The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-29
IRISH HOME RULE.
Professor Edward Freeman. of Oxford Uni
versity, Tells What 1t Really Means.


OXFORD. Jan. l5.-The controversy about
ing. not only beyond Ireland, but beyond the
British dominions. That is TO say, people are
beginning to that Ireland is not the only
country in the world to which the PRINCIPLES in
volved in the Irish demand for home rule apply
First of all it may be well to thank the inventor
of the phrase ''home rule" whoever he was for
3 most happy invention. As rule, political
phrases meaningless. When they ara of
official invention they doubtless meant to be
meaningless Some minister. or ambassador
or person of that kind. talks about. will
say, .autonomy." Eastern Roumeian for
instance-ths diplomatic name for Southern
Bulgaria-was to be an autonomous province
The ambassador. or envoy. or attache, who in
might not be understood. 1t might mean any
thing or nothing. as might be convenient But
1T sounded fine. and people were ashamed to say
that they did not know what it meant And so
all the hard words used, partly by dull peo-
pie. who have no particular meaning, but who
think the hard words ine partly by cunning
people who know their own meaning very well,
but who do not wish other people to know what
1t is. If Lord Derby talks about Autonomy"
we know that he means nothing in particular.
If Prince Bismarck talks about it, sure
that he knows perfectly well what he means,
bu, thai he does not wish us to know.
Now the Irish both know their own meaning,
and wish other people to know it. Therefore
they do not talk about autonomy" or any 9TH
er absurd foreign word; they talk. in plain Eng
lish-for nobody can use plain English better
than an Irishman when be chooses-atout
home rule" Now by home rule they mean. so
at least l understand them. relation between,
two countries, most likely between a larger and
smaller country. different alike from complete
union and from complete separation. And ]
think it implies a certain measure of dependence
on the part of the country which is said TO have
the home rule. Ireland, dissatisfied with it6
union with Great Britain, asks for home rule. IL
the dissatisfaction were the side of Great
Britain. we should not say that Great Britain
asked for home rule. Home rule differs
from an union between two independents king
doms or other states on equal terms, as the
union between the two kingdoms of Sweden and
Norway. that between the kingdom of Hun
gary and the Archduchy of Austria 1t differs
again from federal union where several States
agree that, of the powers naturally belonging to
INDEPENDENT State, such State shall keep
some in its own hands, while others are dele
gated to a central authority. In both these
cases the union is equal terms It is the
essence of home rule that the union-for home
rule implies some measure of union-should not
be equal Home rule is essentially a relation
between dependency and a superior power. To
complete separation and to union on equal terms
we give other names and not that of home rule.
That this is what the Irish mean when they
ask for home rule is plain from their acceptance
of Mr.. Gladstone's DILL. in which Ireland was
throughout treated as dependency. That bill
would have given Ireland a large measure OF
practical independence it would have given ths
Irish the control of all those things of which
they wish to have the control; but the formal
relation which it would have established for
Ireland is that of a dependency of Great Britain.
The same is plain from the desire OF some OF
the most clear sighted of the Irish leaders to be
put the same level as Canada Canada-or
any other British colony that has free constitu-
tion-is dependency of the United Kingdom.
The government Of the United Kingdom
settles many matters, say peace and war, in
which Canada is concerned. without directly or
indirectly consulting Canada; and the Parlia-
ment of the United Kingdom, in which Canada
is not represented, at any moment leeislate
for Canada. Ireland, in short, wishes to ex-
x.1l IL.
ton, for formal dependence, which will be
real independence. That is, il will be independ-
enee in all those matters which Ireland cares
for Ireland wishes, in short. to exchange L
shadow for a substance.
Now home rule, as thus defined, is not a new
or unknown thing; it exists in several parts of
the world at this moment in some of the cases
where it exists it has existed for ages. There
is. as has been said, home rule in every British
colony. that is constitutionally governed
All those colonies have home rule
and not more than home rule. But
home rule is also TO be found in parts of the
Queens dominions much nearer to Great Britain
of Man and the Channel islands have had home
rule for These islands part of the
Queens dominions. but they are 10 part of the
United Kingdom. As in the case of other de-
pendencies the goverement of the United King
dom settles matters in which they concerned
without consulting them. and the Parliament Of
represented, does on occasion .legisate
for them. But. under all ordinary
circumstances. they manage all To-
cal affairs for themselves; the superior
power steps'in only when some special need
calls for it's interference. They thus enjoy far
more of practical independence than they could
union with Great Britain. IL they were Iepie-
sented in the Parliament Of the United King
dom. and had only that Parliament to legisate
for them in all matters. it is clear that their To-
cal interests would not be well looked after
as they now. At the other end of the
United Kingdom are the islands of Ork-
II
sented in the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. but which, 1 have every reason to
think, would gladly exchange that representa-
tion for a local assembly like that of Man or Of
Jersey This relation in which Man and ths
Channel islands stand to Great Britain is essen
tally the relation of home rule neither more
nor less. When Ireland asks for homo rule, she
asks for nothing new, or strange, or wonderful;
she only asks to be put into the position in
which another island which lies between Ireland
and Great Britain has been for ages.
But home rule also exists. and has existed for
ages, in countries far beyond the bounds of the
Britieh dominions. Here. however. we must
begin to be- on our guard against false analogies,
for a good many false analogies have been
brought in by some who have sought for prec.
edents for Iris home rule in other lands. The
warning must be repeated; no example drawn
from q federal State. example drawn from
union between two absolutely independent
States, is at all to the purpose. We look for
a large and smaller State. and we
are at met by the case OF great
power which has had two smaller states
attached it in the relation of home rule And
the example is the more instructive because in
the case of one of those smaller states the rela-
tion of home rule has been strikineiy success
full, while in the other it has signay failed.
Early in the present century the Grand Duchy
of Finland was ceded by Sweden to Russia
The Emperor of Russia became Grand Duke Of
Finland but Finland was in sort merged in
Russia; it kept its old laws and constitution, and
it keeps them still. The union has answered
well. and Finland has had nothing
to COMPLAIN of at the hands of her Russian
Grand Dukes. A few years later by what would
now oe called an European concert the revived
kingdom of Poland was united to Russia in
terms not exactly the same as those of Finland
but coming, like those of Finland. under the
definition of home rule. The Emperor of Russia
became King of Poland. he had become
Grand Duke OF Finland; but, Finland was
not merged in Russia, neither was Poland.
AS Finland kept It's old Constitution. so Poland
received new one, both altoee'her distinct