Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1889-02-23 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

THE EXAMINER-SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1889.  a eimllar policy. In reply to thin Mr. Balfour writes "1 am obliged for your letter. Your memory has not misled you. As I stated in my letter to the newspapers which appeared on Monday, the attacks now made on me are a mere imitation of the attacks formerly made on Mr. Gladstone by Mr. Gladetone's present allies."  LORD AROLLL AND LAND PURCHASE, The Duke of Argyll writes as follows to "'correspondent with references to Mr. Chamberlain's recent utterances regarding the crofters question and the proposed ex. tension of the Ashbourne Act to Great Britain "Mr. Chamberlain's reference to my letter is so reasonably and temperately expressed that it confirms me in my original impression, that very probably there is no irreconcilable difference in question. I certainly will not maintain that under no circumstances could it be expedient for the State to encourage, help or promote an increase in the number of small owners, but if this is done it will clearly be the interest of the State , to select the new owners among the men who have some capital and some enterprise, with a competent degree of skill. If these conditions are regarded, it will surely not be of any public advantage to confine the benefit of such an experiment to one class, the class of existing tenants. Alone in the Irish case this injurious limitation was inevitable, but the advantages of small ownership are very greatly limited by this necessity. This was the feature of the Ashbourne Act to which I stated some strong and obvious objections; but it might be and ought to be avoided if any such experiment is tried in Britain, As regards the crofters, there are very few men who are acquainted with the historical facts and the economic causes of their condition in the Lewis and other districts like it. I have given them in some detail in an article in the last number of the Nineteenth Century. If you look into those facts you will see that, to do any good there, the State must not only acquire the land, but must find all the capital to stock it. It must instil or inspire the knowledge and industry which are both deficient, and must establish an agency to see that its rules be observed. When the Crofter Act was before the House of Commons, Sir George Trevelyan resolutely refused or declined to enter upon any such co rue of State coddling.' The suggestions of Mr. Cffamberlain point in a different direction, and may or may not be capable of being worked out. Your obedient servant, ARO yeL."  The Marquis of Salisbury wrote as follows in acknowledgment of resolutions recently passed by a meeting of the East Birmingham Liberal Unionist Association and forwarded to him : Sir,—l have to acknowledge with many thanks your letter enclosing • resolution passed by the East Birmingham Liberal Unionist Association approving of the policy of her Majesty's Government in Ireland. I have received this assurance of their sympathy with the more gratification that it is tendered at a time when the most energetic efforts are being made to traduce that policy, denunciations which would be somewhat extravagant if levelled at the barbarous and capricious punishment of a despotic State applied to sentences of brief imprisonment inflicted under due process of law by the ordinary tribunals for acts well known te be offences against the law, and sanctioned on appeal by judges appointed for fife, whose action her Majesty's Government have no possible means of influencing, even if a desire to do so could reasonably be imputed to them. I concur with you in thinking that some part of the indignation which is so ludicrously misapplied might fittingly be directed against the ruffians who brutally murdered the Constable Martin for no other offence than that of simply executing his duty; but for that course the Separatist agitators have no words of reprobation in their resolutions.—Yours faithfully,  MU. aous