St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-08-09
and an inquiry into the cases of Irish

offenses against the crown. They further
desired that the term of Imprisonment
of prisoners be shortened. John Red
imond said he would support Mr. Asquith
because he considered it the. duty of
every Irish member to assist in ousting
the present government. regardless of
the question whether they were likely
to fare better at the hands of its sue
cessor. He could not consent in any
way to MIR. Labouchere's suggestion to
give the Newcastle programme prece-
dence over the home rule question. 1t
might be possible to deal with
Certain English Reforms
concurrently with home rule, but he
would not consent to any policy placing
home rule in the second rank. He
sible for the suggested delay of the
home rule question, but he desired to
remind the Liberals that nothing had
been heard of this delay during the
six years the IIish had co-operated with
the Liberals. and assisted them to win
in bye elections. He could not support
any measure looking to re-distribu-
ton of political power impairing in the
slightest degree the influence of
Ireland. He hoped that they would
not have to wait until Feb
ruary for the provisions of Mr.. Glad
stones bill. 1t was useless for the Lib
, They were gong 10 be placed in power
by Irish votes, and they must
fulfill its pledges. In conclusion,
he suggested that the autumn ses-
sion of parliament should deal
with the evicted tenants and the
Irish political prisoners measures.
The speech excited much laughter and
cheering from the Conservatives. Mr..
Goscheu, in concluding his speech, de-
MED that home rule was the paramount
question which had been submitted to
the country in
The Recent Campaign
and declared that it had occupied in
large number of electoral addresses
very subordinate place. Cries of Hear,
hear."] The Irish members seemed to
think that they had nothing to do but
evict the present ministers in order to
get home rule: Cheers from the
Irish memhers.] Did the mover
in reply to the speech from the throne
know the policy of his party regarding
the same rule? Beyond the leader of
the opposition and some few of his fol-
lowers. nobody knew the exact nature
of the measure. Lord Salisbury ad-
mitted that the speech WAS like
sealed envelope put into
the hands OF preacher going
into the pulpit and when opened found
to contain nothing. The government
had no measures to present to parlia-
disposed 10 abandon the speech alto
gether. He found. owing to
the conservatism of the opposition.
that that could only be done
by general consent. They had now ar
rived at stage where the house of
commons was exercising a prerogative
peculiarly its own of selecting men
whose measures would come afterwards.
Laughterl. When these measures were
adopted by the house of commons, then
The House ofPcers
would share with the other house the
responsibility for their measures.
When those measures are presented to
them. there will be no difficulty in
criticsing them. Perhaps. then, the
Liberal lords would abandon their
present conspiracy to silence. Then
also the peers would perform their
duty with that wisdom of decision
upon which the house established its
right and reputation in days past. [Cries
of "hear. hear" TO the duty thus cast
upon them they would have to pay re-
gard to mandate on that question, as
it had not been before the country. 1he
country was against the principle of
home rule. The majority of Great
Britain stood against the Irish
majority in demanding the repeal of
sthe bill [Cries of NOT, so if home rule
was passed it would be by the Irish
majority coercing the British majority.
Cheers. If the Unionlsts were de-
feated 10y the Irish vote, it would not be
the final trial. Defeat would not mean
the dispersion of the Unionist forces.
The Unionists would still remain ram
pant, against which the forces OF rapine
and disorder would throw themselves
in vain. Cheers.