Tuesday's sitting was noticeable for two very striking speeches,—those of
Mr. Davitt and Mr. T. W. Russell. Mr. Da,vitt's speech was, as Mr. T. W. Russell said, "not only a most able, but a most temperate and manly speech." There was no rancour against England, and no waving of the bla,ekthorn,—a certain sentimentality notice- able in all the Labour leaders, except when they speak of capitalists or "blacklegs," being its predominant feature. Mr. Davitt declared that, in 1886, he was against the retention of the Irish Members "because the House had been identified in his mind with the past misgovernment of Ireland." The growth of friendliness towards Ireland in the House had, however, induced him and other Irishmen to change their minds. "Let the Irish representation remain as it was now." In other words, Mr. Devitt and his friends are so pleased with our conduct, that they will consent to rule us as well as themselves. Mr. T. W. Russell dwelt on the Gerrymandering of the Irish representation under the Bill. Antrim, with thirty-six thousand electors, was to have four Members ; while Limerick, Waterford, Galway, Kilkenny, and Newry, with only fourteen thousand, were to have five. "If the Government must give Home-rule to Ireland because Ireland asked for it, why must they force the Bill upon Ulster when the majority of the people there passionately said that they would resist it?" He was not pleading for a separate Ulster; but the time might come when it might be necessary to do so. They could, however, defeat the Bill without appealing for it. The Gladstonians went about the country saying that no law was worth anything which was not founded upon the consent of the governed. How were they going to get the consent of Ulster ?
Previous page
