The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-06-02 00:00:00

PERPETUAL PENSIONS.

Mr. Chaplin gave notice that on an early day he would
move :—" That in the opinion of this House no perpetual
pension ought to be granted in future, and that it is
desirable to take steps to commute all existing perpetual
pensions on equitable bases." (Ministerial laughter and
cheers.
THE SEIZURE OF AN IRISH NEWSPAPER.

Mr. Parnell wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether he could give any information to the Rouse as to
the suppression by the police of Mr. Harrington's newspaper,
the Kerry Sentinel, and the seizure of the printing press
and other plant connected with the establishment.
Mr. Trevelyau informed Mr. Parnell that the seizure of
the printing machine and type of the Kerry Sentinel under
the Crimes Act was on account, not of anything published
in the paper, but because a placard of a treasonable character
was believed to have been printed in the office.
• Mr. Harrington, as the proprietor and editor, desired to
make a personal explanation, but this being objected to, the
hon. member asked leave under the new Procedure Rule to
move the adjournment of the House. As only 29 members
rose in their places to support the demand, a division was
taken, when leave was given by 137 to 135.
Mr. Harrington thereupon moved the adjournment. He
concurred with the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his
description of the placard which had been referred to, and
denied that it could have emanated from his office.

Mr. Trevelyan deprecated a continuance of the discussion
as legal proceedings were pending, and after some further
conversation the motion for adjournment was withdrawn,

SUPPLY.

The House then went into Committee of Supply, and
was engaged until a late hour on Class I. of the Civil Service
Istimates.

The following votes were agreed to :—R,13,725 for the
Natural History Museum; £9,693 for Harbours, acc., under
the Board of Trade; to conclude the sum of £211,880, being
the contribution in lieu of rates on Government property
was passed; to complete the sum of £lO,OlO as a contd.
button in aid of the expenses of the Metropolitan Fire
Brigade • to complete the sum of £.200,000 for disturnpiked
and main roads in England and Wales; to complete the sum
of £2.5,000 for disturnpiked roads in Scotland.
Subsequently the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Pay
and Pension Bill was considered in Committee.

Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at twenty-five minutes to three o'clock.

In the HoUSE OF LORDS, May 29, the Representative
Peers (Scotland) Bill was in Cgmmittee for more than two
hours; but though there was much criticism of details, and
two divisions were taken, no substantial alterations were
made in any of the clauses, while certain amendments were
Introduced with the assent of the Lord Chancellor, who has
charge of the measure.

_
Several other Bills were advanced a stage, and their lord-
ships adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Lord E. Fitzmaurice informed
Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett that her Majesty's Government had
addressed no protest to the French Government against the
attack upon the territory of the Queen of Madagascar.
THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Gladstone, in answering a question from Sir R. A.
Cross as to the Corrupt Practices Bill, made the promised
statement as to the Ministerial Bills. In the first place, he
announced that on Thursday it would be necessary to take
another Vote on account of the Civil Service Estimates.
The second reading of the Corrupt Practices Bill will
be taken next—on Thursday, if possible, and if not,
on Monday. He added that the Government, having
reviewed the position of affairs, had come to the
conclusion that it would not be expedient to in-
troduce the London Municipal Bill this year; but
With regard to the other primary Bills—viz , the Agricultural
Holdings Bill, the Corrupt Practices Bill, and whatever Bills
Might come back from the Standing Committees—the Go-
vernment intended to use every effort in their power to pass
them. After Tuesday next, he said, he proposed 'to take
morning sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays In answer to
other questions, he said he would not deal with the peccant
boroughs until after the Corrupt Practices Bill had passed,
Which probably was equivalent to saying that they would
not be dealt with this session; and with regard to the Scotch
Universities and Welsh Intermediate Education Bills, he
Said it was premature to fix any time for them.
. AFFAIRS IN sour"' AFRICA.
Sir M. Hicks-Beach having asked . for facilities. for his

