Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
72 THE NATIONAL DEMOCRAT
June, 1907.’
Editorial Notices.
Literary Communications should lie addressed to
THE Enrroas, 38 CORNMARKET, DUBLIN.
Inquiries respecting advertisements in this paper
should be addressed to THE ADVERTISING MANAGER,
38 CORNMARKET, DUBLIN.
The NATIONAL DEMOCRAT will be sent
to any address for 2s. per annum, post free.
American subscription is 50 cents per annum
THE NATIONAL DEMOCRAT
JUNE, I907.
THE BILL AND THE NEXT STEP
AMID the general chorus of attack on Mr. l3irrell’s,
or rather Sir Antony MacDonncll’s, preposterous
Irish Council Bill, and of rejoicing at its ignominious
rejection, we may perhaps be pardoned for pointing
out that, more than two months before the intro-
duction of the Bill, the NATIONAL DEMOCRA'F
foreshadowed the attitude towards it which the
nation has now taken up. VVc wrote in our
March issue :-
One hears rumours of a nominated element in the new Cnuncil,
and of other devices calculated to rivet anew upon the necks of the
Irish democracy that landlord and aristocratic yoke which has
been shaken offwith so much difhculty. Some of the schemes out-
lined would involve the establishment of a Council representative
only of a minority of Irishmen; a body whose doings would be
more disastrous to the c untry than even those of the ‘.Vcstminstcr
Parliament, because they would appear to have the sanction of the
Irish people, and would be used, with this Fictitious sanction, as
weapons against the Irish people in their agitation for full independ-
ence. Any such scheme as this must he unhesitatingly rejected.
Courageous statesmanship will not fear to face the inevitable cry of
the cowardly compromisers: “You have brought home nothing l”
but will set itself to teach the disappointed country what must be
done to ensure that the next Bill shall be a reality.
And last month, when the rumours with
regard to the nominated element on the pro-
posed Council took dcfinite shape, we reiter-
ated our belief that this feature alone would
suffice to merit for the Bill an instant rejection,
Precisely this attitude was taken up, in his speech
at the Convention, by Mr. john Redmond. llc
had considered, he said, the possibility of amending
the worthless measure ; and it was his knowledge,
apparently from ollicial sources, that with regard to
the constitution of the Council no amendment was
possible, which determined his rejection of the
Bill. Mr. Redmond wasvundoubtedly right in the
view that, even could every other defect of the
Bill be amended out of existence, the ‘unrepresen-
tative character of the Council would still render
it a disastrous measure. Nay, such amendment
would make the Bill worse ; if the Lord Lieuten-
ant’s veto, for instance, were removed, and adequate
financial provision made for the Council’s expendi-
ture on administration, these changes, without a
change in the constitution of the Council itself,
would simply intensify, by increasing the powers of
an unrepresentative body, the evils inherent in its
establishment. The lesson is-and it is applicable
to many future possibilities-that Ireland cannot
afford to trifle with democratic principles. Mr.
Redmond’s speech on the introduction of the Bill
passed over altogether too lightly this essential de-
fect; happily he perceived his error in time to
rectify it.
Before proceeding to consider the situation created
by the rejection of the Bill, we may be allowed to
allude to the statements, or rather suggestions, of
certain sections of the Unionist Press, to the effect
that that rejection was due to clerical dictation.
The best reply to this charge is to be found in the
hostile reception accorded, by the Convention which
rejected the Bill, to the one priest who attempted to
raise adcfinitely sectarian and clerical issue--Father
David Huinphreys, whose name is already familiar
to our readers. Mr.. Devlin, who followed Father
llumphreys, not Inercly repudiated that gentleman's
attitude, on his own behalf, with singular energy
and skill, but, what is more important, he was
enthusiastically cheered by the Convention while
doing so.
plebiscite would have shown a majority of priests in
favour of the Bill; they saw in it an increase in the
number ofjobs which they could obtain for parishion-
ers or relatives. The only part of the Bill which
the clergy as such disliked was of course the provi-
sion for an Education Department. Had this.pro-
vision formed part of a real and workable scheme of
popular administrative control, it would naturally
As a matter of fact, we believe that a