Parliament was under the control of the English 
 Privj'^ Council. 
 
 This was, practically, the procedure:—“ Heads ” of 
 Bills originated in either House. On being read a 
 second time and committed, the proposals embodied in 
 these “ heads ” wei’e sent by the Irish Privy Council 
 to England. They were then submitted to the English 
 attorney-general, and returned by him to the Irish 
 Privy Council. The “heads” were then converted 
 into a Bill, and the Bill was sent back to the House 
 from which it had emanated. It was then read three 
 times in both Houses. The Lord-Lieutenant gave the 
 royal assent, but the Bill did not finally become law 
 until it had passed the Great Seal of England. 
 
 Section III.—1782-1800. 
 
 1782 {George III.). 
 
 February .—Habeas Corpus Act extended to Ireland. 
 
 April (16).—Grattan moved and carried, with the 
 consent of the whole House, the Declaration of Inde¬ 
 pendence, declaring that no body of men, save the 
 king. Lords, and Commons of Ireland, could make 
 laws to bind the people of Ireland.* 
 
 * Grattan’s “ Memoirs,” ii. pp. 204, 23G. 
 
166 
 
 THE HOME-KULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Mr. Lecky has described the scene : “ On that day 
 a large body of the Volunteers were drawn up in 
 front of the old Parliament House of Ireland. Far as 
 the eye could stretch the morning sun glanced upon 
 their weapons and upon their flags; and it was 
 through their parted ranks that Grattan passed to 
 move the emancipation of his country. Never had a 
 great orator a nobler or a more pleasing task. It was 
 to proclaim that the strife of six centuries had termi¬ 
 nated; that the cause for which so much blood had 
 been shed, and so much genius expended in vain, had 
 at last triumphed; and that a new era had dawned 
 upon Ireland. Doubtless on that day many minds 
 reverted to the long night of oppression and crime 
 through which Ireland had struggled towards that 
 conception which had been as the pillar of fire on her 
 path. But now at last the promised land seemed 
 reached. The dream of Swift and of Molyneux was 
 realized. The blessings of independence were recon¬ 
 ciled with the blessings of connection; and in an 
 emancipated Parliament the patriot saw the guarantee 
 of the future prosperity of his country, and the 
 Shekinah of liberty in the land.” * 
 
 May .—Repeal of Acts against hearing or celebrating 
 Mass; t against Catholics having a horse above the 
 value of £5, or dwelling in the cities of Limerick or 
 Galway; repeal also of Act empowering grand juries 
 to levy on Catholics the amount of any losses sus¬ 
 tained by privateers, robbers, and rebels; repeal of 
 * Lecky, “Leaders of Public Opinion,” pp. 112, 113. 
 t Prohibited by Queen Elizabeth. See Lecky, “ Leaders of Public 
 Opinion,” p. 125; Bryce, “ Two Centuries of Irish History,” p. 89. 
 
IRISH PARLIAMENTS. 
 
 167 
 
 Poynings’ Act; marriages of Presbyterians made valid 
 in law. 
 
 June .—The English Parliament passed an Act 
 repealing the 6 Geo. I. 
 
 July .—National Bank established ; appointment of 
 judges on good behaviour instead of during the 
 pleasure of the Crown ; Mutiny Act made biennial. 
 
 1783. 
 
 January .—The legislative independence of Ireland 
 was acknowledged by the English Parliament. The 
 23 Geo. III. cap. 28 was passed. It contained this 
 clause;— 
 
 “ Be it enacted that the right claimed by the people 
 of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by his 
 Majesty and the Parliament of that kingdom, in all 
 cases whatever; and to have all actions and suits at 
 law, or in equity, which may be instituted in that 
 kingdom, decided in his Majesty’s courts therein, 
 finally and without appeal from thence, shall be, and 
 is hereby, declared to be established and ascertained 
 for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be questioned 
 or questionable.” 
 
 1792. 
 
 Catholics admitted to the bar to the rank of 
 King’s Counsel; allowed to be attorpeys, to keep a 
 school without obtaining the licence of the Protestant 
 bi.shop of the diocese, and to intermarry with Pro¬ 
 testants, provided the service was performed by a 
 clergyman of the Established Church. 
 
1G8 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 1793. 
 
 Catholics admitted by law to the elective franchise, 
 to tlie magistracy, to the grand jury, to the municipal 
 corporations, to the Dublin University, to almost all 
 civil and military offices, and allowed to carry arms 
 when possessed of certain property. 
 
 1795. 
 
 A Bill to admit Catholics to Parliament was read a 
 first time in the House of Commons with scarcely a 
 dissentient voice. But the Lord-Lieutenant (Lord Fitz- 
 William) who favoured this policy was recalled by Mr. 
 Pitt, and the work of emancipation was stopped. 
 
 Well has Mr. Lecky said: “ The time when the 
 Irish Parliament was most persecuting, and the Irish 
 Protestants were most fanatical, was the time when 
 the first was absolutely subservient to foreign control, 
 and when the latter considered themselves merely as 
 a garrison in an enemy’s country. No sooner had a 
 national spirit arisen among the Protestants, than the 
 spirit of sectarianism declined.” 
 
 1800. 
 
 Mr. Pitt’s “ Union,” “ uniting the legislatures and 
 dividing the nations,” was carried. 
 
 Summary of Section III. 
 
 From 1782 to 1800 the Irish Parliament was free 
 We have seen what the Parliamentary procedure was 
 * Lecky, “ Leaders of Public Opinion,” p. 125. 
 
ME. LECKY ON “ GKATTAN’S PAKLIAMENT.” 169 
 
 between 1495 and 1782. Between 1782 and 1800 it 
 was this :— 
 
 “ A Bill, instead of heads of a Bill, might be intro¬ 
 duced in either House, and passed irrespective of the 
 interference of the Privy Council. When the Bill had 
 passed through both Houses it was deposited in the 
 Lords’ Office (Ireland). A copy of the Bill was then 
 made on parchment, and the copy was attested by the 
 Great Seal of Ireland on the left side of the instru¬ 
 ment ; so attested, it was sent to England by the Irish 
 Privy Council, and there submitted to the royal 
 approval. If approved, it was returned with the Great 
 Seal of England affixed to the right side, and then the 
 Lord-Lieutenant gave the royal assent, and the Bill 
 became law.” 
 
 The Irish Constitution of 1782 had, howevei’, one 
 great defect. The executive was not subject to the 
 control of Parliament. It was appointed and con¬ 
 trolled by the Crown and Parliament of England, 
 with scarcely any regard to Irish opinion. 
 
 The friction thus caused between the legislative 
 body, which was in touch with Irish opinion, and the 
 governing body, which was hostile to it, proved fatal 
 to the well-being, and finally to the existence, of the 
 national assembly. 
 
 Mr. Leclcy on the “ Last Years of the Irish 
 Parliament.” 
 
 “ In the last years of the Irish Parliament, or at all 
 events from the concession of Free Trade in 1779 to 
 
170 
 
 TPIE HOME-RUT.ER’S MANUAL. 
 
 the Rebellion of 1798, the material progress of Ireland 
 was rapid and uninterrupted. In ten years, from 
 1782, the exports more than trebled. Lord Sheffield, 
 who wrote upon Irish commerce in 1785, said, 'At 
 present, perhaps, the improvement of Ireland is as 
 rapid as any country ever experienced; ’ and Lord 
 Clare, in a pamphlet which appeared in 1798, made a 
 similar assertion with much greater emphasis. Speak¬ 
 ing of the period that had elapsed since 1782, he 
 said, ‘There is not a nation in the habitable globe 
 which has advanced in cultivation and commerce, in 
 agriculture and manufactures, with the same rapidity 
 in the same period.’ ” * 
 
 The Irish Parliament of 1782 was not faultless. It 
 was a Protestant Ascendancy Parliament, and Pro¬ 
 testant Ascendancy meant the exclusion of the masses 
 of the people from all places of emolument and power, 
 And yet this Parliament did more for Irish Catholic.s 
 in eleven years than the Imperial Parliament did in 
 
 * Lecky, “ Leaders of Public Opinion,” p. 188. Dr. Bridges, in his 
 admirable essay in “ Two Centuries of Irish History,” has this note 
 on the subject of the Irish debt between 1782 and 1798, and after¬ 
 wards:—“It was arranged by the Act of Union that each nation 
 should be charged with its own aute-Union debt. This would have 
 been just to Ireland as to England, but for one consideration, viz. that 
 by far the greater portion of the aute-Union debt of Ireland was the 
 result of the fooling of the English Government subsequent to the 
 recall of Lord Fitzwilliam. In 1793 the debt of Ireland (unredeemed 
 funded and unfunded) was only £2,253,000. In 1798 it had risen to 
 £10,130,000 ; in 1801 to £28,541,000. By a strange perversion, this 
 rapid increase of debt has been attributed to the extravagance of 
 Grattan’s Parliament. If so, why was no such extravagance exhibited 
 prior to 1795?”—“Two Centuries of Irish History,” p. 271. 
 
171 
 
 THE “UNION.” 
 
 nearly thirty years. This statement is easy of proof. 
 Between 1782 and 1793, the Catholics were granted 
 the right of religious worship and relieved from the 
 restraints on education; were admitted to the Bar, to 
 the electoral franchise, to the municipal corporations, 
 to the magistracy, to the grand juries, to the uni¬ 
 versity; and in 1795 an attempt was made to admit 
 them to Parliament, when England interposed and 
 stopped the work of emancipation. 
 
 Accordingly, when the Imperial Legislature met, 
 the Catholics were still excluded from Parliament, 
 from the rank of King’s counsel, from the bench; 
 from the lord chancellorship, from the viceroyalty. 
 How long did the Imperial Parliament take to carry 
 out the work of emancipation which the Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment had so well begun, and which a British minister 
 had interrupted ? Twenty-eight years passed before 
 Catholics were admitted to Parliament, to the bench ; 
 even to the rank of King’s counsel. Sixty-six years 
 passed before a Catholic could be lord chancellor, and 
 to this day no Catholic can be Viceroy of Ireland; 
 viceroy of a countiy where the Catholics form 
 seventy-six per cent, of the whole population. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE STORY OF THE “ UNION.” 
 
 What Mr. Lecky has said about the “ Union ” is of 
 infinitely greater importance than anything I could say. 
 I .shall, therefore, tell the story briefly in his words. 
 
172 
 
 THE HOME-RULER’S BIANUAL. 
 
 The luliole Unhrihed Intellect of Ireland against 
 the Union. 
 
 “It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the 
 whole unhrihed. intellect of Ireland was opposed to 
 [the Union]. ... It was certain, heyond all reasonable 
 douht, that the overwhelming majority of the people 
 of Ireland were opposed to the destruction of their 
 national Parliament. The conduct of the Irish lawyers 
 at this time was on the whole eminently nohle. In 
 spite of the lavish corruption of the ministers, the 
 great hody remained firm to the anti-ministerial side; 
 and both in public meetings and in Parliament they 
 were the most ardent opponents of the Union. Nor 
 does there appear, in this respect, to have been any 
 considerable difference between Whigs and Tories, or 
 between Protestants and Catholics. When the measure 
 was first propounded, a great meeting was held under 
 the presidency of Saurin, one of the ablest of the 
 Tory lawyers, and was attended by all the leading 
 lawyers of all sides, and at this meeting a resolution 
 condemning the proposed Union was carried by 166 
 to 32. At the end of 1803 there were only five 
 members of the minority who had not received ap¬ 
 pointments from the Government. In Parliament the 
 speeches of Plunket and of some of his legal colleagues 
 were masterpieces of powerful reasoning, and should 
 be studied by all who desire to know the light in 
 which the measure appeared to some of the most 
 disciplined intellects in the community. 
 
 “ [Plunket said]; ‘At the moment when our country 
 
THE “UNION.’ 
 
 170 
 
 is filled with British troops—when the loyal men of 
 Ireland are fatigued and exhausted by their efforts to 
 subdue the rebellion—whilst the Habeas Corpus Act is 
 suspended—whilst trials by court-martial are carrying 
 on in many parts of the kingdom—whilst the people 
 are taught to think they have no right to meet or 
 deliberate, and whilst the great body of them are so 
 palsied by their fears or worn down by their exertions 
 that even this vital question is scarcely able to rouse 
 them from their lethargy—at a moment when we are 
 distracted by domestic dissensions—dissensions art¬ 
 fully kept alive as the pretext of present subjugation, 
 and the instrument of our future thraldom, [this 
 measure is brought forward].’ 
 
 “ Saurin—‘ If a Legislative Union should be forced 
 upon this country against the will of its inhabitants 
 it would be a nullity, and resistance to it would be 
 a struggle against usurpation, and not a resistance 
 against law. You may make it binding as a law; 
 but you cannot make it obligatory on conscience. It 
 will be obeyed as long as England is strong, but 
 resistance to it will be in the abstx’act a duty, and the 
 exhibition of that resistance will be a mere question 
 of prudence.’ 
 
 “ Burrowes—‘ When I take into account the hostile 
 feelings generated by this foul attempt by bribery, 
 by treason, and by force to plunder a nation of its 
 liberties in the hour of its distress, I do not hesitate 
 to pronounce that every sentiment of affection for 
 Great Britain will perish if this measure pass, and 
 that, instead of uniting the nations, it will be the com¬ 
 mencement of an era of inextinguishable animosity.’ ” 
 
174 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Unparalleled “ Corruption.” 
 
 “The combined exertions of almost all the men of 
 talent and of almost all the men of pure patriotism 
 in the Parliament were successful in 1799. The 
 Government Bill was defeated by 109 to 104, and the 
 illumination of Dublin attested the feeling of the 
 people. ... It is, I believe, a simple unexaggerated 
 statement of the truth to say that, in the entire history 
 of representative goveimment, there is no instance 
 of corruption having been applied on so large a scale, 
 and Avith so audacious an effrontery, as by the ministers 
 in Ireland. The trustees of the patronage of the 
 nation, their one object was, by the abuse of their 
 trust, to bribe the representatives to sacrifice their 
 constituents. The constitution of Parliament, in Avhich 
 more than one-third of the seats were nomination 
 boroughs, and a large proportion of these boroughs in 
 four or five hands, gave them fatal facilities, and a 
 long course of adverse influences had made the political 
 classes in Ireland profoundly corrupt. Lord Corn¬ 
 wallis, the Lord-Lieutenant—a brave, frank, and 
 humane soldier, who was sincerely anxious to benefit 
 the empire, and who retained his honourable instincts 
 while discharging a most dishonourable office—felt 
 acutely the task that was confided to him, and in 
 one of his letters applied to himself, with remarkable 
 candour, the lines of Swift—• 
 
 ‘ From hell a Viceroy devil ascends. 
 
 His budget with corruption cramme l, 
 
 The contributions of the damned, 
 
 Which with unsparing hand he strows 
 Through Courts and Senate as he goes.' ” 
 
THE “union; 
 
 175 
 
 The Landlords opposed to the '‘Union.” 
 
 “ The majority of the landlord class, in whose hands 
 the county representation remained, were strongly 
 opposed to the Union, and Castlereagh, in 1799, 
 complained bitterly of the warmth of the country 
 gentlemen, who spoke in great numbers and with 
 much energy against the question; but the county 
 scats were immensely outnumbered by the boroughs, 
 and to purchase these was soon found to be necessary. 
 . . . A million and a quarter of money was expended 
 chiefly in this manner. . . . By these means the 
 majority was formed which sold the Constitution of 
 Ireland. Lord Cornwallis, in a private letter, described 
 its character with perfect frankness. ‘ The nearer the 
 great event approaches, the more are the needy and 
 interested senators alarmed at the effects it may 
 possibly have on their interests and the provision for 
 their families, and I believe that half our majority 
 would be at heart as much delighted as any of our 
 opponents if the measure could be defeated.’ Grattan, 
 who had unusual opportunities of judging, afterwards 
 ex])ressed his opinion that of the members who voted 
 for the Union only seven were unbribed. . . . Not¬ 
 withstanding all this, 28 counties, 20 of them being 
 unanimous, petitioned against the Union, and the 
 petitions against it are said to have had more than 
 700,000 signatures, while those in its fayour had only 
 7000. ... Of the Irish Parliament itself, Mr. Gray, 
 in the English House of Commons, gave the following- 
 analysis :— 
 
176 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 “‘There are 300 members in all, and 120 of these 
 strenuously opposed the measure, among whom were 
 two-thirds of the county members, the representatives 
 of the city of Dublin, and almost all the towns which 
 it is proposed shall send members to the Imperial 
 Parliament; 162 voted in favour of the Union; of 
 these, 116 were placemen. Some of them were 
 English generals on the staff, without a foot of ground 
 in Ireland, and completely dependent upon the 
 Government.’ ” 
 
 Ireland and Polar d. 
 
 “ In the case of Ireland, as truly as in the case of 
 Poland, a national constitution was destroyed by a 
 foreign power, contrary to the wishes of the people. 
 In the one case the deed was a crime of violence; in 
 the other, it was a case of treachery and corruption. 
 In both cases a legacy of enduring bitterness was the 
 result.” 
 
 “ A Crime of the Deepest Turpitude! 
 
 “There are, indeed, few things more discreditable 
 to English political literature than the tone of pallia¬ 
 tion, or even of eulogy, that is usually adopted towards 
 the authors of this transaction. Scarcely any element 
 or aggravation of political immoi’ality was wanting, 
 and the term honour, if it be applied to such men 
 as Castlereagh or Pitt, ceases to have any real mean¬ 
 ing in politics. Whatever may be thought of the 
 abstract merits of the arrangement, the Union as it 
 was carried was a crime of the deepest turpitude— 
 
THE “UNION/ 
 
 177 
 
 a crime which, by imposing, with every circumstance 
 of infam}', a new form of government on a reluctant 
 and protesting nation, has vitiated the whole course 
 of Irish opinion.” 
 
 TJlc Efect of the Un ion. 
 
 “ Theorists may argue that it would be better for 
 Ireland to become in every respect a mere province of 
 England; they may contend that a union of Legisla¬ 
 tures, accompanied by a corresponding fusion of charac¬ 
 ters, and identification of hopes, interests, and desires, 
 would strengthen the empire; but as a matter of fact 
 this was not what was effected in 1800. The measure 
 of Pitt centralized, but it did not unite ; or, rather, by 
 uniting the Legislatures it divided the nations. In 
 a country where the sentiment of nationality was as 
 intense as in any part of Europe, it destroyed the 
 national Legislature, contrary to the manifest wish of 
 the people, and by means so corrupt, treacherous, and 
 shameful that they are never likely to be forgotten. 
 
 . . . The Irish Parliament, with all its faults, was an 
 eminently loyal body. The Irish people through the 
 eighteenth century, in spite of great provocations, 
 Avere, on the Avhole, a loyal people till the recall of 
 Lord Fitzwilliam. . . . At the present time it is to 
 be feai’ed that most impartial men would regard 
 Ireland, in the event of a great European war, rather 
 as a source of weakness than of strength. More than 
 seventy years have passed since the boasted measure 
 of Pitt, and it is, unfortunately, incontestable that the 
 loAver orders in Ireland are as hostile to the system 
 
17 « 
 
 THE HOME-EFLEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 of government under which they live as the Hun¬ 
 garian people have ever been to Austrian or the 
 Koman people to papal rule; that Irish disloyalty is 
 multiplying enemies of England wherever the English 
 tongue is spoken, and that the national sentiment 
 runs so strongly that multitudes of Irish Catholics 
 look back with deep affection to the Irish Parlia.ment, 
 although no Catholic could sit within its walls, and 
 although it was only during the last seven years of 
 its independent existence that Catholics could vote 
 for its members. Among the opponents of the Union 
 were many of the most loyal, as well as nearly all the 
 ablest men in Ireland; and Lord Charlemont, who 
 died shortly before the measure was consummated, 
 summed up the feelings of many in the emphatic 
 sentence with which he protested against it: ‘ It would 
 more than any other measure contribute to the sepa¬ 
 ration of two countries, the perpetual connection of 
 which is one of the warmest wishes of my heart.’ In 
 fact, the Union of 1800 was not only a great crime, 
 but was also, like most crimes, a great blunder.”* 
 
 HI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 To sum up the whole case ; 
 
 1. Three-fourths of the representatives of Ireland 
 in Parliament are Home Eulers, and they have, in 
 almost every case, been returned by overwhelming 
 majorities. 
 
 * Leek}', “Leaders of Public Opinion.” 
 
COJ^CLUSIOX. 
 
 179 
 
 2. Ulster returns seventeen Home Rulers out of a 
 total of thirty-three members. 
 
 .‘1. The Home Rule representation of Ireland has 
 steadily increased. Thus— 
 
 
 
 Home Hulen 
 
 General election, 1874 electorate 
 
 .. .11 
 
 „ 1880 
 
 15 • • 
 
 . . 01 
 
 „ 1885 
 
 55 
 
 .. 8.1 
 
 1880 
 
 55 
 
 . . 8.1 
 
 •i. At the general election of 1886, England and 
 Wales returned 1.71 Home Rulers; Scotland,43. 
 
 o. Since the general election the English Liberal 
 Home Rule party have gained twelve seats, and three 
 members returned as “Unionists” have become Home 
 Rulers. 
 
 6. Since the general election the “Unionists ” have 
 gained l)ut one seat. 
 
 7. Almost all of the representative bodies in Ireland 
 are in favour of Home Rule. 
 
 8. The Catholic Chiu’ch, constituting the Church of 
 the vast masses of the people, is in favour of it. 
 
 9. The north-east corner of Ulster is against it. 
 
 10. But that corner has steadily opposed every 
 Liberal measure introduced for Ireland since the 
 “Union”—Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary re¬ 
 form, tithe reform, municipal reform. Church reform, 
 land reform. 
 
 11. The Imperial Parliament has been obliged to 
 ignore Ulster over and over again in carrying out 
 a policy of conciliation and justice in Ireland. 
 
 12. Ulster returns only two Dissentient Libei'als. 
 
180 
 
 THE HOME-EULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 13. The Unionist representation of Ulster is essen¬ 
 tially Tory, and reactionary. 
 
 14. “Loyal” Ireland is in truth Orange Ireland ; but 
 Orange Ireland cannot be trusted. An extract from 
 a letter written by the late Mr. Forster when Irish 
 Secretary throws light on this subject: “[October, 1881.] 
 Special constables are impossible. In the south and 
 west we cannot get them; in the north Orangemen 
 would offer themselves, and we should probably have 
 to put a policeman by the side of every special to 
 keep him in order.” * 
 
 15. The authority of the Imperial Parliament in 
 Ireland is maintained by an absolutist government. 
 Says Mr. Forster—“They talk of the Czar of Kussia; 
 but the czar is not more of a personal and absolute 
 ruler than I was.” This was written in 1882. Says Mr. 
 Chambei'lain—“ [The English government in Ireland] 
 is a system which is founded on the bayonets of 
 30,000 soldiers encamped permanently as in a hostile 
 country.” This in 1885. To-day Mr. Balfour main¬ 
 tains “ order ” by imprisoning the constitutionally 
 chosen representatives of the people, and partially 
 suspending trial by jury. 
 
 16. An absolute government cannot be permanently 
 maintained while any constitutional rights are 
 allowed. Household suffrage and absolute govern¬ 
 ment are impossible. 
 
 17. An absolute government is bad for Ireland, bad 
 for England. Says Mr. Forster—“ The best course for 
 Ireland would be my replacement by some one not 
 tarred by the coercion brush.” 
 
 * Wemyss Eeid, “ Life of Forstev.” 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 181 
 
 18. Mr. Balfour is “ tarred by the coercion brush.” 
 
 19. Home Rule cannot be put off by a policy 
 of concessions. The concessions of sixty years have 
 ended in the Home Rule movement. In 183.5 Ireland, 
 with a county electorate of 50,000, returned forty-five 
 Home Rulers ; in 1886 Ireland, Avith a county elector¬ 
 ate of 600,000, returned eighty Home Rulers. 
 
 20. An experience of nearly a century shows that 
 Ireland cannot be goveimed by the Imperial Parliament 
 according to the wishes of the Irish ])eople. Since* 
 the Union no Irishman possessing the confidence of the 
 Irish people has ever sat in an English Cabinet. Out 
 of twenty-six Lords-Lieutenant there have been only 
 four, and out of forty-two Chief Secretaries there have 
 been only two, who represented Irish public opinion. 
 
 21. Since the Union no Irish leader has possessed 
 the confidence of the Imperial Parliament. During 
 nearly a century Irish and English public opinion have 
 almost constantly been antagonistic. 
 
 22. Irishmen want Home Rule to reverse this 
 condition of things—to place the government of their 
 country in the hands of men possessing the confidence 
 of the masses of the people. Says Swift—“ All govern¬ 
 ment without the consent of the governed is the very 
 definition of slavery.” The government of Ireland 
 to-day does not rest on the consent of the governed. 
 This, in a word, is the Irish Question. 
 
 Lord Salisbury has, I believe, lately said something 
 to the effect that the Irish Parliamentary majority 
 was an accident of the moment. Let us test this 
 
 N 3 
 
182 
 
 THE HOME-KULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 statement by electoral facts relating to Ulster, where 
 alone Lord Salisbury can fix his hopes. 
 
 Up to 1868 the representation of Ulster was Tory 
 almost to a man. In 1868 the third, and in 1884 
 the fourth, Irish Reform Act was passed. What has 
 happened in Ulster since ? Let us see, taking the 
 province county by county. 
 
 Donegal returned in— 
 1868 
 1874 
 
 1876 (bye) 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 
 
 1885 * .. 
 
 1886 
 
 2 Tories. 
 
 1 Liberal Conservative, replacing a Tory. 
 
 1 Liberal, replacing the Liberal Conservative. 
 
 2 Liberals. 
 
 4 Home-Eulers. 
 
 Cavan returned in— 
 1868 
 1874 
 1880 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Liberal. 
 
 2 Home-Rulers. 
 
 Monaghan returned in— 
 
 1868 
 
 
 2 Tories. 
 
 1874 
 
 
 • • )» 
 
 1880 
 
 
 .. 2 Liberals. 
 
 1885 
 
 
 .. 2 Home-Rulers. 
 
 1886 
 
 
 • » )> 
 
 Fermanagh returned 
 
 in— 
 
 1868 
 
 . 2 Tories. 
 
 1874 
 
 • • 
 
 1880 
 
 • • •*» 
 
 1885 
 
 . 2 Home-Rulers. 
 
 1886 
 
 • • )> 
 
 * Given four members by Reform Act of 1884. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 183 
 
 Londonderry returned in— 
 
 1808 
 
 1874 
 
 1880 
 
 1885 
 
 1880 
 
 1 Liberal Conservative and 1 Tory. 
 
 2 Liberals. 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Home-Ruler. 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Dissentient Liberal. 
 
 Tyrone returned in— 
 1808 
 1874 
 1880 
 1885* 
 
 1880 
 
 2 Tories. 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Liberal Conservative. 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Liberal. 
 
 1 Tory and 3 Home-Rulers. 
 
 1 Tory, 1 Dissentient Liberal, and 2 Home- 
 Rulers. 
 
 2 Tories. 
 
 Armagh returned in— 
 1808 
 1874 
 1880 
 1885 
 1880 
 
 Down returned in— 
 1808 
 1874 
 1878 
 1880 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 . Antrim returned in— 
 1808 
 1874 
 1880 
 
 1885 • .. 
 
 1886 
 
 J? 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Liberal. 
 
 2 Tories and 1 Home-Ruler. 
 
 2 Tories. 
 
 1 Tory and 1 Liberal. 
 
 1 Torj', replacing a Liberal. 
 
 2 Tories. 
 
 3 Tories and 1 Home-Ruler. 
 
 2 Tories. 
 >* 
 
 »» 
 
 4 Tories. 
 
 Here we h^ve Donegal gliding from Toryism into 
 Liberal Conservatism, from Liberal Conservatism into 
 Liberalism, and from Liberalism into Home Rule. 
 
 * Given four members by Reform Act of 1884. 
 
184 
 
 THE HOME-RULEE’S MANUAL. 
 
 Cavan fluctuates between Liberalism and Toryism, 
 and then becomes Home Rule. Monaghan glides 
 from Toryism into Liberalism, and then into Home 
 Rule. Fermanagh passes directly from Toryism to 
 Home Rule. Londonderry fluctuates between Toryism 
 and Liberal Conservatism, next passes to Liberalism, 
 then fluctuates between Home Rule and Toryism, 
 and now fluctuates between Toryism and Dissentient 
 Liberalism. Tyrone at first fluctuates between 
 Toryism and Liberal Conservatism, then between 
 Toiyism and Liberalism, then between Toryism and 
 Home Rule, and now between Home Rule, Toryism, 
 and Dissentient Liberalism. Armagh at first fluctuates 
 between Toryism and Liberalism, then between 
 Toryism and Home Rule. Down at first fluctuates 
 between Toryism and Liberalism, now between 
 Toryism and Home Rule. Antrim, alone of all Ulster, 
 remains staunchly Tory. 
 
 Do these facts and figures give hope to Lord 
 Salisbury ? Do they show that Toryism is holding 
 its ground, or that Home Rule is advancing ? 
 
 Victory cannot be won in a day. There may be 
 yet in store for Ireland many struggles, and some 
 reverses. In her conflict of ninety years with the 
 Imperial Parliament, she has been beaten again and 
 again ; but has she not triumphed in the end ? Bitter 
 and protracted was the struggle over Cai?holic Emanci¬ 
 pation, over Disestablishment, over Land Reform. 
 But Emancipation came at length, the State Church 
 fell, the land laws were reformed. The principles of 
 
COXCLUSIONT. 
 
 185 
 
 justice prevailed against the prerogatives of power. 
 And as it has been in the past, so will it be in the 
 future. 
 
 “ There is,” said Mr. Bright, speaking on Ireland in 
 the House of Commons in 18G8, “much shower and 
 much sunshine between the sowing of the seed and 
 the reaping of the harvest, ])ut the harvest is reaped 
 after all;” 
 
 THE END. 
 
 
 FKINTEL) BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. 
 

RECENTLY PUBLISHED. 
 
 THOMAS DRUMMOND, Under-Secretary in Ireland, 
 1835-40. Life and Letters. By R. Barry O’Brien. With 
 Portrait. 14.s. 
 
 IRISH WRONGS AND ENGLISH REMEDIES, with 
 
 other Essays. By R. Barry O’Brien. 5s. 
 
 TWO CENTURIES OP IRISH HISTORY, 1691-1870. 
 By W. K. Sullivan, George Sigerson, J. H. Bridges, Lord 
 Edmund Fitzmaurice, James R. Thursfield, and G. P. Mac- 
 Donell. With Introduction by James Bryce, M.P. Demy 
 8vo. 16s. 
 
 HANDBOOK OF HOME RULE. By the Eigcht Hon. 
 W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P., the Right Hon. JOHN MORLEY, 
 M.P., Lord Thring, Jajies Bryce, M.P., the Rev. Canon 
 MacColl, E. L. Godkin, and R. Barry O’Brien. Edited by 
 James Bryce, M.P., with Preface by the Right Hon. Earl 
 Spencer, K.G. Third Edition. Is. 
 
 THE T/ilfHN-PARNELL COMMISSION. 
 
 MICHAEL DAVITT’S SPEECH IN DEFENCE OP 
 
 THE LAND LEAGUE. 5s. 
 
 IRISH MEMBERS AND ENGLISH GAOLERS: 
 
 The Treatment of Political Offenders. By the Right Hon. G. 
 Shaw-Lefevre, M.P. Second Edition. Is. 
 
 INCIDENTS OP COERCION ; a Journal of Visits to 
 Ireland in 1882 and 1888. By the Right Hon. G. Shaw-Lefevre, 
 M.P. Third Edition. Is. 
 
 POLITICAL PRISONERS AT HOME AND ABROAD. 
 
 With Appendix on Dietaries. By George Sigerson, M.D., 
 M.Ch., &c., Member of the Royal Commission on Prisons, 1884. 
 "With Introductory Letter by.„JAMES Bryce, M. P. 2s. Qd. 
 
 A KEY TO THE IRISH QUESTION. Mainly compiled 
 from the Speeches and Writings of Eminent British Statesmen 
 and Publicists, past and present. With some Chapters on the 
 Reign of Eviction in England and Scotland. By J. A. Fox. 7s. 6f/. 
 
 LONDON: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Lt?? 
 
I HE UNION IST HANDBOOK 
 
 ■tvvX'i' 
 
 ■ WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS 
 
 ! EDINBURGH AND LONDON , 
 
 lICE ONE SHILLING 
 
 _ 
 
 SIXTH THOUSAND 
 
THE 
 
 TEUTH ABOUT HOME RULE 
 
THE 
 
 TRUTH ABOUT HOME RULE 
 
 l( 
 
 PAPERS ON THE IRISH QUESTION 
 
 BY 
 
 THE DUKE OF ARGYLL 
 THE EARL OF DERBY 
 THE LORD BRAMWELL 
 PROFESSOR VAMBERY 
 MR FREDERICK POLLOCK 
 MR PENROSE FITZGERALD, M.P. 
 
 THE MARQUIS OP HARTINGTON 
 THE EARL OF SELBORNE / 
 
 THE LORD BASING 
 MR W. E. H. LECKY 
 GEORGE BADEN-POWELL, 
 K.C.M.G., M.P. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 GEORGU: ^DEX-i>o\VELL 
 
 K.C.M.G., JI.P. 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKAVOOD AND SONS 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 MDCCCLXXXVIII 
 
 ' ' ' lO to .o ^ 
 
 5 
 

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The object of this volume of Essays and Articles is to 
 provide a text-book for those speakers, writers, and 
 electors who wish to take a dispassionate and correct 
 view of the novel dogma of Gladstoniaii Home Piule. 
 
 Each author is responsible only for the opinions con¬ 
 tained in his owm contribution. 
 
 G. B-P. 
 
 Hocsk of Commons, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction, by the Editor, .... 1 
 
 THE DUKE OF ARGYLL— 
 
 SOME INCONSISTENCIES OP GLADSTONIAN HOME RULE, 19 
 THE EARL OF DERBY— 
 
 PLAIN PRINCIPLES OF LIBERAL UNIONISTS, . . 37 
 
 THE LORD BRAMWELL— 
 
 WHAT HOME RULE MEANS, . . . .48 
 
 PROFESSOR YAMBERY— 
 
 FAILURE OF HOME RULE IN CROATIA, . . 61 
 
 MR FREDERICK POLLOCK— 
 
 HOME RULE AND IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY, . . 79 
 
 MR R. U. PENROSE FITZGERALD, M.P.— 
 
 HOME RULE AND THE FORCES BEHIND IT, . . 105 
 
 THE MARQUIS OF HARTINGTON— 
 
 SEPARATIST DEMANDS AND UNIONIST REMEDIES, 
 
 128 
 
Contents, 
 
 viii 
 
 THE EARL OF SELBOENE— 
 
 THE CONTROL OF THE IRISH LAW COURTS AND POLICE, 144 
 
 THE LORD BASING— 
 
 A SEPARATE EXECUTIVE FOR IRELAND IMPRACTICABLE, 155 
 MR W. E. H. LECKY— 
 
 WHY I AM NOT A HOME RULER, . . . 163 
 
 GEORGE BADEN-POWELL, K.C.M.G., M.P.— 
 
 COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, .... 188 
 
INTEODUCTORY. 
 
 “ Tins controversy, and even the recollection of it, will 
 gradually die away with the certain triumph of Home 
 Kule,” — so writes Mr Gladstone in November 1887. 
 At the same time he also exhorts the remnant of the 
 Eighty Club, that “ it will be highly useful to inform 
 the country as to the history and circumstances of Ire¬ 
 land, as the most effectual means of promoting the Home 
 Fade policy.” But Mr Gladstone steadily refuses to 
 give any definition of the term Home Eule as he would 
 have it interpreted now. It is true that the only defini¬ 
 tion ever reduced to black and white is that which the 
 uncontrolled genius of Mr Gladstone placed before 
 Parliament in the twin Bills of 1886. But there is 
 nothing to prove whether or no that scheme is or is not 
 definitively repudiated or abandoned. All that is cer¬ 
 tain is, that no other scheme has as yet been substituted 
 for it, and that therefore it holds the field as the only 
 scheme as yet devised by the wit of any responsible 
 statesman which is supposed to satisfy the Parnellite 
 section of the Gladstonite party. 
 
 It is true IMr Gladstone has, somewhat querulously, 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 asserted that these Bills are dead; hut then, almost in 
 the same breath, we are invited to the conclusion that 
 the only alternative is Coercion. But these Bills en¬ 
 joyed his ardent advocacy in 1886 just as Coercion 
 Bills had in 1884; and it is therefore somewhat diffi¬ 
 cult to anticipate precisely which of the two alterna¬ 
 tives will have his support in 1888. Six months of 
 reflection in the shades of Opposition caused Mr Glad¬ 
 stone fully and finally to discard his old and well-tried 
 servant. Coercion; may not sixteen months of the same 
 chilling shade as easily lead him to discard his new and 
 ruinous ally. Home Eule ? At all events, if he is con¬ 
 strained to meet Parliament in 1888 still under the 
 whip-hand of his Parnellite taskmasters, he must per¬ 
 force devise and perfect some new scheme so far em¬ 
 bodying that “ Home Eule which is certain to triumph,” 
 as to satisfy the Parnellite section in the House of 
 Commons. 
 
 There is indeed the alternative that Mr Gladstone 
 should suddenly discover that England “blocks the 
 way,” and that “nothing can be done for Ireland until 
 England’s just grievances are remedied,” and that, on 
 this plea of postponement, he can shunt Ireland into a 
 convenient siding, and again attach himself to the old 
 and trusted principles of the Liberal and Eadical par¬ 
 ties. In so doing he will have virtually to sever his 
 Parnellite alliance; and he may therefore be pleased 
 to learn in the pages of this volume that the highest 
 authorities in the land are rapidly convincing the 
 people of the fatal errors into which any so-called 
 Home Eule policy must land the entire nation. 
 
 It is well to remember that the “saving common- 
 sense” of the nation, as represented in Parliament, 
 rudely awakened by Mr Gladstone’s sudden and crude 
 
Introductory. 
 
 scheme of Home Eule, at once and forcibly asserted an 
 independent but vigorous repudiation of so novel, so 
 futile, and so obviously fantastic a proposal. The 
 short breathing-space between the defeat of the Bills 
 in the House of Commons by a majority of oO and 
 a general Election, fought out on this very subject, 
 served only to increase the majority against such pro¬ 
 posals to 120. Since then, and in spite of the serious 
 but always unpopular necessity for greater stringency 
 in the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, intelli¬ 
 gent public opinion has steadily and surely rallied to 
 the side of those who see nothing but evil in the crude 
 dogma of Gladstonian Home Eule. 
 
 But in spite of the undenied growth of Unionist 
 principles, there are many politicians who still believe 
 in the Home Eule cry; and some of their number have 
 been astute enough to sow broadcast the seeds of the 
 pernicious fallacy that Home Eule means self-govern¬ 
 ment, and that self-government means Home Eule— 
 seed that may likely enough germinate in the hearts, if 
 not in the brains, of that section of the British elector¬ 
 ate whose generous sympathies are not always under 
 the control of adequate knowledge. Consequently there 
 arises the pressing necessity of showing, on the highest 
 authority, that Gladstonian Home Eule is the very 
 reverse and negative of self-government—a necessity 
 all the more pressing the more we give credence to the 
 rumours that Mr Gladstone is more than ever deter¬ 
 mined to raise the banner of his Home Eule scheme at 
 the earliest opportunity in the coming session. 
 
 On the very threshold of the problem stands the 
 necessity for some definition of Gladstonian Home 
 Eule. Happily we can go to the fountainhead at 
 once. Lord Thring, who has been named the wet- 
 
4 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 nurse of tlie scheme, thus describes Mr Gladstone’s 
 twin Bills (page 204 of the ‘ Handbook of Home Eule ’) : 
 “ Absolute local autonomy was conferred on Ireland. 
 . . . The Bill provided that, after a certain day, the 
 
 representative Irish peers should cease to sit in the 
 House of Lords, and the Irish members vacate their 
 places in the House of Commons. . . . The legisla¬ 
 
 tive supremacy of the British Parliament was main¬ 
 tained, by an express provision excepting from any 
 interference on the part of the Irish Legislature all 
 imperial powers, and declaring void any enactment 
 which infringed that provision; further, an enactment 
 was inserted for the purpose of securing to the English 
 Legislature in the last resource the absolute power to 
 make any law for the government of Ireland, and there¬ 
 fore to repeal, or suspend, the Irish Constitution.” 
 
 Place ^ this most authoritative description side by 
 side with Mr Parnell’s persistently declared policy, “ to 
 secure for Ireland, free of outside control, the right to 
 direct her own course among the peoples of the world.” 
 It is at once evident how far it is true that the Parnel- 
 lite party support Mr Gladstone’s scheme, shrewdly re¬ 
 garding it as a stepping-stone to other things. They 
 see that “ as a practical scheme it is hopelessly imprac¬ 
 ticable” ; they well know it would simply kill the ex¬ 
 isting body politic; and that citizens must pin their 
 faith on the belief that out of their dead selves they 
 may make stepping-stones to lead to higher things. 
 
 On the political side, Ireland is coolly asked to take 
 a back seat, and to surrender all privilege of represen¬ 
 tation in that Imperial Parliament, which is to remain 
 
 1 What follows I take, by the kind permission of the Editor, from 
 my article entitled “Self-Government versus Home Eule,” in ‘ Black¬ 
 wood’s Magazine ’ for December 1887. 
 
Introductory. 
 
 ‘o 
 
 more supreme than ever. But whether we give heed 
 to the principles involved, or to the declared wishes 
 of the Parnellite leaders, it is indeed difficult to see 
 how, with Lord Thring, we can confer “ absolute local 
 autonomy ” on Ireland, and yet retain for the Imperial 
 Government, as Mr Gladstone’s scheme retains, all 
 control over the police, and, therefore, all responsibility 
 for law and order. In this, as in the control of the 
 land policy and many another matter, the self-contra¬ 
 dictory rule is to prevail, that the Imperial Parlia¬ 
 ment, in which Ireland is not to be represented, is 
 to remain supreme in a country wliich nevertheless 
 enjoys “ absolute local autonomy ” ; and Mr Gladstone 
 very properly tells us that “ the unity of the empire 
 rests upon the supremacy of Parliament.” 
 
 Again, in the matter of taxation, this same Parlia¬ 
 ment is to have full and free control over customs and 
 excise, and thus, with a vengeance, to deprive Ireland 
 of what Liberals were used to deem a cardinal principle 
 —“ No taxation without representation.” Politically, 
 then, Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule scheme reduces Ire¬ 
 land to vassalage, by a grudging gift of a certain measure 
 of local autonomy in return for an absolute surrender 
 of national freedom, and of the highest prerogatives 
 and rights of self-government, notably those of a voice 
 and share in imperial counsels and control. 
 
