« PreviousContinue »
could have been propounded, and that if the Irish Members had once admitted that the landlords' debts stood on the same footing as all other debts, their position would have been outflanked and the social order of Ireland would have been sacrificed to maintain the disorderly element-the landlords--in power. As to the second point, if Mr. Chamberlain had been present in the House, he would have known that the Irish deliberately helped the Government in the progress of the Land Bill, and rather than lose the measure, abstained from raising any debate on the atrocities of Glenbeigh and Bodyke until it was passed. And lastly, as to the first point, the Parnellites confessedly disliked Mr. Gladstone's measure, but accepted it with Home Rule rather than lose that great concession. They hoped to pay the interest on British credit from the taxes of Ireland now devoted to the army and police. This Bill was much more objectionable to the English than to the Irish.
As to the Land Act of 1886 being "the most liberal and most generous that has ever been offered to the tenants of Ireland by any Parliament,” Lord Salisbury himself defended it on the ground that it was only an extension of the Act of 1881, while Mr. T. W. Russell, in the Times, proclaimed its utter uselessness to the tenant farmers.
Again, Mr. Chamberlain takes the flattering unction to his soul that the Liberal Unionist party alone are to be thanked for the Land Bill of 1887. Here he confuses the real cause with the incidental cause. The Irish party having worked up the steam, the Liberal Unionists supplied the piston-rod. If the Irish party had opposed the Bill, nay, unless the Irish party had pressed it pertinaciously ever since last November, of what use would the Liberal Unionist pressure have been ? There would have been no Liberal Unionist pressure.
There was Liberal Unionist pressure last November. But the real cause of Mr. Chamberlain's bitterness on the subject of this Land Bill is probably to be found in the chill reception given by all parties to his bankruptcy clauses.
A still more chill reception has been given to his land proposals. And not unnaturally. Mr. Chamberlain proposes to “pledge or pawn Ireland's contributions to the national exchequer and the local taxation of Ireland, in order to pay the landlords "a ransom" for their property.
This is quite insufficient, and he does well not to go into further details. But it is sufficient that he proposes to start Ireland as a bankrupt against her will. And then he mildly remarks, “I should like to give to properly constituted local authorities a practical interest in the matter.” We shrewdly suspect that by “properly constituted,” Mr. Chamberlain means constituted of landlords," who of course would not require Mr. Chamberlain to give them a “practical interest” in the old business of collecting 'rents. Matters would be simply as they are, only rent would know no modification through individual mercy. But if he means by “local authorities," real genuine Irish authorities, does he suppose he will ever give them a “practical interest" in carrying out a measure which would ensure their ruin, and which would be enforced on them against their will? They will justly take the first opportunity to repudiate debts which they have not incurred. And the outcome will be chaos.
Then Mr. Chamberlain proposes that the English Parliament should spend large sums of money on public works in Ireland. Thousands of pounds have been voted for the same objects in the past, but somehow such sums are always misspent, because the Irish are not consulted in the spending of them. The money is given to the landlords to administer, and most of it remains in their pockets ; or it is given to the Castle and spent by them in improving landlords' demesnes. As long as the Irish Government is estranged from the people, so long it is impossible that that Government should act in the interest of the people even in the spending of money. Change the Government and then the money will multiply a hund redfold in the spending. Such is the strength of government by the people, and such is the weakness of a Government estranged from the people.
