THE IRISH IN VICTORIA, AND HOME RULE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2563, 26 June 1882, Page 3

THE IRISH IN VICTORIA, AND HOME RULE.

The attention of the Legislative Assembly was recently drawn b y. it Patterson to an address forwarded by last mail “ Prom the Irish people in Victoria and their descendants to the people of Ireland,” and which included the signatures of five members of the Assembly. This address, which was the outcome of the recent Grattan Centenary celebration, spoke of the Imperial Parliament as “an alien Parliament,” told of the bondage Ireland suffered under “the hoof of a foreign despotism,” and stated the determination of Irishmen, all the world over, to work out their country’s “ complete freedom from foreign rule.” The address bore testimony to the freedom and prosperity Irish men enjoyed as Victorian colonists, thanks to self-government, and supported tho claim to Home Rule for Ireland —“ a right of which Ireland had been defrauded.” The members of the Victorian Legislative Assembly who had signed the document were Messrs J. Gavan Duffy, P, Longmore, D. Brophy, W. O’Oallaghan, and J. Toohoy, and Mr Patterson, who raised the subject in the House, enquired of the Premier (Sir Bryan O’Loghlen) if he proposed taking any action with regard to the matter. Ho said that tho five members had signed as members, and consequently the corporate honor of the House was concerned. The Premier, in reply, said that he did not propose to take any action. An exciting debate ensued oa a motion for the adjournment of the House made by Mr Longmore, one of the signors of the address. Amidst groat uproar, Mr Longmore justified the address, which be said expressed no sympathy with crimes that had lately occurred in Ireland, was not a disloyal document, but merely called for tho legislative independence of Ireland ; and he declared that Mr Pattereon had drawn attention to it only for party motives, Mr Duffy denounced tho imputation of disloyalty which was proposed to be cast on those who signed the address, He was true to his oath of allegiance to the Queen and to the realm. Ho was a Bcpealer or Home Ruler, and would be glad to see Ireland having an independent Legislature of its own. If there was any treason in that, Mr Gladstone had been guilty of treason. The reference in the address to foreign despotism was to be read in the past tense, Mr O'Callaghan spoke to the same effect, as did also Mr Brophy, another of the members who signed the address, the latter saying that be hoped to see the day when Ireland would have an independent Parliament, but still be a portion of the British Empire. Mr Toohoy intimated to the House that he had signed the address os placed before him by the committee, without careful scrutiny of the lungage. He threw back with scorn on Mr Patterson any imputation of disloyalty towards the Queen, Mr Pearson maintained that the address would be taken as an encouragement of violence in Ireland. He was followed by Sir John O’Shannaasy, who, while protesting against the House interfering in home polities whew it had important work to do for the colony, expressed hi* disapproval of the address, adding that he had always adv'sed his fellow countrymen hereto refrain from proceedings which might cause clast animosity in a land where they possessed suoh liberty as they did in this colony. He had advised that the Grattan centenary should bo celebrated quietly by the drinking of the health of that illustrious man on St, Patrick’s Day. Sir John was loudly cheered, as also was Mr Gllles, who hoped the debate would not be without its usefulneea in causing hon. members who held strong views on Irish affairs to be careful and examine the language of documents they might be asked to sign. Mr Bent, the Minister of Railways, attacked Mr Patterson for bringing the matter to the front in tho way he had done. Ho declared that the thing had been brought up not from any loyal Protestant feeling on tbs part of Mr Patterson, but because he wanted to trap tho Premier, Sir Bryan O’Loghlen, who had as much loyalty in his little finger as Mr Patterson had in his whole body. Mr Munro and Mr Richardson each thought it was to be regretted that a member of the Government should have appeared to approve of the address, but Mr L. L. Smith and the Premier points! out that no such approval had been implied by Mr Bent The Premier said the document certainly contained a number of inconsiderate expressions—expressions which he regretted. At the same time tho address ought to be read in the light of history. With regard to the subject matter of it—an expression of a hope for legislative self-govern-ment for Ireland—he, however, agreed—selfgovernment such as was possessed under Queen Victoria in these colonies. He should train up his children to that, and he hoped tho children of other Irishmen in Australia would be similarly trained. Mr Berry contended that Sir Bryan O’Loghlen had loft tho matter in an unsatisfactory position. He had no fault to find with Irishmen holding for Home Rule for Ireland. They had a right to ask, if they liked, for an alteration in the form of the Parliamentary Government that was over Ireland, but they had no right to do what was unconstitutional, and particularly when at the helm of State there stood a man like Gladstone, who had done so much for Ireland. The address in question was read as a justification of the outrages whioh had of late been committed ia Ireland, and those outrages were not fair political warfare. [Loud cheers, and “ hear, hear ” from Sir Bryan O’Loghlen and other hon. members.] He thought the hon. members who signed the address ought to have apologised. Tho debate was shortly after allowed to close, but the subject will pome up again, as Mr Patterson has given notice of his intention to move that the House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of those of its members who signed the address, and disavows sympathy with the doctrines and language contained in the document.—“ Argus.”