MR REDMOND AND MR CHAMBERLAIN.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2195, 3 August 1886, Page 3

MR REDMOND AND MR CHAMBERLAIN.

From Mr J. E. Redwood's letter to the Tablet we utako the following iurther extract :— Mr Chamberlain is playing, as ho has throughout played, a strange and risky gauie^ Between his position and that of Mr Gladstone, there can be no kind of hesitation. The one is as illogical and untenable as the other is in strict accordance with common sense and common justice. Indeed, so absurd seems Mr Chamberlain's position, that his enemies, and they comprise a large and a lapidly increasing force, boldly declare that his objections to I ho details of the bill are only cloaks to hide his preconceived intention of wrecking the Government. He avows himself a Home Ruler, but he will vote against the principle of the bill, because he objects to liish members being withdrawn from Westminster. Mr Gladstone contends for the exclusion of I fish members as a rule, their presence on certain occasions being pro\ ided for as exceptions. Mr Chamberlain, on the contr.iry, makes the continued presence of the Irish members at all tinier a sine quit non of his acceptance of the bill. Now it is worth while to examine this matter a little. Either Mr Chamberlain desires that the Irish Parliament should have full control of purely Irish att'airs, or hp desires a veto on these affairs to be vested in the Imperial Parliament which would then thrash out a second time every Act past in Dublin. If this latter policy is his, then he is dishonest in calling himself a Home .Ruler, his Irish Parliament would be an utter sham, and it would be scouted by Ireland. If, on the contrary, he proposed that Ireland should have control of her own affairs, then he is between the horns of a dilemma. Either he must do what Mr Gladstone has declared it past the wit of man to accomplish— namely, draw a definate distinction between Imperial and local affairs in the House of Commqqs— or else he must propose the obvious injustice of allowing Irishmen, who ■would manage Irish affairs without English or Scotch interference in Dublin, to interfere in, afod very probably by their votes to decide purely English and Scotch affairs at Westminster. In point of fact, while the House of Commons continues to be the Parliament of England and Scotland, as well as the Parliament of the Empire, the permanent representation of Ireland in it, and in an Irish Assembly at the same time is little short of an absurdity and an impossibility. Of course the solution is to be found in Federalism. The Federal idea we have always favoured. It is an intelligent and consistent policy. In its direction the decentralisation which is taking place throughout the world is tending, and to Federalism, I for one, have little doubt the three kingdoms will eventually come. Then the whole character ot the House of Commons will change. It will cease to be the Parliament either of England, or of Scotland, or of Ireland, which will each have its own National Legislature, supreme in the management of National affairs, and it will then become in reality, as in name, the Imperial Parliament. When that day comes Ireland will claim, and will readily obtain her share in. the Government of the Empire, but till it does come permanent representation at Westminster is incompatible with the creation of such a Parliament in Dublin as it would be worth Ireland's while to accept. By the proposal of the Government our present rights are fully safeguarded. On questions of Imperial taxation, in which we should bear a share, we would have a right to appear at Westminster. The Irish Parliament could by address always obtain the right for Ireland to take part in deciding any great Imperial issue, and finally, the question of the revision of the Irish constitution could only be raised at Westminster if the Iriah members were recalled. Beyond this we do not want to go. The energies, and talent", and the time of Irish public men will be sufficiently taxed by the effort to restore the shattered fortunes of their country, without being compelled to appear at Westminster to decide issues which do not concern them, and many of us have hailed the refusal of Mr Gladstone to make fuither concessions on this point with lively satisfaction. But Mr Chamberlain's demands do not end there. He has deliberately attempted to raise the "No Popery"' cry, and asks for a separate Parliament for Ulster, so that the Protestants of li eland may not be "handed over bound hand and foot to the tender mercies of the Catholics." I will not .stop to characterise the morality of racing a cry of this kind, but to show you its utter dishonesty allow me to point out that a Parliament in Ulster could not possibly fulfil the end he pirofi's~,i>s to have in view. First of all, the Protestants who, from his standpoint, would most require protection, are not the Protestants of the North, who are strong, but the Prctcstiiuts of the South, who arewe.ik. What would an Ulster Parliament do for him? Then again it is perfectly clem that were an Ulster Parliauient fco be created to-morrow, the Catholics would most assuredly command a majority of the seats in it. The fact of the matter is, Mr Chamberlain's one object is to wreck ' ths 13.11 and thtj Government ; he desires '< to perpetuate the idea of " two nations " for < the purpose hmnilating Ireland, and he desires two "Parliaments" in order to . degrade both to the position of provincial j councils, and rob our people of the i recognition ot the national sentiment which has been their (passion and their aspiration for centuries. In this he shall not succeed. Better a thousand times the Bill were wrecked, better another generation should pas* without the realisation of their hopes than that the honour and the intetest of fchoir country should thus be sacrificed. We have learned how to wait, and if need be, we are ready to wait now, strong in the knowledge that if not to-day then assuredly to-morrow our cause must triumph.