So far we have endeavoured to show that the effects of the present and of the past prove that the government of Ireland according to English ideas has been a failure, and that the attempt to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, from Westminster, has also failed, and must fail, owing to the fact that Parliament has not leisure to deal with Irish affairs, has not local knowledge of the local circumstances, and does not respond to the pressure of local opinion or to the sense of local grievances until those grievances find expression in desperate means.
Can we hope to establish a better arrangement? In other words, is Ireland fit to govern herself?
Well, all history points to the fact that civilised people are the best judges of their own needs, and can understand and manage their own business for themselves more efficiently than any outside power can manage those affairs for them. But in Ireland, we have the experience of Local Government since the County Councils were established in 1898. That experiment was set up among people, three-fourths of whom had been denied all share in public administration; and yet the result has been increased efficiency and economy. This can be illustrated in detail by an important pamphlet on the Irish County Councils which has been previously circulated and should be reprinted here. It was written in 1908:—
Self-Government in Being
One of the chief complaints that Ireland makes, and has always made, against government from Westminster is its intolerable extravagance. Previous to the Union of 1801 Irish finance was most creditably managed. Before 1798 there had been practically no National Debt, and strict economy, appropriate to the circumstances of a poor country, was observed in every department of public expenditure. But ever since the Union reckless charges, possibly not
inappropriate to the infinitely greater resources of the island of Great Britain, have been flung on the country, with such ruinous effect, that most Irish industries have been destroyed and a large proportion of the population driven into exile.Establishment of County Councils
Until 1898, when a local council was set up in every county, there had been no opportunity of testing, under modern conditions, the justice of this complaint. Then financial autonomy was granted to each local council; they might be wasteful and extravagant, in accordance with the example which had always been set by Great Britain; or they might return to the natural instincts of the Irish people in favour of careful management of the proceeds of taxation. It is, therefore, of supreme interest to consider, now that eight years have elapsed since the new system was set up, what the course of events as regards expenditure and taxation has been.
Difficulties in the Way of Economy
Since 1839 a cumbrous, unsuitable, and costly imitation of the British Poor Law (set up on the opinion of an Englishman, in direct opposition to the findings of an Irish Commission) had to be maintained. Under Acts to build Labourers' Cottages, a rate ranging up to a shilling (now 1s. 3d.) in the £, and under Railway Guarantees, rates which frequently range up to several shillings, might have to be levied; and in other branches of county expenditure there was great extravagance, so that for many years before 1898 there had been a steady growth in the amount of local charges. Moreover, during the last eight years since they came into being, the new authorities had to cope with circumstances which made economy extremely difficult. Heavy pensions to former officials; and other burdensome initial charges of the new system, had to be paid. During the period, also, a new rate of a penny in the £ was levied for Technical Instruction. In the same period the rural rates in England and Wales had increased on the average by over 1s. in the £.
Rates in Ireland
It will be remembered that the concession of County Government in 1898 was accompanied by a grant from the Treasury to correspond with the Agricultural Rates grant made to Great Britain in 1896. Under this grant a sum
equal to half the rates in the standard years 1898-99, was granted in respect of Agricultural Land, but not on Buildings, to each county. In the following tables the rates are shown from the first year after this allowance was made, and this accounts for the fact that two rates are levied in each county, and for the difference between the two.Only one county (Mayo) shows any considerable rise in the rates levied—1s. 4d. in the £ on Agricultural Land and 2s. 3d. in the £ on other hereditaments—during the eight years. This great rise is due, no doubt, to the fact that in Mayo the rate for 1899-1900 was abnormally low. In eight counties there were small increases from 2d. to 5d. in the £, in three counties there was no change; and in twenty counties there were such considerable reductions that, notwithstanding the large increases in certain counties just mentioned, the average total county rates for the whole country in the eight years show a reduction of 3d. in the £. The attached tables give the rates that were levied each year in every county and in the whole of Ireland, and a column is added which shows the average rate paid over the eight years. By comparing the latter with the first year, the general reduction becomes apparent.
Imperial Taxation
During the same eight years there was an increase of £825,000 in Imperial taxation, or nearly 10 per cent. of the whole amount levied. Thus, in the face of extraordinary difficulties, the portion of the nation's burdens which was entrusted reluctantly to the control of the Irish people is reduced, while that part controlled from Westminster is increased in about the same proportion as had been maintained in every decade since the Union. Not only has this notable reduction in county rates been effected, but a great improvement in efficiency has been secured. The roads have been better kept; greater local interest has been aroused in county institutions; the business part of the work has been better done; and none of the gloomy anticipations with which the new system was and is regarded by the enemies of Ireland has been realised.
Could any better argument be adduced for extending to the Irish people full control over all their national affairs? 3
See file Countyrates1.pdf.
See file Countyrates2.pdf.
These calculations have only been made for the first eight years. Since then Parliament has not only added very greatly to the taxation of Ireland, but has also by legislation thrown many new burdens on the rates. But it can be said with confidence that the Irish local bodies have been as frugal in expenditure as Government allowed them to be. The Act of 1898 establishing these bodies was crammed with safeguards and checks upon the tendency to extravagance which was freely predicted by opponents of Irish liberty. Not one of all these pieces of machinery has ever needed to be brought into play.
