The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OP LOUD% March 3, Earl Granville
informed the Marquis of Salisbury that there was no
truth whatever in the statement that General Graham
had been ordered to withdraw his forces to Souakim,
aml at once re-embark them.

MR. GLA.DSTONE'S VISIT TO COPENHAGEN.
Lord Stratheden and Campbell asked whether the
accounts published in September last of Mr. Gladstone's
intercourse with the Emperor of Russia at Copenhagen
were well founded, and whether, if they were well
founded, Mr. Gladstone had received instructions from
the Foreign Office to direct him.
Lord Granville explained that the steamer in which
Mr. Gladstone took his cruise arrived at the Orkney
Islands sooner than had been expected, and subse-
quently visits to Norway and Denmark were agreed
upon by those on board, but though the Emperor of
Russia and Mr. Gladstone met, not a word of political
conversation passed between them. Mr. Gladstone had
no instructions from the Foreign Office.
THE DYNAMITE DISCOVERIES.
*rd Waveney, having referred to the outrages by
means of dynamite, asked whether means could not be
taken to examine the luggage of passengers on their
disembarcation from sea-going steamers, and to exa-
mine luggage tendered for deposit.
Lord Granville replied that the subject had not
escaped the attention of the Home Office, but he
thought noble lords would agree with him that there
ought to be reticence as to the precautions taken by
the Executive for the prevention of these outrages.
Their Lordships rose at five minutes to five o'clock.

In the HOUSE or COMMONS, Mr. Marriott took his
seat on his re-election for Brighton. He was introduced
by Mr. Gibson and Sir W. Barttelot, and was received
with loud and prolonged cheering from the Opposition
benches.
THE DYNAMITE PLOTS.
In answer to a questiau from Lord R. Churchill, Sir
W. Harcourt said the Government had given stringent
instructions and taken measurer for the detection of
the emissaries engaged in the introduction of dynamite
from foreign countries, but he did not think it expe-
dient to state the nature of them. They were within
the powers already possessed by the Executive, but if
those were not sufficient the Government would lose no
time in asking for further powers.
AFFAIRS IN THE SOUDAN.
In reply to Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett, the Marquis of
Hartington read the instructions with which General
Graham had been furnished, and gave an emphatic
denial to the report that that officer had been directed
to withdraw his forces immediately to Soualdm. The
country, he added, had reason to be satisfied with the
arrangements made for the organisation and despatch
of the expedition, and with the admirable manner in
which the officers and men composing it had carried out
their task.
Sir S. Northcote, while expressing his concurrence in
these sentiments asked for information as to the
policy which the Government were pursuing and their
intentions.
The Marquis of Hartington replied that it was
impossible for him to give fuller explanations at pre-
sent, but the main and immediate objects of the
Government policy were to secure the safety of the
remnant of the Tokar garrison and of Souakim, which
was still threatened by a considerable force.
Sir W. Lawson, having obtained leave to move the
adjournment of the House, insisted that the House had
a right to know why the Government were carrying
fire and sword among the brave people of the Soudan,
the massacre of so many of whom on Friday last—
butchered to make a Jingo holiday—he described as a
cowardly and dastardly deed. They were entitled to
ask what the Government policy was, and whether they
had not done sufficient for military glory.
Mr. Gladstone denied that there was any ground for
regarding the operations in the Soudan as vindictive or
carried on for military glory, and pointed out that the
engagement at Teb was necessary to secure the relief
of the remnant of the garrison at Tokar and the safety
of Souakim, the maintenance of which, he contended,
was essential to the interests of peace and humanity.
Sir S. Northcote feared that the same want of con-
sistency, clearness, and firmness on the part of the
Government, which had contributed so much to the
disasters in Egypt, was to be traced in their proceed-
ings now. It was the duty of the Opposition to lose no
opportunity of calling upon the Government to tell the
country and the world at large more distinctly than
they had yet done how far they acknowledge their
responsibilities.
Lord R. Churchill said the demand that the Govern-
ment should make clear their policy was the demand,
not merely of the Opposition, but of the country and of
Europe; and for the Government to allow the speech
of the Leader of the Opposition to remain unanswered
was to plead guilty. They had failed in the " rescue "
part of their programme. Were they now going to
" retire? "
The Marquis of Hartington did not see that anything
had happened which made it necessary for the Govern-
ment to give any further exposition of their policy than
was given at great length in the recent deb`ate. If there
were further questions to be discussed an opportunity
would be afforded when the supplementary estimates
were considered.
After a few words from Lord J. Manners the House
divided, when the motion for adjournment was negatived
by 150 to 103.
THE FRANCHISE BILL.
The adjourned debate on the Prime Minister's
motion for leave to introduce a bill to amend the law
relating to the representation of the people was
resumed by Mr. Blennerhassett, who approved the ex-
tension of household suffrage to Ireland, but urged
that, unless it was accompanied by some scheme for
proportional representation, the most cultured, enter-
prising, and prosperous portion of the population would
be swamped.
Mr. Walter heartily approved of the measure, but
regretted that it was not accompanied by a scheme of
redistribution.
Mr. E. Clarke and Mr. W. H. Smith deprecated the
increase of political power which the extension of the
franchise in Ireland would give those who advocated
the disintegration of the Empire.
Mr. Goschen admitted that since the first introduc-
tion of household suffrage the course of politics had
shown the working classes to be desirous of doing right,
but the power of resistance to popular demands had
been notabl7 diminished both inside and outside the
House. This bill, combined with what had gone before,
entirely took electoral power out of the hands of those
who had hitherto enjoyed it, and it became all the more
incumbent on the House to see that the rights of mino-
rities were respected. This was especially the case in
Ireland, and he regretted that not a word had fallen
from Mr. Gladstone to show that he intended
to take any precaution against the com-
plete swamping of the loyal minority there.
With regard to redistribution generally, he argued that
that question now was of more importance than the
mere disfranchisement of a few boroughs—and what he
pressed the Government to make some declaration upon
was the manner in which members were to be allotted
to the great towns, and how the electors were to be
allowed to vote. He had no wish to obstruct this bill,
or to compel the Government to tie the two subjects
together, but the House ought to know the mind of the
Cabinet on the vital question how the minority was to
be preserved from total disfranchisement.
Mr. Parnell remarked that without any extension of
the suffrage the strength of the Nationalist party would
be 75, and with household suffrage it would be 90—a
difference not worth the injustice of denying the Irish
people equal treatment with their English brethren. As
to the diminution of Irish members, when the time
came it would be found that, whether population or the
number of electors were taken as the test, Ireland could
not be deprived of more than six or seven members. At
present the Irish members were elected by very select
constituencies, and an introduction of new classes and
interests might lead to new divisions; but whether
Ireland were included or not, he felt convinced that the
Irish members would be able to carry out their policy.
Mr. Trevelyan defended the policy of extending to
Ireland equal rights and privileges with the rest of the
United Kingdom, and thought thatthe bill would make
very little difference in the strength of political parties
in that country.
After some arguments from Sir j. Lubbock in favour
of proportional representation,
Sir S. Northcote commented on the main character-
istic of the debate—that it had turned more on what
was not in the bill than what was in it; and this he
attributed to the rhetorical skill with which the Prime
Minister had kept all the most interesting parts of the
question in a half light. The really interesting portion
of the subject was redistribution, for everybody felt by in-
stinct that the question could not be settled by a mere ex-
tension of the Franchise. It was much to be regretted that
the House was precluded from discussing this branch of
the subject, but the debate would show the country
how vital it was. But there would be ample oppor-
tunity, he remarked, in the future stages of the bill to
discuss it.
Mr. Forster made some remarks, reserving his
opinions on the redistribution views of the Prime
Minister.
Mr. Gladstone also spoke briefly, and Sir John Hay
having withdrawn his amendment, the Bill was brought
in and read a first time. The second reading was fixed
for the 21st inst.
After some other business had been agreed to, the
House adjourned at ten minutes to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 4, Lord Norton
asked whether the Government were taking any steps
preparatory to legislation on the subject of the report
of the Royal Commission on Industrial and Reforma-
tory Schools.
Lord GranviLle replied that this important subject
was under the consideration of the Home Office, in
communication with the Committee of Council on Edu-
cation.
Their Lordships adjourned at 25 minutes to 5
o'clock.

