The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-07-20 00:00:00

Atift,
,gat,

in tl
schen ]
the tit)
Inept t
The
a Map
that II
on TUE
to mall

The
Charth
to ren
tion of
Lord
riage ]
enconr

Aftc
Chr
hi t

Lorc
'would
Otbjec
On t
to son
Litur A
a sho
"pail/
O f the

Lor
he tail
Which
The
Indian
lug, th
respec

. Ansi
Ittima
time h
decisic
itaporl
doubt.

The
rnoved
busine
atterth
ceisioi

Dlr.
believo
were ,
ItlPprf
teceivi

Atte
Don
Cook]
V. Lev
sseconc
The
thmbi
vice E
eolleg
172 to

Lon
*hetb
11gla
(Nest:
tatou
Perfec
set 01
•er,, attb
goie i
to be

4

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, July 16, the Supreme Court of
`4ldicature (Officers) Bill passed through Committee.

f.„The Epping Forest Bill was, on the motion of Lord
wanbrook, referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Cranbrook, in reply to Lord Dunsany, who asked
V,hether in the 6th Article of the Convention between
.',ligland and Turkey the words "Kara and the other con-
'Pests made by Russia in Armenia" were held to include
tlatoum, stated that the Treaty of Berlin made the matter
Derfectly clear, as the places to be ceded by Turkey were
set out by name. Then, referring to another subject, Lord
+'estibrook said that the Eurydice had been lifted out of the
gole in which she had been lying and was shortly expected
to be brought ashore.
Their Lordships then adjourned.
1,113 the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the Chancellor of the
Zfchequer, in reply to Mr. hiundella and Mr. Gorst,
Zue put questions as to whether England was not bound
rY treaties to abstain from prohibition of export or
Y_stusit of the productions of France, Austria, Belgium,
'net other countries, said there was no doubt that England
betuid by certain treaties to abstain from establish-
,3 against the products of various countries any
r!'ehibition of' exportation or transit which was not
.Itlyler like circumstances applicable to all countries.
tii regard to the Bill, it did not impose any prohibition.
20n importation or exportation, but it did place cer-
`.4l4 restrictions and prohibitions upon transit under
eertaln circumstances, and there could be no doubt that
...411Y nation having the most favoured nation clause
would be entitled to demand that the same prohibitions
rthich applied to one country should apply to itself under
ke circumstances. The only question, of course, would be
1e like circumstances. They were not of opinion that the
would prevent that treatment being awarded to any
qation that might be interested in the matter.
17,1 b answer to Lord It. Montague, the Chancellor of the
-'4chequer said that the Anglo• Turkish Convention certainly
tre the British Government rights of interference and In-
eDosition between the Sultan and certain of his subjects
:eYond those contained in the Treaty of 1856; but in the
;! .clhaary limits of an answer it would not be possible to go
lu_rther into the point. The papers would show what had
risDPened with regard to the communication of the Conven-
'On to Can other Powers. •
•

