Morning journal and courier., 1893-09-09
l NEWS BY TELEGRAPH. From All Quarters. DEFEAT FOR HOME RULE. The Bill Was Rejected in the
 House of Lords. 0vtRWaELMIsG VOTE AGAIAsr IT. Crowds About the House
 of Parliament. usur annrnr Fnr nrnuarn nsYPM
WILL ACCEPT TIE REDUCED RATES.
Mill Operatives Will Not
 go on Strike.
DEFEAT FOR HOME RULE

Speeches Were Made For and | Against the Measure in the House of Lords and When a Vote Was Taken the Bill Was Defeated by an Overwhelming Majority-Cele- bratfon Held by Those Opposed to the Bill-Crowds Gathered About the House of Parliament and Were Dispersed by the Police, Who Feared That There Would be Riot.
 LONDON, Sept. 8.-In the house of lords to night Baron Halsbury, Baron Hershell, Baron Monkewell and the Bishop of Ripon spoke on the home rule bill to half empty benches. After 9 o'clock the scene liv- ensd up as members and visitors began streaming in. The galleries showed few vacant seats. All the notable church dig nitaries were present. Members of the house of commons crowded the accesses and standing room around the throne The lobbies were crowded Outside of the parliament houses bands of conserva- tive workingmen gathered to incite jabi- lant demonstration on the expected rejec- tior of the home rule bill. Detachments fro m radical workingmens' clubs and Irish societies also appesred on the scsne. As brawl was feared, the police broke up the different groups and kept them nov
 ing;
 acme of dullness in the early moments
 bury rose to speak at 10:30, amid raptur- ous cheers. He said throughout the debate
 one question constantly present in his mind
 was: Why the government introduced such
 bill. On this point the house had re-
 ceived no en:ightment In dealing with the Irish members at Westminster which
 was an outrage on England 80 enormous
 and 50 grotesque that it was a surprise that
 it had ever found 8 place in a proposal
 emanating from a responsible gov
 ernment-the lord chancellor, Lord
 Heechell, had declared that he
 was not inclined to associate himself
 with so desperate clause, but would pre-
 fer some other arrangement. Then, in
 dealing with the abandonment of landlords,
 the lord chanc .llor had admitted that their
 fate would be terrible but esid they had
 brought it on themselves. Finally the
 lord chancellor had protested with vigor
 against anybody desiring to know the
 real opinion of any cabinet member upon
 cabinet bill. The secretary of foreign
 affairs (Lord Roseberry) in bis speech also
 had avoided the burning subjects underly
 ing the governments policy. Much had
 been said of the benefits of autonomous
 go, ernment; but had there been for a century statesman bold enough to pro- pose that sn autonomous colony should send eighty members to the imperial par lament representing no interest in Engl-nd and bound by no responsibility with respect to the possible application of
 laws that parliament passed9 The absurd ity of such position was such to send 8
 bedlsm. They should get rid of such
 questions in the presence of eighty mem
 bers, asking to make themselves market. able wares in negotiations with the minis ters. Would these men, sent by Bishop Walsh, be quiet on questions of religion and educationa
 What appeared to shine vieibly through all arguments was that home rule was policy of despair. The liberals had how to succeed, but we will try something nobody has tried before"
 Whys What moral or political right had any government to embark on any experi- mental policy in Ireland, divided to her base by party conflicts which during seven centuries English rule had rather increased than diminisheds Republican govern ment never fourished on soil where humanity was wanting. This policy would be more than madness in dealing with a race that for centuries had [ hated England. Mecaulay. when he sat \ with the liberals, and Gladstone when be sat with the conservatives Qaughter) had ! said that they wsuld regard the repeal of ! the union as fatal to the empire, and would | never consent to it. If England had ! told their lordships that she wsuted | their horror, the case might have been different; but as long as England was true ! to herself she would never allow this | atrocious, this mean, this treacheous revo- lution. Their lordships would be untrue to the duty devolved upon them from a splendid ancestry and untrue to their
 highest traditions. If they failed to reject the bill. Loud oheers).
 Lord Salisbury epoke for an hour and a quarter. His conclusion was marked by quiet eloquence.
 The Earl of Kimberly, lord president of
 the council and secretary of state for India,
 briefly replied to Lord Salisbury
 The lord chancellor then put the motion for the second reading of the home rule
 bill. The house divided at midnight and
 the result was the rejection of the motion
 by vote of 419 to Al.
 All the bishops went with the majority.
 The annouuceme ns of the result was re-
 ceived with laughter and some cheering
 The house then adjourned. At midnight
 unionist demonstration was held outside
 the building.
 fate of the home rule bill the Daily Chroni- ! cle says: "The abolition If the house of
 lords nov becomes plan of radical plat
 form. Down with the house of lords. Ii is useless minoing words"