The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-05 00:00:00

safe —tztbiu,
-,lfitkVi;*fch

copies,
3ed !ince

#l4l

xvfce.
4 tiic
igtekktof

rAylv€4o,l4 t
foVcl. "tzi4reeay
,')llainteh6.nr

pieT
krniy
and

stranger it ishou.ld be
laiy.Strangers--: I
to the Press '

fhe
4,14. th,
11906 'Wane

resolution I pelled
Tho
rd

ering
I tifittergo)
•

'6cnNi

"(a"-i; :tp" ri,;pideTtoi• .td)
-412 e. grariaar,
'tqa4o)t

Bil9j
L'se.y, Ora.
,111".Pj1.14jer'l-
IttljoUrn m
1; 3e,*-7r.
•Protsr 14. to
otidertbekonsill
\BI width had
urged several
~.ved that, aCcording to '
fog the charge insptivi )-
1115figillin the esdiginlitratio...
•''Sdrhe 'discussion arise on the 4tl ,ause, converting dons:-
fives into prestative benefice's, Lord Portman opppaing it
on thtt-ground. that It woufa take away from individuals
-their property without any notice or compensation..
The Bishop of Pdterborough mentiorted several instandes
of abuse which occurred In connexionVith the existence of
donatives. 11.9 admitted that in taking away property the
' Legislature was; bound.to give compensation, but such was
not the case. when the Legislature took away priyilege.
The clause, which was opposed by Lord Arundel of
•Wardour, and supported by Lord Salisbury, was agreed to
without a Division, and the Bill passed through Committee,
Clauses 12 and 14 being omitted, and Clause 18, abolishing
bonds of resignation, being carried on a Division by 30 to 16.
A new clause, proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
•kor obibj44ng after the lapse of ten years the sale of next
presentations, was rejected by 25 to 20.
The other business being dul...ed of, their Lordships
adjourned.
$.4.1 - • TRADE MARKS BILL.
-In the HOTJSE OF Common, at the Morning Sitting, Sir C.
Adderley stated that a Trades Marks Bill will be shortly in-
troduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor.
. •
• • . NORWICH WRIT.
torwich,

4
.ATitONX6i.
• in

-e,v9ift
di:lutes f,

- :_ I!

'LI

~Jne ,-rdVigiCch
leetioireile the taeastre,%-
lerienoei there warn° E
' that there_ hatibi*n
' -

AC,

expt.
p
of 1P-

i REppi
;fi 'Clar

Mr. Whalley moved the issue of a New Writ for N
alleging as his reason for interfering in the matter the pres-
sure put on him by large numbers of the honest citizens of
Norwich to procure for them the opportunity of pronouncing
a verdict on a certain subject in 'which he was deeply in-
terested, but which he would not further specify. At this
there was a general laugh, and
The Attorney-General expressed his astonishment at the
motion, inasmuch as only ten minutes ago Mr. Whalley had
promised that he would postpone it until Thursday. The
evidence had only been before the House that morning, and
he had not been able yet to read it through. Mr. Whalley
was expressing his willingness to withdraw his motion for
the present, but
Dr. Kenealy intervened, and denounced the delay of the
Writ even for 24 hours as a flagrant violation of the Con-
stitution and a tampering with the rights of the people.
Greater expedition ought to have been used in printing the
evidence, and he hoped the delay had not occurred from
Party motives. He should be glad if the decision of the
Government was to appoint a Royal Commission, because of
the revelations about people in high places which would
result from an inquiry.
Mr. Colman, the sole representative of Norwich at present,
remarked that he had some acquaintance with all classes of
his constituents, and he had not received a single communi-
cation from one cf them desiring to forestall the decision of.
the Government.
Mr. Yorke m,

as an amendment to Mr.

yiThalley's

,oved,
motion, that no Writ be issuediFFlforwich until the noise
has considered the evidence taken before the Election Judge
and
Mr. Herschel' condemned the motion as an election move,
the object of which was perfectly well known, and an abuse
of the privileges of a member of Parliament.
Mr. Ingram, referring to some observations made by Mr..
Whalley on the Boston Commission, protested against the
case of his borough being prejudged ; and after some observa-
tions from Mr. Gregory and trona Mr. Whalley in reply, the
motion was negatived, and Mr. Yorke's amendment was
agreed to.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. 14. '

The House for the rest of the Morning Sitting was in Com-
mittee on the Friendly Societies' Bill, and was engaged on
Clause 12 when Progress was reported. The Customs and
Inland Revenue Bill was read a third time.

