The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-06-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the Hots E or LORDS, June 14, the Royal assent was
given by Commission to the Public Works Loan Bill and two
Private Bills.
The Earl of Galloway called attention to the petition of the
Earl of Mar and Kellie, and a debate followed.
Several Bills were advanced a stage, and their lordship
adjourned at 10 minutes to o'clock
In the ROUSE OF COMMONS Mr. Otway asked the Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communi-
cation had been addressed to Her Majesty's Government
i
relating to the appointment of a successor n this country
to the distinguished statesman now the President of the
French Senate; whether he would be so good as to
state the number of the representatives of the French
Government in England who had been appointed since
the fall of the Empire in France; whether there had been
!I:t13, change of representative in France of Her Majesty the
1-ttleen during the same period; and whether on occasions of
P. change of Ambassadors credentials and letters of recall
'were presented personally to the sovereign or chief of the
state,
' Sir C. Duke: The President of the French Republic
has made the usual inquiry whether Her Majesty would
receive M. Challemel-Lacour as French Ambassador in this
country, and Her Majesty has intimated her readiness to do
So. (Hear, hear.) The number of the representatives of the
French Government in this country who have been appointed
since the fall of the Empire is eight. There has been no
change in Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris during that
Period. It is usual on the occasion of a change of Ambas-
sadors for the credentials or letters of recall to be presented
Personally to the Sovereign; but there have been exceptions
to this rule, in which case an audience has been sought and
granted at a later date. (Hear, hear.)
Vir. Monk rose to order, and asked the Speaker, with re-
ference to the question which stood next on the paper and
was in the name of the hon. member for Dungarvan, whether
It was competent for the hon. member to attack the ap-
poyited Ambassador of France by means of a question to a
Xinister. (Hear, hear.)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dungarvan gave
notice of this question altogether on his own responsibility.
(Hear, hear.) lam bound to say that, in my judgment, the
hon. member would have been better advised if he had con-
Eulted the Chair before giving notice of his question. At the
same time, I am not prepared to say that the question is
Irregular, and that circumstances might not arise that would
render a question of such a character in order. I feel bound
also to add that, seeing the reflections publicly cast by the
question on the French Ambassador, I thought it right not
to interfere with the question, because it seemed to me due
to the French Ambassador that an equal publicity should be
given to the refutation of those reflections. (Cheers.)

