I should know something about Ireland, as I was born in Ulster, in which

province I lived for seventeen years, and naturally I then and there

learned to know something of the manners and customs and feelings of

Ulstermen. From Ulster I migrated to Leinster, where I spent eight years

in the city of Dublin, six of these years in the University of Dublin, in

which ancient seat of learning I was for four years a student in Arts, and

for two in the Divinity School. On my ordination in 1865, I entered on

clerical life in the Diocese of Cloyne, County of Cork; in which diocese I

have remained ever since for the long period of close on forty-seven

years. Therefore I say I ought to know something of Ireland and the Irish

question; having been born in Ireland and having lived so long in it in

three out of the four provinces. Moreover, I have been a regular student

of Irish history, to some extent of the Irish language, and of Irish

Archæology, and, as an Irish Antiquary, I have seen much of my native land

in each and every Province. Strangers seem to think it very easy to make

up their mind on the Irish question—you have only to take a return-ticket

from Euston to Killarney, or from Paddington to Rosslare and the thing is

done! I once heard His Grace Dr. Healy, the Archbishop of Tuam, tell a

story about the way to acquire an English accent. He said that a certain

Dublin Alderman, with a fine Dublin brogue, crossed from Kingstown to

Holyhead; the passage was a rough one; there was much of “the wonderful

up-and-down motion, that comes from the treacherous ocean.” So much indeed

that the poor alderman lay sick in his berth in Holyhead harbour, and

returned in the same boat without landing. But—“lo and behold you, sir,”

as we say in Ireland—he came home with a fine English accent, which he

never lost in later life! Well, some English visitors seem to have the

same impression about the rapidity and facility with which they can make

up the Irish question. “God help them” is all one can say. I am really not

jesting or romancing at all! Within the present week an English literary

lady called on me to interview me. Unfortunately I was out at the time,

but she left a message to the effect that “she was going to write a book

on Ireland,” and wished to talk to me about it! She had only been in the

country a few days when she came to this conclusion! This reminds me of

the story of a certain English nobleman who, when making the grand tour of

Europe, found himself at Rome. He had an interview with the Pope of the

period. He asked him could he see and know Rome in a few days time? The

Pope replied: “You will imagine you know a good deal of it by that time.”

“Well in a few weeks?” “You will then know less.” “In a few months?”

“Still less.” “In a few years?” “Hardly anything at all.”

Well, is not this a parallel for the Irish question? It requires the study

of a life-time almost to grapple with it at all—at least in any fairly

satisfactory and complete form—in any really candid and impartial way. I

may perhaps be permitted to say that another educational force in my own

training on the subject has been, that I love intensely the country and

the people. Froude opens his charming essay “A Fortnight in Kerry” thus:

“We have heard much of the wrongs of Ireland, the miseries of

Ireland, the crimes of Ireland; every cloud has its sunny side;

and, when all is said, Ireland is still the most beautiful island

in the world, and the Irish themselves, though their temperament

is ill-matched with ours, are still amongst the most interesting

of peoples.”

This affectionate feeling should not be left out of consideration by

outsiders who wish to understand the Irish Question. It has exercised an

undying and indestructible influence upon the people of the country, and

in certain respects a most beneficial influence. For example, many

outsiders foolishly imagine that Irishmen are very volatile and variable;

in some minor respects they may be, but in the main, no—it is absolutely

otherwise. Can you find in the history of any other country greater

fidelity to her own religious and political ideals than Ireland has shown

over and over again—as we say “ever and always?”

Perhaps the preface to this paper seems unduly prolonged, but the reader

must bear with it somewhat further, as it is necessary.

An objector may say to me that I have no right to speak for my fellow

Irish Churchmen _en masse_, as regards their relations with their Roman

Catholic fellow countrymen. Well, in answer to such an objection, which

may be natural enough, there are several replies. I intend to speak from

my own first-hand, definite, personal, life-long experiences, such as they

have been. And is not the inference sufficiently fair and logical that

others of my clerical brethren, similarly situated, have had just the

same, or much the same, experiences if they would record them? I do not

claim that our Roman Catholic neighbours have been kinder to me than to

other Protestant clergy. Testimony from us in the South and West of

Ireland is more valuable than testimony from Ulster. In Leinster, Munster

and Connaught, we are brought more directly and distinctly face to face

with the Roman Church. She has a dominant, nay, a pre-dominant position in

these three provinces, and yet I hold that this vast numerical superiority

of position does not lead to intolerant or unkindly action. I believe that

there is far more real kindly feeling and kindly intercourse between

Protestants and Roman Catholics in these Irish provinces than there is in

Ulster—and, therefore, I maintain that Irish Protestant Churchmen who live

in these provinces, have a far better right to judge and speak of the

relative attitude of the two churches than the people of Ulster. For we,

who do so live, have a larger knowledge and experience and outlook than

the men of Ulster, whose views are in every sense narrower—geographically,

politically and religiously. They indeed need to be reminded of the German

proverb: “Hinter dem Berge sind auch Leute” (Behind the mountains there

are also people). We all need to study this saying. Behind the mountains

of our knowledge, of our civilisation, of our success and activity; behind

the mountains, let us also say, of our ignorance, of our pride and

prejudice, of our contempt—there are also men.

Of course it is much pleasanter to be able to feel kindly and to speak

kindly of the great majority of one’s fellow-countrymen if it can be done

truthfully, as we believe it can—than to have to say and do the contrary.

Even allowing for a certain element of unreality and exaggeration and

insincerity, is not the uniform tone of too many political speeches much

too violent and even occasionally too vitriolic? But I have little or no

temptation to err in this respect, as the bulk of what remains to be said

in this paper is chiefly concerned with facts. Two years after my

ordination, the Fenian Rising occurred; this took place in 1867. I saw

something of it, not of the Fenians themselves, but of the flying columns

which were then scouring the country in pursuit of them. The police

barrack at Kilmallock was attacked, and Protestant gentry living near

Kilfinane in the same county, viz., Limerick, left their houses for

several nights and took refuge with the Constabulary. There was at that

time living at Kilfinane as rector, the Rev. George Wren. He was, as a

clergyman, greatly beloved and respected. When some of his parishioners,

most of them gentry, were leaving their homes for police protection, the

Roman Catholic farmers in the parish waited on the Rev. George Wren at the

rectory, and begged and intreated of him not to leave it, assuring him

that “no one should lay a wet finger” on him or any member of his family.

In consequence of this interview the Rev. Mr. Wren held his ground, and

was the only Protestant gentleman in the immediate district who did so. It

was exceedingly creditable to him, and to the deputation who waited on

him. I have never forgotten this incident.

I remember well the excitement produced in Irish church circles by Mr.

Gladstone’s Church Act in 1869 and 1870; how it was denounced, condemned

and deplored; how it was described as fraught with wreck and ruin to

Protestant interests. One clerical speaker warned Queen Victoria that she

might have “her Crown kicked into the Boyne” (if she gave her Royal

assent), as James II. had. A friend of my own, a captain in the Army,

assured me he was prepared to wade knee-deep in blood to fight the Bill.

We are not unaccustomed to politicians of this type even now! Well, Mr.

Gladstone passed his Church Act, which has proved in many respects a great

blessing to the Irish Church. She gained self-action and independence

thereby; her finances have been so skilfully administered and the

liberality of her members has been so great that she has now a realised

capital of over nine millions! It is estimated that for her numbers she

is, in money, the richest Church in Christendom. None of us who belong to

her would revert, were the offer open to us, to the state of her condition

and circumstances prior to 1869—“Out of the eater came forth meat, and out

of the strong came forth sweetness.” How true that parable of Samson’s has

often proved with regard to changes which were, at first, denounced and

dreaded, and afterwards regarded with gratitude! Generally, the effect

produced on Irish public opinion by Mr. Gladstone’s Church Act, on the

whole, was in time beneficial. It removed what was at least a “sentimental

grievance” from Roman Catholics. It also taught them before very long that

the Church of Ireland could exist as a voluntary institution; and some

Nationalists from time to time have even said that the efficient and

capable management of the Representative Church Body of the Church funds

was an object lesson in favour of Home Rule.

Every one at all familiar with this subject knows that 1881 was a very

terrible year in Ireland; it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the painful

fact. Then, or thereabouts, I went to see a land-agent whose life had

several times been attempted. It was in the summer; he was writing at a

tall, stand-up desk, on the upper ledge of which lay a revolver. I sat

down by an open window to enjoy the fresh air, from which he immediately

pulled me away and deposited me in a corner of the room under shelter of a

wall, not of glass. Presently we adjourned to the dining-room for lunch.

This was also an arsenal or place of arms; a double-barrelled gun lay on a

sofa. When my friend opened a press to obtain “the materials”—Irishmen

will know what is meant—I saw therein a brace of horse-pistols. After

lunch we went out for a walk, my friend carrying his gun under his arm,

and, I suppose, his revolver in his pocket. A policeman armed with a

loaded rifle, followed a few yards in our rear. Life under such

circumstances could not have been very agreeable. Would anyone like to

revert to it? Surely not. In the same year I was visiting an Irish

landlord who was very seriously ill; his home was about four miles distant

from my glebe house; sometimes I had to go to see him by night. One

morning the doctor, who had been with the patient for several hours, was

anxiously inquired of by the ladies of the family how their father was.

“Well, all I have to say to you,” said the doctor, “is, that you may be

very thankful that your father is allowed to die quietly in his bed such

times as these.”

Well, what has improved such terrible times? Has it not been remedial

legislation in different directions—legislation respecting the Church, the

Land, and Education. Yet in all such cases remedial legislation has been

initially denounced by a certain party as “Socialism,” “Sacrilege,” or by

some equally strong expletive. And yet, what has been the result of these

so-called “Socialistic” and “Sacrilegious” measures? Has it not, on the

whole, and in the main, been good, decidedly and undeniably good? Let us

apply our Blessed Lord’s text: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” “Can

any man gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?” So, then, when I

look back to these past painful experiences, and see how all proposed

remedial legislation was, in the first instance, denounced and vilified,

and when I recall how the results in time have refuted all the prophets of

evil, I am quite inclined to say, is not the balance of evidence in favour

of the view that something very much the same will be the case, and will

happen with Home Rule? It is now constantly described by one leader as “A

Nefarious Conspiracy.” Of course, different Parliamentary orators have

their own favourite vocabularies, but is it not very much a case of:

“All now is wrangle, abuse and vociferance.”

“One is incisive, corrosive;

Two retorts nettled, curt, crepitant;

Three makes rejoinder, expansive, explosive;

Four overbears them all, strident and strepitant;

Five.... O Danaides, O Sieve.”

“Now they ply axes and crowbars;

Now they prick pins at a tissue;

Fine as a skein of the Casuist Escobar

Worked on the bone of a lie—To what issue?

Where is our gain at the Two-bars?”

Juvenal said of some Roman lawyers of his own day: “Iras et verba locant.”

