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

to myself, and due to my colleagues, and due to him to say that we separate from him as colleagues , —l trust we shall nev er separate from him as fr ig-nds,—with the deepest and sincerest regret for his loss, and with an earnest hope that we may still have the benefit of his disinterested and impartial advice in our effort to settle the great problem of t h e government of India. (Cheers.) Earl GI ANVELLE : I shall trouble your lordships with only a few observa tions. I was certainly not prepared for the important announcement made by the President of the Board of Control in a statement which, as truly remarked by the noble earl who has just spoken, was most honourable and s traightforward; and, however widely we may differ upon points of policy, I cannot but feel that a large portion of the eulogy to which your lordships have listened is well deserved. How far the resignation of the President of the Board of Control may affect the position of his colleagues I am not prepared to say. My object in rising is simply to call attention to a small matter of fact upon which some doubt still seems to rest. The noble earl at the head of the Government has stated that the question in the House of Commons was asked without any notice having been given, and that it was answered by the Secretary to the Board of Control without previous communication with any other member of the Government. Now, what I want to ask is—and the fact must surely be known to the noble earl—whether Mr. 13 , tillie was really not aware that a ques. tion would be put to him, and whether he gave his answer without knowing the wishes of his colleagues. The Earl of DERBY : ➢ly noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) stated distinctly that Mr. BeiHie gave ►he answer by his authority and on his responsibility, without the knowledge of any other member of the Cabinet. For myself, I had not the slightest idea that that question, or any other question upon that subject, was going to be pat. Earl GRANVILLE : It has been stated that the question was put without previous notice. Mr. Baillie must have had notice of it, or how could he have communicated with the noble earl upon the subject? The Loan Societies Bill and the Chief Justice of Bombay Bill were read a second tia.e. A division was taken against the third reading of the Transfer of Land Bill. There appeared for the third reading— Contents l3 Non•contents Majotity for the bill —l Their lordships then adjourned till Friday. HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY. THE DUDE PROCLAMATION. Mr. CARDWELL fixed his motion on the subject of the Oude despatch for Friday, instead of Thursday. Lord A. V. TEMPEST gave notice that be should move, as an amendment to the resolution of which the hon. member for Oxford had given notice for Friday— That this house, in its present state of information, abstains from expressing an opinion upon the policy of any proclamation which may have been issued by the Governor-General of India in relation to Oude, or upon the course pursued by the Government in reference to each proclamation. THE OATHS BILL. The adjourned debate on the nomination of the committee to draw up reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' amendments on the Oaths Bill, on the mo tion that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be one other member of the committee, was resumed by The SOLICITOR.GENERAL, who observed that there were two questions which. though entirely distinct, had been mixed up together—first, the right of the house to call upon any individual elected a member to perform a duty, of which he had no doubt; secondly, what would become the duty of Baron Rothschild if nominated on the committee, which it would be for him to consider. His opinion was that there was nothing in the Act of Parliament or in Parliamentary practice to preclude the house from nominating him. Mr. WHITBREAD could see no real distinction be tween voting in a committee and in the house, be lieving a committee to be a part of the house. Suppose, he remarked, them should be a conference between the two houses, Baron Rothschild might be named one of the managers, and might be objected to by the managers on the part of the other house. Then, if he might be appointed on this committee, he might be nominated on auy other committee—an election committee, for instance—and might he nominated chairman, and, as such, be would have to present a report to the house. He could see nothing,, he said, in the case of Sir Joseph Jekyll that authorized this motion. He had no doubt that Sit Joseph Jekyll did take the oatl s before he sat on the committee. He urged the importance of Preserving inviolate the rules and customs of the house Mr. HEADLAM supported the motion, which was oppo se d b y Mr. MAcAIILAy, who did not deny the power of the house to nominate on a committee a member who had not taken the oaths; but the question, he observed, was not dryly whether the house had this Power, but whether, knowing that Baron Rothschild THE PRE SS, Mai 15, 1858. was not going to take the oaths, the house would nominate him a member of a committee, which, he contended, would he entirely without precedent, and a course derogatory to the house. Mr. COLLIER insisted that the case of Sir Joseph Jekyll was a precedent entirely in point. Some further discussion ensued, in which Mr. Drummond, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Puller participated, and upon a division the motion was carried by 251 to 19th Upon the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the com mittee was ordered to withdraw immediately. Lord It. CECIL moved a resolution : That it is expedient that the investigation into the merits of private bills, at present conducted by select committees, should in future, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, be conducted by a paid and permanent tribunal. He argued, in support of the motion, that the pre sent tribunal of investigation VMS both inefficient and costly; that, although discharging gigantic official duties, involving an enormous amount of capital, the members of that house were selected without reference to those duties, and the intellect of the house was withdrawn from the choice of the committee of selection, whose office it was to nomi nate select committees on private bills, and who had brained the house, and he mentioned instances of the miscarriage and mismanagement of select com mittees. He dwelt upon the costliness of this tri bunal, upon the vast sums expended in private bill legislation, and upon the severe duties it imposed upo; members of Parliament. He sketched the outline of a tribunal on the plan of the Inclosure Commission, which he thought would be a tit sub stitute. Colonel W. PATTEN defended the committee of selection and the private bill committees. He wished, however, that some practical system could be devised for the improvement of private bill legis lation. Lord STANLEY thought Lord R. Cecil had mixed soma imaginary evils with others that were real. With respect to the expense of private bills, all litigation, he observed, where large interests were at stake, had a tendency to run into great expense, and he did not think the cost of railway bills was attri butable to the constitution of select committees. He joined issue with Lord R. Cecil upon other points, observing that the difficulty was, assuming that the system of select committees was objectionable, to discover an alternative. The power intrusted