The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-06-19 00:00:00

ADDRESS OF MR. CHAMBERLAIN,

Mr. Chamberlain, on Friday night, issued his
address to the electors of the Western division of
Birmingham. The right hon. gentleman says:
The new Parliament is about to be dissolved under
circumstances unparalleled in the history of the
country. Before the last general election, in Sep-
tember, 1885, Mr. Gladstone, as the leader of the
Liberal party, issued a manifesto, in which he formu-
lated a policy for the consideration of the electors.
The election was fought and won on the programme
formulated by Mr. Gladstone, and on the collateral
issues of purely domestic interest, it was affected by
the controversy as to the Established Church, by the
question of national education, and by the proposals
for the improvement of the condition of the agricul-
tural labourers; but the Liberal party, with rare
exceptions, repudiated emphatically the demand
of Mr. Parnell for a separate Irish Parliament,
and refused to purchase the Irish vote by
tampering with the unity of the three kingdoms.
What the leader of the Liberal party last.
November solemnly and seriously declared to be un-
safe the Prime Minister has now deliberately under-
taken. The manifesto to the electors of Mid-
Lothian has been laid aside. No attempt hr.s been
made to deal with any of the principal subjects
declared in the yrogramme to be ripe for legislation.
The Government which came into office on a resolu-
tion calling for immediate legislation for the benefit
of the agricultural labourers, has made no effort to
fulfil its pledges, and the Parliament elected to deal
with these questions will be summarily dismissed be-
cause, by a great majority of English and Scotch
representatives, it has refused to accept proposals
entirely novel and unexpected, and unsupported in
their integrity by any section of the House of
Commons outside the Government and thpse mem-
bers of the Irish party whom a short time
ago Mr. Gladstone described as "marching through
rapine to disintegration and dismemberment of
the Empire, and even to the placing of different
parts of the Empire in direct hostility one
to the other." The authority of the Prime Minister
has been sufficient to work this startling trans-
formation; but even this great authority must not be
allowed to blind us to the vital issues raised by the
Irish bills, and to the fatal and irretrievable conse-
quences of the legislation now proposed. The Irish
Government bill would repeal the most important
provisions of the Act of Union. It would set up a
rival Parliament in Dublin with large powers of
legislation and administration, and with the executive
resting entirely on its support. Such a body, by the
necessity of the case, would be compelled to assert its
independence of external control, and would be the
source of constant irritation and agitation until the
full demands of the Separatist party had been com-
pletely satisfied. No effective guarantees could pos-
sibly be taken for the protection of the minority, for
the security of property, or for the rights of con-
science. The judges of the land and the whole system
of criminal legislation would be under its control, and
the entire executive authority of the country would
soon be concentrated in its hand.

I am firmly convinced, then, that the proposed
Irish legislation ought not to receive your sanction.
I disapprove of it because I believe that the existence
of a separate and practically independent Parliament
in Dublin will be dangerous to the unity and even to
the safety of the United Kingdom; and that by the
complications to which it will give rise its estallish-
rnent will indefinitely postpone the great measure of
domestic reform which we all earnestly desire to
forward.

Although most of the long-standing grievances of
Ireland have now been dealt with in a generous spirit,
there are still matters calling for the early attention
of the Imperial Parliament. It is generally admitted
that the Land Act of 1881, like its predecessor the
Land Act of 1870, is imperfect and requires amend-
ment. There is a consensus of opinion that it is de-
sirable to increase the number of owners of land in
Ireland, and I believe that this object, Conservative
in the last sense of the word, can be attained without
the risk to the British taxpayer and with great
advantage to the occupying tenants of Ireland.
A greater and more pressing question remains for
solution. Ireland is much behind the rest of the
United Kingdom in its system of local government,
and the necessity for a greater extension of local
control of local affairs is recognised as a necessary
consequence of the extension of the Parliamentary
franchise. Liberal Unionists, while determined in
their opposition to the establishrdent of a separate
Parliament for Ireland, are nevertheless anxious to
meet, as far as possible, the legitimate aspirations of
the Irish people, shared, as they believe them to be,
by Scotland and by Wales, for greater independence
in the management of their local affairs. In this
connection the objects to be kept in view are:
1. To relieve the Imperial Parliament by devo-
lution of Irish local business, and to set it free for
other and more important work.
2. To secure the full representation of Irish opinion
on all matters of purely Irish concern.
3. To offer to Irishmen a fair field for legitimate
local ambition and patriotism, and to bring back the
attention of the Irish people, now diverted to a barren
conflict in the Imperial Parliament, to the practical
consideration of their own wants and necessities; and,
astly, by removing all unnecessary interference with
Irish Government on the part of Great Britain, to
diminish the causes of irritation and the opportunity
of collision.

