The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-08-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, August 15, Lord Stanley of
Alderley asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for
explanations of his despatches of the 19th of November,
18go, and the 14th of June last, with reference to eccle-
siastical subsidies in Ceylon.
The Archbishop of Canterbury observed that subsidies
were paid to two bodies of Christians and also to the
Buddhists. One of those bodies of Christians was under the
English Bishop. Since the cession of the island to this
country several other bodies of Christians had sprung up. It
was 110 reason because the latter had not subsidies why a
Christian body to which one was paid, in pursuance of an
understanding come to when the cession treaty was signed,
Should now be deprived of it.

Lord Kimberley explained that the case of the Buddhists
and that of the Christians were not similar. The former
were the possessors of land, out of which the subsidy was
Paid. The endowments to the Christians came out of the
taxation of the country, and were paid to a handful of
Anglicans and a handful of Presbyterians, while a large
number of Roman Catholics, bodies of other denominations
of Christians, and the Hindoos and lilahomedans were
entirely disregarded. He argued that there was no treaty
Obligation in the matter, and that good policy suggested the
discontinuance of the subsidies to the two Christian bodies.

Lord Carnarvon urged that much care ought to be used in
Working out the matter.
Lord Kimberley said five years would elapse before any of
the subsidies would be stopped.

Lord Dunraven called attention to the &Hide case and
to the present state of affairs in Tunis, which he insisted,
WI s very unsatisfactory in respect of our treaty rights.
Though these were not gone in theory, in practice they
Might be broken into at any moment. The supremacy
Of the Sultan had been set aside, and though theo-
retically the Bey was at the head of the Regency, no
one knew in whom the authority really lay. It would be
very satisfactory if Her Majesty's Government could give
an assurance that there was a prospect that the anomalous
state of things new existing would shortly be brought to
a close. If the European Congress was only active when
something belonging to Turkey was to be divided, and
resolved itself into its native elements whenever anything
belonging to Turkey was to be protected, we could
not blame that country if she regarded i as a one-
sided affair. He could not see why her Majesty's Govern-
ment and the Governments of the other Powers should look
tiPon the cases of Tunis and Tripoli in different lights. The
only difference he could see between them was that of those
Places one had a Bey and the other a Dey for its Governor.
tie held that there were elements of great danger in Vie dis-
appearance of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
Alter some remarks from Lord Lamington,
Lord Granville said he could not deny that difficulties
might arise with regard to Tunisian affairs; but a tpresent
they had not arisen. He was not aware that our Treaty
rights had been broken; and, as to the right of
access to the Bey, that was a point with respect to
which there were no Treaty rights, though practically
there was access to him, and the practice had not dimin-
ished, The Interference of the Sultan at Tunis had been of
a Pure nominal character. He was Suzerain of Tripoli
as well as Tunis; and while with regard to Tunis both
trench and Italians denied the Suzerainty of the
')rte, in t '5 case of Tripoli all the European Powers
4titreed t oat the Suzerainty of that district belonged
to the Sultan. Her Majesty's Government would do
• hat they could to remove any difficulties that might exist.
a,_,4weY had already conveyed their opinions respecting
Volt to the French Government, who had given assur-
an ees of a definite character, and he saw no reason for doubt-
'lug those assurances. He knew of no information which he
?Quid give regarding either Tunis or Tripoli that was not to
Pbe found in the papers before the House.
Lord Stratheden and Campbell contended that the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs had not answered the case naade by
Lord Dunraven, and that past experience did not warrant
that confidence which Lord Granville was ready to repose in
the assurances of foreign Governments.
Their lordships, at twenty-five minutes to eight o'clock
burned to half-past eleven o'clock, when several Peers
`eanrned. It was, however, twenty-five minutes to three
ntock before the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was again re-
ceived from the Commons. Their further amendments were
ordered to be considered next (lay ("Pre-47).
In the IlorrsE OF' COMMONS the h.., :pearance of the
