MR. T. W. RUSSELL'S POSITION.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL'S presence in the House of Commons is a standing grievance and annoyance to the Parnellite Party. His representation of an Irish county constituency is the outward visible sign of the fact which of all others they wish to hide or to gloze over. Their most cherished object at the present moment is to get the English people to believe that they, the Nationalists, have the sole and exclusive right to speak for the Democracy of Ireland. According to the theory upon which they insist with so much vehemence, the in- habitants of the Irish rural constituencies, not only in the South and West, but even in the North, are practically unanimous for Home-rule, and desire to shake off "the despotism under which they are groaning." No doubt the electoral facts in regard to Ulster do not appear at first sight to bear this out ; but then they can to a great extent be explained away. " It is true," argue the Paraellite writers and speakers, " that a certain number of Unionists are returned in the Northern counties ; but this proves nothing, because they are only landlords. The English electors must not be deceived by the fact that the grinding tyranny of the landlord class has deprived a certain number of constituencies of the right of free representa- tion. If the National League had been allowed to work out the salvation of the Ulster tenants, things would have been very different. As it is, the representation in a large part of the Northern Province is only a proof of the despotic sway of the landowners, and so an argument in favour of Home-rule." In days when landlords are largely regarded as enemies of the human race, this is a very effective controversial weapon. People are so accustomed to being told that landlords always gain their seats by in- timidation, that to dub a body of Members of Parliament " landlords" is, for many persons, equivalent to writing them off altogether as not freely chosen. In estimating the feeling of their countrymen, they are considered not to count. Unfortunately, however, this argument is vitiated by the presence in the House of Commons of a man like Mr. T. W. Russell, whose weight and influence cannot be discounted by ticketing him as a landlord. Here is a man who is better known in England and Scotland than any other Irish Unionist, and almost as well as any Nationalist Member, who not only is not an owner of land, but has not the remotest connection either by birth, or by interests, with the landlord class. A Radical of the Radicals, a Democrat of the Democrats, who has fought his way into the House of Commons without the aid of wealth, or of powerful family connections, or of a professional position, his right to speak for a large section of independent popular opinion in Ireland cannot be gain- Bayed or effectively explained away. Were he away there might be some hope of getting the English and Scotch electorates to believe that, but for a handful of landlords, the whole of Ireland is in favour of Home-rule. As it is he is able to give public demonstration of the untruth of any such assertion. Mr. Russell makes the existence of a Unionist democracy, both in the towns and in the rural districts of the North, visible to the ordinary lish voter. The importance of this fact is hardly _over-estimated. The greatest obstacle which the cause of the Union encounters, is the absence of know- ledge on the part of the electorate. In face of the glib protestations of Parnellites and Gladatonians, it is extremely difficult to get people to realise the existence of the two Irelands, and to understand how great an amount of Unionism there is outside the landlords and the Orangemen. We have pointed out above that to describe a man as an Irish landlord is almost equivalent to saying that his opinion as to his country may be dis- regarded. It is much the same in regard to the Orange- men. As long as the Irish opponents of Home-rule can be described as " a parcel of selfish landlords " or " a gang of noisy Orangemen," the Gladstonian voter will not think them worthy of consideration. Why these two classes should be subject to this form of political disability, even though their acts in the past have not been always very praiseworthy or very wise, we do not exactly understand ; but that is a question which it is now too late to ask. The fact remains that the British elector will not listen to their side of the case. It is, then, essential to show him dearly that there are thousands of men in the North who are anything but worshippers of landlords, and who dislike Orangeism almost as much as they do Ribbonism, but who are, at the same time, determined to fight Home-rule to the death. And here, again, Mr. Russell's position serves to bring out the true facts. He is as little of an Orangeman as he is of a landlord. He represents, in fact, the old school of Ulster Radicalism, which, though entirely opposed to Repeal, has always been on ordinary questions as thorough- going, or perhaps even a trifle more thorough-going, than that of Scotland.