Mr. O'Donnell asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether M. Challemel-Lacour spoken of as
future French Ambassador to England was the Citizen
Challemel-Lacour who, as one of the Prefects of the Pro-
visional Government of September 4, 1870, ordered the
massacre of Colonel Carayon Latour's battalion in the tele-
gram "Fusillez-mai ces gens-id" contained in the report of
the Commission of the National Assembly on the subject,
and who had since been condemned by a court of justice
.
France to pay some Z 3,000 compensation for his share in
the plunder of a convent during the same period.
Sir C. Duke- Before answering the hon. meisaber's ques-
tion I wish to express my regret that he should have
thought it necessary to put such a question on the paper;
but, as he has done so, 1 think it better to state such of
the facts as have been communicated to us. (Hear, hear.)
There was never any such massacre as that alluded to in
the question. (Hear, hear.) M Challemel-Lacour denies
having ever used any such phrase as "Faites moi fusilier
grits-id," and the telegram referred to has never
been produced. The damages which some years ago
he was condemned to pay were given in a suit
Drought against him as head of the Departmental Ad.
• Ministration, not in his individual capacity; and the
Plunder was perpetrated by some volunteers quartered
US the convent. So far from M. Challemel-Lacour
_flaying taken any part in it, he was at the moment
virtually a prisoner at Lyons, and powerless either to
Initiate or to prevent any acts of the kind. Authority was
restored in the department some three weeks afterwards,
and all disorder ceased. The National Assembly, which was
not at all likely to be prejudiced in favour of M.Challemel-
Lacour, after hearing his defence, rejected a motion censur-
ing him in favour of the Order of the Day. The Chambre
des Requites has admitted an appeal by M. Challemel-
Laceur, which will shortly come on for trial before the Cour
de Caasation. He was never appointed Ambassador at Berlin,
but we have been informed by the German Ambassador that,
had he been appointed, he would have been cordially re-
ceived by the German Government. (Hear.) He was subse-
(inently appointed to Berne in that capacity by Marshal
MacMahon. No question was then raised with regard to
Mtn, and he has remained at that post ever since. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. O'Donnell said that it was perfectly impossible to
~'°°ePt the explanation of the Government. He would put
niraself in order by concluding with a motion. He felt that
the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had laid
stresa on some of the facts he had stated and had omitted to
notice others. He had not stated that the massacre of the
Mobiles of the Gironde had been accomplished at the
instance of M. Challemel-Lacour, and the declaration of the
hon. gentlemen with reference to that point was, therefore,
PUrely gratuitous. (Hear.) IM. Challemel-Lacour, however,
had ordered the massacre, but his order had fortunately
fallen into the hands of a French officer of high character,
and had not been carried into effect. The Under-Secretary
Of State had dwelt upon the fact that no such order was
extant; but that was very unimportant, considering how
many documents had at that period disappeared from the
French archives.
The Speaker: I desire to point out the irregularity of
the course the hon. member is proposing to take. He
has put a question to a Minister of the Crown and has
received an answer; and now he rises in his place and
declares he intends to conclude with a motion. I must
Put it to the House whether the question as to the appoint-
ment of a foreign Ambassador at this Court can properly be
debated on a motion without notice for the adjournment
of the House. (Cheers.) I apprehend that the proper
course for the hon. member to take upon a question of so
much importance would be to give notice that on an early
day he will move an address to the Crown upon the ap-
Pointment of a foreign Ambassador. But it does appear to
flie a grave abuse of the privilege (loud cheers) enjoyed by
every member of this House to bring charges of such gravity
aa the hon. member is about to do against a foreign Ambassa-
dor under cover of a motion of adjournment. (Hear, hear.)
S. notice_e_ Word
possib;YDonnell said he would confine himself to the fewest
(Loud cries of "No.") He gave three days'
lqr.e.
eta idGlad d stone immediately rose and amid
amid cheers from es, moved "that Mr. O'Donnell be not heard:,
reoteste
Mr. Pae rnxae mll d against this ,;ourse as an evil and dan-
gerous
which the taste' and
a violation of a well-recognised rule,
himself had deepirnittee on Public Business and the Speaker
110 moved theulled to recommend the House to abolish.
Seconded by Mr. of of the debate, which was
ing to this mot' •
satisfied P. O'Connor, and Mr. Gladstone, in speak-
.th
with aid ion, laid it down that no member being dis-
the courtesy answer he received had a right, except by
of the House to make a speech or to move the
tirnment of the House.
Ir. - Sclater B
ooth asked the Speaker to say whether this
ruling was correct—i.e., whether a member dissatisfied with
an answer could not make a motion for adjournment—and
also whether a member •
Interrupted r possession of the Chair could be
terrupted and stoopedmember y another with a motion
that he be not heard.
Mr. Sullivan thought JUr. Gladstone's position untenable;
and, after a warm eulogium from Mr. Cowen on the cha-
racter and attainments of M. Challemel-Lacour, Sir S. North-
cote repeated the questions to the Chair put by Mr. Sclater-
Booth, and, amid cheers from the Opposition, reminded the
House that no later than March last a similar motion for ad-
iOurnment was made by Mr. Bright and justified by Mr.
Gladstone.
The Speaker replied that whenever such a motion for ad-
journment had been made he had always pointed out its
Inconvenience, and in this particular case, considering the
nature of the subject, he would have been failing in his duty
• had he not pointed out the special impropriety of the pro-
ceeding. With regard to the second question, no such
Motion to stop a speaker had been made for 200 years, but,
he added, neither had any such occasion as this arisen for it.
Sir William Harcourt commenced by congratulating Mr.
O'Donnell on the powerful support he had received from Sir
S. Northcote, and this remark was redeived with loud cries
of " Withdraw," which were continued for some minutes.
Captain Price caused much laughter by moving that the
Home Secretary be no longer heard. The Speaker, however,
taking no notice of this motion, Mr. Gorst rose and asked
that it should be put from the Chair, like the other motion;
but the Speaker merely replied that Sir William Harcourt
was in possession of the Chair. Mr. Stanhope asked whether
Mr. O'Donnell was not also in possession. A scene of much
noise and confusion followed, the Opposition renewing the
cries of" Withdraw," and Sir William Harcourt vainly endea-
vouring to get a hearing. In the end, when comparative silence
was restored, the Home Secretary proceeded, in a highlycomba-
live tone, to justify the action of the Prime Minister by the
exceptional nature of the emergency, and asked the Leader
of the Opposition what course lie recommended the House
to follow. Sir S. Northcote said he should advise that the
matter be allowed to drop, but he repudiated for the Oppo-
aition all respoasibility for the position in which the House
had drifted. Mr. Forster, who was called to order for
Characterizing the question as contrary to the decencies of
society, justified the motion as the proper mode of dealing
With an extreme case.
Mr. O'Donnell spoke at some length in stating the circum-
stances which he intended to bring forward to justify him in
renewing his question, after which Mr. Shaw, who strongly
9Pposed the motion, suggested that it, as well as the motion
for adjournment, should be withdrawn, and Mr. O'Donnell
iglould be allowed briefly to give notice of his question. Mr.
ewdegate spoke, amid loud cries of" Divide," in favour of the
Motion, and the :Marquis of Hartington pointed out that those
10 voted against the motion would vote for allowing Mr.
Donnell to use his privilege to attack the French Ambas-
!idol-. This was an emergency in which the Leader of the
ti-ollae was justified in resorting to an extreme course to pre-
rt the privileges of the House being abused. At this
e was a cry-from the Irish party of "Despotism I" and
,Eesarism !" and the Marquis added that there was no
desire to make a precedent.
Urd,T.
re Manners denied that the question had been cor-
a% stated by the noble lord, and maintained that the
dirrninent of the debate was the best way out of the
enity. The discussion continued for some time amid
Uchd Mr.
excitement, Sir. J. Mowbray, Mr. Hermon, an .
aget spoke from the Conservative benches in support of the
Pri
rne Minister's motion; while Mr. Courtney and Mr.
Anderson, from the Ministerial benches, supported an
adjournment. Mr. O'Connor Power, Mr. Meldon, Mr-
-0 Shaughnessy, and Sir P. O'Brien spoke in vigorous denun-
ciation of the proposed interference with the freedom of
debate; and on a division the motion for adjournment was
negatived by 245 to 139.

