The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-12-24
The New Position OF tho Anti.Parnell.
lite Party.

ltc TurUy.
It IL taken for granted in some quarters
that q death blow has been dealt to the
movement for the separate government of
Ireland by the caucus of the British Liberal
Association, which has refused to permit
home rule to figure any longer as the first
plank in the Liberal platform. The truth
Is that nothing is more likely to bring
about a reunion Of the three Nationalist
factions on the lines which Mr.. PARNELL
laid down.
The desire for home rule is as strong as
1t ever was in Ireland, as is proved by the
fact that at the last general election the
N~ationalists lost only a few seats. and
those only through intestine dissensions.
No one doubts that the party, If reunited,
could return eighty-fve members to the
House of Commons from Ireland, besides
one from Liverpool, as 1t did in Mr.. PAR.
NELL's time. What has temporarily dam
aged the home rule cause In England has
been the splitting of the Nationalist party
Into two, and, subsequently, three, sections,
and its consequent inability to adopt a
common and consistent programme. One
striking result of the division was seen
when the Rosebcry Cabinet was turned
out, the Anti'Parnellltes voting with the
Government and the Parnellites with the
victorious Opposition.
There has been. indeed, q striking di.
vergence of principles and tactics on the
part Of Parnellites and Anti arnellites
ever slnce Mr.. PARNELL's leadership was
repudiated by the majority OF the Nation.
alist party. That majority. of which Mr..
JUSTIN MCCARTHY was for some years
nominally chief, and of which Mr.. JOHN
DILLON Is now the head, supported the
Liberals on all critical occasions, maintain
ing this to be their duty. in view of the
fact that the Liberals were pledged to give
Ireland a separate Government. The Par.
n~ellltes, on the other hand, contended
that the Nationalist owed a duty to
Ireland alone, and that this duty
could be fulfilled best by avoiding
. close coalition with either of the
British political parties. They pointed out
that II Mr.. PARNELL had not called upon
all the lr sh voters in England to support
the Conservative candidates In the general
election of 1898. Mr.. GLADSTONE, instead
OF obtaining a majority of only three,
would have gained a decided preponder.
NPPNSih6 C'SLiShlo COIlDlneu
In which event his acceptance of the home
rule Idea might have been doubtful.
One thing is certain, that the virtual alb.
sorption OF the Anti arnellites In the
Liberal party during the Parliament OF
1s92-o5 was followed by the most tire,
mendous catastrophe which the Liberals
have encountered in this century. And
what, asks Mr.. JOHN REDMOND, the leade,
OF the Parnellites, have Mr.. DTLLoN's
followers secured in return for tho Jealous
service which they have rendered to the
LiberalsS Their guerdon is the decision
reached In the caucus Of the British Liberia.
Association, that home rule shall nc
longer constitute the first plank in the
Liberal platform, which, of course, mean,
that Its consideration shall be adjourned u
the Greek Kalends.
We did not haye to wait long to see tn,
effect Of this proceeding. Mr.. JONI
DILLON, speaking at Dublin soon after
ward, declared that henceforth the Anti
Parnellites would repudiate the ~allianc,
with the Liberals, and would assume al
independent position with an eye single Il
1Etsh interests. This IL precisely the plat