THE HOME-RULE DEBATE AND THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL.
rr1HOUGH no Unionist can help deeply regretting the _L fact that Mr. Redmond's Home-rule Motion was carried in the House of Commons by a majority of 156, the debate was distinctly more satisfactory than we had expected. No doubt Mr. Birrell said some very foolish things, and omitted to give the denial demanded by truth and reason to many of the violent and mischievous things said by Mr. Redmond, but he also said some sound things,—for example, his remarks about the minority and his invitation to the Nationalists to pro- duce their plan. Again, Mr. Asquith's treatment of the question was, on the whole, reassuring. To begin with, he declared that he should vote against Lord Percy's amendment because it "attacks and, by implicit- tiOn,' attributes to us here [i.e., the Liberal Party] a position which was never held by Mr. Gladstone or by any of his colleagues,"—the policy "of setting up in this United Kingdom two co-ordinate, or indeed independent, Parliaments." In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer condemned the amendment because it assumed that the Liberal Party support a policy opposed to the maintenance of the Union. It is true that Mr. Asquith went on to speak in general terms of the failure of British statesmanship in regard to Ireland, but he added : "I do not profess to foresee the precise steps and stages by which the goal [i.e., the satisfying of Irish feeling] will be reached." Further, Mr. Asquith declared that the Con- stitutional problem of the future was to "set free this Imperial Parliament for Imperial affairs, and in matters purely local to rely more and more on local opinion and local machinery. Ireland is by far the most urgent case." In the earlier part of his speech Mr. Asquith still more clearly emphasised this view of the question by declaring that the ultimate solution of the Irish problem "can only be found in a system of self-government in regard to purely local affairs." It is hardly to be wondered that Mr. Healy, who, like the rest of the Nationalist Members, desires, not a system of local government for purely local affairs, but "Ireland a nation," and a nation possessing a Parliament and an Executive, declared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not imagine that the attitude which he had assumed would commend itself to Irish opinion. If, said Mr. Healy, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made "on behalf of his party, it marked a very deplorable retrogression." He believed that the right hon. gentleman had taken a downward and backward course. Mr. Healy added with characteristic bitterness that he did not believe that Mr. Asquith had improved his personal position, and he was sure that he had not "improved relationships with the Liberal Party." He ended by declaring that "the Irish race, with their determination behind their representatives, would yet hew a pathway for Irish freedom."
But though Mr. Asquith's words, and still more their interpretation by Mr. Healy, were satisfactory, the fact remains that Mr. Asquith led his party into the lobby to vote for I Resolution which, after a most unjust and exaggerated arraignment of the 'existing Irish adminis- tration, declared that a solution of the Irish problem could only be obtained "by giving to the Irish people legislative and executive control of all purely Irish affairs." It is true that the Motion before it was voted on received the addition of the words, "subject to the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament " ; but nevertheless the Irish Members are entitled to say that Parliament has approved by a majority of 156 the setting up of an Irish Parliament with an Irish Executive responsible to it, and so has in fact approved in the abstract of a virtual repeal of the Union. No doubt the great majority of Liberal Members attached little or no importance to their votes, and certainly had no real intention of expressing any desire to repeal the Act of Union. Nevertheless we cannot help feeling that all those electors who are determined that the Act of Union shall not be repealed—and those who are thus determined are to be found not only in the Unionist ranks, but by the hundred thousand among Liberal electors—must see to it at the next General Election that the candidates whom they support pledge themselves not to vote for such Resolu- tions as Mr. Redmond's.
It will be very interesting to see what will be the effect of the debate upon the relations between the Liberal Party and the Nationalists. Unless we are greatly mistaken, those relations, which for the last few, months have been of a very cordial nature, will now become less amicable. In the first place, Mr. Asquith's advent to power will be by no means welcome to the Nationalists. Next, we shall not be surprised if Mr. Healy's speech, and the general dissatisfaction of the Irish Party with the debate, does not make a great many Liberals feel that the Nationalists are utterly unreasonable and impracticable. "What are we to do with a party which threw back the Irish Council Bill at us with contumely and insult, and, though we stretched many points and made many sacrifices to vote for their Resolution, now tell us that we have treated them harshly ? " That will be the attitude which we are sure will be adopted by many Liberals. Again, the fact that Mr. Balfour and the Opposition are, we are glad to see, going to support very warmly the Irish University Bill, while there will be a good deal of hostility shown to that Bill by the Nonconformists, will also tend to widen the breach between the Nationalists and the Liberals. The truth is that on every subject, from education to Tariff Reform, except the one question of Home-rule, the Nationalists adopt a mental attitude diametrically opposed to that of the Liberals. Only as regards Home-rule do they even appear to agree, and those who look at all below the surface know that here the agreement is only nominal. The Nationalists are always haunted by the feeling that in the end the Liberals mean to mock them by giving them nothing—to borrow Mr. Morley's phrase—but the control of their own gas and water, and the power to appoint their own parish beadle.
It is pleasant to turn from a question which stirs up so much bitter feeling as that of Home-rule to the problem of Irish University education. As our readers know, we have advocated in season and out of season a settlement of the problem on lines which will really satisfy Irish Roman Catholic and clerical opinion. Mr. Birrell has at last introduced a Bill on these lines, and we are glad to see that its provisions have won the support of Mr. Balfour, who on this question is not only an expert in the matter of detail, but also has, we feel sure, the true interests of Ireland at heart. Mr. Balfour, as a strong party man, must no doubt have felt a, good deal of temptation to embarrass the Government by endeavouring to wreck Mr. Birrell's Bill. That he has refused to yield to this temptation is very much to his credit, and will, we believe, in the end prove the better policy for the Unionist Party. Of the definite proposals of the Bill we will only say that they are satisfactory because they obviously satisfy Irish Roman Catholic opinion. Mr. Dillon's speech made this quite clear, for Mr. Dillon is the repre- sentative of Irish Roman Catholic opinion in the matter of education. We trust that while the Bill is passing through the House the Government will steadfastly refuse to sanction any amendments which will make it less acceptable to the Roman Catholics than it is at present. The essential point when a gift is made, especially to a sensitive people like the Irish, is to do the thing hand- somely in every particular, and to avoid anything which may appear in the least grudging or half-hearted. Let the Irish Roman Catholics not only have the University they want in principle, but let that University be one of which they can feel justly proud, and also one which they can feel to be their very own. We want to give the Irish Roman Catholics the opportunity to make their new University a model Roman Catholic seat of learning. If the University proves a success, as we sincerely trust it may, let the praise belong to the Roman Hierarchy, who will control the University in fact, if not in name. If there is failure —we by no means anticipate failure, but, of course, there must be some risk of such a result—it must not be possible to ascribe it to any niggardliness or want of sympathy in the laying of the foundations by the Imperial Government.
Previous page
