The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-09-04

would be useless, as the opposition was power
less to compel the government to introduce new
measures now; therefore he would support Lord
Randolph Churchls motion.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach urged that an end be
put to the discussion.
Mr.. Parnell said he did not blame Sir William
Vernon Harcourt for the attitude taken by that
gentleman, but ii was only by the persistent ap-
plication o; the principle Of TRY. try again,
that the Parnelites had ever got anything He
denied that the Parnellites intended to ohstruct
the business of this session. He himself was
drafting measure giving leaseholders leave to
apply to the courts to fix fair rents and would
advise the withdrawal of the amendment if the
government would give facilities for the intro
duction of such a bill during the present SEES
sion.
Lord Randolph Churchill replied that the gov
eminent had already stated it's intentions In re-
gard to the land bill If Mr. Parnell desired to
describe in fuller manner the way in which he
wished the question to be dealt with, the gov
eminent would undertake to give special sit
ting for that purpose before the close Of the SEES
sion.
Mr. John Morley expressed himself as sincerely
satisfied with the governments promise.
Mr. ParnelPs amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. Labouehere moved an amendment declar-
ing that Lord Randolph ChurchilPs speech in
Belfast was calculated to provoke breaches of
law, and ought to be withdrawn. He insisted
that Churchill was morally answerable for the
killing and wounding of 30 many people in Bel
fast.
Lord Randolph Churchill described the amend
ment as a vain attempt to set a net in the sight
Of thu bird. He treated with contempt Mr..
Laboucheres clumsy attempt, and fatty refused
TO respond to the challenge.
Major Saunderson moved an amendment to
Mr.. LAboucheres amendment, denouncing the
presence of British subjects at the recent Irish
convention In Chicago calling attention to the
statement, freely made, that some commoners
avowed that they had taken the Feniau oath.
and declaring that if this statement were true
the members in question should be severely CEN
sured.
Lord Randolph Churchill said the government
would oppose both amendments The matters
alleged in Major Saundersons amendment, he
said. were IN no wise pertinent to the speech
from the throne, and discussion Of the amend
ment would only still further waste the time of
the House.
SIR 7. P. OConnor attacked Lord Randolph
Churchill for sinking reply to Mr. Labou-
chere. He tainted Churchill with having
climbed into power on the ladder of obstruction.
When there was danger of war with Russia,
continued Mr., OConnor, the rancor of Church
ilFs tongue was not softened by the prospect Of
sacrifice of thousands of lives, and he did every
thing in his power to thwart the efforts of the
government which was striving to maintain
peace. Churchlls words had done more to es-
TRANCE and foster hatred between England and
Ireland than any occurrence in the last two
years
Mr.. Saunderson's amendment was rejected with
out division.
Mr. Labouchere's amendment was rejected by
a vote of 202 to u.s.
The House then agreed to the report on the
address Mr.. Parnell hopes to introduce his
land bill next week.
The Pail Mall Gazette says that the scenes in
the lobby and In the chamber Of tho House of
Commons last evening. during the closing de-
bate on the proposed amendments to the address
In reply to the Queens speech. form the leading
topic of conversation among politicians in Lon
sharp and summary rulings the Gazette says the
general impression is that Mr.. Peel was testy be-
cause suffering from i'll health and that there is
no ground for surprising that he was acting in
collision in the movement, or pursuing prede-
termined course of action in calling the members
TO order in such a peremptory style.