The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-08-02 00:00:00

• ANOTaEit ALPINE ACCIDENT.

The -vienna correspondent of the Standard, writing
on Sunday night, says:
A painful feeling has been prpdnced here by the
di,appear:a,nce of ason of the well-known Professor
33araberger, a methcal student of 21. The facts all
point to the probability that he has lost his life in the
striaa Alps. • A fortnight ago he started on a tour
to the Itax Alps and other mountain. resorts in Styria.
ite set out alone, and since that tune has never been
seen again. Faperienced guides hare beeii ssarching
fciethe'yoting-traveller, 'but. have not yet Sueceeded
in-- "'caking aiiy discovery. ' Yesterday ten 'of the
f students of the missing gentlemen set ot.i.t, to
ney.r search. It appears only too certain
that. they*Will not see their comrade again alive.
. _

A sewing-machine agent was recently attacked by a
Titvice catamount near Mobile. ,Strange as it may
appear, the catamount escaped Withont baring otie of
the machines,

REFORM DEMONSTRATION AT
MANCHESTER.
On Saturday afternoon the Liberals of the district
comprising the three county divisions of North-East
Lancashire, South-East Lancashire, and Mid-Cheshire,
held the meeting at Manchester in support of the
Franchise Bill for which arrangements were made as
soon as the fate of the measure in the Upper House
was known. It wee in many respects a repetition of
the Liberal demonstration in Manchester in the
autumn of 1879. On Saturcley, as on the previous
occasion Lord Hartington, Mr. Bright, and others
addressed two immense audiences at the Pomona-
gardens, first a gathering in the Palace of members of
the Liberal associations of the district and their
friends, including many ladies, and afterwards a
less select assemblage in the Agricultural-hall.
The latter would probably have been much more
numerous than it was but for the heavy rain during
the day, which also precluded additional meetings in
the open grounds. the number of tickets applied for
and issued for the combined meetings in the gardens was
100,000, but it did not appear that half that number
could be computed in the two buildings at any one
time. The meeting in the Palace was not of the kind
in which the "working man element" could be said to
preponderate, some thousands of the seats having been
paid for; but a large part of the area was crowded
with those admitted with tickets, but without charge,
to standing room. The estimates of the number here
varied from 12,000 to 20,000, the latter being ebout
the maximum capacity of the palace arranged as it ,
was on Saturday. Perhaps as many more people
were at the " overflow " meetings in the Agricultural
Hall, which had been designed to accommodate
"50,000 non-electors." The entire programme seemed
to be carried out in remarkably good order, and no
time lost in the dispersal when the speech-making was
over.
Mr. Bright was chairman at the meeting in the
palace, having on his right Lord Hartington and on
his left the Attorney-General, Sir Henry James.
LORD HARTINGTON'S ADDRESS.
After some introductory remarks by the Chairman,
Mr. Ashton moved: "That the country at the last .
election emphatically approved the extension of the
county suffrage to householders; that the Franchise
Bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone is just and mode-
rate; that it has been carried by overwhelming r,
majorities in the House of Commons; that in these '
circumstances this meeting protests against the
refusal of the House of Lords to pass the bill, and
against the pretension of Lbrd Salisbury, by a '
dangerous assertion of the privileges of the peers—
tending to subvert the principles of representative
government—to dictate a dissolution of Parliament;
and that this meeting heartily supports the Fran- '
chise Bill as an act of justice to two millions of
capable citizens,' and pledges itself to stand by her
Majesty's Ministers in their determination to adhere
firmly to the policy of passing the Franchise Bill, to
be followed immediately by a bill for redistribution."
Sir U. J. Kay-Shuttleworth seconded the motion.
Lord Hartington supported the resolution, and in
the course of his address, said: You must make it
clear beyond the possibility of doubt that the people
of this country do desire that this extension of politi-
cal rights should take place, and that they are deter-
mined that it should take place. And let me say, if
this is to be made clear, you in the North of Eng-
land must bear a great part in the struggle. I do
not doubt that, the unenfranehised populations in the
south, and the west, and the midland districts will do
their shai4, but I believe that the strongest, the most
convinced, the most settled determination upon this
subject is that which is to be found in the great
counties of Lancashire, of Yorkshire, of Durham, and
of Northumberland. If there is an excuse for the '
conduct of the House of Lords it is this, that the
great majority of them live in the southern, and the
midland, and the western districts of this country.
Comparatively few of them live in these northern
regions, and they are little aware of the depth and the ,
strength of the determination, of the desire, of the
people that political rights shall be extended freely
over the whole population whether they live in '
boroughs or in so-called counties. Then, if you are !
determined, if the people of this country are deter-
mined, to have the county franchise (" We are,' and
cheers), how is it to be done? (" We'll have it before
long.") Yes, before long, but how is it to be done
before long? ("Abolish the House of Lords.") I
think it can only be done with safety and security in
the way in which it is proposed to be done by the
present Government. If you want to know what are
difficulties in the way, you must try and form some
opinion of what are the plans and what is the strategy
of your opponents. What would be the course of an
Opposition which, feeling itself too weak to defeat !
this measure by direct and opesi opposition, yet
desired that it should be either defeated or post- ;
poned ? We know that every skilful general, espec-
