HOME RULE IN THE COMMONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 185, 5 August 1913, Page 7

HOME RULE IN THE COMMONS.

OPERATION OF PARLIAMENT ACT. THE CONCERT OF EUROPE. (By JUS't'iTlA.) The Home Rule Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on April 11th, 1912, and passed its first reading with a majority of 94; the second reading was carried on May 9th following with a majority of 101, and the third reading was carried in January of this year with a majority of 110. At each stage the majority in favour of the bill increased. Fifty-seven and a-half Parliamentary days were devoted to its discussion, a longer period than that devoted to the Reform Bill of 1831. The second stage of the bill, so far as concerns the House of Commons, was reached on June 10th last, when a majority of 98 defeated Mr Balfours motion for its rejection. The second reading was then carried without a division, and the bill was committed to a committee of the whole House. In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act no alteration will be allowed, but "suggestions" would be received and considered, as the details and principle of the bill had been discussed from April last year to January of this year. That the Coalition and Unionist parties were well whipped is evident when ont of a House of S7O members, and making allowance for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and tellers, there were in all 644 members present, leaving only 26 to be accounted for. Two seats were vacant, and of the remaining 24 absentees, 14 were paired. Four Labour men, three Liberals, and two Nationalists were ill, this leaving only one Liberal member unaccounted for. Two Liberals. Sir Clifford Cory and Mr Agar Robartes. voted against the bill. Mr Asquith proposed the second reading in a speech at once forceful, argumentative and logical. He gave a brief sketch of tire bill's Parliamentary history, touched on the by-elec-tions, and to the treatment of the bill by the House of Lords, and dwelt upon the frank, uncompromising negative they gave it, despite the strong and pathetic appeals of some of its most formidable opponents. '"These," he emphasised, "were precisely the conditions which the Parliament Act was intended to meet." The whole case against the bill rested with Ulster. The Government was asked, "What are you going to do about Ulster ?" He asked another. "What are you going to do about Leinster. Munster, Connaught, and a large part of Ulster?" "Would a general election solve the difficulty?" The Tories cried out, "Try it." "Well, suppose 1 tried it, and suppose I won, would the people who took an oath at Belfast, and signed the Covenant, withdraw that oath and stultify themselves;" "No." shouted Sir John Lonsdale and Mr C. Craig, and others of the Ulster Unionist members. "Then," said Mr Asquith, with merciless logic, amidst loud cheers, "what is the use of asking for a general election!" He concluded his great speech with these two sentences. "Our belief is that after the gift of free local autonomy for Ireland as a whole, there will come, as there has come elsewhere, a sense of responsibility and a spirit of tolerance. It is in that spirit we commend the bin." Mr Balfour followed, and moved the rejection of the bill. His most ardent admirer would admit that tbe eminent ex-Leader of the Unionists was ill at ease with his task. He repeatedly played upon one string, that of Ulster, and once hesitatingly used tbe words "shooting down." From the Irish benches at once came the question, "Did you hesitate to shoot?" and to all it was quite evident the member for the City of London was completely thrown off his balance. He appealed to the consciences of the Liberals whether, after all, they would coerce Ulster." Again the mocking voice came, "What did you do in Ireland ?" He wound up with an Albanian analogy, and an incursion into the American War of Independence, and pictured tragedies wnfh which to disturb the peace of mind of the British elector. On the second and closing day of the debate Mr John Redmond, Mr Joseph Devlin, and Mr A. Birrell spoke for tho bill, and Sir E. Carson. Mr Bonar Law and Lord Charles Bcresford against it. Sir E. Carson opened proceedings. It was a speech which drew out all his potent forensic skill. Treating with Ulster, he went off at a tangent, and violently defied the House and the country. General elections for him and those for whom be spoke had no significance whatever. While his eloquence claimed attention, its effect upon the House and the country should not advance the cause of the union. What, for instance, is to be thought of this blood-curdling sentence: "You may send vout troops, you may prevail upon them to fire, and even if you have not got the troops at the moment you may call in the Concert of Europe. Yes, sir, I ask, what then?" This outburst finst caused astonishment, and then rounds of laughter, a.fter which an hon. member called otrt: '"'You silly ass!" Mr. John Redmond rose after the member for Trinity College, and said: "The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has made an able and vigorous speech. I have heard every speech he has made upon this question in ■ the House, and I think, if I may be allowed to criticise the speech he has just delivered I would say this, in my opinion, is the most violent speech he has evet yet delivered in this Honse. He will advocate armed resistance to an Act of Parliament, even if both parties united in this House to pass that Act. That is a responsibility which I think is a very heavy one, and which ought to impose on him a gravity and restraint in his speech and epithet." Mr. Redmond quoted John Bright, who said: "These Uletermen have stood in the way of improvement of the . franchise, in the Church and in the land. They have purchased Protestant ascendancy, and the price paid for it has been the ruin and degradation of their country." He quoted the Archbishop of York, who declared himself a Home Ruler, and 3aid: "Few of us can deny there is a real urgent Irish question, or believe that we are likely to advance it by merely reiterating that we will not have Home Rule. 1 agree that some measure of Home Rule is necessary, not only to meet the needs of Ireland, hut to meet the needs of the Imperial Parliament." Mr. Redmond read a letter received by him from ex-President Roosevelt, "and quoted an extract from a speech delivered in London by Sir Joseph Ward, both of which eloquently .pleaded for Home Rule for Ireland. Mr. Redmond used these -words-: "We are willing to go any length—practically any length—to conciliate any honest apprehensioiis that they may entertain. 1 may be allowed to say for nrjeelf, and I am sure tl speak for every one of my colleagues in fhisi matter, that there is no sacrifice that I am not prepared personally to make jmosfc *hwj€al}y-to~«oft«v -tJwrr.-t^igosk