They still do it.

Here perhaps I may with advantage introduce some remarks made by me in

Cork City on March 21st at a meeting of the County Technical Instruction

Committee on the occasion of proposing a vote of congratulation to our

Chairman the Bishop of Cloyne, on having gained a verdict in his favour in

his Libel Action against the _Dundee Courier_:

“I would like, Sir, to say a few words just in explanation of this

motion. It is the first opportunity that we have had of doing this

since the trial, and as other public bodies have passed votes of

congratulation to the Bishop, it is specially becoming that we

should do so, as he is Chairman of our Committee. I first made the

acquaintance of the Bishop in 1893, when I was making a little

antiquarian tour in the County Kildare with another antiquary, and

on arriving at Maynooth we ordered some dinner at the hotel there.

I was anxious to see Maynooth College, we went on there, and we

happened to see Dr. Browne, who was then President of Maynooth;

and he with true Irish hospitality at once invited us to stay to

dine, which we did, and I had a pleasant experience of his

hospitality and kindness on that occasion. And I must say that my

own experience of him since he became Bishop of Cloyne has always

been the same, that by tact and kindness and courtesy he has

gained our regard and respect. I think I might venture to say in

connection with the present controversy about the introduction of

Home Rule into the country—which has, of course, caused a great

deal of excitement—it would not be natural to expect that such a

measure would be received in silence, but surely it is possible

that the people who want to discuss this question should discuss

it on non-controversial grounds. I think, for example, it should

be discussed on financial grounds or on constitutional grounds,

and apart altogether from religious grounds. But I fear there are

too many controversial politicians, and that this religious

element in the discussion has not only dominated it, but has

become predominant, and is greatly to be regretted; and it seems

to me that this action against the _Dundee Courier_ is an

illustration of this, and that the Bishop found it necessary to

vindicate his character against unfounded charges which were

capable of being made political capital of. It seems to me that

the argument comes to this, that people raise controversial

arguments which involve the very serious charge that the lives of

the Protestants and the property of the Protestants in the country

would hardly be safe under the new Parliament. Now this is a very

serious indictment, and I wonder whether the people who make this

consider its seriousness and the injury it does to both sides. I

think it does those people who make this charge much harm—it tends

to make them censorious and uncharitable, and it naturally

embitters the people against whom this charge is made—that is,

four-fifths of the population of the whole country. I am afraid

that there are too many of these controversial politicians at

work. I have lived all my clerical life in the County Cork for

over forty years, and my own impression when I hear charges of

this kind flung broadcast about the people of Ireland is this—that

the people who make them really can’t know how happily, for

example, we get on in the province of Munster, how much kindness

there is, and how much real good feeling—genuine good feeling

prevails between Protestant and Catholic.”

“I can certainly say for myself with perfect truth that during my

long residence in this county, for a period of over forty years, I

never received anything but kindness and consideration, and during

that long period the county has been agitated very seriously. I

remember the Fenian Rising in 1867, the Church Act in 1869 and

1870, and I remember other troubles in the county, but, personally

speaking, I never received anything but kindness and

consideration. A short time after my ordination I was told by a

senior clergyman of the diocese how to act towards the people. He

said: ‘I will give you a recipe—be friendly to the people in this

county and you will find that they will be friendly to you,’ and I

certainly found them so without a single exception or

contradiction.”

The Bishop was from home when this meeting took place, but on his return

he wrote me a very kind and complimentary letter from which I quote a few

sentences:

“Bishop’s House,

“Queenstown.

“_April 2nd_, 1912.

“DEAR CANON COURTENAY MOORE,—Allow me to congratulate you most

sincerely on the tone and character of your speech, which has done

much to foster among us all, charity, peace and brotherhood. I

have heard all manner of men speaking of your action on that

occasion in the highest terms of praise.”

“When there lies round about us so much good to be done by our

common united forces, why should we spoil the opportunity of doing

good by senseless and generally ill-founded suspicion and

quarrels?

“Yours faithfully,

“ROBERT BROWNE.

“_Bishop of Cloyne_.”

I desire to add an extract here from a letter written to me by the late

Rev. Father Horgan, P.P. of Kilworth, Co. Cork. He was a very cultivated

man; he had been for eight years in the Irish College at Rome and had also

made a voyage round the world. He had “read in the book of the world,” and

in addition to his extensive and accurate knowledge of theology he had

acquired a great knowledge of Art from his residence in Rome. About two

years before his death he wrote me a very touching letter from which the

following is an extract:

“I have given up all thoughts of change of place. My outlook and

my hope are homewards, and may the good God support and strengthen

us both to and through the end which awaits us to our rest.”

I fear there may be too much egotism and too little reticence in my

placing such kindly and even confidential communications as these before

the public, yet my motive for doing so is simply to show how much real

kindly feeling and friendly intercourse exist between members of the Roman

Catholic and Anglican Churches in Ireland, especially in those districts

where the vast numerical predominance of the former Church might, as some

suppose and suggest, provoke her to intolerance, which in my opinion is

not the case at all. Of course I do not profess to do more than offer a

general opinion founded on my own personal experience, and on my knowledge

of Irish history in the past. But when I look back upon the past and think

for example on the state of Ireland during the “Tithe Wars,” as described

by such a writer as Lecky, and on my own recollections of Ireland in the

days of the Land League, and compare with these periods the present happy

and peaceful condition of the country, and ask myself what has produced

such a blessed and beneficial change, is not the answer plain enough that

it has been the progress of healing and remedial legislation? Well, then,

if impending legislation in the direction of Home Rule is a further

concession to national sentiment and likely to prove a further development

of and outlet for national knowledge of what the country requires, and an

application of her own energies and resources for the purpose, why should

one dread and deprecate the experiment? I have lived through too many

Irish crises to be afraid of another. I do not venture to speak

dogmatically, still less despairingly, but I feel on the whole that this

new departure will tend to good like its predecessors. I am inclined to

ask, why should the Roman Catholic people of Ireland persecute

Protestants, if Home Rule be granted—some will say, oh, because they will

then have greatly increased power and influence in their own hands, and

they will therefore be tempted to use it, and will use it in this

direction. I find it hard to believe this, I am very slow to believe it,

judging from my own experience of Ireland. May I not put it in this way

plausibly and reasonably enough: why should not such an extension of

self-government gratify the Irish National Party, and produce even better

and still more kindly feeling towards their Protestant fellow countrymen

than already exists? If we must make a calculus of probabilities in such

an event, ought we not to take into account the mollifying influence of

the possession of increased powers, just as much as the temptation to

misuse them in the direction of intolerance. Besides, will it not be the

policy of the leaders of the Home Rule movement, should it become an

accomplished fact, to conciliate—much rather than to coerce—those who

oppose the movement? As Mr. Redmond has recently said, “some repudiate

Ireland, but Ireland will not repudiate them.” We may for a time in the

near future have a period of some unrest, anxiety, possibly even danger,

but we must hope that this will pass. Certain Irish proverbs show

something of the tone of the national mind. Here are a few: are they not

very instructive and descriptive?

“One must cut the gad nearest the throat.”

“The first thread is not of the piece.”

“A small share of anything is not worth much, but a small share of

sense _is_ worth much.”

“It isn’t day yet.”

“Nil lā fòs e.”

All these proverbs show that Ireland has “learned to labour and to wait:”

“Look not mournfully into the past,

It comes not back again ...

Wisely improve the present, it is thine.

Go forth to meet the shadowy future without fear and with a manly

heart.”

(2) A Presbyterian View, BY REV. J. B. ARMOUR, M.A.

The question of Home Rule for Ireland has been discussed from all sides

now for more than a quarter of a century: and at present it holds the

field. Everything from the constitutional, commercial, and religious

aspect of the problem has been said in an italicised form. The history of

the controversy has shown considerable change of view, at least on the

part of the opponents of the measure, and the bitterness against the idea

has become in many cases a mere scream, a sign that the foundation of

their objections to the proposal is giving way. At the first mention of

Home Rule, the majority of the constitutional lawyers entered the lists,

and satisfied themselves that the measure would violate the constitution,

lead to the dismemberment of the Empire, and the final separation of

Ireland from the Crown. The stipendiary politician, of whom we have many,

especially in the North of Ireland, said: “I thank thee, O Jew, for

teaching me that word,” and rang the changes on the word “separation,”

dubbing every adherent of the Liberal cause as a separatist. The saner

constitutional lawyers have come to the conclusion that the idea of

separation has no foundation in fact, and could not, if mooted, have the

slightest hope of success. A community which has not the power of raising

an Army or a Navy could hardly venture on rebellion. Ireland is largely an

agricultural country, and, seeing that the farmers in a few years will be

sitting under their own vine and fig tree, possessors as well as tillers

of the soil, it is almost unthinkable that even five per cent. of the

population would think of risking their all in an enterprise which could

not be successful, and, if successful, would close against them their best

markets. The Irish people are sometimes credited with a double dose of

original sin and folly, but their sense of humour would save them from

such a cut-throat policy. The soldiers they have sent into the British

Army, taken from the lower strata of social life, have proved as loyal to

the British Crown as the Scotch Highlanders. The Curragh, and other camps

for soldiers in Ireland, will not be broken up when Home Rule comes. The

fear of Home Rule leading to separation has receded to the background of

the controversy, and is now the monopoly of obscure politicians.

I am asked to say something on the question from a Presbyterian point of

view. It is a little difficult to state the number of those in favour of

the measure, and of those not actively opposed thereto, especially as

those who pose as exponents of Presbyterianism have set themselves, with

considerable success, to destroy the right of free speech and to ban the

right of private judgment as a pestilential heresy—two of the essential

factors in living Protestantism. To hamstring these principles is to leave

Protestantism with a name to live, though it is dead. These Anti-Home

Rulers have been threatening, and are carrying out their threat, to

boycott any parson who shows signs of scepticism about the infallibility

of their _credo_. Boycotting is a serious offence, if practised in any

form in the South and West of Ireland, but it is the eleventh Commandment

of the Anti-Home Rulers among the Protestants, and is being observed with

greater strictness than any of the Ten Words. Under the reign of

TERRORISING PREJUDICE it is not easy to indicate the number of those,

especially in the Presbyterian Church, who refuse to make Anti-Home Rule

an article of a standing or falling Church. But the drastic methods used

to repress free speech, and the right of private judgment on a political

question, are indications that the secret disciples of Home Rule are not

only a large but an increasing number. As one who has believed in Home

Rule for many years, as one who, while treated with courtesy and

kindliness by leading Unionists, has been thrice stoned by their noisy

followers, I venture to give an _apologia pro mea vita_.

