The New Irish Constitution: An Exposition and Some Arguments
History
The New Irish Constitution: An Exposition and Some Arguments
Home rule -- Ireland; Ireland -- Politics and government
“It is clear,” said Mr. Chamberlain, “that suggested land reform
must precede the political change; and until the long-standing
quarrel between land-owners and land-occupiers has been
compounded, it will not be safe to trust the latter with full
control over the property of the former.... But, assuming that the
social war which now exists in Ireland were terminated by a
reasonable settlement, there are strong reasons for desiring, on
the one hand, to relieve the Imperial Parliament of some of the
constantly increasing burden of its local work, and, on the other
hand, to open up to Irishmen in their own country a larger field
of local ambition, together with greater liberty of action and
greater personal responsibility.”
The Duke of Devonshire also expressed himself in favour of devolution,
provided that “the powers which may be conferred on local bodies should be
delegated—not surrendered—by Parliament”; that “the subjects to be
delegated should be clearly defined; and the right of Parliament to
control and revise the action of legislative or administrative authorities
should be quite clearly reserved”; but he urged that “the administration
of justice ought to remain in the hands of an authority which is
responsible to Parliament.”
As recently as April, 1893, in the course of an article in _The Nineteenth
Century_ Mr. Chamberlain stated that “every Liberal Unionist will readily
agree” with a desire “to give to Ireland the management of such of its
affairs as can be handed over to an Irish Assembly without any risk or
danger to this country, and, I hope that I may add, without the loss of
honour that would be involved if the property and the liberties of all Her
Majesty’s subjects were not fully safeguarded.” It is evident that the
Liberal Unionist seceders drew a sharp distinction between separation and
devolution. They objected to Mr. Gladstone’s Bills because rightly or
wrongly they were convinced that they involved separation; but while
opposing them on that ground they held fast to their belief in the
efficacy of devolution.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account