The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-25 00:00:00

SATURDAY, MAR. 25,,'110.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 20, Lord Stanley of Alderley
awed Lord Derby whether, in the instructions to be issued
to Naval Officers respecting Fugitive Slaves, the Government
would provide the same measure of protection for Fugitive
Soolies.
Lord Derby replied that it would be unadvisable to issue
any fresh instructions pending the inquiry by the Royal
Commission, especially as there was a wide difference
between the position of Coolies and of Negro Slaves.

Lord de Manley called attention to the Slave Trade carried
on in Egypt on the banks of the Nile and along the Red Sea,
and moved a Resolution expressing regret that the policy of
the Government was not directed to the suppression of
the Slave Trade in the recent transactions with the Khedive
of Egypt:
Lord Derby said that during the last four months the Go-
vernment had been engaged in negotiating with the Khedive
a Convention for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and,
whatever might be the power of the Khedive, he believed
there could be no doubt of his goodwill in the matter.

The motion was withdrawn.
• The Marquis of Lansdowne, in inking whether the names
Of the commissioners under the Oxford University Bill would
be communicated to the House before the measure was com-
mitted, referred to the powers to be exercised by the com-
Missioners, which he described as vast and unexampled.
The Marquis of Salisbury, whilst ready to comply with the
request to make known the names of the commissioners,
could not accede to the statements that they were unex-
ampled, and said that powers quite as large were given to
the commissioners who dealt with the public schools and
With the endowed schools. He stated that he would name
the commissioners next Monday, and would at the same time
explain any amendments he might have to propose.

Lord Ca-rnarvon, in reply t; Lord Cottesloe, said that,
since the debate on the question of the exchange of Gambia
for certain French Settlements, the negotiations with the
French G ,vernment had been abandoned, as that Govern-
ment declined to surrender all the possessions which the
British Government had expected to receive.
The Lordships then adjourned.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Ward Hunt, in answer to
Mr. D Jenkins, said that various tenders had been received
by the Admiralty for raising the Vanguard, and negotiations
Were now going on with one of the firms which had
tendered.

