Over

torchlight procession was held in honour of some men who had been charged under the Defence of the Realm Act; and similar occurrences took place all Nationalist Ireland. It was a matter of common knowledge at the time that many of the officials in the Post Office and other public offices were members of Sinn Fein, and could not be relied on in the event of a rising. But it will never be known how far the members of other Nationalist societies cooperated with the movement; certainly many persons not actually members of Sinn Fein sympathised with it.

It may be asked, How could a man in Mr Birrell's position be so blind to the signs of the times? The answer is that his policy, ever since he became Chief Secretary, has been strictly consistent. He resided in London, only paying occasional visits to Dublin and making a few motor-tours through some parts of Ireland; and he prided himself on being an 'incorrigible optimist' which meant that he shut his eyes to the facts and pretended that all was going well, whatever the reality might be. When he was appointed, matters were quiet; but under his feeble rule, the West soon began to drift into anarchy. Cattle-driving-a form of persecution hitherto unknown-became rampant; by 1909 no less than 335 people were suffering the tortures of boycotting; the agrarian outrages in 1911 amounted to 351. For any one who drew attention to this state of affairs, he had nothing but sneers and gibes; when things were at their worst, he told his English constituents that Ireland was the happiest country in the world. The outbreak of the war brought no change either to the condition of the country, or to his policy. In November 1914 a cattledrive occurred in the King's County-the thirteenth that had taken place in the district within two years. The mob was armed with crowbars; and several policemen, who were endeavouring to protect the cattle, were severely injured. Six men were arrested and convicted, but were immediately released by Lord Aberdeen, acting (one must assume) on the advice of Mr Birrell.

It was not likely that such a man would pay attention to the warnings of loyal citizens as to the progress of disaffection, or would care to investigate matters for himself. He preferred to listen to Mr Redmond and Mr

Dillon, who advised him to do nothing. If he had even made enquiries into the state of feeling in the National University (his own favourite institution, with which, as Mr Redmond has said, his name will be for ever associated) his eyes might have been opened.

There have been certain points of resemblance between nearly all Irish Rebellions. Hatred not only of England but of every sort of government, the love of excitement, class jealousies and personal feuds, the romantic ideas of a few dreamy enthusiasts, who do not know exactly what they want, and the poverty of a much larger number whose one object is gain-these have usually been amongst the causes which have brought rebellion about. But, sooner or later in the course of its development, it has settled down on the one great line of cleavage which marks Irish politics-religion. In every rebellion, too, foreign aid has been looked for, and at the critical moment has failed. So it was in the time of Philip II of Spain, in 1641, and in 1798. But the rebellion which the recent outbreak most closely resembles was Emmet's rising in 1803. This was only natural, as in several points it was an imitation of it, and Emmet is one of the most popular of Nationalist heroes. Portraits of him are amongst the commonest ornaments in cottages, and biographies of him are studied in the schools. In his time the leaders were literary men; a large part of the country was well organised; French aid had been promised, and was expected daily. But, when the French did not come, the delegates from several counties drew back, knowing that a rising without them was hopeless; in the actual outbreak the Dublin men were only supported by a few others from neighbouring counties. They started out to seize the Castle, and perhaps might have succeeded had not some of them stopped on the way to loot the shops. So, too, in 1916, it is evident that a general rising had been planned to take place the moment the Germans should land; the simultaneous risings in Dublin, Galway, Louth and Wexford prove this. That some of the leaders drew back does not show that they had changed their views, but only that they considered the moment inopportune when they saw that their foreign friends were not coming. To flatter oneself with the idea that those who Vol. 226.-No. 448.

S

actually took part in the rebellion had no sympathisers is as insane as it was to believe that a rising was improbable.

