The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-07-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

. In the HOUSE OF LORDS, July 1, Lord Granville referred to
the surreptitious publication of the Anglo-Russian Memo-
,,r&ndum, and said it appeared that that document was put in
me possession of a writer not belonging to the establish-
kent of the Foreign Office. When he (Lord Granville) was
at the Foreign Office the confidence reposed In the staff
bad never been abused, and he wished to know whether
the system then pursued had in any way been changed.
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon said he feared he could
'Lot give the desired information, as the whole matter was
lOW Under investigatien at a Police-court.
L Lord Selborne asked whether there was no rule, as stated
IP' a witness, to prevent a gentleman connected with the
"reign Office from beingeonnected with newspapers.
The Duke of itlehmond and Gordon said that as that
litaternent was made on oath before a magistrate, the
gentleman who made it no doubt believed it to be true,
Nit the Duke of Richmond could not say whether the fact
1.44 was as stated.
Lord Hammond observed that during a long connexion
With the Foreign Office he had never before known the on-
Leaelved confidence placed in the officials of the Foreign
'lnce abused.
Lord Stanhope moved the second reading of the Perna-
kentary and Municipal Registration (Consolidated) Bill,
*bleb had been brought up from the House of Commons.
k_The Lord Chancellor said that the Bill was one of con-
luerable importance, and he trusted that it would be useful
Its operation.
The Bill was then read a second time.
„Other Bills were advanced a stage, and their Lordships
ourne d.

