The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-04-10 00:00:00

dt
.1111.
CATURDAY, APRIL 10, 1875,

11VIPERIA1 ' P. ARLIAMEFT.

6, rhe ROUSE OF COMMONS reassembled on Monday, April after th of
itho
e Easter II olydays. The main business e
~v_ening was the Are iy Estimates; but, before going nt
wf,ottiiiiii
thiteterse;eral u lotions of general interest connected
In
were ilisposed of.
ARTILLERY OFFICERS IN INDIA.
ArCtolonel Jervis cal led attention to the position of certain
th.illerY officers iss India, who, though they have received
ovel
Casi,tasnk of Major , only draw the pay and allowance MI; "''s• Sir G. Bi afour supported this appeal, condemning
r l PettY Modes sof effecting economy, which ought to be
tnted by reorganization. Mr. S. Cave pointed out tii
113
WaB a O i
uestio 1 which affected the finances of India tas
it
e°111(1-not he settlrldvwithout communication with the Go-
verattent of India.
Tnx 41,
, WOOLWICH SYSTEM" OF RIFLING LARGE GUNS.
aPtain p •
'le nee Pitt a series of questions to the Surveyor-
neral as to the manufacture of more H-ton guns, and
walsht with referenco to the trials of the 35-ton guns; after
ett 11' CaPtain Nolan, in an interesting speech, called
it,ettion to the resent exceptional position assumed 3
'ZdieoCntry hi et,ntinuing the manufacture of muzzley-
Mafia, g,iuck Tliis resolve of ours, Captain Nolan
aff th—e•., showed great hardihood, because, as he showed,_.
the United
Btate e ether military powers, Including
tthe a; had pronounced for the breech-loader, especially
thatc exposed to the pressure of war. He admitted
left qll4alitY of Material and destructiveness must be
bath
su.s, et
t
he comparison, as being common to
loads_reterce, but the advantago he claimed for breech-
the le" was the the
cover for those who used them and
he donger enditrance of the glum. The question of celerity
insist upon, as he admitted that it was a debateb e
uaTer,s, Discussing the various reasons which had induced
of ealLeclate ourselves he surrinFed that one was the failure
breeee.jvc Arinstrong' system, which led us to condemn
einioaders altogether ; and another was the 1)
14,‘..u.e... eats of India. Among other objections.e to the
aa."f:l.aloaders he pointed out the impossibility f taking
assive42.l.ge of foreign artillerists, and, sooner or olatewr,aahae
a„,:le? that the adoption of a breech-loading system
1.07—a mere matter of time. .
Itteiid X Cecil, replying first to Captain Price, said it wa
35.te„ e° to n Mufacture more 81-ton guns, and as to the
Neu— o, the an
work it had done was so superior to the
toe sangie lif.tia°elPle. The question raised by Captain to Justify the manufacture of largerg
an
guns
Nolan
Was no tyet
the re.. rlPe for further action. In 1858 we had gone in for
bat trliala,cture of breech-loaders at considerable expense ;
ceeseii 6,5' cad proved a failure, and we had gradually
ratir,Z,_,_Manufactur them. We had now adopted the
Ports —..°4chlf? system') in deference to the unanimous re-
from 'L. C aeries of Scientific Committees which had sat
rat4radylaryelon.ionrathe Army
tee, .ce to 1811. He pointed out that in our case it was
MC:Reportandf NavythsyesteDmirsetcotobre-Giednenertaiclalof
which was decidedly decidedly in favour of
foreivei's"ing• As to the apparent unanimity of
ilisn,,, ,_Dations, he hinted that the success of Ger-
batia t°,, the late war had been too exclusively attraks
tliaheeii-; tiller breech-loaders, and other countries hd
40 read the system without sufficient examination.
sees„,,A .0 ?Pinions from foreign military criti which
Tln' dicate that they were not so completely
Years ae-mPP type. Moreover within the last iv or ten
raores_ _ (Clorrnous sum on muzzle-loaders, and this
supe.„,nflelther the House nor anybody could say that the
fere;;T.l c.l biTech-loaders was so confirmed as to Justifya
at tveZalcahll this expenditure. At present artillery opinion
I Lercl El was
quiesce
2atler w Cho remarked that as regards cover the breech
'an re aa deeidedly superior •, and Mr. Campbell-Banner
tiade Minded the b House that at the time the change wa
Nato the Rouse
in the Navy had failed so corn
IsitYlias to create almost "a scare."
attd,_ shaardY Maintained that as regards durability, rapidity,
„eeen %laic, sItY, the superiority of the muzzle-loader had
Lee eo„,,_ mused by' the Scientific Committees. Moreover,
teand latZtrY would have spent £4,220,000 in garrison.t
rtitiZeglinct ewohit the muzzle-loading system. However, i
11 of th ~.... must always engage .the constant at-
e w ar OffICO.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
IVlThole 11.13°1e then went into Committee of Supply, when the
Mihtl34°4 the A
et. —MY Estimates (with the exception of the
,411.4 few l
__,
which was postponed) were agreed to, as well
'alictissie,‘"e on account. There was the usual desultory
oat et a .., 0/ each vote, but the only division taken aroseVete__ Motion to strike out of Vote 9—the Commissariat
eari.„,ao item of £4,750 for the Police Expenses of
wai,"aga_ont the Contagious Diseases Act. The item
aharPel"‘"med 13Y 62 to 18 The Secretary of War was
of tiat, attacked by Colonel Alexander for the appointment
the hea?
of elaughten to the office of Chaplain-General over
there w a many military chaplains of long services, and
tite karattalso. a long conversation respecting the success of
the
PePette f7lllenrY rifle. Lord E. Cecil read most satisfactory
the exce4cl°t various stations as to the success of the arm,
troops. Practice made with it, and its popularity with
kid se,„,-"-ce MUtiny Bill was passed through Committee;
Progess ~,,,,a
lances r
Dm s made with the clauses of the Explosive
'outlay „iff'u• The remainder were postponed until next
clanaes ‘lll--,chen Mr. Cross said he expected to be ready with
The
le ,
lerbum would Satisfy the trade.
i— od
nese was disposed of, and the House ad-
Minutes past one o'clock.

