The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-09-06 00:00:00

KR. GLADSTONE IN KID-LOTHIAN.

On Saturday afternoon Mr. Gladstone received an
address from the Corporation of Edinburgh, which
was presented to him in the Council Chamber by the
Lord Provost. After replying to the address, the
Premier proceeded to the Corn Exchange, where the
chair was taken by Mr. John Cowan, and Mr. Glad-
stone, who was received with the greatest enthusiasm,
addressed his constituents at considerable length on
the Franchise Bill, which, he said, had been drawn
on lines making concessions to the Tory party, and
which they ought to have accepted. After urging
that the House of Loris was not in unison with the
feeling of the people, as was shown by the fact that
since the Reform Bill of 1832 ten Liberal Parlia-
ments had been returned and but two Tory Houses
of Commons, the right hon. gentleman concluded
his speech, which occupied an hour and forty minutes,
as follows
Now, gentlemen, I go one step further—and I am
very nearly at the close of this lengthened harangue—
I go one step further, I say it is in the Parliamentary
sense impossible for ns to pass through Parliament a
combined Franchise and Redistribution Bill or to

make one discussion of the two subjects. (Hear,
hear.) Now, Igo further, I say not only do we know
that, but the Opposition know it, too—(loud and pro-
longed cheers)—and that is not a mere imputation of
mine. I will show that I have some right to say they
know it because some of them have been so impru-
dent as to confess it. (Laughter and cheers.)
You have heard of Mr. Raikes. (Laughter, and
Oh, oh?) He is a gentleman of considerable
-standing and position in the Opposition
party. Ile made a speech upon another por-
tion of the subject on the 17th of June, where
it happened to be necessary for the purpose of the
-argument he had in hand to show that, even apart
from the franchise, so large and complex was the
nature of the reforms necessitated, we could not get
through with them if we devoted the whole of next
year to their consideration. Here are his words: It
was ei.-tremely improbable that this bill would
receive Royal assent before the 30th of July.
, What ,probability was there of a Redistribution Bill,
'even if it should pass next year, receiving the Royal
assent by the 31st July ? ' That is to say, these
gentlemen, who have been telling us we ought to join
the two subjects together—and we have occupied the
whole, of our available time this year upon one, and
- that' the simplest part of thesubject—they likewise tell
,us that the other part, relating to redistribution, is
so complex that, even if separated from the subject of
• the extension of the franchise, and having the whole
•of the next session devoted to it, it is extremely
• improbable that it can pass by the 31st July. (Loud
cheers.) You may say Mr. Raikes is not a leader of
that party; but I will Veil you what happened a day
or two after he had made this speech. A member of
the late Cabinet, Mr. W. H. Smith, said the same
thing, viz., that we could not expect to pass the
Redistribution Bill before the end of the year, even
under the tnostfavourable circumstances—that is, that
by itself it must necessarily occupy the whole of the
session. (Cheers.) But now, in point of truth or
regard to decency, is it possible after that for the
pa-rty to found itself upon this position and make
• this the main head of its indictment, that our capital
offence is not to have proposed at once two subjects
—upon one of which, and the simpler of the two, we
have already passed the whole session, and upon the
' other of which they tell us themselves another
session will be hardly sufficient? (Laughter and loud
'cheers.) Do they really want redistribution? They
ire calling out for the bill, the whole bill, and nothing
but the bill, mimicking and appropriating very law-
lessly from the well-known saying of Mr. Joseph
'Hume. (Laughter.) Do they really want redistribu-
tion, or are they asking for it for the purpose of stop-
ping redistribution and franchise both? (Loud
cheers.) Can we get any evidence on that subject?
I won't ask you to take it on my assertion alone; but
who was the great organ of the Tory party of late
years? That distinguished and extraordinary man,
Lord Beaconsfield. While he was in office, and while
the gentlemen who now confront us were in office, for
between six and seven years, what did they then say
and do about the franchise and about redistrioution ?
They now say, We don't object to the extension
of the franchise. We are the best friends of

