The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-29 00:00:00

THE DERBY.

Mr Labouchere, in moving that the House at its
thing should adjourn until Thursday, maintained that
after its first duty to its constituents was performed
the House owed a duty to itself, which he trusted it
would never forget—viz., to maintain unimpaired those
few opportunities for relaxation which it had received
from its predecessors. Amid ce,ntinuous laughter, he
adjured the House in these days of change when our
most sacred institutions were menaced, to hilid firm to
something, and denounced the man who would tamper
with its holiday" as being Otter a bad man, a crotchetty
man, or a Scotohman. That the Wednesday kolidav
between Easter and Whitsuntide shouldlhappen to fall
on Derby Day he regarded es little more than. a mere
coincidence; at all events, he knew nu reason.why the
holiday should not be taken on a dAy which 'happened
to be equally convenient to those wire cleared to attend
an important meeting of the Society of Frie.nrls and to
those who wished to see the Derby run.
Mr. Isaacs seconded the motion, professedly .in the
interest of the large number of hardwowkini Irish
members who had never had an opportunity of wit-
nessing the great race at Epsom. z
Sir G. Campbell had no objection to the holiday,
but deprecated giving parliamentary' recognition to a
great gambling saturnalia. -
On a division, the motion was carried by 251 against
150.

THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
The adjourned debate on the Government of Ireland
Bill was resumed by Viscount Lymington, who declared
that he failed to discover in the measure any Wets
ligible principle. It appeared to him to bristle with
points and opportunities for future irritation and dis-
content. No responsible colony wouldeccept fhe Con-
stitution which it was proposed to giv.e to Ireland, and
if accepted by the Irish people it would simply be used
as a means of obtaining something more. The Irish
difficulty was not iglitical but social and agrarilm, and
was not met by Ms bill. Grave as would bethe re-
sponsibility resting upon those who voted agrftst the
bill, it was trifling as compared with that of those who
had altered their opinions without having changed their
convictions. They would rather lose their seats than
become blind adherents of a policy which was badlor
Ireland, certain to lead to impossible relations between
the two countries, and fatal to the supremaciof Parlia-
ment and the authority of tlie Britigh Empire.
The Attorney-General said that, all previous at-
tempts of Parliament to redress Irish grievances • had
been marked by two faults. Its legislation came too
late, and it was not what the Irish people wanted. but
what the majority of English and Scotch repreeenta.
tives thought they ought to want. cardinal

principle of this bill was that it proposed to emit/115U
legislative body in Dublin with executive as well as
legislative functions, and he claimed for it the votes of
all who were in favour of granting a legislative as-
sembly to Ireland, even though their support to the
later stages of the bill might -depend upon the safe-
guards and conditicns which were adopted. Re-
plying to the objections urged against the
measure, he declared thf.t the only concession which
would conciliate Mr. Chamberlain and his friends, viz.,
the inclusion of the Irish members in the Parliament at
Westminster, was a concession which would destroy the
bill. He asked those who were in favour of the principle
of the bill to do the best they could to assist the
Government in overcoming the objections to the details
of the measure, which sought to remove the cause that
kept the two peoples asunder, and to substitute for a
paper union a real union, founded upon kindly goodwill
and mutual internat.
The debate was continued by Mr. Westlake, who op-
posed, and by Mr. Flynn and Mr. Fenwick, who sup-
ported the bill.
Mr. Trevelyan said the reason be could not vote for
the bill was that he entertained certain objections to it,
which had been stated in the course of the debate, but
had not been answered from the Treasury Bench. He
did not deny that the bill would fulfil present wan,
but there were grave questions as to the future which
must be answered before he and others could vote for
the second reading. Discussing at some length the
financial question, he asserted that the arrangements
proposed by the Government contained within them the
seeds of friction and collision, and possibly of ultimate
separation. He should vote against the bill also because
its passieg would render it certain that the Land Pur-
chase Bill would likewise be passed. To that measure
be entertained the strongest objections. It would
not settle the question of the land or get it out of the
way; all it did was to make the British taxpayers the
ultimate landlords, and to transfer to them and the
Treasury all the odium and unpopularity which had
gathered round the landlord class. It was because the
Government gave up all hold on law and order in
Ireland that it was necessary to bring in a Land Pur-
chase Bill; and why, he asked, could not the Govern-
ment remove some of the gravest defects of the bill by
keeping such a hold on law and order, at all events
until this new system had been tried, as would do
away with the necessity of buying out the landlords?
Mr. Healy maintained that the scheme of the
Government, on the whole was logical, consistent, and
complete, and complained that those who dissented
from it had not propounded a plan of their own. He
claimed that the Irish people were as capable as any
people in the world of carrying out a system of self-
government, and declined to believe the prophecies of
evil which would spring from the bill.
On the motion of Mr. Rigby, the debate was ad-
journed.