14 the NOTICE OF MOTION.
too notj '3l/" Ov COMMONS, April 6' Mr''- aughneasY
'- o Rh-
of ed,„,,,e,e, that on the 4th May, to call attention to the state
Ireland, and to move a resolution. .
~ bir x ii. BREWERS' LICENCE DITTY.
Moved a Resolution
.declsar_ g
it incidence and
!light to -"V_elice is unjust and unfair in that the
'4'lglia ' "' rePealed. In the outset he . trawcchdeethiet
IN rof the Tax to the Budgets of 1862, n
leitb'Vlosed at the rate of 3d. per barrel, in connexio ktltef,.`n.e Introduction of light wines, and as a sub-
/lop Duty, on the calculation that each
1%4 h, beer contains 2 lbs. Of hops, at lid _ per lb.:
tile ~,_wite showed how the expectations as to the fall in
tile el'ilic,,,? of hop; &,.,
th
Which had appeared to justify
e T.:tea then Made, had entirely failed. T
ant til'e'.. dbeen gradually to extinguish the !smahlle effect of
bmreuweheresi
tise.a„,,linltoln4 paid by them was nearly
Proot;lo'lai, levied from the large brewerst.wice Amongas
whose
beer 14,4 ;IA Unfairness, he showed that the poor man,._
ma
who trit nosed "of the hop, paid as much as the rich other
ereatea IA the best article, and he dwelt on. the injustice
MN, 0.1 the iminunity enjoyed by large private brewers,
to th
inteel;;'arruers, Colleges, &c. He objected also
he
rsaint4ance With the processes' of a trade,
and „ Ded was a reversal of recent commercial INevgislation
the j,:re` Political economy, and argued that to promote
tlut
Dohlt Zing of good beer would promote sobriety. On this
e, othas read to the House statistics tending to show
tile
_"na consumption of beer has not increased se much as
inerevaesna lirePtion of wine and spirits. Allowing
irlsan 3P ..?: DoDUlation, ecc., the consumption of beer the
rhas
lite riagur cent. since 1862, while the consumption of brandy
*hue th 168 per cent., and of wine 137 per cent. Moreover,_e
otbe,r e revenue from wine remains the same, the drinkers
ile insiiir,l 46,,200,000 snore. It was a consumer's question,esu
lin hiterio; wuci Paid the Licence Duty by havingtoeome
" said th artlele : and in touching on possible substitutes,Zicelice, e brewers would not object to a Registration
atltillee Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his
regret
01 hi* absence of Sir W. Lawson, who had given notice
No,- AbtelltiOll to ravve the 'Previous Question," more
r4eting thla
w"a8417 ex he thought that was the
.proper mode of
o tion. But, as Sir Wilfrid Lawson was
_
reoprreeeN, the Chancellor said he would conclude by
tot UR the kre,,ai
--"mla Uni Question because, though he could ture,_e With Ilr. liolm th'et the Tax was essentially
theelle4niudeeneaearaitted that he had said much about
of the Tax and other Points which()
14 ii"; onsideration. He objected altogether s t_.
Decedebtlat a history of the Tax. The Hop Duty wa.re
att,th, 'ause of its inherent and ineradicable objections,u_
sti, . Licence Duty was imposed, not as a temporary sub-
Op ,441111 big to,_ prevent the Revenue suffering from
-14013 Duty. I fact, had the old Hop Duty
while ''" liro it would .havue realized last year £487,000,
tg.„l4o.ll:_,,,,yintliseitie yitteheledurof tuheiLic,ence Duty last year was L 448,000.
174:tee
eofrrhinos amr liTt e iiiltrehe
;lute tocatkiiee7 occurredntedhaodutththeeaet
been imgossed,g and the gradual extinctwioans
Poi
ewers had nothing to do with them, buteem.
nfluence of'capital and the improvement of
oreteers jr. As to the exemption enjoyed by private._
traall 4,, Was absolutely insignificant. Undoubtedly, the
brewer
..wer did pay a larger sum per barrel than the larger
lu the tW h' „,_' and he admitted, too that there was inconvenience
o D i,'''4,ea at Which the duties were collected. On these
cellei;t3fo-"'"-tbe graduation of the scales and the time for
to Died n---,WithoUt going now into particulars, he was ready.
li
Government that modifications should be pro
