The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-19 00:00:00

SATURDAY, JUNE 19, 1875.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

t the itotISE OP LORDS, June 14, their lordships met at
ii):x o'clock, when the Royal Assent was given by Commis-
!) to a number of Bills, amongst which were the Customs
44,1 Inl
Ore and Revenue, Explosive Substances, Seal Fishery
and Public"land), Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation,
Entertainments Bills.

THE POOR LAWS.
Lin,,,rd Lyttelton moved a resolution declaring the ex-
sr-"'"eneY of reverting, In the administration of the Poor Law,
Kore neisrly to the principles laid down in. the Report of the
.114nMissioners of Inquiry of 1833. with a view tothe ultimate
tas'uleontinuance of out-door relief He said that though it
an established doctrine that no person should be allowed
g
reehdie from want in this country, still the law provid. ought to be so framed as to discourage
pauperism,
maintained that the Poor Law Act of 1834 was the
ss4..oliryt re.a2. attem.pt made to suppress pauperism. Ile denied
ry satisfactory progress had been made towards
n southern
n shing pauperism, especially
teouunties ot
England, and he read documents to teo how that
ditshsteermeperioopthined
Prie'r,.°. was an increasing disposition on the part of_ the, l'lgng Population to throw themselves on the Poor
fltaoutet. iligoell ir
elle" itehf, to make
at it was impossible, under any y
was theYP pauperism distasteful tola
expedient by which that effect coli recipients.
should
be , orkhouse. In-door relief, he maintained,
ra: me, While he admitted that someextreme cases
regard /f.:1711 an exception from that rule; and, it
srletYsteraio me grant et relief, he did not see
why the
ov_aealf relief by way of loan should not be more
i
operation
quoti4"Yor adopted. • He referred to
Law in Scotland and Ireland,
out-doorsonie
Net h::,).rjs to show that the permission to grant ebieet it
the
edread
bad a demoralizing effect in those countries._.s_Th_e,
the which the Poor Law had in view was the well-being of
DrospPeoror
shelves, and now when the country was
ail e considered the present an opportune time for
for
enppertavour to wean the working classes from relying Tb " tile DUblic funds of the country.
forwarinkbe of Richmond observed that the subject brought
that e.., I Lord Lyttleton was one of the most important
nniint:Vd I'gage the attention of Parliament,
.a...ndm he
0 )1.,..
..ed that since 1834 the Government had,ys4li more
the -67421 ency, carried out the views f entertaineds
a possible,
restrie",,'_,
,‘ oners of 1833, and had,
Non ',mu tne system of out-doororeliet as
far
time of
_thee.
rho_ gof the Act of 1834, it was necessary to apply La Pr
18i111,11,41 a careful and mild manner, and it was noti until
door7,4lite order prohibiting, with some exceptiownss„soaupt:
piled r°,.up,. o be given to any able-bodied paupers
the Is7iteme Whole country. It was not to be expected that
tk.,,negh tltia
was to
°,llt-door relief could be abandoned altogether,
sueonr "rp,oncy of the central authority always
s to an
114dedal +6 ali much as possible, for it was practiseda
deereal,
.6 eXtent. At the same time, there was a steady
tocle -seer of
the a,,,...° ,111 the expenditure for out-door relief and in
recipient& He admitted that a
but
inany Of granting relief was to give it by way of loan,
_n
,t In
Nierationnell„ees it as difficult to put that method uit
oecatiee it sse objetted to the passing of the Resolution,is
tratiou e dbisented from the intimation that the ad rdie-
Iter__, of the Poor Law was not in accordance with tl
CrrzA
.2.1 the Conanaissioners of 1833.
_tinsberleY Concurred in the views of Lord Lyttelton,
h t in./ll not concur in his Resolution, because he thought
blerehe poo 7ietur.anr tUlderserved censure on the administration I
stai Board. In his opinion it was essential at o a
