The Dominion TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1911. THE BRITISH POLITICAL STRUGGLE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1146, 6 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1911. THE BRITISH POLITICAL STRUGGLE.

Although the Parliament Bill is safely shelved for the Coronation season, the House of Commons, when the mail that arrived yesterday left London, was still in the thick of the fight over Clause 2. Almost everything was said long ago—as we measure time now—that could be said upon the two main faults, or merits according to the point of view, in the Government's policy, namely, the fact that the Bill practically establishes single-chamber government, and tho second fact, that the Bill is. a measure to keep the Government in office by carrying out Mit. Redmond's orders. If Me. Redmond's orders were the order of the country, there would be something to say for the Government's attitude, bul; not very much, since a direct appeal to tho people on the Home Rule issue would, on that supposition, leave the Government in power and end the opposition of the Peers, for the_ Peers have always on these occasions recognised the will' of the nation. In point of fact, Home Rule was never really before the country at all, and has only recently been part of the Government's programme. As the Times points out, it was not in the programme for the 190G election, because it would have .kept the Liberals in opposition if it had been. Its reappearance in 1910 cost tho Liberals a hundred seats and placed them in dependence on Mr. Redmond. Even during the second 1910 election the Liberals were largely afraid that a loud insistence on Home Rule, or even a slight stress upon its. urgency, or even any reference to its being a necessary corollary of the Parliament Bill, might spell disaster. In England and Wales 833 election addresses were issued, those issued by Radical and Labour candidates numbering 432. Of the 432 no fewer than 241 made no referonea, direct or indirect, to Hour Rule. Mr. C. S. Goldman, M.P., who has published these statistics, points out that even in the remaining 191 the language was very cautious: the candidates spoke of "devolution," "measures of conciliation," "the wrongs of Ireland can bo righted," and so on. And more of those who maintained a prudent reticence wore elected than of those who even vaguely hinted at some sort of Homo Rule. A great number of Ministers made no mention in , their addresses of this most important of subjects—nineteen of them, to be exact, and amongst them Mr. Asqititti and Mr. Biuhell. It is clear that Homo Rule was in no real sense before the electors, and yet Mn. AsQUiTii insists that it was.

The whole issue was sharply raised on April 24 on p, motion to exclude from the operation of the Bill any "Bill to establish a separate Parliament and Executive for Ireland." Mil. Asquith's strongest point against the amendment was what he called "the impossibility of carrying through Parliament and obtaining the Royal assent to any ill-con-sidered measure which cannot stand this brunt of public opinion and criticism. Any Home Itule proposals," he added, "which may hereafter he put forward under the operation of this clause will have to pass through three sessions and two years of Parliamentary and public discussion, and if they can survive that ordeal I am perfectly satisfied that they will not be fraught with injustice or injury to any class of his Majesty's subjects." Nobody can doubt that Mn. AsQUiTir and hia colleagues firmly believe that this is a sufficient, answer to the fears of their opponents. Mk. Balfoith as firmly believes that this promise of safety is illusory. "Do you think," asked Mn. Balfoijij, "that the House of Commons, having made up its mind

to adopt a certain policy during a two years' interregnum, is going to bo frightened by hostile resolutions in the country and the prospect th.it at the next succeeding election the party which has a majority may find itself in a minority!" The question therefore resolves itself into which is right, Mr. Asquitii with his belief that moral force can prevail over an all-powerful party majority, or Mn. JjAlfour with his belief that moral force will be as useless as argument in the House. We have the general tendencies oi unfettered power, we have the open outcry of the Radicals against any real power even of delay being vested in the Second Chamber, we have the dictum of Cromwell, all in favour of Mn. Balfour's view. In the House of Commons in 1654 Cromwell said: "That Parliaments should not make themselves perpetual is fundamental. What assurance has the law to prevent so great an evil if it lies with the same Legislature to nnlaw it again 1 Is such a law like to be lasting? It will be a rope of sand. It will be no security, for the same men may unbuild what they have built." Cromwell is a high authority on the tendencies of unfettered Parliamentary authority. In any case, however, thirc is Mr. Redmond. He is determined to have his way. He will care nothing, if the Bill is passed in its present form, for whatever the public may say or do. He has the final power, and he will use it sternly, and, from his point of view, quite properly too. Let the Government hearken to the popular outcry during the "three sessions and two years," and Mr. Redmoxd will throw it out of office.

These are considerations which will sustain the Lords in insisting that a Home Riile Bill shall not be passed until Parliament, or, rather, Mr. Redmond, has gone to the country. Mr William O'Brien is by no means so certain about the prospects of Home Rule as Mr Redmond and his friends. In a speech in Cork on April 22, indeed, he said the situation had changed for the worse. Even if the Parliament Bill were passed unaltered, it would be humanly impossible to carry any Home Rule measure worth talking about during the lifetime of the existing Parliament:

There was no responsible man on the front bench who would dare to say as a matter of practical politics that' it was possible to carry a ilqino Knlc .BUI and establish an Irish Parliament without another appeal to England at a general election. Speaking as a practical politician he did not believe there was one chance to a million that the Liberal Government would bo able to carry Home Kule for Ireland within the lifetime of the present Parliament and with present methods. Everybody behind the scenes knew that almost every influential man in the Unionist party was only biding his time to declare for a great Imperial reconciliation with Ireland. If the All for Ireland spirit had prevailed at this moment tho terms of a Homo l'ulo settlement between Ireland and England would bo common property with both English parties instead of being a mere bone of bitter contention and war to tho knife between them. If Mr. Redmond, as he urged him to do, had us.odv.ho mighty poirer he unquestionably had to win all English parties to his side instead of making himself the slave of one particular English party thero would be no earthly difficulty at the time in arriving at an arrangement on the nncstion of Home Rule for Ireland, and "lie was as certain as that the sun would riso to-morrow that if that conrso were taken by the Irish representatives this year of the Coronation and of Imperial Conference would not have ended without a historic reconciliation between Ireland and tho Empire. , Should the Peers insist on excluding Home Rule from the operation of the Bill the Government, by creating 500 Peers or so, would do itself enormous injury. The public would see nothing any more then than that Home Rule was to be forced by placing Mn. Redmond and 500 dummy Peers in entire charge of the nation. The struggle is_ really only beginning to enter on its most interesting and sensational stage.