The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-26 00:00:00

HEAVY ARTILLERY.

At the !Evening Sitting, Mr. Hanbury-Tracy moved for
the re-appointment of the Ordnance Select Committee. In
support of it he gave a long history of the operations of the
old Committee, and made various suggestions for its im-
provement, among other things recommending that two
distinguished civilian engineers should be added to it. It
was not with a view of reorganizing our gunnery system
that he advocated the re-establishment of the Select
Committee. On the contrary, he maintained, giving
numerous details and particulars under each head,
that our great guns for the Navy and Fortification
were superior to the guns of every foreign P.wer, whether
muzzle or breech-loading—in durability, rapidity, power,
simplicity? and cheapness. Nevertheless, we ought not to
rest conteal with our present position; and it was in order
that every opportunity might be taken for improvement
that he wished fur the re appointment of the Select Com-
mittee.

The discrasion was continued by several other hon. mem-
bers and

Mr. Ward Hunt remarked, in regard to responsibility,
that there could be no doubt that the Government was en-
tirely responsible for the guns employed in both Services,
consequently he objected both to the re-appointment
of the Ordnance Committee and to a Select Com-
mittee. The experience of the Ordnance Committee was
not satisfactory in every respect, and it was not fair
to put on a body like a Select Committee the respon-
sibility of judging on so teahnical a matter. Those
who advised the Admiralty on these matters were satisfied
that we had a good gun ; and in regard to rapidity of
firing—if the new hydraulic machinery succeeded—
the Naval muzzle-loader would be as expeditious as the
breech-loader. As to protection, that was already amply
secured. Certainly no case had yet been made out for the
general substitution of breech-loaders for muzzle-loaders.
At the same time it was not necessary for the Adrnicalty to
put its foot down and declare that the question should
never be re-opened. As to the Krupp gun, the Secretary
for War had never yet been able to get one for the purpose
of experiment—a fact which, to some extent, spoke for
itself.

Sir G. Balfour, who was interrupted by an unsuccessful at-
tempt at a count-out, warned the House that to set to work
to renew our Ordnance would cost some five or six millions.
The Motion and the Amendment were both withdrawn;
and .M.r. O'Reilly was calling attention to the position of
Roman Catholic Chaplains in India, when the House was
counted out at twenty minutes to one o'clock.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 23, Sir Harcourt John!
stone, in moving the second reading of the Contagious
Diseases Repeal Bill, remarked that he was aware that
he was undertaking a difficult and delicate task. But
any unwillingness he might have felt at bringing the
subject forward did not arise from any feeling that such
a measure of repeal was unnecessary, • as his feeling in
favour of a repeal of those measures were strengthen-
ing every day. There were three Acts, differing from each
other very slightly, excepting that they became more strin-
gent and despotic as they advanced. He contended that
many cases of injustice and cruelty had taken place under
the Act, and quoted thd well-known Aldershot case, remark-
ing that while the woman might have been a drunken cha-
racter, the threat to put the Act into operation drove her to
commit suicide. When the Acts come to be looked into, the
whole country would, he believed, be in favour of their
repeaL
Colonel Alexander movel the rejection of the Bill, and
while giving credit to the promoters of the Bill for good in-
tentions, believed that they were mistaken in their views,
He contended that the Acts were not unduly oppressive, and
that the only interference with the liberty of the subject
was with reference to persons who had by their lives rendered
such an interference necessary. Upon the whole the gets
had, he said, worked well, and had proved most valuable, and
it would be a great pity to repeal them. If he thought for a
moment that these Acts were an incentive to vice he would
not support them, but this he believed was not the case,
and considering that this legislation had been productive of
good, he proposed the amendment standing in his name.
Mr. Hopwood having watched these Acts during five
years, believed that they were unfair and unjust. Not only
were they a great hardship upon one sex, but they actually
involved State recognition, and gave unprecedented, exces.
the and improper power to the po!ce forces of the country.
Mr. S. Cave agreed with previous speakers that the House
had no right to shrink from the dicussion of this question,
but could not admit that there had been a "conspiracy of
silence" on the subject, as it had been discussed in the
House both in 1870 and 11:73. On the whole, he believed the
Acts had been productive of good, and therefore he sup-
ported their continuance.
Mr. Childers believed that the Acts had been productive of
good, and had diminished the amount of vice. He sugges-
ted, however, certain changes in the existing law, among
which were abolition of registration and compulsory exami-
nation, but substituting certain safeguards. He trusted that
where it was possible the administration of the Acts would
be left to the metropolitan police at garrison towns and
dockyards, and not placed in the hands of the provincial
police forces.
Mr. Henley supported the Bill.
- - -•- •

-
Mr. Massey, one of the Royal Commission, gave it as his
opinion that the weight of evidence was in favour of the
Acts, and that the statistics of the poliae were to be relied
upon.
Mr. Stansfeld said that those who supported the repeal of
these Acts were in favour of State-aided voluntary hospitals
and reclamatory agencies, but they disapproved of a register
for a practical examination, and of a Government guarantee.
He contended that, according to the army returns, these
Acts were, hygienically considered, a failure. These Acts
had outraged the moral sense of a large portion of the
community, who would never be satisfied until they were
repealed.
Mr. Hardy could not admit that the Acts were imperative.
As Minister for War he would decline to withdraw the pro-
tection they gave to the army. He deprecated the warmth
Infused into the discussion, and quoted statistics to show
these Acts had produced beneficial effects among the class
they were intended to reach. He could say for himself that
when first these Acts were introduced his instincts were much
against them, but he could now give them his support, be-
cause he received many assurances that they were doing
good both physically and morally. In conclusion, amid tre-
mendous cheering, the right hon. gentleman expressed a
hope that if ladiee thought proper to agitate such a question
as this, they would at least not disseminate horrible litera-
ture among young gitls, and thus inform them upon subjects
upon which they would otherwise and very properly be igno-
rant.

The House then divided, when there appeared :—For the
second reading, 126 ; against, 303 ; majority, 182.
The Bill to repeal the Acts was therefore rejected.

The other orders were disposed of, and the House adjourned.