(_a_) I accept the principle of Home Rule for Ireland because it is the

principle of the Presbyterian Church Government applied to secular

affairs; a principle which has worked well in the Colonies where there are

mixed races and religions; a principle which is a fundamental one in the

United States of America; a principle which, truly democratic, has proved

itself the salt of social life wherever applied, and, in the case of our

Colonies, has been a link binding the Colonies with hooks of steel to the

British Crown. Why or how it will lead to red ruin and the breaking up of

laws in Ireland is not very clear, save to the “dryting prophets” of the

dolorous breed. As a matter of fact, that principle of Protestantism was

suggested to the Catholics by Protestants. The idea of Home Rule for

Ireland was bred in the brain of some Fellows of T.C.D. Isaac Butt was its

Cicero, and Parnell brought the idea into practical politics. Home Rule is

the child of Protestant parents, and its adherents in all the branches of

Protestant Churches are many. All the Unionists of the saner type admit

the common sense of the principle, and they say that if Ireland were

Scotland they would have nothing to say against an Irish Parliament for

purely local purposes. But they insist that a true principle, if

administered by Irishmen, would lead to a reign of terror and tyranny. The

answer to that is this. The Conservative Government has already granted

the half of the principle in the establishment of County Councils, which

Lord Salisbury said would be more mischievous than Home Rule pure and

simple—though in spite of his _ex-cathedra_ opinion he set them up. The

Irish Conservative papers at the time said bitterly that the Councils were

the half-way house to Home Rule. In existence now for years, they have

worked wonderfully well without a tithe of the evil predicted to follow in

their train. People argue on the question as if the Irish representatives

would never take a statesmanlike view of any matter for the public good,

and as if Protestantism would have no share in the deliberations of an

Irish Parliament with a fourth of the representatives in Dublin

Protestants, and with an upper House nominated with a view to the

protection of minorities. The belief that democracy in Ireland would

become a persecutor of Protestants and a robber of the commercial classes

can only arise in the minds of those who hate democracy and all its works,

though the democratic principle wherever tried has been the parent of much

that is good in social life. It is becoming the conviction of the thinking

portion of the Protestant world that the question MUST be settled by the

one party or the other on lines satisfactory to Irishmen generally; and

notwithstanding the whirling words uttered by the landlords and their

entourage at Balmoral, it is firmly believed that Mr. Bonar Law would like

to have a hand in establishing an Irish Parliament for Irish affairs.

(_b_) Home Rule would undo to a large extent the evils of the paper Union

of 1800, modifying racial animosities, introducing a new spirit of

patriotism and healing the sores of long standing. The means by which the

Union of Ireland with England was effected were so destructive of

everything moral in political life that every thinking man denounces them

as infamous, and they are without a defender past or present. It is

tolerably certain that 90 per cent. of the Protestants of Ireland,

including a large number of the landlords who refused to be bribed, were

as bitter against the destruction of the Irish Parliament as their

descendants are against its restoration. Listening to the harangues

against an Irish Parliament, one can only conclude that the applauding

auditors regard their ancestors as fools. To have a dance on the graves of

one’s ancestors may be a new amusement, but it is hardly respectful to the

memory of brave men whose opinions of the hurtful effects to Ireland from

the Union and the loss of a legislature have been fully justified by

events. Nobody can say that the Union has been a success. For fully

seventy years of the nineteenth century the government of Ireland was a

legalised tyranny, the whole political power of making and administering

laws for Ireland was in the hands of the landlords, who were allowed to

rob and spoil at their will the Irish tenants, Protestant and Catholic. A

tenant’s Protestantism did not save him from a rack rent; it often

increased the rack rents. For generations the tenants of Ireland had to

pay between five and ten millions beyond what was just and fair, and those

millions might as well have been cast into the Irish Channel as far as

bringing any benefit to Ireland was concerned. The Imperial Parliament is

heavily in debt to Ireland for the spoliation of the Irish farmers and

labourers which it permitted. Irishmen of all creeds, as they look back on

a long spell of slavery, have no right to join in singing pæans to the

Union. If changes were made in the laws bringing a modicum of justice to

Irishmen, giving them a right to call their votes their own, and a right

to part of the property they created, the predecessors of the Unionists of

to-day have no claim to credit for the changes, as they fought with the

same savageness they are showing towards Home Rule against the

introduction of the ballot, and took as their motto “tenants’ rights are

landlords’ wrongs.” The thanks of Irishmen are due to the Liberal Party,

led by Mr. Gladstone, and backed powerfully by the Nationalist Members.

Unionists of every colour are dwelling on the prosperity of Ireland,

quoting statistics about the tremendous increase of sheep and swine. They

forget two things, one of which is that Ireland since the Union has lost

50 per cent. of its inhabitants, but they say “What of that? We have a

large increase of sheep and swine, the true index of a nation’s

prosperity.” The Founder of our faith did not agree with the Unionist

conception of the relative value of sheep and men. He said: “How much is a

man better than a sheep,” a saying which covers an Irish Catholic as well

as a Protestant Home Ruler. Men are better than sheep, Unionists

notwithstanding. Then they forget that Ireland’s prosperity, whatever it

is, began with Mr. Gladstone’s legislation, which the Conservatives held

would ruin the country and break up the Empire. His legislation was the

introduction of the democratic principle into politics, and democracy has

proved itself worthy of acceptation. Home Rule is the extension of the

democratic idea, and in spite of all that has been said in strident tones

against the measure, its acceptance will tend to social health and wealth,

and not one hundredth part of the evil its opponents associate with its

passing can result therefrom. The prophecies about the evils resulting

from Liberal legislation have been falsified in every instance. The Ballot

Act would have upset the Throne, according to the Tories, but the Throne

is on a firmer basis now than it has been since the days of the Conqueror.

The disestablishment of the Irish Church was to ruin religion, but after

more than forty years religion in the Episcopal Church of Ireland is

healthier than ever. Home Rule will “heal the breaches of many

generations.”

(_c_) Home Rule in Ireland, so far from ruining Protestantism, will give

Protestantism a chance of being judged on its own merits. _Hitherto

Protestantism has been handicapped by its political associations._ The

system so long in vogue of compelling the Irish peasant to pay tithe for

the support of an established Church where the peasant never worshipped,

evoked the dislike of the majority of our countrymen for Protestantism and

all its works. If that cause of active hatred was removed, the fact that

Protestantism was still the religion of the majority of the landlords who

demanded more than their pound of flesh from the tenants did not commend

that form of religion as a gospel of love. Then the fact, so evident

still, that the bureaucracy which is ruling Ireland is largely Protestant,

the highest positions of dignity and emolument in connection with the

State machinery being held, not by Protestants of all sects but by those

belonging to a certain sect, has not been conducive to unprejudiced views

of Protestantism as a religious system. The fear that the management of

the State machinery will not remain in the hands of the descendants of the

ascendency party is perhaps the strongest factor in opposition to Home

Rule. As far as the Presbyterian Church is concerned, its members cannot

possibly under Home Rule have a less share in the offices of emolument and

dignity than they have had all down the years from 1800 to 1912.

Protestantism will enter on a new career as a spiritual rather than a

political force, and will prove its right to have its share in our

country’s welfare. Persecution for conscience sake is a game played out,

as the practice of persecution for religious opinions has hurt the

persecutor more than the persecuted. Persecution cripples industry, and,

as the world has become very practical, fears of persecution are to be

largely discounted, especially as it would be rather difficult to

persecute the fourth of the inhabitants. _Some_ of those who are

exploiting the persecuting bogey for political ends have not much religion

to persecute. The fears of a militant Catholic Duke who hates Home Rule,

and who is credited with intriguing at Rome against it, ought to modify

the fears of timid Protestants who urge that Home Rule must necessarily

mean Rome Rule. To their credit, Irish Catholics, alone in the Catholic

world, have never been known to persecute for religious beliefs. A martyr

for conscience sake has never been heard of in Erin. On April 11th of this

year, a letter was addressed to Mr. Redmond, signed by the leading

Protestants of Dublin, in which they assert that Protestants have always

been treated with courtesy by their Catholic neighbours in the south and

west, and in which they repudiate the idea of persecution in the future.

They send Mr. Redmond a considerable subscription for his fund as a proof

that their letter is not words, but an expression of well-grounded

conviction. I have no fear for true Protestantism in the future, either in

Ireland or elsewhere, though political Protestantism has had its day.

(_d_) Instead of diminishing, Home Rule will increase, the commerce of

Ireland. It is curious that, at all the Conventions called to denounce

Home Rule, the fear of the ruin of commerce has been more prominent than

the fear of the destruction of the Protestant religion. They have been

reversing the great rule of life “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His

righteousness and these things shall be added unto you.” So obviously has

the commercial side been thrust into the front rank of this controversy

that a cynical friend—worthy to be a brother of the Member for Sark—has

suggested that the meetings should have been opened by a hymn to commerce:

“O God of Commerce help us, for the man from Waterford intends to cut down

your groves.” A more fantastic idea or one more devoid of all probability

never took possession of men. Democracy has always been favourable to

commerce, and commercial prosperity follows in its train. To imagine that

a Parliament in Dublin would heap taxes on the rich is unthinkable, as any

taxes on Ulster would weigh as heavily on other parts of Ireland. The

Irish people of any creed are not fond of paying taxes, and one might take

it for granted that a change in the administration of Irish affairs will

not necessitate increased taxation. The administration of the Government

machinery in Ireland is the costliest in any country, and is bound to

decrease largely as the country settles. The cost of bills promoted by

Irish Corporations for needed corporate improvements is enormous, and it

frightens social reformers from attempting to get things which stand in

the way of public good set right. No statement was ever further from the

truth than that which is made so often, that the Imperial Parliament is

ready to amend every real Irish grievance. There are hundreds of necessary

reforms which would contribute to the prosperity of the country. These

cannot be attempted because of the cost and the difficulty of getting them

discussed in the Imperial Parliament. If settled in Dublin, they could be

better done at one fifth of the expense. The Commerce of Ireland stands to

gain by Home Rule. An increase of commerce always leads to a spirit of

tolerance.

To those of my fellow religionists who are frightened by the very

term—Home Rule, I would say “Who is he that will harm you if ye are

followers of that which is good?”

(3) A Nonconformist View. BY REV. W. CRAWFORD, M.A.

It must be a matter of constant surprise, to those who have been

accustomed to distinguish political from religious questions, to find

religion for ever obtruded into discussions of the Irish problem. Can’t

men follow their religious convictions under any form of government? they

will impatiently cry; why then complicate an already difficult subject by

importing considerations on which some men appear always to be least

reasonable? But it may as well be recognised at once that “religion” is

generally at the base of the opposition to Home Rule, and that the British

government of Ireland, as it is responsible for that peculiar feature of

the case, must in all equity find a solution of the problem and a remedy

for those evils which have embittered Irish life for centuries, and which

to-day stand as the one great obstacle to England’s last act of reparation

for the wrongs of the past. An alien Church has been disestablished; a

tyrannical land system is at enormous cost being revolutionised; and now

the traditional animosity of Protestant to Roman Catholic, manifested in

the general opposition of the Churches of the Reformation in Ireland to

the demand for Home Rule, and enforced by every argument which the history

of centuries can afford, must be dealt with.

