The Dominion. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1911. THE HOME RULE DEBATE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1054, 18 February 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1911. THE HOME RULE DEBATE.

The motion that originated the debate in tho Houso of Commons upon Homo Rulo for Iroland, and that was defeated by a majority roughly' about tho majority of the Coalition over tho Unionists, affirmed that effective debate on tho Veto question was seriously hampered by tho obscuro and conflicting declarations of Ministers relating to Homo Rule. It is an ironical commentary upon the condition of British politics that tho defeat of tho motion followed a debate in which the evasion and equivocation of the Government upon this question was made more manifest than ever. In somo placcs it'is tho foolish fashion to refer to Mr. Balfour's attitude upon the fiscal question as a masterpiece of clusivcness. U.ntil a.year ago tliero was somo excuse for that criticism, but there is none nowj but at no timo has Mn. Balfour, in respect of any issue, approached tho masterly equivocation of Mr. Asquith. The only parallel to his utterances upon his intentions respecting Home Rulo that wo can remember is the late Mr. SeddonV connection with tho land tenure controversy; but oven Mr. Seddon's diplomacy was crude and bungling beside tho shiftincsk of an almost unexampled master of tho art of invisible reservations. "After his declaration of December, 1009," Mr. Asquitu is ' reported as saying, "every voter in January of' 1910 voted with full knowledge that if tho Government succeeded its first task would bo tho granting of Homo Rule." Tho Government did succeed—with what Lord Halsbury would call "a sort of" success—but it did not "grant Homo Rule." It did not evon define. Homo Rule; it has not- 'defined it even now. But that declaration which Mr. Asquith now refros to as so clear and unmistakable notoriously failed to satisfy anybody. It was qualified; altered, reinterpreted, every timo it was referred to by a Minister; it entirely changed, or dissolved into thin air, at every attempt at analysis. And although Mr. Redmond now declares that "tho peoplo of Ireland had- never regarded Mn. Asquitii's declaration its obscure," ho was yet so littio inclined to trufct Mr. Asquith an inch, or to beliovo him for a single moment, or to see in his statement anything really tangible, that for almost tno whole of tho year 1010 ho held ,up tho Government, in the language of brutal menace—which the Government thoroughly deserved—as a Government utterly unworthy of tho trust of any sensible Irishman. Again and again lie declared that he placed no faith whatever in what a Liberal Government might say or promise. Even when ho began to relent—having before him evidence of his power to scourgo the Ministry in any direction and at any paco ho might please •7-ovcn.whcn ho said, . "I believe that the Liberals aro sincerely friendly to Home Rulo," be was careful to-

add: "But sinccre or not, wo liavo the power, and will make' them toe the line."

Nobody need feel surprised that altar Mr. Asquitji's insistence upon tho clearness of ■ a pronouncement that was as confusing and troublesome to his master and his friends as to his opponent, he cito as -further, evidence of his candour and consistency a specch ho,made, in 1893. -It was m that very year, or about that time, that lie championed the Referendum, which ho opposes to-day with.the pica that ho was in his political nonage in the early 'ninetics. As a cautious man Mn. Bedmond will privately note, as lesser peoplo will also reflect, that the Pnmo Minister could hardly have given a flimsier guarantee than this of the_ permancnco of his convictions. Nor is ho likely to have overlooked tho fact that Ministers, as Sir Edward Carson pointed out, had made no allusion to Home Rulo in their election addresses. He cannot forgot, moreover, tliat betrayal may ba expected, and must be - guarded against, from a Prime. Minister who promises Homo-Rule under pressure and who is yet a professing disciplo of tho Gladstone who, in 1885, said that not only tho Liberal party, but tho Empire itself, would be in danger if the party Avere dependent for existence, as it is at present dependent, upon an Irish minority, or of tho Bright who, in a lotter of 1887, objected to '.'sever tho United Kingdom and to surrender five millions of our'population to the rule'of a conspiracy which is represented in tho Houso of. Commons by forty or fifty membors who sit there by virtue of • contributions , from America." Mr. Redmond, however, has the Government firmly under his thumb, and some sort of Homo Rule Bill will bo introduced. What will bo proposed ' s f entirely doubtful, for . although Mn. Asquitii has announced that Ins idea is an Irish Parliament, with an Irish Executive,' subject to " 10 , Irapcrial implying such Homo Rule as exists in Aus-'l traha, Canada, vSotith' Africa, and Now Zealand—Mr. Redmond, who has of course drawn the plans and specifications, implies that , even after Honw Rulo tnoro may bo Irish representatives a,t Westminster. In the moantimo thcro has been prepared by tho Spectator, whoso advice_ the Unionist party must now realise js worth following promptly, a strong and logical plan against Homo Rule. It has appealed to the peoplo of North-East Ulster "to declare that if, tho principlo of Homo , Rulo is adopted, they must bo given,, the .benefit of .that principlo as well as tho South," Agitation in this direction,, it is urged, is tho' only chance of preventing the establishment of Homo Rule:. '"THe Government would then have to decide whether.or not they- shall re- | fuse an amendment estaolishing a Parliament ifor - North-East 'Ulster. If they assent, the Irish will lefuso tho Bill. If they 'reject the proposal -fbr 'two'Tr^h s "Pa'rlfiimeilfe instead of'tine,' thcii tho monstrous injustice of forcing unwilling peoplo under the rulo of those they hato and distrust politically will stand out in all .ite'naked cruelty." .Tho logic of tho Spectator's argument--'is clear upon a littio'.reflection. .It is an rtho hdltdTo] ad absurd mm'argument.' Hero is tho reasoning in rough 'outlineTho Liberals contend that Ireland.' do-; bo relieved of government' by_' tho farliamont of the; United.' Kingdom, and should . therefore bo granted a sopirato Parliament tliat it may not remain under the cdntrol of a majority that'it -hates. Tho-' •Liberals, thoreforo, cannot logically object •to tho plea: of-' Ulster that it desires to bo free from government by tho Parliament of the ' rest- 'of Ireland. Tho Spectator itself thus sums up tho attitude it wants Ulstermen to take up:

"We protest.against any.form of, Pome Rule because 'we beliive it-'will produce ruin to ourselves and to Ireland as a whole, and will bring untold miseries in its train.- t lf, t however, Britain is-foolish enough to insist on giving local autonomy to people' merely because they ask for it, at_any rate she has no 'right'to apply her principlo only to .one scction of Irishmen. If, therefore, the British people-insist ort Ilome ■Rule, \vo in .the. first placo demand that (iny county or city in Ulster in which a majority'of the people ask to b'o left out of tho Ilomo Rulo Bill, and-to becpmc counties of England, ought to be allowed to do so. ... . If you refuse -our request that thoso counties and cities of Ulster which wish to do so may remain outsido tho scope of your'Bill, you at any rate cannot refuse tho demand which we next make. We make this demand most reluctantly, becauso wo know it will not oondnco to good government, though it will conduoe to better government than your scheme. It is that there shall be Homo Rulo for the north as w«U as for the south—a Parliament .at Belfast as well as a Parliament at Dublin—and that a majority of the inhabitants in any city or county of Ulster shall bo allowed to choose whether.they, will go, under.tho Belfast or .the Dublin Parliament. This will no. doubt causo great political confusion. . . . But . : tho political inconveniences will riot bo duo to us,-but' solely to thoso who refuse to leave the status quo alone—a state of things which on the whole provides tho-essentials of good government. .... . If you refuse our request, because it will lead to all sorts of complications and difficulties, why do you not refuse tho request of tho south for "tho" same" reason, and let tho Union alone _j