The Portland daily press., 1881-10-21
The Irish Manifesto,

There are generally two sides to ques-
ton and the Irish question is no exception
in this respect. The manifesto just issued
by the Irish Land League presents eloquent
iy 2nd fortibiy one side of the controversy
which is waging between the British govern
ment and the unhappy people OF The Emer-
aid Isle. 1t could not be expected 10 be a
thoroughly ingenious document and it is
not. Nobody can gainsay Mr. Parnell when
he says that the Irish people have been sub
jecfs of highlands oppression for centuries !;
nobody can deny that the system OF land
lordism in vogue in Ireland has crushed the
cultivator of the soil and made him year by
wear poorer and more miserable. These are
facts winch are 100 thoroughly established
10 5e succes stuliy contrOvened. Mr.. Glad
soone, whom the IRISH people are just nov
looking upon as their arch enemy, does not
conuovert them. On the contrary the land
bill, which was of bis devising, is a subsian-
lial admission Of them.
But when the manifesto asserts thai the
particular crisis now Impending in Ireland
has heeu deliberately forced upon the codu-
Gfy, there is room for controversy. The
land act was granted Cor the purpose of re-
lieving the Irish tenant. 1t was not ex
pected 20 furnish all the relief that the Irish
people We entitled to, oerha IS, no. all
that NJ. Gladstone himself would have
been glad to give. Had the ereai
Liberal statesman been a despotic ruler
r..h +{,a t,owa,. IN ahrnoata or chance
siGh scratch of the pen the laws of his
country the land bill would undoubtedly
have been more sweeping in its provisions.
But ENGLISH laws are made by Parliament,
and beth houses of Parliament are made up
very largely OF landlords. That Mr. Glad
Stone succeeded in forci g through SO sub
staniial measure Of relief as he did ought
TO have convinced the Irish people of his de
size to do tnem justice and to have made
them willing TO give his land bill a fair tri-
al.
Were they so willing? Perhaps the peo-
ple were, but the leaders were not. Ever
since the land bill became law the ener
gies Of MI Parnell have been directed to dis
crediting il. That is precisely what he was
doing when he was thrown into prison. The
manifesto, to be SIRE, says that the League
was preparing to test the law by actual trial
n court, but that is moi an ingenious state
ment of the case. The exact truth is that
he League was preparing to discredit the
law in court. The leaders had selected a
Number of cases in which they conceived
be law would work injustice and were pre-
caring to try these cases simply and solely
for The purpose of demonstrating that the
law was not calculated to afford any relief.
The test 10 which they proposed to subject
The land law was not a fair one. 1t was Que
which very few laws could stand, for almost
all laws work hardships in particular in
stances. Il was the duty of Mr. Parnell aud
he Ifish leaders to give The law fair trial
and then Il it was found that the measure
was worthless -tho- -ee..rso -riIivir tiiey ADVISE
in their manifesto might have been justifia-
ole. Ii the present aspect OF The situaio
il is doubtful if it is either justifable or
practicable.
Urging the people of ireland to refrain
from paying rent, as the manifesto does, is
equivalent to melting them to open rebel
lion, for it is absurd to suppose thata whole
people will passively submit 10 being de-
prived of their means of livelihood without
Resistance, and resistance must inevitably
bring on conflict with the British govern
ment Revolt is only justiliable when all
other means of OBJ al ing redress have fall
cd, and until the lend law has been proved
worthless the Irish leaders will find it i'm
possible to convince the world that they are
justified in urging the people to take up
arms.