The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

a; • 474 which it was intended to appropriate to a museum, or place of deposit for models, and a library. He moved to defer the second reading for six months. Mr. DUNCOMBE and Sir J. SHELLEY defended the bill, in reply to the Solicitor-General, and after some further discussion the motion was negatived ; so that the bill is lost. REFORMATORY SCHOOLS. Mr. Sergeant DEASY moved the second reading of the Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Bill, the object of which he explained, as well ai the amendments he intended to propose in order to obviate objections. Lord NAAS said he did not intend to offer any objection to the second reading of the bill, which extended to Ireland a measure adopted in Eng land. He at the same time threw out suggestions as to its operation, and as to the state of prisons in Ireland. A short discussion ensued, in which Mr. Bagwell, Mr. Hatchet!, Mr. Letroy, and Mr. Stapleton took part, and the bill was then read a second time. Mr. liattu,rott obtained leave to bring in a bill to reduce the stamp duty on passports. The house, after some further business, adjourned at five o'clock. HOUSE OF CO Xi MONS-.THURSDA.Y. LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION. Mr. V. Shure, in reply to a series of questions put by Mr. Newdegate, gave an explanation respecting the " private letter" from Lord Canning, the sub stance of which explanation was that he had received such letter, dated the 6th of March ; that it contained a paragraph referring to a proclamation which Lord Canning stated he intended to issue ; and that it did not appear to him (Mr. Smith) at the time, and still, that it was of that importance to render it ne cessary that he should communicate it to Lord Ellenborough, who would have been justified, he thought, in considering it an impertinent communi cation. He added—this part of his explanation pro voking ironical cheers—that he had read the letter to Lord Palmerston, to whom it did not occur, any more than to himself, that the communication should be made to the Government. THE OATHS BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the committee appointed to draw up the reasons for dis agreeing from the amendments of the L)rds on the Oaths Bill. The reasons were agreed to by the house, after a protest from Mr. NEWDEG iTE, and, upon the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, a message was ordered to be sent to the Lords desiring a conference. MASTERS AND WORIEbIEN BILL. On the order for the second reading of this bill, moved by Mr. MACKINNON, Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the bill should be withdrawn, considering it to be utterly unworkable. After a short discussion, Mr. MACKINNON withdrew the bill. JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL. Mr. HEADLAII moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. BLACK argued strongly in opposition to the bill, insisting upon the danger of limiting the respon sibility of bankers, and moved to defer the second reading for six months. This amendment was seconded by Mr. FINLAY. After a few remarks by Mr. Dittotosn, Sir R. CARDEN opposed the bill, which, he said, would inflict injustice upon the banks established since Sir Robert Peel's Act. Sir W. DUNBAR supported the bill, the object of which, be observed, was not to interfere with unli mited liability, but to extend to joint-stock banks tile pnnciple applied to other trades of limited responsibility, bringing them within the operation of the general law, and be believed that this measuro would create a better class of shareholders, and lead to an improved management of joint-stock banks. Mr. Bovias. looked upon the bill as an attempt to protect directors and shareholders of joint-stock banns at the expense of the public, and appealed to the repeated decisions of Parliament that limited liability should not be extended to bankers, whose unlimited responsibility was indispensable to the protection of the public, the case of banks being ex ceptional, and not in the same category with ordinary mercantile speculations. The depositors had no voice in the appointment of the directors of a bank or any control over its management. Mr. GURNEY could not vote in favour of the bill, not because its principle was unsound, but because the general experiment had not been tried long enough, and, until then, he thought it would be unwise to extend it. If the general experiment should prove successful, he should be ready to place banks upon the same footing as other trading com panies. Sir G. Lewis argued that the opponents of the bill were bound to show sufficient reasons why banking companies should be excepted from the general rule. He examined the reasons alleged in favour of the exception, which were not powerful THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858. enough