The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the Houss OF LORDS, March 24, the Royal assent
was given by commission to the Speaker's Retirement
Bill and several other measures.
Lord Stratheden and Campbell having moved an
address to the Crown praying that the statue of the
late Duke of Wellington should be replaced in the
vicinity of Apsley House,
Lord Sudeley explained that a sub-committee of the
committee suggested by the Prince of Wales recom-
mended Aldershot as the most appropriate site for the
statue, and in the general committee a resolution to
that effeet, proposed by the Duke of Wellington, had
been agreed to. A new statue would be erected
opposite Apsley House.
On a division, the motion was rejected by twenty-six
to twenty.
The Habitual Criminals Act Amendment Bill was
read a third time and passed.
Their lordships rose at five minutes to six o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF Comm°Ns Sir S. Northcote having
asked the Secretary for War if he could state when he
expecled to be in a position to make a general explana-
tion ot the policy of the Government in Egypt,
The Marquis of Hartington replied that he could not
remember having undertaken to make such an ex-
planation; while as to the financial question in Egypt
and the military defence of the country to which he
had referred, it would at present be premature for him
to express an opinion. With regard to the Soudan, no
information of a later date than that which had been
communicated to the House had been received by the
Government; but they hoped to be able to make a
further statement some time before the adjournment
for the Easter holidays.

NEW MEMBER S.
Sir R. Peel, who was introduced by Mr. R. Winn and
Mr. Gibson, took the oath and his seat for Huntingdon.
The right hon. baronet was greeted with Conservative
cheers, which were renewed on his shaking hands with
the Speaker.
Mr. A. J. Thornhill took the oath and his seat for
Cambridgeshire, in the room of the late Speaker, amid
Opposition cheers. The hon. member was introduced
by Mr. T. Thornhill and Mr. Hicks.
Mr. W. H. Redmond, who was introduced by Mr.
Parnell and Mr. J. E. Redmond, took the oath and his
seat for Wexford, in the room of Mr. Healy.

THE FRANCHISE BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of
the Franchise Bill being called on, Lord Hartington
moved the second reading, and
Lord J. Manners moved the amendment of which he
gave notice some time ago, that the House declines to
proceed further with a measure which adds two
millions to the electoral body of the United Kingdom
until it has before it the entire scheme con-
templated by the Government for the representation
of the people. In the first place, he repudiated
the claim of simplicity advanced for the Bill, think-
ing, on the contrary, that if all its results were laid
before the House it would be found to be more com-
plicated and far-reaching than any which had ever been
submitted to Parliament. The first effect—as he
showed by the statistics—would be to make many county
constituencies unmanageable, and the anomalies which
the bill would create far surpassed any that now
existed. Mr. Gladstone's remarks on the proportional
representation of the three kingdoms and his fore-
shadowing that the south of England was to sacrifice
seats in order that Ireland might retain her present
number made it more incumbent than ever that the House
should see the whole scheme. According to the present
figures, Scotland had one member for every 64,000
of the population, England had one for every 54,000,
Ireland one for every 51,000, and Wales one for every
45,000. The exact proportion of members, therefore,
would ba 496 members for England and Wales, 71
for Scotland, and 91 for Ireland, and if any part of the
United Kingdom should lose, it ought to be Wales.
But the reason why the south of England was to be
disenfranchised and Wales over represented was that
the one was Conservative and the other Liberal. In
the same way, within the bounds of Ireland, Leinster
ought to part with members and Ulster receive them.
As to minority representation, though with the present
franchise he had no desire to see it extended, if a
gigantic addition was to be made to the constituencies,
those who were interested in the subject ought to
insist that the Government should state its views clearly
upon it. To the plea that these matters could be dealt
with next year he asked how could this be assured with
a second campaign proceeding in Egypt and Ireland in
her present condition? The recent elections showed
that there was no enthusiasm in favour of the bill; but
if the Government thought there was any such feeling,
why did they not appeal to the country?
Mr. Bright remarked that there was very little in
the speech just delivered about the bill, but a great
deal about something that might come, and of which
the noble lord seemed a great deal more assured. The
amendment was a repetition of the tactics of 1866, the
ultimate result of which was the establishment of
household suffrage in boroughs, which at least had this
moral, that the Opposition did not want any conversion
now, having been converted in 1867. If a dissolution
intervened between this bill and redistribution, it would
be the fault of the Opposition. The bill, he believed,
however, had no real opponents. It was drawn with
statesmanlike skill and wisdom, and in favour of
identity of suffrage he quoted from Mr. Disraeli's I
speech in 1859. On the Irish portion of the question
Mr. Bright dwelt at considerable length, urging with I
regard to the franchise the wisdom of quitting the old
lines which had resulted in discontent and anarchy,
and of doing justice at all risks. As to redistribution
he based himself not only on the considerations of
justice and generosity, but on the Act of Union, which
he considered to be final, and nothing, he said, would
induce him to consent to a proposal to diminish the
number of 100 assigned to Ireland by the TlNion.
The debate was continued by Colonel Dawnay, Mr.
Northcote, Mr. C. Ross, and Mr. Mulholland, who sup-
ported the amendment, and by Mr. Baxter, who, while
supporting the bill, dissented from the views of the
Prime Minister and Mr. Bright on the subject of the
representation of Ireland; and Mr. E. Le,atham and
Mr. Collings, who cordially approved of the measure.
Mr. J. Lowther contended that the bill would corn-
pletely extinguish the voting power of the agricultural
classes, and rejoiced to hear, from the speech of Mr.
Baxter, that the Prime Minister would be left in a
minority in his proposals with regard to Ireland. As
to redistribution, he remarked that this was an attempt
to run the House and the country "in blinkers," and
maintained that the Government ought to disclose the
whole of its intentions on this point. He
.argued, too,
in favour of the representation of minorities, by some
scheme which would apportion the power of voting
according to the amount of taxation.
Lord Hartington. who spoke in a thin House,
answering the amendment and the speech in which it
was moved, argued that the necessity for combining
the two branches of the subject was less now than in
1866, because now the Franchise Bill would not create ,
or leave any inequalities in the franchise, and the
facilities for passing important measures were not
greater now than 14 years ago. The Government had
to consider the general arrangement of their businessand
the means to be adopted for carrying the various measures
with which they were charged. The attitude assumed
by the Opposition entitled him to ask whether they
thought the time had come to complete their own
work of 1867, and whether they thought the present
distribution could be maintained. If not, what con-
ceivable object could they have in further delay? But,
admitting an element of reason in the demand of the Op-
position to be made acquainted with the general lines of
the redistribution scheme contemplated by the Govern-
ment, he sqid the speech of the Prime Minister repre-
sented, perhaps not the private wishes of all members
of the Cabinet, but its general views as to what was
practicable. Speaking for himself, he said he would
not be a party to this Bill if it were introduced for
the purpose of establishing equal electoral districts or
destroying the individuality of all constituencies. He
had no doubt that the same methods of remedying the
anomalies which had grown up would be pursued as had
been adopted in previous Reform Bills. As to Ireland,
without being sanguine that the same results of con-
tentment and loyalty would follow there as in other
parts of the United Kingdom from an extension of the
suffrage, he held that to add a few more members to
Mr. Parnell's party was a very small mischief compared
with the risk of giving him a real grievance and the
support of a large body of public opinion in England
and Scotland. The real protection for the loyal
minority in Ireland was the sympathy which they would
receive in the other portions of the United Kingdom,
and there was not the smallest reason for apprehending
that redistribution would not be settled in Ireland on
the same principles of fairness and justice as in the rest
of the country.
On the motion of Mr. Raikes, the debate was ad-
journed until Thursday.
Some other bills were forwarded a stage, and the
House adjourned at quarter-past 2 o'clock.

