NATIONALITY AND HOME RULE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 34, 9 February 1914, Page 6

NATIONALITY AND HOME RULE.

MR. BALFOUR AND MR. REDMOND IN CONTROVERSY. (By JUSimA.) "Nationality and Home Rule" is the title-of an article by the Eight Hon. A. J. Balfour, MJP., in the "University Magazine," Montreal, and just published in pamphlet form by Longmans, Green and Co. The editor has requested Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P., to ieply, and the controversy emanating from two gentlemen widely known fox their urbanity and Ability is, at thie important juncture, of general and starting interest.

"Those who think as I do," says Mr. Balfour, "look forward to * time when 1 Irish patriotism will ac easily combine with British patriotism, as Scottish patriotism combines now. In the meantime they hold that no change ehould be made in the constitution of the United Kingdom for other than pcerely administrative reasons."

Mr. Redmond answers, "In co far, that is, Rβ the demand for Home Rule rests upon national sentiment, his plan is to disregard it and wait until another sentiment takes its place. To us who know Ireland, this is equivalent to deferring a esttlement—T3H Jaws can stop the Wades of grass from growing as they grow, and till the leaves in summer time their verdure dare not show.'"

The Scottish precedent quoted by Mr. Balfour is thus treated by Mr. Redmond: "Scotland has throughout been dealt with in a epirit of reasoned consideration. Ireland's claim has been persistently overborne by violence. When the crowns of Scotland and England were nnited, Scotland provided the monarch. At that same epoch Great Britain was occupied in Ireland with an attempt to extirpate all traces of the old kingly houses, and, indeed, of the Irish people themselves. When the Union of Parliament wae made with Scotland, according to Professor Dieej (that eminent Unionist), the Act of Union 'embodied what wee not in name only, but in reality a treaty of contract freely made between two independent States. , But the Union with Ireland (again Professor Dicey'e words) 'lacked all that element of free consent between independent contracting parties which lies at the basic of every genuine contract. Of the deliberate negotiations, of the calm, satisfactory, business-like haggling for national advantages which marked the negotiations between, the Scotch and English Commissioners—of the close consideration of miaute details ■by competent representatives of both countries—there is not a trace in the negotiations, if negotiations they can be called, between England and Ireland.' These are the realities of the situation, and I observe that they are not touched by Mr. Bal four's interesting dialectic." Mr. Balfour eaye, "Ireland pays lese than her proportionate share of taxation for Imperial objecte." Mr Redmond replies, "But our contention is—and here again we base ourselves upon the Act of Union—that Ireland pays, and has paid, out of proportion to lier ability, and that the payment should be in proportion to it. it is quite true that at present more money is spent in Ireland than Irish taxation amounts to. The main cause of that lice in the fact that for upwards of 70 years far too great a proportion of the revenue raised in Ireland was spent on co-called Imperial purposes."

Mr. Redmond then gives this striking sentence to which I invite particular attention. "From 1817 to 18T0 according to the Treasury figuree, there was raised in Ireland two hundred and eighty-seven millions of taxation, and there was epent in Ireland only ninetytwo millions; and a great part of the other one hundred' and ninety-five millions ought to have been epent in developing the resources of the country which then lay like a derelict fajun." " 'Mr| Redmond continues, "The present revenues of Ireland are some £10,500,000, amply sufficient to finance a country with Ireland's population, but in taking over Home Rule we have to Uke over the establishment which t-nglish Government hae created the most expensive thing of ito kind in the world.

Mr. Bnlfour say e "that' Ireland's geographical distinctneee is of little consequence.' .

Mr. Redmond retorts, "Is there anyh K-?/', Sfl I" tbe World a oountrv inhabited by four millions of white "men. ™/. complete maritime frontier, ijhicl .does not govern its on affairs? Mr. Ealfoar know, very well that the S4» 6ea " fronticr is pott,,it and f «-

