3 by the eloquent expression of his confidence that it would give to his native country 'lasting peace and security for her religion, her laws, her liberty, and her property, an increase of strength, riches, and trade, and the final extinction of national jealousy and animosity.' 3 It is possible that Mr. Gladstone may think little of the authority or opinions of Lord Clare, who is generally held in so great aversion by Irish Patriots,' or at least by that section of Irish Patriots who consider patriotism and insurrection against authority as convertible terms. Among such politicians no term is too harsh for the illustrious statesman who so well defended the Union, and whom Lord Cornwallis described as 'by far the most moderate and right-headed man in the country.' The words which I have quoted, however, and many other passages which I might quote from Lord Clare's speech, bear the stamp alike of sincerity and patriotism, although they may not recommend themselves to any one who is determined to see in the policy of the Union nothing but baseness' and 'cruelty.' But perhaps the most remarkable part of Mr. Gladstone's 'Plain Speaking' is to be found in his historical remark' upon the Parnell Commission. He tells us that he understands that Commission to have been appointed 'for a double, not a triple purpose; it was to examine into the origin of certain forged letters, and into an alleged complicity of Nationalists with crime; but not, so far as Mr. Gladstone knows, to investigate the views of Irishmen on the moral authority of the Act of Union.' And 'yet,' continues Mr. Gladstone, 'I heard questions addressed, in evident good faith, by the Attorney General to Mr. W. O'Brien, which appeared to imply that some grave and special charge would be established against certain Irishmen in particular if it could be shown that they regarded the power wielded in Ireland by England under the Act of Union as an alien and intrusive power; and Mr. Gladstone illustrates his meaning by quoting a question put by Sir R. Webster, 'The only objection that you had to rebellion was that it was hopeless?' to which Mr. O'Brien returned an affirmative answer. It is difficult to overrate the importance of the above passage, and the light which it throws upon Mr. Gladstone's opinions and policy. The words of the Act of Parliament which appointed the Special Commission contain no allusion to forged letters,'' complicity with crime,' or any other particular point of inquiry. They simply recite that 'whereas charges and allegations have been made against certain members of Parliament by the defendants in an action entitled "O'Donnell versus Walter and another," and it is expedient that a special commission should be appointed to inquire into the truth of these charges and allegations,' therefore powers are given to certain special commissioners to pursue such inquiry. The 'forged letters' were only one portion of the evidence produced in support of one part of the charges,' and they are not mentioned in the appointing Act. Speeches of the Earl Clare, p. 101. • Plain Speaking, p. 3. But, so far from the appointment of the Commission having been for a double, not a triple purpose, the complaint again and again urged by Mr. Gladstone and his friends during the debates upon the Bill was that the scope of the proposed inquiry was too large and too vague. On the 1st of August, 1888, Mr. Gladstone thus declared his opinion: 'If,' he said, 'these charges are to be gone into at all, it is only as part of a great mass of evidence involving the whole condition of Ireland and the history of every agrarian crime in that country. The question now proposed to be inquired into involves not only the condition of Ireland during recent years, but the history of agrarian crime and the history of the operations of certain Leagues alleged to be connected with it.'5 Mr. Gladstone further remarked, 'We are involved in the question whether the affairs of the Land League in 1881 and 1882 ought or ought not to be examined into. Well, Sir, if it be the general sense of the House after all that has happened, that there should be an inquiry into the Land League and its proceedings, I, for my part, do not know that I am called upon in any way to make an objection.' After these words, and taking into account the whole tone and character of the debates upon the Special Commission Act, it is a little too late for Mr. Gladstone to seek to impose upon the proceedings of the Commissioners a restriction against the absence of which he and his friends so emphatically protested. One of the main charges against 'certain members of Parliament and others' was that they had joined and aided in the management of a League which, setting itself up above and in defiance of the law, had encouraged illegal and criminal proceedings, and established a reign of terror in Ireland which interfered with the peaceful performance of their contracts by loyal people, introduced a system of 'boycotting' and intimidation