The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-06-26 00:00:00

MR. JOHN MORLEY AT BRADFORD.

• Mr. John Morley, M.P., Chief Secretary for Ire-
land, addressed a large meeting of Liberal electors at
Bradford on Saturday. The chair was occupied by
Mr. Alfred Illingworth, M.P., who was supported by
Mr. Shaw Lefevre, M.P., and several local membeis
of Parliament. Mr. Shaw Lefevie moved a resolu-
tion expressing approval of Mr. Gladstone's Home
Rule Bill, believing that only by that means could the
union between the two countries, rrow maintained by
force, be replaced by the true and lasting union of
friendship and goodwill. Mr. Angus Howden
seconded the resolution, which was carried with,
however, several dissentients. Mr. Morley, in reply,
said perhaps his friends at Birmingham would bask in
the sunshine of Lord Salisbury's blandishments at
Leeds on the previous night, but he would tell them
that the time would come when they would have to
pay a great price for these compliments, and Lord
Salisbury need not think by bright words he would
escape ransom at the bands of his right hon. friend,
the member for Birmingham. He need not think he
would not have to pay the penalty of those who
"neither toiled nor spun." (Laughter and loud cheers.)
Lord Salisbury had denied at Leeds that he advo-
cated 20 years of coercion as an alternative' but if
this coercion was only to be directed against those
classes of the people his lordship named robbers, boy-
cotters, and maimers of cattle, instead of against the
country as a whole, why repeal it in 20 years?
(Cheers.) On January 26 Lord Salisbury announced
the policy of his then Government, which was to sup-
press the Land League, and at that time he must have
known from his advisers that that meant nothing less
than the suppression of meetings, of censorship of the
press, police visits, domiciliary search, and all the
rest of the properties and paraphernalia of a despotic
government. (Cheers.) When the Tory party said
that, and said it was not for coercion, the country had
a right to ask if they were not in favour of a policy
which meant police action of this kind on an enor-
mous scale, and which would leave them at the end
of 50 years face to face with all their greatest difficul-
ties, aggravated and accentuated, and feelings exas-
perated, and themselves in very little heart to
discuss the rational settlement of this long-standing
quarrel. The barbarisation of Irish affairs
which Lord Salisbury spoke of had been brought
about by the policy which the Tory lord wished to
perpetuate, and which the Liberals wished to put an
end to. (Cheers.) But what was the alternative if
local self-government which Lord Salisbury offered?
He referred them to his speech at Leeds on the ques-
tion, and would ask them had they over read any-
thing more evasive in their lives. He said local
government was an excellent thing, subject to times
and opportunities. (Laughter.) Could they believe
Lord Salisbury was prepared to extend to Ireland
local self-government upon any considerable scale—
(no, no)—or in the sense advocated by the Liberal
seceders? Lord Salisbury knew there was no alterna-
tive to the Government's policy but coercion. His
lordship now said the bill was dead, but no one be-
lieved that the principle and the main conditions and
the application of that principle in that bill were
in the least dead, but, on the contrary, alive. No
measure could go one atom behind the large
liberality of the proposals the Government had
made in its bill. The Liberal party in its main
body would never assent to a narrower scheme
than this they had proposed. (Hen, hear.) It
was absolutely contrary to all historic experience
—it was contrary to their own knowledge of the
facts of the present situation, to dream for a moment
that after this great boon had been offered to the
people of Ireland, and the people of England, too,
that a less boon would be taken as a satisfaction for
just, right, and expedient claims. (Loud cheers.)
They had brought forward a measure, and would be
prepared to bring forward again a bill to deal with
Ireldnd in the only way in which it could be treated.
They were told the supremacy of Parliament was
sacrificed. But, he asked, where was the supremacy
of Parliament now, and where had it been fpr the
last six years? They were told they had given away
the unity of the empire, but he would put a case to
them. Suppose England was at war to-morrow with
a foreign foe, would they have Ireland as a friend?
(" No, no.") Until the Irish Question was
settled, Great Britain could scarcely ever
enter into a great foreign enterprise. The
position of England at the present time was
not strong, but weak, and it was they, who were
accused of disintegrating the empire, and not Lord
Salisbury, who were for the ascendancy and the
strength of the whole realm. (Loud cheers.) They
bad been told in the House of Commons and at Leeds
that the end of this would be separation. (Cries of
Bosh.) He did not believe that the bulk of the Irish
people desired separation, but even if they did under
that irrational and mischievous system this country
had too long pursued they would desire it no longer
when they had freedom and power within their reach,
and when they discovered, as surely they would, that
their chiefest and most lasting interests were indis-
solubly bound up in the Union with Great Britain;
and now that they were making every effort to bring
about these closer and stronger ties he asked them not
to raise their hand to thrust Ireland back into the
sullen furnace of her late afflictions.

ADDRESS TO THE AGRICULTURAL
LABOURERS.

Mr. Jesse Collings has issued a long address iz•
agricultural labourers, in which he complains that the
questions of land and of county government reform
have been unjustly laid aside to bring forward a
scheme for the government of Ireland which was not
before the constituencies at the general election. The
address nroceede :=You will be told that the Land

Purchase Bill is dead and will not pass. Do not be
deceived. Mr. Gladstone has declared that it is "an
inseparable part of his scheme." If the first bill—the
Separation Bill—should pass, then the Land Purchase
Bill is certain to become law. Candidates will tell
you that, while voting for the Prime Minister's
scheme, they will not support the Land Purchase Bill.
They will not, however, be masters of the situation.
Mr. Gladstone will have the aid of the Tories and the
Whig landlords in this matter, and he will be able to
pass the Land Bill without difficulty. It is absolutely
certain, therefore, that in voting for the Prime
Minister's Irish policy you will be voting, not only for
the Separation Bill, but for the Land Purchase Bill
as well, thereby bringing a heavy burden on the neck
of the taxpayers of this country. A distinct issue is thus
clearly raised in the present elections. You will have
to choose one of two policies. First, the policy which
is contained in the two bills to which I have referred;
secondly, a Liberal Unionist policy which seeks to do
justice to Ireland by giving a form of local govern-
ment to that country which can be extended to Scot-
land, Wales, and England, and which, at the same
time, will secure the unity of the Empire by preserv-
ing one supreme Parliament for the United Kingdom.
This is the plain issue on which you will be required
to vote. We advocate a system of self-government
such as will do justice to the whole people of Ireland,
both North and South, a system under which the
local liberties of the country might be fully and peace-
fully developed, and at the same time the Union
and integrity of the United Kingdom maintained.
We desire land reform in Ireland—the true key of
Irish discontent—but such land reform as will benefit
the labourer and peasant, and not the wealthy land-
lord."