to the ahi Rieut
-notlied
Principle in affording relief should be applied
?,,
bihis than to the sick and infirm, and to treat
nas We ought we must "harden our hearts,, a
were' --s, imereby aben ream d good to the pauper class, for there
liabit:lllt in th
Y()
whose minds and social
curet)
0/ e Countryuer intoha
ddeeply i entered, and the
intare was boula Pauperism
tartem care that the law it had passed
tZinot sap the independence of the people.
/\zior 4,,,,14,..MPt0n believed that the administration of the
Lord r'; '4O been Much too lax.
and ar,eorteseue spoke in favour of relief by means of loans,
L0r;'"? souse observations from Lord Oranmore,
' LYttelton withdrew his Resolution.
Oho kat, IiI:INICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. 'Bolci gills of Ripon moved the Second Reading of the
StereetPlai 4
Elections Bill, observing that its object was aliplyirle fe evils which were found to exist in the mode
I,h °AI ~. gthe Ballot to Municipal Elections.
ill Was read a second time.
411 e Intis of r,
he - s,oll.rt Bill was read a third time and passed.
zsm.,r.est of the ''
d of their
-"mlPsadi - •Al.siness having been dispose ,
earned.
„lila the ißia
taillY lielf,F2l OP COMMONS, the Speaker took tke chai
of- ugh ho'"oar o'clock. At a few minutes after the hour
h.:440,4_1X, gentleman, accompanied by several members
R to
e'Llf.?tiae 0;1 ,' P,sl'2_Feeded. upon the summons of Black Rod
-lasionwhere the Royal Assent was given by
sir 11. ,be a nUraber of Bills tb,_ ere sreP'elts-Beach stated in .repl
icted 438 -
• to Mr. PlaYfair, that
themselves to pharmacy, i
And wh elnany licentiates' 1 the Apothecaries' Hall n Ire
piker 0 restrd
that no
tut clam 0/
eh
Y. , an
Sand druggists in Ireland could
legally
, kr. 11,;"`meilles.
aki re-04,1•ekde, replying to Sir C. Dilke, said the Government
Mon for
ace the re
r, port of the French Labour Laws Comm'
1,,1411.e0 tea ‘,11,-,ng More efficient protection to Indian coolies,
b • table if moved for as
Ifi.eliDosed e laid upon the
return
Bot-T...ll,.ritelj , .
Ithit-117.'4r, e that-tilteerd, in reply to Mr. Goturlfeiy;,
rtehtaetrehneeewates
Itea: 'eeagliastationuwiethwreagsa,idytoungttiaslinst llPPing: nor that
Was the „,R depression throughout the shipping trade.
th
0.04,4 Li[lention of the Government to proceed with_
not
'en say wylmiVitig Acts Amendment Bill, but he could
be re. ''°B3, in Ms
t ted that it was to
ari JFetted that ,:wer to fr. AshburY,s-a
of the Brighton
of 47. q. arn on sun:ne ease of the openingb
fore the courts
It w.L., and the de alsilionhad bs en brought
before
be regretted.
08 botha illatter nepon obtained was alsos
a strong feeling
earei Sides a d which there was .
ally . 0 u
ion must tbe
, pon which public opinion , ,__
..
sibie to_
,st_ kowly formed. It would be almost ims
ts dat ts,f Lon Government to take up a question of tnlo_
"e Goy -"'' Peried of the session,but it was the intention I
slendd er2sinent to t e
itl,
insure
that persons
tbe lslot be Unduly grasser byy u any undue enforcement of
illiklu,,_
•,,s4 COVIST Op JUDICATURE ACT R7ll 11
~..,,,, -, AAIRNDMENT
The
(NO. 2) BELL. ,
tili w asieurued b b t
Amendment
ate on the Judicature Ac
th me!' ef th-IiFL n
main
Y pi.r. Forsyth, who canvassed the
0_
e di ; and While ' the postponement . f
aDpro " .slnsellat ' urging .. .
ted his dm-
portion of the Bill, intima
ri. sir. 43,,,, e okoluse of Lords as a Supreme TribunaL
40°eVernree"net /animadverted caustically on the conduct of the
ililitil;al tOdyne tvitth'g) riaoyuteo
of
orutesidespurctispurree,oufraenre'igi
ht
SZetli'sb'itg treetraZa?e nt in gi:ineg up adilill, but not in directly
ni theel'ile eententecTecdnhwhieh they
had formerly
the acted.abolition
t:errertaieninie at Lo;dsadinbigesidicetotmenmittend o
Is t to
Bill was a
ais;stlie •,nui t4at course, and was intended to set up again the
'll w
nt
...11u1,-,k etion.
