Home rule through federal devolution/Introduction
INTRODUCTION
BY common consent the problem of Irish Government is at once the most urgent and the most complex of all the dilemmas which face the statesmen of Britain. Englishmen are at last convinced that it cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by any generalisation, on a priori principles, or purely British ideas, but must be settled by Irish ideas, in accordance with Irish traditions, and especially by an intimate grasp of the facts and realities of Ireland. I venture to ask consideration for a mature and weighty study of the facts of Ireland to-day by an Irish thinker, of business experience, independent of party, faction, or religious prejudice.
The writer of the following essay, Frederic William Pim, of Dublin, has been engaged in mercantile and manufacturing business in Dublin for more than half a century. He is a director, and was for twenty years, from 1896 to 1916, the Chairman of the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Company. He has published his views on Private Bill Legislation, and other questions of administration, and his work on The Railways and the State, 1912, is a masterly treatment of the question now so urgent. He is therefore familiar with the political and economical circumstances, historical and practical, of Ireland.
Mr. Pim is not personally known to me, except by a correspondence on Irish affairs, containing comments from time to time on the current events of the day, which I have valued for the information they conveyed on a subject in which I have taken a life-long, deep, and constant interest. I have no connection with him, his family, or his friends. Though of pure Irish race on my mother's side, I have never been in Ireland, and for a hundred years we have had no relations with that country. For fifty-two years, at least, I have been a keen supporter of Irish nationality, and in 1867, in my rooms in Lincoln's Inn, was signed the Petition presented to Parliament by John Bright, and at the same time was formed an "Irish Society" to urge reform on the basis of (1) abolition of the Irish Established Church; (2) settlement of the land question by giving cultivators proprietary rights; (3) primary gratuitous education; (4) grants to develop the resources of Ireland. In 1886 I was Gladstonian candidate for Parliament; and in many writings, and especially in my Autobiography, I have stated facts which show that the whole of my political life has been largely devoted to Irish problems. I have been in association with the leaders of Irish reforms, both Irish and British, including Gladstone, Parnell, Morley, Dillon, O'Brien, and Redmond. I am still a believer in Irish nationality as I am a believer in English, Scottish, and Welsh nationality. In this behalf I ask British politicians to consider Mr. Pim's facts, warnings, and proposals.
Mr. Pim's study was written before the appearance of the remarkable series of letters in The Times, and of the elaborate scheme proposed by that journal. As I understand him, he agrees with its general ideas, at least as a temporary expedient, but would differ from it in important details. For myself, I wish to say, that as an Englishman, with no intimate knowledge of Irish psychology, I do not pretend to express any opinion of my own, either on the views of Mr. Pim, or those of The Times; much less would I venture on putting forth any scheme, or even, in this tangled crisis, any suggestions of my own. Like so many Englishmen who have long held on to the principle of Irish nationality, I see how this infinitely complex problem has now drifted far away from the ideas of the Home Rulers of thirty and forty years ago. Reasonable Englishmen of all parties are now ready to accept any settlement of Irish problems that will not involve civil war, or abandoning the island to chaos and our enemies. Short of that, we are willing to adopt any kind of national government in which Ireland as a whole can be got to live and work in peace.
The restoration of peace and order in Ireland is now a matter for Irishmen to settle amongst themselves. It is an Irish problem to solve—not a British non possumus at all. It is untrue and unfair for foreign critics and Irish eloquence to accuse Britain of refusing Irish demands. We are only anxious to know what Ireland wants. Who speaks for Ireland? What does Ireland demand? It is farcical for Valera and his crowd to shout, "We are Ireland!" The good sense of Britons recognises that Ireland is one—must be one—can only live as one nation. Now there are at least three elements in Ireland, each claiming that they will not submit to be controlled by either of the others: Nationalists, Sinn Feiners, Ulster. However much these three may differ in numbers and in local grouping, they are not so widely unequal in wealth, organisation, and effective resources. There are these three, but all are sub-divided and there are several minor parties and interests. It is agreed by all that the Empire shall not force any one of these Irish elements to submit itself to any other. All we ask is—Where is the real Ireland? What does the real Ireland require for its prosperity and peace?
Until the real Ireland shows itself as an integral nation, and can put its national aspirations into definite and practicable form, it is a malicious sophism to cry, Why does not the British Government find a settlement? What settlement do these critics propose? What settlement has even a chance of producing agreement? The case is this. The various races, interests, religions in Ireland obstinately, violently, and with passion refuse to coalesce in any settled constitution. It is agreed that the force of the Empire shall not be used to make them coalesce. To charge us with refusing to satisfy Irishmen is calling upon British statesmen to square the circle, to make the camel pass through the eye of the needle.
All that British statesmanship can do is to take the advice of Irishmen of business and administrative experience, who stand aloof from politics, parties, and churches, men of high character and of tried patriotism. Irishmen whom we never hear of in the parliamentary world have shown conspicuous genius in practical organisation. They are the men to whom we should listen. They know their country and their fellow citizens as no Briton can. It is one of these men whose words I ask Englishmen to mark, learn, and inwardly digest.