The Home Rule Party.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2987, 15 July 1878, Page 2

The Home Rule Party.

. The Times' Dublin Correspondent writes:— '• Mr Butt's resignation of the leadership of the Irish Parliamentary party, though long expected, has excited great ' regret among his political friends. . They.' {fully, understand its significance, and deplore its most- probable resu't as the break-up^ of the whole party.- Such a blow is, indeed, likely to shiver to atoms the fragile fabric of Home Rule. This is theview taken of it on all sides. The extrene National journals regard that event as certain ' happen soon. The Irishman observes 1-*' Tliere is no use in glossing over the fact that the Home Rule party is fast gong to pieces.; Nowhere is there any, organization or discipline, and all hopes have vanished from the minds of even the most sanguine Federalists. It was hardly to be expected that the thing could succeed. The people had no .aith in the movement, because the leading arid guiding lights were, with very few exceptions, men of nopatriotism—mere adventurers, without heart, without purpose, save the gratification of their own selfish ambition. The resignation of Mr Butt shows that the Home Rule organization is oa its last legs, and with its final collapse wrll disappear for ever the hopeless sham 'of"constitutional agitation." The Flag of Ireland expresses similar sentiments, and speaks of the Federal ship as already foundering. It reviews the hist ry of the movement in sarcastic terms, and says—' The working classes heard all these fine platform flourishes, and winked at one another. Thdy saw what it all meant —an agitation for the mere purpose of lifting a few score of ambitious persons 4 into the English House of Commons. Consequently, the Irish masses, though they partly contributed to swell meetings from their desire to hear speeches, never put any. faith in the flexible plan of Federalism. Possibly they might have been encouraged to lend support if the leaders, had shown the. right spirit. ' But there was little or no patriotism in the representative body, "nd patriotism is the soul of every political movement. Without that no organization can live. The leaders were top,loyal to secure attention in Parliament or to command a following in Ireland. In fine,; the fabric was rotten; hence its rabid .d^y-a^d,-dilapidation. Mr Butt.has left M&tifrifThe Federal bark is foundering. is gone. Th<? helm is unmanageable/ Who now is' capable of keeping the sinking vessel afloat; - Luckily she does not bear Ireland's fortunes, or the nation would lament the impending f hipwreck of her hopes.. Perhaps the Irish race will not regret tliat the Home Rule skiff" is about to heel over, for when she goes down she will drag with her and bury constitutional action in the deep.' Tiie Nation observes that the Irish people will hear of Mr Butt's resignation with 'uneasiness,' hut hopes that it does not aiso involve his retirement from the Home Rule movement or from the League. It does not think he can be blamed for resigning the leadership, since he was unable to give the party the benefit of his personal presence and supervision; but points out a great field for his exertions at home. Mistakes, it remarks, have been committed, 'and harm has been done undercover of his name ; but those things are reparable, and ho is the man to repair tuem.' It councils the friends of Home Tlule not to be disheartened, but to hold on by it firmly. Discussing the the action of the I'ish Parliamentary party it declares its belief that Mr Parnell has

loyally fulfilled the instructions! given at the Conference, and fails to see that in taking the course which his own judgment distated on some questions • he committed any offence against the constitution, the rules, regulations, or discipline of the party.' The Freeman publishes a letter of Mr Mitchell Henry, addressed to some members of the Parliamentary party, ,in which ho complains f motions being brought forward without notice, and of the absence of united action, and 4hen proceeds to sa y . —< However, I have a ■ still more serious object in writing, this letter. I enclose a treasonable and truculent document which directly names two of ov party as the true exponents of the proper policy. That policy is to bring Parliamentary action into contempt and substitute for it viol' nee and crime.' Mr Mitchell Henrjr then quotes a passage from an advertisement of a meeiing at which Mr John Ferguson was"to preside, and Mr Parnell and Mr Biggar were spoken of as ' the true leaders' of the Home Rule party. The letter then proceeds ; —' Considering the intimate relations that exist between the gentleman who is responsible for the Glasgow document and the members of our party of whom! complain, I venture to nay that there can be no safety lor the party, collectively or for each of us Jidividually, unless a further repudi^j'a is made by Mr Parnell and Mr Biggar than any to which their names have been pat. —I am, dear sirs, faithfully yours, Mitchell Heney.' The Freeman thinks that Mr Mitchell Henry's letter would have been better unwritten, that such letters ' make mountains out of molehill*, and seem to seek to impose upon Home Bale members a rigidity of discipline unheard of in any other political organization/ It ridicules the notion that Home Rule has collapsed, and hopes that Mr Buti may still D 3 induced to retain the leadership of the party."