The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-06-24 00:00:00

SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1876.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, June 19, Lord Nelson moved for a
Feturn relating to the fund whicu devolved noon_ the Ecele-
clastical Commissioners from the Church Building Commis-
sioners on the Ist of January, 1e57, under the 10th and 20th
Vic , C. 55, and to the churches for which scales of pew-recta-.
have been flied: by the Ece.lestastidal Ce mmissioners etice
1856 inclusive, under the 19th and . 20th Vic., e. 104, or s
aequeutly under the Church Building Acts. The idotlon Was
Agreed to.
A return was also ordered to be presented, on the mot.on
Of Lord Camperdown, showing whether the provishns of
the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1870, have or have not h en
adopted upon the estates helds under the Lords-of Ihe
Admiralty.
The RFport of the amendments to the • Ecclesissti al '
Offices and Fe.a Bill was, on the motion of the Archbishopi of
Canterbnr-4, tecelved and agreed to; and some other busiosss
Lavin'.,; been despatched, their Lordships adjourned. '
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, in answer to Mr. Forsyth, Mr.
'Ward Hunt said the Government would state the course they
intended to take with regard to the Fugitive Slave Circular
after fuller opportunity had been given for considering the
teport of the Itoyal Commissioners.
, The adjourned debate on the second rep:ling of the Eduea-
trion Bill was resumed by
Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth, who canvassed the details of the
Bill in a Conamittee speech of great minuteness, with cola' IS
quotations from Blue-books, dc.c., and concluded by declarlpg
that, though the Bill had many faults, he was for improv g
ft rather than rejecting it.
Ils:rdy, addressing himself first to the complaint mate
,134 ae. previous occasion that no member of the Governm t
[l:ad spoken, pointed out that the principle of the Bill, so ably
xPottnded by Lord Sandon, had not been attacked, and thit
the debate had been one of criticism, in which the Opposi-
tion had been fully answered by independent members. Cori-
menting on Mr. Mundella's amendment, he said that the
Government had come to the conclusion that the direct
compulsion recommended by the Royal Commission was nqt
the best form of. dealing with this question. Moreover,
the point of oneral compulsion was net referred to the
Commission, and they had not taken evidence which
justified them in making such recommendation. The pubic
mind, he maintained, was not ripe for direct legislative coni-
pulsion, and this Bill, following the lines of the Act of 1870,
went as far as public opinion would jastify in enforcing direct
parental responsibility. Dealing next with the Nonconfor-
tnists' objections, Mr. Hardy vindicated with much earnest-
boss and eloquence the claims of the voluntary schools, but
Contended that there was nothing in the Bill which gate them
an advantage over the Board schools. The Bill proceeding
by moral suasion, would be more efficient in promoting
education than if it were surrounded by the terromi of the
law.

The O'Conor Don, as one of the Royal Commissioners,
agreed with Mr. Hardy that they had no authority to recom•
mend universal compulsion, and that the evidence they took
did not justify it. For instance, in Scotland the Commis-
sion found that the children in the large towns there were
not so well edscated as in England, and that the superiority
Of education in that country was a delusion. No doubt iu
the large towns in this country compulsion had been success-
ful, but universal compulsion could not be carried out unless
complete liberty of choice were given to the parents, and, if
means were not provided for the practical exercise of this
liberty, by doing more for voluntary schools.
Mr. Knowles, also a Royal Commissioner on the Work-
shops Act, maintained that the inquiries of the Commission
established the necessity of direct compulsion, and the diffi-
. culties might easily be got over if the House would Insht
on it.

