The Irish standard., 1906-03-31


tho British House Of Commons b
Chief Secretary for Ireland Prof. Jane
Bryce, in answer to the anti-Home
Rule amendment Of tho Orange Col.
Saunderson, was 4 bold and manly as
| sertion and defence of the principle of
National self government for Ireland,
will be seen by his words reported as
follows:
Those who had spoken had largely
lost sight Of the amendment, the state.
ment i'll which was absolutely untrue.
He did not believe that there was any
body in ireland who viewed with alarm
the statement In the speech from the
throne that proposals were under con-
sidcration for cffecting changes III the
government Of Ireland. He should have
thought everybody on both sides OF the
House agreed that changes were need
cd in the government Of Ireland. IIc
would try to prove that statement.
There was, however. another part OF
the amendment with which he entirely
disagreed, and with which he thought
those who were in ireland also dis
agreed. namely. the statement that
members viewed with alarm the state
ment In the speech. He believed the
| number was small and Il diminishing
| number He believed it was num-
bcr which dwindlcd every year. When
he compared that statement with the
condition Of ireland in 1886 he was
| surprised ut the magnitude and pro-
fundity Of tho change.
What were the arguments which had
been used? They were that there was
no need Of change. He would ask the
House to say whether any one could
deny the need of change. even his
friend (Col. Saunderson). John Cor
don had made lively and humorous
! speech. He always liked that speech;
he had heard 1t for q great many years,
and 1t was Il great many years since
he first heard It. He liked It better
than ever on this occasion because the
gentleman had given him nothing to
answer.
IIc did not advance any arguments
in support Of the amendment. He be-
gan by saying that he was very much
surprised that there was no mention
Of Home Rule in tho Kings speech.
and then began to suspect from the
speech Of the member for Waterford
that Home Rule was intended, and the
last part of his speech contradicted
the first absolutely. And when the
sccondcr came to address the House he
added very little to what the mover
had said, and he could gather hardly
anything from his arguments. He
said the last thing the people thought
Of at the time OF the election was
Home Rule. The member must have
paid very little attention to what had
been said by gentlemen opposite.
On every platform statements were
made which were repeated by the
Tory newspapers, among them the
London Times, and 1t was said that
Home Rule was distinctly before the
country. 1t was little too late to
try to draw back from the issue which
the Conservative Party had cndeayored
to place before the country as being
a vital issue. Certainly the speech
from the throne contained nothing
which was not said over and over
again by the Prime Minister and by
nearly every prominent member Of the
Liberal Party during the last election.
But. continued Mr.. Bryce. the name
Of Home Rule has no terrors for me
ministerial cheers). was u Home
Ruler before 1886 Nationalist cheers),
and l have never departed. in the
smallest particular, from any prin-
cfples under which we Of the Liberal
Party fought when Mr.. Gladstone led
us in 1886 and 1892. I am asked to
say what the changes proposed are
The speech says they are Under con-
sideration." How can 1t be possible
while We are considering the changes
for us to state exactly the point al
which We have arrived before ~ hay.