THE HON. MR. GLADSTONE’S HOME RULE BILL.

Kumara Times, Issue 2977, 18 May 1886, Page 2

THE HON. MR. GLADSTONE’S HOME RULE BILL.

Mr Gladstone in introducing the Bill dealing with the Irish question in the House of Commons (on Wednesday, the 7th of April), said that the Bill proposed to introduce two orders which would sit and deliberate together with the right of voting separately on any occasion on the demand of either body, which would be able to interpose a veto upon any measure for a limited time, either a dissolution or for three years. The orders would be constituted as follows :—There were 27 representative peers who could not continue to sit in the House of Lords after the representatives of the Irish people had left the House of Commons, and they would have the option of sitting as a portion of the first order in the Irish Parliament, with the power of sitting for life. He proposed that with these 28 peers now in the House of Lords there should sit 75 representatives to be elected by the Irish people. The constituencies would he composed of occupiers of holdings of the value of £25 and upwards, and they would be elected for ten years. The property qualification of these representatives would be £2OO annual value or a capital value of £4OOO. Mr Gladstone continued that the 100 Irish members in the House of Commons, should be members of the Irish Parliament, and while the fust order of the Legislative body would consist of 103 members, the second order would consist of 206, It was proposed to retain the Viceroy, but he would not be the representative of a party or quit office with the outgoing Government. The Queen would be empowered to delegate him any prerogatives she now enjoyed or would enjoy. The religious disabilities now existing which made Roman Catholics ineligible for office would be removed in future. The judges would be appointed by the Government and be paid out of the consolidated fund, and be removable only on a joint address of the two orders. The Constabulary would remain under their present term of office and authority. The proportion of the Imperial burdens which he had to propose that Ireland should hear was one in fourteen. He then entered into an elaborate calculation of the total income and expenditure of Ireland, in the course of which he stated that the total charge to Ireland as an Imperial contribution he put at £3,242,000 per annum. He estimated the total expenditure of Ireland, including payments to the Sinking Fund, for the Irish portion of the National debt at £7,040,800 per annum. In conclusion he said, “When I held office in the Colonial Office fifty years ago the colonies were governed from Downing street, aud the result was that the

Home Government was always in con. flick with those countries which had legislative assemblies. We had continual shocks with the colonies then but all that has been changed. The British Parliament tried to pass good laws for the colonies, but the colonies said, “ We do not want your good laws, we want our own good laws,” and Parliament at length admitted the reasonableness of this demand. This principle has now come home to oa from across the seas, and the House has now to consider whether it is applicable to the case of Ireland. We now stand face to face with what is termed the Irish Nationality, venting itself in the demand for general self government in Irish, hut not in Imperial affairs.

Mr Gladstone left the House ten minutes after concluding his speech. He suffered from reaction, and was obliged to retire to rest immediately after dinner. TREVELYAN AND PARNELL. When the applause after the delivery of Mr Gladstone's speech had subsided, Mr George Otto Trevelyan, who recently resigned the position of Secretary for Scotland, after eulogising Mr Gladstone’s oration, gave, the reason of his resignation, which was, in brief, that he could not consent to such a scheme as Mr Gladstone proposed, which he regarded as neither for the welfare nor benefit of the country. Mr Parnell, who was received with tremendous cheering by the Irish members, replied to Mr Trevelyan, and defended his own past utterances and actions which had been impugned by him. Jn referring to the measure for Ireland, he thanked Mr Gladstone for it, and believed it would not only prove a beneficial measure from an Irish point of view, but would also be found of equal benefit to England. The Bill, nevertheless, contained blots which the Irish representatives would do their best to remedy. One of these was its financial proposals.

CHAMBERLAIN AND GLADSTONE. Despatches of April 11th from Loudon say that Mr Chamberlain’s speech in the House of Commons was the sensation of Friday evening. It passed into a personal quarrel between him and Mr Gladstone. He began by explaining his reasons for joining and quitting the Cabinet, saying it was at Mr Gladstone’s strong request he joined it. A letter he had written to Mr Gladstone he read to the House. He then proceeded to explain, further, how he learned of the Government’s scheme, and that it contained (he said with delicate intonation), a very startling proposal, involving the issue of £20,000,000 cf consols. The last wrnd had hardly passed his lips before Mr Gladstone sprang to his feet. That, he said in effect, was an explanation ti\e right hon. gentleman had no right to make. A painful scene followed, out of which it was impossible for the spectators to separate the right and wrong. Mr Chamberlain claimed that he held Mr Gladstone’s permission to read certain letters, especially one of March 15th. This one Mr Gladstone could not recollect. Mr Chamberlain, however, insisted that permission had been given, and repeated it was given the first time in unequivocal terms. Matters were evidently at a deadlock. Mr Chamberlain, pointing his finger at the Prime Minister, said in a low°voice “I beg to ask my right hon. friend* whether he wishes to withdraw that permission now.” But Mr Gladstone canid not recollect what the letter was. “ The letter !” the Tories sneered aloud. The quarrel was serious enough by this time, and passion was steadily rising in Mr Chamberlain’s voice. “ How can I explain,” he cried, “ with my hands tied behind me?” His speech was a weighty indictment of the Government scheme. The climax of his speech was a blow at the Prime Minister’s position in 1861. “Sir, said he, “I remember that time, when, in its greatest ctisis—when it was in the most terrible moment of its fate—my right hon. friend counselled the disentegiation of tlie United States.” Mr Gladstone said “ I did not counsel it.” Mr Chamberlain said, “ My right hon. friend says he did not counsel it; but he gave the weight of his great name to the statement that the North and South have become separate nations.” I dare say, continued IMr Chamberlain, “my right hon. friend himself would admit that in that view of the situation he made a mistake.” “Hear!” said Mr Gladstone. “Ah!” said Mr Chamberlain, syllable hy syllable, his finger levelled at the Prime Minister's bowed head, “ Are. you certain he is not making a mistake again ?” It wag a tremendous blow. The Tories of conixe yelled like madmen, and from the Libeial benches ar>.,se several Cries ef “Shame!' dTecteJ at Mr Chamber*

