Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-02-18
MR.. CHAMBERLAIN's OBJECTIONS

He States Where He Thinks the Home Rule
Bill IL Defective.
In the house Of commons yesterday the de-
bate ON the home rule bill was resumed, Mr..
Chamberlain declaring that it sowed the seeds
Of discomfort and paved the way to demands
that would be certain to be urged when Eng
lands emergency became Ireland's opportunity.
It was recommended as final settlement, yet
it deprived the Irish parliament of all control
of trade and commerce. The speaker reminded
the house that Mr.. Parnell insisted that no
fnality was possible until Ireland had the
power to impose retaliatory duties. He hesi-
tated to think Of what the countrys position
would be in the time Of war
Surprising, Mr.. Chamberlain asked, 18th at
Great Britain should become involved in war
with the United States. which heaven forbid,
for il would be fratricide. Ireland might owe
gratitude to England, but did she not owe
gratitude to the United States? [Unionist
cheers. Suppose Great Britain became involved
in with France or Russia? With eighty
Irish members coming to the imperial parlia-
ment to embarrass and hamper the government
in times of difficulty Ireland would get what she
demanded or seriously cripple Great Britain .
struggle for existence"
Continuing, Mr. Chamberlain declared that
the measures left the imperial parliament
with not a shadow of genuine supremacy.
Surprising the plan of campaign was restarted,
what could the imperial parliament do2. The
Irish executive must refuse to enforce evictions
and must withdraw police protection from land
lords. The imperial parliament could not in
terfere. The supremacy of the imperial par
lament might be reverentially noticed in the
preamble of the bill, but it was the reverence
shown in committing corpse to the earth, for
the principle of supremacy was practically dead.
There was the crown veto. If the veto was used
md rish raTt oA tor he
government, the result would be a deadlock,
ending in breaking the veto to pieces.
The Hon. Edward Blake. nationalist, of South
Longford said that the bill amply secured the su-
premacy Of the imperial parliament. He objected
to the suspension OF the land question for three
years. The Irish parliament he said ought to be
empowered to deal at once with the land prob
lem.
The Right Hon. Leonard 4. Courtney, men,
Der for Bodmin, advanced liberal. but opposed
to home rule, reproached Nr. Gladstone with
stirring international strife through de.usive
attempts to give Ireland separate government
II the home rule bill of 1856 had never been in
troduced lasting harmony would have been in a
fair way to be established, and there would be
a better guarantee of justice to all classes in
Ireland under the imperial than under the Dub
lin parliament.
The Right Hon. George J. Goschen remarked
upon the reluctance of the radicals TO Join in
the debate. He said that natural, as the
whole field of discussion was honeycombed
with pitfalls for unwary supporters Of the gov
eminent Mr.. Goschen severely criticised the
bill. and especially the financial clauses, mainly
on the same lines previous speakers on the
unionist side Amid cheers Mr.. Goschen
quoted Mr.. Morleys words that no power on
earth could prevent the Irish members from
still being arbiters and masters Of English
legislation.
The home rule bill was then read for the first
time and the second reading was fixed for
March Is.
The London Times explains in long article
that its statements interpreted in the house as
If directed against the Irish members were not
intended to charge anybody with corruption,
but were meant merely to illustrate the dam
gerous results of paying members of parlia-
ment, these results had been revealed most
strikingly in the Panama affair.