The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-04-12 00:00:00

THE FRANCHISE BILL.

The adjourned debate on the Franchise Bill was re-
sumed by
Mr. Stuart-Wortley, who was of opinion that though
the agricultural ,labourer had not suffered much
hitherto they had a right to an extended representa-
tion, and he was therefore favourable to the principle
of such a measure. But the present bill, he contended,
was tainted with party motives, and the question was
being manipulated for selfish interests. No satisfactory
or just settlement could be arrived at unless the
question were treated as a whole, and he, therefore,
supported the amendment.
Mr. Barran spoke in favour of the bill as a measure
of justice. _ _ _

Mr. Grantham sttpported the amendment as the only
mode of securing that all branches of the question
should be dealt withby the same Parliament. He thought
the county householder had a right to demand a vote,
but the change in our system should be carried out in
such a manner as to protect the State against the pre-
dominance of numbers.

Mr. Gladstone, after apologizing for intervening in
the debate at so early a period of the evening, pro-
ceeded at once to answer the complaints which
constituted the staple of the speeches against the bill.
In the first place, in answer to the complaint that there
had been an absence of argument for the necessity of
the bill, he pointed out that nobody had contested the
principle on which the bill rested—that it was a great
advantage for the State to admit the largest number
of capable citizens to the franchise. The capability
of the classes to be enfranchised was proved by the
Reform Act of 1867. As to the absence of a vehement
demand, he asserted that there was a general desire
for the Bill among those who were to be enfranchised
and those who were already in possession of the fran-
chise strongly sympathised with them. Dealing with
the complAnt that redistribution and enfranchisement
were severed, he maintained first of all that to unite
them would have precluded the introduction of any
other important measures this session, and he repeated
that there never had been a complete Reform Bill in
He urged also that the method in which
the Government had proceeded was the only mode of
doing complete justice to Ireland, and that to join
the two would have enlisted against the extension
of the suffrage the local interests affected by re-
distribution. The Government, he said, intended that
the same Parliament should deal with both questions,
and to enfranchise the county householders would be
the best way of making redistribution certain, urgent,
and immediate. As to the sketch which he had given
of redistribution, he said it had not been intended to
conciliate opponents, but he asserted that on the whole
the adverse criticisms had been concentrated on his
references to Ireland. But his opinion, he reminded
that House, on this point had been associated with
two other points—the question of relative distance
from the centre of government, and an increase in
the members of the House. No doubt Ireland,
having only one-seventh of the population of the
United Kingdom, was only entitled to 93 members,
but he was not willing to assume that the falling
off in the Irish population would be permanent, and
the injustice done to Ireland in the redistribution of
1832 did not entitle the rest of the kingdom to press
for a strict application of a numerical law. To the.
oomplaint that the bill was a party measure, drawn up
solely to benefit the Liberal party, he replied that it
was a great compliment to the party to assume that the
addition of two millions to the constituency must be
for its benefit. Every fact connected with the bill con-
futed the charge, for the main points in it were
the large addition of rural classes, the service
franchise, and the retention of the property
franchise apart from residence, all of which were
Conservative Measures. The right hon. gentleman
concluded by saying—now, although the question is
most important, it has been commonly observed that
this debate has been languid. It might almost bo said,
in the words of Pope, that the debate has " like a
wounded snake, dragged its slow length along." And
why has it been so languid? Not certainly because of
the want of talent or of abilitylin those who have taken
part in it. I take the ncble lord who moved the
amendment. I have always admired his debating
powers and the ingenuity of his arguments ;and if any-
thing could give interest—likely and pervading interest
—to the discussion, he would have done it. Very able
men on both sides of the House have also entered into
the debate, and yet it has been observed that it has
been languid. And why has it been languid? Because
no direct issue has been raised. My hon. friend the
member for Sheffield told us to-night that he was as
much in favour of the principle of the bill as most
of those sitting on this side, "For, after all," he said,
"you deal only in professions." That is a heavy re-
proach. I am very glad that my hon. friend feels that
it is inconsistent and even lowering to deal only in
professions. I am very glad that he has given us that
reproach because it will put us on our mettle and make
us endeavour to show whether we do deal only in pro-
fessions or not; but my hon. friend who has such a
horror of those who deal only in professions, and who
, is himself so strongly in favour of the principle of the
bill, will have an admirable opportunity to-night of
showing to those 16,000 men who met in Sheffield
what is the value of his professions. Stung by
the reproach of my hon. friend, we shall
walk out into the lobby with more zeal and
energy than we should have done if he had
not launched at us that reproach. We shall not be
wanting when the time comes, and I do hope that he
will be found in our company. Yes, sir, there has been
a want of a direct issue. That has depressed and
clouded the debate. And why has no direct issue been
raised? Because gentlemen opposite know as well as
we know that this is a' res judicata. '—a settled ques-
