Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-04-17

heavy burdens on Great Britain, entai.ing
an enormous addition to the national debt,
probably an immediate increase of taxa
ton, not to secure the union of the king
dom, 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 impose great burden on Great
Britain, without sufficient security for the
loans advanced. The bill was cal
cuiated not so much to benefit the ten
ants as a sop for the landlords Although
f50,o00,000 was to be issued, the option to
sell was offered the landowners holding
land valued at f150000,000. Supposing
that the full number of options to sell
should be accepted, how would all the
money be provided? He opposed the bill
on principle, because it specially protected
the landlords If the Irish Parliament was
to be intrusted with the protection of COM
mercial classes and the maintenance of
social order, why could it not be trusted to
protect the landlords? The Government
was thrusting on Ireland burden which
no Irish member could declare to be fair
[Cheersl The Irish people would regard
the bargain as one
IMPOSED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
And would be justified in taking the first
opportunity to repudiate it. If the bargain
should be repudiated, how would it be
enforced? =? The Government could not dis
regard the risk to the British taxpayers.
Under the increasing depression in
trade, hundreds of thousands of hard
workers in England would prob
ably be thrown out of employment
While refusing to assist deserving crofters
in Scotland, and postponing the claims of
English labor, could the Government con-
sistently grant large sums for the benefit of
the Irish peasantry? [Cheers.l
In conclusion, Mr.. Chamberlain said he
Yves not an irreconcilable opponent of Mr.
Gladstones policy. If the land proposals
should be sufficiently modified, he would
be happy to be relieved of the duty of con-
tinuing his present attitude OF opposition
PARNELL's REMARKS.
Parnell said that not having had Mr.
Chamberlain 5 advantage of Cabinet seat,
he was not prepared to express confident
opinion upon the merits and dement's of
the scheme until heh had seen the provisions
of the bill. Mr.. Chamberlain had spoken
in deservedly complimentary terms of
Mr. Davitt, and had expressed a desire
to known the latters opinion of the land
purchase bill. Mr.. Parnell assured Mr..
Chamberlain that Davitt would not act
from motive of personal spite or jealousy
[Parnellite cheersl, but solely out of re
gard for Ireland. To the speaker it
appeared that the appointment of
a Receiver General was unnecessary and
absurd, because, according to the promised
statement the receipts from customs and
excise in Ireland viii amount to within
10000 of the total amount pay,
able by Ireland to the Imperial exchequer.
Would it not be sufficient security if En-
gland took lien upon the revenue coll
letted by Irish authority, in the event
of the customs failing to yield
sum sufficient to meet the Imperial
charges? The appointment of Receiver
General would be most offensive to Ireland,
because it would show a reluctance to trust
Ireland, even for such a small sum as
100000. The object of the Irish members
was not to make the measure a party
question, but, by yielding as much
as possible, SO settle, once for all,
this troublesome, difficult and dangerous
matter. If 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 govern
ment 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 bill, and the second reading was fixed
for May 18th.