The Marquis of Hartington on the Bill.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2180, 29 June 1886, Page 2

The Marquis of Hartington on the Bill.

The Marquis of Hartington, speaking at a caucus of Liberals at Devonshire House on the 14th May, maintained that the Bill bore upon it the mark of separation, and could havo none but mischievous effects. It would not recoucile any of the existing differences between Great Britain and Ireland, aud it did not satisfy the Liberal party as a whole, because it was not consistent with Liberal principles. If the second read mg were agreed to, the vicious principle of the the withdrawal of many Irish questions from the control of the Imperial. Parliament would be endorsed, and the Imperial Parliament would in futu re represent two kingdoms instead of Uirce— in other words, the unity of the Empire would be broken. The Governm ent had completely ignored Mr Chamlierlain's proposals, although they had end eavoured by verbal amendments to detach, some of his friends. In this, however, the Government had not succeeded, acd the opponents of the measure wore sufficiently numerous and united 1-o ensure its rejection. His objections w sre in no way removed by the voncessio as which Mr Gladstone had intimated his, willingness to make. On the contrary, they wore quite illusory, and made, the 9)11

worio than it was before. A proposal hml been made to the effect that the second i ending shonld be regarded as an abstract resolution affirming the principle of autonomy, and that the mcasuro should be then withdrawn. He could not .support the second reading even if •uch an undci standing were given. If the matter had been 01 initially brought forward by means of an abstract resolution, lie could not iiy what course the Liberal party would have adopted at a whole ; but the provisions of the Bill weic now before the House, and such a motion would never embody the import* ant principles involved in certain 01 the details. In conclusion, his lordship re« fcircd to the suffering, anxiety, mid confusion winch had been caused in Ireland by the introduction of the Bill, to the •tato of feeling in the uoith of Iceland, and to the sei lous danger and difficulties which would ensue if the question were left in suspense, and statoil that in hit opinion it would boinipoasible, after what had passed, and considering the nature of the Mill, to accept the second reading M ail abstract resolution.

Mr Chamberlain writing to Mr Hurl* bei t says :— I hold that every argument which justifies the grant of local autonomy to Ireland as against the centralising pretetuions of the British Parliament would equally justify the rea<st«uc© ef Protestaut Uistei to similar claims on the part of a Pariiellite Parliament at Dublin, 'flic instructive instance! which you give from American experience are precisely in point, and the Protestant population of Ulster would, in my opinion, be fully entitled either to claim a separate autonomy suuh na Mas successfully asserted by West Virginia, or to maintain their con* nection with Great Britain in pursuance of the example ot the Unionist party of Tenncssc, and Kentucky. I am convinced, after cartful inquiry, thit th« Loyaluts of the North of Ireland will not quietly submit themselves to the control of a Dublin Parliament, which they be* lieve with much reason would be hostile to their teligious and material interests.