HOME RULE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15920, 4 May 1912, Page 12

HOME RULE.

MR BALFOUR'S CRITICISM. tJnitcd Press Association—By Electrio Telegraph—Copyright. 1 In tho House of Commons, replying io Mr Will Thome, Labour member jfor West Ham, the Prime Minister recused to grant the Government's time j*o debate the impeachment of Sir Ed!Ward Carson. i Mr Balfour delivered a searching Criticism of the Home Rule Bill. Ho ■aid the Bill gave a dual control of •Irish affairs, but could not protect the minority. , ' i MR BALFOUR'S SPEECH. ! AIR EDWARD GREY IN REPLY.

TEE PROBLEM FOR THE HOUSE. (Received May 3, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, May 3. Mr "Balfour said that the restrictions in the Bill, though necessary, did not . give Irishmen an opportunity for developing'their affairs on their own lines. Dual control, was written large throughout the measure, neither protecting the minority nor giving the Irishmen the advantages they now derived from the connection with the United Kingdom. The Bill would prevent public-spirited men from entering the Irish Parliament, and-would result in the return .of inferior men, lowering the Assembly's status. The proposal to strengthen the representation at Westminster temporarily during the adjustment of the finances was amazing. He challenged the Minister to. cite a case I where a unified Government had been broken up to meet the demand of selfH government wherein a stable community had resulted. . Was there any precedent, he asked, for starting a federation on a basis of inequality or one in which the claims -.■'■' of a homogeneous fraction were ignorI cd? ■■'• Was not tho federal idea the cre- , ation of general services, the abolition '■ of fiscal divisions and the desire for closer unity? The Government had not heeded these - questions, but preferred to cut up the Kingdom, while the Nationalists probably regarded partial independence as the precursor to complete independence. . Sir Edward Grey dealt with- the ad* .vantage of relieving the House of Cbm- • inons of its present congestion. To reply to Mr Balfour's questions, he said, swould require a prolonged historical re- ■ search, and he was not prepared to answer them. .'' In conclusion, Sir Edward" Grey re-' marked that Mr Balfour had said that *he Transvaal was not a parallel to ■ Ireland. The Transvaal had not been mentioned as a parallel but to show that a prophet of evil was not always 'right. He 'asked Mr Balfour whether there was a parallel for the monstrous over concentration of business in the .House of Commons. The present sys- . 'tern had proved unworkable and devolu- ." tion. was required not for Ireland alone. He admitted that the present plan was not the pattern for a federal system I that was universally applied, but the United Kingdom did not believe that /perfect. similarity was necessary. The Bill would give finality in the import- «& ant sense that the Nationalists accepted it as the fulfilment of Home Rule. If Ulster prevented the solution of the difficulty, some other way must be found to free the House of Commons •and. put the control of Irish affairs into Irish hands. He behoved tho present animosity would disappear when • joint responsibility had been established. • THE MARCH OF THE NATION. SPEECHES IN DUBLIN. . (Received May 3, 11.5 p.m.) LONDON, May 3. Sinn Fein speakers at Dublin referred to tHe Nationalist leaders' extraor- , dinarily unnecessary professions of loyalty to the Empire. They said., that Home Rule would never be the final settlement. Even Mr Redmond could not fix the boundary of the march of the nation.