Frugality has been the distinctive character of Irish Local Government, just as extravagance has been the special mark of English administration in Ireland.
So far, then, as Ireland has had the chance to show fitness for self-government, she has shown it fully.
It has been established, first, that the grant of autonomy is a general principle of the British Empire; secondly, that the result of denying self-government to Ireland has been disastrous to the prosperity of Ireland and to England's prestige; and, thirdly, that there is every ground for believing that Irishmen will be at least as well able to manage their own affairs as any other people. It remains to examine the special ground upon which those who call themselves Imperialists and Unionists oppose the concession of Home Rule. The first, and main, argument is, that Ireland, if completely separated from Great Britain, will be a danger to the Empire, and that Home Rule would inevitably mean separation. The best answer to this is to define what Home Rule really means.
Mr. Redmond is often (and most unjustly) accused of putting his statement of Ireland's pretensions low in Great Britain, higher in Ireland, and highest in America. Here, then, is his definition of what Home Rule means, published in M'Clure's Magazine for October, 1910, to circulate in the United States while he was on his mission there in quest of the famous dollars:—
Here, then, is ‘what Ireland wants’; ‘Legislative and executive control of all purely Irish affairs, subject to the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament.’
In other words, we want an Irish Parliament, with an Executive responsible to it, created by Act of the Imperial Parliament, and charged with the management of purely Irish affairs (land, education, local government, transit, labour, industries, taxation for local purposes, law and
This is ‘what Ireland wants.’ When she has obtained it, a new era of prosperity and contentment will arise. As happened when Lord Durham's policy was carried out in Canada, men of different races and creeds will join hands to promote the well-being of their common country. Responsibility, thrown for the first time for over a century upon the people, will have the same effect in Ireland as elsewhere.
Trust in the people will effect as startling and dramatic a transformation of feeling and sentiment in Ireland as in South Africa. Those of us who have been struggling in this cause for thirty years are thankful to feel that at last the fighting is practically over, and that all that remains is to settle the exact terms on which the Treaty of Peace is to be drawn up.
More generally, it may be stated that separation could never be agreed to by Great Britain, and, therefore, that it is impossible, except as the result of war, in which England was completely defeated. It cannot be seriously contended that Ireland, possessing neither an army nor a navy under her own control, could defeat England in war. But Englishmen argue that, in the event of a European war, Ireland would be unfriendly, and would offer a welcome to the troops of any foreign country. The simple answer is, that, by everyone's admission, England's safety depends upon her maintaining command of the seas. While she maintains that command, no foreign Power can land a force worth considering in Ireland. If they could invade Ireland they could also invade England,
From another point of view it may be asked what Ireland has to gain by separation. Her main industry is agriculture-which means the exportation of food, and for that England is not merely her nearest, but infinitely her greatest market. All possible economic ties link the two islands together. While we have, in Grattan's phrase, ‘the sea protesting against Union,’ we have also ‘the ocean protesting against separation’
Secondly, it is advanced by some that to establish Home Rule for Ireland is a reactionary proposal. Although self-government for the Trans-Oceanic Dominions is a necessary condition of Empire, we are told that the whole development of the Empire is:—‘Towards federation in Blocks; that the separate position of Newfoundland, is an embarrassment to Canada; and that it would be a reactionary and unwise proceeding to dissolve the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland at the very moment when South Africa and Australia have completed their union of local governments’
I may quote from the Nineteenth Century the answer which I have previously given to this argument:— ‘In so far as this argument means that the relations of England to Ireland must always be essentially different from those of Great Britain to Canada or Australia, it is unanswerable. England might very conceivably let Australia or Canada cut the painter without more than remonstrance; England could never conceivably let Ireland break away unless she herself had been defeated in war. We all recognise the geographical facts which govern the relation. It is at least arguable that Canada and Australia should have a separate military system; but, while Ireland remains subject to the British Crown, the military control of these islands must
What is the Union in South Africa? In the first place, it leaves the local governments existing, vested with very considerable powers for local affairs. The union with Ireland abolished the local legislature and brought Irish affairs under the control of an assembly which had neither time nor temper to consider them on their merits. In so far as it enacted separate beneficial treatment for Ireland, the Act of Union has been a dead letter. Legislation, when directed to industrial questions, has been framed solely in the interests of Great Britain; Ireland has had separate treatment only in the form of repressive enactments, and a desperate attempt to deal with the consequences of land-hunger.
Secondly, the union in the Colonies resulted from a voluntary compact between free States, and the members came together on a basis of equality. I have already quoted Professor Dicey's verdict on the character of the union with Ireland. It was not voluntary. That it does not after a century confer equality of privilege is proved beyond all possibility of argument by a single fact. The system of the Volunteer force was not, and the system of the Territorial Army is not, extended to Ireland. Ireland's position under the Union is that of a conquered country held down by force of arms. In plain language, the union between the federated Governments in Australia and Canada and South Africa is a reality: the union between Great Britain and Ireland is merely a specious name.
