The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-04-01 00:00:00

'IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HoUSE OF LORDS, March 25, on the motion of the
Duke of Ilichuiond and Gordon, the Consolidated Fund
(£lO 029,550 ss. id.) Bill was read a second time.
The Standing Orders applying to the progress of Bills
having been considered and suspended, the Bill passed
through its remliaing stages.
Their Lords Lips then adjourned.

In the HotrsE OF toßns, March 27, Lord Shaftesbury gave
notice that in the event of the Royal Titles Bill passing a
itecond Reading he would move an Address pre} ing the Queen
to assume a title more in accordance than that of Empress
With the history of-the nation and with the feelings of the
People.

Lord Salisbury, in laying on the table several amendmer_tg
Which be proposed to move in Committee on the Oxford
'Universities Bill, explained the nature of some of -the
More important, based on the reconimendations of the
Hebdomadal Council. He added that the names of the
Commissioners under the Bill would be Lord Selborne
(Chairman), Lord Redesdale, the Dean of Chichester,
the Riga Hon. Mountague Bernard, Sir Henry Maine, Mr.
Matthew White Ridley, and Mr. Justice Grove, and stated
that he would take the Committee on the Bill pro forma on
Thursday, proceeding afterwards with it in Committee on
Friday.
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon gave notice that in
Case the Royal Titles Bill should be read a second time on
Thursday, he would propose to take the Committee on
Monday.
The Duke of Northumberland moved an Addresss for the
appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the
Working of manufactories emitting noxious vapours. In
atipport of the motion he stated that those vapours had the
effect of lowering the vital powers of peeple living in the
neighbourhood of them, that they produced disease and had
the most injurious effect on vegetation, while the people who
were injared found it extremely difficult to obtain redress by
law.

