EARL GREY ON IRELAND.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVI, Issue 27, 26 October 1888, Page 11

EARL GREY ON IRELAND.

THE Home Rule question is still the aTI-absorbiog topic of the day. Other matters may and do occasionally crop up, but ever and again this great question forces itself to the front. Do what they will, the Conservatives cannot ignore it. They lampoon it, they sneer at it they misrepresent it and the motives of the men who uphold it, but do and say what they will, the question still remains and must be considered.

Amongst the many undoubtedly able letters and pamphlets written agaiDst it is that of Earl Grey, X.0.8., a veteran statesman and politician. In his preliminary observations he looks upon the Home Rule question as dead and buried, owing to the defeat of the Bill brought in by Mr. Gladstone, as well as the subsequent defeat at the hustings, forgetting that Emancipation was defeated time after time both in the House and at the hustings, yet Emancipation Was granted. The great reforms won through perseverance furnish

as with sufficient precedents for hoping that a Home Bale BUI of a more comprehensive character than that proposed by Mr. Gladstone will ere loDg be carried by very large majorities. Earl Grey unlike other Tories, does not deny that Ireland is and has been misgoverned. There is nothing except his blame of Mr. Gladstone's measures that he repeats with so much iteration as the two facts that Ireland suffers from inefficient legislation, and incapable administration. Further on I shall quote bis own words on these matters ;in the meantime I will take bis views a 9 they occur seriatim, and show how hollow or insincere they are. — As the noble Earl, however, has couched his arguments in language of studied courtesy altogether out of proportion to the monstrous plan he proposes as a substitute for Home Rule, I shall deal with them in as lucid and generous a spirit as I can. Passing over the " preliminary observations," in which he explains his reason fon believing that there is " something further to be said " against Home Rule, although " very decided measures are necessary for the purpose of correcting the evils by which Ireland is afflicted." 1 come to the second chapter which deals from the Union to 1868. Here he is filled with regrets for the mistake! of the past, which he admits are numerous and serious. In the first place he considers Catholic Emancipation and the endowment of the Catholic priesthood should be granted immediately on the passing of the Union. Pitt's resignation he justifies after George the Third's refusal to concede Emancipation, but what he caanot justify is his acceptance of office in the Addington Ministry withont a pledge of carrying this measure through. With regard to these points I prefer to believe his Lordship ignorant of the true facts rather than charge him with wilful suppression of the truth. The real facts are that Pitt promised Emancipation in order to enable him to carry the Union. How far that promise assisted him in his scheme is now beside the question. I do not think, however, that it materially assisted bim. At any rate, Pitt was insincere, and like the duelist who fired, not to injure bis opponent, but to save his honour, be brought forward his Emancipation Bill and carried it through. This was vetoed, aod Pitt resigned, not on account of the failure to relieve the Catholics of lieland, but on account of foreign complications and defeats. To the failure ot this measure Earl Grej attributes all the subsequent misfortunes of the country. He tells as : —

" The controversy which raged on this subject up to the year 1829, and its effects in embittering animosities between Roman Catholics and Protestants, must be regarded as one of the chief causes of Ireland having failed to attain to a condition of internal tranquility and prosperity. The prolonged struggle on the question of Roman Oathelic emancipation was in various ways an obstacle to the improvement of the country ; the natural discontent of the Roman Catholics, with its necessary consequence of continued political agitation, greatly discouraged all kinds of industrial enterprise." He further quotas Sir B. Peel on the pernicious effects of the constantly recurring divisions among the various officers of the Government on the question. Here, however, we will take exception to the statement that it was the agitation for Catholic emancipation which discouraged industry. Rather was it ihe Union that did so, The nobility, the gentry, the great manufacturers and merchants fled to London. There was no money left. Ireland's debt of about eleven million pounds was consolidated with ihe English debt and the consequence was that Ireland had to pay the interest of England's National Debt ; and thus at a time when the wealthy cUsses were withdrawn the agricultural and artisan classes were saddled with enormous imposts which they were unable to bear. These imposts, while relieving the English manufacturers of their share, fell heavily on the Irish, crippliDg all her poor industries which started during the 18 years she had a free seaa<«. Furthermore it is a notable face that the gloom and depression occasioned through the neglect of an alien parliament which did nothing for Ireland but pass Coercion Acte, an absentee aristocracy, and an unjustly increased taxation fell if possible more heavily on the Protestants than on the Catholics. Further on we are told. " When the struggle was brought to an end by the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill in 1829, the long delay of this Actof justioe and the manner in which it was carried, pievented it fiom producing the good it ought to have done. Its effect would have been very different had it been carried four years earlier, when the House of Commons passed by a small majority a Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which was lost in the House of Lords." Exactly so ; the sooner the better, so too of Home Rule. After the struggle is over people will wonder why it was delayed so long. It is rcarcely necessary for ub to follow the noble Earl in his reminiscences of the Emancipation conflict, as it is a matter of supreme indifference now whether Peel was right or wrong in continuing to lead a Ministry opposed to it when he knew it must soon be carried. His Lordship's anxiety however is not for any inconvenience caused to the Catholics, but because it taught them " the efficacy of intimidation in winning concessions from the Imperial Parliament." After entering minutely into the pros and cons of this delay, he comes to the conclusion that Sir R, Peel's action in 1825 was to prevent a disruption of his party which was supported by the no- Popery parties in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Meditating on this, he gives a graphic picture of the manner in which Ireland fared under the Union. I have seldom read an abler plea for Home Rule :

" I am convinced that the chief cause of the many evils under which Ireland is now suffering is to be found in the sinister influence exercised by the desire of different political parties to promote tfieir omit party interests without sufficient regard for the interest of the public. In the history of Irish administration, both before and since »he Union, there is abundant evidence of the baneful effects this sinister influence has produced. Party spirit, we know, has been the bane of free governments in all ages, and has proved a serious drawback to the many great advantages such governments possess over those »f a different character ; nor does there teem to be anywhere much prospect of its being got rid of. But general as it is, this evil seems, from various causes, to have been even more grievously felt in Ireland than elsewhere. When its union with Great Britain took p. ace, the sociml condition of Ireland was so bad that there was most urgent need, botu