HOME RULE: ITS REAL MEANING

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1101, 19 October 1883, Page 2

HOME RULE: ITS REAL MEANING

( N. Z. Times, Oct 16.) The first of two lectures was given in the Theatre Royal last evening by Mr J, E. Redmond, M.P., travelling delegate of the Irish National League. The audience was large, though the theatre

was not quite full. Admission was by ticket. Among those on tin; '"platform, besides the chairman, Wi.rc Dr Grace, Messrs W. Hutchison, M.H.R. ; J. O'Shea, J J. Devine, W. FitzGerald, M. Bowen mil R. J, Duncan. In other parts of tlie house were the Hon 0. J. Pharazyn, Hon J. iMarlin. Messrs W. Seed, C. E. Batkin, J, E. Brown, M. 11. R., E. Stafford, A. Young, G. F'sher, &c. The Hon P. A. Buckley presided, and sdd that wherever the cause of Ireland was concerned, he would not be found absent. There were people base enough to circulate and perhaps believe calumnies associating Mr Redmond, or the Irish National League which he represented, with deeds which made one’s blood run cold. But his own ex perience of Englishmen was that there was not a more justice-loving and fairseeking creature on the earth than the genuine John Bull. And it was a wonder to him that they refused to Ireland that justice, which they would give to every other part of the world. The reason given for continuing to rob Ireland of her Parliament was that Irishmen were disloyal ! forgetting that Irishmen had shed their blood on every field where England’s honour was concerned. (Applause.) He then read replies to invitations which had been sent to members of the Ministry’to attend this lecture, Mr Rolleston being ‘ unable to avail himself of the invitation,” and Major Atkinson being absent from Wellington.

Mr Redmond rose to speak, being received with much applause. Attired in evening dress, being personally well favoured, and having a confident and animated yet deliberate stylo of speaking, he made a pleasing impression, and also handled a complex subject with uncommon ability. He spoke an hour and a half on “ Home Rule—its real meaning.” The demand of the Irish people was for the restoration of their pilfered rights. In showing the reasonableness of this demand, he would avoid all appeal to the passions and imaginations of an Irish audience, relying solely on the stern logic of reason, argument, and precedent. By Homo Rule they meant the restoration to Ireland of representative Government (applause); and by representative government, they meant government in accordance with the constitutionally expressed will of a majority of the governed. They meant that Ireland in all internal affairs should bo ruled by an Irish Parliament, consisting of the Sovereign, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; that all Imperial affairs—all that related to the government of the colonies, to the relations of foreign States, and to the common interests of the Empire-should continue as at present to he governed by the Imperial Parliament as at present constituted. If asked as to the means of carrying this general principle into effect, he must answer that as soon as there was agreement as to the general principle, the details might be left to the united wisdom of Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen in the Imperial Parliament, At the bottom of this proposal was the desirability of finding some middle course between separation, on the one hand, and over centralism of the Imperial Parliament on the other hand. In proposing this middle course, they said to England, “ Retain every guarantee for the future unity and strength of the Empire,' bnt give np a task which yon have proved yourselves incompetent satisfactorily to fulfil. (Applause.) Let us unite for Imperial purposes; let us unite, if need be, to defend the Empire, which is the heritage of both of us, against all the world in arms : but let us both give up the absurd and impossible task of each ruling the internal affairs of the other. Let us have national freedom, combined with unity and strength.” (Applause). In support of this moderate proposal, the lecturer quoted the opinions of Mr Isaac Butt, recorded while he was head of the Home Rule party. Mr Parnell, whose name was warmly applauded, had also placed on record similar moderate opinions, stipulating that Ireland should have a constitution similar to that of Canada or the Isle of Man. The Irish moderate party would consent even to be governed by a Viceroy, provided he had no more arbitrary powers over Irishmen than Queen Victoria had over her English or Scotch subjects. Political peace would never be obtained until the day when Ireland was treated, if not as a nation, at least as a free colony. This proposal was neither vague nor. unintelligible. It was neither revolutionary nor communistic; nor did it violate a single principle of the Constitution. The civilisation ol Ireland was older than that of England ; and for over 600 years Ireland had a Parliament of her own, until Pitt and and Caslleregh carried by bribery and corruption, by violence and murder, the Act of Union. That scheme stood condemned, by its practical results, as the hugest political crime and blunder of the century. What was morally wrong could not be politically right. The lecturer next argned that Home Rule had the recommendation of political philosophy, quoting from Freeman’s “ History of Federalism, and contending that Ireland presented the “intermediate set of circumstances” to which federalism was best adapted. He further contended that Home Rule had the sanction of political working elsewhere, both in ancient and modern times, and in various countries and colonies ; from the early experiment in Greece to the mediaeval examples of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and to the present examples of Switzerland, the American States, and the British colonies. The lecturer quoted the opinions of Sir G. Grey, Mr Leckie, Mr Herbert Gladstone, M.P. (son of the Premier), and Mr Chamberlain, M.P., all coinciding in the necessity for giving self-govern-ment in some form to Ireland. He declared finally that Ireland’s divine right to self-government would survive even after her grievances had passed away. (Loud applause.) Mr Hutchison, M.H.R., made a lengthy speech in favour of self-govern-

ment for Ireland, and denounced as an “ absurd impertinence” some remarks which bed appeared in this journal respecting the Irish National League, and deprecatory of importing Irish fends and grievances into a colonial community. He moved “ That this meeting approves of the principles of Home Rule, as expounded by Mr Redmond ; and pledges itself to give Mr Parnell and his colleagues all the assistance in its power, in their constitutional endeavour to secure legislative independence for the Irish- people.” ( Applause.) Mr W. FitzGerald seconded, and said it was not to Irishmen, 1 but rather to English and Scotchmen that the real meaning of Home Rule needed to be explained. To judge from statements made about Mr Redmond, in English and in some colonial papers, they would expect to see in Mr Redmond a monstrosity—a sort of Caliban ; , whereas they would sec that Ireland had leaders to-day, as formerly, of whom she might well be proud. (Applanse.) The Chairman asked if any one in the audience wished to speak. * There being no response, he put the motion*, which was carried with enthusiasm.