THE HOME RULE BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2483, 30 March 1893, Page 2

THE HOME RULE BILL.

The following are the opening portions of Mr Gladstone’s speech on the Home Rule Bill:

Mr Gladstone, who rose shortly before a quarter to four o’clock, was loudly cheered from all parts of the House. He said—Mr Speaker, I may, without impropriety I think, remind the House that the voices which usually plead the cause of Irish self-government in Irish affairs have within these walls during the last seven years been almost entirely mute. To return, therefore, to the period when in 1886 a proposition of this kind was introduced on the part of the Government of the day, 1 beg to remind the House of the position then taken up by the promise of the measure. We said—“We have arrived at a period in our transactions with Ireland where two roads part. You have to choose between the one and the other. One of them is the way to Irish autonomy, according to the conception I have just referred to; the other is the way to coercion.” That, Sir, is our contention, and it will be in the recollection of the House that contention was most stoutly and loudly denied—l do not say it of all, but by very many members of this House, who did not concur in the views of the then Government. It was said by them—“ We are not coercionists; we do not adopt that alternative, and neither can we adopt it.” (Opposition cheers). Well, Sir, that assertion and others were undoubtedly sustained by the proposal—especially from those politicians whom we term dissentient Liberals—of various plans for dealing with the Irish questions. Those plans, though they fell entirely short in principle and in scope of Irish selfgovernment in Irish affairs, yet were plans of no trifling import, for they went far beyond what had heretofore been usually proposed in the way of selfgovernment. Well, now, Sir, what has been the result of the dilemma as it was then put forward on this side of the House, and as it was then from the other ! Has your confession that the choice lay between autonomy and coercion been justified or has it not? (Cheers). What has become of it and all those important schemes for giving to Ireland government in provinces, for giving to her even a central establishment in Dublin, with limited but unjnst powers I All those have vanished in thin air, but the reality remains. (Ministerial cheers). Two roads were there the way of autonomy and the way of coercion ; one choice lay between them and a choice was made. One choice was made to repel the proposal of autonomy and to embrace in consequence the path of coercion. (Cheers). 1 wish, (Sir, to recall to the House that coercion is a practice in which you cannot always follow an absolutely uniform method of proceeding. If we take the early part of this century, coercion then, though frequent, was far from perpetual. Down to 1829 or 1832 there ’ were ten years entirely free from it; but in the very much longer period which elapsed between 1832 and 1886 there were only, I believe, two years in which Ireland was entirely free from the note, the disparaging and ignominious note, of exceptional and repressive law. And what lesson have we learnt since 1886 I lam speaking of a matter of fact, and not indulging in praise or blame. Since 1886 we have made another, a bolder, a more daring step forward in the policy of coercion. It has been recognised as the normal condition of the country, and has taken its place for the first time in the shape of a permanent law upon the statute book of the country. (Ministerial cheers). Well, now, my contention is this. The first argument I lay before the House is this—that a permanent system of repressive law inflicted upon a country, or attached to a country from without, and in defiance of the voice and judgment of the vast majority of its constitutional representatives, constitutes a state of things of such a character that while it subsists you have not, and you cannot have, the first condition of harmony ami good government established in that country, (Ministerial cheers). It is impossible that the inhabitants of such a country, laboring under coercion in that form inflicted from such a quarter, and inflicted in opposition to the authentic voice which the Constitution has given them—it is impossible to say that you should bring the inhabitants of that country into sympathy with the law, and into that respect for the law without which you have no true political stability, no true social civilisation. (Ministerial cheers). My next objection to such a state of things is this—that it is a distinct and wild breach of the promises upon the faith of which the Union was obtained. (Ministerial cheers), I must for a moment ask the House to return with me to that period, and 1 am not now going to describe the history of that Union in the terras which, I grieve to say, it deserves, but only to point out the facts of the case, THE TERMS OF THE UNION, When the Union was presented to Ireland many of those who were friendly to it in principle yet made the admission that it bore an odious aspect. I will cite a bishop of that period, appointed by the Government of that period, and a man of ability, jtyr Young, the of Clonfert, who was a writ'er'(u idyqv of that Union, yet ipade this frapk confession ' He said, in 1779; when the proposal had h eeu defeated on its ft r st presentation in the Irish Parliament— n A great &aso has, for the present, been unfortunately lost; yet, how could it well be otherwise ? An incorporating Union is certainly a degrading relation to a nation in the

