The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-06-05 00:00:00

THE HOME RULE BILL.
FATAL HOSTILITY OF LIBERALS.

Corliderable political excitement was caused in
London and the country on Tuesday by the rigni-
ficant ()lents amply reported in the following account
from the Daily Telegraph of that day: The political
situation has undergone another and most important
change. Members have at length definil:ively cast
in their lot with one or other of the coitending
parties, so th•at to-day the fate of Mr. Gladstone 's
Home Rule Eill can be predicted with tolerable cer-
tainty. Yesterday there was a re-union of those on
the Liberal side of the House opposed to the
measure, and this has finally and adversely seaAed
the fate of the seccnd reading of the Prime Minister's
measure.

The meeting of Mr. Chamberlain's supporters took
plats as arranged in No. 15 Comreitte-room yesterday
afternoon at five o'clock. There were fifty-five Liberal
members present, of whom about ten wa,re said to be
more the followers o 2 Lord Hartington than Mr.
Chamberlain. The chair was occupied by the right
honourable gentleman, and among those resent were
Mr. Travelyan, Mr. Caine, Mr. Finlay: Mr. Craig-
Sellar, and Mr. Mitchell Henry. Mr; Chamber-
lain said he had asked those present to confer
with him so that, if possible, they might resolve
on some common course of action upon tha second
reading of the Home Rule Bill. Three ways
were open to them: to vote for the bill, to vote
against the till, or not to vote at all. Each possibly
had its advocates among them. With great candour
Mr. Chamberlain then pointed out the probable poli-
tical effect that would ensue :from the adoption of
one or other of these courses. The actual strength of
the Opposition and the result of the voting in each
case were also indicated. Should they decide to
abstain from voting, the Government would be enabled
to carry the second reading, and at the same time
those who walked out should be free to deal with the
future Home Rule scheme of the Government. He
concluded his remarks by reading a letter he had re-
ceived from Mr. John Bright, dealing with the political
situation.

Mr. Bright wrote: "My present intention is to
vote against the second reading. lam not willing to
leave my views of the bill or bills in any doubt.'
The reading of the letter created a deep impression,
and Mr. Bright's language was loudly cheered.
A somewhat protracted discussion then ensued. Of
those who took part no fewer than fourteen spoke
warmly against voting for the second reading under ,
any circumstances, whilst but three favoured going
with the Government into the division lobby in order
to prevent Mr. Gladstone from advising a.dissolut ion.
Six others advocated a walk out, or abstaining from
voting. It was urged by the majority, however, that°
walk out would be a confession that they lacked the
courage of their opinions. The issue was one of the most
supreme importance, for it meant the safety and
security of the Empire, and the people should not be
left in doubt as to how their members felt. To ab-
stain, it was further argued, could only end in their
losing the respect of all earnest and honest-minded
citizens. It was said by some of the speakers that
Mr. Gladstone's recent language in the House of
Commons had quite done away with the effect of his
conciliatory speech at the Foreign Office. Clearly it
was the Prime Minister's intention merely to modify
some clause of the bill, and not, as they had been lec
to expect, that he would introduce another plan.
Mr. Chamberlain asked that they should decide
upon some course. If possible, they should act to-
gether, for as separate units they could not hope to
have either the moral effect, power, or influence they
would have if they went in a body out of the House,
or into the division lobby. Whatever they decided,
there should be at least 30 of one mind so as to make
their demonstration thoroughly effective. The first
question Wb3 whether those present would give general
consent to adopt the view of the majority. This
having been agreed to, a vote was then taken
for the adoption of the policy of abstention. The
result showed for walking out or abstaining
twelve, for the second reading three, against the
inagenktriading thirty-eight. Another vote was taken,
result was—against tile- soi-s.cl for abstaining. The
votes, for the second reading three votes, fuewtsfiven.,
out four votes. It was thereupon determined that
Mr. Chamberlain and his supporters should,.as a body,
I vote against the second reading of the bill. The three
members who, although utterly opposed to the Irish
Bill, intend now to vote for its second reading are Mr.
William Saunders, Captain Verney, and Colonel Sails
Schwabe.
The news speedily reached the lobby, and was
canvassed on all sides. Everybody concede/
that the bill would be defeated by a considerable ma-
jority. None set the majority of the Opposition at
less than twenty, and some placed it as high as fifty
votes. It has been ascertained that, in addition to
those who were at Mr. Chamberlain's meeting yester-
day, Lord Hartington has on his list between fifty and
sixty members pledged to vote against the second read-
ing. The numbers of Liberals who are known to be firm
in their opposition, and resolved not to give way, is put
down at 85. There are twelve others also opposed to
the bill, but there is a doubt about their firmness at the
last moment. It is anticipated that they will only
carry their protest to the length of walking out of the
House. In any event, with the number of abstentions
now assured, and 85 members voting against the bill,
the defeat of the measure is certain. The division is
expected on Friday next, unless the Irish member&
Prolong the debate for tactical reasons.