 Mr Gladstone is proverbially blind to expressions of 
 opinion that militate against the cause he may happen 
 to advocate. Mr Gladstone remains in pitiable igno¬ 
 rance of what the “ Parnellite paymasters ” resolutely 
 and consistently demand. It would be well if Mr Glad¬ 
 stone could be induced to read the following resolu¬ 
 tions, accepted with enthusiasm last August at a great 
 gathering of these “ paymasters ” in Chicago : “ That 
 
6 
 
 Introdiidory. 
 
 any measure of self-government proposed by the British 
 Parliament, which refuses to recognise the independence 
 from foreign control and dictation of the projected Irish 
 Legislature, would be inadequate for the relief of Ire¬ 
 land, and ought to be rejected by the leaders of the 
 Irish people. That we will cheerfully sustain by every 
 means within our reach the struggle of the Irish people 
 for liberty and independence, so long as the Irish people 
 remain true to the cardinal principle of Ireland’s right 
 to be a free nation.” 
 
 Another resolution recorded the conviction that, 
 “ The weak compromise of so-called Home Eule, pro¬ 
 posed by Sir G. 0. Trevelyan and apparently accepted 
 by the Liberal leaders, . . . would lower the dignity of 
 the Irish nation, and work great injury to the cause of 
 Irish liberty.” 
 
 Mr Gladstone has yet to learn that it is not only the 
 wicked Unionist legislators but the good Clan-na-Gael 
 paymasters who scout his pet Home Eule scheme, as 
 insulting to Ireland, and as being impracticable, and, in 
 its nature, an impossible compromise. 
 
 And yet this strange policy has attracted and con¬ 
 tinues to attract a large measure of purely adventitious 
 support. Its impracticabilities have been proved to 
 demonstration over and over again, and yet even reason¬ 
 ing men continue to support the scheme. Eadical 
 Gladstonites, who pin their faith on representative 
 government, not less than philanthropic Liberals, who 
 abominate all forms of political tyranny or autocracy, 
 nevertheless support this scheme for the disfranchise¬ 
 ment of Ireland. And the causa motiva is not far to 
 seek. Gherchez le nom, and you have the whole story. 
 It is all in a name. The phrase “ Home Eule ” bears 
 upon the surface the meaning of local autonomy, of 
 
Introchictory. 
 
 7 
 
 local self-governmeut; and the heedless world, forget¬ 
 ting the important limitation implied in the word 
 “ local,” accepts without further question or query the 
 creed that Home Eule means autonomy or self-gov¬ 
 ernment, and that self-government means Home Eule. 
 So wholesale a fallacy gives to Mr Gladstone’s scheme 
 its chief strength and all the real power it wields. 
 Mr Gladstone was indeed in luck’s way when he, hap¬ 
 pened upon, or, as his enemies wickedly say, purloined 
 from Mr Parnell’s vocabulary, a sounding title that 
 in original intention contains another and a deeper 
 meaning. 
 
 The phrase “ Home Eule ” means ruling your own 
 domestic affairs. This may be a form of self-govern¬ 
 ment, or it may he the very reverse. All depends upon 
 whether or no there e.xists above you an Executive and 
 Legislature in which you are not represented, but which 
 none the less legislates and administers for you. If so, 
 then your Home Eule means that you are a mere de¬ 
 pendency, a subject community, inferior to, and governed 
 by, some other community. 
 
 If we summarise Mr Gladstone’s Home Eule, we 
 find it involves that Irishmen are deprived of all voice 
 in imperial affairs; taxed by a Parliament in which 
 they are not represented ; and their laws, in such mat¬ 
 ters as they have liberty to legislate upon, made liable 
 to disallowance by an entirely external Legislature. 
 Mr Gladstone would fain place Ireland in a status of 
 vassalage and subordination such as no free people has 
 ever willingly endured, and no dependent nation ever 
 willingly accepted. In a word, Gladstonian Home Eule 
 means the political degradation, the fiscal slavery, and 
 the legislative subordination of Ireland to the Imperial 
 ParEament. 
 
8 
 
 Introductorjj. 
 
 Bui ;i generous public, mistakiug Home Eule for 
 self-government and self-government for Home Rule, 
 for the moment ignores all logical and practical alterna¬ 
 tives ; and this illogical confusion of ideas still holds 
 sway even in high places. In one single sentence, for 
 instance, Mr John Morley explains the grounds of his 
 Irish creed—a creed which has painfully puzzled the 
 many who admire his genuine and brilliant literary 
 abilities. He writes, on page 246 of the ‘ Handbook of 
 Home Eule ’: “ The business in hand is not a theorem 
 but a problem; it is uot a thesis to be proved, but a 
 malady to be cured; and the world will thank only 
 the reasoner who winds up, not with Q.E.D., but with 
 Q.E.F. To reason that a patient ought not to take a 
 given medicine because it may possibly cause him more 
 pain than some other medicine which he has no inten¬ 
 tion of taking, is curiously oblique logic. The question 
 is uot oblique, it is direct. Will the operation ” (of 
 Home Eule) “ do more harm to the constitution than 
 the slow corrosions of a disorder grown inveterate ? ” 
 Possibly ere this Mr Morley has seen that, as it 
 stands, this reasoning of his contains a fallacy well 
 known to the schoolmen and even to schoolboys. Some 
 of us have before now heard of cases of “ undistributed 
 middle; ” and we naturally ask—Is there no third 
 medicine which the patient may be willing to take in 
 place of one of two given medicines ? Is there no 
 other operation besides that of Home Eule, which, 
 doing not harm but good to the constitution, will stay 
 and eradicate the “ slow corrosions of a disorder grown 
 inveterate ” ? To argue without this completed syl¬ 
 logism is to bring the reasoner perilously near to a 
 conclusion that would in Euclid wind up, not with 
 Q.E.D. or Q.E.E., but with Q.E.A. 
 
rntrodmtorij. 
 
 9 
 
 As a matter of fact, there is an alternative. Just as 
 Air Gladsto)ie’s shibboleth is Home Ride, so is Self- 
 Government the watchword of the Unionist statesmen. 
 Self-government means that the residents in any and 
 all parts of a nation’s territory shall enjoy all the rights 
 and prerogatives, perform all the duties, and bear all 
 the self-imposed burdens which free citizens enjoy, per¬ 
 form, or bear. Among the most cherished and most 
 essential of the rights and prerogatives is a voice in 
 imposing and adjusting the necessary burdens; and 
 among the highest and most necessary duties is the 
 preserving intact these rights and prerogatives. Coun¬ 
 sel, Control, and Contribution are the three C’s of a 
 free State. Mr Gladstone offers Ireland one only of 
 the tlp-ee, and reserves the other two for a Parliament 
 in which Ireland is not represented. But self-govern¬ 
 ment, which all Unionists would ensure, implies that 
 Irish representatives shall retain full equitable voice in 
 Imperial Counsel and Control, and especially in the 
 adjustment of all Imperial Contributions. In regard 
 to purely local affairs, the Imperial Parliament is nowa¬ 
 days only too willing to shift from its own shoulders 
 the vexatious burden of local administration. Lord 
 Thring and others have written learnedly on the dis¬ 
 tinctions between federal, confederate, and imperial 
 forms of political union ; but in one and all—whatever 
 the liberties or prerogatives of localities—all localities 
 must be equitably represented in the sovereign councils 
 of the nation. This is the great feature that is lacking 
 in Mr Gladstone’s idea of Home liule, and it is the 
 leading feature in the Unionist idea of self-government. 
 
 Mr Gladstone’s scheme is one for the despotic rule 
 of Ireland by another country ; and Mr Gladstone has 
 gained the siqiport of a majority of the representatives 
 
10 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 of Ireland. But the reasons are not far to seek. Mr 
 Gladstone, like many capable men, lives, moves, and 
 has his being in office. Opposition to him is an atmo¬ 
 sphere of suspended animation, and an atmosphere in 
 which he breathes with difficulty. The general election 
 in 1885 proved to Mr Gladstone that the Liberals were 
 powerless against the Conservatives and the Parnellites 
 combined. Accordingly he determined to engineer a 
 split, and by attaching to himself the Parnellites, again 
 to succeed to power. But in order to achieve this, he 
 had, perforce, to steer between the perplexing Charyb- 
 dis of Liberal secession and the obstructive Scylla of 
 Parnellite refusal. He escaped Scylla, but became en¬ 
 gulfed in Charybdis. Stanch Liberals sided with Con¬ 
 servatives to withstand this degradation of Ireland. 
 Weak Liberals thought there must be something good 
 behind this apparent degradation, or the Parnellites 
 would not accept it. There was indeed something be¬ 
 hind ; but was it good ? 
 
 The Parnellite idea is supported by three among 
 other classes of persons, each class honest and deter¬ 
 mined in its own policy. One class has high-flown 
 ideas as to Irish independence; the second seeks to 
 discredit and damage the British Empire ; and the third 
 seeks, if we speak bluntly, an easy livelihood. Each 
 class leads honest dupes in its train ; and the three may 
 be known by the titles—Separatists, Eenians, and, for 
 want of a better word, Dollarites. Separatists regard 
 Home Pule as a stepping - stone to independence; 
 Fenians and Dollarites unite in rejoicing at the politi¬ 
 cal degradation for Ireland involved in Mr Gladstone’s 
 scheme, for the common reason that there is thus 
 created a new and great grievance for Ireland. The 
 Dollarites are shrewdly clear on the point that the 
 
Introductory. 
 
 11 
 
 political agitation, which alone brings them dollars, can 
 only thrive on some tangible grievance. The old griev¬ 
 ance of religious tyranny has been disestablished, and 
 there is serious prospect that the wicked landlord will 
 soon cease to trouble. “ Kackrenting ” and “ evictions ” 
 have for long been the “ open sesame ” to the hoarded 
 earnings of the farmers in Ireland and of the servant- 
 girls in America. Mr Gladstone speedily devised a 
 system of dual ownership of the soil in Ireland, where¬ 
 by that growth of freedom, “ private property,” which 
 permits a man to own land and even to allow others to 
 use it, was to be declared null and void. Mr Glad¬ 
 stone persuaded Parliament to enact that in Ireland 
 those who were allowed by the owners to use other 
 people’s property were to become part owners of that 
 property. This created turmoil and trouble, specially 
 gratifying to the grievance-mongers. But now Parlia¬ 
 ment seeks, so far as may be possible, to make amends 
 for its misdeeds and put an end to this dual ownership; 
 and it needs no prophet to show that in so far as this 
 task succeeds, in so far an end is put to “ rackrenting ” 
 and “ evictions.” 
 
 But the Dollarite must live, and he can only live by 
 sowing some fresh crop of grievances. 
 
 The Dollarites and Fenians at once saw that Mr 
 Gladstone’s specific, even in its treatment of customs 
 taxation alone, offered to Ireland all the right of re¬ 
 bellion and separation, once asserted with success by 
 the United States. It was equally evident that in its 
 treatment of police and defence questions, the scheme 
 would absolve Ireland from all responsibility in repel¬ 
 ling foreign invasion ; and, in its denial to Ireland of 
 any voice in the control of imperial affairs, it would jus¬ 
 tify Ireland in sullenly standing aloof in grave national 
 
12 
 
 Introdmtory. 
 
 difficulties, and holding that, with no constitutional 
 part in treaties or declarations of war, she had a right 
 to reinaiir neutral, even if not to become the active 
 friend of an enemy. In addition, at every turn of the 
 tide of material prosperity Ireland would with force 
 throw all blame on her exacting mistress. In brief, 
 Ireland would have a stock of material and well- 
 founded grievances sufficient to win the sympathy of all 
 civilised nations, and to fill the pockets of the Dollar- 
 ites for centuries to come. 
 
 How soon such a system would bring Ireland to 
 industrial and commercial ruin, or lead to political 
 separation, it is not my present purpose to determine. 
 But, taking it at its best, it is obvious that Gladstonian 
 Home Kule, being the very antithesis and negation of 
 self - government, would be the greatest curse with 
 which Ireland could be saddled. 
 
 There is another point too often overlooked. Mr 
 Gladstone, frequently defeated as to details of his 
 Home Eule scheme, at once seeks to cover his retreat 
 ill the confusing assertion that all he requires is that 
 “ the Irish should manage Irish affairs in Ireland.” 
 This is a well-rounded period; but if we analyse its 
 terms we shall find ourselves at a loss as to its mean¬ 
 ing. Before such a problem can be brought into the 
 arena of practical politics it is necessary to define 
 what Irish affairs can be managed by the Irish in 
 Ireland. As a matter of fact, the most important Irish 
 affairs are inextricably mixed up with English affairs, 
 and can be best managed by common action between 
 English and Irish in some one common Parliament and 
 Government. In foreign policy, defence, taxation, 
 maintenance of law and order, loans, credit, and other 
 leading political matters, it is obvious that Irish affairs 
 
Introductory. 
 
 1 ?. 
 
 cannot be successfully separated from English. These 
 are matters in their very essence common to the two 
 islands, and they must accordingly be dealt with by 
 some common authority. 
 
 And as in political, so in commercial affairs—iir 
 trade, investments, land legislation, railway control, 
 harbours, fisheries, and so forth—there is a close net¬ 
 work of mutual action and advantage which ties Eng¬ 
 land to Ireland and Ireland to England, and which can 
 only be cut away to the abundant injury of both. It 
 is a network which has become more than ever possible 
 and essential, in consequence of the more intimate and 
 closer intercourse that follows as steam and electricity 
 disestablish distance and time. There remains, indeed, 
 a residuum of purely Irish and a residuum of purely 
 English affairs, which can best be controlled and man¬ 
 aged by Irish and English in Ireland and England 
 respectively. But this is a phase of the local govern¬ 
 ment question which is to be dealt with next session, 
 and which does not involve either the degradation or 
 the separation of Ireland, but merely the reform of 
 existing administrative machinery. 
 
 It is useful to remember what manner of self-aovern- 
 ment Ireland at the present enjoys. To state the case 
 briefly: Ireland has, in the first place, even more than 
 her fair share of representation in the sovereign Parlia¬ 
 ment of the nation. In the second place, the Irish in 
 Ireland to a large degree manage local Irish affairs in 
 Ireland. The cities and towns and harbours, and the 
 county poor-law affairs, are managed by elected bodies; 
 while, ill other matters of county government, the nomi¬ 
 nated county cess system is the successful counterpart 
 in Ireland of the quarter-sessions system in England. 
 
 In Ireland there is, indeed, more centralisation in 
 
14 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 regard to control of local administration than there is 
 in England ; and the control of the police and responsi¬ 
 bility for the maintenance of law and order rests essen¬ 
 tially with the central authorities. Thus the problem 
 fines itself down into possible improvements of Castle 
 control and police management. 
 
 We will not here discuss either reform; but they 
 will, no doubt, receive adequate and full consideration 
 ill that general Local Government Bill for the whole 
 United Kingdom, which is to he a main work for Par¬ 
 liament. It is probable that much may be done by 
 throwing on localities a more direct and full responsi¬ 
 bility for the local maintenance of law and order. But 
 it may not be forgotten that much of the Castle control 
 of local administration arises out of the fact that Gov¬ 
 ernment financial assistance, by way of loans and ad¬ 
 vances on the imperial credit, is far more general in 
 Ireland than it is in England. Eor instance, to the 
 five million inhabitants of Ireland fifty-two millions 
 sterling have been advanced in local loans, whereas to 
 the thirty million inhabitants of Great Britain there 
 have only been advanced fifty-five millions. It is also 
 to be borne in mind that whereas eleven millions of 
 these loans have been remitted to the five million Irish, 
 only one and a half million have been remitted to the 
 thirty million inhabitants of Great Britain; so that the 
 Irish owe a debt of gratitude of, at the least, some eight 
 or nine millions sterling to the taxpayers of the United 
 Kingdom. 
 
 Ireland always has been, is now, and, we fear, will 
 continue to be, the battening-ground of agitators, who 
 can only batten on grievances. But the agitators com¬ 
 mit a great error in forcibly withstanding the law, 
 though probably their error is less suicidal than that of 
 
Introductory. 
 
 15 
 
 Mr Gladstone in indorsing such conduct. The British 
 people retain an ineradicable pride in their system of 
 representative government, that is now so many cen¬ 
 turies old; and the backbone of this system is the 
 hitherto unchallenged rule, that all laws made in 
 Parliament by the representatives of the people must 
 be obeyed. It is strange to have to restate so ele¬ 
 mentary a truism. But it is one quietly ignored by Mr 
 Gladstone in his latest phase of faith, and yet it is one 
 tliat lies at the very root and foundation of parlia¬ 
 mentary representative government, and it is one which 
 the British nation will never abandon. The Blunts 
 and O’Briens and Grahams may determine that the 
 great majority is wrong, and that the law, being ob¬ 
 noxious to their superior intelligence, must and may 
 be broken. But the majority, tliinking otherwise, deal 
 with them as with all law-breakers, and the will of 
 the great majority of the people is a power not to be 
 lightly interfered with. 
 
 Thoughtless people have asked how it is that Mr 
 Gladstone, an ex-Prime Minister of England, continues 
 to agitate and declaim just as though the elected 
 representatives of the people had not decisively de¬ 
 clared against his Home Eule scheme,—a decision 
 emphatically indorsed by the electorate at a consequent 
 general election. The real reply is that ]\Ir Gladstone 
 had, just before, emphatically laid down the law on 
 the subject: “We have no right to question for a 
 moment in this free country, under a representative 
 system, that the vast majority of the representatives 
 speak the mind of a decided majority of the people.” 
 The time liad therefore arrived, in due course of his 
 guiding “ policy of reversals,” for Mr Gladstone to act 
 in diametrical opposition to the principle he had him- 
 
IG 
 
 Introductory. 
 
 self enunciated. Vast majorities in Parliament, speak¬ 
 ing the mind of a decided majority of the people, 
 cannot for one moment be allowed to block the way to 
 the hasty ideas of one man. The cherished sanctity of 
 the union of Church and State, or the authority of 
 political economy, are conveniently forgotten or ban¬ 
 ished to remote spheres if they obstruct the views of 
 one man; and under the same provocation a similar 
 fate awaits that corner-stone of the Constitution— 
 representative government. Traditions, experience, 
 polity,—-all must yield to the political whims and 
 exigencies of one individual citizen, if only the nation 
 would allow. Happily for the nation, although it can 
 forgive and forget a great deal, it cannot forgive and 
 forget all; and the time arrives, and indeed is now 
 come, when the nation is alive to the dangers that 
 threaten, and will boldly decline to abandon its Con¬ 
 stitution or again to intrust its destinies to one who 
 would, without compunction, substitute for representa¬ 
 tive government one-man rule. At bottom, the British 
 nation is true to itself and to its brightest traditions; 
 and the poet of the British nation, in portraying the 
 best British type, paints the true character of the 
 nation;— 
 
 “ Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control; 
 
 These three alone lead life to sovereign power : 
 
 Yet not for power (power of herself 
 Would come uncalled for), hut to live by law. 
 
 Acting the law we live by, without fear.” 
 
 Thus we see clearly that the Unionist cause, re¬ 
 garded, and rightly regarded, as the full contrary of 
 Gladstonian Home Buie, means complete as opposed to 
 emasculated self-government. As sucli, the Unionist 
 
Introductory. 
 
 17 
 
 cause will commend itself without fail to the robust 
 citizenship of the British nation. It is true that to the 
 weak-kneed, — to those who lack moral fibre—to those 
 w’ho seek in politics some high priest on whom they 
 may lean with as much emotional fervour and as little 
 intellectual conviction as a Southern sefiora on her 
 father-confessor, or an American Indian on his gyrat¬ 
 ing medicine-man,—to these the emasculated form of 
 self - government, perfected by Mr Gladstone’s self- 
 deceiving ingenuity, may well commend itself. But, 
 unless it has reached its dotage, the British public, as 
 a wdiole, is morally too robust and politically too 
 vigorous to bend the knee to any such degrading 
 idolatry; and in the long-run it will burst all bonds of 
 misrepresentation and hero-worship, and declining to 
 abandon those political traditions and principles that 
 have enabled it to attain its present condition of well- 
 ordered freedom and widespread prosperity, the nation 
 will assert with increasing force the rights and powers 
 of its representative institutions, and its unalterable 
 determination to repel wdth consistent and triumphant 
 vigour all proposals that assail or endanger the integrity 
 and unity of its great empire. 
 
 GEORGE r.ADEN-POWELL, 
 
 P. 
 
SOME INCONSISTENCIES OF GLADSTONIAN 
 HOME RULE.' 
 
 BY THE 
 
 D U K E OF A E G Y L L. 
 
 The whole Anglo-Parnellite alliance has been cautious, 
 because disunited, on the subject of the inclusion or 
 exclusion of the Irish members in the Imperial Par¬ 
 liament. They have pretended to treat this question 
 as one of detail. Yet nothing can be more clear than 
 that almost everything turns and depends upon it. If 
 the Irish members are to be kept as and where they 
 are, then their so-called separate Parliament can be 
 nothing but some provincial body possessing little 
 more than the powers of a great town council or a 
 great county board. This is absolutely inconsistent 
 with the whole tone and language of the demand made 
 by the Parnellite party, and seconded with fervour by 
 their new Anglican ally. If, on the other hand, the 
 
 * An extract from ‘Tlie New British Constitution and its Master 
 Builders.’ By the Duke of Argyll. David Douglas: Edinburgh. 
 1888. 
 
20 
 
 Sovie Inconsistencies of 
 
 Irish members, being kept as they are in numbers, are 
 to be restrained and limited as regards the subjects on 
 which they are to be allowed to vote, then the whole 
 scheme must be reconstructed from top to bottom, and 
 a task must be undertaken which Mr Gladstone had 
 declared to be beyond the wit of man. If, again, as a 
 third alternative, Ireland is to be represented at West¬ 
 minster by a limited number of representatives, sent as 
 a delegation from its own separate Parliament, or from 
 its separate constituencies—then we are landed in a 
 federal constitution which is absolutely different in 
 its nature from the proposal actually made, and as 
 widely different from the ancient constitution of the 
 United Kingdoms. 
 
 Is it possible to retain any respect for the political 
 judgment and knowledge of a group of men who play 
 fast and loose with us upon such a subject as this— 
 and who, manifestly, are not agreed among themselves 
 on the fundamental principles on which the new 
 British constitution is to be framed ? One prominent 
 member of the party (the Earl of Eosebery) has lately 
 spoken with ridicule and contempt of the very notion 
 that the Irish members can be retained in the Im¬ 
 perial Parliament after they have been established in 
 a separate Parliament of their own, and asks whether 
 they are to be summoned like waiters by the ringing 
 of a bell when some question arises on which they are 
 allowed to vote. Another member of the party, again, 
 treats this kind of difficulty as a mere invention of the 
 enemy, and intimates that the problem which passes 
 the wit of Mr Gladstone is quite easily to be solved 
 by the genius of Mr Childers. 
 
 Such exhibitions as these cut deeply into any trace 
 of confidence which might have been left in the know- 
 
Gladstonian Ifome Rule. 
 
 21 
 
 ledge and capacity of those who assume to guide us 
 through a tremendous experiment. But there are 
 other facts affecting quite as deeply our trust in them 
 touching matters which, to us, are matters of honour 
 and of conscience. For many years we have been con¬ 
 sentient with them in recognising as a fact that the 
 Irish party did not seem to be bound by the accepted 
 doctrines of civilised societies in respect to property 
 and personal freedom in the transactions of ordinary 
 life. This was the only meaning and the only defence 
 of such speeches as those delivered by our then leader 
 in 1882. It was the only meaning and the only justi¬ 
 fication of the Bills he then brought in for the repres¬ 
 sion of crime and the protection of liberty; of the 
 repeated testimony he bore to the urgent necessity 
 which demanded them ; and of the strong action which, 
 during three years, he took in the exercise of their 
 powers. It was in continuous support and illustration 
 of this fact, and of the terrible evidence which proved 
 its truth, that Sir George Trevelyan and his successor 
 in the Irish office were engaged night after night in 
 the House of Commons, down to the very close of Mr 
 Gladstone’s Government in 1885, in exposing the tyr¬ 
 annies and crimes of the Irish Land League, and in 
 exposing also the close connection between the politi¬ 
 cal action of Irish members and the more conspicuous 
 outbursts of crime. 
 
 It was our absolute duty to remember these, among 
 other facts, when the same Ministers come to present 
 us with a new constitution, breaking up the Imperial 
 Barliament, and setting up a separate Parliament and 
 Executive for Ireland. It is always open to all men 
 to change their opinions. But it is not open to any 
 man to suppress facts when he undertakes a public 
 
22 
 
 Some Inconsistencies of 
 
 duty on which these facts have a direct and imme¬ 
 diate bearing. We looked, therefore, for some features 
 in the new constitution which might recognise the 
 special facts so long acknowledged and so long proved 
 by indisputable evidence. 
 
 We found one such feature of it in the Land Bill. 
 The danger to property was acknowledged there. No¬ 
 thing else could justify or account for so formidable 
 a proposal. The owners of land in Ireland—ranging 
 from those who had bought property quite recently, 
 under the direct guarantee and authority of courts 
 appointed for the purpose, up to families whicli have 
 been settled in Ireland for seven hundred years, and 
 have been “ more Irish than the Irish,”—all these were 
 offered the option of selling their property and clearing 
 out of their native country if they were afraid to live 
 in it under the new constitution. I am not under¬ 
 valuing this offer. It was at least an honest one to 
 make; but it involved a tremendous confession. It 
 was absolutely demanded by honour if—but only if— 
 all property in Ireland was to be handed over to a 
 government which could not be trusted to respect it. 
 There are some political proposals which speak for 
 themselves. Their meaning cannot be misunderstood. 
 No forms of language, more ingenious than ingenuous, 
 on the part of a Minister in proposing them, can affect 
 their significance. And this proposal was one of these. 
 I fully admit that it was hardly and even unjustly 
 treated ; but the man who treated it most unjustly was 
 the Minister himself. Nothing could carry such a 
 measure except the strongest sentiment of duty and of 
 honour, and nothing could establish a case of duty and 
 of honour except a frank confession that the new 
 British constitution was to hand over all the holders 
 
Glachtonian Home Rule. 
 
 23 
 
 of property in Ireland to a government animated by 
 the morality of the Land League. But this was ex¬ 
 actly what it did not suit the rest of the Minister’s 
 plan that he should acknowledge too distinctly. 
 
 To this, and to another circumstance, we doubtless 
 owe the extraordinary speech which ushered in the 
 proposal. There was an interval of eight days between 
 the introduction of the new Irish Government Bill and 
 that of the Irish Land Purchase Bill. This interval 
 had been long enough to show that Irish landowners 
 generally were not disposed to be “ bought out ”—to 
 desert their country, or to live in their old houses 
 reduced to villas, and connected with nothing but some 
 covers, some pleasure-grounds, and a garden. They 
 could not be brought to believe so suddenly that this 
 was really the only alternative left to their choice. The 
 homes they loved and had lived in for generations, the 
 property they had inherited, and all the associations 
 connected with them, they clung to still. Every con¬ 
 sideration of justice and generosity demanded that this 
 feeling should be recognised and respected. It was at 
 least natural, if indeed not actually meritorious. The 
 obvious policy of any Minister, too, if he had a single 
 eye to the success of his proposal, was to argue in the 
 same spirit—to point out how much had been done to 
 deprive ownership of land in Ireland of all that could 
 operate hardly on the tenant-class, and that a high 
 and honourable obligation lay on I’arliament to pro¬ 
 tect owners in the enjoyment of what remained. In¬ 
 stead of this, the speech of the Minister was little 
 more than one long raking up of all old sores against 
 Irish landowners, just as if every alleged grievance 
 were still as operative as ever—just as if he himself 
 had never introduced and carried any Land Bill, com- 
 
24 
 
 Some Inconsistencies of 
 
 pletely removing them, wliatever else it did. Formally 
 indeed, and in words, the proposal was fonirded on 
 “ serious convictions both of honour and of duty; ” 
 but no argument was used to make clear wherein that 
 obligation consisted, or whence it flowed, except, indeed, 
 the offensive argument that the Imperial Legislature 
 was 2 ^(^Tticeps criminis in all the alleged evils of Irish 
 landed property, and that Irish landowners were to be 
 regarded as “ our garrison ” in a foreign country. Yet 
 some better argument than this was imperatively 
 demanded to overcome the natural and inevitable 
 objections which rose up from many sides against a pro¬ 
 posal so large in itself and so revolutionary in the con¬ 
 fessions it involved. If the speech had been specially 
 directed to rouse a spirit hostile to the measure instead 
 of favourable to it, no argument more ingenious could 
 have been devised. And in addition to this tendency 
 of the speech as regards its whole texture and direction, 
 Irish members connected with property could not help 
 feeling that the speech was delivered in a tone of 
 great bitterness against those who refused to sacrifice 
 their country and their homes. 
 
 Then there was another feature in the handling of 
 this matter, against which we protest firmly, as involv¬ 
 ing assumptions of power and of right on the part of 
 political leaders, in which it would be absolutely incon¬ 
 sistent with our honour to have any share. I refer 
 to the passage in an address to the electors of Mid- 
 Lothian, issued May 1, 1886, in which the owners of 
 property in Ireland were warned that “ the sands Avere 
 running in the hour-glass.” Prophecy may be legiti¬ 
 mate to political leaders, but not prophecy of the kind 
 Avhich involves a threat. A mountaineer may warn 
 a traveller in the valley beneath him that rocks or 
 
Gladstonian Home Rule. 
 
 25 
 
 avalanches are on the move. But if that mountaineer 
 is a man who stands with cartridges and levers in his 
 hands to loosen the stones and bring down the snow, 
 then his prophecy becomes a threat. This is and nu;st 
 be the position of a political leader who tells the own¬ 
 ers of property that unless they do something that he 
 bids them they will be ruined and despoiled. 
 
 Some of us were consentient with Mr Gladstone in 
 proposing, and we are all now in the position of having 
 acquiesced with him in carrying, the most fundamental 
 changes in landed property in Ireland. He did, indeed, 
 just passingly, allude to these measures in his speech ; 
 but he alluded to them as a subject on which he 
 would not dwell, as “ it was beside his argument.” 
 That, indeed, was true. It was beside his particular 
 argument. But it was not beside the question to 
 which that argument applied. It was strictly rele¬ 
 vant to that question, and it condemned the relevancy 
 of the argument he did employ, and the justice of 
 the reproaches he levelled at the victims of his new 
 policy. 
 
 Nothing could induce us to be parties to the use of 
 language implying such threats under the guise of 
 prophecies. We do not assume the right to accuse 
 others of any anxious violation of justice or duty. But 
 we are firm in declaring that for ourselves, and in our 
 own consciences, we never could be parties to the use 
 of such language, or to the policy which it implies. 
 We deem it contraiy to our duty to propose or to 
 vote for any constitution which exposes private persons 
 to plunder, and the loss of all individual freedom, 
 with no other escape than the acceptance of evils 
 and of commutation in money. All the dexterities of 
 language by which the nakedness of such a proposal 
 
26 
 
 Sovic Inconsistencies of 
 
 was disguised, are devices with which we could not be 
 associated even in the smallest measure. 
 
 But if we protest against the manner in which this 
 proposal was made, we protest, if possible, even more 
 strongly against the manner in which it was withdrawn. 
 If it was a proposal, once, or ever, made “ under serious 
 convictions both of honour and of ‘ duty,’ ” it must 
 remain an obligation in spite of any amount of reluc¬ 
 tance or opposition on the part, either of those to 
 whom the offer was made, or on the part of Parlia¬ 
 ment. There is always one single and obvious alterna¬ 
 tive open to a leader and a party who makes a proposal 
 of this acknowledged character, and find themselves 
 unable to carry it. They may relinquish a scheme which 
 is thus deprived of a condition essential to its justice 
 and its honourable character; or they may themselves 
 cease to strive for office, or for the retention of office, 
 when it can no longer be held except on the terms of 
 abandoning such an obligation. But neither of these 
 courses was the one actually taken. In making the 
 proposal, words were used which seemed to proclaim 
 that it was an inseparable part of the whole scheme. 
 But this meaning was hedged by other words which 
 reserved an outlet of retreat. The inseparability was 
 cautiously declared to be “ in our own minds, and for 
 the existing juncture.” Such, at least, is the account 
 given of it since. But this is no inseparability at all. 
 Such words conveyed no pledge whatever; and accord¬ 
 ingly, the moment it became clear that Irishmen, such 
 as the Pitzgeralds, and the Butlers, and the Hamiltons, 
 and a thousand others, were loyal to the Union, and 
 were not prepared to abandon their ancient position 
 in their native country, the proposal of purchase was 
 
Gladstonian Home Rule. 
 
 27 
 
 ostentatiously withdrawn, as if with the exultation of 
 men to whom an opportunity has been happily opened 
 of shaking themselves free from an acknowledged but 
 inconvenient obligation. It is now declared to have 
 been “ swept ruthlessly off the held of present action.” 
 “ The twinship ” of the two Bills is denounced as “ hav¬ 
 ing been for the time disastrous to the hopes of 
 Ireland,” which means disastrous to the hopes of the 
 Parnellite alliance. Therefore, it is added eniphati- 
 cally, that this twinship “ exists no longer.” 
 
 But a new bargain is advertised. The twinship of 
 the two Bills being dissolved, the author of them is 
 free to make another twinship, more close and intimate 
 —the twinship, namely, between his own party and 
 the party of Mr rarnell. Let Home llule be granted 
 without any such clog on its operations. Let the 
 owners of property who have opposed the Purchase 
 Bill look out in future for themselves. It will, Mr 
 Gladstone confesses, need all their vigilance for the 
 purpose of preventing the adoption of schemes of land 
 purchase founded on principles very different from, 
 and indeed opposite to, those of the Bill lately con¬ 
 signed to the limbo of abortions. 
 
 What can this mean ? Who are the men from whom 
 this danger is to come? Is it from the proposed 
 separate Parliament in Ireland ? Then are we to 
 understand it to be now confessed that property in 
 Ireland is to be left to the doctrine of spoliation ? 
 And how is this warning threat to be reconciled with 
 the declaration that the safeguards for minorities which 
 had been proposed were not provided in consequence of 
 any mistrust entertained by IMr Gladstone, but only 
 “ in consequence of mistrust entertained by others ” ? 
 
28 
 
 Some Inconsistencies of 
 
 What are we to believe? Is there, or is there not, just 
 cause for apprehension to the owners of property if 
 they be left to be dealt with by a separate Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment ? Is it true, or is it not true, that danger to them 
 would be so real that our honour and our obligation 
 demanded the most onerous, the most unusual pre¬ 
 cautions 1 Or is it true, on the contrary, that all such 
 precautions were merely “ contributions to disarm hon¬ 
 est, though unfounded, jealousies”? Or, lastly, is it 
 true that one at least of these unfortunate minorities 
 is only too probably to be exposed to the obscurely 
 worded but darkly foreboded dangers shadowed forth 
 in this angry passage ? 
 
 We dare not follow any leader who leads us thus. 
 We dare not dissever the duty of devising special 
 measures for protecting individual freedom and pro¬ 
 perty, and all the privileges of British subjects, when 
 we are devising other measures which, as we know and 
 confess, will expose them to special dangers. We have 
 a right to know what is meant by all this language of 
 menace against men whom, along with all other men, 
 it is the absolute duty of responsible statesmen to 
 protect in all their just and legal interests; and we ask 
 whether it has indeed become part of the creed of the 
 reorganised Liberal party that, when any class of men 
 exercises its right to judge and act freely on great con¬ 
 stitutional proposals, they are to be thus threatened, 
 and, if possible, bullied into acquiescence. 
 
 Then there is another feature of the conduct and 
 language of the new Parnellite alliance on this subject, 
 which is indeed less offensive, but is very little more 
 worthy of respect. They do not openly deny, or pre¬ 
 tend to deny, that an Irish Home Kule Parliament 
 would so act, or would probably so act, as to endanger 
 
Glnilstonian Home Rule. 
 
 29 
 
 property and attack the fundamental principles on 
 which it rests. Yet they do not like—it does not suit 
 their game—to say so openly. They fall back upon 
 the device of representing the whole land question as 
 one too heavy to be thrown on the shoulders of the 
 new Irish Parliament. In pure charity and kindness 
 we ought to take it off their hands before we start them 
 on their way. This is one of the methods of expres¬ 
 sion adopted in Mr Gladstone’s first speeches on the 
 subject, and it is one by which Lord Spencer has been 
 frequently of late escaping from inconvenient avowals. 
 But here, again, we cannot ourselves consent to employ 
 these evasions. If the new Irish Parliament cannot 
 be trusted to deal with this subject, it must be because 
 they are not expected to be bound by the ordinary laws 
 of civilised society. And if this be true of this par¬ 
 ticular subject, what confidence can we have that it 
 may not be equally true of their probable attitude on 
 many other subjects ? Moreover, as agrarian questions 
 are the main questions affecting Irish society in all its 
 phases, what guarantee can be given—what reasonable 
 hope can be held out to us—that the new Irish nation¬ 
 ality, with its new Parliament and its new Executive, 
 will acquiesce—except for some purpose of their own, 
 and for the moment—in its exclusion from powers 
 of “ Home Paile ” over that very branch of legislation 
 which interests and excites them most? 
 
 Not only, therefore, the proposal of the Land Purchase 
 Bill, but all the circumstances attending it, and espe¬ 
 cially the language attending its withdrawal, prove to 
 demonstration that our former leaders who undertook 
 to draw up a new British constitution in sixty-six 
 days, have not only completely broken down in tlie 
 attempt, but that they have exhibited a character in 
 
30 
 
 Some Incmisistencies of 
 
 respect to the most solemn public obligations which 
 must inspire us with profound distrust. 
 
 In seeking to probe these questions to the bottom— 
 as it is our absolute duty to do—there is one considera¬ 
 tion which we cannot forget. The Irish members of 
 the Parnellite party had agreed to the plan by which 
 they were to be excluded from the Imperial Parliament 
 and all its concerns, and were to be relegated to a 
 subordinate Parliament in Ireland, limited to affairs 
 “ exclusively Irish.” They had thus “ sold their 
 country,” in a sense which can never be applied, even 
 by the most rabid opponent of Mr Pitt’s Union, to the 
 Irish members who voted for that measure in 1800. 
 It cannot be asserted that they divorced their country 
 from imperial concerns. On the contrary, for them at 
 least, it must be owned that if they gave up something 
 for Ireland as regarded a separate legislature, they 
 gained for Ireland, on the other hand, and for the first 
 time, the splendid privilege of an equal proportionate 
 share in the government and legislation of the noblest 
 empire in the world. But these Parnellite members 
 were sacrificing that position after it had been attained ; 
 they were sinking their country again to a position 
 distinctly lower, subordinate, and tributary. And for 
 what ? What was the price they were to get for this 
 great surrender ? Nothing was said, but much might 
 be suspected. Was it the opportunity for that which 
 Mr Gladstone had himself denounced as plunder ? 
 What proof had he given, or even suggested, that 
 there was any fundamental change in the aims and 
 objects of the Irish party ? Did he not himself point 
 out, in the very speech in which he expounded his new 
 plan, that crime was rife in Ireland, and the law was 
 
Gladstonian Home Rule. 
 
 31 
 
 not maintained ? The pretext that this arose from the 
 “ foreign character ” of the law, was a pretext which 
 suggested changes in that law to suit ideas which, by 
 contrast, might be native. And what were these ? 
 The ideas of the Land League ? Let the ghastly spec¬ 
 tacle reply of that old man in the wilds of Kerry, who 
 was lately nursing a small farm for his daughter’s 
 husband, and who for this crime has been murdered 
 in the most cruel and brutal manner,—his limb shat¬ 
 tered by repeated shots, left in agony where neither 
 doctor could reach him to relieve his body, nor priest 
 have access to soothe his soul, until death put an end 
 to his misery with his life. Such deeds as these are 
 deeds that have a significance far beyond what is called 
 “ ordinary crime.” Irishmen are accustomed to boast 
 sometimes that in Ireland “ ordinary crime ” is small. 
 But the crime which is common is precisely that which 
 affects the character of large portions of the people, 
 because of its indicating either a wide prevalence of 
 popular sympathy, or else a wide submission to tyranny 
 and terror. But both of these are precisely the con¬ 
 ditions which sound the most warning of all notes 
 against the safety of intrusting to the rulers in such 
 a community the lives, liberty, and property of their 
 fellow-subjects. 
 
 And this brings me to one feature in Mr Gladstone’s 
 course which may well inspire us witli special distrust. 
 We have seen that when he proposed his own Pre¬ 
 vention of Crimes Bill, he emphatically declared that 
 it was less the murders and outrages perpetrated on 
 the wealthier classes, than the sufferings of the humble 
 and the poor under the tyranny of the Land League, 
 which had induced him and his colleagues to apply 
 for special legislation. This description of the facts 
 
Some Inconsistencies of 
 
 was true, whatever we may think of the value and 
 the virtue of the distinction drawn. And this fact 
 continued to be true in 1886, as it continues to he true, 
 at the present moment. Nothing in the conduct and 
 language of the Anglo-Paruellites is more unjustifiable 
 than the new pretence that Irish crime is chiefly con¬ 
 nected with exorbitant rents and unjust evictions. 
 They know perfectly well that crime is most rife against 
 and amongst the poor, as a means of enforcing the 
 tyranny of the League upon thousands who would 
 gladly escape from it if they could or dared. They 
 know perfectly well that in a large part of Ireland the 
 organisation is so complete that there is no sort of 
 independence among the mass of the people. They 
 know that this tyranny enters into the field of politics, 
 and is specially directed to securing an exclusive sup¬ 
 port to the leader of the organisation. Yet it is under 
 these conditions that our former leader has called on 
 us to break up the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 
 on the plea that Ireland as a nation has finally and 
 unequivocally declared that she seeks Home Pule by 
 an overwhelming majority of her representatives. 
 
 On general grounds, and without circumstances very 
 special, we might fairly demur to accepting such a 
 necessity as that of rebuilding the British constitution 
 on the strength of sudden general elections on a new 
 franchise, and the result of which is, after all, far from 
 unanimous. Fundamental changes going, by admission, 
 down to the very roots of the constitution, both civil 
 and political, are not changes which can be safely 
 determined by plebiscites. Probably the Avorst Govern¬ 
 ment which has ever been set up in modern Europe— 
 that of Napoleon III.—was founded on a plebiscite 
 which, I believe, was perfectly genuine, and quite as 
 
Gladstonian Home Rule. 
 
 33 
 
 ndependent as any sucli vote can be said to be. The 
 impulses under which the masses can be got to vote 
 away the liberties of others, and their own, are im¬ 
 pulses as numerous as they are unsafe. But in this 
 particular case of Ireland there are a multitude of very 
 special circumstances which detract from the value and 
 significance of the popular vote. In the first place, 
 a very large part of the voters are extremely ignorant, 
 and had only just been admitted to the franchise. 
 The exercise of such a power for the first time by a 
 people wholly unaccustomed to, and unfitted for, de¬ 
 liberate thought upon the deepest questions affecting 
 society, must be an exercise peculiarly liable to error. 
 In no country in the world, perhaps, certainly in none 
 of the old countries of Europe, would it be reasonably 
 safe to be guided by such a vote in such matters. But 
 in Ireland, we know as a fact that this class is now 
 widely under terror—dominated by secret societies 
 which visit all who are honest and independent with 
 violence, outrage, and persecution. We know that a 
 very large percentage were so ignorant that they even 
 belong to the class formally declaring themselves to he 
 “ illiterate,” and unable to sign their names. We know 
 that the votes of all these men were under the direct 
 control of agents of the Land League, who attended at 
 the polls to keep them in obedience. 
 
