MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH.
the reign of law has been established in Ireland, there is a tendency among a certain class of minds to be fascinated by the glittering fictions and sophistries that are everywhere promulgated by the Gladstonians. Ignoring the contradic- tions that underlie the Home-rule creed, men are tempted to listen to such pleasant and delusive phrases as "the union of hearts," "the possibility of granting Ireland's demands without infringing Imperial unity," and "the abolition of tyranny and oppression in the sister-Kingdom." To make Ireland contented, happy, and prosperous, and every Irish- man a loving brother instead of a bitter enemy, and to indulge so wholesome and worthy a sentiment as that of nationality without injuring the Union, by the simple process of passing an Act of Parliament, is naturally enough a delightful prospect, and it is this prospect which the Gladstonian holds ()lath his countrymen. To prevent Unionists inclined, for the moment, to political optimism, from falling into such errors is, then, a work of the first importance, and this work Mr. Chamberlain accomplished in his Huddersfield speech in a way which no other living statesman could have surpassed.
To begin with, Mr. Chamberlain showed that the main- tenance of the Union is in no sense a negation of the principle that Ireland shall be governed according to Irish ideas. The Parliament at Westminster is prepared to deal with the very questions which it is admitted that an Irish Legislature would take up the moment it was established at Dublin, and to deal with them in the largest and most generous spirit. More important, however, than this disproof of the assertion that Ireland could only be done justice to in Dublin, was Mr. Chamberlain's admirably clear analysis of the present position of the Gladstonians in regard to Home-rule. What, he asked, do they mean by-Home-rule ? As an answer, the speaker suggested what we suppose would be everywhere admitted a very fair definition,—" A separate Parliament in Dublin, with an Executive dependent upon it having the manage- ment of exclusively Irish affairs." This, however, may mean anything from a big Vestry to a great National Assembly co-ordinate with the Imperial Parliament. But since Mr. Morley expressed his indignation at those who desired to mock Ireland by giving her "the power to elect her own parish beadle," or to choose a body with the functions of a Burial Board, we may assume that the first alternative is not that which would be accepted by the Gladstonians or the Parnellites. Let us suppose, then, that the Assembly would be a Parliament in fact as well as in name—a not unreasonable assumption, since it is to imply the recognition of a separate nationality. What then, it must next be asked, does such a recognition of a separate nationality mean ? The answer can best be given in the words of Mr. Chamberlain :—" A separate nation has rights,—has rights which are well understood, which are described in text-books, which everybody knows to exist in a nation. It has the right to choose its own form of govern- ment; it has the right not only to make its own laws, but to collect its own revenues and to make its own tariff. It has the right to control its foreign relations with other countries; it has the right to establish, if it pleases, a Church of its own ; it has the right to create and maintain a military force, both for defence and offence. Those are the rights of a nation." But if these rights belong—as unques- tionably they do—to a National Parliament, how shall we be able to refuse them to that of Ireland when it demands them from us, as is sure to happen ? To. refuse the request would mean the use of force under the very greatest possible difficulties, while to yield to them would simply be to grant Separation—the very thing which the Gladstonians tell us they abhor most in the world. To restate the position. Either Home-rule means. a big vestry and so something the Nationalists will not willingly accept, or else the grant of a Parliament which will necessarily present to us the dilemma of political coercion or the granting of Separation. While on the subject of Mr. Chamberlain's address, we cannot pass over the very curious quotation from one of Mr. Morley's speeches during the General Election of 1880, which it contains. When asked during the West- minster election if he were in favour of Home-rule, Mr. Morley replied :—" I will not vote for a, separate- Parliament for Ireland, and I will not vote for any measure or proposition or inquiry which could lead. it to be supposed that this is an open question in my mind." Of course, as Mr. Chamberlain was ready enough to admit, there is nothing in the very slightest degree discreditable in Mr. Morley's change of front. The interest of the quotation is rather personal, as the evolution of Mr. Morley's political creed. Evidently he was in 1880 still under the influence of Mr. Mill, who, it will be remembered, declared that "the separation of Ireland from Great Britain would be most undesirable for both, and that the attempt to hold them together by any form of Federal Union would be unsatisfactory while it lasted, and would end either in reconquest or in complete separation." It would certainly be somewhat of a surprise to the high-priest of Philosophic Radicalism, if he could return to earth, to find his chief disciple advocating a wishy-washy Federalism born of a compromise between the opinions of Mr. Gladstone and the editor of an evening newspaper. But from every point of view the irony of fate never wrought a stranger result than when it made the chief apologist of ,Tacobinism a Separatist. Imagine Robespierre or Danton letting a province of France go merely because it desired to set up a priest-led nationality.
Previous page
