The present seems an excellent moment for bringing forward the arguments
in favour of a new policy for Ireland, which are to be found in the
articles contained in this volume.
We are realizing the first results of the verdict given at the election
of 1886. And this I interpret as saying that the constituencies were not
then ready to depart from the lines of policy which, up to last year,
nearly all politicians of both parties in Parliament had laid down for
their guidance in Irish affairs.
We have had the Session occupied almost wholly with Lord Salisbury's
proposals for strengthening the power of the central Government to
maintain law and order in Ireland, and for dealing with the most
pressing necessities of the Land question in that country.
It is well, before the policy of the Government is practically tested,
that the views of thoughtful men holding different opinions should be
clearly set forth, not in the shape of polemical speeches, but in
measured articles which specially appeal to those who have not hitherto
joined the fighting ranks of either side, and who are sure to intervene
with great force at the next election, when the Irish question is again
submitted to the constituencies.
I feel that I can add little or nothing to the weight of the arguments
contained in these papers, but I should like to give some reasons why I
earnestly hope that they will receive careful consideration.
The writers have endeavoured to approach their work with impartiality,
and to free themselves from those prejudices which make it difficult for
Englishmen to discuss Irish questions in a fresh and independent train
of thought, and realize how widely Irish customs, laws, traditions, and
sentiments differ from our own.
We are apt to think that what has worked well here will work well in
Ireland; that Irishmen who differ from us are unreasonable; and that
their proposals for change must be mistaken. We do not make allowance
for the soreness of feeling prevailing among men who have long objected
to the system by which Ireland has been governed, and who find that
their earnest appeals for reform have been, until recent times,
contemptuously disregarded by English politicians. Time after time
moderate counsels have been rejected until too late. Acts of an
exceptional character intended to secure law and order have been very
numerous, and every one of them has caused fresh irritation; while
remedial measures have been given in a manner which has not won the
sympathy of the people, because they have not been the work of the Irish
themselves, and have not been prepared in their own way.
Parliament seems during the past Session to have fallen into the same
error. By the power of an English majority, measures have been passed
which are vehemently opposed by the political leaders and the majority
of the Irish nation, and which are only agreeable to a small minority in
Ireland. This action can only succeed if the Irish can be persuaded to
relinquish the national sentiments of Home Rule; and yet this was never
stronger or more vigorous than at the present time. It is supported by
millions of Irish settled in America and in Australia; and here I would
say that it has often struck me that the strong feeling of
dissatisfaction, or, I might say, of disaffection, among the Irish is
fed and nurtured by the marked contrast existing between the social
condition of large numbers of the Irish in the South and West of Ireland
and the views and habits of their numerous relatives in the United
States.
The social condition of many parts of Ireland is as backward, or perhaps
more backward, than the condition of the rural population of England at
the end of last or the beginning of this century. The Irish peasantry
still live in poor hovels, often in the same room with animals; they
have few modern comforts; and yet they are in close communication with
those who live at ease in the cities and farms of the United States.
They are also imbued with all the advanced political notions of the
American Republic, and are sufficiently educated to read the latest
political doctrines in the Press which circulates among them. Their
social condition at home is a hundred years behind their state of
political and mental culture. They naturally contrast the misery of many
Irish peasants with the position of their relatives in the New World.
This cannot but embitter their views against English rulers, and
strengthen their leaning to national sentiments. Their national
aspirations have never died out since 1782. They have taken various
forms; but if the movements arising from them have been put down, fresh
movements have constantly sprung up. The Press has grown into an immense
power, and its influences have all been used to strengthen the zeal for
Irish nationality, while, at the same time, the success of the national
movements in Italy, Hungary, Greece, and Germany have had the same
effect. Lastly, the sentiment of Home Rule has gained the sympathy of
large bodies of electors in the constituencies of Great Britain, and,
under the circumstances, it is difficult to suppose that, even if the
country remains quiet, constitutional agitation will vanish or the Irish
relinquish their most cherished ambition.
We hear, from men who ought to know something of Ireland, that if the
Land question is once settled, and dual ownership practically abolished,
the tenants will be satisfied, and the movement for Home Rule will no
longer find active support in Ireland. Without going into the whole of
this argument, I should like to say two things: first, that I do not
know how a large scheme of Land Purchase can be carried through
Parliament with safety to Imperial interests without establishing, at
the same time, some strong Irish Government in Dublin to act between the
Imperial Government and the tenants of Ireland; and, second, that the
feeling for Home Rule has a vitality of its own which will survive the
Land question, even if independently settled.
