The Olneyville tribune. (Providence, R.I.) 1893-189?, 1893-09-30
GLADSTONE Is DEFIANT
Deep But Diplomatic Thrust
at the Lords.
PEERS ALWAYS AGAINST PROGRESS
init To ,he House OF Lords, Although
I'm a Giided Chamber"


They Bear nigh-soundiug Titles and SIT
In a Giidcd Chamber"
LONDON, Sep. 2S.-In his speech at
Edinburgh yesterday Mr.. Gladstone re.
ferred To the Irish home rule bill, and
spoks substantially as follows.
"In spite Of all that has been said, the
last session OF the house OF commons will
not have To be recorded as a barren one.
The many days spent on the home rule
bill will not be without a harvest The
fact that the peoples chamber deliberately
and advisedly passed after long and
searching discussion, n bill OF such vast
Importance, is the most significant step In
connection with the whole subject OF the con-
tentment, happiness and peace Of Ireland.
The fact is that the present parliamen tary
institutions are too weak for their purpose.
They overweight and do not meet the de-
mands of the country. In spite OF the
sacrifices OF the house OF commons during
the past session there has been legisla-
tive famine. There Il something wrong
and defective in tho great institutions.
The condition is intolerable and demands
the concentrated attention OF the nation
with the view TO tho removal Of the de
fects. The evil IL immeasurablo. On one
hand il the nation expressing just de-
mands; on the other hand are tho neces.
sary measures To satisfy those demands.
But between the two there is great bar.
rler, namely, the Irish question, which
has taken the energy and mortgaged the
time of parliament generation after genera
tion. Why has this question continued TO
exist SO long, and who In answerablc for
it's remaining before usi There is only one
reply--the responsibility rests with the
house OF lords. Who has the remedy in
dealing with this great evlf'
Mr.. Gladstone then proceeded TO review
the relations that have existed between the
house OF lords and the house OF commons
since the passage OF the Reform bill In
1882.
.Since 1S4l," he said, 'the Legislation
Of the house OF commons has been n per-
petual challenge to the house of lords.
Sometimes tho latter has decl ned To accept
the challenge and has passed the measure
proposed because unless they had done no
there would have been no house Of lords mt
this date"
As instances he cited the repeal OF tho
corn laws In lS40 the repeal OF the soap
duty In 1853 Irish disesta blishment In
1869 and the passage OF the land act In
1870. lie also noticed three cases In which
the house OF lords had taken a different
course. The first Of these was when, In
1881, the lords re jected the bill To reform
the house Of commons. which they re.
garded as a great triumph, as great as they
now regard the rejection OF home rule.
But within six months they were ignomin-
iously compelled TO pass the measure under
threat that unless they did so n sufficient
number OF peers would he created to carry
IL over their heads. The next was ths re
lection OF the bill for the abolition OF the
paper duty, in 1860, which resulted In the
peers losing all influence over the country's
finances. The third was the refusal OF tho
lords TO pass the home rule bill In 1886. |
This measure having been rejected by tho
upper house tue question was discussed In
cessantly until 1892, when the entire coun-
try returned "A majority In It's favor.
"the lords have now reversed. What ara
their pleas for that reversali A majority
OF the lords gave an opinion hostile To tho
bill, majority OF the commons an opinion
In it's favor Yet IL Is hardly case In
which one opinion IL az good as another |
The peers form their opinion for themselves;
they are responsible 70 nobody, and II 10
proves wrong they will neither be ousted
nor be I1ade TO suffer In any way Our
opinion il not solely our own, but was
formed In discussion with the nation and |
was given with all the authority that ma.
tiona' verdict can confer"
After a passing references 10 the intelli- !
gence and Incompatible unity OF the lib |
erals, without which the minority would, |
he said, have broken and destroyed the |
bill without sending 1t TO the house OF
lords, Mr. Gladstone continued: should |
IL ever happen in the vcssitudes Of politi-
cal affairs that the house Of lords, by |
some accident or collateral process, should |
bring about dissolution OF the house OF |
commons, depend upon IT, the people will |
not consider home rule alone, but will mix |
with IL asother question, on which the
lords may bitterly lament, when IL is too
late, that they ever raised an issue"
Dir. Gladstone counseled Deither vio-
lence nor yehemence. IL the worst came,
the worst consolation that could be offered
would be 10 remind them Of recent history |
and Of the vast changes in the past sixty |
years, not one OF which originated in the
house Of lords or was promoted by lords or
the existence Of which on the statute book
was due 70 the impartial opinion Of the
lords. To every one Of these changes the
opinion Of the house Of lords had been adj
verse, although its manifestations might |
have been prudcntly restrained, aud mignt,
perhaps. be prudently restrained again.
"For my part, said Mr. Gladstone, IL
find this retrospect sufficiently encourag-
ing II the nation Is determined it will
not be baiiled by a phalanx Of 300 peers.
We have the will Of the country 70 exc.
cute, and cannot submit to the house Of
lords, although they bear high sounding