Land Bill brought back a large number af members. Both
Bides of the House were well filled, and the galleries, espe-
!iallY the Peers', were crowded to overflowing, and Mr.
"ladstone, who arrived towards the close of "question
hie," was loudly cheered from the benches below the gang-
Ivey on his own side. The questions were nearly forty in
WiUnber, but none of them were of urgent interest, and they
Were speedily despatched.
Before the Orders of the Day were reached, Mr. Macdonald,
%Slid much laughter and ironical cheers, asked whether it
rotild be competent for any member to save the House
Luither trouble by moving the rejection of the Lords' amend-
^uente en masse.
aa_The Speaker replied that, of course, any member could
"'lure that the amendments be considered this day three
It'iaotaths ; but he added that, ; isuccessful, it would lead to
ue loss of the Bill. At this there were ironical cries of
'Move, move."
A ell the order for considering the "Lords' Reasons and
reeildments," some regret was expressed by the Irish mem-
and others on hearing that Mr. Gladstone meant to
Make no general statement as to the intentions of the Govern-
ten,
.t in respect to the Land Bill. The Premier said he
A 4 PUrslle the same course as on the previous occasion,
:P
take the Lords' Amendments seriatim.
Those Amendments were then taken into consideration,
"4 in the first, which related to "English-managed
estates," the proviso was restored to the form in which it
waa returned to the Lords by requiring that the improve-
tents shall be "substantially maintained" by the landlord,
stead of "in the main upheld."
4_Bonie further amendments made by the Lords were agreed
.0 with modifications,
aa°n the next amendment, which permits the Court to
--PaY to the landlord on the first sale any sum he may.have
'trot on purchasing the tenant-right, Mr. Gladstone,
se°4ght he admitted that the latest change had modified its
a_etie, said it raised a principle which it was impossible to
'accept,
a...kfter a few words from Mr. Gibson, the Lords' amendment
disaiNed to.
gal'he Lords' amendment inserting widgeon and teal in the
toale list was agreed to, as was the amendment with regard
seW realimation in Clause 4, though in a different form of
s.
The
se, Lords' amendment relating to the new compensation
hail°was disagreed to, Mr. Gibson remarking that, as it
eaa come back, it was not worth struggling for; and, on
107, amendment relating to the access of the land-
th,;' to the Court, Mr. Gladstone, while objecting to
re- exact words of the Lords, moved others, which
aagnired that the landlord should first have failed to come to
7,:aaareement with the tenant as to what constitutes a fair
;,,,t- Mr. Gibson was of opinion that these words would
liege little difference; but they were strongly objected to by
our,_,. Healy, Mr. Lalor, and other Irish members, who insisted
taaLaa_ tug a division, with the result that the Lords amend-
'flislis amended was agreed to.
The next amendment related to the mode of fixing "fair
f,e...nst='," and as the clause now stood, the words introduced
larraalr- C. Russell ("having regard to the interests of 1and-
.421 and tenant respectively ") were struck out, and a pro-
as inserted on the motion of Lord Salisbury that any
Paid for the tenant-right "should not of itself and
LiArt from other considerations be deemed to be a ground
r reducing, or increasing the rent."
Gladstone now said that these words were a great im-
geTenaent on the original amendment, and the Government,
tivin considered them dispassionately, were of opinion
• at they did not contain any injurious element. He there-
Proposed to accept them, but to restore Mr. Russell's
and the clause then would be amply efficient to pre-
eat theatenant-right being deducted from the rent.
paalir S. Northcote expressed his entire concurrence in the
ea-„aqie Minister's proposal. Mr. Parnell objected to the
Q,'° proposed by the Government, which the Solicitor-
se,"eral defended. After observations had been made by
sea,•eral other hon. members, Mr. Russell's words were rein-
hi the Bill.
airtrd Pembroke's amendment as to deterioration was dis-
ed to, and on Lord Lansdowne's amendment, prohibiting
tatrelition during the first statutory term, a division was
tie by the Opposition with the result that it was
getived by 198 to 86.
arZtliOther division was taken on the provision, inserted by
re'a of exception to the general prohibition against charging
etde T? tenant's improvements, that the Court shall con-
the rt isne rent, the length of the tenancy, and any benefits
elaant may have received.
disctuision ensued, in which Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Law,
q Mr. O'Donnell took part, but in the end the words were
eitatived by 232 to 104.
ea„Aq amendment moved subsequently by the Government
