The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-03-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

in the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 6, Lord Stratheden and
Campbell moved for copies of the finnan of the Porte relating
to reforms, and of the Austrian note by which it was fol-
lowed; and Lord Morley asked that the reply of Ministers to
the Andrassy note, and the other communications to which
It had given rise, should be added to them.
Lard Derby stated that the British Government had given
a general support to the Andrassy note, and with some re-
nervation urged its acceptance on the Porte; hut beyond
this they were not pledged, and were free to act as they
might think right, according to their duty and the exigency
of circumstances. He believed that the different Powers
•Jrcre acting in good faith. He did not object to the motion
before the House, and would consider whether the other
'papers asked for might be produced.
The motion was then agreed to, and their Lordships
adjourned.
In the Housn OF COMMONS, Mr. Disraeli, in reply to
lir. W. C. Cartwright, said it was true that a proposal had
been made by the Egyptian Government that the Govern-
ment of this country should appoint a commissioner to act
on the board of a bank to be created with the vie& of facili-
tating an advance of money to the Khedive, but as that
would have involved undesirable commercial relations,
the proposal was declined. Had there been a proposal that,
a commissioner should be appointed to receive certain
branches of revenue and apply them to the redemption of
debt, that would have been a proposal which might have
received full consideration.

The Speaker made a statement to the House in reference
to the resolution passed last year concerning the presence of
strangers. The right hon. gentleman stated that during
the debate on Friday last an bon. member took notice that
strangers were present, and it appeared to him that after the
House had deliberately discontinued its former practice, he
was bound to consider, until otherwise instructed, that the
taew practice henceforth would be observed. Although the
resolution had not been renewed this session, he thought
groper upon his attention being called to the presence of
strangers to put the question in accordance with the terms
O f that resolution, and he now stated the circumstances,
and he asked the House to consider whether the resolution
honld be renevmd.
Mr. Dismal( said he would take an early opportunity of
consulting Me House upon the subject.

On the Third Reading of the Bills for raising the funds for
the Suez Canal Purchase,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that" the
Exchequer Bonds would be raised, falling due at different
periods, bearing interest at 3} per cent. They woad not be
tutted to the market, but would be held by the NatZnal Debt
'Commissioners; they would be redeemed halt-yearly; and
the last payment would be made in 1912.

Mr. Gladstone commented on Mr. Disraeli's answer touch-
ing the despatch of a Commissioner to superintend the 4-
plication of the Egyptian Revenue, and described, in a
satirical vein, the deulties and the hopeless impotence of
in such a position. Such a project could
i hatt, Lite 1-..typtiln (11.41.t.n.tn,,t;
snight inveigle the British public, and watt leaL t, an
interference in the iatoraal govtrnraent oLoy pt, which
-wean: occupy he entire ground. Animact-
-`-'%IF next or the diLourteous dismissal of Sir D.
Lange, he exp.v,--twrs..i hi Q.,. :nion that VI,. enlr' -
toms only a plea-Adel-ht.-4 bee--.1."--pon by M. Lesseps
ak an opportunity for omil-L-41161; and for proving, in
answer to the English Press, that he was master in his own
house. It would be a good test of the great influence we
Were supposed to have gained in the Administration of the
Canal if we procured the reinstatement of Sir D. Lange. He
aaked also for some explanation of the arrangement between
Colonel Stokes and M. de Lesseps as to the surtazo.

Mr. Disraeli protested against the imaginary project
Which Mr. Gladstone had attributed to the Government
W thont any warrant, thus attempting to precipitate discus-
Mon, to the injury of the public service. On this head he
would say no more than that the Government would send
out no Commission either to Egypt or elswhere unless they
believed it to be for the interests of the country. As to Sir
15. Lange, at present he had made no complaint, but the
Government would be glad to protect his interests, as those
.of any other British subject. But he understood that a com-
xunnication had been made by M. Charles de Lesseps to
our Ambassador in Paris, not of a public character, which
induced him to think that Mr. Gladstone had been unne-
cessarlly alarmed. As to the publication of the letters, he
repeated that it was not by inadvertence. Two of the most
important of the five were not marked "Private ana Confi-
dential," and they were necessary to give the House a com-
plete history of our relations with the Suez Canal More-
over, the papers, before publication, had been submitted to
lord Granville. As to the negotiations about the surtaxe,
'Colonel Stokes would be here in a few days, and after com-
munication with him the Government would be ready to give
full explanations ; but he pointed out that any arrangements
Must be provisional, dependent on the assent of the other
Powers.