Before the House went into Committee on the Royal
Titles Bill,

Mr. Disraeli, with a view to removing misconception,
Made a supplementary statement as to the advice which the
Government would tender to the Queen. It was never in-
tended that this title of Empress, which, for local purposes
and for considerations of high policy, Her Majesty was about
to adopt, should be substituted for her superior and supreme
title of Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, and in no circumstances would Her Majesty's
Ministers advise her to assume the title of Empress in Eng-
land. He contradicted also the rumour that the Queen, on
assuming the title of Empress in India, would be advised to
confer on her children and agnates an Imperial designation,
80 that they would be called Royal and Imperial Highnesses.
There never was the slightest foundation fcr such a report,
and the step would be one which Her Majesty's Ministers
Would entirely disapprove.
The Marquis of Hartington regretted that the explanation
had not been made before; but, though it was satisfactory
sO far as it went, it did not remove all the objections to the
BilL 'What was still apprehended was that the Imperial
title would gradually come into use here conjointly with the
ancient title of the Queen, and that it would be conferred on
the members of the Royal Family. Mr. Disraeli's statement,
however, would not touch the point of the Colonies, nor of
the extent of the India to which the title was to be applied.
The House then went into Committee, and on Clause 1
Mr. Serjeant Simon moved the insertion of words which
enable the Queen to include her Colonial Dominions In any
Change in her Style and Title.
Mr. Disraeli opposed the amendment. The present
Government, he pointed out, had taken every opportunity of
signifying its sympathy with the Colonies, and by the lan-
guage which he used the other night, and which had been mis-
apprehended, he simply meant that thousands of per-
Sons settled in the Colonies passed backwards and
forwards between the Colonies and the Mother
Coantry, and that there were opportunities of fre
(Merit e6mmunication between the Colonies and the
..Queen. Though he objected to enlarge the scope of
Ole Bill, he should be glad if some sympathetic and
lelicitious reference to the Colonies in the Royal Style and
Title could be devised and he did not despair that at some
time or other this might be done The Colonists, he be-
lieved, would object to the description of Colonies or
„„e/eDendencies ; they looked upon themselves as Englishmen.
4ne Crown had a veto on Colonial Acts; Parliaments were
opened in the Queen's name; and civil writs and criminal
arraignments ran in her name. Moreover, there had been
no chanee in the circumstances of the Colonies, such as the
assumption of the government of India by the Crown.
Alter some observations from Sir G. Bowyer and Mr.
Forsyth,
thMr. Lowe declared, from hit knowledge of the Colonies,
at they would be much offended, as the question of the
Queen's Title had been raised, if they were left out alto-
gether. Their would be satisfied with the title of "Colonies,"
and he pointed out that the Clause only gave power to the
Queen which she was not obliged to use.
Mr. Foreter also supported the amendment, but depre-
aated a division ; and Mr. Gladstone, though entirely dis-
tatistled with the reasons given for excluding the Colonies,
Nso thought a division uenecessary, because the Minority
t,eaord d an opportunity of recording its opinion on this point in
Hartington's Resolution. He, however, strongly
deprecated the future tinkering of the Royal Title at which
4_1;1.-r• Disraeli hinted when he had had time to study his
dictionary. Lord Robert Montagu also supported the
!amendment • and Mr. Disraeli, in his reply, pointed out that
there were high political considerations tor the assumption
of a title in India which did not exist in the case of the
Colonies, and hinted that it might be necessary to state
these high political considerations.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. 0. Morgan moved an amendment, of which no notice
had been given, the meaning of which was understood to be
that no title taken by the Queen should have priorty over
the present Royal Style and Title ; in other words, that Her
Majesty should always be Queen-Empress, not Empress.
Queen. Although it was ultimately withdrawn, it gave rise
to an animated conversation, in the course of which the
Government was pressed by Sir A. Gordon to say whether the
Royal Sign Manual would be altered, and by Mr. Gladstone
to say whether any future Minister would be precluded by
tile Act from recommending an addition to the Sign Manual.
Mi. Disraeli and the Attorney-General were of opinion
that, though the Sign Manual would be "Victoria Regina
et Imperatriz " in India, it would continue to be " Vic-
toria iieging" in this country, except for Indian pur-
potes. Sir G. Bowyer declared that it would be most
aneProper to interfere with the Sign Menu d by Statute;
And, on Sir William Harcourt declaring this to be bad
law, Sir George warmly retorted that he had never
heard of Si- William being considered an authority
in law, except as regarded practice before Committee. Mr.
Gregory also spoke ; and Mr. E. Jenkins informed the House
that people out of doors were beginning to think that the
reasons given by the Government for the Introduction of this
Measure were not true.
, A division occurred on a motion to introduce the word
Royal "before "Style and Title" in the body of the Clause,
Moved by Serjeant Simon, and objected to by the Govern-
ment as Unnecessary The result was to negative the amend-
ment by 171 to 92.
Mr. Newdegate next moved an amendment designed to
preserve uninjured and undiminished the authority of Par-
Velment over the Government of India. It was supported
l'yhsir G. Campbell, and opposed by the Attorney-General,
rmaintained that the title of Empress would in no way
hcrease the absolute power of the Sovereign in India. Ultimately the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. Pease proposed, as a proviso to the first Clause, that
19,e Act shall not authorize the use in the United Kingdom
" any other title but that now in use.
- The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opposition to it,
Pointed out that it would prevent any recognition of the
Colonies, and also that it cast an imputation on Mr. Disraeli's
declaration mute at the beginning of the evening.
_eMr. Muntz, in supporting the amendment, suggested that
Her Majesty should be styled "Empress in India," so as to
Avoid the anomaly of asserting her dominion over a country
Which contained territory belonging to other Sovereigns, such
14 Goa, Pondicherry, and Nepaui.
Sir 1:1- D. Wolff opposed the amendment, and •
The Marquis of Hartington, while giving the fullest credit
to Mr. Disraeli's sincerity and good intentions, maintained
that the Government ought to state how they intended to
carry out the localization of the title of Empress.
Mr. Disraeli objected to the amendment that it interfered
With the Royal Prerogative, and declared that he could not
agree to a condition that under no circumstances should the
title of Empress be used in this country.
Mr. Gladstone still insisted that something should be done
In the Bill to localize the title, and suggested the insertion
Of the word " local" in the preamble; but Mr. Peese said
he Was inclined at present to trust to Mr. Disraeli, and
therefore withdrew the motion.
The last poiet raised was the definition of India, which,
it was asserted, was too vague and extensive, by Mr.
garnueheen, who moved a new Clause and by .Sir W.
Harcourt, who moved an amendment in the preamble
te bring the Bill into harmoey with the Act of 1858.
Lord. G. Hamilton and the Attorney-General ormosed
both these motions, and the latter pointed out
that Mr. Gladstone was entirely mistaken in arguing
that the authority of the Qneen over the Native Princes
would in any way be agarandized by the Bill. Mr. Gladstone
thereupon explained thst he had not advanced this as an
aesertion, but had asked for information. The Chairman was
then ordered to report the Bill without amendments to the
Meuse, and the Third Reading was @zed for 1 hursday.
Tbe House then went into Committee of Supply, and
Feces* Votes were agreed to in the Civil Service and
Revenue Departments, the Army Estimates, on account of
India Charges in the Navy Estimates, and in the Greenwich
Hospital Vote.
The other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
lourned at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock.

