The Blackpool Herald. — 1891-01-02 (Blackpool, Lancashire, England)

NONCONFORMIST MINISTERS ON THI DOINGS IN IRELAND. TO TM HMO% _ _  _ Six—ln the London Times of Monday there appeared a letter from a Congregational Minister of 25 years' standing which set forth in unmistakable temukthe opinions of Nonconformists upon the flagrant breaking of two of the ten Commandments in the cruel boycotting of honest and law. &hieing Irishinen, leading up often—as Mr. Gladstone truthfully said such things were bound to do—to murder; also as to the dishonest and illegal plan of Campaign and of the outrages committed upon persons and property. This Congregational Minister rightly contended that fulloondemnstion was as justly due to the violation of one Commandment as another, and he thought the time had arrived when the Nonconformists ought to speak out for righteousness; and that they had too long been silent. As examples of those who had upheld the principles of Nonconformity in their pristine purity, unsullied by party political exigencies, he named Dr. Dale, Dr. Allen, and the Rev. Newman Hall. The latter minister writes in the Timm of the next day, and I desire you to give space to his letter, which I trust will prove the keynote to pronouncements from other Congregational Ministers against those iniquities and cruelties so long perpetrated in Ireland and hitherto left uncondemned by too many Nonconformist Ministers. lilr. Newman Hall writes as follows : " As ' A Congregational Minister,' who writes in your Issue of to-day, while withholding his own name, calls on me by name, together with Dr. Allen and Dr. Dale, to " speak out" and as your recent reference to my joining the Nonconformist Unionist Club has been misunderstood, I ask permission to explain that my acceptance of their invitation was not in consequence of recent revelations. These were not a surprise after hearing Mr. Parnell state on oath that he had purposely told the House of Commons what he knew to be false in order to mislead the House, and after reeding the judgment of the Commissioners on his moral oompli. city with plunder and outrage. From the very first I regretted the alliance of two names so diametrically opposed as those of Gladstone and Parnell, and felt sure of its rupture. I was never a Home Ruler. The demands of the Irish party seemed incompatible with the pledges of their English allies to maintain the supremacy of Partiament, Imperial unity, and protection to the Irish minority, which, comprising nearly onethird of the population, and more than one-half of Ireland's intelligence, industry, and wealth nullified the claim that Home Rule was demanded by the nation. As a Liberal I felt I could not sanction coercion by an irresponsible and secret conspiracy against the property and persons of landlords, tenants, and labourers for no other fault than paying their debts, and doing what the law was bound to protect. Recent events have not changed, but only confirmed these long-cherished convictions by revealing more fully the characters, purposes, and unfitness of those to whom Home Rule would intrust the welfare of Ireland and She protection of all classes. Morality is the essence of oolitic'', and they who notoriously sip the foundation are disqualified for building the superstructure. Let us hope that what has been generally meant by Home Rule may soon be forgotten as a nightmare dream, and that re-united Liberal party, allied with a wise Conservatism, may secure for Ireland such justice, freedom, and local administration as may be shared equally by England, Scotland, and Wales, with such Imperial maintenance of law as shall impartially protect all subjects of the Crown and secure the safety and honour of an undivided nation." I need hardly add that I fully endorse all that Mr. Newman Hall has written, and most especially the concluding portion—after the sentence beginning " Morality."—Yours, A