to induce him to withhold his assent from the second reading of the bill. The measure, he observed, was merely permissive, and if the public felt more confidence in banks with unlimited liability than in those the responsibility of which was limited, the latter could not compete with the former, and it was probable that the cases in which the act was adopted would not be many. Mr. Malaria insisted that it was a fallacious argu ment that the Legislature was on all occasions to interfere for the protection of one party, the creditors of a bank, who had ample means of protecting themselves. There was no substantial distinction between a banking and any other trading company, if provision were made for due notice of their extent of liability. He supported the bill, as well as Mr. BAXTER, who said he saw no valid reason why the terms upon which one man was to deal with another should be prescribed by law. The rule of unlimited liability prevented shrewd and cautious men of business from carrying on banks upon a sound principle, and tempted the public to repose undue confidence in banks, which, on their part, were induced to give facilities to wild and reckless speculation. Mr. JOSEPH EwART and Mr. SHERIDAN spoke in favour of the bill. Mr. SPOONER likewise supported the second read. ing. He still considered the principle of limited liability unsound ; but he could see no reason why, if applied to other trades, it should not be extended to banks. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER also gave his support to the second reading of the bill. It put an end, he said, to a restriction which could be main tained on no sound principle; and although it might be true that the principle of limited liability bad not been sufficiently tried, and the Legislature might be obliged to retrace its steps, this was no reason why it should not be applied to banks. The amendment was negatived, and the bill was read a second time. The house then went into committee upon the Church•rates Abolition Bill. The first clause, abolishing church rates, was carried, after a long debate, by 2'27 to 153. The other clauses were agreed to. Sir A. ELTON moved the addition of two new clauses, one providing that any church rate made before the passing of the act may be collected in the same way as if the act had not been passed; the-other, empower. ing the churchwardens and parishioners to make a voluntary rate upon the occupiers of all property now liable to church rate, provided that no occupier who shall have refused or neglected to pay such voluntary rate shall be entitled to vote at any vestry summoned for church business ior eighteen months. _ _ _ The first clause was agreed to and added to the bill; the other clause, after some discussion, was withdrawn. The bill then passed through the committee, and was ordered to be reported. Other bills were then advanced a stage, and the house adjourned at twenty minutes to one o'clock. foreign aab 6olonial FRANCE. An interesting debate took place in the Corps Legislatif on the 7th inst., on the new enactments of the Penal Code relating to the usurpation of titles. The bill is intended to protect the remains of the old French nobility, and those who have been created since 1789, in the exclusive possession of their titles. After an animated debate, in wbich it was stated on the one side that hereditar; distinctions were contrary to the principles of the Revolution, and on the other that the right of the Sovereign to confer titles ought to be shielded from any attack, the bill wag carried by 211 to 23. M. Picard, the opposition candidate, has been elected for the Fifth Circumscription by a large majority. The numbers, as far as they are yet known, are .—Picard, 10,323 ; Eck, 8,970. The Pays says that the questions in dispute be• tween Turkey and Montenegro can only be resolved by the Congress of Paris. TURKEY The differences between Turkey and Montenegro are becoming serious. They arose as formerly out of the impositions levied by the Turkish Government on the Christian population of those districts. The latest intelligence is, that there has been a battle fought at Grahovo between the Turks on one aide and the Montenegrins and the Herzegovine rayahs on the other. The latter had fifty men killed and seventy wounded. The loss of the Turks is not known. Grahovo was burnt by its inhabitants. It is expected that some French frigates will enter the Adriatic. The Moniteur of Wednesday contains an article hostile to the Turkish pretensions. SYRIA. A mission is being organized at Beyrout to preach Christianity to the Arabs. The head of it is an English Jesuit of the name of Palgrave, who bus been a member of the Jesuit Coll ege at B eyrout for some years. This gentleman was formerly at Oxford, and graduated there very well. He then went out to India as an officer in the army, where he stayed some few years, but