The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-04-17

purpose until $500 900 was paid into the
English exchequer. The present con-
! tribution of the Irish taxpayers TO Eng
Hand was E6.9S0, 900. of which England
paid back. in Irish civil service and in
service of collection. "a, $40, 900. The
residue. which seemed to represent an
imperial contribution for the army.
navy, national debt and imperial
civil charges, was E2.055 900. What
did England do with it7 As
an instance. she sent an army
of 5000 men to Ireland. and
kept them there at an annual cost
OF 5000 900. E9l5.OO0 more than the
balance mentioned. That was a speci-
men of the economy OF the system the
speaker wanted TO root up. Mr. Glad
stone commended the scheme to the
strict. jealous. careful, unbiased ex-
animation of EnglIshmen. He was
convinced that il would be recognized
as fitting part OF the great suspicious
effort to sustain the plans Of the British
Z legislature for the welfare of what had
long been, and the speaker hoped would
ever be. under circumstances far hap
pier than heretofore, an integral part
of Her MajeSty's dominions. Mr.. Glad
stone spoke for an hour and thirty-6ve
minutes. and concluded amid great
applause.
Mr. Gladstone's proposals do not
imply q new issue of ESQ, 600. 600 in g
/ per-cents. but OF only $50. 00O 900 from
ESQ t00.0OO in new threes already
authorized.
Following Gladstone. Mr.. Chamber
lain read letter which he sent to Mr..
Gladstone, rendering his resignation as q
member of the Cabinet. In the letter Mr..
/ Chamberlain stated that Mr.. Gladstone's
policy would throw a heavy burden on
Great Britain. entailiRg an enormous
addition % the national debt; probably
an immediate increase of taxation not
TO secure a union of the kingdom,
but to purchase separation.
/ Mr.. Chamberlain then went on to
/ say that the land proposals. although
they had been modified since he had
left the Cabinet, would still inn ose a
great burden upon Great Britain with
out a sufficient security for the loans
advanced. The bill was calculated not
so much to benefit the tenants as sop
for the landlords. Although only ESQ.,
600 O0l was to be issued, the option TO
sell was offered to the land owners hold
ing land valued at $4,000. Surprising
that full number of options TO sell
should be accepted, how would all the
monev be provided? He opposed the
| bill on principle, because IL specially
protected the landlords. II the Irish
Parliament was to be entrusted with
the protection of the commercial classes
and the maintenance of social order,
why could IL not be trusted to
protect the landlords7 The government
was thrusting on Ireland a burden
which no Irish member could declare TO
be fair price to give for the land
lords rights. (Cheers.) The Irish peo-
pie would regard the bargain as one
imposed by aforeign country and would
be justified IN taking the first oppor-
tunfty to repudiate it. II the
bargain should be repudiated,
how would it be enforced? The govern
ment could not disregard the risk to
British taxpayers. Under an increas-
ing depression in trade hundreds Of
thousands of hard workers in England
would probably be thrown out of en-
ployment. While refusing to assist the
deserving crofters in Scotland and
laborer could government consistently
grant large sums for the benefit of the
Irish peasantry? (Cheers.l
In conclusion, Mr.. Chamberlain said
he was not an irreconcileable opponent
of Mr.. Gladstone's policy. II the land
proposals should be sufficiently modi-
fed, he would be happy to be relieved
of the duty of continuing his present
attitude Of opposition.
ParneIl said that, not having had
/ Mr.. Chamber aims advantages of q
Cabinet seat, ne was not prepared to
express a confident opinion upon the
merits and dement's of the scheme until
he had seen the provisions of the bill.
Mr.. Chamberlain had spoken in
deservedly complimentary terms of
Mr.. Davitt and had expressed q
desire to know the latter's opinion of
the land-purchase bill. Mr.. Parnell
assured Chamberlain that Davitt would
not act from q motive of personal spite
or jealousy (Parnellite cheersl, but
solely out of regard for Ireland. To
/ thetspeaker il appeared that the appoint
ment of Encouragement was unneces-
sary and absurd because, according 10 the
promised statement, the receipts from
the customs and excise duties in Ire
land will amount to within 10000 of
the total amount payable by Irela nd to
1 the imperial exchequer. Would IL not
be sufficient security II England took q
lien upon the revenue collected by
Irish authority. In the event Of
the customs failing to yield q sum
sufficient TO meet the imperial charges.
The appointment Of q receiver-general
would be most offensive to Ireland, be-
cause it would show a reluctance to
trust Irishmen even for such q small
sum as 10000. The object of the Irish
members was not to make the measure
q party question, but. by yielding as
much as possible, TO settle once and for
all this troublesome and difficult mat
ter. II the Irish landlords threw out
the measure, he hoped the offer to assist
them with English credit would not be
renewed. but that the bill for the gov
eminent OF Ireland would be pressed
forward by itself.
Mr.. Morley announced that the bill
would be in the members hands on Mon
day. Permission was given to introduce
the bin. and the second reading was
fixed for May 18th.