The Archbishop of Canterbury considered this a most i!ei-
portant social question. The state of these manufactories
was such as to drive the wealthy from living in their neigh-
bourhood, but the poor, not being able to change their resi-
dence, remained exposed to all the pollution caused by the
noxious vapours. He was informed that the Local Board
had determined to plant no more trees on the Albert Em-
bankment, near which many works emitting deleterious
gases were situated, because they considered that it would
simply be a waste of money to do so.
Lord Aberdare thought that further legislation on the
subject should be preceded by some inquiry, and he con-
sidered that the amount of inspection ought to be increased.
Lord Winmarleigh conceived that any inquiry should be
conducted on an extensive basis.
The Duke of Richmond and Gordon said that he was per-
fectly alive to the importanee of the euhjent, and the Govern-
ment were ready to assent to the motion with some slight
Modification, but they were not prepared to increase the
number of Inspectors, lest the responsibility should thereby
be taken from the local authorities and thrown on the In-
spectors.
The motion, slightly modified, was agreed to.
Lord Chelmsford referred to the long time which had
elapsed since the presentation of the Report of the Marriage
Law Commission in 18F8, which recommended that the
Marriage Laws in the three parts of the United Kingdom
should be simplified and rendered uniform, and he asked
Whether the Lord Chancellor would bring in a Bill for that
PluPose.
The Lord Chancellor said that he had always felt it to be
a reproach that the laws in the three parts of the kingdom
With respect to the most important relation of life were
essentially different, but when he considered the number of
Measures which it was absolutely necessary to propose
during the present Session, he thought it would have been
Idle to lay on the table a Bill relating to the great subject of
the Law of Marriage. It was, however, his anxious desire
to take the first favourable opportunity of introducing a
Measure relating to the subject.
The other business on the paper having been disposed of,
their Lordships adjourned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Anderson gave notice that
he would (on Tuesday) ask the Prime Minister what pre-
cedent there is for the Sovereign leaving the country during
the sitting of Parliament, and what arrangements have been
Made for carrying on business in the absence of the Queen
and the Foreign Secretary in attendance on her.—Mr. aunt-
tan gave notice that he would at the same time ask the
Prime Minister what steps had been taken, in the event des-
cribed, to secure to members of this House the privilege
asked and granted at the opening of Parliament of free access
to the Sovereign. (A laugh.)
In answer to Mr. Samuelson, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer said that the perusal of Mr. Cave's Report had
net modified the opinions which he had expressed some
Weeks ago on private information from Mr. Cave as to the
financial condition of Egypt. He explained also that Mr.
Disraeli, in speaking on Thursday of the unsettled financial
Zenclition of Egypt, had not referred to anything in the
Report, but to the efforts which the Khedive was notoriously
g to put his financial arrangements on a more Batts-
'"‘crY basis. The Chancellor did not think that the
publication would be any hindrance to these arrangements,
but the Government felt bound to respect the Khedive's
Wishes,
Lord Hartington having asked the Premier to fix a day for
taking the vote for the expenses of Mr. Cave's mission, Mr.
.Olsraeli replied that Ministers had only five days at their
Stianosal before Easter; that one of these must be allotted
to the Budget another to the Navy E.Aimates (vote for wages),
N'd he had hoped that the other three might be devoted to
the Merchant Shipping Bill. If, however, the noble lord
wished to propose a censure on the Government in refer-
thence to this subject these arrangements would be
rown over, and he would give the noble lord a day; but if
~teonly wanted a preliminary and reconnoitring d i.cufeion of
PY. Cave's report, seeing that Tuesdays and Fridays were in
the hands of independent members, perhaps an arrangement
Vglit be made to give him the opportunity he sought on
.eriday next or the following Tuesday.
_ In answer to Mr. Henry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
e
d next Monday for the Budget.
The House then went into Committee on the Merchant
Shipping Bill, and on Clause 3 Mr. Plimsoll moved the first
of a series of amendments designed to introduce into the Bill
the system of compulsory survey of all unclassed ships, and
entered at length into his reasons for preferring this mode
of . Prevention to the Ministerial suggestion of punishing
thee man who sent a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition.
cited numerous authorities in favour of the proposal,
Including resolutions passed at public meetings. The great
majority of the ships broken up during the last two 3 ears
Were unclassed ships, and, of twenty-two vessels condemned
at the demand of the crews, nineteen were unclassed. He maintained that if his amendment had been substituted for
the present law, insteaa of a few offenders being sent to
prison, large numbers of unseavvorthy ships would have been
prevented from going to sea.
Sir C. Adderley pointed out that the amendment would
eats° a distinct issue between Mr. Plimsoll and the Govern-
ment. No compromise was possible, and if the amendment
were carried it must be fatal to the Bill, and it would be fatal
to the cause Mr. Plimsoll bad at heart, the saving of life
at sea. Among other objections to the compulsory survey
he argued that the Government certificate would be
a ?Malin/int pass, and though it might only apply
to a few at first, the number would gradually in-
crease, and Lloyd's and other societies would be altogether
superseded The Board of Trade, in fact, would have the
survey of all the ships in the country, and Government in-
aPeetion had already been carried to a dangerous extent.
Moreover, to lay down a standard for Government inspection
WoUld impede improvement in shipbuilding.
After some observations from Mr. Reed, Lord Eslington,
Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. alaclver, Dr. Kenealy, Mr. Gorst,