tion, not to-day and not to-morrow, perhaps by. this
Government, perhaps by the next Government before
it is six months old—but the question is a settled ques-
tion. Then, if it be true that this bill is favourable
from its construction to the Liberal party, this I say
with confidence—it will not be we who will have made
it favourable, it will be you. If, again, you, the Tory
party, =warned by your experience of former con-
troversies, are going to place yourselves in a false posi-
tion in the face of the country by appearing as the with-
holders of the boon which others seek to grant, in that
ease and for the moment perhaps your prophecy
may be fulfilled, and perhaps for an election or two we
may receive a benefit from this bill. But the remedy
is in your own hands. You know that the thing must
be done, and, therefore you do not contest it directly,
but you contest it indirectly. Is that really for your
advantage? Do you believe that your party will be
stronger five years, ten years, twenty years hence in
,consequence of this futile opposition. No; you know
it will not. You know that after a Government that is
in earnest in its work has proposed a measure of this
kind to a Parliament which is not less in earnest there
is not a doubt as to the issue to which the question will
rapidly be carried. If you want to disarm this bill of
danger to yourselves, if you want to falsify the charge
which you have made against this bill, and which
you would be glad to falsify—that it is manipulated
so as to be beneficial to the Liberal party—your
plan is obvious. Enter freely into competition with
us—compete with us in the free cheerful,
rid willing presentation of this boon. That is the
way, if there be danger in this bill, to take the sting
out of it. But your present opposition will have not
the less the effect of discrediting you with those who
are to be enfranchised because it is an indirect instead
of a direct opposition. But be the disposition of that
side of the House what it may—whatever you
may be disposed to say or to do, whatever
doubts may entangle your path—on this side of the
House at least there is no doubt, no hesitation, no ques-
tion. We have divested our bill of every questionable
or assailable proposition, because, Sir, we felt that if
a constitutional struggle were to arise we would
wash our hands of the responsibility by placing our-
selves from the outset in the right. That is the reason
why our bill has been reduced to the form of
I naked simplicity—that is the reason why we have
asked and conjured those who have important proposi-
tions of their own to urge in amendment or exitension
of the franchise to refrain from urging them on this
occasion. We wish that a simple issue shall be raised
e fore the country. We feel that our object has been
• ned and that the country comprehends it. I
believe, sir, that the division of to-night will show that
the House of Commons is not behind the sense and in-
tention of the country, and will be such as to afford a
certain prognostication that we shall at once proceed to
incorporate this great enfranchisement in the law and
place it in the statute-book of the realm.
The discussion was continued by Mr. 0. Dalrymple,
who approved of much that was contained in the bill,
and of its application to Ireland, but insisted that the
House, before passing it, ought to see the whole of the
scheme of the Government. Viscount Folkestone,
Viscount Newport, and Sir W. Barttelot also spoke in
favour of the amendment of Lord John Manners; while
the Bill was supported by Mr. Williamson, The
O'Donoghue, and Mr. Burt.
Mr. Goschen remarked that if the Government had
any intention of protecting the rights of minorities,
and particularly of the loyal minority in Ireland, they
had not disclosed it, and he was inclined to think that
they did not assent to that principle. In view of their
silence upon that subject, and of the probability of a
new Parliament being elected by the enlarged con-
stituencies before redistribution took place, he regretted
that it was his duty to vote against the bill. Demo-
cracy, he pointed out, was now at every turn beginning
, to clutch the arm of the Executive, and its influence
was to be seen everywhere. While he should rejoice
to see a large addition to the electorate, he regarded
I with apprehension the conferment of a preponderating
I power upon one particular class to which was addressed
such language as that which the President of the
Board of Trade had used. It was not only a question of
admitting these voters for their own sakes, but one
of strengthening the Democratic movement in this
country. With respect to the representation of
Ireland, all he asked was that Ireland should be treated
in exactly the same way as other parts of the kingdom,
and he reminded the House that in 1832 the test of
population was never set up as the basis of representa-
tion. He had endeavoured to persuade himself that he
could vote for the bill, but had not been able to do so.
He believed that resistance, even if it failed, was
nevertheless not without its influence for many a cam-
paign was influenced in its results by even a hopeless
resistance made at a particular point.
After some remarks in support of the bill from Mr.
O'Connor Power, who ridiculed the suggestion that the
loyal party in Ireland would be extinguished,
Sir S. Northcote, who rose shortly before midnight,
remarked that though there might be some doubt as to
the principle of the bill, there could be none as to the
resolution, the object of which was to compel the
Government to throw some light on what at present
was a mere shadowy specnlation. At present it was
impossible to decide on a bill which was only a por-
tion of a larger scheme but what that larger scheme
was nobody knew. 'Where so great a change was
involved the House, he insisted, had a right to
know everything and see everything in a clear light.
Redistribution, as had been admitted over and over
again, was the most important portion of reform, and
the effect of a Reforra Bill depended entirely on the

