THE HOME RULE SITUATION.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14844, 9 December 1913, Page 6

THE HOME RULE SITUATION.

Afiflough there are in New Zealand both friends and opponents of Home JRule for Ireland, there will probably be general satisfaction on all hands at the more cheering outlook that is indicated in Mr Asquith's Manchester speech, reported in yesterday's paper. Tho most striking sentence in the speech is that in which the Prime Minister admitted that the hostility of Ulster is genuine and deeply felt, and that tintil abated or removed it will constitute ''the one formidable obstacle "to self-government." Other leading Liberals admitted so much long ago, but we do not think Mr Asquith had previously stated so frankly, even in bis Ladybank speech, the meaning of the Ulster movement. The speech by Sir Edward Carson which Mr Asquith regards as a response to such overtures as he was ablo to make, appears, unfortunately, to have been overlooked by the cable agent of tho Press Association, and wo do not therefore know how far the, leader of the Ulstermen went to meet his opponents. All wo are told is that he insisted that "no "settlement must humiliate or degrade "Ulster" —from which one may infer that he is prepared for some compromise, and for a compromise, moreover, in which he will give as much as ho receives. To avoid humiliation and degradation, obviously, one does not need the concession of 100 per cent, of one's demands. Mr Aequith's Ladybank speech on October 25th —with the exception of Sir Edward Grey's speech of October 27th —is the latest Ministerial utterance of which we have a full report by mail. Mr Asquith's speech was received in some Unionist quarters with relief and in a friendly spirit, but many Unionist critics regarded it as a declaration of war—a result one might expect to follow a strategical speech by a master of ambiguity. Tho Prime Minister was quite firm, certainly, in declaring that tho Government would not be "intimidated by a threat of "force, ,, and that the Government were bound to prosecute to a successful issuo the purpose of "the vast majority "of tho Irish people"; but he "banged " and barred and bolted" no doors in his statement of what he called "the " governing conditions." The first of these, that nothing is to interfere with "the setting up in Dublin of a eub"ordinate Irish Legislature," does not conflict with some scheme of "separato "treatment" for Ulster, and that some such 6chemo of "separate treatment" is contemplated is made evident by the second condition, that nothing is to be done which will erect "a permanent, "or insuperable, bar" in the way of Irish unity. "Separate treatment" may take many shapes, from the entire exclusion of North-East Ulster to the curious and interesting plan hinted at by Sir Edward Grey two days after the Ladybank speech: the reservation to Ulster of independent control, or British control, of Euch matters as education, police,! and administrative appointments. At this stage, however, conjecture is idle and unnecessary. It is sufficient to note with gratitude that there appears to be some real hope of a settlement which will avert disaster.

The full reports in tie English newspapers show that the cabled summary of Mr Larkin's trial m Ihiblin was seriously misleading. The public were given the impression that Mr Larkin was charged with sedition, for which he was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment, on the strength of these words: "I never said 'God Savo the King,' except in derision." The fact is that there was much moro than this in the charge. Mr Larkin was charged with sedition and with inciting to resist. Speaking to a meeting through a megaphone, he had asked all present to repeat the following words: "I will not pay any rent until the tram men have got the conditions they demand," which, said <the AttorneyGeneral, was "a distinct incitement to break contracts, and was seditious in itself." Larkin had also said "I recognise no law but the people's law." another seditious utterance. Speaking of the proclamation prohibiting the meeting, he had eaid, "I care as much for the King as Swifte, the magistrate. People make kings, and can unmake them. I never said 'God Savo the King' but in derision. I say it now in derision." He then burnt the proclamation. On the charge of inciting, based on other utterances, one of which was advice to the strikers to put out of action two policemen or soldiers for every striker who fell in conflict with the police, Larkin was acquitted. It is only fair to the authorities that these facts should be known.