To secure these objects it will be expedient to estab-
lish a complete system of popular local government.
alike in its main features for England, Ireland, Scot-
land and Wales.
But beyond and above a purely municipal organisa-
tion of this kind, I believe a larger arrangement will
be found safe and desirable under which, subject to
the concurrent and supreme authority of the Imperial
Parliament, the various portions of the United
Kingdom shall be enabled to exercise greater influen:43
over local administration and legislation for special
needs and requirements.
No one has recognised more strongly than myself
the claims of party and the duty incumbent on all to
sacrifice individual preferences to the necessity of
united action, but I believe that in the present instance
the danger is so great that all other considerations
ought now to yield to the urgent necessity of securing
the safety of the realm and the lasting welfare of
Great Britain and Ireland,

MR. PARNELL AND LORD
CARNARVON.
The following communication has been received
from Mr. Parnell:
My reference in the House of Commons on Mon-
day, explanatory of the reasons which induced the
passage in my speech at Wicklow last year regard-
ing Protection, has called from Lord Carnarvon a
lengthy explanation regarding my interview with
him in July, as to which he makes certain posi-
tive, but chiefly a series of negative, state-
ments. It will, I think, be now generally
considered desirable that some further positive
information should be given to the public regard-
ing the details of the interview, that the deff-
cienciep left by Lore Cornarvon should be supple-
mented, and tha i should say how far my recollec-
tion coincides with his. But first it would be conve-
nient that I should recall to mind the reference which
I made on Monday to the Wicklow speech, and as to
which the controversy—at first with Sir Michael
Hicks-Beach and now with Lord Carnarvon—has
arisen. It was as follows: "That speech about pro-
tection at Wicklow was made at a time when we had
every reason to believe that the Conservative party, if
they should have been successful at the polls, would
have offered Ireland a statutory legislature, with the
right to protect her own industries, and that this
would have been coupled with a settlement
of the land question on the basis of pur-
chase on a larger scale than that now proposed by the
Prime Minister. What I have now to tell regard-
ing the interview of July will I think :be held
fully to justify that reference. I regret that I am
obliged to commence the recital by differing with
Lord Carnarvon point blank, as it is a question of
fact. He says in hia explanation that towards ills
end of last July it was intimated to him that if he
wen willing I should also be willing to meet him in
conversation—in other words, that I sought the inter-
view. Now this I positively deny, and as a matter
of fact the meeting was brought about by an intima-
tion being conveyed to me exactly the converse of
that which Lord Carnarvon alleges was conveyed to
him. In this connection Lord Carnarvon originally
pronosed that I should meet him at the house of a
genileman now a prominent Conservative mem-
ber of Parliament, who s.:.bsequently undertook
a mission to Ireland, and obtained letters
of introduction to several members of the
Irish Parliamentary party, with whom he
discussed in detail the species of Irish Parliament
that would be acceptable to Ireland. I de-
clined, however, to meet Lord Carnarvon at the
house of a stranger, and suggested that if the inter-
view was to take place at all, it had best be at his own
residence. I must also take issue as to the correct-
ness of Lord Carnarvon's memory as to two of the
three conditions which he alleges he stated to me as
the conditions upon which he could enter into any
conversation with me—namely, that, first of all, he
was acting of himself by himself, and that the respon-
sibility was his, and the communications were from
himself alone; and secondly, that he was there as the
Queen's servant, and that he would neither hear nor
say one word which was inconsistent with the union
of the two countries, and that I assented to these con-
ditions. Now, Lord Carnarvon did not lay down
any conditions whatever as a preliminary to his
entering into conversation with me. It must be
manifest that if he had desired to do so he would
have intimated them when requesting the interview.
He certainly made no use whatever of the terms of
the two conditions which I have repeated. There is,
however, some foundation for his statement concern-
ing the remaining one, inasmuch as he undoubtedly
remarked at the commencement that he hoped I
would uiderstand that we were not engaged in making
"any treaty or bargain whatever." Lord Carnarvon
heu Proceeded to say that be had sought this inter-

