The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-07-12 00:00:00

THE STOURBiIfroCI-1 OBSERVER

believe that in carrying the amendment they did not
mean to oppose an extension of the franchise. The
people would judge not by words, but by acts. He be-
lieved that in 99 cases out of 100 in the country recog-
nized the revising powers of that House, but there was
just the one out of 100 cases in which they did not
recognize it. Such cases had been the Irish Church and
Land Bills. As to the question of redistribution, he
admitted that a general election under the extended
franchise without a redistribution would cause much
confusion in our political arrangements, and they
ought to do what they could to prevent it; but
that inconvenience would be only temporary,
whereas he held that to give either branch of the
Legislature a retrospective power of preventing the
operation of an Act of Parliament would be an uncon-
stitutional proceeding. What the Government had
done was to provide prospectively that the bill should
not come into force till time had been given for the
passing of a Redistribution Bill. He submitted to the
Opposition that it would have been better for them to
have agreed to the second reading and proposed their
amendments in Committee, even though the Govern-
ment might not have been able to accept them. For
himself, though still in favour of having the franchise
and redistribution dealt with simultaneously, the
system of obstruction which had grown up in the
House of Commons rendered it practically impossible
to pass a Franchise Bill and a Redistribution Bill in the
same session.

Lord Brabourne regretted that the action of the
Government compelled him to go into the lobby against
them, and to close the door of the franchise against two
millions of people.

The Earl Of liosebery condoled with the noble lord on
being always compelled to vote against the Government,
and contended that it would have been impossible to
carry a measure combining both redistribution and ex-
tension of the franchise. The present bill he regarded
as a measure alike of expediency and of the highest
justice. _

_
The Duke of Rutland gave a vigorous support to the
amendment; Lord Dalhousie addressed their lordships
for the bill • Lord Ravensworth was strongly in favour
of the amendment, and the Marquis of Huntly quite as
warm in his support of the second reading. Lord
Galloway made copious quotations from the speech de-
livered by Mr. Gladstone in introducing the bill to
show that the right lion, gentleman had adopted an in-
consistent course in reference to redistribution.

