The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-05-11
HOME RULE FOB IRELAND.
Mr.. GLADSTONE DEFINES HIS
PERSONAL POSITION.
The PremleI's Great Speech on the
Second GeadiHg Of His Bill
in the Commons.
A BOLD DECLARATION OF HIS
VIEWS AND PRINCIPLES.
The Measure for the Sole Purpose
of Giving Peace aud Content
ment 10 ireland.

LONDON, May l0.-At the hour for
the oLeniug Of the session the House
Of Commons was crowded in every
part. The Prince of Wales, Prince
Christian, Mr.. Phelps, the United
States Minister, and M. Floquette,
President Of the French Chamber OF
Deputies, we're among the distin-
guished visitors in the galleries.
When Mr. Gladstone aIoss he was
received with loud cheere. On quiet
being restored the Premier moved the
second reading Of the home rule bill.
he said he did not intend at present
to ask the House to continue the de-
bate on the bill from day to day.
MR.. GLADsTONE's sPEECH.
Mr.. Gladstone's voice at the outset
Of his speech in advocscy Of his mo-
tion was indistinct, hoaIse and feeble,
but 1t cleared as he proc eeded. He
said be desired at the op sniDg to make
a statement of his personal position,
which he had entirely refi aimed ON
making when he introduced the bill.
He had never at any period desired
home rule in Ireland as incompatible
with imperial unity. Tories Of "Oh I!
OH" THAT was itexictly." Cheers. !
The 1nti addiction bad come from some
members who visited Midlothian,
making speeches stuffed full OF totally
untrue and worthless statements
ICheers. In 1871 he expires ed the
great satisfactson with which he had
heard the statements of the support.
ers OF home rule, as the statement 1
contemplated nothing leading to a
severance of the Empire. Parpellits
cheers. Two questions always pre-
sented themselves to his mind regard
ing the bone rule. Firstly, it must
show that it was desired by the great
mass Of the people OF ireland. That
condition had never been absolutely
and unequivocally presented until the
passiDg of the representation CT the
people act [cheers]; secordly, was
home rule compatible with the unity
OF the empireP That question had
been answered by Mr.. Parnell, who
had declared that what he sought un-
der the name OF home rule was simply
THE AUT ToNoMY OF IRELAND.
The speaker had Teen charged with
experimenting in politics without
grave cause. Here they had the
gravest OF cause, for they were dealing
with q people and country whose
radical Rympathies we're against law,
especially criminal law. which had
never obtained the confidence or the
obeyance of the Irish people. Alter
nativo cDercive and reform measures
had been tried. Ttev had equally
failed to conciliate. The medicine OF
coercion especially had been the med
icine continually applied in increasing
dcses aud with diminishing results.
1 dPsrnellite cheers Here the.speaker
reviewed the hhtory of the past
in an eudeavor to prove that
only a thorough measure which
would be sat BfactoIy to Ireland was
now feasible. AS regards the auto
nomy Of Ireland being q menace to
the unity Of the Empire, he reminded
the House that the Fame argument
was employed sgainst Canadian in
dependence. When it was decided to
concede home rule to Canada, Canada
wss in the precise temper attributed to
Ireland to-day. Canada did not get
home rule because she was loyal and
friendly. She was now loyal and
friendly because she got home rule.
Irish cheers. He (Gladstone) sat in
Parliament during
THE WHOLE CANADIAN C)NTRovERsY,
taking es q young man an sctive part
in the discussion. What WIS the ma
ture of the Canadian debate? The
Case OF Canada was not pars llel ID the
case of Ireland Opposition cheers]-
not in every psrlicnlar-so the bill
offered to Ireland is diff rent in i'm
portaut details from the acts which
disposed of the case OF CDada. But,
although net parallel, their poeit ns
are analogous. What was the
issue in the case Of C.nsda? Govern
ment from Downingsheet. These few
words embrace the whole controversy,
government from Downing street
meahing, Of course, government from
Westminster. ["Hear! Hear! ~ What
was the cry of those who resislei au-
tonomy in CansdAP 1t was the cry
which has slept long ime, acquiring
viPor fiom sleeping. 1t was the cry
that the unitYof The empire would be
endangered. In his opinion I the
relations of Canada and England
then, there was very great danger to
THE UNITY OF THE EMPIRE,
but it was the remedy for the mis-
chief, not the mischief itself, which
was regarded as dangerous. [Irish
cheers In this respect the cases OF
ireland and Canada are precisely par.
allel. There is danger to the unity of
the empire in our present relations
with Ireland. But the opponents of
the bill have applied the cry of danger
to the remedy instead Of to the exist
ing mischief. Cheers In those
days the people of Canada were
habitually denounced in the
house ss rebels. Prolonged gov
ernment and Parnellite cheers.
Some CT thcss so-called rebels were
Protes'sn of English and Scotch
birth. but the majority were Catholics
of French extraction. Was the CRY
against them raised because they were
French extraction Catholics? No, sir,
The English in Upper Canada did ex-
actly the same thing. Both rebelled.
He (Gladstone) remembered 0'Con-
nell, in the course of the debate
on Canada, in referring to the
French Cansdian leader, Pepineau,
saying: "rhis case is Just the case Of
ireland, with this difference-the
Canadian agitator has 90 at the end
of his name instead of at the begin
ming" Laughter. The Canadian
rebels were suppressed, but at the
moment of military victory the polti-
cal difficulty btgsD, and the vietors
were the vanquished. II we were the
military Victois the Canadians were
VICTORIOUS IN THE FIELD OF REASON.
Here Mr.. Gladstone referred TO the
significant expression Of opinion that
had come across the Atlantic, approv-
inc tha vitel nrincinlpR in the hill