Sir J. Lubbock criticized the Chancellor of the Exchequers
nnancial arrangements, which, he said, had encouraged
'Peculation and imposed an unnecessary burden on the
the Marquis of Hartington said that, though the papers
Dad been submitted to Lord Granville, he had not been con-
as to their publication; to which Mr. Disraeli re-
Vied that he had not intended to impute any responsibility
ato Lord Granville, but he had the opportunity of object-
to the publication of any of the papers. Mr. Lowe
""'" Mr. Monk made some remarks on the breach of faith
Involved in the publication of papers marked "Private and
~Confidential" Mr. Sullivan intimated that at the proper
°Lille he should be ready to defend M. de Lesseps' conduct;
Slid the Bills were then read a third time and passed.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on the
dirol3' Estimates,
..Fir
mendW. Lawson, seconded by Mr. Richards, moved as an
tati'ament a Resolution declaring that the interests of the
on do not demand an increased expenditure on the Land
arorces. He repeated the question which, as he said, he had
often put to successive Ministers —What is the Army for?
a_dmitting that economy was most unpopular, he appealed
r•the front Opposition Bench to support his motion, if only
.If:how that there was something on which they dif-
aw d from the other side. Mr. Holms made some
()Nervations on the details of the Estimates, and Mr. Hardy
replied to Sir W. Lawson that the Army was intended for
the defence of India, of our colonies, and of our own country,
and also for oftence wherever it was required. Much of the
expenditUre. he pointed out, was intended to prevent panics
and to form a basis for future improvements. On a division,
tile
Re3°lUtion was negatived by 192 to 63, and the louse
Waist into Comniittee of Supply.
The Usual discursive debate on the First vote and the
UMendment to it, proposed by Mr. Pease on Thursday night
that the Army be reduced by 10,000 men—was pursued for
*erne time. Mr. Anderson, though he approved generally Mr.
Hardy's proposals, thought all requizemeuts might have been
"net without increasing the Estimates or the number of men.
Bir A. Gordon pointed out defects in the Mobilization

&theme.Si ck.
-.urnrU again to the tfab-
ject of Indian relief. Colonel Kennard recommended
that the Army, like the Navy, should obtain recruits by
training boys, and Mr. Dunbar criticised Mr. Hardy's mode
.ot dealing with the Medical Service. Lord Elcho, Colonel
North, Mr. Muntz, Sir G. Balfour, and Mr. Shaw Lefevre
also spoke, and, after a comprehensive speech from Mr.
Hardy, Mr. Pease withdrew his amendment, and the First
Vote was agreed to.
Several other Votes were agreed to, and at that for the
Unita the Committee was adjourned.
The Council of India (Professional Appointments) Bill
Vaned through Committee.
The Telegraphs (Money) Bill and the Drugging of Animals
'kW were read a second time, and, the other business having
been disposed of the House adjourned.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, March 7, Lord Granville referred
to the statement made by Mr. Disraeli in the House of
Commons on Monday, in reference to the publication of
oertain letters from Sir Daniel Lange, marked "private and
confidential," and asked Lord Derby to say whether any
recPonaibility rested on him for the publication of those
letters.
Lord Derby replied that he did not hold Lord Granville in
any way responsible for their publication, though he had the
Opportunity of offering suggestions with regard to any por-
tion of the correspondence, the &publication of which he
might have thought would be injurious. The letters in ques-
tion constituted the only record of an important transaction,
and were regularly registered in the Foreign Office. Such
being the case, he asked whether the responsibility of the
Government would net have been extremely heavy if it could
have been said with truth that, while professing to lay the
Whole of the correspondence respecting the Suez Canal before
Parliament, they had suppressed the letters in question,
Which were not private in the ordinary sense of the word.
Lord Granville said that if he had suggested the omission
Of this correspondence, it would probably have been inferred
that he was afraid of its publication ; but he declared that he
Wsus entirely without responsibility ;in respect to the publica•
tkon of the documents.
On the motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Select
Committee on the Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees Bill was
tominated.