The errors of a dark past cannot be undone; but each successive measure of

conciliation has brought increased contentment and prosperity to the

country; and, sure as there is a God in heaven, the repeal of the last and

greatest wrong, an Act of Union which no honest historian can defend, will

be the harbinger of lasting peace. To deal at once with the Protestant

attitude to Home Rule, the Churches in an overwhelming majority stand

solid against it. The opposition is confined to no class, being, if

anything, more bitter and unreasoning in the lower grades of society. It

is impossible to give any accurate estimate of the number of Protestant

Home Rulers, and the much advertised totals of 95 to 98 per cent. of

Unionists are mere fictions, as there never has been a poll taken on the

question; and for easily understood reasons those in favour of suspected

or unfashionable causes are slow to declare their opinions or convictions.

Liberalism is essentially “vulgar” in Ireland; and Nationalism is taboo in

all polite society. That exclusive clique, among whom heredity, tradition,

and “Church principles” reign supreme, has had a long ascendency in

Ireland. In affluence amid poverty, with every advantage of education and

influence over the unprivileged many, their pride has been to stand aloof

from popular causes, and to decry every agitation for redress. Isolated

Liberals, too few and scattered to form a community, have had to lie low,

or risk their social position and business prospects. Of late years there

has been some access of courage, and an increasing number in all

professions and trades, except those directly dependent for support on the

upper classes, have greatly ventured in taking a stand on the people’s

side. Among the younger generations, the choicest spirits, true followers

of Davis Emmett and Fitzgerald, have always been found on the popular

side; but, on the whole, heredity prevails, tradition rules, and

convention, under the guise of religion and Empire, drills the Protestant

mass on the side of Unionism.

Ulster is the crux of the Home Rule problem; and Protestantism is the

_raison d’étre_ of its opposition; as we are being ever reminded by Church

assemblies, Orange lodges, and political orators whose interest in the

welfare of so Puritan a faith is admirable indeed, and full of promise for

their future. The “religion” may sometimes appear to be of a peculiar

political cast, and difficult to reconcile with ordinary Christianity; but

such as it is, in it a serious fact has to be reckoned with. Its genesis,

as well as the present condition of Ireland, can be understood only in the

light of the history of the last four centuries. The attitude of

Protestantism generally does not need a separate discussion, being marked

by the same characteristics (as it originated, for the most part, in the

same events) as that of the North of Ireland. It is in the confiscations

and plantations of the seventeenth century that the origin of political

Protestantism is to be found. That nefarious plan of conquest and

government was old as the Normans; but it is to the later phases of it

adopted by the English rulers from James I. to Cromwell that the

establishment of the Protestant races and families now in possession of

the land may be traced. Recollect that the planters were English and

Scotch Protestants put in possession of the lands and homes of Irish Roman

Catholics, who were relegated to Connaught, and farther, or held in

complete subjection by the conquering race. Their religion was proscribed,

and all civil rights were denied them. No doubt the object was rather to

extinguish a nation, than a creed; but the fact remains that in his

paternal solicitude, “the interests of His Majesty’s _Protestant_ subjects

were his greatest care, and must first be provided for” (17 & 18 Charles

II.); and the “mere Irish” were sacrificed for the purpose. The

“settlements” of Ireland resulted in the fact that to a very large extent

the history of Ireland until to-day is involved in the land question, and

in the doings of contending religious factions.

Thus favoured by the State, and supported in their armed possession of

property and ascendency, the Irish Protestants developed at once the

masterful qualities so natural to the British in relation to subject

races, loyalty to their benefactors whose garrison they were, stern

adherence to the religion which was the badge of their predominance, and a

firm determination, at all cost to others, to maintain a state of affairs

so favourable to their welfare here and hereafter.

To hark back thus to a distant past, seeking the origin of the events of

the present, may appear unnecessarily provocative of bad feeling. It is

pleasanter to dwell on the social amenities and Christian charities which

have often marked the relations of Roman Catholic and Protestant

neighbours, and do so more than ever to-day; but in view of the present

struggle they are merely misleading accidents, and the intolerant spirit

that displays itself in threats of armed resistance, or in the “Ulster” of

Rudyard Kipling with its:

“The faith in which we stand,

The Laws we made and guard,

Our honour, lives and land,

Are given for reward.

To Murder done by night,

To Treason taught by day,

To folly, sloth and spite,

And we are thrust away.”

is more truly characteristic of the historical fairness and temper of that

past in which we seek the origin of the problem now confronting the

British people. The history of the past dominates minds on both sides of

the conflict. Peasants have very long memories, and traditions wrought

into every fibre of their being control their outlook on current events in

a way quite inexplicable to those who enjoy a wider range of vision and

are occupied with modern interests. The horrors of Scullabogue and the

heroism of Saintfield are still recounted with vivid detail in the cabins

of Wexford and Down; and the relative condition of the two nations in

Ireland must be radically altered before the bitter memories of the past

and the passions they evoke in the name of religion, will cease to

frustrate all movements toward peace and progress. The mention of “two

nations” will be eagerly seized by opponents as a fatal objection to the

establishment of a native government. And so it would be, if the

differences were ineradicable in their nature, or agreement on the

principles of government impossible between men of different faith in

Ireland; but the past has abundantly proved that neither supposition is

true. In every century as men have been uninfluenced by the machinations

of party leaders, or freed from clerical control, they have agreed to

struggle for the good of their common country. Presbyterians have led “the

rebels” in many a bloody fight, the liberties of Ireland were never more

gloriously vindicated than in the Protestant Parliament of Grattan, and

the latest struggle for legislative independence has found its earliest

and most trusted leaders among the Protestant gentry. “More Irish than the

Irish themselves,” there have always been found some, yielding to the

glamour of Irish climate, character and life, who have forgotten the

animosities of religion to combine in prayer and sacrifice for the good of

their adopted country. Further, the principles on which the Home Rule

demand is based are those professed by men of every creed in the free

countries of the world, and in Ireland, too, when men are not blinded by

prejudice or traditional fears. The two nations will be welded into one;

and “Ireland a nation” will become something more than a patriotic toast,

when, for the first time in history, the representatives of all creeds

form its Parliament, for Ireland can as ill afford to lose the dour

virtues of the Ulster-Scot as of the most dreamy Munster Celt.

The refusal to recognise Irishmen’s right to Nationality, when English,

Welsh and Scots are “nations” is a curious relic of the old attitude

towards(165) “England’s oldest foe.” They inhabit, at all events, one

land, and it is an island. A people variously constituted, they breathe

its air, cultivate its soil, speak the same language with even a brogue of

their own, enjoy the usual intercourse of ordinary human beings in social,

commercial, educational and political pursuits, with common interests,

problems, difficulties, and aspirations (_pace_ Ulster). They have a

history more ancient than that of Saxon England, and a continuous

Christianity as devoutly held for seventeen centuries as in any country of

Europe; they have marked characteristics, admirable or otherwise,

according to taste and temper, but which the world of art, literature and

religion seems to value. But because their ideals do not commend

themselves to some thrifty settlers on their lands they are to be denied

the status and privileges of a nation.

In any attempt to reach the truth as to the justice and expediency of

granting Home Rule to Ireland, it is absolutely futile to waste time in

answering the stock arguments of party platforms, special pleading to

support a foregone conclusion, half-truths backed up by most remarkable

incidents, “fresh in the memory” of the speaker, or invented by his heated

imagination. To contradict falsehoods, debate plausible conclusions, or

quote instances to the contrary is equally vain, for the distinction

between _propter_ and _post hoc_ is often as inscrutable to the ordinary

mind in politics as it is in medicine. We must fall back on recognized

principles; and leave it to our opponents, on whom the burden lies, to

show reason why these should not be applied to Ireland as to other parts

of the British Empire, or why Irishmen, because mostly Catholics, are to

be refused the natural rights of freemen.

“What in the world do you want?” is the cry indignantly repeated in

Belfast conventions, as if it had not been answered a thousand times.

Well, once more; it is self-government, so far as that is compatible with

the interests of the Empire, to which Ireland belongs and must still

belong unless a mighty convulsion of nature puts it elsewhere. It is the

right of every civilized and progressive people, the grant of which to its

dependencies is the glory of the British Empire, and in preparation for

which it governs its subject races in India or Africa. Is Ireland less fit

after nine centuries of English government to rule itself on

constitutional lines than Canada or the South African Union? Possibly it

is; for the centuries have been a weary apprenticeship in misgovernment

rather than in constitutional methods; but all the more surely does the

long experiment stand condemned, and it may well give place to saner

methods. As in personal, so in national life, the sole condition of mature

development is responsibility. The father or ruler who jealously denies it

to one come to years of discretion is a bungler or a tyrant, ignorant of

the first principles of education. For all these centuries the Irish race

has been in leading strings; and those most guilty of multiplying and

tightening the bonds are naturally the enemies of its independence and of

the only method ever discovered by God or man to secure the growth of

virtue, the acquisition of strength, or the fulfilment of personal and

national promise. Experience is the best, the only, teacher of practical

politics; and the mistakes and losses in life incurred by folly or

ignorance are our best discipline. To charge a people with incapacity who

have never been trusted with power is the resort of stupid malice.

Irishmen have vindicated before the world their fitness to fight its

battles, or command its armies; as captains of industry they have led in

every land, and the British Empire above all is indebted to the statesmen,

proconsuls, travellers, scholars and divines that have issued from the

race. What a people to be denied the elementary rights of self-government!

If Unionists are sincere in deploring the absence of a true spirit of

citizenship in the Irish, what have they ever done to encourage it?

Sympathy with men’s difficulties, appreciation of their virtues,

co-operation in their efforts, Christian charity and trust—these, and not

suspicion, distrust, misrepresentation and opposition, should have been

the Protestant contribution to the growth and happiness of a people, whom

in private life they themselves always admit to be generous friends and

neighbours.

Self-government must be based on representation, and the right of

majorities. Recognized universally in the Empire, this simple dictate of

justice is to be denied to Irishmen in their own land, because the great

majority is Roman Catholic. “It is not constitutional” said Gladstone in

1886, “to refuse the demand of five-sixths of the duly elected

representatives of a country”; and ever since then the representation has

never changed nor has the demand abated. That it is resisted in the name

of Religion, not Politics, we are not allowed for one moment to forget;

and no one in Protestant circles is unfamiliar with the assertion, how

ardently Home Rule would be welcomed if it were not for the Priest in

politics and the dread of “Rome Rule.” But let it be recognized that under

free institutions it is the right of the majority to rule, irrespective of

their religious creed; and that to deny that right in Ireland is to

establish a tyranny of the minority—an oligarchy in these days of

Democracy! Nothing can exceed the sincerity of men, good but blinded by

prejudice, when on Belfast platforms they declare their desire for

equality and hatred of ascendency. But what a ludicrous fallacy they fall

into when with the same breath they assert their resolve never to submit

to the Government of the great majority of their fellow countrymen. In

other words they, a small minority, contend for a union with the

Parliament of another country for this express purpose, that by the aid of

its votes they may override the unanimous wish of three-fourths of the

people of their own land. This is the very gist of the Anti-Home Rule

demonstration in Belfast on April 9th. It was not Irish in any true sense.

