The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-24 00:00:00

rocOings arlianttnt. ROUSE OF• LORDS-MONDAY. PETITIONS. The Earl :if SHAFTESBURY presented petitions ro m various districts in Scotland in favour of the promotion of Christianity in Chlna; also petitions against tile Bill for Juvenile Reformatories in Ireland, a gainst the opium traffic with China, and for the cleaning of the Thames. Various other petitions were presented by noble lords. ra p 0 ag ag eh lai m on ju th Pr wl th wi h Je dt th at m di 61 re N EA hl KC at N Ti t 1 rC le C c. d a tl a a tl tl 0 0 TIRE MASSACRE AT JF.DDAH. Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE alluded to the late atrocious and, to all appearance, unprovoked massacre of Christians at Jeddah. After dwelling on the slowness of Turkish officials in rendering justice, he expressed the hope that the rumour of the occupation of Mecca, or the seizure of some precious objects of veneration treasured within its walls, bad no foundation. It would simply increase the hatred between Mussulman and Christian. Ho wished to know whether her Majesty's Government had received any official advices of the massacre at Jeddah ; whether instructions had been issued for demanding full reparation from the Porte through the British and French Ministers at Constantinople; and whether, in case of wilful delays, adequate measures were to be taken to enforce our just demands. The Earl of MALMESBURY replied that the neces sary steps had been taken to demand immediate redress. There was no intention of occupying Mecca. He trusted to be able in a few days to state .bat steps had been taken by the Turkish pacha sent to Jeddah to do justice for the recent outrage. STATE SERVICES. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH moved an address to her Majesty with respect to the special church services of the 3th of November, 30th of January, and 23th of May. He proposed an address to her Majesty requesting that, in substitution for the ser vices in question, there should be some memorial in the Prayer-book of those great deliverances. After some discussion the motiou was w;thdrawn. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved the second reading of the School Trustees Bill. The motion was negatived. The house then went into committee on the Scot land Universities Bill, and the Joint-stock Banking Companies Bill was reported as amended. INDIA BILL. The Earl of Et LENBOROUGH and the Duke of NEW CASTLE pressed on the Earl of Derby the propriety of postponing the committee on the India B►ll until Tuesday evening, on the ground of the thin atten dance of the house ; hut Lord DERBY declined to accede to the suggestion, and Lord Et LENBortouox then opposed (in committee) clause 34, regulating appointments to the scientific branches of the Indian army. The proposal to give these appointments by competition was an act of homage to democracy ; it was totally uncalled for. It would affect injuriously the future efficiency of the artillery and engineers of the Indian army. The Earl of DERBY maintained that the principle of competition was actually in force at Woolwich and Addiscombe. He was not insensible to the advantages of birth and station, but he could not join with Lord Ellenborough in saying that because a person hap pened to be the son of a tailor, a grocer, or a cheese monger, provided his mental qualifications were equal to those of his competitors, he was to be excluded from honourable competition for an appoint ment in the public service. By omitting the last three lines the clause would not introduce the s3stem of strict competition. The clause provided that persons should be admitted into the artillery and engineers upon an examination, the regulations for which examination should with ail convenient speed be prepared and prescribed by the Secretary of State under the authority of the Crown. The Duke of SOMERSET opposed the clause. After a discussion, in which Earl Granville, the Earl of Hardwicke, the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Cranwortb, Lord Monteagle, Lord Brougham, and Lord Broughton took part, the committee divided. The numbers were :—Contents 41, non-contents :34 ; majority 7. The clause was then agreed to. Clauses 35 to 51 were also agreed to. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH proposed, in clause 52, the insertion of words placing it beyond doubt or question that the expenditure of India should be charged on the revenue of India alone. The consideration of the clause was postponed for the amendment to be printed. The Earl of DERBY proposed, in clause 53, the insertion of words with a view to the periodical production before Parliament of statistical infor mation respecting the moral and material progress of India. The clause, as amended, was agreed to. THE PRESS, JULY 24, 1858. After some discussion on clause 55, it was agreed to as amended. The remaining clauses of the bill were also agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be reported on Tuesday. Their lordships adjourned a few minutes before twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS— MoNDAY. METROPOLITAN LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT On the order for the second reading of this bill, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to intrusting such extensive powers to a board which was not a repre sentative body, and asked whether the rate was to fall upon the occupier or owner, or both ? Mr. AKROYD objected to the Government guarantee, contending that the sum of 3,000,0001. would by no means cover the amount required for the proposed plan, and that a system of deodoriza►ion, which had been proved to be successful, might be carried ont at less than the annual interest upon the sum to be guaranteed. He urged the house not to be led rashly to put its name on the back of the bill, but to take time for consideration Mr. LOWE observed that, before the Metropolitan Board of Works were permitted to raise 3,000,0001., to be spent at their will, it was reasonable to ask whether they were worthy to be trusted with such powers, and whether the money would be spent in a manner most beneficial to those from whose pockets it would be taken. He compared the plan of the board with that of the Government referees, and, after a close examination of details and figures, gave the preference to the latter, as the most effectual, and ultimately the least costly. Mr. HEADLAN considered the Metropolitan Board of Works, supposing it to be a representative body, ill-calculated to execute a grand engineering plan. The house, he said, should not hand over this money to an irresponsible board without some security that it would be properly administered. The ratepayers would be better satisfied if the works were carried on upon the responsibility and under the authority of the Government, and be thought the right thing would have been for them to undertake the work at first and altogether. He deprecated the commencement of the board's expensive scheme until every other expedient had been fully tried. Mr. S. WORTLEY suggested various objections to the proposed plan, not excluding that pointed out by Alderman Cubitt—namely, the danger of inter cepting a large body