, ----
b_tn answer to Mr. Otwiy, Mr. Bourke said that the
:rotocols consisting of many hundred pages would
robably.be.in the hands of members by Thursday night,
there would be some additional despatches which
"°tdd be ready by Friday.
kr. Bourke, in reply to Mr Rathbone, said her Majesty's
itlovernment had repeatedly remonstrated with the Spanish
oVernment on the injustice and inexpediency of their pro-
rated fiscal legislation. A remonstrance was made in May,
„141,t1 another despatch was being prepared, which would be
"4011litted to Lord Salisbury during the present week.
JO answer to Sir G. Balfour, Mr. Bourke said the Govern-
ant knew nothing of the rumoured transfer of Tunis and
'4till)oli to Italy and France: and the Chancellor of the Ex-
-I„equer informed Mr. Hayter that no communication had
en received at the Foreign Office about a conspiracy
-16ainst the Sultan at Constantinople.
•,,,The main business fixed for the evening was the Cattle
L',l,%eases Bill, but the Committee was delayed for some hours
a preliminary discussion on the formal resolution neces-
-177 for setting up the Compensation Clauses. On the House
moved into Committee, the Government was interro-
e'ttKid„ by Sir C. Dilke, Mr. Cowen, and others as to the terms
i„ the resolution, and Sir H. Selwin•lbbetson stated that
i;'• effect it would provide, out of moneys to be voted
v/. Parliament, for the salaries and expenses of the
4,!tterinary Department, and also compensation for cattle
atightered by order. This limitation was objected
Mr. Cowan, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. G orst,
It others, who pointed out that by the forms of the House
Would prevent proposals being made in Committee on the
to compensate corporations for their live cattle markets
eo tell would now become useless, and also proposals that the
Onensation should be provided by a poll tax on cattle.
Forster, Lord Hartington, and Sir W. Harcourt sup-
tted this view, and without committing themselves as to
teLjustice or expediency of these proposals, urged the un-
brkess of excluding them altogether from discussion.
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir H. Selwin-
re'euson pointea, out, on the other hand, that the
t,,olution was drawn strictly in accordance with
itgie terals-ef the Bill, and that to extend its terms would be to
tai sorts of claims for compensation, not merely for '
ty'ect. but for remote and indirect damage, for which there
n .
precedent. The controversy was prolonged until
ap.-44Y eight o'clock, and there were three divisions. in the
,nlace the adjournment of the debate was moved,
rno en was defeated by 205 to 109. Mr. hlundella then
%IV that. no resolution would be satisfactory
did not provide for the consideration of
04.4.118 for compensation which may be made by other
it b'ens and bodies than owners of cattle, and for providing
k_l' other means than out of local rates or moneys voted by
Crilarcient. This was negatived by 106 to 126, and a motion
SeiZlioUrn the House was negatived by 130 to 57. Sir H.
eni2n•lbbetson then intimated he would be willing to
nir,se the terms of the resolution, so that the compensation
eufbt be provided out cf moneys voted by Parliament or
by t!'wite, and might be applied to any purpose sanctioned
"e Act when passed. This was accepted as satudactory,
tho resolution wan adjourned.
The
eng Rouse then went into Committee on the Bill, and was
4142 d in considering the clauses until a late hour.
4.9_4 Clause 2 several proposals were made to postpone the
GT at which the Bill will come into operation. Sir C.
tqpioved to substitute January 1, 1879, for the date in
te 35
.111 (September 30, 1878), but this was negatived by 07
tlate ' and an amendment by Mr. Biggar to flx 1880 as the
0 was negatived by SO to 40.
to tilt nle same Clause, Sir H. James moved to add a proviso
,? effect that no order shall be valid if its operations
e,o3,lLbe inconsistent with the obligations existing under any
ertee'lrcial treaty for the time being in force. By making
aegnl4lollB to the general rule of slaughter, the Bill, he
WOuld be a violation of the "mast favoured nation"
4elgt _our commercial treaties with such nations as
Fp_U, rrance, and Austria. - . • .
tile iij gelwin• -Ibbetson, on the other hand, maintained that
I?qtatr did not affect the foreign country's right of ini-
tial, oh—lt merely dealt with the cattle by police regula-
-Wag tin wen logixila kliii Teri pima lisualits;

was enforced against Germany, tne Netherlands, Austria,
&c., and a short time ago importation was actually pro-
hibited. That certainly was as great an infringement of
equality as this Bill, and the position of these countries
would not be practically altered.
Sir C. Dilke replied that the inequality consisted in this—
that for some countries the Privy Council would have power
to remit the obligation of slaughter, while with regard to
others an Act of Parliament would be necessary.

Sir R. Wolff thought the amendment could do no harm to
the Bill, and urged the Government, therefore, to adopt it
in order to save our faith with foreign nations, and avoid
the risk of retaliation.

Mr. Mundella also supported the amendment, and the
Attorney-General maintained that there would be nothing
in the order to be passed inconsistent with the "most
favoured nation" clause. All that a foreign nation having
such a clause could demand was that it should be treated
the same as every other nation "in like circumstances;"
but the arguments by which the amendment was sup-
ported would give Belgium, for instance, a right to de-
mand that her cattle should be admitted even though
the Cattle Plague were rife there. Moreover, the amend-
ment would make the courts of law the tribunal to decide
whether foreign cattle should be admitted, and he con-
tended that equality was secured, because it made no
difference whether the power to dispense with slaughter
rested with the Privy Council or with Parliament.
Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Herschell, and Mr. Gorst sup-
ported the amendment, and the Solicitor-General argued
against it. Mr. Chaplin warned the Government that if
they made this concession the Bill would be opposed by
many who had hitherto approved it.
Mr. Forster dwelt on the importance of not giving foreign
countries the opportunity of repudiating their commercial
treaties with us, and ridiculed the argument that a Privy
Council Order was the same as an Act of Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while protesting strongly
the desire of the Government to stand strictly by our inter-
national obligations, objected to the amendment that it
would unsettle the question, and leave the force of our com-
mercial treaties in a state of uncertainty. The controversy
had been reduced to a very small point—the difference be-
tween an Act of Parliament and a Privy Council Order.
Mr. Gladstone maintained that the Bill as it stood was an
infringement of Treaty obligations, and pointed out that if
one of the excluded countries proved a clean bill of health
and asked to have its cattle admitted, the Government
would be placed in the alternative either of breaking the
law or alleging the municipal law, which they themselves
had made as a reason for refusing justice, It would be no
relief to promise an Act of Parliament, for what a foreign
country in such circumstances had a right to demand was
immediate relief.