Thirdly, those who base an argument against Irish Home Rule upon the Colonial movement towards local union omit to consider what Home Rule means. Neither by Butt, nor by Parnell, nor by Mr. Redmond has a separate control of military affairs, or a separate interest in foreign negotiations, ever been claimed. On the contrary, these claims have been expressly repudiated. The demand for Repeal, which involved the re-establishment of a co-ordinate legislature, was formally abandoned for the offer to accept a subordinate legislature, having full control of Irish affairs.
‘We are told in reply that this cannot safely be done because there is a party in Ireland, and among Irish-Americans, which desires separation. No one denies the existence of such a party; the question is what are its numbers and influence? There are undoubtedly many men in England, there are probably some in Parliament, who would prefer a Republican Government. Yet they do not render the monarchical principle insecure, because the citizens enjoy all the reality of freedom. Under a different system of monarchy it is certain that their numbers would be very much greater. In a self-governed Ireland there would unquestionably be some Separatists; but how likely is it that they would induce the country at large to risk its freedom or its prosperity by going to war with England? For ‘the condition precedent’ of separation is a total destruction of the British Navy.’
Finally, upon this question of what may be called the Military Objections to Home Rule, Englishmen should be asked to consider certain aspects of it which I set out once in an article published by the Daily Mail, entitled ‘England's Broken Arm.’
Englishmen very naturally pay little attention to what an Irish Nationalist may hold as to the true interest and the real glory of England. But an Irish Nationalist can perhaps direct their mind to the opinion and the feeling expressed by a great Englishman.
No man will deny that George Meredith, was a passionate lover of England, greatly jealous for her honour and her security. For her honour no less than for her security, he preached always the ideal of a people braced and
- She, generous, craves your generous dole;
That will not rouse the crack of doom.
It ends the blundering past control,
Simply to give her elbow room.
Her offspring feel they are a race,
To be a nation is their claim;
Yet stronger bound in your embrace
Than when the tie was but a name.
- A nation she, and formed to charm,
With heart for heart and hands all round.
No longer England's broken arm,
Would England know where strength is found.
And strength to-day is England's need;
To-morrow it may be for both
Salvation: heed the portents, heed
The warnings; free the mind from sloth.
I would gladly take these verses as a text from which to argue Home Rule before any audience of Englishmen, whatever their politics; but there is too much in the close packed thought to be fully expounded here. So I leave the question of the ‘blundering control,’ which unhappily is not past, nor will be so long as, under the Union, Tory and Liberal blunder alike, though in opposite directions. I make no attempt to show in detail what is meant by the need for ‘elbow room.’ I take simply the English aspect of the possibilities, what England might gain, what England is sacrificing to—I had better say, caution.
Surely there could not possibly be a more conclusive proof of the unreality of what is called the Union than the
Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen who join the Territorials undertake not merely to defend their own country, but also Ireland; more than that, to hold Ireland against the Irish. If war came to-morrow, the Irish militia would be drafted out of Ireland, English Territorials would be drafted in, and would move among a population, theoretically under identical laws with themselves, yet essentially different in status.
There would, no doubt, be the Irish Yeomanry. Anybody who has read the history of 1798 will know what are the Irish associations of that honourable name. History changes little in Ireland. In 1520 Henry VIII. wrote to the Lord Deputy Surrey: The King's Army in England is the Commons, and the King's Army in Ireland is all such that oppress the Commons.’’
That was literally true in 1798; it is true in its essence to-day.Let me put my meaning in the most explicit way that I can. I personally hold it desirable, both for the individual and for the State, that every young man should learn the use of arms and undergo a period of military discipline, as he does, for instance in Switzerland. For that reason I hold with the idea of a Territorial Army, and were I an Englishman I should wish my sons to join it. But to me, as an Irish Nationalist, the British army means simply the ultimate force upon which British rule in Ireland rests; it exists to prevent Ireland from getting that which every other separate community of white men in the Empire enjoys. And that defines my attitude to the British army, and the attitude of every Irish Nationalist.
Meredith saw this. He saw that you have nominally united to you a population which by common consent produces admirable soldiers, and that under the present system you get no help from that population. The Irishmen whom you induce to take the shilling are not more numerous than the present army of occupation which you require to hold Ireland down, and which in the last resort can be ordered out to enforce, say, the legal decree under which Lord Clanricarde may propose to evict a tenant.
Meredith held that England's true interest lay, not in keeping Ireland disarmed and paralysed, but in having every
Not long after that article was written, Lord Roberts introduced a measure advocating universal military service. It was opposed by Lord Lansdowne amongst other grounds on this:—That if you establish general military service in England you must extend it to Ireland; and that this would endanger the State. No plainer avowal could be made of the fact that Ireland, after one hundred and eleven years of ‘union,’ is still in reality a conquered country, held down by force, whose weakness is held to be England's strength.
To learn to bear arms, to form regiments, is virtue and patriotism for Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Welshmen. It is a crime in Ireland.
Yet consider the record of Irishmen in arms.
The Duke of Wellington said:—
It is already well-known to your lordships that of the troops which our Gracious Sovereign did me the honour to entrust to my command at various periods during the [Peninsular] war—a war undertaken for the express purpose of securing the happy institutions and independence of the country—at least one-half were Roman Catholics. My lords, when I call your recollection to this fact, I am sure all further eulogy is unnecessary. Your lordships are well aware for what length of period, and under what difficult circumstances, they maintained the Empire buoyant upon the flood
There is no need to add to that illustrious testimony. It might be echoed by every general who has led England's armies in the pinch of danger, down to the latest of her wars. Thousands of graves in South Africa bear witness to its abiding truth.