possession of its own Parliament, and in appearance entirely indefensible.” He ujSl> ffpes <-/h )Lq Cfijbmit the argument why that y»wn shoqffi accepted, and what was ''ilia ' Go7&mms' advanced in its favor ? It was partly a promise of commercial equality, but rao'e widely than that was a promise of equal laws. (Ministerial cheers.) Equality of laws, by which the country was to be govprpod, was the grand compensation which Ireland was £o receive for the removal of her Parliament and the extinction of the great symbol of her distinct, though not necessarily separate, national life. (Ministerial cheers ) Mr Ooq|r, the Under-Secretary of the day, who, next to Lord, Oastloreagh, deserved the honor or censure that attached tq the Union, published a pamj?h’et t*f gt'eM importance on the part of the Government, containing arguments for and against the Union with Qi’eat Britain. I will quote one passage out of several I. have fiefcre me—“ And Union pre-supposes that when it is completed that contracting States shall be bound together by the same constitution, law, and government, and by an identity of interest and equality of privileges.” But there was also another prophecy of Mr Cook’s, which was justifiably for him to use at the time, but the result of which, I think, conveys to us a striking lesson. Mr Cook cast hie eye upon the IrishParliameut of the day, teeming with eloquence and statesmanship, He saw there Grattan and Ponsonby, and Parnell and Plunkett, and, Forster, and outside Chief Justice

Bush and other men; and when Ireland, from her own soil, had thrown up the rich crop of political ability, Mr Cook with confidence prophesied in these few words —“We shall have Irishmen in the originating Cabinet of Great Britain.” What has been the fate of that prophecy? Two Irishmen, famous each in his way, and one of Europeau and world-wide fame, have had seats in the Cabinet of Great Britain —I mean Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington. But both Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington were the growth of Ireland in the period when it had its independent Parliament. On the state of things which Mr Cook inferred, what has been the case ? It has been my fate, as it has been my honored distinction, to sit in the Cabinets of the Queen in concert with no less than between 60 and 70 statesmen, but among those 60 or 70, with the single exception of the Duke of Wellington, an Irishman has not been found. So much for this habit which was anticipated for the Union. Sir, I come back to the promise of equal laws. It came from one higher than Mr Cook; it came from Mr Pitt himself, who said—“ Each country will retain its proportionate weight and importance under the security of equal laws.” Those equal laws—rightly or wrongly, I do not now say—you have not given to Ireland. (Parnellite cheers.) The pledges of the Union you have not been able to fulfil; the consideration which helped to extort the Union from Ireland has not been paid, and the broken promise is written—unhappily indelibly written—upon the history of our country. (Ministerial cheers.)