-
Mr. Newdegate denied that there was any breach of Inter-
national Law in the matter, for the case came within the
great exception of quarantine.
At this point Sir C. Dilke moved to report progress, but
the motion being opposed was negatived by 222 to 101.
A second motion made by Mr. J. Holms was negatived
by 195 to 83, and a third being made the Government gave
way, and progress was reported.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned at half-past two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF Comm°Ns, July 17, Mr. W. E. Forster
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course the Go-
vernment intended to take with regard to the future discus-
sion of the Cattle Diseases Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that it had
been intended to go into committee of supply on Thursday
night in order to take the Education Estimates, but that
was in anticipation that the proceedings in committee on
the Cattle Diseases Bill would have made such progress dur-
ing Tuesday and to-day as to have arrived at a reasonable
result, in which event the further proceedings of the com-
mittee might have been suspended until Friday.
Mr. Charles Dilke moved the adjournment of the House,
and protested against any change being made in the ar-
rangement for taking the Education estimates on Thursday,
as hon, gentlemen had made their arrangements on the
understanding that those estimates would then be taken.
After considerable discussion, in which Mr. W. E. Forster,
Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Newdegate, Sir Henry
James, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Anderson, and several
other hon. members took part, the motion for the adjourn-
ment of the House was withdrawn, and the House went
into committee, and agreed without discussion to a re-
solution authorising the payment, out of moneys to be
provided by Parliament, of salaries and allowances of
officers and persons acting in the Veterinary Department
of Her Majesty's Privy Council Office: and of the
charges and expenses incurred in the maintenance and
management of that department; also of authorising the
payment of compensations, whether out of moneys to be
provided by Parliament or otherwise, which may income
payable under the provisions of any Act of the present
session for making better provision respecting contagious
and infectious diseases of cattle and other animals.
The House then resumed, and went again into committee
on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, resuming the con-
sideration of Sir Henry James's amendment to the second
clause, providing that no Order in Council to be made under
the clause should be valid which conflicted in any way with
our treaty obligations with other countries.
Mr. Pell said the debate of Tuesday night had shown that
a considerable amount of doubt existed on this point, and he
thought that if reasonable security could be obtained against
the spread of disease the mere terms by which that object
was secured was not of much importamce. Holding that
view, he would be prepared, when the fifth schedule
came under discussion, to move an amendment pro-
viding that in the case of any country which was
shown to be free from disease, and the laws of which were,
sufficient to afford reasonable security against the importa-
tion and spread of disease, the Privy Council might by order
allow live animals to be imported from it and to be landed
in this country without being subject to the provisions for
compulsory slaughter, such Orders in Council to be laid
before Parliament for consideration.

Considerable discussion followed upon this suggestion, in
the course of which

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the willingness
of the Government to assent to it in principle, though they
would not bind themselves to accept its precise terms.
They had no desire whatever to make any distinction be-
tween one country and another under similar circumstances,
and they accepted in principle the omission of such a dis-
tinction from the schedule. But their objections to the
amendment of Sir Henry James continued as strong as ever.
Mr. W. E. Forster congratulated the committee on the
tone the debate had taken, and expressed his obligations
to 31r. Fell for solving the difficulty which had arisen.
The statement of the -Chancellor of the Exchequer met
the object which Sir Henry James had in view, and
there would now be no objection to the withdrawal of
the amendment.

Mr. Barclay resisted ths concession which the Govern-
ment were now making, and which he believed would rob
the Bill of much of its value, for he thought the principle of
compulsory slaughter ought to have been adhered to.
Ultimately, after considerable discussion, Sir Henry
James's amendment was withdrawn, and clause 2 was
postponed.
Clause 5, the definition clause, was postponed, and the
other clauses up to clause 8 were agreed to.
On Clause 9 considerable discussion took place in reference
to the proposal to exempt the City of London from the pay-
ment of the metropolitan rate levied under the Bill, but
making the Corporation of London the sole local authority
for the metropolitan district.
Sir Charles Dilite moved an amendment, the effect of which
would be to negative these proposals.
Ultimately the committee divided, and rejected the
amendment by 264 votes to 69.
A discussion afterwards occurred on a proposal to fix a
new scale of wharfage and market charges at the Deptford
Cattle Market, but in the end the proposal was withdrawn
and the 9th clause was agreed to, after which progress was
reported.
The other business was then disposed of, and the House
adjourned.