Major Nolan then moved the adjournment of the House,
condemning vehemently the strong and violent measure pro-
p9sed by the Government, and pointing out, in correction of
Mr. Gladstone's doctrine, that the Postmaster-General had
frequently made these motions for adjournment. Mr.
Gladstone, in speaking to the motion, detailed the
reasons of high policy which had induced him to take
What he admitted was a peculiar and exceptional course,
which ought not to be drawn into a precedent.
I3ut if Mr. O'Donnell would intimate that he would merely
confine himself to giving a notice, he would undertake to
withelraw the motion. Sir S. Northcote also pressed Mr.
0 Donnell tb accept the suggestion; but he foresaw so many
Possibilities of danger from adopting the Prime Minister's
raotion that he could not accept it unless words were put
Into it limiting it to this particular case.
Mr. O'Donnell, while declaring that he would not abate a
lot of his strict right, undertook to confine his remarks to
a general intimation of the information which he desired to
be laid before the House with a view of showing that Sir C.
Duke's answer could not be accepted. This assurance, ap-
Parently, was not deemed satisfactory, for the discussion was
continued by Air. Forster, Sir W. Harcourt, Air. Biggar, and
Others, and ultimately the motion for adjournment was
negatived by 224 tos6B.
Lord Elcho who was seconded by Colonel Barne, then
Moved the adjournment of the debate, protesting that even
If he stood alone he would exhaust all the forms of the
Rouse in resistance of such an invasion on the rights of the
Minority.
The discussion on this motion was protracted for several
"n
-re, and in the course of the discussion Mr. Gorst pointed
out that the motion of the Prime Minister would virtually
,nlake him an arbiter of order superior to the Speaker. Mr.
oullivan, on the same side, made a trenchant attack on the
Eibera/ party far its support of the attempt to restrict liberty of
aPeeeh, and Mr. O'Donnell spoke again. On the other side Mr.
Otway supported Mr. Gladstone 's motion to prevent mis-
aPPrehension abroad ; and Mr. Forster, in a strong speeds,
t!claimed for the House the right independently of any ques-
on of order and precedents, to stop a speech which might
pre_Prejadiciiil to the public interests or discreditable to the
unse• On a division the motion was negatived by 290 to 97.
Mr. Gout then moved, as an amendment to Mr. Glad-
motion, that a Select Committee be appointed to
search the iOurnals and report the circumstances under
"“,oh such a motion has been made before.
Mr. Chaplin supported the motion, and Mr. O'Connor
Power adviaed the Government to calculate, on the basis of
Inc famous "twenty-six hours sitting," how many days
or Weeks it would take to carry the motion. 31r. Walter
_Lintight the lesson to be drawn from the debate was that
the House should adopt a rule by which these motions
lor adjournment could be stopped by special motion, made
a.nod decided without debate. After some further discus-
F on, Mr. Gladstone repeated his offer to withdraw the
O'D.ounell widertook to coaline himself to a
a""4 nOtko 91a futures Qualti9u. O'DonizoU )110 WOW

