New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-30
BATHING OVER HOME RULE.
EFFORTS OF THE OPPOSITION TO STAVE
OFF PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTION.
OBSTRUCTIVE MOTIONS VOTED DOWN - THE
HOUSE IN SESSION UNTIL A. NJ
MR.. GLADSTONE EXPLAINS THE
NECESSITY FOR THE GOVERN
MENT RESOLUTION.

MENr RESOLUTION
London, June 30.-At 3 80 o'clock this morn
ing Charles Conybeare. Radical member for North
west Cornwall, in the House OF Commons. moved
the closure on the Government resolution for en-
pediting the progress of the Home Rule bill. de-
bate on which resolution had been proceeding for
MANY hours The Speaker refused fatly to put
the question. and the debate on the original
resolution was resumed
After some further discussion. MIR. Balfour
agreed to conclude the Offering OF amendments
at o'clock to-day, and Sir william liaicpur'
consented TO adjourn the House. Ihe members
rose a few minutes after O'Clock.
London. June 20.-In the Iiouse Of Commons
to-day Mr.. Gladstone moved thc adoption of On"
resolution -he terms Of which We're read in the
House Yesterday providing for th" quicker pn-sa q
NJ the Irish Government act 1.-THE Home l1ne
bill In speaking 10 his motion. Mr. Gladstone
| said that the Government would not feel lns'iieu
| in sanctioning any intermission In the business
of the House by proroeuing or adjonrnins rdr-
lament until the Home Rule bill WAS p"tsc''
| and supply voted. The resolution was absolutely
| necessary. 1t as considerate as ne couin
possibly contrivc Without resorting to some
method of closure il would take more than twclv"
months TO pas. the bill in Committee Of the
Whole. The character Of the amendments was
|
stroy the bill The Government had other i'm
nortant measures which he hoped the House
would nave time to deal with
| Mr. Ralfour the leader Of the Opposition IN
| the House, here asked: How can proposals
| curtailing the liberty Of discussion OF th" HON"
| Rule bill be necessity when the Prlm" Minister
| in the same breath states that there is plenty Of
time to settle other questions p
Continuing. Mr. Balfour said il party eN-
pediency and not parliamentary nccessty that
| inspired the resolution. Nothing less than the
whole energies of Parliament during th" whole
session was adequate to the Home Ruie Dill
The Government wished to evade discussion OF
q now constitution affecting tho United King
dom. Mr. Balfour denied that there was paral-
lei between the closure resolutions of the Con-
| servatives in 1887 anG the present resolutions
| The Crimes bill Of ss7 was urgent, while tn"
! Home Rule bill is not He defended the amend
| ment. 10 the bill, SAYING that, though they "ere
numerous. none Of them were obstructive Never
had debates conducted in Committee OF the Whole
more regard for the rules of the House, nor nal
amendments offered more relevancy TO the SUD
| iect matter of the bill they were proposed 10
improve.
r. w. Russell, champion of the men Of Ulster,
| moved the rejection Of the resolution.
Joseph Chamberlain, leader of the Liberal
| ITnionists. spoke at length against the "oVorh'
ment's plan for curtalling the debate IN the com
| mittee stage. In 1887, he said, the Loefais h""
resisted the Governments closure proposals as
| cutting the roots of parliamentary INSTITUTIONS
Had the gentlemen leading the Liberal party
forrotten the indignation and alarm to which they
tbon rave uttcrance9 II not, how could they
iustify themselves in adopting much harsher
| mctbod than that used by the Government IN
1887? Where could they find an excuse Tor
| shutting of debate on such a momentous measure
as the Home Rule bill, which impcrillcd the HE
Of the country which abolished the treaty or union
| that had existed between Great Britain ana Ire
land for ninety years? The object of the resoln-
tion was virtually to gag the chief contracting
| .rt, to the union Nothing more mOnstrous
had ever been proposed in the House
Sir Edward Clark, Conservative member Tor
Plymouth, denounced the Government for not
| noticino the arguments of Unionsts This silence,
he said, was such a piece OF Parliamentary as
| courtesy as had not before been recorded. III was
the evidence of political cowardice ,
Mr.. Chaplin, president OF the Board Of Asrlcul-
| ture uudcr the last Salisbury Administration
| criticised the Ministers hardly less sharply ior
,hcir refusal TO debate the resolution, and eventu-
aJly moved that, as protest against tue cohduc'
| nj the Ministry, adjournment De taken. -
Sir William Harcourt replied briefly to thc OP-
rosition speakers TIE Prime Minister. he said,
had fully explained the onecf o. fns or im
| reducing it, The arguments given IN his speech
had rendered superfuous any further discussion
on the part of the Government .,
| MI, 10 nf X0s 70 210 Mr.. Russells motion 20
onend do'p practically SO to reject. wa defeated
pS1nn nontinuing the debate tho original resolI-
III Jonsa Ceilings. Liberal Unionist, member for
i"' ,ha Rordcelcy Division of Birmingham. declared
that that in sitting amendments the Government might
ao another gigantic like the one that rem
d uo occssary the revision Of the financial clauses
of the Home Rnlc bill lie accused the Govern
mcnt M Of intending TO evade altogether the dis
nmssion OF the land question ,, ,
cu1scyd 1Ecydinand de Hothskhild, Liberal Unionist,
member for the Ayesbury Division Of B4ckn;-
hamshire, moved that the House tnon , pr,Sc
Mn;stcrs SHay %ss Example and go bed These words
were greeted with cries Of shame; ron p,h"' 1,c
Liberals and the Speaker rep'o''u MI "c '"'''''
child. ,,.. .o,,inded the Uousa that
every hour wasted in such futnc olscussion sho''-