kit alt Way 0 That such a change should be brought
ementa.ct of a on_ _ Pen expression of opinion, but by tl
-sue or a conspiracy, was contrary to all L pre-
ejik }lardy d,_
th:fte's chahoPUted altogether the correctness of Mr.
4,, a cone,',°r f contemporary history. It was notorious
~,Si the, „`terable change had come over the public mind,
ssestion 'l"sPensory Bill did not in any way prejudge the
ZOl mibil et the Supre eT b If the final conclusion
I, _ 0 opinion
eh° nild h ri unaL
t7aateitDrebable that nth ein favour of the House of Lords,
ro ose to re-
4. L4° tills Tribunale; CiluevternliMP.gillmVilltdianol preclude
tject it. el,rern endeavouringt to s w
persuade the House to
11 irt det ° Mr. Lowe'sP the withdrawal of the
Menu erenea to , satire on e
%her °/ainß the n outside pressure, Mr. Hardy retoretedanb3d
sponenlelllborn °
aravasarings Banks Bill, the Match 'l's; ,
e es for which Mr. Lowe had d been re-
fit/9g. ,
as """ d anles
ingtalotti4. th travelled again over Mr. Lowe's ground, rne-
Zitliqe,etoridne:
011181,1)ry of the Judicature Anctieannidngcotnndeekiirst-
sn.d7.lBl!ession wiethGoeuvteanrutalitc idliscaubsasion in the
beenH no
4,%grisin4 ipaaleteenotepli:jeed, however, that tehrehad
opinionin the
1e,14,4,,_ been nnt2efor it svas anoansedcrne that the Lord CharicellaT
atZent, ig r„,ed into giving up his Bill against his oss2i
-ungly °bre 41,_enrY also canvassed the clauses of the Bill,
_The 5,,,, d "mg to the constitution of the Appeal Court.
mYthln'eltor-Gener l
who knew
Were (IS abpUt the
isaw remarked that everybody w
Aet aessatisfied with yers svas aware that a large majority
settled by the
isd,„ 1878, and
this
the Appeal Tribunal as
~
__
~._..,
ah ',ire, and the o s. opinion had spread among
nsi_.l", _
eigi,pttion t„,
,iitside public. This was accompeaxcieellea
p'rnianael: Ti7e4"'Gtonvee
rl) Rouse t of Lords t 7,asciaiarmost
d with want
tiereD4l: for takingteneonticeeouloil such ea
change of feeling.
11l 4° to:tile criticisms on the machinery of this BaL
.„.., e debate was c
members,
iill2ventneu
~,,, ontinued by several other hon.
08g
Bin v4ir.
read W. Williams withdrew his amendment,
a second time.
a.`4l the 8 '''''llBT THE PERSON ACT ADIENDMENT BILL.
0t econd
ill
Aroen, Reading of the Offences against the Person
/dr ~, e.usent B being moved,
reter T
, ectinr, , aylor moved its rejection in a long speech,
witho„ re Lo the reeog 'ti organization of flogging,
h wa'Rn he admitted that en
and
severe BilL
es.tn 8f 80t so inneh i at the present was not a
as
to n the ibterest of the criminal that he
'f the nation,
insisted Covent the demoralization o
_re. and brutalizi he Bill
.returned to the old system of
Imi existed in the ng Plinishment. for which no ju.stitica-
earnr' Waddy 8 present state of crime.
s„..__estisem,
anduirr.loiorted the Bill with Int!ch vigour and
ilZefled that the ni his experience., of. criminal practice he
,
circutt of a flogging Judge brought
es. , ,eptible decrease of crimes of violence, and vice
onset n
tilt.,
_nal*"oti ail TZ, Wald have so potent an effect on brutal
'ming an certainty that they would get a severe
Col •
Nte°"l k Leigh
,__. spoke warmly in favour of the Bill as a
(its cue,/ /
14. h.
sliswo.r.. ille_etreated wives.
,e„rrterket eftettio,nsrnerldr:niel that flogging wou
eld have any
nued
jad"+litens
_Statistics of gaer:oettinv
gi. o
andlelc ea,s
swahnil ctsh, h
and as to the
i'avo 'eDort he ti,nr 0i ~ rets,a,. remarked that their natural turn was in
beT't Renie
_, I.4tnrY Pnnishments."
irr,ere tba /ts_iti not think sufficient evidence had been laid
fijeleealit far,:'ollll%
to
„especially. as to the enforcement of the
kr. Ill'eading. uIY this Bill, and therefore opposed t
0
6111Vesai.arksZnred,..pisPosed the Bille
was adjourned.
Mr. Paget made some
, ~„-Z Watch the debate adjoned.
Jeanie -"ter Bilis
det t Were forwarded astage,d the House an
ea Minutes Past one o'clock.
_

