The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1881-02-12

it is the expulsion of certain mem
hers of Parliament because they
resisted, by all possible parliamentary
tactics, the passage of law that at
tackled the personal liberties of their
constituencies.
What is it that the Home Rulers
were "obstructing"? They were OBJ
structing the passage of law that
suspends the writ of habeas corpus
in Ireland, and gives to the Lord
Lieutenant the right to arrest any
citizens of Ireland on suspicion that
hels malcontent, and imprison him
without warrant, without indictment
or trial, or the right Of habeas corpus.
The English temper demands the
passage of this bill first, before it
will even consider the wrongs of the
Irish tenantry. The Home Rulers
entrsated that the Land bill be taken
up first. and coercion afterward.
They asked that the cruel wrengs
that the peasantry suffered be inquir-
ed into and redressel first. and after
ward punishment applied to the law
breakers. But this would have SEEM
ed "weak" to Mr.. Glandstone. The
aristocratic landlord spirit demanded
"a strong measure" and this is
brought forward.
Now, according to the theory of
the British Parliament, what should
a member do, who represents
threatened constituency Is he not
sent to the House of Commons to
represent the rights and liberties of
his constituents Is not one of those
rights the writ of habeas corpus I?
Should a representative sit in his
seat, and see his constituency de.
priyed of that right, without resisting
it to the last by all lawful methods ?
In this country. we should certainly
think so. This is what Parnell and
the other "obstructionists" have
done. They have interposed dilatory
motions, insisted on their right to de-
bate every question, and to resist, at
each step of its progress, the Coer-
cion bill. The rules, the practice, and
the traditions, of the British House
of Commons, gave them this right.
The privileges of the House, which
have protected its members in all de-
fence Of constitutional liberty IN the
great past, justified them in this.
The point of weakness in their cause
was this only: they are Irishmen,
and thus the objects of British pre-
iudice and contempt. Even Glad
stone and Bright seem unable to rise
above this and the scene of the ex-
pulsion of the Irish representatives
from the House of Commons has all
the indicia of arrogant, naughty and
unreasonable temper. If they had
been thirty Englishmen standing up
for the rights of some obscure corner
of English soil, and battling for
habeas corpus for their constituents,
their hersism would be admired.
But England has always been unjust
to Ireland, and, for this reason, hates
her. 1t is human nature. We all
hate those whom we wrong, more
than those who wreng us. Seated in
the conscience Of those Englishmen
who are wisest and best, is the con.
victi0n that Irish wretchedness, and
misery, and turbulence. are the fruits
of British injustice. The calmest and
justest of Englishmen know that the
true remedy for Irish political and
social dis!urba nee, is the reform Of
the hideous wrong of land tenure.
But these who think thus are, for the
while. silenced by the gust of passion
that seems to have swept over Eng
lish feeling-the wrath and indigna>
ten that are poured out Oh Ireland
and the Irish. 1t is not altogether to
be regretted. The violence Of the
measures in Parliament two days
ago will bring a reaction. If the
privileges of Parliament can be vio-
lated in the persons of Irish mem
bers, when will come the turn of the
Scotch or English members 2 IF n
small minority can be thus treated.
why not large one? If members
cannot use all their parliamentary
privilsges'to resist the suspension Of
habeas corpus, what can they resist I?
How long will it be before sober
second.theught begins Baltimore
american.