But Mr. Chamberlain's main point-his everrepeated cry--was that if Home Rule was to be conceded at all, a separate Parliament must be given to Ulster. We are loth to believe that Ulster, even if she were unanimous against Home Rule, would be willing to desert the remaining “loyalists” in Ireland and leave them in a minority that would almost render them powerless in the Dublin Parliament. Dr. Kane denies it, and Dr. Kane is the leader of the Ulster Orangemen. But Ulster is not unanimous. So far from being unanimous
against Home Rule, there is a majority of Members returned by Ulster in favour of Home Rule, and the number of voters on either side is as nearly as possible equal. Mr. Chamberlain could not deny this. But he tried to evade it by making a distinction between the Ulster of the plantation and the real Irish Ulster into which the mere Irish” were driven at the time of the plantation. Even in the Ulster of the plantation there is a large number of Home Rulers, but let that pass. This corner of Ulster Mr. Chamberlain calls “political Ulster.” What can he mean by this? Why, that no Irishman can be a politician—that the fact of being Irish disqualifies a man from any political right. This is surely the reductio ad absurdum of Unionism, and can only be paralleled by Lord Salisbury's famous-or rather
infamous-comparison of Irishmen to Hottentots. The qualification for having a voice in the disposition of Ireland's future is to be, according to Mr. Chamberlain, foreign blood. The only part of Ulster to be considered politically is that part which is not native but transplanted, and therefore alien. This argument refutes itself, and along with itself the proposition that Ulster should have a separate Parliament. Mr. Chamberlain must find some more cogent argument. If that be discovered it may be acted upon. The principle of Home Rule is one question, and the formation of districts for its application is quite another, to be considered in accordance with local circumstances. But Mr. Chamberlain has failed to make out any case for giving Ulster a Parliament separate from the rest of Ireland.
DISESTABLISHMENT. At last this question is fairly on the rails of the their tastes and talents. It is only by such a Liberal programme, at least, so far as Wales division of labour that the party will be able to and Scotland are concerned. One of the heaviest get through its work. weights on the spirits of real reformers during
The case for Disestablishment in Wales the last twenty years has been the discourage
was admirably put by Mr. Stuart Rendle, M.P., ment which Liberal leaders have poured on the
who said that, question of Disestablishment.
"In the year 1838 it was stated in the House of The pluck, energy, and determination of
Commons by Mr. Benjamin Hall that three-fourths Wales has overcome the reluctance with which of the revenues of one of the dioceses was ab. party men entertain new ideas. The experience
sorbed by sinecures, absentees, and members of
the family of the bishop. In 1879 a great Church of 1885 has contributed to this result. In order Congress was held at Swansea, at which it was to mitigate opposition, Mr. Gladstone then with- stated by clergymen that five-sixths of the Welsh drew the question of Disestablishment from the
speaking people of Wales were not in the Church,
and Lord Aberdare had said that Wales would programme of the Liberal party, and on doing have lost religion altogether had it not been for so he discovered, what always happens in such Nonconformists—(cheers)—and that the establish
ment had killed the Church in Wales. (Renewed cases, that the exhibition of the white feather,
cheers.) In such circumstances how could anyone while it paralyses friends encourages and
reasonably hope to re-establish the Church in stimulates opponents. The supporters of State Wales ? But it was said that she should have a endowments at once became more active and
place for repentance, and should be allowed time
to re-establish herself in Wales. There were two more unscrupulous as soon as they saw the considerations which he wished to submit to hesitation of the Liberal party.
them in regard to this matter. In the first place It is hard on Mr. Gladstone to have to pre
the vacancy had been filled. It was
to look upon the betrayal of Wales by the Church. pare and carry through a measure of Disestablish- Surely no church in the world had ever betrayed ment. He should now reserve himself for the its trust as the Church in Wales had done. (Hear,
hear.) But there was another and a brighter Irish question, and leave Disestablishment, the
picture by the side of the dismal picture, and Land question, and the Franchise, each of them that bright picture was the redemption of Wales specifically in the hands of a suitable leader who by Nonconformity." would gather round him active supporters. This statement cannot, in the main, be disThis would enable the Liberal party to utilise puted, and it forms a case which must not be all its power, and employ its various members denied. Surely fifty years is long enough to on those points which may be most suited to endure wrongs which are both practical and
the people being deprived of their rights. In carrying out this and all other reforms, let us see to it that no unnecessary suffering is caused, let all deserving cases be considered. But the young and the rich who are now connected with the doomed establishments must be left to take care of themselves. The property of the people must not be devoted to the maintenance of such as are able to work or to those who have ample means of their own. In the discussion of questions involving personal interests, the Government are always placedata disadvantage, as there are numberless advoc ates of personal claims but no one holds a brief for the public. The Welsh and the Scotch M.P.'s should act on the public behalf and see to it that the public are not defrauded.
