THE UNIONIST MANIFESTOES.
THE Manifestoes issued by Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain differ much from one another in tone, and somewhat in the ideal they suggest as to the ultimate settlement of the controversy ; but they are sufficiently alike to form a basis for united action during these Elections. Mr. Chamberlain argues his case as if he were defending himself, while Lord Hartington states his with something of melan- choly dignity, as if defence were superfluous, and he had only to pronounce a reluctant but inevitable judgment. The differ- ence of tone, however, though it marks a difference of character, is not a difference of thought. Both state, to put the argument briefly, that Home-rule was not in the pro- gramme on which the recent Elections were fought, and both rebuke Mr. Gladstone for bringing it so suddenly forward, though Mr. Chamberlain's rebuke is an angry accusation of inconsistency, and Lord Hartington's takes the more impressive form of a sorrowful regret. Both, moreover, passing from that question—which has in part been settled by events, as the appeal to the people has now been arranged— condemn the scheme of Home-rule offered by the Premier as satisfying none of the conditions which he himself has allowed to be imperative, though their grounds of objection are not absolutely identical. Lord Hartington mentions, with obvious distrust, the exclusion of Irish Members from Imperial affairs ; but his grand objections are that too much power is granted to the Irish Parliament, which will control not only local affairs; but the laws and the administration of laws "affecting the relations of property, the prevention and punishment of crime, and the civil and religious rights and liberties of the whole community ;" and that these powers will be exercised over the population of Ulster, the Protestant minority, and many Catholics who regard their transfer to a new authority with " real alarm, as fatal to their property and their liberties." Mr. Chamberlain also objects to the powers granted, and is equally solicitous for the Ulstermen and the Protestants generally ; but he objects rather because similar powers could not be granted to England, Scotland, and Wales, and because we are bound to the minority by honour and good-faith. Both, however, unite in refusing to grant a governing Parlia- ment to Dublin as fatal to the unity of the Kingdom, and direotly injurious to a minority which we are pledged to protect. As the concession of that Parliament is the direct issue raised by the Premier, both stand in united opposition to his policy, and both ask the electors to join earnestly in defeating it.
For the present Election, that is sufficient, and our distrust of prophetic politics is so deep, that we could almost wish that both leaders had imitated Mr. Gladstone's reticence, and con- fined themselves to this point solely. The electors will pro- bably attend to no other, and their instinct will be right, for it is useless to discuss plans for Ireland until we know whether the people of the United Kingdom or the Irish alone, are in future to devise or to accept them. That is the core of the question, and until that is settled the suggestion of plans must partake too much of the character of an intellectual exercise leading to very little. Every plan will be modified by the general tone of the whole people at the Elections, and every plan is dependent upon the attitude of the Nationalists when they find that their hopes have been dis- appointed by an adverse vote. It is not of much use to define limits to self-government when Ireland may be in insurrection, and hardly beneficial to argue about delegated powers before the people who are to delegate them have pronounced their
will. Still, we must note that the leaders both of the Liberal and the Radical Unionists have ideas and plans with regard to Ireland which, though not identical, have common bases, are far apart from mere repression, and might, if thoroughly considered under the pressure of events, result in a policy capable of being reduced into Acts of Parliament. Both deal with " coercion," and both would enforce the law. There never was any doubt about Lord Hartington's views on this subject ; but Mr. Chamberlain also is unexpectedly resolute upon the right side. He " cannot admit that the due enforce- ment of just laws can properly be described as coercion," and holds that, in any case, even if Ireland does not appreciate the desire of the British nation to do justice, "the duty of every civilised Government is to maintain the law, which is the safeguard of liberty, and the security for the lives and property of the humblest citizens, as well as of the most exalted." That is all that the firmest Unionists ask, nor do we believe that the Tories, an enrage faction excepted, dream of asking more. The law re-established, both Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington would proceed to satisfy, so far as possible, the desire for self-government, and both upon the same prin- ciple. Both would grant to Ireland statutory bodies capable of taking much work off the shoulders of Parliament, but acting in strict subordination to it, and leaving to it unrestricted powers of initiation and of control. Mr. Chamberlain's views on this subject are well known, and though Lord Hartington avoids all details, and does not in words concede a central body, still his idea is sufficiently clear for recognition. He says :—" Parliament ought to continue to represent the whole, and not merely a part, of the United Kingdom. The powers which may be conferred on sub- ordinate local bodies should be delegated—not surrendered— by Parliament. The subjects to be delegated should be clearly defined, and the right of Parliament to control and revise the action of subordinate legislative or administrative authorities should be equally clearly reserved. And lastly, the adminis- tration of justice ought to remain in the hands of an autho- rity which is responsible to Parliament." We do not doubt that at bottom Lord Hartington's ideas and Mr. Chamberlain's diverge upon this subject, that the Liberal Unionist would concede little power and the Radical Unionist much ; but they are agreed as to the method of concession, as to the kind of concession, and as to the main datum of all, viz., the permanent and active sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament. They are, that is, as nearly in agreement as Whigs and Radicals ever are, and in the end, we may hope, upon this as upon every other subject, would, when pressed by necessity, find a plan which both could heartily support, and that would suffice for the time beyond which modern politicians think it unsafe to look. The details are for the future, but both uphold, as regards legislation, the indivisibility of the Kingdom, while both would leave the Executive responsible only to the central power. There is sufficient base for an effective and united campaign.
We never knowingly conceal anything from our readers, and must therefore point out that upon one grave subject, per- haps the gravest, the two leaders of the Liberal opposition do diverge. It is pretty clear that Lord Hartington, who makes a grievance of the withdrawal of the Purchase Bill, would, if he could, attack the agrarian difficulty of Ireland by measures involving compensation to the landlords, while it is equally clear that Mr. Chamberlain would do nothing of the kind. He, in truth, rages against the proposition, and believes that the offer of compensation is nothing better than a gigantic bribe to buy off landlord resistance to Home-rule. That is regret- table nonsense, for the landlords of Ireland have, of all classes, perhaps the least effective power in politics ; and this divergence between the two Unionist views may ultimately prove a serious one. It is not., however, in front yet; and as Mr. Gladstone's plan for the landlords is evidently withdrawn for further consideration, the whole matter may be left by the electors to be decided when the more pressing one of Home-rule has been disposed of. If that is re- jected, Lord Hartington's grievance will be as much termi- nated as Mr. Chamberlain's ; while if that is conceded, the electors will stand in a very different position towards the whole body of Loyalists, and the landlords, we may add, in a different position towards their countrymen. All we would ask of all electors upon this subject is to leave themselves un- pledged, and not to tie the hands of any Government which may make another attempt to deal with one of the most difficult of social problems. If they do, they will either compel a gross injustice, or render compromise with Ireland next to an impossibility.
Previous page