Reform; only give it us in connection with redis-
tribution.' But in the year 1876 that was the
very thing which Mr. Trevelyan did. (Cheers.) He
' introduced two measures into the House of Com-
mons, one for the extension of the franchise, and one
for the redistribution of seats and what said the gen-
tleman who was the great leader, the great educator,
of the Conservative party? (Laughter.) It was the
business of Mr. Disraeli to reply on that occasion.
He first of all objected to the extension of the
franchise, which he said must evidently entail
redistribution (laughter) and what did he say of
redistribution? He then being in power, and not
having as we have had any load of legislation on his
; hands— for you know the six years of the late Govern-
ment are as nearly as possible a blank in legislation
—(laughter and cheers), said this—What did redis-
tribution mean? It meant the break up of the borough
constituencies. It would alter the character and
destroy the virtue of Parliamentary representation,
and therefore he exhorted the House to reject the
motion; and the plan of Mr. Trevelyan for dealing
jointly with the two subjects, for doing the very thing,
if it could have been done, which they tell us now.
they are anxious to do, was rejected at the instance
of Mr. Disraeli, and by the aid of Sir Richard Cross,
Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Smith, and all those
great authorities. (Laughter.) It was rejected by a
majority of 264 to, I think, 169. -Under these cir-
cuinstances I think E have shown you that the con-
dition they ask of us is a most unreasonable condition.
It could not be done. It could be done if they wished
to co-operate for it. (Hear, hear.) But I have
shown you that when they had the opportunity of
speaking their sincere opinions on the subject they
spoke against it, and that what they say now is wrung
from them by hard necessity, inasmuch as they dare
not say that they are opposed to the franchise, and
they know of no effective method of stopping the
Franchise Bill unless they can stop it by putting upon
its shoulders the enormous weight of redistribution.
(Cheers.) It is just as reasonable in a lane that
will admit only one carriage to try to force two down
it abreast, as it is for us in the face of a hostile
minority to join the franchise with redistribu-
tion. Let the first carriage go first; the other will
follow readily. (Renewed cheers.) They know per-
fectly well that if we get the franchise, redistribution
will follow, and must follow. The large numbers en-
franchised in the counties will not endure, and ought
not to endure, the continuance of the present system
under which the smaller boroughs appropriate e share
of the representation, undoubtedly much larger than
they are entitled to. (Hear, hear.) The passing of
the Franchise Bill is the absolute certainty of the
passing of the bill for redistribution, and that, gentle-
men, is understood by our opponents just as well as
-by us. They have studied these arts very deeply.
They are great prtifi2ients in them. I must give them
them that credit. When there is an indirect method
of warfare to be pursued these high-minded and
chivalrous people, representing altogether every-
thing that is lofty in our institutions, everything
; that is venerable, everything that is above the
grovelling considerations of temporary utility—this
chivalrous party which calls itself constitutional,
and calls itself national, and calls itself patriotic,
and ;almost exhausts the whole catalogue of
good epithets in Johnson's dictionary—(loud laughter
and cheers)—to describe its own virtues—(renewed
laughter)—whenever they find themselves in a condi-
tion—l am not now -speaking of the majority of the
House of Lords, I am speaking entirely of the
minority of the House of Commons, to which I wish
to reserve this particular compliment—whenever they
find themselves in a position where it is convenient
to say one thing while internally they think another, I
say there are no greater masters of that art than the
constitutional chivalrous politicians with whom we
have to deal. (Cheers.) They call for franchise and
redistribution together, but take this as a household
word upon the-subject. It is that they want neither,
\and they know that the forcing us to unite the two
is the only method, and the most effectual method,
•of stopping them both. (Hear, hear.) Under these
. circumstances I have but one sentence more to

speak. I think I am justified in saying that
we have striven to avoid this conflict. We,
the Ministers of the Crown, are anxious as far
as we are permitted not to extend its field. We feel
'bound, in a friendly sense, to warn the House of
Lords against that extension, but at the same time I
lave .endeavoured to urge this question so as to make
,an appeal to the.reason of that assembly and not to
its fears. (Hear, hear.) I will not abandon the hope
that reason will prevail until painful demonstration
compels me to relinquish it. In the meantime I make
this, as I think, moderate proposition. I have shown
that the combination of the bills, which they ask of
us, is an impracticable course for us to pursue. I
have shown that the disjunction of the bills, even sup-
posing our promise is good for nothing, still leaves it
certain that redistribution must follow the Franchis3
Bill. I have shown, I think, that it is unwise and
dangerous for an hereditary Chamber, upon a great
constitutional issue to court a direct conflict with the
representative House, which proceeds from the
people, which returns to the people, and which if the
people are dissatisfied with its action is punished by
the people as the Parliament of 1874 was punished
in 1880. Under these circumstances it is that
the House of Commons while it lasts, and until the
Crown dissolves it or its legal term is reached, repre-
sents the people of the country, and the hereditary
Chamber is unwise if it seeks a conflict with such a
body. The larger and more generous view which the
minority of the House of Lords has taken—and
which, I trust, its majority will be induced to take—
is that they may trust those classes in the counties
whom they have trusted in the town, that the nation
is attaehed to its laws and its institutions, that the
accession to the numbers of the constituencies will be
an acquisition to the strength of the empire, that the
Throne will stand yet more firmly upon a broader
foundation, and
of
that every consideration alike of
p
policy—and even of narrow and
selfish interest., if that may be appealed to--clictates
that they should no longer tamper with the que:stion,
but seize the first opportunity of giving a ready assent
to the Franchise Bill."