Mr. 13rassey, and Mr. W. Williams,
Mr. Norwood, speaking as a shipowner, said that if the
interests of his class had alone been concerned he should
Prefer Mr. Plimsoll's plan: but, in the public interest, he
argued that it would create a feeling of false security, and
that it meat altogether exonerate the shipowners from re-
aponsibility.
Mr. W. E. Forster supported the compulsory survey be-
cause the alternative of the Government must either be
Unjust or ineffective. He saw no difficulty in universal sur-
vey, inasmuch as the Government could rely on much
assistance from Lloyd's.
Mr. Henley, though he had no great faith in either expe-
dient, preferred the Ministerial plan, as it was less worrying
to the trade ; but he wanted to the cases of the Megcera, the
Captain, the Monarch, and the Crimean war gunboats to
Illustrate the difficulty of obtaining evidence as to unsea-
Worthiness and responsibility.
Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Rathbone, and Mr. Sullivan also spoke
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, declared that
the Government had given great consideration to the
two alternative modes of preventing the sending of
unaeaworthy ships to sea, and had deliberately pre-
ferred this in the general interests of the saving
of life. The shipowners were the persons who
ought to know best the condition of their own
Sihips, and ought to be made responsible for their con-
dition. Mr. Plimsoll's plan, he showed, would in time
Place all the voluntary registration bodies under the control
of the State, and the State in the end would be solely
isesponaible.
On a division Mr. Plimsoll's amendment was negatived
by 247 to 110, and the Committee then adjourned until Thurs-
day.
Several other Bills were forwarded a stage, and the House
adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 28, the Duke of Buccleuch,
referring to the report that he was to second Lord Shaf tee-
burrs motion for an Address on the subject of the Queen's
Title, declared that it was inaccurate and that he had held
no communication with Lord Shaftesbury on the subject.
•
Several Bills having been forwarded a stage, including
the Patents for Inventions Bill, the Burgesses (Scotland)
13114 the County Palatine of Lancaster (Clerk of the
Peace) Bill, and the Manchester Post-office Bill, which
• were read a third time, the Duke of Richmond and
Gordon laid on the table a Bill for the amendment of the
Law relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland, which
follows, so far as the differing circumstances of the two
countries permit the lines of the English act on the same
subject, and like that does not interfere with existing leases
or freedom of contract.
—ln the general object and scope of
the measure the Duke of Argyle expressed his acquiescence;
and, after the Bill had been read a first time, their Lordships
adjourned.
' In the HOUSE OF COWSIONe, in answer to a question from
, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Disraeli stated that the last precedent
,lier the Queen leaving the country during the sitting of Par-
,. llainent was in 1172. The reasons for Her Majesty's present
',,elaarture were entirely domestic, arising from the bereave-
Dent of Her Majesty's nearest and dearest relative. Every
jrangement had been made to avoid any inconvenience to
• the business of the Nation in consequence of her absence.
Mr. Anderson asked whether in the precedent, mentioned
_.• °7 Mr. Disraeli, Her Alajesty was not practically absent
' wiring the Easter Recess. Mr. Disraeli replied that notice
Should be given of such a question, upon which Mr. Ander-
Son said he would give notice of it.
In answer to Mr. Sullivan, who asked what provision had
"- been made for preserving the ancient privilege of M P 's to
be received in audience by the Qieen during their delibera-
tions, Mr. Disraeli said that this privilege would not be
„i• affected, as any member would find-a ready access who
• nought an audience at Baden, for Her Majesty was fully
confident that no audience would be sought from idle curio-
atty.
, •
In answer to Sir G. Campbell, Mr. Disraeli said that the
text of Mr. Cave's Report was not yet in the Khedive's hands,
and no request that some parts should be published while
others were kept secret had ever been made to the Govern-
ment. In answer Sir H. D. Wolff, the Chancellor
4- of the Exchequer said the information obtained by
Mr. Care was not obtained solely from the Khedive.
It was no part of Mr. Cave's duty to make a Re-
Port which was to be published. All that he was
'instructed to do was to obtain information for the guidance
of the 'Queen's' :GrOrernnienbirriftP:had intPrVerae,with the
Khedive, in which be obtained informatiOn„aogm .4 which
W 5 intended to be confidential arid acirili WAS -110t;-61 that
• , a 1444)44; o
Character.
Mr. Itylands gave notice that hei would aile.*hether the
Government would advise the Queen to postpone the Freda-
tnatien assuming her ne hw'Tftle until her return to her own
dominions. 4 •
47 Mr. Meldon called attention' to the distinctions between
4-• the Bortmeh Franchise in Ireland to,
in Great Britain, and
rnoved a Resolution declaring that the subject deserves
%, the best attention of Parliamlit, with view to esiablish-
tug a fair and just Equality of the franchise in the
three countries. In support of: it,,h.S.,explained minutely
the complicated rating and' 'assessment qnalificatkus
Which restrict the attainment of the franchise in Ireland;
and he quoted a mass of comparative Etat sties
Showing how much larger is the proporti el of voters to popu-
lation in the English and Sc ,tch towns thaa in the Irhh
• - towns. The returns showed that this di-parity did not ari•e
from the smaller number of houses, but irern the conditions
as to rating, &c.
Mr. Blennerhasset, in seconding the motion, diverged into
Wider electoral questions, such as the re-distribution of seats
and the amalgamation of certain boroughs in the counties.
Mr. "Dunbar also supported the motion, and quoted
numerous figures to illustrate the inequalities between the
• riglish and the Irish franchises, and urge the change as one
Means of contenting the Irish people.
Mr. Drum, on the other hand, advised the House not to
consider this question on abstract grounds, but to inquire into
the latickof persons who would have a Vote if Household

