The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-08-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE or LORDS, August 11, Lord Redesclale
asked her Majesty's Government whether, as they had
admitted that ,rediistribution ought to accompany the
extension of the franchise, they were prepared to in-
form the House before the session closed how far they
had , perfected any scheme for redistribution; and
whether the necessary provisions on that subject would
1)0 submitted to Parliament at the commencement of
the autumnal session, or when.
Lord Kimberley replied that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had already indicated in both Houses the general
principle on which they proposed to proceed in their
measure for redistribution. At the time which they
should consider fitting for the introduction of the
measure they would explain its provisions. That was
the usual course. As already stated by Lord Granville,
the Franchise Bill would be re-introduced in the autumn
session, and when it was passed by Parliament the
Government would bring in a Redistribution Bill.
The Earl of Redesdaie protested against the course
taken by the Government, whose whole object, it
appeared to him, was to excite and keep alive a
feeling of hostility in the country towards their lord-
ships' House.
After some conversation on the system of election of
representative peers, their lordships rose at half-past
five o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF CommNs, on the motion of Mr.
Biggar, a new writ was ordered for the election of a
member for the county of Waterford in the room of Mr.
Blake, resigned.

NEW GUINEA.

Mr. Gladstone informed Sir W. M'Arthur that the
protection mentioned in Lord Derby's despatch of May
9 to the Governors of Australian colonies, as intended
to be established in New Guinea, was the advising her
Majesty to establish a protectorate over so much of the
coast of New Guinea as lay to the eastward of the
portion claimed by the Dutch. He co;dd not give a
definition of the line the protectorate would take, but
within its limits the jurisdiction of her Majesty would
be sufficient to afford protection, to the natives against
the lawlessness either of British subjects or of foreigners.
Mr. Ashley added, in reply to Sir H. Holland, that the
Government proposed to select and app jut a High
Commissioner as soon as possible.
TUE EGYPTIAN QUESTION.

Sir S. Northcote, pursuant to notice, moved for
papers relating to the mission of Lord Northbrook, and
called attention to the present condition of the Egyptian
question. His chief desire, he said, was to dwell on
the conditions of the Anglo-French agreement, of
which, though it was said to be in abeyance, he was
afraid the country had not heard the last. He had
three objections to this Anglo-French agreement—
first, the position in which the Commission of the
Caisse was to be placed; secondly, the fixing of a date
for the evacuation;, and thirdly, the proposed
neutralisation of Egypt. Enlarging on these objec-
tions, he contended that the arrangement amounted to
a Multiple Control, and could lead only to mischief
in Egypt. As to the evacuation, although he was not
in favour of an indefinite prolongation of our occupa-
tion, he believed the most certain mode of prolonging it
would be to fix a date for the evacuation. On the sub-
ject of neutralisation he dwelt in some detail, pointing
out the fundamental differences between countries like
Belgium and Switzerland and Egypt, and asked the
Government whether they had really thought out the
problem of neutralisation. Before concluding he in-
sisted that the Government ought to give the House
some information as to their object in sending out
Lord Northbrook, and drew attention to the coincidence
between the beginning and the end of the session,
Parliamentary discussion being rendered difficult in
both cases, first by General Gordon's mission, and now
by Lord Northbrook's mission. No doubt, he said, many
people would conclude that it was a card played for the
purpose of delay, but unless Lord Northbrook had
ample powers given him to act his mission would pro-
duce no effect. Justice to the people of Egypt, on
whese deplorable condition he dwelt in detail, called
upon us to adopt a more vigorous policy,. and England
would be disgraced if she refrained from using her
powers to redress their condition for fear of being mis-
represented.
Mr. Gladstone remaiked that the argument to be
deduced from Sir S. Northcote'ik description of the
condition of the fellaheen-was our permanent retention
of power in Egypt, and complained that he had sup-
pressed all mention of the reforms- accomplished by
our agents, because they had been appointed by his
political opponents. This remark provoked aloud pro-
test, and Sir S. Northcote called for its-withdrawal as a.
statement which he had no right to make. Mr. Glad-
stone then passed to Lord Northbrook's mission, about
which, he said, it would be impossible for the Govern-
ment to give further information at present. The
bankruptcy of Egypt and the failure of the Con-
ference changed the whole face of affairs in Egypt, and
it was to consider this new position of affairs that
Lord Northbrook was sent out, but it would be gross
folly for the Government to attempt now to anticipate
the results of that step. After discussing in detail Sir
S. Northcote's objections to the Anglo-French agree-
ment, he pointed out that it was intended to meet a
state of things which had now passed away, and was not
to be taken as a guide to the future. Finally, he said
that though the difficulties of the Egyptian question
had been greatly increased by incessant dismission he
admitted the right of Parliament to the fullest infor-
mation, and assured the House that the Government
never would be parties to committing the country to
any policy without the assent and behind the back of
Parliament.
In the course of subsequent discussion Sir H. Wolff
insisted that the House ought to have a declaration from
the Government that there should be no further vacil-
lation in their policy, and that they would, with a firm
hand, restore order in Egypt, protect the interests of
the Egyptian people and secure the supremacy which
this country was entitled to exercise in Egypt.
Sir G. Elliot deplored the procrastination and defer-
ence to French susceptibilities which hadthroughout
characterised the policy of the Government, and
Mr. Forster rejoiced to perceive in the•decision to
send out Lord Northbrook an indication that the
Government were at last beginning to recognise that
they would have to take charge of the affairs of Egypt
themselres.
Mr. Chaplin regarded the position in which the
House and the country was left by the Government as
most unsatisfactory.
After some observations by Sir John Lubbock, Sir
W. Barttelot, and Mr. Villiers Stuart, Sir R. Peel
described the action of the Government as an ugly sur-
render of British and Egyptian interests. The Anglo-
French Convention was a humiliating agreement,
which if carried out would have registered our abdica-
tion in„Egypt, and its collapse had given universal and
intense satisfaction to the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the
failure of the Conference had thrown-upon the Govern-
ment a great responsibility, and they believed they had
adopted the best course in sending to Egypt one of the
most able members of the Cabinent to inquire on the
spot and advise them.
Sir M. H. Beach asked for some definite statement as
to the intentions of the Government with respect to
the relief of General Gordon; and., referring to the
negotiations with France, characterised them as a volun-
darhowpfrphi.odAch,shshadmireasdotn-aßlifyao
tnabnoecoi
Ina)
volun-
tary abdication of our position in Egypt, the failure
r Stafford
served
er
tvtNe doa
rnt to.
,a 0
rgt
eglrsaFv
imant
ooeht
motion
ihn
the
tntfiouo
difficulty.
con-
tinued the discussion, and eventually the subject
pressed.
A conversation, carried'
on by the Irish members,
followed with respect to the T ,
übbercurry prisone_
and eventually the Appropriation Bill d passe through
committee.
The House-afterwards adrourned.

descril

In the Spun or Lonns, August 12, the Corrupt
Practices (Suspension of Elections) Bill was read a
second time, and the Public Health (Members and
Offices) Bill, the Disused Burial Grounds Bill, and the
Cholera Protection Bill were read a third time.
In reply to Lord Lamington, the Earl of Kimberley,
stated that the Government had received no official
information concerning the reported concession to a
Russian company to construct a railway from the Cas-
pian to the Persian Gulf.
The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill was
brought up from the Commons and read a first time,
and their lordships rose at five minutes past seven
o'clock.