The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-02-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 9, the Duke of Argyll made
Personal explanation. Yesterday morning the Secretary
/or India was good enough to show him the telegram in
'which, before the passing of the Bill conferring on her
Majesty the title of Empress of India, the Queen was so
styled. He found that beyond all doubt he, in his own
handwriting, altered the title used in that telegram as it
'was originally drawn up, and inserted "Empress of India."
The circumstance had escaped his memory. It was, how-
ever, a mistake to suppose that he spoke against the Bill
conferring the title of Empress on Her Majesty. He took no
Part in the discussions on that Bill, which, at the time, he
thought was viewed with exaggerated feelings on both sides.
Ti, however, it was the foundation of the new Imperial
Policy of the Government in the East, be owed his noble
friends an apology for not having opposed it.

Earl Cadogan stated, in reply to the Earl of Kimberley,
that it was proposed to disarm the Basutos under the Cape
Peace Preservation Act, but pending the consideration of
the petition of the chief of the tribe to the Cape Parliament,
the disarming would not be proceeded with.
The Lord Chancellor laid on the table, and asked their
Lordships to read a first time, a Bill for amending the law
t elating to the liability of employers in respect of accidents
to their workmen from workmen in the same employ-
ment. The noble and learned earl explained that
by the existing law the employer was only liable
in such cases when the accident arose tbrough
some negligence of his own. A Royal Commission
and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had how-
ever, recommended a change, in the direction of making
the law more favourable to the employed. The Bill
Which he now brought forward was one of two sec-
tions which was introduced in the House of Commons
last year, but was dropped there owing to the pres-
sure of other business. It would make the employer
liable when the accident arose through negligence of
any "servant in authority." He anticipated no serious
difference as to that principle; but the difficulty was in
defining what was a "servant in authority." The Govern-
ment attempted to define it in a Bill; but, as their defini-
tion was subjected to much criticism in the House of
Commons last year, he proposed that after second reading
the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of their
Lordships' House on the question of definition.
The Bill was read a first time, and their lordships rose
before six o'clock

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Stanhope, in reply to Mr.
Onslow, declined to make any further statement with respect
to the Russian correspondence discovered at Cabul.

Lord E. Fitzmaurice gave notice that as an amendme to
Sir W. Lawson's Local Option Resolution he would move
transfer the licensing power to the urban and rural saniterY
authorities or committees thereof; and Mr. Serjeant Simon
also gave notice that he would move that, before the grant
of a new licence, Its necessity should be establish
oath. d on

In answer to Mr. Edge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said it was intended to continue the Ballot Act for one year
ithout alteration, so as to leave the discretion of the new
Parliament free, and he also would shortly introduce a
Corrupt Practices Bill and a Bill for allocating the six
vacant seats. In answer to Sir W. Lawson, he said it was
not probable that the Government would be able to deal
this year with any of the recommendations of the Lords'
Committee on Intemperance.
In answer to Sir C. Mike, Colonel Stanley said he be-
lieved that as a matter of fact the rules relating to news-
Paper correspondentstin the field, published in the recess,
were not in force. Ms department, he further said, had
sanctioned no rules, and the rules referred to had been
drawn up alter the Russo-Turkish War for discussion only.
Al to his personal opinion, he did not **ink that any such
rules could be enforced without consideraj,-; modification.
The adjourned debate on the Address wairesumed by
M. M. Henry, who defended the Irish members against
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's imputation that they
Preferred "airing their speeches" to considering prac-
tical measures and, in a minute analysis of the papers
Put presented to Parliament, complained that the Go-
vernment had formed a very inadequate idea of the
distress and of the measures necessary to relieve it. From
his own experience of the west coast of Ireland, he asserted
that a famine had actually set in, and severely censured the
Government for not having met it by employment on repro-
ductive works, such as railways.

Mr. W. E, Forster held that, though there was much dis-
tress In Ireland, it bad not been proved that an actual
famine existed, and as the Government had shown by the
preParations they had made for the distribution of food and
rael, and the.relaxation in the conditions of outdoor relief,
that they were determined not to allow anything like
it famine to occur, he could not support the amend-
ment. At the some time, he thought the Poor-law condi-
tions ought to have been relaxed earlier, and he was afraid
that the relief through baronial presentment sessions would
fail as It had failed in the last famine. As to land tenure,
though he could not admit it to be the cause of the distress,
he held It to be the most urgent of all Irish questions, and
hoped that the Session would not be allowed to pass without
some attempt to deal with it.

Mr. W. H. Smith said that the Government fully ad-
mitted their responsibility, and repeated that they had
carefully watched the progress of the calamity from day
to day. They had satisfied themselves that there would
be no difficulty in pouring in supplies of food and fuel,
though they felt bound not to interfere with the natural
course of trade or the natural means of employment by
shy precipitate action. For the same reason, they had de-
signedly refrained from relaxing the Poor-law conditions
until the last moment.