motion on the condition orSouth Africa, Mr. Gladstone
said that though the Transvaal Convention portion of the
question might be ready for judgment in a short time, the
Government could come to no decision as to the affairs of
2uliland until they knew what enure. the Cep., novernment
Intended to take, but he promised at the earliest possible
moment to fix a day for the discussion.
THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Precedence having been given to the order for the second
reading of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, the
debate was commenced by Sir W. Barttelot, who said that a
large number of tenant farmers in the country were anxious
that there should be no alteration in the existing law, they
having weathered the storm and felt that their best safe-
guard lay in an honourable understanding with their land-
lords. Others, however, considered that they ought to have
More security than they possessed, so that the question
would have to be looked at fully in the face. What was
Wanted was that when a tenant quitted a farm he should be
paid the amount he had put into the farm according to the
benefit which would be conferred upon the incoming tenant;
and if he understood the matter aright, that was the prin-
ciple of this Bill.
Mr. Borlase supported the second reading, although he
hoped that it would be amended in Committee. There
were three great objections to the Bill. The first was that
the tenant continuing in his holding no protection was
given against the rent being raised for his own Improve-
ments; the second that the consent of the landlord was re-
quired for improvements by tenants other than drainage,
and the third, the introduction of the permissive element in
regard to compensation.
Mr. Shaw-Lefevre defended the principle on which the
Bill and the schedules were framed, and sketched out what
he believed would be its main operation. As to the "sitting
tenant," be denied that the Bill gave him no protection; on
the contrary, it would give him considerable advantage in
making his bargain with his landlord. The English
tenant did not occupy the exceptional position which
had necessitated recent legislation for the benefit of
Irish tenants, and it any measure for reducing
English landlords to the position of mere rent-
chargers were to be supported by the Liberal party, the
landlords would speedily adopt measures for taking the
land into their own hands. The present Bill was not pro-
Posed as a remedy for agricultural distress, but in order to
put the tenant farmer into a position of justice, and enable
him to do the best by his land, and take advantage of better
seasons when they came.
Mr. Chaplin thought the grievances of the sitting tenant
Imaginary. Rent could only be raised on a tenant by his
consent, or by his being served with notice to quit. If he
consented no one had a right to complain, and if he did not
°extent and received notice to quit, he was no longer the
sitting tenant, but the out-going tenant, who would receive
compensation for his improvements (Hear, hear) He was
glad to be able to give a general support to the measure.
Although legislation of this kind could not relieve the de-
pression in agriculture if unhappily the causes which had
brought the depression about continued, yet it did look at
last as if the worst of these causes were being removed, and
he trusted therefore that this bill would do something to
stimulate and evcourage those who were engaged in Eng-
land's greatest industry.
Mr. J.Roward condemned the Bill as radically defective
and certain to be almost as great a failure as the Act of 1875.
The best that could be said of it was that it had good inten-
tions, and the only redeeming point was the provi-ion re-
lating to drainage. Criticising the details, he thought that
While a one year's distress would diminish the credit of
a farmer with his landlord it would not increase it
With any other class of creditose ; and as to the com-
pensation clause, he regarded the power to substitute
a voluntary agreement for the Bill as an invitation
to the landlord to contract himself out of it. His main ob-
lection, however, to the Bill was its omission to protect this
Sitting tenant against having his rent raised on his own in-
PZOYenifillifl, and without farther security no great progress
In agriculture could be expected. Every tenant whose rent
was raised on his improvements ought to have a power of
ILPPeaI. But on the whole he should reserve his opposition
me. the Bill until the third reading, in the hope that it would
ae greatly amended in Committee.
Mr. Biddell, though thinking the Bill had blemishes, said
there was plenty in it to recommend it, and that it was
eaPable of being made a satisfactory settlement: and Mr.
Arnold also regarded it as an honest attempt to deal with
the subject, which might be amended in committee.
Mr. Pell expressed his thorough approval of the Bill, but
hoped in committee that it might be found possible to ex-
tend it a little, so as to deal with improvements made before
the Passing of the Act.
Mr. Thorold Rogers considered the Bill an honest attempt
•to tarn a theoretical principle into a practical result It was
a genuine and sincere development of the Act of 1875.
Mr. Harcourt, while approving it, said his support would
depend on the amount of backbone which the Government
snowed in resisting extreme amendments, and Mr. Heneage
spoke principally in support of the limitation of the law of
distress to one year.
Mr. Brodrick criticized details, and expressed a fear that
snilleient protection was not assured to the landlord against
deterioration. He also thought the Government had gone
as far as was wise, and warned them against accepting
arnendments from the Farmers' Alliance.
Colonel Kingscote thought, this the most equitable and
Workable of any of the Bills which had been introduced.
Mr. Donaldson-Hudson was of opinion that the Bill would
n_ot confer any benefit whatever on the agricultural interest.
-tie believed the Bill was only preparatory to making fixity
ot tenure compulsory.
Duckham pronounced the Bill to be a fair, good
lioeasure ; but he would be glad to see the clauses of the
';:gricultural Holdings Act incorporated in it. The words
enstom" and "contract" should, in his opinion, be elimi-
nated from the Bill, because if legal provision was to be
illatie for what was requisite it should be universal.
r, Sir M. Hicks-Beach observed that it must be a matter of
gegratulation not only for the Government but also for
embers on both sides who desired to see the question
settled that the Bill had been so generally approved so far
Zta its principle was concerned. He was prepared to support
at Principle, which he took to be that in some shape or
Shertompensation for unexhansted improvements should
ue Provided, and he promised the Government his cordial
assistance in carrying it into effect.
1.14 - Dodson briefly replied, thanking the House for its
•Nottrable reception of the Bill and pointing out in answer
tApe fears of the Irish system being developed out of the
La that English-managed estates were excepted from the
Leli'd Act. As to the sitting tenant, he repeated Mr. Shaw-
sto evre's contention that by having compensation for his
lanP_r_ovements secured to him he would be able to meet the
ord who strove to raise his rent.
..,,aa The Bill was then read a second time, and the Committee
” fixed for June 11.
joarSonie other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
ued at one o'clock.