Home Rule is an expression of national feeling which cannot be
extinguished in Ireland, and the only safe method of dealing with it is
to turn its force and power to the support of an Irish Government
established for the management of local Irish affairs. There are those
who think that this must lead to separation. I cannot believe in this
fear, for I know of no English statesman who looks upon complete
separation of Ireland from Great Britain as possible. The geographical
position of Ireland, the social and commercial connection between the
two peoples, renders such a thing impossible. The Irish know this, and
they are not so foolish as to think that they could gain their
independence by force of arms; but I do not believe that they desire it.
They are satisfied to obtain the management of their own local affairs
under the _ægis_ of the flag of England. The papers in this volume show
how this can be done with due regard to Imperial interests and the
rights of minorities.
I shall not enlarge on this part of the subject, but I wish to draw
attention to the working of the Irish Government, and the position which
it holds in the country, for it is through its administration that the
policy of the Cabinet will be carried out. At the outset I feel bound to
deprecate the exaggerated condemnation which the "Castle" receives from
its opponents. It has its defects. Notwithstanding efforts of various
ministers to enlarge the circle from which its officials are drawn, it
is still too narrow for the modern development of Irish society, and it
has from time to time been recruited from partisans without sufficient
regard to the efficiency and requirements of the public service. But, on
the whole, its members, taken as individuals, can well bear comparison
with those of other branches of the Civil Service. They are diligent;
they desire to do their duty with impartiality, and to hold an even
balance between many opposing interests in Ireland. Whatever party is in
office, they loyally carry out the policy of their chiefs. They are,
probably, more plastic to the leadership of the heads of departments
than members of some English offices, and they are more quickly moved by
the influences around them. Sometimes they may relapse into an attitude
of indifference and inertness if their chiefs are not active; but, on
the other hand, they will act with vigour and decision if they are led
by men who know their own minds and desire to be firm in the government
of the country.
When speaking of the chiefs of the Irish Civil Service, who change
according to the political party in office, we must not overlook the
legal officers, who exercise a most powerful influence on Irish
administration. They consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney and
Solicitor General, and, until 1883, there was also an officer called the
Law Adviser, who was the maid-of-all-work of Castle administration. In
England, those who hold similar legal offices take no part in the daily
administration of public affairs. The Lord Chancellor, as a member of
the Cabinet, takes his share in responsibility for the policy of the
Government. The law officers are consulted in special cases, and take
their part from time to time in debates in the House of Commons. In
Ireland, however, the Chancellor is constantly consulted by the
Lord-Lieutenant on any difficult matter of administration, and the
Attorney and Solicitor General are in constant communication with the
Lord-Lieutenant, if he carries out the daily work of administration, and
with the Chief and the Under Secretary.
Governments differ as to the use they make of these officials. Some
Governments have endeavoured to confine their work to cases where a mere
legal opinion has to be obtained; but, when the country is in a
disturbed state, even these limited references become very frequent, and
questions of policy as well as of law are often discussed with the law
officers. It is needless to say that, with their knowledge of Ireland
and the traditions of Castle government (it is rare that all the law
officers are new to office, and, consequently, they carry on the
traditions from one Government to another), they often exercise a
paramount influence over the policy of the Irish Government, and
practically control it.
They are connected with the closest and most influential order in Irish
society--the legal order, consisting of the judges and Bar of Ireland.
This adds to the general weight of their advice, but it has a special
bearing when cases of legal reform or administration are under
consideration; it then requires unwonted courage and independence for
the law officers of the Crown to support changes which the lay members
of the Government deem necessary.
I have known conspicuous instances of the exercise of these high
qualities by law officers enabling reforms to be carried, but as a rule,
particularly when the initiative of legal reform is left to them, the
Irish law officers do not care to move against the feeling of the legal
world in Dublin. The lawyers, like other bodies, oppose the diminution
of offices and honours belonging to them, or of the funds which, in the
way of fees and salaries, are distributed among members of the bar; and
they become bitterly hostile to any permanent official who is known to
be a firm legal reformer. It would be impossible for me not to
acknowledge the great service often done to the Government by the able
men who have filled the law offices, yet I feel that under certain
circumstances, when their influence has been allowed too strongly to
prevail, it has tended to narrow the views of the Irish Government, and
to keep it within a circle too narrow for the altered circumstances of
modern life.
