The Northern Guardian. — 1893-09-09 (Hartlepool, Cleveland, England)

THE LORDS AND HOME RULE.  REJECTION OF THE BILL.  In the House of Lords yesterday the debate on ' the Government of Ireland Bill was resumed by the Earl of CRANBROOK, who said a certain amount of suspicion must be attached to the late conversions of supporters of the Government to the Home Rule Bill. He attributed the change of opinion to the example and influence of Mr Gladstone, who was a Colossus indeed. The LORD CHANCELLOR said they had heard in so many words that this bill was the offspring of the will of a fanatic who had lost his head, and had been accepted by his colleagues who had lost their principles. (Laughter.) It did not advance proper appreciation of the question to treat the Act of Union as though a divine institution which it was blasphemy to say a word against. The fact was that the Act of Union had failed, and failed principally because England was not in touch with Irish wants. It could not be denied that there did exist in Ireland a strong desire for a distinct national life and management of their own affairs. Because they could find no scheme free from difficulty were they to abandon the task? (Ministerial cheers.) The Bishop of RIPON regretted that for the first time since he entered their lordships' House he would be compelled to go into the division lobly in opposition to Lord Spencer and the Marquis of Ripon. He hesitated about giving his approval to a bill which had not been fully considered by the country. The Marquis of SALISBURY, rising amid loud Opposition cheers, said the Foreign Secretary was more instructive. Lord Rosebery bad attacked the policy with which he (Lord Salisbury) was connected eight years ago, and surrounded the history of the year 1885 with a brilliant atmosphere of legend. His lordship represented that the Conservatives, differing from the coercive policy of Lord Spencer, broke the continuity of that policy, and thereby cut the ground from under the feet of the Liberal Party, and rendered it impossible for them to assume that policy in the future; but what the Conservatives did was to prevent fraudulent insolvency, sustained by attempts of murder, by increasing the powers of the ordinary courts, and increasing the efficiency of detecting and punishing crime. The noble lord implied that in 1885 the Conservatives suddenly interrupted the current of coercive legislation. What actually happened was this: There was a terminable Crimes Act, terminable when the Session of 1885 terminated. It might have been the intention of the Government to have renewed it; but on the fah June, on which the division was taken by which their official existence was terminated, they did not produce a single clause for revising or perpetuating coercion. The Conservatives had not a majority in the Parliament, and it was open to them to take a constitutional course and dissolve. The question then was whether, in view of the Reform Bill which had just been passed, and the certainty that a dissolution would he necessary within a few months, it would be justifiable to inflict upon the people of the country that amount of inconvenience in order to accelerate the necessary strength of the law by a few months. Before the Government resigned it was announced in the House of Commons that it was their intention to strengthen the criminal law. Those, therefore, who said that they changed their opinions because the Conservatives had not, as was alleged, been sufficiently prompt in enforcing the criminal law, Made a most miserable excuse.