The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-05-17 00:00:00

!IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the Roust or LORDS, May 12, Viscount Enfield moved
the second reading of the Racecourses (Metropolitan) Bill.
Lord St. Leonards moved the rejection of the Bill, which
was also opposed by the Duke of Richmond, on the ground
that the Jockey Club had the power of stopping these
meetings.
Earl Granville thought such a matter should not be left
to the Jockey Club.
The Earl of Roseberry opposed the Bill, which, it it were
extended to a circuit of 16 miles, as had been proposed,
would give a small bench of magistrates at Epsom power to
stop the Derby.
The discussion was continued by Lords Morley, Huntly,
Ribblesdale, Redesdale, and Aberdare, the Duke of Richmond
and Gordon, and Lord Enfield.
Their lordships eventually divided on the second reading,
When there were—Contents, 84; Non.contents, 67; majority
Ror the second reading, 27.
The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge were in
their places throughout the discussion, but did not Vote in
division.
Their Lordships adjourned at ten minutes past seven
o'clock.

In the HOUSE of COMMONS, Sir M. Hicks-Beach read a
telegram from Cape Town, just received, dated the 27th of
April, in which the intelligence is conveyed that the con-
lerence between the High Commissioner and the Boer Com-
mittee at Pretoria on April IS passed off in the most friendly
manner, having lasted five and a half hours, and that the Boer
camp has broken up quietly.
Mr. Baxter having asked whether it was true that the
Governments of Russia and Turkey had come to an agree-
ment by which the former gives up the right of placing
garrisons in the Balkans and of occupying with troops any
Places hi Eastern Roumelia, Mr. Bourke said the Govern-
ment knew nothing of any such agreement.
In answer to Mr. Gourley, Mr. W. 11. Smith said that
though the Admiralty had heard nothing from the Admiral
or the Captain, they had been informed by the cburtely of
Lloyd's on Saturday that the Iron Duke was on shore, and
-subsequently that she had been got off, with assistance, and
without sustaining any damage.
In answer to a question from Mr. Maclver, the Chancellor
Of ishe Exchequer said that the Whitsuntide holidays would
be Worn Tuesday, May 27, when there would be a Morning
Sittinj, to Monday, June 9.
Mr, W. Jenkins gave notice that as an amendment to Mr.
Dillwyu's motion, relative to the constitutional functions of
the Sovereign, he will move "That in order to prevent the
growing abuse—under the advice of Ministers--of the privi-
leges and influence of the Crown, it is necessary that the
Royal prerogative should be strictly limited and v'efined."
Subsequently Mr. Dillwyn said that as his original motion
had been misinterpreted into a censure on the Crown, whieh
he did not intend—he would either adopt Mr. Jenkins's reso-
lution or alter his own so as to make it correspond with it.
Mr. Fawcett gave notice that on the Indian Budget he
would move "That this House regards with apprehension
the state of the Finances of India, and is of opinion that
measures should be taken without delay to reduce the ex-
Penditnre." Subsequently Mr. Fawcett asked in what form
the Indian Budget would be brought on, and the Chan-
efilor of the Exchequer having stated that the Under-
Secretary would make the Financial Statement on going
Into committee on the Indian Loan, and the amend-
ment would be Sir G Campbell's motion to reduce the loan
to £2,000,000, Mr. Fawcett asked the Speaker whether this
course was regular. The Speaker replied that though it
was unmet it was not out of order, upon which Mr. Fawcett
said he would oppose it.
Mr. Newdegate gave notice that on the second reading or
ou the Committee .of the Budget Bill he will move a resolu-
tion declaring that the House will not sanction any treaty or
engagement limiting the control of Parliament unless full
Information relating to it has been laid before the House
and opportunity given to discuss it.
In answer to Sir J. C. Lawrence, Sir J. M'Garel Hogg said
that five more toll bridges over the Thames would be thrown
open within the next three weeks.
Shortly after five o'clock the House went into Committee
of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, and Class 2 (Public
Offices) was completed, with the exception of several Irish
votes which were postponed.
The Summary Jurisdiction Bill was again considered in
Committee, and several other Bills were forwarded a stage.
