THE HOME RULE BILL

New Zealand Tablet, 9 May 1912, Page 27

THE HOME RULE BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE . The following cable messages regarding the discussion on the Home Rule Bill . appeared in the daily papers during the week: April 30. — the House of Commons Mr. Churchill, in moving the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, said the question of Home Rule for Ireland was not comparable in. importance to the growing discontent of the laboring population. Since Mr. Gladstone took up Home Rule the violence in Ireland had not been more serious than in the labor disputes in Great Britain. May I.—The House of Commons, by 233 votes to 147, refused Mr. Harold Smith leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the preamble to the Parliament Act. Mr. Smith argued that the promise to reform the House of Lords contained in the Bill had hot been fulfilled. Moreover, the Government was taking advantage of the Parliament Act to pass Home Rule. A Ministerial member stated that Home Rule had never been a separatist movement. The present demand was a moderate one. Never before had so little been asked, but never before had so many asked it. He denied that the Bill involved any naval and military risks. There was no likelihood of divergent views in the event of war. The Bill removed every ground of quarrel. Anything that would ruin England would also ruin Ireland. If the Irish deliberately sought to create a deadlock the Bill provided the remedy. The Imperial Parliament could resume the delegated powers and vindicate the law by force. He strongly appealed for Ulster’s co-operation, and said it would mean great disaster for Ireland if the Ulstermen held aloof from the- National Parliament. Ulster had duties equally with rights. The Protestants in the north had a plain duty to their co-religionists in the rest of Ireland and the overseas dominions to stand by the ship. If the Ulstermen refused to bring the ship safely into port they should not be allowed to obstruct the salvage work. Mr. Long said the Bill would bring war, not peace. The financial provisions were unsound and dishonest. The Bill made federalism tenfold more difficult. He moved the rejection of the Bill. Mr. Charles Craig declared that he wished to make it perfectly clear that Ulster would resist the Irish Parliament, if necessary by armed force. May 2. the House of Commons Sir R. B. Findlay warned the Government that persistence with the Home Rule Bill would mean civil war. If federalism was the .object then Ulster’s claim for separate treatment was irresistible.

Colonel Seely said that if the Nationalist leaders meant what they said religious intolerance and persecution would be impossible. He believed that the Irish would work the bill honorably and make Ireland the bulwark of British liberties. , * Mr. William O’Brien declared that the bill would effect a reconciliation, but the financial proposals were impracticable, and could not be final. , He trusted that there would be a safeguard to give the Protestants a firm grip on the Irish Parliament. Half the Senators and one-fourth of the members of the House of Commons should be Protestants. . '• ■ Mr. Balfour subjected the Home Rule Bill to a searching criticism. He said it gave dual control in Irish affairs, and could not protect the minority. Sir E. Grey dealt with the advantage resulting from relieving the congestion in the House of Commons.

He asked Mr Balfour if there was a parallel for the monstrous over-concentration of business in the House of Commons. The present system had proved unworkable, and devolution was required, but not for Ireland alone. : He admitted that tire present plan- was not a pattern for a federal system to be universally applied to the United Kingdom. He did not believe that- perfect similarity was necessary. The bill would give finality in the important sense that the Nationalists accepted it as a fulfilment of Home Rule. If Ulster prevented this solution some other must be- found to free the House of Commons, and put the control of Irish affairs into Irish hands. He believed that the present animosity would disappear when joint, responsibility was established. •

LONDON, May 5. Mr. J. E. Redmond is dissatisfied with Sir E. Grey’s hint of the possibility of an alternative solution to meet Ulster’s opposition. The Nationalists suspect that a proposal will be forthcoming to meet Ulster’s special case. -