nt-Clating improvements which have been paid for "or
reiZ,r,wiae" compensated for by the landlord, was resisted at
ti;• length by the Irish members. A division was taken
ato e word "otherwise," which was carried by 262 to 93;
de;:, an addition moved by Mr. Parnell, that the time
5g which the tenant has enjoyed the improvements shall
t be held to be a compensation, was negatived by 262
01.
1)29e Mr. Gladstone proposing to agree to Lord Salisbury's
1,1 °vise at the end of the Bth clause, that the amount of
,I,eY or money's worth given for the tenancy of a holding
it.„'"i not of itself, apart from other considerations, be a
aa-altd for reducing or increasing the rent, Mr. Parnell pr0...J.1A
...J.1A
to insert that the received value of the tenant's in-
must be a consideration, but was beaten by 257 to 78,
tithe proviso was then agreed to.
the leaseholders' clause, Mr. Gladstone proposed to
;I"st on it as originally passed, but to insert words which
b Quid bring it into harmony with the judicial leases clause,
La,/ ,eonfining it to leases which may fall in within the next
--""Y years.
411 r. Gibson Made his final protest against what he regarded
al serious inroad on settled principles of law; and a
tovision being taken, the Lords' Amendment was disagreed
by 208 to 100. Mr. Gladstone's proviso was then inserted
Without objection,
e•._The Lords' amendment giving an appeal in any proceeding
ta'as agreed to, with the addition of the proviso, by leave of
aa-41 Court, unless the Court think the application frivolous
vexatious.
ea„Qa the last amendment—striking out Mr. Parnell's clause,
pi:Patiding processes for the recovery of debts, &c., for a
0'1:4 not exceeding three months, pending the declaration
a: Judicial rent—Mr. Gladstone observed that he wished to
reat the mistaken motion that had got abroad that the
inaqae of Commons; was only playing a part that night in carry-
,lt an understanding which had been previously entered
aefarbetweea hon. members opposite and the Oovernrnent in
waeeence to the mode in which the Lords' amendments
tall to be dealt with, and that the House was merely
d upon to register what was a foregone conclusion.
dld not wish to use hard words on thia, the last, night
iteehe,aßill ; but he would very humbly say that as far as he
toa,,aa•--and he apprehended that he ought to be well in-
stscu Gil the subject—hon. gentlemen opposite were
ati, aware wheu they came into that House to-day, nor at
liciaMme during the evening before the proposals were
tak"`"iy made, what course the Government intended to
a,„ with regard to any one of the 21 Lords' amend-
• that had to be dealt with, (Hear, hear.) The hon.
bZhe r for Cork, in moving the amendment which had
taointroduced into the clause in that Ifouao, had urged
15t17,1, the clause as it stood held out a temptation tc the
teaS.„.°4rd, by means of the process of ft. fa., to sell up the
titer.", and so to resume possession of the holding, and
or ,efore he had moved words that rendered it impossible
111:1),e landlord or any other creditor to ta4e that course.
bee- vovernment had accepted the amendment, but it had
he ,?ar,eJected by the House of Lords., lii the circumstances,
the not think they were in a position to persevere with
• "taendment, and therefore he moved that the House do
4e to the Lords' amendment.
Wit r Parnell said that the conduct of the Government in
teibhdraessng this amendment at the last moment was con-
Dtible. (Cries of "Oh I') The statement of the right
iatq- gentleman that no secret compromise had been entered
lica°ae ibetween the Government and the Oppositton was
it eIY credible. (Cries of "Oh 1")
tothz.. Gladstone; I rise to call the hon. member to order.
eontel and my colleagues can sit and hear ourselves called,
of th niPtible by the hon. member unmoved, but it is a breach
he e rules of debate to azsert that the statement of a mom-
this House is not credible.
tras"LSPeaker : The language of the hon, member certainly
-greases the rules of Parliamentary debate,
afr Parnell
would, of course, bow to the ruling of the
aatt7sater, and would withdraw the expression, but he was
Which !l ed that some influence had been exerted in this matter
rahlaad not been openly declared. The right hon. gentle-
shape injeelf was reapansible for the useless and illusory
which the amendmeat had assumed.
tafsr..eGladstone said that the Government were responsible
'-'`.7lt present shape of the clause.
• er some observations from Mr. C.' Russell, !!..r. T.
:or, air. O'Donnell, and Mr. Healy,
tolo. dipsion the Lords' amendment was confirmed by 19
his concluded the consideration of the Lords
amendments, an m
d a Committee was appointed to draw up
reasons in the usual form.
home other was disposed of, and the House ad-
nulled at a r
quarter to three o'clock.