tion, and, if possible, *° 'w* n ß them to join hands- in working Some Role in Ireland." Lord Charles Beresford's answer to "this kindly advance wbs; *"I am an Ulsterman by birth, and all nry property was in Ulster. I had served 50 yeans in the British Navy, and the breath of my life was discipline—to obey orders or to give orders. If the right hon. gentlemen sent these troops over to Ireland I would offer nry services, even at my age, poor as they might be, and go over and help my countrymen." Mr. Joseph Devlin dealt in this fashion with Lord Beresford's outbreak: "We have heard a great deal latterly about the Covenant, and we are told that everyone who signed it had made up bis mind, like Lord Charles Beresford, that he was going to die on dry laiid. I aJways knew that would be the noble lor(Ts_ end. But now that there, is a prospect of war with Germany, the noble lord finds it more comfortable to be in Parliament than in the Navy." Mr. Devlin went on to say: "What has been the government of Ireland in relation to Ulster for -the brat thirty years? England had not governed Ireland. No British party bad governed Ireland. Ireland had been governed by the 'loyal minority,' and that is why the minority are loyal. I say that the moment Home Rule is granted you will have a complete transformation in Ireland. A new Belfast will spring up. Those who sit on these benches will become divided, and men who are there (pointing to the Ulster Unionist benches) will be, perhaps, among some of my colleagues, while other men will take" their places. Belfast will no longer be content to be represented by solicitors and distillers. The workers there will demand their share of that representation, and while the civil war—the mock civil war—is going on, while a stage army is holding its reviews, these men will go on with that work of selecting their own representatives, for the Irish Parliament, in which they will exercise the power in an assembly in which rhev will stand amongst the most welcome" of its members."' Mr Borrar Law, like Sir E. Carson, breathed forth fire and thunder. He said: "The moment bbc Home Rule Bui becomes law, inevitably, and the Chief Secretary (Mr. Birrell) knows it. the people of Ulster will, in self-defence, organise themselves to resist this measure, and whether the Government wishes n or not thera will be, almost inevitably, collisions which will result in bloodshed. Suppose an election takes place and is against the Government, and we have to reverse what they have done then inevitably there win be infinitely greater difficulty in governing Ireland, and there will be equal danger of bloodshed" Afld Mr &mar £v "" hat statesmanlike J" T i v ? 1 bli< > " ot onl - y of the B "tish Isles, but of tbe British Empire, will assuredly answer it in a manner which will disillusionise the minds of Mr Bonar Law and his lawless party behalf of t h e Government. He said he was shocked at the ease with wM ch some people rel er to tbe most appalling thing that could war. 1 do not believe it has ever been M a political threat against any locative proposal Even Ulster migrft beaded to wait tor its revolution. At the bottom of this mischief is violent religions strife. Tt is no use-it ifthe most chikßah thing in the Jor\i-tl abuse religious bigotry. Relhriou^ bigotry will not be either T cursing or blessing, but only by the spread of real religion, of and of sympathy. -1 mn.=rt say that I heard with anmemetrt the right hon gentleman (,M r . Bonar Uw)T that the attitude of the Nationalist party in reland towards their fellow tuntrymen . nuii, is a libel and no <moh Iri ff* S - The ° ne desire of the Jnsh people « th sho »• lief. f' c t0 act u.ndZ t"au *£" ± °K f f their cati °" Sner man !t ever was before. There fs •• new Ireland springing „ p . There b ' preat movement in Ireland: wherever H" a tho "'™« evidence, o hfll C °" Mr. Birrell sa i d: "This monbhan / there wa* «h„„ m onp s 'de to 4,7" Srsr «™' 7 ,.r d d - ire statesmanlike?" ' s jt