IRISH IN COMMAND.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 65, 18 March 1910, Page 3

IRISH IN COMMAND.

WHAT DO THEY WANT? THE ASQUITH REDMOND COMPACT. SUGGESTED UNIONIST ADVANCE (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 28th Januaiy The polling had not been a \s«ek in progress, before it was fairly plain that whichever side was successful the majority would be *o small that the lri»>h Nationalists must of necessity dominato the new Parliament. # Tho very possibility of >uch a position was in itself suf ficiently repugnant to a great many people, both Libeial and Conservative, and th«io can be little doubt that it hah had a nor inconsiderable effect upon the subsequent voting. That the compact between Mr. Ret! mond and Mr. Aaquith was? not altogether popular in Ireland is evident from the successes oi the O'Brienites, which have weakened th« Nationalist Party already to the extent of oight seat*, or sixteen votes on a division. Mr. O'Buen is furious against "the gang of politicians who have betrayed Ireland to the English Treasury, degraded the Iri"h Party into the mere slaves and hirelings of Molly Maguire. and made Home Rule the by-word and tho laughing-stock of al l English parties." UNIONIST ADVANCES. "Angling for the Irish vote" is the phrase which most aptly expresses the position of both the great parties to-day. Within a few days of the opening of the polls the Daily Telegraph, the leading Unionist organ, put out the fin>t feeler. Almost simultaneously, Mr. Asquith made, in the North, his second important reference to the subject of Home Rule. In all fairness it must be said that that declaration did not ditfer from the original statement at the Albert Hall as to the limitations which would be applied to the Irish autonomy. Yet the weight of the Irish vote had by now become so much magnified in view of the closeness of the result as between the Unionist an 3 Liberal parties that the whole weight of the Unionist artillery was directed to convincing the Nationalists of the folly of their compact. "Sold." "betrayed," •'bartered,' 1 were typical of the headings which appeared in the Unionist press. Mr. O'Brien was quite safe in faying at the beginning of the present week ihat it *a» "bosh" for the Irish to suppose that they would get Home Rule in the 'pre«iit Parliament. Home Rule, even as Mr. Asquith defines it — that is to say. with the control of the army, the navy, the Foreign Office, and the Customs, still verted in the Parliament at Westminster — could only ne carried over tho dead body of the Hou*<e of Lords, and the House of Lords can haidly be amended and liberalised to the ueceesary degree by the exercise of such a majority as the Liberals appear likely to possess. THE PREMIER'S DEFINITION. "I have laid down two principles," says Mr. Asquith, 'which cover the whole ground. You must set up a body which will have full powers of self-government in purely Irish affaire, and whatever body you set up there must bo maintained in the Imperial Parliament and Imperial Government here absolutely unquestioned authority over everything." The Unionist reply to tliat. as voiced by one Unionist paper, was that if lieland would be satisfied with sucb. a measure sho could get it from the Unionist Party, and not the Liberals, and that she would then get besides what was most essential for her prosperity, viz.. Tariff Reform. Mr. Balfour himself was not inclined to accept that view. "I am convinced," he asserted m Haddingtonshire. "that whatever may be »aid at the first blu.sh for a Home Rule system, it is one which is not only inimical, as I believe, to the best interests of Ireland, but iv absolutely fatal to the interests of Great Britain and of the Empire." Still, in face of this declaration, tho small band of Independent Nationalists are daily elapsed as Unionists. So, for the moment, they are. In effect they desire a far greater measure of autonomy than Mr. Asqmth holds out any hope of, but, as Mr. O'Brien says : "If they were to wait till the House of Lords, was abolished they would bave to wait until they were older than Methusalah." THE CLEAVAGE. And so tliey will vote against the party of John Redmond, who has come forward personally with the assurance that Mr. Asquith has reiterated rather than retracted his Albert Hall pledge. He stated frankly that he and his party did not ask for what was known in England as separation, and tliat statement makes quite plain for the first time the real nature of the understanding upon which Mr. T. P. O'Connor's organisation was put into operation to use the Irish vote in Great Britain to support the Liberal and Labour candidates. There has evidently been some grave misunderstanding between the Nationalist leaders and tho Nationalist constituencies in Ireland, and the suggestion is now thrown out overtly that the organisation is acting in obedience to 1 the dictates of the American Iri«h, fiom whom it derives so much money. The suggestion ir that when Mr. T. P. | O'Connor was in America a mouth or bo ago collecting funds for the present campaign, he was told pretty plainly that the donors did not like the prospects of a tariff reform success, and would expect the Nationalist Party to throw its weight in against the 'Protectionists. Mr. O'Connor indignantly repudiates the charge as ridiculously contrary to Ihe real facts. 'The people of our lace who subscribe in America," he says, "attach no conditions, suggest no conditions, to their gifts, which are the outcome of their ardent love for the motherland of the Irish race, and an ardent desire to improve her condition. They lake up the position, every one of them, that it is not for them, but for the man on the spot, to choose the policy. And ninety-nine out of every hundred Irish Americans have implicit confidence in the judgment, as well as in the patriotism, of the Irish Party, and in the leadership of Mr. Redmond." ! WHAT DOES IRELAND WANT ? The Daily Mail asks this question in one of those letters to the editor which are significantly "starred" on the leader pape. Tho answer is "Tariff Reform," and the moral is that if the Unionists will continue "to oppose themselves ohstinately to every hint of Home Rule," the Irish Party will never allow the Unionists, to hold office. The writer gives his assnrance, moreover, that the Irish who desire Home Rule do not wi*h for separation from England. In short, they know which side their bread is buttered. This was corroborated next day by another statement, apparently from an authoritative Irish source, and defining in the same way a measure of Home Ilule which the Unionists could grant, and which, strangely enough, is subject to just the same limitations as Mr. Akquith proposes. He, too, believer that what Ireland wants mod is Tariff Re form, and here is his pregnant conclusion : "Liberal* cannot grant Tariff Reform. They cannot pan any metiure of Home

Rule. And their chance of abolishing the Lords' 'veto* may be adjourned to the Greek Kalend*. Hut the Tory Party is pledged to a tariff, and i.« atone capable of persuading the Lord* to consent to Home Rnle. If that proposal does not mean separation from the Crown, or th© break-up of the Imperial Parliament, or Irihh control of military and naval resources, why should the Upper House reject it ? Because of Ul ster? But half of Ulster in already converted to it. And the other half, in a self-governed Ireland, would BOon find it* place and its power. Why should the Conservative Party, by clinging to Orange prejudices now ont of date, compel even Catholics to fall into line with a movement which aims at the destruction of all Churches, of tho Empire, and perhaps ot the Monarchy*? Let the men who stand for DUraeli's principles scatter to the winds all fear of separation by coming to terms with Home Rule. Now is their jjolden opportunity. They alone can unite the Empire." That ii a feeling which is undoubtedly strong in the minds of the Unionist Party to-day. U i« a narlv pledged freshly mid mcvoeildy to Tariff Refoim and to drfencr of the Second Chamber, hut its objections to a nipasure of local autonomy for Ireland have weakened considerably.