Lord Randolph Churchill has a singular power over popular audiences,
and he may be aware that he owes part of it to exaggeration and violence of speech. Labour leaders, we notice, use the same weapons, and they become influential. Still, we cannot avoid an intellectual regret when we see sound arguments like those which Lord Randolph produced at Bolton on Monday, spoiled, for the educated at least, by violence of language. We like the Irish Home-rulers as little as the orator does ; but to call them "political brigands" and "Nihilists," is a kind of eloquence which should be left to them. It is an excellent argument to say that if Home-rule ruins Ireland, Lancashire will be swarming with Irish eager to work at any price, but where is the use of saying that the Home- rule Members are "seeking personal gain alone"? If they do hope for office in Ireland, the hope is a natural one, and as legitimate as any English ambition of the same kind. The statement, moreover, that the Government has no genuine majority because part of it is Irish, and that Irish votes can have no influence with the people of England, besides being uselessly irritating, is contrary to the fundamental principle of Unionism, which is that Irish votes have already, and always should have, their proportionate influence in the State. To say that a vote in Parliament is null because given by an Irish Member is to justify disruption.
Previous page