The chief peculiarity of the Irish Administration is its extreme
centralization. In this two departments may be mentioned as typical of
the whole--the police and administration of local justice.
The police in Dublin and throughout Ireland are under the control of the
Lord-Lieutenant, and both these forces are admirable of their kind. They
are almost wholly maintained by Imperial funds. The Dublin force costs
about £150,000 a year. The Royal Irish Constabulary costs over a million
in quiet, and a million and a half in disturbed times. Local authorities
have nothing to do with their action or management. Local justice is
administered by unpaid magistrates as in England, but they have been
assisted, and gradually are being supplanted, by magistrates appointed
by the Lord-Lieutenant and paid by the State.
This state of things arose many years ago from the want of confidence
between resident landlords and the bulk of the people. When agrarian or
religious differences disturbed a locality the people distrusted the
local magistrates, and by degrees the system of stipendiary, or, as they
are called, resident magistrates, spread over the country. To maintain
the judicial independence and impartiality of these magistrates is of
the highest importance. At one time this was in some danger, for the
resident magistrates not only heard cases at petty sessions, but, as
executive peace officers, to a very great extent took the control of the
police in their district, not only at riots, but in following up and
discovering offenders. Their position as judicial and executive officers
was thus very unfortunately mixed up. Between 1882 and 1883 the Irish
Government did their utmost to separate and distinguish between these
two functions, and it is to be hoped that the same policy has been and
will be now continued, otherwise grave mischief in the administration of
justice will arise. The existence of this staff of stipendiary
magistrates could not fail to weaken the influence of the gentry in
local affairs, and, at the same time, other causes were at work to
undermine still further their power. The spread of education, the
ballot, the extension of the franchise, communication with America, all
tended to strengthen the political leaning of the tenants towards the
National party in Ireland, and to widen the political differences
between the richer and poorer classes in the country. The result of this
has been, that not only have even the best landlords gradually lost
their power in Parliamentary elections and on elective boards, but the
Government, which greatly relied on them for support, has become
isolated.
The system of centralization is felt all over the country. It was the
cause of weakness in the disturbed years of 1880 and 1881, and, although
the Irish Executive strengthened themselves by placing officers over
several counties, on whom they devolved a great deal of responsibility,
they did not by these steps meet the real difficulty, which was that
everything that went wrong, whether as to police or magisterial
decisions, was attributed to the management of the Castle.
In this country, local authorities and benches of magistrates, quite
independent of the Home Office, are held responsible for mistakes in
police action or irregularities in local justice. The consequence is
that there is a strong buffer to protect the character and power of the
Home Office.
The absence of such protection in Ireland obviously has a very
prejudicial effect on the permanent influence and popularity of the
Irish Government. But as long as our system of government from England
exists, this centralization cannot be avoided, for it would not be
possible to transfer the responsibility of the police to local
representative bodies, as they are too much opposed to the landlords and
the Government to be trusted when strong party differences arise; nor,
for the same reason, would it be possible to fall back on local men to
administer justice. The fact is, that, out of the Protestant part of
Ulster, the Irish Government receives the cordial support of only the
landed proprietors, and a part of the upper middle classes in the towns.
The feeling of the mass of the people has been so long against them that
no change in the direction of trust in any centralized government of
anti-national character can be expected.
It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find any Municipal
Council, Boards of Guardians, or Local Boards, in Leinster, Munster, or
Connaught, whose members do not consist of a majority of Nationalists.
At nearly all such assemblies, whenever any important political movement
takes place in the country, or when the Irish Government take any action
which is displeasing to the Nationalists, resolutions are discussed and
carried in a spirit of sharp hostility to the Government.
In Parliamentary elections we also find clear evidence of the strength
of the Nationalists, and the extreme weakness of their opponents. This
is a test which those who accept popular representative government
cannot disregard, particularly at an election when for the first time
the new constituencies were called upon to exercise the privileges
entrusted to them by Parliament. Such was the election of 1885, followed
in 1886 by another General Election. In 1885 contests took place in most
of the Irish constituencies. They were between Liberals allied with
Conservatives, and Parnellites. In 1886 the contests were between those
who called themselves Unionists and Parnellites, and the Irish policy of
Mr. Gladstone was specially referred to the electors.