NAVY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.
At the Zvening Sitting, Lr J. Hay called attention to the
system of Promotion and Retirement in the Royal Navy. Ile
travelled minutely through the special circumstances and
grievances of each list from the Lieutenants upwards, show-
ing that in every department the calculations of Mr. Childers
when he settled the present scheme had failed both as to
the cost and the age of the officers retired. The cost
of the Reserved and Retired List had increased by
£300,000 a year since 1868-9. As to the Lieutenants' list,
his complaint was that its numbers had been unduly re-
duced, and that a number of officers had been compelled
to retire on increased allowances who would gladly have
remained on the Active List at a lower rate of pay.
With regard to the Commanders, the Admiralty, he
asserted, hrd not a sufficient number at hand for pur-
poses of efficiency, and the regulations as to Captains
were so absurd that a large number of Captains, in-
cluding Captain Nares and Captain Singer, the great
Torpedo officer, could never become Admirals. The arrange-
ments as to the Admirals had resulted in considerably rais-
ing the average and individual age of the list, the exact con-
trary of what Mr. Childers had predicted. Sir John also
made some observations on the position of the warrant
officers, chaplains, Marine officers, 860., and moved a Reso-
lution condemning the present system as ineffective in giving
a due flow of Promotion and in satisfying the Active List.

Mr. Hanbury-Tracy maintained that the present system
was a great improvement on the former state of things, and
moved an amendment declaring that the scheme had been
inevitably hampered by necessary reductions in the number
of officers in all ranks, and that until the effect of these re-
ductions had passed away some of the special provisions of
the Orders in Council require amendment.
Mr. Childers related at considerable length all the at-
tempts of successive First Lords to devise a Retirement
Scheme which should increase the flow of Promotion.
Ms own Orders in Council of 1870 he defended with copious
statistics both as to the number of officers and the cost
of the Retired List, maintaining that it was a boon to
the Service for which it had long been struggling. It
Was in accordance with principles laid down by Sir John
Hay himself in 1863 as representing Naval Officers.
Having replied seriatim to Sir J. Hay's criticisms, and assert-
ing generally that the flow of Promotion had been success-
fully accelerated, with the exception of the promotions from
Lieutenants to Commanders, Mr.. Childers concluded a.
bighly technical speech by making• some practical sugges-
tions for the management of the lists.
Lord C. Beresford asserted that there was great dissatis-
faction in the Navy, seeing that there was scarcely any Pro-
motion at all going on.
Mr. Hunt made a general reply, in the course et which,
though he agreed with many of Mr. Childer's general
principles, he showed that some of his predictions as to the
results of his scheme had not been fulfilled, and the flow of
Promotion which he expected had not been secured. The
subject had been discussed frequently at the Admiralty, but
he could not pledge himself to produce a scheme this Ses-
sion. He was willing to accept Sir J. Hay's motion, but
Mr. Goschen suggested that it should be withdrawn as an
earnest that both sides of the House had agreed that these
questions should, be treated without any intermixture of
Party motivos.
Mr. A. Egerton, speaking for the Amiralty, took the same
view, and, after a few words from Sir G. Balfour, both the
motion and the amendment were withdrawn.
Some other lnisiness was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at half-past one o'clock
.• .

