The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-04 00:00:00

roe*
- had ah,

ceivi every consider/WM trent -their-Lordships; although
those who presented ,them were not diatinetly committed to
the actual propositions'Contained inthern:
The Lord Chancellor Moved the SecOnd Reading cf the
CroSsed ' Cheques Bill. 'Efe -explained the circumstances
which had given occasion for the introduction of this
measure, and observed that it repealed the existing Acts
relating to Crossed Cheques,, but re-enacted all their. •im-
portant provisions, to that the whole law on the subject
would' be contained ha the present Bill. By the 9th
Clause. it Was provided that' a ''periOn • taking" a cheque '
crossed specially should not have, and should not be capable
of giving, a better title to the check thin- the person Item
ri whom he took it had; but that a banker to whom a check.
;Was crossed specially, and who had in good faith and with-
'Mit negligence received payment of such check; for a
ecustomer, should not, in case the title to the check proSted
edefective, incur any liability to the true °weer cf the cheek
iby reason only of his having received such payment fr.
The Bill was read a second time.
Lord Sandhurst asked Lord Cadogan why the decision of
the late Government with respect to the Knightsbridge°
Barracks had been reversed. These barracks, he said, had
been condemned by a Commission which reported in 1863,
on account of the bad condition of the building and the un-
healthiness of the site, but he perceived from the Estimates
that it was proposed to spend 417,000 in the construction of
new barracks on the same narrow slip of ground.
. Lord Cadogan was not Aware that any decision was taken
by the late Government on the subject. The determination
to rebuild the barracks on the present site was adopted on
account of military considerations, the opinion ot the Duke
of Wellington and other authorities being always in favour
of having barracks on the present site; and he had shown
last Session that the present barracks were not the unhealthy
places they had been described to be.
After a few remarks from Lord Cardwell, and the
Duke of Cambridge, Lord Ludan made some observations in
favour of erecting the new barracks on the site of the old, •
and the subject dropped. •
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon stated, in reply to
Lord Minto, that be would take immediate steps to have the
Returns moved for last Session relating to Scottish Teinds
laid on the Table without unnecessary delay.
Their Lordships then adjourned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Cross, in answer to Mr.
Pell, stated that the Government -measure for the relief of
deal burdens with respect to the cost and, maintenances of
;prisons would be introduced about the same time as the
Budget—if possible, before. Upon this, in deference to an
' appeal from Mr. Beach, Mr. Pell postponed for the present
the motion on Local Taxation, whicn stood second on the
Evening's Motion Paper.

, Sir C. Dilke again drew attention to the unreformed Cor-
porations of England and Wales. His researches this year
extended along the whole South Coast, and especially to
'the Cornish boroughs; and he related many curious and
amusing stories of the manner in which the corporate
property of these boroughs had been perverted, mis-
appropriated, stolen, and otherwise corruptly dealt
with. On this point he asked the Attorney-General
whether he would be willing to put the law in
force against these Corporations, if put in motion by the
Charity Commissioners. But he showed also that in many
of these Corporations magisterial functions, criminal and
licensing, are exercised by very unlit persons, and on this
head he moved a Resolution calling for the immediate
abolition of all criminal jurisdiction exercised by unre-
formed Corporations, with the exception of the London
CJrporations.