to select committees upon railway bills, dfor example, was not a judicial, but a legislative power, which could not, without great inconvenience, be confarred upon any administrative board. A great deal, he thought, might be done for the amendment of select committees. Lord R. CECIL withdrew his motion. Lord EBRINOTON moved a series of resolutions to the following effect:—That the long-continued excessive mortality of the British army has been mainly caused by the bad sanitory condition of their barrack accommodation; that the house has viewed with satisfaction the efforts of successive Govern ments to improve the moral, intellectual, and phy sical condition of the British soldier; that much still remains to be done with regard to barrack accommodation, for its increase with a view to the discontinuance of the pros ice of billeting, and for its improvement ; and that such increase and im provement aro imperatively called for, not less by good policy and true economy than by justice and humanity. He showed, from recorded facts, that the mortality among the British army, compared with other classes of the population, was, as lie said, awful . and he then proceeded to argue, from evidence, that' this excess of mortality could be prevented, and that it was mainly produced by the cause to which he had attributed it in the first resolution. After touching upon the subjects referred to in the second and third resolutions, he entreated the house to affirm the last. Lord PALMEILSTON acknowledged that this subject was one of the highest importance, and that it was true economy to make outlays to secure the health of our soldiers. But he did not think that any blame attached in this matter to the departments. It was only within a few years mankind had found out that pure air was conducive to health. He hoped, however, the resolutions would be agreed to, as indi cating a wish on the part of the house that attten tion should continue to be paid to barrack accotnnao dation. Mr. S. HERBERT justified some statements in the report of the Sanitary Commission which had been adverted to. If there had been time to go further into the inquiry, he observed, the report would have been more accurate still. Whatever might be the causes of the excessive mortality in the army, the fact was certain, and the reason why the report dwelt upon the deficiency of cubical space in barracks was that it was only a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. General PEEL said, so far from objecting to the resolutions—although he did not see the necessity of ,Al r 473 them—he considered that their effect would be t support the Government. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than to carry out the recce:nine nda tions of the Sanitary Commissioners. The resolutions eery then agreed to. Mr. BYNG moved an address to her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire and report as to the best means of affording to the inhabitants of the metropolitan districts within six miles of Charing cross a relief, from the abolition of tarnpike•gates and toll-bars, similar to that which the Legislature has already granted, on the recommendation) of a Royal Commission, to the metropolis of Ireland. The motion was agreed to. Mr. COLLINS obtained leave to bring in a bill to further limit and define the jurisdiction of election committees in cases of scrutiny, by extending the provisions of the act of the sixth year of her present Majesty. The remaining business having been disposed of, the house adjourned at twenty minutes to one o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY. POOR RATES Mr. AYRTON, in moving that the Poor-rates (Metro polis) Bill be read a second time, argued that its principle of enlarging the area of rating had been recognized by the repeated attempts to give it prac tical effect by legislation, which, he contended, laid a sufficient ground for an investigation of the subject by referring the bill to a select committee. He reiterated the arguments he bad used when moving for leave to introduce the bill, maintaining the accu racy of his figures and facts, which showed that narrow areas in the metropolis, where the rich resided with the rich and the poor with the poor, imposed a heavier charge upon the poor parishes or unions, and gave a greater exemption to the rich. He now, he said, threw the bill upon the President of the Poor law Board. Mr. ESTCOURT complained that some of the argu ments put forward by Mr. Ayrton were of a minatory character, and be defended the house from the implied charge of legislating upon this subject from selfish motives. He recapitulated the chief allege. Lions in the petitions presented against the bill, and, after showing the functions and powers proposed to be conferred upon the court of justices who were to make the assessments, he observed that his main objection to the bill applied to its principle, which had, he said, the fatal blot that those who contri buted the money were to have no share whatever in its distribution, there being not one word in the bill RS to the control of the expenditure; it simply pro vided a machinery for transferring money from one set of pockets to another. Ho denied that the house had ever given its sanction to the principle of enlarging the area of Poor-law rating, and, after reviewing the complaints of Mr. Ayrton against the existing system, he asked the house to consider the injurious consequences of passing the measure, which he po'nted out, insisting that there was only one safe principle in dealing with this subject,— never to extend tile area of liability beyond the limit which would give a representative body. He moved to defer the second reading for six months. Mr. BYNG could not support the second reading of the bill. Although he admitted the inequality which existed in certain parts of the metropolis, he considered that the principle of the bill was wrong and unsound, but which, if adopted in the metropolis, ought to be carried still further. Sir B. HALL likewise opposed the bill, denouncing the whole proposition as absurd and preposterous. Mr. JOHN LOCKE defended the b;11. A state of things, be said, which called upon the poor to support the poor required alteration. A remedy was proposed, and all that was asked was to refer the proposition to a select committee. Mr. T. MILLER contended that the principle of the bill erred against the first principle of the poor law— that those who paid the money should have a control over its expenditure ; and that it would give to poor parishes the privilege and power of expending the money of their neighbours. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was adverse to the principle of the bill, and put it to Mr. Ayrton whether, after what he had heard, anything could be gained by referring the bill to a select committee. After some remarks by Sir W. CODRINOT ON and Mr. COLLIER, Mr. AYRTON withdrew the bill. THE LAW OF PATENTS. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of the Patent Law Amendment Bill, its object being, he said, to lesson the cost of patents by reducing the fees. The motion was seconded by Sir J. SHRLLEY. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, atter remarking that the bill seemed intended simply as a means of increasing the business of patent agents, gave an exposition of the law and practice of patents, and of the effect of the bill in a financial view. It would, he said, throw a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and deprive the Patent Law Connniasiosters of a N.• A