 Under such conditions, even if the vote had been 
 much larger and much more unanimous than it was, it 
 would be absurd in any rational statesman to quote it 
 or describe it as a deliberate decision of the people of 
 Ireland, on the strength of which we are to unsay all 
 that we have been saying, touching questions of duty 
 and morality, or to enter into a conspiracy of silence 
 on facts which we had all been quoting as equally in- 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 Some Inconsistencies of 
 
 disputable and important. Yet this is the course taken 
 by the Anglo-Parnellites. There is something specially 
 suspicious in the vehemence with which Mr Gladstone, 
 from the first moment that the elections were over, 
 began to reiterate that Ireland had declared its mind in 
 a manner that could not and ought not to be even for 
 a moment questioned. Politicians are very apt to be 
 thus specially dogmatic and enthusiastic on some point 
 which their inner conscience tells them is dangerously 
 weak. It is instructive to observe the very different 
 spirit in which Mr Gladstone has treated the verdict of 
 the people of Great Britain at the polls. He falls upon 
 that verdict fiercely with all the resources of his arith¬ 
 metical faculty, and absolutely refuses to accept it as 
 justifying even a momentary suspension of his efforts 
 to reverse it. There is nothing even tolerable—far less 
 anything so sacred as to be above criticism—in the 
 verdict of the people of Great Britain. But the Irish 
 populace — to a large extent poor, ignorant, League- 
 ridden, cowed, and systematically intimidated — are 
 to be taken at their first word, and without a murmur. 
 Setting aside altogether the notorious fact, that the 
 commercial and generally the educated classes in Ire¬ 
 land are on the side of the Union,—setting aside the 
 argument that in such questions as the framing of a 
 new constitution for a whole people, those classes 
 ought to have special weight,—we cannot admit such an 
 overwhelming preponderance, even of the ignorant, as 
 has been assumed. The facts and figures connected 
 with the Irish elections in 1885 are in glaring con¬ 
 tradiction to this assumption. There were 78 contested 
 constituencies. The total number of electors in these 
 was 585,715; of this total only 295,269 voted for the 
 Parnellite candidates, which is a very small majority 
 
Gladstonian Hovie Rule. 
 
 35 
 
 indeed on such a total. The remaining number is 
 made up of more than 145,000 votes given for the 
 Unionist candidates, and the enormous number of 
 145,361 votes not given at all—owing to the intimida¬ 
 tion exercised on the voters. The total majority over 
 the Unionists, and over those who did not dare to vote, 
 has been stated on good airthority at the quite trifling 
 amount of 4823. Nothing but the most reckless 
 passion and fanaticism could represent such a vote as 
 this—given under such conditions, and amongst such a 
 population—as one which we must instantly accept as 
 expressing the deliberate decision of the whole Irish 
 people, and as compelling us to break up our Parliament 
 and to rebuild our constitution. 
 
 This wilful and passionate determination not to 
 look, even for a moment, behind the polls in the Irish 
 elections, when it is notorious that undue influences 
 were powerfully exerted there, stands out in marked 
 contrast with the equally passionate determination to 
 analyse in the most hostile spirit the electoral returns 
 from Great Britain, which were at least immeasurably 
 more honest and more independent. And this is all 
 the more significant for us when we note the purpose 
 or intention wuth which these contrasted modes of 
 dealing stand in very clear connection. The return of 
 some forty-five Parnellite members more than had been 
 returned before is the ostensible ground, and the only 
 one, upon which our invertebrate leaders defend their 
 great change in the recognition both of duties and of 
 facts. We do not deny that the existence of such a 
 large party in the House of Commons, which is bent on 
 breaking up our Imperial Parliament, is a serious and 
 dangerous evil. But we do deny that it throws any 
 new light whatever on the ultimate aims of that party. 
 
36 Some Inconsistencies of Gladstonian Home Buie. 
 
 or on the methods which it employs. On the contrary, 
 all the circumstances connected with its operations 
 confirm our former estimates of that character and of 
 those methods. Superior force or insuperable diffi¬ 
 culties may compel us to change a policy, but it cannot 
 justify us in following men who, without one particle 
 of evidence, retract all that they and we have been 
 saying for years on matters of fact and on principles of 
 moral obligation. It is quite intolerable alike to our 
 perceptions of truth and to our sense of duty, that on 
 the mere fact of some forty-five men being returned by 
 a very ignorant population, under the most violent 
 pressure and the most immoral guidance, we should not 
 only cease to fight, as we have long done, against the 
 breaking up of Parliament, but that we should pretend 
 to absolute conversion, and become the close associates 
 and intimate allies of those whom we have so justly 
 and so constantly denounced. 
 
 ARGYLL. 
 
PLAIN PPINCIPLES OF LIBERAL UNIONISTS. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 EARL OF DERBY. 
 
 Whether we look at it from the point of view of 
 numbers, of the variety of classes and sections which 
 it represents, or of the determination and unanimity 
 which has prevailed and now prevails among the mem¬ 
 bers of the Liberal Unionist party, it is itself an answer 
 to the often-repeated fiction that the defenders of the 
 Union are growing fewer in numbers and feebler in 
 conviction. Exactly the contrary, in my view, in this 
 case. In the constituencies, especially in Scotland, 
 there is an undoubted gain. There has been no ap¬ 
 preciable loss of parliamentary power, and that is 
 something, for the well recognised tendency of parlia¬ 
 mentary majorities, on whichever side they may be, is 
 to diminish as time goes on until a new election brings 
 a fresh shuffle of the cards. The constituencies were 
 
 ^ Extracts from a speech delivered in London at the Liberal Union¬ 
 ist Conference, December 1887. 
 
38 Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 
 
 appealed to last year, they gave a decisive answer, and 
 there is absolutely nothing to show that when they are 
 appealed to again, their answer will not be in the same 
 sense. 
 
 There is only one real danger ahead as far as I can 
 see. It is that the public may become so utterly 
 wearied and disgusted with the subject that they will 
 say, “ Settle the Irish question anyhow—only settle it 
 somehow, that we may hear of it no more, and have 
 leisure to mind our own affairs.” Well, I think that 
 is not a purely imaginary risk. And I see only one 
 way of meeting it. That is, to make people clearly 
 understand that the simple concession of an Irish Par¬ 
 liament would be no settlement at all, but only the 
 beginning of a fresh agitation quite as troublesome as 
 that which we now have to deal with. Is there to be 
 an Irish Parliament subject to the control of the Im¬ 
 perial authorities ? Why, that is exactly the state of 
 things which even in the last century Irishmen rebelled 
 against as intolerable. Is it to deal with legislation 
 only—that is one proposal—and not have the Execu¬ 
 tive responsible to it ? Why, that is exactly the system 
 which formerly prevailed in all our leading colonies, 
 and which was the subject of constant complaint till it 
 got itself abolished. If you want to satisfy the feeling 
 of Irish nationality, you must at least put Ireland on 
 the footing of Canada or Australia. Those are the 
 lowest terms. You cannot buy Irish content at a 
 cheaper price. But that is going far beyond Mr Glad¬ 
 stone’s proposals of 1886, and unless you mean to go 
 that length, which, as far as I can see, nobody does, 
 what do you gain by a change ? I do not believe that 
 the existing discontent will be perpetual. People very 
 soon cease to cry out for what they know to be out of 
 
Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 39 
 
 their reach. Look at the Southern States of the Ameri¬ 
 can Union. They are pacified ; they do not mean to 
 break out again. Were they pacified by getting all 
 they wanted ? No, but by finding out that they could 
 not get it, and that they must go without it. Why 
 should the Irish be harder to convince, if—and there 
 is the question—only we in England are equally sure 
 of our own minds ? 
 
 I will not rehearse at length the commonplaces of 
 this question. If majorities have any rights, it needs 
 no argument to prove that thirty-three millions have a 
 right to overrule three millions in a matter which con¬ 
 cerns them all. If local feelings are to be considered, 
 Ulster has as good a claim to protest against being gov¬ 
 erned from Dublin as Dublin has to protest against 
 being governed from London. If we have been right in 
 thinking, as we have thought for two hundred years, 
 that parliamentary government was the best guarantee 
 for freedom, it surely cannot be wise to weaken the 
 House of Commons by practically taking from it the 
 control of the Executive in Ireland. 
 
 And more, remember that what you do for Ireland 
 you may be called upon to do, probably for Scotland, 
 certainly for Wales. Are you prepared for that ? Are 
 you prepared to have four local Parliaments instead of 
 the one we know, with perhaps a Federal Council over 
 all ? That seems to me the most extraordinary and the 
 most suicidal idea that Liberals can possibly take up, 
 I do not suppose there are many absolutists left among 
 us. I mean by absolutists people who think that the 
 Crown ought to be the dominant and supreme power in 
 the Constitution; but that is exactly what our Home 
 Pule friends are leading us to. Destroy the present 
 House of Commons, turn it into a body dealing merely 
 
40 Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 
 
 with federal affairs, and what becomes of Ministerial 
 responsibility ? To whom are Ministers to be respon¬ 
 sible ? Given one Supreme Executive for federal pur¬ 
 poses, four Executives for the separate countries, and 
 four local Parliaments, is it not perfectly clear that 
 in all this chaos of conflicting jurisdictions there would 
 be nowhere any body of men capable of directing and 
 controlling national policy as the House of Commons 
 does now ? I can only hint at that difficulty, but I 
 think that in all this controversy it has scarcely re¬ 
 ceived as much attention as it deserves. But then we 
 are told, “ Nobody wants to meddle with the House of 
 Commons ; the local Irish Parliament which we propose 
 is intended to be in strict subordination to it,”—and the 
 precedent of the colonies is quoted. Now I am almost 
 ashamed of repeating what has been said so often be¬ 
 fore—but what possible resemblance has the case of the 
 colonies to that of Ireland ? Parliament has a right, it 
 is said, to overrule the decision of a Canadian or an 
 Australian legislature. Certainly it has—on paper— 
 and it might do so once; but it assuredly would not 
 have a chance of doing so twice. Our great colonies 
 are separated from us, one group by 3000 miles of sea, 
 one by 6000 miles, one by more than 10,000 miles. Is 
 that the case with Ireland ? Notoriously, if Canada or 
 Australia wished to leave us — I am very glad they 
 do not, but if they did—we should not dream of re¬ 
 taining them by force. Will any man, even Mr Glad¬ 
 stone, say the same as to Ireland ? Notoriously, the 
 colonial feeling is one, notwithstanding occasional and 
 passing differences, in the main of warm attachment 
 to England. Can any man contend that that is the 
 general feeling of the Irish people ? And if all these 
 points of difference be admitted — denied they can- 
 
Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 41 
 
 not be—what is the value of this colonial precedent 
 or parallel? 
 
 Look at it another way. Our friends say they are 
 going to give the Irish a Parliament which is to be 
 strictly subordinate to that which sits at Westminster. 
 Do they mean that or not? If they do mean it, can 
 they—can any one who reads Irish papers and listens 
 to Irish speeches—suppose that a big vestry of that 
 kind will be accepted by the Irish people as a s’ettle- 
 ment of their claim ? And if they do not mean it—if 
 they perfectly well know that the restrictions, the limi¬ 
 tations of power, the appeal to the House of Commons, 
 would all vanish into air when their reality came to be 
 tested—is it quite fair to ask us to accept a scheme 
 which will not and cannot work; to offer it as a settle¬ 
 ment when they must be well assured in their own 
 minds that it is no settlement at all—that it is only a 
 device to induce England to make concessions which, 
 once made, cannot be withdrawn, and which necessarily 
 involve larger concessions in the immediate future ? I 
 do not know what others may think, but I at least will 
 speak plainly. I believe that if you allow any set of 
 men calling themselves, or being called, a Parliament, 
 to meet in Dublin, no matter how restricted you may 
 intend their functions to be, that body will be accepted 
 as the only body capable of making laws that shall be 
 binding on Ireland, and then all control from this side 
 of the water is gone. Now, we do not mean that that 
 shall happen if we can help it; at any rate, we can 
 make sure that it shall not happen without the English 
 people understanding thoroughly what is proposed. 
 The decision rests with them; but they might j ustly 
 reproach us if they came to a decision without full 
 knowledge of what they were doing, and under the 
 
42 Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 
 
 influence of misrepresentations, whether intentional or 
 not. 
 
 Now, let me say one word on a part of the question 
 with which English Home Eulers are very fond of 
 dealing. They tell us, “ You have no right to govern a 
 people except by its own consent: you are governing 
 Ireland by coercion, and not by consent.” Well, I 
 suppose we should all agree that it is very desirable 
 that government should carry with it the good-will of 
 the largest number possible of the governed. But when 
 our friends lay it down as a general and indisputable 
 law that every people, or fraction of a people, shall 
 have the form of government it prefers, I think they 
 are proving too much for their own purpose. Look at it 
 in this way. They disclaim, very vehemently, the name 
 of Separatists. They are indignant at the idea that they 
 favour separation. But suppose the majority of the 
 Irish people desire separation ? It is not at all clear 
 to me that they do not. At all events, I should be very 
 sorry to test it by a. pUhiscite. Would our friends defer 
 in that case to the wish of the majority, or would they 
 not ? If they would, what becomes of their assurances 
 to us ? If they would not—they say so, and we are 
 bound to take their word for it—what becomes of their 
 principle ? They are not fighting, by their own admis¬ 
 sion, for whatever the Irish people may think best, but 
 for what they think best for the Irish people. Well, 
 so are we. The principle of action is the same in both 
 cases ; the difference is in the application. They would 
 not yield to an Irish demand for a separate army, a 
 separate navy, a separate diplomacy. We think a sep¬ 
 arate Legislature just as dangerous, and that in the end 
 it will lead to all of these. 
 
 Then we come to the old plea, “ Irish opinion is all 
 
Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 43 
 
 but unanimous against you.” Well, I admit that the 
 state of Irish opinion is the strong point of the Home 
 Rulers. They have not many strong points, and we can 
 afford to give them one. But there are two considera¬ 
 tions which we ought to bear in mind. One is this— 
 even in these democratic days you cannot assume an 
 absolute equality of importance among all voters. We 
 admit that Irish Home Rulers have on their side a 
 numerical majority; but it is far less than it appears 
 from the parliamentary representation, because our 
 system ignores the local minority in each constituency. 
 I believe the real numerical proportion to be under, 
 certainly not to be above, two to one. But I cannot 
 ignore the fact that among the minority are to be found 
 nearly all the elements, except simple numbers, that 
 make the greatness of a country. Lord Hartington, 
 with his recent Dublin experiences, can tell you more 
 about that than I can; but, after all, when you have 
 three-fourths of the capital, of the intelligence, of the 
 culture, of the industrial enterprise of a country on 
 your side, that is at least something to set off against a 
 hostile majority in the least instructed and most preju¬ 
 diced class. 
 
 But there is another way to look at it. Why are we 
 to assume that what is now the case must always be the 
 case ? Why are we to give rip even the Irish peasantry 
 as irreconcilable ? Why, the changes of the last twenty 
 years amount to a social revolution. No man, whatever 
 he thinks of their merits, can treat them as slight or 
 unimportant. The ascendancy of the Church was com¬ 
 plained of, and it has been swept away; the land system 
 was complained of, and it has been dealt with in a spirit 
 more favourable to the tenant than would have been 
 shown by any Legislature in Europe,—and are we to 
 
44 Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 
 
 suppose that these changes will produce no effect on 
 popular feeling? You may ask, “Why have they pro¬ 
 duced none as yet?” I answer, partly because they 
 are lost sight of in the prospect of much larger changes; 
 partly because, as we all know, it takes time for a popu¬ 
 lation to realise a large alteration in their condition. 
 The sea continues to run high long after the wind which 
 raised it has gone down, but we know that if no fresh 
 storm springs up it will calm in time; and, for my part, 
 I refuse to believe that when every tangible grievance 
 has been removed, the dream of a separate nationality 
 which has no historical existence will continue to influ¬ 
 ence Irish minds. We do not in England allow enough 
 for the worship of force and success—the desire to be 
 on the winning side, which exists, I suppose, wherever 
 human beings are found, but which is stronger in Ire¬ 
 land than in most parts of the world. English support 
 has made many Irishmen believe that Home Eule is 
 winning, and they have rushed over to what seemed 
 the strongest party. Let them see that they were mis¬ 
 taken in their belief, and they will fall back, the great 
 majority of them (I do not say all; I admit that there 
 are among them many sincere fanatics), as quickly as 
 they came on. 
 
 There is one other point which I cannot pass over. 
 We hear a great deal of the wickedness of coercion, by 
 which, of course, is meant the exceptional legislation of 
 last session. Well, I do not care to argue a merely 
 personal question, and it is hardly worth while to point 
 out—because it has been done so often—that the coer¬ 
 cive measures of 1882 were a good deal more stringent 
 than those of 1887. That is only by the way. But 
 when I hear coercion denounced, I am reminded of the 
 man who, when the question of capital punishment was 
 
Plain Principles of lAheral Unionists. 45 
 
 discussed, said, “ I am all for doing away with the death 
 penalty; but let the murderers set the example.” I 
 suppose we all dislike needless coercion, though coer¬ 
 cion in some form is only another name for civilisation; 
 but is there no other coercion than that of the law ? 
 What about the coercion of the League ? I believe that 
 to the bulk of the quiet and peaceable inhabitants of 
 Ireland what is called coercive legislation has brought, 
 and is bringing, not restraint, but freedom—freedom from 
 the daily and nightly fear of violence ; freedom to sell 
 to whom they please, and associate with whom they 
 please ; freedom to dismiss a workman or a servant, or 
 to enforce the payment of a just debt, without danger 
 of secret and savage revenge. Of this I am sure—no 
 Government can allow a system of anarchy to go on, 
 and the Government of a popular and democratic State 
 less than any other. We are accustomed to quote the 
 United States as the typical democracy of the world; 
 but if in New York or New England disturbances like 
 those of Ireland had been attempted, depend upon it 
 they would have been put down far more roughly and 
 summarily than they have been here. 
 
 I do not wish to weary you, and I will not add more 
 than one word on that difficult and important question 
 of land purchase. We have not as yet formulated any 
 policy in regard to it, and I hope we shall not be in 
 a hurry. The difficulties are immense. You cannot 
 pledge English credit, because Parliament will not let 
 you. You will not easily find an Irish security on 
 which so large an amount of money will be advanced. 
 And even if you succeed, it is a questionable experi¬ 
 ment to have the State for sole landlord or sole creditor, 
 whichever you call it, and the whole body of the ten¬ 
 antry for debtors. Personally, I lean rather to the 
 
46 Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 
 
 opinion lately expressed by Mr Bright, and I should like 
 to see, before trying such a gigantic operation as buy¬ 
 ing out all the landlords, whether less costly and ambi¬ 
 tious measures may not answer as well. My belief is, 
 that the facilities given by Lord Ashbourne’s Act are 
 likely to be taken advantage of much more than they 
 have been, if once you can drive out of the mind of the 
 tenant the idea which is now fixed there—that he can 
 get the land without paying for it. Of course, till that 
 delusion is dispelled no Act will be of any use. They 
 will not pay for that which they expect to get for noth¬ 
 ing. When they realise the fact that we do not mean to 
 commit robbery, or to allow it, they will come forward 
 as buyers, and then it will be time enough, in my mind, 
 to see what larger facilities they require. There are 
 parts of Ireland which may require special treatment 
 —what are called the congested districts. Well, treat 
 them specially; give your medicine to the sick, but do 
 not force those who are not sick to take it too. 
 
 It is often said by Home Eulers that urn are not en¬ 
 titled to the name of Liberals, because we hold the 
 opinions which the whole party held up to 1885. Well, 
 it seems eccentric, to say the least, to deny the name of 
 Liberals to Mr Bright and to Mr Chamberlain, not to 
 mention our friend Lord Hartington. But I do not 
 believe our Home Eule friends, whatever they may say, 
 will try to read us out of the party. They would lose 
 too much. They would be cutting off their noses to 
 spite their faces. We remain what we have been from 
 the first—an independent section, prepared to defend 
 the Union, but abandoning no principle which we have 
 professed. We are for free trade, for peace, for economy. 
 We support the present Government as against Home 
 Eule, but we support them as allies, not as colleagues. 
 
Plain Principles of Liberal Unionists. 47 
 
 I end as I began. Our destiny is in our own hands. 
 Once let the English public really master this question, 
 and we are safe. It is not an accident that, in a matter 
 which does not specially concern any class, the over¬ 
 whelming majority of educated Englishmen are on our 
 side. The masses will be so too when they know the 
 truth. It will be a sharp struggle, but it will not be a 
 long one. We have a leader whom we trust; we have 
 zealous friends; we have a good cause: and if with 
 these advantages we do not win, the fault will be our 
 own. 
 
 DERBY. 
 
WHAT HOME RULE MEANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 LOED BEAMWELL. 
 
 Bewaee of phrases. They are dangerous. In this 
 age of inspectors it might be well that no phrase 
 should be allowed currency till it had undergone in¬ 
 spection, and been certified to be fit for use. “ Home 
 Eule ” is an instance. Home Eule ;—why, a kind- 
 hearted and generous disposition naturally says at first, 
 “ Oh, certainly, we must have rule. Eule is trouble¬ 
 some. It prevents people doing as they like, but 
 that is necessary, because otherwise some people would 
 do what other people disliked. But let us have the 
 rule made and done at home, and it will be made 
 and done in a way most agreeable to us. Well, but 
 the Irish have not this home rule: the law and its 
 execution are not made and done in Ireland, but else¬ 
 where. Therefore give them Home Eule.” This is all 
 very good-natured and plausible, but it is necessary 
 to examine a little into this phrase. First, let us 
 
What Home Buie Means. 
 
 49 
 
 have the facts. The first and most important to bear 
 in mind is, that England no more rules Ireland than 
 Ireland rules England. Neither England, Scotland, 
 Ireland, nor Wales, nor any two or three of them, rules 
 or rule the others or other, but all rule the whole— 
 just as much as England, without Yorkshire, and the 
 other three countries do not rule Yorkshire, The rule 
 is by the whole of each of the four countries. Now of 
 this there is no doubt. And not merely is it true as 
 stated, but it is true that the voters in Ireland have 
 a larger share in the constitution of the legislature 
 of the four countries which make up the United King¬ 
 dom, and therefore in its rule, than the voters in the 
 other three countries. The members returned by Ire¬ 
 land are out of proportion to its population, wealth, and 
 every other matter with which they might be reasonably 
 compared, and in excess of Ireland’s share. But it will 
 be said that if the size of Ireland and the number of its 
 representatives is compared with those of Great Britain 
 or England alone, that it is overwhelmed, that there are 
 five times its number of representatives from the other 
 parts of the United Kingdom, so that its voice cannot 
 be heard. Rather a strange complaint after the last 
 session ! It is true, however, that if the other parts of 
 the United Kingdom chose to unite against Ireland, 
 they could have their way against its unanimous voice. 
 But if that is a reason for a separate rule for Ireland, 
 see what are the consequences; follow out the argu¬ 
 ment. It is equally an argument for Home Rule in 
 Ulster. I am not supposing Ulster people want it; 
 but I say if they did, the argument is as good for them. 
 Ulster might be outvoted in an Irish Parliament by 
 Leinster, hlunster, and Connaught — therefore Home 
 Rule for Ulster. But further, Donegal, on this reason- 
 
50 
 
 What Home Rule Means. 
 
 ing, might claim Home Evile for Donegal. And I sup¬ 
 pose there may be some district in Donegal that would 
 want a Home Eule for itself separate from the rest of 
 the county. Yorkshire might claim Home Eule from 
 the rest of England. So also the Isle of Wight. I am 
 by no means sure that that little island might not do 
 very well apart, except that some foreign nation would 
 snap it up. Ehode Island, in the United States, may, 
 with one or two others, outvote New York; but 
 New York does not want a separation. In brief, 
 this is then an argument which forbids a nation— 
 an argument which would isolate every village in a 
 country and every home in every village. But it may 
 he asked. Has the small country no remedy, if its laws 
 are ill made by its associates which can outvote it ? 
 Must Ireland have bad laws made for it by those 
 who do not know or even care for its wants ? To this 
 there are two answers. If the case is that the interests 
 of part of a State are wilfully disregarded by the other 
 parts, then it is idle for the first part to ask the others 
 for an alteration. Of course they will refuse it. The 
 same despotism which makes the bad laws will oppose 
 the remedy. The only remedy, whether it is in Ire¬ 
 land, Yorkshire, or the Isle of Wight, is rebellion, 
 which should only be undertaken when sure to be 
 successful. 
 
 But there is another and a much better and more 
 agreeable answer. We are dealing not with an aca¬ 
 demic but a practical question. The other parts of the 
 United Kingdom do not ioin in a conspiracy to outvote 
 Ireland. They never have, they never will; and for 
 this most cogent reason, they have no motive for doing 
 so. They have nothing to gain by it. It is not a high- 
 minded reason, it is a selfish one—but not wrong, and 
 
What Home Rule Means. 
 
 51 
 
 therefore may be relied on. The rest of the United 
 Kingdom is interested in the prosperity of Ireland as 
 much as in the prosperity of Yorkshire or Kent. Look 
 at the number of members of the House of Commons 
 at present supporting Irisli notions. Look at the legis¬ 
 lation since the Union. I defy any one to point out a 
 measure passed in relation to Ireland that was meant 
 for the benefit of the rest of the kingdom to the hurt of 
 Ireland—one that was not meant for her good. If proof 
 were needed, it would be found in this,—those who 
 call out for Home Eule can point to no wrong that 
 requires a remedy; no grievance, unless as to the land, 
 —which I will deal with presently,—to be redressed! 
 When a reason for Home Eule was wanted, all that 
 could be suggested was, that the law for Ireland 
 should have an Irish garb. What was meant no one 
 knows — probably not the speaker. Probably the 
 words represented no definite idea. I say no practical 
 grievance is brought forward. But the law—well, I ad¬ 
 mit, I agree—I think if there was Home Eule the law 
 would be changed. The landowners would be robbed 
 of their property. I think that is the Home Eule ques¬ 
 tion. That there are other reasons influencing some of 
 those who wish for Home Eule I admit. There is that 
 irrational hatred of tlie English—not a hatred of the 
 present generation for what that has done, but a hatred 
 for what past generations have done, or been charged 
 with. There is also the desire for power, position, and the 
 profit thereof in Parnell and his gang. But the main 
 desire—the desire of the multitude—for Home Eule, is 
 the plunder of tlie landlords,—that is, the transference 
 of landed property from those who own to those who 
 occupy it. This is the object of the great bulk of the 
 Home Eulers. Little woidd they care for Home Eule, 
 
52 
 
 IVliat Home Buie Means. 
 
 or the garb of their laws, if they could get their land 
 rent free. Probably they would be only the more 
 anxious for a closer union with Great Britain as a 
 market for their produce. 
 
 Let there be no mistake about this. The object of 
 the Irish farmer is to get the land free of rent—to get 
 it at prairie value, and to get it for himself—not for the 
 people at large, but for the particular present occupier, 
 and for no reason. I do not deny that there is distress 
 in Ireland; but it is a distress Home Rule could not 
 cure. I doubt not that the small tenants in the West, 
 with holdings under three acres, are distressed—many 
 of them at least—but so they would be if they had 
 their holdings rent free. The remedy, the remedy that 
 was operating till Mr Gladstone’s wretched Land Laws, 
 was the natural one. Five men were starving on five 
 small holdings; four left, and the fifth got a living. 
 Not so now. The operation of the new Land Laws and 
 of the National League Laws is that all five continue 
 to try to live there. No plunder of the landlord will 
 remedy this. An Irish landlord said to me, speaking 
 of some of these small holders, “ I get no rent, I ask 
 for no rent, though I am not sure I am right. If I got 
 my rent, they would starve at Christmas ; as it is, they 
 starve a month later. To be sure, that is a month less 
 of starvation.” 
 
 But there are occupiers of larger farms who call for 
 a reduction of rent. I do not say that these men have 
 not suffered from the low prices of agricultural produce 
 —many of them have. But I wholly disbelieve the 
 great outcry that is made as to their cases. It cannot 
 be true. It cannot be that the tenant’s interest in 
 farms would fetch that price they do, if the holding of 
 them were as ruinous as is alleged; it cannot be. Men 
 
What Home Rule Means. 
 
 53 
 
 do not give premiums to be ruined. Besides that, it is 
 not true, as is shown in other ways. Deposits in hanks 
 and in savings-banks, commodities consumed, and other 
 signs, all show an increase in wealth. But it is need¬ 
 less to go into these matters. Farms are at a premium, 
 therefore worth having, therefore not ruinous. I ask, 
 then, should Home Rule be created that the landlords 
 may be plundered ? There are some persons who would 
 care hut little if they were. This is a great mistake. 
 I will not discuss the question now. I will refer to 
 the speeches of the Duke of Argyll, and his work, ‘ Scot¬ 
 land as it was and as it is.’ But I will ask any one of 
 those who love the landlords but little, whether it 
 would he endurable that when two men have saved a 
 small competence for old age, the man who has bought 
 railway stock should be protected and the other who 
 has bought land should be plundered. For myself, I 
 believe it would be most disastrous that the present set 
 of landlords should be extirpated. For them would be 
 substituted the present occupiers, an inferior race in 
 every particular, and they would be the landlords—I 
 say they would be the landlords. Infinite nonsense 
 has been talked about landlordism. Rent exists in the 
 nature of things, and cannot be got rid of. If a farm 
 produces with the same capital and labour £10 a-year 
 more than another farm, that £10 a-year is rent for the 
 first farm in excess of any rent that may be right for 
 the second. Give the farm to the occupier, he is his 
 own landlord, and keeps the £10, not as a reward for 
 his labour and capital, but as rent. 
 
 I say, then, that Home Rule should not be created to 
 get rid of the present landlords. Does any one think 
 it would be right for the Imperial Parliament to pass 
 such a law ? AVould any one, does any one, advocate 
 
54 
 
 JVliat Home Ride Means. 
 
 it ? Has even Mr Gladstone, witli his “ undeveloped 
 conscience,” persuaded himself it would he right ? Far 
 from it! When he brought forward his unhappy pro¬ 
 ject of Home Eule he foresaw the danger, and guarded 
 against it by his second Bill. Whether the Bills are 
 dead or alive is doubtful. I think them dead enough 
 to forget their details; but I believe that the United 
 Kingdom at first was to find £150,000,000 (not in the 
 Bill), then much less, with a power of increase, to be 
 applied in preventing the plunder of the landlords. 
 Well, but is Ireland to have no exclusive part in its 
 own government ? Is it to go to London to the Impe¬ 
 rial Parliament for the regulations of the streets of each 
 town, and the support of its poor, and similar matters ? 
 Certainly not. Ireland—its counties, towns, and par¬ 
 ishes—should have the same Home Eule, the same 
 local government, as to their affairs as exists in Eng¬ 
 land and Scotland as to their counties, towns, and par¬ 
 ishes, as far as it can be trusted. I put in this qualifi¬ 
 cation, because it is certain that as to some matters of 
 local government Ireland cannot be trusted. There can 
 be no doubt that its elected poor-law guardians, and 
 other elected boards, have deliberately violated their 
 duties, and done what they knew was contrary to law. 
 Nay, if asked, they probably avow and glory in it. 
 The demoralisation of the country is such that the 
 people have come to the conclusion that violation of 
 the law is meritorious ; that those who, obeying the law 
 of the land, perform their contracts, but disobey the 
 law of the League in their neighbourhood, may properly 
 be put to death. They have somehow got over the 
 sixth commandment, as well as other considerations to 
 the contrary. Their parents do not correct them. The 
 three men hung at Manchester for the murder the most 
 
What Home Rule Means. 
 
 55 
 
 cruel murder, of a policeman, doing his duty in taking 
 them to prison, are called martyrs by an archbishop. It 
 is well to talk of trusting these men with power. They 
 would misuse it. They would use it, not to suppress 
 but to commit the crimes it should be used against. 
 With this qualification, every man must be desirous to 
 give Ireland the same self-rule, the same local govern¬ 
 ment, that exists in other parts of the empire. But is 
 this what would content them ? Would they be satis¬ 
 fied with what satisfies England and Scotland ? Cer¬ 
 tainly not. It is not easy to know what is asked for by 
 them. It is a wonderful thing that the ringleader, Mr 
 Gladstone, will not say. He says the question put to 
 him is a trap. His proposal is that we should agree 
 with him—that is, with his plan—without knowing 
 what that plan is. Is not that a trap ?—a trap to catch 
 all silly enough to trust him, however they might differ 
 from each other. Is there any one of his followers who 
 knows what he would have to agree to ? Is there any 
 one who is satisfied that Mr Gladstone himself knows ? 
 Is it the scheme in his two Bills ? Are they dead or 
 alive ? If that is the scheme, I say that the Irish can 
 only accept it as a stepping-stone to something else. 
 The first Bill, that relating to legislation and govern¬ 
 ment, was of so ofiensive a character that no Irishman 
 of ordinary spirit could have submitted, could have 
 agreed, to its passing, except as a step to something 
 else. It would have justified rebellion ; it would have 
 put Ireland in the condition of a conquered and subor¬ 
 dinate country. But there are some simple-minded, 
 credulous people who say. Agree to the general prin¬ 
 ciple of Home Buie; vote for the bill on hearing 
 its title; never mind about details — they must be 
 settled afterwards; no harm is meant—nothing like 
 
56 
 
 Home Rule Means. 
 
 separation: see how moderate Mr Parnell is! how 
 he accepted Mr Gladstone’s moderate proposals! &c. 
 Whether Mr Gladstone believes this, I cannot tell. If 
 he says he does, we ought in charity to believe him, 
 however silly his belief may he. No one can believe 
 that Mr Parnell believes it. He knows well that if he 
 did his best honestly to work any plan of Home Pule 
 short of separation, he would fail—not only because it 
 is not what he wants, but because it is not what his 
 associates, his paymasters, want. Has he not said, 
 though he has denied it, that he could not rest till the 
 last link was broken that united the two countries ? Is 
 it not natural that he should wish to be King of Ireland, 
 or President of an Irish Republic 1 Have not his asso¬ 
 ciates said the same thing ? protested their undying and 
 unextinguishahle hatred of this country and its people ? 
 I say, a measure of Home Rule is either separation 
 or a step to it. Ay, and not merely a separation of 
 the two countries in other respects, but also in the 
 sovereignty. The Queen of this country is not to be 
 Queen of Ireland. Can this be doubted ? The Glad- 
 stone-Parnell men refuse the decent civility of receiv¬ 
 ing the Queen’s name with respect. “ God save Ire¬ 
 land ” is substituted for “ God save the Queen.” 
 
 One of the last things said in America by a National¬ 
 ist is, “Allegiance lasts only till it can be thrown off.” 
 But it is needless to argue about it. Separation must 
 follow Home Rule. The Irish will never be content to 
 be inferiors to the rest of the empire. I cannot blame 
 them for this. But if there are two Parliaments, with 
 equal powers in their separate jurisdictions, separation 
 must follow. The executive is responsible to Parlia¬ 
 ment, though nominated by the Crown. Parliament, 
 therefore, is sovereign. Agreement between two sover- 
 
'Wliat Home Rule Means. 
 
 57 
 
 eign Parliaments is as hopeless as between two sover¬ 
 eign men. In time, more or less short, there will be a 
 difference, which is separation. Take the possibility of 
 war between Germany, Austria, and Italy united, and 
 France. English sympathies might he witli the former, 
 Iiisli probably would be with the latter. Where, then, 
 is the union ? Oh, but it is said that is not what Home 
 llulers, Mr Gladstone or Parnell, mean. I should he 
 glad to be sure of that. But whether they mean it or 
 not, others do, and would, as I have said, accept any 
 measure of Home Eule only as a step to separation. 
 
 Unless, then, we are prepared for an entire separa¬ 
 tion of the two countries, we must refuse Home Eule, 
 and every measure that would strengthen those who 
 desire it. The question, then, is—Are we prepared for 
 separation ? I say no—a thousand times no. We must 
 look at the present and future. The past is past and 
 gone. Mr Gladstone says the Union was brought 
 about by all sorts of shameful means. But it was 
 brought about nearly a century ago. It cannot be un¬ 
 done, so as to place the two countries as they were be¬ 
 fore it. If it works injustice, show it; and if that can¬ 
 not be cured, dissolve the Union. It is idle to talk of 
 the means by which it was brought about. The thing 
 that strikes me on reading Mr Gladstone’s efforts to 
 show that the legislative bodies and others in Ireland 
 at the time of the Union were bribed and corrupted, as 
 he would have it they were, is that it is a good thing 
 they were got rid of anyhow. 
 
 Shall we consent to separation ? I say no. In self- 
 defence, in self - preservation, no ! Whether right or 
 wrong on any other ground, it would be wrong simply 
 as a matter of self-defence and preservation. See what 
 the condition of things would be. Within a few hours 
 
58 
 
 What Home Rule Means. 
 
 of us, opposite to some of our principal ports—the 
 Clyde, the ]\Iersey, and the Bristol Channel—within 
 short distance of our arsenals at Milford Haven and 
 Plymouth, would be a hostile nation. It is idle to 
 deny it. They loudly proclaim their hatred of us. Why 
 should we doubt them 1 Now, I do not argue that this 
 would be the ruin of Great Britain. We are too strong 
 and great. AVe should subdue them, and treat them as 
 a conquered country, a Crown colony,—perhaps the 
 best thing for both countries. It would involve hor¬ 
 rible expense and bloodshed. But it would have to be, 
 and would be done. AVe could not, with two-thirds of 
 our breadstuff coming from foreign countries, permit a 
 hostile Ireland to exist and prey on our commerce. 
 Besides, if one can fancy anything so shocking as a 
 war with any maritime power, Ireland would be an 
 ally for it, which would add greatly to its power. Self- 
 preservation, then, must make us forbid a separation, and 
 everything which is a step to it. But there is another 
 consideration—I own to my mind, or, perhaps, I should 
 say feelings, which is stronger. Autonomous Ireland 
 means the plunder and oppression of the minority now 
 in favour of the Union. The well-to-do, the orderly, the 
 educated, the Protestant. It is in vain to deny it. 
 Whether meant by the leaders or not, this would follow 
 separation. Subject indeed to one proviso—viz., that 
 the majority was strong enough—which I doubt. I 
 doubt very much whether, if it came to blows, that side 
 would not win which has on it all that is best in the 
 country —- wealth, position, education, intelligence, 
 against mere numbers, headed by a set of men with 
 no qualification but a power of lasting talk, who, 
 but for this agitation, would remain in the obscurity 
 from which it has drawn them. 
 
What Home Rule Means, 
 
 59 
 
 One word more. I have spoken of separation as it 
 would affect Great Britain, and as it would affect our 
 loyal friends in Ireland. One word as to the other part: 
 I believe a separation would be most disastrous for 
 Ireland. I believe that if it took place, if landlord and 
 rent were abolished by murder, confiscation, or other 
 means,—if the present occupiers became owners,—it 
 would be the worst thing that could happen to Ireland. 
 She would lose those most capable of setting an 
 example; fittest to carry on local government. She 
 would lose those who now have an interest in keeping 
 the land in order. The consequence would be an 
 infinite division of the holdings, and an enormous 
 increase of a pauper population. Each small holder 
 would consider his own case only, and marry early, and 
 divide his holding among all his offspring. But I can¬ 
 not do better on this head than refer to the letter of jNIr 
 Bright to Lord Kilmorey. 
 
 Why is this Home Buie to be conceded ? What 
 good is it to do ? I declare I have a difficulty in be¬ 
 lieving that those who advocate it are serious. They 
 talk about bygone wrongs and grievances, and demand 
 justice. But what present wrong or grievance do they 
 show? None. A noble earl, one of the ablest of Mr 
 Gladstone’s followers, who could make the best of a 
 decent case, can only larigh and joke over a question 
 which his chief formerly called an attempt at the 
 disintegration of the empire. In a report of one of 
 his speeches in the ‘Times,’ I counted twenty-three 
 “ laughters ” in a half column. Are they in earnest ? 
 Is this real ? That Parnell and his Irish and American 
 followers and masters are in earnest, I believe. I do 
 not believe the English Home Bulers are. Not one 
 wishes Home Eule as a good thing. They are only for 
 
60 
 
 What Home Rule Means. 
 
 it becaiise they think it unavoidable, or because it may 
 help them to office. 
 
 I say, then, Home Eule means separation, and must 
 be resisted,—in the interest of Great Britain for self- 
 preservation and defence; in the interest of the loyal 
 minority, which desires the continuance of the connec¬ 
 tion ; and, as I most firmly believe, in the interest of 
 all Ireland. 
 
 BRAMWELL. 
 
FAILURE OF HOME RULE IN CROATIA. 
 
 BY 
 
 PEOFESSOE VAMBEEY. 
 
 Within the past two or three years Hungary has been 
 frequently complimented by England upon her political 
 connection with Croatia, referring to it as a contrivance 
 of exalted wisdom. In the meantime Hungary herself 
 is by no means proud of this lier political creation, the 
 experience of but a brief space of time having suffi¬ 
 ciently shown that in spite of the great sacrifices made 
 by her in establishing the present political organisation, 
 it failed to secure peaceable political development and 
 permanence to lier national existence. 
 
 In February 1848 Lamartine told a Hungarian depu¬ 
 tation calling upon him to pay its respects, “ Gentlemen, 
 I do not understand your constitution.” No wonder 
 that circumstances in Hungary are understood abroad 
 as little now as they were then. Nearly fifty years 
 have since elapsed, and by the side of the changes 
 wrought during this period these circumstances are 
 
62 Failure, of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 even more complicated—sinning against all accepted 
 political theories, without being accompanied by ade¬ 
 quate practical benefits. 
 
 How came the territory between the Drave and Save 
 under the dominion of Hungary ? This country owned 
 already King Stephen (St Stephen) as its master, but 
 some portions of it were temporarily occupied by the 
 Greek. The victorious arms of King (St) Ladislas 
 resumed the conquest of that country, and the final 
 subjection of Croatia and Dalmatia was completed by 
 the genius of his energetic successor. King Coloman, 
 who, as a mark of his glorious rule, had himself crowned 
 as King of Croatia and Dalmatia at Zaravecchia in 
 1102. Never since did any Hungarian king cause 
 himself to be crowned King of Croatia, the crown of 
 Hungary being looked upon as the emblem expressive 
 of the power of the King of Hungary in all the countries 
 belonging to it. It is therefore by the right of conquest 
 that the Hungarian nation acquired its title to Croatia. 
 In our own age this title may smack of illiberality. But 
 in times of old no other title was ever acknowledged; 
 and it may be predicted that in future, too, title by con¬ 
 quest will always leave the deepest traces in history. 
 
 Of late the Croatians have taken pains to prove that 
 their country has passed under the sceptre of the Kings 
 of Hungary by treaty of succession, but the sources 
 from which they draw their assertions are apocryphal. 
 For the matter of that, however, William the Conqueror 
 and his brave Normans occupied also England under 
 a claim of hereditary right, and after the battle of 
 Hastings he had himself crowned King of England. 
 Most wars of conquest were carried on under the cover 
 of some hereditary claim; but after all, conquest was the 
 outcome. 
 
