HOME RULE DEBATE.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 159, 3 July 1886, Page 4

HOME RULE DEBATE.

Mr Chamberlain's Speech. The Home Rule debate was resumed in the Commons on June 1st. When Hon. Joseph Chamberlain rose he was greeted with derisive cheers and howls from the Iribh members. He denied the assertion made by Dwyer Gray that he (Chamberlain) was the author of the article on " National Councils," published in the " Fortnightly Review." Gray knew very well who the author was, and that the details of the article were supplied from Irish sources. "I myself possess," said the speaker, '* incontrovertible and incontestable proof that eminent nationalist leaders approved of the principl e national councils." Here the Parnellites uttered loud howls and cried out " Names !" "Names!" and the Conservatives and Whigs cheered Chamberlain. The denunciation and cheering quickly became an nproar, which lasted several minutes. Chamberlain calmly folded his arms and smilingly waited for the tumult to subside, but refused to mention the names called for. Resuming, Chamberlain at great length explained why he deemed Gladstone's concessions inadequate. He did not. he continued, propose to reply to any of the porsonal references >made to himself during the course ot the debate. They were perhaps amusing, butbelow thelevelof agreatcon&titutionaldiscussion of questions fraught with most momentous consequences. Those who oppose the home rule measure believe it would prove most mischievous in ite effect upon Ireland and postpone for a long time a satisfactory settlement of the Irish question. Cries of " Hear," an d "Question." There had been in some Liberal quarters a desire to minimise the importance of the division on the second reading of the bill. Members had been told the bill was already dead. The speaker did not believe Gladstone would accept a vote on second reading on the understanding that it was to be received only as the approval of an abstract resolution. Ireland ought to have a Parliament of her own. Had the Government submitted a mere resolution affirming the principle of legislative autonomy for Ireland, he (Chamberlain) could vote for it, because it would be inconsistent either with the creation of a chamber like the Grattan Parliament or the establishment of a Legisative Council such as the speaker suggests, and which ere now received the support of

the Nationalists. (Cries from the ParnelliteB for '* Names, names ") The Government proposal, however, had a stronger meaning than that of > a mere $betraot resolution, in that it pledged the House to support the principle of the Home Rule Bill, from which Gladstone said he would never depart. The speaker said that those who thought with him since Gladstone's speech at the Foreign Office believed that the Home Rule Bill might be so remodelled that-they could vote for it. But they had been disappointed. Gladstone had since practically stated in the House of Commons that if the bill should pass its second reading it would be suspended until October, then re-introduced unaltered except in details. Concerning the feature of , Irish representation at Westminster, those who agreed with the speaker did not wieh to reduce Ireland to the condition of a self-governing colony, and the changes promised by Gladstone would not meet the views of those who maintained this position. Under the amended proposal of the Premier the Irish members might be invited to take part in the discussion and vote on Imperial expenses like those of Russian and Egyptian wars. In questions relating to such matters constantly arising, and in order to take effective part in their discussion and sentiment, the Irish members were required to be constantly present at Westminster. It would be impossible to make the House of Commons a fluctuating body at it would be under Gladstone's proposals. It would be equally unwise to create an" Irish Parliament as a subordinate, and not a co-ordi-nate body. (Cheers). What they wanted was to prevent the Irish members from becoming omnipotent either at Westminster or Dublin. (Cheers and counter cheerd). As to Ulster, that very important matter (Parnellite laughter), the speaker would not go into the question of armed resistance, although he resented as absurd the Parnellite charge that ho had said anything os inciting as assassination or outrage (Cheers) ; but if the resistance of Ulster to the Dublin Government was expressed in a constitutional way, would the British House of Commons override or disregard that resistance £_ (" Hear, hoar.") Why had the resistance of the Protestants of Ulster been stigmatised as unpatriotic? Was it because they were proud of belonging to the great empire and opposed to bbing cut adrift from longfamiliar associations as members of the United Kingdom? In defending Ulster he was governed by no religious bitterne&n. There could, however, be no doubt that the Protestants of Ulster were peaceful for their religious interests. He belonged to a family that always opposed anything like religious ascendancy. He was convinced that the Protestants of Ulster had a just cause to fearattempts by the Irish Catholics to secure predominance. The Catholic Church by its iaith was bound not to be content with equality. (Cries of " Oh ! Oh !"') The members from Ireland say no. Here is a pamphlet written by the Prime Minister on " Vaticanism " (laughter), in which he says : " To secure civil rights has been the aim of Christian civilisation, while to destroy them and re-establish a lesistle^s, domineering action as a central powei is the aim of the Roman policy." That was absolute truth, and it it was worth while to carry argument farther, he would give some statements which the Catholic bishops recently made to the same effect. (Cries of "Quote! Quote!" fioin Irish members.) Was not Ulster justified in fearing attacks on ita material interests when the Nationalist papers described the Belfast linen industry as one of the curses of the country ? (Cries of "No! No!" from the Parnellite members.) Here is a series of articles in the Irish press in which the P.nen manufacturers are denounced. But, after all, the question is not whether the^o fears are well tounded or the reverse The practical question was. Would Parliament give effect to them ? (Opposition cheer» ) The time had come when the Govtrnment should give them more information than was conveyed in Gladstone's recent references to Ulster. The time had come when the Government ought to say whether thete i&> in Ulster or in a portion of Ulster ("Hear! hear!") such a predominating sentiment as deserves tepurate consideration, and whether they will dovise a scheme to give the position of Ulster such consideration. (Cheers.) Continuing the debate, Chamberlain contended it was a natural conclusion froai what had happened in Lower Canada after the reforms of 1S3S that reforms like those would have to be granted tolreiand if the bill were carried^; and, furthermore, concession after concession would have to be made to Ireland until there came the ultimate demand for separation. (Hear, hear.) Demands had been made upon him to state an alternative to Gladstone's proposal. He had suggested lines upon which the measure might have proceeded. His plan had been described as a hopeless plan, and those approving it called puny whipsters by Mr Heaiy, whose magnificent physique enabled him to look down upon men not gifted by Providence with his great personal gifts. (Laughter). It is hard upon them to be accused of arrogance and presumption when they were honest enough to meet the demand for an alternative scheme. JThey were threatened with dissolution. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Dissolution bad no terrors for him. (Cheers.) Of one thing he was confident — namely, that the Unionist majority in Parliament would be strengthened. (Cheers and cries of " Oh.") He rejoiced that this great issue would be submitted to the only tribunal whose decision they could accept. (Parnellite cheere.) He trusted in the ultimate good sense and patriotism of the British democracy. There ie not a man who does not know that every personal and political interest would have led me to cast my Jot with Gladstone. Not a day passes that I do not receive scores of letters urging me, for my own sake, to vote for the bill and dish the Whigs. The temptation is no doubt great (laughter), but I am not base enough to gratify my personal ambition by betraying my country. ( Loud cheers. ) I am convinced that when this discussion is over the Liberals will not judge harshly those who pursued honestly the path of duty, even though . it leads* to the disruption of party and the loss of personal influence and power, which it is the legitimate ambition ot every man to seek among his political friends and associates. (Loud and prolonged cheering by Conservatives. ) Sexton followed, and was cheered by the Parnellites. He said Chamberlain had no fear of dissolution, because he was going to the country to masquerade as a UnionistLiberal, relying on Tory votes. The speech which Chamberlain had juet made would enable Ireland to discern between her true and false friends. He assured Chamberlain that ho long as this generation lasted the people of Ireland would not forget his speech. Until now the honourable member had been fighting under cover, but at last they had him in the open and knew him as a deserter and an ally to the party, seeking to give over the working class of 'England to the champions of class privledges and consign Ireland to a government that advocated twenty years' coercion. .Unlike Chamberlain, Lord Hartingfcon deserved and would receive the respect of those opposing him.

