The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-11
An Earnest and Strong Argument in Behalf
of the Proposed Measure. Accompanied
by Hints as to Possible Notifications.
The Opponents of the Bill Challenged
and Asked to Offer a Different Plan.
Belief that the Premier Will at Once Resign
in Case He Is Defeated-Resignation of
the Greek Ministry-Cable Notes.
THE HOME-RULE BILL.

Speech of Mr.. Gladstone in Moving Second
Reading of the Measure.
LONDON, May 10.-At the hour for the open
ing of the session. the House of Commons was
crowded in every part. The Prince of Wales,
Prince Christian. Mr. Phelps the United States
minister, and NJ. Flouquet, President of the
French Chamber of Deputies, were among the
distinguished visitors in the galleries. When
Mr.. Gladstone arose he was received with loud
cheers. On quiet being restored. the Premier
moved the second reading of the home-rule bill
House to continue the debate on the bill from
day to day. Mr. Gladstone's voice at the outset of
his speech in advocacy of his motion was in
distinct hoarse and feeble but it cleared as
he proceeded He said he desired OF
the opening to make statement of his personal
position, which he had entirely refrained from
making when he introduced the bill. He had
never, at any period, described home rule in
Ireland as incompatible with imperial unity.
[Cries of "Oh!' "Oh!" The contradiction had
come from some members who had visited Mid
lothian, making speeches stuffed full of totally
untrue and worthless matter. [Cheers.l In
ooSAoAoSsAoA
which he had heard the statements Of the sup
porters of home rule, as those state
msnts contemplated nothing leading to
severance Of ths empire. [Parnellite cheers.
Two questions always presented themselves to
his mind regarding home rule Firstly, it must
show that it was desired by the great mass of
the people of Ireland. That condition had never
been absolutely and unequivocally presented
until the passing of the representation -of-the
people act. [Cheers. Secondly, was home
rule compatible with the unity of the en-
Mr.. Parnell, who had declared that what he
sought under the name of home rule was simply
the autonomy of Ireland The speaker had been
charged with experimenting in politics without
grave cause. Here they had the gravesJ of
causes, for they were dealing with a people and
country whose radical sympathes were against
law, especially criminal law, which had never
obtained the confidence or the obedience of the
Irish people. Alternative coercive and reform
measures had been tried. They had equally
failed to conciliate The medicine of coercion,
especially, had been the medicine continually
applied in increasing doses, and with diminish
ing results. LParnellite cheers.
Here the speaker reviewed the history of the
past in an endeavor TO prove that only
thorough measure which would be satisfactory
to Ireland was now feasible AS regards the
autonomy of Ireland being menace to the unity
of the empire. he reminded the House that the
same argument was employed against Canadian
independence When it was determined to con-
cede home rule to Canada, Canada was in the
precise temper attributed to Ireland to-day.
Canada did not get home rule because
she was loyal and friendly. She was now loyal
and friendly because she got home rule. Irish
cheers. He [Glaistone] sat in Parliament dur
ing the whole Canadian controversy. taking, as
a young man, an active part in the discussion
What was the nature of the Canadian debate?
The case OF Canada was not parallel to the case
of Ireland--not in every particular. So the bill
offered Co ireland is different in important de-
tails from the acts which disposed of the case
of Canada But although not par
allel, their positions analogous
What was the ssue in the case
of Canadaa Government from Downing street.
These few words embrace the whole controversy
government from Downing street meaning. of
w
was the cry of those who resisted autonomy in
Canadal 1t was the cry which has slept long
time, acquiring vigor from sleeping. 1t was the
cry that the unity of the empire would be en-
dangered. In his opinion of the relations of
Canada and England then, there was very great
danger to the unity of the empire; but it was the
remedy for the mischief, not the mis-
chief itself, which was regarded as dangerous.
Irish chsers. In this respect. the cases
of Ireland and Canada are precisely parallel
There is danger to the unity of the empire in
our present relations with Ireland. But the op
ponents Of the bill have applied the cry of danger
to the remedy instead of to the existing mischief
In those days the people of Canada were habit
ually denounced in this House as rebels Pro-
longed government and Parnelte cheers
Some of those so called rebels were
protestants of English and Scotch
birth, bat the majority were Catholic, of French
extraction Was the cry against them raised
because they were French extraction Catholics?
No, sir He LGladstonel remembered O'Con-
nell, in the course of his debate on Canada in
referring to the French Canadian leader, Pap
ineau, said: This is just the case of
Ireland with this difference-the Canadian agi-
taLor has % aL tue emu Oh MS name instead or at
the beginning" Laughter. The Canadian
rebels were suppressed; but at the moment of
military victory the political difficulty began,
and the victors were the vanquished.
Here Mr.. Gladstone referred to the American
"cant" expressions of opinion. He asked the
gentlemon who appeared to think that these
manifestations of the opinion Of America were
worthless, if they would have considered them
worthless If the manifestations had condemned
the bill Cheers.
Coming to the leading objections to the BILL