The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 1, Lord Selborne moved the
second reading of the Inns of Court Bill and the General
school of Law Bill, explaining that the first was substantially
the same measure as that of last year, while the second had
been somewhat modified.
The Lord Chancellor gave a modified as7ent to the passir:4
of these Bills, and in regard to the litter of them observed
that if the Bill had provided for the establishment of a.
teaching school of law, it would be open to great objec-
tions, and RS to its examining powers he thought the
machinery provided was rather too large arid cumhrous.
He, had, however, no opposition to offer to the second
reading.
The Bills were then read a second time.

The Irish Peerage Bill was considered in Committee, when
anon the second clause the principle of allowing, in the
election Irsh Representative Peers, the minority to be repre-
sented, came under discussion, in consequence of a sugges-
tion by Lord Inchiquin that, upon the occurrence of three
vacancies among the Representative Peers, each electing
Peer should only have the power of giving two votes. This
roposal was objected to by the Lord Chancellor, on the
ground that by a little managewent it might enable the ma-
jority of the Peers to choose the whole of the Representative
Peers; and a preference was expressed by Lord Grey and
others for the cumulative vote. In the end the clause was
struck out of the Bill, with the understanding that the sub-
ject would be reconsidered on the Report. The omission of
this clause led to the postponement of most of the other
Causes of the Bill, after which the House resumed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Disraeli announced that
he should ask the House to commence public business at a
quarter-past instead of half-past four, on and after Monday
text, and that on Thursday the Prisons Bill and the Educa-
tion Bill would take precedence on the order book.
The House then went into Committee on the Merchant
t hipping Bill Clauses 2t and 25 were omitted, as was also
the postponed Clause 16, and the remaining clauses of the
llwere agreed to with a few amendments, the most impor-
Await of which was that in Clause 27 the penalty for not regis-
tering the managing owner of a ship was changed from de-
itention to a pecuniary fine; but the exact mode of distri-
Auting it among the owners, where there are more than
'one, was adjourned until the Report. The first im-
Portant new.proposal brought forward was the clause dealing
• with deck loads of timber carried in winter. It proposes
- that a tno,xitisum penalty of £lOO shall be imposed on any
Jilin carrying any heavy timber on 'deck, or light timber
ttlre than 3ft. above the deck, between the Ist of October
lind the 16th of March, and it applies to foreign ships as
well as to British. The clause was received with approbation
by Sir W. Harcourt, who suggested; with Mr. Ashley, that
It should be worked through the Customs ; and by Mr.
Plimsoll and Lord Eslington, though they preferred the entire
abolition of deck cargoes. Mr. Norwood characterized it as
a most monstrous and highhanded proposal, and Sir Henry
James and Mr. ShawLefevre touched on the delicacy of
~,.legislating for foreign countries, and the danger of provoking
; retaliation. Mr. Samuda, however, and others ridiculed the
Idea of retaliation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to criticisms,
- 'Pointed out the objections to carrying out the clause by
means of the Customs; and, while admitting the delicacy of
: the task, he argued that deck cargoes could not be stopped
' except by including foreign ships. The wisest course was
2 leipersuasion to induce foreign Governments to acquiesce
and to adopt our arrangements for the saving of life at
. tea.

1 A desultory discussion on this clause was continued for
L aome time longer by Mr. D. Jenkins, Mr. Serjeant Simon,
e lit Palmer, Mr. Samuda, Mr. Maclver, Mr. W. Williams,
. and others, and the clause was then read a second time.
-• A proposal by Mr. Plimsoll to expunge the permission to
load light deal and battens to a height of 3ft. above the deck,
and thus to prohibit deck-loading of timber altogether, after
tong discussion, was defeated by the narrow majority of 8-
142 to 1M; but an amendment moved by Mr. It. Gurney,
throwing on the owner the onus of proving that he has not
bt3en guilty, was negatived by 199 to 109.. After this the clause
srlie added to the Bill.
„ The clause which extends the powers of detention to
Preigli ships in our ports which are unsafe by reason of over-
!Tiding waa next taken. It provides, among other things,
mat the master, if dissatisfied, may request his Consular
°lacer to name a competent surveyor, whose decision shall
be iliud.
Sir W. Harcourt .Mr. Goschen, Mr. Smith, Mr.
