LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
HOME-RULE, OR SEPARATION?
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECT•TOR.1
SIR,—Objectionable as you may consider the views expressed in this letter, I hope you will not refuse it a place in your columns. Nearly eighteen years ago you reviewed at some length a pamphlet of mine on Ireland. I refer to the subject only to show you that I am no recent student of the Irish Question.
No one can be more convinced than I am of the "Unwork- a.bleness of Federalism." If Mr. Morley believes in it, or recommends it, he is doomed to disappointment. Any link-- were it of silken threads—which connected England with Ireland would be regarded, in the present temper of the Irish people, as a galling chain, which would be denounced with a crescendo of the customary anathemas on the brutal Saxon or the bloody Whig. Every one has observed of late that conces- sions or attempts to do justice to Ireland have had but one effect,—to produce renewed curses on the head of England, and a spirit of hatred which language fails to express. Home-rule, on any system yet suggested, would not be established a week before it would be made the centre of an agitation against England more ferocious than anything hitherto witnessed. • You will see I have no belief in conciliating Ireland. You will ask, what then do I propose ? I answer, free and uncon- ditional separation as the first step of all—equally instructive and salutary to both countries. To England, or rather Great Britain, the gain could not be estimated,—riddance of a hostile element in our Legislature so acrid and venomous that it only needs to remain there a little longer to poison us completely and kill the Mother of Parliaments outright. The disruption of the Empire will be objected. Was there ever such a belief in fictions and scorn of facts Does any union between England and Ireland exist now, except on paper ? Is not Ireland still what it was in the days of Wolf Tone, to whom Napoleon said (before the Act of Union), "What more do you want ? Does not Ireland, as it is, create a diversion of forty thousand men ?" The notion that the loss of three or four millions of frantically hostile Irishmen will be ruin to the Empire can only be paralleled by the idea that the loss of the American Colonies was one from which England never could recover. Irishmen in our Senate are a danger indeed ; relegated as aliens to their dark and gloomy isle, they will be impotent as they were before the Union so-called.
You will object that I am forgetting the interests of Ireland herself. You say that if she had Home-rule she would proceed against herself by a Protective system. I admit that nothing is more probable. But can we, or ought we, to prevent her ruin, if she wills it? Is anything more likely to bring her to her senses than self-inflicted ruin ? Is anything more certain than that English advice and assistance will be spurned simply because they are English P Is it not shown every day that the very notion of England's harbouring any good thought for Ire- land is a matter of hissing and scorn to the Irish plebs ? They do not fear, they detest and despise, the English when they offer them gifts. You cannot reason with hatred, and you cannot appease it by largess. If the Crimes Act had been renewed there would have probably been, as you say, a semblance of law and order, as long as the Crimes Act lasted. Would any serious amelioration in the situation have occurred ? Can one in common-sense suppose it? Here we have been for nearly a century coercing Ireland on one pretext or another, with the result that she is more recalcitrant than ever. Why hope that a supposed remedy which has failed a hundred times will succeed at last ?
You refer to the secession of the Southern States of the American Union, and ask why the English Democracy cannot coerce Ireland as the Federals coerced the Confederates P For the simple fact that there cannot be a civil war between England and Ireland, as there was between the North and the South in America. The disparity in strength between the two countries is too great. The South could, and did, withstand the North for nearly four years, and for a moment victory trembled in the balance. Ireland could not resist a serious war with England four months, or even four weeks. We cannot enjoy the rights of conquerors, because no serious contest is possible. It would be like a trial of strength between a • powerful man and a fractious child. The man is dishonoured by his victory. This the Irish know well, and presume upon it. Leave Ireland alone ; it is the only possible cure now left untried. Strait-waistcoats have failed, and will fail. The half maniacal patient must be left to her own devices, and she will find what they will bring her to. Experience alone can be her teacher.
The desirable thing would be that the man of extraordinary but malignant genius who has had most to do with raising this storm, should be left face to face with his own country- men. The uncrowned king, if he gets his crown, will soon lose his head in more senses than one. Signs are not wanting already that he and his shrewder lieutenants are aware of this. Like all revolutionists, till supreme they can excuse any failure in their policy by laying the blame on a third party,—in this case England. The French anarchists used poor Louis XVI. for the same purpose. As soon as they stand alone responsible before a people whose passions they have stimulated to madness, their day of reckoning will come. Only by the failure, disastrous and crushing, of the anarchists to govern Ireland, can the spontaneous conservatism (not, of course, in the Tory sense of the word) inherent in all societies emerge. England, by her Police and Coercion Acts, is always hindering the one hope and source of permanent amendment. If the tyranny of the National League is as galling as we are told, we may depend that its enemies are numerous enough already. They will never come forth at our bidding. Left to themselves, they will soon dispose of their Marats, Robespierres, 30 Fitzjohn's Avenue, Hampstead, Deceraber 26th, 1885.
Previous page
