The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-02-26 00:00:00

COST OF LONDON RIOTS,

Among the Parliamentary papers issued on Satur-
day was the report of the Receiver of Metropolitan
Police on the proceedings under the Metropolitan
Police (Compensation) Act, 1886. The Act provided
for compensation only of damage done on Feb. 8,
1886, and the total number of claims dealt with under
the Act was 281. They were classified as follows:
For injury to houses and shops, 94 claims made
by owners and occupiers, £lll4 Os, Bd.; 127 claims
made by plate-glass insurance companies for
windows broken, £909 us. 3d. • for injury to pro-
perty contained in houses and' shops. 60 claims,
£6916 10s. 4d.; total, £8939 2s. 33. The principal
trades affected were: Seven jewellers, £4446 9s. 6d.;
five wine merchants, £163 10s. lid ; three china and
glass merchants, £347 68.3 d.; six tailors, £212 198.9 d.;
six bootmakers, £l6l 2s. Bd. ; four hosiers, £20395. Bd.;
four carriage builders, £77 9s. 5d.; four cabinet-
maker?, £176 15s. 2d.; four dealers in works of art,
£223 16s. ; three stationers, £234 is.; three hair.
cutters and perfumers, £244 Os. 3d.; eight provision
dealers, £2lB us. 2d.; and 224 miscellaneous,
£2229 is. 6d. The total amount of compensation
awarded in respect of all claims was £7277 2s. id.,
and the expenses of investigation and of administer-
ing the Act were £325 ss. 6d., making the total ex-
penditure under the Act £7600 7s. 7d. The rate in
the pound necessary to be levied to meet thisexpendi-
Lure will be a trifio over the 20th part of a penny.

