The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-02-03

I All through the debates on the home
rule bill in the house of commons the
great argument of the unionists and tories
| has been that Ulster never would submit
| to an Irish parliament, and that rather
than do so the people of Ulster were ready
to give up their lives, to be shot down in
hundreds and thousands If necessary ac-
cording to Bonar Law.
| While all these threats were being
made and warnings given, it so happened
| that vacancy occurred in the represent
tation of the city of Derry, a city which
the unionists regard as the very mecca
of their party Up to a month ago the
city of Derry had been represented in
parliament by the marquis of Hamilton,
a bitter and violent opponent of the home
rule bill, and son of the Duke of Aber-
corn, who is accredited with being the
author of the unionist slogan, I'VE won't
have home rule Following the death
of the Duke cf Abercorn, his son, the
Marquis of Hamilton, inherited the title
and also a scat in the house of lords,
which caused the vacancy in Derry.
Preparations to contest the seat were
Immediately began by the nationalists.
and equally as vigorous was the action
taken by the 'inionists. For three weeks
1t was an oratorical Gettysburg, culmi-
mating at the ballot boxes on Thursday,
January 80, when David C. Hogg, a home
ruler, beat Colonel Pakenham, unionist.
and by so doing not only proved that
Ulster is sound for home rule, but
smashed the arguments of the unionists,
defied their threats. suprned their warn
ings and exposed the whole scheme of
systematic lying and slander which has
been the contemplate means of mislead-
ing many fair minded Englishmen.
The victory in Derry more than offsets
the action of The house of lords rejection
OF the home rule bill. No sane man had
any doubts about the fate of the bill be-
fore the lords. II was a foregone conclu-
sion. and yet there is cause for some SUR
prise. Compared with the reception of
Mr.. Gladstones home rule bill of 1893
the reception of Mr.. Asquith's bill of 1919
shows a marked change. Instead of the
| arrogance which the lords showed in their
treatment of the bill of 1898, there was
this time in the debates an unmistakeable
evidence of a chastened spirit. and the
division clearly indicated the belief that
while their opposition could serve to de-
lay it was futile to prevent.
Just to recapitulate. Hardly as many
minutes were given by their lordships to
the debate the second reading of The
bill of 1893 as there were days given to
the debate on the bill of 1918. The vote in
1893 was Al for the bill and 4l9 against, a
majority of 37S; the vote in 1913 was c.
for the bill and 326 against a majority OF
257 big enough, 1t is true, but 121 less tina h
| before. Again, when the bill of 1898 was
defeated 1t meant the defeat of the lib
eral government, and the death of tht
bill That defeat broke Gladstones hear
and dashed to earth the hopes of peace
and reconciliation between the English
and Irish people for which the grand
old man. so sincerely wished and laboreo
SO hard. 1t brought to an end the truce
of God which the proffered and accepted
olive branch had established, and in it.
stead and as IN alternative, began ''tht
20 years of resolute government" pre-
scribed by Lord Salisbury and vigorously
administered by the unionists. The events
of each and every year of these 20 years
are worthy of volume year, but fol
the present let the summary suffice, ant
that summary shows the Irish people oc
cupying higher ground than they did 2
years ago and their enemies. the lords
spiritual and temporal. downcast and de
jected: shaking their fists but unable t
strike: showing their teeth but unable Il
bite
For the tens in Ireland today who say
1--WE won't have home rule, there are
thousands who say Home rule Is com
ing and coming it is. The statue o.