The platforms crowded with sixty members of Parliament representing

British Constituencies, presided over by noblemen such as a Grand Master

of Orangemen and a great coal owner who has practically ceased to be an

Irish landowner, addressed by eminent counsel who have transferred their

services to the English bar for reasons best known to themselves,

ex-ministers and aspirants to office in a Unionist administration—it was a

brave show of party political force; but nothing can hide or minimize the

fact that it is all avowedly an effort to support and intensify the claim

of about half the population of Ulster, and one-fourth of the population

of Ireland, to resist and overthrow the rights of Irishmen to the

privileges of representative government. If the Unionists of Ireland

sincerely desire equality and disavow ascendency in their own country, let

them prove it by being willing to accept the conditions of life and

legislation naturally imposed by the will of a majority, in the discussion

of which they will possess and exercise a fair, or according to their

ability, a preponderating degree of influence. But let them cease to

demand in their country the predominance of social, political and

religious ideals, natural perhaps to England and Scotland now, but alien

to Ireland, and secured only by foreign, that is non-Irish, votes.

The representation of minorities on a complete system of proportional

voting is an absolute necessity in Ireland. Considering the number of the

population, there is very marked and wide-spread variety of opinion. The

Orangemen of the cities are often democratic Radicals, however much evil

associations may at times corrupt their good manners; Catholic Irishmen,

even the clergy (notwithstanding the _semper eadem_ cry), are sharply

divided by lines of severance that will appear when the present unnatural

combinations pass out of sight, Unionist and Nationalist becoming

meaningless; Nonconformists here, as elsewhere, differ from Episcopalians

on important subjects; Molly Maguires, Sinn Feiners, Gaelic Leaguers have

something to say as regards Irish life worth hearing; and all must find a

voice in any true representation of the country’s thought and purpose. The

United Kingdom, too, probably needs such a reform in representation, and

cannot do better than witness the trial of the experiment on the political

body of the sister island.

It is on such fundamental principles of government the argument for Home

Rule stands, and Liberalism at all events would be untrue to its very

genius in hesitating to confer the boon. Irish Home Rule has been the

touchstone of Liberalism, and it is not by any accident that Unionists,

who abandoned their old creed to refuse Ireland’s plea, became arrant

Tories, and have ceased to exist as a political party.

The objections made by Protestants are formidable and specious. They

appeal to passion rather than to reason; they exploit religion in

opposition to Christianity; they ignore history and flourish on

journalism; they forget humanity’s claims in their zeal for sectional

interests.

The stock argument in Belfast appears to be that in the interests of

“Empire” Home Rule is impossible. Yet Ireland was under the British Crown

when 42,000 volunteers were enrolled under Lord Charlemont and the Duke of

Leinster to protect her shores from foreign foes; the stigma of the word

“Separatist” has been repudiated by every responsible Irish statesman; and

so long as Britain’s naval and military power lasts, the secession of 4

millions of people within one hour’s sail is an absolute impossibility,

should any one desire “the dismemberment of the Empire.” Let candid

Englishmen consider a simple question; which is the more likely and the

more intimidating, menace to the Empire: a discontented, disloyal and

impoverished Ireland, or one proud in its self-dependence, grateful to its

benefactor, and united by every consideration of mutual protection and

benefit? Or which will be of most credit to Britain in the estimation of

her Colonies and of the civilized world?

Timid Ulstermen deplore “the loss of their birthright in the Empire”;

their civil and religious liberties, they say, are imperilled, their

commercial prosperity is sure to suffer. It is hard even to imagine the

conception they have formed of their countrymen. Is it as fools or rogues,

slaves or tyrants, they wish to caricature the inhabitants of the land, in

which they so reluctantly dwell, for the delectation of ignorant

foreigners? For none other can be imposed on by such diatribes. Are

Irishmen engaged in a struggle for 150 years to gain independence and the

rights of men, to signalize their victory by denying civil and religious

liberty to their fellows; or are a people whose own industries have been

ruined in the past by legal restraints on trade, whose enterprise and

efforts to establish new industries and foster old ones are being rewarded

with a few gleams of prosperity, dull or wicked enough to wish to injure

commercial or manufacturing triumphs in the north of which they are proud?

Ask the commercial travellers from Ulster, who enter every town in

Ireland, whether their wares are scouted and themselves insulted because

of Orange bluff or threats. No! Irishmen are neither fools nor bigots.

The ordinary method of producing prejudice on these topics is to recount

the crimes and outrages that have darkened the past of Irish agrarian

life. No one can deny their existence, or palliate their enormity. They

were the inevitable incidents of war; one of the most bitter ever waged

over such a period of years. It was a war of rebellion against

misgovernment, of revenge for political crimes, a frantic struggle for

life and home on the part of a peasantry down-trodden, ejected, starved;

it was the last and successful phase of a great agrarian movement to

secure the rights of free born men in the land they tilled. Many crimes

have been committed, but who can distribute the blame? and any fair

historian will recollect the exasperation under which they were committed,

the failure of every attempt at redress, the findings of Royal Commissions

disregarded and the promises of politicians forgotten, the evictions and

legalized tyranny of rack-renting landlords, and the steady decrease of

this violence as constitutional agitation has gained a hearing and a more

humane spirit has inspired Parliamentary action. But such crimes as were

committed were never acts of religious persecution or violations of the

civil liberties of Protestants as such. Roman Catholics who opposed the

national movement, or sided with the party accountable for the wrong,

suffered also; and it is absolutely unjust and unhistorical to quote the

violence of an angry and a maddened people as prophetic, or even

suggestive, of similar wrongs likely to be perpetrated under an Irish

Government. If the Irish Roman Catholics desired to persecute Protestants,

there has been plenty of opportunity to do so; and, in three-fourths of

the country, life could have been made intolerable and impossible to

farmers and merchants dependent on the goodwill of their neighbours. Yet a

universal testimony to the contrary is borne by Protestants of every class

and party in the middle and southern counties where Romanism is

predominant. The charges of intolerance freely levelled at the Protestant

of the north in connection with certain notorious incidents of the

political campaign have been repelled and, it was supposed, answered by

reference to the boycotting outrages of the land struggle; but what

unprejudiced critic would ever admit that such incidents could be

paralleled with, or afford any justification for, the petty tyranny to

which men have been subjected in Ulster, because they dared to differ in

opinion from the majority and to utter the expression of their deliberate

convictions?

One of the most curious arguments relied on now against Home Rule, is the

prosperity of Ireland under the Union. It used to be Ireland’s miserable

poverty and thriftlessness that were assigned as proof of its unfitness

for self-government; now the blessed effects of the self same Union have

produced such prosperity that self-government is not needed or even

wanted!

A daring orator in Belfast proclaimed “the independent Parliament of

Ireland a dismal failure, and the Imperial Parliament a distinct success.”

The improved condition of Ireland is a matter of deep gratification,

specially as a foretaste of a better future. But to boast of the

prosperity of a country with its population reduced by one-half in fifty

years, with its poor little agricultural holdings of a £10 valuation

extending to one-half of the total, its sodden fields and ill-drained

lands, its treeless hills and undeveloped mineral resources, its famished

peasants and shoeless children carrying sods of peat to the village

school, is a heartless jibe emanating from the wealthy capital of the

North. The “distinct success” of a century of so-called Union government

is an equally audacious flight of fancy. Most people would wish to find a

contented people, living under the ordinary laws of constitutional

government, advancing industries, growing population, and plentiful food

as the tokens of a distinct success under a government of ever-increasing

wealth and power: but seven famines desolated the land during the century;

“for thirty-five years after the Union, Ireland was ruled for three years

out of every four by laws giving extraordinary powers to the Government;

and in the next fifty years (1835-1885) there were only three without

Coercion and Crime Acts.”(166) That for the boasted success of Unionism in

Ireland! The present prosperity is due to the National movement, in

response to which Gladstone secured the tenant right for the farmer, and

disestablished the Church, commencing that long series of beneficent but

belated reforms which have inspired the Irish people with hope, and of

which the last and crowning gift of independent self-government awaits

completion.

To return to the more distinctly religious aspects of the question, though

all that means liberty and progress ought to appeal to every Protestant’s

warmest sentiments, let us examine briefly the alleged dangers arising

from the power of the Roman Catholic priesthood and their influence on a

national government. It is ungenerous to forget all but the seamy side of

the Priest’s influence in Ireland. In many a dark day he was the poor

man’s only champion, and he has won a place of love in the people’s heart

not lightly granted or easily lost. But no one familiar with Irish life

fails to notice a change in the relations of priest and people whether it

be a portent of good or evil. The spread and consolidation of democratic

feeling, the many ties between the cabin in Ireland and the children’s

home in America, the spread of education and the influence of the Press,

are exercising in Ireland, as similar causes do elsewhere, a deep

influence on the simple piety, or as some call it, the superstition of the

people. The cry “no priest in politics” prevails as never before; and that

their sphere of influence in limited to questions of faith and morals is

being widely recognized by the clergy themselves. Influences at work in

European Catholic countries must more and more reach Ireland, and possibly

its danger is not from clericalism but from a slackening hold of the only

form of Christianity that has ever won the heart of the people. At all

events Roman Catholicism in Ireland has never been an aggressive force

forcing its faith on other communions, but seems content to be let alone

and to minister to its own adherents unmolested, as it has not been in the

past.

When Protestant interests such as education, temperance, Sunday

observance, marriage laws, and morals generally, are said to be in

imminent danger, what is it that is meant exactly? On such subjects there

are interests that are essential, and others that are matters of opinion:

very important to those who think them right, but of no weight to others.

