The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-04-30 00:00:00

THE IRISH QUESTION.
IMPORTANT OPINIONS.

Mr. Chamberlain, in the course of an address at
Stornoway on Saturday, said that Mr. Gladstone's
speech at the Eighty Club had given him renewed
hopes. He alluded particularly to Mr. Gladstone's
statement that he had done his best to promote com-
munication with the Dissentient Liberals for in-
dependent co-operation upon Liberal measures. Mr.
Chamberlain declared that if it were possible to co-
operate on such questions, the hope of reunion would
once more beam brightly, but Mr. Gladstone must
agree to postpone the Irish question for the present
Parliament; or, if he should prefer not to put aside
the Home Rule question for a few years, all that was
necessary was that he should meet the objections of
his former supporters and colleagues to his bill.
Mr. Forwood, M.P., addressing the Liverpool
Constitutional Association OR Monday, said it was
impossible to convey any idea of the obstruction in
the House of Commons by members who sat below
the gangway on the Opposition side. Newspapers
failed to report these scenes, which were a disgrace to
any assembly. Notwithstanding obstruction, two
great measures dealing with Ireland would be passed
into law, and there never was a more hearty co•opera-
tion on the part of any body of men than there was
on the part of the Unionist members of the House of
Commons. A resolution of confidence in the Ministry
was passed.
Lord Wolverton addressed a large meeting at Wey-
mouth on Monday night, and contended that the
Crimes Bill was only put forward by Government for
political purposes, and not to repress crime. If
passed it would be likely to lead to rebellion. Home
Rule was inevitable, and those who opposed it were
bringing about separation. The people of England
were beginning to understand the bill, and were
against it. Referring to the future of the Liberal
party, his lordship expressed the belief that Mr.
Chamberlain would, in a few years, lead that party.
At the next election they would contest every seat in
Dorsetshire. _ _

Earl Spencer addressed a meeting on Tuesday
night, held at the Connaught Hall, Albert Palace,
under the auspices of the Battersea, Clapham, and
Wandsworth Liberal and Radical Associations, to
protest against coercion. Mr. 0. V. Morgan, M.P.,
presided. A. letter was read from Mr. Gladstone in
the following terms: "It gratifies me much to learn
that a powerful demonstrationagainst this unexampled
Coercion Bill is to be held in Battersea. The peace
of Ireland and the honour of England are alike
involved in its defeat. I can be in one place only at
a time, or I should be glad to join personally in your
or any similar movement." (Cheers.) Earl Spencer
supported a resolution (which was adopted unani-
mously) expressing confidence in Mr. Gladstone and
the other Liberal leaders, and condemning the
Coercion Bill as an unjustifiable attempt to suppress
the rights and liberties of the Irish people. The
noble lord said their opponents represented that their
policy was certain to lead to the separation of Ireland
from England. He did not for a moment believe in
separation—(cheers)—and he did not think that the
Irish people desired it. They had the assurance of
the leaders of the Irish party that they were content
to receive the measure which Mr. Gladstone intro-
duced last year, and that was nota measure of separa-
tion. The Roman Catholic priesthood and those who
followed the constitutional method in Ireland and
America did not wish it. The accusation was also
made that the Liberals as a party were throwing a
shield over those who were responsible for crime.
That was a serious accusation. He entirely en-
dorsed Lord Herschell's views. The ex-Lord Chan-
cellor repudiated it with dignity and indigna-
tion, and he (Lord Spencer), too, repudiated
it, and would say that he had no sympathy what-
ever with crime. His past record would not justify
accusations of this sort— (cheers)—but Liberalsclaimed
that as honest men they might choose different
methods for keeping law and order in Ireland. They
might, without jeopardising their good name, oppose
the policy of Lord Salisbury. With reference to what
was called " Parnellism and Crime," he would not
speak at length. He had often been quoted, and all
that he would now say was that he felt he should
have been a cowardly man if he had not said what he
could say on this subject last year. It was his duty to
say exactly what was in his mind. He spoke at New-
castle, and he had often gone over his words spoken
there. He adhered literally to every word he had
spoken. These were the words which Mr. Parnell
had quoted the other night in the House of Commons.
Since then, excepting the letter which had appeared in
the Times and which Mr. Parnell had categorically
denied, there had been nothing new on this subject.
What had been said lately was stated in Parliament
in 1882 and 1883, and he believed in 1884. If that
was the case ought not the accusations brought
against the Liberal party to be brought against the
Conservatives too? How was it that Lord Carearvon,
as Viceroy, asked Mr. Parnell to come and see him,
as being the leader of the national feeling in Ireland,
and consult as to the state of things in that country?
There was nothing in the state of Ireland, unsatis-
fa3tory though affairs might be, which required them
to hang up their measure of Home Rule or which
necessitated exceptional legislation. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Labouchere, M.P., spoke at a meeting of the
Chiswick Liberal Club on Tuesday night against
further coercion for Ireland, and declared his positive
beliet that the letter which lately appeared in the
Times purporting to have beenwritten by Mr. Parnell
was a forgery.