The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-01-08 00:00:00

MR. FAWCETT AT MANCHESTER.

The Pcstmaster General, speaking at Manchester on
Tuesday evening, alluded to the discontent existing
among the Post Office telegraphists with regard to pay
and promotion, and promised that their representa-
tions should receive his most careful consideration,
and that if he found he required more facts he
would ask some of the provincial employes to come
and see him in London. Referring to Ireland,
he said that when the Government measures were
made known he believed it would be found that
no effort had boon allured to maintain law and order.
He considered that some people had condemned Mr.
Forster too hastily. As to the coming Land Bill and
the probable action of the House of Lords, he recalled
their rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance
Bill, which he partly attributed to its not having
reached them backed by a large majority in the House
of Commons; and he thought that with regard to the
expected measure their Lordships would not resist a
strong expression of popular feeling. The right hon.
gentleman also dealt with the subjects of land,
capital, and competition in England, with electoral
corruption, and India.—We give the following ex-
tract from Mr. Fawcett's speech :

"Connected with the prospects of Irish legislation,
a question is beginning to be asked which may not
improbably excite as much interest as the particular
form which the coming Irish Land Bill may assume.
There may probably be some in this room who are old
enough to remember that fifty years ago the inquiry
that was on every man's lips was, 'What will the
Lords do?' At that time, when it was proposed
that Manchester and other large towns which had then
no representation should be represented, and whet
it was proposed that the great middle ekes should
be enfranchised, there seemed reason to fear than
the Lords would resist all just demands for the
extension of popstlar rights; at the present time there
are not wanting those who think that the Lords will
resist all attempts that may be made to place the
tenure of land in Ireland upon a juster and more
satisfactory basis. It is said that, heedless of all
warnings, the Peers last Session rejected the Irish
Compensation Bill by an overwhelming majority;
but in politics, as in other affairs of life, I am sure
nothing is ever gained by attempting to conceal the
truth and by hesitating to make a frank and full ad-
mission, and therefore I am anxious to state, and I
believe the acknowledgment may have some practical
bearing on the future, that the House of Lords
was not solely responsible for the rejection of the
Irish Compensation Bill. The Government met
the House of Commons supported by an =pre-
cedentedly large majority; after the general elec-
tion, excluding the 65 biome Rulers, the Govern-
ment had a majority of 112. The second reading
of the Irish Compensation Bill was carried, including
the Home Rule vote, by a majority of only 78. If the
party had been united in its support the majority
would not have been less than 140. (Hear, hear.)
During the time that I have been in the House of
Commons nothing has struck me more than the
rapidity and certainty with which a strong popular
feeling makes itself felt in Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
When the late Conservative Government was at the
height of its power and when its majority had been
unbroken, you will probably not have forgotten that
the leader of the House of Commons came down one
night with a proposal which was then known as the
Rhodope grant.' Something like a pledge had been
given to various foreign Powers that such a grant should
be made, and therefore any humiliation to a Govern-
ment would better than having to abandon it, and
yet within twenty-four hours It was abandoned.
(Cheers.) They were afraid even to have it discussed.
And how was this brought about? It was brought about
simply because four-and-twenty hours were sufficient to
show the Government that, strong as they were, there
was one thing that they 'were not strong enough to do,
and that was to give to Turkey the money of the
English taxpayers. (Cheers.) I refer to this incident
not for the purpose of reviewing past controversy, my
sole objeet is to show to what an extent public opinion
may make itself felt in Parliament. The second read-
ing of the Irish Compensation Bill was carried, as I
have said, by scarcely more than one half of the
Ministerial majority. During the time that elapsed
between the second and third readings of the Bill
there was abundant opportunity for public opinion to
have made itself felt. The importance of passing the
measure was on more than one occasion explained
to the country in ministerial speeches by Mr. Glad-
stone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, and other members
of the Administration. They made earnest appeals
that the measure should be passed, as one necessary to
maintain peace and order in Ireland during the coming
autumn and winter. But how were those appeals
responded to by the constituencies and their repre-
sentatives ? The answer is supplied in the fact that
the majority of 78 on the second reading of the Bill
dwindled down to 66 on the third reading. (Hear,
hear.) I therefore feel that the apathy of the con-
stituencies and of those who represent them in the
House of Commons is, at least, partly responsible for
the ultimate defeat of the measure; for it was sent to
the House of Lords without any evidence to show
that it was strongly supported either by the Liberal
majority or the constituencies. (Hear, hear.) I do
not make these remarks with any object of defending
the course which was taken by the House of Lords;
but I believe that the lessons to be learnt from the
past have not been lost upon the House of Lords, that
as they have yielded before they will yield again to a
clearly expressed popular demand—(loud cheers)—and
that if the Irish Land Bill which is about to be in-
troduced should be strongly supported by the
country and should be voted for in the House of
Commons by an almostunbroken ministerial majority,
prudence, wisdom, and patriotism will alike prevent
the House of Lords incurring the serious responsi-
bility of rejecting it. (Hear, hear.) It can, I think,
be said, with some confidence, that in a grave national
crisis Englishmen will rise superior to considerations
of mere temporary party advantage. (Hear, hear.) No
one can looked unmoved on the present state of Ireland.
A terrorism widely prevails which is most baneful in
its consequences. Without attempting to decide to
what extent the present state ef things in Ireland
has been brought about ley past mismanagement and
past misgovernment, no one can deny that as a
nation we are bound to spare no effort to give to
Ireland peace, prosperity, and contentment. (Cheers.)
Whatever may be the remedial measures that
may be proposed, they should not be discussed
from a position of unpractical abstraction. (Hear,
hear.) If a patient is suffering from an acute dis
ease, it might be imperative to resort to a remedy
which it might be far better if the necessity
had never arisen—to have abstained from apply-
ing. Those who object to its application may at least
I think be called upon to answer these questions.
What will you substitute in its place? If you have
nothing to suggest are you prepared to allow the dis-
ease to go on unchecked and the suffering unrelieved?
(Hear, hear.) It is, I think, of the first importance
that this consideration should not only be borne in
mind by some Conservatives and some moderate
Liberals who may dislike the application to Ireland in
regard to the tenure of land of any principles which
they would not apply to England or Scotland; but
after some recent speeches, it seems to me it is a con-
sideration which should not be forgotten by some ad-
vanced Liberals who may possibly say that their dis-
like of all forms of coercion is so deep-seated that
they will never sanction any exceptional mea-
sures to maintain order, or to restore the authority
of law in Ireland. With suck an absorbing
subject as Ireland to engage the attention of Parlia-
ment during the coming Session, it is, of course, im-
possible to say how much time will be left for the
Government to pass measures on other subjects on
which they are anxious to legislate. As, however,
there are many questions in which legislation cannot
be long delayed, it seems to me important that the
attention of the public should be directed to some of
the Tales involved; for one important element in
enabling Government to decide on the character of
measures they may introduce is, if possible to
ascertain beforehand what are the wishes of the
country. (Hear, hear.) I will certainly be the last
to advocate that any Government should adopt a
policy of slavish subserviency, and if it is attempted
to legislate either in opposition to or far in advance
of public opinion, the legislation either fails to pass
or, if it does pass, may become a dead letter. (Hear,
hear.) One of the most important questions affect-
ing England and Scotland is the question of the
land. If I were asked to indicate what is the direction
which land law reform should take, I should !ay that
with regard to this as to many other questions, the
Liberal party may most fittingly pursue that path where
in the past Liberalism has achieved its greatest
triumphs and that the chief end to be striven after is
to secure greater freedom. (Cheers.) With greater
freedom to sell there would necessarily be Increased
opportunities to buy. It is not neoessary.to remind
you of the wonderful stimulus that was given to the
trade of this dictrict when it was released from the
fetters of Protection, and I believe that a scarcely less
powerful stimulus would be given to the agricultural
prosperity of the country if property in land were relieved
from its reudal restraints. We hear just now a great deal
of American competition, but the more severe the
competition against which any industry has to con-
tend, the more imperative does it become that that
industry should not be impeded by any artificially
created obstacles. There wiss a time when the cotton
manufacturers of England possessed almost un-
disputed supremacy, and although that supremacy
is still maintained, no one can say that it is now
undisputed. In the keen and closely contested
r struggle which you now have to carry on with
, foreign countries, what chance would there be of

