THE HOME RULE ISSUE

New Zealand Tablet, 31 July 1913, Page 9

THE HOME RULE ISSUE

AN IMPERIALIST’S SUGGESTION The fallowing is the fourth— so far, the most interesting and important of a series of letters entitled 1 Irish Unionists and the Home Rule Bill ’ contributed to the Irish Times by ‘An-Ulster Imperialist.’ Having completed this outline sketch of the chief reasons which seem to be responsible for the failure of Unionism to excite the old enthusiasm of English electors against Home Rule, and also for the growth of a considerable body of Irish Unionists who recognise that, sooner or later, Home Rule of some sort is bound to come, I will pass on to a very short discussion of the situation as it actually is at present, and as it seems likely soon to be. In the old days Unionist bulwarks against Home Rule Were many and powerful. A violent anti-Irish sentiment in England, a vivid recollection of the ‘ bad’ times during the land war, a secession of Liberals as soon as a Liberal Government touched the question, the impregnable citadel of the House of Lords—were some of the Unionist defences. One by one these have disappeared, until now, in 1913, the only hope of defeating the present Bill is that, by some fluke, the Government may have to go to the country On Some Other Issue before it is enforced. Irish Unionism hangs by a single hair, where it used to be supported by a dozen hawsers of steel. That single hair is the English Conservative

iParty. It has become a very risky support to rely on. ■Three times within seven years English Conservatives shave publicly shown themselves to be within measurlable distance of throwing their Irish followers over. ■I refer, of course (1) to the incidents that occurred in ■1905, when Sir Antony Mac Donnell was appointed by Mr. Balfour, with the evident intention of devising some sweeping changes in the system of Irish government ; (2) to the reception accorded by the English ■Unionist papers to the ‘ Pacificus ’ letters just before ■the last General Election in 1910 ; and (3) to the recent manoeuvring about the ‘ referendum ’ and the ‘ Food ■Taxes. The House of Lords’ veto is gone, there has been no Liberal split, and the anti-Irish agitation has Stotally failed to effect its purpose among the English a voters. 1 The Government at this present time of writing | appears to be stronger than it has been for a long time '-.past, and the Unionist Party seems to be in an almost more hopeless condition than they were in 1906. . And, suppose Mr. Asquith passes the Bill, and then goes to the country during the interval between that event and the first Irish elections? Does anyone really hope now that England is capable of being influ- . enced by the anti-Home Rule arguments? Why, even in 1895, it was a fluke of the rarest kind that saved the Unionist party, for the majority of the ©lectors ,(1,823,809) were in favor of Mr. Gladstone’s policy, although the minority (1,785,372) secured 282 seats ■ out of 484 contested ! It is not likely- that this fluke will occur again in a similar connection. f Most Irish Unionists seems to be, like Mr. Micaw-i-.ber, waiting for something to turn up. Even if somej thing should eventually turn up to defeat the Bill, it I is high time that moderate people in this country should jjbe thinking over their line of action in case their hopes l.should be in vain. There are not many alternatives. lOne is the ‘ Provisional Government ’ plan for Ulster, uThose who believe in the possibility of setting up this Sopera bouffe arrangement will naturally not trouble qabout any other alternative. It is, in any case, not fcmuch | (Consolation to Unionists in the Rest of Ireland |to imagine an Irish Parliament without Ulstermen in jit. The second is to lie low, and allow the present j Bill, unamended, to be passed without any attempt |to improve it. The third is, as soon as it becomes evident'that the choice lies between the Bill as it stands v and the Bill amended, for an organised expression of i moderate opinion to be made by as large a body of i Irish Unionists as possible. As everybody knows, there \ are plenty of Irishmen, even among those who signed |the ‘ Covenant,’ who are Unionist in their opinions, I but who, if Home Rule comes, are willing to do their | best to make the new arrangements work. It is the Iplain duty of all such men, once they realise that the |Bill is going to pass, to help in making it a better Bill ithan it is. I But under the Parliament Act a Bill once stereoItyped in the Commons cannot be altered, except by consent of parties, if it is to be sent up over of Irish Unionists as possible. As everybody knows, there are plenty of Irishmen, even among those who signed the ‘ Covenant,’ who are Unionist in their opinions, but who, if Home Rule comes, are willing to do their best to make the new arrangements work. It is th© plain duty of all such men, once they realise that the Bill is going to pass, to help in making it a better Bill than it is. But under the Parliament Act a Bill once stereotyped in the Commons cannot be altered, except by jconsent of all parties, if it is to be sent up over the heads of the Lords after its third passage through the Commons. It is not reasonable to expect the men I have referred to to amend the Bill constructively now. It must go forward substantially in its present form during its next stages. It has been rejected by the Lords: it will pass the Commons again during the next session. If by that time nothing has turned up to [remove the anxieties of Irish Unionists, a petition should bo sent to the House of Lords saying that those who signed it had steadily opposed the Bill, but, recognising that their opposition had failed to defeat ( i it, they preferred it to pass amended rather than, j under the provisions of the Parliament Act, unamended. |ln short, the House of Lords should be asked, on be- | half of moderate Irish Unionists who will have to live l in the country under the new arrangements, to bow to the inevitable, amend the Bill, and pass it. There I is do sort of doubt that any reasonable amendment I submitted in this spirit would be accepted by the I Government and by the Nationalists.