IRISH LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.
In the HOUSE OF ComfONS: June 2, Mr. Sharman Crawford
moved the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Ire-
land) Act 1870 Amendment Bill, and explained that the
object of the measure was to show with certainty what was
the custom in the province of Ulster with regard to tenant
right, and to make the observance of that custom sure.
The Bill would give to an Ulster tenant the security which
he formerly enjoyed. lie justified the introduction of the
measure by the necessities of the case, as the occupiers
of the province of Ulster regarded as their inherited
right that Ulster custom under Which they had effeated
such great and important improvements; but they cora-
iplained that the principle of the custom had been greatly
.enroached upon, and although his late father had often at-
tempted to remedy this evil he was unable to do so. The
'Rill of 1870 did not give sufficient security for the mainten-
ice of the usages of the Ulster tenant right customs, al-
Lough declaringlhein-to be legal. He expressed his regret
'pat the measure was opposed, as in his opinion it was a fair
Iliad moderate measure, which would secure the maintenance
%of a custom which had been productive of great good to the
nprth of Ireland.
Mr. Gibson, in moving that the Bill be read a second time
that day three months, contended that the relations between
nliord and tenant in Ireland in the province of Ulster were
" admirable, and that there was no necessity for a
of this kind. The existing relation between landlord
ad had grown up by virtue of a spirit of good will,
se strongest eulogy that could be passed upon the land-
of Ulster was, that by the performance of duties and
lions which could not be enforced in any law, customs
Pvni up which had the force of an absolute unwritten law.
' before the House proposed to interfere with what
ed in 1870 to be a settlement of the question, and
it passed, a movement would no doubt be set on foot to
id its principle to other parts of Ireland, and perhaps to
and and Wales. The Act of 18.70 transierred eighteen
one worth of property from the owners of Ulster to the
piers. and, being accepted as a settlement of the ques-
it was undesirable to interfere with it.
...Butt supported the bill as an act of justice to the
its of Ulster, and thought it would-be unfortunate if in
'hailing tenant-right for that province the House failed
,•e protection to the tenants of the rest of Ireland.
debate was continued by Mr.. Goldney, who said this
Tiply a Bill to transfer the property of the landlords.ot
to the tenants; by Mr. Macartney, who supported
dl, and contended that wherever tenant right had
bserved in Ireland there would be found the greatest
- ; and by Mr. Kavanagh, who opposed the measure,
that instead of amending it would repeal the Act

Bi
am
Itho,

tk
. lan,
at

present

tentult .
Aron,

deemed

piers.

,n,
Mr.
qaote
• giv
Thi
gi

le .
simply

Bill;

iperity

wing

. Law said it was but a few years since the Irish Land
,d been passed, and it was suggested that they should
le time before they took action in the matter. That
was one of enormous difficulty, introduced after
.., attempts had been made on both sides of the House
;al with the question of tenant right. But difficulties
been found in the working of the Act which
Bill proposed to remedy. He denied that the Act
870 was of necessity t.) be considered final, though
id not regard this Bill as an interference with the settle,
' It was merely proposed to alter the presumption of
Ae . —atom by giving the right to the tenant to effect a public
ale: -No more Injurious or lamentable thing could happen
.mew than if the tenantry of Ulster were induced to believe
-I there was any wavering of intention on the part of
—.Moment that the Land Act of 1870 should be considered a
.final settlement of the question.
.1 Viscount Crichton opposed the Bill, and believed that it
'lxiterfered so ranch with the rights of the landowners that
~)tit passed they would consider that their duties connected
'ryWith property would no longer bind them to spend their .
meney and their existence in Ireland. • ~• . ,
."-1-11r. Conolly supported the Bill. , ),47v a has o.b.
•
Solieitor-Geueral for Ireland said he could not vote
lie second reading of the Bill, because, instead of being
Leasure to amend the Act of 1870, it was a rival and
usurping proposal, and was so ill-drawn that he felt com-
•
~, to oppose it.
T ,Aiarquis of Harlington regretted that they had not
beard seine expression of opinion during the debate from
hon.' Members ho were conhected by ties of property with
i di olth li•dlatid.- 'lf he agreed with the argument that
-bad eekruseti that "We' was not aif anieridinent, but an altera-
. tiaia of the Irish Land Act, he should have•bliiielaikaidn'
in opposing it, but he did not think that this was an
alteration of the principle of the measure of 1870. He
therefore desired to say, before giving hia vote, that though,
alter careful cenaideration, 110 irga prepared te VIPPQO tho

it sow
asure

rtive

to
,had
thig, I
of 187,
(he did
cus

I.tha‘
Par)

lamti

111111.,
14rtr,
4 syviti6
Aftedtkr
_*l3tasprzi
idirjor,.. ismdemol,
t qgcul.atpci , . Voarib4tiOn•
4it t:
mEtio2).4ll4l:PiAikaP '
11!V/t47_.
"WijiPaln:qt Ti;:.:
' trtutAVlrel4f•Pili anal ;-•
,Iktu4iAirgOdiAtlto4 e-
-00.31.setta fezthelii e
. C. . •I.4.rtiteetrwit.4l
; f. t
'' .. s,,cgotti
ri ttepe,A? e
kst pvtl. lip clviej. ~.4.
Pc.4440. , -4i ,44€104111
Iwsvwck.
... .4
4. ~
itiivi TPri kricA
IA ittee tlie hu •
Se,le
wit:lo
n gre%