HOME RULE

Otago Witness, Issue 3111, 29 October 1913, Page 30

HOME RULE

MR M‘KENNA’B VIEWS

ISSUE AT BY-ELECTION

MR ASQUITH S SPEECH

INVITATION TO UNIONISTS

LONDON, October 21. Mr M'Kenna, speaking at Griffiths Town, said there was no necessity to discuss Home Rule at length. It would become law next session. The battle was won two years ago, and the Parliament Act would do the rest. October 22. Speaking at Bristol, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Hobhouse) said that he personally was sanguine of a rapprochement on the Home Rule problem. If the present opportunities of peace were neglected it would be disastrous, but it would be equally disastrous if the Government yielded to violence. October 24. Home Rule is being made the leading question at the Reading by-election. Mr Gooch (the Liberal candidate) favours special and generous treatment for Ulster and special powers being given to her i n the matters of education and finance. Speaking at Ipswich, Lord Crewe, Secretary for India, said that the Ulster campaign was becoming a serious matter for India. If the Ulster arguments were good, there was no possible answer to the same arguments when used by Indian agitators. October 26. In a speech at Elibank Mr Asquith dealt entirely with the Irish situation He said the Home Rule Bill has been supported from first to last with undiminished majorities. So far from being carried by the Irish vote, it had received the support of a substantial majority of the British members of Parliament. Mr Redmond and he had co-operated, and neither party was ashamed of the co-operat:on, of which the whole of the Liberal party and nearly four-fifths - of the Irish people approved. There was abundant evidence of practically united support by all the selfgoverning dominions. —(Cheers.) There was, therefore, a complete constitutional case for the application of the Parliament Act. Next session the Government would make Home Rule operative. They would agree that the action of statesmen in a matter which had reached this stage ought not to be affected or deflected. The menace and forcible resistance doctrines preached in Ulster during the last two years and which, he regretted, responsible quarters countenanced, were a negation of the first principles of parliamentary and democratic government.— (Cheers.) If the minority was entitled to resist by force, what possible answer could be made to the mass of the Irish if they preferred a similar claim in the event of being frustrated in a perfectly constitutional demand wherein they were supported by the large majority of the British members of Parliament? “No,” he added, “ wo shall not be intimidated by the threat of force.” He said he hoped and believed that Home Rule would be brought into operation without recourse to the armed forces of the Crown, but if a deliberately enacted statute was met by organised and armed resistance it would clearly be the duty of the Executive to assert the authority of the law by appropriate and adequate measures. Recent proceedings in Ulster, so far from impressing the imagination or attracting the sympathies of the average citizen, had had precisely the opposite effect. However much one’s taste, and even one’s common sense, was tempted to take offence at these extravagant manifestations, it was their duty to deal respectfully with a deep-seated and genuine sentiment. He was prepared to consider with an open mind any adjustment of Ulster’s position subject to certain simple governing considerations. These were: —Firstly, nothing should be done to interfere with the establishment of a subordinate Legislature in Dublin, that being the root principle from which they could not depart; secondly, nothing should be, done to erect a permanent and insuperable bar to Irish unity; thirdly, while the importance of the extension of the devolution principle in appropriate forms in other parts of the kingdom was recognised, Ireland must be first dealt with. He was sanguine that a settlement was not beyond the resources of statesmanship, but one thing was certain : the Government was not going to bo false to the trust which the majority of the Irish had reposed in it. In the course of his speech at Ladybank Mr Asquith said there were two obvious reasons why all patriots should desire a settlement of the Home Rule question by consent. Firstly, it was supremely important that Ireland’s future well-being under self-government should not start with an apparent triumph by one section, however preponderant, and the apparent humiliation of another. He believed that the. ties binding Irishmen together would eventually prove more durable and more effective than the differences which seemed to keep them apart, but if that unifying and consolidating process was to have a fair chance it was worth paying a considerable price to secure it- In the second place it was well from Britain’s and Ireland’s viewpoint that whatever was done would be regarded by both parties as resting on a solid foundation and capable of future development and amplification; but it w r as essential that it should

be beyond the risk of electoral and party vicissitudes. Ireland had far too long been the cockpit of British politics. Nothing could be worse for either than that the Irish question should continue to be a regular party battle-cry. Both Britain and Ireland had affairs calling imperiously for their close and undivided attention. He believed that the growing sense of such considerations had produced in the past few months a perceptible change in the political atmosphere. The Government's proposals had been put forward in good faith and goodwill for something in the nature of a formal conference between the party leaders, but a conference without a more or less agreed basis and more or less defined limits was almost certain to be abortive. If there was a genuine disposition in all quarters for an interchange of views and suggestions, free and frank, without prejudice he invited such an interchange, in which he and his colleagues were ready to participate. The Observer considers that Mr Asquith is exceedingly dexterous in his offer to test the strength and judgment of the Opposition leadership. Mr Asquith has gone as far as reasonable opponents could expect, and he ought to be met with the same moderation, dignity, and skill. The Northern Whig, a Belfast paper, says that if Mr Asquith persists in carrying out the policy enunciated in his Ladybank speech the result will be to drench Ireland with blood and to shake Britain to her very foundations. It says the speech will only stiffen the determination of the Ulster Protestants. October 27. Tire Daily Chronicle hopes that the Unionists will agree to a formal interchange of views. It adds that the unreasoning extremism is now found only on one side. It remains to be seen whether, or how long, that side will continue to be thus dominated. The Irish Independent says that if Mr Asquith’s speech is capable of the interpretation that the Government is willing to adjust the Ulster problem by the temporary exclusion of the four counties, the suggestion is not acceptable.