The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 22, Lord Derby, in reply to
Lord Granville, who said it was understood that France and
Italy had azreed to some new proposals luggelted by Ger-1
Many, RUSSIA, and Austria for the pacification ofthe revolted
Provinces of Turkey, observed that the new proposeds of the
three Powers had been a.ssenteel to by France and Italy ; but
the 13ritter Government, after careful consideration, felt
themselves unable to give their consent to them, thouzh he
Was not able to afford any information respectirg them at
Present, because, as far as he was aware, they were not yet
formally communicated to the Porte.

Lord Carnarvon moved the second reading of the Cruelty
to Animals Bill, the I.rovislons of which are founded on the
recommendations of the commission appointed to inquire
into the practice of vivisection. The Bill provides that
vivisection should only be performed with a view to the ad-
vancement of human knowledge, the prolongation of burr an
life, or the alleviation of human suffering ; that it must take
Place in a registered place; that it mast be perfcrined by a
Person duly Hceused by the Home Secretary ; that the
animals must he put under the Biluence of srm,tuetics • that
Where pain would be prolonged after tha ansthetic eff..3ots
had subsided the animals should be killed; and that experi-
ments should not be made by way of mere illustration in
lectures to students

-
The Duke of Somerset thought the able Report of the
Commission of Inquiry on the subject went. beyond the
legitimate conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, and
he regarded the Bill as going further than the legitimate
results of the Report. He quite agreed in the provision of
the Bill that there should be no public exhibition of expert-
&rents, though he should object to their being carried on in
Perfect secrecy, and he feared that the Bill was calculated to
Put a stop to all original research.
Lord Shaftesbury thanked the Government for bringing
In the Bill• and after a short discussion, in which Lords
Renieiker, Alrlie, S'anley of Alderley, Winmarleigb, and
Cardwell took part, the Bill was read a second time.
The other business being disposed of, their Lordships ad-
burned.
In the noun OF COMMONS, Mr. Disraeli replied at some
length to a question, addressed to him by Mr. M. Brooksgtes
to the probability of the Royal mercy being extended to
offenders still suffering punishment for breaches of their
allegiance to Her Majesty in connexion with the Fenian con-
spiracy. He began by informing the House that thereareat
present in custody only 15 prisoners who came within this
category, and he declined to admit that the two men who had
been convicted of murder end sentenced to pena ]servitude
for life could be described as political offenders. Of the
fifteen only six were in prison in England, and referring
particularly to the case of one Devitt—who had been
convicted with one Wilson for the same offence—he pointed
out that while Wilson had been sentenced to seven yen's'
penal servitude Devitt had been sentenced to 15, which
showed that, in the opinion of the Judge, Devitt's case had
been marked with aggravating circumstances. But Wilson
had just served his time, and it would be impolitic and unfair
to ehoose this moment for putting the more heinous
offender on an equality with him. All the other prisoners
were military offenders. Three were in prison in this
country, and theirs were aggravated eases; the remainder
had been transported to West Australia. Two had worked
out their time and were free, and the others probably were
in a condition very different from penal servitude. If they
were pardoned, it must be on condition of absenting them-
selves from this country, therefore their position would not
be much changed. The others were cases of an aggravated
character, which could not be lightly overlooked, and at the
Present moment he was not prepared to advise Her Majesty
to extend mercy to these prisoners.
Mr. O'Connor Power moved the adjournment of the House
In order to enter his protest against the decision of the
Ministry. Considering that the whole country was rtjoicing
at the return of the Prince of Wales, and that a memorial
praying for a pardon had been signed by 138 members, it
vas not unnatural to expect that the Government would
have extended the clemency of the Crown to these men.
Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, cordially approved Mr.
Disraeli's decision, and, with regard to the Memorial, said
that statements were made in obtaining the signatures
Which were not in accordance with the facts Ile himself
had refused to sign it unless the prisoners convicted of mur-
der were specially excepted.
Mr. Biggar remarked that only a country would be afraid
