THE IRISH QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 246, 17 April 1912, Page 5

THE IRISH QUESTION.

THE HOME RULE BILL. CONSERVATISM CRITICISM. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright London, April 15. Speaking in the House of Commons on the Home Rule Bill, Mr. Balfour said that the architects of the great overseas federal systc =; were never responsible for this boti : : .1 and unworkmanlike scheme. The 10 tier cent, margin allowed the Irish executive would lead to Customs barriers being formsd between Ireland and Britain, and the guarantees for Ulster were intended for British consumption, and deceived no one in Ireland. THE IRISH LEGISLATURE. SPEECH BY MR. BALFOUR. "A LOPSIDED EXPERIMENT." Received 15, 9.30 p.m. London, April 16. In the House of Commons, replying to a question, Mr. Asquith said that' the Irish legislature, after a triennium, might alter the qualification of electors and the distribution without altering the number of members. Mr. Balfour, speaking to a crowded House, aaroas'tieaSly paid a tribute to the dexterity of the Government in not consulting the .electors. He ridiculed the tailk of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament as a safeguard, and objected to Ireland being regarded as a mere hanger-on of a rich country or as a poor relation. They should view the United Kingdom as a whole, and not search too closely whether any part should contribute more than it took from the exchequer. He asked whether the constabulary for which Britain pays should ;be under British or Irish control. If the former, how could the Irish executive be responsible for law and order? The Prime Minister's initial federal experiment was lopsided and utterly unworthy of .British statesmanship. He did not believe that the English and Scottish memlbers support an insane federal system divided by Customs barriers. If Ireland could use the Customs against foreigners the Government would be involved in appalling difficulties, arising from a reversal of a true policy of national development. Great social communities, he felt, must maintain their position by integration, not by disintegration. ANGLO-IRISH FINANCE. WIFE OR MISTRESS. Received 17, 12.5 a.m. London, April *l6. _ In the Honse of Commons three financial experts who inquired into AngloIrish finance found it so utterly unsound that they recommended complete fiscal autonomy and an annual subvention of £OOO,OOO. The Government was unable to accept the suggestion; therefore the whole Irish revenue will continue to be paid into the Imperial exchequer. While the deficit lasted the total transferred annually from the exchequer would be about six millions. This was not a grant, but was derived from Irish trades. The cost of the reserved services would be about five millions. The money loss thereon at the outset would be two millions. This deficit would disappear in a decade if the present prosperity was maintained. There should be a 10 per cent, variation in Customs, based upon France's and Germany's local government system. Any increase over 10 per cent, would go to the English exchequer. The Irish executive controlling excise controlled., as a consequence, the Customs on beer and spirits, and dsi had power to increase tlu income and death duties and borrow for national development. Lord Hugh Cecil declared that if Ireland were treated as a separate nationality she could not receive financial aid without dishonor. She would be reduced from the status of a wife to that of a mistress. He Relieved that the Protestants were ready to„take a share in public life. The trouble was due to Ulster Protestants' pretensions to ascendency. South Africa realised her place in the Empire by rejecting home rule and adopting a closer union. Mr. Asquith's lopsided federalism was only a fair-weather constitution. If Nationalreally believed that Ireland was a nation they ought not to be content with such a makeshift. He desired to see the Irish as free as England and Scotland to co-operate with the Empire work. He declared that she had rich freedom under the present system. ■ Mr. Samuel pointed out that Mr. Balfour in 1906 described the grant of selfgovernment to iSouth Africa as a reckless scheme. He denie:' that granting home rule had led to separatist tended cies. Autonomy was essential to Imperial unity. After accu-toming Ireland to expenditure on an English scale it was indefensible to ask h.r to find the whole expenditure. The new Parliament, if not assisted, would be faced in the first year with a deficit exceeding one-fifth of the whole revenue. At the same time it would be unjust to permanently saddle the British taxpayer. He was convinced that when Ireland was prosperous she would share the burden of empire. If the Irish Government was able to economise it could remit any taxes it liked. It was impossible to give her unfettered control of the Customs, as this would be inconsiV.-mt with the Government's general policy.