The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-04-30 00:00:00

lIYIPERIAT, PARLIAMENT.

- - - -
The !louse of Commons reassembled after the Easter recces,
cin Monday, April 25, whoa the Caledonian Railway ;
Adi-
tional Powers) Bill was read a third time and passed, and
several other hills were read a second time.
Mr Beresford Hope asked the Find Lord of t 0 Treasury
whether he could Inform the House of the t,ieasures which
he Proposes to adopt to secure the coutteued enjoyment of
Epping Forest to the public?
Mr. Glaistone sail that arrang.S..nent is were In progress hut
had not yet reached such advanced stage as to lustily
their announcement.
Mr. "rice asked V... Secretary to the Board of Trwle if
our ambassador Path hail ,„gge.ted
that two English
Merchants or r.,antlfacturers should be eximined before the
l'rekrk (2"-dirnisriton of Inquiry respecting the commercial
treaty %OW In force?
Otway replied that such a suggestion hail been made,
tlt 550 aprcisl principle had been laid down upon which to
Meet these a/Unease*.

lIE MURDER OF ENGLISH CAPTIVES IN GREECE.
Mr. Monk asked whether the Under. Secretary f..r Foreign
Affairs could say if any accounts had been received at the
Foreign Office of the disastrous intelligence which had
readied the public from Greet,?
Mr Otway It is with very deep regret that I have to
elate to the house that information has been received that
the English captives who were hi the hands of brigands in
Greece have been put to death by there that is, the
captives who remained after Lord Muncaster—who
lent been one if %him—hail been dispatched to make
terms fir their release, and whose deparoire had been pre-
oeded by that of Lady Mortaster am? Mrs LI. ph and her
child, who were also in the hands of the brigands. No
endeavour has been waning on the part of of her Majesty's
'Ministers to avert the fairs which appeared to have
fallen upon these persons. There has been no difficulty with
cord to the 10) merit of the sums denim...W.l by elle brigands
as ransom Ti r the person. in their power nor have efforts
been wanting on the part of her Ylkiesty's Sliniater to 11111 ace
the Greek Government to grant teat amnesty which the
brigands demanded as a condition of the release of the c
ip-
tines. Unfortunately that c,inces.lon was not made and It
appears that the brigands being attacked by the Gre.k troops,
proceeded to carry let" tifect the mews e which they hal
previouely made end put the captives to death. The
Fence was reeriVed at the Foreign Office on the afternoon of
Friday, that Mr. Herbert, the Secretary of the Italian Legation,
had been put to death by the brigands under the pressure of the
ettack made by the troops upon then] ; that Mr. Vyner had
heevcarnuooff by them ; and that nothing was known of
Zr. :oyd. That telegram was despatched from Athens at
o am, on the tame day the 2211.1,, anti later a telegram
era. despatched at 730 am. from Athens, lip which we
learned the further sad intriligetieo that Mr. Vyner and Mr.
Lloyd had shared the fate of their COMpaidona We are wait-
ing with great anxiety for the details of this off dr. We do not
expect to receive them before Friday week, and in the mean-
time the Secretary of State has power to lay upon the
table all conituunicatious that pass between him and her
Majesty's representative, at Athena, relatieg to the subject.
Mr. hewdegate entered into a personal explanation as to
the aspersions thrown sm his connect in connexion with the
Connuh tee en alumatic Institutions by Sir C. Clifford and
other representatives of Roman Catholic opinion during
the recess. These he designated not only as ribellous, hut
an gross breaches of privilege. He proceeded to state that
ho vißs perfectly trashy to sebstaut late all the statements he
had nrade, but the House bevies been pleased to appoint a
Committee, nothing would induce him to derogate trem the
to ivileges of the Home by taking notice of these accusations
betore idly other tribunal
Tn. House went into Committee of Ways and Mean., and
the Newspaper and Stamps Resolutions of the lindget were
agreed to Ihe Naturalisation out was also passed through
commtttee, after a desuliory discussion of its various clauses,
but without amendment.
On the third reading of the War Office Rill,
Mr. J. Field°n moved its rejection, objecting strongly to
Cie creation of two new Under-Sec, t tries us being untimely,
ennecessary, and 111-judged. If the Department was under.
handed, the appoint omit of additional clerks ass, he matte
tined, the proper means by which the wore would be better
done. The dockyard labourers and the soldiers who had
la-en Mamboed by hundreds would conclude the present
Plan wall • Whig joh ;" and, seeing that these too officials
were to have suits is Parliament, It was ureteral ti presume
!ant a Main object of the bill was to secure trek Votes for the
Government.
A ditcession followed, in which Lord Elcho, Mr. Stanstield .
liirJ. Pakington, Mr Neivilegate, and Mr. c irdwell took part,
after which the bill was read a third time, and passed by
el) to g.

