The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-04-13
HOME RULE FOR IRELAND.
DEBATE CONTINUED in THE
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Lord Randolph ChurchilPs Speed
In Opposition to, Mr.. Glad
stones Proposals.

Churchill would attack Mr.. Glad
stones home rule bill. Among the
Conservatives and the Wings, there
was intense interest in Lord Ran
dolph's effort Prince Arthur anG
Prince Christian and the Duke o.
Cambridge sat together in the Peers
gallery and they were surrounded by
host Of peers.
MR.. GLADSTONE,
in reply to questions, 81 lted that il
would be impossible to close the de-
bate on his reques' Tor he leaves
tonight, aud that ~ has decided to
! postpone introduction of his land
purchase bill until next Monday.
SIR MICHAEL HICKs-BEAcH
made brief address in which he in
dicated for his party an understand
ing to refrain from forcing a division
on the home rule bill until it came
up for a second reading.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,
by virtue of his motion to adjourn at
the last session having the floor, re-
sumed the debate on Mr.. Gladstone's
request for permission to introduce
the home rule bill. He spoke sub
stantially as follows: CATER long
consideration he had come to the con-
clusion that the scheme involved such
a complicated and inextricable mass
OF cont additions that If anybody be-
sides Mr.. Gladstone had proposed it
It would never nave taken teriously.
LCheers It was hedged about with
tuch fanciiul aud ecc centric guarantees
for the integrity Of the empire that
the speaker was astonished at the Par
nellites' acquiesence. He hal vainly
searched all the authorities, ancient
and modern, for precedent for Mr.
Gladstone's two orders, which were TO
compose the proposed Irish Parlia-
ment. The first order was intended
to specially represent property, and it
was worthy OF attention that the great
leader oil the great Liberal party had
chosen such an antiqustsd and dis
carded machine as the property quail
hcation for the electorate Of the first
order. The second order was also
elective. Both orders were to cit to-
gether; each could demand the exsr-
ciae of the right to vote separately,
and one order could veto any meas
urt brought In by the other. Take a
simple illustration OF how this would
woiK in practice. Suppose the new
parliament should proceed to the cleo
ton Of speaker. Assume that the
popular party carried fe elect on for
their candidate. The opelty party,
by voting separately, could veto the
choice and then, ia consequence, for
three or four years the election of
speaker would be suspended laugh
teri The came thing you'd happen
in ] those cases ia which either or
der should choole 10 Sepstbe actien Of
the other, such as, for instance,
questions Of rules of procedure or
budget proposals. The Premier, con
iinued Lord Randolph, laboled on
Thursday last to show that the fiscal
unity of the KINGDOM would not be
affected by the rdention 10 the hands
of British Parlianens of the power
Of collecting cusloms and excise du-
ties. Now, If thii were done, what
would become of hat ancient British
right of taxation and represen NATION
going together2 [ Oheera.1 The spe aker
then went on to apalyze the receipts
and disbursements Of the Irish budget
for the purpose, as he said, Of showing
that Mr. Glad5tone's proposal to main
tain the fiscal unity of the empire,
while giving Ire and home rule was
altogether Internationally. He then
pointed out that the amount which
the Premier had named az that which
Ireland would every year contribute
under home rule to the iianerial treas
ury as her contribution for the benefit
of imperial unity, was OF an extreme
ly illusory and precarious character.
1t might he seriously affected by many
things. Taking il, however. as the
price the Irish were to paw for main
tanning the fiscal unity Of the empire,
what would the English hsvs to pay
They would havs 10 pay far heavier
proportionately, for the hands OF the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would
be very much cramped, If not alto
gether tied, in dealing with the Gus
toms and excise duties of Ireland un-
der her practical Independence. How
could he lower those duties2 II he
should lower them he would diminish
the very resources wherefrom Ireland
was 10 pay her tribute to England.
He would have to dose without hearing
a word from the Irish representatives,
nor could he impose an additional tax
in ord Or to obtain credit, in case OF
an emergency, without the delay i'm
volved in suing for the permission of
the Parliament in Dublin. Where
then was the supremacy of the Bril-
tishP The real principle Of the bill
was simply the repeal of the union.
1t handed over ibe protection OF the
lives and properly OF every person In
Ire aud to an irish Parliament, and
deprived the im jeriaI Parliament Of
all voice in Irish matters. The meas.
urs gave much, on the one hand, and
took much on ths other, expressing In
the same breath confidence end disirust
On the quest on of Ulster, he asked
il an Irish government could paw its
way if Ulst5r were withdrawn. That
the English government could not
make up its mind in regard to Ulstsr
proved the almost insoluble character
OF the home iule project. The Pre-
mier justified lis proposals on the
ground that there we're eiRhty-six
home rulers 10 The House. But why
should the voices Of eghty-siK Irish
members prevail over the voices of
i8i other membsrs2 History showed
the rise and decline OF former Irish !
parties. 0'Connells psrty was for
midabe throughout the even balance
OF the Wings and Tories. The Parlia-
ment in which that party was power
full was dissolved, and O'Cennell died |
brokenbearted. Butt in 1870 headed |
party sixty strong. The speaker saw |
Butt before his death, when the latter
was in the deepest distress over the
breakup Of his party. ParneH in 1880 |
led sixty votes. Ia elk months bis |
party was divided, remaining so until |
the end Of the last Parliament. So the !
Parnellites formidable to-day were 10
danger of disunion tomorrow, a
danger which Mr.. Parnell sought |
10 avert By insisting upon |
pledge from ais followers. |
4. 80, =, /, ,arNasn nae fn~eaa 6 4