Page images
PDF
EPUB

decencies of diplomacy must in any case be observed; and it is not to be denied that, technically, Prince Ferdinand has in some degree ignored the letter of the Treaty of Berlin. That he has complied with its spirit, as the Bulgarians likewise have, we entertain no manner of doubt; and the very fact that they have both done so, constitutes for the enemies of Bulgaria the difficulty they seem unable to overcome. Forms and technicalities apart, it is Russia, not Bulgaria nor Prince Ferdinand, that has disregarded the Treaty of Berlin. That instrument certainly did not intend that Bulgaria should be deprived of a Ruler, unless it would consent to accept a Satrap appointed by the Czar. On the contrary, it intended that the Ruler of Bulgaria should be elected by the Bulgarians, approved by the Sultan, and enjoy the confidence of the European Powers.

Strong in this interpretation of the treaty, the Bulgarians elected Prince Ferdinand, against whom, personally, no possible objection can be urged. The Sultan would recognize him tomorrow, if Russia would desist from its opposition, and the assent of the other Powers would immediately follow. Had Prince Ferdinand waited for their assent before going to Sofia, he would never have gone there at all, and no progress would have been made in the solution of the Bulgarian Question. As it is, the Bulgarians have got a Prince with whom apparently they are satisfied, and nothing but the malignant resistance of Russia stands in the way of their choice being endorsed by Europe. With an astonishing cynicism, the Czar has importuned the Sultan to consent to a joint occupation of the Principality by Russia and Turkey. The Porte has judiciously refused to listen to the insidious invitation; and if military action be taken against Bulgaria at all, it will have to be taken by Russia single-handed. Prince Bismarck is once again credited with a willingness to allow Russia to adopt this course. To that allegation we can only once more reply, that if it be true, it only proves that Prince Bismarck wishes to fish in troubled waters, and desires to involve Russia in war, in order to have his own arm more free to deal with the enemies of Germany.

At the same time, while we consider that Prince Ferdinand is entitled to the respect and sympathy of all those who wish well to Bulgaria, and who desire to see the intention of the Treaty of Berlin really carried into execution, we fear that His Highness has undertaken a work it will be extremely difficult for him to bring to a successful conclusion. Bulgaria is mined and countermined by intrigue, and the Prince has to deal with a community divided against itself by a succession of cruel incidents. At the moment at which we write, no Ministry has been formed, and the late

Regents and Ministers appear to be more busily occupied in watching and outmanoeuvring each other than in benefiting their country, or in assisting the Prince of their choice.

All appearances and suggestions to the contrary, the relations of the European Powers to each other have recently undergone no serious modification; nor is it possible that they should do so, until the ties that link Germany and Austria together are snapped or materially weakened. The policy of Prince Bismarck has, among its other objects, the keeping of Russia and France apart; and, for this reason, he is obliged to exhibit an indulgence towards Russia which many people mistake for sympathy, and even for friendship. But, in reality, nothing less than a European War will bring Russia and France into the same camp. We do not say that, in the fulness of time, this will not occur. But, as yet, Russia and France are divided as much by internal antagonism as they are drawn together by external sympathy. The enthusiastic utterances of such Frenchmen as M. Déroulède on the death of Katkoff cannot conceal the fact that between the Absolutism of Russia and the Republicanism of France there yawns an abyss which, as we have said, will be bridged only by the supreme exigencies of a mortal struggle.

Meanwhile, the domestic affairs of France have been progressing more calmly and satisfactorily. The determination of M. Rouvier to accept Conservative support, and the discovery by the French Conservatives that they ought to lend what aid they can to Moderate Republicanism, have, for the moment, considerably strengthened the hands of the Executive. The speeches of M. Rouvier have been marked by extreme good sense and perfect candour; and there can be no doubt that he has made a considerable advance in public estimation. General Boulanger has almost subsided into silence at Clermont Ferraud; and the interest of the nation during the ensuing month will be concentrated on the Mobilization experiment, which, commencing on the 31st of August, will end on the 17th of September. The Army Corps selected for the purpose is the Seventeenth, whose Head-Quarters are at Toulouse. It will be observed that the experiment is tried at as great a distance from the German Frontier as possible. None the less, Prince Bismarck is pretty sure to turn the incident to account, either by discovering the weak points of French military organization, or by adding to the strong ones of the Imperial Army.

August 29th, 1886.

CORRESPONDENCE.

(N.B.- The appearance of a letter in the National Review in no way implies approval of the opinions expressed by the writer. This portion of the Review is reserved for remarks that Correspondents may desire to make upon papers which have been published in the National Review, or for letters upon such other subjects as the Editors may think deserving of discussion.]

The Crimes Bill for Ireland: its Application.

GENTLEMEN,

TO THE EDITORS OF THE

66

NATIONAL REVIEW."

