HOME RULE BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15919, 3 May 1912, Page 7

HOME RULE BILL.

SECOND READING DEBATE,

THE PROTESTANTS' POSITION, United Proas Awoeie-tion—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. (Received' May 2, 11.35 p.m.) LONDON, May 2,

The debate on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill was continued in the House of Commons.

Sir Robert Finlay warned the Government that persistence with the Home Rule Bill would mean civil war. If federalism were the object then Ulster's claim for separate treatment was irresistible.

Colonel Seely said that if the Nationalist leaders meant what they said religious intolerance and persecution would be impossible. He believed the Irish would work honourably under the Bill to make Ireland a bulwark of British liberties. Mr "William O'Brien declared that the Bill would effect a reconciliation, but the financial proposals wore impracticable, and could not be final. The truest safeguard would be to give the Protestants a firm grip on the Irish Parliament. Half the senators and one-fourth of the members of the Irish House of Commons should be Protestant. *' TREASONABLE SPEECHES." MR THORNE AND SIR EDWARD CARSON. (Received May 3, 12.10 a.m.) • LONDON, May 2. Writing to Mr Will Thome relative to the notice of motion on the subject of "treasonable speeches," Sir Edward Carson insists that Mr Thorne should demand from the Government an opportunity to prove his charges. Sir Edward Carson adds that it is an elementary principle of liberty that all men and bodies, except trade unionß, shall be equal before the law. He does not claim any immunity.

Mr Thorne, replying, states that the motion has not been reached. He intends to ask the Government to facilitate the discussion. (Mr Thome moved to ask the Government whether it would prosecute Sir Edward Carson and other Unionists for "treasonable speeches" on the subject of Ulster's resistance to Home Rule.)