upon leaving the Protestant for the Roman Catholic Church, he resigned the service and became a Jesuit. It is said that he is a first. rate linguist, speaking nine or ten Oriental tongues like a native. The Arabs say that he knows their language better than any one of themsekes. He thinks nothing of walking a long day' s j ourney to preach in some far-off village in Lebanon, an& coming back in the same manner when his sermon is over. Ho has now volunteered to proceed upon a mission amongst the Bedouin tribes of the desert, amongst whom the very fact of being a Christian is a crime of the first magnitude. He leaves Beyrout— perfectly alone—in a few days, and expects to be absent amongst the wanderers he has proposed to convert for a year at least. INDIA. THE BOMBAY MAIL. The Wanderer has arrived from Alexandria with the following telegram, in advance of the Bombay Mail:— ALEXANDRIA, May J. The "{Mahn, with the Bombay mails of April 24, readied Suez this morning. Sir Colin Campbell had an interview with the Governor. General, at Allahabad, on the 12th of April, and on the 20th was to start from Lucknow for Ruhilcund, accom. ponying a column under General Walpole. Bawdily and Calpee were still in the hands of the enemy, and as yet no attack hail been made upon either of these places. The rebels are said to be in force along the river, near Futtehpore, and near Benarea. _ . Up to the 18th of April Sir Hugh Rose was still at Jhanai. Large bodies cf the ecemy are said to be advan cing from the East, with the view of getting in his rear. General Roberts's force was preparing to go into quarters at Nusseerabad and Neemuch. He writes that he will encounter detachments of rebels in that district. The Kotah garrison, 5,000 strong, were at large, but without artillery. General Whitlock remains at Saugor. The Nepaulese are reported to be falling back upon their own frontier, to protect it against the rebels. Lord Conning was about to leave Allahabad for Calcutta. General Lowe having started for England, Sir James Outram takes his place at the Council Board. Trade at Bombay had been less active during the previous fortnight. The money-market was tight. Freights unchanged. The banks had raised their discounts one per cent. LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DESPATCH• THE SECRET COMMITTEE OF THE COURT OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA IN COUNCIL. April 10, 18.58. Our letter of the 24th of March, lIKA, will have put you in possession of our general views with respect to the treat ment of the people in the event of the evacuation of Luck• now by the enemy. 2. On the 12th instant we received from you a copy of the letter, dated the 3rd of March, addressed by }our secre tary to the secretary to the Chief Commissioner in Oude, which letter inclosed a copy of the proclamation to be issued by the Chief Commissioner, as soon as the British troops should have command of the city of Luckoow, and conveyed instructions as to the manner in which be was to act with reepect to different classes of persons in execution of the views of the Governor-General. 3. The people of Oude will see only the proclamation. 4. That authoritative expression of the will of the Government informs the people that six persons, who are named as having been steadfast in their allegiance, are henceforward the sole hereditary proprietors of the lands they held when Oude came under British rule, subject only to such moderate assessment as may be imposed upon them ; that others, in whose favour like claims may be established, will have conferred upon them a proportionate measure of reward and honour; and that, with these ex ceptions, the proprietary right in the soil of the province is confiscated to the British Government. 15. We cannot but express to you our apprehension that this decree, pronouncing the disinherison of a people, will throw difficulties almost insurmountable in the WILY of the re-establishment of peace. 6. We are under the impression that the war in Oude has derived much of its popular character from the rigo rous manner in which, without regard to what the chief landholders had beoine accustomed to co nsider ax their rights, the summary settlement had , in a l ar g e portion of the province, been carried out by your officers. 7. The landholders of India are as much attached to the soil occupied by their ancestors, and are as sensitive with respect to the rights in the soil they deem themselve of to possess, as the occupiers of land in any country which we have a knowledge. 8. Whatever may be your ultimate and undisclosed in tentions, your proclamation will appe ar to deprive t he great body of the people of all hope u p on the subjec t most dear to them as individuals, while the substitution of our rule for that of their native Sov erei g n has natur ally excited against us whatever they may h ave of national fooling.