Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-06-19

ment. Perhaps when they are returned
to Parliament such Of them as get
there Ilaughterl-they will produce
one or more excellent plans. They
will find US the first and most eager to
hail and welcome them, and We
will promise in the name of our col
lesgues to cast cur own bill to the
winds the moment we are shown bet
ter plan to give effect to our principles,
provided it is not an evasion Of the
subject or artificial machinery devised
to defrand the Irish Of their hope OF
justice. Ministerial candidates must
not be tested by the bill we introduced
in Parliament, because it was the best
we could frame. Doubtless they are
better men than we, and If so they will
frame much better bill or put
us in the way Of doing it; and II
they do this they will not be
more happy than wo-perhaPs not
quite so happy. The Scotsman
says: "Every Ministerialist must be
considered pledged to support the BILL"
lie can hardly be pledged to support
the bill as Ministerialist when the
Ministry itself don't ask or expect it.
We expect him to act in good faith,
knowing the meaning Of his words, and
not usipg others as fcints, screens,
or stratagems to escape from 1t,
but shall, in the meaning Of his
words, give Ireland real and effective
control of local affairs. If be is ready
to do that, be is a good ministerial can
didste. If be pledges himself to do
that, let him speak by the hour or yard
If be likes, to the satisfaction OF Scotch
men, against the vice, defects, weak.
nesses, and follies Of the bill.
What the nation has to decide is not
clause, detail, or method, but policy
and principle. lie who accepts them
is our brother-in-arms. lie who repels
them shirks them and US, and uses I'M
fair means to falsify them, and is an
adversary in the fight whom we must,
without injury to his life, limb, or repu-
tation, endeavor to defeat.
read in London that Scotland was
doubtful or adverse to home-rule. l
answered that ] did not believe it.
(Cbeers.l | hoped for an opportunity
to test it, and ! saw enough in my pro-
eress yesterday to show me that the
heart of Scotland is more deeply and
profoundly touched than Scctland's
will, and that Scotland was never more
earnestly bent on the work Of policy
and Justice than it is to accomplish the
present enterprise. Loud cheers.l
Regarding the Carnsrvon.Parnell in
cident, blame neither. 1t is extreme
ly important to know what happened.
Parnell said that the Earl of Carnar-
Won offered, il the Conservatives were
successful in the elections, to grant the
home-rule measure and to protect Irish
industries. Earl Carnarvon denied the
accuracy Of the statement, but Parnell
adheres to it. | believe that both have
spoken with perfect yeracity, whatever
may be the point of dispute between
them. But Earl Csrnsryon has told US
what he did not say. He said he did
not report the conversation 10 the
Cabinet. Earl Carnarvon explained
his Vows as Lord-Lieutenant and as
Cabinet Minister. Lord Carnaryon
told his colleagues that he favored a
plan that would fully meet the wants
Of Ireland in respect to local self
government, and would, to some
extern, satisfy the national aspl-
rations. Lord Carnarvon may dislike
it. but in substance he is our man, not
theirs, if he is ready to meet the wants
of Ireland for local selfgoyernment
disturbance and cries Of "Turn them
out ~, and also in some degree to
satisfy the national aspirations of Ire
land. There is no room for dispute be-.
tween him and US. The Marquis Of
Harrington and Chamberlain care
fully avoided expressing readiness to
satisfy in some degree the national aspi-
rations Of Ireland. This and no other
is the turning point. These are Lord
Carnaryon's opinions, and this is what
he said: But ! call his attention.
and shall call it repeatedly if neces-
sary-to what be did not say" lie
has not stated what be did say to Par
nell. | shall believe until he contra
diets it that he told Parnell he
favored satisfying the wants Of Ire
land fully with regard to local
selfgovernment, and that no de-
sired to satisfy Ireland's national
aspirations. Why did not the Cabinet
expel this disunionist for his misdeeds
but for the fact that they were sorry to
lose him. | believe Lord Carnar-
von's statement that he never told the
| Cabinet, but | feel sure that he told
Lord Salisbury, because it was his
absolute duty, and because he was
not entitled to make such o state
| ment to Parsell and withhold II
from the Premier, if he did
so. We know that Lord Salisbury
until August knew that his colleague wa
in communication with the great - dis
inteerator and "dismemberer." | dc
not find fault with Lord Salisbury, i
10 entertained a wish in the same direc
ton as Lord CarDaryon--l think Il
very wise Of Lord Salisbury. The sum
nit Of my ambition would ha''
been to support him and Civ
effect to his wise inclinaiions
If Lord Salisbury faltered and CO
quoted with that subject before the
election was over and forty seats Sc
cured, be carefully concealed his Opin'
ion that satisfying the national aspira'
tions of ireland is disin tegration AM
dismemberment. II such is the case
he has a serious responsibility resting
upon him and a difficult account Il
render. The course he then pursued i;
placed in contrast with his conduct now
Referring to Lord Harrington, his
former colleague aud his present friend q
alternative power, Mr.. Gladstone said
Lord Harrington three years ago op
posed all concessions to Ireland in tn
matter Of local government until
| fundamental change and penitentisl re