Page images
PDF
EPUB

erection of a monument to the memory

of Irish soldiers who fell fighting under the Union Jack.

There are many thousands of Unionist Roman Catholics in Ireland, and men of weight and position have come forward to point out the dangers of Home Rule. They have excited angry comments from their co-religionists, but have proved that independence of thought and action is not a Protestant monopoly. But the present Ulster movement differs from the Unionist campaign of the South and West, in that it has adopted strictly sectarian lines, and its supporters have bound themselves by a solemn covenant to resist by every means within their power any exercise of authority by a local Government that would, in their opinion, place in jeopardy their civil and religious liberties.

When an intelligent, industrious, and prosperous community adopts, after due deliberation, a solemn covenant, in the face of fair warning that it may mean even armed conflict with the forces of the Crown and great loss of life, there must be in their minds overwhelming reasons for such a resolve, and the reason given by the Ulster Protestants is that while they are at present members of a Protestant United Kingdom in which every man enjoys complete civil and religious equality and liberty, an autonomous Ireland would mean a country practically under the domination of the Roman Catholic Church. I use the term "autonomous" advisedly, for the paper safeguards of the Bill are illusory. Once establish an Irish Parliament and Ministry, and there is an end to practical interference by the present Parliament of the United Kingdom. The power to interfere has been carefuly preserved in the constitutions granted to all the autonomous Colonies, but in every instance where a difference of opinion has presented

itself the Imperial Government has yielded.

In treating of this thorny subject we must distinguish carefully between Catholics and Catholicism. Individually there is nothing to choose between the respectable Irish Roman Catholic and the respectable Irish Protestant, but, taken as separate communities, the one is subject to the political domination of his Church, while the other enjoys a more free atmosphere in which to exercise his judgment.

Then the Roman Catholic is an aggressive Church. We have no right to complain of this-probably all Churches would be aggressive if they could; but having regard to the claim of the Irish priesthood to guide their people politically as well as morally— a claim conceded by the great mass of Irish Roman Catholics-the practice of an aggressive Church might become a social danger to a minority of nonCatholics, against which they would fight if necessary, and against the possibility of which the Protestants of Ulster have now sworn to stand with arms in their hands.

For the confirmation of their appre hension of danger from this source they point to the Ne temere decree, which deliberately overrides the law of the land, and to the Nationalist meetings, nine-tenths of which have always bad as their chairman the parish priest or one of his curates. Much may be said for the presence of the Roman Catholic clergy on these occasions, for they do, on the whole, exercise a salutary control; but it shows a political power against the unrestrained exercise of which the Ulster Protestants are prepared to make a determined stand. There is a large body of Unionists, however, whose antagonism to Home Rule is based not so much upon the sectarian aspect as on the conviction that under a Nationalist Parliament the present discred

itable condition of Irish executive action would become permanent. Since the advent of the present Government the erstwhile forces of law and order have been in abeyance; outrage has been accepted as a legitimate argument; criminals have been released with amazing levity, almost as soon as sentenced and against the opinions of experienced judges, and for those who can obtain the support of one or two Nationalist members the law has no terrors. Wire-pulling has been reduced to a fine art, and so far as the personality can be judged by official acts of those whose duty it is to show an example of firmness and justice, we can only say with Portia of some, not the least important, "God made him, therefore let him pass for a man."

At present the Government of Ireland is not directed from Dublin Castle, but from the headquarters of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. From thence the policy is dictated and all appointments are nominated. The nominees of the society not alone control the Dublin office, but fill the scores, if not hundreds, of the smaller offices created under the Insurance Act. Its acceptance as an approved society has enormously increased its membership, and endowed it with between 100,000l. and 150,000l. per annum, so that at this moment it is the most powerful association in Ireland, controlling the Government on one hand and a great mass of the Irish people on the other.

A society with such a power for good or evil ought to have a clean record, and, as the name is no new one, there are reliable means of inquiry into its antecedents. In the Nineteenth Century of February 1911 I gave extracts from the trial at Pottsville, Pennsylvania, of four members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians before three judges in 1876. The four men

were arraigned for murder, and the prosecuting counsel, in his address on the 4th of May, laid bare the working of this terrible society, which, according to the sworn evidence, received its pass-words from Ireland, the quarterly change of pass-words being conveyed by a member who was a steward on an Atlantic liner. The society had obtained control of every branch of the executive in Schuylkill county, from the Governor to the constable, and criminal methods were supreme. The result of a series of trials was the conviction of twelve members of the order for murder in the first degree, of four for murder in the second degree, of four as accomplices, and of sixteen for conspiracy.