GIGANTIC PETITIONS.
in the 11013sE OF COMMONS, May 30, Mr. Stevenson pre-
;:nted a petition signed by 177,994 women of England in
%?Zur of the General Sunday Closing Bill; and another
wired by 20,672 women in Scotland, IrPhind, and Wales,
enuo desired that the benefits of the Sunday closing system
/1,121 ed by those countries should be extended to England.
uon. member presented a further petition, signed by

8,276 men, generally in favour of Sunday Closing. The
weight of the petitions may be judged from the fact that it
required the combined exertions of Mr. Stevenson and a
colleague to carry them to the Clerk's table.
SUNDAY CLOSING IN DURHAM.

Mr. T. Fry moved the second reading of the Sale of In-
toxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) Bill. Ile said public
opinion was thoroughly ripe in Durham for this measure,
and they had therefore a claim upon the House that Sunday
closing should be conceded to the county without waiting for
the greater measure which he hoped will soon follow. Out of
the 13 Durham members of Parliament 12 were pledged
in favour of Sunday closing, and the thirteenth was waver-
ing; while 103 out of 107 parishes also supported it. They
had with them the ministers and clergy of all denomina-
tions in the county. They had presented 100 petitions,
with a total of 200,000 signatures in favour of the Bill; and
a house-to-house canvass showed 95 per cent. in favour.
The results of the Bill passed for Ireland showed that
in 3f years there had been a diminution of £1,154,395
spent in drink ; and surely that was worth something,
hey asked that that small measure of legislation might
be granted in the district of Durham, where the people felt
the need of it, where they felt the evils by which they were
surrounded, a measure which they believed would conduce
greatly to the happiness of the people It was merely a
question of time The Act would pass for England before
long. It was a question of good against evil, of light against
darkness, and, therefore, they appealed that the House in
its wisdr,m would grant the boon which they asked for
Durham during the present Session of Parliament.
Mr. Warton, in opposing the Bill, called upon the Govern-
ment to do one of two things, either to bring in a Bill for
Sunday closing all over the country, or to say that they
would have nothing to do with it.