distribution of seats. By the present mode of proce-
dure several sessions must pass before the entire scheme
could be carried, which, considering that they had been
four years in office, and this, according to their own
account, was their firgt mandate, was a singular result.
The pretexts given for keeping back the redistribution
scheme were an insult to its understanding; an.l, view-
ing the uncertainty as to the remainder of the scheme,
it was difficult to believe that the Government were in
earnest about this bill.

The Attorney-General, in replying, referred to the
speech of Mr. Goschen as one with which the Liberal
party could not bring itself into accord. It was cha-
racterised by absolute timidity of those who were to be
enfranchised, and was couched in language that became
obsolete in 1867.

The House then divided, and Lord J. Manner's reso-
lution was negatived by 340 to 210. The bill was then
read a second time, and the committee fixed for Thurs-
day, April 24.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned at ten minutes past two o'olock.

LOSS OF A STEAMER AND 120 LIVES.

The loss of the steamer Daniel Steinmann, which
occurred on the 3rd inst., was a terrible disaster. The
Philadelphia correspondent of the Times gives the
following details:
She was from Antwerp, and carried 90 passengers
and a crew of 40 men. Captain Schoonhoven, five
of the crew, and three passengers have been saved;
but 121 lives are lost.

She was making for the entrance of Halifax
Harbour during a gale and in a dense fog when she
struck, about 10 o'clock on Thursday night, on the
Madrock shoal, 200 yards from the Sambro light, and
some 20 miles from Halifax. She backed off, and
then struck the Gardner shoal. A large hole was
knocked in her bottom, and she foundered in a few
moments.