In the ROUSE OF LORDS, August 16, the first and principal
business was the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland)
Nil, the notice paper relating to which was headed with the

rather formidable announcement that their lordships had to
deal with the "Commons amendments to the amendments
made by the Lords to the amendments made by the Commons
to the Lords' amendments, and Commons reasons for
disagreeing to certain of the said Lords' amendments." On
the order being read by the Clerk at the Table, the Marquis
of Salisbury expressed his satisfaction with the concessions
which had been made by the Government, and announced
that he did not intend to offer further opposition to the
measure, which he hoped, rather than expected, would do
a great deal of good to the Irish tenant, and not much harm
to the landlord.

The Marquis of Lansdowne also withdrew his opposition,
and after some remarks by Lord Carlingford and Earl
Granville, the Commons' amendments were agreed to.
Lord Enfield, replying to Lord Strathnairn, said the
Russians were somewhere in the neighbourhood of Askabad,
but he was not in possession of details.

Lord Sudeley, answering Lords Lamington and Efardinge,
said the Government could not at present promise to
have a new building erected for the National Portrait
Gallery.
Their Lordships adjourned at five minuteslo seven o'clock
In the HOUSE or Comm, Mr. Gladstone, in answer to
a question from Mr. A. Elliot, stated the changes contem-
plated in the office of Lord Advocate with a view of reliev-
ing him of his political duties; and in answer to Mr.
Dawson he said that Mr. Vernon, one of the proposed Land
Commissioners, would give up all his land agencies, with
the exception of Lord Pembroke's, which was entirely a
villa and town agency, and would not ho in the least
affected by the Land Act.
On going into Supply, Mr. Schreiber moved that the deco
ration in mosaics of the Central Hall of the Houses of Par-
liament should now be resumed and completed.
Mr. Lefevre said a committee of artists had declined to
recommend the continuance of mosaic, and had advised that
the panels should be filled with frescoes. The question was
not one of urgency, and he doubted, with the difference of
opinion prevailing, whether he could carry a Vote for fres-
coes. The motion was negatived, and the House, in Com-
mittee, proceeded to discuss the Navy Estimates.
After the Naval Estimates had been disposed of, the re-
maining Votes for the Civil Service were proceeded with.
On the Post-Office Vote the claims of the London letter-
carriers were laid before the House by Mr. Schreiber; whilst
the claims of the country letter-carriers were urged by Mr.
Macliver, who, he said, were worse off than postmen in
London. They had no Sunday holiday, and their work began
at 530 a m. and finished at 9 p.m. The first-class men re-
ceived 255. a week after ten years' service. This was Ilse
limit of their expectations. The second-class men were, of
course, still worse off. Rural postmen for 15s. a week had
to travel 18 miles on a weekday and 9on Sunday. Letter.
carriers were not given a pension until after 30 years' ser-
vice, and the duties which they had to perform were so ex-
hausting that very few survived long enough to become en-
titled to it.

Sir W. Barttelot thanked the Postmaster-General for the
reforms which he had introduced in connexion with the Post
Office, referring specially to the establishment of Penny
Postage Savings Banks. (gear, hear.)
Mr. Monk thanked the right hon. gentleman for what he
had done for the employes in the Post °flee and telegraph
service.
Mr. Dawson hoped the condition of the Irish letter-
carriers would not be lost sight of. Their wages in Limerick
and other large towns averaged from les. to 20s. a week.
The condition of rural postmen in Irelami was not far
removed from starvation, their wages in some cases being
only 3s. or 4s. a week.
Mr. Arnold asked when postage-stamps would be made
available for Post-office telegrams, and when indicators
would be placed on pillar-boxes for the purpose of showing
that a mail fixed for a particular hour had been collected.