,tloa, taa-tttalleTacX Was°llld not
'a uealt With by abolitionsoot
e.
forss essentially
i moment
t-a 11y unjust that it could only
...After so
taelided „rae_pbservations from Mr. Sullivan, who reCOM-
tuja
wi,,a,stie vnancellor of the Exchequer to tax beer, spirits,
tteri3O,7' eqUally on their alcoholic strength, and 31 ._
be at.e.e3tedWhio Urged that the offer of the Government should
11-t 01.1-
had taken the wise course, and he was also
his ot the t, —,sLone expressed his opinion that the Chancellorl
tilspeurzeueatierso
the
_,I to ao,
Qua+. —ee With him that the tax might be modified in
aboaDiti_ -. indicated. But he could not consent to the total
he hatil of this or of any other tax as a general rule,unless terterig fila his Power to comider it in connexion with_
ere
?alight , '-wancial arrangements of the year, because the
there
another tax better deserving repeal.
T 4, b den opposed the motion,
air. Piet
becau he thought he
10o1.4011:,'g itnposed as nearly as possible at the consuming kr.•t as folinded on just principles.
se t
4act 14.444 enlarged on the unparalleled injustice of the Tax;
Siee. rftthbard also objected to it, as a Tax upon a profe
The g
vraile,,,,L:Aise then divided on the "Previous Question," which.
Oat. -"eel bY 203 to 83; Bo that the Main Question was not
Bot
4°141)41'8 ACT (1871) EXTENSION AND AMEND'
Thii MEET BILL.
I.l°l"ars ,ict (1871) Extension and Amendnti.;..ennt
hoe,. ~.p. assed through Committee after some opposi i__
lirattliM,Janies, which was withdrawn after Mr. W. it
tade t;„;„' assitred the House that arrangements had been
.larion, eeelire that there should be no stoppage of business.t
"AlUre thn,_ endrnents were made the chief of which was. to
tstiehact'lLo_lYdays permissive at the Docks, and to deprive
"al rinctri.,_`4 iLivenue Departments of the Queen's Coronation i
Ridera,,,,kte Prince of Wales's birthday as holydays, n con-
ittpopaun of the Lew
-lile,es-aerit ot The
Bill,
ethetywt a h
will get. Mr
t
. applied
rlieNore stwrooed,
,__l4°Pr',2„luell was rejected'r p°B92a that
to 14. Sir John Lubbock
iNa7tht_i_rieweditaht_m_thetliol b
ydayy, the 28th of June, which was
az a iu! ut Division. but it was agreed that the
M
'etir r, When it is a onday, should be regarded
Yday.
'4t. C.,eritto..l`l4lA/istiNG SCHOOLS AND SHIPS BILL.
I.lPil Liq
~ edford Pim withdrew the Training Schools
_an.de
t_e cremi„u_ll an. appeal from Mr. Cross, who objected t_
-`4, reined uu of a third class of training schools, and offered
l're'!-OriteertehneY defects in the Industrial Sghools.A.ots which,
th'thek,.. establishment of such training ships.
bY CaDZtutde Marine Hospital Service Bill--also brought
PAlttl '''' n Plin—was postponed for a week.
414rksTArty
The ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS)
tot r:nett b,,,, BILL. X
karn,`,Rillathr,;"!esa was the bill introduced by sir Jafoer
:Jamess
Ragsegent4,..' ~,,he fees payable to Returning Officers
it _
ite,„, tor ii,.! t,lections. The house, however, was first eniillpeal:tittai°
ti 4 111;),tdwoh ho.nrs or more in the discussion of a
Kely to saki y air. Fawcett, to the effect that no
e't lititAre'llic-• with the expenses of Returning
cluqe. tsiti,teitnose expenses which does not.
inteOffirecsetrtshies
eAlen.,,iu ail, 0 economy by relieving candidates, of the
tt r p
4000
tortiiihetle:vretrO:intheies Resolution, Mr. Fawce
the,l°'inentii`gninents and illustrations which he has urgedproposal
.n
he first made the proplo
14.4 1867 to charge the expenses of
the C. Anderson, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. 3elruean d
..e 1.. 1.. a. IL ;a.....seollution ; While the Solicitor-Gene t, ?lit
elections
s
and 8i William Harcourt opposed 4 eo4,,negatlved by i6O to 40,
and the Bill then
1,, 'nuilttee, with some trivial amendments.
' was disposed of, and the ,ii-ouse ad-
In t, : to one o'clock.
;141(1 eh.
~e •
'nay'