sentimental. To see the revenues which belong to the people, and which should be applied to their edification, either withdrawn or applied in a manner positively offensive, is an insult and an injury which no people should endure. It is satisfactory that the Liberal party have now taken up the question, but let the people of Wales depend in the future, as they have in the past, upon their own right arm, which alone will get them the victory. So long as men endure oppression, so long will it be forced upon them. Liberal leaders find it more easy to leave abuses untouched than to provide for their removal unless an abundant force is supplied by local action to overcome the resistance of the privileged classes.
As Mr. Gladstone said at the Memorial Hall in London, “ The same men who oppose justice and Home Rule for Ireland, oppose the adjustment of taxation in London.” And the same men will oppose the disestablishment of the church in Wales. Whatever kind of justice we seek, we find opposed to us the universal upholders of privilege. In whatever direction radical zeal may be manifested, we may regard ourselves as part of the same great army opposed to, and opposed by, the men who unscrupulously appropriate to themselves what belongs to the nation.
Wales has won its position by Plans of Campaign. Nothing would have brought her cause to the front but the resistance to the payment of tithes, which has been so strenuously manifested during the last two years. Tithes as at present exacted are robbery, and robbery should be resisted.
It is curious to note that robbery by the parson seems to excite so much more indignation than robbery by the landlord. As a rule the parson does something for his money, while the landlord does nothing whatever. However, we welcome the attacks upon and resistance to robbery in whatever quarter it may appear. The turn of the landlord will come. The battle between justice and privilege will soon rage all along the line.
Of one thing we must be careful, that we are not deceived. In disestablishing the Irish church the public were deprived of nine-tenths of their property. This must not happen in Wales or in Scotland. The property in question belongs to the people. Not a farthing of it can be absorbed in “compensation” or otherwise without
The poor need never want if they only vote straight for the Tory candidate like menor mendi. cants. At a meeting of the guardians at Sevenoaks the other day, the vicar justified a parishioner's claims for poor relief, on the ground that he " was a good Conservative and voted at the last election for Mr. Mills." Truly it is a good thing to find a candid man sometimes,
The Pall Mall Gazette comments thus upon the purchase of Parliament Hill by the Metropolitan Board for £305,000 :-" Consider for a moment what the process is. Land, except in the immediate neighbourhood of towns is now almost unsaleable-witness the articles in the Times on some Northumberland estates. Owing, however, to the exertions of Londoners, land in London is almost unbuyable. Whereupon the said Londoners have as a fine for their said exertions to tax themselves in order to give two individuals a handsome income for life. Under which circumstances it is not perhaps altogether surprising that people should begin wondering whether the appropriation by individuals of unearned increment' is really part of the eternal fitness of things."
" It is no disgrace to go to jail for Ireland.” Such was the reply of the brave young Irish girl when the magistrates at Taghmon, in County Wexford, offered to take bail in place of sending her to prison. It was a right valiant answer, and this little girl will give the watchword to her countrymen in their struggle against the forces of oppression and disorder during the coming winter. We prophesy that she has made a name for herself in the annals of Ireland. What was this child's offence ? She had used intimidating language. A brave Government, indeed, that is afraid of the threats of a child ! Foiled in its attempt to gag press editors, it turns to the more congenial task of gagging children! One of the chief effects of the Crimes Act hitherto has been to enable the Tory Government to keep this girl and a boy of fourteen, together with two young men about twenty, under lock and key for a fortnight. This is resolute Government indeed ; but there is resolution and resolution. In a certain sense the Duke of Alva himself was a
HOME RULE FOR ENGLISHMEN.