At the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman's
Fpzech a vote of confidence in the Government waF
narr:rol Iw-ol:amstt inn, !rho Ravi of ROSebery

after repeated calls from the meeting, spoke a few
words.
Mr. Gladstone also made brief speeches on Satur-
day on the reception of addresses from Scottish
Liberal Associations and the Town Council of Edin-
burgh.

Mr. Gladstone's second speech in the Corn hx.
2.hange, Edinburgh, on Monday night was, if possible,
more successful than that of Saturday, The principal
part of the speech was devoted to a vindication of the
policy of the Government, both at home and abroad..
The Prime Minister denied the correctness of Lord
Salisbury's statement that his former pledges had
been broken, especially with regard to the reduction
of taxation and domestic economy. Great reduction
of taxes had been rendered impossible by the action of
the Tcry Government, but, comparing the expenditure
of the last four years of Lord Beaconsfield's Adminis-
tration with four years of the present Administration,
he claimed a large saving to the country and a mate-
rial reduction of the National Debt. The policy of
the Government in Egypt had been forced on them
by obligations entered into by Lord Salisbury, and the
Government were preparing to fulfil their obligations
to General Gordon. The duty of Parliament was to
deal effectively with obstruction, in which the Tories
were the greatest offenders. On the Franchise ques-
tion the right hon. gentleman summarised his argu-
ments of Saturday, and warned the Lords against a
determined conflict with the popular will.
The right. hon. gentleman spoke an hour and fifty
minutes, the speech being delivered throughout with
striking energy and effect, stirring the meeting to a
high point of enthusiasm. On the subsidence of the
cheering which greeted its close, Sir George llarri-
son moved a resolution of thanks to Mr. Gladstone
for his address, and of confidence in the Government.
Ho expressed satisfaction at the statement made by
Mr. Gladstone that the measure for the improvement
of Scottish affairs would be carried out.

Lord Rosebery, in response to a load tall, expressed
the pleasure it gave holm to receive the Prime
Minister under his roof, and said that whenever Mr.
Gladstone liked to add the third volume to the Mid-
Lothian campaign he should be very glad to give him
an invitation. (Loud cheers.)
A vote of thanks to Lord Stair for Fel:riding
brrt.ght the proceedings to a dose.
Air. Gladstone was much 'cheered on leaving the
flail.

Mr. Gladstone addressing the last of the series of
Mid-Lothian meetings on Tuesday night in the
Waverley Market, Edinburgh, said we had arrived at
a crisis when it was necessary that the voice of the
people should be heard, but it was not the duty of
the House of Lords to determine when a dissolution
should take place. The Franchise Bill was introduced
by the Liberal party because they knew that it was
good in itself. It might be better with redistribution,
but first of all they must give the two millions who
were asking for it the right to participate in the
government of the country. The Franchise Bill was
plain and simple enfranchisement, but the 'Conserva-
tives desired to cut up the new electors and distribute
their power in their own way. After alluding to the
spirit of firmness and conciliation adopted by the
Liberal party, the only return for which they had re-
ceived from the Conservative party had been the
adoption of evasive methods of opposition and the
proposal of conditions which everybody knew, and the
Tories well knew, to be perfectly impracticable, Mr.
Gladstone proceeded: _ _ _

