HOME RULE BEFORE THE LORDS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3742, 30 January 1913, Page 5

HOME RULE BEFORE THE LORDS.

DISCUSSION STILL LIFELESS

[UNITED PE ESS ASSOCIATION—COPYEIGHT] LONDON, Jan. 2-8.

Earl Grey, in the House of Lords, said as a convinced Federalist, he strongly opposed the Home Rule Bill. He preferred that Ulstermen in the north-east be given self-government similar to that prevailing in Ontario. Nationalists in the south-west should have the same rights as the men of Quebec It was imperative in the Empire's interests, that the question be settled on lines satisfactory to democracies in the self-governing Dominions.

Lord Dunraven said the Bill was incompatible with federation and imposed no adequate check on the Order of Hibernians.

FRAMED NOT TO WORK BUT TO PASS

LORD ST. ALDWYN CONDEMNS THE BILL.

(Received Jan. 30. 12.25 a.m.) LONDON, Jan. 29

Lord St. Aldwyn said the Bill did ijiot place the Irish Government in a position of self-reliance. Its expenditure was certain to rise, while its revenue must diminish. No one in Ireland approved of the financial provisions of the Bill, and it was -utterly impossible to fulfil the roseate Nationalist expectations which the advent of Home Rule aroused. It was impossible to raise extra taxation because the fact that Ireland was already overtaxed was dinned into every Irishman’s ears, and consequently fresh discontent would arise and Ireland would lose the advantage of Imperial credit and would have to pay a higher rate for loans .than she had hitherto. Lord St. Aldwyn continued: The real reason for the retention of 42 Irish members at Westminster is so that they may act in concert in raiding the British Treasury, their support being open at prices corresponding with the British Government’s needs.

He said there was a temptation to the Irish Government not to effecteconomies lest it should bring them nearer financial revision when Ireland would be asked to contribute to the Imperial expenditure. The Bill was framed not to work, but to pass. Lord Haldane said he was as sanguine of the beneficial results of the Bill as Lord St. Aldwyn was pessimistic and gdommy. Earl Grey’s Canadian analogy could not be applied to Ireland. The theory was that the Bill was a true devolution as distinct, from a true federation. It was necessarv to retain Irish representation at Westminster to give reality to the claim of an Imperial Parliament.