MR. GLADSTONE's speech at Nottingham on Tuesday was an admirable indictment of the Government policy in Ireland. We were not surprised that the Tory papers on October 19th could do nothing but groan and sigh over the "progressive deterioration ” of Mr. Gladstone as exhibited in his great speech on the evening before. But in our opinion this “deterioration” has not quite gone far enough. His great point was a distinction between the administration of law in England and in Ireland. We are far from saying that this is not so to a large extent. It is very largely true that in England those who obey the law are in harmonious relations with those who administer the law. There is no difference of race between those who obey and those who administrate, and the centralisation is less. But there is to a large degree a difference of interest, and though the centralisation is less complete, the same evils result from it, in so far as it does exist, as result from centralisation in Ireland or in Russia. !Take for instance London, where the police is centralised in the hands of the Government. Here we have peaceable processions attacked and disorder simply created by the police.
The beginning of the Monday riot" is described as follows in the Standard :
" An attempt was then made to form a procession, and, headed by the red flag, they began to move out of the Square through the immense concourse of people then assembled. A strong force of police was immediately mustered on the pave. ment outside the Square, and an attempt was made by the police to restrict the men within its limits. The head of the procession succeeded at last in getting on the pavement, and had made its way as far as Charing.cross, where there was a complete block of traffic, and the mounted policemen then rode forward and attempted to clear the crowd. In front of the Golden Cross Hotel a panic seemed to seize the crowd, and they pushed in all directions. A woman was knocked down by one of the horses at this spot. An indescribable scene followed. The crowd backed up against the iron palisading in front of the Golden Cross Hotel, and one of the horses of the mounted police came in violent con. tact with the iron palings in front of the hotel, which broke in two pieces, and fell in. A number of people also fell. The police did their utmost to drive the crowd into the Square, and in the mêlée which followed, the black banner carried by one of the processionists was broken."
The clearest point that this evidence brings out, is that the police began the disorder by attempting, without any shadow of legal justification—to keep the crowd within the Square. People on the omnibuses cried shame on the action of the police, which was analogous to that at Mitchelstown, in pushing the reporter through the crowd.
Take again the description of the “riot” Tuesday :
"The procession, whose leaders seemed to have no definite programme, but appeared chiefly anxious, if possible, to dodge the police, then suddenly swerved to the right, and a wild dash was made for a little iron gate that leads into the Bayswater-road. The inspector on duty endeavoured to force the people to leave the Park by one of the principal gates, so that he might gain time to strengthen the force at his command. A constable stationed at the gate closed it for a moment, but quickly opened it again when half a dozen mounted men rode up to it. This manœuvre was quickly effected, but in the meantime the people had thronged to the gate, and when the police rode in a wild scene ensued. Forced back by the horses, and crushed forward by the constantly. increasing numbers in the rear, the crowd became panicstricken, and struck out wildly. The mounted men pushed their way on, and were obliged to use their fists, and, in one or two instances, their staves. After a moment of wild struggling the crowd fell back with a rush, and about a dozen men went down, while others were knocked down by the horses."
Here is another instance of disorder provoked by the guardians of order. What right had the police to insist on the crowd leaving by one gate rather than another? What could be more unwise than to pen a crowd of people into a corner and then to charge them on horseback?
In all these cases we see that the first push was given and the first blow struck by the police themselves, and all the evidence of bystanders goes to prove the same thing. A clergyman who happened to be in Trafalgar Square on the first day states that he saw five policemen attack a single man. One man took either a leg or an arm, and, as the fifth had nothing better to do, he punched him in the back with his knee. The police evidently had instructions to create a riot. Now for this action we do not blame the police themselves, they were doubtless acting under orders and were shamefully over-worked. Nor do we blame the authorities so much as we blame the system which gives them the power. We blame a system which gives power to commit such grave blunders in the streets of London to men who are not controlled by London, and have no sympathy with those sufferings of which the demonstrations in Trafalgar Square and Hyde Park are but the outward and visible sign. Our argument is that these things are
a symptom that the difference between the administration of law in Ireland and England, though existing wherever the administration of the law in England differs also from that of Ireland in the other respect of being controlled by the people themselves instead of being under Government, does not exist where the same conditions prevail. In our provincial towns this latter difference does exist-the police are under control of the municipalities and consequently the other lifference ollows-the police are in harmony
with the people. But in London the police are centralised in the hands of the Government, and the consequence is that the police of London, like the police of Ireland, are out of sympathy with the people. Where the causes are similar, the effects are similar also. Thus Mr. Gladstone's distinction between Ireland and England requires considerable qualification. “ Home Rule” for London is only less necessary than “Home Rule" for Ireland.