stood to accept this compromise, and Mr. Gorst having with-
drawn his amendment, Mr. Gladstone withdrew the motion.
Mr. O'Donnell then gave notice of
,the documents he in-
tended to move for to elucidate the charges against M.
Challemel-Lacour.
At one o'clock the House then proceeded with the remain-
ing questions, 21 in number, but the majority of them were
postponed.
Some other business was then disposed of, and the House
adjourned at twenty minutes to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, June 16, on the motion for going
into Committee on the Burials Bill, the Bishop of Carlisle
asked for an explanation of a sanitary point in respect of the
closing of certain churchyards in country parishes, as the
Bill dealt with only the religious side of the question.

The Lord Chancellor did not apprehend that under the Bill
any difficulty would arise on the point raised by the right
rev. prelate. On the contrary, he thought the passing of the
Bill would render the working of the Sanitary Acts and
their supervision much more easy than they were at present.
In answer to Lord Nelson, he said the Bill did not interfere
with denominational burial grounds created by private
trust.
Their Lordships then went into Committee on the Bill. In
clause 1, which provides that on notice burials may be
solemnized in the churchyard or graveyard without the
rites of the Church of England,
-

_
Lord Mount-Edgcumbe moved an amendment to restrict
the operation of the clause to parishes in which there is no
unconsecrated burial ground or cemetery in which the
parishioners or inhabitants have rights of burial.
The Lord Chancellor opposed the amendment. He felt
sure that if it were adopted the Bill would not fulfil one of
the great objects in view—that of putting an end to the
burial controversy.

The Archbishop of York supported the amendment on the
ground that it in no way limited the operation of the clause
in a manner that was unfair to Nonconformists.
Lord Nelson also advocated the amendment, and urged that
where there were unconsecrated burial grounds and ceme-
teries it would be hard to allow the Nonconformists to fill
up the parish churchyards.

Lord Kimberley urged that the effect of the amendment
would be to perpetuate a small portion of the existing
grievance.
- -

- Their lordships then voted on the amendment, when
there appeared :—Contents, 130 ; non-contents, 106 ;
majority, 24.

The amendment was accordingly carried. Of the Bishops,
11, including the Archbishop of York, voted for, and seven,
including the Archbishop of Canterbury, against the amend-
ment.
The Archbishop of York moved an amendment to exclude
from the operation of the Act any consecrated portion of a
burial ground formed under 15 and 16 Vic., cap. 85, and 16
and 17 Vic., cap 34, or to any consecrated burial ground in a
place where one or more unconsecrated grounds are pro-
vided, 20 and 21 Vic., cap. 81, see. 3.
The amendment was opposed by the Government, and a
division was taken on the question that the portion of the
original clause which the Archbishop of York proposed to
have struck out, in order to substitute the words of his
amendment stand part of the clause. Contents, 108; uon-
contents, 127. Majority, 19.