The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past one
o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 13, the Marquis of
Salisbury read an abstract of the recent speech of General
Obrutecheff at Philippopolis, as furnished to him by the
English Consul General in that city. Among other things
the Russian General stated that the Balkans would not be
Immediately occupied by the Turks; but her Majesty's
Government had no reason to believe that the Sultan had
entered into any engagement which would preclude him
from sending garrisons into the Balkans,
Lord Stanhope introduced a Bill having for its object the
consolidating and making uniform throughout the United
Kingdom of the laws Mating to the supply of intoxicating
drink cn credit.
The Bill was read a first time.
Their Lordships adjourned at half-past five o'clock.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, in answer to Mr. E. Jenkins,
Mr. Bourke said it was not true that the joint action of the
British and French Governments in regard to Egyptian
affairs had been abandoned.
Mr. Dillwyn moved his resolution, which was as follows
That to prevent the growing abase by Her Majesty's
Ministers of the prerogative and influence of the Crown, and
consequent augmentation of the power of the Government
In enabling them, under cover of tne supposed personal
interposition of the Sovereign, to withdraw from the cogni-
zance and control of this House matters relating to policy
and expenditure properly within the scope of its powers
and priviliges, it is necessary that the mode and limits
of the action of the prerogative should be more strictly
observed."
At the outset Mr. DLllwyn disclaimed emphatically the sus-
picion that he had intended to reflect on Her Majesty, and,
with many quotations from the constitutional authorities,
he proceeded to dilate on the large and undefined nature of
the Prerogative. Toe two checks on the Prerogative were
the power of the purse and the responsibility of Ministers to
Parhement ; and on this last head he insisted that it
must be the responsibility of the Cabinet, not ot an
Individual Minister. That this latter check had been
weakened lately, he said, was a matter of public
notoriety, and among other instances he mentioned
the Suez Canal purchase, the movement of the Indian
troops to Malta, the Angio-Turkish Convention, the Afghan
war, and the messages to Sir B. Frere. lie insisted also that
the misleading answers of Ministers to questions were evi-
dences of discordant counsels and the predominant influence
of one Minister over the rest of the Cabinet. Ile admitted,
amid much laughter and ironical cheering, that be had a
difficult case to prove, but he claimed for himself that he
was only doing his duty in endeavouring to protect the
Privileges of Parliament and to insist on the responsibility
of Ministers.
Mr. Courtney, in seconding the motion, defended at some
bengal the language of the originel Resolution, in which
none bts;; those who were utterly ignorant of the Constitu-
tion could discern a vote of censure on the Sovereign. On
the contrary, it was a vote of coven e on the Ministers, and
the offences whieh it was intended to attack was the undue
use of the name and prerogative of the Sovereign, the initia-
tion of new lines of policy by Ministers, in ccmparative ignor-
ance ot each other, the substitutiou of the authority of
an individual Minister for that of the whole Cabinet,
and the weakening or ignoring of the control of Parliament.
These, he argued, were all violations of the Constitution,
and, in addition to the acts cited in evidence by Mr.
Diliwyn, he dwelt on the levity of the Ministers when called
upon to answer questions concerning the communications
between her Majesty and the Viceroy and the letter to Sir
Frere, which, he contended, showed the necestity of
affirming sound Constitutional doctrines. As another proof
he pointed to Lord Barrington, who was taking notes of
the debate, and warned him that he was cortimitting a
breach of the Constitutionclor which he might be called
to account. At this there was much laughter, whereupon
Mr. Courtney referred to the proceedings in Parliament
when Mr. Grenville was supposed to have communicated
the debates to the King The annexation of the Transvaal
also was cited as an instance of the unconstitutional use of
the Prerogative ; and as an instance of the undue protrusion
of the Sovereign's name into public affairs, he referred to
what occurred in 1868, when Mr. Disraeli threw on the Queen
the responsibility of decidit.g when Parliament was to be dis-
solved.. To illustrate the present Premier's settled po' icy of de-
stroying the collective action of the cabinet and substituting
the authority of a single Minister, he quoted from a letter
written by him in 1636, entitled "A Vindication of the Con-
stitution" by Disraeli the Younger. In conclusion, he
claimed 'to be acting without any reference to party in-
terests, and what he designed to guard against was the
possible establishment of an autocracy by a Democratic
Minister, backed by a Parliament and wielding an extended
Rrerogative.
• Mr. Gladstone said the unparalleled history of the motion
made it impossible for it to be fairly debated at this moment.
