The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1911. THE VETO AND HOME RULE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1069, 7 March 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1911. THE VETO AND HOME RULE.

If it was Mr. Birrell's design in his speech at Oxford, summarised in one of yesterday's cable messages, to thicken the fog with which the Government enshrouds its intentions, he Must be allowed to have scored a brilliant success. Nearly every point in the Home Rule controversy is a crucial point, from the financial problem to the reason w.hy Ireland's claim to a separate Parliament should be preferred over Scotland's, or Wales's, or, for that matter, Yorkshire's or London's; but the immediate crux is the relation of Ireland to Westminster under the now order if and when that new order is established. "Whether or not," he said, "after Home Rule was granted the Irish would be represented at _ Westminster was a conundrum easily answered," but he did not answer it, nevertheless. The most that he would say, after confessing the seriousness of the financial difficulty, was that the Home Rule Bill would "possibly" resemble the Bill of 1893, subject to unspecified, "alterations and modifications." It is to be, that is to say, something like the 1893 Bill, only different; and the British public will be expected to cease, after this, from doubting the clearness of the Government's intentions. Outside the Government there is probably only one man who knows all thore is to bo known of those intentions, and he is Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond is already speaking as if tho Home Rule he .wants is an accomplished fact. "The veto of the Lords," he declared in a speech afc Dublin on January 18, "was doomed," md he added that the creation of new Peers would be unnecessary. As to the sort of Bill that would bo proposed, they had the assurance of the pledges of Mr. Asquith and of the other leaders of the Liberal party that the Home Rule proposal would be, in contradistinction to the Colonial Bill or Devolution, a measure of full selfb'overnment _ for Ireland, meaning thereby an'lrish Parliament, with an Executive responsible to it. Mr. Redmond proceeded to say that the Nationalists had "the further guarantee of their own power," and although he credited Mr. Asquith with straightforwardness and honesty, he took care, later in his speech, to mitigate any pride Me. Asquith might be disoosed to feel on receiving thL testimonial. "So Jong," lu said, with painful bluntncss, "as Ministers stand -by their pledges, wc shall stand by them. That is our policy, but the smallest deviation from the public pledges on the Veto and Home Rule would mean an instant change of the policy of tho Irish party. (Cheers.) I regard such an event as impossible, but at the same time there is no harm in making the position clear." In an article in the February number of T.P.'s Magazine; Mr. Redmond states, with a precision that emphasises the vagueness of Mil. Asquith and the conundrum-evading Mr. Birrell, exactly what ho at any rate means by Home Rule. He begins by urging that he docs not wish to make difficult an ultimate Federalism, and_ he sjys that "the new Irish Parliament must settle the question of what arc purely Irish affairs." This L his conception of Home Rule: ' ■/ We mean an Irish Parliament with an Executive. responsible to it, created by Act of tho Imperial Parliament, and charged with the management of purely Irish affairs, such as land, education, local government, transit, labour, industries, taxation for local purposes, law and .justice, police, etc., Ica'ving to the Imperial Parliament, in which Ireland would continue to be represented, but probably in smaller numbers, tho management, as nt present, of all Imperial affairs, such as Army, Navy, foreign relations, Customs, Imperial taxation, matters pertaining to the Crown, and all those other questions which, aro Imperial, and not local, iu their nature; tho Jmprinl Parliament also, of course, retaining aii over-riding supremo, authority over tho new Irish Legislature, such as it possesses to-day over all tho various Parliaments in Canada, Australia, South Africa, and other portions of tho Empire.

It will Lie seen that "Customs" and "Imperial taxation" arc the onlj' concerns left to Britain which are retained by the colonies. But it must be added that he must be a very queer sort of Irishman who can feel any pride in a scheme that throws upon Britain the full burden of protecting Ireland against foreign aggression. The Unionists will be certain to resist anything that is more than a generous scheme of devolution which yet does not lose sight of the principle of equity. A good deal has been made by the Liberals and Nationalists of a letter from Lord Courtney, of Penwith, a sincere Unionist, to Me. Thomas SextoNj of the Freeman's Journal. Lord Courtney sketches a plan for the election of the Irish Parliament', which is rather putting the cart before the horse, since he docs not deal with the problems that intervene between the present position and the position sought by Mr. Redmond. The important thing about Lord Courtney's letter is his confession that in his opinion "Home Rule seems now very near us." . He still believes as firmly as ever that the United Kingdom can bo worked, as at present, by one Parliament. "But," he goes on, "I have to recognise facts. Wo have not had enough of the spirit of unity amongst us. Among Unionists, I must sadly conunity was too often lost in domination. And now we must prepare for Home Rule." Accordingly he proceeds to make the best of w ; hat he considers a bad job by urging the principle of proportional representation. This attitude, however, is not the attitude- of the bulk of British Unionists, and some recent statements by Ministers seem to indicate that the Government is not so sure that Home Rule can be established even by abolishing the Peers. Then the Home Rule policy would have to run the gauntlet of British opinion and the uncertain chances of British politics.