The Indianapolis journal., 1886-04-15
Mr.. GLADSTONE DENOUNCED.
A Great Anti Home Rule Demonstration
Held in the London 0pera-HOuSe.
Strong Speeches in Opposition to Gladstone's
Proposals by lords Harrington and Sails
bury-Miscellaneo News by Cable.
AGAINST HOME RULE.


LONDON, April 14-The Conservatives have
holidays. deciding whether to force division on
the second reading of Mr.. Gladstone's home
rule bill.
Extensive arrayeements have been made for
the meeting called by the Loyal Patriotic Union
to be held in the London Opera-house tonight.
for the purpose of denouncing Mr.. Gladstones
Irish home-rule scheme. Four thousand per-
sons will be present. which is all the theater will
hold. Eight thousand applications for tickets to
the meeting have been received. In the theater
red banner. bearing the inscription. "Quis sep
arabit," spanned the arch on the proscenium,
and on each side hung huge Union Jack. The
approaches to the Opera house were besieged by
crowds of people, and the roadways were
blocked hours before the time announced for
the beginning of the proceedings. Upwards
of four hundred prominent Orangemen from
Belfast and Liverpool came to London to attend
the meeting The utmost enthusiasm prevailed
among the crowd. Thousands were unable to
enter the house. The stage was decorated with
Union Jacks and armorial Shields with crown
in the center. Lord Harrington, Lord Salisbury
and Lord Randolph Churchill were received with
enthusiastic cheering. Some one in the audi
ence called for cheers for the Queen and groans
for Parnell and Gladstone. The audience sang
''Rule Britannia" and listened to the reading of
letters from the Duke of Argyle and the Earl of
Derby, in which the writers denounced the home
rule bill. saying it would be unworkable and
would involve the Kingdom in serious dangers.
Earl Cowper, who presided. said that they were
face to face with great national calamity He
was therefore glad to see around him representa-
tives of all parties willing to unite to avert the
danger. From his own experience Viceroy Of
Ireland, he could safely say that home rule was
not desired by the great body of the Irish people
The priests had largely gone over to the Nation
alists, because they would join anybody who
would drive every other religion out of Ireland
fCheers If the bill was allowed to pass, this
year would be memorable in all time as disas
trous year, as the beginning of the decline of the
British empire
Lord Harrington moved that Mr.. Gladstone's
proposals. as they would tend to invalidate the
legislative union would prove disastrous to the
interests of both countries He repeated the
arguments of his late speech il Parliament,
tending that the countrys voice had not yet
been heard. He credited Mr.. Gladstone with
an honest belief that the country needed a con-
stitutonal change, but he refused to credit MIR.
Giadstones colleagues with the same belief.
Mr. Ireland, Liberal, who seconded Lord
Hartington's motion, was loudly cheerei
Lord Salisbury, on rising, was greeted with
enthusiastic applause which was several times
renewed. He moved that petition embodying
the sentiments of the meeting be presented TO
Parliament They were dealing, he said, with
a question immeasurably beyond party differ
ences. They were confronted with the greatest
danger that had ever menaced the empire. He
joined in eulogizing the Premers powers, and
said that if eloduence great and experience so
consummate had failed to produce tolerable
home-rule measure he was convinced that such
a measure could not be produced at
all. The debate in Parliament showed
that the securities which were supposed
to separate home rule from absolute
separation had already been driven to the winds.
1t had been seen to be impossible to give fiscal
freedom to an Irish Parliament and at the same
time preserve the fiscal unity of the empire.
They could not refuse the Irish Parliament pow
to deal with customs duties ask the Irish
to contribute E4 900. 900 toward the imperial ex-
checauer while refusing them presence in the
councils of the empire; that would be servitude,
not freedom. The securities for the protection
of the minority, he continued, were also illNsory.
IL the Irish Parliament obtained full free gov
ernment it must have absolute power over the
minority. The conditions of federations such as
those OF Austria. Germany and America were not
within the English horizon. The proposed
scheme Of federation belonged to the region of
political ideas. not of practical realities. He did
not maintain that the Irish were worse than 9TH
er people, but he did hold that the circumstances
that Ireland was controlled by made it impossi-
BILE to believe that if civil liberty should be con-
ceded to the Irish they could not forget the ami
mosities Of centuries, and treat those placed in
their power with perfect justice and equity.
The Premier's wavering wand could not efface
the effects of centuries of conflict and exaspera-
Ira
land would not involve unmanagable
difficulties if the people of England remained
true to the empire. Ireland wanted wise,
firm. consistent administration of the law It
would be terrible if, through Ergland's faint
heartedness, the Irish were abandoned to the
anarchy that would result frcn home rule
What effect would the fatal step proposed by
Mr.. Gladstone have on the best interests of the
vast English emplre2 The contest between Eng
Land and the disaffected Irish had lasted for
generations, and England was now asked to con-
sent to an ignominious and complete surrender,
similar to that of great nation which had lost
great battle involving loss of territory. In
conclusion, the speaker said: ENGLAND would
find that separation involved loss of prestige. 1t
would raise d. uhts as to the prowess of Eng
land; it would affect the attachment OF the colo
nies and weaken Englands influence throughout
the world The capitulation desired by Mr.
Gladstone would bring disasters to which moth
ing in English history could compare. Our enc
mics would view it with sinister exultatior, our
friends with shame, confusion and despair
[Cheers.
Mr.. Goschen seconded the notions introduced
by Lords Harrington and Salisbury and they
were unanimously adopted
Lord Randolph Churchill, speaking at the
Beaconsfeld Club, this evening, said that Mr.
Gladstone's scheme meant absolute repeal Of the
Union, and the bill could not succeed 1t had
already shattered the Liberal party, ard Mr.
Gladstone alone was responsible for it. The
country had no confidence in the proposals If
Mr.. Gladstone should appeal to the country or
should retire altogether, his policy would retire
with him. No man in the government desired
to see the bill passed The political life of Eng
land was being poisoned and paralyzed by the
personal ascendancy of one man. Mr. Glad.
stones policy would not be likely to have
value His scheme insoluble 1t was ut