Originally it was directed against the interposition of the
Sovereign, and if it had retained that form he thould have
stated his reasons why he did not think that it could be
justified, but now it had assumed the shape of a vote of
censure on the Government. But to put such a motion on
the paper in the morning, and to ask the itouse to vote it in
the evening, was so entirely contrary to the rules of Parlia-
mentary procedure that he declined to have auything to do
with it. loan amusing criticism of the language of the Resold-
flea, he pointed out that there was no connexion between the
abuse of the Prerogative and the supposed intervention of the
Sovereign. Though he had not been backward in assailing
the undue use of the Prerogative under the present Govern-
ment, in every case it had been sustained by large majori-
ties, and the censure, if there was to be any, ought to be
directed against the majority which had assumed the
responsibility. Commenting on Mr. Courtney's speech, he
remarked that he was quite unable tO see what his display of
constitutional lore had to do with the question, and was
specially sarcastic on the reference to Lord Barrington.
Lord It. Montagu, who was interrupted by two attempts
at a "count-out' ,' proceeded to deliver at great length an
elaborate historical argument in favour of the old constitu-
tional system, under which the Sovereign was advised by
the Council, not by a Cabinet. At the end of the second
hour a third attempt was made to count out the House,
whieh was also unsuccessful, and Lord Robert concluded by
moving an amendment declaring that it is the right and
duty of the Sovereign to make war and peace with the advice
pi the Council or by the advice of Parliament.
Mr. Marten, Mr. Flutchinsoo, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. E.
Jenkins, having addressed the House,
Mr. Feweett explained his reasons for putting down an
amendment to the original motto'', which, according to com-
mon sense, could only be interpreted as an attack by implica-
tion on the Sovef:eign. For this he held there was no evi-
dence whatever, and, with regard to his appeal to Mr.
Dillwyn, be still held that to move a vote of censure on
a Government at twelve bolus' notice was not fair Parlia-
mentary tactics. His amendment being no longer
relevant, he did not intend to persevere with it. As
to the charge contained in the resolution, he ridiculed the
idea that the British people were not self-governed and per-
fectly capable of resisting the encroachments of Monarch or
Ministers It was not by "Court iefluence "or "personal
government" that the Ministerial policy of the last few years
had been possible, but because it had been supported by the
people, and they were primarily responsible.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that, although
he accepted Mr. Dillwyn's disclaimer, the caurse of the de-
bate and the comments out of doors on the motion showed
• that it was interpreted as an attack on the Queen. As It
now ate.od, alth,ough the mention of personal intervention
was retaino.d, a vote of censure was supported into it, and it
was fleet:misery; therefore, for the Government to meet it with
a direct negative. Of course, the Government having met all
• - the charges in detail could not object to meet them once
more in the lump. The main oharge was the telegram
said to have been despatched by the Viceroy to the Queen,
. and of this the Chancellor produced a copy, stating at the
same time that it merely described the movements of Her
Majesty's troops at the beginning of the war, that there
was not a single word relating to political matters in it,
• and the reply sent was submitted to the Ministry. Was
the House prepared to lay down that her Majesty was not
to be permitted to receive or wltte private letters, and that
she was to be deprived of all means of obtainitig information?
The history of the reign showed that SW had taltai the
lead in settling the constitutional usages which now pre-
vailed. lilt was desired to oharge the form of the Constitu-
tion let the proposition be made, and explicitly made and
debated openly • but la the meantime he maintained that
Her Majesty had strictly fulfilled her constitotional functions.
The most effective guarantee of tne liberties and privileges
of Parliament was not to listen to ever-malicious rumour;
but steadily to preserve its dignity and eelf-regoect in the
eyes of the country. But a motion such as this was hardly
likely to conduce to that end.
The Marquis of Ilartington professed himself entirely un-
• able to understand why Mr. Diliwyn should be surprised that
his motion was regarded as a vote of censure on the
Sovereign, and agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that a hasty and ill-considered motion ouch as that now sub
-
ratted to the house was hardly likely to conduce to its reputa-
tion. Even now he was somewhat at a loss as to the exact
• Issues for the supporters of the motion had confounded two
questions—the charges of undue use of the Prerogative whiole
had from time to time been madeagainst the Government with
the charges of personal interposition on the part of the
aollereign. With regard to the first, the judgment of Par-
liament had already b,e3n pronounced; and he saw no sd-
vantage in renewing them until the time came for appealing
to .111 74,th regal
th to the second, DO
• ...I .O 0 V. • .11. ,b'effn- &eat o e Sovereilas
p from oitis tional usage. The explanation as to