The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-05-12 00:00:00

OUR DEFENCES.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mr. W. H. Smith, re-
plying to Admiral Field, said, after making every
endeavour to adhere to the letter 21 the proposed refer-
ence to the Royal Commission to inquire into the state
of our naval and military defences, the Government
found they were unable to do so. The Government
were not insensible to the duty of continual vigilance
and persistence in a policy by which the available
forces at sea would be adequate to the national emer-
gencies.

LONDON CORPORATION.-THE CHARGES OF
MALVERSATION.

Mr. Firth moved that it was necessary without dela)
to place the expenditure of the Corporation of London
under similar statutory restrictions to those to which
other Corporations in the Kingdom were subject. He
contended that the Corporation had been guilty of im-
proper and unjustifiable expenditure. Mr. G. Howell
seconded the motion, which was opposed by Mr.
Baumann. Tlie latter hon. member said that the eact
of applying the Municipal Corporation Act of the City
of London would be to confine the expenditure of the
City cash within the limits of the City proper. Sir G.
Trevelyan said it was high time that the question of
expenditure by the Corporation was taken up by the
House of Commons. There was an expenditure of
three hundred and fifty thousand pounds. regarding
which no light whatever could be got. The inquiry
by the Select Committee had made it plain that the
standard of public morality in the Corporation of
London and the sense of responsibility dealing with
public money was not so high as in the great open
Corporation's. Mr. Bradlaugh maintained that there
was not one of the charges which had been brought
against the Corporation which had not be en fully
preyed. Sir J. Bailey, as a member of the committee,
thought the accounts of the Corporation should
undergo a decent and proper audit. The Solicitor
General said it was impossible to deal with this matter
in a separate form, or apart from the whole question of
London Government. The House had been told that
that would be an early subject of legislation, and in the
face of that fact it would be unwise for the House to
pledge itself to the present resolution. The House
divided, and the motion was negatived by 156 to 133.

BOARD OF TRADE AND RAILWAY.
Mr. Channing moved that it was expedient to extend
the powers of the Board. of Trade to insist on the adop-
tion by railway companies of more adequate arrange-
ments to secure the safety of their servants and the
pnblic, and to obtain from the companies periodical
returns of all cases of overtime on the part of their
servants. Mr. W. M‘Laren seconded the motion. Sir
M. H. Beach could not accept the proposal contained
in the motion, and he held that the right way of deal-
ing with the question was to insist on the
responsibility of the companies. It would be most
unwise on the part of Parliament to do anything which
would transfer the administration of the railways to
the Board of Trade, because the Board would require
also to obtain powers to order the expenditure ot
millions of money on the making of new stations and
new lines, and that was not a position which the House
would like to put the Board of Trade in. He would,
however, consider the question of continuous brakes,
the interlocking system, returns of overtime, and other
matters, with the view of dealing with them. After
some further debate the motion was withdrawn.

DEMORALISING PRINTS.
A motion by Mr. Samuel Smith to strengthen the
law against demoralising literature gave rise to some
discussion; the Home Secretary was unable to inter-
fere, but he assented to the spirit of the motion, which
was unanimously agreed to.