Civis Romanus Sum.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 38, 14 February 1914, Page 5

Civis Romanus Sum.

THE EMPIRE’S VsTALS. SPEECH BY MR L. V. HARCOURT. i [By Electric Telegraph—Copyright] [United Press .Association,] Loudon, February 12. I Mr Harcourt commended Mr MacDonald’s moderation, and said rim speeches that night would be cabled throughout the Empire, and any words of derogation with regard to au’.anoinous rights would bo reverberated to |the Dominions. Autonomy could rot lire divorced from unity, and carried no immunity from public criticism, but was entitled to the largest amount of !relief from official interference and | Parliamentary censure. They ,oukl 'easily smash the Empire by a day's deviate, if the House evinced a desire to meddle and muddle with the vitai afifairs of the Dominions whenever their actions make what some people regard as dangerous experiments. Australia and New Zealand had compulsory military training which at present was neither in force nor favor in the United Kingdom. In Canada and Smith Africa some strikes were criminal offences.

British citizenship, he continued, was really a misnomer. It was an attempt to translate too literally “Civis romanos sum.” it entitled a citizen to protection through the Executive, but did not give the individual rights of envy

or any license in any part of the Empire, if attempts were made to violate the laws winch were within the Dominions’ competence. The Imperial Parliament could not interfere or mUnvene as if it were a colony. The position oi South Africa’s GovoraurGeneral was largely analogous to the position of the Sovereign of Britain. If Lord Gladstone had refused to follow its advice, the Government won cl have resigned, leaving him a solitary figure, facing a tumult which he would nave perhaps been unable to conciliate or quell. Lord Gladstone’s only tesource was the Imperial troops.

j Mr Harcourt continued; “it is neither my duty nor intention to comment on the South African Government's acts. It would be an unwise and dangerous precedent. The habit of nagging and criticism regarding the Dominions’ conduct ot their own internal affairs is the worst cement wo can apply to distant democracies. We ourselves taught the South Africans a deportation lesson when, in July, IfKK), we deportea fr( i,7o|j, ,cjf various nationalities without- trial, owing to a plot to murder officers in Johannesburg. Deportations had been part ot the ordinary Jaw of ■t.hftjTfausHual for sex yearsand were only amended by the 1913 immigration law. Admittedly it is within the competence of South Africa to tiehue what type of immigrant-they- areprepared to admit. Restrictive legislation of this kind has long been in operation in Canada, Australia, and Xew Zealand. ,|f the South African Parliament approved of the indemnity Bill, it would ho in the highest degree impolitic to refuse Tire Royal assent. The .New Zealand Act of 18GG is not la case in point. Assent was then | withheld solely because the Bill did jnot contain a clause that acts of indemnity should be done in good faith.”

Mr Harcourt went on to say that when an earlier Colonial Secretary (asked that Natal should suspend capital sentences, the Natal Government resigned. Protests against the snpopsed British action were received from the Australian and New Zealand Governments within two days.

Mr Harcourt concluded with an appeal to the Laborites to remember that Labor, above all the classes, were interested in the maintenance of selfgovernment of the Empire, which was held together .by a silken cord. They should beware lest they twisted the cord into a whiplash. 'Tiro first crack of that lash would bo the knell of the Empire. “We have created great and free Parliaments, wideflnng throughout the world. They are our constant pride, and only an occasional embarrassment. We treat them with confidence, and we, and they, shall win through, for all that is essential is the basis of freedom and civilisation.” The speech was regarded as so satisfactory that the front Opposition Bench decided not to participate in the debate. COMMENT ON THE DEBATE. . “A MODEL OF CORRECTNESS.” RESPONSIBILITIES OF SELFGOVERNMENT. (Received 8.50 a.in.) London, February LI. 'fhe “Westminster Gazette” says: “The debate was a model of correctness insofar as it dealt with selfgovernment; but the deportations concern us inasmuch as our law courts will possibly be called on to decide 'certain principles, of which tin* deported men are tlag-bearers. We become legatees of South Africa’s trouble. As a general principle, selfgovernment should consume its own smoke.” The journal adds: “The Indemnity Bill will he followed by public meetings and disturbances over that Bill and the Industrial Disputes Prevention Bill. ARTHUR LYNCH, THE CONVERT. HIS LOVE FOR BRITAIN. (Received 11.55 a.m.) London, February 13. Mr Arthur Lynch, Nationalist member for Clare, in the House of Commons, said that sines tho Boer War England had done- much for South

(Africa and Ireland. If Britain was ! attacked, he would now fight for i her. — j Mr Lynch, physician and author, i served with the Boers in 1000, and 'took part against tho British in soveIral engagements. On January 23. 1903, he was sentenced to death for high treason, hut the sentence was (commuted to penal servitude for life, [and Mr Lynch was released on license [on January 23, of the following year, 0901. II e received a free pardon jnn June 10, 1907. A long list of books and poems have appeared to jhis credit. —-