your being able to maintain competition if you
had to rent your mills for an uncertain tenure, and
all sorts of antiquated conditions were imposed upon
you as to the mode in which you should carry on your
business ; if in every improvement you introduced
you had first to consider whether or not at the expira-
tion of your lease your rent would not be raised in
exact proportion to the extent to which the profits of
your business had been increased by the application of
your own capital, energy, and skill. (Hear. hear.) This
does not inaccurately indicate the- position of a censid.?.r-
able portion of the agricultural industry of this country
at the present time. Over millions of acres of English
soil a large additional outlay of capital is urgently
needed. The owners of land are only life-tenants and
they either cannot afford or may be unwilling to ex-
pend capital, and those who cultivate the land do not
like to expend their money in improving the property
of others. This is not a question which simply con-
cerns landlord and tenant. The amount of wages paid
depends upon the capital invested. When more is
spent in wages there is more to spend on food
and clothes; the demand for wool and cotton goods
increases, and in this way the benefit may be so
widely diffused that there is not a manufacturer
or operative in this town who would not participate
in the prosperity which might be given to agri-
culture. (Hear, bear.) Capital we have in abun.
dance. At the very time when, as I have said,
millions of acres in this country are, as it were,
thirsting for capital, this capital is flowing in a broad.
and continuous stream to be the prop and
mainstay of industrial enterprise in the most
diitant regions of the world. (Hear, hear.) I have
already said that the direction which land reform should
take in this country is to be sought in greater
freedom. Nothing, for instance, to my mind would
be more unwise than for Parliament to foster any
particular system of farming by attempting to decide
what should be the size of farms. Endless appears
to be the controversy as to the relative advantages
and disadvantages of farming on a large or
small scale. Perhaps the only settlement which the
dispute admits of is the conclusion that in some cir-
cumstances and in the growth of some products large
farming is more advantageous, whereas in other cases
small farming would be preferable, but Parliament
may well leave the question of large and small farm-
ing to be decided by the practical sense of the people
themselves, just in the same way as it is left to your
good sense to determine what is to be the size of the
buildings in which it is most profitable to carry on
the various trades which flourish in your town."
(Cheers.) . . .