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

THE DOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. Labouchere asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether he would advise her Majesty to create such a
number of peers as would render it more difficult than
at present for that House to throw our measures
introduced into this House by Liberal Ministers,
and passed by this House by large majorities;
and whether he would submit to the apprecia-
tion of this House and the country a measure
which would insure that in future important bills,
which have received the assent of the representa-
tives of the people, would become law without unneces-
sary delay. He wished also to ask whether it was not
in the knowledge of the right hon. gentleman that
in 1832 the House of Lords altered their intention of
throwing out a second time the Reform Bill brought in
by the Ministry of the day as soon as the possibility of
a large creation of Liberal peers was made necessary.
Mr. Gladstone, in reply, said: The events of 1832 are
matters of history on which I have no exclusive infor-
mation. The hon. member can put his own construc-
tion upon them, as can any other member of the House.
With regard to the first part of the question, I do not
think that anything has occurred which would justify
her Majesty's Government in answering any in-
quiries involving the supposition of advising
her Majesty to create a great number of peers
with the view of influencing the decision of
the House of Lords. In respect to the second part
the same answer will apply. We have no measures
which we are prepared to submit to the House for the
purpose of securing the passage elsewhere of bills which
have passed through this House; but I may say upon
that that I think the first duty of the House of Commons,
with regard to giving greater efficiency for the conduct
of public business, is to consider what measnres may be
requisite to promote its own efficiency, and instead of
taking the beam out of the eye of the House of Lords
to take the mote out of its own.
Mr. Labouchere : Should it he necessary, I will re-
peat the first part of the question at the end of the
week.

The House went into Committee of Supply on the
Army Estimates, and a number of votes were agreed to.
The Elections (Hours of Polling) Bill was read a
third time. _

The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes to three.

THE FRANCHISE BILL REJECTEb.

in the HOUSE OF LORDS, i;;1;7-8:--izr-a Camarven
resumed the debate on the Represe'ntation of the
People Bill. Having made a retrospect of the Reform
Act of 1832 and its results, and of the Reform Act of
1867 and its consequences, and of the position taken up
by himself when the latter measure was in progress, he
announced that, though his own views remained un-
changed, he was prepared to recognise the changed con-
dition of affairs and accept an extension of the fran-
chise; but he would do so only on the condition that
there was a fair distribution of the electoral power.
That was what was asked for in the amendment before
their lordships. The Opposition were told that by requir-
ing it they were incurring the anger of the country. This
was one of the strangest hallucinations that ever en-
tered into the minds of any set of men. How could
the Opposition incur the anger of the country by ask-
ing the country for its opinion on this question? The
matter was in the hands of her Majesty's Government.
Even then, at the eleventh hour, they could settle it by
doing what would be, he believed, in conformity with
the almost unanimous feelings of both sides of the
House. The Opposition did not want to reject, shelve,
or delay the passing of a measure of reform, but to
insure for it that full and comprehensive treatment
which it deserved, and on which they believed the
integrity and prosperity of this realm depended.
Lord Derby did not mean to follow Lord Carnarvon
in his funeral oration over the grave of the bill. He
4sked the Opposition whether the movie at large would