The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-06-04
JOIN MORLEY
MAKES A SPEECH IN DEFENSE
OF GLADSTONE'S
Bome.RuIo Bill in Which He Takes
Most Advanced Ground in Sup
port Of the sc. u. n"

another election WCu' d result IN favor |
Of the Nationalist. He held that the |
principles aud tradit ons Of Liberalism
Tequiltd Liberals to support Mr.. |
GlEds' one, who had the opinion OF the |
whole world on bis eide; that
those who brought forward
the separstive argument overlook The
fact that a peasant proprietor was a
crest obstac,e to revolution. There
Wss not a single SEE ton OF Catholics
that would fer a moment tolerate the
endowment CT State church in Ire
lsnd. Continuing, Mr.. O'Conner sa d
that honorable considerations re-
strained him, otherwise he would
start The House by revelations con-
cerniDg The Cambetwell ella ction with
reference 10 Mr.. Bl1unt, the personal
fIisnd of Lord Randolph Churchill.
Lord Randolph Churchill, inter
posing,sa said he would take it az favor
Mr.. 0CoDner relieved himself fIom
consiraiBt. Conservative cheers.
Mr.. 0'CoDntr replied tba- he would
require Mr.. BluDt's permission before
complying with Lord Rsndolpn's re-
! qnfst.
Mr.. Charles Bradlaugh supported
the bi |.
Mr.. Morley, referring TO Sir Julian
G)ldsmid's proposal that an under
standing be arrived at on basis 5im-
ar to that adopted in the case CT the
s, ats bill, said he would not obj to
the adoption of such course ii the
conditions were favorable, but a Goa
spnsus Of opinion is first neCe 5sarY. Did
Sir Julian think smodUs vivendi posi-.
BILE with the opposition advo-
eating twenty years Of coercion,
| TCheep. Cri S, mo, no with
Draw ~ will withdraw the
remark" responded Morley.
il single member on th' opposite
beuch suall UisavCw Lord Sallsbury's
tpeecb. Regarding the talk OF ostra.
CT m, Mr.. Morley h ,ught The support
ers OF the Government had ths right
10 complain of the threats IN tnat
direction after what had been said
lately about long purses wi h which
they were to bs fought az tho Lext
election. Members had told the Hou! e
they were willing to affirm the prin-
ciple OF home rule, and yet they de-
ciued to oppose the bill, thus debating
their own object The crisis WAS grave
one. TIE case TO. day is different from
that of 0'Oopnell,'o which Lord Hart
ingtou referred. A great transforms
t on has occurred. No longer is an
alien church in ascendancy. Land
lords no longer bat the absolute pow
err they formerly had, The people
have been enirsrchisel and were nc
longer serfs. Cheers. There has
been much talk OF dismembeTment
dispersion of the Irish a ross the sea
f)r many years. The real dismember
ment was in regard to lo;al govern
meDt, which many members ere
daposed to grant. Lord Sal
isbury, speaking at Newport
in 1885, argued that it was impo ssib' {
to ignore the advantage Of large cen
trail au hority over merely local ones
Moreover, in Ire aud they had pr,t
ty arge experience OF action with 10
cal authorities. He instanced tria
by jury, and ASKED how member
could talk as they did of governing
Ireland, when the whole people
vera against them, aud how
Lord HartiDgton's propo. ed re-
form of Irish adm n S ration woulC
be brought about Regardir
The sugge to make Psrnell Secre
, tary fer Ireland, neither PANEL 10
any of his Colleagues would sccep
Cffice. If they cid they would OF
loee their whole influence with the ex
, isting state OF things. Irish cheers.
What was wanted was to get hold o
4 those having an interest in the system
DESTROYS to carry on regular, orderl!
methods Of government. His opiniot
was that had the country spen
g half the Money and attention
bestowed upon Egypt and othe
foreign countries, Ireland wonld bav,
been a support instead of taunt. W,
taught lie and to be meudicant instead
s OF self.reliant, by alternate brides ant
subsidies, and by bosteriDg up tn
worsi land system in the world. It'll
a. urd to compare Ireland with Scot
l. land. The government bad chosen Il
y proceed with the home rule bill instea
+ Of resolution affirming the princi
3 pie, because it felt it ought to b
o prepared with a plan. 1t was neve
e expected to succeed by one blow no
8 to carry the scheme with q rush. II
l. YVES anxious and williI G to consider
y proposal which did not interfere wit
/. the principle of the bill, nor substar
:. tally with the powers it intended t
e confer upon the new Irish LegislG
d ture. To vote for second req
9 ing OF the bill, he said, Wa
o vote for the principle Of al
tonou Gus legislation for LELAND. TIL
Government denied vote coul
mem more than thiF, because the hi
n to be produced in autumn migsIt COZ
"a tain notifications of certain generi
e proposals. John Bfight's letter bs
3. been referred to, but not published
Ie Mr.. Chamberlain here interposeI
r with the remark that there was no oil
D. lection to the publication of Brigh.
le letter, il Bright would consent.
|. Mr.. Morley continuing said b
ID thought the latter had more force wit
8, Lord Hartington's meeting, becaut
N Lord Harrington, like Mr.. Bright, o.
It jected to the principles OF the bill
10 where's Mr.. Chamberlain accepte
D. the principles but objected ID u
IN plan. In conclusion he referred
10 Lord Sllisbu-y's remark about n,
e paying attention to what people sa'
ne on their death bed, and we
known men sometimes on the
deathbeds left their last wills and te
v tameuts. This bill might be regardt
- as the last viii and testament OF u
present government. The divis'c
nv about 10 be taken would n
~ be the end. Even the ele
70 toral campaign might not en-
i. loud cheers. Let not u
opponents of the bill imagine that
q. driving the government from Il
IN stage the curtain would fall on Il
last scene, the fifth and final act Of u
Irish question. II the House !
fused to accept the ,ituati'
. now offered, it might re
u, u assured no other measure, unl6
III based upon the lines of this messul
~ would be carried a single effecti
'e stage further, Loud cheers
40 Debate adjourned on motion OF
q" lingsworth, Liberal.
"a