The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-13
And Claims that the Real Principle Involved
in the Bill Is a Clear Loss of British Su-
spremacy and Repeal Of the Union.
Ruraors that the Gladstone Scheme Will
BE Modified on One or Two Points.
Russia Moving Troops Southward, Presuma-
blyfor the Purpose of Administering Cor
rectiOn to Alexander-Cable Notes.
THE HoME-RULE DEBATE.
Lord Churchill Assails the Measure and MIR.
f Russell Defends 1t.

Lord Churchill Assails the Measure and MIR
| f Russell Defends 1t.
| LONDON, April I2-The House Of Commons
was again densely crowded this evening as a re-
| suit Of the extended announcement that Lord
Randolph Churchill would attack Mr.. Glad
stones home-rule bill. Among the Conserva
tives and the Wings there was intense interest
| IN Lord Randolphs effort. Prince Arthur
Prince Christian and the Duke of Cambridge sal
together in the Peers gallery, and they were
surrounded by host of peers
Mr. Gladstone. in reply to questions, stated
that it would be impossible to close the debate
on his request for leave to night, and that he had
decided to postpone introducing his Irish land
purchasing bill until next Monday.
| Sir Michael Hicks-Beach made a brief adj
dress. In which he indicated for his party an un-
derstanding to refrain from forcing division on
| the home-rule bill until it came up for second
reading.
| Lord Randolph Churchill, by virtue of his mo-
| tion to adjourn at the last session, having the
| floor, resumed tho debate On Mr. Gladstore's re
quest for permission to introduce the home-rule
bill He spoke substantially as follows:
| After long consideration he had come to the
conclusion that the scheme involved such com.
plcated and inextricable mass of contradictions
that if anybody besides Mr. Gladstone had pro-
posed It, it would never have been taken serious
ly. IL was hedged about with such fanciful and
even eccentric guarantees that the speaker was
| astonished at the Parnellites acquiescence. He
had vainly searched all the authorities, ancient
and modern, for precedent for Mr. Gladstone's
two orders, which were to compose the proposed
Irish Parliament. The first order was intended
to specially represent property, and it was
worthy Of attention that the great leader of the
great Liberal party had chosen such an anti
quated and discarded machine as the property
qualification for the electorate of the first order
The second order was also elective. Both orders
were to sit together; each could demand the ex-
ercise If the right to veto separately, and one
ordcrs veto any measure brought in by the
other Take simple illustration Of how this
would work in practice: Suppose the new Par
lament should proceed to the election Of a
Speaker. Assume that the popular party carried
the election for their candidate. The property
party by voting separately, could veto the
| choice, and then. in consequence. for three or
four years, the election of Speaker would be
suspended. tLaughter.l The same thing would
happen in all those cases in which one order
should choose to veto the action of the other,
such, as for instance, questions of rules of pro-
cedure or budget proposals.
The Premier" continued Lord Churchill,
"labored on Thursday last to show that the fiscal
unity OF the kingdom would not be affected by
the retention in the hands of the British Parlia-
ment of the power of collecting the customs and
excise duties. Now, if this were done, what
would become of that ancient British right of
taxation and representation going together2'
The speaker then went on to analyze the receipts
and disbursements of the Imaginary Irish
budget" for the purpose as he sad of showing
that Mr.. Gladstones proposal to maintain the
fiscal unity of the empire while giving Ireland
home rule was altogether untrustworthy He
then pointed out that the amount which the
Premier had named as that which Ireland would
every year contribute under home rule to the
imperial treasury as her contribution for the
benefits of imperial unity was of an extremely
illusory and precarious character. 1t might be
seriously affected by many things. Taking it,
however, as the price the Irish were to pay for
maintaining the fiscal unity of the empire. what
have to pay far heavier, proportionately for the
hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
be very much cramped, if not altogether tied, in
dealing with the customs and excise duties of
Ireland under her practical independence How
could he lower those duties2 If he should lower
them he would diminish the very resources
wberefrom Ireland was to pay her tribute to
England. He would have to do 50 without hear
ing q word from Irish representatives; nor
could he impose an additional tax in order to
obtain a credit, in case of an emergency, with
out the delay involved in suing for the permis-
sion Of the Parliament at Dublin. Where, then,
was the supremacy of the Britishl The real
principle of the bill was simply repeal of the
union. It handed over the protection Of the
lives and property of every person in Ireland to
an Irish Parliament, and deprived the imperial
Parliament of all voice In Irish matters. The
measure gave much, on the one hand, and took
much on the other, expressing, In the same
breath, confidence and distrust
On the question of Ulster, he asked If an Irish
government could pay its way if Ulster were
withdrawn. That the English government
could not make up its mind in regard to Ulster
proved the almost insolvable character of the
homerule project. The Premier justified his
proposals on the ground that there were eighty
six Home-rulers in the House. But why should
the voices of eighty-six Irish members
prevail over the voices of the
5S4 other membersl History showed
the rise and decline of former irish
parties. OConnelps party was formidable
through the even balance Of Wings and Tories
The Parliament in which that party was power
full was dissolved, and OConnell died broken
hearted. Butt, In 1870, headed party sixty
strong. The speaker saw Butt before his death,
when the latter was in the deepest distress over