The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-06-22
The Breach Between the Irish Ma
tionalists and the Liberals.


1t seems TO be settled, in view of the
resolutions passed on June 20 in Dublin
at q meeting of the National Directory
Of the. United. Irish League, that here
after the Nationalist party in Parliament
will pursue an entirely independent
policy. The species Of alliance which
has existed between the Nationalists and
the Liberals since early in 1885, when
Mr.. GLADSTONE accepted the home rule
programme, is now formally r~epudiated,
and hereafter Premier BANNERNLAN must
not count upon Nationalist support in
critical divisions, nor may Liberal can
didates rely upon receiving the Irish
vote in British constituencies at the next
general election.
1t is not surprising that when Irish
patriots look back on the record of the
last twenty-one years they should feel
that the net result of their coalition with
the British Liberal party has been small.
No positive legislation that during the
period named Liberal Governments have
been able to enact in the interest OF
Ireland is comparable in Importance
with the land purchase act, for which
they are indebted to Unionists. 1t is
also to Unionists that they owe the m
siderable instalment Of local self-gov-
eminent assured through the institution
of county councils in Ireland. They are
probably as likely TO obtain an Irish
Catholic University, adequately equipped
for teaching, from a Cabinet headed by
Mr.. A. j. BALFouR as they are to get
that boon from the existing Government.
Bills for the relief OF evicted tenants and
Of the contested districts in the west Of
their island have been promised them,
bat neither Of these measures has yet
been pushed through the House Of
Commons. 1t is indeed a meagre list OF
benefits that Irish N~ationalists have
derived from more than two decades Of
cooperation with British Liberals.
There is something to be said on the
other side, however. Never within the
period named has a Liberal Government
introduced a coercion bill, and doubtless
1t would have removed the permanent
crimes act from the statute book if the
Unionist House of Lords would have
permitted it to do so. Moreover, a Brit
ish Liberal may fairly argue that his
party should he Judged not by results
but by honest intentions and earnest
efforts. 1t was no fault of Mr.. GLAD
STONE or of the large majority of Lib
erals that the first home rule bill was
beaten in the House Of Commons or that
the second home rule bill was thrown
out by the House OF Lords. In the face
of an overwbelrHUa Unionist majority
in the upper chamber n Liberal Govern
ment, az experience has shown, is prac-
tically helpless. Let us suppose that
the Birrell bill had been so framed as to
win the favor Of the Nationalist party
instead Of provoking condemnation, and
let us assume, further, that such a meas
ure could have been carried through the
House of Commons which is not certain
in view Of the fact that no fewer than
three members Of the present Cabinet
would have opposed it's it not evident
that the hill would have been killed in
the upper house? rs II not plain, indeed,
to every Nationalist that never will Ire
land get an elective legislature Of her
own with an Executive responsible there
to until steps have been taken to equalize
the representation OF the two great Brit
ish parties in the upper chamber? Lib
erals seem determined 10 secure such
equality Of representation. Would il not
then be expedient for Irish patriots to
cooperate with them TO that end?
Nodoubt in the present House Of Com
mons Sir H. j. -BANNRRMAN
has a considerable majority over Union
lhts, Nationalist and Laborites united.
The majority, however, lie less compact
and Trustworthy than II was, for the
Nonconformist element is iritated at the
Prenier's omission TO make a second at