there is grave danger of mistaking the occasion for
the cause of events, and if Mr. Gladstone’s conversion
has determined the form and increased the momentum
of the Home Rule movement, it would be an error to
hold that the prevalence of doctrines unfavourable
to the maintenance of the Union between England and
Ireland were wholly or even in the main due to his
conduct. His conversion itself remains to be
accounted for. This would (except to those critics
who ascribe the most important acts of public statesmanship
to the pettiest forms of private selfishness) remain
almost unaccountable unless it were regarded in the
light, in which it ought no doubt to be looked upon,
of an example of the facility with which a leader guided
by keen sympathy with the real or supposed opinions
or emotions of the moment follows, while apparently
he guides, the phases of public opinion. Candour
moreover compels the admission that, if Mr. Gladstone’s
action has led some politicians to “find salvation”—according
to the miserable cant of the day—in the
adoption of opinions which cannot be dignified with
the name of convictions, many honest men both within
and without the sphere of public life have under the
countenance of a great name been encouraged to avow
publicly sympathies with the demand for Home Rule
which have been slowly matured, and have hitherto scarcely
been acknowledged even in the convert’s own mind.
To any one who perceives that the force of a movement
opposed to the traditions of English statesmanship
must be attributed to some cause beyond the personal
influence of a leader, the idea naturally suggests
itself that the prevalence of conversions to the policy
of Home Rule is due to the power of argument, and
that the English people have been brought to see the
expediency of conceding a legislature to Ireland by
the same methods which induced them to abolish the
policy of Protection. This notion does not correspond
with known facts. Till a recent date hardly an
argument was addressed to the English public in favour
of Home Rule; no great writer or speaker even aimed
at proving to the nation that a reform or innovation
which has been rejected again and again as repeal had
more to recommend it under a new name. Great
changes in our institutions or policy have hitherto
been preceded by lengthy, in general by too lengthy,
discussion. The doctrines of Free Trade were established
by Adam Smith seventy years before the abolition of
the Corn Laws, and Protection was not vanquished till
Cobden and Bright had, by laborious controversy, exposed
its fallacies in every corner of Great Britain.
The reasons in favour of Catholic Emancipation were
stated in their full force by Burke more than forty
years before a Roman Catholic was admitted to Parliament,
and the whole case in favour of the Catholics had
been argued out in the presence of the nation long
before the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill.
No movement ever appealed to keener popular sympathies
than the movement for the abolition of slavery.