In The ITOUSE oF LoRDS, March 21, the Patents for Inven-
tions Bill and the Council of India (Professional Appoint-
talents) Bill were passed through Committee, with amend-
The Telegraphs (Money) Bill also passed through Com-
Mittee.
In reply to Lord Airlie, Lord Salisbury said that the Ite-
Wit of the Hebdomadal Committee on the Univerrity of
Oxford Bill would be produced after it had been submitted
soo the oomideration of Convocation.
Their Lordships then adjourned.
In the HOIISE OF COMMONS, Mr. Ritchie moved for a Select
Committee to inquire int° the constitution, efficiency, emolu-
Ments, and finances of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. In
support of his.motion he gave an interesting account of the
gradual, but, as he asserted, entirely inadequate growth of
the Fire Brigade. Captain Shaw, before 1865, when the
Irigade was transferred from the Fire Offices to the
Metropolitan Board, gave as his lowest estimate for
the protection of the Metropolis 350 men, ig an
sapense of £50,000. But the population of the aetro-
Dolls had risen from three to three and a halt
rdillions, and the houses from 385,866 to 480,000. The num-
ber of fires had also risen at about the same rate—vhz , 17
Per cent ; but Ciptain Shaw had now only 395 under his
Itonsraa',l, which, allowing for sickness and other causes,
Only gave him about 160 men for night duty. In the old
*Mem, counting the 85 parish officers, the Superintendent
Under the Fire Ofhces had 175 men at his command. In
fact, the number of men available now WaS absolutely
ridiculous, and if ten great fires occurred simultsneously
the Brigade could not cope with them. Consequently. the
Mei.' complained of being greatly overworked, and also
that no suflicient system of pensions and superannuation
existed. ' • • -
Rh* T. Hogg defended the course taken by the Board, point
leg, as a proof of the efficiency of the Brigade, to the great
decrease in the number of sextons fires. Tne number of men
in the Fite itri,ade and the appliances for ex.inguiehipg fire
ltbad largely increased since the Board of Works took over the
j"iga'je, and were quite adtquate to the needs of the Metro-
polis,
.1...)re men meant more money, but the Boardweass
rate Blialited to a halfpenny in i these
us expenditure on e
Matters. If the House thought lit to grant a Committee, the
Board of Works would gladly assist in its labours.
Sir William Fraser, Mr. Boord, and Mr. M'Lagan spoke in
faVour of it ; and
Mr Cro+s, in consenting to the motion, warmly eulogized
the Conduct of the Brigade in the discharge of its arduous
Sufi dangerous duties. The position of the men, he admitted,
z._as not satisfactory ;it was far from equal, for instance, to
1„„,r t2-#1 the Metropolitan Police. An inquiry was desirable,
--„ttecetild not be confined to the points mentioned in the..
lhe supply of water, for ii.stance was sometimes
.osufficient, and sometimes not easily ob'tainable. Frau-
IhAleilt fires, too, must he inquired into, and he suggested',
that the inquiry should be extended to the provision or
titxther securities against the loss of life and property by
are.

Mr. Ritchie agreed to this, and the motion for a Committee,
ttuis extended in its scope, was .geed to.
jMr. Goldnev called attention to the unfair and exceptiona
.v°r4ifig of the Ecclesias ical Dilapidation Acts, 1871 and
872, and moved for a Select Committee to inquire into their
oPeration.
Mr. Monk made some observations on the Acts, and Mr.
Cross consented to the Committee, expressing a hope that it
Would lead to the satisfactory working of the Acts.
IlDr. Cameron called attention to the seizure of the British

steamship Talisman by the Peruvian Government, and to
the oppressive and illegal treatment to which the crew had
been subjected. Especially he dwelt on their imprisonment
without trial, for upwards of a year, and the coutinued
detention of three officers (one of whom had been just
murdered in pr son) for upwards of 11 months He com-
plained that the Government had not shown sufficient energy
in demandb,g that these men should be brought to trial
without unreasonable delay, and concluded by moving for a
Select Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances of
the case.

Sir H. Havelock, in seconding the motion, compared Lord
Derby's lnkewarmuess with the energy shown by Lord
Palmerston in the case of the Cagliari, and made some
sarcastic observations on a "spirited policy.''