Sir Y. Lubbock pointed to numerous defects in the Bill,
but declined to oppose the Second Reading. Mr. C. S.
Read said, that the objection in the country districts was
„not to good education, but to the expensive machinery
,of the School Boards. The Bill was temperate; it
s'npset nothing, it elected no new Boards, and it would.
Sire all the advantages of direct compulsion with-
out any of its irritating effects. Mr. Richard announced
that on another occasion he should take the opportunity of
raising the religious question, but in the meantime he com-
Dlained of Mr. Walter's speech on Thursday, in which the
oPposition of the Nonconformists was spoken of as being
bated on political and Party motives, and spoke in sarcastic
ha., Mese of Mr. Hardy's defence of religious teaching and
bne cheers by which it was received on the Ministerial
benches.
Ur. Greene gave notice that in Committee he should
divide the House in favour of giving power to read the Bible,.
and Mr. Macdonald spoke against the Bill.
Mr. W. H • Smith argued that the Bill carried direct corn.
Pnislon as far as prudence warranted, and to show that some
../orm of indirect compulsion was needed, he quoted the sta-
s.ltistics of the London School Board. Whereas there ought to'
)P 614,670 children at school, only 470,000 places were pro-.
ded, and there were only 283,000 average attendatices.
' Mr. Forster said that, though he intended to support Mr,
lidundella'a amendment, he should oppose Sir C Dllke's
. 'notion to reject this Bill. Arguing in favour of direct com-
litulsion, he pointed out that out of three million children
--'enaly two are at school. This deficiency of one million
?ccursed in districts where School Boards and compulsory
I,j-laws do not exist; and Mr. Forster went at length
Into statistics to prove that if the compulsory by-laws had
existed in the rural districts, at least half of this defi-
ciency would have disappeared. Public opinion was in
flavour of compulsion wherever it had been put hipractice,
and there anis no chance of any compultory by-law being
repealed. Therefore the time had come when the Government
could afford to be bold, and to call upon the ro,t of the
_country to follow the example cf those districts which had
4uoPted compulsion. No doubt it was a great step to
abolish all work under 10, but it would be of little advantage
if the Bill did not provide that the child should go to echoot
"bile he was not allowed to work, and there ought also to
be provision for education afterwards up to 13. In-
direct compulsion in its way was as great an ntets
terence with individval freedom as direct compulsion:
Running through the provisions of the Bill, Mr. For-
ster intimated some doubs as to the value of the cer-
tificate system, pointed out that the provision as to
industrial schools would be a great temptation tO
negligent parents, and with regard to the enforcing autho-
rity, he expressed an opinion that justice to the Noncon-
formists—whose grievance he did not altogether sympathise
with—required that Boards of Guardians &c, should not
delegate it to Committees, but should discha.rge it them.
elves. The clause as to poor districts Mr: Forster strongly
eprecated, and, in conclusion, he intimated that among
ther amendments he should move that the responsibility of
ducating his children should be placed on the parent.
Lord Bandon commenced his reply by assuring the •lionze
that though the Government would abide by the main princi-
ples of the Bill, they would lend a willing ear to all amend-
ments designedto inake the Bill more efficient or to remove
all sense of injustice. After replying seriatim to the vari-
ous criticisms on the measure, which- he' interpreted as
signifying a general approval of its principle and object, he
said that the Government could not consent to an amend-
ment which tied up the whole labouring class in leading
strings because of the negligence of a certain numbar. The
13111 conabined direct and indirect compulsion, and he
gives various reasons, including quotations from the
three yeas Reports of the Inspector., for holding that direct
compulsion was not doing its work so completely as was sup-
posed. In dealing with the poorest classes, it was necessary
to advance with the greatest caution and delicacy, and direct
compulsion had been pushed as far as was consistent with
Prudence. The Bill steered equally clear of the Birmingham
League and of the extreme friends of the voluntary system
and he believed that in time it would bring about what every-
body desired—that not a child should grow up in this country
without a sound education.
On a division, Mr. Mundella's amendment was negatived
by a majority of 146-300 to 163.
.._On the queition that the Bill be now read a second time
'-'°ing put, Sir C. Duke' insisted on taking another division,
Ilrging as his reason that the Bill could not be amended so
as to remove the objections -from -the, social and religious
Side, The result was that the Second-Reading vras;harried by
a majority of 278-353 to 78.
The other Bills were disposed of, and the House adjourned
at a quarter past one o'clock.
•