The second line of argument which is commonly pursued is that if you give Home Rule to Ireland the Catholics, being in the majority, will certainly oppress and persecute the Protestants.
Now we know that the free Irish Parliament of Grattan's day consisted exclusively of Protestants—and Protestants then were as small a proportion of the people as to-day. The Irish Catholics were then labouring under far sharper grievances than at the present time; thousands of men were living whose fathers had seen the last of the great confiscations and the breaking of the Treaty of Limerick. Lord Clare said:— The whole power and property of the country has been conferred by successive Monarchs of England upon an English colony, composed of three sets of adventurers who poured into this country at the termination of three successive rebellions. Confiscation is their common title; and from their first settlement they have been hemmed in on every side by the old inhabitants of the island, brooding over their discontents in sullen indignation.’’
Yet, this Irish Protestant Parliament extended political rights to their Catholic fellow-countrymen, and would undoubtedly have admitted them to full political equality. Does that look as if they were afraid of persecution?
Again, for more than a hundred years, the majority of leaders of the Irish people in the struggle for national
Everyone of these Protestants who took his part in the Home Rule struggle must have had many friends and relatives in Ireland of his own religion. Is it for an instant to be supposed that they would have advocated an measure which would lead to the oppression of those bound to them by such ties? But they knew and trusted the people of Ireland. One of them, Alfred Webb, who was bred in the Society of Friends, published, just before his death, in July, 1908, a small pamphlet called, Thoughts in Retirement.
He gave in one sentence of that the historic reason for
It is well to quote some other of the reflections set down in his old age by this Quaker philanthropist, who began his service to Ireland in 1848, fighting the famine, and sixty years later, having retired from Parliament, was still a trusted official of the National organisation.
‘Ireland's great fault is forgetfulness of past wrongs and too great easiness of temper towards those who stand between her and her rights.’
‘If the majority in Ireland knew as well how to boycott as do the minority they would long ago have obtained all they ask.’
‘How can it be feared that a Catholic majority would persecute the Protestant minority in Ireland, when Catholic minorities are anxious to live undisturbed amid Protestant majorities in other parts of the world?’
The views which he entertained were, and are, widely shared by the more intelligent and open-minded Protestants who lived in Ireland. For example, take this letter, written to the Spectator in reply to certain allegations put forward by Miss Richardson, a Quaker lady, who has since republished her statements in pamphlet form without reference to the contradiction given by members of the Society of Friends, writing from local knowledge:—
‘Sir,—My attention has been directed to a letter from Miss Anne W. Richardson, of Moyallah, Co. Down, in your issue of March 18th last, which contained statements as to the state of feeling existing between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the South of Ireland.’
‘Miss Richardson may be an authority as to the state of affairs in the North-East of Ireland, but she has not lived in
‘I must be somewhat egotistical in order to establish my claim to be a competent witness, one who can give reliable evidence on this question. I am a member of the Society of Friends, and have spent my life as a trader at Carrick-on-Suir, Clonmel, &c., in the South-East of Ireland. I have taken an active part in the public life of my neighbourhood. I am a Justice of the Peace for the counties of Tipperary and Waterford, and have been for many years an elected member (and Chairman) of the County Council of Tipperary South and the Urban Council of Carrick-on-Suir and other public bodies. Ninety to ninety-eight per cent. of my constituents are Roman Catholics, and if ‘religious intolerance’ existed I would not have been chosen for these positions. As regards the willingness of Roman Catholics to elect Protestants to public boards, I may add that a Protestant Unionist and a Quaker lady were (the latter for many years) elected guardians of the poor at Carrick-on-Suir. A Quaker Unionist has for many years been vice-chairman of the Board of Guardians at Clonmel, and I could give instances of Roman Catholics, including priests, writing to place Protestants in posts of profit and responsibility when they were suitable for such appointments.’
‘With reference to Miss Richardson's statement about Waterford, the Salvation Army ladies there told me yesterday that they hold their open-air meetings without molestation, sometimes wearing uniform. One or two police are at times present as spectators, and this good order has prevailed for a long time.’
‘The case of the Salvation Army Officer who was injured on Waterford Quay about the year 1900 is an isolated occurrence, and if I remember rightly, tactfulness might have prevented friction. Within my own knowledge, two or more preachers, some in clerical costume, pray and preach at fairs in this district. They are listened to quietly, and are not molested, although they stand in the way of traffic, the country people drive their carts round them. It would be impossible to picture a better and more Christian reception. The fair folk are one hundred to one Roman Catholics.’
‘Three or four Protestants have, within the last few years, taken farms in this district previously occupied by Roman Catholics, and their relations with their Roman Catholic neighbours have been altogether harmonious.’
‘My father and mother and their family lived here through the disturbances in 1848 in William Smith O'Brien's time, and afterwards through the period of the Fenian troubles, but we never had any difficulty with our neighbours or any insult offered to us.’
