The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 10, Lord Congleton
took his seat on his succession to the peerage.

Lord Dalhousie, in reply to the Bishop of Rochester,
stated that the Government had in preparation a bill
for the better protection of women and children.

'MERV AND AFGHANISTAN.

The Earl of Lytton moved for papers showing the
nature of communications, if any, which had passed
between the English and Russian Governments with
respect to Mery and Afghanistan since 1881, and called
the attention of their lordships to the acceptance by
Russia for the allegiance of the inhabitants of Merv.
This enlargement of Russian territory, he observed,
mimed furnish a standing menace to British rule in
India, and he urged the Government to take such diplo-
matic and military action as would best protect our
Indian interests.

The Duke of Argyll dissented from the view that
Russia had been guilty of a breach of faith in her
action with regard to Merv, but assured the Govern-
ment that whatever measures they might think
necessary for securing our Indian frontier would be
heartily supported by the people of this country.
Viscount Cranbrook, while admitting that the
Russian advance had been caused by the pressure of
inevitable circumstances, urged upon the Government
the necessity of taking steps for the protection of our
frontier. _ _ _

The Earl of Kimberley pointed out we were stronger
against attack than if eandahar had been retained,
inasmuch as we now had a friendly Afghanistan. The
Government, however, were quite awake to the neces-
sity of having a clear understanding as to the boun-
daries of Afghanistan and Russia, and what countries
were to be regarded as within the sphere of English or
Russian influence.

. After a few words from the Earl of Carnarvon and
the Earl of Northbrook, the Marquis of Salisbury
warned the Government of the consequences which
might be expected from the increased prestige which
Russia would gain from the extension of her power.
Earl Granville having promised that papers on the
subject should be presented as soon as possible, the
motion was withdrawn.
Their lordships rose at five minutes to nine o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS various questions were
put as to the condition of affairs of Egypt, which, in
the absence of Mr. Gladstone, were answered by Lord
Hartington. Voluminous telegrams' he said, had been
received frem General Gordon, but none had special
reference to the position of Khartoum.
In answer to questions as to the course of business,
Lord Hartington said it would be necessary to complete
the Supplementary Estimates on Thursday, and to take
the Army and Navy Estimates on Monday and Thurs-
day next week. Consequently it would be impossible
to fix the Cattle Diseases Bill for the first business on
either of those days; but he hoped that an opportunity
might be found for it.
THE VOTE OF CREDIT.

The House wont into Committee of Supply, and the
adjourned debate on the Vote for Operations in Egypt
and the Soudan was resumed by Lord G. Hamilton,
who remarked that the only policy which the Govern-
ment had propounded in regard to Egypt was contained
in Earl Granville's statement to the Italian Minister
that our policy was "an elastic one, guided by circum-
stances." He perceived in this definition some gleam
of hope that circumstances might yet force the Govern-
ment to take the manly, straightforward course of
assuming the Government of Egypt, and make them-
selves responsible for the administration of the
country.
Mr. Forster, adverting to the rumours of tho last few
days, expressed a hope that the Government would not
replace General Gordon at Khartoum by Zebehr Pasha
without allowing the House to express its opinion on
such a policy. With the most intense admiration for
General Gordon, he could not blindly accept such a
policy even from him, and though he admitted that
there might be explanations the House ought to hear
them before being committed to a step which would
be a reversal of our traditional attitude towards the
slave trade.