lain. The latter, however, had one more shot to deliver. Leveling his finder again toward the front bench, almost inarticulate with passion, he demanded “What should have been said of him if, like some servile partisan who disgraced political life, he nan remained on that bench, pietending to serve his country with a lie in his mouth ?’* This was aimed at Sii William Harcourfc, and produced a tremulous sensation. LORD WOLSELEY’S SPEECH. Lord Wolseley made a speed) on Mr Gladstone’s scheme on April 10th, in which he said the English Empire had been built and preserved through the valor and endurance of its soldiers and sailors, directed by able statesmen. Hitherto it had been their lot to defend their country against foreign foes, bat now they were called upon by the people of England to do duty in trampling under foot enemies more serious, because the enemies were within the civil boundaries of the Empire. He called upon the English to say “Stand off!” to anyone, whoever he might be, who should dare to try to break or dismember the Empire, thereby ruthlessly destroying it. The speech was received with deafening cheers.

COMMENTS OF THE PRESS. The London Morning Post, of April 9tb, while admitting Mr Gladstone’s speech to be a great oratorical effort, wanting in none of his old fire, is bewildered at the crudity of his plan, and thinks it will not he sanctioned by Parliament. The London Daily News says—“lf enthusiastic, ringing cheers on both sides of the House are significant, Mr Gladstone’s speech has already received the approval of the House of Commons. The speech will rank as one of Mr Gladstone’s highest efforts.” The Liverpool Post says—“ Whether Mr Gladstone is successful or not in carrying his bill through Parliament, he has surely killed opposition and coercion in Ireland.” The Manchester Guardian says—“lt is a scheme substantially for repeal of the Legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland, Representation of Ireland at Westminster must be retained. With this modification the measure may pass,”

The Newcastle Journal says—“ The scheme is cumbersome, unworkable, and certain to be rejected.” The Newcastle Chronicle says—- “ Though the measure may admit of improvement in detail, it is the best scheme ever presented to Parliament, j The Edinburgh Scotchman says— j “The Bill will not do as it- stands, j The exclusion of I/ish members from ; Westminster will be fatal. Mr Glad- | stone has approached the subject with j a heroic spirit, but his desire to be j generous to Ireland has carried him too j far. He was asked to give Home Rule, and be pioposes to give repeal. It is safe to say the country will not sanction the scheme.” j The Edinburgh Daily Review i.s dis- j appointed at the exclusion of Irish i members from the Imperial Parliament. : The Edinburgh Scottish Reformer | commends the scheme, and pleads for ! Scotch Home Rule. ; The Aberdeen Journal says proposals are repulsive to every instinct ; of the British people, and fatal to Mr Gladstone’s reputation.” The Aberdeen Free Press, Glasgow Herald, Belfast Whig, and Loudonderry Standard, all Liberal, oppose the Bill. The Leeds Mercury says it is ingenious, able, and original. The Dublin Freeman’s Journal approves the scheme. The Irish Times and Dublin Express both disapprove it. The London Globe says :— <: It i.s a thinly-veiled project for total separation, and is already doomed to failure.” The Pall Mall Gazette, under the head “ This won’t do,” repudiates the scheme, and says that as it stands it places a premium on separation. The Paris editors all speak with admiration of the courage and power exhibited by M r Gladstone in his address. La France speaks and alludes to “ the venerable statesman” as “a mher.nr,” Le Paris expresses a Inpe tint Mr Gladstone will tmMujih. The perl ill G-T'O.in i that instead of clearing Me sbn-.‘m-., Mr Gladstone’s complicate b, and dm ca! ■■ ■ f . Parliamentary future is ve.rv com • indeed. The Berlin Zebum* Gladstone's scheme mo p m.af , dear and boldness of o-.inwrion Ml previous reform.--, and prf-din'.n r!,.,- ■ when the first snrvfneib, . e-rwed ■ the b i;dne>s of ; ! ,- na ,00;; ; ,v and the details are examine I, a mew correct judgment will be formed,

Tlio Paris Pepnbiiqne Fnmcaiso thinks that the adoption of Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule scheme would be followed by Ireland aspiring to an alliance with the United States.