. Lord Salisbury's Speeob. London,- June 4. — Lord Salisbury, in the i House of Lords this afternoon, severely' criticised Mr Blaine for hie, Portland speech, and John Morley, Chief Secretary for Ireland, because of his attack on some utterances attributed to the Marquis, which Mr Blaine denounced. Lord Salisbury said he must denounce the language used by Mr Blaine, " who is convaesiug for the exalted position of Presidency of the United States." He complained that Blaine misquoted him in reference to his utterances respecting Irish emigration, aud concluded ; "It; used to be admitted that assisting people to emigrate from a country where employment is scarce and wages are low to another country where they can improve their condition was doing a beneficent act. There was nothing in my suggestion upproaching an insult to the Irish people. I do not mind Mr Blaine abusing me if that will improve his prospects, but I do hope tbat in the future he will quote me correctly." Referring to that portion of Mr Morley 's speech last evening in the House of Commons which contained the statement that Lord Salisbury advocated twenty years of coercion in Ireland, his lordship said he must demur to Mr Morley 's quotation. He had never said he favoured twenty years of coercion in Ireland. The object of his speech was to show that the application of the word "coercion " to measures which his Government had recommended for Ireland was unsuitable and improper. Coercion meant legislation restraining liberty, and directed against political disaffection. He had never recommended legislation in either direction. He desired to legislate in the direction of liberty, and to defend the i innocent among the populatijn of Ireland against the unlawful acts of criminal societieb That had never until now been called coercion. The Earl of Kimberly, Colonial Secretary, replied to Lord Salisbury, and said that he thought the language used by the Marquis was justly capable of the construction put upon it by both Mr Blaine and Mr Morley. Gladstone, replying to a letter from Thomas Henry Bolton, Liberal member for North St. Pancras, writes as follows : "I hold it to be indisputable, indeed elementary, thac the voting on the second reading of the Home i%ule bill affirms only the principle of the establishment of an Irish legislative body to transact business concerning purely Irish as distinct from imperial affairs. The Government consider and hold themselves free to accep'. any proposals which may be submitted to them previous to the autumn session consistent with tho five main conditions which they consider essential to the solution of the question, including Irish representatives at Westminster to take part in the discussion and settlement of imperial business. TheGovornment are not only at liberty, but they are in duty bound, to consider any such amendments." Mew York, June o. — Referring to the cable from T. M. Healy, the "Tribune" says : — Healy reaffirms Davitt's assertion of tho gratitade of the lN'ationaliefcs toward Gladstone, and declares that the Irish were never more certain than at present that home rule will eventually be granted. But in regard to the present Government of Ireland bill, Healy admits that about the only hope of passing it lies in the fear of the dissolution of Parliament. The members of the House, he says, dread the expense of $5,000 at least, which an olection makes necessary. T. P. O'Connor cables to the "Star:" Twelve men hold the fate of the Home Rule bill in their hands. The impression is that they will surprise the dissidents by coming over to Gladstone's side at the last moment and following him into a division in favour of a second reading. If this surmise should piove to be well founded you may look for the bill being carried by a majority of three, a majority small enough to justify resignation or dissolution. The fears of a strong Tory majority are waning. Parnell is not of those who dread dissolution. He is ready for it. He has all along disapproved of Gladstone's surrender to the Chamberlain clique as simply useless. He wants tho bill as it stands and prefers dissolution to any further change?/