The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-07-25 00:00:00

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES..

The House afterwards went into Committee of
Supply on the eivil Service Estimates, and was engaged
for several hours in discussing the Irish Votes.

THE LAND PURCnASE BILL.

In the 110IISE OF LOEDS, July 21, on the order for
going into committee on the Land Purchase (Ireland)
Bill, Earl Spencer criticised the provisions of the
measure, and complained that they placed the State in
the position of the landlord in Ireland, and imposed a
serious burden on the taxpayers of the United King-
dom. He did not approve of advancing to the tenant
the whole of the purchase money of his holding, and
thought that in such cases a higher rate of interest
ought to be required than when only a portion was
advanced. Although he rould not but take exception
to cations provisions of the bill, he trusted that the ex-
periment would prove successful.
The Marquis of Salisbury, after referring to the high
and manly courage which the noble earl had exhibited
throughout his Irish Viceroyalty, pointed out that the
bill was not a final measure, but only a further experi-
ment in a path in wh'cla rainy previous experiments had
failed. If, as he hoped, it should succeed, it would be
followed by other measures in the same direction, and
he had no doubt that Parliament would take all the
precautious necessary to ensure that its liberality did
not go too far and defeat the object it had in view.
The Duke of Argyll confessed that, much as he dis-
liked the measure, he regarded it as necessary, land in
Ireland having been rendered practically unsaleable by
the operation of the Land Act.
After some observations by Lord Carlingford, Lord
Fitzgerald, and Lord Ashbourne, the bill passed through
committee.

The Sectetary for Scotland Bill was read a third time
and passed, and their lordships rose at half-past eight
o'clock.

THE RESCUE OF GORDON.

In the HOUSE OF CommNs Mr. Bourke, answering a
question from Mr. Raikes, said there was no record at
the Foreign Office of an offer to ransom General Gordon,
but Lord Granvillo had authorised him to say that he
had received an offer from M. de Billing to rescue
Gordon for the sum of £50,000, which, after due con-

sideration and inquiry, he. had declined for weighty
reasons.

REVISING BARRISTER'S APPOINTMENTS.

In answer to a question from Mr. J. W. Lowther, the
Attorney-General intimated that it was his intention
to bring in a bill to remove the doubts as to the appoint-
ment of revising barristers.

THE MEDICAL RELIE' DILL.
On the motion to go into committee on the Medical
Relief Disqualification Removal Bill, Mr. Courtney
moved as an amendment that the House cannot ap-
prove of a measure which removes an incentive to inde-
pendence and fundamentally changes the principles of
the Poor law, under which pauperism has steadily di-
minished. In support of his amendment, Mr.
Courtney, touching first on the Parliamentary History
of the bill, animadverted on the inconsistency of Sir 0.
Duke and Sir H. James, who had originally opposed the
proposal on principle, and, dealing with the statistics,
while he agreed with the estimate that the number of
persons affected by the bill would be between 60,000
and 70,000, he argued that its principle was capable of
indefinite extension, and he feared that these numbers
would be greatly increased. He objected to the bill
because it would injuriously affect the position of the
working classes, would diminish the incentives to pru-
dence and thrift, and would retard the efforts to extin-
guish pauperism.
Mr. 0. S. Read seconded the resolution, charac-
terizing the bill as a first step towards the extension of
pauperism, and a fatal blow to benefit and sick blubs.
Mr. Rathbone, while supporting the bill, thought it
better that the House should not be irretrievably com-
mitted to its principle, and suggested that it should be
passed for a couple of years, when a searching inquiry
could be made. Dr. Farquharson also spoke in the
sense.

Baml

Mr. Bryce strongly opposed the bill as an anti-
Radical measure, which would lead to a lax adminis-
tration of the Poor Law, and would in time be extended
to the enfranchisement of persons receiving out-door
and in-door relief. He pointed out also that it gave
representation without taxation, and for the first time
conferred political power on the pensioner of the
State.

Sir F. 111ilner regretted that Mr. Chamberlain's un-
scrupulous speeches had prevented the question from
being discussed in an impartial manner, and Sir G.
Goldney supported the bill.

Mr. lialsei cordially supported the bill, and argued
that the receipt of medical relief was not pauperism;
and Mr. Heneage also spoke for the bill on the same
grounds.
Mr. J. G. Talbot opposed the bill, and Mr. Davey,
Mr. D. Grant, and Lord Emlyn supported it.
Sir H. James maintained that, though the point was
a small one when the Redistribution Bill was before
the House, it had now become a burning question, and
it had taken such a hold of the constituences that it
was expedient to get rid of it as soon as possible.
Mr. Pell protested against the question being decided
by considerations of expediency, and repeated his
objections to the Bill as tending to a lax administration
of the Poor Law, and the injury of benefit clubs.
Mr. C. Lewis also animadverted on the expediency
doctrines by which the bill was supported on both
sides' and drew a picture of alarming results which
must follow from the continuation of a Conservative
Government in office, if the different institutions of the
country were to be put up to a Dutch auction.
Mr. A. J. Balfour, however, agreed with the late
Attomey-General that the sooner the question was
got out of the way the better, and, replying to various
objections, he pointed out that to give relief in order to
disqualify a man would be a corrupt practice, and that
the State already provided education and other primary
necessaries for the poor man. When the House had
granted the case of Ireland, it was impossible, he
argued, logically to resist the extension of the principle
to England, and the result of retaining this disqualifi-
tion would not be to foster thrift. The harm had been
done already, and it was of no value to continue
machinery which had become useless.
Mr. Chamberlain protested that he was still unable
to understand Mr. Balfour's reasons for the Conserva-
tive con iersion, and characterised the bill as an elec-
tioneering move.
Mr. J. Lowther explained that iointendedjo vote