In the HOUSE or Commoss a new writ was ordered
for the election of a member for Cambridgeshire in
the room of Sir Henry Brand, now Viscount
11ampden.
NOTICES.

Notice was given by Colonel Stanley to move as an
amendment to the motion to go into committee on the
Army Supplementary Estimates that the House is of
opinion that before further supplies are granted for
military expenditure in Egypt the Government should
give the House a full and definite statement of their
policy in that country and its dependencies; and by
Lord J. Manners to propose on the second reading of
the Representation of the People Bill an amendment,
declining to procece further with a measure having for
its object the addition of 2z000,000 voters to the elec-
toral body of the United Kingdom until it had before
it the entire scheme contemplated by the Government
for the amendment of the representation of the people.
AFFAIRS IN THE SOUDAN.
Several questions were put as to the state of affairs
in the Soudan, and Lord Hartington said that no in-
structions had been sent to General Graham ordering
his withdrawal to Trinkitat or Souakim, .and he was
unaware of any intention to attack Osman Digma's
camp. The Admiral and the General had ample
nowers to communicate with the chiefs 1y prodaiar

tion or otherwise. Lord R Fitzraauriee denied that
any unfavourable news had been received from Khar-
toum; and Mr. Gladstone, questioned by Mr. Ash-
mead-Bartlett as to the propriety of maintaining a
connexion between Khartoum and Egypt, said that the
policy of the Government in regard to abandoning the
Soudan remained unchanged.