The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-13 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT:

. , •
In the ROUSE OF LORDS, May S, the Agricultural Holdings_
(Scotland) till was considered in Commit t,.e, atte'r a declara-
tion from Lord Huntly that the general feeling in Scotland
Was that ths Bill would be a dead letter, to which the Duke
of Richmond .and Gordon replied that in his opinion the Bill
would prove a very useful one, inasmuch as in the case of
Yearly holdings it would entitle the tenants to obtain corn-
Pensation for imexhausted improvements. The several
Clauses were then g ,ne through, and the House resumed. I

..On the It.port of the Irish Peerage Bill, Lord Inchlquin
Mope sed an amendment increasing the number of represen-
tative peers from twenty eight to thirty, and providing that
no new election should take place until there were three
vacancies, when peers might exerciee three votes, with liberty
to give them elite one candidate or to distribute them. Thq
Motion was opposed by Lords Court° wn and Dunsany, and sup-
Ported by the Duke of Argyll, Lord O'llegan, and Lo-d Gran-
ville : but the Lord Chancellor objected that, if it were•
desirable to alter the mode of electing representative peers
at all, the proposal should apply to Scotland as well as Ire-
land; but as the constituency was exceedingly small there
was the danger of sacrificing fitness and peculiar qualifica-
tions If the minority principle were adopted. Eventuably
the llouse divided and rejected the amendment by 66 to 54;
after which their lordships adjourned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the Committee on the Mer-
chant Shipping Bill resumed the consideration of the New
danses.