As to legislation on these questions, if Protestants imagine they have any

claim or chance to impose their views in a National Parliament as they

have been accustomed to do, or try to do, by aid of English votes at

Westminster, the sooner they are disillusioned the better. But if they are

satisfied to secure essential interests, such as thoroughness in

education, increased sobriety by temperance reform, sanctity for marriage,

and liberty for Sunday observance according to the conviction of each,

what ground have they to fear that the influence of the Roman Catholic

clergy will be cast on the side opposed to their aims? There is a very

wonderful ignorance in the mind of the ordinary Protestant as to the

attitude of the Catholic clergy on moral and social questions. In

temperance, for instance, no Church in Ireland can rival in extent or

efficiency the work of the Capuchin Fathers, the Redemptorists, or the

Pioneers, an organization formed by a Jesuit priest, and rivalling in

thoroughness and success the “Catch-my-Pal” crusade of the Presbyterian

Church. In education, too, of every grade the Roman Catholic Church

advances with extraordinary zeal. True, there are Protestants who complain

of the Roman Catholic opposition to “mixed education”—a palpably unfair

complaint, whose underlying motive is a sectarian hope to weaken the hold

of religion on the people. There has been nothing like unanimity among the

Protestant Churches on the same subject. Each of them has tried its best

to secure in the educational sphere its own denominational interests. It

was the cry “Hands off Trinity” that killed Mr. Bryce’s University Bill,

which would have united the youth of Ireland in one grand university, in

which Trinity might have been the proud leader of Irish University

education. That legislation on education should be demanded on the lines

of a mixed system is quite unreasonable, being a matter of very divided

opinion; but as to the keen and successful competition of the Roman

Catholic schools and colleges with all the older institutions in the

country there is no question among those who know.

As to the moral interests of the community, it is a rather daring

assumption that they will be imperilled under a distinctly Nationalist

government. The reputation of the Irish race for pre-eminence in the

domestic virtues is a well established fact, and no incidents of later

years can cast even a passing shadow on the fair fame of her sons and

daughters. The standard of religious observance on such a matter as Sunday

may be different from that of the Protestant Churches. In practice the

latter have not much to boast; and experience gives no reason whatever to

fear any interference with the freest pursuit of their religious

convictions. The decree _Ne temere_ and cases of the undoubted miscarriage

of justice arising from it have created much discussion and distrust as to

the validity, under an Irish Parliament, of the marriage bond. The

sanctity of that bond in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, to whom it

is a Sacrament, cannot be doubted; and if the object of the decree is, as

it appears to be, to prevent mixed marriages, it ought to win the approval

of many Protestants who strongly condemn such alliances; but it is for the

civil law and the Executive of any government to provide that marriages

legally celebrated shall be upheld by all the power of the State. And

Ireland, according to Mr. Asquith’s Home Rule Bill, has no reason to dread

any failure in that duty. As to the decree commonly known as _Motu

proprio_, it never has been promulgated, or acted on, in Ireland or

elsewhere in the British dominions. It was unearthed, after centuries of

existence, by a party newspaper, and exploited for all it was worth, and a

great deal more, to embitter anti-Catholic prejudices, and score a point

in the Irish discussion.

As to Guarantees, opinion is much divided among Protestants. They are at

best a temporary device to allay fear; and can never be a substitute for

the real and honourable safeguards to be found in freedom and publicity of

discussion, the spread of enlightenment and toleration, the growing spirit

of Christian brotherhood and goodwill. The provisions in the Government

Bill appear to be ample; but all paper guarantees are easily evaded, and

it is on more permanent and spiritual assurances Protestants must rely.

Seldom has Protestantism had a finer chance than she will have in Ireland

under self-government, if only, inspired with the spirit of her Master and

the love of her native liberty, she seeks not to grasp power, but to

render service, if her idea of character be not the “old man” with his

haunting memories of wrong done and suffered, but the “new man” of the

Gospel, inspired by a fresh enthusiasm for the realisation of the Divine

purpose in regenerated human society. No Protestant Church will perhaps

ever be the Church of Ireland, as one powerful communion with a touch of

the old arrogance claims to be; yet Protestantism may add something to the

national piety and progress, nay, she may be another bulwark to the

Christian faith in days of strain and stress, if she can exhibit to a

naturally religious people a tangible proof of the possibility of uniting

the Apostolic creed with the intellectual demands of modern progress, and

in this way help to save the youth of Ireland from a desolating

materialism. Thus Protestantism may yet be enabled to make some pious

reparation for many an unholy deed done in her name to the most generous

people under the sun.

FOOTNOTES

1 Professor Dicey in “A Leap in the Dark” (1911), p. 118. _Cf._ Mr.

Balfour in _The Times_, May 3rd, 1912.

2 “The Law of Constitution,” Sixth Edition, p. 162, where Professor

Dicey makes a rather unhappy attempt to force the Dominion

Constitution into the category of Federalism.

3 The opinion of Laband (“Staatsrecht,” I., _passim_) as to its being

found in the totality of allied Governments represented by the

Bundesrath is probably nearest the truth.

4 Laband, “Die Entwickelung des Bundesraths,” Jahrbuch des

oeffentlichen Rechts, 1907, Vol. I., p. 18.

5 Maitland, _Domesday Book and Beyond_, p. 345.

6 It is difficult to understand what Professor Dicey means by saying

“unity is increasing throughout the Empire.” His argument seems like

a play upon the words unity and union. In merchant shipping,

copyright and other such matters, the whole tendency is towards

differentiation.

7 There are innumerable cases, _e.g._ _Cruikshank’s case_ and the

_Slaughter House case_.

_ 8 Cf._ Mr. Balfour, _The Times_, May 3rd.

_ 9 Cf._ “Pacificus” in _The Times_, April 30th.

10 I refer, of course, to the decisions of the Supreme Court—decisions

almost revolutionary in their character—in connection with the

annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines and Porto Rico. See in

particular _Downes_ v. _Bidwell_, 182 U.S., 244; also _Territory of

Hawaii_ v. _Makichi_, 23 S.C. Rep., 787, and _Dorr_ v. _United

States_, 195 U.S., 138.

11 It cannot be contended with any show of reason that the grant of a

constitution legally carries with it a grant of the Executive power

such as to divest the Imperial Government of its authority. There is

but a solitary opinion to the opposite effect—that of Higginbottom,

C. J. of Victoria, in _Musgrove_ v. _Toy_ (Victorian Law Reports,

XIV., 349).

12 The veto of the central Government on the local legislature is the

most decisive departure from the Federal principle. The Judicial

Committee have always regarded it, in the case of the British North

America Act, as a conclusive reason for rejecting the application of

the Federal doctrines of the U.S. Courts to the interpretation of

the Canadian Constitution. See _infra_, and _cf. Bank of Toronto_ v.

_Lambe_, 12 App. Cas., 575.

13 Difficulties arise when, as in the case of the Australian

Commonwealth, an attempt is made to reconcile the principles of the

American Constitution with those of the English Constitution. The

State Governments in Australia, equally with the Federal Government,

are carried on in the name of the Crown; what, then, becomes of the

prerogative doctrine that the Crown is not bound by a taxing

statute, when the Federal Executive attempts to levy Customs duties

under a Federal statute upon the property of a State Government? The

High Court found itself compelled to distinguish between several

capacities of the Crown in a Federal system. See _A-G. of New South

Wales_ v. _Collector of Customs_, 5 C.L.R., 818.

_ 14 In re Neagle_, 135 U.S. Rep., p. 1.

_ 15 Cf._ Sir William Anson, in the _Law Quarterly Review_, 1886.

16 There is, however, a provision in Clause XXVI. of the Bill Providing

that, in the event of a revision of the financial arrangements being

recommended by the Joint Exchequer Board, with a view to securing an

Imperial contribution from Irish revenues, and “extending the powers

of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the

imposition and collection of taxes,” there shall be summoned to the

Imperial Parliament such number of members of the _Irish_ House of

Commons as will raise the representation of Ireland in that

Parliament from its reduced figure of forty-two to such a number

(say seventy) as will represent Ireland’s claim to representation on

a population basis. That is to say, the Irish Parliament will send

some twenty-eight of its members to reinforce the forty-two members

who are directly elected to the Imperial Parliament by the

constituencies. It is only proper that Ireland should not be

required to contribute to Imperial purposes except with the consent

of the full representation to which she is entitled. But the clause

will require more careful definition: for example, the Irish

Parliament ought to be required to choose these twenty-eight

delegates in proportion to the representation of Irish parties in

the Imperial Parliament, so as not to “pack” the delegation. It can

hardly be denied that the provision makes a change in the

constitution of the Imperial Parliament itself, and a somewhat

anomalous one. It ought to be carefully considered in Committee. So,

also, ought the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board, whose decisions

are to be “final and conclusive.”

17 Clause XLI.

18 Clause XLI. (2).

19 The power of the Dominion Parliament to make laws for the peace,

order, and good government of Canada has, however, been so

interpreted as to permit of a large degree of concurrent

legislation. See _Russell_ v. _The Queen_, 7 App. Cas. 829. The

Dominion Government can also exercise a veto on provincial

legislation when it runs counter to the “settled policy” of the

Dominion. But in these respects the Canadian Constitution diverges

from the true Federal type.

_ 20 The King_ v. _Barger_, Commonwealth Law Reports, VI., p. 41.

_ 21 Riel_ v. _The Queen_, 10 App. Cas. 675.

22 Cf. _Reg._ v. _Burah_, 3 App. Cas. 889; _Hodge_ v. _The Queen_, 9

App. Cas. 117; _Powell_ v. _The Apollo Candle Company_, 10 App. Cas.

282.

23 The Imperial Parliament can, of course, legislate for any part of

the world (_Cf._ _Earl Russell’s_ Case, 1901, App. Cas. 446), but

its power is limited in practice.

_ 24 Cf._ _Bank of Toronto_ v. _Lambe_, 12 App. Cas. 575.

25 In _McCulloch_ v. _Maryland_, 4 Wheaton 316.

26 I am concerned here only with the justification for the omission of

constitutional restrictions. The Bill, as compared with its

predecessors, is conspicuous in this respect. Such restrictions as

it actually contains are dealt with by Sir John Macdonell in Chapter

IV.

27 Let me cite in illustration _Tilonko_ v. _The Attorney-General of

Natal_, L.R. (1907), A.C. 93 and 461, and _Philips_ v. _Eyre_

(1869), Q.B.

_ 28 Walker_ v. _Sauvinet_, 92 U.S. 90.

_ 29 Cf._ Clause IV. (8) of the 1893 Bill.

30 Such legislation must affect alike all persons similarly situated,

_cf._ _Yick Wo_ v. _Hopkins_, 118 U.S. 356.

_ 31 Cf._ on this subject the decision of the Judicial Committee in

_Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia_ v. _Bryden_ (1899) A.C.

580.

32 “Towards a Social Policy” (1905).

33 For example, the statutory limitations of the doctrine of common

employment which was based on the common law doctrine that the

workman had freely contracted to undertake the risks of his

employment.

34 Mr. Justice O. W. Holmes, of the Supreme Court of the United States,

writes to me on the subject of constitutional restrictions as

follows: “The police power is a ’conciliatory phrase’ to cover the

fact that if the infringement is not very big it will be sustained.

The police power would warrant a State law limiting the height of

buildings in a certain region to, say, 70 feet; but if you limited

them to 5 feet you would have to fall back on Eminent Domain and pay

for it—so that the beginning of constitutional rights may be

measured in feet. In other words, constitutional restrictions cannot

be carried to extremes, but end in a penumbra.”