Faihire of Home Rule in Croatia. 63 
 
 Croatia never had any cause for regretting its annex¬ 
 ation to Hungary. From the very first, and during all 
 the succeeding centuries, it shared fully, equally, and 
 unimpaired all the liberties and rights enjoyed by the 
 Hungarian nation—nay, in some respects it may be 
 said to have been specially favoured. Thus, in con¬ 
 sideration of the inferiority of the Croatian soil, a much 
 more lenient standard of taxation was applied to Croatia 
 than to Hungary. In another instance the Hungarians 
 made allowance for the aversion of the Croatians to 
 Protestantism, in suffering the Protestants living in 
 Croatia to be deprived of the right of acquiring land, 
 of holding offices, and of building Protestant churches. 
 
 Politically the constitution of the country was com¬ 
 mon alike to Hungarians and Croatians, and therefore 
 also identical and uniform in its application to the 
 country beyond the JJrave. The Croatians contributed 
 to the development of the constitution, and shared in 
 its benefits. The country beyond the Drave, now mis¬ 
 called Croatia, was divided territorially into counties 
 like the rest of Hungary, and both were subject to a 
 common legislative body. Up to 1848, when the 
 ancient order of the estates gave way to a represen¬ 
 tative Parliament, each of the counties took part in the 
 legislation by two deputies. The Croatian counties, 
 if I may use this expression, just like the Hungarian 
 counties, sent each two deputies to the Hungarian 
 Diet. A deviation from this practice occurred at the 
 time wlien IMoslem conquest spread more and more, 
 especially in the southern portions of the country. 
 Owing to this Turkish occupation, only fragments of 
 the territory of some of the southern counties remained 
 subject to the lawful government; and these alone 
 were in a position to continue their intercourse with 
 
64 Failure of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 the mother country. But this fragmentary portion 
 could lay no claim to participation in the work of 
 legislation. As a consequence, the (Croatian) counties 
 beyond the Drave which had been thus territorially 
 reduced by the foreign conqueror sent altogether two 
 deputies to the Hungarian Diet, this practice con¬ 
 tinuing, however, long after the Moslem rule had 
 passed away and the country had been purged of all 
 its invaders. 
 
 In more recent times, however, the Croatian Opposi¬ 
 tion prefers to ignore altogether this historical course 
 of development, and boldly asserts that the Croatians 
 are represented in the Hungarian Parliament nationally 
 only, and not by counties,—the meaning of such asser¬ 
 tion being that the territory beyond the Drave is not 
 Hungarian soil divided into a certain number of 
 counties, but a country which as such alone is repre¬ 
 sented in the Hungarian Parliament. 
 
 As to the constitution of the Upper House, its 
 members were composed of the bishops, the magnates, 
 the highest dignitaries of the State, and of the lords 
 lieutenant of the counties. The nobility was com¬ 
 posed—in a political, and not in a national sense—of 
 Hungarian nobles alone, no other nobles being known 
 to the constitution. The bishops were Hungarian 
 bishops, even though their dioceses were lying beyond 
 the Drave. The King of Hungary—as such, and not 
 in his capacity of King of Croatia—appointed them to 
 fill the high ecclesiastical dignities; their patents of 
 appointment bore the seal used by the sovereign as 
 King of Hungary. 
 
 In conferring the highest dignities of the State, no 
 one ever thought of discriminating between Hungarians 
 and Croatians. The exalted dignity of the Palatine 
 
Faihwc of Home Rule in Croatia. 65 
 
 was filled by Croatians, and Hungarians were appointed 
 to the office of the Banns beyond the Drave, neither 
 party cavilling at this arrangement. All of them felt 
 they were citizens of the Hungarian state. 
 
 How does it happen, nevertheless, that such a con¬ 
 spicuous current of sei^aration has taken hold of the 
 Hungarian territory beyond the Drave 1 
 
 One of the first causes of this tendency may be 
 traced to the dynastic policy of the House of Arpads 
 (1000-1301), which habitually appointed one of the 
 sons of the reigning king to rule over one-third of the 
 country, a policy which was warranted neither by the 
 constitution nor by law. In most cases, but not in¬ 
 variably, the country between the Drave and Save was 
 selected for this purpose, and it became, as it were, the 
 training-place and the great school of public life for 
 the future king. Certain privileges which attached to 
 the person of the royal duke reigning in these lower 
 parts of the country were calculated to enhance his 
 dignity, and in the course of centuries the people 
 began to look upon the establishment of a separate 
 princely court in their midst as an emblem of a 
 separate kingdom. The territory between the Drave 
 and Save, whenever a royal duke stood at the head of 
 its government, was styled a “ducatus” or dukedom, 
 otherwise it was styled a “ banatus ” or banate, for its 
 government then passed into the hands of the Banus. 
 
 This system ceased with the occupation of the 
 Hungarian throne liy the kings descended from the 
 Hapsburg dynasty, no Austrian archduke having ever 
 assumed the government of Croatia on the one-third 
 system, as had been done by the Hungarian royal 
 dukes. The formula of the designation of one-third of 
 the country, as occurring in the royal diplomas, must 
 
 E 
 
66 Failure of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 not be taken literally. The area of the countries be¬ 
 longing at this time to the Hungarian crown comprises 
 a territory of 5600.44 Austrian square miles. Of this, 
 Croatia-Slavonia, including the former military fron¬ 
 tier, covers an area of 717.85 Austrian square miles. 
 This proportion has been stated by the Hungarian 
 State Commission of 1886 in the following manner: 
 “The territory of Hungary proper contains 279,800 
 square kilometres, with a population of 13,749,000; 
 that of Croatia-Slavonia 42,516 square kilometres, 
 with a population of 1,893,000. 
 
 Towards the end of the last century the Hungarians 
 began to discard the Latin language, then generally 
 used in public life, and to introduce in its place their 
 own national language, which they also cultivated in 
 their literature. In Vienna this national awakening 
 was interpreted as aiming against the German language 
 and government, and was therefore opposed in every 
 possible way. The Croatians stood up in defence of 
 the Latin language. 
 
 This gave, so to say, the first impulse to the splitting 
 of the Hungarians and Croatians into two parties, and 
 the intestine feud caused thereby continued up to the 
 end of the first half of the present century, at which 
 time the Croatian opposition was openly and secretly 
 countenanced and sustained by the Austrian Govern¬ 
 ment and the Court circles. 
 
 Hungary was not the mistress of her own destiny. 
 All she could do was to stand up for her virtual rights 
 against the encroachments of Austria, but she was in 
 no position to restore harmony amongst her citizens of 
 different nationalities—a harmony which, besides, was 
 distasteful to the policy then prevailing in Vienna. 
 The events following in 1848 found the Croatians en- 
 
Failure of Home Hide in Croatia. 
 
 67 
 
 listed in the service of the Viennese reaction. Jella- 
 chich, their sad hero, was a ready tool for the subju¬ 
 gation of the people. Free institutions, the national 
 language, the independence of his country, inspired 
 him with no enthusiasm — he was only an Austrian 
 general. 
 
 After a heroic struggle the Hungarian revolution 
 was put down by the combined armies of Austria and 
 Itussia. The nation was bleeding at every pore, and 
 could only secretly nurse the liope of a better time 
 coming. 
 
 But Hungary, even in its very prostration, had to be 
 taken into account. Its impotence crippled Austria. 
 The Austro-Prussian war, fought on Bohemian soil, 
 signally proved this. 
 
 The conviction of the necessity of a reconciliation 
 between the dynasty and the Hungarian nation was 
 ripened by disastrous experience, and gained ground 
 in the highest circles. The nation, too, felt that a 
 veil must be drawn over the past. In 1861, after an 
 intermission of twelve years, Parliament was convened 
 again for this purpose. The most influential voice in 
 that assembly was Francis Deak’s voice. If there ever 
 was a man predestined for acting a great historical part, 
 and capable of bringing about a reconciliation, it was 
 Francis Deak, witli his classical repose of mind, his 
 rigorous sense of right, and his unselfishness. Subse¬ 
 quent events showed that it was beyond the power and 
 means of the Emperor Francis-Joseph to reward Francis 
 Heak for his pre-eminent services—for the great man 
 steadily refused to accept any distinction or recom¬ 
 pense. In the diet of 1861, Francis Heak stood up 
 for [the principle of legal continuity, maintaining that 
 existing laws, unless modified by other valid laws, 
 
68 Failure of Home Bide in Croatia. 
 
 continued in force. He therefore urged that the laws 
 of 1848—although suspended for the time being— 
 should be acknowledged by King Francis - Joseph. 
 Not until this was done would the Lemslature agree 
 to enter upon the revision of the constitution with due 
 regard to the changed circumstances. Owing to the 
 tenacity with which Parliament defended this principle, 
 the Diet was dissolved. 
 
 It may be said in truth that “ victrix causa diis 
 placuit, sed vieta Catoni!' The principle of legal con¬ 
 tinuity, penetrating into the lowest strata of the people, 
 became the universal watchword, and there was not a 
 man in the country willing to give it up. 
 
 The Parliament convened in 1865 found the ground 
 well prepared for its conciliatory work, and its labours 
 resulted in the arrangement brought about between the 
 nation and the dynasty. On the 8th of June 1867 
 Francis - Joseph was crowned as the constitutional 
 King of Hungary. 
 
 Croatia was neither represented in, nor summoned 
 to, the Parliaments convened in 1861 and 1865, an 
 omission which the Hungarians complained of as a 
 grievance requiring to be remedied. But this cir¬ 
 cumstance, as well as the attitude maintained by 
 the Croatian press, show that the Croatians have not 
 in any manner co - operated in bringing about the 
 restoration of the constitution, kept in abeyance since 
 the revolution, and the arrangement between the 
 dynasty and the Hungarian nation. Indeed the re¬ 
 sults achieved were more than once jeopardised by 
 the exaggerated demands of the Croatians. 
 
 This circumstance does not prevent, however, the 
 Croatians from calmly sharing in the benefits secured 
 without their assistance. They even went so far as to 
 
Failure of Home Fade in Croatia. G9 
 
 advance the interesting doctrine, that any new consti¬ 
 tutional rights acquired by Hungary under the arrange¬ 
 ment belonged also co ipso to Croatia. 
 
 The constitutional sense of the Croatians shone out 
 in a much brighter light in the beginning of the present 
 century. Austria being threatened in her very exist¬ 
 ence by the victorious armies of Napoleon I., the Aus¬ 
 trian Emperor was compelled to cede to France, under 
 the terms of the Peace of Vienna (1809), those portions 
 of Croatia which were lying towards the sea, together 
 with Istria and Carniola. Austria succeeded, however, 
 in recovering these ceded territories in the beginning of 
 1814; but the Croatian portions belonging to the Hun¬ 
 garian crown were not restored to Hungary, but incor¬ 
 porated into Istria, and governed from Laibach. The 
 Croatians felt this very sorely. They applied to the King 
 in remonstrances and addresses, declaring that they did 
 not want to be subjected to German laws, but wished 
 to live and die under the constitution of the Hungarian 
 crown. In spite of all their efforts, it was as late as 1825 
 only that the wish of the Croatians was gratified, and 
 their joy knew no bounds when Count Ignatius Gyulai, 
 the then Banns of Hungarian nationality, communi¬ 
 cated to them the royal decree by which they became 
 again Hungarian citizens. It was on this memorable 
 occasion that the statues of the Hungarian kings were 
 crowned by the Croatians, and that Jellachich, the 
 future Banus, then only a lieutenant, wrote his i)oem 
 entitled “ Croatien’s Jubel” (Croatia’s rejoicings). 
 
 For about fifteen years after the revolution Hungary 
 had to stand aloof from Croatian affairs, which were 
 administered directly by the Viennese authorities. This 
 era was characterised by the following phrase then in 
 vogue: “Croatia got as a reward what Hungary got as 
 
70 Failure of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 a puuishment ”—namely, the absolute administration of 
 Vienna. 
 
 It may be asked, Why did not Croatia, after the 
 treatment it had experienced, hasten to reoccupy its 
 ancient historical place in the Hungarian constitution 
 as a country belonging to the Hungarian crown. It 
 certainly did not omit to do so because the Hungarian 
 constitution is not sufficiently liberal—for its free in¬ 
 stitutions can abundantly satisfy the claims of a nation 
 standing even on a high level of culture, and still more 
 amply those of a people which so readily enlisted in 
 the service of reaction, and raised no protest against 
 the domination of Austrian absolutism, or of the Ger¬ 
 man language. But times seem to have changed: the 
 Croatians, who, in the first quarter of this century, 
 zealously and enthusiastically exerted themselves to 
 return under the protection of the Hungarian constitu¬ 
 tion, have become in the last quarter of this century a 
 prey to the hobby of exaggerated national chauvinism 
 and conceitedness. Thus it happened that the Hun¬ 
 garian nation succeeded with less difficulty in effecting 
 an arrangement with the Austrian dynasty in 1867 
 than with the Croatians in 1868. 
 
 The Hungarians were always ready to make the 
 utmost concessions compatible with the constitution 
 and the unimpaired integrity and unity of the State : 
 they were particularly solicitous that every citizen of 
 the country should feel that he is a free man. In the 
 Parliament of 1861, Paul Somsich, one of its most pro¬ 
 minent members, declared on the 18th of May, in the 
 course of the debates on the address, “ We wish to effect 
 a new arrangement with Croatia, and to reserve for it 
 a ivhite leaf in our constitution.” 
 
 It was only a phrase, to be sure, but it is truly won- 
 
Failure of Home Rule in Croatia. 71 
 
 derful that whilst so mauy other phrases have sunk 
 into oblivion, this one was doomed to tenaciously sur¬ 
 vive, and to rise almost to the dignity of a law. 
 
 It is curious, too, that for the last two decades the 
 authorship of these winged words was attributed not to 
 Somsich but to Francis Deak. On this and the other 
 side of the Drave, and on this and the other side of the 
 Leitha, the idea that Francis Deak had promised the 
 Croatians a white leaf, was the theme of continual dis¬ 
 cussion. The phrase did not occur in the constitution, 
 nor could it be found in the laws, and yet it became 
 the leading thought of many a statesman, who imagined 
 to be able to prove by it the practical turn of his mind. 
 
 But what was the meaning of the white leaf in rela¬ 
 tion to the constitution ? It meant nothing else but to 
 make tabula rasa of the existing laws—the very reverse 
 of that principle of legal continuity, the manly defence 
 of which, coupled with his wonderful logic, has done so 
 much to render the name of Francis Deak famous. 
 
 Legal continuity came out victorious from the nego¬ 
 tiations which led to the arrangement with the dynasty, 
 but it was discarded in the course of those transactions 
 which brought the Croatians back within the trenches 
 of the constitution. It is a fact which cannot be con¬ 
 templated without a feeling of melancholy. 
 
 Finally, the arrangement, as embodied in the law of 
 1868, was also concluded with the Croatians. 
 
 Previous to this arrangement, the Hungarians and 
 Croatians frequently met for the purpose of preliminary 
 discussions. Francis Deak was the soul of these delib¬ 
 erations. The Croatians came forward with demands 
 which dumfounded everybody. They behaved as if 
 every one of them were a Brennus, who had but to cast 
 his heavy sword into the scale, and exclaim, “ Fb; 
 
72 Failure of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 victis!” Francis Strossmayer, Bishop of Diakovar, 
 went furthest in these intemperate demands. His 
 provoking language disturbed even the philosophical 
 equanimity of Francis Deak, so that, on one occasion, 
 irritated beyond measure, he burst from his seat, and 
 pushing aside his chair, prepared to leave the meeting, 
 and wanted to put an end to all further discussions. 
 It was only at the instance of several of his friends and 
 admirers that he finally calmed down, and consented to 
 resume the deliberations. 
 
 The arrangement which has been ushered into the 
 world with such throes is in every respect a most 
 thankless contrivance. It works incalculable political 
 mischief to the Hungarians, and is apt to exasperate 
 any man with a well-ordered mind. 
 
 It is true that the law embodying the arrangement 
 declares Hungary and Croatia to be an indivisible State 
 constituting a political commiinity which can be neither 
 dissolved nor divided ; but it concedes at the same time 
 a ministry of internal affairs, of justice, and of educa¬ 
 tion to the Croatians. Accordingly, the Croatian Diet 
 has the right of legislating as to all matters relating to 
 these branches of public life. The ministries of national 
 defence, of finance, of commerce, and of communication 
 are styled in the law as common ministries, and the 
 Hungarian Parliament, to which the Croatians also are 
 to send representatives, is equally styled the common 
 Parliament. The word “ common ” is repeated through¬ 
 out ad nausea7n, aping in this the political connection 
 subsisting between Austria and Hungary. The law 
 provides that 45 per cent of the revenues of Croatia 
 shall be applied first of all to meet the expenditure of 
 its internal administration, the balance to be applied to 
 the expenses incurred about the common affairs. If 
 
Failure of Home Fiule in Croatia. 73 
 
 45 per ceut of the entire revenue proves insufficient to 
 cover the expenses of the internal administration of 
 Croatia, Hungary agrees to supply the deficiency. The 
 practical result of this is, that since 1868 Hungary, in 
 the matter of postal revenue alone, had to make up the 
 deficiency of the Croatian postal revenue to the amount 
 of 2,077,552 florins. Accordingly Croatia can never be 
 in the position of being saddled with a public debt. A 
 Croatian ministry, where Croatians only can be em¬ 
 ployed, which is at the side of the Hungarian central 
 Government, is being organised. Hiingarian officials are 
 not employed in Croatia. The official correspondence 
 of the Croatian Government and authorities is carried 
 on in the Croatian language, and the answers given 
 by the Hungarian Government are not given in Hun¬ 
 garian but in Croatian. The Croatian representatives 
 may use the Croatian language in the Hungarian Par¬ 
 liament, or in its delegation. One of the sections of the 
 law declares that the people of Croatia-Slavonia are a 
 political nation, possessing a separate territory. In 
 conclusion, it is declared that the present arrangement 
 is exempt from the jurisdiction of the respective Leg¬ 
 islatures of the contracting countries, and can only be 
 changed by the mutual consent of both parties to the 
 agreement. 
 
 The absurdity of the last provision has been already 
 proved with regard to Fiume. This seaport city and 
 its district stand only temporarily under the Hungarian 
 Government, and this temporary state may last for ever, 
 for Croatia will certainly never consent to Flume’s 
 being annexed to Hungary, notwithstanding that Fiume 
 itself desires the annexation. 
 
 If the Croatians joined the ranks of the reactionaries 
 because they did not want the liberal and constitutional 
 
74 Faihirc of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 Hungarian laws, then the logical inference would be, 
 that no matter how they had managed to shake off these 
 laws, they would, once freed from them, wish to revive 
 the former status quo. This would he the logical con¬ 
 clusion. But the Croatians had other views. The 
 arrangement of 1868, which lacks every historical 
 foundation, and represents no development from the 
 past, is to the Croatians only a preparatory step towards 
 the contemplated future separation. Prior to 1848 
 Croatia had no separate Legislature, not even with 
 regard to special matters, but it had statutory rights 
 like any other Hungarian county. That is, it could 
 provide detailed regulations in conformity with the 
 Hungarian laws, but these regulations had to keep 
 strictly within the spirit of those laws. Their provincial 
 assemblies at Zagrab (Agram) could appoint provincial 
 officials, but chiefly county officials ; they had the right 
 of properly apportioning among the counties beyond 
 the Drave the taxes imposed by the Hungarian Diet; 
 they could give instructions to the deputies sent to the 
 Hungarian Diet; but they could enact no legislation, 
 for the Hungarian laws were in force in every country 
 belonging to the Hungarian crown. 
 
 One might imagine, however, that a law of this kind, 
 which has no warrant in history, and deeply offends 
 against the principle of State-unity, would at least be 
 hailed with unalloyed satisfaction by the Croatians. 
 But this was not the case. The Croatians always 
 looked upon the arrangement with Hungary as a pay¬ 
 ment on account only, and as a starting-point for fresh 
 claims. The Hungarians could hardly imagine that 
 there was anything left yet for the Croatians to ask of 
 them, but they were mistaken. The Croatians were not 
 long in coming forward with new grievances, and well 
 
Faihcre of Home Buie in Croatia. 75 
 
 might the Hungarians look about in bewilderment in 
 search of something to satisfy the insatiable Croatian 
 Moloch, after they had given to it all they could 
 possibly give. 
 
 Thus the Croatians asked for the revision of the law 
 relating to the arrangement. The pretext for this re- 
 cpiest was that the Hungarian Government had infringed 
 upon several of its provisions, but their real reason was 
 that they hoped thereby to render the connecting State 
 ties more lax. The Hungarians, deeming it proper that 
 the complaints should be heard, agreed to the revision. 
 On the 5th of March 1885, Minister President Coloman 
 Tisza introduced a resolution in the Hungarian Parlia¬ 
 ment to the effect that it should send out a Commission 
 for the purpose of communicating with the Croatians 
 on this subject. Both parties nominated their commis¬ 
 sioners, and their discussions soon brought to light the 
 Croatian aspirations. They wished that complete parity 
 should be established between Hungary and Croatia, 
 that the Croatians should be represented in the foreign 
 missions, and that, out of consideration for Croatia, 
 the diplomatic title of the monarchy, which is now 
 “ Au,stria - Hungary,” should be changed to that of 
 “ Austria - Hungary-Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia.” In 
 addition, they asked that in every Hungarian Ministry 
 there should be established a Croatian department, and 
 that the Hungarian Government should spend more on 
 the Croatian roads of communication, and on the regu¬ 
 lation of the rivers in Croatia. The last demand was 
 made in the face of the fact that, with the exception of 
 the Croatian share of the expenditure for common 
 affairs, the whole of the Croatian revenue remained at 
 the disposal of the Croatians. 
 
 In the course of the discussion of these new demands 
 
7 G Failure of Home Rule in Croatia. 
 
 not a single voice was heard among the Croatians in¬ 
 dicating their sense of solidarity with Hnngary, or that 
 they had any obligations with regard to Hungary. 
 
 But at that very time a Croatian representative gave 
 vent to the following declamation in the provincial diet 
 at Zagrab : “ Croatia will never be free until the clatter 
 of the horse-hoofs of the first Cossack will be heard 
 along the streets of Vienna.” 
 
 This, then, would seem to be the unavowed pro¬ 
 gramme. I am fully convinced that there are men in 
 Croatia who entertain constitutional sentiments, are law- 
 abiding, and feel friendly to the Hungarians, but I can¬ 
 not help being astonished that there should be any class 
 of men who had ever enjoyed the sweets of constitutional 
 liberty, and yet would long for a Russian state of things. 
 
 The labours of the two Commissions led to no re¬ 
 sults. Already, on the 12th of October 1886, the 
 Hungarian Commission replied with a polite but firm 
 “ No” to the Croatian demands—the first instance of a 
 Croatian rebuff in the history of the last years. It was 
 the best thing the Hungarian Commission could have 
 done. The event showed that, by declining to accede 
 to Croatian pretensions, the equilibrium of the world 
 has been by no means disturbed. The Commission felt 
 convinced, and managed to convince others, too, that 
 the famous ivliite leaf had been long ago fully filled 
 up by the Croatians with all sorts of propositions in¬ 
 compatible with the preservation of State-unity. It 
 made clear another thing, that Hungary was always 
 the one that gave, and Croatia always the one that 
 received, and that it has never been the other way. 
 The elucidation of this one fact proved conclusively that 
 there can be no parity between Hungary and Croatia. 
 
 In conclusion, let me add a few words as to the 
 
Failure of Home Bale in Croatia. 77 
 
 effect j)roduced at home and abroad by the example 
 set by Hungai’}^ in agreeing to the Hungaro-Croatian 
 arrangement. It has become the fashion in Europe to 
 regard Hungary, next to England, as the home of con¬ 
 stitutional life. Hence the great sympathy shown to 
 the Hungarians in their struggle against absolutism in 
 1848-49, and the friendly interest which continued 
 after they had been struck down on the battlefield by 
 overwhelming forces. They again attracted attention 
 while struggling in the political arena to regain their 
 independence, and people then already began to speak 
 admiringly of the political virtues of the Hungarian 
 nation. History will record it in golden letters, that 
 the Hungarians claimed not only the restoration of 
 their constitution, but also stipulated that Austria, too, 
 should receive a constitution. The arrangement with 
 Austria was praised as an act of wise moderation. But 
 the arrangement effected with Croatia is hardly known 
 abroad, and if known, it is not likely to be praised. 
 Yet in many parts of Austria the latter arrangement 
 became almost an object of envy. In Bohemia espe¬ 
 cially, utterances were not unfrequent that the Czechs 
 would be happy if they could enter into the same re¬ 
 lations with Austria as the Croatians with Hungary. 
 But this wish of theirs cannot be fulfilled. Whatever 
 is conceded to the Czechs will have to be also conceded 
 to the Galicians, with whom the sentiment of nationality 
 is quite as strong. Wliere is the movement to stop ? 
 There is no doubt that dualism is the last conservative 
 stage ; departing from it must lead sooner or latet to fed¬ 
 eration, and federation is nothing else but dissolution. 
 
 The Czechs, who thought so highly of the Croatian 
 arrangement as to declare it to be the ne 2 )lus ultra of 
 their own political wishes with regard to Austria, encour- 
 
78 Failure of Home Rale in Croatia. 
 
 aged, nevertheless, the Croatians in their opposition to 
 Hungary. In doing so, they committed a political 
 mistake. Bohemia is a rich and cultured country, and, 
 consequently, deserves a much greater measure of in¬ 
 dependence than Croatia, which cannot maintain itself 
 by its own strength. If the Austrian Government has, 
 nevertheless, declined to reproduce there a copy of the 
 Croatian state of affairs, the refusal had been dictated 
 most likely by the fear of federal consequences, which 
 might have placed a powerful monarchy in such a 
 position as to be swallowed up piecemeal by one of its 
 neighbouring States, which is in the habit of appealing 
 to the arbitrament of brute force. 
 
 Or there might be a repetition of the incident related 
 by Jules Verne, in one of his novels, of a traveller who, 
 anxious to get to the moon, placed himself into a pro¬ 
 jectile, and caused it to be projected from a huge cannon, 
 calculating that beyond a certain distance the moon 
 would begin to exert its attraction upon the projectile. 
 Eussian sympathies are not wanting in Bohemia, and 
 if the influential Viennese circles will allow Bohemia 
 to enter into as lax a political connection with Austria 
 as the one subsisting between Croatia and Hungary, 
 there can be hardly any question as to which moon 
 Bohemia is likely to gravitate to.^ 
 
 It is in the nature of things that autonomy extended 
 beyond certain limits, so far from engendering affection 
 for the mother country, only tends to increase the 
 incentive to complete separation. 
 
 A. VAMBEEY, 
 
 Professor Buda-Pesth University. 
 
 1 li’or the data contained in the above paper I am indebted to M. 
 Frederic Pesti, the learned secretary of the historical section of the 
 Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 
 
HOME RULE AND IMRERIAL SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 BY 
 
 FKEDEEICK POLLOCK. 
 
 In the following remarks I shall endeavour to show 
 how and why the question of Home Itule for Ireland 
 is not ail ordinary question of domestic policy, nor 
 even a domestic question of constitutional policy, such 
 as Parliamentary Eeforni, hut one involving by its 
 nature much wider issues and consequences. And in 
 so doing I shall at the same time show the grounds on 
 which I think that any serious and effective working 
 out of the idea of Home Rule would import not only 
 a new constitution for Ireland, but a new constitution 
 for the Ih'itish Empire, and a revolution in the existing 
 relations between the Britisli colonies and possessions 
 and the Imperial Parliament. I do not profess to dis¬ 
 close new facts or urge new arguments. It appears to 
 me that we are in far greater danger of neglecting plain 
 facts and broad principles in this matter than of over¬ 
 looking any facts not generally known, or reasons not 
 
80 
 
 Home Hide and Imperial Sovercigtity. 
 
 of general validity which are likely to be material to 
 a sound decision. Our business at this juncture is to 
 insist on essentials, and to insist on them with repeti¬ 
 tion even to weariness rather than let them fall out of 
 sight. My aim will be to make use of facts which are 
 notorious, and inferences from them which are simple. 
 
 I. 
 
 The territories collectively known as the British Em- 
 j)ire are not only scattered over the world, but are sub¬ 
 ject to the ultimate dominion of the Imperial Parliament 
 in many different ways. We have in the first place the 
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whose 
 people are directly represented in Parliament. We 
 have a few possessions of the Crown which are 
 geographically adjacent to Great Britain, but are 
 extra - parliamentary (if one may use the word) for 
 historical reasons. They enjoy their ancient local laws 
 and privileges, which are practically guaranteed by the 
 Imperial Parliament. Only the trifling area and popu¬ 
 lation of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as 
 compared with the United Kingdom have made the 
 continuance of this state of things practicable. Then 
 we have the colonies founded by English settlers who 
 carried with them the law of England and the rights of 
 British subjects. Lastly, there are the colonies and 
 dependencies acquired at various times by conquest or 
 by cession, or partly in one way and partly in the other, 
 sometimes from native rulers, but more often from 
 princes or rulers who, whether European or not, were 
 themselves conquerors or represented some previous 
 conqueror. Among this class of dependencies there 
 are many and important differences of laws, institu- 
 
lloilic Huh and Iiivparial tdovcrcvjnl[f. 81 
 
 lions, and government, but the details of these do not 
 concern us here. What does concern us is that directly 
 or indirectly the Queen, with the advice and consent 
 of the estates of the realm—in other words, tlie Imperial 
 Parliament^—has admitted and unlimited authority 
 over all these dominions. The legal origin and theory 
 of that authority are not the same in all cases, but 
 that again does not now concern us. No one disputes its 
 existence. It is exercised in various forms and degrees. 
 In some cases it is manifested by direct and frequent 
 interference. In many it has been exercised by framing 
 or sanctioning a constitution, under which government 
 is carried on by persons and bodies who may be said 
 to be delegates of the Crown or of Parliament; the 
 direct interference of Parliament remains possible, but 
 is exceptional. In some cases not formally distin¬ 
 guishable from the rest — I mean, those of the self- 
 governing English colonies — there is an effectual 
 though undefined understanding by which such in¬ 
 terference is limited to matters toucliing Imperial and 
 not merely local interests. 
 
 Now the local institutions through which, outside 
 the United Kingdom, government and the administra¬ 
 tion of justice are regulated (subject always to the 
 ultimate control of Parliament) may be classified as 
 follows :— 
 
 1 Some British subjects may be in strictness under the government 
 of the Crown merely by virtue of its general prerogative ; I say may 
 he, because it would be at least rash to assume that there is any part 
 of the British dominions of which the government has not been 
 affected at some time by some Act of the Imperial Tarliament. But 
 the Crown can of course do in Parliament whatever it could do with¬ 
 out Parliament ; and inasmuch as it can do nothing save througli 
 Ministers responsible to Parliament, the control and supremacy of 
 Parliament are for practical purposes the same. 
 
 F 
 
82 Home Buie and ImiJcrial Sovereignty. 
 
 They iDay be institutions imported from England, and 
 more or less modified to suit local circumstances. 
 
 They may be institutions imported from some other 
 civilised country, and preserved for one or another 
 reason under British supremacy. Thus we have held 
 ourselves bound, ever since the period of military oc¬ 
 cupation immediately following the conquest, to main¬ 
 tain the laws and customs which the French population 
 of Lower Canada had derived from their mother country. 
 
 Or they may be native institutions—that is, non- 
 European ; for we need not now attend to the distinc¬ 
 tion between such as are truly indigenous, and such as 
 may have been imposed or imported by non-European 
 conquerors before the commencement of English or 
 European dominion. And these likewise may be 
 maintained as a matter of express promise, of general 
 good faith and equity, or of simple expediency. 
 
 These different elements do not always exist simply 
 or separately. On the contrary, they are found in 
 various and more or less complex combinations. In 
 India the same courts administer for different purposes 
 English law to Europeans, different systems of native 
 law to different races and classes of Asiatics, and 
 English law, modified by special legislation, to Asiatics 
 and Europeans alike. Again, the maintenance of the 
 French institutions of Lower Canada, side by side with 
 the English institutions imported by the English 
 settlers of Upper Canada, led to very grave politi¬ 
 cal troubles. After the failure of other methods, in¬ 
 cluding that of a single autonomous government, 
 Canada was endowed by the British North America 
 Act of 1867 with an elaborate federal constitution, the 
 invention of Canadian statesmen. Considered as a 
 compromise this has worked well, but it must not be 
 
Home Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 83 
 
 siipposed that it works without frictiond In other 
 colonies, such as Mauritius, the competition of Eng¬ 
 lish with non-English institutions and customs has 
 been a source of difficulties which only the rela¬ 
 tively small scale of the whole affair prevents from 
 being seriously felt in England. The relations to the 
 mother country are simplest in the case of the 
 Australian colonies, where English population and 
 institutions have taken an undisputed possession. 
 Even there, however, they are less simple than they 
 look, for there enter into them in fact, though not in 
 law, the tacit understandings which have been already 
 mentioned. 
 
 n. 
 
 Ireland is at present a part of the United Kingdom. 
 The advocates of Home Rule say it ought to be some¬ 
 thing else, but still a part of the British Empire, and 
 they say that the principles of such an arrangement 
 are easily laid down, and the execution in detail not 
 more difficult than that of any other considerable politi¬ 
 cal reform. So much, I think, they have undertaken 
 (and must undertake) to make good—unless, indeed, 
 they will admit that Home Rule does carry with it 
 known and unknown dangers of grave extent, but, 
 admitting this, nevertheless will support Home Rule 
 on the ground that even a desperate remedy cannot be 
 worse than the present disease. This, the argument of 
 despair, is not of the kind that rouses a cheerful courage 
 in a man’s constituents and political friends, nor can it 
 be agreeable to the better sort of Irish Home Rulers. 
 We therelore hear little of it in public, yet we may 
 
 ’ A conference of delegates from the Provinces of Canada has lately 
 recommended material amendments in the Confederation Act. 
 
84 Home, Rule and Imjierinl Sovereic/nty. 
 
 suspect that, with the more thoughtful English Home 
 Eulers, it has weight—more, perhaps, than they acknow¬ 
 ledge even to themselves. To return, however, to ideas 
 and plans of an Irish constitution, whether proposed 
 as a good thing in itself or as relatively tolerable. In 
 one direction the choice is clearly limited. Ireland has 
 not any native form of government or political institu¬ 
 tions which can at this day be preserved or restored. 
 There is no possible form of Irish constitution outside 
 the variation and development of elements which are 
 English in substance and in fact. Irish Nationalists 
 complain that their lawful liberties are violated by the 
 executive authority in Ireland. Those liberties — the 
 rights of free speech, of public meeting, of political 
 association, of trial by jury—are of English name and 
 growth. They are the liberties of Irishmen, not be¬ 
 cause they are Irish, but because they are British 
 subjects. Even if we regard these liberties, or some of 
 them, as deducible from universal principles of natural 
 justice, England has come very much nearer to the 
 supposed ideal of natural right than any other part of 
 the civilised world, and Ireland has derived from 
 British thinkers her share in the ideal, and from the 
 laws of England her share of practical approximation 
 to it. I say nothing here of the merits of any par¬ 
 ticular controversy, or of any method of controversy. 
 I merely note an evident fact. Csesar is denounced 
 as a tyrant, but it is to Caesar’s laws and Ctesar’s 
 courts that Brutus and Cassius appeal against Caesar. 
 Still less do I wish to go hack upon historical specu¬ 
 lation. It is likely enough that the troubles of Ire¬ 
 land are due, in large measure, not to the introduc¬ 
 tion of English institutions in itself, but to that intro¬ 
 duction having taken place without due regard to fit 
 
Home Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 85 
 
 causes and occasions, and without any settled purpose 
 or continuous policy. It is merely idle to discuss 
 whether the English conquest of Ireland were more or 
 less justified than the English conquest of Britain, or 
 the j^rehistoric conquests of both Britain and Ireland 
 from tribes of long-forgotten name and speech, them¬ 
 selves perhaps the supplanters of a still earlier race. 
 Perhaps it would have been well if Edward I. had 
 given his strength to a real conquest of Ireland, instead 
 of an illusory conquest of Scotland. Perhaps it would 
 have been better if some Elizabethan statesman could 
 have had the genius and perseverance to deal with 
 Ireland as the East India Company dealt with province 
 after province, and kingdom after kingdom. But it is 
 too late now to regret that Ireland was not settled like 
 Wales or like the Punjab. It is also too late to regret 
 the extinction of whatever distinctively Irish civilisa¬ 
 tion existed at any time. So far as the desire for 
 Home Rule includes a longing for the real or apparent 
 restoration in Ireland of political institutions not of 
 English mould, it is a desire which cannot he satisfied 
 by any political or legislative measures whatever. 
 Sentimental grievances, as they are called, can be dealt 
 with only by remedies of the same kind. I use the 
 term because it is convenient and understood, and 
 not with any meaning of disparagement, for senti¬ 
 ment is the moving force of human action. Men are 
 moved by things as they appear, and they act on their 
 emotions. It is one of our national defects to under¬ 
 rate the value of the first impression of things, and to 
 spoil even good deeds by an ill manner of doing them. 
 That we have paid and are paying dearly for this fault 
 in Ireland I have no doubt. It has been committed 
 even in our recent dealings with the land question. I 
 
8G Home Ttnle and Imperial Sovereignty. 
 
 will give another example of what I mean, though at 
 the risk of being thought to trifle. I verily believe 
 that if there had been a regiment of Irish Guards at 
 Waterloo and in the Crimea, there would be several 
 regiments the fewer at this day in Ireland. It is not 
 my province to inquire how far the mischief done in 
 this kind can at this day be undone by public or 
 private exertions. One thing is clear, that it will not 
 be mended by the clauses and provisos of a Home 
 Eule Bill, be they drafted never so skilfully. There is 
 a harder thing than to make and execute good laws : it 
 is to revive and foster that spirit of trust and affection 
 in the people which executes the law without an officer. 
 The law must be a terror to evil-doers first, but we 
 shall not be content with that. If I believed that the 
 people of England would rest with no higher aim ■, that 
 they were devoid of justice, of generosity, of patience 
 (for the task will need firm and even justice, abundant 
 generosity, and unfailing patience); that they would 
 renounce the noblest and most arduous duties of 
 government, declaring themselves, and thereby proving 
 themselves, unfit for empire ;—then I should accept the 
 argument from despair, and acquiesce in Home Eule 
 for Ireland if I could not support it. But I should 
 acquiesce in it as a fatal symptom that English political 
 supremacy had outlived the English genius for politics, 
 and must ere long follow it to extinction, to be revived 
 (if at all) in some younger and happier branch of our 
 stock. 
 
 III. 
 
 At present we cannot say in any definite terms what 
 the relation of Irish Home Eule to the Imperial suprem¬ 
 acy of Parliament is intended by its advocates to be, 
 
Home Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 87 
 
 for there is not any authentic definition. Home Eulers, 
 including Mr Gladstone, profess themselves not bound 
 by the proposals which Mr Gladstone’s Ministry intro¬ 
 duced (we must presume, after the consideration befit¬ 
 ting a measure of such importance) in 188G. It is true 
 that we are not thereby deprived of much guidance, for 
 among the many omissions and ambiguities of the 
 Government of Ireland Bill, not the least striking was 
 its extreme obscurity as to the position of the new Irish 
 Executive, as between the Irish “ Legislative Body ” on 
 the one hand and the responsible Ministers of the 
 Crown on the other.^ If Lord Thring’s lately published 
 interpretation may be accepted, the general intention 
 was to assimilate Ireland, with certain exceptions, to a 
 self-governing colony of the Australian type. I shall 
 not stop to consider whether the exceptions were not 
 really such as to frustrate that intention. The time 
 for minute criticism has been, and we Unionists hope it 
 may not be again. It is enough for us now that any 
 scheme of Home Eule must aim at satisfying the de¬ 
 mands of Irish Home Eulers. Home Eule means at 
 least the power of local legislation for Irish affairs, as 
 distinguished from those which touch Imperial inter¬ 
 ests ; and that, as I shall show, a practically uncon¬ 
 trolled power. The lines of distinction must be laid 
 down in the Act of Parliament establishing the new 
 Irish constitution, and worked out as occasion requires 
 by some judicial authority of imperial character and 
 dignity. Now all this machinery would be of no value 
 if the Imperial Parliament were habitually, or on any 
 
 ^ This statement is made from careful reading ot the accual text of 
 tlie Bill, notwithstanding Lord Thring’s sweeping assertion that 
 “Bills are never read by their accusers.” — (‘Handbook of Home 
 Rule,’ p. 71.) 
 
88 Home Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 
 
 common occasion, to interfere in anything outside the 
 departments which had been expressly reserved. As 
 matter of law, Parliament could interfere when it 
 thought fit, or could alter or revoke the constitution it 
 had given—or, at any rate, it is a matter of skilled 
 workmanship to prevent legal doubts from arising on 
 this head; though even so, to leave no room for reason¬ 
 able doubt is not the same thing as to prevent doubts 
 from being raised, or from leading to grave trouble, 
 when judgment is obscured by interest and passion. 
 As matter of practice. Parliament would be expected 
 not to interfere; such is the case with the self-govern¬ 
 ing colonies, and Ireland would expect no less. Habit¬ 
 ual interference for the purpose of overriding the local 
 legislature would not be acquiesced in. It would be 
 resented on more plausible grounds than exceptional 
 legislation for Ireland is resented now, with at least 
 equal determination, and with much better hope of 
 success. But the thing would never be attempted. 
 Not only the Irish legislative body and the Irish ex¬ 
 ecutive would expect to be left alone within their com¬ 
 petence, but the British House of Commons would 
 expect Ministers not to trouble it with Irish affairs. 
 We must take it that nothing short of overwhelming- 
 necessity would induce Ministers to do so. Not that 
 Unionists are concerned to deny that such necessity 
 might occur, and sooner rather than later. But I now 
 try to conceive the case as it would stand if Home 
 Kule were decided upon, and all English parties, being 
 bound by that final decision, were content to give it a 
 fair start. 
 
 Habitual non-intervention of the Imperial Parlia¬ 
 ment, and of the Crown as advised by its Ministers 
 responsible to Parliament, must therefore be the rule. 
 
Home Mule and Imperial Sovereignty. 89 
 
 We are told that in the Australasian colonies and in 
 Canada this is found to answer, and no prejudice ensues 
 to the supremacy of the Crown and of Parlianient. 
 Why should it not be the same in Ireland ? One must 
 not be afraid of repeating simple things ; and I shall 
 repeat here what has been already well said, and may 
 have to be said many times again. Why should not 
 two and two make five ? Because two is not three. 
 Why should not colonial self-government flourish in 
 Ireland as in New Zealand or Victoria? Because Ire¬ 
 land is not New Zealand or Victoria, and St George’s 
 Channel is not two oceans and a continent. 
 
 Let us see what are the conditions that make the 
 relation of colonial dependence permanently compat¬ 
 ible with the habitual non-intervention of the supreme 
 power. Two seem to me of the first importance. 
 