‘I have, personally, no fear that whatever legislative changes may take place in the arrangements for the government of Ireland there will be anything to prevent Roman Catholics and Protestants from living harmoniously together in the land of their birth.—I am, sir, &c.,’
The Cork Constitution, commenting upon this letter of Mr. Grubb's, makes the following notable admission—notable, as coming from the principal Unionist journal in those parts of Ireland, where Protestants are in a small minority. Quoting Mr. Grubb's view that" whatever legislative changes might take place, there would be nothing to prevent Protestants and Roman Catholics from living harmoniously together it adds (May 2nd, 1911:—
‘Few will be found ready to take serious exception to this statement, for it is not so much religious as political intolerance that is feared by the minority in Ireland.’
What the Cork Constitution means by political intolerance is, that Irish County Councils will elect as public officers persons in sympathy with their own political views. If this be persecution, then political persecution is universally practised in Great Britain.
To illustrate more fully the widespread testimony of Protestants to the tolerance of Catholic Irishmen to-day I give some extracts from a leaflet concerning ‘Protestant Opinion and Home Rule’:—
Here is first a letter addressed to the Guardian of 30th June, 1909, by the Rev. Canon Courtenay Moore, rector of
Your correspondent says:—‘The introduction of local government has placed all power and patronage in hands hostile to the Church. No Protestant doctor, nurse, or other official need apply for any elective appointment.’ This generalisation is too hasty and too sweeping; it would not apply in Ulster, for instance; but even in Roman Catholic provinces it does not always hold. Let me give a few instances.
In this parish alone some time ago the Local Board or Council elected an English lady-nurse, who was also an English Churchwoman, to the chief position in the local Union.
The same authorities elected an engineer, who is a member of the Irish Church, a little later on to the position of District Surveyor.
Another young man, also a member of my congregation, was elected Petty Sessions Clerk, though there was s Roman Catholic candidate in the field.
Furthermore, a few years ago a young man from the North came here and started business as a grocer; he also is a member of the Irish Church. He has done exceedingly well; he is a good and obliging man of business, and, so far from being boycotted, he is doing the best trade in the town in his own line—even the nuns and Christian Brothers patronise him. Let me say a word about myself. I am not a Home Ruler; yet I have, without the slightest solicitation on my own part, been unanimously elected a member of the County Committee of Technical Instruction, of which the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese is Chairman.
The prosperity of Protestant Shopkeepers in Catholic districts can be shown from every town in the South and West.
Once more —On October 11th, 1910, the Rev Canon Fawcett, Rector of Mallow, speaking before the Protestant
‘The Rev. J. M. Robinson, Rector of Ovoca in County Wicklow, in a remarkable little book, Facts from Ireland, which may be heartily recommended to all Englishmen, says:—‘ I believe all that is wanted to make good friends of the North and South is for the representatives of both sides to meet together and know each other better, and this they would do in a Parliament in Dublin. They will never do it in Westminster, for there are too many side issues drawing them apart. There are hot politicians in both parties, but wherever the best men have met, the result up to the present has been friendliness, respect and co-operation. I have no doubt but that the pick of the country would be returned to a Home Rule Parliament.’’
In the recent General Election the Rev. Geo. M'Cutchan, Rector of Kenmare, in Co. Kerry, wrote as follows to Mr. Boland, M.P. for that division:—I have for over thirty years lived in the midst of a population chiefly Roman Catholics, and I have found them kind and obliging neighbours, from whom no sign of persecution has ever been manifested. There is absolutely no reason to distrust them in the future. I believe there is not in Ireland a locality where a Protestant clergyman may more peacefully and securely discharge all his duties than in the County Kerry. The time is close at hand when all Irishmen will be called upon to forget their controversies and live together in peace. I have no doubt that they will loyally respond to the call.
Thus far the testimony of Church of Ireland clergymen has been given. What adds to its weight is that every man who speaks in this sense injures his own interests. Many liberal-minded men have been deterred from entering Orders in the Irish Church because their political views would have made even the humblest advancement difficult for them.
A remarkable correspondence, prolonged over some weeks, in the Methodist Times makes it clear that the same holds good of Free Church divines in Ireland, and evidence will be found in numerous passages throughout that correspondence.
But let us cite the eloquent speech delivered by the Rev. Charles Williams at a meeting of the Irish Association for the Prevention of Intemperance. The Churches work separately in this great cause, and the famous ‘Catch-my-Pal’ movement was started in avowed imitation of the Catholic League of St. Patrick. Yet on occasions all denominations meet, and it was at such an occasion Mr. Williams spoke in the Rotunda at Dublin on February 16th.
‘I have never,’ said the Methodist clergyman, ‘been insulted yet by an Irishman in any part of this country. We hear a lot about toleration up North, but I must say this, when I want toleration I find most of it in the South. A Catholic band paraded the streets of Dublin for two hours, and gathered a crowd of 3,000 people to listen to me, a Methodist minister, and gave me as kindly a reception as if I was one of their own priests. I got a reception that I shall remember as long as I live. A little while ago I said in the North that the men of Dublin are setting an example in toleration and in broadmindedness that all Irishmen, and particularly Northern Irishmen, would do well to copy.’