ially if he finds himself in inferiority of numbers or
of position or of resources, shrinks from attacking his
enemy in front, and does everything in his power to
attack him in the flank; and that is what our oppo-
nents are doing in this case. They say that they
concede the principle of the extension of the franchise,
but they concede it in words only, and they attach to
that admission a condition which must in all circum-
stances be difficult of realization, which may be
impossible of realization, that condition being that the
extension of the franchise shall be accompanied by what
they call a fair Redistribution Bill. And when they
talk of a fair Redistribution Bill, what is it that they
mean? They mean a redistribution which will be
satisfactory to the Tory minority. Lord Salisbury
and his party have lately been seized with a great
fear that in the Redistribution Bill which has been
promised by the Government some process is to be
adopted which they call " jerrymandering," which in
some mysterious manner is to be made the means of
perpetuating the power of the Liberal party in the
constituencies of this kingdom. I must say that as
far as I am concerned I believe that we are quite
innocent of any such design. We believe that for
many years past we have been, that we are now, and
that we are likely to continue in a large majority in
this country. And if that be the case, there is no
necessity for us to resort to unfair or artificial means
to produce a Liberal majority, believing, as we do,
that any fair and real representation of the people
will under ordinary circumstances and in ordinary
times produce a Liberal majority in Parliament.
But what security have we that the Tory party,
who are generally in a minority, may not themselves
desire to try their hands at this art which they
are so much afraid of our using against
them? And what security have we that what
they call a Fair Redistribution Bill, which is to be the
condition of the passing of the Franchise Bill, shall
not be a jerrymandering measure, designed to retain
in the hands of the minority that undue share of in-
fluence which they have so long possessed, and to
keep out of the hands of the people that power which
they ought to possess, and which they have now been
forced to admit they shall possess? If that is the
strategy which we have to meet, how are we to meet
it? We must meet it by the policy which has been
recommended to you by the Government and adopted
by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons of
securing the passage of a Franchise Bill before we
entangle ourselves in all the difficulties of redistribu-
tion. We are as anxious, I believe we are more
anxious, than our opponents to see a Redistribution
Bill passed, and I personally—and I believe the great
majority of the party in the House of Commons—are
desirous of seeing it passed in the next session. We
fully admit the inconvenience which will arise if a
dissolution should take place with the extended
numbers in the existing constituency. We know that
that will be no fair representation of the people of
this country. and we desire that this great question
shall lee settled, and settled once for all and settled
by the present Parliament.
MR. BRIGHT'S SPE'ECH.
Mr. Bright also spoke in support of the resolution,
and, in the course of an address lasting forty minutes,
said: I am not unaccustomed, as you know, to what
are called periods of crisis. I have known several of
them since I was young, and since I was able to take
some part in political affairs. There was a great crisis,
as many of you, but by no means all, will remember,
in 1832. There was another crisis in 1846. There
was another—something like a crisis—in 1867. In
the crisis of 1832 the gentlemen who were then
gitting in the House of Lords in their opposition to
the Government of Lord Grey, and to the opinions
and interest of the people, thought they were fight-
ing for their political lives, and there was some truth
in it. I was noticing only yesterday that before
the Reform Bill was passed 89 gentlemen sitting
in the House of Lords returned 175 men to sit
and represent and vote for them in the House of
Commons. (" Shame.") There were 100 other mem-
bers in the House of Commons who represented also
members of that House—great landed proprietors or
rich men who were owners of pocket or rotten
boroughs. Well, the bill that was passed then, at the
end of the crisis, was a bill that swept away 144 seats
that had been represented in the House of Commons
previously. You see, therefore, there was a great
disturbance, and you may easily imagine that the
House of Lords felt uncomfortable at the legislation
which was then passing through the Rouse of Com-
mons. You know that at that time the House of
Lords consented to accept that bill only on the threat
of the then reigning Sovereign that he would permit
the Ministers to add peers to the present peerage in
order to obtain a majority in that House' and that
under that threat, and under that threat alone,
they eonsented to pass the bill, and they absented
themselves from the House to show their continued
hatred of the measure, and to show their contempt of
the Kinisters who passed it, of the people who
supported it, and of the King himself who gave his
consent to it. Well, when we come to the next crisis,
in 1846, the Peers did not fight for their political
lives, they fought for their rents. They put up the
prayer, doubtless, in their families, and did it by
azencies in their churches, "Give us this day our
daily bread," and yet every day, in that. House, that
the question came up speeches were made and votes
given that denied to the millions and the people of
this country the daily bread for which they prayed.
And then we come to the next crisis, in the year 1867,
which the great bulk of the gentlemen now present I
dare istly may remember. At that time a strong Pro-
position made in the Rouse of Commons was
acquiesced in by the Government. at the crap.
determined to make even that sacrifice if. it
'• would continue them in office —a proposition
which extended the franchise eenetelly to house-

