The Irish Question.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 27, 3 July 1902, Page 4

The Irish Question.

In the May number of an English review appaars an article from the pen of Mr T. VV. Russell, under the heading ' What are we to do with Ireland ? ' Writing as an" Irish Unionist, ' who saw from the beginning that the Home Rulers were the chief objection to Home Rule, but who all along reepgnised the mist-ikes, and even the hopelessness of English Government in Ireland,' Mr Russell expresses unfeigned regret that Lord Ro^ebery did not part with Gladstone in 1886 rather than now, in which case he thinks Gladstone would not have proceeded upon the lin»R of an Irish Parliament, but would have conciliated Irish opinion by a les3 heroic measure than the Bill for the Better Government of Ireland, and the Liberal Party would have gone forward in its path, and justified its title as a great instrument of huoaan progress. Therefore, fairly enough, he saddles Lord Rosebsry with a share of responsibility for the recent fortunes of the Liberal Party. However, practical-minded Unionist as he is, Mr Russell sees no good in crying over spilt milk. What is the Actual Situation To-day ? Mr Russell believes the events of 1886 have resulted in two great calamities. Up to 1895 the Liberal Unionists preserved much of their old-time Liberalism, But with the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Irish Local Government Act, they disappeared as a political force. The Tories had gone as far as they would go. Mr Chamberlain had received his thirty pieces of silver, and the Tories said to him, ' Thus far shalt thou come and no further.' Then came the South African trouble, and the onion with Toryism was complete. ' That was the first great calamity that followed from Mr Gladstone's forward step.' A seoond, and even a greater calamity was caused by the utter collapse of the Liberal party. The Irish Party, too, did not escape the prevailing demoralisation, but they have once more pulled themselves together. For all practical purposes in and out of Parliament the Liberal Unionist is a Tory — only more bo. Mr Russell states that ' if Irish landlordism, the drink traffic, and unrestricted betting are to form part of the Unionist policy, there is part of the country — the province of Ulster — which will not tamely submit to such a degradation of politics.' The Liberals are broken and distracted. The Irish, on the contrary, are solid again. 'So long, however,' observes, Mr Russell, ' as the Irish Party maintains its position, so long will the Irish question command attention. The calamitous war in South Africa will some day or other come to an end. There, under the Southern Cross, some kind of a settlement, dependent, probably, upon 50,000 English bayonets, will be patched up. But the Irish spectre will remain. New rules will not lay it at Westminster. Coercion will not destroy it in Ireland. Neither Mr Balfour's goodwill nor Mr Chamberlain's spirit will raze the written trouble from the Celtic brain. It will baffle us at every step. Eighty, or even fifty, Irish members at Westminster, hating English government and disloyal to English institutions, backed by their own people at home and throughout the world, will to a certainty cripple every movement in Parliament, and will go far to paralyse parliamentary institutions.' The member for South Tyrone instanced the recent outburst between Mr Dillon and Mr Chamberlain, for which he declares Mr Chamberlain to have been Primarily Responsible. 'This feeling of hate,' he says, 'the tension which exis.." between the representatives! of the two nations, is the great aud mos fc dangerous fact in the politics of to-day. Can this feeling be obliterated or even allayed ? This is a question worth at-king, and which I propose to endeavor to answer. Now, first of all, as regards the National feeling, all parties must surely recognise by this time that it cannot be stamped out. Having outlived persecution and the sword, it is not to be wiped out by any parliamentary methods. Why should anyone seek to destroy it 1 Why should it not be used for the highest and noblest of purposes ? If he were vested with responsibilities and charged with the duty of dealing with Iri-h affairs, Mr Russell outlined the course he would take : ' I should frankly and openly confer with the leaders of the Irish people I should tell them, what indeed they already know, that in the present temper of the British public their demand for an Irish Legislature, be it a just or an unjust demand, was impossible of realiHation. I should a^k them, not indeed to relinquish it, because that would be to insult them, to set aside for the tirae being, and without prejudice, in oider that they might co-operate in neouring great and clamant reforms for the Irish people. In spite of the prejudice against programmes, I should say to tha Irish leaders' : ' Here are questions which everyone agrees must sooner or later be taken up and dealt with — (a) the land, (b) higher education, (c) Dublin Castle, (d) private bill procedure, (c) licensing reform, aud tue government of Ireland, with due regard to the ideas and wishes of the Irish people.' I should promise frank and hearty oqperation in Fecuring these ends. When these great reforms had been achieved it would be time enough to raise afresh the National issue. My contention would be thac with these reforms accomplished tho d.mand for Home Rule would have lost much, if not the whole, of its force. The argument from neglect and grievance would be wholly gone. But in any case Home Rule would then hive lost almost all its terrors, and the question would bp dealt with on its merits. There would have been called into existence something like A Hoi-ogeneous P, ople.' T'ne member for South Tyrone would solve the euuoati. n quesf'on by the endowment ot a college under C.ituc'io control In the re form Of Dublin Castle he would abolish the office of Lrrd Lieutenant, and bave a member of the lloyul Family resident in Ire land instead, with an liibL Secretary ot State, haviiig a stai iv tub

Cabinet, as supreme governor of the oountry ; and he would clear the public offices of the ascendancy faction. He would relegate Irish Private Bills to Dublin, and establish a new licensing authority to control the drink traffic. He adis that a handful of broken and bankrupt landlords should not be allowed to stand in the way of England's reconciliation with 'l Ireland. As to the recep^on by the Irish Party of his pro- J gramme Mr Euasell is oonfi dent ' There cannot,' he says, 'be a doubt they they would loyally co-operate with any party in Parliament to achieve these and similar results. The settlement need not be a party settlement. The whole question, in my opinion, is one for frank conference and discussion. It may be ignored to the definite loss of Ireland and the still greater detriment of England. But although English statesmen may choose to blunder on, Irelan I and the Irish people will remain true to their country and their country's needs.' He defines his own position with clear words. He is a Liberal, as in 1886, minus Home Rule. He is a convinced Unionist minus the evil that shelters behind the flag of the Union. The conclusion of his very eloquent commentary on current politics reads thus :— ' So far as the House of Commons is concerned I must plough my own furrow, fiut it is not a lonely one Light is breaking in the North of Ireland. The hard, dry earth is cracking and breaking up even there. A new spirit is abroad. Men are everywhere beginning to realise that Irish landlordism has used them for its own purposes. The revolt is in progress, and we shall see, I am persuaded, in the not distant future a genuinely United Ireland for sane and sober objects. A man can well afford to face hatred, Bcoffing, and abuse, to live down calumny and misrepresentation for such a consummation.'