After some observations from Lord Oamperdown and
Lord Wemyss,
The Archbishop of Canterbury said that while he
should have wished that the bill was accompanied by a
measure of redistribution, he felt bound to vote for the
second reading.
The Lord Chancellor maintained that the two mil-
lions of men whom this bill would enfranchise would
wish to have the vote, whatever might happen as to re-
distribution. The distribution of electoral powers now
in existence was that framed Under the Reform Acts of
1832 and 1867, and he could not see what harm would
ensue if, through any unforeseen circumstances, a
general election occurred before the passing of a Redis-
tribution Bill. The noble and learned lord concluded
his speech by a solemn exhortation to their lordships not
to favour the ill-advised proceeding of opposing the
second reading by Lord Cairns's amendment, and thus
compromise the character of the House.
Lord Salisbury asked the House to remember that
there was no opposition to an extension of the fran-
chise, the question being how political power was to be
distributed so that the interests of all classes of electors
should be protected. The question was whether the
promise of the Government to bring in a Redistribu-
tion Bill was a sufficient security. Nobody doubted
the sincerity of the assurances given their lordships on
that point; but for the last four years the Government
had not been able to keep their promises. And, even
supposing they succeeded in keeping their promise to
bring in a Redistribution Bill, would they engage that
the House of Lords should have a free hand in modi-
fying that measure. The fact was, that if the
Government agreed to put in the bill before
their lordships a clause providing that it should
not come into operation until a Redistribution
Bill was passed the matter would be settled.
If they did not, the responsibility of the
rejection of the bill would rest on them. After a
humorous commentary on some of the speeches in
support of the bill, the noble lord observed that ex-
pressions of indignation out of doors could be pro-
duced to order. If a certain number of
.persons chose
to assemble and take wholesome exercise in Hyde-
park, their doing so would be no indication of the feel-
ing of the constituencies. The Opposition was charged
with wanting to bring about a dissolution. Apart
from this question they had no wish to do so, for, in a
party sense, things were going on charmingly for them;
but m reference to this, question, not only prudence,
but justice, rcquired that the people should be con-
sulted. If there were an appeal to the people, the
Opposition would not shrink from bowing to their
will.
Lord Granville contended that the Government had
offered every reasonable security for the introduction
of a Redistribution Bill, and, with the concurrence of
his colleagues, he told their lordships that if the Govern.
ment failed to introduce such a bill next year, they
would be open to the grave charge of an absolute breach
of faith.
It was ten minutes past one o'clock when the ques-
tion was put and preparations were made for a division.
The scene was a splendid and exciting one. The body
of the House was crowded with peers, and rarely have
the peeresses' galleries presented so brilliant an appear-
ance. They were filled with ladies most of whom were in
evening dress, and the display of diamonds was extraor-
dinary. The Prince of Wales, who had been on the cross
benches, entered the space at the foot of the throne,
and there watched the division. Members of the other
House viewed it from their galleries, which were filled.
Most of the peeresses present showed their interest in
the proceedings by standing up and leaning across the
gilt railing in front of their seats. At half-past one
the numbers were announced, and it was found that the
motion for the second reading had been rejected by 205
to 146. The amendment, with a vetbal amendment
suggested by Lord Dunraven, was then put as a sub-
stantive motion and agreed to without a division.
Their lordships rose at 25 minutes to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE or CommoNs the 'adjourned debate on
the second reading of the London Government Bill was
resumed by the Lord Mayor of London, who described
the measure as one which nobody wanted, which had
evoked no support throughout the metropolis, and
which, if passed, must take a very long time to discuss
in committee. As the representative of the City he
felt bound to oppose it by every means in his power,
because it took away, without any cause shown, the
ancient rights of the citizens, and because, while it
could do no good, it might do a great deal of harm.
The debate was continued by Sir S. Waterlow, Lord
G. Hamilton, Mr. S. Buxton, Mr. Boord, Mr. Lyulph
Stanley, Sir J. W. Ellis, Mr. George Russell, Sir
James isi`Garel-Hogg, the Prime Minister later in the
evening joining in the discussion, which was ultimately
adjourned.
Some other bills were forwarded a stag, and tha
House adjourned at 25 minutes to two o'clock.

THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS.
In London, on Monday, Lord Aberdare presided at
the sixtieth annual meeting of the Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was held
at St. James's Hall. The large hall was crowded with
school children (many of whom were prize essayists)
and their friends. The secretary reported that the
cause of the society had made great progress not only
in England and Wales, but also abroad. The year's
subscriptions amounted to £2200, the donations to
£1540, and legacies £4357.

The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the
report, said the Society's operations for the year had
been of great magnitude and very successful. There
was a growing interest exhibited by the press in the
work of the Society. The magistrates, too, were
showing a great desire to enforce the Act under which
the Society sought for convictions of cruelty, and out
of every 100 prosecutions there were only three
failures. The formation of bands of mercy continued
to gather strength, and they were a valuable adjunct.
to the prize essay movement. The number of con-
victions last year-4618 was 137 in excess of the
previous year. The Society was slowly and efficiently
extending the operations of the Wild Bird's Act, and
was conducting a fight with the public on the question
of the cruelty inflicted upon horses by the unnecessary
use of bearing reins. Condemning pigeon shooting as
being irretrievably connected with that which was
base and cruel, the Chairmen said at its best it was a
poor amusement, and was not like some sports which
required manliness and courage. He concluded his
speech by appealing for funds in aid of the Society.
The Baroness Burdett-Coutts, who presented the
Queen's medals to Dr. Fleming and Professor Prit-
chard for having signally, contributed to the preven-
tion of cruelty to animals, said in the late war, and
under the direction of Lord Wolseley, every care was
taken to secure the comfort and well-being of the
animals that were destined to go into the war. Dr.
Fleming and Professor Pritchard having acknowledged
the presentation, Lady Wolseley distributed the chief
prizes to the essayists.