of pardoning half a dozen poor Irishmen which permitted a
German Prince to command its Army, and was governed by
a Prime Minister alien in race and religion, who had truckled
t 3 Prince Bismarck.
Mr. Parnell contended that the evidence against the two
Prisoners found guilty of murder was not conclusive;
and Mr. Callan, in warm language, repudiated Mr.
Anderson's statement that the slguatures to the Memorial
l'ael been improperly procureu • but Mr. Briggs and
Mr. Waddy both declared that they had signed the
Memorial on the explicit understanding that it did not
include the cases of those who lead been convicted of the
Shedding of blood, and the latter added that, after
the temper manifested by one or two Irish mem-
'era, he almost doubted the propriety of releasing men
Who Might come under such influences. Mr. O'Connor
Power, however, explained that in canvassing for signatures
no had stated distinctly that it would be tor the Govern-
ment to draw the line between the different classes of
Prisoners.
M. Brooks expressed his regret that he had.put the
'Manion which had drawn such an answer, and also had
Provoked such language as Mr. Biggar's which he entirely
repudiated for himself and the other hish members.
Stacpoole, Mr. P. Taller, Colonel Beresford, and Mr.
Butt made some observations, the last contending that the
two prisoners mentioned by Mr. Disraeli had only been
technically convicted of murder, after which the subject
dropped.
Its answer to Mr. Brace, Mr. Disraeli said it was true that
the Government had been unable to concur entirely in the
Proposals drawn up by Russia, Austria, arid Germany, and
addressed to the Porte, but until these proposals had been
Presented to the Porte, it would be unfair to lay the papers
on the table. In answer to Mr. Beresford Hope, he stated
that the Whitsuntide holydays would extend from the rising
of the Howe on Thursday, June 1, to the following Thursday.
The Report of amendments of the Merchant Shipping Bill
occupied the remained of the evening. A number of new
Clauses were proposed by various members, for the
most part revivals of questions discussed and decided
In Committee, but nearly all were withdrawn or nega-
tived .after a brief Conversation: Camel Beresford,
however, went to a division as to the clause which he again
Moved to compel passenger ships to carry rafts and other
appliances for saving life, but he was beaten by 173 to 15.
Mr. D. Jenkins again raised the question of compulsory
Classification, but his clause was negatived by 178 to 85.
The grain cargoes and the deck-loading Clauses were dis-
cussed at considerable length, and air. Plimsoll renewed his
endeavours to modify or to extend them according to his
sPecial *views, but was unsuccessful, except on one point. An
amendment moved by him with the object of prohibiting
absolutely and entirely the carrying ot all deck loads of
timber in the winter months, which was negatived by the
narrow majority of eight in Committee, was carried against
the Government on this occasion by 162 to 143.
Various amendments were inserted in the Bill by Sir C.
Adderley, carrying out promises which he had given in Com-
mittee, and ultimately it was ordered to be read a third time
on Thuraday.
The other business was dispersed of, and the House ad-
journed at a quarter to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 23, Lord Grey moved the
second read,ng of the Burials in Churchprds Bill, and
stated that he would not at present cuter into any detail re-
tPectlng the grievance of the Dissenters with regard to
urials In churchyards, but would explain how he proposed.
to redress that grievance. The Bill which he had intro-
duced proposed the establishment of Burial Boards, to be
elected by the parishioners, at the same time subjecting
thO burials of Dissenters in churchyards to some
Check and control in order to prevent the occur-
rence of any scandals or unseemly scenes. The clergy-
Man of a parish should not be compelled to perform
the Burial Service in cases with respect to which ho
felt a conscientious objection; but, on the other hand, the
clergyman should not nave the power to prevent the service
being performed by some other person. In formally moving
Alia second reading of the measure he declared that if an
amendment were moved to reject the Bill he should offer no
opposition to it, but he thought another Session ought not to
be allowed to pass without some attempt being made to
settle this question.

Lord Shaftesbury thought that the question could only be
settled by the Government, and he had heard with pleasure
the declaration of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon the
Other night, that the Government were prepared to take the
matter into consideration.