35 The best example of this liberalising interpretation of the police

power is the famous _Slaughter House Case_ (16 Wall. 36). _Cf._ as

to regulation of the liquor trade _Barbemeyer_ v. _Iowa_ (18 Wall.

129), and _Mayler_ v. _Kansas_ (123 U.S. 623). For a general review

of cases bearing on the restrictive words of the Fourteenth

Amendment and their qualification by the necessity of allowing State

Legislatures the benefit of the police power, see the case of the

Utah Miners Act, 18 Supreme Court Reporter 383.

_ 36 Cf._ the leading case of _Metropolitan Asylums Board_ v. _Hill_ and

_cf._ _Partington_ v. _The Attorney-General_, L.R. 4 H.L. 122.

37 The decisions of the Supreme Court at Washington in the annexation

cases are a remarkable example of this. Their decision in the case

of _Dorr_ v. _United States_ that trial by jury did not extend to

the Philippines, on the ground that it was not a right fundamental

in its nature, set up a distinction which is not to be found in the

Constitution itself, and therefore left it to the court to decide

principles of constitutional law which are unwritten. _Cf. Harvard

Law Review XIX._ 547.

38 As to the safeguard against legislation affecting the rights of

religious minorities and to laws of marriage, see Sir John

Macdonell’s remarks in Chapter IV. _infra_.

_ 39 Cf. Philips __v.__ Eyre_ _supra_.

40 This would apply to the Tenure of Office Act.

41 The mere fact that the Crown had given its consent to an Irish Act

would not make that Act _intra vires_ if it exceeded the powers of

the Irish Legislature. It might subsequently be declared _ultra

vires_ by a Court at any time.

42 I am not at all sure that this provision was necessary. The Crown

already has the power under 3 & 4 Will. IV. cap 41, sec. 4 to refer

to the Judicial Committee any such matters whatsoever as it may

think fit. The Canadian Government has a similar power conferred on

it by the Supreme Court Act, 1875, extended by 54 & 55 Vict.,

enabling the Governor-General in Council to refer to the Supreme

Court certain specified matters, particularly questions touching the

validity of provincial or Dominion legislation. The decision of the

court operates as a declaratory judgment, on which an appeal may be

taken to the Judicial Committee. For example of its exercise _cf._

the Manitoba Schools Case. See Sir Frederick Pollock’s remarks in

Chapter III.

43 The English judges, even when favourable to the claims of the early

Irish Parliament, insisted on this limitation. _Cf._ the Case of the

Merchants of Waterford; Year Book, Ric. III., fol. 12.

_ 44 Cf._ Section 264 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894; also the

Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 (44 & 45 Vict., cap. 69).

_ 45 Cf._ the Naturalization Act of 1870.

46 The law as to treason is not necessarily the same in the Colonies.

_Cf. Riel_ v. _The Queen_, 10 App. Cas. 675, and also _R._ v.

_Marais_, L.T. Rep. LXXXV., p. 363.

47 There can, I think, be no doubt as to the necessity. I know but one

opinion, and not a very authoritative one, to the contrary, namely

that of a Chief Justice of the Colony of Victoria. See _Musgrove_ v.

_Toy_ V.L. Rep. XIV. 349, and _supra_.

48 Even, however, if there had not been such an express grant of the

executive power in the Act, the Irish Parliament might, I think,

have assumed it by legislation. A colonial Legislature can, subject,

of course, to the veto of the Crown, confer on the Colonial

Government the prerogatives in so far as they are necessary to the

domestic government of the colony. _Cf._ Lefroy, “Legislative Power

in Canada,” p. 180.

49 No doubt the statutory powers exercisable under the first two Acts

would come within the control of the Irish Government.

50 His office is not the creation of statute except in so far as it was

necessary to place his salary on the Estimates. His office has,

however, frequently received statutory recognition in connection

with the creation of new Departments. _Cf._ the Irish Local

Government Board Act (1872), Section 3.

51 I have examined with some care the theory of Second Chambers in my

articles in _The Nineteenth Century_, for November, 1910, and June,

1911. I may also refer the reader to my book on “The House of Lords

and the Constitution,” and particularly to the Lord Chancellor’s

preface to the same. Foreign examples are dealt with in the reprint

of the author’s lectures on “The Place of a Second Chamber in the

Constitution” (1911).

52 There is this much to be said for nomination, that it does fulfil

the condition laid down by Alexander Hamilton and by Story as the

first canon of the bi-cameral theory—namely, that the basis of the

two chambers should be radically different. See Story’s Commentaries

(ed. Bigelow) Vol. I., Section 690. This is not so easy to secure by

election in modern times when there is suspicion of any other than a

democratic franchise.

53 Clause XII. (4).

54 For a survey of the Second Chambers in the Colonies I may refer the

reader to my article on the subject in _The Contemporary Review_ for

May, 1910.

_ 55 Kielley_ v. _Carson_, 4 Moore P.C. 63.

56 I refer the reader for detailed treatment of the subjects of Irish

Appeals, Constitutional Limitations, and Police and Judiciary, to

the chapters by Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir John Macdonell and

Serjeant Molony. I have not thought it necessary to touch on the

financial provisions of the Bill, as they are exhaustively treated

by Lord Welby in Chapter V.

_ 57 The Times_, April 16th.

58 See Mr. Cecil Harmsworth’s essay on the “State of Public Business,”

Chap. XV. of this work.

_ 59 Cf._ for example, Jellinek’s “Gesetz und Verordnung” (Freiburg,

1887), pp. 20-35.

60 I may here refer to an article of mine in the _Nineteenth Century_

for April of last year.

61 Statutory changes in the common law (it would be more correct to

call it “the civil law”) of Scotland are rarely made by Parliament

except on the initiative, or with the consent, of Scottish members.

There is a remarkable clause in the Act of Union between England and

Scotland (6 Anne, Cap II., Art. xviii.) providing that “no

alteration may be made in the (Scotch) laws which concern private

right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.”

62 The law relating to matrimonial causes in Ireland is governed by the

Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act of 1870,

and is practically the same as the English Law before the

Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857.

63 Power to make such re-arrangements or transfers by Order in Council

is given by Sections XL. and XLIV. of the Government of Ireland

Bill.—EDITORIAL NOTE.

64 The control by Government, of course, does not extend to the

magistrates’ judicial functions.

65 Recorders and County Court Judges are appointed by the Irish

Government.

66 Clause XXI. of the Bill provides for this.—EDITORIAL NOTE.

67 “Money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the

Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund”

(Clause XIV. (3)).—EDITORIAL NOTE.

68 If transferred to the Irish Government.

69 The Office of Arms is now directly controlled by the

Lord-Lieutenant, and it is a question whether it should not remain

so.

70 The clause in question which set up a Court to be known as the

Exchequer Division with a quasi-federal jurisdiction has not been

repeated. _See_ Chapter I. of this work.—EDITORIAL NOTE.

71 Clauses II. and V. provide for the reservation of the Constabulary

for a period of six years from the appointed day, at the end of

which the force is to be transferred to the Irish Government. The

Dublin Metropolitan Police is transferable at once.—EDITORIAL NOTE.

72 Under the Bill it is permanently reserved, _i.e._,

“excluded.”—_Ibid._

73 Provision is made by Clause IV. of the Bill for the appointment of

heads of Departments who shall be known as “Ministers.” _See_

Chapter I. of this work.—EDITORIAL NOTE.

74 This convention of the English Constitution, which rests on a

Standing Order of the House of Commons, is embodied in the Bill

(Clause X. (2)).—_Ibid._

75 A similar provision appears in the new Bill, but the character of

the Executive Committee is much more explicitly defined. _See_

Clause IV.; _also_ Chapter I. of this work.—EDITORIAL NOTE.

_ 76 Marbury_ v. _Madison_, 1 Cranch, at pp. 177-8.

77 The principal authority is _Hodge_ v. _Reg._ (1883) 9 App. Ca. 117,

132. See also the _Maritime Bank of Canada’s_ case (1892) A.C. 437,

442.

_ 78 Ex parte Carew_ (1897) A.C. 719. It is not clear that the judgment

was adequately considered.

79 See _Russell_ v. _Reg_. (1882) 7 App. Ca., 829, 839.

_ 80 Citizens’ Insurance Company of Canada_ v. _Parsons_ (1881) 7 App.

Ca. 96, 109.

_ 81 Webb_ v. _Outrim_ (1907) A.C. 81. The appeal which before the

Constitution Act of 1900 lay direct to the Crown in Council from the

Supreme Courts of the several Australian Colonies is not abolished.

82 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 41, s. 4. Under this section the question

whether the Royal assent should be given to a Bill of the Irish

Parliament could certainly be referred to the Judicial Committee,

but it seems doubtful whether an Act already passed could be so

dealt with, as the matter would then be beyond the competence of an

Order in Council.

83 See Prof. Harrison Moore in _Law Quart. Rev._, xx. 236.

84 The Syllabus of March 8th, 1861 (Proposition 57) condemned the

proposition that “any other religion than the Roman Catholic may be

established by the State.”

85 To illustrate this, I quote first from a Roman Catholic writer of

distinction: “Religious liberty may be introduced when it is

required for the common good, to prevent greater evils, or when it

has been a necessity” (Hergenröther, Vol. II., p. 364). “Where

modern States exist with freedom of conscience and several religious

denominations with equal rights, it is impossible further to carry

out the principles of the Church. In these days the Church is

confined to the purely ecclesiastical domain, and her whole

endeavours must be directed to preserve her necessary freedom, or if

she does not possess it, to win it back” (Hergenröther, Vol. I., p.

65). The next quotation is from a modern Protestant historian “The

Pope would like to have freedom of conscience in Sweden and Russia;

but he does not wish for it on principle, but only as a means which

may be used by Providence to propagate the truth in those countries.

Pius IX. and Mgr. Pie were agreed that only in countries where the

Catholics are in a minority might religious freedom be wished for by

Catholics” (Nielsen “History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth

Century,” Vol. II., p. 263). See also _Ueber die Entwickelung des

Katolischen Kirchenrechts im 19. Jahrhundert_, Von Dr. Fritz

Fleiner.

86 Mr. Gladstone (“Church and State,” p. 185) enumerates eight

principles adopted by modern Governments with regard to the support

of religion and the treatment of its varieties. He subsequently

reduces them to four; the first in which heresy and schism were

visited with civil penalty _pro salute animæ_ for the cure of the

individual. The second in which they were similarly visited, but

chiefly in the view of preventing the infection of society within

which limits they had appeared. The third in which disqualifications

of a civil kind are imposed instead of penalties. The fourth is that

in which all forms of religion claim from Government a precisely

equal regard, as respects either civil privileges or positive

assistance (pp. 187, 188). Zeller (“Staat und Kirche,” p. 6) reduces

the principles to three; substantial identity of Church and State;

complete separation; partial separation and identity.

87 As to meaning of “establishment,” see _Bradfield_ v. _Roberts_

(1899), 175 U.S. 291.

