The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-03-07 00:00:00

FRANCE AND BIIRMAH.

Lord Granville, in answer to Lord Sidmouth, said
that the recent convention between France and Burmah
appeared to be of a purely commercial ehatacter, and
he did not believe the reports that there had been con-
cessions of territory by Burmah to France.

THE SEPARATION OF PRISONERS.
Lord Northbrcok, replying to Lord Sid mouth, stated
that arrangerrients were being made to separate seamen
undergoing penal servitude or other imprisonment for
breaches of discipline from ordinary criminals in civil
gaols.
Their lordships rose at ave minutes to six o'clock.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAR.
In the House of Commons,
The Marquis of Hartington, in the absence of Mr.
Gladstone from indisposition, answering a question
from Mr. Gorst as to the policy said to have been laid
down by Lord Wolseley at Korti, said that the Govern-
ment had no knowledge of the speech attributed to
Lord Wolseley, and no instructions had been sent to
him beyond those already made public. In answer to
questions as to the Estimates, he said the Supplemen-
tary Estimates would contain the SUMS to be spent in
Egypt in this financial year not already voted; but
tha remaining expenditure would be asked for in a vote
of credit, and he promised to consider whether the cost
of the railway could be distinguished from the other
expenditure.
Answering questions as to the arrangement of the
Egyptian finances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said he believed it was virtually concluded. It would
consist, he believed, of a convention, a decree, and some
other document, but he was not yet able to say how
they would be separated. The arrangement would. be
made subject to the assent of Parliament. In answer
to Lord G. Campbell, Lord Hartington said that Lord
Wolseley had not expressed doubt of his ability to with-
drew his troops, if necessary, by way of the Nile.
Sir T. Brassey having stated in replying to Sir E.
Reed that the Admiralty had decided not to add to the
armour of the recent ships, Sir Edward gave notice that
on the Navy Estimates he would move a resolution de-
claring the condition of the Navy to be unsatisfactory,
owing to defective administration and the extravagant
expenditure of the sum voted.
THE EXPENSES OF TEE WAR. _ .

On the consideration of the Queen's message relating
to the reserves, Lord Hartington having moved the
usual answer in reply,
Mr. Labouchere moved an amendment protesting, in
the absence of a definite Ministerial policy, against the
expense which was being incurred in the Soudan, and
objected to the militia being called out, seeing that,
whatever forces might be sent to the Soudan, they could
do nothing until next autumn.
Sir H. Maxwell complained that the Guards had been
sent to the Soudan, and maintained that it was unusual
to make use of then except on occasions of political as
well as military importance. He also called attention
to the extreme youth of army recruits, and asked how
it was proposed to obtain reinforcements for the regi•
ments now in the Soudan.
Mr. W. Redmond having suggested that troops from
Ireland and the Irish constabulary should be sent to
Egypt, Mr. Carbutt complained generally of the policy
of the Government in the Soudan, and expressed IYA
intention to oppose them at every step.
Mr. Gorst expressed regret that the offer of the co:a
nies to furnish troops had not been more warmly re,
ceived by the Government, and, after a few words from
Sir P. O'Brien, Sir W. Barttelot discussed at some
length the manner in which regiments had been made
up for the Soudan, and contended that we required a
much larger army for our many operations than si e
possessed.
Colonel Nolan having continued the miyugpittim:
bord Vantirdtrionlkage'd. In reply to Sir H. Max-
well, he pointed out that the Guards, though they did
not take the ordinary round of garrison duty, expected
to be the first to be made use of in any campaign; and,
with regard to the Reserves, he said that they would
not be called out unless sufficient volunteers were not
forthcoming. He also alluded to the offer of troops
by the colonies, and mentioned that inquiries m ere
being made as to the extent to which the colonies could
give assistance should their services be offered upon any
fu.ture occasion.
Sir H. Wolff asked what was going to be done to
secure the relief of Kassala, to which no reply was
given, and, on a division, the amendment was negatived
by 149 to 19.
The Address was then agreed to, after some further
_

_
conversation as to the i'elief of. Kassala, and the
Queen's Message relative to the calling out of the
militia having also been read, a similiar Address in
reply was agreed to.

TILE REDISTRIBUTION BILL.

On the Order of the Day for recommitting the Re-
distribution Bill,
Sir J. Lubbock moved an instruction to the com-
mittee to provide that in all cases where an elector is
entitled to one vote only, the elector may nominate
more than one candidate to whom, under certain cir-
cumstances, that vote may be transferred in the manner
indicated by the elector. In support of it Sir John
went at length into the details of the preferential
voting machinery, maintaining that it afforded the
only means of securing a full and fair representation of
all classes and opinions, and laid special stress on its
necessity to do justice in the case of Ireland.
Sir C. Dilke, in reply, maintained that the one-
member system would more accurately represent the
minority than the present system. He doubted
whether the allegation that it would result in over
representation could be supported, and he pointed out
that the principle had been accepted by many of th I
large towns in the north of England. Turning more
directly to the subject of proportional representation,
he dealt in detail with the arguments advanced in
favour of it, and expressed his conviction that in spite
of his efforts the country had not supported Sir J.
Lubbock in his proposals.
Mr. Leatham cantended that simplicity of voting and
the secrecy of the ballot, which were essential ingre-
dients of a satisfactory election, would not be secured
by proportional representation. He denied that the
present system had broken down.
Mr. A. Grey twitted Sir C. Dilke with having been •
supporter of proportional representation, who while
avoiding any reference to its strong points had attacked
only those which are most vulnerable. He contended
that the system would secure true representation and
a House of Commons which would accurately reflect
public opinion.
Mr. Shaw-Lefevre maintained that minority repre-
Fentation was unfair, and quoted the experience of
School Board elections against it. He protested
against the system being adopted Oh the ground that it
depended too much on the element of chance and un-
duly weakened the majority,
Mr. A. Balfour, although a member of the Pro-
portional Representation Society, declined to support
the motion because the country was not prepared to
accept the system, and if the motion were carried the
Seats Bill would necessarily collapse.
Lord Lewisham spoke against the motion, and Mr.
W. Fowler quoted the opinion of Lord Beaconsfield
that minority-representation would result in the pro-
duction of a stagnant Parliament. Desiring to make
representation as perfect as possible, he held minority
representation to be a dangerous proposition, and
although the system of single • seats had its objections
it appeared to him to have more to recommend it than
this.
Mr. Acland, Mr. Macartney, Mr. Heneage, and Sir E.
Colebrooke continued the discussion, and Mr. R. N.
Fowler opposed the motion on the ground that it would
interfere with the arrangement come to between both
parties during the autumn sitting.
Mr. Ewart and Mr. Cropper spoke in favour of the
proposal, and Mr. Gorst at half-past twelve o'clock
moved the adjournment of the debate. Sir C. Dilke at
first objected but ultimately gave way, and the bill
stood adjourned.
Some other business was disposed of and the House
adjourned at twenty minutes to two o'clock.