 First, the dependent community, and every consider¬ 
 able part of it, must frankly accept self-government 
 with all its consequences. It must be plainly under¬ 
 stood that a defeated party is not to appeal to the 
 mother country for relief against anything done within 
 the powers of the local constitution. Moreover, dis¬ 
 putes as to what is within constitutional powers must 
 be decided in the regular course of justice, either by 
 the local tribunals, or, at need, by regular appeal to the 
 Crown in its judicial capacity. All such communities 
 are provinces of one empire, and may call upon Caesar 
 to protect them against foreign enemies. But in their 
 own matters they shall appeal to Caesar according to 
 tlie terms of their own covenant, and not otherwise. 
 Their covenanted liberty of self-government implies an 
 equally binding duty of settling internal disputes with 
 their own resonrees, and not throwing them back on 
 the mother country. 
 
90 Home Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 
 
 Secondly, the dependent community must be content 
 to preserve its connection with the Empire of which it 
 is part—nay, it must be more than content; there must 
 be active willingness to suffer some particular incon¬ 
 venience on some occasions for the sake of maintainins 
 the connection. The occasional sacrifice of apparent 
 local interest to the interest of the Empire as a whole 
 is demanded as the price of Imperial citizenship. The 
 demand is not great, nor is it often made, but when 
 made it must be satisfied. A colony which did not set 
 a positive value on the Imperial connection would soon 
 go to work to convert its autonomy into formal inde¬ 
 pendence, if not restrained by fears of revolution or 
 foreign conquest. The value which our colonies in fact 
 set on their connection with the mother country is 
 happily a very high one; it is perhaps higher in the 
 present generation than it has been at any former time, 
 —it is certainly better understood and appreciated at 
 home. In part it depends on considerations of material 
 convenience and security, but in some part—I think in 
 no small part—it is a matter of sentiment. 
 
 Are these conditions present in Ireland ? It is fairly 
 certain that the first of them is not, and the best we can 
 say of the second is that it is doubtful. As to the first, 
 Ireland is divided by bitterly hostile parties, and each 
 of them has vehement partisans in this country. Any 
 Home Eule constitution settled by the Imperial Parlia¬ 
 ment would, by the nature of the case, aim at com¬ 
 promise between parties of whom neither has shown 
 much of the spirit of compromise, and each of them 
 would find matter of offence in some part of it. There 
 is no reason to suppose that either Nationalists or 
 Orangemen would abstain from working on public 
 opinion in England to procure modifications of such 
 
Home Rule and Ivipcrial Sovereignty. 91 
 
 parts of the new Irish Constitntion as were offensive to 
 them, or even interferences by special exercise of the 
 ultimate supreme power of Parliament. As to the 
 second point, it is at least unproved that the local 
 governors of Ireland, under a scheme of colonial 
 autonomy, would take any trouble to preserve the 
 connection with England. So far as we can trust the 
 evidence of piiblic utterances—of nearly all public 
 utterances at times and places where there is not an 
 English audience to be conciliated — the prevailing 
 sentiment of active Irish Nationalists is the other way. 
 Either many prominent Nationalists have been using 
 strong words without any meaning at all, or they have 
 been obtaining the support, both moral and material, of 
 their Irish and Irish-Ainerican hearers under something 
 very like false pretences, or they would not stir a finger 
 to prevent Home Eule from being made a stepping- 
 stone to entire separation. They have declared them¬ 
 selves enemies not only of this or that principle, this or 
 that individual concerned in English government of 
 Ireland, but of the English government and connection 
 altogether. Such is not the language of political con¬ 
 troversy among fellow-citizens ; it is the language of 
 men who put themselves outside the ties of common 
 citizenship, who lack not the will but the power to be 
 rebels, and who meanwhile use their rights as citizens 
 only for a weapon against the commonwealth itself. 
 If any one thinks I exaggerate, let him look to France, 
 where the division of parties is far more deep and bitter 
 than in England. Let him ask himself whether he can 
 imagine a French Monarchist, of however extreme 
 opinions, speaking of Eepublican France as a foreign 
 and hostile nation, and rejoicing in her difficulties and 
 misfortunes. It cannot be imagined. A Eonapartist 
 
92 Home Rule and Imijcrird Sovereignty. 
 
 who dared to express good wishes for insurgents against 
 French authority in Algeria or Tonquin would be hooted 
 down by any Bonapartist audience. But this thing 
 which, to the credit of Frenchmen, is impossible in 
 France, would be no more than Irish Nationalists have 
 done. Notwithstanding that many valiant Irishmen 
 share in whatever good or ill befalls British arms, men 
 professing to speak in the name of Ireland have rejoiced 
 in our real or imagined defeats. They have exulted in 
 our real or imagined troubles in every part of the world. 
 They have spoken of England as an enemy, and of the 
 enemies of England as the friends and allies of their 
 own cause. Not all Nationalists, I am aware, have 
 done this. But some, and those not the least active 
 and conspicuous, have done it; and I am not aware 
 that those of their colleagues who pass for moderate 
 have uttered any woi’d of protest. Moderation, or more 
 than moderation, has been conspicuous in the attitude 
 of the leaders towards these over-zealous followers. 
 
 All this may be, for anything that affects the present 
 argument, legitimate and even laudable from the Nation¬ 
 alist point of view. I care not whether the persons who 
 have uttered such sentiments in speech and writing 
 were or were not members of Parliament bound by a 
 voluntary oath of allegiance to the Sovereign of the 
 British Empire, or, if they were, with what conscience 
 or sense of honour they regarded the obligation of that 
 oath. I simply point out that the temper of these 
 utterances is not the temper by which either the express 
 or the tacit conditions of Imperial union between Great 
 Britain and an autonomous colony can be successfully 
 observed. And I further point out that we must look 
 not only to the temper of the speakers and writers of 
 the Nationalist party, but to the temper likely to be 
 
Home Rule and Inipcrial Sovereignty. 93 
 
 begotten in their hearers and readers by a continued 
 course of such matter. Say that this violence were but 
 an imprudent ornament of Irish rhetoric, or the un¬ 
 skilled outpouring of a loyal desire for Home Ilule, and 
 nothing but Home llule: the mischief wrought upon an 
 ignorant multitude remains exactly the same. Besides, 
 the maintenance of good relations under any scheme of 
 Home Kule will need discretion as well as good faith 
 on both sides. If this be the loyalty of Home Kule 
 leaders, who shall answer to us for good faith ? If it 
 be their prudence, who shall answer to us for discretion ? 
 It is true that some of the Nationalist orators have 
 taken, late in the day and in a coarse fashion, to flatter¬ 
 ing the English democracy, or rather a minority of all 
 conditions of the people of England which they choose 
 to call the English democracy. There is no reason from 
 their point of view why they should scruple to foment 
 revolution, or fears of revolution, in England, if they 
 may thereby further their ends in Ireland; and to that 
 extent I can very well believe that these flatteries are 
 sincere. They are perfectly consistent with that ill-will 
 to the commonweal of England as a whole which is still 
 abundantly expressed when it is thought to be agreeable 
 to the audience. 
 
 But we are told that these things are of no account, 
 for an autonomous Ireland would be too prudent to 
 seek for independence ; the superior power of England 
 is too obvious. Why, is the power of England to main¬ 
 tain the Union, if England be resolved to maintain it, 
 less obvious now ? And has it prevented an agitation 
 for Home Kule from being planned, matured, estab¬ 
 lished in the heart of English politics, and seeming 
 for a time to be within sight of triumph ? Twenty 
 years ago Home Kule was as far from the practical con- 
 
94 Ho Hid Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 
 
 sideration of English statesmen as separation is at this 
 moment. Irish Nationalists may not suppose that 
 England can he compelled by force of arms to grant 
 independence, unless it were in some great conjuncture 
 of foreign trouble such as none of them have openly 
 deprecated and some of them have openly desired. But 
 if England cannot be compelled, English constituencies 
 may be cajoled and English Ministers worried. The 
 means which procured Home Eule would be effectual to 
 procure separation also in good time. Home Eule could 
 not have a more solemn appearance of finality than the 
 Union had ; why should it have more of the substance? 
 So it might plausibly seem, at any rate, to a thorough¬ 
 going Nationalist. And a movement towards separation 
 in Ireland would be a wholly diflerent thing from a 
 movement towards separation in any of our English 
 colonies. In the latter case an inevitable separation, 
 however much to be regretted, might conceivably be 
 accomplished with decency and dignity, and without 
 bloodshed. In Ireland such a movement would be 
 born in internal dissension; it would probably ripen 
 in civil war, and the ultimate result would be a mili¬ 
 tary reconquest. But let us suppose the resolution 
 of England not to grant independence to be under¬ 
 stood, and her power respected — what then ? Why, 
 for the result of all our elaborate devices of Home 
 Eule we should have Ireland still attached to the 
 British Empire by coercion but one degree removed 
 — still a source not of strength, but of weakness, 
 in our troubles abroad—still not a credit, but a re¬ 
 proach, to English capacity for government. We 
 should be in no better position than we now are, or 
 may be, by a firm and just administration of the exist¬ 
 ing plan. Home Eule, not frankly accepted for its 
 
Home Huh and fnqKrial Sovereignty. 95 
 
 own sake, would make things worse for England and 
 no better for Ireland. Prove to us that Home Pule 
 will content the people of Ireland, and that is one 
 material point made good. Put if you tell us that, 
 whether they are content or not, we shall always have 
 the strong hand, then we say that, if it must come to 
 the strong hand, we prefer using it to maintain the 
 Union. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The truth is, that the difficulties—the insuperable 
 difficulties—of maintaining a just equilibrium between 
 Irish Home Pule and the supremacy of the Imperial 
 Parliament, arise from the peculiar conditions of Ire¬ 
 land. They are not disposed of by telling us that 
 under other and different conditions other arrange¬ 
 ments of a more or less similar kind have been found 
 practicable. If Ireland were, like Hungary,^ an ancient 
 sovereign state, with ancient national institutions; or 
 if it were, like Victoria or New Zealand, a colony 
 settled by a uniform and like-minded population,—the 
 problem of Irish government would be a much simpler 
 one to deal with, or rather would not have arisen in 
 its present form. But Ireland has neither a stock of 
 ancient institutions nor such internal unity as will 
 suffice for the peaceful development of new ones. It 
 
 * The relations of Ireland to England have never been at all like 
 those of Hungary to Austria. If Charles I. had first made himself 
 absolute in Scotland, and then subdued English liberties by a com¬ 
 bination of Scottish and Irish troops with aid from France (a plan of 
 which all the elements existed, at one time or another, in the counsels 
 of the Stuart dynasty), there would have been something like a par¬ 
 allel to the subjection of Hungary in 1849, but with Scotland in the 
 place of Austria, England in the place of Hungary, not of Austria, 
 and Ireland in that of Croatia. 
 
96 
 
 Home Ixule and Imperial Sovcrcicinty. 
 
 is useless to pretend that conditions exist which notori¬ 
 ously do not exist. Not one of the usual attributes of 
 a commonwealth capable of single and uncontrolled 
 self-government can be truly applied to Ireland. There 
 is no substantial unity in religion, in breeding, in man¬ 
 ners, or in allegiance to any one person or institution. 
 The one thing certain about any scheme of Home Eule 
 turning on the establishment of a single Irish Legis¬ 
 lature at Dublin is that it would be strongly disliked 
 and opposed by a minority of the people of Ireland con¬ 
 siderable in numbers alone, and considerable beyond 
 the proportion of their numbers in wealth, industry, 
 and general ability. 
 
 It is time we should plainly understand that com¬ 
 monwealths are founded, and institutions established, 
 not with pens and ink but with men. The Constitution 
 of the United States has been often and justly praised. 
 And I would abate no whit of the praise given to the 
 men who framed that Constitution, and procured its 
 adoption in the face of the utmost difficulties. But 
 there is praise to be given elsewhere too. The work of 
 the founders would long since have come to naught 
 without the good will, good faith, and good sense 
 applied by the people of the United States to the 
 handling of it in practice. We have there seen a 
 powerful and zealous party submit to a decision which 
 they felt to be unjust, and believed to be illegal, I’ather 
 than endanger the stability of the federal compact. 
 Tlmre party contests run high, and decisions, however 
 authoritative, are freely criticised; but all parties agree 
 that the law declared and expounded by the proper au¬ 
 thority must in every case be obeyed. A much less 
 skilfully framed constitution woidd become a good 
 working instrument of government in the hands of 
 
Homr Rule and hmperial Sovereignty. 97 
 
 such men as have made the Constitution of the United 
 States a document of universal importance to students 
 of politics. A much more skilful and elaborate one 
 would fail in a community wanting the elements of 
 political training, and the conditions of harmonious 
 political action. South America is strewn with the 
 wrecks of republican constitutions, which inquiry 
 would probably show to look on paper full as well as 
 the Constitution of the United States. Learning, reflec¬ 
 tion, and skilled expression must all go to the framing 
 of a good constitution ; hut if it is to be born alive, the 
 first things needful are good faith and good will. Eng¬ 
 lish supporters of Home Eule believe, no doubt, that a 
 sufficient majority of good citizens would be found in 
 Ireland to apply good faith and good will to the work¬ 
 ing out of a Home Eule constitution under the imperial 
 sovereignty. But they believe it on evidence which 
 appears to Unionists not only to be insufficient, but to 
 point strongly the other way. 
 
 This, however, is not all. In a scheme of this kind 
 minorities have to be thought of. Minorities also are 
 composed of human beings capable of action and passion, 
 and are not to be disposed of by a sum in subtraction. 
 
 One thing which we may learn from our own colonial 
 history is the power of a compact party, working on 
 sentiments of race ^ and religion, which go deeper than 
 ordinary party divisions, to paralyse the working of a 
 scheme of autonomous government which fails to secure 
 their rights, or what they consider to be such, against a 
 disliked and distrusted rule. This was shown in Can- 
 
 I Sentiments of race may exist, ami may even be artificially created, 
 wlietlier there is much real distinction or not. For politics the ques¬ 
 tion is not one of actual ethnology. What people believe about them¬ 
 selves is often more important than what they are. 
 
 t: 
 
98 Home Rule and Imperial Sovereignty. 
 
 ada during the generation beginning approximately 
 with the Queen’s accession, wliich came between the 
 insurrection of 1837 and the federal constitution of 
 1867. The French Canadians failed in armed resist¬ 
 ance, but under the constitution of 1840 they succeeded 
 in making it impossible for the English party, at first 
 barely equal to them in numbers, but afterwards the 
 majority, to work a centralised form of Home Eule. 
 Ultimately, by the British North America Act of 1867, 
 they obtained legislative autonomy for the Province 
 of Quebec, and they have ever since exercised an 
 influence in the affairs of the Dominion, and en¬ 
 joyed a practical power of getting their own way, 
 which many English Canadians regard as excessive. 
 Now the position of Ulster in Ireland is by no means 
 irnlike that of the Province of Quebec in Canada. 
 There is a Protestant and Teutonic minority face to 
 face with a Catholic and Celtic majority, while in 
 Canada the numbers are the other wmy. In other 
 respects the scale and proportions of the two cases are 
 fairly comparable. If the Unionist minority in Ireland 
 be less numerous and compact than the French minority 
 in Canada, we must bear in mind that it is they who 
 lean on the English connection, whereas in Canada that 
 advantage was on the side of the English majority. 
 The minority is in both cases a thriving and vigorous 
 one.^ I do not see why Ulster can be expected to sit 
 
 ^ Lower Canada is not a rich country, hut French Canadians have 
 the art of thriving on little. As to the numbers, Ulster has in round 
 numbers 1,743,000, out of 6,174,000. If there are non-Unionists in 
 Ulster, there are Unionists elsewhere in Ireland. The Province of 
 Quebec has 1,460,000, out of a total of about 5,000,000, of which 
 1,925,000 belong to the Province of Ontario, formerly Upper Canada. 
 The addition of the other English provinces to the Dominion seems 
 not to have weakened the position of the French Canadians. 
 
Home Tilde and Imferial Sovereignty. 
 
 99 
 
 down under Home Eule in the hands of a Catholic and 
 anti-English majority, any more than Lower Canada 
 was willing to sit down under the government of an 
 English and Protestant party, or the English settlers, 
 on the other hand, were willing to tolerate Erench Can¬ 
 adian ascendancy. The chances of success would be at 
 least as good for Ulster as for the Province of Quebec. 
 I say nothing here of the claims which the men of 
 Ulster, and others settled in Ireland on the faith of 
 English laws, may urge, on grounds of morality and 
 political justice, to be provided with safeguards for 
 their religion and usages as effectual as those which 
 the Imperial Parliament has provided for the people of 
 Lower Canada. Eight or wrong, the French Canadians 
 have gotten tlieir own way; right or wrong, Ulstermen 
 would surely endeavour to get theirs. I believe they 
 would succeed in the long run, but at a cost both to 
 Ireland and to England which it is the duty of the 
 Imperial Parliament not to suffer. 
 
 These last considerations may be thought to point to 
 the endowment of Ireland with some sort of a federal 
 constitution analogous to that of the Dominion of 
 Canada, by which the rights and usages of Ulster might 
 be seciired through provincial autonomy, somewhat like 
 those of the Province of Queljec. And I am indeed 
 apt to think that in such an arrangement might be 
 found the least bad form of Home Eule. Put we are now 
 considering what is practicable, not what is imagin¬ 
 able : and we are met with the fact that no party in 
 Ireland has expressed a desire for anything of the kind, 
 or even a relative willingness to accpiiesce in it. This 
 makes it needless to show at length that such a plan 
 would need far more delicate adjustment than any¬ 
 thing yet proposed, or to dwell on the doubt, which 
 
TOO Home Jitile and Imperial Sovercic/nty. 
 
 seems grave, whether a majority not strongly attached 
 to the English connection would evince the same 
 patience and loyalty as the English population of 
 Canada with regard to the guaranteed rights of the 
 minority. 
 
 v. 
 
 Thus are we confronted in every direction with diffi¬ 
 culties fully as great as those of maintaining the 
 Union. Home Eule might put off for a season the 
 day of grappling with those difficulties. Like a spend¬ 
 thrift’s note of hand, it might purchase a little pres¬ 
 ent ease and accommodation upon usurious terms. On 
 the other hand, it is more than possible that it would 
 not procure us even that. Whatever scheme were 
 adopted, there would be a new constitution for Ireland, 
 creating a new set of relations between Ireland and the 
 Imperial Parliament. If Ireland, having an autono¬ 
 mous legislature at Dublin, continued to be represented 
 at Westminster, these new relations would be quite 
 unlike those now existing between Parliament and any 
 British colony or possession. In any case there would 
 be need of interpretation and development. We are 
 expected to assume that this process would be quietly 
 carried on in a civil and j udicial manner, through the 
 means appointed for that purpose by the new constitu¬ 
 tion, and that the subject would be excluded by com¬ 
 mon consent from English parliamentary debate and 
 political controversy. We should have lightly cast off 
 our imperial duties, and Ireland and Irish questions, 
 in the cynical phrase of certain Home Eule advocates, 
 would be out of the way. Having regard to the course 
 of affairs in the past, from which alone we can reason¬ 
 ably foretell the future, I see no reason whatever why 
 
Home Huh and Imperial Sovereignty. 101 
 
 the expectation should be fulfilled. I have already 
 indicated to some extent the reasons for which I think 
 it would not. Instead of troublesome questions of 
 executive government and special legislation in Ire¬ 
 land, we should have questions of constitutional com¬ 
 petence and imperial discretion which might or might 
 not be debated with greater decency, but which would 
 hardly require less time and attention. Parliament 
 could not refuse to entertain them, and politicians 
 would certainly not abstain from making use of them. 
 
 There is one way, and it would seem only one, by 
 which a fair chance of growing and taking firm root 
 could be secured for any plan of Home Pule. This 
 would be to make the new Anglo-Irish constitution as 
 difficult to alter as the federal constitution of the 
 United States or of Switzerland. But to do this would 
 be to introduce a wholly new element in our institu¬ 
 tions. We know nothing of statutes which the Queen 
 and the estates of the realm cannot repeal or amend in 
 the ordinary form of an Act of Parliament. The suc¬ 
 cession to the Crown, the government of our Indian 
 Empire, the constitutions of our self-governing colonies, 
 all depend on Acts of Parliament indistinguishable in 
 manner and form from the Margarine Act, or the last 
 Act which may have been passed to remove doubts as 
 to the validity of three or four marriages celebrated in 
 some remote British consulate. To make a formal dis¬ 
 tinction between organic or constitutional and ordinary 
 legislation is to destroy the supremacy of the Imperial 
 Parliament, as it at present exists and is understood.^ 
 
 1 It is possible that the framers of one or both of the Acts of Union 
 with Scotland and Ireland .supposed themselves to be framing un¬ 
 changeable organic law’s. Whether they supposed this or not, no 
 competent constitutional lawyer would now maintain that such was 
 the legal effect in either case. 
 
102 Home Buie and Imperial Sovereignty. 
 
 And therefore (which is more) it is to make a new 
 constitution not only for Ireland and Great Britain 
 in their mutiial relations, but for the British Empire. 
 Canada, Victoria, Hew Zealand, would not submit, and 
 could not be expected to submit, to the supremacy of a 
 Parliament that had made itself incompetent to legislate 
 for Ireland. Some kind of new Imperial Parliament 
 or Council would have to be formed for dealing with 
 affairs of common concern. The Parliament at West¬ 
 minster would become a local legislature for Great 
 Britain, or perhaps for England alone. England herself 
 would cease to be an imperial state, and would be one 
 among many federated states—the first among equals, 
 but nothing more. 
 
 It is not necessary to assume, nor do I assume, that 
 this is in itself an impossible or absurd result. We 
 cannot tell what the state of the British Empire may 
 be a century hence, and the possibility of some kind 
 of federal constitution being found practicable by our 
 children is fair matter of speculation. It may be 
 pointed out, for instance, that sooner or later the pres¬ 
 ent constant apprehensions of European war must come 
 to an end, either by a settlement following on a warlike 
 trial of strength, or by some peaceable means as yet un¬ 
 certain. Whenever this happens, one grave objection 
 to a federal system for the British Empire—the execu¬ 
 tive weakness of such a system in foreign policy—will 
 become of much less importance. But though it be 
 rash to predict absolutely what a later generation may 
 or may not find expedient, there is no rashness in hold¬ 
 ing that, if the British Empire does ever become a 
 federal union, this will be a transformation greater and 
 more arduous than has yet been accomplished in the 
 history of political societies. An achievement of such 
 
Home, Rule and Imferial Sovereirjntij. 103 
 
 scope must be the product of ripe occasion and experi¬ 
 ence. No good can come of attempting to force it on 
 before its time. And it is certain that the problem of 
 imperial federation, whenever it is taken up seriously, 
 will for more than one or two years leave us but scant 
 leisure for domestic reform. There are a few thinking 
 persons, I believe, who accept Home Eule for Ireland 
 because they find in it a stepping-stone to imperial 
 federation. It seems to me that, on their own prin¬ 
 ciples, they are beginning at the wrong end. They 
 would embark on a vast enterprise under conditions 
 not only unfavourable but perverse. Tlie British Em¬ 
 pire does not exist for the sake of Ireland, still less 
 for the sake of one party in Ireland. Home Eule must 
 be Irish and Nationalist, or it is nothing; federation 
 must be imperial aud impartial, or it is nothing. Given 
 a federal system, it might be possible to admit Ireland 
 as a constituent without danger; but to work out a 
 federal system by starting with the single and excep¬ 
 tional case of Ireland is a notion exceedingly remote, 
 for both external and internal causes, from any reason¬ 
 able expectation of success. 
 
 It all comes round to the same issue. By whatever 
 ideas known to politicians or lawyers we test the 
 shadowy presentment of Home Eule which seems to 
 beckon us to a land of peace and concord, we find 
 nothing but a fool’s paradise, with an infinite wilderness 
 beyond it. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is 
 called on to abdicate the sovereign power aud responsi¬ 
 bility in these realms, not in any clear and settled view 
 of good to come, but in sheer weariness and despair. 
 The British Empire was not so made, and it cannot 
 be so maintained. If we do not know how to govern 
 Ireland, we must learn. It is a duty we cannot shuffle 
 
104 Home Ride and Imperial Suvereigidy. 
 
 off. Eemissness in this duty gives the demand for 
 Home Eule its only real strength. The cry is, “ You 
 cannot, or you will not, perform the office of rulers in 
 Ireland; you have only perplexed matters with legis¬ 
 lation, and instead of being firm and gentle in adminis¬ 
 tration, you are violent and feeble by turns. Let an 
 Irish Parliament make what it can of the task you have 
 failed in. If it does no better, it can do no worse.” 
 A just and high-minded nation, a nation that has 
 achieved what England has achieved in the most 
 various undertakings of government, will not be so 
 abject as to give way to such a cry. We cannot in 
 honour abandon our office if we would. Our worst 
 faults, in their effects, have been those of indifference 
 and ignorance. There has been indifference—perhaps 
 culpable indifference—in the public, and ignorance— 
 perhaps culpable ignorance — where knowledge was 
 to be looked for. But these faults are not invin¬ 
 cible. Englishmen have overcome them before, and 
 can do so again ; the first of them is overcome already. 
 Our people have a mind to be just; and the will to be 
 informed, that they may do judgment with knowledge, 
 is not lacking. To delegate the whole burden would 
 be a strange, and, methinks, no worthy way of repairing 
 what is amiss. I have tried to show that such a course 
 would fail even of its own half-hearted purpose. The 
 way of strenuous and patient justice, turned aside 
 neither by evil nor by good report, will seem the more 
 arduous, as it is the worthier. But the truth of things 
 will not be escaped, and the nobler way is the only safe 
 one at the last. 
 
 FREDERICK POLLOCK. 
 
PIOME RULE AND THE FORCES BEHIND IT. 
 
 BY 
 
 K. U. PENROSE FITZGERALD, M.P. 
 
 It is proposed to demonstrate in this article—(1) That 
 Gladstonian Home Rule is not self-government, but 
 the absolute negation of all self-government; (2) That 
 the force or motive power behind, which has given to 
 the present movement a strength and popularity never 
 attained by similar movements in the past, has been 
 the tempting offer to the present occupier of land in 
 Ireland—that if this attempt was successful, the pro¬ 
 perty of the landlord should be confiscated, and the 
 land given rent-free, or nearly so, to the present occu¬ 
 pier ; and (3) That most of the Parnellite party at 
 home, and all those in America, who have accepted Mr 
 Gladstone’s Home Rule, have done so only because 
 they believe it to be a step towards the attainment of 
 ultimate and total separation. 
 
 It is possible that there are some Irishmen who hold 
 that the absolute, complete, and total separation of 
 
106 
 
 Home Rule and the Forces behind it. 
 
 their country from England is the best, if not the only, 
 remedy for all the ills of Ireland, arid yet who are and 
 have been unable either to sanction the doings, approve 
 the methods, or countenance the associates of some of 
 the present parliamentary representatives of the coun¬ 
 try. But there can be no doubt that there are hun¬ 
 dreds of other Irishmen loyally devoted to the wel¬ 
 fare and prosperity of their country, who hold that 
 total separation would be a heaven-sent boon as com¬ 
 pared with the political degradation, the fiscal slavery, 
 and the legislative subordination which was offered to 
 Ireland by the Government of Ireland Bill of Mr 
 Gladstone. Strong words these last, but true : for that 
 Bill would have left Ireland with no voice in the Im¬ 
 perial Parliament; it left her without a Foreign Office, 
 with no right to make treaties or alliances with other 
 nations, without control over her police or execu¬ 
 tive, without an army and without a navy; but with 
 an obligation to pay a heavy annual subsidy for ever 
 to the Imperial Parliament, in which she was not to 
 be represented. Taxation without representation with 
 a vengeance ! Why, what was it brought about the 
 Declaration of Independence by America ? What was 
 the chief grievance the American States had against 
 Britain ? Was it not that they were taxed by a Parlia¬ 
 ment in which they were not represented ? And what 
 was the very essence of Mr Gladstone’s Bill ? Was it 
 not that Ireland, both as regards customs and excise and 
 tribute, was to be taxed by a Parliament in which she 
 was not to be represented ? And if Britain was forced 
 to yield to the justice of the claim of the American 
 colonies, by what right and with what justice will 
 she be able to refuse to Ireland the same measure of 
 •absolute and total independence when once she has 
 
Home Hide and the Forces behind it. 107 
 
 placed her by a law made in the Imperial Parliament 
 in a precisely similar position ? Shall it be said that 
 it was not justice but force that made Britain submit 
 to the independence of America, and that, though Ire¬ 
 land, under the same circumstances, would have the 
 same claim for justice, she would not have the necessary 
 force ? If this be so, then we may fairly ask. Was it 
 justice that made Parliament, at the dictation of the 
 professional Irishmen of to-day, agree to measures for 
 the ruin and spoliation of one class of natural Irish¬ 
 men in Ireland, and that the class that was known to 
 be hostile to the political degradation of Ireland—a 
 degradation which woiild certainly be caused by any 
 such measure as the late Home Rule Bill ? The pro¬ 
 posed Bill, in fact, robbed Ireland of all that is most 
 essential and most dear to free citizens of a free country. 
 It was a scheme for the despotic rule of Ireland by the 
 free Parliament of the rest of Great Britain. “ No 
 community which is not primarily charged with the 
 ordinary business of its own defence, is really, or can be, 
 in the full sense of the word, a free community.”—(Mr 
 Gladstone.) Surely, if anything can, this state of 
 things would have given to Ireland the right to rebel— 
 possibly the reason why the Bill was accepted by some 
 of her representatives. And what said the United 
 Irish National Societies of Chicago to the late Home 
 Rule Bill ? Did they accept it as final ? Did they 
 express themselves satisfied witli its provisions ? And, 
 after all, he who pays the piper has a right to call the 
 tune. In their Address, read at Chicago on the 14th 
 August 1886, are the following words : “ We distinctly 
 declare, that until a majority of the people of Ireland 
 shall have clearly announced that such an infinitesimal 
 measure of justice or redress as was lately proposed by 
 
108 Home Hde and the Forces hcMnd it. 
 
 Mr Gladstone’s Bill will be acceptable to them as a 
 final settlement of the great debt of justice which is 
 due from the British Crown to the Irish nation, we 
 shall regard the offer or pledge of any parliamentary 
 representative of Ireland to accept such an inadequate 
 grant or concession in full satisfaction and final settle¬ 
 ment of her just demand as unauthorised, and a viola¬ 
 tion of his sacred trust.” And in the ‘ Irish World ’ of 
 November 12, 1887, is the following:— 
 
 “ This talk about finalities is the more foolish as the 
 past history of the Irish question shows it to be futile. 
 . . . Finality as a plea has two uses. One is to extort 
 pledges of content from a people surprised into grati¬ 
 tude by half a loaf where they expected nothing. The 
 other is to bring people to do justice from policy, where 
 they should do it because it is justice. In either aspect 
 it is unworthy of Mr Gladstone and the English Liberals. 
 And in neither should it receive any countenance from 
 any friend of Ireland. There is no finality except jus¬ 
 tice, and Mr Gladstone’s Home Eule plan is but a small 
 instalment of justice to Ireland. ... A proposal to 
 give them a Parliament, which shall have not a tithe 
 of the power of that which they were robbed of, and 
 to keep this Parliament permanently under the step¬ 
 motherly oversight of England. . . . The original pro¬ 
 posal which Mr Gladstone made was meagre enough. 
 It debarred the Irish nation from dealing with ques¬ 
 tions of religion and land, with diplomatic and military 
 matters, and with excise, taxes, and duties on imports. 
 It bound them for ever to the throne of the dynasty 
 reigning in Great Britain. It made them an appendage 
 to the military and diplomatic policy of the British 
 Empire. It forbade them to create an army of their 
 own, while it left their country a recruiting-ground for 
 
Hortu BiiU and the Forces behind it. 
 
 109 
 
 the British army. It debarred them from fostering 
 any Irish industry by the indirect method of taxation 
 on imports.” 
 
 The second-mentioned class of Irishmen, to whom 
 reference has been made (well knowing that it is im¬ 
 possible to have two Parliaments in any one State co¬ 
 equal and co-ordinate—for one must be sovereign and 
 the other subordinate—and holding, as has been said, 
 that total separation, however strongly they may object 
 to it, would he better than the state of vassalage and 
 subordination which the late Bill would have imposed 
 upon Ireland) hold, and hold emphatically and con¬ 
 sistently, that the only other alternative is the main¬ 
 tenance and strengthening of the Union on equal 
 terms between Great Britain and Ireland. And for 
 holding this opinion they have been condemned by 
 the laws of the League to bankruptcy and ruin—a 
 sentence which appears likely to be, if it has not 
 already been, carried out with the assistance of some 
 recent laws of Parliament. 
 
 Iir this paper we shall have but little to say of either 
 of the above classes, not because they are not deserving 
 of attention, or, indeed, of respect, but because they 
 are not the classes who have given any support to the 
 Parnellite or Home Pule movement of the present day. 
 Our object is to inquire by what means the majority 
 of the electors of the three southern provinces—men 
 chiefly of the farming classes—have been persuaded to 
 return as their representatives men who, as a rule, are 
 not agriculturists, and who in many cases do not hail 
 from the district they represent, but who are pledged 
 to vote for Home Pule for Ireland, and who, while in 
 their speeches in the House of Commons and their 
 meetings and speeches in England, declare that they 
 
110 Home Bnle and the Forces behind it. 
 
 neither ask for nor desire absolute separation, but are 
 satisfied with an alteration in the constitation on the 
 lines of the late Bill, for the purpose, as they say, of 
 causing “ a union of hearts,” and binding Ireland more 
 firmly to Great Britain, declare with no less certain 
 voice on every platform in Ireland and America, that 
 nothing will satisfy them short of total separation 
 from Great Britain. Was it the spontaneous, unan¬ 
 imous and deep - reaching sentiment in favour of 
 Home Eule that animated those provinces ? or were 
 there some other forces behind that were used either 
 to seduce or to terrorise them into acquiescence with 
 that sentiment 1 In other words. Is it true that Irish 
 unrest is due far more to a desire for change in the 
 land laws than to passionate longing for national in¬ 
 dependence, or for that which was supposed to be a 
 stepping-stone to national independence ? It is a most 
 remarkable circumstance that all previous attempts to 
 get up agitation for the repeal of the Union have, 
 after short and turbulent lives, died a natural death of 
 inanition from want of support and vitality; instance 
 the movements of Mr O’Connell, Mr Smith O’Brien— 
 and later, of the Fenians and Mr Butt. Now it is neces¬ 
 sary to show, in the first place, that the attack on the 
 landowners in Ireland is part of a deep-laid scheme 
 for rousing the enthusiasm of the tenant-class by an 
 appeal to the worst sentiments of x^Uvate greed and 
 public plunder, and, by linking that cry with the de¬ 
 mand for repeal, either total or partial, to cripple or 
 beggar the owners of land, as a means for facilitating 
 the ultimate and real object—namely, sejiaration-—the 
 landowning class being regarded, rightly or wrongly, 
 as the first or main barrier to separation. We find so 
 far back as 1848 the force necessary to have behind a 
 
Homo, Ride and the Forces behind it. 
 
 Ill 
 
 movement for repeal, in order to make such a move¬ 
 ment strong, as far as numbers are concerned, was 
 discovered and explained by Mr Fintan Lalor in a 
 newspaper published by him in that year, named 
 ‘ The Irish Felon.’ In the numbers of this paper of 
 June 24, July 1, and July 8, 1848, is to be found 
 fully and clearly stated the whole programme of the 
 Land and National Leagues of 1879 and 1887; and 
 though this programme practically lay dormant between 
 1848 and 1879, it was precisely the same means ad¬ 
 vocated by Mr Fintan Lalor in 1848 that were adopted 
 in 1879 by the leaders of the Land League movement. 
 Ill the ‘Irish Felon’ of June 24, 1848, Mr Lalor in¬ 
 dicated the means by which the doctrine of “ the land 
 for the people ” might be made to bring about or assist 
 the movement for Irish national independence. In 
 this declaration, Mr Lalor says: “ The entire owner¬ 
 ship of Ireland, moral and material, up to the sun and 
 down to the centre of the earth, is vested as of right 
 in the people of Ireland. The soil of the country be¬ 
 longs as of right to the entire people of that country 
 —not to any one class, but the nation,—one condition 
 being essential, that the tenant shall bear true and 
 undivided allegiance to the nation whose land he holds, 
 and owes no allegiance whatever to any other prince, 
 power, or people, or any obligation of obedience or 
 respect to their will, their orders, or their laws. No 
 one has a higher respect for the rights of property than 
 I have, but I do not class among them the robber 
 rights by which the lands of this country are held in 
 the grasp of Irish landlordism.” This declaration was 
 afterwards quoted by Mr Davitt on 23d January 1887, 
 in a speech at New York as reported in ‘ The Irish 
 World’ of 29th January of the same year. Mr Davitt 
 
112 Home Rule and the Forces hchind it. 
 
 then added: “ These, ladies and gentlemen, are the 
 principles, these the convictions and this the resolu¬ 
 tion, which presided over the birth of the Land League 
 movement.” 
 
 On referring to the paper from which Mr Davitt 
 quoted, and to the two following numbers, these pas¬ 
 sages are found: “ I mean to assert this, that the land 
 question contains, and the legislative question does not 
 contain, the materials from which victory is manufac¬ 
 tured ; it is on the former question, and not on the 
 latter, that we must take our stand, and hurl down to 
 England our gage of battle. This island is ours, and 
 have it we will.” In the second number of the ‘ Irish 
 Felon’ Mr Lalor further develops the scheme. He 
 denounces repeal of the Union as impracticable and 
 absurd, and points out that the operations against 
 England must be defensive. “ The force of England,” 
 he says, “ is intrenched and fortified. You cannot or¬ 
 ganise or train or discipline your own force to any 
 point of efficiency. You must therefore disorganise 
 and untrain and undiscipline that of the enemy. You 
 must make the hostile army a mob, as your own will 
 be; force it to act on the offensive, and oblige it to 
 undertake operations for which it never was con¬ 
 structed. Nothing of all this could you do on repeal.” 
 
 “ There is yet another class of means and mode of 
 force, better founded in moral right, and more efficient 
 in action, than either agitation or military insurrection. 
 Its theory may be briefly stated as founded on the 
 theory of natural law—that every distinct community 
 or nation of men is owner of itself, and can never of 
 right be bound to submit to be governed by another 
 people. The practical assertion of the right consists of 
 two parts— 
 
Home Rule and the Forces behind it. 
 
 11?. 
 
 “ 1. Abolition of British government. 
 
 “ 2. Formation of a national one. The mode of 
 action which this country might have recourse 
 to, consists— 
 
 “ 1. In refusal of obedience to usurped authority. 
 
 “ 2. In maintaining and defending such refusal of 
 obedience. 
 
 “ 3. In resisting every attempt to exercise such 
 usurped authority and every proceeding 
 adopted to enforce obedience. 
 
 “ 4. In taking quiet and peaceable possession of all 
 the rights and powers of government, and in 
 proceeding quietly to exercise them. 
 
 “ 5. In maintaining and defending the exercise of 
 such riglits and powers should it be attacked. 
 
 . . . Strip, then, and bid Ireland strip. 
 
 Now or never—if, indeed, it be not yet too 
 late to achieve independence. There is, I am 
 convinced, but one way alone, and that is, 
 link repeal to some other question, like a railway 
 carriage to the engine—some question strong 
 enough to carry both itself and repeal to¬ 
 gether. And such a question there is in the 
 land —one ready prepared. Ages have been 
 preparing it. An engine ready made; one, 
 too, that will generate its own steam with¬ 
 out cost or care—a self-acting engine, if once 
 the fire be kindled. Repeal had always to 
 he drayged. This I speak of will carry itself 
 as the cannon-ball carries itself down the 
 hill.” 
 
 AVith regard to No. 4—“ taking quiet and peaceable 
 possession of all the rights and powers of government,” 
 &c.—any one who lias studied the proceedings of Irish 
 
 11 
 
114 
 
 Home Rule and the Forces behind it. 
 
 boards of poor-law guardians, or of municipal corpo¬ 
 rations, dl^ring the last few years, will know with what 
 care and determination this advice has been carried out, 
 though it has not unfrequently ended in the insolvency 
 and bankruptcy of the boards, 
 
 lu the third and last number of the ‘ Irish Felon,’ 
 July 8, 1848, Mr Lalor concludes his essay, under the 
 heading “ The Faith of a Felon,” and lays down in dis¬ 
 tinct terms the No-Kent policy, which was destined to 
 be put into operation after a lapse of thirty years. 
 
 “ Years ago,” he says, “ I perceived that the English 
 conquest consisted of two parts, combined into one 
 whole—the conquest of our liberties and the conquest 
 of our lands. I saw clearly the reconquest of our liber¬ 
 ties would be incomplete and worthless without the re¬ 
 conquest of our lands, and could not, on its own means, 
 be possibly achieved; while the reconquest of our lands 
 would involve the other, and could possibly, if not 
 easily, be achieved. The lands were owned by the con¬ 
 quering race or by traitors of the conquered race. They 
 were occupied by the native people, or by settlers who 
 had mingled or merged. I selected as the mode of re¬ 
 conquest to refuse payment of rent and resist process of 
 ejectment.” 
 
 Then, after regretting the rejection of his method of 
 revolution by the Young Ireland party, Mr Lalor goes 
 on to enumerate his opinions, and the methods by which 
 he considered it possible to effect a successful insurrec¬ 
 tion. Amongst them we find these (the first two repre¬ 
 sent practically the Plan of Campaign) : “ (3) That the 
 occupying tenants ought further, on principle, to refuse 
 all rent to the present usurping proprietors, until they 
 have, in national congress or convention, decided what 
 rents they are to pay, and to whom they are to pay 
 
Home Rule and the Forces behind it. 
 
 115 
 
 tlieni. (4) And that the people, on grounds of policy 
 and economy, ought to decide that those rents shall be 
 paid to themselves, the people, for public purposes and 
 for the behalf and benefit of them, the entire general 
 people. These are the principles,” he continues, “which 
 I advise Ireland to adopt at once, and at once to aim 
 for. Should the people accept and adhere to them, the 
 English Government will then have to choose whether 
 to surrender the Irish landlords or to support them with 
 the armed power of the empire. If it refuse to incur the 
 odium and expense, and to peril the safety of England 
 in a social war of extermination, then the landlords are 
 nobody, the 'people are lords of the land, a mifjhty social 
 revolution is accomplished, and the foundation of a na¬ 
 tional revolution surely laid. If it should, on the other 
 hand, determine to come to the rescue and relief of its 
 garrison, elect to force their rents and enforce their 
 rights by infantry, cavalry, and cannon, and attempt to 
 lift and carry the whole harvest of Ireland—a some¬ 
 what heavy undertaking, which might become a hot 
 one, too—then I, at least, for one, am prepared to bow 
 with a humble resignation to the dispensations of Prov¬ 
 idence. Welcome be the will of God ! We must only 
 try to keep our harvest, to offer a peaceful passive re¬ 
 sistance, to barricade the island, to break up the roads, 
 to break down the bridges, and, should need be, and 
 favourable occasion occur, surely ive may venture to try 
 the steel. It has been said to me that such a war, on the 
 principles I propose, would be looked on with detestation 
 by Europe. I assert the contrary. I say such a war 
 would propagate itself throughout Europe. Mark the 
 words of this prophecy: the principle I proposed goes 
 to the foundations of Europe, and sooner or later will 
 cause Europe to uprise.” 
 
no 
 
 Home Rule and the Forces behind' it. 
 
