The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-04-17 00:00:00

THE IRISH DEBATE.

The adjourned debate on the introduction of Mr.
Gladstone's bill for the better government of Ireland
was resumed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
asked what plan was to be substituted in place of that
proposed by the Gayer Anent. Examining the alterna-
tive suggestions of Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Chamber-
lain and Lord Hartington's proposal for the restoration
of the' status quo ante" Carnarvon, he declared that
they offered no political solution of the Irish difficulty,
nor one upon which any of the dissentients from
the Government policy could agree. The policy cf
the Opposition was the suppression of the icational
League; but to do that it would be necessary to
resort to measures such as had never been resorted
to before. The more all these alternatives were
examined, the more certain it became that there
was no alternative to the Government plan except
the coercion of Ireland. But to carry out a policy
of coercion there must be a strong, persistent, and
united Government, exercising the statesmanship of
Crcmwell and of Strafford, and supported by an over.
whe:ming majority in the House and the country. If
coercion were tried and failed, that would be the
greatest of all disasters that could befall the country,
for the House would then have to revert to a policy
which it had rejected, and which would no longer be an
act of but a capitulation. He was sensible
of the possible dangers of granting to the Irish people
chat which was now proposed; but if those powers were
abused and danger to the Empire arose, England could
and would resume the trust, and in doing so would
have not only an overwhelming force of physical
superiority, but the unanimous voice of a united people
and the consenting conscience of the civilised world.
That force Parliament would not have if it rejected the
bill, and he declined to accept the responsibility of
entering upon a policy of force now which he believed
would fail.

Mr. Goschen said the House had heard, he would nct
say the opinions, but the language, of the latest cons
vert to Home Rule. It had desired to hear arguments
in favour of a bill deeply concerning the fate of the
Empire, but the greater part of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's speech consisted of amusing personalities
and recriminations. It seemed to reveal the impo-
tence of the Parliament of Great Britain to deal with
a msst important crisis. The House was almost being
paralysed by these predictions of the consequences
which might ensue from the rejection of the Prime
Minister's Bill, the upshot of the speeches reitee in its
support being that there was no longer sufficient
power, spirit, or consistent policy in this country to
deal with this crisis unless the bill were passed. The
House must deal with the measure on its merits, and he
insisted that the Government should show that it would
be a final settlement, and that it would be workable.
He denied that it must be passed because 86 members
demanded it. If such an argument were admitted,
the majority in England and Scotland as well as in
Ireland would be at the mercy of every discontented
section or class. The difficulty to be met was not only
natioral and sentimental, it was also agrarian, and was
complicated by the fact that the attitude of the Irish
people towards laws which were recognised in every
other civilised country was a hostile attitude. He con-
tended that the proposal of the Prime Minister was un-
workable and would lead to an intolerable friction which
might afterwards land as either in civil war or separa-
tion. The changes which it proposed constituted not
only a political but an administrative and social
revolution. It was, in fact, a surrender which would
show every subject race that we were no longer able to
cope with resistance if resistance were offered. Even
as regarded Ireland herself, it could not be a final settle-
ment, for the weakness of England would encourage the
people to further demands, until check after check
disappeared and Ireland became a separate nation. Those
who followe; the Prime Minister would show they had
no confidence in the capacity of the English people to
'deal with a great danger and emergency. Those who
resisted the bill would do so in the belief that they had
a duty to perform to the whole of the Empire, and he
called upon them to close their ranks and shoulder to
shoulder to (wee the measure.
• The discussion was continued by Mr. Arch, Mr. E. R.
Russell, and Mr. E. Robertson, who spoke in support of
the Prime Minister's Bill, and by Mr. de Cobain, Lord
E. Hamilton, Mr. Bickersteth, and Mr. Brodric.k, who
opposed it.
Sir M. H. Beach described the Government proposal
as a backward step in the history of this country, which
was contrary to the policy that had been pirsued by the
rulers of England for generations. Why Was the House
asked to take this step? There was no change in the
relations between Great Britain and Ireland which
'mold warrant it. On the contrary, their icdus.