The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-05-25 00:00:00

THE PROSPECTS OF PEACE.

One of our Scotch correspondents telegraphs :
In passing through Perth yesterday her Majesty
had two conversations with the Duke of Athole.
Later in the day his Grace presided at a meeting at
Pitlochry, and referring to Eastern affairs said he was
of opinion that there would be a peaceful solution of
the present difficulties. The Duke added that one
significant fact seemed to point towards peace, and
that was that the Queen had come to Scotland earlier
than was expected."—Wednesday's Globe.

THE HOUSES OF LORDS AND COMMONS
ON MONDAY NIGHT.
The Daily News of Tuesday, in giving a sketch of the
Houses of Parliament on Monday night, says tkat the scene
in the Lords was much more brilliant than in the Cem-
mons—

"The benches were crowded, more particularly on the
Ministerial side, which presented a serried mass rarely
seen even on important oocasions. All the Ministers
were in their places, and below the gangway on the
second bench sat the two ex-Ministers, Lord Derby
and Lord Carnarvon. The Prince of Wales was in
his usual place on the cross benches, having come
down to the House accompanied by the Princess
of Wales and the Crown Prince and Princess of
Germany, the three latter occupying seats in the
galleries to the left of the woolsack. There was
a large attendance of ladies, among whom, a late
arrival, was the Marchioness of Salisbury. The
attendance of members of the House cf Commons was
scanty, and due prominence was thus given to the At-
torney-General, who sat at the end of the gallery, dili-
gently taking notes of the legal and Constitutional
arguments adduced by Lord Selborne, who opened the
debate in a speech of conspicuous ability. The Lord
Chancellor stated the case on behalf of the Govern-
ment, and was lollowe4 by Lord Cardwell, the Duke
of Rutland, Lord Napier and Ettrick, and Earl Gran-
ville. Shortly after ten o'clock the Premier rose, and
in a speech delivered with great animation, and pitched
in a high key, he wound up the debate. Amid cheers
from his supporters he called upon the Opposition
to justify their tall talk.' The noble lord oppo-
site, he said, admits he does not like to be in a
minority. But if he shrinks from divisions he can
never expect to be in a majority. He indicated that
it would be very easy for Ministers to justify their
position if they were permitted to open their mouths.
But the exigencies of the public service did not permit
such freedom, and Lord Beaconsfield, amid renewed
cheers, declared that the Government would rather
hold their peace and take the consequences than
betray the people, whom they were bound to serve.
When the Prime Minister resumed his seat the House
melted away, and there being no resolution before it
the debate thus came to an abrupt conclusion."

The Daily Telegraph has also an article descriptive of the
scene in the Houses of Parliament on the Indian debate. The
following is an extract thereupon :
"In the Commons, all the features which have attended so
many* important debates during this momentous session
were reproduced. Hon. members crowded the benches on
both sides, and it was especially noticeable that, with the
exception of Mr. Bright, not a leading man of either party
failed to put in an appearance. Very soon the Members'
Galleries began to till also, and it is needless to state that
every seat devoted to ' strangers ' had an early and eager
occupant. A string of questions having been disposed of,
the orders of the day were set aside nem can. and im-
immediately the Speaker called upon Lord Hartingtou
to move his resolution. The noble leader of
her Majesty's Opposition never made a more charac-
teristic speech, nor one, perhaps, which less excited
the ardent spirits below the gangway on his own side.
He made use of no heroics, but, calmly leaning his right
arm on the books before him, discussed a constitutional
question with a coolness and fairness that refused to let him
wander for a moment into the more exciting matters not
strictly within the scope of the motion. The Government
claim the right,' said Lord Hartington, 'to use troops
raised in India and not under the control of Parliament
in other parts of the Empire in time of peace. We deny
the right.' Quietly as the mind of the Opposition was
thus stated, without a gesture or a higher pitch of
voice, it gave opportunity for the first hearty cheer
of the evening. A wave of applause rolled along the Liberal
benches, and when it subsided the speaker went on to assert
the special control of Parliament over the army, going back
to‘ the Bill of Rights, the principles of which, as regards the
matter in question, have been always sedulously carried out
by the action of the Legislature. Parliament, he contended,
must sanction not only the cost of the army but its number,
and he quoted various authorities and precedents in support
of the view. But the Indian army, according to the noble
lord, stands on a very different footing from her Majesty s
other forces It is a non-Parliamentary army.' The
Queen may move her Parliamentary forces as she
pleases, but the Indian troops cannot be called out
of India without becoming Parliamentary also, and as
such chargeable to the Imperial revenue. It follows, of
course, according to the speaker's argument, that the con-
sent of Parliament to their removal is necessary. Having
cited the precedent of Indian troops in China in time of
peace, for whom estimates were voted year by year, the
noble lord concluded this part of his argument by saying in
effect, 'Let the Government come to Parliament in the same
way now, and all will be well.' Turning to the financial
part of the question, and indulging in a little quiet sarcasm
about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scruples on a former
occasion, "when his majority was not so large," the
noble lord became unusually animated as he pointed
out that the credit of England had been pledged by the mea-
sure of the Government, and that the House could not
refuse to pay the bill. What is the justification?' he de-
manded with a raised voice and added emphasis, whereupon
the Liberals cheered heartily. 'Why was Parliament kept
in the dark?' went on the speaker. 'Parliament was sit-
ting when the order to move the troops went forth. But we
are told it was desirable to keep the matter secret. Why?'
Here the cheers again burst forth. 'This was one of a
series of military demonstrations; but what is the use of
a demonstration when kept secret ? ' A burst of
laughter from the now lively benches behind greeted
the query, changing to louder cheers than ever as
the noble Lord declared that the secrecy of which he com-
plained was part and parcel of a deliberate assertion of a
right never before exercised or claimed. He had no desire
to obstruct the Government, but a precedent so momentous
should not be established without full discussion. Turning
to the amendment of Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Lord Hartington
again evoked cheers by quietly saying that the pro-
visions' therein mentioned might be sufficient "if they
were observed," and as to the control of supplies Par-
liament had always claimed more than that. Th3n,
professing to regard the amendment as a vote of con-
fidence, he made another 'hit,' by conversationally
remarking that it is not usual for members of a
Government to propose confidence in themselves. Finally,
he protested, amid loud cheers, against grave constitutional
questions such as the one at issue being treated on strict
party lines. 'Government,' said the speaker, 'can carry a
vote of confidence in anything, and the practice would
cover any illegality.' Upon this the noble lord sat down,
having started the debate by a speech in his best manner—
one as free from personalities as from appeals to passion or
prdjudice, clearly argued, whatever the merits of the case
set forth, and distinguished by a statesmanlike desire to per-
form a necessary duty without embarrassing the Government
further than that duty compelled." . .