Lord Cardwell, in presenting a petition from the general
body of Protestant Dissenting ministers of London and
'Westminster, praying for the immediate and unconditional
LWithdrawal of the Admiralty circular relating to slave re-
ag, Pets discussed at some length the policy of the instruction,
watch he condemned as wholly unprecedented and uncalled
lot
The Lord Chancellor explained the circumstances which
aad rendered the circular necessary, the policy and
?mince of which he defended in a speech of consider-
able length, insisting that it did not violate the prin-
Dle by which this country had been so long guided
-U reference to slavery and the slave trade. In con-
cluding, the noble and learned lord remarked, with
/regard to the suggested withdrawal of the circular, that if
that were done it would leave infinitely more stringent
legUlationa in force; and that a step was about to be
taken which might hasten the time when it would be the
IdelthlY of England to consummate the overthrow of that
uefarious system which had been at once a curse and a dis-
grace to humanity.
after some observations from Lord Selborne, who had
heard the latter part of the speech of the noble lord
With the greatest satisfaction, because it showed that
he at least had no sympathy with any retrograde move-
ment in regard to slavery, Lord Derby said that as
there had never been any authoritative rule laid down on
the subject with which the circular dealt, he saw no better
starting point for an authoritative declaration of the law
than the appointment of a Royal commission. The second
circular set forth the existing law, and while the Govern-
bunt Were willing to admit that 'that law might be im-
Eli9ved, they declined by hasty measures to shake faith in
"Qternational obligations.
The
debate was continued by Lords Coleridge, Lauder
alld Hatherley, and in the end the petition was ordered
0 on the table.
The Exchequer Bonds (£4,080,000) Bill and the Consoli-
dated Pend (£4,080,000) Bill having been read a second time
_and passed through their other stages, their lordships ad-
JOUrned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Disraeli, replying to Mr.
Samuelson, said he was not prepared to state what was the
addition to the Royal titles which her Majesty's Ministers
bad advised the Queen to take in the event of the passing of
the Royal Titles BilL
Mr. Samuelson gave notice that in consequence of this
reply he Would move an amendment to the second reading
If the Bill.
Mr. VC Cartwright, w,ho was seconded by Mr. S. Lloyd,
llama for a Committee to inquire into the p system
resent s • ternof
levying the Customs' Duties on the Wine. 'this, they argued,
Was the only mode of leading up to a remedy of the anomalies
and injustices of the present system, on which Mr. Cartwright
dwelt at some length, and Mr. Lloyd insisted that it would
not in any way injure the revenue.
Mr. Bright, in supporting the 'motion, said that while he
Was at the Board of Trade he had taken pains to inquire into
the subject, and had come to the conclusion that the apper-
hensions of the Customs that the revenue would suffer were
gretusdless and merely traditionaL If the desired change in
the alcoholic standard were made it would enable us to offer
a Commercial Treaty to Spain and would greatly increase our
trade with the Peninsula.
Mr. Bass held that it was quite impossible to maintain the
duty of 10s. per gallon on British and Irish spirits if strong
Wines containing spirits were allowed to come in at a shilling
Per gallon.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, though thoroughly alive
to the advantage of increasing our trade with Spain and
t.
sw
Portugal, held out no hopes of his assent to a ,Commi
e. which would only disturb the trade, and would
elicit no information not already in possession of the
Government Discussing the general question of tariffs,
Sir Stafford expressed a hope that ultimately all complaints
of this kind would be remedied by a general agree-
'tent among nations as to the bases of their tariffs.
Alter some observations from Sir J. M'Kenna, in opposi-
anion to the motion, it was negatived without a division.
The O'Donoghue next moved for a Select Committee to
quire into the case of the depositors of the late Tralee
'slayings Bank. He was seconded by Mr. H. Herbert, but, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer opposing the motion, it was
aegatived on a division by 133 to 64.
Serjeant Spinks called attention to the operation of
the Railway Passenger Duty, the history of which he related
tst length, showing especially how its objectionable character
hal been aggravated by recent decisions, which have ex-
tended it to all trains carrying third-class passengers. He
wel_._t also on the embarrassment caused to the managers of
1441/174 Intim arrangement of their time-tables, ike., and