The above suggestion, if it be possible to carry it out, would have the merit at lowest of affording an honorable escape from what threatens to become an impossible position for Irish Unionists. Also, it would get the question settled at an earlier date, and would thus remove the uncertainty and unsettlement which is holding so many things back just now in this country. There is only one remaining alternative, and it is one which we would owe to the ‘goodwill’ of the Government if it ever became practicable, and not to Good Generalship on the Part of Irish Unionists. It is this: The Government may very likely, as already suggested, go to the country during the interval beween the passing of the present Bill and the first Irish elections. As one of your correspondents acutely prophesied the other day, this interval would be utilised by the Irish Party for an outburst of loyalist speeches and demonstrations. In this atmosphere, what sort of chance do Irish Unionists think they would have of reviving the British elector’s fear of Home Rule on the grounds of Nationalist disloyalty? Six months ago, no doubt, the Government might have been defeated at a General Election by reason of the Insurance Act. Now that benefits have begun to accrue, this no longer applies, and I find very few people who really believe that an election in the near future would dismiss the Government. Suppose, then, they returned to office in the circumstances, outlined? They might choose, to present Irish Unionists with one last opportunity for constructive statesmanship by offering to consider the result of a conference of all parties before enforcing the Act in case the conference disagreed. In the last resort, I hope and believe that some such means might be found for getting Home Rule through by consent. But is it good tactics, to put it no higher, for Irish Unionists, once they realise that Home Rule is certain to come, to say nothing, and to hope the Government will, of their charity, give them this or that chance of showing that they really have The Welfare of the Country at Heart? I append, as a mere suggestion for criticism, three points which seem to me to require immediate consideration : (1) Finance. —lt is next door to impossible that the financial scheme of the Bill should prove workable in practice. Attention might very well be directed to a simple and ingenious plan proposed some months before the Bill was introduced that the Imperial contribution to Irish finance, which has been made necessary by recent British legislation, should be a fixed sum, not to be increased or reduced, and that this sum should be made payable by instalments, beginning with a sum little in excess of the present deficit, say, £2,000,000 the first year, and automatically decreasing by, say, £IOO,OOO every . subsequent year until the whole had been paid. In this or some similar way we might make the task of the Irish Treasury a more possible one. (2) Land Purchase. —The amount of this fixed sum would, of course, depend upon the retention or delegation of the Land Purchase Acts. It would help to make things easier for many Irish Unionists if they felt sure the Land Purchase Acts were going to be completed by the Imperial Parliament, and without delay in the general sense of the 1903 Act. This is the one Government subsidy ’ that ought, for every reason, financial, political, and moral, to be paid off and completed with the very minimum of delay. We have Mr. Birrell’s promise, but we would like to see his Bill. (3) Method of Election to Lower House.—Proportional representation for the Irish Lower House should be insisted upon. It is precisely during the first three or four years that opportunities for minorities to secure representation will be most required, and the scheme now embodied in the Bill is one which effectually kills minorities, except in the nine multimember constituencies where proportional representation has been adopted. Conclusion. You will have noticed that I have made no mention of Irish Unionist objections to Home Rule. . I

have deliberately left them out, because I do not believe that anything that we can now say on this side of the Channel is going to have ' any effect upon the fortunes of, the Bill. Its passage will be secured or will fail according to developments in England upon subjects wholly irrelevant to Home Rule or to Irish opinions, Unionist or Nationalist. To this general statement there are two partial exceptions. I dealt with one of them just now, when I showed how Irish Unionists who were willing, even at the last moment, to make, the best of a bad job, could influence the Bill for good. The other exception is an argument which I observe you use pretty frequently to abolish persons who wish the Bill to be amended with Unionist assistance. You seem to believe that the central fact in the whole situation is the civil war which is going to break out in Ulster, and which is gong to make Home Rule impossible. Well, sir, I live in Ulster, and I Don’t Believe in the Civil War. Is Ulster, then, not in earnest in her opposition to Home Rule ? Of course, she is in earnest in opposing what she fears will be a reign of terror. If you believe that the proposed Irish Parliament would commence oppressing Protestant and destroying Ulster industries, then you naturally prepare for a rebellion. If the Irish Parliament were fool enough to give any genuine cause of complaint to Ulster, then civil war would really be within sight. My view is that these fears are imaginary, and that when Ulster finds herself jogging along under Home Rule as peaceably as she ever did under the Union (perhaps more so), then the rifles will be made into firewood and the swords into peastakes, It is perfectly true that Ulster would be a very serious proposition indeed, if there were a prospect of her fears being realised. But, before the occasion for any rebellion could arise, the Bill must first have been passed. Therefore, even if you should be afraid of the situation in Ulster, it is necessary to prepare for the intervening period, during which it will still be possible to secure valuable amendments. The critical moment will come, not when you expect Ulster to be in revolt —i.e., after the Bill is passedbut when we come to see that the only choice lies between the Bill as it stands and the Bill amended. If things should continue to move along the lines they now appear to be on, the genuineness of Irish Unionist patriotism will soon be put to a very severe test. If they refuse to help in improving the Bill, they will be guilty of doing definite injury to the prospects of good government in Ireland during the period of re-adjustment to the new conditions. When will a move become necessary? The time will, I believe, come before long—probably between May and July. I have written in the hope* that some of those who read may think over the problem quietly before the moment for action arrives.