Mr. Bourke began his defence of the Foreign Office by re-
marking that he would refrain as far as possible from making
any statement which would prejudice the captain and his
officers, who were still in custody in Peru, and he offered, if
Dr. Cameron would withdraw his motion, to make no state-
ment at all. Dr. Cameron, refusing to withdraw, Mr.
Bourke proceeded at some length to give particulars as to
the chartering of the Talisman in this country. Referring
to the case of the Cagliari' Mr. Bourke showed that it was
not Lord Palmerston. but Lord Malmesbury, who
had procured the release of the prisoners ; and alqo
that the circumstances of the Cagliari were altogether diffe-
rent from those of the Talisman In conclusion, Mr. Bourke
said that the Foreign Office had continuously up to the
present time remonstrated against the delay in bringing the
prisoners to trial, and had insisted, as far as it could, upon
proper treatment. Ile urged Dr. Cameron to withdraw his
motion and to trust to the Government. When all the facts
were ascertained, they would be laid before the Law Officers
with the view of ascertaining whether compensation should
be demanded.

After some observations from Sir H. James, Mr. William
Holmes, Mr. Gorst, Mr. Ashley, and Mr. Hersehell,

The Attorney-General showed that the Peruvian Govern-
ment had a riaht to seiza the Talisman, as she clearly had
been guilty of piracy. With regard to the question of delay,
the Attorney-General maintained that if it arose from the
action of the Triounals %e should have no claim for compen-
sation, for the Executive Government was not responsible
for the errors of the Tribunals. The Government bad re-
monstrated as strongly as they could; they had obtained the
release of the 18 prieoners, and if there were further delay in
bringing the other prisoners to trial their release would be
demanded, and the Secretary of State would take such
measures as might be necessary to enforce it.

Mr. Forster thought that strong grounds existed for de-
manding compensation, and censured the Government for
not having protested against the violation of International
Law. At tt,e same time he urged the withdrawal of the
motion, as a division might be misrepresented.

The Ouncellor of the Exchequer read a telegram Just re-
ceived from Lima, which stated that the trial of the Talisman
prisoners still continues. The result of the discussion would
strengthen the bands of the Government, which, he pro-
mised, would not be remiss in pressing the Peruvian Govern-
ment to do justice without delay.

Mr. Gladstone also advised a withdrawal of the motion
and took the opportunity of dissenting from the Attorney-
General's contention that am Executive is not responsible
for the errors of its Tribunals.

Mr. Parnell rose to speak, and some attempted references
to the Coercion Act of last Session were received with so
much impatience that he moved the adjournment. MU-
mat.ly, after some conversation, this was acquiesced in as
the most convenient mode of disposing of Dr. Cameron's
motion, and the debate was adjourned.
The other Orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned
at twenty•flve minutes to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, iarch 22, Mr. Ward, in moving
the second reading of the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries
(Ireland) Bill, said it was the misfortune of those fisheries to
have shared the depression experienced by other industries,
but while this depression had in many other instances
been checked, in the case of the fisheries their
decline had been steadily going on. Turning to the
history of the question, the hon. gentleman stated that
for many years there had been a systematic crush-
ing out of the Irish for the English fisheries, and
from the very first day of the 'foundation of the united
Parliament to this hour it had been agitated and frequently
brought before this House. In 1809 the Scottish Fishery
Bard was commenced, but it was not applied to Ireland
until 1819, and during the next ten sears the bounty system
had the most beneficial effect upon the Irish fisheries, and
the number of vessels employed in that trade increased from
5.010 to 12 000. In 1829, the bounty system was swept away
for all the three countries; in the case of Ireland in the
face of the commissioners, and in 1830 the commissioners
themselves were swept away. During the twenty years
from 1809 to 1829, Scotland, with a smaller coast and
less population than Ireland, received £1,200,000 and
Ireland received only £350,000. Alter the commis-
sioners were swept away the fisheries were left to take
care of themselves, and at that very time there was perpetu-
ated the Board of Commissioners in Scotland. In one country
the fisheries were well managed, and in the other they were
disorganised and ruined. The hon. member traced the
history of the question, and the legislation attempted with
regard to it, through the time of the great Irish famine to
the present day, and contended that from 1846 to the
present day there had been a rapid and steady
decline of these fisheries to arrest which nothing
had been done by the respective Governments of the day.
In 1.46 Ireland had 20,000 boats engaged in the
fisheries, and a fishing population of 113,000, and in the year
1852 that fishing 'population had gone down to 69,000 and
the number of boats now enzaged in the trade was only
12,000. The Bill before the House would authorise the ap-
p.,iutment of a Board of Commissioners similar to that in
Scotland, which, being left to itself, had been most success-
ful. The Board would have power to frame by-laws, to
hold inquiries, to issue licenses, to appoint inspectors, to
lay down regulations for branding, &o. The most important
provision of it would autnorise the Commissioners to make
advances on loans out of a sum to be advanced annually by
the Treasury.
Mr. Baxter admitted the melancholy condition of the Irish
fisheries, but contended that to assist them in the method pro-
posed was objectionable and against all the principles of poli-
tical economy. It was no part of the duty of the Govern-
ment to foster particular industries by grants of public money
in such a manner as that proposed by the Bill. No doubt there
was a time when Governments went out of their way to keep
up the system of branding upon almost all articles of
merchandse, and they acted upon the belief that the In
elustries producing the goods would be fostered thereby. But
the whole system had been exploded long ago, and so far
from proving beneficial it had proved to be prejudicial, The
Bill made free in a most remarkable way with the public
funds, and would be an unfortunate precedent, and he there-
fore opposed its second reading.
Sir j. M'Kenna contended that the Bill was not of a pro-
tective character. ..Its provisions would afford important aid
to men who had no capital but their industry, without any
charge to the State. Further, it would develop au industry
and be a nursery for seamen which had been neglected
Systematically.
After some ob.ervations from Sir G. Bowyer, the Marquis
of Hamilton Mr. Yeaman, Mr. Bruen, and Mr. L. Bell,
_ _ .