holders throughout the boroughs and cities of the
kingdom. How did that pass the House of Lords?
If it had been proposed by Lord John Russell in that
day, by Lord Palmerston, or by Lord Aberdeen, or
any of the Ministers who from time to time have led
the Liberal party, it would not have had a chance, I
believe, of passing the House of Lords, the House of
Lords being itself in a certain sense a sort of caucus
of the Tory party. Under the influence of a Govern-
ment they were anxious to maintain in office, and
under the pressure of the eminent chief Minister of
that Government, the late Lord Derby, they con-
sented to pass the bill. Now we have come to
another crisis, and it has arisen from somewhat of a
similar cause. I believe that the gravity of this
crisis can scarcely be exaggerated. We have been,
as I have related, accustomed to conflict, and
to conflict with a particular opponent, but we
have been • less accustomed to conquer. And
now on this momentous occasion, when the
whole country is being stirred, I have not the
smallest doubt that the conquest of the people will be
as complete and as triumphant as on any former oc-
casion. Now, why is it that we are here? I know
not how many thousands there are in this room. ("50"
"20.") It may be anywhere from 15,000 to
20,000, and many there are outside and in the other
building I have no means of calculating. The ques-
tion which has brought us together, and the duty we
have to perform is in words a very simple one. It is
to join with the rest of our countrymen in compelling,
a House representing, directly, nobody, to accept a
bill which has been passed and granted by a House
representing some millions of our people. Now, that
is the question before us, and before the country, and
we are here to help our neighbours in this matter.
After some further observations, Mr. Bright concluded
by saying: "Well, I have said what I have to say. I
have seen no meeting like this, I think, since I was
here so many years ago. On that occasion the meet-
ing was enormous, and its influence was enormous.
I had no doubt that it had a great effect upon the
results of the then—not long after—ensuing election
in this county. I hope this meeting may speak
specially to this county, but speak to all the country
in favour of a firm resolve that this bill shall pass in
the course of the months of October or November.
If it should not pass then—mark my words—l think
you would be entitled to call upon her Majesty's
Ministers for some definite statement of their view of
the case. What that view may be I know not and
will not attempt to say, but the view of the English
people will be that if their forefathers had the power
to curb despotic rnonarchy,you have the power equally
to curb an arrogant and I think—speaking of a
majority of the peers—an unpatriotic oligarchy."
Mr. Bright again rose and said: May I ask you to
be perfectly quiet, because I have now to call upon
you to do what may be a great historic act. Mr.
Bright read the resolution, and called upon all who
approved of it to say "Aye."
There was an immense shout of "Aye," and the
meeting broke out into loud and continued cheering.
Mr. Bright then said: We desire to be very impar-
tial at our meetings, and if anybody desires to say
"No" we will listen to him. (No response.) The
resolution is passed unanimously.
After a pause, during which Mr. H. J. Roby came
on to the platform,
Mr. Bright said: Mr. Roby is wishful to offer an
additional resolution to thenieeting. I beg you will
hear him patiently.
Mr. Roby moved a resolntion to the effect that the
power of veto of the House of Lords was an intolerable
anomaly, productive of much mischief and no good,
lead to just irritation in the people, was a constant
hindrance to good and just legislation, and ought to
be abolished.

Mr. G. W. Lath am seconded the resolution, which
was declared to be carried.

One of the overflow meetings presided over by Mr.
R. Leake, M.P., was addressed by Lord Hartmgton,
Sir Henry James, and Mr. Bright, who spoke in sup-
port of a similar resolution to that arrived at the
meeting in the palace.
At the second overflow meeting, over which Mr. W.
Agnew, M.P., presided, addresses were delivered by
Mr. W. E. Briggs, M.P., Ms. J. Slagg, M.P.. and
Mr. Henry Lee, M.P.