The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-14


bill Of 1886.
Gladstone, in answer to Sir Edward
Clarke said the land question was reserved
to the imperial parliament for three years.
The members then trooped out into the
lobies. where the speech was informally dis
cussed with great animation. The Glad
stonian Liberals are disposed to regard it
as q conciliatory, well-balanced and peace
making measure, and seemed hopeful
as to q second reading. The anti
Parnellite members, while guarded
in their utterances. favored the
bill as q whole and were especially
we'll pleased with the 6nancia! arrange
ments. concerning which there had been
apprehensions. All that the Tories would
say for the new bill was that it was more
sagacious and better drawn than that of
1886. The Liberal Unionists will not make
even this favorable admission, declaring
everywhere that it would never reach the
committee stage in the house of commons.
In the meantime, in the house Col.
Saunderson was speaking vehemently
against any and every plan of home rule.
Without uttering any distinct threat, he
would say that merely unless the whole
country was blind it could not ignore the
demonstration of the Ulster Unionists of
last summer. On motion of Saunderson
the debate was then adjourned.
The Daily Ne,cs says: The double cham
Der arrangement is infinitely better than
the proposal of 1856. The retention of the
Irish members at Westminster is the most
likely part of the bill to excite keen resist
ance. As a whole the bill is so cautious
and moderate that 1t will probably convert
many moderates.
The Times says: Those whom Gladstone
failed to convince in 1886 will not be con-
verted now by q less powerful and less
persuasive appeal. The case presented
abounded with ingenuities and PLAUSIBLE
ties, yet it produced an impression of pro-
found disappointment. The most indulgent
will fail to discern the faintest sign of
finality in the scheme and his omission
to any reference on the land question until
questioned ON the subject indicated
plainly how he has artfully restricted his
view. The proposed upper council is an
exceedingly doubtful protection for the
minority. The Times denounces the re-
tention of the Irish members at West
minister.
The Daily Chronicle says: The reten-
ton of Irish members at Westminster is.
according to our judgment. one of the i'm
portant features that makes the home rule
bill acceptable to both England and Ire
land.
The Daily Telegraph speaks of the sight
of Gladstone delivering his speech as a
spectacle to which the world cannot sup
ply parallel. It was marvellous as q
physical and intellectual tour de force.
1t is not craftsmanship, nor does it bear
the remotest resemblance to anything de-
serving the name"
The Standard says: The measure is inn
practicable and impossible. If passed it
would never work. The details are open
to stronger objections than those of the
bill of 1886.
The Morning Post says: The measure is
more futile and fantastic than any before
submittee to any civilized assembly.
A dispatch from Dublin quotes the Free
mans Journal as follows: While open to
improvement, the bill is altogether good,
water-tight measure.
The Irish Times says: Seven years have
failed to teach Gladstone to respect the
rights of the Irish minority. Ulster says
simply that it will not have it.
The Parnellites express a hesitant ap-
proval of the bill, though they are dissat-
istied with the proposed to retain the land
under English jurisdiction for three years.