Franchise were introduced into Ireland. In Ireland there
were houses rated at ss. and 10s. a year. He hoped to see
Household Suffrage in Ireland, but not in a hurry.
Sir J. M'Kenna, Sir E Wilmot, Mr. T. Dickson, and Mr.
Redmond suppnted the motion.
After some remarks from Mr. O. Lewis, Mr. D Davis, Mr.
O'Connor Power, Mr. Mulholland, and Mr. OBbaugnessy,
Mr. Gibson. in an elaborate argument and with copious
statistics, showed that by this proposal all the present voters
would be swamped by a class much lower than them-
selves, whereas in England it had only a voice, not a con-
trolling power.
Mr. Collins spoke in favour of the Resolution, as did also
Mr. Callan, Lord R. Montague, Dr. Ward, and Mr. M.
Brooks; and the Solicitor General for Ireland opposea it.
Mr. Batt pointed out that there are only 50,000 urban
voters In Ireland, of whom 87,000 are to be found in six
towns, and if Household Franchise were given to Ireland
that number would be increased to 100,000. The Franchise,
he contended, had been identical in both countries from the
time of King John down to the Union, and in the first Reform
Bill a £,lO Franchise was given to both countries The ques-
tion, however, was not so much the comparative value of
houses as what proportion of the people was to be admitted
to political power, and Ireland claimed to have a right to
the same Franchises as England. Ile claimed for the Home
Rulers that they had once more directed the eyes of the
Irish people to Parliament for the redress of their grievances,
but to reject their demand would be to convince them that
they must look there in vain.
Sir M. Hicks-Beach remarked that the question for the
House to decide was, whether Household Suffrage was to be
introduced into Ireland, and maintained that whenever Par-
liament had from time to time dealt with the Franchise
it had invariably applied different principles to England
and Ireland. Therefore the principle on which the
Resolution rested was entirely a new one. A dis-
turbance of the Franchise must be accompanied by
a Redistribution of Seats —in short, it must be
dealt with as a Reform Bill for Ireland, and this he
maintained ought not to be done without some
deniand for it, of which he contended there had been no sign.
No doubt after a short time it would be necessary that the
Franchise should be dealt with, but they had a valid and
bond fide programme of Irish measures for this and the next
Session, and they did not desire that their hands should be
fettered by having this measure forced on them.

