The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-02-04
The Reconciliation of the Home Rule
Party.

1t Is an Ill wind that blows nobody any
good. One outcome Of the war in South
Africa has been to effect what earnest nego-
t~iations, prolonged for upward OF nine
years, have failed to accomplish. to wit: the
reunion Of the Irish Nationalist party, which
was split into fragments In December, $50,
and which has been since disqualified, 10y
the weakness bred OF discord, from render
ing any substantial service to the Home
Rule cause. just before the orening of the
session OF Parliament on Jan. 30, Irish
members, representing not only the Par
nellites but both sections Of the Anti-Par-
nellites. met and unanimously passed a reso-
luton that theIrish Nationalist party should
be reconstructed IN the lines laid down by
Mr.. PARNELL in 1Ss5-9O. lines which should
assure independence Of all British polit-
ical parties and connne Nationalist Efforts
to tho single aim Of securing a measure Of
Home Rule at least as wide as was EN-
bodied in the bills Of 1885 and 1893. Mr..
JOHN Z. REDMOND, Mr.. JOHN DILLON and
Mr.. TIMOTHY HEALY were present at the
meeting. The latter moved that three
whips be elected for the reunited party,
and 1t Is understood that Mr.. REDMOND will
be its first Parliamentary chairman.
Now that the long breach in the National
list ranks has been repaired, 1t may be in
teresting to recall the circumstances under
which the schism took place. A review OF
the facts will show that the deposition OF
Mr.. PARNELL was due to Mr.. G~LADsToSE's
demand, a demand which, undoubtedly,
could be- justified on moral grounds, hut
which. as events have shown, was q grave
political mistake, The resultant rupture
Of the Irish Nationalist party, the bitter
contest OF the two factions at the ballot
box and the conspicuous part which
the Catholic hierarchy and clergy
felt constrained to take on behalf Of the
Anti.Parnellites, shook the belief Of British
Liberals In the competence Of lrishmen for
self-government, alienGted the English
Nonconformists whom Mr.. GLADSTONE had
sought to propitiate. and prevented the
Liberal chief from gaining in tho general
election OF 1892 a majority sufficient TO
overawe the House Of Lords. To dissuade
the Peers from throwing out his second
Home Rule bill and compelling q new
appeal to the electors. Mr.. GLADSTONE
needed to pass that measure by a majority
OF at least a hundred; as 1t turned out, no
was unable, even with the help Of both
Nationalist factions, to secure a majority
OF more than forty. The latter majority he
could lave secured, and no did secure,
against the wishes Of the English Noncon-
formlsts, who, as the event proved, were
much more deeply shocked at the revelation
Of the political power possessed by the
Catholic Church In Ireland than trey had
been by the moral lapse Of which Mr.. PAR
NELL was convicted in connection with
the OShea divorce cast. The result
might have been predicted BY those who
remembered the course pursued by the
Nonconformists In 1883. At that date, and
for some time previously, JAMES II. had
been q mar OF irreproachable morality,
but he was an avowed Catholic. On the
other hand, WILLIAM Of Orange, who be-
came presently WILLIAM III. OF England,
brought q Dutch mistress with him and
openly installed her In London. Neyerthe-
less, he was the champion OF Professionalism
In Europe, and, as such, he was acclaimed
with fervor by Anglicans and Noncon-
formists alike. From the moment that
the control Of tho dominant faction in the
Nationalist party passed from PARNELL,
who was . Protestant. t. the Roman Cath
clio Church, the cause Of Home Rule
WA dead. 90 far as English Noncou.
s>rmists could destroy il,
This result Of PARxsLl's deposition from