The Duke of Rutland said that the grievance of which they
had heard was not so much complained of by Dissenters as
by a body of men banded together for the destruction of the
Church of England.
After some remarks by the Bishop of Oxford, Lord Gran-
ville, Lord Houghton, and Lord Dynevor.
The Duke of Richmodd and Gardon said, as he had on a
former night expressed his views at some length on the
ElUestion, anti as Lord Grey had intimated that he was not
disposed to proceed further with the Bill, he would simply
Move that the second reading be postponed for six months.
lost This amendment was agreed to, and the Billie consequently
"" R‘sPiYing to Lord Granville (as Warden of the Cinque
the Duke of Richmond and Gordon stated that,
whilst the Government did not underestimate the value of
Dover Harbour in a national, strategic, and commercial point
°f view, and were fully tive to the importance of its en-
largement and improvement, yet the additions to the navy
thati,d "al estimates rendered it inexpedient to proceed
43 year with a work which must involve a considerable out-
lay of public money.
„_Tbe •Duke of Cambridge and Lord Carlingford strongly
rged the Government to lose no time in commencing the
whilst Lord Feversham remarked that the &fence of
t,,e East Coast ought to he considered before a heavy expen-
diture was incurred for Dover.
, The subject then dropped, and, the other business having
been disposed of, their Lordships sojourned until Friday.
In the lIOUSE OF COM3IONS, Mr. Tames called attention
to the present condition of the Fp Companies or Guilds
of the City of London, and moved for a Return setting
forth the amount of their property, real and personal,
the charities payable by them, their annual expendi-
ture, drc. Tracing the origin and history of the Guilds,
he Contended that they were public companies, and corn-
Drained that they had now ceased to have any connexion
With the trades which they represented, and that they had
The Property
nothing for the promotion of technical education.
Property of these Companies had been variously esti-
to half a million, and, according to the Valuation
los of the City, they had a gross estimated rental of
a 4,000, of which no account was ever rendered to any-
uedy,

Mr.
Kay-Shuttleworth seconded the motion,
The Lord Mayor though he admitted that the Guilds were
Rublic bodies in a certain sense, asserted that in their origin
they were voluntary associations, formed to protect trade,
and every privilege they possessed they had bought from
the Crown with their own money. They had never received
a penny of public money nor of taxes in any shape.
Of their trust funds they had rendered full ac-
count to the Charitable Commissioners, and the
rest of their re operty they regarded as private
prope-ty, which ought to be as exempt from interference as
the property of individuals. Some £200.000, he showed, was
devoted by the Guilds to charitable, educational, and re-
ligious, purposes, and their other property was administered
by the Guilds for no sellieh or avaricious put pesos.
2.1 r G. Bowyer thought the speech of Mr. James might be
Very interesting from an archmological Pint Of view, but It
failed utterly to make out a case for Parliamentary inter-
ference. No abuse of any kind had been shown. The Crown,
he argUed, had no right to institute such are inquiry as this
liao the property of Corporations, and the Gailds would only
9.0 their duty by refusing to give the information, and f
tee nous() to advise the Crown to do that which was uncon-
stitutional would be pessimiexempli.
Mr. Gladstone admitted that the Crown had no power to
enforce the production of the information, and that it would
h.,: roost inconvenient to issue a Commissloo in invitos which
that
-"lilt he without result, but he protested egainsi, the doctrine
Property of these Guilds was to be regarded in the
l the ight of private property. No doubt there funde in many in-
stances were devoted to useful public se j-c,s, but he had no
doubt that a considerable portion was positively wasted
LOdTI
to he regretted that the Geilds, by the mouth t
I„:Y°r, had decibel to give any i
information. Sooner or
‘er. the present temper of the public mind on these matters
n
woUld Change, this information would be extracted, and the
Present resistance of the Companies would be remembered.
11"",...raight be dangerous to the existence of the Comp.ines
thseives. Consequently it would be wiser 1,-r them in
ell' own interests to volunteer this information.
Mr.Q. Goldney and Mr. Newdegate opposed the motion ; and
Ddke maintained that all the property of these Guilds
th''aUbject to the interference of Parliament, pointing out
at there might be legislation without the inf,rmetion
Whtell was refused.
„ldg. Cross held that if anything was done et all in a matter
rs kind it must be done by the Government itself, and
•thaelttliess the Companies could be shown to be neglecting
°;
r duties, which Mr. Janes had not shown, they should
rebe disturbed, ex:ept hy a Government which was
•onared to go farther and to mate some specific pro-
ial to Parliament on the subject. As the Government
tio such intention, and as he agreed with Mr. Gladstone
,titst the Crown had no power to enforce the production of
‘ut
otianinformation, Mr. Crass urged the withdrawal of the
The motion was then withdrawn.
air a
Camptell was moving the Second Reading of the

East India (Chief Justices of High Courts) Bill, when the
House was couuted out shortly after half-past seven o'clock.