Mr. John A. Duncan, J.P., Athy, Kildare, writes:—
I live in a part of Ireland where the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics is one in ten, and, lest my name should lead to a mistaken impression, let me say that I represent the fourth generation living and doing business in the town of Athy.
The facts of the recent history of Ireland are against the theory of intolerance on the part of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland. Since Nationalism became a highly organised movement the Nationalists have held the Protestant population of three-quarters of Ireland in the hollow of their hands. They could have quietly squeezed us out, and they always have had a plausible excuse at hand in the bitter and often violent attitude of a section of Protestants and the Press that represents them. But instead of showing resentment, the bulk of the people, and even the much abused priests, have made allowance of Protestant fears, and have freely given even pronounced Unionists among us their support and often their sympathy. They have done more.
They have supported us at the polls in local elections. At the recent Urban Council election here a Methodist local preacher headed the poll, a Church of Ireland Unionist came one behind him, and then followed three Roman Catholic members. There are nine Protestant members of the Rural Board, and several on the County Council. In Carlow, Wicklow, Wexford, Naas, Athlone, Drogheda, Kilkenny, and doubtless other towns Protestants get elected, though in none of these cases would they have even a remote chance if they had to depend on Protestant votes. Furthermore, even in positions of emolument we get an occasional chance, though it is everywhere recognised all the world over that spoils of office go to the majority. Recently we had an English Methodist and the daughter of an Irish Methodist minister employed by the Carlow County Council in good permanent posts, and both did our Church sterling service during their stay. The agricultural instructor of the County Kildare is a Protestant; one of the most efficient local preachers on this circuit is a master in the Knockbeg Roman Catholic College; there is, or was, a Protestant young lady a technical instructress in Athlone. The fact is, Irishmen of all creeds are being drawn closer together and the old suspicions and jealousies are beginning to die out, and there is
a brighter day before us if we are allowed to work out our own salvation in our own way.
Of course, Protestants of Nationalist views are at no disadvantage, but rather the reverse, as is proved by the many instances in which they have been elected to the Irish Party, and by later instances, such as that of the recently chosen Mayor of Wexford, Mr. Howard Rowe.
Mr. Rowe writes to the Methodist Times:— Allow me to say a word on the matter. In our Wexford Corporation there are only three Protestants out of twenty-four members, and those three are Methodists. By a spontaneous, unanimous and unsolicited vote I have been elected Mayor of Wexford, which is in itself an instance of kindly toleration.’’
After asserting that the Land Purchase Act was due not to Unionist policy, but rather to constant exertions of the Irish Party, Mr. Rowe continued:—I boldly declare that every good and useful measure passed during the last thirty years by the British Parliament for Ireland is due to the Irish Nationalists, and not to the Irish Unionists. No men worked harder to obtain relief from excessive taxation than the Nationalists, while Unionists stood by scoffing, and we would have heard nothing about deliverance from unjust landlordism or about the Labourers Acts, or the Working Class Dwellings Acts, or the Town Tenants Acts, or even the light railways or the Congested Districts Board, were it not for the action of the Irish National Parliamentary Party.’’
‘On January 7th in the Rotunda at Dublin, Dr. Butler, a very learned Carmelite, lectured upon the history of the proposal that Irish Catholic bishops should be appointed subject to the veto of the British Government. Emancipation was offered as a bribe for acceptance; but three times the proposal was defeated, and on the first two occasions the Catholic laity of Ireland were led by the Protestant Burke. In its final form, it had behind it in Ireland ten Catholic Irish Bishops, three Archbishops, innumerable priests.’ It was accepted in a rescript from the Secretary of the Propaganda; Cardinal Gonsalvi, Secretary of State
Irish priests have always prided themselves on the attachment of their people; they have never prided themselves on their servility. Some of the ablest men in the Irish Roman Church have recognised that Home Rule would limit the temporal influence of the priesthood (as local government has already limited it), and they rejoice that it should be so. That view was put explicitly on December 30th by the Very Rev. Dr. Beecher, a Professor of Maynooth, in a speech at the unveiling of a memorial to Father Casey, of Abbeyfeale, a great leader in the political fight, yet none the less a true shepherd of his people.
Dr. Beecher said:—‘Friends, the constitutional battle has been fought, and, for the most part, won. Only a little while and we shall see the consummation of our hopes, limited, no doubt, as compared with those countries that are nations in the full sense, but sufficient to promote the peace and prosperity, and to satisfy the legitimate craving of a country that has ever yearned for the right to manage its own affairs. And when that day comes what will be the outcome? We often hear it said that it will be the end of the political influence of the priest, and that it will mark the alienation of priests and people. That it will mean in large part the end of the priests' political influence, personally, I have no doubt. And if I know the Irish priests aright, I should say that none will be more willing than they to forego save as citizens much of the influence they wielded in the past.’
Finally, it is alleged that all the industrial interests of the country are controlled by Protestants, and are opposed
In our opinion the time has at length arrived when the question of self-government for Ireland—the fierce battleground of a hundred years' ceaseless strife—can and will be wisely settled with a due regard to the Unity and Integrity of the Empire on the one hand, and to the just desires and aspirations of the Irish people on the other.
