THE IRISH PROBLEM.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14761, 3 September 1913, Page 8

THE IRISH PROBLEM.

Mr William O'Brien, M.P., wo aro told to-day, is vigorously prosecuting his campaign for a settlement of the Irish question by consent. The task of tho Irish Parliament, he says, will be despcrato and impossiblo unless the Protestant and Unionist hostility is mitigated, and ho is convinced that if "a small inter-party Conference, presided over by a representative man," were to attack the problem, they would not separato without outlining "a "settlement which would prove an " everlasting blessing." Dark as tho outlook appears to be made by Mr Redmond's and Mr Dillon's remorseless holding of Mr Asquith to the bargain which the stato of parties in 1910 forced him to accept, it may etill bo possiblo that a Eettlement by consent xvill come to pacify Irish nationalism without Coercing Ulster. The debate in the House of Lords in July appeared to show that there aro rifts in the clouds, for tho representatives of all parties showed an inclination to consider the possibility of a compromise. That they nil realise that tho only safe and durable settlement is one which is based on consent goes without saying. Lord Curzon said, on behalf of tho Unionists: "If the Irish question is "to be solved —and I agree that it " must be solved—it can only bo by " tho consent, not of two or three, but "of all sections of the Irish com- " munity. No solution can or ought to " 6uccced that has not behind it tho " support, not merely of Scotland and " Wales, but of England also." Earl Grey, who represents another section of Unionist thought on the Irish question, admitted that "there might be other " forms of Home Itulo as right as this "Bill was wrong." Tho representatives of the Government went out of their way to disclaim any belief that the Bill was the only possiblo solution. "Certainly/ , said Lord Crowe, " wo do not pretend for a moment that "this is the only Home Rule Bill, or "the only kind of Home Rule which " Parliament should be permitted to " consider." Lord Loreburn invited tho Unionists to propose some remedy, and then they could sco whether some adequate settlement might not bo arranged. "I think," he said, "it is "not creditablo to a great nation, " renowned for practical statesmanship, "that wo should eit like fatalists await- " ing some inevitable destiny, and not " making a common effort to sec if we "cannot avert it." Ivord Dnnraven was very emphatic. He did not know whether tho Government would have the pnidenco and courage necessary to find a wny out, but ho did know that "it would be a discredit to them, a " disgrace io statesmanship,• and a " crimo against civilisation, if an " honest effort through conference and "compromise to a settlement by con- '' sent were not made before this Bill "came before Parliament for the third " and last time." There is still time to avert the certain disaster that will follow the application of the Act to Ireland. Had tho elections of 1910 either given tho Unionist Party a majority, or given Mr Asquith a majority large enough to Gnablo him to dispense with Mr Redmond's support, a peaceful and honourable settlement would probably have been effected by now, or at least been in process of completion.

Our "Liberal" friends are disinclined, as we suspected they would be, to explain the principle upon which the M.P. is paid an "honorarium." They do not conceal, however, their leaning towards those politicians who go into politics for a living- Our suggestion was that it would not be a bad thing if politicians were merely reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses, which, of course, would include the cost of living in Wellington during tho session. The local organ of the Opposition naturally, and quite characteristically, represents us as suggesting that members should be paid travelling expenses only. The time has gono by when we could be astonished at a misrepresentation of that sort, however. "We are told that merely to securo the ZM.P. against any loss would starve the patriotic "Liberal" out of public life. This is a fairly frank confession that the politicians for whom tho Oppostion journals aro concerned will not have anything to do with politics unless they can make something out of it. The letter-from the Rev. I. Sarginson to-day almost makes us despair of inducing the opponents of the Bible-in-Schools movement to take a just and reasonable view of facts. Mr A. It. Atkinson, in seeking to justify his attacks "upon those critics who had resented the language credited to him in the "Dominion's" report of his speech, rested his caso on tho neglect of his critics to "give him an opportunity"" to correct the report. "We showed that Mr Atkinson had himself made and taken his opportunity to correct the report, and had seen nothing wrong with the passage crediting him with imputing cant and bigotry to his opponents. Mr

Sarginson appears to be completely unablo to understand that Mr Atkinson's procedure was not perfectly correct. He wishes us to attack the leaders of tho Biblo-in-Schools movement, but, really, he must establish his case against them. If the words "secular"' and "secularist" appear so very "sinister" and improper to Mr Sarginson, they do not so appear to tne secularists themselves; and exactly what our offence is in saying "secular" when wo and everyone else mean "secular" we cannot perceive. We disapprove of abusive language on either side; but tho abuse and bitterness are plainly on the side of the secularists. Mr Sarginson cannot have read the vulgar and brutal productions of the opponents of Bible-reading in other centres. The Opposition is not well-advised in grumbling at the reform of the Civil Service administration. Having during their term of office bitterly opposed the idea, that they should part with any of their patronage, the "Liberals" aro no doubt obliged to deplore the removal of the Civil Service beyond the reach of tho political wire-puller. They are exasperated, too, at tho promptness with which the Government, by passing the Act, falsified the "Liberal" hopes and predictions that nothing would be , done. Thon there aro some of them who are hard hit by their inability to pull strings in exchange for votes. So it is that we think their ill-tempered complaints are injudicious. In tho House yesterday Sir J. G. Ward joined in the melancholy chorus, but he brought no new argument to tho aid of his friends. Air Massey pointed out that in Australia no attempt has been mad© to repeal tho system of non-political control of the public services. Can it be supposed that the New Zealand public is moro ignorant, or less unfavourable towards tho evil of political control, than the Australian public? Mr Carnegie continues to chow that, however good his intentions may be, he really does not understand tho elements of tho peace question on which ho is spending so much energy and money. "If tho Kaiser summoned a Council of Nations," ho said at Tho Hague the other day, "universal peace would bo assured." It is true that if Germany reduced her armaments tho • European situation would bo materially eased, but it is perfectly ridiculous to say that universal peace depends entirely on Germany. This ignores, for instance, tho great Slav movement; but then Mr Carnegie and his school never take such things into account. Obsessed with the idea that all .war. springs from wholly ignoblo causes and is therefore unjustifiable, they are blind to thoso great national movements and impulses, somo of them as inevitable and uncontrollable as Naturo itself, which sometimes produce war. They ignore, too, tho whole question of East v. West. If tho German Army and Navy were abolished to-morrow, tho possibility of war between Japan and, let us say, America, would not be lessened. It is a little difficult to reconcile this sentence about tho Kaiser with ■Mr Cai&egic's reference to him as a pacifist. If the Kaiser remains tho solo obstaclo in the way of universal peace, how can ho be a pacifist? It is amusing to notice the resentment of tho German Press at the moro suggestion that tho Kaiser is a pacifist. Poor Mr Car/iegio thought ho was paying him thd" , highest compliment, but tho Germans regard it as an insult. The fact is that Mr Carnegie quite fails to understand Germany's situation and German sentiment about war. Situated as the Germans are, with Franco on tho one side and Russia on the other, a complete system of national defence is an absolute necessity, •and they are naturally impatient with a man who ignores the most obvious facts and talks airily of disarmament. To a people cradled in arms, owing their unity and strength to successful war, and accustomed to bo ready to moot attack at any moment, a pacifist is a'person not only foolish, but lacking in tho first duty of patriotism. Naturally they object to their Emperor, the head of their nation and their army, being labelled with such a designation.