MASTERTON DEBATING SOCIETY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1132, 22 July 1882, Page 2

MASTERTON DEBATING SOCIETY.

Jhe^, -ordinary. weekly .meeting, o(„tlie ; ■Boqiety^,)Vas^ ! beld f "laßt', .evflmnp,"' " u sfr Chapman iti the Chair. Then was a good . attendance] of A ( motion to suspend-.;standing; iordew wasl dissusied -aud.ljost on being put to the vote. - -• '''Mr DeOaatro, who moved 'the adjourn* . ment of tbMebate at the prenopß.meet> • ■ '9 *1 rig" to . ifejGjadspne's Bill'of 1882,'and'to Mr Tarnelfs subsequent opposition to it. ' :Hotiie.rule'Wi.hfanidptorviiguea-iqueß- : 4ioiiV&r ; (bein to "decidei >'--He'-thought a ; 'provincial system like that which formerly prevailed in New Zealaud would be best. If home rule-«'as: granted to Ireland it ' ;would soon sit foreign rule, nnd that for- . eigh'rufe wpald*-^threaten-England,"Jrhfl < ' ru'osl: lensible'inen in Ireland did not want | . Jiqmp r i;u!e. The;,men.«ho .did want it ! ' were"p'rofdssiohally s assfissihk' r 'No r i)i» :jvho, had-appkenjiirfavpr of home role good to ? the conniry. i

f Ml'.Bj iCß.tlUßalioned the sincerity of the last speaker. If home mle meant mdepoiidance.Kffwould?:cipp(jß?jitT.but if it ouly meant looal_ aelf-goyotnment ho : ;w'6uld'- support 1 iti i' Improved:loc»l" self* government in In land would make that a pillar pf strenjjth to. England, !^"e r ' iettiement-.of -tHe''lrish'"difficulty .would.draw the ties .between England and America' closer," tiifd r'tfehd to make the : whole English' speaking-race .one grand nation.:- -Tito etrongvßympathy. whioh the had with the Irish should influence English thought on the question, j :.:r.Hr Ford thought that Ireland, notlmv., boenrproperlyfConquevedarEngipd was,: had been placed in.,an 'embarnssiij|p\ position. Tlie'lriahTpeople^hid century" 1 ' aftei' Coniury become mdisiialisfied that;' nowinothing would, content, them. Not .remedial measures had ever proved 'BUccesßfiifin paakinc the country peaceful and prosperous, Evefi Mr iafidlarhad failed to do good, and there'i was no reason to hope that-the of home rule would prove more successful* than-previpun, expedienjs,,--Scotland liad>. •never been-pel tea ai/d-'painpered lite Ire- a land,"butthe character of its population hid raada the coutitry .prosper. For the sake of peace, comfort, and happiness it-J •would ;never,-do .to-grant" home mle fa Irelamd." / I V;j ; ,;;Mr;E. Brown said that if homaffide,' meant a severance of the British JBpipirei not support it[; He tbioughttte .opeiTer bf 'the debate should have defined the;, term'; but' if; it meant giving the Constitution like Kew Zealand, he would "favor "it."' 'He thought thati.inf the past the Irish had been badly treated.™ He also'referfeil jo.tiie religipua;di|flicujty;:rin;lreland,i'aiid tlie .datiijer of giving-: po'wbr to the : "majority- to annihilate tjie" "nnnofity. : • •'*'••' : The IlevvMr Isitt said he had a wafm .admiration' for the Irish people, but considered; ,the~mceting "was; Ruilty of." folly'if it thoh'ght th'aVtliis people be satisfied with anytliiug-liiss-than.inde-i., peiidenee. v JBope rule r was_ simply t|ie;.. thin end 'of the wedge. ;\Vere Ifithmen',; 1 .a?. Irishmen, loyal to" England Sane pejsjns could not say ; that were. If a Parliament w~ero given them', they would at orne place tliemsolvea in 'opposit-ion to England. Iu New Zealand -tbey -were intensely loyal, and this com'iminity could not -be compared with Ireland. The' leadera 'of thought in Ireland ."preferred the American system of government to the English. He also referred'to" the strong feeling between the Catholic and the "Protestant parties in Ireland,- anc argued that it would never "be safe to put one parly at the meroy of the otlier T , .- - -

v Mr 1 Payton s opposed home rule, on the ground iliat the Irißh people were diiidfid oh.the.tjueßtiqn into equal campß. Mr Webs'er said (lint to his mind'the whole question had its rise in the state of Irish land tenure. There had been abuses, and soiiie still/lio doubt, esristed, but tho courses homo rulers adopted to obtain thoirrightß could not be defended. They had grievances in New Zealand, but they did not seek'-to remedy them by violence. The. outcome .of. home. rule meant socialism' and nihilism. The agitation for home rule in .Ireland waß almost confined to the country south of Dublin., Ireland had had it fair representation in the Eiigliah Parliament, and had ; a Yoicp in all the laws passed for itself.

• Mr: James Russell remembered the agitation for home rule in Ireland fifty years ago, and: proposed : working the question up from that period to the present date,:but his time was called before he ha-1 got away from his first decade. Mt-Wickens said he should vote against home rule because ho thought it would lead to' a revolution and a war' t&jnst England, • • jf) ' Mr Girdivood; in reply,' said "t$ the question had:not been discussed jn a proper/spirit." The snbjeii was one that was occupying the attention of. the whole world. " Irishmen's ideas of hume rule was not being .governed by Downing Street, hut- being-ruled'by Irishmen silting in Dublin. Ireland did not seek to be a gi'eat power like England, but merely desired powers in purely Irish affair*, leaving Imperial' questions to be determined at London. He quoted from " TheNalion". whioh, r he.saldi.tnhtained the eenfoenti of the Irish people. Only Irishmen could' understand the wants-of English expressed with, the oppressed ' everylvhere but at Home. In looking'at Home w«i;arded distress through the reverso eod oMe telescope. Mr Jame9 Brown suggested that the question be further adjourned. "' This was ruled pr pf'order, and a vote taken amid-some confusion. Ten votes' were given for home rnlo and eleven againsMt.-j- . T r" r . .The proceed throughout were some*, wbaf disorderly, every effort being made -By tKe'^ker-Bide'lo' carry or postpone the division.- • ' ? ——-