The topsail yards only remained above water, but
one lifeboat seems to have been launched, and the
men on Sambro Island, at about midnight, saw it
making towards the shore. They guided it with
torches into a cove where the water was calm. It
contained five of the crew and two passengers. At
daybreak two persons were seen clinging to the rigging,
and a boat sent from the lighthouse rescued them.
They proved to be Captain Schoonhoven and a boy
passenger.
A later account says that the wreck was caused by
mistaking the Sambro light for the Chebacto Head
light. Captain Schoonhoven has made the following
statement:

"At it o'clock on Thursday evening what I thought
was the Chebucto Head light, by dead reckonings
and soundings, bore west-half-south by the compass.
It was thought to be distant some twenty-five miles.
There was a dense fog prevailing, with occasional
heavy rain and brilliant lightning.
"I steamed ahead dead slow, steering west one-
quarter-south, and taking soundings every hour.
About 9.25 o'clock I saw through the mist a faint light,
which was about two points on the starboard bow. It
disappeared at times for four or five Minutes. Still
thinking it to be the Chebucto Head light, I kept
the ship on her course. The soundings gave twenty
fathoms.
"In between ten and twenty minutes I discovered
that it was the fixed light off Sambro. It nowappeare
clear; and at the same time I made out the faint
glimmer of what I took to be the Chebucto light,
about four points on the starboard bow. The sound-
ings then gave 26 fathoms.
"I ordered the helm to be put hard a-port ; but it
was too late, for the minute afterward the steamer
struck heavily, but drifted over the ledge, and the
anchors were let go.
"The passengers and crew came rushing on deck.
I -ordered the first and second officers to launch the
boats and get the women and children into them.
All this time the vessel continued to drift and drag
her anchors; getting nearer to the breakers, which
were visible; and the sea was breaking over her in
immense waves. During this time I was on the
bridge; but I now ran forward to ascertain if the
cable had parted, and had just reached the foremast
when the ship again struck. At the same time an
immense wave came pouring over her, carrying oft
every living soul. There was one despairing wail
from the strong men, weak women, and innocent
children, whieh rose above the fury and tumult of
the waves, and then the ship settled down into the
waters so fast that I was obliged to let go the rigging
up which I was climbing and rise with the water.
"In coming to the surface I found myself beside a
yardarm, which was only about two feet above the
surface of the water. Clutching the ropes, I succeeded
in dragging myself on to it. I had not been long
seated before somebody came floating by. I clutched
him and succeeded in drawing him on to the yard be-
side me. It proved to be one of the passengers, a
young man named Nicolo, bound for New York. I
had succeeded in divesting myself of coat, vest and
boots in order that if the worst came I might be pre-
pared to swim to shore. But the mast stood secure,
and we remained in our perilous position for seven
hours, until we were rescued by one of our own boats.
"Up to that time I had not been aware that any-
body except myself and the passenger whom I had
rescued had been saved; and I was agreeably sur-
prised to find these men on shore when we landed.
"I cannot tell how I managed to get so much out
of our course, except on the following grounds:
"We had foggy weather for several days previous
to the accident, on the last two of which I had been
unable to take any observation whatever. Added to
this, there must have been an exceedingly strong
easterly current. My compasses must have been sub-
ject to some attraction.
"The ship is now evidently broken, with the rocks
through her bottom. The storm was from the east
when we struck, with dense fog and rain. It was im-
possible to save any passengers whatever. I stayed in
the foretopsailyards for a time, but had to go further
up, to clear the break of the sea; and I maintained a
position in the ratlines for about eight hours, in com-
pany with Nicolo. We were afraid to lash ourselves
for fear the mast should break; so we just held on,
all ready to jump, from 10 p.m. to 5.30 a.m., when a
line was thrown to us. We jumped into the water,
and were pulled through the surf into the boat."
The signalmen on Sambro report seeing a ship's
lights on Thursday night, when the fog-whistle was
started to warn her of her danger. After the wreak
the cries of men and women could be distinctly heard.
She went down within 300 yards of Sambro Island.
Yesterday over 100 boats were collected round the
wreck searching for the bodies. It is believed that
the ship will not go to pieces, but that a portion of her
cargo will be saved damaged.
Five bodies have been recovered, including that
of the chief officer. The survivors have gone to
Halifax.