88 The German _Reichsgesetz_ of July 3rd, 1869, expressly repeals all

civic disqualifications based upon religion (Laband, Vol. I., p.

148).

89 See as to cases which have come before the Swiss Courts (Buckhardt,

p. 484).

90 Keith: “Responsible Government in the Dominions,” Vol. III., 1423n.

In Gignac’s “Compendium Juris Canonici ad Usum Cleri Canadensis”

(1901) is a statement of the large rights which the Catholic Church

has acquired in Canada in virtue of treaties.

91 See, as to the effect of this section, _Barrett_ v. _City of

Winnipeg_ (1892) A.C. 445; also _Brophy_ v. _Attorney-General of

Manitoba_ (1895) A.C. 202.

92 “There is at present no general marriage law for the Dominion, and

it is disputed whether the Dominion Parliament has power to pass

such an Act. Each province has legislated with respect to this

subject. The Government of the Dominion have just referred to the

Supreme Court (March 11th) a stated case regarding the respective

jurisdictions of the Dominion and provinces in regard to a marriage

law. The Quebec provinces argued that there is no power on the part

of the Dominion Parliament to submit such a case to the Supreme

Court. The point stands over until May 7th.” (_The Globe_, Toronto,

March 12th.)

_ 93 Brown_ v. _Curé de Montreal_, L.R. 6, P.C. 157. See _O’Keefe_ v.

_Cullen_, Report by Fitzpatrick; also 7 Irish Reports, 319.

_ 94 The Times_, March 1st, 1911.

95 It is only right that the rest of the letter should be quoted: “But

it is, in my opinion, much to be regretted that by the promulgation

of the decree, and even more by the language which appears to be

sometimes used to secure obedience to it, the Roman Catholic Church

should introduce confusion into domestic life and give rise to

unnecessary and disquieting doubts as to the legal validity of

marriages already contracted, or as to the lawful status of persons

who may hereafter marry.”

96 “Ecclesia haec matrimonia mixta communiter improbavit atque

detestata,” Lehmkuhl Theologia Moralis, Vol. II., p. 511.

97 See Statement by Monsignor Bidwell in _Dublin Review_, 148, p. 327;

also article “_Apostolicæ Sedis_.” Vacant, _Dictionnaire Théologie

Catholique_.

98 Reiffensteuel, Vol. II., p. 245, asserts that the privilege is not

lost by immemorial custom, even as to civil matters.

99 It is perhaps hardly necessary to remind the reader that Lord Welby

was a member of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations

between England and Ireland which reported in 1896.—_Editorial

Note._

100 The “_true_” revenue differs from the _collected_ revenue, by making

allowance for duties paid in the one country on articles consumed in

the other.

101 Any charge in excess of £1,000,000 on the Constabulary was to be

borne by the Imperial Exchequer.

102 Probably over-estimated.

103 True Revenue £8,000,000, Irish Expenditure £6,000,000, Contribution

£2,000,000.

104 It is not clear from the Bill or the explanatory paper, whether the

Irish Postal Revenue will be paid into the British Exchequer in the

first instance, or retained in the Irish Exchequer. I presume the

former.

105 £11,339,000 minus £7,562,000 = £3,777,000.

106 The Constabulary charge is fixed at first at £1,337,000. If in the

six years of Imperial control the cost rises to (say)

£1,500,000-£1,500,000 will be the sum transferred; but the Bill does

not say what is to happen if the cost were to fall to (say)

£1,300,000. Explanation is needed as to the effect of the proviso

that regard is to be had to the prospect of any increase or decrease

expected to arise from causes not being matters of administration.

107 60 and 61 Vic. c. 66, 7 Edward VII. c. 44.

108 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 29; 7 Will. IV., and 1 Vict., c. 25; 5 & 6

Vict., c. 24.

109 Civil Service Estimates, 1912-1913, Class III., p. III.

110 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 13; 2 & 3 Vict., c. 75; 22 & 23 Vict., c. 22.

111 Civil Service Estimates, 1912-1913, Class III., p. 119.

112 Taking Census of 1911 as a basis, see Civil Service Estimates

1912-1913, Class III. pp. 111 and 119, Reports of H.M. Inspectors of

Constabulary for England and Wales, 1910, p. 135.

113 “Against Home Rule,” p. 155.

114 4 Bingham, “New Cases,” p. 574.

115 Judgments of the Superior Courts in Ireland published under the

direction of the Attorney-General for the information of magistrates

(1889), p. 23.

_ 116 Attorney-General_ v. _Kissane_, 32 Law Reports, Ireland, p. 220.

117 4 Bingham, “New Cases”, p. 574 _supra_.

118 “The Motu Proprio ‘Quantavis Diligentia’ and its Critics,” by the

Archbishop of Dublin, p. 10.

119 Speech upon the Address, February, 1909.

120 This sum has, since the 31st of March, been considerably reduced.

121 Part I. of this Chapter incorporates the statement on the Land

Question prepared by the Right Hon. W. F. Bailey, Estates

Commissioner for the Commission on Congestion in Ireland, presided

over by the Earl of Dudley. It has been brought up-to-date, but

otherwise it is almost word for word as the learned Commissioner

wrote it.

_ 122 Cf_. Mr. Balfour, _The Times_, November 7th, 1911.

123 A considerable portion of this chapter appeared in the form of an

article in _The Contemporary Review_ in the year 1887, but it has

been rewritten by Lord Fitzmaurice for the purposes of this work. We

have to thank the Editor of the _The Contemporary Review_ for his

kind permission to make use of the original text—_Editorial Note_.

124 Speech of October 28th, 1738: “Grattan’s Speeches,” i., 183.

125 Grattan to Fox, April 18th, 1782: “Fox’s Correspondence,” i., 403.

126 “Grattan’s Speeches,” i., 129.

127 “Fox’s Correspondence,” by Lord Russell, i. 412.

128 Lord Rockingham to Lord Shelburne, May 25th, 1782, “Parliamentary

History,” xxxiv., 979.

129 “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 144.

130 “Fox’s Correspondence,” i., 417, 418.

131 “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 145.

_ 132 See_ “Life of Grattan.”

133 “Fox’s Correspondence,” i., 416; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii.,

143.

134 “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 146.

135 Fox: “Speeches,” ii., 64, 65.

136 “Grattan’s Speeches,” Vol. III., 355, 409; January 15th, February

22nd, 1800. “Fox’s Correspondence,” i., 426; “Life of Lord

Shelburne,” iii., 149; “Parliamentary History,” xxx., 957 (Speech of

General Fitzpatrick).

137 Speech of July 19th, 1782.

138 Speech of Grattan, January 15th, 1800: “Speeches,” Vol. III., 355.

139 “Fox’s Correspondence,” i., 431.

140 “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii., 150.

141 “Parliamentary History,” xxxiv., 675, 678; “Memoirs of the Whig

Party,” by Lord Holland, I. 147; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” iii.,

554, 555.

142 Letter on the Affairs of Ireland, 1797.

143 28 Geo. III., c. 28.

144 Much interesting light has been thrown on the history of the

struggle in 1782-1783 between Grattan and Flood, by the publication

of the Diary and Correspondence of Lord Charlemont, in the Reports

of the Historical MSS. Commission, Twelfth Report, Appendix Part X.,

1891. The abstract doctrine of the legislative supremacy of the

British Parliament, and not only the practical application of that

doctrine, was strenuously disputed by many of the leaders of

Colonial Opinion in America as well as in Ireland at the

commencement of the XVIIIth century, as a reference to the

literature of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act of 1766 will

show. The doctrine itself was one of the consequences of the

Revolution of 1688, which true to the general principle of exalting

the importance of the British Parliament, abolished on the one hand

the right of the Crown to tax the Colonies by virtue of its

prerogative, and on the other asserted a right in the British

Parliament to legislate and tax in the “settled” Colonies of the

Crown concurrently with the local representative assemblies, and, if

necessary, over their heads. The same class of arguments were used

both by Colonial and by Irish statesmen against the claims of the

British Parliament to interfere as between them and the Crown; but

the Irish case was always the stronger of the two, because her

advocates were able to start from the admitted right and position of

Ireland as a kingdom, with a Crown of her own. To the claims of the

British Parliament, the Whig statesmen, recognising their danger in

practice, tried to set constitutional limitations, and hence grew up

the distinction, on which the elder Pitt relied, between the right

of Great Britain to impose by law internal taxation within the

Colonies for the purposes of revenue, and her right to levy external

taxation for the regulation of Colonial trade. This distinction,

however, from a legal point of view, Lord Mansfield showed, would

not bear examination, and he laid down the law to be, that the

Parliament of Great Britain had an absolute legislative supremacy

over her Colonies—and by implication over Ireland—in all cases

whatever, whether for internal or external objects; whether to

impose a tax, or to regulate trade; whether to levy money, or to

make general enactments; and this doctrine it was which was recorded

in the Declaratory Act of George III. of 1766, relating to the

Colonies, the counterpart of the Declaratory Act of George I.,

relating to Ireland. (_See_ Bancroft, Vol. III., Ch. xix., The

Absolute Power of Parliament; “Life of Lord Shelburne,” Vol. I., Ch.

iv., p. 253.)

145 “Life of Lord Shelburne,” i., 285.

146 Montesquieu, “Considérations sur la Grandeur et la Decadence des

Romains.”

147 Lecky.

148 For further details see _Dublin Castle and the Irish People_.

149 Bright.

150 Poor Law Commission (Ireland) Report 1903-1906, p. 12.

151 “Dublin Castle and the Irish People.”

152 Gavan Duffy: “Young Ireland.”

153 “In Ireland,” said Lord Normanby, “the landlord has the monopoly of

the means of existence, and has a power of enforcing his bargains

which does not exist anywhere—the power of starvation.”

154 Gavan Duffy: _League of North and South._

155 I have done so in “Dublin Castle and the Irish People,” _see_ p.

264, _et seq._

156 Mr. Commissioner Bailey.

157 John Stuart Mill.

158 A debate took place in the House of Lords on the subject on February

17th, 1905. The correspondence between Mr. G. Wyndham and Sir A.

MacDonnell on the latter’s appointment appears as an appendix in

“The Outlook in Ireland” (John Murray. 1912.)

159 Mr. Barry O’Brien’s “Life of Parnell.” Vol. I., p. 93.

160 “Federation and Empire,” p. 315. (H. Henry & Co., 1896.)

161 This Table has already been published in a chapter which I

contributed to “Home Rule Problems,” edited by Basil Williams (King,

1911).

162 “Home Rule Problems,” pp. 67-72. (King, 1911.)

163 “Parliamentary Debates,” Vol. CCCXVIII., p. 688.

164 A Quarterly Review of the politics of the British Empire, which is

entirely free from any partisan prepossessions.

_ 165 See_ Kipling’s “Ulster.”

166 “Irish Nationality” (Home University Library.)