New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-31
HOME RULE REJECTED
BY HOUSE OF LORDS
Majority Of 378 in 1893 Drops
to PSI in 1913-Scene
CoIJrfui but UndramatiC.
MORLEY ENDS THE DEBATE
Measure Will Now Hibernate
for Awhile, but Will Be Pro-
ceeded with Under the
Parliament Act.
[ By Cable TO The Tribune. ]

London, Jan. 31.-The House Of
Lords by the overwhelming majority
of 326 TO 90 rejected the Home Rule
bill last night on its second reading.
Though lacking dramatic excitement
the scene was one full of color and
interest. From the peeresss galleries
beautiful women looked down on the
scotchng, but not the killing, Of the
bill
Jewels cleaned bright and cloaks
were enriched with glowing crimson
and gold of the handsome chamber.
while plumed millinery and sumptu-
ous furs alternated here and there with
the light hues Of evening dress. A
score Of bishops in their lawn robes
made a white patch among the sombre
black coated occupants Of the crimson
seats.
Irish Nationalists were packed in the
House of Commons galleries and Privy
Councillors clustered about the steps
Of the throne. Nearly twenty years ago
the House Of Lords rejected Gladstone's
second Home Rule bill by majority
Of 31S votes, but many things have
happened since then. The constitution
has been modified and the Parliament
act passed to deprive the Second Cham
Der of it's powers. Gladstone's bill died
with the division in the Lords. The
present bill, rejected by a majority of
257 votes, only goes into a state of
Information for few weeks. 1t will be
brought out again in the spring, hur-
riedly passed through the Commons ana
again sent TO the Lords. 1t Will again
be rejected by the peers, and again sent
10 Information. II the government re-
mains so long in office 1t will be once
more brought out in the spring Of 1914.
again passed through the Commons,
and the King asked to exercise his
prerogative and give the royal assent to
the bill over the heads of the peers.
The speeches aroused little interest
because, as the Earl Of Halsbury pa
thetically observed, the position of the
House was now that of an ordinary de-
batting club-the peers could express
their views and reject the bill, but they
could not prevent IT from becoming
law.
Nevertheless, the largest muster or
peers since the fateful evening when
the Parliament bill was passed as
sembled in the House.
Lord Lansdowne wound up the de-
bate for the Opposition, and Lord Nor
ley of Blackburn for the government.
Lord Morley, in closing the debate,
remarked the absence of the ferocity
which characterized the debates on the
Gladstonian measures, and, replying to
Lord Lansdownes warning that the
giving of Home Rule to Ireland would
be a menace 10 England II England
ever were involved in serious inter-
national trouble, reminded Lord Lans-
downe that his own land policy would
give Ireland cash or credit to the ex-
tent of two hundred millions British
money. and that Lord Lansdowne
would scarcely be likely to do that II
he really believed that Ireland were
likely to become England's enemy.
Lord Curzon of Kedleston, In
speech earlier in the evening. also re-
ferred to the listlessness the public
had shown over the bill and TO 1.-THE
deplorable and unutterable flatness OF
the debates in the House OF Com
mons"
The division was on party lines.
practically the whole of the Episcopal
bench voting against the bill.