The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-05-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

LORD WOLSELEY'S AFTER-DINNER SPEECH.

The HOUSE OF LORDS was densely crowded at its
sitting of May 14th. The side galleries were filled by
peeresses, the foot of the Throne was thronged with
Privy Councillors and others, among whom were Mr.
Gladstone, Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir R. Peel, and
Mr. E. Stanhope. The Commons' Gallery and the
space at the bar were both overflowing with members
from the Lower House.

Lord Wolseley, in replying to the remarks made by
Lord Salisbury on Friday evening, in the course of the
discussion on a paragraph in one of the morning news-
papers on the state of the national defence, said that
until he read a report of the debate he had not been
aware of the existence even of the paragraph in ques-
tion. He thought the noble lord could hardly have
read the speech which formed the basis of
his comments, as its object was not to at-
tack the Government, but to point out the
disadvantageous manner in which party Government
reacted upon the army and navy. He could not
honestly attack the present Government for neglecting
the interests of the army and navy, as no one knew
better than he did what the present Secretary of State
had done or was doing to render the military forces of
the Crown efficient. His object in making the speech
in question was to direct public opinion to the necessity
of strengthening the army, as he knew that, unless
something was done, the Secretary of State would
never be able to obtain the necessary funds. The
public were unaware that the army was 23,000 less than
in 1860, and 7000 less than in 1864. There was
nothing in his speech at Sir J. Pender's dinner
which he had not stated in his evidence before the
Royal Commission. He believed that so long as the
navy was so weak as it was the army could
not hold its own all over the world, dispersed as it was.
Our defences at home and abroad were in an unsatis-
factory condition, and our military forces were not
Drganised or equipped as they should be to guarantee
the safety of the capital. He believed that our condi-
tion only required to be made known for both Parlia-
ment and the public to insist on its being made efficient.
He did not think it necessary to resign his military
position in Consequence of what had taken place, and
he repeated that nothing was further from his thoughts
than to cast any slur on the Secretary of State.
Lord Salisbury acknowledged that nothing could be
more handsome than the way the noble lord had spoken
of the present Government. He accepted his disavowal
of any intention, in his recent remarks, of specially criti-
cising the present advisers of the Crown but he hoped
i that n the future he would attack the Administra-
tion in that House. He would regard the noble
viscount's leaving the service as the greatest blow that
could fall upon our military administration. The very
grave statements he had made would be considered by
the Government with the aid of ?the Commander-in-
Chief and himself. The Government, however, must
decide the question in the last resort.
Earl Granville complained that, while the noble
viscount had made the most ample apology to the noble
Marquis who had attacked him he had not apologised to
the late Government, who had let him alone. . _ _

The Duke of Cambridge expressed his great satisfac-
tion at the issue of the discussion.

The subject then dropped.
NATIONAL DEBT CONVERSION.

In the Housx OF COMMONS, a bill, introduced by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make certain
amendments in the law consequential on the passing
of the National Debt Conversion Act, was read a first
time.
MR. DILLON'S SENTENCE. —A RENTED DEBATE.

The Deputy-Speaker having read a letter announcing
the sentence upon Mr. Dillon for taking part in the
Plan of Campaign, when the questions were over Mr.
Healy, on a point of order, contended that the taking
part in the Plan of Campaign was an offence unknown
to the law. He moved that the letter of the Resident
Magistrate was a breach of privilege. The Solicitor-
General for Ireland declared Mr. Healy's assertions to
be absolutely unfounded. Instead of saying that Mr.
Dillon had been convicted for taking part in an illegal
conspiracy, the magistrate had defined the character
of the illegal conspiracy.
A discussion of great length and acrimoniousness fol-
lowed. Sir C. Russell held that the true cause of im-
prisonment had not been specified. Sir J. Gurst replied
that the cause was merely stated in popular language.
Mr. Parnell said the letter convicted the magistrate
of utter ignorance of the law and his duties. Sir W.
Harcourt maintained that the sending of a letter inti-
midating the arrest of a member, and not stating any
cause known to law, was an insult to the House. Sir
H. James admitted that the letter was slipshod, but
held that ignorance of a technicality did not constitute
a breach of privilege. Mr. Gladstone contended that
it was a matter of the highest constitutional import-
ance that the House should know that the magistrate
had acted within the limits of his functions. Mr. Bal-
four stated that the magistrate in question was ap-
pointed by Lord Spencer, who guaranteed that he had
an adequate legal knowledge. Mr. Morley and several
other members having spoken, the House divided, and
the motion was lost by 250 to 189.