who trade upon the ignorance and misery of the excitable masses, and exploit their passions with impunity. The impartial observer must refuse to accept this extravagant and self-interested judgment, and must observe that despite their faults and their failings, their intolerant orthodoxy, their hateful dissensions, their excesses and insufficiencies-and Ireland takes note of all these things— they have behind them and with them the great body of the people. Whether they are or are not "gentlemen " of the British type, whether they are or are not professional politicians, living on their profession, is all beside the real question. The question is, what sort of politics have they given to Ireland in the twenty-five years during which they have controlled her public life?

We must recognise at the outset the exceptional and, indeed, unique difficulty of the situation, the isolation and weakness of Irish Nationalism. On one side they are faced with the all-powerful Celtophobia of England, on the other with a "Garrison" clinging desperately to its privileges. Ulster lies in the abyss of fanaticism; to their right are the renegades preaching their gospel of desertion, on their left the convinced Separatists boasting of the futility of the constitutional battle. The leaders, it must be recognised, have in this situation firmly upheld the principles, the rights, and the flag of Ireland, and have never lowered their policy to the final humiliation, nor accepted servitude. This is, after all, no empty record.

They have been without fear. Have they been without reproach? Consider what they are the representatives of a democracy that is in its birth throes, and not yet socially formed or developed; like it, they are, being Irishmen, excitable and passionate; and they are, like it, more often than not, deficient in that higher culture which carries with it sound judgment and a philosophical view of things. Hence their inclination to let the spirit of hatred and vengeance get the better of the practical and business spirit in the conduct of affairs. They make

it a point of honour to irritate English Celtophobia instead of striving to soften it, and at times it would even seem as though their whole policy were based on and were exhausting itself in vain demonstrations of anti-British feeling. Hatred is not only wrong in itself, but it is sterile. It is a policy that may be left to the extremists. Whoever accepts a seat in Parliament should have a Parliamentary policy. Those who are oath-bound to the constitution would better safeguard their dignity and serve the interests of their country by an attitude of cold reserve.

This offensive ferocity always characterises their relations with the Government. They miss opportunities of rapprochment; when the battle is fought they cannot answer conciliation by conciliation. Parnell gave the example in 1881 when he opposed Gladstone's great Land Bill. Is it not better politics to accept, when one can do so without loss of principle, every conciliatory measure, even though it is inadequate? Intransigeance is but a lazy sophism, which dispenses public men from reflection and responsibility. They have forgotten somewhat that perfection is not to be found here below, and that the real world is made up of compromises and half-satisfactions. Their politics lack realism. Carried away by the ardour of battle, and under the incessant provocation of English Celtophobia and Irish wretchedness, they are guided in their politics by passion ιather than by interest. And yet, when all is said, can we expect from these Irishmen the calm mastery and the philosophical detachment of a Bryce or a Morley ?

The gravest feature of the situation, however, is that they have seen the Irish question as one merely of politics, and that politics means for them only agitation and Home Rule. They seem to have scarcely any conception of

I Mr. William O Brien, in 1902, with Mr. Redmond, initiated the movement of conciliation which, through the Land Conference, resulted in the Land Act of 1903. He has since continued, alone and outside the ranks of the official party, to preach conciliation in answer to conciliation.

the complexity of social life. They have neglected the intellectual, moral and economic progress of the country, and the education of the democracy. In their eyes

England is responsible for every evil. It is from England that every reform must come, and in Irish autonomy alone lies salvation. Under Home Rule everything will prosper, without it nothing can prosper! Perish Ireland so long as the principle of Home Rule survives! And they do not refrain from promising this Home Rule to the country in the near future, next year-who knows?— or, perhaps, even to-morrow . . or from boasting of their oratorical successes, and all in an exaggerated fashion of speech that ill conceals the inadequacy of the results obtained. Thus they flatter the country by tempting it into premature hopes, and into the apathy of a vain expectation. As for themselves, they flutter in the void, and allow themselves to be absorbed by this sterile if not destructive agitation. Agitation is a necessary evil, since England has never yielded except to force, but it is none the less an evil; and they have not repaired it by an attempt at reconstruction. Whenever fruitful

initiative has arisen near them they have shown themselves jealous of it or have set it aside. To work for the economic uplifting of Ireland is to menace the cause of Home Rule.2 To organise agricultural co-operation is useless, and even harmful, until the Land Question has been settled.3 They have made no effort to rally Ulster or the oligarchy to the cause of Home Rule. Absorbed in the Parliamentary struggle, they have not understood that effort from within can and should favour and forward, outside politics, a national regeneration which Parliament itself is incapable of assuring to the country. In short they have reduced Nationalism, as the "Colony" for their part have reduced Unionism, to a negative rather

2 In 1895 Mr. MacCarthy, the anti-Parnellite leader, refused to take part in the Recess Committee organised by Sir Horace Plunkett.

3 The usual argument of the Nationalists against the agricultural societies founded by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.

than a positive policy. Their ideas and achievements have been those of politicians rather than of statesmen. Ill-prepared by education for an extraordinarily difficult task, and badly supported by a changeable and inexperienced public opinion, they have rarely risen to high or long views. Condemned to perpetual opposition, they have never been moulded by the exercise of power, experience of affairs, or the burden of responsibility. In Parliament they are never consulted; and in Ireland even, until quite lately, they were but little checked or criticised. At the present time a change is coming over the Irish spirit; there is an awakening of public opinion. In England a wave of Liberalism is arising which disposes her towards concessions. The new era makes it necessary that this negative policy should become positive, should grow to maturity, and become at once more responsible and more realistic. Otherwise the ineffectiveness of Constitutional Nationalism may well one day provoke, if indeed it has not already begun to provoke, a recrudescence of the extremist and separatist party.

CHAPTER III.-THE NATIONAL AND

ANTI-ENGLISH SPIRIT

BETWEEN the two Irelands, between the conquerors and the conquered, the Anglo-Saxon colony and the Irish democracy, there is not, as might be thought, an indestructible stone-wall, an impenetrable and water-tight partition which cuts off all relations between them. There are no hostilities so violent, but they must be mildened here and there by many centuries of life in common; personal sympathies develop between those who are separated by religion or interest. There is no doubt that in Ulster the two castes, owing to their numerical equality, still live deeply divided lives. Moreover, the political downfall of the Ascendancy and the accession to power of National Ireland have inevitably left some rancour in the heart of the "Anglican" garrison. Still it is not rare to find Unionists given seats on the District and County Councils by Nationalist electors, or to find the names of Protestants on subscription lists for the erection of Catholic churches. Even as between landlords and tenants there are many current anecdotes which show that relations are not always those of enemies under

arms.

The facts can be better understood when it is realised that the psychological differences between individuals of the one class and the other are much less than the surface of things might suggest. Whether they wished it or not, Ireland has made them all her own. She has set her mark on every Irishman, be he Protestant or Catholic, Nationalist or Unionist, willing or unwilling. The students of Trinity College who demonstrate in the