of water from the river. He appealed to the house whether the Metropolitan Board of Works, which did not represent property or any large class of the community, commanded the confidence of the public? He had always heard, he said, a different opinion expressed. Lord J. MANNERS observed that the house had justified the saying that it had hot and cold fits. A fortnight ago the Government had been called upon to settle this question within twenty-four hours; and now, after they had framed a scheme, which they deliberately recommended the house to adopt, they were told it would be better to postpone action. They had not proceeded with an undue precipitation ; he knew no question which had been more thoroughly thrashed out. If the opinion of the house was that there should be no decision come to this year, the responsibility of inaction must be upon the house ; on the part of the Government he repudiated it. The only way in which the action of the Government could be brought to bear was contained in the four corners of the bill. He insisted that the Government should not undertake such a work ; that its expense should be borne by the locality ; and that the municipality already estab lished as a representative of this great metropolis should be intrusted with the work. In reply to Sir H. Willoughby, he said the rate would be a sewer's rate, and what was commonly called a land lord's rate. Mr. Gi.snirrosE said he thought Lord J. Manners was mistaken in supposing that the speeches to which he had referred were accusations against the Government ; they were confessions of the difficulty, in which he (Mr. Gladstone) participated, in which those were placed who were called upon to assent to the principle of a bill which contained provisions so important. The body intrusted with the expendi ture of so large an amount of money should be popularly constituted; but though the board was in theory a representative body, yet this was not suffi ciently palpable, and, when be considered who was to be ultimately responsible for the payment of the money, and for any further expenditure beyond the 3,000,1)001_ this was a vital point. Mr. Alderman CUBITT supported the bill, repeating his suggestion as to the danger of diminishing the volume of the river. Mr. CONINGHAM, on the contrary, viewed with con siderable alarm the proposition that the metropolis should be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works and the adoption of a scheme that, in his opinion, would fail in its objects. Sir B. HALL said be was not one of those who desired to throw over this question ; on the contrary, 711 he should vote for the second reading of the bill; but he called the attention of Lord J. Manners to the second clause, to which he objected, which enabled the Metropolitan Board of Works to establish outfalls, with deodorizing works, in any part of the metropolitan area. Mr. KENDALL was anxious, before anything was done, that the whole subject should be well con sidered. Mr. JOSEPH LOCKE said be bad met with many persons who did not consider the scheme of the Metropolitan Board of Works the best that could be adopted. It was in evidecce that deodorization could be carried on upon the banks of the Thames, and if this process were employed at all it should be before leaving the Thames. He thought it would be better for the Government simply to guarantee the money, without involving itself in any scheme wb atever. Mr. HENLEY remarked that this was exactly what the bill did ; it gave no indication of any particular scheme ; it only required that the nuisance should be got rid of. For this purpose the bill disembar rassed the Metropolitan Board of Works from the restrictions which had hitherto hampered their operations. Mr. STEPHENSON said, after much consideration of the subject he had come to the conclusion that nothing would effectually answer the purpose but an intercepting system, which could be accommodated to any extension of London. He could not understand the objection to intrusting the Metropolitan Board of Works with the undertaking ; they were in posses - sion of all the information necessary for carrying it out. He supported the bill. Sir J. SHELLEY approved the intercepting system, and should vote for the second reading of the bill ; but he was alarmed, with Sir B. Hall, at the second clause. _ _ _ Sir G. LEWIS assented to the principle of giving the proposed powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works ; but, with reference to the clause empowering the Government to appoint a superintending inspector, he objected to the Government incurring any respon sibility for loss in case the plan turned out un successful, on the ground that their inspector was cognizant of what was going on. The Government, he said, should assume no more responsibility than was incidental to the guarantee. Mr. JOHN LOCKE opposed the bill, which he pro nounced an incomprehensible measure. Lord EBRINOTON and Mr. CLAY made a few remarks, and Mr. PULLER, after speaking in condemnation of the bill, moved to defer the second reading for three months ; but this motion was not seconded. Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would agree to the second reading of the bill, and not prolong the evils of disease and suffering caused by imperfect drainage. These evils, he observed, could be cured only by intercepting sewers ; but be believed it was unfortunate that the Government persisted in limiting the outfall of the tunnels to a point so near the metropolis as Barking. creek. He thought it un fortunate, too, tbat so large an amount of fertilizing matter was about to be thrown away. After some remarks by Mr. Cox, Sir W. Cod rington, and Mr. Butler, the bill was read a second time. On the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. WILSON, who had given notice that he would call attention to the report of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, understanding that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a royal commission, refrained. Sir J. PAZINOTON stated that such was their intention. Mr. Lrnnzi.r. and other members, nevertheless, addressed the house upon the subject. The Caseczmoa of the EXCHEQUER intimated his intention not to proceed this session with the Chinese Passenger Act Amendment Bill, the Superannuation Law Amendment Bill, and the Police Force (Ireland) Bill. The report was then agreed to. CORNWALL NINES BILL. On the order for going into committee upon this bill, Mr. A. Slum objected to proceeding with this bill, which defined rights of the Crown in which the public had an interest, until copies of all the docu ments, cases, and opinions of counsel, submitted to Sir John Patteson, and upon which his arbitration was founded, were laid upon the table. He moved to that effect. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL gave the history of the bill, the object of which was to carry into effect the arbitration of Sir J. Patteson, to whom it had been referred to ascertain the respective rights of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall to minerals between high and low water mark, and below low water mark. After a few words from Mr. WYLD the amendment was negatived, and the house went into committee