The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-15 00:00:00

TUE BLOCKADE OF GREEK FORTS,

In the HOUSE or COMMONS, Mr. Bryce informed Mr.
Bourke that the blockade of Greek ports applied to
the whole of the east coast of Greece, and covered the
entrance to the Gulf of Corinth, and all the Powers,
except France, had pined in it. No state of war existed
between any of the Powers and Greece, and no ques-
tion of war had arisen, the blockade being what was
known in international law as a pacific blockade.

THE HOME RULE BILL.
Mr. Gladstone, in moving the second reading of the
Government of Ireland Bill, repudiated the assertion
that he bad at any period of his life declared Home
Rule in Ireland to be incompatible with Imperial
unity. Home Rule, or autonomy, had been shown in
the most unequivocal and constitutional manner to be
the desire of the great mass of the people of Ireland.
and he contended that it was perfectly compatible with
the maintenance of the unity of the Empire. It was
objected that the bill was an experiment; but the
House was called upon to deal with the grayest of all
causes that could solicit its attention. The Radkal
sentiment of the Irish people were not in sympathy
with the law, and the expedients and remedies tried
through three generations had failed to remove the
evil. Some strong and adequate application to the
case was necessary, and such an application was
provided by the bill. He denied that it was a depar-
ture from the old Whig traditions, and pointed out that
in the analogous case of Canada Horne Rule had
changed a discontented and rebellious into a loyal and
friendly people. The Government, he admitted, were
bound to consider how far they could meet the objec-
tions entertained by those who were not hostile to the
principle of the bill, to the exclusion of the Irish mem-
bers from the Imperial Parliament. They could do
nothing that would have the effect of placing the com-
mittee stage of the bill before the second reading, and
would not do more than promise fair consideration to
any proposition that might bemade in committee' unless
it were one 'which they could see their way to em-
bodying in practleal shape. The objection that there
should be no taxation without representation the
Government could meet by provisions to the effect
that after taking certain engagements from Ireland
with respect to Customs and Excise, if any proposal
was made to alter those arrangements the Irish
members should have the opportunity of appearing
at Westminster to take part in the discussion. The
Government will be prepared to assent to the con-
stitution of a joint commission representing the Par-
liament at Westminster and the Irish Legislative
Body, which should consider questions relating to
foreign treaties and report thereupon to their re-
spective Houses. Another suggestion was that the
Irish peers and members should be entitled to come
to Parliament at the express desire of the Legislative
Body. Remarking that the great political parties in
the House and the Irish Nationalies had plainly de-
clared their policy, he challenged Lord Hartington,
who had taken upon himself the immense responsibility
of leading and forming the determining force of par-
liamentary opinion upon the Irish question, to declare
what he meant to do. The time he maintained, had
come when Parliament was entitled to know what were
the alternatives open to its choice.
The Marquis of Hartington, who moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months, observed
that whatever consideration the Prime Minster might
have given to the measure, it was certain that the
country and its representatives had had no sufficient
opportunity of forming their judgment or giving their
decision upon it, and it was equally notorious that with
one or two exceptions his colleagues up to the time of
the formation of his Government had expressed
opinions almost diametrically opposed to it. It was
because they believed that it was a mischievous measure
possessing nothing which should commend it to Liberal
principles that those Liberals who differed from the
Prime Minister felt it necessary to take a part which
would give effect to the convictions they entertained in
order to defeat a bill which they believed to be injurious
to the best interests of the nation. He could recollect no
instance in the right bon. gentleman's long political
career in which the Prime Minister had taken the
course which he now called upon him to take. His
reply to the right hon. gentleman's challenge was that
while many reforms could be made in the system of
government from Dublin Castle it was not possible for
him to say what measures should be applied to Ireland
if this bill was thrown out. It would depend upon the
course taken by the Irish leaders and the Irish people.
If the agitation in Ireland was conducted by Parlia-
mentary methods and Constitutional means, he did
not see why an attempt should not be made towards
a gradual extension of local self-government in
Ireland, which would be a more statesmanlike pro-
ceeding than to cut her off completely from the
connection with England. The House was entitled
to ask whether it was called upon to vote for
a measure which it was intended to pass into
law or for an abstract resolution. The essence of the
question, whether it was wise or politic to grant a
national Legislative Body to Ireland lay inAhe details
of the bill, and the House was entitled to know what
were the main points of the plan to which the Govern-
ment intended to adhere. He objected to the bill be-
cause it limited the authority of Parliament; because
it destroyed the unity of the Empire so far as all internal
affairs were concerned; because it afforded no real pro-
tection to the loyal minority; and because it proposed
to hand over their lives and property to those whom the
Prime Minister had denounced in 1881 as the advocates
of public plunder.
Mr. W. O'Brien, on behalf of the Irish Nationalists,
declared that although they disliked some of the de-
tails they accepted the measure, and would work it
honestly and loyally.
In the subsequent discussion Mr. Fletcher and Mr.
Jordan supported the bill, while Mr. Hoare, Mr.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Viscount Ebrington, and Mr. 0:
Lewis opposed it.
On the motion of Sir H. James; the debate was ad
iourned:until Thursday. •

'ln the HOUSE Or Loans, May 11, Lord Se'borne gave
notice that on Monday week he will move a resolution
on the subject of appointing a chaplain to assist the
bishops in the duty of reading prayers in their lord.
ships' House,