contrary to law, and pursued with vengeance, even unto death, those who ventured to disobey its mandates. I give no opinion whatever as to the truth or falsehood of such a charge, but I do say that it is one of the issues which are now being tried, and that it is quite within the power and scope of this inquiry that the Commissioners, without affixing to any man personal complicity with crime, may condemn the Land League and National League as associations incompatible with order and the due observance of law, and may hold those who have directed and supported these associations to be at least indirectly guilty of complicity with the crime which may have followed their establishment. It is apparently to discount any such possible result that Mr. Gladstone seeks to limit the purpose for which the Commission was appointed, and to put forward prominently the 'forged letters,' which, although they naturally prejudiced the cause of those who relied upon them as part of their proof, were really immaterial to the greater part of the case before the Commissioners. It is necessary, however, to direct special attention to Mr. Glad• Hansard, vol. cccxxix. p. 1164. Ibid., pp. 1166-7. stone's allusion and objection to the question of Sir Richard Webster. Mr. Gladstone in this part of his article appears to commit himself to three propositions: 1. That no grave and special charge' would be established against certain Irishmen in particular if it could be shown that they regarded the power wielded in Ireland by England under the Act of Union as an alien and intrusive power.' 2. That Irishmen are justified in regarding the Act of Union 'as being for Ireland an act of force, to which Ireland has no moral but only a prudential obligation to conform.' 3. That, as resistance to immoral laws is not in itself immoral,' Mr. O'Brien or any other Irishman who thinks the Act of Union 'immoral' is within his right in practising resistance—that is, in plain language, rebellion-if only he should not be restrained by its hopelessness. Now, the first observation I desire to make is that Mr. Gladstone places the whole of the question which he is discussing upon an entirely erroneous basis when he speaks of the power wielded in Ireland by England under the Act of Union.' The Act of Union gave to England no power whatever which she did not possess before. The Act of Henry the Eighth declared that monarch to be King of Ireland in right of his being King of England; the inseparable union of the two Crowns was again recognised by an Act of William and Mary; and the fact has never since been questioned by any lawyer, or indeed by any loyal subject of the British Crown. Mr. Gladstone is entirely beside the question when he speaks of the 'power wielded by England' and the rule of England'-' under the Act of Union.' 'The power and rule' of England are the power and rule of the Crown of England, and these do not depend upon the Act of Union, but were exercised long before, and are not to be disputed. It is no use mincing matters upon such a question as this. No doubt the matter does not present itself to Mr. Gladstone in this light, but none the less does it stand thus-that the 'rebellion' which Mr. Gladstone implies (if he does not actually declare) is not 'immoral' unless hopeless,' is a rebellion against the Crown of England, because it is the Crown of England whose power and rule are questioned. It is British Rule' and not the Act of Union,' the condemnation of which is the burden of Nationalist' resolutions. A Parliamentary protest against an objectionable Act of Parliament, or a constitutional effort to obtain its repeal-these are, of course, proceedings of an altogether different character. If Mr. Gladstone's words mean anything at all, they mean much more than this, and go to justify illegalities carried to the verge of rebellion against the authority of the Crown, and to justify them upon the ground that those who perpetrate them disapprove of a particular Act of Parliament, and take upon themselves to condemn the manner in which it was carried some ninety years ago. And, after all, let any impartial and sensible man ask himself this question: What was the Act of Union? From Mr. Gladstone's expressions one would be led to believe that it was something intolerably oppressive to Ireland, destructive to Irish interests, and carried in defiance of the Irish nation. Is there any responsible person who will so describe it? What did it take away from Ireland? I hear at once the indignant reply-'Her national Parliament.' Is that true? The Parliament which was taken away from Ireland was in no sense national. From it were excluded all Catholics. Mr. Gladstone himself speaks of it as having been 'a weak body,' and infused with 'a mass of corruption;' and whether or no it be true that this was owing to English agency,' the fact remains that neither purity, independence, nor nationality was strong in that Irish Parliament which was destroyed by the Act of Union. To call such a