It is a terrible record of the operations of the Ancient Order of Hibernians of that date, and there is no reason to assume that there has been any breach in its continuity; if there has been, the present Ancient Order of Hibernians should be in a position to show when the old society ceased to exist, and when the present order was created with such an ill-omened patronymic. Doubtless the large num、 ber of new members enlisted under the Insurance Act are ignorant of any unlawful incidents standing to the deep discredit of the blood-stained name, but if the continuity of the society is established there are ample grounds for the dismay with which those who know its history regard its practical control of the Irish Government. The Society is exclusively Roman Catholic. No person is admitted who has been in the Government service. I pass by the question of toleration for Unionists in the various public bodies under Nationalist influence, merely stating that statistics show that there is practically

none.

I have tried to show in broad lines the causes that have led to the present situation, and it now remains to con

sider the possible result of the ultimate acceptance of the Government of Ireland Bill by his Majesty the King, who some people seem to forget is the first of the three estates of the realm. The great meeting at Belfast on the 9th of April 1912 was a demonstration that, come what would, the Unionist of Ulster would not have Home Rule. That warning was disregarded. The signing of the Solemn Covenant in September 1912 by almost the entire Unionist population of Ulster not alone confirmed the resolution of the original meeting, but was a plain intimation that any attempt to impose a government by an Irish Parliament upon Ulster would be resisted, if necessary, by an appeal to arms. In pursuance of these resolutions the Orangemen of the North, as well as Unionist societies, have been making their preparations, openly but quietly, by drilling and by perfecting arrangements that would be necessary in the event of overt action if the forces to be used were to act as disciplined troops and not as an armed mob.

Now let us consider the situation with which Great Britain may be confronted during the coming year. The Protestant population grim and determined, drilled and ready, and prepared to shed their blood if needs be in defence of what they consider a sacred cause, calling upon Protestant England and Scotland to come to their aid, and the Orange lodges sounding the tocsin and urgently calling upon their brethren all over the world to answer to their appeal; while the Roman Catholics of Ulster arm for their own protection, and the Government considers whether an army shall be sent to coerce with fire and sword

[blocks in formation]

But this is not all. Come what will, we shall have in the North of Ireland two armed populations, equally brave, though one side is lacking discipline and skilled leaders, and each at a white heat of excitement. Is it in the nature of things that the peace will be kept between them, or, if it is broken, that reprisals will be confined to Ulster? God grant that peace may not be broken, but if it is to any serious extent Irish history supplies an answer that may well make the most careless pause and think.

This is the Irish aspect of the near future. But what about England and Scotland? I am informed by an English member of Parliament who was present at the signing of the covenant that, deeply as he was impressed by the scenes in Belfast, he was still more struck when, on landing at Liverpool at seven o'clock on a cold and wet morning, he found at least one hundred thousand people assembled to greet Sir Edward Carson on his return. Will the fiery cross be answered in Liverpool or in Glasgow? In both we have conflicting elements that may arouse religious strife to which Great Britain has happily long been a stranger. And what about Canada, in which there are, I am informed, about 3000 Orange Lodges? Or the United States of America, in which 3700 Orange Lodges exist with an average membership of eighty? Will they endeavor to answer an Orange call? The answer to these questions is of vital importance to the stability and prestige of the Empire, and it is well to remember that the present restraint of the Orangemen and Unionists of the North is due to the guiding influence of leaders who have solemnly declared, and repeated at the opening of this Willowfield Drill Hall, that if the time should come when unhappily the Ulstermen must assemble with arms in their hands, they will be there to command and lead them.

These men are no braggart agitators. The Duke of Abercorn has taken his full share in political work; the Marquis of Londonderry has filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Sir Edward Carson, whose leadership is unanimously accepted, has been one of the chief law officers in the Unionist Government, and the names of those who attended the meetings and signed the covenant include men who The Nineteenth Century and After.

have attained high rank in the Army.

I write without reserve, for I feel that a crisis is almost upon us that may develop into a great national calamity, and the time has come, for those who have brains to think, to consider whether a government by wellintentioned failures is worth preserving at the cost of a probable civil war. Henry A. Blake.

II.

REALISTIC DRAMA.