The evidence given before the recent Commission has now appeared in the Press. It is instructive, if melancholy reading. No one studying it can fail to observe that most of the statements made by Mr Birrell are practically answered by the other witnesses. Thus he mentions as one cause of the recent disturbances the hatred of the British connexion which has prevailed in Ireland for centuries. But to this Sir M. O'Connell replies that it was not that, but the neglect of all warnings by Mr Birrell and his Government, and their refusal to take steps to stop sedition and disloyalty, which has brought about the present state of things, at any rate in his part of the country. Another cause which Mr Birrell gives for the disaffection is the unexpected prolongation of the war. If that is so, the prospect is alarming. Are we to understand that under Home Rule, Ireland will always be ready to join the enemy in a European war if England is not immediately successful? That was a danger which Pitt fully realised in 1800; but he considered it a strong argument for the Union. Of course Mr Birrell attacks the Ulster movement vehemently, and represents it as one of the principal causes of the present disasters; but other witnesses refer to the weakness shown by the Government in connexion with the Dublin strikes long before that; they point out that the Larkinite conspiracy was not a genuine Labour movement, but was hostile to law and order, and that the action of the Government in releasing Larkin when he was convicted of embezzlement, and sacrificing the police to political clamour, had a disastrous effect on the country. Mr Birrell complains that although he had full reports about Ireland generally, supplied by the Royal Irish Constabulary, he knew little of what was going on in Dublin, which was outside their jurisdiction. But the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police shows that everything of a political character had to be referred to the Chief Secretary's Department, and accurate reports were regularly sent in. Mr Birrell justifies his inactivity by saying that Mr Redmond assured him that the Sinn

Feiners were negligible, and that Mr Dillon also was in favour of non-intervention. Witnesses both from the military and the police complain that their warnings and recommendations were unheeded, as Mr Birrell preferred to be guided by the Nationalist leaders.

The plain truth is that the blame for the lamentable occurrences of Easter Week must rest on the late Government, and, to a limited extent, on the Coalition which took office a year ago. As has already been said in these columns, it was a grave misfortune for the country, as well as for the reputation of the Unionist leaders, that they took office without making conditions, and including in those conditions the firmer government of Ireland, in circumstances which were bound to enhance the dangers already existing in that country. It is an old saying that England's troubles are Ireland's opportunity; but the Government ignored this and other lessons of history. As it laughed at the Ulster Covenant till that bond was on the point of issuing in rebellion, as they laughed at 'the German menace' and derided those who called attention to it until the menace passed into war, so they laughed at the Sinn Feiners till they actually rebelled. The 'Laughing Government' will go down to posterity as the shortest-sighted set of politicians who ever ruled this country. But the chief blame for what has happened must rest upon the person who was immediately responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs, that is, upon Mr Birrell. He cannot, and to do him justice does not, attempt to divest himself of that responsibility by throwing the blame on his colleagues or his superior-though they must share it with him-for, if he had disagreed with their policy, it was always open to him to resign. In his apology to the House of Commons, he confessed that he had been mistaken and misled. We know by whom he was misled; the question is whether he can rightly claim forgiveness for being mistaken. He threw himself on the mercy of the House; and the House, always generous to penitents, accepted his apology; in fact, the leaders who spoke after him were quite in a melting mood. We confess we think they were wrong.

There are errors of judgment, committed, it may be, under the stress of circumstances requiring immediate

decision-like that of Admiral Byng-which no just man would now desire to punish. There are others, involving deliberate neglect of duty, of which no just man, out of an impulse of generosity, ought to acquit a statesman charged with the highest interests of the country. Mr Birrell has trifled with the government of Ireland, and therefore with the interests of the Empire, for nine long years. He pleads that his eyes were not open; but whose fault is that? We are all, no doubt, more or less blind to what is going on about us; but wilful blindnessblindness due to preconceived opinions, which no evidence, either of current events or of past history, is allowed to disprove this, in a statesman, it is hard to condone. In a sterner, less mealy-mouthed and sentimental generation, Mr Birrell's 'mistake' would not have been condoned. The first duty of a Government that is Government is, not only to put down, but also to guard against sedition. Yet sedition not only raised its head in Ireland, as we have shown above, nearly two years ago, but has stalked about the land, open and unashamed, ever since. It grew daily stronger through immunity, till it was encouraged by the inaction of the Government to deal us a stab in the back in the very crisis of our struggle for national existence.

The mischievous consequences of the rebellion, bad enough on the surface, are by no means yet perceived in their full extent. We do not know what they may be. We cannot say what effect they will have on the unity and stability of government in this country, and consequently upon our share in the war. We do know that hundreds of valuable lives have been needlessly sacrificed, and millions of pounds' worth of property destroyed. The one excuse for the policy which the Government has pursued in Ireland during the last two years has been that only by doing nothing could an outbreak be prevented. And now the folly of that cowardly policy has been displayed in the eyes of all the world by the very occurrence which our rulers pretended to avoid. What the enemy thinks of it does not, perhaps, very much matter; but what of our allies and the neutral countries? In the latter, at all events, not only has our capacity for government been gravely discredited, but sympathy for our cause has been seriously diminished.