The debate was continued by Mr. Dickson, Mr. Hermon
Sir P. O'Brien, Mr. Blennerhassett, Sir T. Sinclair, Mr. T. G.
MacCarthy, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Sir G. Bowyer, Mr. Synan,
Mr. O'Cleary, and after some observations from Mr. Gray,
Lord Hartington said he thought it was too soon to pass a
vote of censure, because the House could not as yet know
whether the steps which the Government had taken were
adequate, nor had the speeches of the Irian members made
out a case against the Government. As to measures of per-
manent improvement, the Marquis was of opinion that
too much must not be expected from legislation un-
accompanied by social changes, and, though be did not
think a large measure of emigration necessary, there ought
.to be a redietribution of population. With regard to land
"Mire, though he did not deny the existence of evils in It,
he denied that the Land Act had failed and protested
against the assumption that the distress was due to it.
After some further observations,
The Attorney-General for Ireland briefly replied, and at a
quarter to two o'clock another adjournment of the debate
was Moved.
This was resisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hut
alter considerable discussion he gave way, and the debate
Was again adjourned.
The House adjourned at a quarter to three.

In the Hum Or LORDS, Feb. 10, the Earl of Beaconsfield,
!ti answer to Lord Granville, said there was no foundation
for the report that her Majesty's Government had released
the Persian Government from their treaty engagement not
to enter Herat.
Lord De la Warr presented a Bill, similar in principle and
substance to the one he laid on the table last Session,
With reference to the liability of employers for injuries
stuitained by their servants. Its object was to make
Masters and employers liable for defective machinery,
taut, or anything in their works which might be
C cause of injury to their servants, and also to
Make them responsible for injuries sustained by their
.s_lervanis in consequence of the neglect of persons to whom
the authority and supervision of such masters and em-
ployers was delegated. He asked to have this Bill referred
to the same Select Committee as that to which the Bill
introduced by the Lord Chancellor on Monday night was to
be committed.
The Lord Chancellor said that Her Majesty's Government
could not give their support to Lord De la Warr's Bill, and
therefore it was impossible for them to consent ko refer it to
a Select Committee.

The Bill was read a first time.

Certain returns as to the expense of School Board and
Board of Guardians' elections were ordered, on the motion
of Earl Fortescue, and their Lordships adjourned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. Whitby, the new member
for Liverpool, took his seas, and warreceived with pro-
longed and enthusiastic cheering from the Ministerial
• benches.

In answer to Mr. 0. Morgan, Mr. G. Noel said it was
expected that the new Courts of Justice would be ready for
Judicial business at the end of 1881; and in answer to Mr.
lianbury-Tracy, Lord J. Manners said it was not Intended to
Introduce a Copyright Bill this Session.
The Marquis of Hartington having asked what truth there
Was in the statement of The Times that Persia had been
released from the obligations of the treaty of 1867 not to
oceeDY Herat, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there
had been communications received from the Government
of Persia on this subject, and it had been a matter of con-
aideration, but the Government had not come to any ar-
rangement, and at present it would not be convenient to
make any statement.

The other business having been by general consent post-
poned, with the exception of the Companies Act Amend-
ment Bill, which was read a second time, the adjourned
debate on the Address was resumed by
Mr. Chamberlain, who enlarged for some time on the
party and politioal aspects of the question, and explained
his own attitude towards Home Rule.
After a debate, in which Sir W. Barttelot, Mr. Law, Mr.
Mandel's, Mr. Itylands, Mr. O'Shauguessy, Mr. Jacob
Bright, and other hon. members took part,
Mr. Cross assured the House that the Government had
kept its attention fixed on the progress of the distress, and
had long ago decided on the measures which had been taken
and would have yet to be taken. He contended, moreover,
that they had taken their steps at the proper time,
and that to have moved before would have caused
much disturbance, and would have done much harm in Ire-
land. In the tame way, though it had been determined to
relax the conditions of out- door relief, to have sent a formal
circular round to the Boards of Guardians would have
broken down the Poor Law before it was necessary. En.
Urging on this point, Mr. Cross mentioned, among other
matters. that not a single workhouse in any part
Of Ireland had as yet been filled. He dissented
altogether, from the suggestion that a large system of public
works should be established, insisting that the most effec-
tive mode of stimulating labour was by providing it on the
spot and in the natural course. With regard to next year's
crops, he assured the House that provision had been made
which would meet any deficiency.
The House then divided, and Mr. Shaw's amendment was
negatived by 216 to 66. •

The address was then agreed to, and some other business
having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a quarter
to one o'clock.