HOME RULE DEBATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14984, 4 May 1912, Page 7

HOME RULE DEBATE.

VIEWS OF MR. BALFOUR.

TOO MUCH DUAL CONTROL.

MINORITY NOT PROTECTED.

" CUTTING UP THE KINGDOM."

By Telegraph.—Prcw Association.— (Received May 3. 9.30 p.m.) London, May 3. The debate on the motion for the second reading of the Irish Home Rule Bill was continued last night by Mr. A. J. Balfour, late leader of the Unionist party. Mr. Balfour said that the restrictions in the Bill, though necessary, did not give Irishmen the opportunity of developing their affairs on their own lines. Dual control was written large throughout the measure, which neither protected the minority nor gave Irishmen the advantages that they now derived from their connection with the United Kingdom. The Bill, he said, would prevent the public spirited from entering the Irish Parliament. The result would be the return of inferior members, which would lower the status of the Assembly. The proposal to temporarily strengthen the representation at Westminster during the adjustment of the finances was an amazing one. Challenge to Ministers. Mr. Balfour challenged Ministers to cite a case where unified government had been broken up to meet the demand of self-government from which a stable community had resulted. Was there, he asked, any precedent for starting a federation on a basis of inequality, or where the claims of a homogeneous fraction were ignored? He declared that there was not. The federal idea, he said, was the creation of general services, the abolition of fiscal divisions, and a desire for closer unity. The Government had not heeded these questions, but preferred to cut up the Kingdom.

While the Nationalists, he proceeded, probably regarded the Bill as providing partial independence they no doubt looked upon it as the precursor of complete independence Congestion in the Commons. Sir Edward Grey (Minister for Foreign Affairs) dealt with the advantage of the Bill as a means of relieving the present congestion in the House of Commons. In reply to Mr. Balfour's questions he said that it would require a prolonged historical research, and he was not prepared to answer them. Sir Edward remarked that Mr. Balfour had said that the case of the Transvaal was not a parallel to that of Ireland. The Transvaal had not been mentioned as a parallel, but in order to show that the prophet of evil was not always right. Was there a parallel, he , asked Mr. Balfour, to the monstrous overconcentration of business in the House of Commons 1 The present system had proved unworkable. Devolution, he contnued, was required not for Ireland alone. Not a Pattern lor Federalism. The present plan, he admitted, was not a pattern for a federal system to be universally applied to the United Kingdom. He did not believe that perfect similarity was necessary. The Bill, he concluded, was accepted by the Nationalists as a fulfilment of Home Rule. If Ulster prevented the scheme being carried out, ■ a solution in some other form must be found to free the House of Commons from the present congestion and to put the control of Irish j affairs in Irish hands. He believed that the present animosity would I disappear when joint responsibility was established. THE SINN FEIN ATTITUDE. " UNNECESSARY LOYALTY." (Received May 3, 11.5 p.m.) London, May 3. Members of the Sinn Fein Society, in- speaking at Dublin, referred to what they termed the Nationalist leaders' " extraordinary and unnecessary professions of loyalty to the Empire."

The Home Rule Bill, they declared, would never be a final settlement of the Irish question. Even Mr. Redmond (leader of the Nationalist party) could not fix the boundaries of the march of a nation. CHARGES OF TREASON. NO FACILITIES FOR DEBATE London, May 2. In replying to Mr. W. Thorne (Labour member), the Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) refused to grant the Government's time for the debating of the motion charging Sir Edward Carson and other leaders of the anti-Home Rule campaign in Ireland with making treasonable speeches.