The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-09-13 00:00:00

UNVEILING OF A STATUE TO EARL

BEACONSFLELD.

On Tuesday afternoon the Earl or Lathom unveiled
at Ormskirk a statue of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
whose memory, he said, would always shine out in
future ages. Sir R. A. Cross, M.P., in proposing a
vote of thanks to the Earl of Lathorn, said that the
Earl of Beaconsfield was a leader of whom everyone
that had served under him might well be proud. He
went on straightforward, knowing that m his con-
science he was right, and that the people of England
believed he was true.

A banquet was given in the evening, at which Sir R.
A. Cross, Lord Gerald, Colonel Wilbraham, Colonel
Ireland Blackburne, M.P., and others were present.
Sir R. Cross, in responding to the toast of " Success
to the Conservative cause," said the statue they
had unveiled that day was that of a man whose
like they only saw about once in a century, and it was
an honour to England to have produced him. He
fought his way up from a low estate to the highest,
and. set an example to every Englishman as to what
mignt be done by patience and perseverance and
industry. There was no doubt that at the head of the
present Government they had a great man, not to be
produced above once in a century. (A Voice: "And
a good job too," and laughter.) The great difference
b-tween these two men was that the present Prime
Minister was always representing the responsibilities
of England to be so great that she could hardly sustain
them, while Lord Beaconsfield, though acknowledging
those responsibilities, always felt that this empire was
given to us, not only for our own benefit, but for the
benefit of those countries whom we were to rule. A
little England could not live, and they must never be
afraid of their responsibilities. It was because the
Beaconsfield Government showed that it was not afraid
of war that the hand of Russia was stayed before
Constantinople in the war with Turkey. Then as to the
Berlin Treaty, Mr. Gladstone never could have accom-
plished such a treaty. He had not got it in him.
(Applause.) He was not made of that kind of
stuff. Lord Beaconsfield would never have concluded
the disgraceful treaty that was made with the Boers,
nor would have acted as the prosent Government had
done in Egypt. At the present moment there was not
a country or town in Europe where the policy of
England was not hissed and scorned. He ventured
to say that such a message as had been sent by
General Gordon to the present Government was never
before penned by an English officer. General Gordon
had been told that he might come out if he could,
but he was not the man to do that. By deserting
General Gordon the Government had brought upon
themselves indelible disgrace. So much for honour
in Egypt; and how much peace had they? If Lord
Beaconsfield had remained at the head of
affairs would they have had those massacres and
tortures and mutilations of animals which had taken
place in Ireland? He deliberately laid to the charge
cf the Government, because they would not
undertake with firmness at the right time to
govern Ireland, all the misery and massacres
and heartrendings which had taken place in that
country. They had been told that they must not dis-
cuss theta great questions now, but think only of the
Franchise Bill. He held in his hand a bill calling a
meeting to consider the action of the House of Lords,
and it stated that the Lords had rejected the Fran-
chise Bill, which was a wilful, absolute, and deliberate
lie. They had only to look at the words of Lord
Cairns' motion and that of Lord Cadogan to see that
the House of Lords had never objected to the exten-
sion of the franchise. The Prime Minister had re-
presented the Opposition as looking upon those who
wanted votes as so many wild beasts, who should not
have votes until they had provided proper cages for
them. This was a monstrous statement for a man
with responsibilities on his shoulders to make. He
knew what intelligence they had in Lancashire, and
how they could exercise their votes, but according to
the Constitution of England there was a great dif-
ference between the borough and the county fran-
chise, and they did not want to swamp one by the
other. Those who were engaged in agriculture had the
greatest interest in the country, and they did not want
that interest to be swamped; and it was no use giving
them a vote on the one hand and taking it away
with the other. It was all very well to talk about
Lord Salisbury, but it was not Lord Salisbury that
was wholly responsible. Lord Salisbury had consulted
his colleagues, and the House of Lords only expressed
the feeling of the whole of the constitutional part of
England. (Applause.) As to example, there were
238,000 people in North-East Lancashire outside of
the Parliamentary boroughs, and of these 147,000
were living in towns of from 10,000 to 25,000 inhabi-
tants. The whole of the agricultural population left
would be about 90,000, who would be entirely-swamped
by the 147,000. Was that what they wanted? (No.)
Well, then, they would not allow the Franchise Bill
to pass without redistribution, and they were quite
right in asking to go to the present constituencies,
and the sooner they had an election the better; and
nothing would please him more than if at the next
time he addressed them it would be at the hustings.
If this imperious Minister attempted to tamper with
the Constitution of the country he would find, as he
had done once before, that the voice of England
would be against him, and that the vote would be
given in favour tho House, of Lora.. (Ohessre.)