[Footnote 37: Goldwin Smith, _Three English Statesmen_, p. 274.]

[Footnote 38: _Irish History and Irish Character_, pp. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 39: Ibid., p. 194.]

[Footnote 40: Ibid., p. 142.]

[Footnote 41: _Irish History and Irish Character_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 42: _Irish History and Irish Character_, pp. 139, 140.]

[Footnote 43: Sir George Cornewall Lewis, _Irish Disturbances_, p. 97.]

[Footnote 44: _Irish History and Irish Character_, pp. 153-157.]

[Footnote 45: Ibid., pp. 70, 71]

[Footnote 46: _The Irish Question_, Preface, pp. iii., iv.]

[Footnote 47: _The Irish Question_, pp. 3-5.]

[Footnote 48: Ibid., p. 6.]

[Footnote 49: Ibid., p. 7.]

[Footnote 50: _The Irish Question_, pp. 7-9.]

[Footnote 51: _Irish Question_, p. 10.]

[Footnote 52: _The Irish Question_, pp. 16-18.]

[Footnote 53: Dicey, _England's Case against Home Rule_, p. 128.]

[Footnote 54: Dicey, _England's Case against Home Rule_, pp. 72-74.]

[Footnote 55: Dicey, _England's Case against Home Rule_, pp. 92-94.--The foreigner is De Beaumont.]

[Footnote 56: Dicey, _England's Case against Home Rule_, pp. 151, 152.]

[Footnote 57: Ibid., p. 288.]

[Footnote 58: I hope I am not doing Mr. Lecky an injustice in this statement. I rely on the extract quoted from the _Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland,_ at p. 176 of this volume; but see Introduction, p.

xix.]

[Footnote 59: Irish House of Commons, January 15th, 1800.]

IRELAND'S ALTERNATIVES.

BY LORD THRING.[60]

Ireland is a component member of the most complex political body the world has yet known; any inquiry, then, into the fitness of any particular form of government for that country involves an investigation of the structures of various composite nations, or nations made up of numerous political communities more or less differing from each other.

From the examination of the nature of the common tie, and the circ.u.mstances which caused it to be adopted or imposed on the component peoples, we cannot but derive instruction, and be furnished with materials which will enable us to take a wide view of the question of Home Rule, and a.s.sist us in judging between the various remedies proposed for the cure of Irish disorders.

The nature of the ties which bind, or have bound, the princ.i.p.al composite nations of the world together may be cla.s.sified as--

1. Confederate unions.

2. Federal unions.

3. Imperial unions.

A confederate union may be defined to mean an alliance between the governments of independent States, which agree to appoint a common superior authority having power to make peace and war and to demand contributions of men and money from the confederate States. Such superior authority has no power of enforcing its decrees except through the medium of the governments of the const.i.tuent States; or, in other words, in case of disobedience, by armed force.

A federal union differs from a confederate union in the material fact that the common superior authority, instead of acting on the individual subjects of the const.i.tuent States through the medium of their respective governments, has a power, in respect of all matters within its jurisdiction, of enacting laws and issuing orders which are binding directly on the individual citizens.

The distinguishing characteristics of an imperial union are, that it consists of an aggregate of communities, one of which is dominant, and that the component communities have been brought into a.s.sociation, not by arrangement between themselves, but by colonization, cession, and by other means emanating from the resources or power of the dominant community.

The above-mentioned distinction between a Government having communities only for its subjects, and incapable of enforcing its orders by any other means than war, and a Government acting directly on individuals, must be constantly borne in mind, for in this lies the whole difference between a confederate and federal union; that is to say, between a confederacy which, in the case of the United States, lasted a few short years, and a federal union which, with the same people as subjects, has lasted nearly a century, and has stood the strain of the most terrible war of modern times.

The material features of the Const.i.tution of the United States have been explained in a previous article.[61] All that is necessary to call to mind here is, that the Government of the United States exercises a power of taxation throughout the whole Union by means of its own officers, and enforces its decrees through the medium of its own Courts. A Supreme Court has also been established, which has power to adjudicate on the const.i.tutionality of all laws pa.s.sed by the Legislature of the United States, or of any State, and to decide on all international questions.

Switzerland was till 1848 an example of a confederate union or league of semi-independent States, which, unlike other confederacies, had existed with partial interruptions for centuries. This unusual vitality is attributed by Mill[62] to the circ.u.mstance that the confederate government felt its weakness so strongly that it hardly ever attempted to exercise any real authority. Its present government, finally settled in 1874, but based on fundamental laws pa.s.sed in 1848, is a federal union formed on the pattern of the American Const.i.tution. It consists of a federal a.s.sembly comprising two Chambers--the Upper Chamber composed of forty-four members chosen by the twenty-two cantons, two for each canton; the Lower consisting of 145 members chosen by direct election at the rate of one deputy for every 20,000 persons. The chief executive authority is deputed to a federal council consisting of seven members elected for three years by the federal a.s.sembly, and having at their head a president and vice-president, who are the first magistrates of the republic. There is also a federal tribunal, having similar functions to those of the supreme court of the United States of America, consisting of nine members elected for six years by the federal a.s.sembly.

