THE HOME RULE BELL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9875, 21 October 1893, Page 6 (Supplement)

THE HOME RULE BELL.

(From Oun Own Correspondent.)

London, September 1

Parliament—long - suffering Parliament —is BtiU sitting, and as yet there is little sign of an end. It is true the Home Rule Bill has at last been forced through all its stages in the House of Commons and is on its way to foredoomed rejection by the Lords. But there are many other subjects demanding legislative attention, and Mr Gladstone has at last determined to bring his friends and foes together again in November for a six weeks autmnn ssssion. His followers grumble and groan but the .fiat has gone forth and they must submit. __ The Premier's opponents have takcu to calling the Home Rule Bill tho " Ul<vtlstoi.>Q Personal Gratification Bill," in having been injudiciously urged by an ardent Gladstoiv.fm that the measure ought to be passed if only for tae personal gratification of so great ft statesman, who had worked so hard and so long and done so much for hia country. Tho p\uaso was ani unlucky oue, and will not bo allowed to pass into oblivion.

Mr Gladstone's speech in moving tho third reading of the bill seems to have impressed Qitterent hearers very differently. In fact, they Siem to have heard different speeches. The Daily News listened to " a magnificent speech —inimitable eloquence, undiminished and unimpaired," and considered that "Mr Gladstone was in great force." To the Daily Telegraph the speech was "conspicuous for dreariuess," aad "in no sense one of his greatest oratorical nfiorts." The Times observes that Mr Gladstone's speeches "have shown of late a growinjj tjndeney to discursiveness and irrelevance," aid that this one "surpassed in this respect all n:s previous efforts."

When the Premier entered the House soon a cter midday there was not at first a very large number of members, nor was the Strangers' Gillery well filled, but both speedily became packed, as word went- round that the G.O.M. was on his legs. He was received with applause a* he took his seat between Mr Miindella and Mr Morley, and a still louder outburst as he »ose. He spoke for just an haur and ten minutes. I thought his speech a masterly one from his standpoint, and his voice and manner as fine as ever notwithstanding his more than foiirscore years. He has many little ways and tricks of oratory. These are so well OJSonbßa. by one writerj'tii reference to this particular speech that I'c. npot refrain i from quoting his ipsissima, verha:— "All the old lamiliar poses were indulged in, from the hitching of the cuffs, as though thsy were to be rolled up to the shoulder to the simultaneous Straightening of the coat tails. There was the extended forefinger shaken aloft, the tapering tight hand stretched all a quiver and opening gradually towards the front bench opposite, the Crouching down over the table of the whole bjdy, and the drawing back of the shoulders and stiffening of the figure to its full height, enumerable sawiugs of the air to the right and to the left, and not a few wheeling's about to *ieam upon the rows of smiling supporters behind."

That is a capital description, and gives you a very good'idea of what you see when you witness a great Gladstonian performance. But no description can give an adequately vivid pioturo of the marvellous vigour and vitality and fervid eloquence of that wonderful old man. These are simply indescribable. Many other speakers followed, but the one ■who attracted most attention owed it rather to his name than to his personal claims. Another Mr Disraeli made his maiden speech on. that occasion, Mr Coningsby Disraeli, who ia "the nephew of his uncle"—of Lord Beaconsfield. Dizzy junior is not much like his famous.uncle. He is a good-looking, dark young man, and aome think that at times his profile is •strikingly Diaraelian." I confess I cannot discern the resemblance. But he did not make half a bad speech, especially for a maiden effort. He was listened to with most coutteous a ;d indulgent attention by Mr Gladstone. Of the rest, the only speeches on that day Worth noticing were those of Mr Courtney and Mr John Redmond. The former was remarkable for the closeness and incisiveness of its Seasoning, the latter for its eloquence. Many of your readers heard Mr Redmond speak Aanng his visit to New Zealand about 10 years •io, and will recollect then how wattnly they were compelled to admire his oratory, however strongly they might dissent from the views expressed by the orator. Mr Redmond has

even improved as a speaker since then, and his peroration on this occasion was singularly fine. But the matter of his speech must have been a cold douche for his allies of the Liberal party. He characterised this Gladstonian bill, which was to give everything required for the perfect contentment and permanent pacification' of Irefimd as "defective in some very grave and important matters," as "greatly disappointing iv Borne other matters," ana as * not only' ungenerous, but. absolutely jrojust in its financial aspect." He complained that every amendment moved by the Irish party to improve the bill had been rejected by the Government, and that every change made in the bill had been proposed by open opponents of Home Rule, whose avowed object was to maim and destroy the measure. He then proceeded to make a noteworthy and memorable declaration:—" One result of the discussion iv Committee was thoroughly Batisfaccory, and it was this: As the bill now stood no man in'his senses could any longer regard it tither as a full, a final, or a satisf icfcory settlement of the Irish national demand. The word provisional had been ay to speak, stamped in red ink across every page of the bill. From one point of view he was bound to regret that. He had always believed that one of the strongest arguments in favour of Home Rule amongst Englishmen was the hope that the passage of the Home Rule Bill into law would rid them of the Irish question, aud from an Irish paint of view he could not help feeling that t&ey could do nothing really effective for the amelioration of the condition of the people until full and unfettered powers over all purely Irish affairs were placed in the hands of Irishmen. It was fortunate, however, that the result of the discussion in Committee had been to stamp the leading features of the bill with a temporary and provisional character, because if it were put before him as the be-all and cad-all of the national aspirations of Ireland, aid he had been asked to accept it as such, he slould have felt himself bound to refuse to vote tie- its third reading. () a the contrary, he shouid say that the bill as it now stood could, under no conceivable circumstances, afford a full, final, or satisfactory settlement of the question."

