Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1886-04-17

immediate increase of taxation, not t
} secure a union OF the Kingdom. but t
purchase separation. Mr.. Chamber.ai
then went on to say that the land propo
sails, although they had been modified sine
ne LETT the Cabinet, would still impose
great burden on Great Britain withou
eumcient security for the loans advanced
The bill was calculated, not % much t,
benefit tenants, as q sop for the landlords
Although only f5O, O,OOO, 900 was to b
issued, the option to sell was Offered
TO land owners holding land valued
a. 415O,OOO, 900. Supposing that tn,
fuu number of options to sci
should be accepted, how would al
MONEY BE PROVIDED?
de opposed the bill ON principe because i,
especially protected landlords. II the Iriah
Parliament was to be entrusted with the
protection OF the commercial classes and
the maintenance Of social order, why could
IL IL not be trusted to protect landlords?
Ihe Government was thrusting on Ireland
burden which no Irish member could de-
clare to be . fair price to give for the land.
lortts' rights. (Cheere.) The irish ue,,nle
would regard the bargain az one imnosed
ny foreign country and would be justified
IN taking the first opportunity to repudiate
II. II the bargain should be repudiated,
how would it be enforced? The
Government could not disregard the risk
10 British Taxpayers. Under increasing
depression in trade hundreds OF thousands
OF hard workers in Eng g:and would probably
be thrown out of en- p!oyment. While refus-
ing to assist deserving Crofters in Scotland.
and postponing the claims of the English
iaborer, how could the government consis.
tently grant large sums f,r the benefit of
Irish peasantry? (Cheers.l In conclusion,
Mr. chamberlain said he was not an ire
c0ncilable opponent of Mr.. Gladstone's
policy. II the land proposals. should be
sufficiently modified he would be happy to
be relieved OF the duty of continuing his
present attitude Of opposition.
PARNELL's CONSERVATIVE SPEECH.
Mr.. Parnell said that not ha wing had
Mr. Chamberlain's advantage Of a Cabinet
seat, he was not prepared to express a
confident opinion upon the merits and de-
merits OF the scheme until he had seen the |
provisions of the bill. Mr.. Chamberlain had |
spoken in deservedly complimentary terms
OF Mr.. Davitt and had expressed Il desire |
to know tho latter's opinion OF the land
purchase bill. Mr.. Parnell assured |
Mr.. Chamberlain that Mr.. Davitt /
would not act from motive of |
personal spite OF jealously, [Parnellite
cheers but solely out OF regard for
lieIaho. 10 the speaker 1t appeared 9bat
the appointment Of Receiver General was
and absurd hecause. according
20 the promised statements, the receipts
rom customs and excise duties in Ireland
will amount to within f2O, 900 of the total
lmount payable by Ireland to the Impe.
ial Exchequer. Would it not be sufficient
ecurity If England had lien upon the
axes collected by Irish authority, in the
v Mt OF the customs failing to yield a sum
uf1icient to meet |.
THE IMPERIAL CHARGES. |!
This appointment OF q Receiver General
'ould be most off nsive to Ireland, because
would show q reluctance to trust Irish
len, even for such small sum as ego, 1000. ,
he object of the Irish members was not to I
lake the measure party question, but +
y yielding rs much as possible to settle,
nee for all, this troublesome, difficult and {
aDgerous matter. II Irish landlords threw
ut the measure he hoped the oifer to a
'sist them with English credit would not +
} renewed. but that the till for the govern. e
ent OF Ireland would be pressed forward
? itself.
Mr.. Morley announced that the bill would
in the members hands ON Monday. Il
ermission was given to introduce the bill v
III second reading was fxed for May 13.