Sir G. Elliot urged that the control of Egypt was
necessary to the maintenance of our independent com-
munication with India. Foreign Powers, he thought,
would not object to our taking over the administration
of the country for a term of years.
Mr. Laing believed that "Rescue and Remain" must
13‘.., the policy of the future in regard to Egypt; and de-
clared that by their irresolution the Government had
lost popularity in the country.
The discussion was continued by Sir J. Eardley-
Wilmot, Sir H. Verney, Mr. Whitley, Sir H. Fletcher,
Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett, Mr. J. Morley, Mr. Sclater-
Booth, and Mr. M'Cloan.
Sir R. Cross complained of the silence of the Govern-
ment in the debate, and asked whether it arose from
disunion in the Cabinet. Replying to Mr. Gladstone's
declaration that the Government never would take
over the administration of Egypt, he pointed out that
this was exactly what they had done, though they
would not own it. By constz,)tly holding out that they
were going to leave the country, they had prevented it
settling down. As to the Soudan, the thfficulty was
of the Ministry's own creation, and it never would have
occurred had Lord Dufferin remained in Egypt.
Lord Hartington after some reference to criticisms
on the details of the estimate, remarked with regard to
the amendment that, however much he might agree
with Mr. Labouchere that the bondholders and the
Porte should contribute to the cost of our occupation,
it was not possible to carry out the principle at present.
At some time or other a modification of the Law of
Liquidation might be desirable, but it would have to
be undertaken in a more comprehensive manner than
was possible upon this vote. In like manner it was
premature to ask how Souakim was to be defended. It
was of great importance that the Red Sea ports
should be held by a civilised Power, or by a Power
under the influence of civilisation, and it was also
essential to British interests that they should not be in
a condition to tempt any other European Power to
occupy them. He admitted the objections to the ap-
pointment of Zebehr Pasha, but the more obvious the
objections, the more necessary was it that the Govern-
ment should satisfy itself as to the reasons which
induced General Gordon to suggest such an appoint-
ment. The Government would remain in Egypt, as
they had stated over and over again, until a stable
Government was established there. He declined to lay
down a definite period, and while admitting the full
responsibility of the British Government fur the main
points of Egyptian policy as long as the occupation
lasted they believed that they would best consult the
interests of Egypt by using the means which they
found existing in Egypt.
Sir S. Northcote said, at the outset, that the
Opposition could not support the amendment, and
while regarding Lord Hartington's speech as in some
respects a new departure, he regretted to find that the
Government still continued to close their eyes to the
critical state of affairs in Egypt. They were still too
anxious to build a bridge for their own retreat,
and they did not realise how deeply the national
credit would suffer nor what complications would
occur if we failed in the task which we had
undertaken in Egypt. The Government had
engaged to maintain tranquillity in Egypt; and by
means of the Khedive and his Government; but were
they going to strengthen the Administration or to
control it? There were signs that the system was
crumbling under their hands, and unless something was
done to secure confidence there would be chronic
anarchy in Egypt.
Mr. Labouchere's amendment, on a division, was
negatived by 178 to thirteen, and the vote was agreed
to.
On the supplementary vote for the Navy Estimates,
Mr. W. H. Smith moved to report progress, on the
ground that some further explanation was z.zeded of
the new policy announced by Lord Hartington of hold-
ing the Red Sea littoral. This was negatived by 114 to
56, and a subsequent motion by Sir J. Hay to the same
effect was negatived by 113 to 53. A third motion was
defeated by 111 to 46, and ultimately the vote was
agreed to.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned at twenty-five minutes to three o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 11, Baron Tennyson,
of Aldworth, in the county of Sussex, and Freshwater,
in the Isle of Wight, took his seat with the accustomed
formalities. The noble lord, who wore scarlet and
ermine robes, was introduced by the Duke of Argyll
and the Earl of Kenmare (Lord Chamberlain), and at-
tended by the Gentleman 'Usher of the Black Rod and
Garter King-at-Arms. The Royal letters patent creating
the title having been read by the clerk at the table, the
new peer took the oath, and subscribed the roll, after
which he was conducted in the usual manner to a seat
on the Baron's bench. Having remained there a few
moments, he was escorted through the House to the
Lord Chancellor, who shook hands with him, and he
then withdrew to the robing room. Among the few
peers who were present during the brief ceremony were
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Earl of Milltown, Lord
Beauchamp, and Earl Ducie.
Lord De La Warr asked the Lord President of the
Council for information relative to a child, aged eight
years who had been attending a Board school at Chel-
tenham, and whose death had been caused by inflam-
mation of the membranes of the brain. He stated that
the evidence given at a coroner's inquest showed that
this child's death if not actually caused, was certainly
much hastened by mental strain in school studies.
After some discussion, Lord Carlingford explained
that the coroner's jury in the case of the little girl at
Cheltenham found that no blame whatever was attach-
able to the authorities of the school, which was a
"British school," and not a " Board school." The child
had had brain disease and lung disease, neither of which
could have been aggravated by the work she did at
school. There was no objection to the production of
the evidence taken at the inquest.
The part of Lord De La Warr's motion having refer-
ence to that evidence was then agreed to.
Earl Granville stated, in answer to Earl Stanhope,
that the Government had clearly laid down how far
they felt enabled to promise any amendment of the
Irish Land Act. It would not be convenient to intro-
duce a bill on the subject in their lordships' House, as
the measure would be essentially one of finance.
Their lordships rose at half-past five o'clock.