The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1911. HOME RULE UNIVERSAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7447, 23 May 1911, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1911. HOME RULE UNIVERSAL

Homs Rule’is a form of government in which local autonomy is combined with a central power which controls the relations of a congeries of States with the foreigner. So described tho system of Home Rule is general all over the civilised world. There are few exr ceptions, and among them is the case of Ireland, as wo are reminded every time we read a report of speeches made by Irish delegates pleading the cause of their countrymen. The question naturally arises: “Why is Home Rule so universal?" There aro many answers embodied in history. The latest is from South Africa, and this contribution consists of a prediction and a statement of fact. Mr Balfour is responsible for the first; and the Duke of Connaught for the second. The prediction was pessimistic “ Their memories are memories of war," said Mr Balfour of the Dutch about to be admitted to tho rights of citizenship on terms of Home Rule, “ and they are memories of an independence wliich preceded war.” The statesmen, he added, who were mentioned as certain to be trusted by their countrymen with administrative power were the very men who had been successful leaders in war. He could not see the smallest probability that these men would do aught but prepare their State for the next great war against the Empire. This was the prediction. The factstated by the Duke of Connaught after his return from the opening of the Home Rule Parliament at Capetown was very different. “ The march of events," said he, ‘‘has been wonderful indeed,” and he went on to refer to tho sad, troubled history pf the past, 'comparing it with the present, the climax of which had been the “ appearance of South Africa as one of the sister States assembled in conference ” in London. South Africa had “ imposed upon herself the great .duty of playing a noble and righteous part in moulding the policy of the Empire in time to coine.” With that great solid fact for a basis ho predicted that “ South Africa will be prepared, whenever and wherever occasion demands, to take her full share of responsibility for maintaining tho great co-partner-ship of nations, hound together as they are by the closest ties of mutual regard and strong self-interest under the Sovereignty of his Majesty the King.” The prediction is endorsed by tho understanding of the whole Einpire.

Another answer comes from Germany. It is in the shape of a forty years’ experience of ' Home Rule of the federal-cum-antonomic pattern. Since the year of the proclamation of German unity under the federal constitution devised by Bismarck tiyentyfive States have lived in peace and amity side by side in Germany under the system, each with its own Parh’ament, its own executive, and its own control over local affairs—complete in every respect of its autonomy. It has been happily pointed out by the leader of the Irish party on a recent occasion that “one at least of these States (Prussia) is as large and populous as England; another, Bavaria, closely resembles Ireland in area and popular tion; a third, Wurtemhurg, ia almost identical in area and population with Wales.” This peace between these twenty-five States has been exposed to all the disturbing elements relied on by the opponents of Home Rule for Ireland. Particularly is there the appearance of the religious difficulty, some of the States being overwhelmingly Protestant, like Prussia, others being, like Bavaria, overwhelmingly Catholic. Yet never has the religious difficulty been for a moment real. It is not, indeed, for the want of provocation. for there is the history of the Kulturkamf, which was declared at one time to be capable of setting Germany in a blaze of religious war from one end to tho other. But the fact remains that never was there any real religious difficulty in the German Empire of the kind predicted as certain to wreck the Home Rule of tho Irish people, “ This great Home Rule Constitution,’' to use the words of Mr John Redmond, “has lasted now since 1871, and has led to freedom, contentment, and prosperity. The problem of combining national freedom with Imperial unity and strength has been completely solved by the magic of Homo Rule.” History is behind Mr Redmond here, and it is also at his si do. For the first, it is matter of record that had Louis Napoleon played his cards just a little differently when invading Germany in 1870 tho Germans of the South might have thrown in their lot with him. But no matter how any cards might be played now the unity of tbs Fatherland would remain unshaken. For the present its testimony is even stronger. It is offered in. the shape of ft constitution for the conquered provinces of Alsace-Lorraine. That offer is the cul-

ruination of forty years of Home Rule in Germany. Nothing could be a stronger testimony to the German belief in the saving grace of Home Rule. This is one extreme of the historic argument. The other extreme is the South African experience. These meet in support of Homo Rule, and they sweep up everyfihng in history besides. Australasia and Canada supply the main strength of the historic reasoning of fact between these' extremes. The case for Home Rule is both clear and irrefragable. Home Rule is proved by history to be the cement of Empires, not the explosive force that rends them asunder.