The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-08-28 00:00:00

THE ADDRESS DEBATE.

The adjourned debate on the Address was resumed by
Mr. Labouchere, who, after some caustic references to
the Queen's Speech, discussed in a discursive vein the
conduct and position of the dissentient Liberals,
Lord R. Churchill's " insulting " election address,
the decaying influence of the Whig party, &c.
The election, he contended, showed that the dissen-
tient Liberals had been elected solely by Tory votes,
and that the majority of the electors of the United
Kingdom were in favour ot Home Rule. The verdict,
therefore, was not irrevocable, and he urged on the
Irish not to abate one jot of their demands, and to use
every means justifiable to a nation struggling to be
free. Discussicg the policy of the Government, he
contended that it was another illustration of the policy
of the "privileged classes" to turn aside attacks on
their privileges by stirring up disorder, ridiculed the
commissions, and asserted that the land purchase
scheme foreshadowed by Lord R. Churchill would be
more burdensome than Mr. Gladstone's.

Sir M. Hicks-Beach thought Mr. Laboucbere's
caricature of the policy ot the Government hardly
ealled for comment, but in answer to more serious
accusations he maintained that it was a plain and
sober one, and its object was to secure the material
welfare of the people of Ireland. Referring to the
speech of Sir W. Harcourt, he denied that measures
tor the redress of grievances must of necessity accom-
pany repressive legislation. This principle was a novel
discovery, and it had not Leen carried out in practice
by Liberal Governments either in Ireland or in the
case of the crofters in Scotland. Moreover, the Irish
grievances which it was now desired to redress—the
denial of a separate Parliament—was one which
the country had clearly and distinctly pro-
nounced upon, and he asked whether MOOD-
lighting in Kerry and rioting in Belfast were to
continue until the country altered its opinion. As
regarded the first of the Commissions proposed, he
J.dmitted that the Irish land question could net remain
as it was, and the scope of the inquiry, he said, would
be so narrowed that he conceived it would be quite
possible that the Commission would be able to report
in time for legislation to be submitted to the House
early Lext year. He indignantly disclaimed the
existence of any desire on the part of the Government
to encourage evictions. He hoped, and believed, that
landlords would act fairly towards their tenants, and
all he desired was that they should be left to deal
with each other free from outside influence. As
to tenants liable to judicial rents, he doubted
whether the hardships alleged existed, and, while
emphasising the necessity of enforcing leg al
obligations. he had no doubt that a scheme would be
found possible whereby a system of peasant proprietor-
ship might take the place of the present dual ownership.
lie next entered into a detailed explanation of the
scope of the second inquiry, which he said would be
undertaken by men of experience in engineering,
drainage, and agriculture, not so much in Ireland,
perhaps, as elsewhere, and expressed great confideuce
in the advantages to be derived from exteuding the
nalmral resources of Ireland and improving the arLerial
drainage of the country.
. . _ _

Mr. bradlaugh chall;Mged Lord Hartington and Mr.
Chamberlain to state their views on the I.nd purchase
policy of the Government, and energetically declaimed
against the taxation of Enalish artisans for the purpose
of buying cut Irish landlords.
Mr. Radcliffe Cooke spoke in support of the Govern-
ment policy; and Mr. Pinkerton complained that, as a
Commission was to inquire into the question of rents,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already prejudged
the case by declaring existing judicial rents to be fair.
Mr Shirley contended that the country had not de-
clared against a subordinate Parliament for Ireland.
Mr. P. bl'Dotiald enlarged upon the necessity of im-
mediate legislation with a view to stop evictions; Mr.
Jennings argued that the working men of the North of
England were opposed to the time of Parliament being
entirely monopolised by Irish questions, and Mr.
Illingworth charged the Government with panderirg to
the landlord classes.

Lord Hartington, who rose amid much cheering,
began by referring to the observations of Mr.
Labouchere with respect to the action of the Liberal
Unionists, which he characterised as unfair and not
justified. They declined, he said, to abandon the
opinicns they entertained simply for the purpose of re-
uniting the Liberal party; but he denied that they had
done anything to forfeit their right to still be considered
members ot the Liberal party because they had de.
dined to accept opinions which had never been the
opinions of the Liberal party; As to the policy which
had been announced by the Government, he remarked
that the House was not asked now to commit itself to
the legislative projects which they contemplated, and
as to the executive mea3ureB, nobody proposed now to
challenge them. They bad been dispisraged—no doubt,
naturally—by the Irish members; but he regretted
that Sir William Harcourt, so lately a Secretary of
State, should have thrown ridicule on them with DO
apparent purpose but to aggravate the difficulties of
the Government. He did not agree with Sir William
Harcourt's sweeping doctrines about "social order,"
and pointed out that he had not always held them or
acted on them, as was shown by his speech on the
Arms Act In the same manner he disapproved Sir
William Harcourt's reasons for concluding that rent
could not be paid, and as to land purchase, he denied
that he had ever committed himself to any opinion
except that if the Home Rule Bill of the late Govern-
ment were passed some measure of the sort would
be necessary. But if the principle of dual
ownership had failed, and if any amendment
of the Land Act were desirable it must be
in the direction of increasing the efficiency of
the purchase clauses. Any such attempt ought to
be pieceded by careful inquiry. He was unable, he
said, to see in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech
anything encouraging landlords to insist on their
extreme rights, and he protested, against this mis-
representation as mischievous and unfair ; but while he
hoped that landlords would conduct themselves with
forbearance and moderation, he thought no greater
disservice could he done to Ireland than to foster the
impression that the Government could exercise a dis-
pensing power to set aside the rights of any class As
to the inquiry into public works—thcugh he was
against offering any disguised or demoralising alms to
Ireland—he maintained that Parliament did cot possess
saflicient information. Finally, he expressed his
approval of the proposal to defer the local government
question until next session, and he hoped that in the
meantime the policy announced by the Government
would have a fair consideration.

Mr. J. Morley could discern very little in the noble
lord's speech to lead to a hope of the speedy removal
of the embarrassments and discords Of the Liberal
party. He agreed that the law must be upheld, even
if it were a law which required amendment, but he
took exception to the means which were to be adopted,
and especially he complained that, while the Govern-
ment was stopping outrage with one hand, it was en-
couraging evictions with the otber. The National
League, he maintained, had done what it could to put
down outrage, and the action of the late Government
in their endeavours to trust the national feeling had
made the task of the present Government far easier
than it would otherwise have been. He was, howeve..,
disappoieted with the narrowness of the proposals made,
and although it was difficult to complain of any corn.
missions of inquiry, he denied that the proposed Land
Commission would be able to obtain information which
would be of value. He saw in the speech of the Chief
Secretary the possibility of a Land Bill. but he warned
'ie Government that the couatry would never consent
to pay compensation to the landlords, awl he foresaw
that grave results would happen unless some steps
were taken to stop evictions. As regards the scientific
commission of experts, which was to investigate the
possibility of developing the natural resources of
the country, he anticipated the probability of
immense expense being incurred, and contended that
the report of a Committee which recently sat had pro-
vided all the information necessary. He also saw
grave dangers in the proposed system of local govern-
ment, and argued that disastrous results would follow
unless the local authorities were guided and controlled
by a national central anthority.
Mr. NY. F. Lawrence also made some remarks; and
on the motion of Mr. Parnell the debate was ads
journed.
several new bills were brought in and read a first
time; and some other business having bcen dispcsed
of, the House adjourned minutes to 1 u'clocz.