IRISH LEGISLATI V SYSTEMS.*

DE. BALL's work is a clear, comprehensive, and judicial review of the various legislative systems under which Ireland has been governed in the past. At no time more than at the present has it been necessary for politicians to look back upon the history of Ireland and to see what lessons may be drawn therefrom to help us in the solution of the great question with which we are now face to face. The record of the various systems under which Ireland has been connected with England suggests, in the first place, that since almost every possible plan for regulating that connection has been already tried, we might, when we are considering whether we shall or shall not alter the existing state of things—which consists in the incorporation of Ireland with Great Britain—to study carefully the working of those previous systems. Dr. Ball's work gives us the opportunity to do so, and, with perfect impartiality, puts at our disposal the true facts of Irish legislative history.

It is obvious that two countries which have become part of the dominions of the same Sovereign may stand towards each other in any one of the three following relations. They may be incorporated and become one united Kingdom, the inhabitants of either country entirely merging their old national identity in that of the newly created Kingdom. Again, they may remain each independent of the other, and connected only by the link of a common kingship. Thirdly, one of them may obtain a legislative and administrative supremacy over the other, may keep that other in a semi- dependent condition, and, while leaving certain internal powers to the dependent Kingdom, may reserve matters of supreme importance and all external questions, such as trade, tariffs, navigation, and foreign policy, for the decision of the more powerful country. From the time of the acquisition of Ireland by Henry II., up to the year 1782, Ireland stood towards England in the third and last of these relations. She was in a semi-dependent or subordinate position. The ways in which this dependence was claimed and enforced were many and various. At the time, however, at which the English legislative supremacy ceased, Ireland was held, as it were, by the two great constitutional chains of • Historical Review of the Legislative Systems Operative in Ireland from the Invasion of Henry II. to the Union (1172-1800). By the Bight Hon. J. T. Ball, D.O.L. London : Longmans, Green, and O. 1888. Poynings' Act and the statute known as the Sixth of George I. Poynings' Act was an Act of the Irish Parlia-

ment, and enacted that Irish Bins must be submitted to and approved by both the English and the Irish Privy

Councils before they could become law. The constitutional forms under which this law was carried out were the following. Not an actual Bill, but merely the "heads of a Bill" were framed in one or other of the Irish Houses. These heads were then sent

to the Lord-Lieutenant and the Irish Privy Council. By them the heads, altered or affirmed, were sent on to the English Privy Council, who generally, says Dr. Ball, "referred their con- sideration to the English Attorney and Solicitor-General." Finally, if the heads were returned as a Bill under the Great Seal of England to the Irish Council, this Bill "was sent to the House in Ireland which originally proposed the heads, and then, in order to become law, it went through the usual course

of procedure, and required to be read three times and passed through Committee in each House." A Bill thus returned from

England "might be accepted or rejected by the Irish Parlia-

ment, but it could not be altered." The other of the two con- stitutional chains, as we have termed them, binding Ireland—

the Statute 6, George I.—was an Act formally declaring what had long been claimed and acted upon—the right of the English Parliament to make "laws and statutes of sufficient force and.

validity to bind the Kingdom and people of Ireland." The same Act asserted also that the English House of Lords was the ultimate appellate tribunal for Irish suits. The conditions

under which Ireland remained in the position of semi- independence were thus these,—while she could not legislate for herself without sanction first obtained from England, the

English Parliament could, unrestrained by the Irish, make laws to bind Ireland. In the year 1782 both chains were.

snapped. The Irish Parliament repealed Poynings' Act, the English Parliament the Statute 6, Geo. I., and Ireland became practically independent of England—the one condition that Irish Bills should, in order to become law, obtain, besides the Royal Assent, the affixing of the Great Seal of England, was a, purely theoretical limitation—and the Parliaments of the two.

countries became co-ordinate institutions. The only link left was that of the Crown. This position of complete independence

lasted till 1800, and then Ireland and England entered upon the first of the relations dealt with by us, i.e., became united, and.

were incorporated into one Kingdom, in which the citizens of each obtained precisely equal rights and privileges.

In considering which of these three systems is the best, let us see how they. have worked. This is Arisv Dr. Ball describes the results of the semi-dependent system of governing Ireland:—

"Down to the end of George II.'s reign, the' Irish Parliament was concerned with little beside internal affairs. All its statutes then in force relate to subjects of this nature. Restriction upon the range will, injuriously affect the character of legislation. In a great empire, and, therefore, in its Parliament, if it be so consti- tuted as to be representative the grandeur and multiplicity of interests expand and liberalise policy; it is the consequence not of one single impulse, but of a number of impulses reciprocally acting upon each other ; and, their diversity ensures that the result shall be marked by moderation. Society, in such cases,. becomes subdivided into a number of differing sections of opinion, and, without a combination, difficult to effect among them,. measures of injustice and oppression cannot be enacted. But of such variety of influences a narrow area and confined scope of action deprived the Irish Parliament. Its views were contracted to the measure of its condition. Never coming in contact with anything higher or nobler, it reflected only the passions and pre- judices with which it was encircled. At their bidding it framed its legislation, and consigned the weaker, although much the larger, portion of the people to a state of hopeless inferiority. At the accession of George III. to the throne, the consequences of the legislative system which was then operative in Ireland were distinctly apparent. The English Parliament had so regulated. external affairs as to extinguish the trade and commerce of Ireland; the Irish Parliament had so ordered its internal affairs that the major part of the nation were subject to intolerable oppression. The country was, as might be expected, everywhere poor and depressed."