Mis—Plimsnll moved a Clause which proposed to enact that
When a British reaistered ship has become unclassed it shall
be deemed unseaworthy, and shall be surveyed by the Board
of Trade before being allowed to go to sea again. The argu-
ments urged in its favour by Mr. Plimsoll, Mr. Forster, and
otters were in the main a repetition of the arguments on the
compulsory survey of ships disposed of some time ago.
On the other hand, Sir C. Adderley, Mr. Norwood, Mr. A.
Peel, Mr. Corry, Mr. Henley, and others ;pointed out that
disclassificatien did not imply unseaworthiness ; that the
Board of Trade could not follekw the varying fortunes of a
ship with so much minuteness ; and that the Clause would
Place too much power in the heinis of the Registering
Societies. Oa a division the Clause was negatived by 235:
to 116.
A Clause moved by Mr. E. Smith, providing that a pas-
senger certificate by the Board of Trade should render a
second survey under the Passenger Acts unnecessary, was
accepted by the Government ; and Six C. Adderley promised
to consider a Clause requiring passenger and emigrant ships
to carry lifebuoys, rescue lights, and distress signal lights.
A proposal by Mr. Gorst to Introduce new Clauses into the
Bill dealing with Desertion and other offences, modifying
the penalties, dx., gave rise to a long conversation. Sir C.
Adderley pointed out that the question of discipline had
been advisedly omitted from the Bill. Mr Rathbone and
oilier shipowners urged the necessity of inquiring into
these matters, and suggested a Committee. In the end Mr.
Cross promised that the Government would deal with the
question of discipline in the Merchant Service next Session,.
Whereupon Mr. Gorst withdrew his Clause
Two more Clauses were moved by Mr. Plimsoll, one relat-
ing to the powers and duties of Consuls at foreign ports,
which was negatived, and another requiring the Board of
Trade to survey the provisions add medicines of any British
ship sailing out Tards. Sir C. Adderley objected, an the part
of the Board of Trade, to having a duty thrown on the Depart-
ment which it could not adequately perform. In the dis-
cussion on the Clause, Mr. A. Egerton took the oppor-
tunity of answering Mr. Plimsoll's charges as to the
sale of unsound stores. The instructions of the Ad-
ruiralty, he said, forbidding the sale of any stores unfit for
human food were precise, and he was informed that they
were carried out at least in the Home Dockyards. Eventu-
ally the Clause was negatived by 114 to 67, and shortly after
ten o'clock the Committee, which has been sitting for ten
nights since March 23, concluded.
In moving that the Bill be reprinted, Sir C. Adderley
took occasion to remark that, with the exception of the
two new Clauses as to deck loads and foreign ships, the
Bill had been passed through Committee unaltered with the
exception of a verbal amendment or two.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on the
Navy Estimates, Mr. Brassey directed attention to the cost
of Ironclads, and expressing approval of the work on these
ships for the current financial year, urged that the present
was a fitting opportunity for reviewing our shipbuilding
DolidY and the resouroes of the mercantile marine for naval
PUrposes. The hon member submitted a resolution to-
the effect that such inquiry should be held by Royal,
„,..ecdninission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanbury-i
'racy. Mr. Goschen *Celled upon the First Lord of the
At.sdrairalty to declare plainly whether he had or had not a
definite policy respecting the construction of ironclad ships,
and observed that, if he bad none, then it would 117 e well to
appoint a Royal commission, and havo an inquiry. Mr.
°atuuda denied that Mr. Goschen or Ma Childers had any
Particular policy, or had arrived at their conclusions by any
Process superior to that followed by Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt defied any man to lay down a -definite shipbuild-
ing policy for the future, and dented that there had been any
92nsistent policy pursued by any previous Administration
the Past, for discoveries were being made daily which
la.ust alter and modify the construction of our ironolad ships.
shlnbuilding policy was to keep pace with the inventions
n. the day and to keep ahead of all other Powers. During
administration the number of effective Ironclads
-1`.,.d been increased from 14 to 20, and four new
Tinclads had been laid down, two of the Shamion
'74.ast for the protect4cya of commerce, and two of the
afiexible class as line-of-battle ships. These classes of
-.l.l:Onclads he believed to be the best in the present state
`,.,4„_01-1r knowledge. No new Ironclad was to be laid
this year, because our chief deficiency was in
linarmoured shiris for the protection of commerce.
there were a war to-morrow. he had not a single a
rinoured ship ready for commission not already
"i'vlui.doMmission. These new ships would be armed
e,`,,T.torPedoes, and would be useful auxiliaries to the iron-
s'"l". As to the motion, Mr. Hunt said that, though he
Foeuld not assent to the appointment cf a Royal Corsmi Sion,
1671, to appoint a Committee, such as that appointed in
con‘ider whether it was desirable to make any varia-
tion n the type of ships laid down in the last few years.
having . Childers made some observations, and Mr. Brassey
mitte ol'ilhdraven his motion, the Howe went into Com-
and Ro 1-IPPIY, and a vote of £210,230 for the Coastguard
yal Naval Reserve was agreed to.
The other business was dis pesed of and the House ad-
journed at a quarter past one o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, May 9, Lord Grey laid on the table a
Lill relating to burials in churchyards, and intimated tint it
would depend upon the tone of the debate on Lord Gran-
ville's motion next Monday, whether he bhould proceed
farther with the measure or not.
With the assent of the Duko of Richmond and Gordon,
Lord Huntly (after observing tic at a practice existed of, drug-
ging horses and other animals with the view of giving a fine
appearance to their coats) moved the Second Reading of the
Drugging of Animals Bill the object of which is to impose
a Penalty on persons administering poisonous drugs to horses
and other animals without the consent of the owners.
On the motion of Lord luchiquin, the Irish Peerage Bill
was read a third time and passed, the division on Monday
haying been taken to decide in the negative the proposal for
the representation of the minority,
The business on the paper having been disposed of, their
Lordships adjourned.
In the llorsE OF COMMONS, Lord G. Hamilton informed
Mr. Cunt that the Government were prepared to give favour-
able consideration to a division of the See of Northern
India, which was now vacant, provided the necessary funds
for an additional bishDpric were furnished by private sub-
toriptions.
Mr. Lowther, replying to Mr. Wait, stated that a telegram
had been received at the Colonial Office from the Governor
Of Larbadoes to the effect that there had been no fresh out-
break of riots there but that disturbances had occurred
in the neighbouring island of Tabago. The cause of these
was not, however, mentioned in the telegram, nor were any
Particulars given beyond the fact that her Majesty's Ship
Argus had been dispatched to the island.