Nor can any man exaggerate the importance of that settlement to our country. For nearly a century the question of Home Government has barred with triple steel every door of progress. It has paralysed the energies of the country and diverted the current of national activity into the unfruitful channel of incessant political struggle. But, indeed, it could not fail to do otherwise. For a hundred years the vast body of the Irish people have had neither sympathy with nor confidence in the Executive and Administrative Government of Ireland. That Government has no natural root in the soil of Ireland. Bureaucratic government cannot soar on ampler wing. Forty-two Boards without correlation or connection, and almost without responsibility, control the destinies of Ireland. As Liberals, we prefer the Government of the People. Circumstances and conditions have greatly changed since 1895. The question of Higher Education has been definitely solved and permanently settled. The greater part of the land of Ireland has passed into the hands of the tenants, and the history of landlordism has reached its concluding chapter. Serious crime as a consequence is practically unknown. But most important of all, twelve years' administration by Irish County Councils has proved by its wisdom and integrity and even-handed justice the claims of Irishmen to manage their own internal affairs.
You will remember that Lord Salisbury declared that he would prefer Home Rule for Ireland to the system of Local Government which has since proved so successful. Events have falsified his prophecy, and demonstrate that
The first signatory to this remarkable document was Lord Pirrie, Chairman of Harland & Wolff's, and as such the greatest ‘captain of industry’ in Ireland. Amongst others with him were Sir Hugh Mack, one of the chief linen manufacturers in Belfast, and Mr. Shillington, head of a big spinning mill in Portadown.
Outside of Ulster, it may be noted that the woollen industry, once Ireland's chief resource before English legislation stamped it out, is reviving, and reviving in the hands of staunch Home Rulers. Mr. Smith, at Athlone, who employs hundreds of workmen in a steadily growing business, is a Protestant supporter of the Irish Party; the highly successful woollen mills at Galway are run by Catholic Nationalists, as are also Morrogh's, Mahony's, and O'Brien's mills in Cork, whose output is regaining for Ireland her place in the top of the market.
Finally, it should be observed that among Lord Pirrie's co-signatories was Mr. Edward Archdale, of Castle Archdale, a landlord whose family name has always been associated
Many Protestant farmers are for Home Rule; the Pirrie manifesto was signed by Mr. Joseph Kerr, one of the largest and most progressive farmers in County Down. In the South of Ireland Mr. Robert Gibson, of Limerick, a pioneer of the creamery system, and one of the greatest authorities in the butter industry, supported the Nationalist candidate in eloquent speeches from the platform last December.
It is said again by those who recognise that Protestants would not be in any danger, that all the avenues of public employment would be closed to them in districts where Nationalists prevailed. Here, again, it is well to quote Mr. Alfred Webb:—
If there were not a single Protestant in a position of trust in the government of Ireland it would be less unfair, considering the relative proportion of religions in the country, than was the condition of things in the old days of complete Protestant ascendancy.
Those who announce most loudly their fears of religious intolerance are the people who, when they had the power, excluded the majority of Irishmen from all preferment, and who, in so far as they retain the control of patronage, give a monopoly of it to their own political sect. I reprint here a leaflet dealing with the comparative record of Unionist and Nationalist public bodies in Ireland:—
Mr. Balfour recently gave it as his opinion that ‘The Local Government Act is being used in every county in Ireland where the Nationalist Party have a
Mr. Long repeated the charge, and drew the same conclusion, that it would not be safe or fair to the minority to extend in any way the power already possessed by the majority in Ireland.
Let us examine this contention in the light of facts.
It is quite true that wherever Nationalists are in an electoral majority they return Nationalists to the County and District Councils.
Why not? Do Liberals elect Tariff Reformers to represent their views? Had Unionists been chosen as popular candidates, the fact would undoubtedly have been used as an argument to prove that the Irish Party does not represent the mind of Ireland.
Mr. Balfour's accusation applies with more than equal force to the Irish Unionists. Elections are everywhere in Ireland conducted on political issues: the difference between the parties lies in this, that the Unionists impose a religious test also.
No Catholic in Ireland is to-day elected by a Unionist electorate to a seat in Parliament, on a County Council, or even on a District Council.
That Irish Nationalists have no objection to be represented by a Protestant is sufficiently proved by the fact that the Irish Party of eighty-one comprises nine Protestants. Contrast this with Great Britain, which returns only five Catholics among its 567 members.
In certain cases Nationalist bodies in Ireland have agreed to give to Unionists a larger representation than they could secure at the polls; at Newcastle, in County Down, Nationalists agreed to leave six seats out of twelve, which they could have secured, to the Independent Unionists. At Birr, where Nationalists are eight to one, seven seats out of twenty-one are conceded to Unionists by agreement.
Individual Unionists who have shown good will and capacity are welcomed on public bodies. Thus, Lords Dunraven, Monteagle, and Killanin, Colonels Everard and Hutchinson Poe, have been repeatedly either elected or co-opted
But the real contention of Tory critics is that Nationalists ought to elect Unionists to represent them as a general rule. That they are capably represented, that the Councils do their work economically, is admitted in all reports of the Local Government issued since 1900. Dublin Castle admits the efficiency of the local bodies. So did Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Wyndham.