at is3ue betwee n the «We dhputants ws what they termed the two-camps argument." To Mr B*We allusion to the re]i S ion e aspect SIT. Redmond said: '• But. r beyoml P a £ lf Were aIIOWCd t0 kee P «>«> thSfT i "'ZI eV€n «tabß«,ed for stuHn t Pe ° P l e was Paused by persecutions by confiscations, end finaW by cnil disabilities wihioh hare never been complctey done away th . V o£ KewElV I « ol ° a «« adopted by the Reformed Presbyterian Chuwh of Jromond contiaued: « I could accumulate citations to Aw that the -reSSntw turn against our cause » .that Horn™ £ c must not be given to Ireland because tie lTi mh h !? en are Roman OathoSSL 9 thenvMe the wh ole argument of 'Ulster' wjnjd fall to .the j^ byters and bishops, clerics%nd la™ e to T H " , that they wiU ™^ [ mit to be ruled by an assembly of their fellow-countrymen, and the reason is shall he wathm the British Empire a disenimnation practised against one particular for.m of Chrbttartty. This a ££- ment is not heard in the House of Commons, because even those who use it in Water are aware that modern democratic civiHsation doe s not tolerate ench a contention. What we are told at Westminster is that there muet not be Home Rule because to grant Hom e R u ! e will produce civil war in Ireland When ■we ask a reason. we axe told simply .that Lister will not have Home Rule, , and that Ulster does not choose to ar-nic " Mr. Redmond next fastens upon Enrinnd the responsibility for this situation 0 and proceeds: " England has been response foT making Ulster what it is. In Ireland the religion of the majority was first proscribed by iaw. then penalised so that ail political power was placed in the hands of the minority. Catholic and Pro testent were deliberately kept apart m the creation of an. arbitrary political

division ' When Oatholie an* Protest, ant combine/ said one of fehnd'sW. • HsU rulcra, • farewell tTihT &£ iish interest in Ireland' - WkJL ' tie Irteh Parliament h* '. brief period of freedom, Catiialic'and Protestant showed dangerous eynmtoito i of combining, and the Irkh Parliament was strangled out of being. .When the '$ Union came, aatholie Iriefcnen were toi,« *»* ™>M havefull political «Su tor with their Protestant Sllow cifoens Thirty years' strugle w*. wed* before an Irish Catholic coudd represent his fellow-coon tryrnen in Peimnient- and then the concession wee aede, not to argument, or the plea of justice, but to ■ the threat of civil war. They, the Protestants, were taught to befreve that thew libertiee would only he safe under a Parliament where Protestants controlled the majority. Such a spirit does ' not yield to reason. But is it, therefore to be tolerated? Is it to be laid down as a part of the Imperial statesmanship that Catholics, because they are Catho'Bcs, should be under a disability within the British Empire? And, further, i B the assertion of this principle to be conceded under threat of civil War?" Mr Balfour says: "Ireland was divided "stato" •two campe, I admit by English action, a-nd divided ©he remains. The Roman Catholics of th c South and West certainly would not have considered themselves safe if, under -whatever paper safeguards they were placed in the power of the Ulster Protestants.* , To this Mr. Redmond has a crushing reply: " Our answer ie that for eighteen years the Roman Catholics of Ireland were in the 'hands of the Irish Protestants, and that ■from a Parliament of Irish Protestants the Catholic majority obtained justice and satisfaction which England had always denied them. Mr. Belfour thinks otherwise, and asks: "Wfcy ehould the Ulster Protestants be content to be placed in the power of Leinster, Munster a.nd Connaugiht?' The modern aspect o! fcnifi argument ds to state that England has so mismanaged Ireland in the past that she must go on for ever controlling Irish affairs. Irishmen have been taught under the union to hate each ofcher°eo bitterly tha 1 they can never be trusted to live together ,in harmony without England to keep the peace." Mr. Balfour says: "The Home Rule Bill is financially, adminietratively, and constitutionally indefensible." Mr. Redmond quotes, in reply, Pjrofeesor C. F. Baetable, Profesor of Political Economy in Trinity College, Dublin, a Unionist who defended the bill in many, if not all, its aspects. Mr. Redmond finally quotes Mr. Balfour against himself with telling effect. In 1908 Mt. BaJfour denounced the granting of self-government to South Africa, and said: "The Government are attempting an experiment of a most dangerous description, the most ■recklese experiment ever tried in the development of a great policy." Three years later Mr. Balfour admitted, in the ■must unqualified manner, the success of this " reekleas experiment," and he found "men who actually fought in battle •meeting now round the cafe Council Board, agreeing to as to what was beet for the men of their own race." Mr. Redmond concluded: "I venture to draw ■ a hopeful augury for the future state of Ireland from the present state of'SoiiUl Africa, and I am sm-e Mr. Balfour will live to rejoice as sincerely and openly over the failure of his predictions in the latter as in the earlier case."