No "finality" here! At a later period of his powerful speech Mr Redmond asserted that there was "little beyond the mere assertion of tie principle of Home Rule to recommend the present bill to Irish Nationalists." So that it Ciwnot be urged to the House of Lords that the Dill even commands the approval of those on whose behalf it has been passed by the House ot Commons, while in its present state it assuredly has neve* been submitted to the English constituencies, much less approved by them. Therefore the Peers will have an unexpectedly strong case in favour of their certain action. They will virtually remit the bill for reconsideration next year. Ib is of course practically certain that if ever the bill does pass into law it cannot be until after a general election.

In the subsequent debate admirable speeches were delivered on the one side by Sir Charles Russell and Mr Morley, on the otfier by Mr Chamberlain and Mr Balfonr. The third reading has been carried to-night by the .diminished majority of only 34. It was immediately sent up to the Lords and read a nest time. Only seven Peers were present, and i i the absence of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kensington was appointed Acting-Speaker. But there will be a very different sorb of muster when the second readiDg comes on next week.

September 9. The Home Rule Bill went up to the Lords on fcho date of my last letter, and on Tuesday the second reading was formally moved by Earl Spencer in a studiously moderate and, on the whole, able speech. The Duke of Devonshirebetter known by his former title of Lord Hartington—followed, and moved the rejection of the measure, the form being that it be read a second tme that day three months. These opening speeches were the prelude to a most able debate, whose salient features were the singularly brilliant oratorical efforts of Lord Rosebery and the Duke of Argyle—the former on behalf of the bill, the latter against it—and the weighty arguments of Lord Selborne—a marvellous feat for an octogenarian. The arguments for and against Home Rule are sufficiently familiar, but Lord Rosebery went further and uiderbook the justification of his party for having suddenly turned round and advocated a measure which up to that tyne they and their leader had earnestly condemned and opposed. Lord Rosebery's contention amounted in «;ffect to this: that the Liberal party had Inen driven into Home Rnle by the exhaustive process—every possible alternative baviDg been tried and haviDg failed. He maintained that no option remained save of acquiescing in a condition of affairs admittedly intolerable, or o: adopting the only feasible remedy which yet remained to be tried. A good deal of "ques-tion-begging" here, you will observe, but that 1i not my business. I merely record Lord nosebag's argument as I understood it. It seems indeed the only plausible explanation of an oxtraordiuary volte face, but the precise ciccumBtence which suggested its performance at k lat precise moment is still left to bo guessed Which, perhaps, is not difficult. I need not follow step by step the course of this debate, which was characterised on both sides with the utmost courtesy as well as by much keenness of argument and brilliancy of Oratory. All culminated in the remarkably powerful speech delivered at a late hour last night byLord Salisbury. It was in every sense a remarkable effovt. He summed up tie "ideal of a Binall pojtion of the liish peasantry" as "a general es'ahlisbment and ennctinu of f "dii! * f iu«.,JvM".r!j\ (intijned by »l tempts ' at murder." And he pointed ouf. th »t tie thn c ' jud i- -'v th« report of the Special Commission fjund that the respondents "did not denounce ' tie system of intimidation which led to crime ; aad outrage, but persisted in it with knowledge • pE its effects." He went on to cay that 38 of I

the men "upon whose brows that condemna» tion was passed," wereamoug tho majority who "passed the Homo Rule Bill, which was carried by only 34 votes, Tho moral ueoda not to bo pointed. The division took plaeo at an eavly honv tilts morning. When the JLqvtl Chancellor put the question, tho "still small voice" which said "Content" from the. Ministerial beuohea waa in ludicrous coutast to the. nw of, "Not content" by whjeb. is w<*a ausweretl from tho lusty throats qf over- 400 Opposition Peers. '.Cep I<ord 'Qi^ceN.or^ howf>vw> declared, aecwliug fc> custom, that "ho thoughts" the ll contents " had it. This elicited much laughter, The divistoiv occupied more than half wvh.o.uv. The. vtsawU was—'' Content" (ayes) 41, not content (iux?.») 419, majority tvgaiust the bill 3?{5,

Scnuo alight applause, iiv which tho peeresses in tho gallery tuwtily joined, greeted the ftunouuctiiutmt of thoso curious tlguros, but the prevalent feeling* stwo.l to bo that of good humoured amusement. Tho division was the largest over recorded in the House of Lords.