The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-07-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the 114175 E OF LORD 9, July 14, Lord Salisbury, replying
toi&jetty* Lord, **oville, stated that on many occasions Her
Government, had acknowledged the effective
"'Wane" received by./ them from the Sultan of Zanzibar in
the su
&
Placation of the slave trade on the south-eastern
coast oftrim,
slid to show that they were not insensible to
that s'Alatance they had presented the Sultan with a con-
aider,Able number of Enfield rifles.
Stratbeden and Campbell called attention to the
t4.rxeipondence on the affairs of Turkey, and moved that an
IF4dreas be presented praying her Majesty to exercise her
ritplomatic Influence in the manner best calculated to secure
the complete evacuation by Russian troops of all territory
,3n this aide of the Pruth at the time stipulated in the Treaty of
li3erlin.
The Marquis of Salisbury replied that all the information
that had reached him led him to believe that the Russian
troops would have left the territory west of the Pruth by
the Stipulated time. The motion was negatived.
A discussion took plirce on the report of amendments to
the Irish University viii being brought up, in course of which
Lord EmlY asked wriy the Government bad not framed the
Measure accordinF, to what had been understood to be the
ProDotal of the 711-Ish Government on the lines of the Acts
Pasted last yew:.
The Earl ot 'Beaconsfield said he and his colleagues were
not cognisar.t of any such proposal.
Lord Rudy said he had only referred to the Irish Govern-
ment,
arr..i had seen the proposal of which he had spoken.
.f"e 70 port was agreed to, and their lordships rase shortly
""er ardven o'clock.

milk 'the HOUSE OF COMMONS, in answer to a question from
t r• C. it. Denison as to the movements of the Russian
.ficsf pa in the Tekke Turcoman's country, Mr. Bourke said
•t the Russian Government had formally assured Lord
dferin and the Russian Ambassador had formally assured
al ,)rd Salisbury that no advance upon Mery was intended.

Sir G. Jenkinson asked the Secretary of State for the
'Rome Department whether his attention had been directed
4.° the numerous churchyards in England which are full,
laid therefore unfit tor further interment in them: also,
that the number of these is constantly increasing. without
adequate remedy to abate this evil being applied by
"lae Parishes so circumstanced; whether he will grant a
return, in ra tabulated form, of the various parishes in
Which the shove is the case; and whether the Government
intend talking any, and, it so, what steps without delay to
conapel tpa parishes, where such a state of things exists to
Provide a remedy by the enlargement of the existing
chunk pads or otherwise.
~311 r. Cross said he had no doubt a considerable number of
rhyarde in England were very full. Some time ago the
urov ernment wished to have a very accurate return, but it
s 'found such a return would not cost less than £5,000, and
naGovernment did not think themselves justified in putting
'Am public to that expense. Certain returns, however, had
been made to which there would be no objection to lay ou the
table. Mr. Cross said he had no power to order parishes to
rsnlarge existing churchyards or provide additional ground;
but he hoped for sanitary reasons, a good deal would be
.clone.

In answer to Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Cross said the Govern-
Ment had no intention ot legislating on the Lords' Report on
Intemperance this year.
The Earl of Yarmouth, Controller of the Household,
Istreared at the Bar and read the following answer from Her
ajesty to the address which had been presented by the
Rouse on the subject of the prevailing agricultural &stress :
I have received your address praying that a commission
May be issued to inquire into the depressed condition of the
agricultural interest and the causes to which it is owing;
Whether these causes are of a permanent or temporary
etaracter, and how far they have been created or can be
vemedied by legislation; and have given directions that a
'Commission shall issue tor this purpose, in accordance with
:Your request."

Bev era other questions having also been answered by the
Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced
that several of the principal measures of the &Beloit would
be withdrawn but that the Banking and the Bankruptcy
Bilk would be proceeded with.

The House then went into Committee on the Army Ms-
ellgine Bill. The postponed clauses occupied the Committee,
tryd progress was afterwards made with Colonel Stanley's
AT clauses.
, Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
lourned at a quarter past three o'clock.

In the HOT/SE OF LORDS, July 15, Lord Truro moved the
second reading of the Cruelty to Animals Bill. In doing so
he informed the House that he had taken up the matter in
consequence of requisitions and petitions presented
like
the practice of vivisection by persons who,
aae himself, regarded the practice as cruel and im-
Moral, and as one which did not offer to the public
the advantages which the medical profession claimed for it.
On evidence given before the Royal Commission on the sub-
ject the noble lord denied that great medical and surgical
discoveries had been made through vivisection, and he told
the gouge that if the Bill were thrown out that evening the
2PlKments of vivisection would persevere until they secured
14 prohibition.
Lord Beauchamp, in moving the rejection of the Bill, con-
tended that the Act of 1877 had worked well, and that in
the interests of humanity it would be unwise of the Legisla-
'Lure to prohibit vivisection.
Lord Shaftesbury-argued that the restrictions imposed by
the Bill of 1877 had not had the effect of preventing cruelty.
It was known that some aLmsthetics inflicted more pain than
the operation itself, and we had now no security either
for the use of any antesthetic or for the use of
one which did not itself inflict pain. He was glad
60 say that the question was taking a prominent
Petition in Europe, even in Russia. It was urged
--and he thought rightly—that the system had a tendency
to brutalize the human heart, while it was impossible to
imagine that science could be promoted by BOLDS of the
brutal experiments which were inflicted on dogs and other
animals by those who practised vivisection. He repudiated
from the bottom of his soul the doctrine that the Almighty
'auctioned the infliction of these refined tortures on any of
Us creatures.

