IRISH HOME RULE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIII, Issue 6, 4 May 1912, Page 3

IRISH HOME RULE.

DUAL CONTROL WRIT LARGE THROUGHOUT. MR. BALFOUR’S VIEWS. London, May 3. Mr Balfour, speaking in the House on the Home Rule Bill, said that the restrictions to the Bill, though necessary, did not give Irishmen an opportunity of developing affairs on their own lines. Dual control was written large throughout the measure, neither protecting the minority nor giving Irishmen the advantages now derived in connection with the United Kingdom. The Bill, he said, would prevent public spirited men from entering the Irish Parliament, and would result in the return of inferiors, lowering the Assembly’s status. The proposal to temporarily strengthen the representation at Westminister during the adjusment of the finances was amazing. He; challenged Ministers to cite a case where a unified government was broken up to meet the demand of self-gov-ernment wherein a stable community resulted. Was there, he asked, any precedent for starting federation on the basis of inequality, or where the claims of a homogeneous fraction was ignored? Was not the federal idea the creation of general services, the

abolition of fiscal division, and the desire for closer unity? The Government had not heeded these questions, and preferred to cut up the kingdom, while the Nationalists probably regarded the partial independence of Ireland as a precursor to complete independence.

Sir Edward Grey dealt with the advantage of relieving the congestion in ’the House of Commons. In reply to Mr Balfour’s question, he said it would require prolonged historical research, and he was not prepared to answer it offhand. Sir Edward Grey concluded by remarking that Mr. Balfour had said that the Transvaal was not a parallel case. The Transvaal was not mentioned as a parallel, but to show that the prophet of evil was not always right. He asked Mr. Balfour if there was any parallel to the monstrous overconcentration of business in the House of Commons. The present system, he continued, had proved unworkable. Devolution was required, and not for Ireland alone. He admitted that the present plan was not a pattern for a federal system, nor could it he universally applied to the United Kingdom, lie did not believe that perfect •similarity was necessary for the Bill to give final! ty in the important sense that Nationalists acceptd as a fulfilment of Home Rule. If Ulster prevented the solution of the problem, some other method must be found to free the House of Commons, and put the control of Irish affairs into Irish hands. He believed the present animosity would disappear when joint responsibility was established. THE SINN FEIN. London, May 3. Sinn Fein speakers at Dublin referred to the Nationalists leaders’ extraordinary and unnecessary professions of loyalty to the Empire. Home Rule, they stated, would never he a final settlement and even Rr Redmond could not fix the boundary of the march of the nation.