And it is not in London alone that Englishmen have no control over their own executive. All through the country districts, whose voice is less heard in our national councils than that of almost any other part of Great Britain, the police are centralised under the control of the Home Secretary, and the administration of justice is almost entirely in the hands of the landlord class. The consequences are that injustices are perpetrated scarcely less gross than those which were detailed by Mr. Gladstone in his speech at Nottingham on Tuesday: The Shrewsbury newspapers recently reported two cases which showed the absolute want of harmony between the law and the people. A landowner had a field in which there was a great quantity of mushrooms. Everyone knows the delight of picking mushrooms in the country, and should like to
know anybudy who asks when he sees mushroom, "To whom does this belong ?” For not asking this question, but proceeding immediately, like all of us, to pick them, a small boy was fired at by a keeper and severely wounded. The case against the keeper was dismissed by the local magistrates ! While another man who was accused of picking these mushrooms was punished with a fine by the same bench! This is only paralleled by another case in which a farmer was fined ios. 6d. for picking some nuts in a wood which adjoined the field he occupied.
Home Rule then is obviously required in the counties, only less than it is required in London and Ireland. Difference of race and religion and want of even a central parliament obviously make the estrangement between the law and the people in Ireland far greater than it is in England. And for this reason, and also because our English country people are more patient and long-suffering than their Irish brethren, we hear far more of the wrongs of Irish peasants than of English. But none the less do they exist, and it is all the more our duty to give voice to them that they are of themselves so voiceless. Mr. Gladstone must not forget England in remembering Mitcheltown. Home Rule should be the object of Englishmen as well as of Irishmen.
THE DAUNTSEY CHARITY. It will be within the recollection of the readers communicating to you the result of my interview of the DEMOCRAT that, during the last session, with the Master and Wardens of the Mercers' Parliament rejected a scheme proposed by the Company, whom I found extremely well-disCharity Commissioners for the reorganisation posed and anxious to arrange a settlement which of the Dauntsey Charity. The objections urged should be satisfactory to all parties and should against the scheme were that out of £120,000 conduce to the permanent benefit of the people only £30,000 were reserved for the Charity, of West Lavington. The points which I have that of this sum the greater part was to be kept chiefly in view are, first, the necessity of employed for a middle class school, and that obtaining from the Mercers' Company a much the parishioners, who had enjoyed a free school more liberal grant for the purposes of the Charity for 340 years, were in future to pay school fees. than was proposed in the rejected scheme; and, After the rejection of the scheme the parishioners secondly, the maintenance of the endowment for were at a loss to know how to act. The Charity the benefit of that class of the population for Commissioners would not move, and no one whom it was originally intended. else could do so. In their difficulty the parties I laid before the Master and Wardens the interested applied to Mr. Chamberlain, who following suggestions, embodying the views has given vigorous attention to the matter, and which I had previously expressly to you and to it now seems likely that a really good scheme the other parties interested in the matter. will be adopted. Mr. Chamberlain has ex- I proposed, first, that the Mercers' Company plained his action and suggestions in the should set aside a capital sum of £60,000, or the following letter. His proposal to establish a annual interest upon it, for the purposes of the Technical School of Agriculture will be of the Charity. I proposed this sum on the assumption greatest value in the locality, and may con- that the present value of the property was tribute largely to bring about that intelligent £120,000, and was not likely to increase for a interest in the cultivation of the soil which is long time to come. I believe, however, that the so urgently needed.
real value is somewhat under this, and it is, Highbury, Moor Green, therefore possible that the Company may object Birmingham,
to surrender so large a sum, which is, as you are
Oct. 21st, 1887. aware, twice the amount arranged for under the MY DEAR SIR,- I have now the pleasure of rejected scheme.