The Empire of Germany is a federal union, differing from the United States and Switzerland in having an hereditary emperor as its head. It comprises twenty-six States, who have "formed an eternal union for the protection of the realm, and the care of the welfare of the German people."[63] The King of Prussia, under the t.i.tle of German Emperor, represents the empire in all its relations to foreign nations, and has the power of making peace and war, but if the war be more than a defensive war he must have the a.s.sent of the Upper House. The legislative body of the empire consists of two Houses--the Upper, called the Bundesrath, representing the several component States in different proportions according to their relative importance; the lower, the Reichstag, elected by the voters in 397 electoral districts, which are distributed amongst the const.i.tuent States in unequal numbers, regard being had to the population and circ.u.mstances of each State.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire is a federal union, differing alike in its origin and construction from the federal unions above mentioned. In the beginning Austria and Hungary were independent countries--Austria a despotism, Hungary a const.i.tutional monarchy, with ancient laws and customs dating back to the foundation of the kingdom in 895. In the sixteenth century the supreme power in both countries--that is to say, the despotic monarchy in Austria and the const.i.tutional monarchy in Hungary--became vested in the same person; as might have been antic.i.p.ated, the union was not a happy one. If we dip into Heeren's _Political System of Europe_ at intervals selected almost at random, the following notices will be found in relation to Austria and Hungary:--Between 1671 and 1700 "political unity in the Austrian monarchy was to have been enforced especially in the princ.i.p.al country (Hungary), for this was regarded as the sole method of establishing power; the consequence was an almost perpetual revolutionary state of affairs."[64] Again, in the next chapter, commenting on the period between 1740 and 1786: "Hungary, in fact the chief, was treated like a conquered province; subjected to the most oppressive commercial restraints, it was regarded as a colony from which Austria exacted what she could for her own advantage. The injurious consequences of this internal discord are evident." Coming to modern times we find that oppression followed oppression with sickening monotony, and that at last the determination of Austria to stamp out the Const.i.tution in Hungary gave rise to the insurrection of 1849, which Austria suppressed with the a.s.sistance of Russia, and as a penalty declared the Hungarian Const.i.tution to be forfeited, and thereupon Hungary was incorporated with Austria, as Ireland was incorporated with Great Britain in 1800.

Both events were the consequences of unsuccessful rebellions; but the junction which, in the case of Hungary, was enforced by the sword, was in Ireland more smoothly carried into effect by corruption. Hungary, sullen and discontented, waited for Austria's calamity as her opportunity, and it came after the battle of Sadowa. Austria had just emerged from a fearful conflict, and Count Beust[65] felt that unless some resolute effort was made to meet the views of the const.i.tutional party in Hungary, the dismemberment of the empire must be the result.

Now, what was the course he took? Was it a tightening of the bonds between Austria and Hungary? On the contrary, to maintain the unity of the empire he dissolved its union and restored to Hungary its ancient const.i.tutional privileges. Austria and Hungary each had its own Parliament for local purposes. To manage the imperial concerns of peace and war, and the foreign relations, a controlling body, called the Delegations, was established, consisting of 120 members, of whom half represent and are chosen by the Legislature of Austria, and the other half by that of Hungary; the Upper House of each country returning twenty members, and the Lower House forty.[66] Ordinarily the delegates sit and vote in two Chambers, but if they disagree the two branches must meet together and give their final vote without debate, which is binding on the whole empire.[67]

The question arises, What is the magnetic influence which induces communities of men to combine together in federal unions? Undoubtedly it is the feeling of nationality; and what is nationality? Mr. Mill says,[68] "a portion of mankind may be said to const.i.tute a nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others; which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than other people; desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be a government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively." He then proceeds to state that the feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes.

Sometimes it is the ident.i.ty of race and descent; community of language and community of religion greatly contribute to it; geographical limits are one of its causes; but the strongest of all is ident.i.ty of political antecedents: the possession of a national history and consequent community of recollections--collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret--connected with the same incidents in the past.

The only point to be noted further in reference to the foregoing federal unions, is that the same feeling of nationality which, in the United States, Switzerland, and the German Empire, produced a closer legal bond of union, in the case of Austria-Hungary operated to dissolve the amalgamation formed in 1849 of the two States, and to produce a federal union of States in place of a single State.

One conclusion seems to follow irresistibly from any review of the construction of the various States above described: that the stability of a nation bears no relation whatever to the legal compactness or h.o.m.ogeneity of its component parts. Russia and France, the most compact political societies in Europe, do not, to say the least, rest on a firmer basis than Germany and Switzerland, the inhabitants of which are subjected to the obligations of a double nationality. Above all, no European nation, except Great Britain, can for a moment bear comparison with the United States in respect of the devotion of its people to their Const.i.tution.

An imperial union, though resembling somewhat in outward form a federal union, differs altogether from it both in principle and origin. Its essential characteristic is that one community is absolutely dominant while all the others are subordinate. In the case of a federal union independent States have agreed to resign a portion of their powers to a central Government for the sake of securing the common safety. In an imperial union the dominant or imperial State delegates to each const.i.tuent member of the union such a portion of local government as the dominant State considers the subordinate member ent.i.tled to, consistently with the integrity of the empire. The British Empire furnishes the best example of an imperial union now existing in the world. Her Majesty, as common head, is the one link which binds the empire together and connects with each other every const.i.tuent member.

The Indian Empire and certain military dependencies require no further notice in these pages; but a summary of our various forms of colonial government is required to complete our knowledge of the forms of Home Rule possibly applicable to Ireland.

The colonies, in relation to their forms of government, may be cla.s.sified as follows:--

I. Crown colonies, in which laws may be made by the Governor alone, or with the concurrence of a Council nominated by the Crown.

2. Colonies possessing representative inst.i.tutions, but not responsible government, in which the Crown has only a veto on legislation, but the Home Government retains the control of the executive.

3. Colonies possessing representative inst.i.tutions and responsible government, in which the Crown has only a veto on legislation, and the Home Government has no control over any public officer except the Governor.