4 -
1111 b
Z°4°tted
1,14::44B1r `
Th' th'tio"
10u,4 ohligh
been
kt
'lll4l,i'eks
the
eOll3,
hit, or,
' Ito 41111,
. Ntl, triEs
nee the
ley°l43,

April 7, the Intestate Widows
“, for the introduction of which
Previous evening, was brought

a
L DILL.
Rill
st!ti.. vorßyth in ,
Eyi0vA.,,,,...
of
i this Bill,
t° eeellitith" 4 'cont—aint the second rea(-2.'d'its obje.ctetion
of bae4:,' WoMen, if the., one clause, and
ano,...:_staers of parha,e,„ ; rate-, -7
propose, however,
t ., have a
Rrealjn
,rried womeZ i'ol
~[t did notone could have
he
had, `.„,°olection to the v r
‘, sate, for
married wome.n.onaliflca-
tion 4°for thee
an!? till, therefore ' 14 of maemove the di',ould re-
ra.sve tillmtilli frooi diaatiri?s,l.llrltnoeLrus.
t but 1
disability of sex. He
'e
to
thiet" t4ii
itlfl2ation arising froin disabeilearly, because
as aia4
evhevaboer a
g';'ealttualii.4rceotn7ucisivoenr3;vith . regard
nesthe late
tnenaber fo, Ltelet43lthgetit a'ffetitleinan as Mr.
, j
against the bill
rbateles° „aft?:
it would
- aia coßiel:t women
Were its 44,—"ned women a Vat mtaintafned that women they
en
LY elltitled to .the francilig9 " m