THE GROWTH OF THE IRISH DEMAND. Well, now, what is the state of the case with regard to the persistency and selfassertion of Ireland ? Probably for a long time in the beginning of this century Ireland as a political entity was little more than a carcaes robbed of its life. (Ministerial cheers). From 1832, when her resurrection began, down to, 1880 she could only present what she did present —a small minority of those who were in favor of restoring to her something in the nature of constitutional rights and of practical self-government. And, sir, I am bound to say that it much astonishes me, in contemplating this case and in thankfully remembering how generally and cordially it is recognised in this country that we are a i selfgoverning people that is, a people governed by our majorities—it is to me astonishing that so little weight is attached by many to the fact that whereas before 1880—before 1885, indeed, as I should say—lrish wishes for self-govern-ment were represented only by a minority —aye, and rather a small minority—of her representatives since 1885, since the wide extension of the franchise and its protection by the machinery of the secret vote—(Opposition laughter and Ministerial cheers) —I perceive, sir, a smile upon the countenances of some when I refer to the protection of the secret vote. Do they approve of the secret vote or do they not 1 If they do not approve of it, I recommend them to go to their constituents and make known that fact, (Ministerial cheers.) The secret vote, it will bo seen, is material to my argument, because without the secret vote, perhaps in no country—certainly not in Ireland —had the voter a shadow of independence. In the Parliaments of 1885 and 1886 there were 85 Nationalists, to use the general current phrase, out of 101 members, for I confess I only recognise 101 Irish members as popular representatives, and out of that 101 the 85 were more than five-sixths; they have now been reduced, I believe, from 85 to 80—(Opposition cheers) — under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and to some, I must fraukly own, myself among others, totally and absolutely unintelligible. (Hear, hear, and Opposition laughter.) Let us look at the state of things as it now stands. There are about 80 of 101—that is to say, the wishes of Ireland for Irish self-government in Irish matters are represented only by four-fifths of her members. (Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.) Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have no respect for such a majority as that. Do they recollect, Sir, that never in England has there been such a majority ? Never once, (Ministerial cheers.) No Parliament of the last fifty years has come within measurable or unmeasurable distance of it. lu one Parliament of. 60 years, the Parliament of December, 1832, the first in which I had the honor of sitting cheers) —there was by far the greatest majority that overbad been known in our constitutional history. The party of Sir Robert Peel, to which I belonged—(ironical Opposition cheers)— did not count at the outside more than. 150, and would perhaps be more properly estimated at 140; but even the majority represented by the sraallnes that majority did not reach to the point at which the Irish majority now stands. If there had been anything in the great principle of self-government, which, if it be a reality, is a reality that never can work except through the machinery and by the laws of representation—at any rate, the Voice of the Irish people and the persistency of the Irish people in the delivery of that voice, and the peaceful and constitutional circumstances under which it has been so delivered (Opposition cries of “ Oh,” and Ministerial cheers)—constitute a great factor in this case.

TFB POSITION OF CXSTJSR,. But it has been said, apd 1 jtEj truth, that Ireland ig hqt p united country. It is still q, dis-uqitecj Ireland in itself i and although the constitutional ■aithority of the voioe of Ireland is, in my opinion, ‘absolutely indisputable, I do not deny that, as a social fact the division which existed in that country is a fact of great importance. In truth, were Ireland united anything that can render Ireland formidable would become very ranch more formidable ; were Ireland united your opposition would vanish as a shadow, and we slvqqld hW), c'l ft nu ipqrg. (Ministerial cheers). It is not united in this sense—that in one portion of the country not merely the majority of the higher classes, but a considerable amount of popular feeling in one limitation of the country, is opposed to the present Irish nat'Qiial movement, and in a very small pdrtioVortbeobvfwy' indeed' Is the adverse sentiment represented by a majority of the 1 c vl community, I will not at*’ tempt to measure a fact of great social importance; I will not attempt to mpaspre the numericial strength of that minority; but I wish to notice a clr.qunj•wanca of great interest *jud great wqighp. J It is commonly said, I think I have peard it said even by the leader of the Opposition the other night—at any rate .the sentiment ’will be recognised as ope cojp-r raon to the party opposite—it is gqm r monly said that the minority in the North is arrayed in an unalterable opposition to the demand for Home Rule. (Opposition cheers). In order to show that a decision is unalterable you ought to be able certainly to show that it has never altered. (Ministerial cheers). Unhappily, at tho successful instigation of those whose plot it was to divide the people of Ireland when they wore united at the close of the last century, through the medium mainly of the Orange lodges, and through the demon, of religions animosity, dis*