Mr W. James said he was sure the feeling in the county
of Durham was almost unanimous its favour, and he hoped
that it might be allowed to become law this session.
Mr. Thomasson strongly objected to the introduction of
these County Bills, and argued that the question should
either be settled by a general measure affecting the whole
country, or should be left to be dealt with by the local
authorities in the various counties. He moved, as an
Amendment, "That this House, while willing to discuss the
question of county government, declines to consider public
Bills affecting only a single county."
Mr. P. A. Taylor warmly opposed the Bill, which he
regarded as intolerant and tyrannical. He must protest
against the tide of legislation which placed the whole popu-
lation at the feet of the people who made benevolent
mistakes.

Mr. C. M. Palmer and Mr. T. C. Thompson supported the
Bill.

Mr. A. Arnold was perfectly prepared, when the great
body of the people of this county demanded it, to give his
support to a measure of Sunday closing ; but on the question
of procedure there seemed to him to be grave difficulties in
the Bill. At the same time, the amendment sought to affirm
a principle which he could not support, and therefore he
must abstain from voting.

Mr. Craig supported, and Mr. I. U. Talbot opposed the
Bill.

Sir W. Harcourt said the opinion of the Government had
already been expressed in the fittest and most explicit
manner on the Cornwall Sunday Closing Bill. They had not
changed their opinion, nor had they anything to add to nor
anything to alter in what they had stated on that occasion.
The phrase "piecemeal legislation " was used as a disparag-
ing epithet, but he did not see that piecemeal legisla-
lation was of necessity of an objectionable kind
(hear, hear). The House for 25 years had treated this
question as properly a subject of piecemeal legisla-
tion, beginning with Scotland. To assert that it was not
desirable for one part of the country to have different laws
to another part, was to lay down a proposition to which
there were many exceptions. He admitted that separate
counties could not have separate laws affecting per-
sonal liberty; but that was not the question at all. It was
well known that in matters of police Parliament did allow
Parliamentary committees to make their own bye-laws. The
population of Durham had very good reasons for having strong
opinions upon this subject, in consequence of the injury
that was done to their trade by Sunday drunkenness. There
could not be anything more irrational, more impolitic, or
more unsteesmanlike, than to withhold a good measure
from a part of the country that desired it, simply because
there were other parts of the country that did not want it.
It was well for the House to adopt county measures when it
was obvious that a general measure would be a more difficult
matter to pass. The right hon. gentleman concluded by
stating that on behalf of the Government he should support
the Bill (cheers).
Sir G. Elliott said although he should not support this
measure he should not vote against it.
Mr. C. Bentlnck and Baron De Worms opposed the Bill.

Sir R. Cross said this must be an Imperial question,
because, if the Bill should pass, the Government would have
to adopt the principle of the six day licenses, and there
would be a diminution of the revenue to that extent. He
objected to the Bill, however, because, while professing to
be based upon public opinion, no steps had been taken to
obtain an official return of that opinion. The only way to
obtain that opinion was by some duly constituted local autho-
rity. Then if a Bill was to pass like this for a county, why
not for a borough? Why should not Liverpool or Manchester
have its own Sunday Closing Act.
After some observations from Mr. ifibbert, Mr.—Callan,
and Colonel King-Harman, the House divided—For the
Amendment, 57 ; against, 153; majority, M.
The Motion for the second reading of the Bill was then
agreed to.
After some further business, the House adjourned at six
o'clock.