9 the HOUSE COMMONS, in reply to Mr. Onslow on the
'4Diect of Bulgarian Outrages on Mahomedans, the Chan-
.!llor of the Exchequer was sorry to say that his official
„tuformation was in accordance with that published in the
L'abers. The attention of the Russian Government bad,
ZaWever, been called to the subject, and he hoped, that the
r3eeedings of the Congress at Berlin would bring these
trocities to a speedy close.
I,Blr F. Perkins asked the Secretary of State for the Home
rePartment whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill
!*aiinded upon the recommendations of the Select Com-
alltte e
187, appointed by this House on the 26th of February,
I, to inquire into the Police Superanuation Funds in the
:Annie's and boroughs of England and Wales, and the Acts
2.eatiug and retaliating the same. And, if so, whether he
inform the House when it was likely that this inten-
a would be carried out.
,slr. Cross: Not this Session, certainly. It is not a matter
• lliring the immediate attention of the Government.
,sla reply to Mr. Anderson, Lord G. Hamilton said,—State-
ents have been made to the effect that cattle from Russia
Austria have been sent to Spain to be shipped thence to
b:Riand, but we have no official information as to the num-
brs so moved. I may add that an order was issued in 1872
11 tile Spanish Government prohibiting the landing of cattle
D„_c'ta Austria during the prevalence of cattle plague, which
ves the existence of a traffic such as that alluded to by
F,:sl hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman the member
41'Ll3radford asked me a question the other day, which I
ed him to repeat, and which, with the permission of
ke House' I will now answer—viz., whether the same steps
been taken with a cargo of animals belonging to English
illaers, among whom foot-and-mouth disease had appeared,
ot,es they were landed in this country, as are taken with
'ler cargoes of foreign animals in a similar condition. I
• that the rrgulations under which the animals in ques-
are now in quarantine are identical with those passed
lie,cl administered by the right hon. gentleman when in
rZte, by which the importers of animals from scheduled
gantries have the option of sending them either to slaughter
e port of embarcation or to quarantine in the place
-s▪ seified by the Privy Council.
OrJ. Maenna asked the Under-Secretary of State for
*IVO Affairs whether the payment of 10d. per hour,
was said to have been the scale under which Charles
tjervill was lately employed in the treaty department
ihe Foreign Office, was that which prevailed for the re-
Qtteration of writers in the departments of the Foreign
; and whether, if so, he would review the scale of re-
b‘oeration for persons to whom confidential information
intrusted.
di r, Bourke in reply, said—The Foreign Office is under
to'cetions from the Treasury to apply to the Civil Service
Igtandssioners for writers when temporary assistance may
lttl'eqUired. The scale of remuneration is fixed by the regd.
011 s of the Civil Service Commissioners, and with the ap-
oval of the Treasury at 10d. per hour for ordinary copy-
With special rates for special work, The writer lately
010Yed in the treaty department of the Foreign Office
14
Paid at the rate of 10d, per hour for ordinary work
ha at the special rate of 4id per folio for copying French.
. writer was the only one lately employed at the
J,IflTl Office. Occasionally a writer has been employed
h,"`,e Consular Department and also in the Passport Office.
iige rate of pay being fixed in most cases by the Civil Ser-
teee Commissioners, it does not rest with the Foreign Office
review the scale of remuneration.
4,11 r. Childers asked whether the employ ment of writers at
an hour and aid. a folio was in accordance with the
44-7iice of the Foreign Office for the copying of important
4 ktrictly confidential communications.
Sir s
its „,.• M'Benna desired to give notice that on an early day
Ould call the attenti•aa of the House to the subject,
111 H- Sir
Wolff asked whether writers of this class were 'em-
In any con ddental departments of the Foreign Office,
as the political department.
Itillgir• Bourke: The question just asked is almost identical
NI that already answered. .As I am not personally
Oieftsible for the arrangement of badness of the Foreign
tlieeei,l do not thibit the House will expect me to answer
tro„, right hon. gentleman's question off-hand, as it
11,e4a be right to communicate with the Secretary of State
ti,2re doing so; but if the right hon gentleman will kindly
° notice of his question I will endeavour to answer it on
°ther day.
answer to Mr. Hayter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
ilat the Government had impressed upon the Porte the
„taltY of moderation and the prevention of outrages in
k"arlare now going on in Crete.
Ittivr• Stanhope, in reply to Sir G. Campbell, said he would
ille,ano objection to add to the papers now before the House
aents of members of the Council of India to the
„_'.acular Press Act.
144, adjourned debate on the Cattle Diseases Bill was re-
lii by
lr
itod well, who supported the Bill in the interest of
Dan"' nallmer, disclaiming for the producer all desire for
If ttgation, and declaring that the farmers had no fear
e importation of cattle as long as disease was not
t):l44)rted with them. It was not to the farmer's interests
egti,,the price of meat should be high, and he had an
* m 7, concern with the consumer in any measures which
lleis`' enable him tt.) manufacture meat at a cheaper rate.
rtlieved that disease might be stamped out by internal
kqattons, though he admitted that the Bill was not strong
k 550, in this respect ; but it would be reimported without
batlltiatte foreign regulations. Ile dwelt, too, on the develop.
Itlije,, of the dead-meat trade, especially from America,
062, he insisted was capable of bringing in large supplies
."1-Ine food.
'SD,: Dodson commented on the divergent views of the
otirprters of the Bill, and maintained that it did not carry
tiaill'he recommendations of the Select Committee; espe-
th,,j, the home regulations fell far short of the standard
reeomrneuded, and the foreign regulations, though
,Would hamper trade, would not keep out disease. It
litNgLneVitable that the Bill should increase the price of
tali,' at least the great mass of the censumers would always
sto„,v,e it, and he hoped therefore that the Government
consent to important modifications in Committee.
Itlgr. p
..ermon said he could not vote for Mr. Foster's Re-
• .'o,n at this moment, because it would be fatal to the
Lae: :but in Committee he would support a modification of
edules and an increase in the stringency of the home
tions.
' sd4-4 b,4lands was for the total rejection of the Bill, as a
Itqleat measure based on entirely false pretences.
• oti Halsey remarked that as the point raised by the
aolutltion had now been thoroughly thrashed out, the
tttte,e Would do well to go into Committee, where practical
ll," onlild be given to whatever the House might decide
* laitE Personall he strongly supported the Bill, which he
kor "1 would enable the British farmer to produce meat
cheaply,
k:',.:o'Sullivan warmly advocated the Bill, which he re-
an indispensable protection against disease. If
,
Were stamped out, the increase in the Irish cattle
s'ati• 1,2110 re than compensate for any falling off in the foreign
!!lste-,Ply. At the same time, he complained ef the double
proposed to be imposed on the Irish cattle.
Ituggles-Brise and Mr. Elliot also supported the
latter
expressing regret that it dm not carry out the
441Rubn'ir:11 the Select Committee of last year more
ktho-
i"'
Cross contended that no connexion had been
between the foot-and-month disease and the impor-
kNetil▪ Of foreign cattle • and Mr. Pease argued in favour of
Te restrictions at home and a discretionary power in
N-vvy Council to deal with infected foreign countries as
Oil might arise.
• Leehmere spoke for the Bill, as did also Mr. P.
ISI4II, Who urged the Government not to recede from the
4 Die of compulsory slaughter.
littlidella contended that foot and-mouth and pleuro-
bkarnia were spontaneously generated and were natura-
,!rsZaLre, consequently they could not be dealt with except
47
,tia.ed.c2l More stringent home regulations than this Bill
,1
`4k.alttcob Bright supported the amendment, and con-
'cl the Bill as one forced on a reluctant Government.
440sreW• Harcourt showed that the Bill imposed much more
ssa 1., restrictions on the foreign than on the home trade,
tt'laisted that it was therefore a measure of protection
• i
t foreign competition. It was framed in direct con-
Netinn to the recommendations of all the scientific ex-
Nct i'rand he believed that it would destroy the foreign trade
Ift ave highly injurious to the consumer.
4ltij.llitehell-Henry announced that he should support
lit'r Motion nor amendment.
40481win-Ibbetson having replied on behalf of the
_,ltlent, the House divided, when 319 :voted for and
nst-wnst the Bill, ana t was read a second time amidst
411.1,:th i
eering.
:dt.her business having been disposed of the House ad