sensions were created. The Protestants of Ireland during the period of the indepent Irish Parliament were themselves not only willing, but zealous and enthusiastic supporters of Irish nationality. They led on the Roman Catholics in the Parliamentary movement which distinguished the people. This is written broadcast upon the history of the times. I will mention only one small example, and that was in 1792, In the month of November there met in Dublin a body of Roman Catholics, under circumstances the most likely to have created jealousy among their fellow-countrymen, because they met, I think, with the name and undoubtedly with the nature of a convention representing all parts of the country. They were popularly called the Blackhead Parliament, and they formulated their claims for political equality. The commissioners charged with the prosecution of that demand, where did they first go to make it known ? They went to the city of Belfast. (Cheers). And what reception did they have from the mass of population ? The population poured forth as one man, and met them, taking the horses from their carriages, and introducing them with a triumphal entry through the streets of the town. (Cheers.) That was the feeling of Protestants in Ireland years ago; and we have seen them alter—not through their own fault—from what we think better to what we think worse. Are we readily to be persuaded that they will not alter back again (cheers) —t > the sentiments of their own ancestors, of their own blood, of their own people, and form one in a noble and glorious unity with the rest of their fellow countrymen ? (Cheers.) THE OPPOSITON OF ENGLAND.

I am not about to speak in any invidious sense upon the well-known fact that the resistance to Home Rule proceeds from England alone. (“ No.”) i am not about to menace England. What I mean is that England alone has a majority of representatives against Home Rule. (Hear, hear). lam not about to menace England, for it is not by menace that England is to be coerced. (Cheers). I am not about to urge that England will find her strength exhausted and her work impracticable if that work is to be permanent resistance to the Irish demands. I confess in my own opinion, considering the strength of England, perhaps it is an exaggerated opinion—taking its resources in connection with the masculine substautiveness of the character of its people and their wonderful persistency in giving effect to the opinions they embrace —I confess that England might maintain a resistance to the voice of all her partners for a time, and spend her immeasurable energies in the manful resolution of supporting a bad cause. But I want to know whether England has arrived at that permanency of sentiment on behalf of an agressive and repressive policy—(cheers)—and in denying to Ireland that full equality which we request on her behalf. (Cheers). Is the mind of England certainly fixed in that direction ? (Ministerial c'leers). To answer that question let us see what has taken placs within these few years, because it will be recollected that the brilliant chief of the Tory party at about that period said that “ the reason why your repression and coercion has. not succeeded is because you have not been sufficiently resolute—(Opposition cheers) —to-day you say one thing and to-morrow another.” (Opposition cheers). Then he exhorted them to brace themselves to a resolute, persistent, immovable policy, and said that then the government of Ireland would be an easy task. To all appearance the people of England gave a cordial response to that invitation, for in July, 1886, out of 465 members they returned 137 favorable to our way of thinking. There were no less than 338 who were opposed to it. Then I think the noble Marquis said that there was an irrevocable verdict. (Ministerial laughter and cheers). The time that has passed since then is not very long. Now the 137 have already swollen to 197. (Ministerial cheers). The 338 have sunk to 269. (Cheers). There was a majority from England adverse to the Irish claims in 1886 of 211. That majority has declined to the more mode«t figure of 171. With all the British persistency, valor, and resource, no man denies that two-thirds of that majority has diminished, and I want to know who will give an effective guarantee of the permanence of the remainder ? (Cheers). I do not couch these arguments in the tone of party. I have rather endeavored so far to address myself to the minds of practical men—to beg and conjure them to take note of facts, and use them as a test in the interpretation of the future, and to form rational judgments as to the course they ought to pursue. (Cheers).

