HOME RULE BILL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1431, 4 May 1912, Page 5

HOME RULE BILL.

MR- BALFOUR'S CRITICISMMINORITY NOT PROTECTED, SIR E. GREY REPLIES. IRISH AFFAIRS IN IRISH HANDS. By Telegraph—Press Association-Copyright (Rec. May 3, 9.30 p.m.) London, May 3. In the House of Commons the second reading debato on the Home Rule Bill was continued. Mr. A. J. Balfour, formerly Loader of tho Opposition, said the restrictions in the Bill, though necessary, did not give Irishmen the opportunity of developingj their affairs on their own linos. Dual control was written large throughout the measure, neither protecting tho minority nor giving Irishmen the advantages they now derived by their connection with the United Kingdom. Tho Bill would provent tho public-spirited from entering the Irish Parliament, the result being the return of iuferior men, and the lowering of the Assembly's status. The proposal to temporarily strengthen the representation in Yvestrainster Curing the adjustment of the finances was amazing, and he challenged the Minister to cite a case wherein a unified Government, broken up to meet the demand of selfgovernment, a stable community resulted. Was there any precedent for starting a federation on the basis of inequality, or where the claims of a homogeneous fiaction were ignored? Was not the federal idea the creation of general services, the abolition of fiscal divisions, and a desire for closer unity? Tho Government had not heeded these questions, and preferred to cut up the Kingdom, while tho Nationalists probably regarded a partial independence the prccurser of complete independence. Sir Edward Grey dealt with the advantage of relieving the congestion in Hie House of Commons, and, in reply to Mr. Balfour's questions, said they uculd require a prolonged historical research, and ho was not proparccl to answer them. Mr. Balfour, Sir Edward Grey went en, had said the Transvaal was not a parallel. The Transvaal was not mentioned as a parallel, but to show that a prophet of evil was not always right. He asked Mr. Balfour, was there a parallel? The monstrous over-concentration of business in the House of Commons under the piesent system has proved unworkable, and devolution was required, not for Ireland alone. Ho admitted that tho present plan was not a pattern for a federal system universally applied to" the Kingdom. Ho did not believe that perfect similarity was necessary. The Bill will give fmanity in the important sense that tho Natnnalists accepted it as a fulfilment of Homo Rule. If Ulster prevented a solution, some other way must be found lo fiee the Commons and put tho control of Irish affairs in Irish hands. Ho believed the present animosity would disappear when joint responsibility was established. SINN FEIN SPEECHES. (Rec, May 3, 11.5 p.m.) London, May 3. Sinn fein speakers at Dublin referred to the Nationalist leaders' extraordinary and unnecessary professions of lcyalty to tho Empire. Home Rulo'would never be a final settlement. Even Mr. John Redmond could not fix the boundary cf the march of the nation. A REQUEST REFUSED. London, May 2. Replying to Mr. Thome, tho Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) refused to giant the Government's- time for a debato on his motion regarding Sir E. Carson.