The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-22 00:00:00

TIM COVERNMENT or IRELAND BILL.

In the HOUSE or COMMONS. on Mr. Gladstone
moving that the Government of Ireland Bill have pre-
cedence over the other business on the days when it
was set down, an animated conversation ensued. Sir
M. hicks-Beach, in the first place, inquired what
were the views of the Government in reference to
the conclusion of the debate, intimating that his
own side was prepared to bring it to an end on
Friday. Mr. C. Lewis, who was subjected to fre-
quent interruption and calls to order from the Irish
members, commented on the delay of the Govern-
ment in pressing forward the Arms Bill, and Mr.
M. Henry insisted that those who had lived in Ireland
had a right to know whether it was intended to renew
the Arms Act or rot. Mr. J. Morley replied that it was
not his fault if the ;ill had not been read a second time,

but that of the Ulster members who had blockeu it;
and Colonel Waring, one of the members alluded to,
explained that he had blocked the bill because of Mr.
Morley's remark that it was intended for the North of
Ireland. Mr. Gladstone, replying to Sir M. Hicks-
Bench, professed himself unable to give any satisfac-
tory information, but remarked that as there were four
parties to the debate, a prolongation of it was justi-
fied, and he could not hold out any hope that it
%,rould conclude for a considerable number of days
beyond the end of the week.
The motion having been armed to, the adjourned
debate was resumed by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who cornrn
menced by discutsing the rumour that Lord Hartington
had come round to Mr. Chamberlain's view that
autonomy must be given to Ireland, and argued that
if the principle of autonomy were once admitted, some
means ought to be taken for placing the principle on
record, and postponing the details until a later period.
To some of the details he was himself opposed, but he
had come to the conclusion some years ago that the
suppression of Irish autonomy at the Union was the
cause of Ireland's chronic discontent. For this
reason no measure had been passed for Ireland
by the United Parliament except under compulsion
of agitation, which would not have been passed
by the Irish Parliament a generation earlier. The
Union, too, had affected the administration of the
country, bad kept it out of touch with public opinion,
and had divided classes. He approved the bill because
it established a Parliament which would deal with Irish
affairs only, without power to meddle with Imperial
affairs, and he denied that it would destroy the supre-
macy of the British Parliament. There might be a
divergence of laws, but that he thought would be an
advantage, and though he was in favour, if possible, of
retaining a certain number of Irish members for Im-
perial purposes, he saw nothing but confusion and
disappointment resulting from an arrangement which
would make the British Parliament a court of appeal
from the Irish Parliament.

Mr. Chaplin, canvassing the arguments of Mr. Glade
stone in support of the bill, described them as afford-
ing the clearest proof of the absolute failure of his past
policy, and, dilating upon past Irish history, main-
tained that it went to show that the material prosperity
of Ireland had been far less under the Irish Parliament
than it had been since the Union. He denied that
coercion had failed, or that the only alternative to the
till was coercion of an exceptional kind. All that was
2eeded in Ireland was the maintenance of order, and it
was a misnomer to characterise as coercion a deter-
mined endeavour to enforce the law as it was
upheld in England and Scotland. His cardinal objec•
tions to the bill, which, he described as the most
tremendous experiment that had ever been proposed
and for which no F übstantial reason had been given,
were that it would lead to war in Ireland within the
two years, and that if it did eot result in immediate
separation it would give the Nationalist party a lever
to secure it hereafter whenever they wanted it. He
challenged Mr. Parnell to recant the views he had
expressed in the past, which he contended all pointed
to complete separation, and insisted that legislative
independence, which was admittedly the minimum de.
mend of the Nationalists, could not exist without
complete separation.
Mr. Labouchere, in an amusing speech, twitted the
Liberal opponents of the bill with playing into the
hands of the Conservative party, and reminded them
that coercion was tI e only alternative As to the past
utterances of the Irish members, he argued that they
had naturally asked for more than they were willing
to take; but he contended that Mr. Parneli's state-
ment now that the bill would be accepted as a final
settlement ought to be conridered satisfactory. In
the main, he believed that the Liberal party were in
favour of the bill and, having, ridiculed the action
taken by Mr. Uhamberlain, whose policy he animad-
twerted on in a satirical vein, he characterised as" ar-
rant humbug" the suggestion that the people of
Ulster would revolt against the Crown in the event of
the bill passing.
Mr. T. Sullivan, criticising Lord Salisbury's speech,
maintains i that the Irish people had always carried
out treaties they had made with England, who alone
had violated them, and denied that the Irish people
were implacable haters of the English. He treated as
absurd the notion that the Nationalists would be able
to effect separation against tfie will of the loyal
minority backed by the power of the Empire, and
enlarged upon the unanimity of the bulk of the Irish
people in favour of Home Rule.
Mr. Hanbury declined to accept the bill as a settle-
ment, because it was inopportune while the League was
allowed to exercise its terrible power over the people,
and because it would destroy the unity of the govern-
ing power of the British Empire. The degradation
which the bill would impose on Ireland was an assur-
ance that it must lead to separation, for it was impos-
sible that it could content the national aspirations, and
he did not believe that the Irish members had any
atr her ity from their people to accept it.
Sir L. Playfair, pointing out that Irish disloyalty
began With the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam, quoted Mr.
Fox's statement, that he would prefer to see Ireland
separated rather than ruled by force, and contended
that coercion, having regard to the recent extension of
the franchise, was impossible. Having dealt at some
length with the causes of the depression of Irish in.
dustries, which be attributed to bad government, he
next referred to the failure of Irish education, which,
he alleged, was due to a system imposed by England
upon an unwilling nation, and argued that if an
abstract resolution advocating autonomy for Ireland
were submitted to the House not a dozen Liberal mem-
bers would vote against it.
Mr. A. Elliot, while admitting all that had been said
with regard to the opinions of Fox and Grey, defied
the Government to point to a single Liberal states-
man in the past who had advocated the repeal of the
Union. He maintained that, altheeei the tone of
the Irish members might have changed, their demands
—which were in reality for complete separation—had
not been lessened; and, looking at the subject from a
ational point of view, he strongly objected to funda-
mental principle of the bill.
The debate was then adjourned, on the motion of Mr.
M'Carthy until Thursday.