HOME RULE BILL.

West Coast Times, 4 May 1912, Page 3

HOME RULE BILL.

IRELAND'S STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM. SECOND READING DEBATE, AIR. BALFOUR’S INCISIVE CRITICISM. “DOES NOT PROTECT THE MINORITY.” lrr.lt PRESS ASSOCIATION.—COPYRIGHT.] LONDON, Alay 3. The debate on the Second Reading o>. the Irish Home Rule Bill was resumed in the House of Commons.

The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, Conservative member for the City of London, delivered a searching criticism of the Home Rule Bill. Air. Balfour said the Bill gives dual control of Irish affairs, bur it cannot- protect the minority.

Mr. Balfour went on to say that the restrictions in the Bill, though necessary, did not give the Irishmen the opportunity of developing tho affairs on their own lines. Dual control was written large throughout the measure, neither protecting the minority, nor giving the Irishmen the advantages now derived in their connection with the United Kingdom. Tho Bill would prevent public-spirited members entering tho Irish Parliament but would result in tho return of inferiors, thereby lowering the Assembly’s status. The proposal to temporarily strengthen tho Irish representation at Westminster during the adjustment of the finances was an amazing one and Air. Balfour challenged the Minister to cite a case where a unified Government had been broken up to meet a demand of selfgovernment wherein a stable community had resulted.

“YY’as there any precedent for starting a federation on the basis of inequality,” asked Air. Balfour, “or where teh claims of a homogeneous fraction to bo ignored? YY’as not tho federal idea expressed in tho creation of general services, tho abolition of fiscal divisions and a desire for closer unity? The Government did not heed these questions, hut preferred to cut up the Kingdom, while the Nationalists probably regarded a partial iudepeudenco f tin. precursor of complete independence.

“THE PROPHET OF EVIL NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.” LONDON, May 3. Sir Edward Grey, K.G., (Minister of Foreign Affairs) dealt with the advantage Homo Rule would bring in relieving the congestion in the House of Commons. In reply to Mr. Balfour’s questions, the Minister said the answers would require prolonged historical research and he was not prepared to answer them. Concluding his speech Sir Edward declared that Mr. Balfour had said that I the Transvaal was not a parallel. The Minister replied that the Transvaal had not been mentioned as a parallel, hu c as an example as showing that the 1 prophet of evil was not always right. He asked Mr. Balfour whether there was any parallel for the monstrous over-concentration of business in the House of Commons. The present system had proved unworkable and devolution was required and this not in Ii eland alone. He admitted that the present plan was not a pattern for a federal spstom to ho universally applied to the United Kingdom, but lie did not believe a perfect similarity were necessary. Sir Edward went on to say that the Bill would give finality in the important sense that the Nationalists had accepted as a fulfilment of Homo Rule. If Ulster prevented the solution some other means must be found to Free the House, of Commons and put the control of Irish affairs in Irish hands. The Minister said ho believed the present animosity would disappear when joint responsibility had been establish-

OPINION OF THE SINN FEIN. HOME RULE NOT FINAL SETTLEMENT. LONDON, May 3. Several speakers belonging to the Sinn Fein Society, addressing a Dublin gathering, referred to the. Nationalist leaders’ extraordinary and unnecessary profession of loyalty to the Empire. They declared that Homo Rule was never the final settlement. Even Mi. John Redmond himself could not fix the boundary of the inarch of the. nation.