The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-08

| presence of Irish members at Westminster is in
compatible with separate Irish Parliament; 1t
| will be impossible to include Ulster in the Dub
lin Parliament Parnellite cries of NO." mo. y
] The clauses relating to taxation and finance are
| also," continued Mr.. Goschen. inherent defects
in the bill" He asked if the homerule bill was
| inseparably tied up with the land-purchase
| scheme. He had seen some correspondence in
| which the Premier stated that the subjects were
! inseparable in the minds of the government AT
| the moment the word inseparabe did not con-
| vey anything clear or definite. The speaker
was entitled to know whether, if the home
| rule bill was returned in the autumn, it would
| be accompanied by the land-purchase bill,
whereto it has been said to be inseparably tied
He would also like to know whether any ray Of
| light regarding Ulster had penetrated the open
| mind of the government Were the members of
| the House to remain ignorant as to whether the
government intended to ignore listers earnest
| pleadingsl Opposition cheers, and Irish cries,
What Ulstsrlrl "Why, the same Ulster" Mr.
Goschen said, (which the Premier ro-
ferred to when he introduced the
bill" No hope has been rendered that
Clause "a will be dropped. This meant the dis
appearance, permanently, of the Irish members
| from the imperial Parliament The Premier
| said that the Foreign Office way to plain
| adjustment of the difficulty. but never said
what that plan was. If the House was to hear
| it 1t would be only before the conclusion of the
debate, when they would not have time to care
| fully consider it. This is the plan intended to
| affect votes. Irish representation in the House
of Commons led directly to the question of the
sovereignty of Parliament, which, if
not destroyed, would be impaired or weakened
| They were told there was power of
| the first order in the Irish Parliament. He
| doubted whether they would ever hear more OF
the first order He said the veto power existed,
| a constant exercise Of which would induce intol-
cradle friction, and the last state be worse than
| the first. Until they knew the governments in
| tentions regarding the land bill and Ulster, and
| what the first order power of veto would in
/ hn vuoc oh N oan vuh uhat
| would be given mnorities. He did not believe
| the Protestants would be prosecuted. He be-
| lieved the Irish members sincerely anxious to
prevent the clerical ascendency aimed at Irish
| cries of NO" 'No"l by the priesthood OF
every church. The clergy of all churches aimed
| at educational ascendency. The Irish members
find themselves embarked in tremendous strug-
| gle with the Catholic priesthood. Until now it
had required the imperial Parliament's moderat-
| ing influence to deter Protestants and Catholics
from making extreme demands. They were TN
| able to ignore the differences of creed, class,
race. A neutral hand was necessary to deal
with rival sections, as in the case of the recent
| difficulty in Belfast. The bill contained ele-
| ments of commercial, financial and
| legislative friction. The establishment Of
separate executive would lead to friction
| and separation. Difficulties would arise under
the foreign enlistment act and in cases like that
of the Alabama the imperial Parliament would
be responsible for the acts of the Irish executive
and yet be powerless to control the executive.
The Canadian executive is now in trouble with
| America. England is responsible for Canada.
and will have to settle the difficulty. The Pre-
| miers friends have not eondescended to reply to
| that argument Suppose discomfort arose, cul-
| minating in agitation and ultimate separation
| Members must not forget Mr.. Morleys warn
| ing. If discomfort arose in Ireland, the
| Irish members would place material resources
at Irelands command. If Parliament parted
with its executive power in Ireland. alenated its
friends, made them bitter foes, placed executive
inv ov,d fp{a had a "
meet this dificultyl Suppression by force was
! held up as a remedy. Sir William Har-
| court pointed out that Grattan's Parliament
was more independent than the one
| now proposed. Was the Irish executive, at the
time of Grattan's Parliament, so independent
| that it was by the executive that the two coun-
| tries We're held togetherl The opponents of the
| bill wanted the two countries held together. The
Premier would Lot admit that it was their duty
| to keep the two countries together. Gladstone
| expressed dissent There was no security for
| the unity which could be maintained in Graf
| tan's time with an independent Parliament, but
dependent executive could be maintained now
with Parliament and an executive
dependent in Ireland If the storms which
alone prevented French invasion
of Ireland in 1876 had net occurred. Sir William
| Harcourt might not shave been able to appeal
with such triumphant emphasis to the unity of
the two countries. He protested against the
| Premiers statement that the bill was opposed
| by class and its dependents which was de-
Scribed by the newspapers as "a swagger-
ing class" He did not think Chamber
| lain and Spurgeon came within this
description. Continuing he said he saw his
alusions created discomfort, but the matter was
| important. The Premier had kinaled serious
! fire to get up enough steam to pass the bill. The
| Premier said to himself, ''Some old rafters hold
the frame Of the building securely together;
burn them; steam we must have, or
we can not pass the bill" He urged
members not to MAIN the Constitution, of
sni %1,a1 81 rou
eign country, he said. ever had parliament
| like the British Parliament AS life trustees,
they were bound to hand over their glorious pos
session, without detriment, to those coming
| after them. In conclusion, he said: II
mplore the House, by the tradition
of which we are the heirs; by the obligations of
| duty and honor by our hopes for the future of
| the empire, by our duty to the Queen, to look
to look to it that those who shall como after us
| may bear witness that we have not betrayed orr
| trust"
| Mr.. Parnell was the next speaker, and was
| loudly cheered by his followers. He said. Il
should, ordinarily, have lacked confidence in fol
lowing so able and eloquent a speaker in this con-
| test of giants, but think thrice is he armed
who hath is quarrel just and unequal,
inferior as ! am at many points. hope shall
not be SO far behind as usual. Without intend
| ing to offer any disrespect l could not help
thinking, while listening to his speech,
that in all the lost causes wherewith
have seen him connected during many years
| past, he never little effective when
| contending against the bill we hoped to read a
second time tonight Mr.. Goschen sought,
think, very unfairly to cast lurd light
| on the situation by his allusion to
those unhappy outrages in Kerry. I join
| in the expression of contempt. for those
cowardly. dsgraceful practices. l join him to
the fullest extent, but neither do say that, be-
cause evictons have been mere numerous in
Kerry than in all the rest of Munster put to-
| gether during months past, that they constitute
an excuse for those outrages, or any excuse for
outraees, though it may supply us with
cause for them. But when I denounce out
RACES, / denounce them in every part of ireland,
whether in Ulster or Kerry. Mr.. Goschen is
certainly free from reproach. He has not
| joined Lord Randolph Churchill and
Mr.. Chamberlain in the use of
reckless language in reference to af-
| fairs in q country which is not their