 The failure of Mr O’Connell, of Mr Butt, and of the 
 Fenians to arouse any real enthusiasm on the question 
 of national independence or Home Eule, demonstrated 
 to perfection that the national movement could not 
 stand by itself—to use the straightforward language of 
 Mr Lalor himself, “ it had to be dragged,” and the ques¬ 
 tion of the land was the engine to which the truck 
 which was supposed to bear the national aspirations of 
 Ireland must of necessity be linked. Is it necessary, is 
 it possible, to establish more clearly the identity of the 
 two schemes and the methods of operation 1 The means 
 foreseen by Mr Lalor in 1848, by which alone enthu¬ 
 siasm in the cause of national independence could be 
 excited, was “ the land ”—the means adopted by the 
 Land and National Leagues were the “ No-Eent ” and 
 “ Plan of Campaign” manifestoes. 
 
 And now let us look for a moment at what are the 
 true sentiments and opinions of the leaders of the Home 
 Eule party, when they openly speak their minds to a 
 sympathetic audience other than the House of Com¬ 
 mons. Have they ever accepted as final Mr Gladstone’s 
 measure ? have they ever failed to acknowledge and to 
 express the opinion that the land is the motive foioer, the 
 ruin of the landlords the means, and total separation the 
 end at which they aim. In this, the means, the ruin of the 
 landlords, they have been assisted by a well-meaning 
 but certainly ill-advised Legislature, who, with all the 
 intention to do justice, have, at the dictation and threats 
 of the party of separation, done the most desperate in¬ 
 justice. The end and the means the Parnellites have 
 expressed in language far more easy of comprehension, 
 and less ambiguous, than Mr Gladstone’s. They have 
 consistently preached in Ireland and America a doc¬ 
 trine which can best be understood by a careful study 
 
Home Hide and the Forces behind it. 
 
 117 
 
 of their speeches, of which the following paragraphs 
 are extracts:— 
 
 Mr Farnell, President of the Irish National League .— 
 “ Deprive them ” (the landlords) “ of the position of an 
 English garrison in Ireland, and then the last knell of 
 English power and government in Ireland would have 
 sounded. . . . Let us see, as in 1782, one hundred 
 
 thousand swords, both Catholic and Protestant, leaping 
 from their scabbards, and ... it will not be a ques¬ 
 tion of chicanery or of Acts of Parliament, or of any¬ 
 thing that can possibly interfere with the rights of our 
 own people to make their own laws on the soil of 
 Ireland.”—Speech at Liverpool, November 30, 1879; 
 ‘ Irishman,’ December 6, 1879. 
 
 “ If they ” (the Government) “ prosecute the leaders 
 in this movement, it will not be because they wish to 
 preserve the lives of one or two landlords—much the 
 English Government care about the lives of one or two 
 landlords—but it will be because they see that behind 
 this movement there is a more dangerous movement to 
 have a hold over Ireland; because they know that if 
 they fail in upholding landlordism here—and they will 
 fail—they have no chance of maintaining it in Ireland, 
 because they know that if they fail in upholding land¬ 
 lordism in Ireland, their power to misrule Ireland will 
 go too. ... I would not have taken off my coat and 
 gone to this work if I had not known that we were 
 laying the foundations by this movement for the re¬ 
 covery of our legislative independence.” — Sj)eech at 
 Galway, October 24, 1880; Official Eeport, Queen v. 
 Parnell, &c., p. 165. 
 
 “ Organise yourselves against the landlord system; 
 and, believe me, the day is dawning when we shall have 
 taken the first great step to strike down British misrule. 
 
118 Home llulc and the Forces behind it. 
 
 and the uoble dreams of Grattan, Emmett, and Lord 
 Edward Fitzgerald, and of every Irish patriot, ought at 
 all times to be brought to a triumph and realisation.”— 
 Speech at Beaufort, May 16, 1880; Official Eeport, 
 Queen v. Parnell, &c., p. 435. 
 
 Mr John Dillon, ALP. —“In the county of Mayo, 
 where the organisation is pretty strong, we have many 
 a farm lying idle, from which no rent can be drawn, 
 and there they shall lie ; and if the landlord shall put 
 cattle on them, the cattle won’t prosper very much.”— 
 Speech at Kildare, August 15, 1880; Official Eeport, 
 Queen v. Parnell, &c., p. 287. 
 
 “ This is a cause which the Irish Natioiralist can go 
 into, because its object is to break down and defeat 
 the English garrison which holds this country for Eng¬ 
 land. Its object is to clear the path for Irish nation¬ 
 ality by emancipating all the people of Ireland from the 
 control of English landlordism.”—Speech at Hollyford, 
 October 17,1880; Official Eeport, Queen v. Parnell, &c., 
 p. 493. 
 
 Mr T. AI. Healy, M.P. —“ We believe that landlordism 
 is the prop of English rule, and we are working to take 
 that prop away. To drive out British rule from Ireland 
 we must strike at the foundation, and that foundation 
 is landlordism. We seek no bargain with England. 
 As the Master said unto the tempter when he offered 
 Him the kingdoms of heaven, ‘ Begone, Satan ! ’ so we 
 will say unto them, ‘ Begone, Saxon ! ”’ •— Speech at 
 Boston; ‘Irishman,’ December 24, 1881. 
 
 Mr A. O'Connor, M.P.' —“ The land agitation was only 
 a means to an end, and that end was the re-establish¬ 
 ment of the people as an independent nation, with the 
 destinies of the country in their hands; so that they 
 should be able to say to England, or to any other power 
 
Home, Hide and the Foi'ces behind it. 
 
 119 
 
 that attempted to dominate the country, ‘ Hands off! 
 we can manage our own affairs ! ’ ”—Speech at Mary¬ 
 borough, October 7, 1883; ‘Freeman’s Journal,’ Oc¬ 
 tober 8, 1883. 
 
 Can anything show clearer than the above that total 
 separation is the real object, and that the speakers, 
 having arrived at the same conclusion as Mr Lalor did 
 ill 1848—namely, “ that the land question contains, and 
 the legislative question does not contain, the materials 
 from which victory is manufactured ”—have used the 
 engine of the land temptation to drag the truck of total 
 separation, the truck being labelled “ Home Eule ” ? 
 
 We are examining as to what force or forces there 
 were behind the movement for Home Eule. The land 
 was one ; was there no other? Was the elector allowed 
 to vote and act according to his own views and ideas, 
 or was he terrorised by the very real fear of pains and 
 penalties and outrages to life, limb, or property 1 Earl 
 Spencer says in his preface to the ‘ Handbook of Home 
 Eule,’ page 17: “ It is absurd to say that these results 
 are caused by terrorism exercised over the minds of the 
 electors by the agitators in Ireland” (alluding to the 
 number of votes accorded to the said agitators at the 
 last elections). On what grounds Lord Spencer, who 
 in 1881 (a period when he may fairly be supposed to 
 have had an intimate knowledge of the doings of the 
 
 O O 
 
 agitators) used these words :— 
 
 “ There exists a body of men who have not for their 
 object, or at all events for their principal object, the 
 advantage of the Irish tenant, but who are pursuing 
 schemes of political revolution. The land agitation in 
 their hands is not merely a constitutional agitation to 
 redress land grievances, which is perfectly justifiable; 
 it is an agitation whose object is to destroy the Union 
 
120 
 
 Home Rule and the Forces behind it. 
 
 of the empire, and to overthrow the established govern¬ 
 ment of the United Kingdom. Mr Parnell admits now 
 that what he wants is not ‘ fair rent,’ he wants no rent 
 at all; he wants to get rid of the landlords in order 
 that he may get rid of the English Government, and 
 for this object every kind of intimidation has been em¬ 
 ployed to deter honest men from doing their duty and 
 fulfilling their obligations.”—12th November 1881. 
 
 And again these words: “ The deeds of those men 
 to whom I have referred will, however, be as futile as 
 they are dastardl}^ They will not terrify the English 
 nation. The statesmen of the nation and the nation 
 itself will face their enemy with a determination not to 
 be beaten, and they will not give up one point or idea 
 which they consider necessary to maintain the United 
 Parliament of England and the sovereignty of the 
 Queen. I say this not only to the English and Scotch 
 nation, but I say it to the Irish nation.” 
 
 On what grounds he now says that it is absurd to 
 think that terror existed over the minds of the electors, 
 we know not, and would much like to know. Eor one 
 thing is quite certain—namely, that for years before 
 the elections of both 1885 and 1886 the terror of the 
 laws of the League was complete. The sentences for 
 disobedience to those laws were severe and their execu¬ 
 tion certain. What were all the murders, leg-shatter- 
 ings, maimings, and mutilations that took place be¬ 
 tween 1879 and 1886? They were not murders of 
 police or landlords or bailiffs, they were the execution 
 of sentences passed against members of the tenant-class, 
 who had disobeyed the law of the League, and the very 
 number of these murders, the severity and frequence of 
 these sentences, shows how hard it was to drive the 
 masses of the people into dishonest courses and obedience 
 
Home Rule and the Forces hchind it. 
 
 121 
 
 to the unwritten law. “ Absurd to say that the results 
 were caused by terrorism”? Why, for years the coun¬ 
 try had been under the heel of the most tremendous 
 despotism, which had long been able to show that its 
 word was law, and that to break that law was to incur 
 certain, swift, and severe punishment. 
 
 In an article such as this there is not space for all 
 the quotations from judges’ charges, newspapers, &c., 
 which go to prove this statement; but surely Sir George 
 Trevelyan knew something of the country in 1885, and 
 what is his evidence ? 
 
 “ The poor, the helpless, the uninfluential, the farmers 
 and labourers throughout the south and west of Ireland 
 who, at a terrible risk to life and limb, insisted on ful¬ 
 filling their legal obligations ; the smaller and humbler 
 officers of the law, who did their duty through the bad 
 times, will now be left to the mercy of those who have 
 not concealed their intention of paying them out when¬ 
 ever they can get a chance.” 
 
 “ It is not only landlords and red-hot Orangemen who 
 feel apprehensive, it is every one who has asserted his 
 legal right to work for whom he likes; every one who 
 takes any part in bringing to justice those whom the 
 organs of the new administration and party regard as 
 victims and martyrs, every quiet citizen and every 
 member of that minority, which would not be a min¬ 
 ority if both parties would join in determining that law 
 and order should no longer be trifled with any more 
 than it is trifled with in Yorkshire and Somersetshire.” 
 
 “The inquisition into the conduct of jurymen at an 
 Irish trial has always been most searching. One very 
 well-known gentleman in the south of Ireland sat on a 
 jury on an agrarian crime. He was among those who 
 were for a conviction. The jury disagreed ; the prisoner 
 
122 
 
 Home Rule and the Forces behind it. 
 
 was not punished; but this gentleman was none the 
 less a marked man, and he was murdered.”—Sir George 
 Trevelyan at Hawick, May 5, 1886. 
 
 From the nature of the case it is evident that to get 
 witnesses to give their names in such times is an im¬ 
 possibility ; and to any one who knows Ireland, and 
 whose mind is not warped by party or political motives, 
 it is notorious that the elections were obtained by 
 widespread and perfectly organised terrorism, by undue 
 influence, and other flagrant violations of the Ballot 
 Act, and, when they did vote without intimidation, it 
 was, as Professor Goldwin Smith has said, “ because the 
 people were simply voting for freedom from imperial 
 restraint to complete the spoliation of the landlords.” 
 
 The following evidence of unsuccessful candidates, 
 collected just after the elections of 1885 and 1886, 
 shows how right Sir George Trevelyan was in saying 
 that the people considered that it was at a “terrible 
 risk to life and limb that they fulfilled their legal ob¬ 
 ligations.” A candidate for one of the divisions of 
 Munster writes: “ Many said they would be afraid to 
 vote for me, and would not vote against me, and this 
 was borne out by the fact that nearly 2000 did not vote 
 at all.” Another candidate writes : “ Personally I was 
 treated with great respect, and not a word was said 
 against me ; but the National League had its ramifica¬ 
 tions in every townland, and the organisation is perfect, 
 as the dread of being boycotted has completely cowed 
 the people.” The candidate for one of the divisions of 
 Connaught writes : “ Shopkeepers said to me when can¬ 
 vassing, ‘ Go away; I will vote for you, but don’t be 
 seen talking to me.’ Such a state of abject fear was 
 never before known in a civilised country. The organ¬ 
 isation is now simply perfect, and is as cruel, as relent- 
 
Home Jlule and the Forces hchind it. 
 
 123 
 
 less, as far-seeing as the old Inquisition.” A candidate 
 for one of the boroughs in the south writes : “ The 
 most remarkable feature in the contest was the absten¬ 
 tion of 2240 voters, notwithstanding the greatest pres¬ 
 sure of the Koman Catholic clergy and organised 
 canvassers. I attribute this to a general want of con¬ 
 fidence in the secrecy of the ballot, and the dread of 
 separation from England in the minds of comfortable 
 farmers and independent small shopkeepers.” A can¬ 
 didate for a division of Leinster writes: “ As far as I 
 can judge, the respectable farmers are getting very tired 
 of the National League, and I got many letters promis¬ 
 ing support from lioinan Catholic farmers, but I was 
 not to tell any one, as they were afraid of being boy¬ 
 cotted.” The agent of a Roman Catholic candidate for 
 one of the divisions of a midland county writes : “ Over 
 a thousand votes were not recorded. Tliese were prin¬ 
 cipally loyalists, who were prevented, I believe, from 
 going to the poll for fear of consequences which might 
 ensue to them. Nearly every voter on the other side 
 was polled.” 
 
 Since the time the above was written, it is quite true 
 that Mr Gladstone has changed his opinion of the mode 
 of action of the Separatist party; for, speaking at 
 Derby on the 20th of October 1887, he is reported to 
 have said: “It is commonly said, gentlemen, that I 
 am now engaged in co-operating with those who, on a 
 former occasion, I denounced as propounders of plans 
 that signified rapine and meant the dismemberment of 
 the empire. It is quite true that in the year 1881 I 
 did describe in that strong language the policy which 
 the Nationalist leaders of Ireland seemed to me at that 
 time pursuing. . . . My belief . . . was that the 
 intention of that party was not simply to seek equita- 
 
124 
 
 Home Mule (Did the Forces heliiml it. 
 
 ble adjustment between the tenants and the landlords 
 o" Ireland, but to destroy the essence of lauded property 
 in that country, and thereby to break up social order 
 and the essential conditions on which the empire is 
 united. ... I find no such purpose entertained by 
 the Nationalists of Ireland. As they have obtained 
 greater power their moderation has become conspicu¬ 
 ous. As they now command an overwhelming majority, 
 so all grounds of suspicion for a desire to destroy the 
 lauded property of Ireland has disappeared.”—‘ Times,’ 
 21st October 1887. 
 
 Let us see what the evidence of this “ conspicuous 
 moderation” is. Mr Justice O’Brien, at the opening of 
 the Kerry Assizes in March 1887, used these words : 
 “ . . . The law is defied—perhaps I should rather say 
 has ceased to exist. Houses are attacked by night and 
 day, even the midnight terror yielding to the noonday 
 audacity of crime. Person and life are assailed. The 
 terrified inmates are wholly unable to do anything to 
 protect themselves, and a state of terror and lawlessness 
 prevails everywhere. . . . And to all those evils we 
 have to add another, and perhaps the worst of all— 
 that of which you are all conscious, and of which ex¬ 
 perience and observation reaches you every day in all 
 forms of social life, a system of unseen terrorism, a 
 system of terror and tyranny that the well-disposed 
 classes of the community ought to detest and abhor, 
 and of which, on all sides, I have heard, in this country 
 and other countries, one universal expression and de¬ 
 sire in reference to it—that some means should be found 
 to put an end to it.” And Mr Justice Johnson, at the 
 Cork Assizes of March 1887, spoke thus in his charge : 
 “ ... Is it possible, then, that people living in 
 isolated houses, subjected to attacks of that kind, can 
 
TTomr Rule and thr Forces hehind it. 125 
 
 be expected to do any duty in the interests of the 
 public ? can they discharge their duty as ratepayers, as 
 poor-law guardians, or as jurors ? As long as the law 
 is not maintained, as long as the law of violence and 
 midnight marauding is allowed to exist, there can be 
 no peace or security in the country.” And the same 
 judge at Limerick, at the March Assizes, 1887, says: 
 “ . . . I found here that in no less than nine cases 
 parties of armed men, frequently disguised and under 
 other circumstances which have enabled them to avoid 
 detection and be made amenable, have gone deliberately 
 roaming through the country for the purpose of wreak¬ 
 ing vengeance on the unfortunate inmates of peaceable 
 homes, sometimes in the number of thirty, sometimes 
 in the smaller number of from two to thirty ; some¬ 
 times accompanied by cases of brutal violence. I have 
 a case before me in which a peaceable family were 
 dragged from their beds at night, and even the woman 
 of the house was dragged from her bed and brutally 
 beaten. There is another case where a son, because he 
 had the courage to stand up for his father, was shot 
 through the thigh.” 
 
 Yet all this was in 1887, after they “ commanded an 
 overwhelming majority.” And Mr Dillon, one of the 
 most outspoken of the party, in a speech at Dublin on 
 the 23d August 1887, showed his “conspicuous modera¬ 
 tion ” in these words : “ I am alluding now to combina¬ 
 tion amongst tenants, known as the ‘ Plan of Campaign.’ 
 Now let me siiy this, that, if there be a man in Ireland, 
 and I do not believe there is, if there is a man in Ire¬ 
 land base enough to back down, to turn his back on 
 the fight now that Coercion has passed, I pledge myself 
 in the face of this meeting that I will denounce him 
 from piiblic platforms by name, and 1 pledge myself 
 
126 
 
 Home Itulo and the Forces behind it. 
 
 to the Government that, let that man he whom he 
 may, his life will not be a happy one either in Ireland 
 or across the seas. And I say this with the intention 
 of carrying out what I say.”—(‘Freeman’s Journal,’ 
 August 24, 1887.) And the same speaker at Castle- 
 reagh. County Eoscommon, on December 5, 1886, is 
 reported as follows in the ‘Freeman’s Journal’ of 
 December 6, 1886: “And I warn the men to-day, 
 who take their stand by the side of landlordism and 
 signalise themselves as the enemies of the people, that 
 in the time of our power we will remember them. 
 And I warn you that in the day of struggle you are 
 going into this winter, your enemies have a day of 
 reckoning at hand.” And again the same speaker at 
 Dublin, on the 23d August 1887 (‘Freeman’s Journal,’ 
 24th August), said: “ I want to say plainly that, so far 
 as I go, I intend to practise the same form of intimida¬ 
 tion in spite of all proclamations or persecutions they 
 can enforce. If the operations of the League in the 
 past can be correctly described by intimidation, then I 
 say I intend to practise them and preach them.” And 
 previous to the above date, but after they had com¬ 
 manded their overwhelming majority, Mr Dillon is 
 reported in the ‘Freeman’s Journal’ of Monday, 24th 
 January, speaking to a meeting at Glenbeigh, as fol¬ 
 lows : “ I will show Mr Koe, if he has any stomach for 
 such work, men who can pay and won’t pay, because I 
 tell them not to pay. I will show him men who avow 
 that they can pay and refuse to pay, because they are 
 in the Plan of Campaign. I challenge Mr Eoe to come 
 and face me in Mayo, Tipperary, or North Kerry, 
 and I will teach him a lesson there that will last him 
 his life.” 
 
 Can any one reconcile these statements with that 
 
Home Rule and the Forces hehind it. 127 
 
 “ conspicuous moderation ” which Mr Gladstone has 
 found in the Separatist party since the last election ? 
 and can any one deny in the face of this evidence that, 
 in the first place, Home Kule, as offered by Mr Glad¬ 
 stone, is not self-government; in the second, that the 
 motive power behind the demand for Home Eule was 
 the greed to possess the land of others ; and, thirdly, 
 that the Home Eule party have simply used that cry 
 as a stepping-stone to total separation? Was Mr 
 Gladstone right when, in 1882, he spoke of Mr Dillon 
 in the House of Commons thus : “ The lion, gentleman 
 comes here as the apostle of a creed, which is a creed 
 of force, which is a creed of oppression, which is a 
 creed of the destruction of all liberty and of the erec¬ 
 tion of a despotism against it and on its ruins, differ¬ 
 ent from every other despotism only in this that it is 
 more absolutely detached from all law, from all tradi¬ 
 tion, and from all restraint ” ? And, if so, where are 
 the evidences of Mr Dillon’s conversion to “ conspicu¬ 
 ous moderation”? And was Sir William Harcourt 
 right when he used these words of Mr Dillon in the 
 House of Commons on March 3, 1881 ? “ We have 
 heard the doctrine of the Land League expounded by 
 a man who is an authority to explain it. The doctrine 
 so expounded is a doctrine of treason and assassina¬ 
 tion. . . . To-morrow it will be in the hearing of the 
 civilised world, which will pronounce its judgment on 
 this vile conspiracy. I knew that these were the ob¬ 
 jects of the Land League.” 
 
 K. U. PENROSE FITZGERALD. 
 
SEPAEATIST DEMANDS AND UNIONIST 
 REMEDIES.' 
 
 BY THE 
 
 MAEQITIS OF HAETmGTOK. 
 
 NOVEMBER 1887. 
 
 I SHALL attempt to enlist your attention for the short 
 time during which I can be permitted to address you 
 on that greater subject which underlies all these tem¬ 
 porary phases of the Irish question, on that question 
 which, though it may for a moment be slumbering, will 
 undoubtedly at some not distant period be revived, 
 which appears in all probability to be the question 
 which will be the dividing line between parties in the 
 Parliament of Great Britain, and which, for Ireland 
 and for Irishmen, has larger and wider and greater and 
 deeper issues at stake than any which can belong to 
 merely political or party issues. Therefore, in what I 
 shall say to you to-night, I propose to speak on the 
 
 ^ Extracts from speeches delivered in Dublin, November and De¬ 
 cember 1887. 
 
Separatist Demands and Unionist Remedies. 129 
 
 subject of the future of the government of Ireland, on 
 that question which is known to us as the Home Kule 
 question; and I propose to examine as shortly, and, I 
 hope, as calmly and temperately as I can, some of the 
 bearings on that question, and to consider what portion 
 of the Irish people it is that desires to support the 
 Home Rule measures of the late Government, and why 
 they support them, and also what portion of the Irish 
 people are opposed to and dread that policy, and on 
 what grounds they dread it. This is a question which 
 comes home to Irishmen in a sense different from that 
 in which it presents itself to us in England. For us it 
 is a question affecting the continued greatness of the 
 empire. For us it is a question how it will work upon 
 the position of Great Britain in the world, on its esti¬ 
 mation in Europe, on the opinion of foreign nations, 
 what effect it will have upon the allegiance and respect 
 of our colonies, and what effect it may have upon our 
 great Indian empire. For us it is a question of the 
 maintenance of our Constitution as it at present exists. 
 For us it is a question whether parliamentary govern¬ 
 ment, the supremacy of Parliament, as we have hitherto 
 known it, can survive the blow which is sought to be 
 inflicted upon it; whether our parliamentary institu¬ 
 tions and our parliamentary system of government can 
 survive this commencement and introduction into our 
 system of the principle of disintegration. For us it is 
 a question of honour whether it is competent to us— 
 the Parliament of Great Britain—to abandon engage¬ 
 ments on which we have deliberately entered, and to 
 intrust to others the fulfilment of engagements to which 
 the honour and the credit of Parliament is pledged. 
 For us it is a question of duty whether we are entitled 
 to abandon to the care of any other or inferior assembly 
 
 I 
 
130 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 the lives, the liberties, and the property of subjects of 
 the Queen who have obeyed the laws of Parliament, 
 and who have shown themselves as loyal and devoted 
 citizens of the British empire as any who are to be 
 found in the remainder of the United Kingdom. To 
 us all these questions present themselves, and you also 
 in Ireland who are proud of the title of British citizens, 
 who are not willing to surrender any of the rights 
 which you possess as British citizens, you, no doubt, 
 will also look on these questions from the same im¬ 
 perial point of view as we strive to do it. But Irish¬ 
 men would be something more than human if they 
 were to neglect all consideration of the manner in which 
 the decision of this question will affect their own in¬ 
 terests, their own security, their own prospects in life ; 
 and I think I might add that Irishmen would be want¬ 
 ing in their duty to Ireland if they were not to look at 
 this subject first, foremost, and mainly from the point 
 of view in which it will affect in the future the pros¬ 
 perity and the progress of Ireland. . . . 
 
 Suppose we acknowledge that at the present moment 
 there is a majority in Ireland which has expressed its 
 adhesion to the Separatist policy which was proposed 
 in the last Parliament. I ask, gentlemen, whether the 
 fact is conclusive in the minds even of English Home 
 Eulers ? Are they prepared to say that they are ready 
 to grant anything which the Irish majority will ask 
 for ? They have distinctly repudiated any such ad¬ 
 mission. They tell you in every speech they make that 
 if Ireland, if a majority of the Irish people, were to ask 
 for separation or for absolute independence, they would 
 never grant it. They tell you they would not grant 
 Home Eule unless Home Eule were surrounded by 
 safeguards and by checks which would adequately 
 
and Unionist Remedies. 
 
 131 
 
 secure the continued supremacy of Parliament, and 
 which would secure the protection of minorities in 
 Ireland. And therefore, by their admissions, they are 
 not willing to grant everything which the Irish majority 
 may demand, but only that which commends itself to 
 their own judgment. And that being the state of the 
 case, I maintain that it devolves upon them to prove 
 that which they have never yet attempted, or at least 
 attempted successfully — to prove, namely, that the 
 Horae Eule which they are willing to grant to Ireland 
 is the thing which the majority of the Irish people are 
 asking for, or that they will satisfy the real desire of the 
 Irish majority by the concession of this limited Home 
 Eule. I should say that all the indications are entirely 
 in the contrary direction. If we look at the speeches 
 and declarations of the leaders of the Separatist party 
 in Ireland before the proposals which were made by 
 Mr Gladstone, if we look at the speeches which even 
 now are made by members of Mr Parnell’s party in 
 America, if we look at the declarations and the opinions 
 of the Irish party in America, which exercises so great 
 an influence on the counsels of the Home Eule party in 
 Ireland, we shall come, I think, to the conclusion that 
 the real object for which they have been striving, the 
 real object for which they are striving now, is not for 
 any limited system of Home Eule, not for any limited 
 and subordinate parliamentary government such as is 
 offered to them, but for national independence and for 
 complete separation from Great Britain. And again, 
 gentlemen, if we look at the course of the struggle 
 which is taking place in Ireland itself, if we look at the 
 causes of the resistance to the law which is now going 
 on, we shall find that the struggle partakes far more of 
 an agrarian struggle for the possession of the land than 
 
132 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 for any reform or change in the system of the govern¬ 
 ment of Ireland. Well, gentlemen, we shall perhaps be 
 able to obtain some better insight into what is the real 
 nature of the demand of the Irish majority if we at¬ 
 tempt to examine for a moment what are the objects 
 for which it appears to be made. We used to hear, and 
 we heard very justly, of Irish grievances ; but Mr Glad¬ 
 stone himself declared not very long ago that Irish 
 grievances had been removed, and it is true. Eoman 
 Catholic disabilities no longer exist. The Irish Church, 
 which was considered to be an insult to the faith of the 
 great majority of the inhabitants of Ireland, no longer 
 possesses a position of pre-eminence and power. The 
 land laws have been reformed—perhaps not to the extent 
 which all Irishmen would desire, but at all events to 
 a great extent in the direction of popular Irish demand. 
 I can myself recollect when Irish patriots in the House 
 of Commons, pointing to the grievances of the Irish 
 Church and to the inequitable character of the Irish 
 land laws, have promised to the House of Commons 
 that when these grievances were redressed, Irish dis¬ 
 content would cease; and they made those promises 
 with just as much confidence as the Irish patriots who 
 are now promising that Irish discontent will be ap¬ 
 peased, and Irish contentment will begin to prevail, as 
 soon as a limited form of Home Eule and national self- 
 government is granted to them. 
 
 But perhaps it may be said that Irishmen are asking 
 for Home Eule in order to conclude the not yet settled 
 question of the land. Is the question of the Irish land, 
 in the opinion of the English Home Eule party, a ques¬ 
 tion which is to be left to the arbitrament of an Irish 
 Parliament 1 On the contrary, it has been declared 
 that the Irish land is a question which cannot be left 
 
and Unionist Remedies. 
 
 133 
 
 to be settled by an Irish Parliament, but which must 
 be preliminarily settled by the Parliament of Great 
 Britain. In that position the Irish Home Eule party 
 have acquiesced by their acceptance of the Government 
 Bills of last year; and I ask you, gentlemen, whether 
 the English Home Eule party and the Irish Home 
 Eule party were not right in that contention, and 
 whether any Irishman honestly believes that the vexed 
 and difficult question of the Irish land can be brought 
 to a satisfactory or a just settlement by the interven¬ 
 tion of an Irish Parliament alone ? What else, then, is 
 there? What are the subjects which Parliament is 
 unwilling or unable to deal with, and which are to be 
 settled for the benefit of Ireland by an Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment ? We may be told that the agricultural interest 
 in Ireland is depressed ; but I ask whether the agricul¬ 
 tural interest in Ireland is more depressed than the 
 agricultural interest in England, or, in fact, in every 
 country in Europe ? We may be told that the condition 
 of a portion of the west and south of Ireland is deplor¬ 
 able, and I fully admit it. But again I ask. Is there 
 any remedy that has been proposed to Parliament by 
 Irish members, and which Parliament is unwilling to 
 consider ? Do you suppose, gentlemen, that there is 
 any remedy for either the agricultural depression which 
 pervades the whole of Ireland, or for its more inten¬ 
 sified form which prevails in certain portions of Ire¬ 
 land, which the Parliament of the United Kingdom 
 would not be ready to take up and grapple with if any 
 suggestion of a reasonable character could be made? 
 Are we to suppose, gentlemen, that Mr Parnell and his 
 followers have got some specific remedy for the evils 
 and grievances that prevail, which specific they will 
 not disclose save in an Irish Parliament? No; I be- 
 
134 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 lieve that it is doing the people of Ireland the greatest 
 injury, and anything but good service, to induce them 
 to believe that evils which are of a purely economic 
 character can be redressed by the action of any political 
 changes. Whatever may have been the case in the 
 past, I believe that the present democratic Parliament 
 of Great Britain is ready and only too anxious to 
 listen to any proposals which may be made which 
 will have the effect of improving the material con¬ 
 dition of Ireland or any part of Ireland; and it is 
 idle for the Separatist Irish members to attempt to 
 persuade the people of Ireland or the people of 
 Great Britain that they have remedies which could 
 be adopted by an Irish Parliament which a British 
 Parliament is unwilling to consider. I think that 
 before we are asked to assent to so great a change we 
 ought to be told something more definite as to the 
 grounds upon which the majority of the Irish people 
 are desiring this change. I could understand a people 
 asking for absolute independence, but that is the very 
 thing we are told the Irish people are not now asking 
 for. I could understand a majority of the people of 
 Ireland asking for an agrarian revolution, but that is 
 the very thing which the English Home Eulers are 
 telling us they will not grant. I can understand that 
 there may be a number of extremely able and distin¬ 
 guished politicians who are seeking for places and for 
 power who think that a change in the system of govern¬ 
 ment might open the Civil Service, the Bar, and the 
 professions to their abilities, and that there are many 
 offices that can be discharged more fitly than by those 
 who now occupy them. All these suppositions I could 
 understand; but what I feel a difficulty and an impos¬ 
 sibility in understanding is, that a whole people should 
 
and Unionist Remedies. 
 
 135 
 
 be supposed to be enthusiastic in the support of some¬ 
 thing which is not national independence, which is not 
 agrarian revolution, and which is only a small modifica¬ 
 tion of the system of government under which they at 
 present live. I proceed to ask how far this majority 
 of the Irish people has a claim to speak in the name of 
 Ireland? If this majority were really representative 
 of the whole people of Ireland—if it were representative 
 not of any one class alone, but of all classes—if it were 
 really representative of the intelligence, the education 
 and industry, the conscience, and the deliberate opinion of 
 Ireland, the demand which that majority makes would 
 present itself in a very different way to us. It might 
 be our duty to imperial considerations, it might he our 
 duty as British citizens, even then to refuse a demand 
 which we believe to be dangerous to the interests of the 
 empire as a whole. But as regards Ireland itself, the 
 demand would come before us in a very different form 
 from that in which it now presents itself. At all 
 events, in such a case we should be able to say to 
 a nation which as a nation really demands self-govern¬ 
 ment, “Upon you and upon your children, in whose 
 name you speak, be the responsibility. You have asked 
 for this thing, foreseeing, foreknownng all the conse¬ 
 quences of it; and if it fails, upon you will rest 
 the responsibility.” But, gentlemen, are we in a posi¬ 
 tion to say anything of the kind at the present time ? 
 Can we point to a demand that is made in the name of 
 Ireland as a nation ? And if the policy should fail, can 
 we say that it will have been done without protest 
 from Ireland, without resistance worthy of consideration 
 from Ireland itself? Gentlemen, I would rather say 
 that if this demand should now be conceded, it would 
 be conceded in deference to the pressure of one class of 
 
136 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 the community, and in opposition to the wishes of, and 
 in defiance of the protest of, every other class which has 
 authority to speak in the name of Irish interests. It is 
 perfectly true, as I have admitted before, that the class 
 which is asking for this change is probably the most 
 numerous; but if we look at Ireland as we are asked to 
 look at her, as a nation, are we going to look at the 
 interest of one class alone ? 
 
 Is any Irishman content to look forward to an Irish 
 future which shall be that of Ireland as a purely agri¬ 
 cultural country, dependent solely upon the agricultural 
 produce, dependent on her competition with the world 
 on what she may be able^to produce from a soil not 
 more fertile than the soils of many other countries, and 
 a climate which is certainly inferior to many climates 
 in other parts of the world ? If Ireland is going to 
 remain for ever a purely agricultural country, you may 
 settle the land question as you like; you may expel 
 the landlords from Ireland if you please; you may 
 hope whatever you like from the stimulus to agricul¬ 
 tural industry which, not very reasonably, you expect 
 to follow the process of an act of confiscation; you may 
 hope what you like from agricultural changes and 
 agrarian changes. But I maintain that if Ireland 
 would remain for ever dependent upon her agricultural 
 industry alone, Ireland must remain for ever a poor 
 country. If her population is maintained at its pres¬ 
 ent level, she must remain a discontented, disaffected 
 country ; and if her population is reduced in proportion 
 to the means of subsistence, she must remain for ever a 
 weak, an insignificant country. No patriotic Irishman 
 is satisfied with such a prospect as this; and if every 
 patriotic Irishman desires, as he does, to see Ireland no 
 longer dependent on one industry alone, to see her 
 
and Unionist Bemedies. 
 
 137 
 
 population increasing instead of diminishing, to see 
 her means of subsistence for that population increasing 
 more than in proportion to the population itself; if he 
 expects and desires'to see the quick brains and the 
 undoubted industry of the Irish people taking their 
 proper place in the future competitions of the world— 
 what is he to look to, what is he to hope for, except 
 that Ireland shall cease to be purely dependent upon 
 agriculture, and that she shall include within her bor¬ 
 ders the manufactures and the industries which have 
 raised the neighbouring countries of the world? If 
 you want to see Irish indiastrial enterprise and manu¬ 
 factures and commerce deyeloped in Ireland, have not 
 manufacturers, have not capitalists, have not traders 
 and merchants, have not the leaders of your great in¬ 
 dustrial enterprises something to say to it ? If you are 
 going altogether to neglect the opinions of these men, 
 if you are going to ridicule their fears, perhaps to cast 
 them out from among you, to deprive them of any share 
 of influence in the government of your country, do you 
 think that that will be an inducement to them to em¬ 
 ploy their capital, their intellect, and their labour in 
 the service of the country which treats their advice and 
 their fears in this manner ? I maintain that the min¬ 
 ority which is opposed to this policy largely includes 
 those classes upon which the future prosperity of Ire¬ 
 land mainly depends. . . . 
 
 I believe, then, that you are perfectly justified not 
 only in resisting the measures which were introduced 
 last year, but in refusing your assent to any supposi¬ 
 tion that any partial modification or changes of those 
 measures can render them at once acceptable to the 
 majority of the Irish people and at the same time con¬ 
 sistent with the benefits of the maintenance of the 
 
138 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 British connection. I have on other platforms taken 
 up and maintained that position. I have been accused 
 of ignoring, discarding, and insulting Irish national 
 sentiment. I have been accused of going back from 
 what I have said upon the question of the extension 
 of local self-government in Ireland. On the question 
 of local self-government in Ireland I will not detain 
 you to-night, but I say that those who accuse me of 
 ignoring or insulting Irish national opinion, have either 
 not taken the trouble of listening to what I have said 
 or have wilfully misrepresented it. National aspira¬ 
 tions, national sentiment, national patriotism, do not 
 necessarily require a separate Parliament or an inferior 
 and subordinate system of parliamentary government 
 in order to give expression to them. We have an in¬ 
 stance of this within the limits of the United Kingdom. 
 No one can deny the existence of national feeling and 
 national aspirations in the kingdom of Scotland. No 
 one can say that the love of Scotland and the pride 
 in Scottish traditions and Scottish history burn less 
 strongly in the hearts of Scotchmen than the love of 
 Ireland does in the hearts of Irish patriots. But Scotch 
 national sentiment does not require a separate Parlia¬ 
 ment or Government in order to give effect to its aspi¬ 
 rations. In the case of Scotland, one Parliament and 
 one Executive Government has been found to be com¬ 
 patible with the existence of a totally independent 
 system of law, with an independent and separate na¬ 
 tional Church, with an independent and distinct sys¬ 
 tem of national education, and with the administration 
 of all Scotch offices by Scotchmen; and the only con¬ 
 dition which has been attached to this recognition of 
 national feeling and national sentiment, even, it may 
 be, of national prejudice of Scotland, is that Scotchmen 
 
and Unionist Remedies. 
 
 139 
 
 should acknowledge one Parliament as the supreme 
 legislative authority, and one Government as the su¬ 
 preme Executive. If the case has been very different 
 in Ireland, if less deference has been paid in the case 
 of Ireland to the opinions and the feelings of Irishmen, 
 and if they have had less influence in the councils of 
 the Imperial Parliament, if they have less influence in 
 the administration of their own affairs, that has arisen 
 mainly, I believe, from the fact that Irishmen have in 
 times past, as they are, unfortunately, doing now, shown 
 their unwillingness to conform to the law of Parlia¬ 
 ment, even when it is a just law, or to respect the 
 authority of the Imperial Executive Government. But, 
 gentlemen, whatever may have been the case in times 
 past, I believe that now—when the democracy of Great 
 Britain is fully and fairly represented in the Imperial 
 Parliament, when no other desire exists in the mind of 
 any subject of Great Britain than to do fair and equal 
 justice to Ireland—it is in the power of Ireland and of 
 the leaders of the Irish people to obtain for themselves 
 and for their constituencies equal deference to their 
 opinions and an equal share in the government of their 
 own country, equal attention to their own grievances, 
 equal attention to every representation which they may 
 make, not by means of rebellion, not by means of forc¬ 
 ible resistance to the law, not by obstruction in Parlia¬ 
 ment, but by simply acknowledging the existence of 
 facts which have taken place and which are irrevocable, 
 and by reposing in the people of the sister island that 
 full measure of confidence which we, on our part, are 
 only too willing and too ready to extend in a full 
 measure to the people of Ireland. . . , 
 
140 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 DECEMBER 1887 . 
 
 It seems in the opinion of some that are opposed to 
 ns that the Unionist party love coercion for itself, and 
 take an absolute pleasure in the suppression of free 
 speech and in the suppression of a free press, and that 
 it is one of their greatest enjoyments if they are able 
 to place a trusted leader of any portion of the people 
 in prison on account of his political opinions. I may 
 say on behalf of the Unionist party, and I believe I 
 may say it as truly on behalf of the Conservative sec¬ 
 tion of that party as on the part of the Liberal Unionists, 
 that we hate—we detest—any unnecessary interference 
 with the ordinary law of the country, and that there 
 is nothing we desire more than that Ireland should be 
 governed by the same system of law and should possess 
 to a full degree equal rights and equal liberties to 
 those which are enjoyed by the people of the rest of 
 the United Empire. But if we detest coercion, there 
 is one thing which we detest still more, and that is 
 the impunity of crime, the suppression of private lib¬ 
 erty, of the right of individuals to conduct their own 
 business and to carry on their own affairs according 
 to their own wish without tyrannical interference by 
 any secret and irresponsible association. We deny 
 altogether that we, the Unionist party, are responsible 
 for the necessity of the Coercion Act. We say that 
 the true responsibility for these Acts rests, in the first 
 place, upon the Separatist party, who have made them 
 a necessity; and in the second place, and in scarcely 
 an inferior degree, rrpon those statesmen who have, as 
 we think, weakly surrendered to the policy which has 
 been forced upon them by the Irish Separatists. For 
 some years past the policy of the Irish Separatist 
 
and Unionist Remedies. 
 
 141 
 
 party has not been concealed. It has been a policy of 
 forcing upon the British Legislature by compulsion a 
 measure which they could not persuade the British 
 Legislature to adopt by argument, by means of the 
 obstruction in Parliament of which, I believe, the 
 leader of the Irish Home Pule party, Mr Parnell, was 
 the first chief inventor. Obstruction in Parliament 
 is part of precisely the same policy as resistance to 
 the law in Ireland and the tyranny of boycotting. 
 These are all arms of the League and of the Separatist 
 party used to the one end of endeavouring to prove 
 that the government of Ireland under the law of 
 the Imperial Parliament and by the Imperial Govern¬ 
 ment is an impossibility. And I say, gentlemen, that 
 the policy has not been concealed, but has with cynical 
 frankness been admitted by the leaders of the Separatist 
 party. . . . 
 