"Well now, gentlemen, there is' one point on which
they have dwelt which I will briefly notice to .you,
because the declaration which they make has a sound
of plausibility about it. They-say this Parliament is
too old. (Cries of No, no, and laughter.) It does
nat, come fresh enough.from the mind of the people.
(Liaughter.) They say we wish it to go back to its cois.
stituents, and then we will attend to what it says.
Gentlemen, it is a truly edifying spectacle—(laughter)
to hear from the highest Tories in the land an argu-
ment for short Parliaments. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Now, there is a great deal to be said for
short Parliaments—(hear, hear)—but this I will add,
if we are to have short Parliaments we will have
them by the law of the land—(hear, hear, and loud
cheers)—and not by the dictation of the majority
of the House of Lords. (Renewed cheering.)
The Parliament, gentlemen, was not four years
old when we introduced the Franchise Bill; and it
indeed, a squeamish and scrupulous conscience
which has led these Tories to doubt whether a
Parliament four years old is to be trusted. (fsuighter
and cheers.) But if they say it is too long a time
since ViO were in contact with the people, I want to
know how long it is since they were in contact.
(Laughter and loud cheers.) Now, gentlemen, your
chairman has said that there is a cry about that the
Constitution is in danger. Well, I am not sure but
that there is a state of facts on which, if our opponents
were strong enough for the purpose, the Constitution
would be in some danger; for, gentlemen, what is our
Constitution with respect to this grave subject of the
dissolution of Parliament? You know it as well as I
do, the Parliament must bylaw terminate in a certain
number of years, but besides that there is a
power given to the Crown, acting upon the
advice of the Executive Government, to dissolve
the Parliament if occasion arise. A dissolution,
gentlemen, means a great deal. It means a heavy
burden on the country; it means a great loss of party
time and interruption of legislation; a great amount
of change and a great amount of labour to be under-
taken, both by candidates and constituencies, and it
is ao trifle that there should exist a power of imposing
this burden upon the people—a burden necessary to
enable them to exercise their choice. (Hear, hear.)
Well, how has the Constitution regulated this matter?
It has regulated it by placing the power, of dissolution
in the hands of those who, if they wrongly advise the
Crown to dissolve the Parliament, will be punished
for that advice by the people, and when the new
Parliament is elected will be sent about their business.
(Laughter and cheers.) Gentlemen, there .is some-
thing rational in a system like that. A :vast power,
end even possibly a dangerous power, is committed to
Ministers, but when they,exercise it they ,know that
they will be called to a strict and immediate account.
(Cheers.) The doctrine now set up is this, that
be-ades the discretion of Ministers to advise the
Crown and besides the power of the Crown to dissolve I
Parliament, the House of Lords shall be entitled to
bring legislation to a deadlock—(cries of No, and
Never) —and then to proclaim that in order to induce
them to move the Parliament must be dissolved.
(Renewed cries of No, no.) Well, gentle-
men, that is at first sight, to say that
the House of Lords shall have the power of doing
that which, as you know, the ministers of the Crown
can do, viz., advise a dissolution, and with the assent
of the sovereign make a dissolution. But whatis the
case of the House of Lords? The ministers of the
Crown if they wrongly advise a dissolution are
punished by dismissal. If the House of Lords
wrongly advise a dissolution, is it to be punished by
dhiiiiasal? (Cries of yes.) No, the proposal is,
gentlemen, that the House of Lords shall have the
power of virtually advising and compelling a dissolu-
tion, and that if they are wrong they shall 'remain
exactly as they were before to play the same prank
over again as often as they pleased. (Cries of Get
away with 'em.) Well, gentlemen, that is the Con-
stitution of this country, (Laughter and cheers.)
I have only a few words more to say. (Cries of Goon.)
It is said, gentlemen, the we ought to join redistribu-
tion with the franchise. Now, I wish to join issue very
plainly with our opponents on that matter. (Cheers.)
What they mean is this, that conferring the franchiseis
not conferring a public advantage, but that it is bring-
ing into existence an inconvenient power which can
only be rendered tolerable by distributing, cutting, and
carving it in a certain way. (Hear, hear.) Gentle-
men, in opposition to that doctrine, I wish to proclaim
on my own part and on the part of my colleagues
that in our view the franchise is a good conferred
upon the people with redistribution or without it.
(Cheers.) No doubt it is a greater good if we can
follow it up with redistribution and make a more just
and equitable division of political power. But we
insist upon this, that the franchise of itself, that the
introduction of 2,000,000 of intelligent fellow-subjects
to the exercise"of political power, is a great good con-
ferred upon the nation—cheers)—and when our
opponents call out for redistribution, what they really
mean is this, that in their view the franchise is not
a good, but is in the nature of an evil and of an
inconvenience which can only be rendered tolerable
and rendered manageable by joining it with particular
methods of arrangement. According, gentlemen, to a
simile which I once ventured to use about it, and
I think it is a trus one, they seem to proceed
as if it were a question of the arrival of a
great lot of wild beasts at a place where they
were to be expected, and the people who were
to have the charge of them, when the caravans con-
taining them arrived, very naturally say that they
would not be safe with these wild beasts until they
are all and each of them were lodged in their separate
cages. (Laughter and loud cheers.) And therefore,
gentlemen, when these 2,000,000 voters arrive, as they
are now knocking at the door—(cheers)—the Tories
refuse to let them in until they have got all the cages
ready—(loud laughter)—in which they consider that
this large number of voters may be safely deposited.
(Continued laughter and cheers.) Gentlemen, you
see how wide is the difference between oar opponents
and ourselves. (Hear, hear.) But let me tell you
that this question does not rest with us. It rests
with the nation; it is the voice of the nation that will
prevail. We, the Ministers of the Crown, have
scrupled to assume a great activity in stirring up the
people, because we consider that the expressions of
opinion which we desire and invite should he their
act and not ours. (Cheers.) And, conse-
quently, though I have come here to address
my friends and constituents in Mid-Lothian,
neither I nor the Ministers in general have
gone scampering about the country—(laughter)
—to this place, and then to that, in order to make a
sort of show of opposition to the Government in this'
important matter. Now, gentlemen, we look to you
for your support, for the free national eXpression of
opinion and conviction, and we invite it ivith a good '
conscience, and we accept it with a sanguine expecta-
tion— (cries of You will get it, and cheers)—because
never were you engaged in a more honourable, never
in a more politic, never in a more constitutional
undertaking than now, when you are about the busi-
ness of endeavouring to procure that large extension
of the Parliamentary constituency, which will give to '
the illustrious Throno of her Majesty a yet broader