ka.
r,,,itthe IT, .OPRIO AF ST. ALBAN'S BILL.
tilk.u43 theulLB OP LORDS June 15, Lord Beauchamp, in
ean,l'lteli ,7°°41:1 Reading of the Bishopric of St Alban's
erdcens, e -al recently brought up from the House of
lltaht,, to Dl:Diained its main provisions, observing that, in
effect to the proposition to found the new
keeletoshi". St. Alban's, the Bill provided for a re-
Vtrojthelic:°cließt. Of the Dioceses of London Winchester,
t b-;;;r• After mentioning the Bishop of Win-
ttic "tttio,,,- —Petal to sell Winchester-hsouse, in St.
to carry the proceeds to the Bisho-
Wi.hat °Wrneu hciche ‘nt well t Fund, he said that art additional
I,Zrat:''r 44 D;ovided by the transfer by the Bishops of
vo,°L Rochester of such portion of each of their
• teko %laid £5OO, and by the aid of public con-
cr,.'lo4ll 6, eXpi,Leferred to the other provisions of the mea-
JAN 'kttli""e, d a hope that the House would be of
eicellertit4ol,l%.4ll was one which it was desirable to pass.
4118!clereei't,ttl ttil'ettifi the principle oi the Bill seemed to be
T.,".1%110ps ,tt, he, getails had, apparently, been carefully
t.jurd ) i„ "14 4,9Diected to the proposal that the number
44
~ l'arliament should nut be increased.
uelleved the Bill was an honest endeavour
g)elllciency of the Episcopate, but he re-
f Surrey was to be divided in the
45 believed that some means might have
a tgrig that county together as a whole,
-u(lie,,4'Y likely to be dune to it by placing
ot wi ,eses.
4t' neklener
~ pointed out that thet inTchesae Thames
Y,Prgo, extending from t
•10) ~/ato noa,id6.at•„, and ultimately
i tmately
vq. He explained several
.or, r deerned the best that c.ra.'d
Arle
be enter-
lee
.esa
After,

IPttte4

Lord Selborne adopted the Lord Chancellor's suggestion,
with the expression of a hope that the Inns of Court Bill
would pass into law during the present Session.

Tbe House then resolved into CommitteeAut immediately
afterwards reported progress.