The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-08-19

The same body has declared That Great
Britain ought TO adopt the metric system.
The two things are not necessarily related.
New Form of Home Rule Proposed by
the GladstOnians.
Since Mr. BALyot'E promised to bring in
an Irish Local Government bin, which some
OF his own supporters desciib as home
rule In disguise, many Gla,lstonians have
deemed IL necdful tn deiiLe what they ON
their Part mean to ,lo. In what ways do
they purpose TO modify Mr. GLADsToSE's
rejected measure OF June, 1886 No explicit
statement on the subject has as yet come
from Mr.. GLADSTONE himself, beyond the an
nouncemrnt that lbs next scheme Will pro-
vide for the retention OF Irish representa-.
tives at Westminster. The other day. how
ever, the draft OF new bill was published
Ivy ~ subcommittee OF the Home Rule
Union. and as this would not have been
issued without ut least the foreknowledRe
and taciL sanction OF the National Liberal
Committee, it deserves TO be examined with
some care.
IL will he remembered that Mr.. GLAD
STONES bill was unsatisfactory to Irish Ma
tonalists in several particulars, although
under the circumstances they deemed 1t
prudent to accept the measure as whole.
One OF ect ionable feature was the withdrawal
from the Irish legislature of the power to
deal with trade or with land held by cor
porations. Moreover. although the Dublin
legislature was authorized to take over the
Dublin police after two years. and might il
1t chose. establish a general police, the en-
listing constubulary were to remain under
imperial control. This is one Of the provi-
sions which Mr.. PARNELL has recently de-
nounced as entirely inadmissible. In Mr..
GLADsToSE's project moreover. not only all
existing members Of the Judiciary. but all
existing magistrates were to retain their
places, the Irish legislature being only quail
flied to MI vacancies.
In all these points the new bill framed by
the Home Rule Union goes further than did
Mr.. GLADSTONE IN the way OF meeting Ma
tionalist views. 1t gives the Irish leglsla-
ture. which by the way 1t expressly calls a
Parliament" the control OF internal trade
and the power OF endowing secular educa-
ton. 1t also leaves the Irish Parliament at
liberty to deal with the land as 1t pleases,
instead OF reservlng the agrarian question to
the imperial assembly at Westminster. But
it is in the machinery for preserving the
public peace that the most decisive changeis
made. The Irish Parliament may take over
the Dublin Metropolitan Police at once In
stead Of after an Interval Of two years, and
1t is empowered to entirely disband the con-
stabulary In five years. while on fourteen
days notice q corps may be discharged in
any district In which the Dublin executive
can set up an efficient substitute.
Again. although the old members OF the
judiciary are to keep their Offices, all tho
resident magistrates may be dismissed at
the bidding OF the Irish Parliament. We
may add that the arrangements for second
Irish chamber are materially different from
those devised by Mr.. GLADSTONE. There
arc to be no Peers, but the mombers Of tho
upper House. or Senate, are to be elected on
property franchise. The Senate's powers
are by no means coordinate for any Of It's
vetoes can lie overridden by tho lower
House upon the lapse OF q year after gen.
eral election. There is no doubt that the
Home Rule Union bill would have suppressed
the second chamber altogether but for the
apprehension that in the absence OF such
body the imperial Parliament might feel
justified in actively exercising veto on
Irish legislation.
As regards the number Of IRISH members
to be retained at Westminster. no change
In the present quota Is made by the pro-
posed bill. Lord SALISBURY, on the other
hand, has lately expressed a conviction that
the representation OF Ireland should he re-
duced proportionably to her population.
And Mr.. GLADSTONE has several times in
dicated an opinion that fewer than 1903 Irish
members would suffice at Westminster after
tho establishment OF Parliament in
Dublin. The authors Of the new scheme
retain the Irish members In the full
strength fixed by the Act OF Union
with the avowed object Of guaranteeing
Ireland under tho new regime against coer-
Give interference on the part Of the imperial
Parliament. By the retention Of Irish mem
bers ut St. Stephens a change In tho fiscal
provisions OF Mr.. GLADsToNE's bill had been
rendered indispensable. That measure es-
tablished an unvarying Irish tribute to the
imperial exchequer. Since their contribu-
ton could not vary. the Irish members would
obviously have no interest in checking ex-
penditure for imperial purposes. The new
bill accordingly proposes to substitute for
LILO hASu Cu6ISo u AOAtluk I0tlO W 10 eSLdUs
lished every five years by commission.
There Is no doubt that this bill will be in
comparaby more acceptable to Irish Ma
tionalists than was that Of 1885, 1t Is hard
to see how even Mr.. PARNELL, although he
Is now predetermined critic OF Gladstonian
measures. could find fault with it. 1t gives
to tho Irish legislature. as we have seen,
the control OF tho resident magistracy, the
power OF dealing with internal trade and OF
endowing secular education, the control OF
the constabuary and OF the land. Mr.. PAR
NELL is ingenious, and may manage to find
flaws in these concessions, and 1t cannot be
denied that they stop short OF complete ma
tional Independence. But we believe that
such bill as this would DO cordially well
coined by Mr.. JOHN DILLON and great ma
jorty OF the Irish Nationalist party.
We congratulate that distinguished Ken
the Hon HENGY WATTEEsoS. the editor
OF the Courier. IyuyDaL upon tho Inct that tha