The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-12-11 00:00:00

A CANINE MONSTER.

A civil engineer, named Saunders, residing at Re-
culver, was on Saturday summoned before the county
magistrates at Canterbury, for neglecting to comply
with an order of the justices directing that a ferocious
flog, of which be is the owner, should be destroyed.
The defendant did not appear, but had informed the
police-sergeant by whom the summons was served
that he did not intend to comply with the order. He
had sent the dog away, but would not have it killed
for £5O. The evidence went to show that the animal,
a deerhound, was alive, according to the defendant's
own showing, five days subsequent to the expiry of
the notice for it to be destroyed, and it was mentioned
that Mr. Saunders dispatched the dog from Birching-
ton to Victoria-station. A penalty of £5 and costs
was imposed, in default six weeks' imprisonment.
The dog in question has bitten five persons, and so
intimidated the Coastgnardsmen of Reculver that
they were unable to discharge their duty in a proper
manner.

AT a recent evening dance of the Harvardese, in
San Francisco, a celebrant called Professor Irving
Btringbam strung 'em some " poetry " uLiquely
wrought. In metrical construction I should say the
professor's verses were jimjambic sweetameters ; in
sentiment, slushy slumgullicnistio. If it took Har-
vard 241 years to produce that kind of a poet, how
long shall we have to wait before it will whack up a
first-class soe ?

GREAT LIBERAL UNIONIST CON-
FERENCE IN LONDON:

Lord Eartington presided on Tuesday over a
Liberal Unionist Conference at Willis's Rooms.
which were crowded by peers, Members of Parliament,
and other influential men. A number of letters and
telegrams was read, including the following:
"One Ash, Rochdale, Nov. 28, 1880.

