HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

Otago Witness, Issue 3034, 8 May 1912, Page 27

HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

SPEECH BY LORD SELBORNE. SECOND READING DEBATE. LONDON, April 30. In the course of a speech at Aberdeen Lord Selborne, referring to the argument that the weight of opinion in the selfgoverning dominions favoured Home Rule, said the dominions did not appreciate the immense difference between the application of the principle to a colony 6000 miles from Britain and an island 60 miles distant. They also misunderstood the complication of the problem by Ulster's antagonism. The opinion of the dominions was more pronounced on tariff reform than on Home Rule. Roughly speaking, there was no such thing as Freetrade in the dominions. Britain could not consistently base her Home Rule policy on the opinion of the dominions, meanwhile barring the door in the face of their tariff reform views. In a speech at the National liberal Club Dr Chappie, M.P., suggested that, after Home Rule all round had been granted, Ulster should be given the option by referendum of belonging to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. In the House of Commons Mr Churchill, in moving the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, said the question of Home Rule for Ireland was not comparable in importance to the growing discontent of the labouring population. Since Mr Gladstone took up Home Rule the violence in Ireland had not been more serious than in the labour disputes in Great Britain. May 1. The House of Commons, by 233 votes to 147, refused Mr Harold Smith leave to introduce a bill to repeal the preamble to the Parliament Act. Mr Smith argued that the promise to reform the Hous>e of Lords contained in the bill had not been fulfilled. Moreover, the Government was taking advantage of the Parliament Act to pass Home Rule. A Ministerial member stated that Home Rule had never been a separatist movement. The present demand was a moderate one. Never before had so little been asked, but never before had so many asked it. He denied that the bill involved any naval and military risks. There was no likelihood of divergent views in the event-; of war. The bill removed every ground of quarrel. Anything that would ruin England would also ruin Ireland. If the Irish deliberately sought to create a deadlock the bill provided tne remedy. The Imperial Parliament could resume the delegated powers and vindicate the law by force. He strongly appealed for Ulster's co-operation, -and said it would mean great disaster for Ireland if the Ulstermen held aloof from the National Parliament. Ulster had duties equally with rights. The Protestants in the north had a plain duty to their coreligionists in the rest of Ireland and the overseas dominions to sttand by the ship. If the Ulstermen refused to- bring the ship safely into port they should not be allowed to obstruct the salvage work. Mr Long said the bill would bring war, not peace. The financial provisions were unsound and dishonest. The bill made

federalism tenfold more difficult. H* moved the rejection of the bill. Mr Charles Craig declared that he wished to make it perfectly clear that Ulster would resist the Irish Parliament, if necessary by armed force. May 2. In the House of Commons Sir R B. Fmdlay warned the Government that persistence with the Home Rule Bill would mean civil war. If federalism was the object then Ulster's claim for separate treatment was irresistible. Colonel Seely eaid -that if the Nationalist leaders meant what they said religious intolerance and persecution would be impossible. He believed that the Irish would work the bill honourably and make Ireland the bulwark of British liberties. Mr William O'Brien declared that the bill would effect a reconciliation, but the financial proposals were impracticable, and could not be final. He trusted that ther» would be a safeguard to give the Pre? testants a firm grip on the Irish Parliament. Half the Senators and one-fourth of the members of the House of -Commons should be Protestants. Mr Balfour subjected the Home Rule Bill to a searching criticism. He said it gave dual control in Irish affairs, and could not protect the minority. May 3. Mr Balfour said the restrictions provided by the bill, though necessary, did not give the Irishmen an opportunity of developing affairs on their own lines- Dual control was written large throughout the measure, neither protecting the minority nor giving the Irishmen the advantages which they now derived in 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 temporarily strengthen the representation at Westminster during the adjustment of the finances was an amazing one. He cliallanged the Minister to cite a case where a unified Government was broken up to meet a demand of selfgovernment wherein a stable community resulted. Was there any precedent for starting a federation on a basis of inequality or where the claims of a homogeneous fractionnvere ignored? Was not the federal idea the .creation of general services, the abolition of fiscal divisions, and a desire for closer unity ? The Government had not heeded these questions, but had preferred to cut up tJie Kingdom, while the Nationalists probably regarded partial independence as the precursor of complete independence. Sir E. Grey dealt with the advantage resulting from relieving the congestion in the House of Commons. In reply to Mr Balfour's questions, he said they would require prolonged historical research, and he was not prepared to answer them. Sir E. Grey stated that Mr Balfour had said that the Transvaal was not a parallel case. The Transvaal had not been men* tioned as a parallel case, but to show thai a prophet of evil was not always right. He asked Mr Balfour if there was a parallel for the monstrous over-concentration of business in the House of Commons. The present system had proved unworkable, and devolution was required, but not for Ireland alone. He admitted that the present plan was not a pattern for a federal system to be universally applied to the United Kingdom. He did not believe tliat perfect similarity was necessary. The bill would give finality in the important sense that the Nationalists accepted it as a fulfilment of Home Rule. If Ulster prevented this solution some other must be found to free the House of Commons, and put the control of Irish affairs into Irish hands. He believed that the present animosity would disappear when joint responsibility was established. At a meeting of the Sinn Fein at Dublin the speakers referred to the Nationalist leaders' extraordinary -and unnecessary professions of loyalty to the Empire, Home Rule would never be the final settlement, and even Mr Redmond could not fix the boundary of the march of the nation. May 5. Mr J. E. Redmond is dissatisfied with Sir E. Grey's hint of the possibility of an alternative solution to meet Ulster's opposition. The Nationalists suspect that a proposal will be forthcoming to meet Ulster's special case.