New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-09-08
ROSEBERY FOR HOME RULE.
HIS SPEECH TO THE LORDS.
THE UPPER HOUSE A CHAMBER OF DEATH,
HE SAYS


HE SAYS
BISHOPS AND rrEREssEs IN TIE GALLEMEs
AND uNIoNIsT LEADERS on THE FLOOR
LISTEN TO FoRcIBLE AND SARCASTIC
ATTACHMENT OF THE cONsERvA
TIVE POLICY TOWARD IRELAND
-THE FOREIGN sEcRE-
TARY ARoUsEs EN-
THUsIAsM AND
LAUGHTER.
London, Sept THE House of Lords was
S,owded this evening with people eager to near
The Fail of Roscberv, Secretary OF state ior
Foreign AfaiIs. speak on the Home kule Dill
The scene was a brilliant one Many bishops ana
neeresses were present. In the diplomatic gallery
cat several foreign Ambassadors, among them oe-
ING Henry White Secretary Of the American I'm
hassy. The space in front Of the throne reserved
,tor Privy Councillors WAS occupied 10y Arthur
II Ralfcur Joseph Chamhetlain and other proml-
nent members OF the Honsc of Commons.
The first speaker the Ear! Of Selborne
i,iberal rniorist, who made bitter attack upon
the bill. lie said he saw dragons teeth sown
IN every clause. The bill was certain TO produce
strife. Inc fIoNtIHincHt idt O'l''"'''NN =" w.
worst Irish faction, reckless of what happened if
a. retained Office through the IIish vote
Io,J Ro,,h,1v followed Lord Selborre He
sad that the arguments in which phrases about
,~canituIatior" and rash and uncertain expert
m,,ta had bccn used by opponents OF Home
spnle were exactly the sort that had been appiied
ecainst every great reform of the present centuiy
Tho same arguments had been used against tue
,ra.bolic Fma pcpation bill, the first Reform Dill
and the bill for the repeal OF the Torn laws.
Members OF the Opposition had said tha' .he
present bill cnght TO he carefully cons,deieo' oe-
cause il was legislation, lot for to-day, nut io'
~ rro.rtsip to-mo,row II could he said for tie
Inner House that il was not even legislation for
tomorrow, but was legislation for tins day SIN
months Laughtero
MORE OF 4 MORGUE THAN DlssECTlNV'kooM'
The House of Lords having decided before the
debate opened 10 reject the Home Rule bill, could
not be called dissecting so justly as IL couiu
te called chamber of death. The debate, there-
fore. was unreal and academic There was no
equal division of the parties in the House oi
Lords 1t was one party only, with sllght per
centage Of another. Regarding the minority he
could not hope that Sydney Smiths couplet de-
scribine salad should apply;
Let onion atoms lurk within the bowl.
And scarce suspected. animate the whoie
The Farrs witty sally was received with much
laughter Continuing, he said that the speeches
Of the Opposition had largely been mere denuncia-
tion of action The question before them was
one of policy. The decision of the Liberals on the
question was clear and determined, while the
policy Of the Opposition was IN the TOMB oil 'he
future He was perfectly certain that II the
IJniopsts had frankly accepted the principle OF
To-. ha1 one
good faith to proceed on that line, with the view
of applying the principle in manner conscnant
with the safety and integrity of the Empire, the
Liberals would have held out both hands to well
come the Unionst proposals. But the actions of
the Cnionists in the House of Commons had been
irreeoncilable. They reminded him Of a Spanish
bullfght, where the tcreadors picadors and mat
sdor were called in succcssively in prolonged
fight. until the bull was killed Lord Salisbury
was the matador, striking the final blow. laugh
ter The House of Commons had fingered over
the Home Rule bill with solictude. The House
of Lords gave the bill short shrft. The bill was
treated in the House of Lords an old recipe for
cooking pike: Fill the pike with everything
rich and rare then throw il out of the window
Rs useless"
THE PEERS HEAVY RESPONSIBILITY.
This summary disposal of great measure en-
tailed dpon tie liorse of Lords tremendous re-
sponsibilfy What means had they taken 10
fortify themselves for the contest In which tncy
were preparing TO engage? There were ll5 lrlsh
Peers sitting in the House of Lords, and he wanted
TO know-for i; was an important factor IN hghV-
ing fve-sxths Of the popular representatives OF
Ireland-bow many Of those Peers in any sense
whatever represented any part of Ireland except
Ulster. Did the House Of Lords mean to .lsht
Al .,,. of only one
ANAL class Irish shouts of Hear" Hear -
II they wished TO settle the question az all
settlement might be obtained oy both parties
egroei,s To meet in conference and, after IN ade-
uuatc discussion, decide the terms on which Ire
land might govern herself D,,.o n,
In 1886 Lord HARRINGTON NOV me la Dr1, ,hot o
Home Rule mainly question OF decree, anu
thew had succinctly and definitely laid down the
limitations they were prepared to grant, III MIre
they of the same opinion now? IL 50, the DUKE
Of Devonshire had been aingularly lll-adviscd IN
moving the rejection of the present Dill. lie
might have allowed the second reaulhg W pa ,ao
sub sientio. and then got the bill In commlt'ee
manipulated il to his liking, and. amended re-
turned it TO the House Of Commons, where, though
the amendments might be stou,Iy resisted a a,e suu
ie5 to some agreement Even if this course could
have had no fruitful result, it was clear ana
patriotic line Of action lor the house oi Lor"s u
take.
He was no enthusiast for Home Rule. lie
supported il simply the best Of the thfee
courses open TO the 0ppositon-to ADOPT moa'ieu
Home Rule. to continue the policy OF COERCION
or to disfranchise Ireland. If coercion were 10
he continued the future of Ireland would pe
Heplorable. Secret societies would again ne
formed, and the reign of assassination w"uld We
renewed Coercion was valuable instrument
but it demanded continuity. which II never co"''
obtain The disfranchisement OF Ireland wa' ,n an
impossible course. Home hule' 'h'ici'''' W."
the only alternative. E, H.. A.
In concluding, Lord RQsebery said that tne
present bill was undoubtedly an experiment ,h ou.
legislation was necessarily So H. was = large ana
generous experiment IL was not a leap in the