The Bishop of Peterborough sympathised so completely
with Lord Shaftesbury as to the duty imposed on us to-
-wards the lower animals, that he never felt more regret
than he did in being obliged to differ from him in
the conclusion at which toe noble earl had arrived.
Unnecessary pain to any animal he joined in con-
demning, but If it was lawful to put animals to
the pain of death for the purpose of preserving human
life by animal food, was it possible to contend that
it was unlawful to put them to pain for the preservation of
human life by the cure of disease 1 He had heard
from the lips of one of our greatest surgeons that an
operation which had been discovered in our own times, and
by which thousands of human lives had been saved, was
owing to observations made on twelve rabbits, which had
been subjected to vivisection. In the interests of humanity
be deprecated the abolition of vivisection, though he would
guard the practice by any conditions which might be thought
necessary.

Lord Carnarvon pointed out that nothing could be more
Injudicious than to attempt too much in the direction of
suppressing vivisection. The Bill of 1876 had done much,
and lithe Home Secretary saw that its provisions were car-
ried out the abuse of the practice would be prevented.
Lord Cardwell and Lord Aberdare also opposed the Bill,
Which was supported by Lord Waveney, but rejected on a
division by 97 to 16 votes.
A discussion took place on the Public Health Act Amend
ment (Interments) Bill, which Lord Aberdare proposed to
amend, but which was eventually passed without altera-
tion.

On the motion for the third reading of the Irish University
Mill, the Earl of Beaconsfield stated, in reply to Earl
Spencer, that he had spoken to his colleagues, and
any negotiations between the Irish Government and
Influential members of the Roman Catholic party in
refer ence to the question, were unknown to them as to
him. The Lord• Lieutenant might have had conversations
on the subject, but if they were of a formal or serious cha-
racter his lordship would probably have written to him on
the subject.
After some further discussion the Bill was read a third
tine and passed, and their lordships rose shortly before nine
o'clock.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, in answer to Mr. Samuelson,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government were
Undoubtedly of opinion that the Corrupt Practices Bill
Ought to be considered by the House and settled before a
dissolution of Parliament, but he was very uncertain whether
It would be possible to proceed with it during the present
session.

At half-past four o'clock the House went into committee
CO the Army Discipline Bill, and Sir G. Campbell moved a
Clause which he described as a compromise on the flogging
Question, and which provided that the punishment should
Only be inflicted on soldiers previously placed by sentence of
Court-martial on a "bad list."
The Marquis of Hartington, after expressing his opinion
that the amendment could not be acceptable to either side,
took the opportunity of making some remarks on the posi-
tion of the question generally. The noble Marquis
laid he had gathered, from all that had taken place,
that the Government had not a clear conviction
that flogging was necessary for the maintenance of
disciPline. He therefore suggested that a preamble should
be adopted to Mr. Hopwood's clause, to the effect that
corporal punishment should no longer be in use, except in
cases where the punishment of death would be actually in-
flicted unless flogging were inflicted in lieu thereof.
Colonel Stanley said that the Government, having carefully
considered the matter, were compelled to adhere to the
Maintenance of corporal punishment in the shape in which
It new stood in the Bill, and from that decision he
wax not prepared to depart. With regard to the
concessions, they had all been made with a view
to assist the committee and in deference to what ap-
Pearod to be the general feeling on both sides, and he denied
that he had ever given any ground for the belief that he
contemplated the abolition of the punishment. He could
not accept the amendment suggested by Lord Hartington,
Which he thought would not be practicable and would lead
to an increased number of death sentences.
After some discussion, in which several hon. members took
Darts Mr. Gladstone expressed his concurrence with the
views of Lord Hartington, and recommended that further
discussion upon this point should be reserved for the report,
a recommendation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
aPproved, and the report was fixed as the first order for
Thursday.
The rest of the evening was spent in considering new
ciauses proposed by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Jenkins, and others re-
lating to court-martials, prison discipline, etc. The schedules
were also disposed of, and at twenty minutes past one the
committee was brought to a close amid much cheering, after
satin 21 days.
atThe other orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned
half-past one o'clock.