THE NEW PBOfOSALS. Having said so much, I now come to an endeavor to lay the bill before you (Cheers.) I do not undertake to supply what may be termed a table of contents to the bill. If I did that I should probably bewilder my hearers. (Hear, hear.) What 1 have now to do is to present to the notice of the House the scheme, principle, and salient points of the bill, and my object will be to leave, if I can, some living impression of these matters on the minds and memories of those who hear mo. Of course, within limits there inay be differences on the subjects which are the principal points in the view of fjqme gpntlemen—l may say what, in the view of other gentlemen, ought to have been omitted. My only answer to that is to beg that gentlemen will for themselves as soon as they are able—and I trust it will be very soon indeed—consult the bill itself. I may say in one word that while it willbe remembered, or may be remembered, that in 1886 there were five propositions laid down as cardinal principles from which there ought to be no departure—to those fi|,e propositions we havo ondeaVorda closely' to adhere. Changes there have been—far from unimportant changes—but not, I think, in any matter touching upon any of those declared principles of 1886 which were .stated. Thus the object of the bill as Stated then remains object of, flic bill, w.itb regard to which ! everyfixing else is seeouda’y 'and conditional. Tint i« .* i • ~ 0.-r-icu or the bill was to establish a legislative body sitting in Dublin for the q induct of both legislation and administitration in High as distinct from Imperial ivfl'iira. And the limiting conditions which we say were then observed, and jjpve since so far as we are able to do it, been sedulously and closely observed, these, They were to do nothing inconsistent with the Imperial unity, fhat Imperial unity of which I may say in passing, although it will not be admitted we are right, that we do not mean to impair it; we wish to strengthen it. (Oheers.) We wish to give it a greater intensity than it has ever yet possessed, and we believe the wise extension of the p-ivileges of local self-government has b son shown by experience to be the most e lective instrument fqr the purpose. We ipst said that Imperial unity was to be preserved j secondly, the equality of all the kingdoms was to be borne in mind; tiurUy, there was to be an ecpiitable ropartitioufof Imperial charges; fourthly

any and every practicable provision for J the protection of minorities was to be 1 adopted ; and, fifthly, the plan that was to be proposed ought to be such as at least, in the judgment of the Government, presented the necessary characteristics—! wont say of a final, because it is a dis credited word—but for a real and continued sovereignty. That is the basis upon which we continue to stand, and I will now state the main lines in which we endeavor to do it. THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT.

In the first place, we have made, or desire to make, what I think no unreasonable demand for an express mention of supremacy. There are two modes by which it might be done. It might bo done by a clause, or it might be done by the preamble. If it were done by a clause it would appear too much of che character of a mere pronouncement, whereas it is a radical and cardinal point underlying each and every enactment; and it is far better, in our view, to notice and acknowledge it reverently in this preamble than to give to it the character of some decision which might be supposed to be a nominal decision of Parliament, and to expose it to the chance which any such enactment might contain. It is not necessary to use many words for such apurpose. Our words are : —“ Whereas it is expedient that, without impairing or restricting the supreme authority of Parliament.” We then go on to declare the intentions of the Legislature, to which I shall come presently. What I wish to point out is this, with reference to the charge frequently—-I have no doubt in good faith—made against us that Ave are destroying the Act of Union, I wish to challenge an inquiry on this main and fundamental point what is the essence of the Act of Union ! And I wish gentlemen would ask themselves that question, what is the essence of the Act of Union. Thar essence is to be appreciated by comparing the constitution of things in this country before 1790 with the constitution of things now existing. Before 1800 we had two sovereignties in the country. One of those sovereignties was collectively lodged in the King, the House of Lords, and Houso of Commons of England ; and the other was collectively lodged in the King, the House of Lords, and House of Commons of Ireland, and there was no more right in the true public sense, the historic and legal sense—there was no more right i i the sovereignty residing in Great Britain to interfere with the sovereignty planted in Ireland, than there was in the sovereignty planted in Ireland, had it been strong enough to interfere with the sovereignty of England. Sir,the Act of Union made the kingdoms into one, and made the sovereignties into one, and the incorporation of the Parliaments was sub sidiary to the Union—subsidiary and instrumental. That is the question we raise, and which we wish particularly in the provisions of the present bill not entirely, but particularly to alter But the essence of that view was the establishment of the unity of the sovereignty of the country, so that the body thereby constituted a sovereign body was to be a body entitled to exercise rigts and privileges equally and completely throughout the entire United Kingdom. So it was, and so the reader of this bill will find it is allowed to remain.