THE DIVISION AMONGST THE HOME RULERS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 19, 6 February 1891, Page 7

THE DIVISION AMONGST THE HOME RULERS.

(Liverpool Catliolis Times, December 12.)

After the painful debate in the committee room of the House of Commons the struggle between Mr. Parnell and his opponents has been transferred to Ireland. Oa Wednesday evening last, Mr. Parnell himself addressed a crowded meeting of his supporters in tbe Dublin Rotunda, and there can be no doubt that if the verdict lay with that large gatherins, Mr. Parnell's power over the Irish party would be immediately restored. The proceedings were marked by an abundant flow of enthusiasm in his favour, and tbe assemblage rapturously pledged itself to support him in the contest which he is now waging. It is not difficult to understand why this pro-Parnellite feeling exists amongst certain sections tf the people even at this juncture. A lively sense of gratitude for favours received is one of the meat prominent traits in tha Irishman's character, and no one can for a moment deny that Mr. Parnell ha 9 laid Irishmen under the deepest obligation?. As the officer remarks in " Coriolanus," he " hath bo planted his honours in their eyes and his actions in their hearts that for their tongues to be silent and not confess so much were a kind of ungrateful injury." In the next place the issue between Mr. Paruell aod those who demand his retirement is now declared by Mr. Parnell and his partisans to resolve itself into the question whether Mr. Gladstone is to be allowed to dictate to Irishmen the choice of a leader and to impose whatever terms he desires in dealing with the Home Rule problem. For long years Irishmen have been accustomed to find that the hopes they placed in English statesmen were for the most part mere delusions, and a feeling of distrust even with regard to the most outspoken expressions of sympathy in England was thus generated amongst the Irish populace. This distrust it is, of course, to tbe advantage of Mr. Parnell and his friends to reawaken. AgaiD, there are throughout Ireland a number of men who put no faith in constitutional action, aud are glad to further any movement calculated to prove its inutility. Of these the majority will, it may be takea for granted, be found amongst the supporters of Mr. Parnell. With these considerations and elementß working on his behalf, it is evident that he will be able to fight a vigorous battle for the recovery of his position as leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party. But however long and desperate the struggle may be, it will assuredly result in the practical effacement of Mr. Parnell'a power. Had he on the publication of the proceedings in the divorce court consented to retire for a time from public life, a comparatively short period ot seclusion would have been regarded by the public on both sides of the Channel as an atonement for hi 9 transgressions and ha could have resumed the leadership of the liish party with little or no dissent or murmuring on the part of his fellow-countryman. But his at nude during ihe past fortnight has set in motion towards him a tide of hostility which, despite all his ability, it will be impossible for him lo Btem. His selfishness in jeopardising the Home Rule cause and rtfusing to sink his own personality for the sake of its progress, his recklessness in flinging bitter epithets at politicians who have exerted a powerful iufluence for ihe advancement of tne Home Rule movement in Great Britain, and the injustice of which he was guilty in atiributing a want of integrity and patriotism to men who had proved the sincerity nf their love for Ireland by enduring greater sufferings than he has ever borne at the hands of her enemies have | wrought a complete change in the sentiments of multitudes of Irishu.ea who have t itherlo regarded Mr. Parnell with the warmest feel1 inga of admiration. He ra9 now arrayed against him the strongest and the most intelligent forct s of tte country. The Eji c copate a.id the clergy have, almost without exception, pronounce! against him. To as&eit trut Mr. Parnell can readily orercome the opposition they will offer is to betray profound itjnoranca of their hold upon 'be pe -pie. Tbe priests, embracing many such men as C-inon Keller, who have proved their devotion to the in'eret'ts of the people by undergoing long terms of imprisonment, are and have been the mainstays of the national movement in thtir several distne's, and at this crisis their flocks will, as a whole, be little dipposed to d spute the wisdom of their advice. The majority of the Parliamentary paity who have rejected Mr. Parneli's leadership will also [ romote a strong current of opinion agair a r him in the constituencies which they represent. It is true ihat the two mest mtiuei tial of those me tnber<» — Mr. Dillon an l Mr. William O Bnen — will be unable to take any very active part in the struggle, but amonpst the others are gentltruen wh< se qualities as Dnblic speakers, and who'-e record in tbe warfare against oppression and coercion will enab'e them to produce a deep impression on the hearts of their fellowcountrymen. That tbe disastrous struggle will go on for a lengthly period is now, unfortunately, a matter of certainty, and it is only too clear that the effect mvs 1 be tv lendei iniffini'e the prcspect of a settlement of if the Home Rule question. Yet we would hope, even against hope, that nearly all Irishmen are sufficiently alive to the lessons of their country's b story to recognise that devotijn to any single individual em ulu not be HilovvCii to stand in tte vray of v* ity. The fact earnot be lo9t sight of that this crisis in Irish affairs has been brought hbout by Mr. ParnelTs immoral conduct, and that when be has been cailed upon to make a personal sacrifice h,s love cf power has proved superior to his love of country. Under those circumstances the path of duty must be plain to every self-respecting and patriotic Irishman.