--46.-1 the second reading of the Poor Relief (Metropolis Bill,
Dr Brewer moved its rejection, urging that it was an abro-
piton of the connexion between representation and taxation,
Ltd that it s-parated the collection from the ado, inistration
OS the rote.; and he was supported by Mr. Ferrer., who
argued th..t the bill would disfranchise the ratepayers
and give inordinate power to the Poor Law Board; and
by Mr. T. Chambers, who maintained that it was In direct
opposition to the ordinary course pursued by the House of
Commons, of bringing all matters of taxation within the
control of the tax p iyers' representatives. Mr. W. H.
Smith and Mr.. ITsrvey Lewis also spoke against the I ill..

-aii"..7;;.;:i:k;"ii:oiWoiiii,;;;;l;cri;Lei::7l-i;Zu;:Oi the
hill, It wan raid a secoml time.
_

The Attorney-General then 'moved the second reading of
his Bill tor Disfranchising Bridgewater and Beverley, sup-
porting his motion by copious extracts from the next elec-
toral history of these two peccant boroughs. lie defended
the composition and conduct of the Commissions. and fro
pressed on the House the futility of addreesing the Crown to
issue these Commissions if it declined to foliow them up by
decided action when corruption was proved.
several hon. members expressed themselves adverse to the
bill, but after a brief reply from the Attorney-General, the
bill was read a second time.

The Norwich I,ters Disfranchisement Bill was also
read a second time after a short conversation, whits was
brought to a close by an understanding that individual
casks of hardship or injustice may be discussed in Com-
mittee

—filWillnes Regulation Bill wise committed pro forma , and
Mr. Bruce, in fixing the next stage for May XO, expressed a
hope, in answer to an appeal from Lord Echo, that he would
ther._l be able to press it forward.
, .

The Wine and i;oilie's a a iIS(39) Amendment BiU was
read a second time.

The Solicitor-General brought in his Bulversiiy Tests Bill,
wh oh, be explained, differed from former measures chiefly by
being a Government measure. and by limiting it compumory
both on the Universities and the Colleges now in existence to
dispense hereafter u ith religious tests. He did not put it
forward as a measure of conciliation, from whack he felt
himself absolved after the aeries, of the House of L o-sis let
bear; but ho deified 11505 11 would lidare the Cluirel ist Eng-
land. Mr Hardy and Mr. Walpole made someobsrrvations ;
the latter to guard against the misaporeheiddou suggested,
as he thought by the Sdlicitor-Geueral, that Cambridge
desired suet a mea.sure, and the bill was then read • lint
tune.

131's were brought In by Mr. Cardwell, to shorten the term
of enliat-cent In the army ; and by the Lord-Advocate, to
sintrud the Law of Entail (Scotland) and the Criminal Coluts
Prccedure Scothtud:, and the House adjourned.
In the Ilouse of Commons, April 2G, Mr Welkin Williams
Rap e notice that he should postpone his niotion, pm the
DistatabdPoment and Insendowment of the Church in Wales,
until the 24th May. "

Mr. Berestord.llope intimated that he would postpone his
rredlon on the National Gallery, etc , until the 20th May.
Sir Henry Hoare asked the Postmaster General whether
letter-carriers who had called a meeting of their body for
Good Friday were menssed by circular with dismissal if they
attended the same and, if true, under what statute such
circular was issued ; and whether the Postmaster-General
would introduce a hi I to repeal the same?
The Marquis of Hartiegton said that the letter-carriers
had announced their intention of holding a meeting on Good
Friday for the object, among others, of hearing a paper on the
positicn and prospects of the Post Office empiom's, and of Ms-
cowing the matter afterwards. This would have been in direct
violation of the rule laid clown by the late Lord Stanley of
Alderley, which, since it had been lot 'roe, had been attended
with great advantage, not only to the department, but also
to the letter-carrie,s themselves. There had been nothing
whatever to prevent the employe4 of the department making
any complaints or representations they might think proper
to their superior officers; and if o itched in respect ful lan-
guage these would be carefully considered. He had no in-
tention of rescinding the rule lam down by his predecessor.
Mr. 11 Torrens called attention to the political relattoi s of
this country with the self.coverning colonies, and moved for
a Select Committee to inquire into the nindes of conimunica-
thm between them mod the Colouittl Other, lie based his
motion on the general feeling of uneasiness spreading through
our colonial empire, and the suspicion that the present
Government I ad formed the deliberate intention of severing
the connexion between the colonies and the mother country.
After discussing the various suggestions for improving the
means of eornmui ieation with the mother country, be con-
cluded with two of his own, that the Imnetial vet should
be confined to matters infringing the Royal prerogative or
our diplomatic obligations, and that the colonies should send
diplomatic envoys to this country.