In the Housß OF LORDS, March 25, the Valuation
(Metropolis) Act Amendment Bill passed through Corn
mittee.

Lord Granville, replying to Lord Redesdale, said it
was proi osed to adjourn for the Easter recess from the-
4th to the 21st of April.
The sitting was suspended, and their lordships re-
assembled to receive and give a first reading to a Con-
solidated Fund Bill from the House of Commons.

Their lordships rose at ten minutes past five o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, at a morning sitting, the
Marquis of Hartington informed Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett
that the Government had no reason to doubt the sub-
stantial accuracy of the telegrams published in the news-
papers with regard to General Gordon's proceedings,
but they had no intelligence concerning them. Any
information which was received as to the facts should
be made known to the House, but for political and
military reasons the Government must be reticent as to
their intentions.

GOVERNMENT POLICY IN EGYPT.
On the order for the third reading of the Consoli-
dated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Lord R. Churchill moved,
"That, in the opinion of the House, it would be in-
expedient to assent to the bill before receiving further
information as to the military operations in the Eastern
Soudan, the position of General Gordon at Khartoum,
and the policy of the Government ill Egypt proper."
He insisted that in view of the recent battles in the
Soudan, and of the commencement by General Graham
of another hunting expedition for Osman Digna, the
louse was entitled to ask what was the object of the
military proceedings of the Government, and he pro-
tested against the manner in which the name and the
flag of England were being used to perpetuate the
odious slave traffic in Egypt. As to the position of
General Gordon at Khartoum, it was now acknowledged
that his mission had failed, and he asked what
was the cause of its failure and what the Govern-
ment intended to do for Gordon's rescue. If
that gallant officer's life was imperilled or sacri-
ficed by the neglect and heartlessness of Ministers
they would not occupy their seats on the Treasury
bench for twenty-four hours after the news reached
England. On the subject of Egyptian finance he
invited the Government to give an outline of their
policy, and declared his conviction that no conclusion
was possible in respect to Egyptian affairs until the
Government had recourse to the concert of the Euro-
pean Powers the abandonment of which had been
their cardinal mistake.