The Attorney-General pointed out in reply that Corpora-
tione other than charitable were not pima facie trustees of
the Corporate property, unless it could be shown that some
trust was imposed on them. If the law had been otherwise,
the abuses mentioned by Sir Clke would long since have
„been investigated. The Municipal Corporations created by the
•Act were made trustees, but if these uurefermed Corporations
merely refused to give an account of their property, he should
hesitate about interfering as Attorney:GeneraL unless some
trust could be shown. Of course, if a trust for charitable
purposes could be proved, then the charity Commissioners
1-would come into action. For himself, Sir John said, be.
.should be happy to give what assistance be could, audit
would take very little evidence, indeed, of a trust to put him
in motion.
Mr. Gregory said a few words in defence of Pevensey and
Seaford Corporations, and Sir W. Harcourt insisted that as a
matter of public policy these unreformed Corporations
ought to be brought within the meshes of the Municipal
Corporations Act.
Mr. Cross said that with regard to the question of pro-
perty, he also should be glad to assist in bringing about a.
better state of things, and with regard to the criminal and,
licensing jurisdictions exercised by these Corporations, if.
Sir C. Dunce would withdraw his motion, he promised to.
snake inquiries and to take such steps;lll-the Government'
Might think fitting, ea ee au, 3
. Mr. Pemberton defended New Romiley and qneenborongli? '
and after some observations from Mr. Chadwick and Mr.:'
Cole, Sir C. Mike accepted the Home Secretary's oiler, and
the motion was withdrawn.
The County Palatine of Lancaster (Clerk of. the • Peace) i
Bill was passed through Committee.
Mr. Hubbard next moved the Second Reading . tsf the.i
Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act (1b69) Amendment' ;
Bill, but, before the discussion had proceeded far, the Reuse,
sae countea out at five rabitites to eight o'eleck. w •
In the HOtreE OF Commolis, March 1, Major ,O'Gorman
moved the second reading of the Municipal Franchise (Ire-
land)Et/1, and rep-, tied that the duty had not fallen to some
of his more brilliant colleagues. Be felt somewhat nervous'
because he saw a formidable amendment to the Bill placed,
on the paper by the hon. member for Londonderry. He (the:,
gallant major) asked for nothing revolutionary nor unusual !
in his Bill, but only what every honest man , must believe
to he just. It might ha asked why he wanted more for
Ireland than England had, but he tolled that he did
not want any more, he 'only wanted as much' as was
given to this country In respect to the Municipal franchise.
At present every person rated to the relief of the poor
* England had a tight to the municipal franchise, In
Dubliu a ratepayer must have been on, the rate-book
fOr three ) ears before he ould vote at municipal elections,
and in all the other towns of Ireland he was not entitled to
u vote unless he were rated at £lO per annum. The hon: and
gallant gentleman quoted statistics to show the ‘overation
of this state of things. In Leeds, for example, he said there
was a population 8,605 less in number than that of Dublin,
while it had 47,200 more municipal electors than Dublin.
This was only one of numerous cases quoted to show the
anomalies of the present syetem, end to remedy it he merely
, proposed to make a uniform franchise in all towns of Eng-
land and Ireland; in fact, to assimilate the franchises of
the two countries. This request he lef t to the honour and
justice of Parliament to grant.
Mr. C. Lewis moved the rejection of the Bill, as a repre-
sentative of one of the eleven Irish towns to which it
alone applied. Ile ohj,ctea to the measure because it
did a great deal more than to assimilate the Iran-
chises of England and Ireland ; because, whereas in the
first instance nothing more had been done than to
carry the municipal franchise down -to the parlia-,
meetary, .in the case of Ireland, the House was
asked to go below the parliamentary franchise. Who ,
asked for the Bill? There was not a petition presented •
to the ildU2o in its favour, or in favour of any measure
like it from 1870 to the present time. The Bill would'
make an enormous change, and transfer the power from
those who practically bore the heat and burden of the day to
those who took little or no share in local burdens. Taking;
Belfast, for instance, from which no complaint as to the pre-;
sent system had been made, the BIU would simply mean cone,
flacation. In that city there were 35,000 separate holdings,,
25,000 of which were under the £8 rating line, which was'
equivalent to the £lO rental referred to by the mover, and'
there were 10,000 holdings above that line. The 10,000
holdings paid £70,000 of local rates, and the 25,000.p5id1
£15,00 so that if the Bill were to pass, five-eighths of the ,
electorial power would be given to those who paid three-
seventeenths of the taxes. The municipal franchise ought,-
not to be placed on the same basis as the parliamentary frau.' ,
chise, because under the one the voting power was simply in-+
reference to the expenditnre of local funds In which the
property affected should have a preponderating influence
according to its value, while in the case of the Parliamentary
franchise the voting power was ihrespect of Imperial matters
affecting the whole country, and in which the priuciple of
household suffrage was admitted, On theao grounds he,
opposed the Bill.
,a; r: A t,sY 61;ti4r ea
Mr. Collins supported the Bill. t t rd!
Mr. Kavanagh opposed it, on the ground that it woUl
swamp the representation of property in Ireland. 1
Mr. Butt and Sir A. Guioness having addressed the House.,,,
Sir M. Hicks-Beach desired .to discuss this question irre-
spective of the parliamentary franchise, and pointed out that
the real issue before them was whether the municipal fran-
chise should, in a very small number of Irish towns be
lowered or not. Before they could discuss the question on a
basis of equality in the two countries, they should be
satisfied whether or not the action of the Legislature in past
times with regard to municipal questions in England and
Ireland had been Identical; was the system of town govern-
ment in the two countries identical, except with regard to
assessment ; and were the social circumstances of the in-
habitants of the towns with which they were called upon
to deal identical both in England and Ireland. The right
hon. baronet answered the first premise in the negative, and
showed the large number of places in Ireland which had
taken advantage of the towns improvement Act, 1854, adding
that the Bill before the House propoYeri to deal with a very
small part of the question, because with the exception of
the eleven towns out of that Act, all other towns were un-
touched which had obtained a separate system of municipal
government. 'lhe system of town government in the two .
countries, and the social position of the inhabitants, were,
not. he considered, the same, and, therefore, he objected to
their being treated by legislation on the same principles,
Further, in dealing with this question, it ought not to be
considered in a partial and imperfect way ; they should
attempt to inaugurate a sy stem of municipal reform, in which
regard should be had to the fact that another, system of local
representation had been to a great extent carried out in that
country with satisfactory results. If the Bill sh,,uld be
rek2cted, he trusted the House would epee to a motion he
would lay upon the table, in reference to sk general inquiry
into the system of local town government in. Ireland.
(Cheers.) " • '
The House then divided, when there appeared for the
second reading, 148; against, 176; majority, 28. The Bill
was therefore rejected.
The Sea Insurances (itamping of Policies) Bill and the
Burgesses (Scotland) Bill were read a second time. .

I 4 t.

On the order for going into committee on the Offences
Against the Person Bill,
Mr. P. A. Taylor moved that that stage be postponed for
six months.
The Bill was supported by Mr. Charley, and opposed by +
Sir E. Watkiu and Mr. S. HilL _
Mr. Dcdson suggested the adjournment Of the debate.
The House divided—For going Into committee on the Bill,
108; against, 82; majority, 26.
The House then went into committee'on the 'BR but
progress was immediately reported, and the Honse eV/
jouraed.
i amta 1111j+. • ". , 41Ae3r}adbana

I."81`111"FBMAL FASHIONSaaeg"""QI4
74.1. t •,‘ bi togiwgiral szt
One of the most pleasing-noveltiE
" female fashions" that
,has 'been
years has lately, it is stitfed,Ebeen
by some of our first dressmakei
Parisian 4legantes." It consists (
,clinging closely to the body and m
as an ordinary bodice. It is d,
the dress, and the Sleeves are madb
skin parements." The more costly
_ _

ntrOf
tvz;.-

lyed