Sir C. Dilke called attention to the constitation of ,the
Royal Academy, and its neglect to carry out the reforms re-
commended by the Royal Commission of 1863. Geing back to
the time of its original foundation for the promotion of the art
of design and the creation of a National Gallery, he pointed
out that the Royal Academy had not discharged either of those
obligation., but that it was the State which had founded
schools of design and had created a National Gallery: Instead
of doing anything to promote art education, it had re-
tarded progress, and had so conducted itself generally as
no have become most unpopular in the artistic world. In
stlFport of his Contention that it was a public, not a private
body, which could be controlled by Parliament, he rested
on the correspondence between Mr. Cowper- femple and the
40Yal Academy when a new site was being granted to it, and
referred in detail to the evidence taken before the Royal
Commission of 1863 and the recommendations of the Corn-
to show how completely it had neglected to
con)PY with the demands for reform. Among other short-
comings for which Sir Charles arraigned the Academy
were the narrowness of its constituency, its treatment of the
landscape school, and the " cliquism '' and unfairness with
Which pictures were selected for exhibition Finally, to
Show how much better these things are managed in foreign
countries, he moved an address to the Crown, prasing that
our representatives at Foreign Courts may be instructed to
report on the attitude of the State towards the Fine Arts in
the various countries of Europe.
Mr. Cartwright moved as an amendment that there is no
ground for imputing to the Royal Academy neglect in
adopting reforms for promoting the active development of
higher art education in England. Ile showed that Sir C.
'Mike had omitted to mention many reforms which the
Academy had effected since 1863, in teaching, in its organi-
zation, A:e , and he claimed for it that it is the least pedantic
Academy in Europe. Moreover, from the circumstances of
eta origin, he contended that Parliament had no more con-
trol over the Royal Academy than over any hospital or any
Other inatitution founded by the bounty of the Sovereign.
Mr. 11. Cochrane, who seconded the amendment, took the
same view of the responsibilities of the Royal Academy to
Parliament, and denied that it was bound to adopt the
recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Mr. Cowper-Temple, in justification of the Royal Academy
explained the arrangements wade with Lord Palmerston's
Government, which had virtually been performed, with a few
exceptions.
Hope, while supporting the amendment, complained
that the Royal Academy had regarded itself too exclusively
as a painting A
Att. --eaclerdY, and had neglected other branches of
Mr. Gladstone dissented altogether from the doctrine that
the Academy owed no account to Parliament, but admitted
that Parliament should not interfere) with such bodies unless
lltssoen extreme grounds, which had not been shown in this
• Though the Academy had not adopted all the unani-
01Ls recommendations of a Royal Commission, that was not
11,
I,l:l4lnpardonable offence, nor was it unshared by Parliament.
hut, on the whole, the Academicians had discharged their
duty liberally, zealous, and conscientiously.
Lord Etch° agreed in Mr. Gladstone's estimate of the
value of the Resat Academy, though there were many points
9.11 which further. improvements were needed. But he warned
the House that if astive interference were contemplated, a
live Academy would he found much tOugher to deal with
than a defunct "Pious founder."
Mr. Neville-Grenville suggested mire practical improve-
ments Which the Academy mi
ght borrow from the South
Kensington Exhibition. •. . .
Lord J. Manners, on the part of the Government. de re
cated interference with the internal affairsof a body Psucli as
the Roy al Academy on insufficietit ground. The opinion of
the House seemed to be that the Academy did not'deze:ve
censure, and he could net consent to the motion, which
seemed to imply it At the same time he was ready to grant
'
e ted,
the papers if moved for separately, and h sugges there-
tore, that both the motion and the amendment eliOuld be
withdrawn.
Sir C. Hake and Mr. Cartwright consented to take this
course, and both motion and amendment were thus dis-
Dosed of.
11-r- C. Lewis postpones' his motion on the Irish Society,
atld the other members who had notices on the paper not
being present when called upon, the House proceeded to the
orders of the day.
The Metropslis Gas Companies' Bill was read a second time
411,1 the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) was passed through
Committee
after which the House adjourned at ten minutes
Past eight o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 10, Mr. C. Lewis gave
nOtice that on Monday he will ask the First Lord of the
•Kre,,
:
--nrY whether the Government have come to any decision
with respect to the excessive fees charged in model schools
tu Ireland.
1„8,1r Ilamourt gave notice that on an early day, on going
anPPly, he will call attention to the serious detect to the
-,Leial al stem, which allowed the protracted detention of
Dersohs after committal for trial, and move a resolution.
131 r, Norwood, in movii,g the second reading of the
and Advocates' Fees Bill explained that its
4i>,?Ject was to enable barristers to recover their fees, and, at
eq,.,e,.‘naatne time, it would make them liable for breach of
-uuract. Ile contended that barristers stood in a position
°Dr linied by no other profession, for the case of the
to3'sleian was not a fair parallel. Barristers claimed
a,r,jegard fees they received in respect to their
co,,Tea as a complimentary honorarium which they
w:"‘t not recover at law, and, on the other hand, they
w:ra not held reepousible for breaQh of duty, but that
but a theory, and did not really exist in practice. There
%i‘r,l fact, nothing which Existed in the present day which
tiou—' Way justified the continuance of these fancied rela-
a, because there was no such thing as an honorarium,
tile engagement of a barrister was as much a bargain