possessed the necessary qualifications, and he denied
that the question was, in any sense of the word, a party
matter. At present there were six classes of people
excluded from that share namely, paupers, crimi-
nals, lunatics, minors, idiots, and women and of those
the only classes permanently excluded were the two
last, for all the other four classes could regain the franchise
by a change in their condition. In a country which was
governed by a woman, and where women were so emi-
nently -fitted for the discharge of the most important duties,
it was absurd to contend that women were unfit to vote for
the election of members of Parliament. He referred to the
large number of distinguished ladies who supported the
measure, and, in reply to the ridiculous argument advanced
by some that women ought not to vote because they could
not serve in the army, he declared it would be just as
reasonable to say they should not vote because they did
not smoke tobacco. (Laughter.) He did not contend that
the brain power of women was the same as the brain
power of men—he admitted that the average brain
power of women was not so great, bu that was not the
question involved. The real question was whether women
were so inferior to men, and so incompetent to form a
judgment on political questions, that they were unfit to be
entrusted with the franchise. It should be remembered that
the members who were elected were not mere delegates,
bound to vote and speak in a particular way, but men
of ability and character, in whose judgment the electors
had confidence, and, therefore, no very heavy de-
mand was made upon the constituency. He re-
minded the House that they would stand on a high van-
tage ground in refusing what was wrong and unreasonable
if they first granted what was reasonable and right, -and
on that ground, as well as on the others; he asked them
to pass this Bill. He denied that it was an ultra-radical or
revolutionary measure, and declared that if it were rejected
the result would be a widespread discontent. Of this they
might be sure, that the agitation would never be set aside
until the unjust restriction was removed. That it would be
removed sooner or later he had not the shadow of a doubt,
and if so it was better sooner than later. He asked the
House to pass the measure because it was right, just, and
expedient to do so.
Mr. Chaplin thankea Mr. Leathern, who had given notice
of opposition to the Bill, for giving him precedence, and pro-
ceeded to move the rejection of the measure. He said that at
the onset he regarded the question as one which was not even
worthy of serious consideration, but when he found many
members of the "lonia supporting it, and when he also found
the leaders on both sides giving either an absolute or a
qualified adhesion to the principles of the measure, he
was no longer prepared to deny that it was a serious
question, which deserved the anxious and careful atten-
tion of Parliament. He protested against the Bill on
the ground that it would introduce a political revolution
In social views, and he strongly objected to such political
quackery—such an experimentum in corpore val.—with the
settled and well understood constitution of England. There
was no necessity for any such measure, which was simply
another attempt to disturb and enlarge the existing fran-
chise. It was, in fact, in the nature of another Reform Bill,
and it proposed to add an indefinite number of new voters to
the boroughs and counties of the country. As to the main
argument in support of the Bill, if the fact that a woman sat
on the throne, that women paid rates, and that they sat on
school-boards, were an adequate reason for giving them
votes, it would be a still stronger reason for admitting them
to seats in Parliament. (A laugh.) He concluded by moving
that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
After remarks from Mr. Leatham and Mr. Smollett, who
opposed the Bill,
Mr. Stansfeld said that he supported the Bill because he
considered the present state of the law to be unjust, uncon-
stitutional, and demoralising, and that upon the ground of
expediency it was desirable to satisfy the reasonable demand
which was made upon the subject, and to bring new influences
to bear upon the representation of the county. Many of the
objections to the enfranchisement of women which had been
urged in past years had now entirely disappeared, especially
those of the unfitnes of women to enjoy the franchise.
and the blow which their admission would aim at the
stability of free institutions. The last argument was mani-
festly absurd and unreasonable, but as to the question of
unfitness, although women might not be fitted to become
legislators or to fill various other functions, it must be borne
in mind that they now enjoyed votes in parochial and other
matters. He contended that no distinction could fairly be
drawn between the local and the imperial franchise, and that if
women were fitted to exercise the one they should not be
under any disability in regard to the exercise of the other.
He also denied that the demands in this respect were
merely the stepping stones to something further, and he
believed that the persons who fairly considered that
they were at present aggrieved would be satisfied
It Parliament would make the concession now claimed
He quoted statistics to show that there were upwards of
two-and-a-half millions of women—widows and otherwise—
who were obliged to maintain themselves by their own exer-
tions, and many of them to enter into direct competition
with men with regard to labour. Out of six-and-a-half mil-
lions of women three millions were supposed to remain at
home as wives and daughters, one million to be provided
with the means of support, and the remaining two-and-a-half
millions to support themselves by their own exertions.
Mr. B. Hope, strongly opposed the Bill, which was sup-
ported by Mr. O'Sullivan.
Mr. Newdegate declined to be a party to any measure
which had a tendency to sweep away the distinction which
now existed between the two sexes. He added that so far as
the House of Commons were concerned they needed no
woman to teach them their duty.'

Mr. Jackson spoke in support of the Bill.
Sir H. James opposed the measure, and urged that if the
Bill passed it would be impossible to refuse to women equal
electoral rights with men, and he read a letter from Mr.
Jacob Bright stating that the measure was not altogether
satisfactory, and could only be regarded as a stepping-stone
to something more. It was, he said, a political career that
was asked for on behalf of women, and he contended that
they were as practically unfitted for such a life as they were
for service in the army and navy. If the Bill were not re-
jected lie maintained that it would endanger the greatness
and stability of the Empire.
After a brief reply from Mr. Forsyth, the House dfvi ded.—
For the seCond reading of the Bill, 152; against, 181;
majority, 35.—The bill was therefore lost.
The other business was rapidly disposed of, and the House
adjourned.

tve
atiq r'etact