THE GOVERNMENT AND IRELAND.
IMPORTANT STATEMENT BY LORD
SALISBURY.
The following is the official report of the proceed-
ings at the Conservative meeting at the Foreign Office
on Monday afternorn :
A meeting of the Conservative party was held to-
day (Monday) at the Foreign Office, at two p.m. The
Marquis of Salisbury, who presided, said the meeting
was summoned for the purpose of eliciting a free ex-
pression of opinion from the members of the party.
Having spoken in terms of deep regret of the loss
which the Conservative party and the country had
sustained by the death of Lord Iddesleigh, he referred
briefly to the changes in the Government which bad
followed on the resignation of Lord Randolph
Churchill. He congratulated tho meeting on the,
accession of Mr. Goschen, whose eminence as a stetes-
man and a financier was so fully recognised, and who
had been returned to Parliament by a majority larger
than that of any other member of the present House.
He also expressed satisfaction with the reception
which the new leader of the House of Commons (Mr.
W. H. Smith) had met with, and at his recent bril-
liant triumph over formidable foes. Lord Salisbury
then alluded to the principal questions now before
Parliament. He said that Government had only
taken up the question of Procedure under the pressure
of sheer necessity. The new rules had been most
carefully prepared by a committee of the Cabinet
who sat in the House of Commons. Their leading
idea was that the remedy for disorder lay in an in-
creased trust in the Speaker. That was an ancient
doctrine, and one by which in earlier day i the busi-
ness of the House of Uommons was satisfactorily
conducted. The officer to whom these greater
powers were to be confided was worthy of the
trust, as had been shown by his recent action,
which was marked by vigour without precipitation
or injustice. The Government hoped that without
pretending that the question of Procedure was one
vital to their existence, or that they would resign if
their advice was not taken, their supporters would act
together on the subject. If everyone pressed his own
view it was possible that a patchwork scheme might
be produced, which would have no leading principle,
and which would, in the end, cause greater confusion
' than before. He appealed, therefore, to members to
support the resolutions proposed by the Government,
in the belief that they would effectively redeem from
discredit the councils of the greatest Legislative
Assembly in the world. Passing to the question of
Ireland, the Prime Minister said that legislation
with regard to that country would be proceeded with
immediately after the rules had been dealt with.
He contended that the Government had done
everything in their power with the instruments
at their command. It was impossible for any
one to point out a single provision of the existing
law of which they had not availed themselves. They
were told that they ought to have proclaimed the
National League. It was perfectly open to them to
have issued a proclamation, but unless they had had
a law to enforce it such a measure would have beau
perfectly ineffective. When Mr. Gladstone's Govern-
ment proclaimed the Land League the Habeas Corpus
Act was suspended, r,nd it was in their power to im-
prison any one who disobeyed. The present Govern-
ment had no such powers. They had to act within
the law of the United Kingdom, and that law was. at
present not an efficient instrument for dealing vvii h
the veiled rebellion that had arisen in Ireland. Of
the Irish legislation which the Government proposed
to introduce, part weuld probably be founded upon the
labours of the existing Royal Commission; but the first
business would be to strengthen the present law. He
hoped members would be guided in their consideration
of these measures by the changed circumstances of the
present day. The Land Act had been at work for six
years, and the present state of the country as very
different from what it was in 1881. There were many
who objected to repressive legislation, and the unicn
ought to bring with it united law. But the state of
affairs in Ireland was serious and novel—there was
rebellion carried out by systematised fraud, and re-
commended by the highest among the religious
teachers of the people. In such a state of things we
must be prepared to apply the remedies that seemed
suitable at the present time, without reference to the
opinions that they might have formed on a state of
circumstances which had passed by. In conclusion,
Lord Salisbury confidently appealed for the indul-
gence and sympathy and support of the party in the
most difficult task which ever fell to the lot of a
Government to undertake.
Colonel Saunderson expressed, on behalf of the
Loyalists of Ireland, unbounded confidence in the
Prime Minister, Sir M. Hicks Beach, and the Lord-
Lieutenant, but regretted the appointment of Sir T.
E-monde. He urged that after the first of the pro-
cedure resolutions had been dealt with the Irish legis-
lation should be taken in hand.
Mr. Muntz and Mr. Maclean also urged the Go-
vernment to deal firmly with disloyalty in Ireland.
Sir R. Knightley, Mr. Staveley Hill. and Sir A.
Itollit criticised the new rules of procedure, and ex-
pressed their preference for closure by a proportional
majority.
Sir Arehibald Campbell and Mr. Mark Stewart
spoke upoh the subject of local government in Scot-
land,
Sir Richard Paget urged the Government to take
the question of agriculture into their immediate con-
sideration.
Sir John Mowbray adduced weighty reasons for
supporting the procedure resolutions as introduced by
the Government.
Mr. W. H. Smith, who was loudly cheered, spoke
of the difficulties which would attend any other
method of applying the closure than that framed by
the Ministry. The great safeguard in the proposed
plan was that the motion could not be made by a
member of the House without the sanction of the
Speaker, who was a judicial officer. He trusted that
the discussion on the rules would not be unduly pro-
longed, and that the Unionist party would show that
they were determined to restore the efficiency of Par-
liament. He made a strong appeal to the supporters
of the Government in the House of Commons, at the
sacrifice of personal convenience, to attend during the
discussion of Procedure and until it was disposed of.
Lord Safi- bury, in closing tho discussion, referred
briefly to the remarks of various speakers. With
regard to the closure he pointed out that Mr. Glad.
stone's Ministry had carried that measure in princip'e,
providing that a bare majority, if over 200 in number,
might terminate a debate. The change proposed by
the present Government was a change in the machim ry
by which the closure was set in motion ; the previous
assent of the Speaker being substituted for a state-
ment by him of the evident assent of the House.
There was no change of principle involved, nor any
retrocession from the previously expressed opinions.
The Government asked merely that the legislative
machinery should be made effective, and that the
paralysis of Parliament should once and for all be put
an eed to. He concluded by expressing his great
satisfaction at the readiness which had been shown to
support the Governme,nt."
The meeting then separated.