Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 May 1886 — INVOKING AID FOR IRELAND. [ARTICLE]

INVOKING AID FOR IRELAND.

Gladstone Issues a Manifesto to His Mid* lothian Constituents for Home* Buie Indorsement. He Argues His Position Broadly, Claiming the Opposition Embraces Wealth and Social Influence. Mr. Gladstone has issued a manifesto to his Midlothian constituents, in which, after explaining that his age and desire to reserve his strength for the coming contest in Parliament has prevented him from taking part in the Easter recess campaign, he referred to the messages received by him from such capitals as Washington, Boston, and Quebec as proving that the sympathy of the English-speaking race is with the home rule movement. He says that they must not be discouraged if, in the upper ranks of society at home, they hear a variety of discordant notes, and continues: Gentlemen— You have before you a Cabinet determined in its purpose and with an intelligible plan of its own. I see very little else in the political arena either determined or intelligible. I will now proceed to speak of the state of things within and without Parliament and the nature and import of the next great step to be taken for the progress of my measure. I speak now of the home-rule bill and leave the land-purchase bill to stand on the declaration already made, adding only an expression of regret to find that while the sands are running from the hour-glass the Irish landlords have given no indication of a desire to accept the proposal framed in a spirit of the most allowable regard for tlioir apprehensions and interest Ido not underestimate the grave importance of differences of opinion among Liberals. Borne are inclined to rule the whole question against us by authority. They say: “Surely such a number of able, consistent, even extreme Liberals would not have succeeded except in obedience to the imperative dictates of truth and reason.” I will say nothing of the motives which determined us to confront the risk of such a parting. I earnestly recommend a Reference to the lessons which history supplies. It is not tho first time in the history of liberalism that a section of the Liberals under chiefs of distinction and ability have dissented from the general view of the party, to the delight and doubtless the advantage of the Tories. There was an illustrious secession previous to the war with Bonaparte. There was a similar secession when it was proposed to disestablish the Irish Church. But eventually, in both cases, it was proved that in principle the party was right and secession was wrong. Comparing these with the present secession it was impossible not to be struck with a vital difference. In each previous secession the dissentients agreed upon an active, substantial policy. It is not so now. Some are in favor of unlimited coercion ; others of moderated doses, while a few oppose coercion altogether. On the other side, some oppose local government, some would give it to the counties, some to the provinces ; some, again, would give an administrative center with legislative prerogatives, while some propose a legislative center without executive power. Some, indeed, go beyond the proposition of the Government, and actually recommend federation. Some alter the proposals which thev would recommend with every new speech. All this is proof not of the weakness of tho men but of the helplessness of their cause. We have at least the advantage of one voice. The secession, however estimable it may be otherwise, is a perfeot babel on Irish politics. It is admitted on all hands that social order is the first of all political aims To secure this in Ireland the Liberals who are in secession offer a hundred conflicting remedies—or else no remedy at all. These remarks are as applicable to the Tories as they are to the Liberals. The opponents of the Government’s measure make a remarkable omission in their speeches. In each, whether suggestive or critical, they fail to express confidence in the permanent success of their opposition. To live from hand to mouth seems to be the height of their ambition, while they suspect what we all know—that the strife can only end in the concession of home rule. If this is so the real question is not the tritfmph of Irish autonomy, but the length and character of the struggle. Therefore we want to shorten, they to prolong the struggle. We say “Give freelythey, by acts if not words, say “Let us only give what we can no longer withhold.” We say “Give now, while the position of the kingdom iga the affairs of the world is free and strongthey prefer to wait for a period of national difficulty, that we may yield to the Irish demand in terror, as we did in the war of 1778, as wo did to .the demands of the Volunteers in 1782, as we did to Bonaparte in 1793, and as we did in the civil war of 1829. We say: “Act now, when moderation of thought and language rules in Irish counsels, when by the willing concurrence of all sides every arrangement for the reservation of imperial prerogatives can be made complete and absolute." They would postpone till an hour comes when the demands may be larger and means of resistance less. We say: “Dealas with a matter between brothers—a matter of justice and reason.” They renew a tale, alas I too often told, whose prologue is denial with exasperation and resentment; whose epilogue is surrender without conditions and without thanks.