view tor tne purpose or ascertaining my views regard-
ing—should he call it a " ConstiLution for Ireland ; "
but I soon found that he had brought me
there in order that he might give his own views
upon this matter as well as ascertaining mine. I
readily opened my mind to him on the subject, and,
in reply to an inquiry as to a proposal which had
been made to build up a central legislative body on
the foundation of county boards. I told him that I
thought that this would be working in the wrong
direction, and would not be accepted as a settle-
ment by Ireland; that the central legislative body
should be a Parliament in name and in fact that to
it should be left the consideration of whatever system
of local government for the counties might be found
necessary. Lord Carnarvon then assured me that that
was his own view; also that he strongly appreciated
the importance of giving due weight to the sentiments
of the Irish on this matter. He then inquired whether
in my judgment some plan for constituting a parlia-
ment in Dublin short of repeal of the Union might
not be devised and prove acceptable to Ireland,
and he made certain suggestions to this end, taking
the colonial model as a basis, which struck me as
being the result of much thought and knowledge of
the subject. Then came the reference to protection.
We were discussing the general outline of a plan for
constituting a legislature for Ireland on the colonial
model, when I took occasion to remark that protection
for certain Irish industries against English and foreign
competition would be absolutely necessary, upon
which Lord Carnarvon said, "I entirely agree with
you," but what a row there will be aboi:t it in Eng-
land. At the conclusion of the conversation, which
lasted more than an hour, and to which Lord
Carnarvon was very much the larger contributor, I
left him, believing that I was in complete accord
with him regarding the main outlines of a
settlement conferring a legislature upon Ireland.
In conversing with him I dealt with the Lord Lieu-
tenant of Ireland, whc was responsible for the
government of the country. I could not suppose that
he would fail to impress the views which he had dis-
closed to me upon the Cabinet, and I have reason to
believe that he did so impress them, and that they
were strongly shared in by more than one important
member of that body, and strongly opposed by none.
From information conveyed to me by those who were
in communication with Lord Carnarvon after he went
to Ireland, I have also good ground for supposing
that he continued of the same opinions as those which
he expressed to me, and that be resigned his office
because of our failure to give the Conservative party
a majority at the polls. An opposition overwhelming
in its character first appeared in the Cabinet to his views.
I spoke at Wicklow under the impression produced
by my interview with Lord Carnarvon. I acted sub-
sequently and during the general election from the
same motive, largely strengthened as it was by sub-
sequent information from other sources. I leave it
to the public to judge whether I was warranted in this
impression and belief. I would only further say that
history will not record more disgraceful and unscru-
pulous volte face than that executed by the Tory party
last January, when they found our vote was not
numerous enough to keep them in office. I feel
bound, however, to add that I entirely acquit Lord
Carnarvon of the responsibility of the tactics of his
party. —Yours obediently,
CHARLES S. PARNELL.

Lord Carnarvon replies to Mr. Parnell's memo-
randum of his conversation with his lordship on the
Ist August last. In the course of it he says: As
regards the purport and tenor of the cmversation
(with Mr. Parnell), it has left an entirely different
impression on my mind. I proposed nothing,
but as Mr. Parnell talked I put questions, suggested
difficulties, and raised objections for him to answer
cr explain. He spoke much on the character
and functions of a central Legislature; the neces-
sity of developing Irish industries; on the con-
gestion of population in parts of Ireland; on
various commercial undertakings, in some of which
he had personally been concerned; on the lowness
of prices, and the risks involvei in this; and on
the relations and difficulties of landlords and tenants.
As regards the question of Protection, I remember
his alluding to his belief that some kind—l think
"some limited kind of Protection" was necessary for
the promotion of Irish industries; to which I replied
that whatever individual opinion might be on the sub-
ject of Protection, such a proposal must arouse great
objection among many classes. I do not remember
usiug the particular words attributed to me, though
the sense is not far removed. But I must repeat
that I said nothing which could implyany concurrence
on the part of the Government in a proposal to" give
a Statutory Parliament with power to protect Irish
Industries.'