 The policy of proving the government of Ireland to 
 be impossible had already had the effect of converting 
 the leaders and the great proportion of the Liberal 
 party, and it remained to be seen whether the persist¬ 
 ence in that policy might not still have the effect of 
 converting the whole people of the British Islands. 
 The policy was announced at once without delay of 
 proving to demonstration that that government was 
 impossible; and hence we had a renewal, a fresh out¬ 
 break, of resistance to the law, a fresh outbreak of ob¬ 
 struction in I’aiiiament, a fresh outbreak of persecu¬ 
 tion of every individual in Ireland who was willing 
 to obey or to respect the law. Gentlemen, it is against 
 an organised policy such as this that Bills which are 
 stigmatised as Coercion Bills are necessary. Our ordi¬ 
 nary law is sufficient and is competent to deal with the 
 ordinary cases of scattered, isolated, and individual 
 
142 
 
 Separatist Demands 
 
 crime; but it need not be a matter of surprise to any 
 one of us that the ordinary law, which is intended for 
 a peaceful and law-abiding country, should be insuf¬ 
 ficient to cope with a conspiracy which is directly in¬ 
 tended to prove that a portion of the United Kingdom 
 should be ungovernable by the ordinary law of the 
 country. And I say that the task of creating and 
 promoting this resistance to the law was not so difficult 
 or so arduous as it might appear. We have the author¬ 
 ity of Mr Gladstone himself for the statement. But 
 a very short time ago, in a great speech which Mr 
 Gladstone made upon the Irish question, he declared 
 that if you wanted to demoralise a people and to preach 
 the doctrines of public plunder, it did not require 
 superhuman ability to obtain a considerable number 
 of adherents for such a policy. And it is under ex¬ 
 actly the same circumstances as those which were 
 denounced by Mr Gladstone in 1881 that we are called 
 upon to contend to-day, and the same necessity has 
 arisen in 1887 to deal with what are called measures 
 of coercion as in 1881. But, gentlemen, the respon¬ 
 sibility for bringing Coercion Acts on our country is 
 not the only one which rests on Mr Parnell and the 
 Home Eule party. It is they also, as has been ex¬ 
 plained in the able speech of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, who are responsible if the extension of 
 larger powers of local self-government should be de¬ 
 layed beyond the time when that extension might pro¬ 
 perly take place. The task is a difficult one for any 
 Government to undertake when it meets with no sup¬ 
 porters among those who profess to lead, and do, indeed, 
 exercise a large influence on a large portion of the 
 population. The task of bringing forward a measure 
 of local self-government is a difficult one for a Govern- 
 
and Unionist Remedies. 
 
 143 
 
 ment in the position of the present Government, en¬ 
 gaged as it is in the first duty of any Government, 
 in an endeavour to enforce the law. But apart from 
 these difficulties, I believe it to be the desire of every 
 Unionist that equal privileges and equal facilities for 
 self-government should be extended to the whole of the 
 empire. The difficulties, as I have said, are great, and 
 the temptation may be great to rely for the mainten¬ 
 ance of the Union solely upon force and solely upon 
 exceptional law. But I believe that the sooner the 
 Unionist party finds itself in a position to deal in terms 
 of perfect equality with the people of Ireland, as com¬ 
 pared with those of Great Britain, the easier will our 
 task become, and the more firmly shall we secure the 
 maintenance of the Union between Great Britain and 
 Ireland. Gentlemen, in both those tasks, both in the 
 preservation of the legislative union that now exists, 
 and in the extension of equal liberties to Ireland as 
 compared with those of Great Britain, we in England 
 cannot act alone. We are powerless without the co¬ 
 operation of the loyal party in Ireland. To you we 
 look for support. We trust to you to enable us to show 
 our fellow-countrymen in Great Britain that there is 
 another party in Ireland as deeply attached to our 
 institutions and our laws as any of them are ourselves. 
 To you we look to prove to them that you are equally 
 willing to trust your fellow-countrymen and to extend 
 to them equal liberties and equal laws. 
 
 HARTINGTON. 
 
THE CONTROL OF THE IRISH LAW COURTS 
 AND POLICE. 
 
 BY 
 
 LOED SELBOENE. 
 
 It was proposed, in 1886, to place the whole judicature 
 (except the Court of Exchequer) and the whole police 
 force of Ireland under the control of the Irish Legis¬ 
 lature and the Irish Executive, which the Bill of that 
 year would have created—not indeed immediately, but 
 after an interval of two years. The interposition of 
 that interval may have been proposed under the idea 
 that the transition would so be made easier, but there 
 was more reason for apprehending from it the con¬ 
 trary effect. It may safely he said, in view of the tone 
 adopted by the organs of the Nationalist movement 
 towards the police, that a paralysis must have at once 
 fallen upon the efficacy of that force for its proper 
 purpose. And although the holders of judicial office 
 might have done their duty without fear or favour, it is 
 impossible that a sentence of condemnation, practically 
 
The Control of the Irish Laio Courts and Poliee. 145 
 
 passed upon them, and upon the system of law and 
 government which they were bound to administer, 
 could, during that two years’ respite, have left their 
 authority unimpaired. 
 
 Upon this point, however, it is unnecessary to dwell. 
 Whether, in any new measure of the same kind, the 
 transfer of power over the judicature and the police 
 force from imperial to Irish hands might be immediate 
 or postponed, its effect, when it came into operation, 
 would be substantially the same. And it may be re¬ 
 garded as certain, that this transfer itself will form part 
 of every scheme for establishing an Irish Parliament, 
 with an Irish Executive responsible to the Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment and not to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. 
 
 Upon the supposition of a complete and acknow¬ 
 ledged separation between Great Britain and Ireland, 
 such as would take place if the legislative power of the 
 Irish Parliament, with an Irish Executive responsible 
 to it, were as absolute and unlimited as that conceded 
 to Grattan’s Parliament by the Act of 1783, Ireland 
 would be (so far as an Act of the Imperial Parliament 
 could make it) an independent nation. The authority 
 of the Crown could not be used so as practically to 
 qualify that independence, without a departure from 
 the principles of constitutional government; and this 
 could not take place without an indirect resumption, 
 by the Imperial Legislature, of the practice of interfer¬ 
 ence in the internal affairs of Ireland, which would 
 have been in principle renounced. But the scheme of 
 1886 gave not an absolute but a qualified and con¬ 
 ditional independence, with important exceptions and 
 reservations ; and I assume that, in any future scheme 
 which its authors might again propose, there would be 
 exceptions and reservations more or less similar. 
 
 K 
 
146 
 
 The Control of the 
 
 There is no possible way of securing public and 
 private liberty in any State, and especially in a State 
 where factions run high (as in Ireland has always been 
 the case, and is always likely to be), without an inde¬ 
 pendent, impartial, and sufficiently strong administra¬ 
 tion of the law. For this purpose it is essential that 
 the judicature should be free from control or interfer¬ 
 ence by the Executive, either direct or through any 
 legislative body in which the power of the persons 
 administering the Executive Government is generally 
 predominant; and also, that the police force (in itself 
 forming part of the Executive) should be assistant and 
 subsidiary to the judicature, enforcing and executing 
 its decrees, and acting, under legal responsibility, for 
 the prevention and repression of lawlessness and crime. 
 It ought not to be in the power of the Executive 
 authorities, without incurring the responsibility, public 
 and private, of Avrong-doers, to AA-ithhold the assistance 
 of the police when necessary for the execution of the 
 judgments of the Courts, or to make use of that force 
 for purposes not warranted by law. Behind the police, 
 in cases of emergency rendering the use of extraordi¬ 
 nary force necessary, there must stand the military 
 power; which, again, ought to be subject to civil 
 responsibility when acting without warrant of law. 
 
 In the United States this balance of forces is secured, 
 partly by the universal limitation of all legislative powers 
 —both those of the Federal Congress and those of the 
 States—and partly by making the judgments of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States conclusive as to 
 the transgression of those limitations by any legisla¬ 
 ture. That Court has to judge, not merely of the con¬ 
 struction and application, but also of the validity of all 
 legislative acts, whether of Congress or of any State 
 
Irish Laio Courts and Police. 
 
 147 
 
 legislature. And there is present everywhere, not only 
 a police force subject to the law and Executive Govern¬ 
 ment of each particular State, but a force subject to the 
 direct authority of the Federal Government, capable of 
 executing, and bound in due course of law to execute, 
 the judgments of tlie Supreme Court. 
 
 In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
 the independence of the judicature, and the assistance 
 and subordination of the police and the military force 
 to law, are secured by other means. The judges of the 
 different Courts hold their offices on terms defined by 
 law, and during good behaviour—those of the higher 
 Courts can only be removed by a concurrent vote of 
 both Houses of Parliament. There is one final Court 
 of appeal—to the House of Lords—from all the higher 
 Courts of the United Kingdom, and this ultimate tri¬ 
 bunal is itself independent of the Executive power. 
 Any Minister of State who might interfere to prevent 
 the police from giving to the judgments of the Courts 
 in favour of private litigants the assistance necessary 
 for their execution in the course of law, would incur 
 civil liability, and might be exposed to the penalties of 
 contempt against the Courts. If any Minister were to 
 employ the police force or the military for unlawful 
 purposes, he might (according to the nature of the case) 
 incur criminal responsibilities also. Of these safeguards 
 for law, freedom, and justice, none can be altered with¬ 
 out new legislation, in which both Houses of Parliament 
 must concur. 
 
 Let it now be considered how these matters would 
 stand under a new constitution for Ireland, transferriiur 
 to ail Irish Parliament, with an Irish Executive respon¬ 
 sible to it, the whole control over the judicature and 
 the police force, and at the same time placing some 
 
148 
 
 The Control of the 
 
 limitations and restrictions upon the powers of the 
 Irish Parliament. Let it also be assumed that the 
 Irish Parliament would not have any military force 
 placed directly at its disposal, but that the control of 
 the army would remain with the British Government, 
 responsible to an Imperial Parliament, by whatever 
 name called, or however constituted. 
 
 The very existence of restrictions and limitations 
 upon the legislative powers of the new Irish Parliament 
 would naturally lead to such an exercise of those powers, 
 within their assigned limits (I do not now enter into 
 the question how long or how far those limits would 
 be ostensibly observed), as to fortify them, and to 
 strengthen the hands of the Irish Executive, against 
 the checks upon the popular will contemplated by those 
 limitations. And there could be no more obvious way 
 of doing this than by keeping the judicature and the 
 police in a position of greater dependence upon the 
 popular will than is consistent with the guarantees 
 necessary in a well-ordered State for the supremacy 
 of law, for private rights, and for individual freedom. 
 
 Against those who, as judges, had honestly and fear¬ 
 lessly administered laws unpopular with, or which 
 had been actively resisted by, the new ruling powers, 
 and against those who, as members of the police force, 
 had incurred the animosity of the same powers by do¬ 
 ing their duty in obedience to law, the question would 
 be approached with feelings not favourable to the main¬ 
 tenance of their authority and independence. Powers 
 which had been won by a successful crusade against 
 private rights of property, carried on by the pressure of 
 organised combinations, to compel the unwilling as 
 well as the willing to attack those rights, and join in 
 the crusade, and to resist both Courts and police when 
 
Irish Law Courts and Police. 
 
 149 
 
 opposing those combinations, would certainly not be 
 used so as to condemn and suppress the methods which 
 had been employed to obtain them; at all events, they 
 would not be so used until those private rights which 
 were the subject of attack had been destroyed. It 
 would be almost a necessity of the position, that when 
 the Courts of law and the police were put absolutely 
 under the control of the new Government—that control 
 should be used to weaken and not strengthen the au¬ 
 thority of the law and the independence of its admin¬ 
 istration on all points on which it had been previously 
 resisted. And this might be done, not only by reserv¬ 
 ing discretionary powers, more or less indefinite, to the 
 Executive, and by altering the conditions and tenure of 
 the higher judicial offices, but also by manipulating the 
 personnel, the jurisdiction, the mode of appointment, 
 and the tenure of office of the inferior judges and 
 magistracy throughout Ireland. By such means any 
 reservation of powers to collect customs duties, or rents 
 and annual payments reserved under a general scheme of 
 land redemption or purchase, might also (at the pleasure 
 of the new rulers) be impeded or practically defeated. 
 
 The new form of parliamentary government could 
 not reproduce the guarantees afforded by the present 
 constitution of the United Kingdom for the independ¬ 
 ence of the judicature. Even if two Houses of Parlia¬ 
 ment were set up in Ireland (which was proposed in 
 1886, though in a manner so weak as to make it toler¬ 
 ably certain that the proposal will not be repeated in 
 the same form), both would rest entirely upon the basis 
 of popular election; and in case of any difference, even 
 upon such a question as that of the removal of judges, 
 or of a change by law in the conditions and tenure of 
 judicial offices, the voice of the more popular assembly 
 
150 
 
 The Control of the 
 
 would be sure to prevail. Neither assembly would 
 have any judicial habits or traditions. The first ques¬ 
 tion must be, Whether those superior judges who are 
 now removable only upon a joint address from both 
 branches of the Imperial Legislature to the Crown should, 
 in Ireland, be removable by the Executive Government 
 at its pleasure, or by the Executive Government with 
 the assent, or subject to the veto, of the more popular 
 assembly (supposing there to be two branches) of the 
 Irish Legislature ? The power of removal in either of 
 those forms would practically destroy the independence 
 of the judicature. Even if (which is not probable) the 
 concurrence of both Houses were required, it is unlikely 
 that a senate popularly elected would oppose the will 
 of the more powerful assembly. There would not be in 
 Ireland under its new constitution any power or influ¬ 
 ence, either of property or of station, sufficiently strong 
 to furnish a constituency which would return a senate 
 representing interests, opinions, or desires substantially 
 distinct from those represented by the more powerful 
 body elected under the wider suffrage. For an indefinite 
 time all the forces of influence, combination, and intim¬ 
 idation, which had succeeded in obtaining the control 
 of the government of Ireland, would be still under the 
 command of the same leaders, and would practically 
 govern both the electoral bodies. Their operation at 
 this moment is to place in the hands of those leaders 
 —I might probably say with truth in the hands of a 
 single man—the nomination of all the representatives 
 of the Nationalist party in Ireland; and if anything 
 in the world is certain, it is that so vast a power would 
 not be soon or willingly relinquished when the govern¬ 
 ment of all Ireland was in those hands. The total want 
 of experience in legislation or government would be a 
 
Irish Law Courts and Police. 
 
 151 
 
 reason for not surrendering it, the plausibility of which 
 no man could deny. Even if the autocrat of the mo¬ 
 ment were willing to lay it down, it could only be to 
 give place to some bolder successor or rival. 
 
 That the British House of Lords would not, under 
 such an Irish constitution, continue to be the Court of 
 final appeal, or retain any judicial power in Irish 
 cases, civil or criminal, may be assumed as certain. 
 How would it be replaced ? If by an appeal to a senate 
 elected in Ireland by popular suffrage, or to an Irish 
 Privy Council, nominated upon the advice of the new 
 Executive Government, there would be an end of all 
 security for the firmness, consistency, or impartiality of 
 the administration of justice. 
 
 Whatever laws might be passed by the new Legis¬ 
 lature—however subversive of the rights of property, 
 however unjust or oppressive towards classes or indi¬ 
 viduals, however odious to those who had been loyal¬ 
 ists and opposed to the policy of the new rulers (for 
 example, to the great majority of the people of Ulster) 
 —the police, under the command of the new Executive 
 Government, would be as much bound to enforce them 
 as they are now to enforce the laws enacted by the 
 Imperial Parliament; and unless all ordinary constitu¬ 
 tional principles were departed from, the whole mili¬ 
 tary force of the Crown stationed in Ireland (notwith¬ 
 standing the formal exception of military matters from 
 the control of the Irish Parliament) must be disposable 
 for the same purpose, when the power of the police is 
 found insufficient. Every coercive power now wielded 
 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be 
 available to compel the obedience of the hitherto loyal 
 minority to any laws which the new Irish Parliament 
 might enact. 
 
152 
 
 The Control of the 
 
 So far I have been proceeding upon the supposition 
 that the new Irish Parliament would confine itself 
 within the limits prescribed by the law of its crea¬ 
 tion. But the opposite contingency must also be con¬ 
 sidered. Those limits must, from the necessity of the 
 case, be defined in general terms; the line cannot be 
 so sharply and clearly drawn as to exclude, on the 
 one side or the other, debatable ground; and it may be 
 assumed as certain, that all such debatable ground 
 would be treated, practically, by the Irish Parliament 
 as within its powers. With the judicature and all the 
 forces of Executive Government, except the direct com¬ 
 mand of troops, under their control, the laws passed by 
 that Parliament, whether intra vires or not, could be 
 put in force in Ireland; and the Imperial Parliament 
 and Government could do nothing to prevent it, except 
 by war. Nothing can be more futile than the notion 
 that decisions of a British Privy Council would be ac¬ 
 cepted or acquiesced in as settling such questions, or 
 that the royal assent could in such cases always be 
 withheld, without bringing everything to a dead-lock. 
 With all the powers of government locally available in 
 Ireland in the hands of the leaders of the parliamentary 
 party there, the British Government would be under 
 difficulties practically insiq^erable without wax; and 
 the Irish Government would have the strongest pos¬ 
 sible vantage-ground for getting rid of all obnoxious 
 restraints. If any device could be imagined to aggra¬ 
 vate the difficulty, it would be that of putting some of 
 the judges, over whom the Irish Executive or Legisla¬ 
 ture would have power, in the position of taking part, 
 as members of the British Privy Council, in the deci¬ 
 sion of such questions. Either they would concur or 
 they would not. If they did, it would be thought in- 
 
Irish Law Courts and Police. 153 
 
 tolerable that a small minority of Irish judges, sit¬ 
 ting in England, should have power to nullify Acts of 
 the Irish Legislature. If they did not, it would be 
 thought more intolerable still, that, in spite of the dis¬ 
 sent of the only members of the Irish judicature who 
 were allowed any voice in the matter, the opinions of 
 British Privy Councillors should prevail. The case 
 would be altogether unlike that of appeals from the 
 Colonies, involving questions as to the validity of Acts 
 passed by Colonial Legislatures with limited powers. 
 From those Colonies, the Judicial Committee of the 
 British Privy Council (or, to speak with more technical 
 precision, her Majesty in Council) is the ordinary Court 
 of final appeal in all cases civil and criminal; and it 
 is only in the exercise of that general appellate juris¬ 
 diction that any questions incidentally arising as to 
 the validity of the Acts of Colonial Legislatures can 
 be determined by that tribunal. But the Judicial 
 Committee and the Queen in Council would have no 
 general appellate jurisdiction over any decisions of 
 the Irish Courts. Nor would there be any executive 
 power capable of enforcing decisions of the British Privy 
 Council in Ireland against the whole force of Govern¬ 
 ment, judicature, and police, in the hands of those 
 asserting the competency of the Irish Legislature and 
 the validity of its Acts. In a colony such as Canada, 
 where the legislative power is distributed between the 
 Dominion Parliament and Provincial Parliaments, a de¬ 
 cision that one legislature is incompetent affirms the 
 competency of another, and both have their own means 
 of enforcing, upon the spot, by proper judicial and ad¬ 
 ministrative authority, decisions practically in their 
 power. But no such conditions would exist in Ireland 
 under the contemplated new constitution. 
 
154 The Control of the Irish Law Courts and Police. 
 
 It follows that, to hand over the whole judicature and 
 executive to a Government responsible only to a local 
 Parliament with limited powers, and having any in¬ 
 ducement to abuse or to exceed those powers, would be 
 to arm it with the means of employing all the machinery 
 of law against law, and of forcing the hand of the Impe¬ 
 rial Parliament, whenever it might be desired to make 
 a serious attempt to get rid of unpopular limitations, 
 or to take a further stage in the road towards absolute 
 independence. 
 
 SELBORNE. 
 
A SEPARATE EXECUTIYE FOR IRELAND 
 IMPRACTICABLE. 
 
 BY 
 
 LORD BASING. 
 
 There is, it must be admitted, something plausible and 
 attractive in the name and idea of Home Rule, and 
 even, to put the matter more closely, in the suggestion 
 that the Irish people should have, if they desire it, 
 an Irish Parliament for the discussion and settlement 
 of their own affairs. No one, moreover, who has been 
 in the habit of attending or taking part in public 
 meetings of a political character during the last two 
 years while the great controversy has been raging, can 
 have failed to experience some embarrassment in con¬ 
 tending against that proposition; especially before a 
 simple and uncultivated audience, who are apt to take 
 things literally, and who would feel in no way injured by 
 the concession of such a boon—if boon it be considered 
 —to people with whom they have little in common, and 
 no natural ground of quarrel or occasion for jealousy. 
 
156 
 
 A Separate Executive for 
 
 Politicians, in arguing this question from the Union¬ 
 ist point of view, are naturally conscious of this diffi¬ 
 culty, and seem inclined to meet it, for the most part, 
 by an expression of their eagerness to concede, or even 
 to advocate, any amount of local self-government in 
 Ireland, such as they would he prepared for in Scot¬ 
 land or in England. But it must be evident to those 
 who use such arguments that they are, as it were, 
 heating the air; while their listeners are instinctively 
 sensible that little, if anything, is contributed by them 
 towards a solution of the problem at issue; that they 
 have, in fact, no practical bearing on the subject. 
 Trained and experienced politicians, by which term is 
 meant not merely members of the Legislature, but all 
 who habitually read, write, speak, or think on the 
 public questions of the day, appreciate more keenly 
 how this is, and can measure the immense difference 
 which really exists between any such concessions as 
 local self-government, and the Home Buie of Mr Glad¬ 
 stone and Mr Parnell, but few perhaps stop to inquire, 
 and certainly few trouble themselves to expound to 
 others, the real underlying principle which separates 
 so widely propositions and descriptions which are, 
 primd facie, so nearly akin. It seems easier to fly off 
 at once to a denunciation of the evils of separation and 
 repeal, than to examine more closely the constitutional 
 reasons why a separate legislature, carrying with it, as 
 it must (and as is intended), a separate Executive 
 Government, is altogether inadmissible. It may be 
 useful, therefore, even at this late period, to set out 
 some of the reasons why such an innovation would be 
 not only mischievous in itself and intolerable in its 
 results, but would be founded upon a false analogy 
 with our existing system of parliamentary control. 
 
Ireland Impracticahle. 
 
 157 
 
 Every one, indeed, can see, when they have been 
 once pointed out and considered, the gross absurdities 
 which are involved in the plan of a separate Executive 
 Government for Ireland, created by and responsible to 
 the Parliament of that country under the provisions of 
 the Home Kule Bill of 1886. That the Queen should 
 have ministers on this and on the other side of the 
 Irish Channel entertaining the most divergent, or even 
 incompatible, views on matters of high policy, is ob¬ 
 viously inconvenient, but that an English Prime Minis¬ 
 ter, supported by majorities in the English Parliament, 
 representing fairly the prevailing opinion and senti¬ 
 ment of the British Empire, carrying with him the 
 favour of the Crown and the goodwill of the people at 
 large, should find himself thwarted by the action of the 
 same Queen’s Government in Ireland, and be unable to 
 advise the Queen to dismiss such a Government or to 
 dissolve such a Parliament, presents a picture almost 
 impossible to realise, whether the conflict were to have 
 arisen on great subjects of transcendent importance— 
 such as questions of peace and war—or whether upon 
 matters of internal administration, such as commercial 
 freedom or religious equality. Let it not be said that by 
 careful drafting of the Act of Parliament irnder which 
 Home Rule is to be conceded all such subjects of possible 
 conflict may be eliminated, expressly or under general 
 definitions. Attempts to this effect were made in the 
 Home Rule Bill, and others might conceivably be at¬ 
 tempted, but all would be in vain. We know the 
 ability, the ingenirity, and the resources of the Irish 
 race ; we know also the impossibility—such a conces¬ 
 sion as Home Rule once made—of repressing free 
 speech in that country or in any representative body 
 of that country. Assuming, for a moment (as was 
 
158 
 
 A Separate Executive for 
 
 proposed), that it would be practicable to preclude the 
 Irish Parliament from dealing legislatively with any 
 given subject, such as the coinage, religious liberty, or 
 the like, what could prevent motions being made or 
 resolutions being proposed, debated, and adopted as to 
 the expediency of changes or alterations in this or that 
 direction in respect of such subject-matters ? Or again, 
 take the more burning question of our foreign rela¬ 
 tions, with the issues of peace or war hanging, as it 
 were, in the balance, what more conceivable than vio¬ 
 lent and almost unanimous expressions of opinion 
 taking place in the Irish Parliament directly challeng¬ 
 ing the conduct of the British Government, to the 
 comfort and support of the declared enemies of the 
 empire? Such a state of things is not only not im¬ 
 possible, but the likelihood of it might be illustrated 
 by numberless speeches and public utterances made in 
 the House of Commons and elsewhere even during the 
 comparatively insignificant war-time which the country 
 lately experienced in Egypt. 
 
 But a Cabinet in Ireland—for that is what was 
 meant and provided for, sub rosd, in Mr Gladstone’s 
 Bill—would not, and could not, be constituted in any 
 but the most superficial manner on the model or ac¬ 
 cording to the analogy of the English Cabinet. Hot to 
 mention the immense difference involved in the fact 
 that there are, according to our existing constitution, 
 two legislative bodies in England as compared with 
 one to be set up in Ireland, out of which the Cabinet 
 for Great Britain must be constructed, we have likewise 
 here the important function of the Sovereign as regards 
 its composition, and especially as regards selection of 
 the First Minister,—a function to the exercise of which 
 on a very recent occasion all parties looked with satis- 
 
Ireland Impracticahlc. 
 
 159 
 
 faction, and in which they thankfully acquiesced. 
 Be it observed, however, that there was a remarkable 
 omission in the Home Eule Bill to provide in detail 
 how the Government or Cabinet should be put to¬ 
 gether, and of what elements it should consist, or how 
 the public service should be departmeutally organised. 
 These matters, of the first interest and importance to 
 the inhabitants of Ireland, were almost ostentatiously 
 ignored, on the plea that they were to be settled by the 
 wisdom of the Irish Parliament itself. But the conse¬ 
 quence of this omission would be that the Irish Parlia¬ 
 ment, on meeting after its election, would find itself 
 unable to enter on the exercise of its practical work as 
 a legislative body, and must of necessity be charged in 
 the first instance wdth the duties and functions of a 
 “ Constituent assembly,” with power, practically unre¬ 
 strained, to mould and manipulate the constitution of 
 the Government and of the public service in the man¬ 
 ner most agreeable to the will, and in the interests, of 
 the majority—that is, of the disloyal and Separatist 
 majority of the representatives of Ireland in the pres¬ 
 ent House of Commons. 
 
 The constitution, as we know it, in this country grew 
 up in a very different way. Modified—largely and 
 fundamentally, no doubt, but gradually—during three 
 centuries, by the accumulated wisdom and experience 
 of public men, acting with and supported by public 
 opinion, it is open to no imputation of having been 
 concocted by a party with a view to special or exclusive 
 interests. If we proceed to criticise more closely, we 
 might point to the swamping of the Irish peerage as a 
 j)roceeding without justification or precedent as regards 
 any supposed or pretended analogy between the British 
 system of the past and the Irish system of the future. 
 
160 
 
 A Separate Executive for 
 
 Again, the majority of the Irish Parliament being what 
 we know it would he, and the Executive Government 
 being (by the hypothesis) not only its creature, but the 
 exponent of its will and the agent of its policy, wdiat 
 sort of judicial machinery or civil service establishment 
 could be brought into existence which would bear the 
 faintest resemblance to the sober, steady, and uniform 
 administration with which we are familiar in this 
 country, and which exercises its wholesome and dis¬ 
 passionate agency unaffected for the most part by the 
 changes which from time to time occur in the political 
 supervision of affairs ? Can it be conceived that such a 
 service would be created under the proposed Home Eule 
 arrangements ? On the contrary, we have almost for¬ 
 mal notice that the public departments, which have 
 been for years covered with obloquy as savouring of 
 the “Castle,” would be disestablished, the judiciary re¬ 
 moved or reduced to dependence on the will of the 
 majority, the police broken up, and a new order of 
 things introduced and administered by the substitution 
 of partisans for trained officials. What a prospect for 
 the minorities!—the minority, that is, of the land- 
 owners, who have been vilified and despoiled; of the 
 capitalists who have developed such industries as are 
 yet to be found in Dublin and Belfast; and of the loyal 
 farmers and peasants of Ulster. 
 
 On the other hand, greatly as all these developments 
 would differ from existing institutions, there need be 
 little fear but that the vices and extravagances of our 
 public life, in the development of which the Irish mem¬ 
 bers have borne so conspicuous a part, would survive 
 and flourish without let or hindrance. The party 
 manoeuvres, the wire-pulling, the arts of obstruction, 
 the prolixities of debate, the encroachments by the legis- 
 
Ireland Impracticahle. 
 
 IGl 
 
 lature on the executive function,—from all of which 
 evils we have so grievously suffered,—would be greedily 
 copied, and would find a congenial home in the Irish 
 assembly; but what steadying power, whether of his¬ 
 torical tradition through hereditary rank or status, of re¬ 
 spect for property, landed or commercial, could be found 
 as a makeweight against the overwhelming influences of 
 popularis astral No one will dispute that these make¬ 
 weights still exist, and have value for us in England, 
 highly democratised though we be; nor that they still 
 control our tendencies to excess, and give confidence to 
 our minorities in the justice of our imperial administra¬ 
 tion. What shall we say, then, of the recklessness of a 
 solemn proposal by the foremost politician of his time 
 to let all such securities and safeguards go by the board, 
 leaving the fortunes—nay, the future existence—of Ire¬ 
 land as a nation, to be manipulated at will by those 
 who have shown such intolerance of all that law-abid¬ 
 ing citizens should respect and cherish ? 
 
 There was, indeed, in the Home Eule Bill the fan¬ 
 tastic and far-fetched expedient of a double system of 
 election to the legislative body, for the workability of 
 which no one had a word to say, but which was accept¬ 
 ed by the Irish members at the time in a manner highly 
 significant of their real opinion of its worthlessness. 
 But the Davitts and Fords have quite recently rejected 
 and openly pronounced against any such contrivances 
 as wholly unnecessary and uncalled for; while the phan¬ 
 tom of the Viceroyalty, which was nominally pre¬ 
 served as a connecting link between the Governments 
 of the two countries, could not really have been main¬ 
 tained, so great and universal is the discredit which 
 has been cast upon that institution, without a complete 
 change in its position and attitude. In other words, 
 
 L 
 
1G2 A Separate Executive for Ireland ImpracMcaUc. 
 
 the Lord Lieutenant, if he were to enter on his task 
 with any prospect of success, or hope of popularity, 
 must surrender his position as nominee of the sov¬ 
 ereign for that of an official designated if not elected by 
 the popular vote. In all these points, and in man}" 
 more which might he particularised, a thoughtful ex¬ 
 amination into the probable working of the Home Eule 
 Bill, the only programme which has been yet put for¬ 
 ward with any pretence to authority, will surely con¬ 
 vince the impartial inquirer that the term inadmissible 
 is not too strong for application to the project of a 
 separate Executive for Ireland, dependent on a separate 
 Parliament. 
 
 All parties in the State are perhaps responsible, in 
 greater or less degree, for the weakness and want of 
 perception which has brought oiar common country into 
 this great complication of trouble and difficulty. Peo¬ 
 ple in these days are apt to let things drift, where 
 statesmen of old would have acted with foresight, cour¬ 
 age, and decision. But, however that may be, it can¬ 
 not but be useful to have inquired, even briefly and 
 superficially, into the probable working out of schemes 
 which, however flimsy and shadowy as they are thus 
 found to be, are, nevertheless, the only ones which have 
 been seriously propounded for the establishment of 
 Home Eule in Ireland. 
 
 BASING. 
 
WHY I AM NOT A HOME RULER.^ 
 
 BY 
 
 W. E. II. LECKY. 
 
 I HAVE often wondered whether those gentlemen who 
 assure us that Ireland will be satisfied with nothing 
 less than Grattan’s Parliament have ever seriously 
 reflected what Grattan’s Parliament under the Con¬ 
 stitution of 1782 really was. It consisted, of course, 
 of two Houses—a House of Lords as well as a House 
 of Commons. It was altogether Protestant. It was 
 elected exclusively by Protestants, though, towards the 
 close of its career, it, with signal liberality, admitted 
 the Catholics to the franchise. It was drawn entirely 
 from the section of the community which was indis¬ 
 putably loyal, and it was probably more eminently 
 and specially the representative of property than any 
 legislature that is now existing in the world. Put in 
 order still further to secure a constant concurrence 
 
 1 A portion of this article appeared orif'inally in the ‘ Nineteentli 
 Centniy,’ and is reprinted by the permission of tlie Editor. 
 
1G4 Why I am not a Home Euler. 
 
 between this Legislature and the Legislature of Great 
 Britain, the Government steadily upheld a system of 
 representation under which about two-thirds of the 
 members of the Irish Parliament sat for nomination 
 boroughs, a great proportion of which were at the ab¬ 
 solute disposal of the Government. Yet, in spite of all 
 these securities, the task of making the two Legislatures 
 work in harmony was not found to be an easy one, and 
 it was on the great danger that might result from their 
 collision that Pitt chiefly based his argument for the 
 Union. The Constitution of 1782, he said, had estab¬ 
 lished no “ solid, permanent system of connection be¬ 
 tween the two countries.” Experience had shown 
 “ how inadequate it was to the great object of cement¬ 
 ing the connection and placing it beyond the danger 
 of being dissolved.” 
 
 Grattan, it is true, desired to introduce considerable 
 changes into this Parliament. He wished to diminish 
 the corrupt influence exercised by the Crown in the 
 shape of excessive patronage and rotten boroughs; and 
 he wished to admit into the two Houses that small 
 body of Catholic gentry who were then, as they are 
 now, among the most loyal and useful elements of 
 Irish national life. But it is a perfect delusion to 
 suppose that he ever contemplated or desired an Irish 
 Parliament which was not essentially under the guid¬ 
 ance of the lauded gentry of the country. A purely 
 democratic Parliament was, it is true, the ideal of the 
 United Irishmen who represented the ideas of the 
 French Eevolution, but their scheme of “ personal rep¬ 
 resentation ” found in Grattan the most unflinching 
 opponent. It was a scheme, he said, which would 
 “ destroy the influence of landed property,” and thus 
 give up “the vital and fundamental articles of the 
 
Why I am vot a Home litder. 165 
 
 British Constitution; ” and he painted in vivid colours 
 what in the conditions of Irish life a democratic Par¬ 
 liament was likely to be. “ This plan of personal 
 representation,” he said, “ from a revolution of power 
 would speedily lead to a revolution of property, and 
 become a plan of plunder as well as a scene of con¬ 
 fusion. For, if you transfer the power of the State 
 to those who have nothing in the country, they will 
 afterwards transfer the property. ... Of such a 
 representation, the first ordinance would be robbery, 
 accompanied with the circumstance incidental to 
 robbery, murder.” “ The shout of whisky,” he said on 
 another occasion, “ will return the members of the 
 senate, and elect a felonious reju'esentation.” 
 
 It is sufficiently evident from this sketch that no 
 Parliament even remotely resembling that which was 
 abolished in 1800, or that which was contemplated by 
 Grattan, could now by any possibility be established 
 in Ireland; and that arguments from the merits or 
 demerits of the Parliament of the eighteentli century 
 can have very little bearing on modern controversies. 
 It is equally evident tliat, while the old Parliament 
 was essentially the Parliament of the Irish loyalists, 
 the Parliament which is now desired would be essen¬ 
 tially a Parliament of the disaffected. It would be, in 
 all probability, a single democratic chamber, elected 
 chiefly by an anti-English peasantry, completely sun¬ 
 dered from the great interests of property in the 
 country, and consisting mainly of nominees of the 
 National League. The relation of the different classes 
 in Ii’oland to the Home Pule scheme is perfectly 
 unambiguous. The whole body of tlie Protestants, 
 with scarcely an exception, have declared themselves 
 against it. They form nearly a million and a quarter 
 
16G Why I am not a Home Ruhr. 
 
 of the population, and contain far more than their 
 numerical proportion of its wealth, intelligence, and 
 energy. They comprise not only more than ninety per 
 cent of the proprietors of the soil, but also the flower of 
 the industrial population. It is they who have mainly 
 made Belfast one of the greatest and most prosperous 
 cities in the empire; who have made the linen manu¬ 
 facture the one flourishing industry of Ireland; who 
 have raised a great part of Ulster to a level of civil¬ 
 isation, order, and prosperity worthy of any portion of 
 the empire. Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Methodists, 
 differing in creed and differing in English party politics, 
 they have declared, with a unanimity and emphasis 
 which it is impossible to mistake, that any Irish Par¬ 
 liament which could now be set up would be ruinous 
 to the country, the precursor of anarchy, and probably 
 of civil war. They are not, however, more opposed to it 
 than the Catholic gentry. This class, who in a healthy 
 state of society would occupy a conspicuous if not a 
 dominant place in Irish politics, have, by the action of 
 the National League, been driven almost absolutely out 
 of public life; and if it had not been that a few of their 
 number sit in the House of Lords, they would be re¬ 
 duced to the most complete impotence. The over¬ 
 whelming majority of the leaders of industry, whether 
 Protestant or Catholic, are on the same side. It is only 
 necessary to examine the list of Mr Parnell’s members 
 of Parliament to perceive how entirely the represent¬ 
 ative names in Irish industry are excluded from it. 
 The bankers, the large merchants and shopkeepers, the 
 directors of railways, the men who have risen to emi¬ 
 nence in the professions, the great employers of labour, 
 the great organisers of industry, are conspicuously ab¬ 
 sent. The few men of this kind who were connected 
 
Wluj I am not a Home Ruler. 167 
 
 with the movement when it was guided by Mr Butt, 
 have almost all fallen away since it has passed under 
 the control of Mr Parnell, and they look upon Home 
 Pule with undisguised alarm. All those classes in Ire¬ 
 land who are indisputably loyal to the English connec¬ 
 tion are as indisputably opposed to an Irish Parliament. 
 
 It is this profound division of classes in Ireland that 
 makes all arguments derived from the example of 
 federal governments, either in Europe or America, so 
 utterly fallacious. The first question to be asked before 
 setting up a local legislature is. Who are the men who 
 are likely to control it ? On this point there is no real 
 difi'erence of opinion in Ireland. No argument of the 
 smallest weight has ever been brought forward to show 
 that the men who now predominate in the Irish repre¬ 
 sentation in the Imperial Parliament, would not equally 
 predominate in an Irish Parliament. They would be 
 elected by the same classes. They would come to the 
 poll with the prestige of a great victory. The simple 
 effect of Home Rule would be to confer legislative 
 powers upon the National League. 
 
 And what are the sentiments of these men towards 
 Great Britain? To do them justice they have never 
 concealed them. They are men at whose public ban¬ 
 quets the toast of the Queen is systematically sup¬ 
 pressed. At their great demonstrations the American 
 fiag is everywhere flaunted, and cheers are given for 
 every real or supposed enemy of England. The harp 
 without the crown is their favourite symbol. One of 
 their most conspicuous members organised the dem¬ 
 onstration on the platform of Mallow to insult the 
 Prince of Wales. Another—a Lord Mayor of Dublin 
 —distinguished himself by refusing to allow British 
 soldiers at his inaugural procession. More than one 
 
168 Why I am not a Home Ruhr. 
 
 have been deeply mixed in the Eenian conspiracy, and 
 Fenian heroes have again and again been made the 
 subjects of popular demonstrations of enthusiasm. The 
 leader himself assured an American audience that he 
 would not be satisfied till his party had destroyed “ the 
 last link which keeps Ireland hound to England.” The 
 newspapers and the popular literature which support 
 and represent the party have for years been educating 
 the Irish people in the most inveterate, unqualified 
 hatred of the British Empire, and have looked on 
 every event in Europe with favour just in proportion 
 as it was supposed to be injurious to British power. 
 Every one who has given any real attention to that 
 press will admit that this statement is the simple, unex¬ 
 aggerated truth. It is not, however, the whole truth. 
 The National League is a tree of which the root is 
 in America, where an avowed and savage conspiracy 
 against the British Empire exists, directed by men 
 who have abundantly shown, both by their words and 
 by their acts, that they would shrink from no crime to 
 attain their ends. It is from America that the parlia¬ 
 mentary fund of the National League mainly comes. 
 Its members in Parliament are as literally paid from 
 the exchequer of a foreign anti-English conspiracy 
 as the British Ministers are from the Consolidated 
 Fund. 
 
 Considered also in their domestic policy, the case is 
 not less strong. The conduct of the leaders of the 
 party in Parliament, in the law courts, in every local 
 body in which they have obtained an ascendancy, is 
 sufficiently evident. It is an incontestable truth that 
 for many years their habitual methods of political action 
 have been systematic defiance and violation of the law ; 
 systematic abuse of those who are engaged in adminis- 
 
Why I am not a Home Ruler. 169 
 
 tering it; systematic repudiation of the obligations of 
 contract. They are the authors of the naked dishonesty of 
 the “ No-Rent Manifesto ” and the “ Plan of Campaign”; 
 and scarcely a week passes in which some of their 
 conspicuous members do not advocate the repudiation 
 of private debts as a means of attaining political ends. 
 Appeals to dishonesty and cupidity have been their 
 favourite weapons, and they have taught great masses 
 of the Irish people to look upon politics mainly as a 
 means of breaking contracts, evading pecuniary obli¬ 
 gations, and obtaining personal advantages. They have 
 also, under the name of boycotting, organised a system 
 of tyranny perhaps as merciless and crushing as any 
 that now exists upon the globe. The first and most 
 elementary form of liberty, and the most essential con¬ 
 dition of national prosperity, is that peaceful and law- 
 abiding men should be able to live in their own coun¬ 
 try unmolested and unintimidated — to choose their 
 friends, to pursue their business, to make, fulfil, and 
 enforce their contracts. Where such a state of society 
 does not exist, there can be no real progress and no 
 settled industry. Through the action of the National 
 League there is less of this kind of liberty in some 
 counties of Ireland than in the most barbarous pro¬ 
 vinces of Russia and Turkey. It must be added that 
 most of the leaders of the movement are professional 
 agitators — men who live by agitation, and whose whole 
 occupation would cease if they did not succeed in 
 stimulating an appetite for it among the people. 
 
 These are the men with whom English Ministers 
 have to do ; and what is the demand which they make ? 
 It is that the whole internal government of Ireland 
 should be placed in their hands, not only in times of 
 peace and prosperity, but also in times of difficulty, 
 
170 Why I am not a Home liulcr. 
 
 danger, and war; that they should he given the com¬ 
 mand of that noble army of more than 12,000 constabu¬ 
 lary, who have displayed during the last terrible years 
 such an admirable fidelity and loyalty; that they 
 should be authorised to arm volunteers; that they 
 should be intrusted with the protection of industry and 
 property, and of the loyal subjects of the Crown, with 
 the power of taxation, and with all the influences of 
 patronage and control that belong to a legislative body. 
 That such a surrender to such men should be seriously 
 contemplated, not on the morrow of some crushing 
 military disaster like Jena or Sedan, but by men who 
 have been Ministers of a great and powerful empire, 
 is surely a shameful illustration of how recklessly and 
 unscrupulously the game of party and of place has of 
 late been played, and how seriously the character of 
 English public men has been impaired. There are 
 three millions of disaffected in a population of about 
 thirty-six millions; eighty-six disaffected members in a 
 Parliament of six hundred and seventy. It is under 
 these conditions that resistance is said to be impossi¬ 
 ble, and the dismemberment of the empire inevitable! 
 Parliamentary government, the Prince Consort once 
 said, is now on its trial. If this be the end of British 
 government of Ireland, the historian will have little 
 hesitation in pronouncing that it has not only been tried 
 but condemned. 
 
 The case against Home Eule has, as it appears to 
 me, been argued too much upon mere grounds of 
 machinery or legal technicalities. It is, as I under¬ 
 stand it, before all things a question of confidence and 
 character. Every Englishman who advocates it on a 
 platform should be asked this simple question—Are 
 you prepared to declare on your honour that you be- 
 
Why I am not a Hoaic Ruler. 
 