. •
Mr. Eastwick attached very little Importance to any of
these schemes, but seconded the motion for inquiry on the
ground that we were now entering upen a new colonial
policy, lie traced our colonial policy thronch its three
earlier phases, and the fourth phase of indifference and
noninterference on which we were entering he expected ,
would lie the last stage of all.
Lord Entry moved the •' previous question," contending
that if inquiry led to any change at all it must be severance,
for the colonies would hardly give hack a single jot of the
self-government we had conceded to them. Tnoin.h he, too
looked to independence as the natural cud of colonization,
he wished to continue the connexion as long as possible,
believii g it to be a mutual advantage to colonies and mother
country, and he would do nothing to hasten and embitter
separation.
Sir C. Adderley was also opposed to an Inquiry, for which,
he observed, no tangible object had been suggested, and
atv at the character of which the mover seemed to have no
definite idea. It could do no kind of practical good, hut
would unsettle and irritate public opinion in the colonies,
and create unfriendly feelings Deprecating a Divition on
the subject, he suggested that both the motion and the "pre-
vious question "—which was a rude mode of disposing of it—
should be withdrawn.

Mr Mmtniac based his support of the motion on the New
Zealand policy of the Government, which he sharply
attacked ; while Mr. It Fowler found a aknilar justification
in recent carats at the Cape, and deprecated the with-
drawal of Imperial control in the interests of the native
population.
Mr Monsell, after some general remarks echoing the aa•
irations expressed in the debate for a long continuance of
the union between the home country and the colooles,
dealt with Mr. Torrent's indictment against the Colonial
Office. He denied broadly that there was any such
grievance as had been alleged, and the best proof was
that for the last ten years the Office bad had no
serious controversy with any colony. There was, be-
sides, positive proof in the fact that no complaints were
made in the answers to Lord Granville's circular requesting
suggestions for an improvement in the mode of communica-
tion. In truth, the concession to the colonies of the absolute
control over their own affairs had removed all the causes
which in old times had given rise to perpetuate quarrels.
Lord Sandon urged that England wool 1 be neglecting her
plain duty to the world at large If she stepped down from
the rank of a first-class Power by lazily allowing her colonies
to El p away from her. Such s policy would be opposed to
the general tendency of the age, which was agaiust small
nationalities. We owed it as a duty to our own people to
kerp open for them three great fields of emigration, and to
the colonists to preserve for them the Inestimable advantage
of • connexion with an old civilisation. Ile looked for a Ks-
ution of the problem in a great scheme of confederation.
Sir C. bilks opposed the inquiry as mischievous and use-
less, and replied in detail to many of the arguments used in
favour of it.

Mr. Gladstone, not doubting that uneasiness as to our
policy might exist In the colonial mind, remarked that it had
always existed since we began to give self-government to the
colonies, arid must alwa)s exist under the movements of a
free constitutional system. Ile den, ed that there was any new
policy contemplated ; there had been merely a successive de-
velopment and application of admitted principles to one colony
after another an circumstances would permit. The pith arid
object of these principles was to prolong to the utmost the .
continuance if the connexion, but to secure, if separation
were inevitable, that it should batmen amicably Ile held
the desire that both parties in the State had shown to
place our colocial policy on this sounder basis to be
one of the happiest chapters in contemporary history.
As to our military policy, he maintained that it war
for the interest of the colonists that the burden of
their own defence should be thrown on them. Ile
mempterily refused to consent to the appointment of a
Committee, denying that • case had been made out for the
modification of our political relations, and certainly no such
Inquiry should he undertaken without some evidence that
the gnat self-governing colonies desired It.
Mr. It Torrens dec ined to withdraw his motion, but, on a
Dividon, the "previous question" was carried against him
by 110 to 67.
r. C. Denison moved for. Committee to inquire into the
Law of Compensation for A contents on Railway.. itt tOg
that he had the consent of all the principal haiiway Boards,
and he added that their object •01.1 i to fix a maximal. of com-
pensation in proportion to the fare received, and to establish
Bolide of Arbitration.
. .

_ ....
Mr. li. Palmer suggested that the Committee should also
Inquire what means ought to be adopted by Railway Com-
panies for the prevention of accidents.
After some observations from Sir 11. Selwin-Ibbetsen, Mr.
Shaw-Lefevre, and Mr. Reed, the motion, as amended, wag
avreed t 0...

