The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-08

said on this subject and the amount
of importance given the doings of Ulster men.
We do say and admit those occurrences are to bd
condemned and should be stopped. But while
Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr.. Gcschen
say they must be put an end to by resorting to
coercion. which he and his friends
have been using, for the last eighty
Try the effect Of self-governmen. Then, il
Kerry men resort to outrage, they will very
soon find the rest of Ireland will put stop to it
Mr. Goshen referred to recent events In
Belfast; but before l deal with that
terrible matter, wish to give
an explanation, because, usual, English news
papers pervert news for their own purpose
am panied to see that the struggle at Belfast is
alleged to have arisen out of an expression used
Protestant, to the effect that in
short time none Of his persuasion
would be allowed to earn crust of bread in
Ireland. That however. does not accurately
newspapers. According to them, what took
place was this: An overseer of works
found fault with the way in
which the Orangemen, or, at all events,
The overseer said. That it is nice way to do
work, whereupon an Orangeman replied to the
overseer, who happened to be q Catholic, What
does a papist know about digging drainsP The
overseer irritated-I do not say justly irritated.
because it would have been absurd for him to be
irrtated by such remark. said to the Orange
man, You will never earn a crust on these
works again, meaning that he would be dis
missed. Thereupon the Orangeman took his
shovel and left work believe. as he was going
out he assaulted by more OF
the workmen. 1t is very difficult to know what
actually took place, but it is of great Importance
that the House understood that the remark in
question was not Of general application,
but only individual. do not attempt
to justify the occurrence, because il
is very sad one. Mr. Goschen spoke
about the sovereignty OF Parliament. Upon
this point l agree with the definition given by
Boyce. We know perfectly well, we always
have known since this bill was introduced the
difference between a coordinate and a subor-
dinate Parliament. We know that the legisia-
ture which the Premier wishes to con-
stitute is subordinate Parliament
not like Grattan's, which was coequal, arising
out of the same Constitution and IN the same
manner this Parliament We unders tand
this perfectly well, and should undoubtedly have
preferred-as I stated on the introduction of this
BILL showing that 1 could not accept
this as final settlement of the question
we should have preferred restoration of the
Grattan Parliament. This would be more in ac-
cord with the sentiments of the Irish people, and
sentiment goes long way with people like the
Irish. AT the same time, l am bound to say that
IT l preferred the GrattaE Parliament.
there practical advantages in the
proposals before US which limit and
subordinate this Parliament to that in which we
now sit 1t may be even greater advantage to
the Irish people than Parliament like Grat
tans's, and much more likely to be final settle
ment OF the question. Grattans's Parlia-
ment had many disadvantages. First,
it had q House of Lords. We get
rid of the House of Lords under Gladsione's
proposition. True there to be in its place
first order. very salutary- provision. do
not pledge myself to all the details and quaiih
cations, but say, generally, the first order
is very salutarv provision which wilt
tend to prevent rash legislation and immoderate
action l would rather the bill hung up
ten years by body like the first order in
Ireland than to see it hung up for single
twenty-four hours by this imperial Parliament
We understand perfectly well that the imperiaI
Parliament has ultimate supremacy and ulti
mate sovereignty. Iquite agree with Mr. Glad
stone. and think it one of the most valuable parts
of the bill. l quite agree that thai
which Gladstone offers, namely. responsibility
for maintaining order in Ireland by the Irish
Parliament. is correct provision, which state
could exist without The supremacy of the inn
perial Parliament. however. will not be affected
by this it the Irish party executes The power
given it, while in some cases it may be rem
dered more effective than ever. In ac-
cepting the bill we accept honorable obliga-
tions and pledge ourselves for the Irish people
so far as we can pledge ourselves, that the pow
ers given shall not be abused Parnelte cheersl;
to devote all the energy. ability and influence
may have with our people to prevent them
from abusing the powers entrusted TO them
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said that the bill
fai led to represent the views of the Liberal
party. 1t was the production of one mantle
man who was the highest in the kingdom, but
still practically alone-the remainder of the Lib
eral leaders intending to vote against the bill
If Mr.. Parnell really thought he could OBJ
tain from the Conservatives bill more agree
able TO his party than this, why not oppose thsf
He denied utterly that the late Conservative
government had any such intentions as Mr.. Par
nell attributed to it,
NJ ~ liz. y H. AZ.
that an intention to grant Parliament and to
protect Irish industries was communicated to
me by one of his own colleagues, Minister of
the Crownl Loud Parnellite and Liberal
cheers
Sir Michael-Yes, do deny that Icries of
s'Name, and "Order'l-to the best of my knowl-
edge and belief. ironical cheers. If such a
statement was communicated, it was without
authority from my colleagues. Will the gentle
man give the name!
Mr. Parnell-The gentleman has asked ques-
tion which he knows is very safe to ask.
Sir Michael said the question was not what
the late Conservative government had done, or
would do, but what the present gov.
been delayed to give wirepullers time to en-
ploy persuasion, intimidation and abuse, and
now the issue was confused The vote mem
bers were asked to give would rather be mis-
chievous farce or would cast discredit upon the
present system of legislation for Ireland.
Without expressing an opinion, he asked what
should replace it. He hoped the House would
not agree to such dangerous policy. Mr.. Par
nell's suggestion that the loyal minority may not
be contented with the two-order system was an
extraordinary statement from one who strongly
objected to ex ofico guardians. The minority
was practically unanimous in fearing, not SO
much bad legislation resulting from the bill, as
bad administration. Control could not be given
to the majority in Ireland Whatever might be
the result of the division. it was certain that the
majority of the representative of Great Britain
would oppose the bill. The House had no right
to modify the union without the previous con-
sent of the people, who had not yet been con-
shifted Their verdict alone would settle the
question. He believed their verdict would be o
direct condemnation.
Mr.. Gladstone followed On arising he was
loudly cheered. He expressed his pleasure al
having listened TO the mastery expose
tion--'T cannot call 1t less-of the
member from Cork. l feel strong conviction