 171 
 
 lieve tlie men into whose hands you propose to sur¬ 
 render the government of Ireland to be men to whom 
 such a trust can be safely and righteously conceded ? 
 There is no greater crime that a public man can commit 
 than to attempt to place the government of a nation in 
 the hands of dishonest and disloyal men, and every 
 legislative change which has the effect of placing it in 
 such hands is necessarily an evil. It is difficult to 
 describe in too strong terms either the absurdity or the 
 wickedness of the contention that, because England in 
 a remote past committed many injustices in Ireland, 
 she oucht now to hand over the administration of that 
 country to the tender mercies of the National League, 
 
 It is no doubt true that limitations might be imposed 
 by law upon an Irish Parliament, but it is difficult to 
 see how they could be enforced except by war; and it 
 needs little sagacity to predict that the immediate sequel 
 to the establishment of Home Rule would be a move¬ 
 ment to abolish them. Upon the first conflict with 
 England they would be abrogated by a declaration of 
 rights. The precedents of 1641, of 1689, and of 1782 
 are there to justify such a course. The Irish question, 
 instead of being settled, would be immensely aggravated 
 by the enormously increased power given to the dis¬ 
 loyal, The strain on the connection, and the anarchy 
 in Ireland would both become intolerable. It would 
 soon be found necessary to go forwards to complete 
 separation or to go backwards, probably to the abolition 
 of all representation, and whichever course was taken, 
 it would almost certainly be accompanied with blood¬ 
 shed. To govern Ireland as a part of the empire by a 
 democratic Parliament formed of the elements which 
 are now predominating in tliat country, is the most 
 hopeless of impossibilities. 
 
172 Why I am not a. Home Ruler. 
 
 And of all solutions that could be conceived, none 
 could be more evidently destitute of the element of 
 permanence than that of Mr Gladstone. One of its 
 leading features was that Ireland was to be ex¬ 
 cluded from all part and lot in the administration 
 of the empire, and was at the same time to be re¬ 
 duced to a tributary State, burdened with a heavy 
 subsidy for imperial purposes. Can any one who has 
 the smallest knowledge of the kind of influences that 
 are now dominant in Ireland doubt for a moment that 
 a great popular agitation against this tribute would 
 immediately follow ? Until near the close of the eigh¬ 
 teenth centui’y the national debt of Ireland was extreme¬ 
 ly small, and the taxation of the country was, in con¬ 
 sequence, very low. One of the strongest arguments 
 against the Union was the fear that it would raise Irish 
 taxation to the English level. Under Mr Gladstone’s 
 scheme taxation would be much heavier than at pres¬ 
 ent ; and as Home Rule would certainly be followed by 
 a rapid emigration of the richer classes and of capital, 
 and probably by great repressive measures in Ulster, 
 the pressure would soon be overwhelming. 
 
 One other prediction may be safely made. It is that 
 the effects of a surrender such as has been proposed 
 would not be confined to the relations between England 
 and Ireland. The most distinguished men who are, 
 or have lately been connected with the government 
 of India, have been watching with keen anxiety the 
 progress of Irish disaffection, on account of the in¬ 
 fluence it is likely to have on that country. It will 
 be felt there, and in every other part of the Queen’s 
 dominions, and it will be felt in every country in Europe 
 in the changed estimate of England. Great empires 
 cannot humiliate themselves with impunity. I know 
 
Why I am not a Home Unler. 
 
 173 
 
 uo clearer sign of a declining nation than that its 
 statesmen are unable or unwilling to protect peaceful 
 subjects within a few hours of the metropolis, and are 
 prepared to carry on government by compacts with 
 fomenters of outrage. Anarchy is the most contagious 
 of all political diseases, and if it triumphs in one part 
 of the empire it will assuredly spread to others. If the 
 surrender of Ireland to the disloyal be ever accomplished, 
 it will be known throughout Europe that the old govern¬ 
 ing and imperial spirit which made England what it is 
 has departed; that the days of the empire are num¬ 
 bered ; and that the handwriting is already on the wall. 
 
 I have spoken of the extreme absurdity of comparing 
 any Parliament that could now be established, with the 
 old Parliament of the gentlemen of Ireland—a Parlia¬ 
 ment to which I am not ashamed to say I look back 
 with a feeling of very considerable sympathy and 
 respect. I may add that the present movement differs 
 widely from that of O’Connell. The Pepeal agitation of 
 O’Connell was not supported by the subsidies of foreign 
 conspirators, and it was not accompanied to any great 
 extent by that class warfare, and especially by that war 
 against property, which has given its distinctive char¬ 
 acter and its special danger to the present movement. 
 O’Connell was himself a considerable landlord. There 
 was in his day no anti-rent agitation, and one of the 
 most creditable incidents in his life was the courage 
 with which he risked his popularity in ojiposing trade 
 outrages. O’Connell was also frankly loyal to the 
 Crown. His early experieiice of the horrors of the 
 French Ilevolution had given him a strong bias in 
 favour of monarchy ; cheers for the Queen were con¬ 
 stantly given at the Eepeal meetings, and he even 
 pushed his view of the prerogative so far as to maintain 
 
174 Why I mn not a Home Ruler. 
 
 that it was in the power of the sovereign, without the 
 intervention of the Imperial Parliament, to convene a 
 parliament in Dublin. 
 
 But although the Kepeal movement of O’Connell was 
 much less dangerous than the present one, it is well 
 known how it was regarded by the greatest English 
 statesmen of every party. Few English public men 
 have known Ireland better than the Duke of Welling-- 
 
 O 
 
 ton, and he wrote that “ Eepeal must occasion the dis¬ 
 solution of the connection with Great Britain,” and he 
 predicted that its inevitable issue in Ireland would be 
 a religious war. Sir E. Peel, who had served as Chief 
 Secretary for Ireland, and was thoroughly acquainted 
 with the conditions of Irish life, was even more em¬ 
 phatic. “Eepeal of the Union,” he said, “must lead 
 to the dismemberment of this great empire, and must 
 render Great Britain a fourth-rate power in Europe.” 
 Lord Althorp, who then led the Whigs in the House of 
 Commons, echoed the argument of Peel, that in the 
 existing state of Ireland a distinct Parliament mus-t 
 necessarily lead to separation; and Lord Grey, the 
 leader of the party, who had in his youth been a strenu¬ 
 ous opponent of the Union, declared that “ the effect of 
 its repeal would be ruin to both countries.” 
 
 That Home Eule in any form in which it is now 
 likely to be attained would be ruinous to Ireland is not 
 difficult to prove. The policy of Mr Gladstone and the 
 agitation of Mr Parnell have together so completely 
 shattered the social type which had existed for gener¬ 
 ations; they have so effectually destroyed all the old 
 relations of classes and all the more healthy forms of 
 influence and reverence by which Irish society cohered ; 
 and they have diffused so widely through three pro¬ 
 vinces the belief that outrage and violence are the 
 
MHiy I am not a Home Ruler. 175 
 
 natural means of attaining political ends,—that Ireland 
 is at present probably less fitted for prosperous self- 
 government than at any period within the memory of 
 man. Mr Gladstone and his colleagues have, indeed, 
 achieved with a mirious completeness the end which 
 more than fifty years ago Sir Eobert Peel foresaw and 
 dreaded as “ a great, perhaps an irreparable misfortune ” 
 —the total “ severance of the connection between the 
 constituent body of Ireland and the natural aristocracy 
 of the country.” If Irish public opinion moved under 
 the direction of men who had the responsibility of pro¬ 
 perty, who were sincerely attached to the connection, 
 and who were animated by a genuine love of individual 
 liberty and a genuine respect for law, a large meas¬ 
 ure of self-government might, I believe, be profitably 
 granted. But no reasonable man can fail to see how 
 lamentably these essential conditions are now wanting, 
 and it would be difficult to conceive a worse fate that 
 could befall a nation than to be governed by the kind 
 of men who form the present majority of the Irish 
 representatives. That such men, supported by the votes 
 of an ignorant and priest-driven peasantry, could govern 
 the great Protestant population of the North is, to me 
 at least, absolutely incredible. The experiment could 
 only lead to prolonged and acute anarchy—probably 
 to civil war ; certainly to a fierce revival of those relig¬ 
 ious passions which have of late years been happily 
 subsiding. 
 
 In the meantime industrial ruin is rapidly advancing. 
 If you crown Anarchy for your king, whatever else you 
 may have you will certainly not have industrial pros¬ 
 perity under his sceptre. If the ruling power in Ire¬ 
 land is given to men whose whole political action has 
 consisted of a series of attacks upon property and upon 
 
17G Why I am not a Home Buler. 
 
 the principles on which property is based, capital will 
 most certainly not visit the country. The expropria¬ 
 tion of landlords may perhaps settle on a permanent 
 basis the Land question; but it is a strange comment 
 on the character of the legislature which English states¬ 
 men propose to create, that it is believed, probably with 
 excellent reason, that such a measure is necessary to 
 prevent that legislature from beginning its career by 
 a course of wholesale plunder. But the contagion of 
 anarchy is no longer confined to land. We have seen 
 attacks upon the Bank of Ireland; attacks upon an 
 Irish Steam Company because it performed services 
 which it was not only authorised but bound by law to 
 perform; violent resistance to the payment of rates; 
 constant interference between employers and labourers ; 
 constant boycotting of shopkeepers who have for any 
 reason incurred the animosity of the League; a con¬ 
 stantly increasing difficulty in collecting ordinary trade 
 debts. The House League for breaking contracts be¬ 
 tween house-owners and lodgers is another illustration 
 of the same spirit, and the conflict between farmers and 
 landlords will probably soon be reproduced in the con¬ 
 flict between labourers and farmers. The result of all 
 this is inevitable. Every banker knows that capital has 
 of late years been steadily passing out of the country. 
 Who would found a manufacture in Ireland ? Who 
 would invest money in the improvement of land ? Who 
 would engage in any industrial enterprise which de¬ 
 pended for its success on the fulfilment of contracts in 
 a distant future ? Insurance offices no longer lend on 
 Irish property. Wholesale dealers restrict their Irish 
 orders. At the first intimation of Mr Gladstone’s pro¬ 
 bable conversion to Home Eule there was a great fall 
 in Irish investments. In Ulster the elements of order 
 
Why I am not a Home Ruler. 177 
 
 are so strong that the evil may be arrested, but in the 
 other provinces this impoverishment has been steadily 
 continuing. Shopkeepers on the verge of ruin, labourers 
 unemployed, industrial enterprises withering rapidly 
 away, are the natural and evident results of lawless 
 and protracted agitation. One inestimable advantage 
 it is true Ireland still has. She shares, and largely 
 shares, in the credit of the empire—the best credit in 
 the world. It is not difficult to foresee what would be 
 the credit of a Government composed of men who had 
 made the repudiation of contracts and the systematic 
 practice of fraudulent bankruptcy one of their chief 
 methods of political action. 
 
 And what advantage can Home Kule offer to counter¬ 
 act these evils ? It is supposed by some that it would 
 check absenteeism. A larger proportion of wealthy 
 Irish gentlemen are said to have lived in Ireland in 
 the days of the old Parliament when the whole govern¬ 
 ment of the country was in their hands than at present. 
 Is it likely that a larger proportion would live there when 
 they were expropriated from their properties, driven out 
 of every form of public life, and placed under a Govern¬ 
 ment which they detested ? One form of absenteeism 
 might indeed be diminished, for a flight of Irish-Ameri¬ 
 can conspirators would no doubt speedily come over 
 to share the spoils. 
 
 I know that the notion has been long and deeply 
 rooted in the Irish mind that a native legislature might 
 foster native industries by protective laws. It is pro¬ 
 bable that if Home Pule were established, the first 
 conflict with England would be on this ground. But 
 whatever justice there maybe in the doctrine that in 
 the early stage of manufactures protective laws are of 
 real advantage, a war of tariffs with England in the 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 Wliy I am not a Home Ruler. 
 
 existing circumstances of Ireland seems to me the most 
 Iropeless of policies. A poor country, with very little 
 capital, and that capital rapidly disappearing, per¬ 
 meated with agitations and subversive principles ut¬ 
 terly incompatible with industrial prosperity, Ireland 
 is placed by nature in such a geographical position that 
 England is her only market. America will take noth¬ 
 ing from her hut men. With the continent of Europe 
 her commercial relations are wholly insignificant. Eng¬ 
 land could at any moment reduce her farming industry 
 to absolute ruin by simply excluding Irish cattle from 
 her market. There was a time when such a measure 
 would have been impossible, for England depended 
 very largely on Ireland for her supply of meat. But 
 the extension of pasture in England, and the immense 
 importation of cattle from America and Australia, have 
 now made it perfectly easy for England to dispense with 
 the Irish supply. With separate and hostile legisla¬ 
 tures, and with a desire for protection rising among 
 the British farmers, such a measure would be not only 
 possible but probable. 
 
 Much has of late been said about the necessity of 
 conceding Home Eule in order to satisfy the national 
 aspirations of Ireland. On this subject I may perhaps 
 write with some measure of authority, for long before 
 Mr Parnell became a leader or Mr Gladstone a Home 
 Euler, I dwelt upon the force and the reality of that 
 feeling. In a book which appeared as early as 1871,^ 
 I pointed out clearly the evils that would result from 
 any attempt to establish an Irish Parliament; but I at 
 the same time urged the importance of “calling into 
 
 1 ‘The Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland.’ This little book 
 first appeared in 1861, when the author was very young ; but I quote 
 from the introduction to the edition of 1871. 
 
^^^y I am.' not a Home Rider. 179 
 
 being a strong local political feeling, directed by men 
 who have the responsibility of property, who are attached 
 to the connection, and who, at the same time, possess 
 the confidence of the Irisli people.” “ To call into 
 active political life the upper class of Irishmen,” I then 
 wrote, “and to enlarge the sphere of their political 
 power—to give, in a word, to Ireland the greatest 
 amount of self-government that is compatible with the 
 unity and the security of the empire—should be the aim 
 of every statesman.” “ It is only,” I continued, “ hy 
 slow, cautious, and gradual steps that self-government 
 can he in some degree restored. By steadily opposing 
 the tendency to centralisation, ... by transferring 
 private business from the overworked Parliament of 
 the empire to cheaper and perhaps more competent 
 tribunals, by gradually enlarging the sphere of local 
 government, and by encouraging and bringing into 
 activity the political talent of the country, a sound 
 political opinion may be slowly formed.” Looking 
 back on these words after the lapse of seventeen years, 
 they do not appear to me to have been untruly or 
 unwisely written; but the policy of establishing local 
 institutions is obviously si;bordinate to the necessity of 
 securing the elementary conditions of good government 
 and national prosperity. These essential conditions are, 
 the unity of the empire, the seci;rity of property, the 
 due observance of law, the protection of peaceable and 
 law-abiding subjects, the reasonable probability that 
 the administration of affairs will be in the hands of 
 loyal, trustworthy, honest, and competent men. Every 
 extension of local government which is consistent with 
 these conditions will, 1 believe, be a benefit; every step 
 in that direction which is likely to be incompatible 
 with them wdll prove an evil. 
 
180 
 
 IMiy I am not a Home Ruler. 
 
 I said in the book to Avhich I have referred, that “ the 
 three great requisites of good government for Ireland 
 are, that it should be strong, that it should be just, and 
 that it should he national,” and these words have been 
 strangely quoted as a justification of the Home Kule 
 scheme. As if a Government was likely to be “ just ” which 
 was composed of the leaders of the National League and 
 the other chief authors of boycotting and intimidation ! 
 As if a Government was likely to be “strong’’whose credit 
 would probably be on a level with that of Mexico and 
 Honduras, and which would be in violent opposition to 
 Protestant Ulster and to the most powerful industrial 
 energies of the nation ! As if a Government could even 
 be called in the true sense “ national ” which could only 
 be established at the imminent risk of civil war, and 
 which, though it might be supported by a majority of 
 ignorant peasantry, would be alienated from all the 
 elements that, in every healthy nationality, are the 
 guiding influences of national life! 
 
 It is impossible also to deny that the last seventeen 
 years have witnessed a complete change in the char¬ 
 acter of Irish national movements. The Home Eule 
 agitation is not now, essentially or mainly, a question 
 of nationality. It has taken much more the character 
 of a war against property and contract. The leaders of 
 the movement having signally failed to enlist the Irish 
 farmers in a struggle on national grounds, resolved to 
 appeal to their personal interest, by making the move¬ 
 ment an agrarian one, aiming at the abolition or great 
 reduction of rents. A period of keen agricultural de¬ 
 pression and the land legislation of Mr Gladstone 
 assisted them, and they had the double object of 
 winning the support of a great class who were very 
 indifferent to Home Eule, and of breaking the power 
 
Why I am nut a Home Ruhr. 
 
 181 
 
 of another great class who were firmly devoted to the 
 Union. With the bulk of the farmer class the land 
 has always been the real question, and if that question 
 were finally settled they would probably become very 
 passive. There are evident signs that the Nationalist 
 leaders foresee and dread the effects of such a settlement, 
 while the larger and more prosperous farmers are be¬ 
 ginning to look on the prospect of Home Rule with a 
 well-founded alarm, and the great grass farmers have 
 been made the objects of more than one significant 
 menace. At the same time American Renianism has 
 changed the character of Irish Nationalism. There has 
 long, indeed, been in Ireland among large classes an 
 instinctive, passionate, unreasoning hatred of England, 
 formed in the national character by influences which 
 have been in operation for centuries, and are much too 
 strong to be effaced by any mere constitutional changes. 
 
 Feuianism has given it a new power and organisation 
 and guiding influence, which is not the less real because 
 the leaders are for a time content to co-operate in a 
 struggle for a local legislature as a stepping-stone to 
 their ultimate end. Take from tlie present movement 
 the agrarian element, which may be settled without 
 Home Rule, and the Fenian element, which will never be 
 satisfied without separation, and those who know Ire¬ 
 land best believe that the residuum would be very small. 
 
 Much of the movement, however, is of a more super¬ 
 ficial character, and without the timidity and vacillation 
 of successive Governments, it would never have reached 
 its present height. American subsidies have made 
 professional agitation a lucrative trade, on which, in 
 many different ways and forms, great numbers of clever, 
 needy, and unscrupulous men subsist. Like most 
 trades, it will continue while it is profitable—so long 
 
182 Why 1 am not a Home Ruler. 
 
 and no longer. Intimidation, skilfully and unscrup¬ 
 ulously exercised, has driven into the League multi¬ 
 tudes of inoffensive men who have no more real sym¬ 
 pathy for outrage and spoliation than the Sicilian 
 proprietor who secures his property by paying black¬ 
 mail to the bandit chief. “ It is all very well for your 
 honour to talk,” said an Irish farmer, when remonstrated 
 with for subscribing to a League which he detested; “ but 
 when things become very bad, you can go to England 
 —I must remain here.” Peaceful men will naturally 
 seek a quiet life by paying tribute to the government 
 de facto, and it is a shameful truth that in many parts 
 of Ireland this government has not of late been the 
 Government of the Queen. The conduct of the priests 
 has been governed by other motives, and the attitude 
 of the majority of them towards Great Britain imme¬ 
 diately after the Imperial Parliament had abolished the 
 last vestige of Protestant ascendancy is one of the most 
 instructive and significant facts in the agitation. It is, 
 however, very explicable. Many share the passions 
 and sentiments of the peasant class from which they 
 spring; others look forward to the probable extinction 
 of Protestantism in great districts, and to the subjuga¬ 
 tion of the whole education of Ireland to sacerdotal 
 control, and whether they look for money or popularity 
 or influence, the strongest motives of personal interest 
 draw this class to the side of their congregations. At 
 the same time, the longing for change, which grows 
 up in periods of poverty and depression, the constant 
 preaching of incendiary newspapers, a large amount of 
 a vague and not very powerful poetic sentiment, class 
 animosities and jealousies, and many petty questions of 
 patronage and place, have all in their different ways 
 borne their part in swelling the torrent. 
 
JVliy I am not a Home Ruler. 183 
 
 But, in addition to these things, the present agitation 
 owes its power to long-continued and unexpected suc¬ 
 cess; to the encouragement of Irish disloyalty by English 
 politicians; to the manifest bargaining on both sides 
 for the Irish vote ; to the signal failure of the Land 
 Act of 1881; to such speeches as that in which Mr 
 Gladstone attributed the disestablishment of the Irish 
 Church to the Clerkenwell outrage; to recent trans¬ 
 formation scenes which have profoundly shaken all 
 confidence in the stability of English politics, and in 
 the character of English statesmen. 
 
 It is not surprising that it should have been so, for 
 no more astonishing spectacle has been exhibited in 
 modern politics. We have seen a great party leader 
 going to the country at a general election without giv¬ 
 ing the faintest intimation, either to his colleagues or to 
 the electors, that he contemplated a policy of Home Eule; 
 asking for a large majority in order that he might be 
 independent of the Parnellite vote ; and then when he 
 found that vote required to give him a clear majority, 
 entering into alliance with men whom he had him¬ 
 self described as aiming at “ public plunder ” and “ the 
 disintegration of the empire ”; proposing to hand over 
 to them the administration of justice and the govern¬ 
 ment of Ireland ; attempting by his individual action 
 to reverse the uniform tradition of English policy for 
 more than eighty years, and subordinating to this end 
 every other question of imperial policy. We have seen 
 him, in the pursuit of this enterprise, descending to all 
 the arts of the most unscrupulous and transparent 
 demagogism; trying to sow in the newly enfranchised 
 democracy the seeds of class warfare by setting the 
 poor against the rich, and to rekindle smouldering pro¬ 
 vincial jealousies between England and other portions 
 
184 Why I am not a Home, Ruler. 
 
 of the island; attacking Irish judges and the Irish 
 police; making speeches which every plain man must 
 see were deliberately intended, in a time of great diffi¬ 
 culty and danger, to strengthen Irish anarchy and to 
 discredit English law; putting up questions of the 
 utmost intrinsic importance, such as the Church 
 establishments in Wales and Scotland, to a kind of 
 auction, by intimating not obscurely that their solution 
 depended on the number of Home Kulers Wales and 
 Scotland would send into Parliament to support him. 
 
 And in the pursuit of this policy Mr Gladstone has 
 carried with him the bulk of the machinery of a great 
 English party, and men who have held high offices un¬ 
 der the Crown, and among them one who only a few 
 months before bad, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, been 
 rallying the Irish loyalists against the very men to 
 whose government he is now endeavouring to consign 
 them. English history for many generations has had 
 no such shameful page, and the evil consequences that 
 flow from it will not speedily be exhausted. The effects 
 of a degradation of the standard of political morality 
 will be felt in every part of the empire, but they will 
 be nowhere felt so powerfully as in those parts which 
 are most disturbed and disorganised. Nothing could 
 be more fatal to the prospect of good government in 
 Ireland than the conviction that English statesmanship 
 was passing permanently into a lower plane of charac¬ 
 ter and honour. 
 
 It would be idle to deny how seriously these things 
 have aggravated the Irish difficulty, but in England as 
 in Ireland the signs of the time are far from being alto¬ 
 gether discouraging. The ablest and most trusted of 
 Mr Gladstone’s former colleagues have taken the course 
 which might have been expected from their characters 
 
Why I am nut a Home Ruler. 185 
 
 and from their past, and at the sacrifice of many things 
 that men hold most dear, have refused to take any part 
 in the policy of dismemberment, while the country has 
 condemned it with a voice that cannot be mistaken. 
 No one wdio realises the immense power which party 
 ties and names exercise in England can be blind to the 
 deep significance of the election of 1886. Mr Glad¬ 
 stone was very lately incomparably the most popular 
 statesman in England, and even apart from his popu¬ 
 larity the Liberal party was by far the strongest in the 
 State. But although Mr Gladstone has secured the 
 votes of eighty-six detached members, who are ostenta¬ 
 tiously indifferent both to imperial interests and to the 
 interests of English parties, and also the Irish vote in 
 the great towns, he is now defeated by majorities of 
 nearly 100 in the House of Commons. So great a dis¬ 
 placement of the balance of power could only be due 
 to a genuine, earnest, and widespread condemnation of 
 his policy, and although it could hardly be expected 
 that so wide a deviation from the normal division of 
 parties should remain entirely unmodified—although it 
 is not surprising that some voters, and even a few con¬ 
 stituencies, should have relapsed into their accustomed 
 grooves — there is, I believe, no reason to fear that 
 the deliberate conviction of the country has been in 
 any degree shaken. It has become evident that Eng¬ 
 land must for some time be governed either by an 
 alliance of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists, or by 
 an alliance of Gladstonians and Parnellites. Unless 
 the former commit some egregious mistake, it seems 
 hardly doubtful which alternative she will prefer. 
 “ In England,” as Mr Dicey truly says, “ the party 
 of morality and of conduct has always in the long- 
 run been the possessor of popularity and of power.” 
 
186 
 
 Wliu I am not a Home Ruler. 
 
 Declamation and strategy, bids for the support of 
 many interests, and unscrupulous appeals to subversive 
 passions, may, no doubt, do much in democracies, but 
 there has hitherto always been, and I trust there still is, 
 in the constituencies of Great Britain a controlling 
 element of moderate men who place patriotism above 
 party, and who desire beyond all things sober, temper¬ 
 ate, and consistent statesmanship, conducted by Minis¬ 
 ters whose characters and judgments they can respect. 
 Many things must happen before these electors are 
 likely to wish for a Government directed by Mr Glad¬ 
 stone, and with Sir William Harcourt and Sir George 
 Trevelyan among its leading luminaries. 
 
 It would be difficult to conceive a policy more 
 opposed than the Home Eule policy to the best ten¬ 
 dencies of the time. In the lifetime of those who have 
 attained middle age three great works have been accom¬ 
 plished in the world which far transcend all others in 
 importance, and of which it is probably no exaggera¬ 
 tion to say that the memory can never pass while the 
 human race remains upon this planet. One of them, 
 which is connected with the great name of Cavour, was 
 the movement of unification by which the old and 
 illustrious, but weak because divided. States of Italy 
 were drawn together and fused into one great and 
 prosperous kingdom. Another, which is chiefly con¬ 
 nected with the name of Bismarck, was that movement 
 of unification which has made Germany the most 
 powerful nation upon the Continent. The third, which 
 may, I believe, one day be thought the most important 
 of the three, was due much less to the genius of any 
 statesman than to the patriotism and courage of a great 
 democracy. It was the contest of America with the 
 spirit of secession which had arisen within its border ; 
 
Why I am not a Uoync Itukr. 
 
 187 
 
 and although that spirit was spread over a far larger 
 area than Ireland, although it existed over that area in 
 a far larger proportion of the population than in Ire¬ 
 land, and was supported by an immeasurably greater 
 amount of earnestness and self-sacrifice, it has now dis¬ 
 appeared, and the present generation of Americans have 
 in all human probability secured for centuries the 
 unity of the great liepublic of the West. These great 
 works of consolidation have been the contributions of 
 other nations to the history of the nineteenth century. 
 Shall it be said of English statesmen that their most 
 prolific and most characteristic work has been to intro¬ 
 duce the principle of dissolution into the very heart of 
 their empire ? 
 
 W. E. 11. LECKY. 
 
COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.' 
 
 BY 
 
 GEOEGE BADEN-POWELL, K.C.M.G., M.P. 
 
 One of Mr Gladstone’s trump cards, that he has 
 played in his endeavour to win the Home Eule game, 
 is “the successful experience of granting self-govern¬ 
 ment to our colonies ”; and this lead of his has been 
 persistently taken up by his lieutenants. But this 
 argument he has introduced is altogether fallacious, 
 inapplicable, and misleading. 
 
 On a previous occasion, when he sought to recom¬ 
 mend dohore, on the plea that it had been “ adopted in 
 our colonies, which value freedom not less than we 
 value it,” Mr Gladstone was speedily convicted, not 
 only of ignorance, but of what some did not hesitate to 
 call culpable ignorance. And it is pertinent to the 
 present occasion to remind the public of this previous 
 instance in which the late Prime Minister advocated a 
 
 ^ Eepublished, by the kind permission of the Editor, from the 
 ‘National Review’ for July 1886. 
 
Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 189 
 
 thoroughly un-English measure, on the special plea of 
 appealing to the successful experience of our colonies, 
 when such an appeal was fallacious and misleading, 
 because absolutely unfounded in fact. 
 
 This precedent may be briefly stated. On February 
 14, 1882, Mr Gladstone rose in the House of Commons 
 to propose a rule of cloture, specially advocating it on 
 the plea that our colonies had adopted it. But in the 
 previous November he had addressed a circular de¬ 
 spatch to all our colonies, asking for specific informa¬ 
 tion as to cloture. The replies were all to hand in the 
 following January, and were printed and circulated by 
 February 2. From these it was conclusively evident 
 that only in one out of all the Colonial Legislative 
 Assemblies was there in existence any form of cloture 
 whatever. 
 
 Precisely similar ignorance has Mr Gladstone ex¬ 
 hibited in urging his Home Eule Bill for acceptance, 
 by appealing to the successful experience of our 
 colonies. 
 
 It is true he commenced his appeal by reminding 
 the House that his experience of colonial affairs w'as 
 great, and dated from fifty-one years ago; and he 
 described that at that date the relations between 
 mother country and colonies were much strained, but 
 that all had been set right by grants of self-government. 
 
 Unfortunately for this glib argument, it so happens 
 that fifty-one years ago, on the one hand, out of the 
 nine colonies that now have responsible government, 
 only one—Canada—had emerged into the position of 
 a colony, or was, as 28 & 29 Viet. c. C3 phrases it, 
 one of “her hlajesty’s possessions in which there ex¬ 
 ists a Legislature.” Queensland, New Zealand, Vic¬ 
 toria, and South Australia were not in existence as 
 
190 
 
 Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 separate communities. New South Wales, Tasmania, 
 Newfoundland, and Cape Colony were small struggling 
 settlements, of which little was hoped or expected. 
 
 On the other hand, there were many colonies, among 
 our more important in those days but small by com¬ 
 parison now, chiefly in the West Indies, which have 
 since that time, and for their own good, surrendered 
 their self-contained Legislatures. 
 
 It is perfectly true that since that day large powers 
 of self-government have been delegated to our colonies 
 outside the tropics, as they successively sprang into 
 existence; and it is perfectly true that enormous suc¬ 
 cess has attended this policy. But, in the first place, 
 the reasons for such grants, and, in the second, the condi¬ 
 tion and circumstances of these settlements, differ so 
 radically from the motive and the environments of the 
 Irish case, as to render it logically true that what suited 
 them will not suit Ireland. 
 
 One word as to the precedent afforded by Canada. 
 Mr Gladstone tells us that Canada affords a case, “ not 
 parallel but analogous,” and one “ embracing the whole 
 controversy.” It is a great pity Mr Gladstone, before 
 applying this precedent, did not make himself acquaint¬ 
 ed with its leading details. He expected the House 
 of Commons to believe that Canada was governed from 
 Downing Street until the year 1838, and that all things 
 by then had come to a hopeless dead-lock, which was 
 happily solved by the grant of Home Kule. That is 
 Mr Gladstone’s story; but it is one not less inconsis¬ 
 tent with actual fact than the story he told three 
 years ago as to the clohire. In reality, Canada had its 
 elected representative Legislature from 1791 up to 1838; 
 the executive being mostly in the hands of representa¬ 
 tives of the Crown—as was the case at the time in 
 
Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 191 
 
 England itself. “ Government from Downing Street,” 
 as we now understand it, was not possible, seeing that 
 in those days there was no telegraph, and sailing 
 vessels occupied weeks in crossing to the other side of 
 the Atlantic. There were local troubles in the Canadas, 
 and these assumed an acute phase over the local ques¬ 
 tion of State endowments for the Church. These 
 troubles culminated in the rebellion of ’38. 
 
 The Legislature ivas in local hands and the executive 
 in the charge of officials appointed from the mother 
 country. Lord Durham succinctly suggested — “ Let 
 them not only make their own laws but execute them 
 and to carry out this idea he saw at once that the 
 provinces could not be left to their own independent 
 devices. The two Canadas were united in 1840 under 
 one Government and Legislature; and responsible 
 government was instituted. But in a few years this 
 ill-assorted combination of two antagonistic provinces 
 —the one Protestant by faith and English and Scotch 
 in race, and the other Catholic and French—proved 
 unworkable, and the two provinces were again sep¬ 
 arated. Have we not in Ireland a somewhat close 
 parallel ? In the north - east is there not a province 
 Protestant by faith and Scotch in race ? And are there 
 not, in the south and west, two provinces Catholic by 
 faith and Celtic in race ? Does not Canadian experi¬ 
 ence only prove that the amalgamation in a separate 
 constitution and administration of the two incongruous 
 provinces of Ireland merely promises to result in similar 
 failure ? No lasting settlement was arrived at until, 
 in 1867, all our various provinces on the North Ameri¬ 
 can continent were locally federated into one united 
 Dominion—one great Union. 
 
 In this policy was found a satisfactory remedy for 
 
192 
 
 Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 years of trouble. But the cardinal principle was not 
 the grant of Home Rule, but the uniting together of 
 the different provinces under one supreme Legislature 
 and Executive. It was comprehensive and intimate 
 union, and not division and subdivision, which inaug¬ 
 urated in Canada that grand era of prosperity which 
 set in as a result of Lord Durham’s wise statesmanship. 
 
 Very similar troubles occurred in New Zealand, al¬ 
 though it enjoyed a representative constitution, before ^ 
 the six provincial governments were amalgamated 
 (1875) into one general Legislature and Executive. 
 
 But as with Canada and New Zealand, so with the 
 Australasian and Cape colonies, the circumstances and 
 conditions are the very reverse of those of Ireland. In 
 their case we have distant, young, and rapidly grow¬ 
 ing colonies, proud of their common nationality, eager 
 to absorb the surplus capital and population of the 
 mother country, and wisely bent on maintaining as 
 close a union as possible with an empire that is the 
 pledge of their security and their liberties. Also, as I 
 have already pointed out, in those days there were no 
 telegraphs, and communication was as a rule by sailing- 
 ships, which occupied weeks, and to Australia, months, 
 in the voyage, to and fro. 
 
 But there is another vital and essential difference 
 which is strangely ignored by Mr Gladstone and all his 
 lieutenants—ignored, indeed, by all the speakers who 
 have introduced the colonial analogy. It is a difference 
 which overshadows all the others. It is the funda¬ 
 mental fact that these colonies were at the time not 
 represented in the Imperial Parliament; whereas Ire¬ 
 land is. The instances taken from European, not less 
 than from colonial history, all lack this one vital 
 feature. Ireland is already as fully represented in the 
 
Colonia I Self- Goveriimen t. 
 
 193 
 
 Parliament and Government of the country as any 
 other part of the United Kingdom. 
 
 To the British colonial communities, thus differing, 
 and diametrically differing, in every essential attribute 
 from Ireland, there was conceded that form of consti¬ 
 tution known as responsible government. But with 
 self-government was conceded full responsibility and 
 full control. The constitution granted in each case, as 
 may be seen in any of the Acts, was assimilated as 
 closely as circumstances allowed to that of the United 
 Kingdom. The supremacy of the Crown, two Houses 
 of Legislature, full power over the purse, full respon¬ 
 sibility for internal law and order, and for defence 
 against external aggression : these were the five funda¬ 
 mental principles of the new colonial constitutions, 
 and only the first of these five enters into Mr Glad¬ 
 stone’s scheme for Ireland. And the reasons for 
 granting these Home Eule constitutions were the 
 physical obstacles of distance, and the fact that the 
 colonies were not represented in the Imperial Parlia¬ 
 ment, two reasons which do not exist in the case of 
 Ireland. And yet this is the case which Mr Gladstone 
 brings forward as his great precedent for granting 
 Home Eule to Ireland, to a country close to Great 
 Britain, and populated and civilised for ages, and de¬ 
 caying and not growing^—-at least so the Parnellites 
 tell us. Mr Gladstone will also, perhaps, remember 
 the motive avowed by the leading men of one great 
 party, at all events, in granting this colonial Home 
 Eule. These concessions were avowedly made because 
 they “ paved the way to eventual separation,” because 
 they opened the door to a breaking up of the empire. 
 In this respect, also, the present offer of Home Eule to 
 Ireland is, we must hope, distinct and different from 
 
194 Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 the grant of Home Eule to the colonies. Or does Mr 
 Gladstone in this respect also see a close analogy and 
 precedent? In ‘Oceana,’ Mr Fronde well sums up this 
 “ policy of separation ” in the words,—“ They were in¬ 
 formed that they were as birds in nests, whose parents 
 would be charged with them only till they could provide 
 for themselves.” 
 
 But the colonies, with that practical statesmanship 
 (and I speak from a not inconsiderable personal ex¬ 
 perience) which has been their special product, and a 
 product that will be of incalculable advantage to the 
 whole nation, have replied with no uncertain sound: 
 “ It is best for us, it is best for you, it is best for all, 
 that we continually draw closer and closer the bonds 
 of union, the ties of communion—social, intellectual, 
 commercial, and political, that now so happily subsist.” 
 
 The reply of the colonies to the disintegrating grant 
 of self-government is a request that will, and must be, 
 acceded to, for a reuniting of the powers and forces 
 of the empire in some closer union. 
 
 To sum up, colonial Home Eule differs from any 
 possible Irish Home Eule, in the following among 
 other points :— 
 
 1. It was granted to pave the way to separation. 
 
 2. It has resulted in creating a warm demand for 
 
 closer union. 
 
 3. The colonies were not represented in the Imperial 
 
 Parliament. 
 
 4. The colonies were separated by weeks or months 
 
 of sea-voyage from London, and there was no 
 
 telegraph. 
 
 5. The colonies were partially unpopulated, young, 
 
 and rapidly progressive countries. 
 
 6. The colonies never tired of asserting their pride 
 
195 
 
 Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 in their common nationality, and their deter¬ 
 mination to remain integral portions of the 
 British Empire. 
 
 7. The colonies have the common-sense to see, 
 
 and the practical statesmanship to act up to 
 the wise conviction, that the closest union 
 means for the whole empire enhanced credit 
 and absolute security against all internal or 
 external danger to liberties or rights. 
 
 8. The colonies have a vivid conception of their 
 
 duties and obligations as citizens of a great 
 empire. 
 
 In addition to all this, Mr Gladstone, as I have 
 shown, appealing to the successful experience of our 
 colonies, proceeds to offer Ireland precisely what was 
 not offered to the colonies. He asks Ireland to accept 
 Home Eule, and then he defines Home Eule in his 
 Bill, from the main lines and purport of which he will 
 not depart even one hair’s-breadth. 
 
 In brief, this Bill says to Ireland, “ You may have 
 Home Eule ; you may have a I’arliament in Dublin; 
 but you must have no permanent representatives in 
 the Imperial Parliament; no control over customs and 
 excise—the two great items of purse; no control over 
 your own defence; no full responsibility for law and 
 order ; no command over the liberties of your people 
 or industries.” In short, Ireland, according to the 
 principle of Mr Gladstone’s Bill, is to be deprived of 
 all present share in the Imperial Government, and of 
 most of the powers of self-government. The English 
 taxpayer is to take all the ultimate responsibility and 
 control. Ireland is merely to contribute a fixed sum, 
 to be forcibly collected by England. Even the pro¬ 
 posed Irish Legislature is to be on an entirely new 
 
196 
 
 Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 model—viz., a single chamber—in which the repre¬ 
 sentatives of education and property are merely to 
 have the right to be always in the minority, and with 
 less powers in many respects than the councils even 
 in Crown colonies, “ ruled by the paternal despotism 
 of Downing Street.” Indeed, this new and strange 
 Legislature would not enjoy even the rights or powers 
 possessed by the subordinate Legislatures of the pro¬ 
 vinces of Canada, and there would be no permanent 
 representation in the Imperial Parliament. Ireland 
 would thus have inferior powers and rights to any 
 other province of any nation of European stock. This 
 is what Mr Gladstone offers to Ireland, and what 
 the Parnellite lieutenants assert will be accepted as 
 final by Ireland. To others in Ireland, this proposal 
 comes in the light of an insult and a degradation—as 
 a proposal which would settle nothing, but which 
 would open the door to endless complications, and 
 make possible every manner of dispute or difficulty. 
 In conclusion, I will add that this Union, which has 
 proved good and useful and vital to Great Britain and 
 to Greater Britain, to the thirty millions in England 
 and Wales and Scotland, to the two million Ulster 
 men and commercial men in Ireland, and to the ten 
 million British citizens of European stock in the North 
 American, South African, Australian, and other pro¬ 
 vinces of the nation, is not lightly to be cast to the 
 winds because an ephemeral majority of three million 
 of the less educated and less substantial of the inhabit¬ 
 ants of Ireland have been misled into supposing that, 
 “ to direct their course by themselves among the na¬ 
 tions of the world,” will freely give to some Irishmen 
 the land now belonging to others. 
 
 This demand for Home Eule, as a stepping-stone 
 
Colonial Self-Government. 
 
 197 
 
 towards separation, is a passing craze, on which agita¬ 
 tors may batten, and by whicli true patriots may be 
 blinded and misled; but it is opposed, even in this 
 the hour of its zenith, by the good sense and successful 
 experience of at least forty-two out of the forty-five 
 millions of British citizens of European stock. 
 
 Mr Gladstone’s peculiar scheme has been sprung 
 upon the public by the latest pervert to this strange 
 dogma; and the country has not yet had time to 
 become familiar with the question ; but as it gradually 
 does so, there will grow up an overpowering conviction 
 that Mr Gladstone’s proposals, even if they were practi¬ 
 cable, which they are not, would undoubtedly threaten 
 the prosperity and integrity of the whole empire, and 
 certainly compass the ruin of Ireland. 
 
 GEORGE BADEN-POWELL. 
 
 E'RINTEL) BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 
 
1 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ‘1 
 
 ! 
 
 
 '■i 
 
 ■j 
 
 A 
 
 4 
 
FOURTEENTH THOUSAND. 
 
 Popular Edition. Price One Shilling. 
 
 MB GLADSTONE: A STUDY. 
 
 By L. J. JENNINGS, M,P, 
 
 With Important Additions, including an entirely New Chapter on 
 ‘Later Developments of Mr Gladstone’s Irish Policy.’ 
 
 a 
 
 “ The most remarkable volume that has appeared for a long time 
 in the way of political literature.”— Public Opinion. 
 
 “ This is the most powerful and effectual, because the most calm, 
 unimpassioned, unassailable indictment of Mr Gladstone yet laid 
 before the public.”— Vanity Fair. 
 
 “ Brilliant and scathing analysis of the many parts which have 
 been played by Mr Gladstone in his long occupancy of the political 
 stage.”— Manchester Courier. 
 
 FORTIETH THOUSAND. 
 
 With Fifteen Illustrations. Price Sixpence. 
 
 THE IRISH GREEN BOOK. 
 
 By the Joint-Compiler and Artist of 
 ‘THE GLADSTONE ALMANACK,’ ‘EGYPTIAN RED BOOK,’ &c. 
 
 “ A trenchant attack on the Gladstone-Parnellite alliance, and 
 should be read by all who wish to know the truth.”— Morning’ 
 Post. 
 
 \VILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, Edinburgh and London. 
 

r ri 
 
-f 
 
 . 
 
 V J . ■ ’■ 
 
 h^ ' "h/.^ 
 
 
 4^ 
 
 , ■'^ ■ *- 
 
 it 
 
 : 
 
 'Vif'V 
 
 JI . 
 
 
 •M 
 
 ‘-^ .i . . 
 
 A 
 
 

 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 m^iMi