The San Francisco call., 1898-04-05

Monday night, when the Irish local reading in the House of Commons. Contrary to what might have been ex- pected, neither in the House itself nor in the Hobbies outside was there any sign of overweening interest in the event No crowd of visitors was wait ing to get seats in the galleries, and the members own seats were nearly half deserted. As I contrasted this apparent want of interest in the matter of essen tially vital importance with the scenes witnessed in the same place in those memorable days in 1886 and 1893 on which MT. Gladstone introduced his Home Rule bills, could not help say ing to myself, What a change!" Then members came to the House to make sure of their seats, at o'clock in the morning, breakfasted and dined there, and never left until MT. Gladstone had spoken, while of visitors there was a crowd not one-quarter of which ever had chance of getting beyond the outer lobby The change of course, Is to be accounted for largely by the fact that the reform now proposed in the government of Ireland is smaller one, though in it's scope not less far-reach- ing than the measure of MT. Gladstone. But there was another reason, also, for the apparent indifference which marked the appearance of the House of Commons on Monday night. It is that every one knew that there was to be no fight
 MT. Gerald Balfour, the Minister in charge of the bill. knew this fact per fectly we'll. and showed that he did by making no introductory speech. He moved the second reading by lifting his hat, which he wore on this occasion for the special purpose of dscharging that function in that precise way. The de- bate which succeeded, nevertheless. though comparatively lifeless, brought out several of the leaders of parties and developed some interesting views.
 MT. Dillon and Mir. Davitt spoke for the larger section of the anti-Parnell- ties; MT. T. M. Healy for the smaller; MT John Redmond for the Parnellite party; Colonel Saunderson and MT. Rentoul for the Irish Unionists; MT. John Morley for the British Liberals and MT. Balfour wound up the debate on behalf of the Government. I need iioI eiOubic ny TedQeTS WilH ally eA- planation of the line taken by each of these speakers beyond saying that MT. Dillon and MT. Davitt were hostile to a great many parts of the bill, though they would not vote against it; that MT. Redmond and Mir Healy were generally favorable to it; that Colonel Saunderson accepted it unwillingly and MT. Rentoul gladly; that MT. Morley was evidently suffering from chagrin at the success of the Unionist Govern ment in formulating a measure of Irish reform, and that MT. Balfour pretty plainly indicated that he would not yield to the demands of the Irish mi nority for the mutilation and desl-uc- tion of the bill. But one or two pas sages of the debate were interesting from one point of view or another, and will bear a brief notice here.
 The first bit of liveliness was intro duced into the debate by MT. Redmond, whose speech, apparently worked up MT. Davitt into something like a fit of temper. The member for Waterford, who Is one of the best speakers in the House of Commons and is always well listened to, ventured anil perfect stiffness to allude to MT. Dillon's habit Of speaking aratnst bill and then voting for it." He went on apropos of the proposed pecuniary relief to the Irish landlords as the nrice of thei- rr- ceptance of the bill. to declare that,