e
b to perform certain dntlefras any other mercantile transac-
tion. If the honorarium no longer existed, then the im-
munity ba=ed upon its assumed existence must fall.
• Sir Henry Jackson moved the rejection of the Bill, and
contended that no sufficient reason had been given for
the abolition of a custom which had existed since the
Earliest times, and which prevailed in foreign countries and
our oolonies at the present time. Before the House could
assent to read this Bill a second time two things ought to be
shown—first, that the existing conditions of things showed
evils which could only be remedied by leedslation ; and next,
that the legislation propene(' was sure to bring about a better
state of things than at present existed. This had not
been done, and therefore he felt constrained to oppose the
BilL
Mr. Wheelhouse seconded the ameniment, and contended
thas no class of persons were more anxious to perform their
duties than members of the bar. The 11111 would make
ben isters liable to proceedings by disappointed or disgusted
suitors, and for failures or errors which might have been
caused by errors or accidents on the part of solicitors and
judges.
Mr. Gregory, while taking part in the discussion with some
reluctance, felt bound to express his views on the subj,ct as
a solicitor and president of the incorporated Law Society.
lie considered that it would be better to refer the Bill to a
select committee in order that a full inquiry into the subject
could be made.
- • -

Mr. Serjeant Simon opposed the Bill on the ground that it
would lower the status of the advocate
Mr. !lardy opposed the Bill as a very large rne,,sure to
deal with a very small evil It would after the whole prac-
tice of a profession, and suddenly place it upon the footing
of a trade. It would fail to realise the objects of its pro-
moters, and in other respects would prove injurious to the
Interests of suitors.
Mr. Osborne Morgan opposed, and Mr. C. E. Lewis sup-
ported the Bill.
Mr. llerschell opposed the Bill on the ground that it would 11
not remedy the evils complained of, but it would injure
rather than benefit the public by debasing the character of
the advocate.

The Attorney-General also opposed the measure, which he
described as aiming a blow at the bar which would altogether
destroy the relations existing between it and the public. He
declined to support a scheme for fettering the discretion of
barristers by the imposition of penalties.
Mr. Norwood briefly replied, and the House then divided:
For the second reading of the Bill, 180 ; against, 237
majority, 107.
The other business was then disposed of, and the House
adjourned.