9"st, and others objected that this latter provi-
aAon nullified the clause, and failed to realize
the promise of the Government that British and foreign
!hiPs should be placed on the same footing. Mr. Shaw-
s.efevre supported the clause, pointing to the risk of pro-
:ring foreign nations to retaliate on our ships, and
e Chancellor of the Exchequer also spoke in its favour.
pefore the clause was completed progress was ordered
to be reported, and the Secretary to the Treasury
a
Dironosed that it should be taken again at a morning
tting at two o'clock next day This, however, was received
nh so loud an outcry by the private members that the
wovernment ultimately gave way, and the Committee was
Kiellrned until Thursday.
aome other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
burned at twelve minutes past one o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 2, Lord Selborne drew atten-
tion in a lengthened speech to the terms of the proclamation
- tented under the Royal Titles Act, and asked for explanations
to With regard to its operation and effect.
The Lord Chancellor explained that the proclamation fol-
*e- sowed exactly the words of the proclamation of 1801 in its
!Dplication only to occasions and to instruments where the
44, !ill' title of the Sovereign was used, and that all documents
vz that description referring to the United Kingdom were
covered by the exception specified. Treaties, diplomatic
trngagements, and commissions 'appointing the Governor
s. :leneral of India, and Governors of the Straits Settlements,
'llOl4 and Hong Kong, were advisedly not included in
-se: :tic documents excepted. The security desired in the
tft.o.use of Commons, as expressed by the amendment of Mr.
L3.;Lee. Was that the Bill should not authorise the use of the
title in the United Kingdom; and the proclamation was in
exact accordance with that proposal, which had been with-
Ass Idrawn on the promise of the Government that the matter
a. !Should be provided for by proclamation. The noble and
learned lord also repudiated with indignation the idea that
the re had been a breach of any engagement whatever.
aLord Hatherley observed that he still retained the opinion
tilt
_there had been a positive understanding that the title
uld be localised to India, an d that that had not been
• carried out.
The discussion was then brought to a termination, and
their Lordships adjourned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, at the commencement of the
titling, several questions were put to the Government re-
specting the meaning and scope of the Royal Proclamation
Under the Royal Titles Act.
in answer to Sir H. James, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said that in the debate in Committee on the 20th of
es April, it was stated substantially by the Prime Minister, by
1,14 himself, and by other members of the Government that the
etc Government intended to advise the Queen that the Title
01 Empress should not be borne itn this country but
that it should be of a local character, to be borne in
India. but it was explained in the debate by the Prime
Minister that there would be occasions and circumstances
When it would be necessary for the Queen to acknowledge
herself and to be acknowledged by others Empress of India.
It was for this reason that the Government resisted and pro
Cured the rejection of the amendment of Mr. Pease pro-
hibiting the use of any other Royal Style and Title but that
now appertaining to the Crown. The Proclamation exactly
gave effect to the intentions of the Government so expressed,
and it would have been contrary to the intentions of the
Government so expressed it the Proclamation had so limited
the use of the Title of Empress that it could in no circum-
stances be used in this country.
In answer to Sir C. Mike, who asked whether the Imperial
Title would be used in military commissions, Mr. Disraeli
said the Proclamation would oompletely cover every single
Public document or instrument of State which could be
employed in the whole of our administrative system, with
the exception of military commissions. These were pur-
posely omitted, because the Army served the Queen in
India as well as in other parts of the world, and it was not
thought right that the Title of Empress of India should be
omitted from their commissions. In answer to Mr. 0.

. Morgan, who asked as to the use of the Title in Colonial
t Writs, &c., the Attorney-General was understood to reply,
••• though he spoke very indistinctly, that the Title would be
S, used where it was necessary to use the full Title, but in other
• eases it would be for the authority issuing the writs, &a., to
44,4 judge.
tee. ir H. Havelock, seconded by General Shute, moved for a
Select Committee to inquire into the practicability of finding
employment in the Civil Service for discharged Soldiers,
, Sailors, and Marines of good character, and also how far it
tam 111 possible for the State to become the medium of communi-
cation between private employers and Soldiers of the Army
oole Reserves.
,
"r. Hardy assented to the first part of the Motion, think-
ing that the time was come when a full inquiry would be
s'a' 'serviceable, and would dispel a good deal of misapprehension
f"fire On both sides. He deprecated, however, the second part of
',sae _ the inquiry,. which related to the interference of the State
stet between soldiers and private employers, and in a great
D 4 Measure became it was an idea introduced !Leto the Motion
ssass. sits a day's notice, and without affording any sufficient ops
• portnnity for considering it.
sm.
_After a short discussion, in which Sir G. Balfour, air. J.
" Hobos, Mr. S. Cave, and Sir W. Fraser took part, Sir H.
s Havelock gave up the second branch of his inquiry, and, the
as thus limited, was agreed to.