In the Ilona OF LOLDS, June 20, the Publicans' Coffin-,
cates (Scotland) Bill was Passed through committee.
_
Their lordship, alio went into committee on the Cruelty to
Animals Bill, and having agreed to the clause prohibiting
Painful experiments on living animals, proceeded to discuss
the third clause, imposing restrictions on experiments cal-
culated to girl pain. . The first of these restrictions was that
the experiment must be performed with a view only to the
advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be
useful for saving or prolonging human life or alleviating
human suffering." This Lord Rayleigh proposed to amend by
expunging the words after "advancement," and substituting
'of Physiological or medical knowledge." Lord Coleridge
denied the right of man to subject animals to torture even
to prolong human life or mitigate human suffering, and
exhorted the Government not to accept an amendment
Which would deprave the Bill of almost all that was valu-
able in it. In opposition to this view of the subject, Lord
Cardwell urged that the amendment was necessary to
Make the clause intelligible and workable, and pointed
eut that under the Act the Government would have to
laY down the rules requiring the use of aseosThetics.
Lord Carron, considering that the measure would be
thereby made more effectual, intimated his approval of the
Principle of the amendment. Eventually Lord Rayleigh
Withdrew his amendment in favour of a proposal' by Lord
Cardwell to insert the words "physiological or medical"
laageorreit";knowledge," and-the words "or of knowledge"
and thus altered, the clause was agreed to.
Further debate took. place on the 6.h clause, relating
t° experiments on cats and dogs by inoculation;
and the administration of drugs. The clause was
amended by the adoption of a proposal of Lord Carnarvon to
allow such experiments where absolutely necessary, but sub-
iect to the guarantees provided in other parts of the Bill, and
to the sanction of tbe Home Secretary. Finally, the Bill was
Paased through committee.
-The Trade Marks Registration Amendment Bill and the
Industrial and Provident Societies Bill were read a second
time, and their Lordships adjourned at nine o'clock.
iThe HOUSE OF COMMONS had a marning sitting, and on
the report of amendments to the Commons Bill,
Mr cross, in answer to Mr. Shaw-Lefevre stated that the
pending Enclosure schemes which had passed the Commis-
sioners and waited for Parliamentary sanction, would be
remitted to their promoters who would have to proceed
under the present Bill.
_ Several new clauses were proposed, but were objected to
by the Government, and negatived on division. Ultimately
the Bill was advanced a stage.
_ At the Evening Sitting, Mr. Peter Taylor, who was inter-
tstpted at the outset by an unsuccessful attempt at a "count
rina," moved a resolution, seconded by Mr. Hopwood, in
_avour of the abolition of floggaig in the Navy. Ile admitted
that the practice, which he described with many strong
epithets, was infrequent, but he denied that there
Was any excuse for retaining it. Among other reasons
for abolishing it, he pointed out • that the men now
combined to talk over their grievances and to corn-
muniote them to ad P.'s, and hinted that the Trades'
Unions might join with the seamen to sweep away the puesis.h-
ment with a force which -could not resisted Moreover,
warned. the Admiralty that if the punish tamed it",would- be impossible to relontnhieen,ews
vere na' d
that it Would be innoossible to check rely 1I
in etrhee;iit avny.
Where it was necessary to infict this punishment,' Mrllayle
ir
was of opinion that it was mostly the fault of the Oilicers;
and, as to mutiny, lie looked upon it as a bugbear invented
to deter weak-minded persons from supporting hie ractiou
Mr. Hanbury-Tracey moved as an amendment that, as
corporal punishment is now retatied only for ffn's which
may imperil the safety of the ship on the high seas, it is
Inexpedient to abolish it. Humanity, he maintained, de-
manded that this punishment should be retained es a deterrent for, the only alternative in cotes of mutiny or
conspiracy to rcrutiny on the high sees was citath. Although
the cat was not in use in foreign Navies, the officers were
compelled to resort to more severe and illegal punishments.
Only bad characters could be flogged, and he denied a1t0...
... gether that the opinion of the Navy, either of effisers or
Men, desired the abolition of the punishment.
Sir William Edmondstone, in seconding the amenCnient;
declared, as an officer who had been afliat fifty years, and
had
Personally quelled a mutiny by ft-going, that it was
'o,Peratively necessary to retain it as a deterrent. If any
Other • Punishment would serve the purpose officers Would
not resort to it.
Captain Price recommended the compromise that floggingis -
the'Navy should be confined, as in the Army, to time of
War; and Captain Nolan, who supported the motion, ad-
mitted that if the cat were abolished it would be necessary
to shoot two or three men down now and then; but that
Would not degrade the to of the Service.
11r. Ward Haut said that if he obeyed his feelings he
!filoold sympathise very much with Mr. Taylor, and should
nOld it a happy day for the Navy when the punishment was
!abolished. But-this was not a matter which could be settled
Jfeeling. Practically; flogeing was abolished on the home
aticinie- .but on the high teas and on foreign stations it
had been found impossible to suggest any punish-
Meht, imprisonment or otherwise, which was equally
efficient The Asitiairalty, it was well known, dis-
couraged . sentences of corporal punishment, and the
!Wit castes wnichhaefoccurred during the past year were all
'or striking ..superior officers—an offence for which the
Dilaishment was peculiarly fitted. At present he could not
is_ee his way 49 any further limitation of the punishment.
AS Mr.
lb Hanbury Tracey's amendment did not correctly de-
Vaere the state of the law, he hoped he would withdraw it
e.allow Mr: Taylor's motion to be met with a direct nega-
ti e Mr. Goachen agreed with Mr. Hunt as to the inexpediency
elatiZelYiabblisaing flogging; which he said all dicers who

~ he
resin- I all,

anqia _

: -

pew-r!ontat .1 Tll6