In the HOUSE or COMMONS, May 24, Mr. Macdonald moved
the second reading of the Employers' Liability for Injury
Bill. The law as it now stood was, he said, unjust to the
workmen of this country. Recent decisions in the law
courts went to show that if a workman in the execution of
his master's orders sustained injury he had no civil claim
for damages against the employer. This dictum, however,
was not founded on any statute, but was simply
the result of the cumulative opinions of the judges.
Be proceeded to give instances in which the law had
worked harshly, and contended that if employers knew they
were liable for injury caused to their employe's, they would
take greater precautions for their safety. this would be
• notably the case in the mining districts, where so many ac 2i-
• dents were now cause'', not through the recklessness of the
miners, hut through the neglect of the proprietors to carry
out the regulations which had been laid down by Parliament.
The Attorney-General admitted that some hardship was in-
frcted by that portion of the present la v which exempted em-
ployers from lisbilicy for damage caused to one of their work-
men through the act of another workman engaged in a com-
mon employment. There Wa3 a difficulty, which worked un-
justly towards the workman, in interpreting the phrase, "Cm-
morn employment," ana he admitted the necessity of an altar.
allots in the law in that respect. That, however, was not the
hirdship which this Bill war intended to remove. The broad
principle of this Bill was to make the master liable for the
acts of everybody where such acts resulted in injury to his
workmen. The Bill would place on employers an unheard-cif
responsibility and would work great injustice. He denied
Mr. Macdonald's assertion that the working classes were
cl3morous for such a measure, and, suggetieing that an in-
quiry might be made into the state of the law on the But ject,
he appealed to the House not to give a second reading to the
Bill.

Mr. Dodson and Dr. Cameron supported, and Mr. Forsyth
and Mr. Hermon opposed the BilL

Mr. Serjeant Simon, though believing that the measure in
Its present form was of far too sweeping a charazter, and
that it went much further than its promoters desired, nould
support its second reading, so that it might be amended in
committee, and referred to a select committee.

Mr. Knowles, as a coalowner who had lost £lOO,OOO by a
single accident and a number of valuable lives, pointed out
that it was to the pecuniary interest, to put it on no higher
ground, of employers to take all due and reasonable pre-
cau'ions against accidents, and that having done so it would
be most hard to make them liable to pay compensation.
Mr. Shaw-Lefevre supported the Bill, and Sir J. E. Eardley,
Wilmot asked the Government to allow it to be read a secona
time and referred to a select committee

Mr Pease would also support the Bill if its promoters were
willing to modify it considerably in committee.
Mr. Itodwell moved the rejection of the Bill, and con-
tended that if it were passed in would involve an amount of
liability to employers which few of them would care to
face.

Mr. Hardcastle seconded the amendment ; and after
some observations from Mr. T. Bass; Mr. Tennant, and Mr.
Burt,
Mr. Cross said he believed that the law, as it stood, was
wronz, but added that if the Bill before till House were
carried, it would ba doubly wrong. (Hear, hear.) He was
anxious that it should not go out to the country that there
was any desire for class legislation, and be trusted that the
Bill and amendment would be withdrawn, so that it should
not be thought that there was any difference of opinion
In the House as to the necessity for altering the law in cer-
tain particulars. He had no objection to the appointment
of a select committee, and if a resolution to that effect had
been brought forward he would have granted it without a
word.

Mr. W. E Forster expressed his gratification at the course
taken by the Government.
The Bill and amendment were then withdrawn.
On the order for resuming the a ijourned debate on the
second reading of the Wild Fowl Preservation Bill, Ayr, P.
A. Taylor, without comment, moved the rejection of the
measure, and the House divided amid much laughter.—For
the second reading, 337; against, 13; majority, 324. The Bill
was then read a second time.

Mr. Ashley moved the second reading of the Criminal Law
Evidence Amendment Bill, the object of which was to enable
prisoners to place themselves in tile witness-box to submit to
examination. The hun gentleman had just finished address-
ing the House when, at a quarter to six o'clock, the debate
was suspended according to the rules of the House.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.