In regard to the number of members returned on the two sides, the result
of each election was almost identical, but in 1886 there were fewer
contests. We may, then, assume that the relative forces of Parnellites
and Unionists were accurately represented at the election of 1885. If we
take the votes at the election of 1885 for candidates standing as
Nationalists, we shall find, roughly speaking, that they obtained in
round numbers about 300,000 votes, and candidates who stood either as
Liberals or Conservatives about 143,000. But the case is really stronger
than these figures represent it, because in some constituencies the
contests were between Liberals and Conservatives, and there can be no
doubt that in those constituencies a number of Nationalist votes were
given for one or both of such candidates--votes which, therefore, would
have to be deducted from the 143,000, leaving a still heavier majority
on the Nationalist side.[1]
If we look at individual constituencies, we find that in South Kerry
only 133 persons voted for the "Unionist" candidate, while 2742 voted
for the Nationalist. In six out of seven constituencies in Cork where
contests took place 27,692 votes were given for the Nationalists, and
only 1703 for their opponents. In Dublin, in the division which may be
considered the West End constituency of the Irish metropolis, the most
successful man of commerce in Ireland, a leader of society, whose
liberality towards those in his employment is only equalled by his
munificence in all public works, was defeated by over 1900 votes. He did
not stand in 1886, but his successor was defeated by a still larger
majority. These elections show the numbers in Ireland on which the
Government and those who oppose Mr. Parnell's policy can count for
support.
It is absurd to say that these results are caused by terrorism exercised
over the minds of the electors by the agitators in Ireland; the same
results occurred in every part of three provinces, and in part of
Ulster, and the universality of the feeling proves the dominant feeling
of the Irish electors. They show the extreme difficulty, the
impossibility, of gaining that support and confidence which a Government
needs in a free country. As it is, the Irish Government stands isolated
in Ireland, and relies for support solely on England. Is a policy
opposed to national feeling, which has been often, and by different
Ministers, tried in Ireland, likely to succeed in the hands of a
Government such as I have described, and isolated, as I think few will
deny it to be? It is impossible in the long run to maintain it. The
roots of strength are wanting.
If we turn from Dublin to London, we do not find greater prospects of
success. Twice within fourteen months Lord Salisbury has formed a
Government. In 1885 his Cabinet, on taking office, deliberately decided
to rule Ireland without exceptional laws; after a few months, they
announced that they must ask Parliament for fresh powers. They resigned
before they had defined their measures. But within six months Lord
Salisbury was once more Prime Minister, and again commenced his
administration by governing Ireland under the ordinary law. This attempt
did not continue longer than the first, for when Parliament met in 1887,
preparations were at once made to carry the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
which occupied so large a portion of the late Session.
This is not the action of men who have strong faith in their principles.
Nor can it be shown that the continuous support so necessary for success
will be given to this policy. No doubt it may be urged that the
operation of the Act is not limited in duration; but, notwithstanding
that, few politicians believe that the constituencies of Great Britain
will long support the application of exceptional criminal laws to any
part of the United Kingdom.
This would be wholly inconsistent with past experience In relation to
these measures, which points entirely the other way; and the publication
in English newspapers and constant discussion on English platforms of
the painful incidents which seem, unfortunately, inseparable from a
rigid administration of the law in Ireland, together with the prolonged
debates, such incidents give rise to, in Parliament, aggravate the
difficulties of administration, and lead the Irish people to believe
that exceptional legislation will be as short-lived in the future as it
has been in the past.
It was this evidence of want of continuity of policy in 1885, and the
startling disclosure of the weakness of the anti-national party in
Ireland at the election in the autumn of that year, which finally
convinced me that the time had come when we could no longer turn to a
mixed policy of remedial and exceptional criminal legislation as the
means of winning the constituencies of that country in support of our
old system of governing Ireland. That system has failed for eighty-six
years, and obviously cannot succeed when worked with representative
institutions. As the people of Great Britain will not for a moment
tolerate the withdrawal of representative government from Ireland, we
must adopt some new plan. What I have here written deals with but a
fragment of the arguments for Home Rule, some of which are admirably set
forth by the able men who have written the articles to which this is the
preface. I earnestly wish that they may arrest the attention of many
excellent Irishmen who still cling to the old traditions of English
rule, and cause them to realize that the only way of relieving their
country from the intolerable uncertainty which hangs over her
commercial, social, and political interests and paralyzes all efforts
for the improvement of her people, will be to form a Constitution
supported by all classes of the community. I trust that they will join
in this work before it is too late, for they may yet exercise a powerful
and salutary influence in the settlement of this great question.