Mr, W. M'Arthur then directed attention to the present
ssition of the British possessions on the River Gambia.
e hon. member complained that the policy pursued by
had governments in reference to this settlement had
k.'s _ultd the effect of checking the development of its trade. All
ttie troops had been withdrawn, and the colonists had had to
• depend upon themselves for protection from the warlike
• native tribes in the surrounding country. In fact, everything
teemed to have been done to discourage the advance of the
s colony, with the design of eventually handing it over to France.
*".. Re rejoiced, however, that the negociatieus with that object
had been abandoned. The hon. member also dwelt upon
i the importance of the colony as a means of extending Eng-
-. 7 lleb commerce and colonisation in the interior of Africa,
At, and made several suggestions which he considered would
s materially contribute to that end. In concluding, he moved
a resolution requesting the Government to adopt measures
s• for placing the colony in a more satisfactory position.
st. Mr W.Edmonstone seconded the motion.
Mr. JS Lowther, speaking for the Colonial Office, pointed
ts-SS: out the various difficulties, arising from the unhealthy
olimate and the character of the people in the interior, which
stood
lin the way of developing the settlement. He also
41, • stated that they had hitherto h n alt yearly deficit
see
revenue and expenditure and he not at present
how it was to be provided for except by a Parliamentary
' grant, as it did;4oit ppear that the revenue was sufficiently,
esss elastic for the ose. The subject should, however, re-
i *dye the fullest consideration of the Government.
The motion was then withdrawn.
- Mr. P. Taylor called attention to the case of Mr. Wilber-
force, against whom two verdicts were obtained in the West-
- initiator County Court for flogging two boys in his stable in
. Sussex who had been caught rabbit-hunting on his estate.
*vas After relating what he asserted to be the true history of the
+us:, ease, Mr. Taylor moved a resolution calling for Mr.'Wilber-
• force's dismissal from the Bench.
After a discussion, in which Sir W. Barttelot, Mr. Fawcett,
ss and Sir G. Bowyer took part, Mr. Cross pointed out that
Mr. Wilberforce had already been
. adequately punished by
a a rebuke from the Home secretary and by a revere censure
from the Lord Chancellor. and after some observations from
s Mr. Greene and Mr. Stacpoole, the m
be otion was negatived by
. 300 19.
a• s Mr. C. Lewis next called attention to Mr. Lowe's Retford
a speech by moving for a copy of the Privy Councillors' 04th, and ot the dates at which Lord Derby, Lord Palmerston, Lord
s Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Lowe had
. been sworn of the Privy Council. It wars espeotaliy with the
view of arraigning Mr. Lowe's statement that two Prime
Ministers had refused to bring in a Royal Titlea Bill; and if
this statement were true, at least two Prime Ministers must
...,have broken their oath "to kesp secret the Queen's cones( 1."
But he complained, also, of the insulting language in which
ilesis Mr. Lowe spoke of the Conservative Party.
* 11r. Lowe, who compared Mr. Lewis to an inquisitor,
deprecated the practice of bringing the proceedings of public
. _ Meetings and festive gatherings before the House of Com-
• , ;nous. It must limit freedom of speech, and public meet-
, • thgs might take, in their turn, to abusing the House of Com-
., , Mons. Ile did not recognise the right of any Member to
call blna to account for any speech made out of doors, except
• he committed a breach of rrivilege or made a personal attack
. cen any one. He refused, therefore, to give an answer to Mr,
•sesvis, but would leave him to answer himself.
tres Mr. Disraeli regretted that this question had been brought'
44, • , before the House, but still more the speech Mr. Lowe had
,jiist made, for while he was vindicating freedom of speech,
• he mast have felt that what had attracted public attentiou
to the Bettors' dinner was the fact that a politician of his
eminence should seizs such an occasion for makieg a n'tato-
• Iflent which was monstrous, if true, but which, if not
,Irae, could not be characterized by any epithets in
s rsa vocabulary. Whether, supposing the statement
that two Prime Ministers had refused to bring in
a 'Royal Titles Bill to be true, it ought to have
• been made, Mr. Disraeli said he would not discuss,
but would confine himself to the inquiry whether it was true.
Mr. Gladstone, not taking Mr Lowe's trifling estimate of the
situation, had immediately contradicted the statement so far
as he MAS concerned in the most solemn manner. Mr. Dis-
.rsaell had lived on such terms of political confidence with
S.:9rd Derby, especially at the time when the Queen assumed
he government of India, that he was able to say that no
nell Proposal had ever been made to him. As to Lord