"My dear Lord Hartington, Your letter has
caused me some anxiety, and I wish I could reply
to it as you wish. As you know, I am against
anything like a Parliament in Dublin, more
against it, I suppose, than many or some of
those who are acting with you. If present at the
Con!erence or at the banquet I might be expected
to say something, and should probably find myself in
some difficulty. I fear to speak or even to write,
The course taken by Mr. Gladstone since the close of
the Session has astonished me, and has given me
great trouble. His speaking and writing, and es-
pecially his reception of the Irish deputation, seem to
me to have driven him so far on a wrong course that
we can have no hope of any more moderate policy
from him. If I had to speak, what could I say? I
could only deplore and condemn, and it would be im-
possible to avoid opening still more widely the breach
which now exists between us, and which has given me so
much pain. At this mom( at his allies in Ireland, Dillon,
O'Brien, and Co., are driving matters to an extremity,
and he and Mr. Parnell say not a word to arrest or
to le.sen the calamity, which, I fear, is pending. Mr.
Parnell is, I believe, a proprietor of the Land organ,
United Ireland, and this paper is the chief promoter
of the social war into which the people are being
driven. Mr. Gladstone is leading the bulk of the
Liberal party in support of the men who are the
authors of the desperate struggle which is now being
waged between the owners and occupiers of land in
Ireland. His voice is not heard on behalf of peace
and moderation. The Goveresnent may be compelled
to take measures of repression, and the Liberal
speakers at conferences and on platforms are .pledging
themselves and their audiences to oppose every form
of law or administration which has the semblance of
what is termed coercioe,or of giving increased strength
to the Irish Executive. If I were forced to speak I should
have to say some strong, things, and I fear much I
might not be of any real service. I could say nothing
without seeming to attack Mr. Gladstone. This I
might even do if I were sure of doing god, but I am
not sure of this, and I abstain from attacking him
for my personal regard for him, which even his pre.
sent unwisdom cannot greatly diminish. I do not feel
that I can come to the Conference or to the banquet
with a prospect of being useful or with comfort of
myself. I hope your meeting may be large and
influential, and that its effect may be good in the
country, and that it may add strength to the
Government as far as it may be our duty to support
them. If this letter disappoint you I trust to your
forgiveness after the explanation I have thought it
right to give you. Believe me, always sincerely
yours, "JOHN BRIGHT.
"The Right Hon. the Marquis of Hartington."
(Loud cheers.) Telegram from Mr. Chamberlain:
"Regret my absence from England prevents my
attendance to-morrow. While Separatists maintain
defeated programme, organisatice. of Liberal Unionists
is a necessary duty. The speech of Lord Herschell
at Bristol fairly states the problem. If the Glad-
stonian Liberals sincerely desire re-union they
should invite both sections of the party to a
free conference as to the extent and character
of reforms which can safely be granted to
Ireland without reference to the discarded
scheme of the late Government. Our opposition is
confined to the defeated policy. If that be frankly
abandoned, we are ready to discuss any safe scheme,
but must first have assurance that the old plan, or
one equiilly objectionable, will not again be proposed.
Agreement OD this cardinal point necessary prelimi-
nary to any joint action. Failing this, responskility
of division rests with Separatists." (Cheers).
Lord Hartington, in his opening address, first
showed that the Liberal split was due not to the
Unionists but to the Separatists, who, by advocatiu4
Home .Rule, had departed from Liberal principles--
of which principles the Liberal Unionists were the
true exponents by insisting upon the maintenance of
the integrity of the Imperial Legislature. The pre-
sent strength of the Liberal Unionists was greatly due
to the alliance with the Conservative party. They
were not there to exaggerate the completeness of their
success. It was true that those who brought forward
the Home Me proposals were no longer in office, but
their policy still remained. That policy was sup-
perted by an active and energetic Irish National party,
which had powerful allies in the majority of the
Liberal party in England. It was,:therefore, idle
to suppose that because the assault on the strong-
hold had failed the attempt would be relinquished
and abandoned. It is more likely that a siege
would be laid to the p ssition that was not
captured by storm, and they would have to
work until either they were defeated or had
achieved a more decisive victory. The time had
scarcely arrived when a line of action for their Par-
liamentary representatives could be definitely laid
down. Their course of conduct must depend upon
three elements—the course taken by the Government,
by the Liberal Opposition, and the Irish party: and
the state of affairs in Ireland itself. Their Parliamen-
tary representatives would not find any difficulty in
agreeing to a course of action whatever might arise,
for they were agreed on the one common and vital
point, which was the maintenance of the legislative
union—Whigs. Radicals, and men of every section of
the Liberal Unionists would have no difficulty in
agreeing upon that point. But they must re-
member that they were not concerned only with
the Parliamentary representatives. in England,
Scotland, and the north of Ireland they had numerous
supporters, who_e position was different to that of
their own. They had made personal and political
sacrifices, and encouragement was nee,!ed. As to the
reunion of the Liberal party, Lord Herschell had
made friendly suggestions, and if it could be ap-
proached in that spTsit he did not say it was not prac-
ticable or desirable. But Lord Hartington was com-
pelled .o say that no overtures in the same direction
had been forthcoming from the other Liberal
leaders, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, and
Mr. Morley had all said the only basis of re-
union was the granting to Ireland of a separate
Parliament, which the Unionists believed to be in-
compatible with the supremacy of the Empire. Mr.
Gladstone, at Hawarden, said he remained where he
was to settle the Irish question, and he prophesied
to the Nationalists that their cause would before long
succeed. The Leeds conference passed resolutions on
the same lines, and it could not, therefore, be possible
for them, however much they might desire it, to forni
a platform which would be accepted by all. . It
had been said that the Unienists were assist-
ing the Government to outbid their oppo-
nents on Irish. policy; but that was clear
assumption, for they had never made any demand
upon the Government as to what their Irish policy
was. One of the e_ethode adopted to induce the
Unionists to surrender was the argument of fear; but,
whatever the dangers, they would not surrender to
the enemies of the British Empire. There was now
in progress in Ireland one of the forms of resistance
to the law by which they bad been nromised they
would be confronted. It was an agitation which had
no signs of a spontaneous origin; it had been created
for political purposes by politicians, and had
been foretold, if it had not been organised,
at the Chicago Conference last autumn. Mr.
Parnell and Mr. Dillon had been admitted to an
alliance with the English Liberals, and if Mr.
Gladstone spoke the word he might not be able
to control the proceedings of Mr. Dillon and some of
his party, but he mild speak the word which would
dissolve tho alliance between the Liberal party and
the Irish Nationalist arty. Until that agitation had
been abandoned, until it was disowned, and until it
was suppressed, they and the people of England would
wait for that word in be spoken, and if it were delayed
the credit of the Liberal party would be seriously en-
dangered—a credit and a great name' 'which, what-
ever might be their differences of political opinion,
they assembled in that room valued and treasured as
much as any one of those to whom they were politi-
cally opposed.

Lord Selborne proposed, Mr. George Dixon, M.P.,
seconded, and Sir T. E. Colebrook supporting the
following resolution, which was carried: "That in
view of the a2itation by which the union between Great
Britian and Ireland is still menaced, and of the efforts
of a section of the Liberal party to identify the party
as a whole with the Irish policy rejected by the
majority of the nation at the last General Election,
this conference declares its determination to make
every endeavour to maintain that legislative union!
and urges on all Liberal Unionists not to relax their
efforts on behalf of the Unionist cause."

In the evening the Liberal Unionists, to the number
of 400, dined together at the Hotel Metropole, Lord
Hartingt9n presiding. Responding to the toast of
the Unionist Cause, Mr. Goschien said they had not
met in a despondent tone, nor, he hoped, in an
arrogant mood. They were not in office, but their
leader was practically in power, and their duty was
to see that the Liberal Party was not identified
with the Party of Anarchy. Alluding to the
overtures for reunion, he said that the Unionists
were asked to join in a policy of silence in face of a
plan of plunder. They were waging a conflict on
behalf of all classes. It might be that a new gospel
might be preached against the whole principles of
morality; but be claimed that they were maintaining
the unity of the Empire, and endeavouring to save
the historical Liberal party from ending in a Party of
Anarchy and Ruin. Lord Derby, Sir H. James, and
Sir G. Trevelyan were among the other speakers.