This is Dr. Ball's temperate description of the subordinate system. Another description of the work of the Irish Parlia- ment in its time of subordination, quoted by him from a speech

of Grattan's, is, though more picturesque and emphatic, none the less true. Indeed, it is a faithful picture of what Ireland. once was, and of what she would become again, under a system securing to her the semi-independence which is to be found in Mr. Gladstone's scheme of Home-rule. Ireland before 1782, said Grattan, was "a squabbling, fretful sectary, • perplexing her little wits, and firing her furious statutes with bigotry, sophistry, disabilities, and death."

Now let us see how Ireland fared under the complete legisla- tive independence of the Constitution of 1782. It is true, as Dr. Ball notices, that she gained in intellectual vigour and dignity and importance. Her independence did not, however —indeed, could not—solve the problem. The statutes of her Parliaments were still a record of "disabilities and death."

Grattan's Parliament passed no less than fifty Coercion Acts in its life of eighteen years, of which some were of a type which the admirers of Irish legislative independence must find it hard to excuse,—the indemnification of Magis- trates and other persons for illegal acts committed in the preservation of the peace. The storms in which Grattan's Parliament died—the Rebellion, only suppressed with the greatest difficulty, the general outbreak of a cruel and savage lawlessness, and the intrigues carried on between Irishmen and the national enemy,—s]iowed its complete failure to rule in Ireland. The difficulties which arose in regard to its dealings with England proved, on the other hand, its inability to assist in regulating the joint concerns of the two peoples. Its failure here, however, shall be told again in Dr. Ball's words :—

" When the Parliaments of two independent kingdoms co-exist within the same empire, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that a large range of subjects must be submitted to both concur- rently. Whatever concerns the general weal comes within this category : so also do internal arrangements, especially as to trade, between those who& they represent. On many of these matters -the agreement of the Legislatures is essential to the well-being, if not the safety, of the State. lJnder such circumstances it may, as a general rule, be laid down that the requisite agreement cannot be reckoned certain, Unless there exists absolute harmony of sympathies and interests between the kingdoms, or such con- sciousness of comparative weakness on the part of one as may suppress any manifestation of its dissent. In the ease of Ireland and Great Britain there were, in their position, circumstances, and history, causes for difference of sentiment and opinion ; and Ireland was both physically and intellectually too great to accept passive submission. Actual disagreement, distinct and total, upon subjects of most grave importance ensued : further disagreement, calculated to impair the connection of the two kingdoms, and imperil the security of the realm, might, and it was feared would, occur. Foreign war and internal rebellion lay in wait to take advantage of the least appearance of weakness. These dangers arose from the independence of the Irish Parliament and the extent of its jurisdiction. They might be expected so long as loth independence and jurisdiction remained as they were. To hinder their recurrence either the independence or the jurisdiction must be abridged. But the difficulties in the way of the latter measure were insuperable. The policy of restriction had been tried, had been condemned, and, in 1782, had been finally renounced without a dissentient voice among statesmen. It could not be revived; and, if it were revived, experience, it was said, had shown that it could not be maintained. When restriction was rejected, the exigency of the ease led to the Act which now unites Ireland with Great Britain. Whatever objections, on other -grounds, might be suggested, it could not be denied that it met the very needs which, it was said, required to have provision made for them. Incorporating in one the two kingdoms, it rendered, as far as human precaution could, their connection indissoluble : fusing together their separate Legislatures, it secured the unity of design resulting from a single paramount authority, repre- senting the will, and consulting for the welfare of, the whole empire."

Lastly, then, we must ask : What has been the result of the third system,—the incorporation of the two countries under

the Union? Here we cannot quote Dr. Ball, for the effects of the Union are outside the scope of his work. Our readers, however, may easily supply them for themselves. If we com- pare the last eighty-eight years with any other period of the same duration in Irish history, can it be denied that Ireland in these eighty-eight years has enormously improved? But perhaps those who will admit this improvement will say that all countries have improved materially since the invention of the steam-engine. We will ask, then, whether in those eighty- eight years Ireland has not relatively improved when compared with England; whether the Ireland of to-day is not far less behind the England of to-day than the Ireland of the eighteenth century was behind the England of that epoch. Let any one read the accounts English travellers give of Ireland about the year 1750, and notice their comparisons with England, and then let him turn to the work of a modern observer like Miss Bird, and see how she speaks of the condition of Ireland. Ireland may not be a model country, but at least she has im- proved. At the same time, she has obtained complete equality of rights with England, and enjoys a considerably larger share in choosing the representatives of the United Kingdom than • her population allows. We cannot leave Dr. Ball's book without quoting from its pages some memorable sentences which occur in one of Sheridan's speeches on the Union. The speaker is dealing with the notion then prevalent that a Legislature with modified powers might remain in Ireland even after the Union :—" Are we to be told that Union will not wholly dissolve the Legis- lature of Ireland; that independence will survive the Union, though in a modified state ; that Parliament will be left to judge of the local affairs of Ireland? Really, Sir, this seems almost too much for men's feelings,—a Parliament ! a sort of national vestry for the parish of Ireland, sitting in a kind of mock legislative capacity, after being ignobly degraded from the rank of representatives of an independent people, and deprived of the functions of an inquisitorial power, exercising and enjoying the greatest authority that any Parliament can possess." We recommend these words to those who think that the Nationalist spirit will ever be satisfied by Mr. Gladstone's Home-rule scheme. Though we cannot dwell longer on Dr. Ball's book, we must just pause to praise his excellent com- ments on the Duke of Portland's plan for altering the Constitution of 1782, and to notice his account of the demand for Union which grew up in Ireland after the Union with Scotland. The whole work will well repay the most careful study.

If we want, before leaving it, to put the moral of the book into a sentence, it must be, that in Ireland we have tried both Colonial independence and modified independence—i.e., Home-rule—and that they have both failed utterly, and that to leave the sure ground of Union and national incorporation for further experiments in these directions would be the height of political folly. That, it seems to us, is what Dr. Ball's book teaches on every page.