-
Mr. Faweett said the question of making postage-stamps
available for telegraphic messages was new under considera-
tion. He hoped that he should soon be able to decide the
matter, for he fully recognised its importance. The plan
of using postage-stamps for telegraphic messages would
cause great convenience. A telegram form or post-card
marked " telegraph message" with twelve stamps upon it if
placed In a post-box late at night would get to the Pest
Office at three or four in the morning, and would be sent on
as soon as the telegraph-office should be open. With re-
gard to the question of "indicators," he had to say that as
soon as the department should have obtained the necessary
vote and decided what was the best kind of indicator to
adopt, one would be affixed to every letter-box in the
United Kingdom. The hon. member for Poole, who had
drawn the attention to the condition of the letter-carriers
asked him not to shelter himself under any empty generalities
about economy or the taxpayers of the country. The
hon. member appealed to him to be liberal, but surely he
ought to remember that every additional shilling spent by
the Post Office was taken from the taxpayers, many of
whom wero very much poorer than those whom the hon.
member sought to benefit. (Rear, hear.) A Minister
incurred a very grave responsibility who recommended
an additional expenditure of public money without
having first assured himself that the additional expenditure
was necessary on the grounds of justice. (Rear, hear.) He
had instituted the most careful inquiries into the condition
of the letter-carriers as compared with that of railway-
porterq, municipal servants, and other persons in similar
capacities, and would deal with them fairly and justly'
having regard, on the one hand, to the deserts of the men,
and on the other to the necessities of the public purse. If it
appeared advisable, he should be quite prepared to increase
the wages of the men, and otherwise improve their condition,
and no time would be lost in the matter.

Mr. Daly observed that letter-carriers occupied a some-
what more responsible position than railway porters or
municipal servants.
Mr. Schreiber inquired whether letter-carriers would be
allowed to compete for higher positions in the Post Office,
and whether, in considering the question of increased emolu-
ments and pensions, the Postmaster. General would take into
account the great increase that had taken place in the duties
the letter-carriers were called upon to perform.
Mr. Biggar trusted that the case of sub-postmasters, who
were now much under-paid, would not be lost sight of.
Mr. Fawcett said he was considering the case of the
sorters, and as to the letter-carriers, one of the heads of the
inquiry he was now carrying on was as to whether their
work had in any degree altered since they had gained
their appointments. Of course, that involved the question
of a claim to increased remuneration. As to promotion,
that was a difficult subject, but, without making any pro-
mise, he should consider whether appointments now closed
to them could not be thrown open to letter-carriers. ((lear,
hear.) As to the salaries of sub-postmasters or receiving
officers, no doubt they were small, but the competition of
eligible applicants was often so great that he had much
difficulty in making a selection. His attention had been
attracted to the extraordinary anomaly that if they sent
samples from London to vi anchester, they could send them
cheaper by smding them to Belgium and having them
posted at Brussels than by having the samples posted in
London. This anomaly ought not and should not continue.
((lear, hear.) But it was connected with a much more
important subject, and that was the question of the
establishment of a parcel post. ((lear, hear.) He looked
forward with confidence to the establishment of a parcels
post at no distant day, when parcels of one, two, three, and
four pounds could be delivered at a uniform rate in any
town or village in England, Scotland, or Ireland where
letters were delivered. He should regard this as one of
the greatest postal improvements since the establishment
of the penny post (hear, hear), and as far as he was
concerned no effort should be wanting to establish a
parcels post for the United Kingdom. As to the suggestion
that the weather forecasts should be exhibited outside the
post-offices, his first inclination was to accede to the request,
but on looking into the matter he found there was a diffi-
culty under the Telegraph Act in connexion with the trans-
mission of news. He was looking into the matter, and he
hoped the difficulty would be got over. ((lear, hear)
Mr. Daly complained of the inferior pay of the letter
carriers in Ireland.

Mr. Fawcett said remuneration followed the rate of the
labour market.

Mr. O'Donnell said—Just so, and sometimes it was a little
lower even than the labour market. (gear, hear.) The
departme.nt was characterized by a spirit of general stingi-
ness. He suggested that there should be a little more
humanitarian and less of the economical principle adopted
In the department, and that an attempt should be made not
to regard the getting the extreme amount of human labour
for the smallest amount of remuneration as the highest aim
and object of the department.
On the vote to complete the sum of £1,294,081 for the
Postal Telegraph Service,
Mr. Macliver asked the Committee to consider how far the
Postmaster-General's new scheme for the telegraph clerks
was satisfactory. On some points an act of justice had been
done them, but a total increase of wages to the amount of
£29,000 was no very great sum when distributed among
6,000 clerks.
Mr. Fawcett, in a speech of considerable length, defended
his action and showed that eventually the clerks would benefit
to the amount of £90,000 a year.
The Pbst Office Packet Service, the Customs, and the
Inland Revenue Votes were agreed to.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at ten miimtes to three o'clock.