DOMINION HOME RULE

New Zealand Tablet, 23 August 1917, Page 17

DOMINION HOME RULE

To the Editor. Sir, — According to the leading article in the Tablet of July 26, Mr, George Russell’s proposed scheme of Home Rule for Ireland embodied in “Thoughts for a Convention” presents a bold plan for the solution of the question on the lines of “full” Colonial self-govern-ment. With your permission I should like to say a few words on this question with the object of showing that there is no reasonable probability that the British Government will be in favor of a settlement on these lines. Although in matters of this nature the boldest plan is sometimes the best (witness the case of South Africa), the English temperament seems instinctively to favor a middle course. They seem to act on the maxim of Edmund Burke, that “all good government is built on compromise.” Let me begin by pointing out that Colonial selfgovernment would virtually (though not theoretically)

mean Repeal of the Union-— that form ,of national independence which has always been the ideal, of Irish patriotism. Grattan’s Act enacted “the right claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound by laws enacted by his Majesty and the 'Parliament of that Kingdom [lreland] in all cases whatsoever . . . shall be, and is hereby declared to be, established and ascertained forever,” and this was solemnly agreed to in the English “Renunciation Act.” Under this Act the English Parliament had no power to legislate for Ireland. Under the various Colonial Acts the Imperial Parliament retains this power, but never, of its own accord, exercises it. With such a government as is possessed by each of the free dominions, Ireland would have (to a certain extent) a voice in the making of peace and war ; it could have its own army and navy ; it could levy taxes on all exports and imports ; it could give bounties to nascent industries. In practice (as opposed to the

theory of 1 Colonial Constitutions) England * would have no right to interfere with any Act of the Irish Government. . ,■ 'Under Asquith’s Act, Ireland, it is scarcely necessary ! to say, would possess none of these-powers, and Asquith’s Act represented the maximum England was prepared to give a few years ago. Indeed, it represented more than the maximum, as subsequent events showed. What chance is there then ; for Dominion Home Rule in view of the two proposed partition settlements ? What has happened to justify the hopes for such an ideal settlement as Mr. Russell proposes, or is said to propose ? Is it the Easter Week rebellion? No, for the Lloyd George proposals came after that event. Is is pressure from America? Surely not, for American pressure would be at its greatest—she had so much to givebefore she joined the Allies, and it behoved her much to conciliate such a large section of her people as the American Irish—a 'people who are ever the first to respond to a call to arms. Is it that England has become suddenly ashamed of the hypocrisy of her attitude as the defender of the small nationalities ? I think not. England has always been the champion of freedom everywhere—outside Ireland. As T. D. Sullivan sang long ago—- “ 0, Freedom is a glorious thing, E’en so our gracious rulers say, And what they gay, sure I may sing In quite a legal, proper way. They praise it up with all their might, They praise the men that seek it too, Provided all the row and fight Is out in Poland—thiggin thu?’’ In my opinion, then, there is little to justify the hopes of the friends of Ireland who expect That a full measure of Dominion self-government will be given to Ireland. We may be sure that a dozen schemes (including Mr. Russell’s) were, or are, under the consideration of the Dublin Convention, and we may be equally certain that if, as a wonder some scheme is agreed on, it will not be one for full Colonial selfgovernment. I have been thinking that there is a great deal of ambiguity about (his phrase “Colonial self-govern-ment. In each oi the two great English dominions, Canada and Australia, there are two forms ol selfgovernment. Take Australia, for example. There is the Commonwealth or Federal Government for the whole country, and each of the Slates lias a government of its own for local affairs. It is easy enough for unthinking people to confuse the larger form of government with the smaller, both being forms of selfgovernment as it exists in the colonies. May not something of this kind have happened in describing the proposed settlement for Ireland. ° Things have come to such a pass that it is admitted there by all parties that Ireland must have some form of Home Rule. In casting about for a plan which would give her full local self-government and preserve the essential unity of the British Empire the federal system has often been discussed since the time 0 f O Connell. Davis favored such a scheme so did Butt, seeing Repeal to be impossible. The question of the federation of the United Kingdom seems to be in men s minds again, as part of the larger scheme of federating the Empire. There is much to be said in favor of it. It would give Ireland complete control of her local affairs—as complete as the English people would have of theirs, or the Scotch of Scottish affairs. In this manner it would preserve the self-respect of all classes of Irishmen. They would he one of a group of sister .nations united for common purposes by a federal parliament. It is said the Orangemen are not violently opposed to a settlement on federal lines, and that Carson’s principal objection to Asquith’s Act was that it did not fit in with such a scheme. I have not seen any details of Mr. Russell’s scheme, but I cannot help thinking from some of the names

given favoring it, that it proposes a scheme of federation . such as I have alluded to. At the present conjuncture of affairs I do not think “full Dominion self-government’’ on the lines enjoyed by (say) New Zealand is possible of attainment.—l am, etc., ■ r . Ch. O’Leary. . Wairarapa, August 10.