ID'AtI.37:IOIISE OF LORDS, July 2, the Bills of Sale Bill wa
kb, With amendments.
Q43llntermediate Education (Ireland) Bill was considered
40t.liedtb,tnittee, and all the clauses were agreed to. The
‘ikt:l;aii were also adopted, and the Bill passed through
°tll 'tee without amendment.
tt Bills were advanced a stage, and their _Lndships ad-
Oporning Sitting of the COMMONS was devoted almost
kjceti;nl3l to the consideration of the Roads and Bridges
Ottii'''•o Bill, as amended in Committee. Mr. Anderson
44ti,tei order of the day with a proposal to refer the Bill to
eta 'Committee, for the purpose of hearing couesel or
hilik:n the part of the city of Glasgow and other Scotch
ifeDttn.ltles against the 88th Clause, imposing upon them
kNvet:otial rates. The motion was opposed by the Lord
qtte-te and led to considerable discussion and a division.
i. ~t,,asulted in the rejection of the proposal by 123
`,..sne rest of the morning was spent in discussing amend-
Zsit''lnl3, of a verbal character, and the further con-
-5150f the Bill was adjourned until Friday.
%k„tntail Amendment (Scotland) Bill was read a third
1P Passed, and the Committee on the Cattle Diseases
ii.4t 'axed for Monday.
e 016 Evening Sitting Mr. Downing called atten-
,tha laws regulating Poor removal in the United
14k14,? and especially to the conditions under which
IsA`4leal',V2Pers are subject" to deportation from Eng-
ea_ Scotland, contending that the law is impolitic
Osr,tea much suffering. He related several cases of
1444 f Isardship, and concluded by moving a resolution
kolael:r ,Ilch an alteration in the law as will make irre-
itia„aa9 person who shall have maintained himself by
41.11. cestrial occupation in an English or Scotch parish.
;lark Stewart objected to the resolution, but admitted
‘ll4l of hardship existed, and that the law of removal
li ,1
b.etlendment.
4411)044g Harman supported the Resolution, and Mr.
ni4r defended the conduct of the Liverpool Guardians,
/4% riblan Specially assailed by Mr. Downing. Removal,
r • ted to in exceptional cases not
° I hadB o resorted
actually worked in the town, but where they
as paupers.
.1444artsr11,,en and Mr. French supported the motion and Mr.
qlsedY,4lPathizing with the objects of the motion, re.
assimilation of the law of the three kingdoms
lition of the Law of Removal.
th„lllen took the same view. Mr. Macartney de-
, aunimistration of the Irish Poor Law Guardians,
/ Agnew pointed out that Scotch paupers were
e to removal from England.
Et4ttrldl)ott, pointed out that the Law of lemoval
he abolished without certain compensations,
444 :e Stringent system of indoor relief, a more
44140ew °Ldomicile,&ie. Within the last ten years
it„Zste esa of removal had been much mitigated, and the
ke-irl was only about 280 ansually, and from a
Seat he'n,i(mil. The effect of the Act of 376 could
Nt_tlisth_Pdged, but he had every disposition to pro-
CaiDiar"ln the same direction. He had for some _time
Nbiql e,u a consolfeation of the Poor Laws, and he ad-
th,,,
ilp4teti the Law of Removal should be one of-the first
titik44l7 Consideration, but he objected to being bound
moment by any particular pledge as to time or
41%l'eli and
Vhskiittest,_ - Mr. Davies spoke in favour of the motion
to the general good coadact of the Irish
la Ws sovakqr ; sad, altar now hatter