The poll on the licensing question taken in New South Wales on Saturday simultaneously with the voting for members of Parliament, was on .the three issues that used to be submitted to electors in New Zealand—Continuance, Reduction, and No-license. The NewSouth Wales Act, in fact, was based on tho New Zealand Act, and the provisions governing voting are almost exactly the same as those prevailing here some years ago. Thirty per cent, of voters, however, must voto before a three-fifths or a bare majority can operate. No-license has not yet been carried in any electorate, but in 1907 Reduction was carried in 6.5 electorates, and in 1910 in 1-i electorates. The partial success of the No-licenso party in 1907 resulted in the wiping-out of* 296 publicans' and 46 wine licenses. In 1910, however, tho vote for No-license showed an increase of 34.309 against an increase of 115,589 in the vote for Continuance, the proportion of votes for No-license falling from 35.51 to 36.91 per cent. The No-license party are working for the bare majority and for a State vote similar to our own vote on National Prohibition.

A correspondent has written to us to suggest that it might be worth while removing some confusion which, he says, is, rather widespread, "as to why trade unionists prefer to be under the Trade tjnion Act, and why the employers and others wish them to be under the Arbitration Act instead." It is not a fact that trade unionists prefer to be 'under the Trade Union Act"; the vast majority of trade unions are registered under the Arbitration Act. That fact is quite worth

keeping in mind just now. Employers would not in the least mind whether a union were registered under the Arbitration Act or uot if » union not so registered could be relied upon to keep its agreements or could be penalised for breaking thein 3 It is because tho beginning, the middle, and the end of the Federation of Labour's policy is contempt for contracts and agreements that the employers are unwilling to have any dealings with.the Federation. At present tho Arbitration Act offers the employer his only means of securing some sort of surety In dealing with his employees. Agreements with unregistered unions are not enforceable. That would not matter if the Federation had not shown that an agreement that cannot bo enforced will not be respected.

• Whilo we are on this subject, we may call attention to a point mentioned in one of our Wellington telegrams today. The new unions which have been formed, and registered under the Arbitration Act, are in precisely the same position as every other registered union. They may invoke the aid of tho Arbitration Act at any time, and they, may secure preference of employment. It docs not in the least matter what tho Federation of Labour thinks or what it calls them. But even tho Federation will hardly say that the 1600 unionists who have been so busy on the Wellington wharves are bogus. Tho result of the New South Wales elections will not afford much satisfaction to those who want to sco party Government abolished. Perhaps never before in a State election have so inauy parties or groups gone beforo tho electors. The following table of candidates is a curiosity in its way:— Selected Liberal candidates ... 83 Selected Labour candidates ... 85 Independent candidates ...' 28 Country Party candidates ... 11 National Progressive candidates (Beobyites) ... ... 13 Independent Liberal candidates 10 Socialist candidates ... 8 Independent Labour candidates 2 Various Independent candidates ... ... ... 7 Total ... ... ... 247 Of tho Independent candidates proper —that is, thoso who did not belong to either of the big parties or to Mr Beeby's party—it is estimated that only four will be returned. Mr Beeby's party has been annihilated. Mr Beeby resigned from the Ministry because he objected to tho discipline of the Labour Party, and was returned at a by-election as an Independent. There is some resemblance between hia case and that of Mr Fowlds. Some peoplo hailed the formation of Mr Beeby's group as a highly important political event, but this election shows that the differences between Labour and the Liberals are so sharply drawn, and excite so much interest, that a third organised party, Avhich would complicate the issue, is not wanted. Even, an Independent of thirty-three years' service has been defeated. Each of tho party leaders professes to be hopeful. No doubt the time between the two ballots will be marked by much of that bargaining that is the strongest argument against the second ballot system.

An Opposition newspaper which deeply resents the publicity given to Mr Hickoy's famous enunciation of the Red Fed. policy respecting agreements, makes an exceedingly diverting attempt to come to that gentleman's aid. Mr Hickey, we are told, "let slip an opportunity to do a great Bervice to the cause of Labour"—he "omitted to say (in replying to Mr Hughes) whether or not he regards agreements in. general as sacred." "In justice to the cause," hois advised, "ho should put himself right in this matter at the earliest possible moment." In other words, let Mr Hickey "put himself right" by saying that he is passionately fond of keeping agreements, and "the cause of Labour" will be rehabilitated and the strike will end. The cause of Labour surely does not depend on Mr Hickey's "putting himself right. ,. His silence, says this sorely troubled advocate, "will be construed by every opponent of Labour as an admission of guilt." Presumably •we are to understand that the newspaper referred to is not "an opponent of Labour." In that case, one may be pardoned for asking how Mr Hickey's silence on the crucial point is construed by the "friends of Labour."