The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-02-26 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

IMPERIAL PARLIAAIENT.

LUNACY AMENDMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS on Feb. 21 the Lunacy Acts
Amendment Bill was passed through committee, the
clause which provides that, except in cases of urgency,
or where the magistrates were satisfied that it was
.unnocessary, notice should be sent to the alleged
lunatic of the intention to-apply for an order for his
confinement in an asylum, having been first postpoßed
for the purpose of being remodelled.

THE EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Sir J. Fergusson stated,
in reply to Mr. Howorth and Sir H. Tyler, that, in view
of the considerable anxiety in regard to the negotia-
tions relating to Egypt, he was able to say that the
terms of the p:oposals made by her Majesty's Special
Commissioner did not involve the withdrawal of the
troops so long as there was any apprehension that the
Government of Egypt was not in a position to main-
tain itself. Her Majesty's Government had never
made any proposal tending to renounce their right to
protect the tranquility of Egypt from external or in-
ternal disturbances; and there was no foundation for
the impression that they looked upon the position which
was assigned by Treaty to Belgium as a precedent
which it was desirable to follow in the arrangements
which might be made for Egypt.

THE PROCEDURE RULES.
The House then passed to the consideration of the
question of Procedure, and Mr. W. H. Smith moved the
first of the proposed new Rules, dealing with the
"Closure of Debate," which gave Mr. Gladstone the
opportunity of criticising the series generally. The
conclusion he came to was that, viewing the proposals
as a whole, and the manner in which they gave the
go-by to what he considered the. vital and central part
of the matter, namely, the principle of develution and
the multiplying of the organs of the House for the
transaotion of business, he, could not but feel them to
be inadequate for their purpose. Even if adopted, he
feared they would do nothing commensurate to the
necessity of diminishing the enormous mass of business
arrears before the House.

In the subsequent discussion Mr. Parnell described
the Closure as useless for the promotion of business,
and useful only in checking freedom of debate. The
proposed Rules would tend only to irritation and
exasperation, and he predicted that some day the Con-
servative party would have reason bitterly to regret
that, confident in their majority, they had taken part
in striking away protection from the minority. The
difficulty of carrying on business was inherent in the
nature of the case—that the House was asked to do
work which was sufficient to occupy three or four
Legislatures, Ministers being challenged to justify
their placing the question of Procedure in the fore-
front.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that the
need for reform of procedure was admitted in almost
all quarters, and he was glad to have the co-operation ,
of the front Opposition bench in the work. He assured
the House that the Government were anxious to pro-
tect the rights of minorities, but while these rights
were guarded, the majority ought, at the same time,
to be able to carry out the great task entrusted to it
and do justice to the demands which the country made
upon it. The Government had measures, which they
hoped to induce the House to pass, which would
facilitate any future action on the matter, and they were
perfectly alive to the necessity in every safe and prop r
manner of relieving the pressure of business on the
Home. There were schemes of Local Government which
by deceutralisation might lighten the work of the
House, and the bill dealing with private bill legislatipn
woad be a step in that direction. Further all parties
were agreed that it was expedient to lighten the work uf
Parliament by confiding to county and local authorities
as much of the business of the House as could be safely
confided to them.
W. Hr

Sir . tlarcourt, who follon..— , dwelt principally on
the question of the Closure, and objected to associating
the Speaker at all with it. He suggested, therefore,
that the Speaker's name should be expunged from the
Rule, and that the respcwsibility of applying the Closure
should be left to the majority, relying on public opinion
to prevent abuse.
Mr. Raikes having spoken in support of the
isterial proposals, the debate was, on the motion
of Sir L. Play fair, adjourned.

wed, 4