The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-02-22 00:00:00

sittings of all of them in the metropolis up to July, except
during the criminal assizes, when six would be absent from
town. Lately there had been a little more inconvenience
than Would have occurred in ordinary circumstances, owing
to Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Steven having been
engaged on the criminal code ; but he believed that the ad-
vanLages which the public would derive from the labours of
the Commission on that code would be very great. Not-
withstanding all that had been said about the growing
arrears in the three Common Law Courts, the number
of actions ready for trial in London and Middlesex on
the Ist ot January, 1878, was 1,164; while on the same day
in the present year the number was 957. There were now
standing in the lists for trial 845. Further, he had autho-
rity for saying that there was every reason for anticipating
that the whole of those cases would disappear during the
long sittings which were about to commence. The Govern-
ment did not thing there was any necessity for increasing
the judicial strength of the High Court of Justice beyond the
addition to be made to it by the appointment of the Judge of
the Chancery Division whose first business it was to be in con-
nexion with the Bankruptcy Court.
The Bill was read a first time.

Their Lordships adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.
In the HOUSE OS' CommoNs, at question time, Mr.
Knatchbull-Hugessen stated that he will on an early day
move for a Select Committee on brewers' licenses; Mr.
Noel informed Mr. Osborne Morgan that part of the New
Law Courts wouid shortly be ready for occupation, and,
according to the contract, the main portion of the building
would be completed by the year 1830 ; but the Chancellor of
the Exchequer was unable then to inform Dr. Kenealy
whether the Government would be able to introduce a Bar
Education and Discipline Bill this session.
Sir M. H. Beach. in answer to a question by Dr. Cameron
as to a massacre of natives by Boer volunteers near Kuegas,
hi Griqualand West, reported in the Cape papers of Oct. 13,
said he would make inquiries with respect to the accuracy of
the statement; but, in justice to Colonel Lanyon and others,
In should be remembered that s.milar statements had been
previously made and satisfactorily replied to.
Mr. Dillwyn moved for the sppointment of a Select Com-
mittee to consider and report upon the Civil Service Esti-
mates. In support of it he pointed to the difficulties which
private members had to encounter in overhauling the Esti-
mates, which mada,Committee of Supply a farce, and main-
tained that, instead of interfering wita the responsibility of
the Executive, it would strengthen the hands of the Treasury
in enforcing ecunomy on the other departments.
Mr. Baxter, who seconded the motion, said that his ex-
perience as a Secretary ot the Treasury showed him that
without some such assistance the House of Commons never
could hit a blot in the Estimates, for he had often known
Committee of Supply tix on innocent items, while it passed
over items which were perfectly indefensible.
Mr. Hermon also spoke in favour of a Committee.
Mr. Ilaukey, on the other hand, thought it impossible for
a Committee to provide any information which would guide
the House of Commons in framing the Estimates—a duty
which belonged to the Executive. The real evil was the in-
adequate criticism of the Estimates in Committee of Supply,
owing to the uncertainty as to the time at which they would
come on.

Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson, replying to Mr. Baxter, repu-
diated for the present Government the idea that they,
would knowingly bring in Estimates which were indefen-
sible, and with regard to the motion insisted on the impos-
sibility of submitting questions of policy on which expen-
diture depended to any Committee He denied that such
a Committee would assist the House in sifting the
Estimates, while it would shift the responsibility from the
shoulders of the Government. He agreed with Mr. Hankey
as to the reason for the inefficiency of Committee of Supply,
and mentioned that out of 24 Supply nights last Session the
House got into Committee early on only three, and that on
15 it was too late to take any votes.
Mr. Lowe remarked that the motion proceeJed on the
imaginative assumption that the House of Commons repre-
sented economy and the Executive increased expenditure;
but the facts were diametrically the opposite. If there was
any man in the country anxious for economy it must be the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose reputation and existence,
were involved in keeping down the expenditure ; but did any-
lAstly believe that the business of the House of Commons was in
any perceptible degree to promote economy? If a Chancell,,r
of the Exchequer were pressed by political friends to do
something which would lead to increased expenditure, and
from which, therefore, he would be naturally averse, this
Committee would be a shield to him and would take off the
responsibility, and on the whole it would give the greatest
possible facility for adding to the Estimates with the least
facility for checking them.
Sir W. Barttelot also pointed out that an examination
of the Estimates by a Committee would lead to Supply
being deferred to the end of the Session, and mane some
satirical comments on Mr. Baxter's confession that a
Liberal Government would bring in indefensible Estimates.
Lord R. Montagu and Mr. Laing took the same view
of the uselessness of a Committee, while Mr. Rylands
and Mr. Parnell supported the motion, and Mr. Walter also
spoke in favour of it, holding the House to be incompetent
to deal with the mass of details contained in the Esticuatss
without more information than it at present received.
On a Division, the motion was rejected by 153 to 95.
Mr. Mowbray next moved the adoption of what is known
as the "12 30 Rule," which prevents opposed business being
taken after that hour. Sir J. Lubbock moved to except from
the rule Bills which have passed through Committee; but
this the House declined to sanction by 81 to 57. Ultimately
the rule was carried as proposed, and by a mejority
of 79 to 16 it was made a standing order. In the
short discussion which occurred, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and Sir H. Sslwin-Ibbetson on one front bench,
and Lord Hartingtou and Mr. Dodson on the other, ex-
pressed opinions decidedly adverse to the rule and its work-
ing, and accepted it only because the majority of the House
were unmistakably favourable to it.

The annual Committee on Petitions having been ap-
p. inter% Sir H. Selvvin•lbbetson moved the appointment
of the Committee on Public Accounts.

Sir C. Dilke raised the question of the constitution of the
committee, and suggested additions and change.
The Financial Secretary repliet that the number of the
committee was limited by standing order, which must be
rescinded before additions could be made,

Major Nolan thought members below the gangway who
were advocates of economy in public expenditure should be
added to the committee, and Mr. O'Shaughnessy urged equal
representation of the three kingdoms.

The debate was, however, prematurely ended by the
counting out of the House at ten minutes past nine o'clock.

In the HousE OF COMMONS, Feb 19, Mr. 'Balfour moved
the second reading of the Burial Law Amendment Bill, and
proceeded to explain the provisions of the Bill, from which
it appeared that it was not intended to apply to Scotland or
Ireland, and the date fixed for its coming into operation was
the Ist January, 1680.
Mr. Beresford-Ilope moved that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months, and Mr. Marten seconded the
amendment.

A debate ensued, In which Sir C. Forster, Mr. W. Egerton,
Lord F Hervey, Mr. Palhot, Mr. Osborne MJrgan, Earl
Percy, and other hon. members took part.

The discussion continued until the time arrived for the
adjournment of the debate, and the Bill was accordingly
"tallied out."