body a national Parliament is a mockery of words, and when Mr. Gladstone casually alludes to what might have been the case if the Fitzwilliam episode had ended differently, he is entirely begging the question, ignoring the immense difficulties which would have attended the attempt to reform and purify the Irish Parliament, and forgetting the actual circumstances which had to be considered and taken into account by those who passed the Act of Union. With those who are either led away by the generous feeling which prompts a man to sympathise with anything which poses as patriotism, or who only make themselves imperfectly acquainted with the subject, it is a common belief that the battle of the Act of Union was fought out between patriots on the one side and the janissaries of an oppressive power on the other. Nothing could be a greater error. Patriots no doubt there were who were perfectly honest in their patriotism. But the head and front and strength of the opposition to the Union came from the possessors of borough property, who had in past days found their influence in the Irish Parliament exceedingly valuable, and who fought hard to retain that of which the Union would deprive them. On the other hand, whatever faults may have been committed by the Government in carrying their Act, there is no reason whatever to doubt their entire belief in the words of its preamble, that it would 'promote and secure the essential interests of Great Britain and Ireland, and consolidate the strength, power, and resources of the British Empire.' Mr. Gladstone has more than once called Lord Cornwallis into the witness-box to support his charges against the British Government. Let me follow his example with respect to the statements I have made. On the 1st of July, 1799, Lord Cornwallis writes to Mr. Dundas, There cannot be a stronger argument for the measure than the overgrown Parliamentary power of five or six of our pampered boroughmongers, who are become most formidable to Government by their long possession of the entire patronage of the 98 9 Crown in their respective districts." Again, on the 7th of June, 1800, he writes, "This country could not be saved without the Union, but you must not take it for granted that it will be saved by it; and, on the 14th of December, 'I shall continue to press the adoption of the measure which can alone in my opinion give quiet or security to this country.' And when Mr. Gladstone is pressing his charges of corruption against the British Government, it is well that we should record the opinion of this same unimpeachable witness as to the state of things with which that Government had to deal. In December 1798 Lord Cornwallis writes to Mr. Pitt, That every man in this most corrupt country should consider the important question before us in no other point of view than as it may be likely to promote his own private objects of ambition and avarice, will not surprise you;' 10 in the following May he tells Major-General Ross that the Leaders of the opposition know and eagerly pursue their little dirty interests' in February 1800 he writes, The enemy, to my certain knowledge, offers five thousand pounds ready money for a vote. If we had the means, and were disposed to make such vile use of them, we dare not trust the credit of Government in the hands of such rascals;' 12 and in a previous letter to the Duke of Portland he declared that the proposal of Union provoked the enmity principally of the boroughmongers, lawyers, and persons who from local circumstances thought they should be losers.' 13 If Lord Cornwallis is to be believed, the Irish Parliament was certainly infused with the mass of corruption' which Mr. Gladstone de scribes, but the corruption did not all come from England, and the destruction of such a Parliament can hardly be deemed to have been detrimental to the country. Mr. Gladstone is fond of strong language; he terms the successful suppression of treason and rebellion the triumph of iniquity,' 14 and he claims to have shown the baseness of the Union policy, and the lack of all claim upon the conscience of the Irish as a nation.' 15 But, whatever Mr. Gladstone may say, the Act of Union was passed in the only formal and regular way in which it could have been passed, namely, by the Legislatures of the two countries; and it is simply a monstrous proposition that because, upon evidence confessedly imcomplete, the Nationalist leaders of to-day, supported in their view by Mr. Gladstone and his followers since 1886, declare that the Act was passed by corrupt means and against the sense of the Irish people, not only is the Act itself to be held 'void of moral authority,' but Irishmen are to be justified in regarding the power wielded in Ireland by England as an alien and intrusive power.' Mr. Gladstone cannot escape under the shadow of the words 'power wielded under the Act of Union,' because, in the first place, the "Cornwallis Correspondence, iii. 110. • Ibid. 15 Ibid. p. 12. • Ibid. p. 311. 19 Ibid. p. 52. |