THE HOME RULE DEBATE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 75, 3 October 1874, Page 6

THE HOME RULE DEBATE.

Since the Australian colonies have been linked with the mother-country by cable communication, much of the excitement and interest hitherto attached to the arrival of the European mails has been lessened. Ln these days of progress when science has annihilated distance, and the stirring events which are agitating the world's capitals are flashed to the uttermost ends of th«* earth within but a few hours of their occurrence, the news borne by the steamers having been invariably anticipated by wire, causes their arrival to be looked for ward to iv a manner very different to that of a few years since In addition to this, the changes in the politick kaleidoscope follow each other in such rapid succession, that unless affairs or more than usual weight arrest our attention, they become matters of the past, only to be recalled to our memory by each incoming mail. On the other hand, however, the news received by telegram is generally so meagre in detail, and subject to so many inaccuracies, tout on questions of moment we are compelled to await the arrival of the Home files for elucidation. Although the result of the debate in the Commons on the Home Kule, which took place ou the 30tli June became known to colonial readers in less time than it would have been known in the Irish capital at the commencement of the present century, yet it was not until two months later that the particulars of that great struggle for the national cause were planed before them. On that, as on every other question of a national character, the Irish members have been overwhelmed by apreponderauceof the English voting power in the House During the last Session of the Imperial Parliament ou five different questions affecting the internal welfare of the country has the Irish vote,- and the voice of the nation been swamped hy the intrusion of a hostile British majority. At the opening of the Session, the motion by the hon. member for LimencK with regard to the disaffection so prevalent in Ireland i and urging the Government to remove the admitted grievances under « Inch she groaned, although carried by a majority of two to one of Irish members, was rejected by a majority of English and Scotch. When the Irish Municipal Franchise Bill came up for its second reading, although the Irish votes numbered 43 to 12, or almost 4 to 1, It met with the same late as its predecessor. The majority on the question ot Irish Railways was even more disproportionate, the divisionlist showing the result as 46 to G, or 8 to 1 ; yet still in the face of thw decided expression of approval, the measure was defeated by the English and Scotch vote ; and a similar success attended the introduction of the Sunday Closing and Convention Acts, both of which secured considerable majorities of the national vote. With such recent experience of liberal legislation before them, there were not many who could have anticipated for a moment that on a question of such magnitude as Home Kule, the result would have been otherwise than it has been. Some idea may be formed of the importance attached to the debate, when it is stated that over 500 members of the House-a number very rarely gathered within the wall of St. Stephen's at one time-were in their seats ,-nd all the present and most of the members of the late Ministry w«e amongst the earliest arrivals. The leader of the party, Mr Isaac Hutt, undertook the task of moving the resolution of the evening, and in a speech of almost two hours duration, in which the most telling and unanswerable arguments were brought forward, he kept the House in such a state of -respectful silence as rarely occurs. The • Times' ol the following day spoke of it as the best speech ever delivered at Westminister, a judgment that was universally endorsed by every critic v-ho had the good fortune to be present on the occasion. The leader was followed by a host of others, whose eloquence was 'listened to with wonderin* adnnrauon, calling foith the remark that "it showed that true oratory was not dead in Ireland's sons, or in Parliament " ±$ut although the speakers were listened to with respectful

deference— tlie principal antagonists being the AttorneyGeneral for Ireland and the renegade Chief of the Glena -the measure met with the fate which advocate an r <i opponent alike expected. Out of a House of 521, C 3 members voted for Mr Butt's motion, and 458 against it; out of the 103 members by which Ireland is supposed to be represented, 95 recorded their vot^s, and of these 59 wnre in favor, and 36 against Home Rule. It will be thus seen that by a clear majority of one-fourth of Ireland's representatives the claim has beer, unmistakably made for self-government ; and although \vt> have, too much experience to imagine that this fact alone will move the Imperial Parliament to do justice to Ireland, yet it proclaims aloud that the voice of. the nation demands home legislation. It also plainly proves that Irish representation, when tlie national wants run counter in the slightest degree to the' wishes of English members, is a mockery and a farce ; and that on all questions affecting its welfare, unless when it becomes politic to temporise, the frish members^ might as beneficially fit in session at St. Petersburgh. The tactics employed in a neighboring colony ffo compel justice being done to it, might be beneficially followed at home. In the earlier days of the colonies, and before Victoria had reaped the benefit of governing her own local ntfairs, the representatives of Port Phillip in the Sydney Legislature found that so persistently were their efforts for the benefit of their constituency frustrated by the overwhelming pruponderence of the New South Wales vute, that they resigned their trust, and the district elected Eabl be Grey as its representative. The expedient was a clever and a happy one, and the proud eminence which she has since attained dates its commencement from, the era of self-government. -