Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-04-13
CHURCHILLS CRITICISMS.
GLADSTONFs PROPOSAL DE
CLARED VERY CRUDE.

6aIA DSIONES IfNOEOoAA OAA-
CLARED VERY CRUDE.
ReDeaI of the Union Pictured as the Real
Principle Involved by the Bili-Dead-
locks Which Would be sure to Result
iF the Scheme Was Put in Operation.
LONDON. April I2.-The House of Com
mons was again densely crowded TINS
evening, as a result of the extended au-
nouncementt that Lord Randolph Churcnlll
would attack Mr.. Gladstone's nome rule
bill. Among the Conservatives and
Wings there was intense interest IN Lord
Randolph's effort. Prince Arthur and
Prince Christian and the Duke of Cam
bridge sat together in the peers gallery
and they were surrounded by a"hOst OF
peers. Mr.. Gladstone, in reply to ques-
tions, stated that 1t would be impossible
to close the debate on his request for leave
tonight, and that on this account he had
decided to postpone introducing his Irisn
land purchase bill until Monday next.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach made brief
address in which he indicated for mis-
party an understanding to refrain from
forcing a division on the home rule bill
until it came up for its second reading.
CHURCHML's SPEECH.
Lord Randolph Churchill, by virtue of
his motion to adjourn at the last session,
having the floor, resumed the debate on
Mr.. GladstOne's request for permission to
introduce home rule bill. He spoke, sub
stantially, as follows: After long cOnsd-
Grafton he had come to the conclusion
that the scheme involved such cOmplI-
Gated mass OF contradictions that
if anybody besides MIR. Glad
stone had proposed it, it never
would have been taken seriously.
Cheers 1t was hedged about with such
tanciful and eccentric guarantees for the
integrity of the empire that the speaker
was astOnished at the Parnellites' acqui-
escence. He had vainly searched all the
authorities, ancient and modern, for
precedent for Mr.. Glaedtone'sitwo orders
which were to compose the proposed Irish
Parliament.
NATURE OF THE ORDERS.
The GTst order was intended to specially
represent property, and it was worthy of
attention that the great leader of the
Liberal party had CHOSEN such an anti
Quated and discarded machine as property
qualification for the electorate by this first
order. the second order was also elective.
Both orders were to sit together. Each
could demand the exercise OF the right to
vote separately, and one order could veto
any measure brought in by the other.
Take the simple Illustration of now this
would work in practice. Suppose the
new Parliament should proceed to the
election of a Speaker. Assume that the
popular party carried the election for
their candidate. The property party, by
voting separately, could veto the choice,
and then in consequence for tlree or four
years the election of Speaker would be
suspended. Laughter. The same thing
i'm Il n N
one order should choose to veto the action
OF the other, such as, for instance, ques-
tiOns of rules Of procedures or budget
proposals.
FISCAL UNITY.
The Premier, continued Mr.. Churchill,
iabOred on Thursday last to show that the
fiscal unity of the United Kingdom would
not be affected by the retention on the
hands of the British Parliament of the
power OF collecting customs and excise
duties. Now, if this were done what
would become of that ancient British
right of taxation and representation going
together? Cheers.
The speaker then went on to analyZe
the receipts and disbursements Of the
imaginary Irish budget, for the purpose,
as he said, Of showing that Mr.. Glad
stones proposal to maintain the fiscal
unity of the empire, while giving ireland
home rule, was altogether untrustwOrt
He then pointed cut that the amount
which the Premier had named as that
which Ireland would every year con-
tribute under home rule to the Imperial
treasury, as her contribution for the bene-
ft of Imperial unity, was Of an extremely
precariOus character. 1t might be Sc
riously affected by many things.
ENGLAND's SHARE.
Taking it, however, as the price the
lrsh were to pay for maintaining the
fiscal unity of the pire, what would the
English have to pay? They would have
TO pay far heavier prOpOrtiOnatey, for the
bands of the Chancellor Of the EX9hequer
would be very much cramped, If not al
together tied, in dealing with the customs
IN the excise duties OF Ireland,
under her practical Independence.
How could he lower those duties2 II he
should lower them, he would diminish the
very resources wheretrOm Ireland was to
pay her tribute to England. He would
nave to do so without ne}ring word from
irish representatives.. Nor could he inn
pose an additional tax in order to obtain
credit in case Of an emergency without
The delay involved in suing for the per-
mission Of the Parliament at Dublin.
Where, then, was the supremacy of the
British?
THE REAL PRINCIPLE.
The real principle OF the bill was sim
ply repeal of the union. IL handed oyer
tne protection of the lives and property Of
every man, woman and child in ireland
10 an Irish Parliament and deprived the
imperial Parliament Of all voice in Irish
matters. The measure gave much on one
Aand and took much on the other,
expressing ia the same breath con-
ndence and distrust. On the question
O' Ulster, be asked if an irish
government could pay It's way if Ulster
were withdrawn. That the English gov
lfhment could not make up ITS mind in
regard TO Ulster proved the almost insolu-
we character Of the home rule project
Iue Premier jusuhes his proposals on the
ground that there We're s6 Home Rulers
"a the House. But why should the voices
u, 80 Irish members prevail over the voices
'l Jo4 other memhers?
FORMER IRISH PARTIES,
History showed the rise and decline OF
orner Irish parties. Mr.. O'ConnelPs
tdfJy Was formidable through the even
0aiance of the Whigs aud Tories. The
armament in which tha; party was
s3|eriul was dissolved, and O'Connell
uea broken.hearted. Mr.. Butt in 1870
a