In the July number of the National Review were published, under the heading "The Crimes Bill for Ireland; its Justification," a few observations of mine upon the "Crimes Bill," or, as is its proper title, "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act," showing the necessity for the enactment of the Bill. The Bill has since become law, having received the Royal Assent upon July 19th. I would now desire, with your kind permission, to make a few remarks upon the application of the Act, more especially with reference to the application of the clauses against boycotting, and against the tyrannical interference with the occupations and comforts of the people by the National-alias Parnellite -League. I shall also endeavour to show that by a firm and vigorous application of the powers which have been entrusted to the Irish Government, disorder, disturbance, and tumult will be quelled, the crime of incitement to disloyalty and sedition checked, agitation confined within constitutional limits, and Ireland restored to a state of peace and prosperity to which that unfortunate country has, for many long years, been a stranger.

Lord Henry Grosvenor addressing, on August 3rd, a meeting of the electors of the Northwich Division of Cheshire, said :

"Their great duty" (meaning the duty of the constituency and its representative)" was to protect the Loyalists in Ireland from the cruel tyranny of the National League. . . . My programme is maintenance of the Union and order, the prosperity and well-being of the people, thesafety of the Crown, and the continued unity of the Empire."

This is clearly the task to which the Unionist Government should immediately apply itself, and to fulfil this task the total overthrow of the entire organization of the Parnellite and Irish-American League must be accomplished. It is cruelty to the majority of the people in Ireland, who have been for so long groaning beneath the despotism of the Irish National League, for the Government to show any leniency to the organizers of the "reign of terror" in that country.

One of the first steps that should be taken in the direction of the emancipation of the Irish people from the crushing and tyrannical yoke of the Parnellites is to suppress all attempts and incitements to boycott. This pernicious system (notwithstanding the sanction it has received from so many of the Roman Catholic bishops and priests in Ireland) has been a most terrible curse to the whole country, having promoted crime, as well as having destroyed all freedom of personal action amongst the people; since not only is it a fearful weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous men who are wielding it with such cruelty, but from those violent and criminal steps which it is necessary to take to enforce the rule-whenever, and frequently from trifling causes, it has been decreed against any person who has been condemned by an irresponsible and illegal tribunal as having made himself obnoxious to the League-spring the diabolical crimes of all descriptions that have rendered the Parnellite movement so infamous.

It is evident that crime must dog the footsteps of the League. It could not be otherwise. And why? There is no use in making rules unless there are corresponding penalties attached to the infringement of them, and in the case of the Parnellite association the infringement of the orders to boycott any particular person or family entails running the risk of receiving nocturnal visits from moonlighters (who are the police of the League, and who drag offenders out of bed, fire shots into their legs, beat, or otherwise ill-treat them), and subjects the offenders at all times to be suddenly assaulted, wounded, maimed, and even murdered. And by whom? By the supporters of Mr. Parnell and his associates-men who, supplied with and maintained by foreign gold, are endeavouring to usurp the Government of Ireland, and to separate that country from England. To firmly enforce the law against boycotting would remove the cause of many of the outrages committed in Ireland, and for this purpose should the penalties of the Crimes Act be rigorously applied against boycotters.*

* Although not belonging directly to the administration of the Crimes Act, the following matter is so far connected with the suppression of the agitation in Ireland as to merit some attention, and, indeed, to require a remedy. Authentic instances are known in which tax-collectors, through either favouritism or fear, have abstained from—not merely neglected-collecting the taxes from such tenants as are sympathizers with the National League, although those tenants possessed stock which could and should have been seized. In the event of such tenants being evicted, any incoming

Some of the clauses in the Crimes Act enact that any person may be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction,

"Who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy now punishable by law, to compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation; or to interfere with the administration of the law."

Also any person who shall wrongfully and without legal authority, use violence and intimidation

"To or towards any person or persons with a view to cause any person

or persons either to do any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do;" or "to or towards any person or persons in consequence, either of his or their having done any act which he or they had a legal right to do, or of his or their having abstained from doing any act which he or they had a legal right to abstain from doing." One clause in the Act is of very great importance, the prompt and stringent enforcement of which could not fail to have the effect of emancipating the people from the oppression of their tyrants, since it would deprive the Parnellite movement of its organizers and leaders, for it provides that

"Any person who shall incite any other person to commit any of the offences herein-before mentioned " is also liable to prosecution before a court of summary jurisdiction.

any

Now, it may be asked whether the Crimes Act has, as yet, brought relief to the Irish tenants? Short as the time has been since the Bill became law, there has been a marked decrease in the practice of boycotting. Already, indications are not wanting that, either through fear of breaking the law under the Crimes Act, or on account of faith in the protection that they expect the Act will afford them when engaged in their farming occupations, the farmers are not nearly so shy or terrified about dealing with those persons whom the League has protenants became liable for the arrears. Immediately upon some new tenant (who, from his having taken any one of these farms will have rendered himself obnoxious to the League) taking possession and stocking the land, the tax-collectors threatened to seize in fact, in some cases have actually seized, the new tenant's stock in payment of the arrears of taxes. It is thus in the power of the tax-collectors to wilfully permit the taxes to fall into arrear, and remain a charge upon the land. This deters men from taking vacant farms. And besides, should a landlord venture to place stock upon one of these vacant farms, he also runs the risk of his cattle being seized and sold for the taxes left due by his late tenant. The landlord, thus, having lost his rent, is also liable to lose his stock, and, in addition, there is the loss sustained by the whole country, resulting from the large tracts of land left unoccupied.

« PreviousContinue »