Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

HOUSE OF COMMONS. j

\ ' " FRIDAY, MARCH 26TH.\

HOUSE OF COMMONS.I

----MONDAY, MARCH 29TH.

.. WEDNESDAY MA-L,-L",Cil,…

DOLGELLEY.

'_./"''''''''''----'--'--_/'"'''--''-''-''o........_/--......_/---......_/-"',/,--PRESENTATION.

Advertising

THURSDAY, MARCH 18TH.

------4------TUESDAY, MARCH…

News
Cite
Share

-4- TUESDAY, MARCH 30TH. HOUSE OF. LORDS. The Duke of Devonshire moved the second reading of the Vcdnntary Schools Bill. It was, he said, admitted that the bill did not do more than redeem the pledge that the Government had given. It did not profess to be anything in the nature of a complete reform of the edu- cational system, but it did deal with one of the most urgent parts of the education question. With regard to the associations to be formed, the Government believed that, however much they might vary in constitution and composi- tion, the main interest actuating them would be the efficiency of the schools they represen ted. The Government had declined: amend- ments regarding those associations, because they thought the bill as it stood was a better guarantee than could be provided by any de- tailed instructions inserted in the body of the measure. So long as the Act of 1870 stood, the standard of elementary education must vary according to the circumstances-of the localities, for that reason the Government declined to accept amendments which would have impesed upon th3 Department the rig-id- rule that the grant should never be applied to the reduction of subscriptions where, in the opinion of the Department, the resources of the locality were so that it was not in their power to make more than a very limited conti ibutian to the support of these schools in which the religious instruction was such as was-desired. Lord Spencer said the bill-had e-omo, to that House in an unprecedented manner,, because not a word or letter was altered from the v ay in which it was framed when introduced in the other House. The-Opposition protestedagainst the second readin, g not because they wished for a moment to &tarve or destroy Voluntary Schools, but because the grant was not accom- panied by certain guarantes. with regard o, the representation, of localities ar paraats in the management. The Archbislop of Duke of Argyll, Lord Herseckell, and khe-Bishop of Manchester continued the debate., The House divided, when there for the second reading 109, against 15, giving a majori- tyof 94. _m- HOUSE OF COMMONS. Sir H. Carapbell-B&Miernian, asked the First Lord of the Treasury which Minister of the iCrown was iresponsille, in the absence from the country of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, for the answers given in the House of Commons to questions upon foreign affairs. Mr. Balfour replied that in first instance the Under Secretary was responsible. In the secomd place the Government, of which Mr. Curzos was a member, was responsible for his action, and it was for all other actions of those, who composed it. Sir H. Campbell-Banaerraan asked whether Mr. Balfour was aware of any occasion within this century when the Prime Minister and the | Foreign Secretary were together out of the country, and whether he was not aware that on such important matters as those with which they were dealing it was usual for the House | of Commons to have its information on the direct responsible authority of a Cabinet Minis- | ter. i Sir C. Dilke asked if it) was not the ease that I when the Prime Minister and Foreigu Secretary1 I were absent during the negotiations for the Trea- ty of Berlin, the Home Secretary, the present Lord Cr ss, acted as Secretary of State for I Foreign Affairs. Mr. Balfour believed it was true that Lord Cross did on that occasion sign the despatches, as one Secretary of State might always do in the absence of another. Mr. Labouchere asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was a fact that the late Emperor of Russia had at his death large sums of money at the Bank of England, and that the estate duty was not paid on these moneys, and whether, in the case of Sovereigns having moneys in this country, on death, no estate duty was paid on them. Sir M. Hicks-Beach replied that the matter had been fully explained to the Public Accounts Committee, and if any further question were put he hoped it would be pub when hispredeces- or returned, because what happened was don.; in his time. Mr. Balfour stated, in answer to Mr. Morley, that he hoped the resolution authorising the bill dealing with poor school board districts would be the first order next Monday. Mr. Dillon asked the Under Foreign Secre- tary what precautions the Government had taken to ensure that the Christian peasantry of Crete should not be subjected to famine by the blockade, and on what grounds the Govern- ment justified the third article of the proc'ama- tion, which forbade the landing of provisions for the interior of the island, while no restric- tion was placed on the landing of stores for the I use of those cities, where the Mahometan popu lation and the Turkish troops were congrega- ted. 1 Sir E. A, Bartlett asked whether the Cretan insurgents, the so-called Christians,' had rob- bed the Mussulman population of their land and food, and whether the great majority of the Mussulman population in Crete were at present exiles in the coast towns, in a state of semi-starvation Mr. Curzon said it was true that Mussulmans ir0?3 interior had bean obliged to leave their villages and were in occupation of ports on the coast, and it was true, also, that in some cases starvation unfortunately prevailed amongst them. in reply to Mr. Lnjion s question he said the Admirals were fully alive to the possible necessities, as regarded provisions, of the peaceful inhabitants of Crete, and subject to the difficulties inherent in the situation, the Admirals had arranged to distribute certain food supplies where most required. In answer to Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Curzon said the Admirals were acting in accordance with authority given to them by their respec- tive Governments to take the measures which they might think expedient for restioring order in Crete. The blockade naturally involved the prohibition of the landing of arms and muni- tions of war if in the opinion of the Admirals they were likely to be employed for aggressive purposes or to prolong the fighting or dis- order. In answer to Mi". J. H. Roberts, Mr. Curzon said that on the 25t& inst. the Russian Ambas- sador as Constantinople communicated to his colleagues a telegram from the Russian Ambas- sador in urging, on behalf of the com bined Admirals, that a European Governor General should be appointed, with full powers and the necessary funds, and that the Porte should be asked gradually to withdraw their troops as the Admirals judged necessary. Those recommendations had the entire support of the Government, who had lost no opportunity of urging their importance. They were at the present moment under the consideration of the Powers. On the motion @f Mr, Balfou?, tire order for resunaingfkhe adjourned debate on financial rela- tions (England and Ireland) was given prefer- ence over the notice of motion and other orders of the day. The discussion on Mr. Blake's mslion, 1íO the effect that the report and proceedings of the Royal Commission on She Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland established tlle existance of an undue burden of taxation; on Ireland, which constituted a great grievance to all classes of the Irish community and: made- it the duty of the Government to pr an early day remedial legislation, and Mr. WMt- taker's amendment declaring that so loag^as the Exchequers of Great Britain and Ireland re- mained osnsolidaded all portions of the United Kingdom- must be regarded as forming* one, country for fiscal purposes* was resumed by Sir E. Clarke, who said he believed the resulfe of the examination that had already taken established beyond dispute or controversy that Ireland at present moment suffered under an undue burden of taxation. He criticised the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday night, and urg slrt there wasc no- need for any further inquiry, by a. New Raywli Commission. The debate was again adjoasaed. >