Under these circumstances, who can be surprised that Mr. Russell is attacked by the Parnellite Party with a vehe- mence sometimes approaching frenzy ? He is the negation of their most loudly uttered declarations—declarations upon which they rely to deceive the people of England. He makes known what they passionately desire should continue unknown. He brings to light what, above all things, they wish to remain hid. Since the House and the country see in him a typical popular representative of a popular constituency, it is difficult to employ the talk about the advocates of Unionism being "nothing but a parcel of landlords and a gang of Orangemen." If Mr. Russell could be ignored, such language might do very well ; but fortunately his is a presence which makes itself felt. The rage with which he fills the minds of the Nationalist Members is often so great that they lose all self-control, and let it be clearly seen that they are afraid of the damage which his habit of speaking out may do them. On Monday night, for example, when he spoke in the New Tipperary debate, he could hardly proceed for the inter- ruptions with which he was assailed. Come what might, the Parnellite Party were determined to hoot down their for.. midable opponent. The reports in the newspapers give no adequate representation of the scene, but those who assisted at it describe it as one of the most violent and discreditable within recent memory. We are told that in a Parliament on College Green the minority would be sure of a fair and respectful hearing. This assertion is in curious contrast with occurrences like that of Monday night, which took place in a House where the Nationalists are to some extent sobered by their desire to impress the public with their moderation. If Home-rule were to come and Mr. Russell were to take his seat in Dublin, we can pretty accurately estimate the sort of treatment he would be likely to receive at the hands of his fellow-Members.
In yet another respect Mr. Russell is a thorn in the side of the Parnellite Party. In spite of the fact that the Nationalists are in Ireland closely connected with the retail liquor trade, they have in *England always posed as Temperance advocates, and have so obtained the help of a party in which zeal is not seldom more common than discretion. Mr. Russell, however, is one of the best-known and most active of Irish teetotalers, and he has been able to expose the insincerity of the attempts made by the Parnellites to secure the publicans in Ireland and the blue-ribbon men in England. By constantly showing to English and Scotch audiences that the public- house is the pillar of the Nationalist movement, he has prevented thousands of voters from blindly adopting Home- rule as a sort of side issue in the regulation of the liquor traffic. Mr. Russell's position in the House of Commons rests, however, on a stronger foundation even than that of the fear and hatred of the Parnellites. Not only has he made the people of England see that the opposition offered in Ireland to Home-rule is not merely a landlord or an Orange movement, and that the Nationalists have no claim to be regarded as pre-eminently the advocates of temperance, but he has shown a capacity and a states- manship which make the assistance he renders the Government of the utmost value. Take, for instance, his attitude on the Purchase Bill. It would not have been surprising if a man of Mr. Russell's Radical opinions had fallen into the mistake of imagining that it would be wise to set up a local and popular machinery for conducting the process of expropriation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Russell has been led into no such error, and has reso- lutely declined to embarrass the problem with any scheme of the kind. In a far-sighted article, contributed by him to the Scots Observer of last week, he makes out what seems to us a conclusive case in favour of Imperial administration for any Purchase scheme. He admits that in the abstract local control may be " the right thing," but he shows that, in practice, the only workable plan is that proposed by Mr. Balfour, because " the local authorities would simply be ham-strung "—i.e., forced by the National League to veto all schemes of Purchase. This is but one example of the prudence and good sense exhibited by Mr. Russell. In plenty of other instances he has shown the true political instinct. When the battle of the Union has been won, and its history comes to be written, his share in obtaining the victory will be pro- nounced to have been by no means a small one. In spite of many temptations to turn aside and follow a side-path, instead of the main road, he has pressed bravely forward, persisting always in the declaration that there is no Irish problem, however great, which cannot be solved far better at Westminster than in Dublin. It is because Mr. Russell is a real friend to Ireland, that he is so resolute a supporter of the Union.
Previous page
