Mr. Gladstone, indeed, admits that there was a rebellion and there were rebels,' but he goes on to repeat the old and long since exploded fallacy that 'people became rebels under a course of treatment such as allows of no rational interpretation but one, namely that the Government were determined that there should be rebels.' 2 To this conclusion it is impossible that any one should come who has read Lord Camden's letters and endeavoured to judge impartially upon the question. The British Government may not have been always right in its Irish policy, and some of its acts were probably such as a Minister would hardly propose, or a Parliament accept, in the present day. But we are far too apt, when we discuss such questions, to speak and write as if those whose conduct and policy we impugn had the same surrounding circumstances and the same experience as ourselves.

At the time of whic! we write, the effects of the French Revolution had by no means passed away. The seeds of anarchy and of revolutionary sentiment had been sown in every European country, and Ireland had certainly not been exempt from the visitation. Mr. Gladstone's favourite theory we know to be that Lord Fitzwilliam's recall was the cause of all the subsequent troubles in Ireland. The theory will not hold water for a moment. Long before Lord Fitzwilliam's brief viceroyalty, Ireland had been honey-combed with secret societies, which, under different titles and with slightly varying organisations, spread treason right and left, and threatened, if suffered to develop and strengthen themselves without check, to destroy British influence in Ireland, and to inflict a severe blow upon the British Monarchy itself. It may have been and very likely was the case that the rebellion was precipitated by the hope of the rebels that the disappointed Catholics might be induced to assist them; but to assert of the rebellion in 1798, either that it was caused by Lord Fitzwilliam's recall in 1795, or that it was not connected with events which occurred long before that period, is to shut one's eyes to the overwhelming mass of evidence by which the contrary is proved. The rebellion had long been maturing, it was beyond all doubt a cruel and bloody insurrection, and evoked a retaliatory spirit from which sprang those cruelties which Mr. Gladstone parades in his indictment against his country. I do not wish to multiply the counter-quotations with which I might reply. The massacres of Scullabogue and Wexford Bridge are only examples of the spirit by which the rebels were animated, and Lord Cornwallis, whom Mr. Gladstone fairly cites against the excesses of the loyalists, writes at the end of June 1798: The deluded wretches are still wandering about in considerable bodies, and are committing still greater cruelties than they themselves suffer.'

The truth of the matter is that in a rising which was intended, but failed, to take the Government by surprise, which at once assumed the character of a quasi-civil war, and in which the bitterness of

2 Plain Speaking, p. 16.

religious animosity was unfortunately aroused, both sides committed excesses which cannot be too strongly condemned. But, be this as it may, and however the action of Mr. Pitt's Government may now be stigmatised, we must not forget that the result of that action was that French invasion failed, secret societies were broken up, and the rebellion was crushed. I gladly join in the condemnation of cruelty on either side. I gladly recognise the fact that in the days of the rebellion Catholic priests were found (just as Catholic priests who obey the Head of their Church are found to-day) to condemn outrage and exert themselves to moderate and restrain the lawless and evil passions which were abroad. But these creditable instances do not change the main facts of history, and whoever endeavours to regard that history as a judge and not as an advocate, can hardly fail to come to the conclusion that whilst there is much to condemn on both sides, and certainly on the side of individual loyalists who committed cruelties after the rebellion had been suppressed, there is no valid foundation or justification for the attempt to fasten upon the British Government a monopoly of cruelty, and the imputation of having deliberately practised this cruelty as part and parcel of their policy towards Ireland.

The second mistake of which I submit that Mr. Gladstone has been guilty, is in his attempt to make out that the cruelties committed in the suppression of the rebellion had some connection with the policy of the Union, with which they had absolutely nothing whatever to do. In fact, it was entirely unnecessary to have introduced them at all in an article upon 'the Irish Union,' unless it was intended to create a prejudice against the authors of that measure, and to obscure the real issues which have to be considered. It is perfectly true that the British Government may have shared the opinion of Lord Clare, that 'the seditious and treasonable conspiracies which had brought this country to the verge of ruin,' were the natural offspring of the adjustment of 1782,' i. e. of Grattan's Parliament.' But even if the Government believed that the character and condition of the Irish Parliament had fostered the secret societies which brought about the rebellion, it requires a wide stretch of imagination to infer from this circumstance that any cruelties practised in the suppression of that rebellion were part and parcel of a policy which aimed at the peaceful solution of the question. by the union of the Parliaments of the two countries. Yet this is what Mr. Gladstone would apparently have us believe, and it would seem to follow that he considers the Act of Union in itself as a cruelty, inflicted upon Ireland as a punishment for the rebellion. The whole tone and tenor of the debates in both Legislatures show that the exact contrary was the case. The authors and advocates of the measure believed that they were conferring a boon upon Ireland, and Lord Clare concluded his speech on the 10th of February, 1800,

6

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.' 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;'4 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. Glad5 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.

6

6