basis, and to the laws and Constitution of the country
a yet firmer foundation, to meet vicissitudes of ages
to come with a more and more complete and affec-
tionate tribute rendered to them from the heart and
from the intelligence of the people. (Cheers..)
Gentlemen, I. thank you for your admirable address,
and for the patience with which this vast assembly
has been pleased to listen to me. (Cries of Go on,
and prolOnged cheering.)"
Mr. Gladstone's closing words were eloquently deli-
vered, and when he resumed his seat the applause
was enthusiastic and long continued.
A vote of thanks to Mr. Gladstone having been
moved and seconded by working men, Lord Rosebery.,
who was greeted with vociferous cheering, briefly
addressed the meeting.
The audience then demanded a speech from Mr.
Broadhurst, and as the member for Stoke came for-
ward Mr. Gladstone shook him warmly by the hand,.
Mr. Broadhurst expressed his pleasure at having
witnessed the magnificent reception the people of
Edinburgh had given the Premier, and assured his
Scotch friends that equal enthusiasm would be mani-
fested were the member for Mid-Lothian to appear
in any large town in England.
The presentation of a beautiful bouquet by a work-
ing num to Mrs. Gladstone was the last incident in a
short and interesting meeting.
As the Dalmeny party made their way out of the
market the cheers were continuous, and similar demon-
strations occurred in the streets until Lord Rosebery's
'carriage had passed out of the city.

Previous to the evening's demonstration in the
Waverley Market Ball, the Prime Minister received
a deputation from the Leith Corporation, who pre-
sented him with an address, and a body of artisans
from the Forth Bridge Works took a similar oppor-
tunity of presenting him with an inkstand and an axe.
The address from the Leith Town Council was pre-
sented by Provost Pringlo and the town clerk, Mr.
Lang.
The axe for Mr. Gladstone and the inkstand for
Mrs. Gladstone were given as mementoes of their visit
to the works on the 28th of August. The ax. which
was ot polished steel, was made out of one of the bed
plates of the bridge. A representation of the bridge
as it will stand when completed is artistically engraved
upon it, while it likewise bears the following Inscrip-
tion: "Presented to the Right lion. W. Ewart Glad-
stone by the employes of the Forth Bridge Works as
a token of their respect and high appreciation of his
life-long services to the country. 28th August, 1884."
The presentations were respectively made by Mr. E.
W. Moir, superintendent of the Caissons, and Mr.
Blackburn, the head foreman. The inkstand also bore
an inscription.