Mr. B:ight asserted that the restrictions on the Irish
Borough Franchise were so great as to be indefeasible,
and not a single argument had been urged which he
bad not heard twenty times from the other side against an
extension of the Suffrage. But as those arguments had been
entirely thrown overboard as regards England by the Con-
servatives, in as little time as it took them to cross from one
side of the House to the other, why should they not abandon
them for Ireland also? The Redistribution of Seats had
nothing to do with the question, and was only introduced
for the purpose of obstruction. Although Household Suf-
frage in Ireland, as in England, might introduce some per-
sons who were not worthy, this disadvantage some entirely
nntweighed by other considerations To extend Household
Suffrage to Ireland would teach the people that l'arnament
was not afraid of them, but invited them to take an interest
in political affairs, and it would produce that beneficial
effect on the nation which always followed just and generous
treatment.

On a division the Resolution was negatived by 179 to 186,
and the narrow majority was greeted with loud cheers by
the Oppositien.
The other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at twenty-five minutes to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 29, Mr. Butt rose to
move the second reading of the Land Tenure (Ireland) Bill,
in favour of which a large number of petitions had been pre-
sented by the Irish members. He had come to the conclu-
sion that until the land question was settled, peace and con-
tentment in Ireland would never be secured. He became
satisfied that the question could never be settled until the
tenantry had security of tenure, which could never be
obtained so long as the arbitrary power of eviction was left
In the hands of the landlords. He gave the statesmen
Who passed the Land Act every credit for what they
had done, but it had happened as he had feared that it
would, and as long as they left landlords the power of evic-
tion under the circumstances of Ireland, no device that the
Legislature could make would prevent them from using
their power as masters and despots. Still, the Act had laid
down the principle that the Ulster custom should be legal-
ised, that tenants had a property in their improvements,
and that eviction should be lineable. Since the passing of
the Act it had been systematically evaded by many land-
lords, who had induced their tenants to sign agreements by
which they undertook to put in no claim for the improve-
ments made by them, and by the increase of rent upon
the enhanced value which the labour of the tenants
themselves had given to the holding. The Irish Land
Act had professed to secure the Ulster tenant, but it
had failed ; it had failed in preventing capricious evictions
and in regard to compensation to the tenant, and he asked
the landlords of Ireland to assist in a settlement of the whole
question. The Bill before the House proposed to extend the
Ulster tenant right to the remainder of Ireland, it took
away the power of arbitrary eviction, and also the power
of determining the rent, and left it to the tenant when-
ever be wished to claim the protection of the Act. The
measure would further amend the Land Act, chiefly
by the repeal of the clause which provided that
when the tenant was rated at over £5O he should con-
tract himself out of benefit of the Act. Every tenant
would be allowed from the chairman of the county
the benefit of the Act, and in such case he would get a cer-
tificate which would prevent evic,ion by notice to quit. The
amount of the rent would be fixed by three arbitrators, one
appointed by the landlord, the second by the tenant, and the
third by the two arbitrators. The power of eviction would
qnly remain with the landlord when the tenant %Wilily corarn
mitted waste, and as a further protection for the landlord,
the tenant would continue in possession from year to year.
In the ewe cf very large farms, power would be given to the
tenant to sub-let, provided that no holding should be less
than 30 acres.
Mr. Clive moved that the Bill be read a second time, that
day six months, and Mr. 11. Hubert seconded the amend-
ment.
• - - -

Captain Nolan and Mr. Al:earthy supported, and Lord
Elan9 opposed the Bill.
The O'Donoghue supported the Bill, and considered that
the measura called imperatively for support from all the
representatives of lrish.constituencies. What was necessary
was security against eviction, because hundreds of thousands
of men in Ireland were living in a state of apprehension of
beitg ruined by being turned out of their holdings by their
landlorcs; the liability of this fate was coustautly present
to the minds of the tenants, and they were tilled with de-
testation of a system which left them at the mercy of their
landlords.

Sir M. flicks-Beach said the Government felt bound to
give their opposition to this Bill. In no reasonable repre.
sentative chamber in the world cunsisting of owners and
occupiers of land and other interests of the community would
such a measure be assented to. (Elear, hear.) The Bill pro-
posed to reverse the procedure of the Act of 1870 with refe-
rence to the Ulster custom, and to deal most unfairly with
the owners of the soiL With regard to the second par, of
the Bill, relating to compensation to tenants for unexhausted
improvements, this was really given by the Leinster leates.
The Irish tenant under the present law was in a better
condition than tenants in England and Scotland. As re-
garded eviction, the present law would render it impossible
for any landlord to carry out any such wholesale scheme of
eviction as that which had been vaguely referred to. The
Elnd Act, which it was not his duty to defend, was never
intended to take away the power of eviction altogether from
landlords, but merely to prevent capricious evictions. The
latter portion of the Bill was practically to take away from
the landlord and put into the pockets of the existing tenants
that rev( rsion of the landlord's property which had always
been considered one of the principal of the landlord's rights.

Mr. Law moved the adjournment of the debate, on the
ground that no opportunity had been given to the authors
of the Land Act to defend a measure which it was sought to
reverse.

Mr. Disraeli said that under these circumstances he would
consent to the adjournment of the debate.
The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed
to.

The other orders were then disposed of, and the Rouse
adjourned.