Sir J. Elphinstone said he believed that the Board had
bi en productive of benefit to the 6cotch fishing trade. He
Opposed the Bill, which he believed it would be found im-
practicable for any Government to support. There would be
no necessity to come to this House for help to tbuil 1 and en-
large harbours if the Irish landovsners had done in this res.
pt-ct what had been done by the Scotch gentry in the sister
kin cdom.

Mr. A. Peel objected to the application of the exploded
system of proteAion to Ireland. - - . _ _

Ti:e Bill was supported by sir. Serjeant Slietlock, Sir E.
Wilmot, Mr. Collin., Mr. Butt, and Mr. Ramsay.

Sir H. Hicks Beach said the Bill proporel to do three
things—to establish a hoard ot commissioners in lieu of the
present inspectors of fisheries, the adulation of the branding
system, and a grant of £2O 000 in the way of loans. It was
proposed to substitute for the three paid inspectors an unpaid
board of commissioners, but the former, as far as he knew,
did their work very well, and no complaints had been made of
them by the people of Ireland. The Scotch hoard it was pro-
posed to imitate met only eight or nine times a year, but the
duties of the Irish inspectors could hardly be performed by
a similar body, as the latter held inquiries and did a great
deal of work in respect to fisheries which the Scotch Board
did not. The branding system in Scotland was a relic of the
old system of bounties, and was recognized abroad before
the bounty sy,tem was given up; but the branding system
would now have to be introduced into Ireland. In con.
sidering whether the branding system should) be ex-
tended to Ireland there were a great many points to
be considered. The products of the Irish summer
fisheries were consumed fresh in that country, Eng-
land, and Scotland, and did not require branding; but
the Scotch white herrings were to a great extent sent abroad
in barrels. The question was a complicated one, and he
would make further inquiries and consult practical per-
sons before making any recommendation to the Govern-
ment on the subject. With regard to the proposition
for advances from the Treasury, if it could be shown to
him that they would be used for the purposes for which
they were advanced, and properly repaid, he should be
disposed to recommend the adoption of the system by
the Treasury, but on this, as on the subject of branding,
he was not prepared to express any final opinion today,
Re trusted that the decision of the House would be taken
upon the Bill itself and not with any sentimental feeling as
to the fisheries themselves Whatever was done they must
In the end depend upon the energy and enterprise of those
engaged in the Ir7ish fisheries to the greatest extent.
Under all the circumstances he trusted the Bill would not be
Pressed, and he felt bound to move that it be read a second
time this day six months.
Mr Ward replied, and the House divided—For the second
reading, 331 ; against, 215; majority, 84. The Bill was there-
fore rejected.
Sir 11. Wolff moved the second reading of the House of
Occupiers Disqualification Removal Bill.

Mr. Dodds mnved the rejection of the measure, and was
addressing the House at a quarter to six when, by the rules
of the House, the debate stood adjourned.
The Sea Insurances (tamping of Policies) Bill was read a
third time, and the Consolidated Fund (£10,029,551 ss. id.)
Bill was read a second time, and the House adjourned