In 1900, the first report said:—The County and District Councils have, with few exceptions, properly discharged the duties devolving upon them.’’
1903—The general administration of the Local Government Act by County and District Councils continues on the whole to be satisfactory, and the manner in which the several local bodies transact their business calls for no special observation. The collection of the rates has been efficiently carried out. Very great and very creditable improvements have taken place in the care of the sick.’’
Later reports naturally make no general criticism of what is now a well-established system, but the report for 1906 acknowledges, e.g., valuable suggestions made ‘by local bodies as to Rules under the Labourers Act,’ and there is not a word in it to bear out Mr. Balfour's observations.
But the real question is not one of efficiency, for the efficiency, and more specially the economy, are generally admitted. It is this:—Do the minority get fair play?
Wherever Unionists are the majority, they do not.
In Armagh there are 68,000 Protestants, 56,000 Catholics. The County Council has twenty-two Protestants and eight Catholics.
In Tyrone, Catholics are a majority of the population, 82,000 against 68,000; but the electoral districts have been so arranged that Unionists return sixteen as against thirteen Nationalists (one a Protestant). This Council gives to the Unionists two to one majority on its Committees, and out of fifty-two officials employs only five Catholics.
In Antrim, which has the largest Protestant majority (196,000 to 40,000), twenty-six Unionists and three Catholics are returned. Sixty officers out of sixty-five are good Unionists and Protestants.
Down and Derry counties exhibit the same features. Wherever Unionists have a majority on the Council, they give themselves a virtual monopoly of all lucrative employment. Only the meanest posts are conceded to Catholics.
Now take the other side. Sectarian bitterness is admittedly most felt on both sides in Ulster. Consider the case of Monaghan. Catholics are 54,000, and Protestants 19,000. Nationalism shows its strength at the ballot box, as a demonstration of principle, returning twenty-five Catholic Nationalists, and only two Unionists. But how does this body administer? Of seats on Committees appointed, eighty-three are held by Catholics and thirty-six by Protestants. The paid officers are thirty-four Catholics and twenty-three Protestants.
It may be said that the County Council of Monaghan did not choose its officials. All the Counties took over the staff appointed by the old Grand Juries, which was Protestant and Unionist almost to a man, even in the most Catholic counties. That was the example which the local bodies found before them. Everyone of these officials could be dismissed by the Councils, if they choose to display intolerance. They do not. On the contrary, in Monaghan, only the other day a Protestant doctor secured, in competition with Catholics, the valuable headship of the County Asylum.
Everywhere in the Catholic parts of Ireland, Protestants hold a share of the public salaries wholly disproportioned to their numbers. Even at Ballinasloe, where a recent appointment was sharply challenged, Protestants to-day receive £1,003 out of £2,115, spent annually by the Asylum Committee.
We challenge Protestant Ulster to show a single case where a Catholic Nationalist has been elected by a public body controlled by Unionists to a post of over £200 a year.
For a final contrast take two adjacent counties, Cavan and Fermanagh.
In Fermanagh, a Protestant minority has got hold of
In Cavan, 79,000 Catholics and 18,000 Protestants return a Council exclusively Catholic and Nationalist. Yet this Council employs twenty-six Protestants as against thirty Catholics. A Protestant official gets £600 a year; no Catholic more than £300.
Municipal Corporations show the same tendencies. In Belfast, Catholics are a third of the population, but the Corporation pays £51,405 in a year in salaries, of which only £640 goes to Catholics.
In Derry, where Catholics are an actual majority of the population, the Corporation pays £6,663 to Protestant employees, and £169 to Catholics.
Nothing of this unfairness can be found in Dublin. Twenty-three times since 1843 has the Lord Mayor been a Protestant. No Catholic has ever held that office in Belfast. In Dublin, at the present moment, a long list of the best paid positions are held by Unionists; while the North Dublin Union are actually being surcharged by the Local Government for insisting upon pensioning a Protestant Chaplain.
To sum up, it can be confidently asserted—
First, that Nationalist Ireland has set to Unionist Ireland a much needed example of religious and political toleration. Secondly, that wherever Protestants are in a minority, however small, they receive their full proportional share of representation on Committees, and more than their full share of salaries; and that wherever Unionists are in a majority, they use it to exclude the Catholic minority so far as possible from either influence or preferment.>
The truth is, that when Protestants declare they will not get fair play under Home Rule, what they really mean is that they will not get preferential treatment. Up to the present, of the enormous number of posts which
But one indisputable fact proves that Irish Protestant Unionists have no occasion to fear unfair treatment in a self-governed Ireland. In every town of the South and West of Ireland, where Protestants form one in ten to one in fifty of the population, the Protestant shopkeepers are found doing a good business, and often the best business in the place, on Catholic custom. A Methodist Minister quoted to me, with amazement, a case which had come to his notice of a Methodist tradesman in such a town. He had two Roman Catholic Bishops on his books. The fact will surprise nobody who is familiar with Ireland. Priests and nuns are frequently the best customers of Protestant shops.
English readers should ask themselves whether a Nonconformist tradesman would be likely to prosper in a town, 95 per cent. of whose inhabitants belonged to the Church of England, or whether a Church of England shopkeeper would do a good business in a town where Churchmen were only one in fifty.