conversation, a Resolution, amended on the suggestion of
Mr. Verner so as simply to declare that the existing law re-
quires consideration with a view to amendment, was agreed
to unanimously.
Mr. Walpole brought in a Bill to enable the trustees of the
British Museum to remove portions of their collections, and
the House adjourned at twenty minutes to one o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 3, the order for the second
reading of the Repeal of Church Rates (Scotland) Bill was
discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

Dr. Cameron presented a number of petitions in favour of
the Habitual Drunkards BBL In moving the second read-
ing, he said he wished to disabuse the minds of hon. members
of any idea that this was an heroic measure, proposing to deal
with the great national curse of intemperance, or that it
proposed to carry out its objects by costly institutions, sup-
ported out of the public funds, or that it had any desien
upon the already precarious tenure of liberty which the
individual drunkard enjlyed. On the contrary, it proposed
to deal, not with drunkenness, but with the habitual
drunkard, with the disease of chronic drunkenness, which
was constantly associated with a morbid condition of the
system which required a special form of treatment The
essential part of this Bill was a provision to license, insp ct,
and control retreats for the treatment of habitual drunkards,
and to confer upon the managers of such retreats such
power of detention for a considerable time as miszht, he
necessary for the cure of such cases as came under their
are.

Mr. C. S. Read seconded the motion for the second read-
ing.
Mr. Pease, Earl Percy, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Grantham, Sir U.
Bay-Shattleworth, Mr. Clare Read, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr.
Bowen supported the Bill, as also did Sir Harcourt John-
stone, Mr. Alfred Hardy, Mr. Sampson Lloyd, Mr. M.`Laren,
Mr. J. J. Colman, and Sir J. ll'Kenna.

Sir 11 Selwim Ibbetson believed there was much in the
Bill which, as a tentative attempt to deal with the question,
rmght be successful, and, upon the understanding that the
compulsory clauses were to be omitted, he should not op-
pose the second reading.

Dr Playfair considered that in the present experimental
stage of the question a permissive hill of this kind was cal-
culated to have a very beneficial effect.
Sir M. H Ridley supported the Bill, but WAR not so san-
guine of its success as were some of its advocates.
Mr. Walker expressed a hope that the experiment would
be commenced upon a moderate scale, and that the re-
treats would be all in the country.

Mr. Macartney sugge.ted a trial of the Swedish mezhod
of flavouring the drunkard's food with the particular
spirit to which he was addicted.
The bill was then read a second time without a division.
Mr. French moved the second reading of the Landed
Estates Court (Ireland) Leases Bill, by which it was pro-
posed to give every tenant of land passing through the
Landed Estates Court a lease of his holding for 35 years. A
discussion ensued, in which Mr. Verney, Sir J. M'Kenna,
Mr. Macartney, Mr. O'Sullivan, Major Nolan, Mr. Downing,
the Attorney-General for Ireland, the O'Conor Don, and
other hon. members took part, and the House eventually
divided For the second reading, 78; against, 179.
Majority against, 101. The Bill was accordingly rejected.
The House shortly afterwards adjourned.

4:tilt ?.
k''lNll4 d/'
kr /
kt 4
klth '
441