SECOND READING DEBATE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXII, Issue 8367, 4 May 1912, Page 5

SECOND READING DEBATE.

(Per Press Association —Copyright.) LONDON, May 3. Mr Balfour said that the restrictions of the Bill, though necessary, did not give Irishmen an opportunity of developing their affairs on their own lines. Dual control was written large throughout the measure, neither protecting the minority nor giving Irishmen the advantages now derived m connection with the United Kingdom Bill. It would prevent public-spirited men from entering the Irish Parliament, and result m the return of inferior men, lowering the Assembly's status. The proposal to temporarily strengthen representation at )Vestminster during the adjustment of finances was amazing. He challenged the Minister to cite a case where a unified Government was broken up to meet the.'.demands of self-government, wherein a stable community had re-. salted. Was there any precedent for, starting federation on a basis of inequality, or one m which the claims of the homogeneous fraction were ignored? Was not the federal idea the creation of general services, the -abolition of fiscal divisions, and the desire for closer unity ? The Government did not heed these questions, and, preferred to cut up the Kingdom, while the Nationalists probably regarded partial independence as the precursor of complete independence. Sir E. Grey dealt with the advantage of relieving the congestion m the House of Commons. In reply to Mr Balfour's questions, he said it would require prolonged historical research to answer them, and that he was imprepared to answer them. Sir E. Grey concluded by saying that Mr Balfour had said that the Transvaal was not a parallel. The Transvaal was not mentioned as a parallel,, but to show that a profit of evil was not always right. He asked Mr Balfour was there any parallel to the monstrous over-concentration of business m the Hotise of Commons. The present system had been proved unworkable. Devolution was required not m Ireland alone. He admitted that the present plan was not a pattern for a federal system to be universally applied to the Kingdom. He did not believe that perfect similarity was necessary. The Bill would give finality m the important- sense that Nationalists accepted it as the fulfilment of Home Rule. If Ulster prevented a solution, some other means must be found to free! the House of Commons and put the.control of Irish, affairs m Irish hands. He believed the present animosity would disappear when joint'l- responsibility was established. ; :■• . '