The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-01 00:00:00

reading of the Repremilatlve Veers fir scotland and Ira- -
land Bill, moved for a Seket Committee on the subject,
%hose i tat& igatm s, lie argued, ought to precede any fur-
ther discussion of the hill,
long debate ensued, in v hich Lord Grey, Lord Portal-
tingles, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Carlla, Lord Airlte, Lord
Salisbury, sod Lord Granville took part.
On 3 division on the question whether the bill should be
then read a second time, the House decided in the negative
by 77 to 33. The reference to a Select Committee was agreed
to, and their lordships adjourned.
In the House of Commons, alter some private business
had been disposed of,
Mr. Layard in answering a question of Mr. W. 11. Gregory)
announced that he was about to introduce a Bill t before
Whitsuntide, it possible) to authorise the erection of the
Courts of Law on the site indicated by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer the other evening. This, he explained, was the
plot between the Temple and King's College, bounded on the
south by the Thames Embankment, and on the north by
llowarthstmet and certain small lanes in continuation of
that line. It was six acres in extent, and Mr Street was of
opinion that all the Law Courts and their offices might
be accommodated on it for £l,OOO 000. Mr. Layard
added that he had received a communication
from Lord Chief Baron Kelley, conveying the opinion of all
the Common Law Judges, that the Thames Embankment
would be the best site for the Bench, the Bar, the solicitors,
anti the general public equally, tither questions about
notices and the disposition of the Carey&treet site Mr. Layard
postponed answerit it until he explained the measure.
Mr. Trevelyan brought in a Bill to make better provision
respecting Greenwich Hospital and the application of its re-
venues.
Mr. Loch moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the
Scotch game laws. There are three bills before the House on
the subject, and Mr. Loch explained that as the second read-
ing of these had been necessarily postponed until June 23,
it was impossible that they could pass this year, and the in-
quiry he proposed was for the purpose of ripening the subject
for legislation next year.
The motion gave rise to a protracted conversation, after
which the motion foes Select Committee was agreed to.
Mr. Monsell next moved to rescind an order recently agreed
to by the House of Commons, on Mr. Newdegate's motion for
the production of certain papers relative to the attempted
assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh by O'Farrell, and
after remarks from Mr. Newdgate, Mr. Dilke, and She.
Whalley,
On a division Mr. Monse:l's motion was carried by 123
to 15.
Sir H. Selwin-liMetson, in moving the second reading of
his Iteerhou sea Bill, went Into a long retrospect of the his-
tory of the licensing system, arid the statistics of crime and
drunkenness bearing on it, wills the object of proving that
the Act of 1035 had failed in the repression of drunkenneas.
The remedy which he proposed to apply to this state of
things by his bill was an assimilation of the system of
licensing beerhouses to that of publichouses, stricter polka
supervision, and increased facilities for obtaining con-
victions.
Mr. Henley did not oppose the bill, preferring to leave the
decision to the responsibility of the Government, and
Mr. Bruce. on the part of the Government, said that
thingh the bill did not meet all the exigences of the case, he
would not oppose the second reading.
Mr. Ilibbert said alum words in defence of Lancashire,
and Sir R. Clifton wished the debate to be adjourned. This
was objected to, and he divided the House, but al not obtain
a single supporter. The result was announced by the tellers
in tins startling and unprecedented form,—For the motion,
0; against it, 230. The bill was then read a second time.
One or two other bills were forwarded a stage, and the
House adjourned.
- - -

In the Rowe of Commons. April 28, the Rosa Imrrovement
Act, 1865, Amendment Bill and the South Metropolitan Bas
Bill were read a third tune.
On the motion for the consideration of the Imperial Gas

Bill,
Mr. Morrison moved that the bill he recommitted to the
former committee with a view to the insertion of clauses to
make the bill consistent with the provisions of the City of
London Om Act, ISatt. This Act, the hon. gentleman ob-
served, hail given universal aatislaction to the consumers of
gas, and the clauses he desired to have incorporated into
the Imperial Gas Bill had reference to testing the quality
of gas, the price of gas, and the auditing of accounts by an
°Metal auditor.
Mr. Monk seconded the motion.
After a few remit' kg from Mr. Locke, Mr. S. Cave, and Mr.
Goldney,
Young raid he had no objection to recommitting the

bill. •
Mr. A) rton made a few of servations, and recommended
thattwo new members should be added to the committee,
one who should represent the public and the other the gas
company alter which Mr. Tonens, Si J. Gray, and by.
W. Dilke, made sonic remarks. and Mr. Ayrton's recom-
mendation was agreed to, and the bill referred back to the

committee. -
Mr. Denman moved the second reading of the Evidence
Amendment Bill, and in doing so, laid its object was to get
rill of the present anomalies, by removing the restrictions
which prevented the defendants In a divorce suit giving evi-
dence in their own behalf, and those who were plaintiffs or
defendants In a case of breach of promise of marriage. lie
contended that to arrive at the truth in such cases, power
should be given to compel the parties in such cases to give evi-
dence. Lord Penzance, and the law Amendment society had
approved of the bill. The bill proposed to give power to the
judges to receive evidence in criminal causes from persons
who had conscientious objections to take an oath.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. Staveley Hill moved as an amendment that the bill be
read a second thus upon that day mix months. He urged
that there was no analogy between the parties connected with
a suit in the Divorce Court and the plaintiff s and defendants
in an ordinary civil action. His opinion was that the pro-
posed change in the laws would not lead to the discovery of
the truth. He believed it would tend to lower the character
of evidence, and in the case of divorces the offending wile
would lie placed in a more degrading character than she was
at present. He should be glad to see the bill treated as a
whole, and not by fragmentary legislation.
The amendment having been seconded by Mr Whitehouse,
Sir It, P. Collier thought that an unanswerable case had
been made out, and believed that the bill would have a bene-
ficial effect in obtaining evidence of truth.
Serjeant Douse, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, and Mr. Amp hlett
supported the bill, and the amendment was negatived with
out a division, and the bill was read a second time.
Mr. Wheelhouse moved the second reading of the Hos-
pitals, Ac, Rating Exemption Sill.
Mr. Goschen opposed the amendment on the ground that
if the hospitals were to lie exempted from rates they would
be asked to exempt schools, working men's institutes, Ac.
Very many of the hospitals had considerable estates, and if
they were exempted the effect would be serious.
Mr. Sclater-klooth agreed with the objections raised by the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Goschen), and referred to the case
of St. Thomas's Hospital, which sass a very important and
rich inatibition.
After a few observations from Mr. Cawley,
Sir M. Beach expressed his deterniination to oppose the
second reading of the bill, and spoke until a quarter to six,
when, by the rules of the House, the debate was postponed,
and the House adjourned.