MR. J E. REDMOND'S LETTER.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIV, Issue 45, 4 March 1887, Page 3

MR. J E. REDMOND'S LETT ER.

London, January 7th, 1887. The resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill has led to more immediate results than one could have foreseen. The first and most im. portant of these is the disruption of the Liberal Unionist Party, and the probability of Mr. Chamberlain returning Lo his old allegiance to Mr. Gladstone. The difference between him and his friends and Lord Hartington on every question, including the question of Ireland, was always well marked. Lord Hartington found it very easy and comfortable to support a Conservative Government, but Mr. Chamberlain manifestly could only do so on the understanding that measures of a more or less liberal character would be proposed. The presence ot Lord Randolph Churchill in the Cabinet was a guarantee that this would be done. He is the leader of the new school of thought which it delights him to call the " Tory Democracy." He cordially detests what he contemptuously terms " the old gang," meaning, thereby, the recognised heads of the Conservative Party, and he openly repudiates tneir old stereotyped, do-nothing policy. His speeches as Chancellor of the Exchequer were almost Radical in tone and substance, and he sketched a programme of legislation for the new Government which includes every article of the Liberal creed from free education down to " three acres and a cow." So long as he maintained this position, Mr. Chamberlain was perfectly easy in his mind ; but his resignation of office has entirely changed the situation. It is no longer a " Tory Democracy " Government, led by Lord Randolph, but an old-fashioned true blue Tory Government, led by the " old gang," and reinforced by the most reactionary politician in England, in the person of Mr. Goschen, whom Mr. Chamberlain once likened to the skeleton at an Egyptian feast. The very day after Lord Randolph resigned, Mr. Chamberlain changed his tone and made a speech, in which two things were quite clear. The first was that he could no longer support the Government ; the second was that he was anxiously desirous of reconciliation. The importance of this change no words

can exaggerate. It moans that the Liberal Unionist has at last come to the parting of the roads. They must either return to the leadership of Mr. Gladstone, or they must take their places as Mr. Gosohen has done definitely in the ranks of the Conservative Party. The Whigs will become Tories, the Kadicals will consolidate the ranks of the Liberal Party. Everyone knew that it would come to this, but few believed we would have to wait so short a time before witnessing it. The days of the Salisbury Govern ment are numbered. In one month, or in two, or in three, the crash will come ; another dissolution of Parliament will follow, and then if there be no dissensions in the Radical ranks, no power on earth can prevent the return of Mr. Gladstone to power with a mandate from the constituencies to settle the Irish question on a basis of justice and generosity. At Mr. Chamberlain's own suggestion a conference is about to take place between himself and some of the leading members of Mr § Gladstone's late Government. The object of this conference is to see whether a basis for the immediate re-union of the Liberal Party can. not be laid down. If one can rely upon the honesty of Mr. Chamberlain's desire for reconciliation, there ought to be no insuperable difficulty in the way. On the question of the Land, and on the question of strictly local self-government, an agreement can easily be arrived at. It is on the question of National self-government that the difference exists. And yet if we examine closely the professions of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain, the differences to a large extent disappear. In the first place Mr. Gladstone does not desire to insist, nor do the Irish people, upon the exact adherence to the details of the late Home Eule Bill. What they do insist ■pon is the concession of the principle that Ireland shall obtain an Irish Legislature with an executive Government proceeding therefrom. This may be taken as the irreducible minimum of the Irish demand. But Mr. Chamberlain has repeated — gone almost the full length of — this demand in his recent utterances. At one time he was enamoured of the idea of National Councils, but he publicly abandoned this scheme as in. adequate in the debate on Mr. Gladstone's Bill. Here is what he said : " The plan of National Councils I, for one, am not likely to put forward again. Ino longer regard it as a solution. I confess — if I may venture with great respect to say so— that I think, after the speech of my right hon. friend — after the fact that, at all events, the most important proportion of one of the great parties of the Btate has been willing to entertain his proposals — it is only a very large proposal which can in the future be accepted as any solution." He has repeatedly declared himself in favour of " the widest possible self-government to Ireland which is consistent with the maintenance of the integrity ot the Empire." In June, 1885, he declared that the duty of England was to " conciliate the national sentiment of Ireland." On June 13, 1885, speaking of self-government for Ireland, he said : " We have in the future to elevate our conception of the meaning of the word. It is not merely a parochial or municipal ; it is not even a provincial question. It is a natiuaal question. We have to recognise and to satisfy the national sentiment, which is in itself a praiseworthy, and a patriotic, and an inspiring feeling, and which, both in Scotland and in Ireland, has led to a demand for a local control ef purely domestic afiairs. And these objects can only be secured, I believe, by some great measure of devolution, by which ■ the Imperial Parliament shall maintain its supremacy, but shall, ■ nevertheless, relegate to subordinate authorities the control and I administration of their local business." It is sheer nonsense to > maintain that any great difference of principle exists between the 1 speaker of these words and Mr. Gladstone. It is merely a difference 3 of detail, and, lam afraid, it has largely been caused by temper and " by personal jealousy. These feelings seem now to have died away, 1 and there is no reason why differences as to detail should not also 1 disappear in the face of free and friendly discussion. All things [ considered, lam inclined to look forward with great hope to the 8 result of the coming conference, and Lord Randolph, by unwittingly 3 making such a conference possible, has done us and our cause an 8 important service. c While the prospects of re-union in the Liberal party in England 8 are improving, the Government in Ireland are getting deeper and £ deeper into the mire. The Plan of Campaign ha 3 been proclaimed c as illegal at the very time when the question of its legality is about h to be tried by a jury in Dublin. The result is that the Proclamation a is regarded as so much waste paper, and the work of the Plan is 1( proceeding. The Government prosecutions are dragging slowly and n painfully along, and are regarded with indifference or derision by y the people. They are certain to end in an acquittal or a disagreement, and before even that result can be obtained the Government d which instituted them will probably be defunct. The new year thus r " opens brightly enough for Ireland, n J. E. Redmond.