The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-08-31

home rule IN the British house OF COM
mons has been one of unequaIed bitterness
in modern times. when we remember that
public manners and sentiment justified
many things in 1882 that are deemed ordi-
beginning 20 end has been as ferocious in
spirit as 9 ''duei In the dark" but 1t has
been O most valuable and Instructive de-
bate on both sides. The weak points of
both sides have been mercilessly examined
and assaulted.
Ii is due TO the able and honest Quarterly
Reriear. bitter opponent of home rule. TO
say that IL has had the moral courage and
intellectual candor to admit that there Is
not the slightest foundation for the popu-
lar analogy of the Unionists who compare
Mr.. Gladstone's Irish policy to the seces-
sion cause in America. Ii points out that
"the difference between the two cases lies
in this, that the American congress had
never passed vote sanctioning seces-
sion," and contends that II congress, and
not the seeding states. had authorita-
lively asserted the right OF Withdrawing
from the Union. 1t would have been diff
cnlt for the Northern states to demon
strste the inadmissibility OF secession.
The Quarterly Rerie1e can afford to be can
did; intelligence always can; IL is only
gross and unprincipled Ignorance that
attempts 20 ignore historical facts.
Every reader Of modern history knows
that England did grant Ireland home rule
In 1888; that this home rule parliament
endured for eighteen years, to 1901. While
the home rule exercised by the Grattan
parliament was a very narrow and cir
cumscribed Jurisdiction compared with the
home rule asked for In 1893, nevertheless
what Grattan and Flood could constitu-
tionally agitate for and England could
eonstitutionally grant in 1883 Ireland may
constitutionally agitate for and England
constitutlonaliy grant in 1898. This the
honest and able Quarterly Repiep grants
when II impatiently exposes the absurdity
OF the charge that the home rule move
ment today involves the breaking up of
the United Kingdom or any revolutionary
process analogous to the secession OF the
Southern states, every one of which en-
joyed the home rule that Ireland asks for
when they rebelled and seeded.
The South did not rebel and seccde be-
cause it's states were denied legislative
autonomy or home rule; they rebelled
rs wantonly as man would who, having
made contract and exacted the terms
of Its fuliillment so long as he thought he
was making money. suddenly drew his
gun" and repudiated the contract when
he thought the other fellow was m aking a
dollar.
Ireland in this movement for home rule
has never seeded from Great Britain and
fred upon the British flag In Irish waters.
Even the United Ireland radicals of los.
who swore by Wolfe Tone, did not con-
template independence of England. The
Irish horse rule party have moved, as
did o'ConneIl. within constitutional lines;
they passed no secession ordinance; they
took up no arms against England. They
have persevered in a constitutional agits-
ton for a reversion to the conditions
which preceded the act of legislative
union. They desire the restoration of the
Dublin parliament In order TO have the
privilege Of legislating for themselves in
Irish affairs.
The home rule bill does not resemble in
any sense the ordinance of secession
passed by the South Carolina legislature.
II has received the sanction, not OF an
Irish assembly planning a military cam
paign against the United Kingdom. bat OF
the house Of commons recently elected by
the people of Great Britain and Ireland.
Is provides for the representation Of Ire.
land IN the imperial parliament. for fnan-
cial contributions TO the general govern
msnt and for the supremacy OF the United
Kingdom.
The English Tory QuarssrIy is manly
enough 10 admit, all this. aud while on
posing home rule comedies il is constjtu-
tional movement that has no identity
With secession. The New YORK Tribaa,
reviews the confession oil the Quafserly and
says;
LET US suppose that The Southern states
Instead oi having complete legislative
autonomy bad been governed as terri.
tories for several decades before the civil
war. and furthermore, that instead of
Withdrawing from the Union and firing
upon the f4ag they had united in q consti.
tutionai agitation for the resiors-
tion Of their legislative privileges
III house Of representatives
had been elected undsr those cir
camstanees with majority in favor OF
resamitting them 70 their former status
as self governing states under The eonsti-
tationai restraints Of the Federal Union.
the home rule movement in its present
phase in the United Kingdom would have
been paFalieiitd. Between secession as IL
Was Ia i.ei and \ constitutional agitation
for legislative autonomy such as we hav.
Outlined. there arc sharp lines OF diver
genee. Between the secession movement
IN the Uai:ed States ard the home rule
couss in the Unisei Kingdom there is
practically no analogy whatever"