The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS.

In the ROUSE OF Loans, Nov. 10, Lord Napier and
Ettrick presented a petition from European, Hindoo,
and Mussulman subjects of her Majesty in the Presi-
dency of Madras against the annual transfer of the
Government of that Presidency to the hills duri-ig a
long period of the year. He observed that formerly
the Government of Madras was carried on e the hills
for only three months in the year, but the period had
been extended to six, seven, and, as be learned from
one source, to nearly eight months. This temporary
transfer of the seat of Government for so long a period
of the year was a cause of consideralne expenditure.
and was very repugnant to the feelings of the native
officials

Lord Kimberley replied that Lord Lawrence was the
author of the system of migration to the hills. Expe-
ience had now shown that the system was a good one
in the case of the Presidency Governments, as well as
in that of the Supreme Government. It was true that
the duration of the sojourn of the Madras Government
at Ootacamtind had been extended, but the whole time
of absence from Madras was not spent in the hills. A
portion of it was devoted to an inspection of the popu-
lations. There was no reason to apprehend that the
practice of nin.ration would be abused.
The Duke of Buckingham, the Duke of Argyll, and
Lord Salisbury concurred with the observations of Lord
Kimberley.
The petition was withdrawn in consequence of an
informality in the way in which it was drawn,

Their Lordships ro;e at a quarter past six o'clock.

THE NILE EXPEDITION.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Nov. 10, Ur. Gladstone,
answering a question from Sir S. Northeote, said that
the vote for the Nile Expedition would be taken imme-
diately after the Franchise Bill.

THE FRANCHISE HILL.

On the motion to go into Committee on the Franchise
Bill, _ _

Dir. J. Lowther took the opportunity of explaining
that if the Opposition had refrained from placing
amendments on the paper it was not because they were
more inclined to accept the bill, and he protested em-
phatically against the suggestion embodied in certain
current rumours that the question could be settled by
back-stairs intrigue, or in any way behind the back of
Parliament. He repudiated the construction which
had been placed by Sir C. Dilke on Sir B. Cross's r.fer-
ence to resolutions, and declared that what the Con-
servative party required was not resolutions, nor a mere
bill, but an Act of Parliament which %A ould secure that
enfranchisement and redistribution should be dealt with
together._

Mr. C. Lewis and Mr. Macartney haying entered a
protest against the application of the BM to Ireland in
its present circumstances,
Mr. Gladstone thought that the course taken by the
Opposition reasonable and wise, and remarked that Sir
R. Cross had not himself r2pudiated the construction
put on his words.
Sir S. Northcote was of opinion that nothing could
be gained by discussing Sir R. Cross's " °biter dictum"
in his absence, and repeated that the Opposition in
accepting the Franchise Bill meant to insist as far as
they could on its being accompanied by a Redistribu-
tion Bill.

Sir W. Barttelot endorsed this, and assured the
Government that if they brought in a fair and reason-
able redistribution scheme it would be fairly con-
sidered.

The House then went into committee, and on
Clause 2,
Colonel Stanley moved his amendment, providing
that the Franchise Bill shall not come into operation
until a Redistribution Bill and a Boundaries Bill have
been passed.
Mr. Gladstone characterised this present demand for
simultaneous enactment, after the lessons of the
recess, as more out of place than that of last
session. Arguing against it, he asked what reason
the Government had to expect that a Redistribution
Bill would pass if the Government parted with the
hold they now ha ci by means of the Franchise Bill.
and what would happen to the Franchise Bill, if ii
were hung up by the amendment, in the event of a
change of Government happening and the conduct of
the Reform question passing into the hands of the
Opposition? What sort of information, he asked, did
the Opposition want? At present, as he showed by
contrasting the speeches of Lord R. Churchill and Sir
S. Northcote, the Opposition was in flagrant contradic-
tion with itself on the question, and it was totally im-
possible at this moment to introduce a Red,istribution
Bill which would not be made the subject of a sham
party conflict, and which, therefore, in the present
state of Parliamentary practice, .was not certain to be
defeated.
Sir S. Northcote, in reply to this, sail the Prime
Minister evidently wanted the Opposition to draw up a
bill for him. But this was not their business, and he
urged the Prime Blinister to take a more practical vie a
of the situation, at the same time assuring the Minis-
terialists that the Opposition were not meditating in-
sidious designs against the Redistribution Bill, but
would give it a candid consideration.
Sir William Harcourt asserted amid loud cheers
.from the Ministerialists, that this demand amounted
to nothing less than that the Franchise Bill should be
hung up until a Redistribution Bill satisfactory to the.
majority of the House of Lords had been passed.
Mr. A. Balfour, Mr. A. Grey, and Mr. Chaplin spoke,
and, on a division, the amendment was negatived by
194 to 109.

Clause 2 was then agreed to, as were the remaining
clauses after some slight discussion on minor amend-
ments of detail moved by Scotch and Irish members,
and shortly after eight o'clock the bill passed through
Committee, and was reported without amendment to
the House.