Accordingly the original words were struck out, and the
words of the amendment were substituted for them.

Lord Salisbury moved to insert after Clause 1. "This Act
shall not affect any consecrated burial ground given as a
free gift within fifty years before the commencement of this
Act, unless the consent of the donor or his representative
shall have been previously obtained." He explained that his
object was to prevent the violation of the donor's gift in
cases in which land was left for a burial ground wherein
persons were to be interred with the rites of the Church of
England. As the Bill stood it proposed spoliation, and
touched the sacredness of all the endowments of this
country.

The Lord Chancellor denied the proposition of Lord
Salisbury that the Bill proposed spoliation. All the Bill
proposed was that the same persons who were now entitled
to be laid in those burial grounds might be laid in them
with a form of service different from that of the Church of
England, the trusts not having specially prescribed that the
Church of England service was the only one to be performed
iniothose burial places. Like all other burial grounds, those
were subject to the will of Parliament.

The Archbishop of York supported the amendment.
Lord Brabourne opposed it on the ground that, while it
was not called for in justice, it would be another obstacle
to the settlement of the burial question. In a speech heard
with cries of "Divide" and other manifestations of impa-
tience, the noble lord argued at some length that such pro-
posals were a serious injury to the Church.
Their Lordships then divided on the amendment, when
there appeared --Contents, 91; non-contents, 104; majority,
13. The amendment was consequently lost.
The Lord Chancellor moved to insert at the end of clause
6:—" The word 'Christian' in this section shall include
every religious service used by any Church, denomination,
or person professing to be Christian."

After some conversation, in which Lord Cairns and Lord
Salisbury expressed their doubts of the success of the noble
and learned lord's efforts to define " Christian " for the pur-
poses of the Bill, the amendment was agreed to.
In Clause 7 Lord Waveney moved to leave out the words
prohibiting the delivery at the grave of any address not
being part of or incidental to a religious service; but the
Lord Chancellor objecting to the proposal, it was withdrawn,
and the clause and Clauses 8,9, and 10 were agreed to, after
the insertion of verbal amendments proposed by the Lord
Chancellor.
- •- - -

------- -
On Clause 11, which relieves the clergy of the Church of
England from formalities in certain cases connected with
burials,
Lord Cairns criticised the introduction of this clause. It
was a section foreign to the Object of the Bill, and he did not
think it could be retained. Convocation recommended an
alteration in the rubrics as to the obligation of the clergy in
respect of the burial service, and this hypothetical alteration
of the rubric was inserted in this clause and one of the
schedules apparently with the object of getting for the Bill
the support of the right rev, bench and the clergy.
The ;Archbishop of York defended the clause as legitimate
in a Bill of this kind, asking why should not a very moderate
relief such as it provided be offered to the clergy when a
concession was asked of them?

The Archbishop of Canterbury held that it was quite
legitimate of Parliament to carry through this relief to the
clergy, which, he contended, was properly a part and parcel
of such a Bill as this. He appealed to Lord Cairns to assist
in framing the schedule BO as to carry out the object of the
clause.
-

---------
The Lord Chancellor denied that the clause altered any
rubric. What it did was to enable the clergy to act on the
recommendation of Convocation. He agreed with Lord
Cairns that the terms of the recommendations of Convoca-
tion were open to criticism, but the objects of the recom-
mendations were right, ami ho hoped that Parliament
would embody them in the Bill.

After some further discussion of details the clause was
ordered to stand part of the Bill, as were also Clauses 12
and 13 and the schedules after some verbal amendments.
Their Lordships adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, at the time of Private
Business, there was a short debate on the City Lines and
Extension Bill, the second reading of which was carried on a
division by 174 to 100.
In answer to Mr. Dodds, Sir W. Harcourt said he could
see no prospect of being able to introduce a Bill this session
to consolidate and amend the laws relating to municipal
corporations.
Mr. Dodson stated, in answer to Mr. Schreiber, that he
intended to introduce a bill for taking next year's Census, as
soon as there was time to consider it.

