LETTERS TO THE EDITOR..
THE IRISH PEOPLE AND HOME-RULE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTA.TOR."] Snt,—While thanking you for the notice with which you have honoured my letter in the Spectator of July 27th, I trust you will allow me to say something in reply to your article correcting my misconception—so far as you are concerned— of the chief ground of opposition to Home-rule. It seems that it is not the hostility of the Irish people which is to be feared,
but their facility in following unworthy leaders. I remember, early in April, 1880, when the returns of the General Election came pouring into a certain club, hearing with silent amuse- ment the exclamation of an excited but generally intelligent Conservative, that the English people were unworthy of the franchise, since they were so easily led by Mr. Gladstone. And for many a year now, I have been obliged often to hear Mr. Gladstone described in terms which even you, Sir, would hardly apply to Mr. Parnell or to Mr. O'Brien. And it is just possible that in 1891—the date you fix for that event which I am not sanguine enough to expect earlier than 1893—the constituencies of this country may again thus demonstrate their ineptitude in the eyes of our Tory and some of our Liberal friends, and perhaps put even the Spectator to doubting whether popular institutions are not, after all, a mistake. Already there is not a word of your argument concerning the facility with which the Irish execute a change of front at the instance of their leaders, which does not apply with greater force at the present moment to 95 per cent.—I like to be within the mark—of the most numerous political party in Great Britain. With greater force, because the leaders of the Irish people are unanimous, and the leaders of the English party are not; and because, in the case of the latter, the change of front is real and inconsistent with the policy hitherto approved, whereas with the Irish it is only relative to the action of the English party, and is in pursuance of a con- sistent policy and purpose. Of course, I am not conceding the justice of the taunts against the bulk of the Liberal Party on this account. I believe that Mr. Gladstone's initiative in 1886 induced in nearly all who followed him then, as it did in my humble self, a feeling of glad relief, and recognition that the concession of Home-rule was what we had begun sub-consciously to want. We were ready for it, and that is why he carried us with him. That is the secret of all successful initiatives.
I cannot but suspect that a search through the files of the Spectator—say, in relation to Italian or Hungarian affairs, or even in relation to Irish affairs at no very distant date—would produce some exposure, more lucid and forcible than any I could supply, of the fallacy of making leaders responsible for the popular agitations to which they give expression and, partially, direction. I imagined that all political thinkers were long ago agreed that peoples, like individuals (or far more than individuals), are only easily led the way they wish to go, and that the " demagogue " is the symptom, not the disorder itself, or the cause of the disorder. If that is so, the character of the Irish leaders seems to me a question of secondary importance, as it is one upon which contemporary judgment, in the heat of conflict, must be almost worthless. I would only say (were that of the slightest consequence) that my estimate of Mr. Parnell and of Mr. O'Brien differs very widely from your own.
You say, I fail to see " the extraordinary and bewildering folly of proposing to throw over all our historical precedents " —there I paused, because I had supposed an Irish Parliament not to be without historical precedent—" in order to devise a new federal system which, except in Ireland, nobody wants."
Nor in Ireland either, I believe, for I find myself agreeing with you in anticipating renewal of controversy between Ireland and England, if Home-rule is loaded with restrictive and hampering expedients intended to deprive it of full efficacy. Only then can the danger you apprehend from Irish leader- ship arise. If Ireland has the same legislative and executive freedom as an English Colony, there will be nothing to fear. The present danger seems to me to be from party exigencies, from the tendency to secure temporary support by compro- mise. I own I was sorry when Mr. Gladstone, in his Swansea speech, virtually conceded, evidently against his own judgment, the retention of Irish Members at Westminster. We regained Sir George Trevelyan, but we embarrassed the future.
One word more as to the relevancy of my letter on " Ti- Conversion of Irish Feeling." Is it not a historical fac+ the Act of Union was largely motived by the fear
disloyalty in a crisis of our struggle with Fran"
only fear Irish leaders then ? Why, we cor' and did bribe, most of them. Is it not, t' the present situation, if Irish loyalty + secured by giving her as much freed Finally, you urge that Irelar - wants from the Imperial Par"
—so far as conformable to English ideas, or after long impor- tunity—perhaps. But one greater thing she cannot thus get. What does the struggle for national recognition mean ? We ask for definite grievances—there are enough of them—but we are met by an unsatisfied instinct for growth, for the free develop- ment which can never be conferred by alien rule, however well-meaning. The political energies of a people are their vital forces, and if denied their spontaneous expansion and organic expression, they inevitably assert themselves in dis- order of the system. The distinct nationality of the Irish has been vehemently denied. But I submit that this denial is met by one insuperable fact, by one conclusive evidence. If Irish nationality has no real or potential existence, how comes it to be claimed? It is not the invention of Mr. Parnell; it is the spirit which has created him.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[Our correspondent is, then, in favour of a solution of the Irish Question which every Liberal leader has given up,—a solution which, we quite agree with him, is far less dangerous than that which the Liberals now demand, but which would be dangerous enough. He forgets that there is absolutely no historical precedent whatever for a separate Irish Administra- tion depending on the majority in the Irish Legislature.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