It was suggested at the end of my first paper' that the production of The Profligate at the Garrick Theatre in 1889 was a significant event, and, indeed, was prophetic of the much more important occasion-the production of The Second Mrs. Tanqueray in May, 1893. I shall be concerned in the present article with the progress of Realism in Drama, and with some of those pieces of Sir Arthur Pinero which were conceived and executed in a realistic vein. Those which are convenient for my purpose in this respect are The Profligate, The Second Mrs. Tanqueray, The Benefit of the Doubt, The Notorious Mrs. Ebbsmith, and Iris. These are all realistic plays in the sense which has been already defined. The dramatist writing about his own country and his own times desires to paint not flattering portraits but veracious likenesses. He does not want to ignore the ordinary conditions, the salient characteristics of the era in which he lives. He believes it to be his business to look steadily at the social fabric, to observe the different elements of which it is composed, to note the peculiar perils which surround and enfeeble its health, and to play the part, not indeed of a reformer, for The Living Age, June 28, 1913.

that would be too didactic an aim for an artist-or, at all events, for some artists-but of a keen, quick-witted, and occasionally sympathetic observer. And in similar fashion with regard to the personages of this drama, the playwright will seek to draw men and women, not as viewed through the spectacles of a fantastic imagination, but in their habit as they live. If he does this with a certain remorselessness, he is a Realist.

Now it is exactly this remorselessness of his which gets him into trouble with a number of different sections of our world. He is unflinching in his portrayal, and men do not like unflinching portrait-painters. They want the picture touched up by some indulgent and benevolent philanthropist. The realist refuses to play with what he deems to be the truth. At the time when the younger Dumas was writing extremely interesting though not altogether persuasive prefaces to his plays, and was particularly occupied with some of the destructive activities of modern woman-a subject which, as we are aware attracted him stronglyhe made some remarks about the things we ought to laugh at and the things we ought not to laugh at. "It is Our common habit in France," he wrote, "to laugh at serious things,"

We may, indeed, extend his observation and say that in England it is often our habit-especially in musical comedies to laugh at serious things. But, according to Dumas, the only right attitude is to laugh at things which are not serious, and which have no preten. sion to be serious. When we are face to face with a grave social danger, it is a very curious sort of wisdom which dismisses such subjects with a laugh. There is, of course, a touch of pedantry in an observation like this, and there was certainly a good deal of pedantry in Dumas' didactic attitude. Nevertheless, there is solid truth beneath, which is very applicable to our modern audiences in England.

If we go back a certain number of years, to the time, for instance, when The Profligate was produced, or to the time when Ibsen's plays were first represented in our capital, we find that the common attitude of average people was one of shocked resentment. "The problem play" was looked at with open abhorrence, as though it were an accursed thing, revolutionary and immoral. Indeed, every serious effort made by the realist to represent life in plain, undisguised fashion was regarded, and is still regarded in many quarters, as savoring of impiety. Those who adopt such an attitude have certainly one justification. They point out that the playhouse is open to a very mixed public, of very different ages, and that it is wrong, or at all events highly injudicious to put on the stage problem plays which might be an offence to the youthful and immature. There is a further point also, which is somewhat open to controversy, but which is advanced by those who desire to keep serious discussion about life and morals away from the boards. There is all the difference, we are told, between what is read on the printed page and what is enacted before our eyes by living characters.

The second is supposed to make a far deeper impression than the first, and therefore the enacted scene, if in any sense it is unpleasant, is likely to do more mischief in proportion to its vivid and lively character. It is difficult to dogmatize on a point like this, because it depends largely upon the individual whether a stronger impression is created by a story or a play. But the other point of objection proceeds on an assumption which no lover of drama can possibly concede. It assumes that a play is a mere entertainment, possessed of no serious dignity in itself, but only a sheer matter of amusement. In other words, it assumes that dramatic art is not art at all, because, directly we think of it, no art, whether painting, or sculpture, or literature, can be regulated in accordance with the age of immaturity of the public to whom it is presented. You do not ask your painter to remember that a child may look at his picture, nor do you ask your Hardys and Merediths to remember that their pages may be perused by young and sensitive per

sons.

The fact is that a good deal of ambiguity surrounds the use of such words as "the immoral," as applied to stage plays and the theatre. The very same critics who object to the problem play appear to have no objection when similar subjects are treated with easy wit and from a comical standpoint by the writers of musical comedy. What is it which should strictly be called "the immoral?" Immorality consists, obviously, in putting people wrong about the relations of virtue and vice. It consists in adorning vice with seductive colors, in hiding the ugliness of the corrupt, in adopting little affectations of worldliness or wit in the effort to screen from the public gaze the real misery of a decadent civilization. Or, again, when we have to treat with the actual conditions which obtain in this world

« PreviousContinue »