TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. PARNELL'S BILL. NsTE should be very heartily grieved if the Liberal Unionists were not found willing and anxious to consider the proposals of Mr. Parnell's Bill in a perfectly temperate and candid spirit. Of course it lies with him to show the truth of what he has asserted,—that the economic exigency of 1886 is likely to be even greater than the economic exigency of 1880 ; and that if the actions of ejectment are to proceed against all tenants who cannot pay their full rents, Ireland is likely to be the scene of the most widespread and heartrending evictions. Certainly we should have supposed that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's view of the case was much nearer the truth than Mr. Parnell's, judging from the evidence produced on both sides, nor do we doubt that if Mr. Parnell fails to make out a strong case, the Government would be doing quite right in refusing altogether for the present to depart from the position which it has assumed on the. Irish land question. But, of course, Mr. Parnell may be right, and may be able to show that he is right. It is unquestionable, we think,—indeed, it is not denied,—that a fall in the price of produce involving serious redactions in the tenant's surplus, has occurred within the last three years, and it may well be that that fall has been more serious and its consequences more widespread than the Government had any reason to believe. If Mr. Parnell can show this, it seems to us that the Government ought not to stand by a resolution which was founded on imperfect information, and which would not have been formed at all, had their knowledge of Ireland been more exact. The great question is one of fact. Supposing Mr. Parnell's view of the situa- tion be true and be demonstrable, it does not seem to be even plausible to argue that the Government ought to act as they were prepared,—and rightly prepared,—to act while they had reason to believe his view unsound and grossly exaggerated. Their present position is that there is no immediate hurry, no pressing crisis ; that by February they hope to be prepared with matured measures ; that before February there is no kind of danger in letting matters go on as they are. And we should be disposed to think that as regards the question of leases, and as regards the question of a periodical revision of the judicial rents, the Government will certainly be warranted in holding to their present attitude. Bat the further question as to the probability of a grave intermediate crisis arising in Ireland, dangerous to order, and likely to result in a new crop of outrages before Parliament meets in the spring, is a very different one. There may be evidence to prove that this is so, that so many rents will be unpaid and unpayable in November as to bring a large number of industrious men to ruin, and so to stimulate the outrage- mongers to greater violence than ever. And if there is such evidence, and if Mr. Parnell can bring it, it seems to us that the Government would show not firmness, but irrational obstinacy, in insisting on acting as they would have acted had no such evidence been produced. We should remember that it is now Mr. Parnell's policy not to act as he acted in 1880, but to play the statesman ; to convince England, if he can, that Mr. Gladstone's measure would not have been dangerous ; that it would have delivered over Ireland to leaders as anxious as the British Government itself to enforce order, and that his whole influence is cast on the side of order. This makes his evidence far less open to reasonable suspicion than it other- wise would be. We have no doubt at all that in his view a resurgence of the Jacquerie in Ireland would be as mischievous for his policy now, as the rise of it was useful for his policy in 1880. We should not, therefore, look with any excess of sus- picion at his evidence tending to prove the critical character of the danger, though, of course, it would need careful sifting and testing. We believe it to be his interest to keep the people now as quiet as he can keep them, and if he thinks that it will not be in his power to keep them quiet during the winter without some temporary measure we should not in the least doubt his bona fides in recommending such a measure. But, of course, the Government will do well to remember also that he cannot at least lose influence by urging such a measure on the House of Commons. If it passes, it increases greatly his own prestige.
If it fails to pass, it diminishes greatly his own responsibility for the possible disorders of the winter. In any case, he gains by producing it,—so that the Government will be perfectly justified in subjecting his evidence to a very careful sifting. But if, after such a sifting, the Irish Secretary himself is dis- posed to agree with Mr. Parnell that there is real need for a
temporary measure in order that a new rush of crime may be avoided, then we think that the Government would do very wrong to hold out against Mr. Parnell only because he is Mr. Parnell, and would show by so holding out that they were not considering the good of Ireland so much as they were con- sidering their own prestige.
Now, that is the very rock which Unionists, as Unionists, are most bound to avoid. If Great Britain governs Ireland with a view not to the good of Ireland, bat to the subordination of Irish to English statesmen, we give just cause of complaint, and do what in us lies to strengthen the case of the Home-rulers. It may be true that if Mr. Parnell should succeed in getting the one important provision of his Bill passed,—we mean the provision that tenants who have paid a certain proportion of their rent, which on Friday week he fixed at three-quarters,. should not be liable to ejectment till their case has been thoroughly reviewed by a proper Court,—he would gain fresh prestige in Ireland, and would be a still more formidable antagonist for the Unionists who resist Home-rule. But that is, we maintain, wholly irrelevant to the question at issue,— the question, namely, whether, as a precautionary measure, Ireland needs some such temporary suspension of ejectments. If she does, if such a measure is just, then the fact that Mr. Parnell has introduced it ought to prejudice no one against it, any more than the fact that he has intro- duced it should prejudice any one in its favour. The Government should consider the case he produces with the most perfect candour, and quite without a priori determination to depreciate his evidence. It may well be that he will break down in his case. If so, the Government will have a united party behind them, consisting of all the Conservatives and all the Unionists, in negativing his measure. But if he sliould produce a strong case, the Government would be wrong, and the Liberal Unionists would be almost criminal, in ignoring it. The very contention on which the Liberal Unionists found their case against Mr. Gladstone, is that Ireland will lose by Home-rule even more than Great Britain_ and the United Kingdom will lose by it. And if the very first step they take to prove this be to reject a measure by which the peace of Ireland during the winter would have been preserved, only because it was the chief of the Home-rule Party who introduced it, they would be showing that at a push they do not scruple to ignore the welfare of Ireland for the benefit of English parties. It is said that Lord Hartington is exerting himself to get Mr. Parnell's Bill rejected. We do not believe it. We believe that Lord Hartington would be the first to say that Mr. Parnell should be judged fairly and calmly on the strength of the case he can produce, and that if he can make out a really strong case, then not only the welfare of Ireland, but the welfare of the Irish landlords, the welfare of England, and the welfare of the Union would be served by accepting Mr. Parnell's compromise, with any securities and guarantees which the advisers of the Queen may think needful to guard it against abuse. As we have often been compelled to observe before, the Conservatism of the Standard, on this subject, seems to us much wiser and more sagacious than the Conservatism of the Times.