The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-04-26 00:00:00

MR. W. E. FORSTER AT ROTHERHAM.

Mr. W. E. Forster, M.P., addressed a Liberal
meeting at Rotherham on Saturday evening. In
briefly glancing at the five years during which the
Government had held office, he criticised the quality
of the legislation which had come before Parliament,
and which might have been expected to occupy its
attention. In discussing the Eastern Question he
condemned the mixed occupation scheme as proposed
to be applied to Eastern Roumelia, and adversely
criticised the Anglo-Turkish Convention. The political
situation in Egypt, the operations in Afghanistan,
the war in Zululand, and the policy displayed in the
annexation of the Transvaal were successively touched
upon by the right hon. gentleman, who, in speaking
on this latter subject, said
"I cannot allude to the Zulus without saying what,
had I been able to speak, I should have said in the
House of Commons. I was one of those who thought
the Government was right in annexing the Transvaal,
and lam still of that opinion. But why was lof that
opinion? Because I then said, 'This is not a question
of dealing with 3,000 or 4,000 Dutchmen in the Trans-
vaal, but with all the inhabitants of the Transvaal.'
For every Dutchman there are 10 natives, and I
thought we had to deal with the natives as well as the
Dutchmen. There was great danger of a war being
conducted on the principle of slavery and the dis-
regard of the rights of the native inhabitants, and we
were in this position and thought that the native tribes
had learnt how to fight and, in all probability, would
destroy them. I could not allow that to be the result—
there were tdo many sympathizers with them in the
Cape Colony, The Boers were, after all, men of our reli-
gion, and I could not allow them to take the conse-
quence of their own action; therefore, I thought it
right to annex the Transvaal. But lam told, Because
you are of that opinion you ought to support the
present policy of Sir Bartle Frere.' Ido not think
the Government ought to throw the whole blame on
Sir Bartle Frere. They ought to have known that he
was a man of very strong will—a mistaken man, I
thoroughly believe him to be, but a most conscientious
man. Ile showed them very plainly what he meant to
do; they did not show him as plainly what he should
not do, and they perhaps thought within themselves,
After all he may succeed; and perhaps it was not very
easy, having quoted Sir Bartle.Frere for their policy in
Afghanistan, to put a strong rein on him in Africa.
But with a strong anxiety about our soldiers atthe Cape,
I do not wish to go into the incidents of the war; I only
say this—l trust we shall 'hear in a day or two that
Colonel Pearson and his gallant band of heroes are
relieved. (Cheers.) All honour and glory to our brave
defenders. I acknowledge our duty to them, but I
still regret they are fighting in a war which I believe
was not wise or necessary. If, as I hope, we shall hear
by next mail of the success of the relieving force, I
trust the English people will come forward in favour of
justice and forbearance and generosity, and will re-
member that these savage Zulus have, after all, some
claim upon us. We acknowledge, first of all, that
their courage is wonderful and admirable • their de-
votion to their leader, their disregard of superior
arms' and the fact that, though these savage troops
are the first we have heti to deal with, the
first line is no sooner mowed down than the
second succeeds without fear. These are men who are
not to be exterminated. And we must remember,
after all, that they are merely defending their country
(cheer), for they have not invaded us. Sir Bartle
Frere has anticipated their invasion by invading them."
(Cheers.)
Adverting to home topics, Mr. Forster said :
"I would say I cannot help thinking the recent
Budget is a dissolving one. A question was asked in
the House last night as to some possible arrangement
for commuting the railway passenger duty for a sum
of money. Sir Stafford Northcote said he would not
make it until he had given the House of Commons full
opportunity of discussion. Now, I have great respect
for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if we were
dealing only with him I should be quite content to fight
the Government; but their usual course was to come to
the House of Commons when they had already pledged
the country, and it was very difficult to avoid being corn-
mitted to their engagements. I will not give an opinion
against the commutation scheme, but it is evidently a
most serious question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
appeared to like the look of it, and perhaps any Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in the present position of his
financics. would be only too glad to see £10,000,000
coming into the Exchequer at once. The proposal
was this—that the passenger duty, amounting to
£BOO,OOO per annum, should be commuted at twelve
and a half years' purchase, which would gi ire the Chan-
cellor a sum of £12,000,000. If that be so, two or three
things will happen. It will be a loan, and at a very
high interest—an interest of nearly 8 per cent. It may
be said this is a tax that will not last, but if cqpamuted
it could not be levied again. Besides, the tai would
not fall on the railway companies, but on railway
travellers. It would require strong arguments to con-
vince me that this mode of commuting taxes is a good
one. Certainly there are a good many taxes we have
to pay which I should be very glad to get rid of for 8i
per cent. at 12-i years' purchase."
Referring to the impending dissolution of Parlia-
ment,Mr. Forster said," That he agreed with Mr. Bright
that the general election was more likely to come
sooner than is expected. There were two reasons why
he thought so. The first was that the Budget was Et
dissolving Budget. The second was that the Govern-
ment were not finding that satisfaction in the present
session as to induce them to look forward with any
any pleasure to having to meet the country after
another such a legislative year,"