Some Other business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned.
In the House of Commons, April 27, on the motion that
the Speaker do leave taw chair, in °roar that the Howse

might go into committee on the Marriage with a Deceased
Wife's sister Bill,
Mr. Spencer Walpole moved as an amendment—" That
it is Inexpedient to alter the law if niarrisge which has
,isted in this country from time immemorial, as to the
deNrees of kindled and affinity within which marriages
are permitted, until Perlis:tient has considered the
whole question whether degrees of affinity should be put
on a different footing from the corresponding degrees of
consanguinity." The measure before the Home affected so
intimately the private life and relationships of the people of
this c-untry that he felt he med not make any apology for
the amendment. Ills object was that the whole question of
the law if marriage should be fully considered and Cis-
cussed before the change proposed by the bill should be
adopted. The greater portion of the people of this country
o.,jected to the hill, not mi rely becouse it was objectionable
in itself, but also because it led to consequences strongly to
be deprecated. The social sy /dent founded on the law of
marriage ought not to be lightly disturbed unless a strong
and overwhelming case could he made out against it.
The principle of our law was to exclude enmity as well as
consanguinity, and the measure proposed directly to change
the principle of the law. That principle hail remained um
changed in the slightest degree during the first fifteen con.
tulles, and was no stringent that a marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was equally illegal with a marriage to a daughter
The change proposed was calculated to injure the happiness
sod innocence of many apo nom.s home. The agitation
on the subject hail been wit up and paid for by the rich. The
argument that the law should be repealed because it had
, been frequently violated would break up the whole of
wished to know where the line would be orawn,
if the law of marilage were once nroken. It was for the
interest of the N. h. Is, country that the marriage laws should
not be toticht d ; for nothing could tie mote mischievous than
to introduce uncertainty into those litws, eaoept only I
the introduction of at, inconsistency nhtilt sould otly lead
to ulterior changes of even a worse description.
Mr. Monk seconded the motion.
Mr. (Ca iclone said the measure had been the subject of
debate in the House or Colll.loxn for perhaps a greater num-
ber 01 yearn than any other, with the exception of the church-
rate question. It appeared to him that., considering the
great number and it ,versity of religious communities into
which society was divided in this count, y ; and considei lug
also that, with the exception of the Church oh England and
the Presbyterian out, mustily, there was 100 religions comma-
utty which maintained a prohibition of this tutu, hut. on the
contrary, judgment was against it, there was& great difficulty
in enforcing that rule upon members of thme °Om, eOllOlll,
Mons who objected to it. Looking down through the
various classes of society, it appeared to him, on the whole,
for the religious and moral advantage of the masses of so-
ciety that they should give up a restriction which was nit
adequately as,isted by the public conscience and conviction
of the Woe in which they now lived, and with regard to
which they had Ito reason to supn Sc that the public ion.
science and conviction were like y to alter in favour of the
restriction. Ile thought they should take care lest by pres.
sine a restriction destitute of a legitimate and sound basin
they should excite a growing feeling against the law
itself.

Mr. Beresford.llope reminded the House that he had at one
time lost his seat in consequence of tppo.litg tide bill. In-
stead of the continuous movement of public opinion in
favour of the meuure, he would point out that, mitil the
present Parliament, it had been rejected by the House of
Cormindis during ten years, and there had been no evi-
dence of a chanse throughout the country. The pre-
sent marriage law, it not the greatest of advantages,
was, at all events, the smallest of evils. It was ne-
cessary that some limit should be placed, awl the marriage
few of England was a plain anti simple one. By passing this
till two classes of marriages would be created, and the
simplicity of the conjugal relationship would he at once
broken down He challenged hon. gentlemen to vote with
the bon mimber for Maryiehone. knowing, as they must do,
that they were voting tor a principle which would ultimately
be pushed to its natural c•.111CillSi011.
Mr. Melly strongly supported the bill.
Earl Percy said the marriage law of England was perfectly
clear and precise. He should oppose the bill in all its
stages
Mr Denman contended that there was no scriptural or
natural prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's
sister. . .

Sir Roundell Palmer said that his opinion remained un-
changed even bl the letter of Archbishop Whately. If the
ch 'lige were made it could destroy the status of the wlfe's
sister in every family, and would remove tie sister out of a
hundred families In order to introthme a wife into one. He
believed the restrictions to he desirable, not only on social.
but also on religious and moral grounds.
. .

After some discussion, the House divided—For the original
motion, 184; ag -dust, 114 : majority, 70
The House then went into committee on the bill:

Qo 6.-ue" 1, Mr. J 1 Tibot moved wo--ainiri;tlment the
if of which would be to destroy the retrospective action
of the bill. . . -

_Lae committee divti!d —l, or the clause, 177 . for the

awen-dment,.9o . Maj.xity, 87:

The amendment was therefore lost.

SW. "i7i7l37nbers moved an amendment, which was
adopted, extending the operatiou of the bill to the whole of
the United Kingdom.
The remaioing clauses of the bill were pansel through
committee, and the Chairman was ordered to report the bill
to the House.

--
Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.