The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-25
MANY IRlSHMEN ABSENT.
Gladstone Makes n Speech cd BaIfour's
Bill-TorY Majority Large.


LONDON. May 24.-Discussion of the Irish
local government was resumed today i'll
the commons. Gladstone spoke at great
length. He said
Balfour was in singular position in discuss
ing bill which it was improbable would DO
proceeded with. In 1856 Chamberlain and Lord
Harrington promised Ireland everything short
of an independent parliament. Now all these
promises are dissolved in the present meager
bill, which stamped Ireland with inequality
compared with England and Scotland, and falsi
fed the miserable relics OF the solemn pledges
by which the present majority was obtained by
the government in 1856. Lord Salisbury's re-
cent language distinctly encouraged civil war.
Definite explanations ought to be given whether
the cabinet generally is OF the same opinion as
the premier.
Did the ministers believe that the people of
Ulster woulc rebel against the decision OF par
lament, or that the employment of the powers
of the crown to suppress such a rebellion would
be spch an outrage as would rend society
in two? If Lord Salisbury's language meant
anything, II was plain Indictment OF few
misguided men to resort to violence to esist
the authority of parliament. These conditions
the Irish members had offered to them in the
stinted gilt OF the present bill.
The speaker explained at length the leading
provisions OF the bi l. and said it stamped Ire
land with inequality and inferority by with
holding from her the power and privileges that
obtained in the history OF the country.
Could it be possible to conceive q greater con-
tempt for history and disregard of sound politi-
cal principles? Could the bill be called an
honest effort to satisfy Irish aspirants or a fair
attempt to legislate for Ireland? Rather might
1t be called the refuse OF political legislation
The bill conferred on the Liberals one great
advantage. 1t gave to the people the power to
measure aud determine exact the value of the
splendid conservative promises of absolute
equality with the laws OF Great Britain. Was
ai.ni pasIlr rp n
The stamp OF inequality was the brand OF degra-
dation.
II Ireland was capable of accepting measure
so stamped, she was unworthy of the great men
who had led her in times of adversely; I'M
worthy OF that happy, better destiny he trusted
and believed she was about to accomplish.
[Cheers.l
Balfour responded to Gladstone. He
anaiyzed and explained Lord Saiisbury's
remarks. putting upon them more favor
able Interpretation than that advanced by
Gladstone. Then, coming down to the
matter of the bill, he said
It was substantially the same as the English
and Scotch bill If there a difference it was
due to peculiar conditions prevailing in Ire
land.
The bill was opposed solely because il would
not seye the purnose of Irish agitators. What
the real aim of the home rulers? 1t was
separation.- (Cheers.
The government believed that local govern
ment would be great boon to a population
knowing how TO use it. The government de-
sired TO confer this boon on Ireland. The issues
were clear their side. 1t rested with Glad
stone to maze his clear f"Hear, hear''l The
government had shown that it still earnestly
desired to accomplish what it aimed 20 do. What
Gladstone desired TO do, no human being knew.
The bill passed to a second reading by a
vote of $50 to 2l7, amid great Conservative
cheers. They were delighted at the solid
majority. Only two Gladstonians voted
with the government. The Liberals were
disappointed at the result, blaming it on
the absence of so many Irish members.
Out of twenty-nine Parnellites only six
teen voted. and out of fifty-ive Mccarthy
ties only thirty-eight voted.