Replying to Mr. A. Balfour, Sir C. Dilke stated that Her
Majesty's Government had accepted an invitation to send
representatives to the Conference to meet at Berlin this
afternoon, and called to consider the Graeco-Turkish frontier
question.
Mr. Forster intimated that, though the Government could
not assent to the second reading of Mr. Power's Land Bill,
they would insert in the Distress Relief Bill a clause giving
to County Court Judges in certain distressed districts the
power of awarding compensation for disturbance for non-
payment of rent. Ile added that it was intended to appoint
a small Commission to inquire into the working of the Irish
Land Act, upon which lord Elcho gave notice of his inten-
tion to ask whether the Commission on Agriculture was not
within the next few days to inquire into the case of Ire-
land. Mr. O'Connor Power also stated that he !should
persevere with his Bill, and take the sense of Parliament
upon it.
After some other business had been disposed of, Mr.
Richard called attention to the growing cost and burden
of European armaments Describing the recent con-
dition of Europe as one. of armed truce, he went at
length into the statistics of the different armies, into the
military expenditure of the various countries, and the
national debts incurred by past wars. He described also the
progress made in foreign countries by the disarmament
movement, and concluded by moving an Address praying
Her Majesty to direct communication to be made by the
Foreign Secretary with other Powers, with a view to a
mutual and simultaneous reduction of European armaments.
Mr. Baxter spoke in favour of the motion, and General
purnaliy also deprecated war and excessive armaments from
the nnlitary man's point of view.

Mr. Gladstone, while agreeing in the denunciation of
dynastic and unnecessary wars, reminded Mr. Richard of
the great national reconstructions—such as the unification
of Italy and Germany effected of late years not by
peaceful means. War, therefore, he said, was not
altogether an unmixed evil. While agreeing entirely in
Mr. Richard's object, he doubted whether the means
he recommended would lead to any practical result, and the
only way in which we could act was by taking advantage
of each occasion to make representations when nations
were arming in face of each other. This was what was
done by Lord Clarendon, though not with much
success, in 1869, when France and Germany were
arming. To address other Powers as suggested by the
motion was a serious matter, and for one reason,
because we were not altogether recti in curia. We
must first set the example of a peaceful foreign policy,
of establishments not greater than the honour or safety
of the country demanded, and we must show our
readiness to resort to pacific means of settling disputes.
The same spirit still animated the Government which had
prompted the Alabama arbitration, and he appealed, there-
fore, to Mr. Richard to have confidence in them that they
would lose no practical opportunity of enforcing pacific
views.

After some remarks from Mr. L. Stanley, Mr. Courtney
moved as an Amendment that it was the duty of the Govern-
ment, on all occasions when circumstances admitted, to
recommend to Foreign Goveringents a reduction of their
armament.

Mr. Gladstone intimated that, though he had an objec-
tion to abstract resolutions, he would not move the "pre-
vious question," but leave the matter in the hands of the
House.
Mr. Richard thereupon withdrew his resolution, and Mr.
Courtney's was carried- without a dissentient.
Shortly afterwards the House was counted out at a quarter
to nine o'clock.

In the first division upon the adjournment of the debate
upon Mr. Parnell's motion in the House of Commons on
Monday night, 26 Conservatives and one Home Ruler voted
with the Government. Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir R. A.
Cross, Lord John "Manners, and other leading members of
the late Administration, together with 41 Home Rulers
and six Liberals, supported Mr. Parnell's motion.—ln
the second division upon the adjournment of the House,
which was rejected by 224 to 58, the minority was
composed of Conservatives and Home Rulers. The larger
portion of the Conservative party took no part in the divi-
sion, but Lord John Manners supported the Government..
In the third division, upon the adjournment of the debate,
the minority chiefly comprised Home Rulers and Conserva-
tives, while many members of the late Conservative Govern-
ment voted with Ministers in opposition to the motion.—
Daily News.