The Press. — London, England, 1855-08-11 00:00:00

AUG. 11, 1855. Vpatbings arlianunt. INDIAN FINANCE. Mr. V. SMITH brought forward the Indian budget on Monday, reading the various items of income and expenditure, the re,alt of which was that the expen diture exceeded the income by somewhat over three millions for the year 1854 5. The previous year had shown a balance of income over expenditure of 421,457/. The difference was partly due to an in creased expenditure in publio works. He went through the various items of revenue—the land tax, the opium trade, and the salt duty—in all of which he thought an increase might be obtained, but de pended mainly ott the development of Indian re sources by the opening of railroads and other means of communication. As for the expenditure, the army could not be reduced—judicial expenses were in mased—and he could not anticipate much from the reduction of interest. He thought however, there was no need for the large balances kept in the tree suries, which might be reduced. If, however, the financial prospects of the country were not pleasant, its political prospects were quite brilliant. A treaty had just been concluded with Cabul—satisfactory as Surances were received from Nepanl—though Persia Was neutral, nothing was to be apprehended from her =-while roads, canals, and improvements were spring ing up in all directions. He 'was obliged to allude to the proofs of torture in the collection of revenue produced by a document just laid upon the table, the only palliation being that it was done entirely by the natives, though that did not entirely acquit the European superintendentof connivance. Mr. BRIGHT, who had given notice of a resolution mommencling that the Indian accounts should in future be made up to the 30th April instead of the' 30th of October—that Parliament might have an earlier oppor.unity of considering them —entered into long details on the state of finan cial matters in India, accusing the Indian Go vernment of having maintained a Sethi:ins surplus in 1853, thereby effecting a loan on lower terms than w is warranted by circumstances, and entailing grievous asters on the public. He found besides fault with the loan—that it was stated to be a public-works loan, while in reality it was nothing of the kind. The accounts were enveloped in confusion and secrecies highly objectionable. After declaiming against the war, the opium trade, the salt tax, and the torture practices of India, he urged the adoption of his reso lution the objections to which, on the ground of the difficulties it would cause in the making up of Indian amounts, were altogether nugatory. Sir J. W. HOOO defended the Indian Government from the charge of complicity in the practice of tor ture. The practice existed, like other crimes, but it was not widely spread; and every exertion was made by the European authorities to put it down, in which they had to a great extent been successful. The natives of India were fully aware that the practice was entirely due to their own countrymen. He then touched upon matters of finance, explaining that the necessity of keel ing balances in so vast a number of treasuries rendered necessary a total balance of so large an amount. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE adduced many instances of the 'barbarities and cruelty of the torture practised upon supposed defaulters in the revenue. The sys. tem of criminal justice in India was, moreover, dis graceful to a civilised nation. He was followed by blr. OTWAY, who spoke in the same tone, denouncing, besides the torture, the lust of territorial aggrandise ment which still prevailed. Mr. HENLEY, observing that a mere accident re vealed the existence of torture to the English public, commented on the ignorance of Indian officials on the matters of their own administration, as shown by the small knowledge they seemed to have of the ex tent of these proceedings. Sir C. WOOD explained some financial statement he had made while President of the Board of Con- Col, and which had been controverted. Mr. WHITESIDE complained that Irishmen were excluded from Indian judgeships. Mr. MANGLES observed that in England no idea could be firmed of the difficulty of obtaining infor mation in India, and instanced Thnggee, which has existed for centuries. Mr. D. SEYMOUR thought that the Government had not been sufficiently active in repressing torture. The report introduced by Mr. V. Smith was then agreed to, as were Mr. Bright's resolutions, with some amendments. TURKISH LOAN. This bill passed through committee in the Lords and WEIS reported on Monday. Lord ST. LEONARDS male a discursive speech on the Vienna Con ferences, alleging many objections on the ground of policy to the terms of the loan itself, and especially urging the Government to get rid of the pledges of the livyptian tribute and the customs of Smyrna. He complained that by a faulty translation the treaty bound England jointly with France, and severally by THE PRESS. herself, while France was bound jointly, but not severally : to which last argument the LORD CHAN• CELLOR replied by admitting the fact, but denying that it was of any consequence. The Earl of CLARENDON made a few explanations respecting the conferences. On Tuesday evening the bill was read a third time and passed without a word of serious discussion. HOSPITALS IN THE EAST. Mr. STAFFORD, on Monday, drew attention in much detail to the deflciencie4 Sand irregularities in the management of these hospitals, and asked what had been done to rectify them. Mr. PEEL explained the art angements now in pro gress, denying many of the accusations of mismanage ment, and promising due care in the health and comfort of our troops if they had to pass another winter before Sebastopol. STATE OF EUROPEAN POLITICS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL took the opportunity of the third reading of the Appropriation Bill to make a discursive speech, of which the excuse hs made was the propriety of considering the affairs of Italy. Starting from the expenses of the star in which we were engaged, he went on to the absence of decisive results in the Baltic fleet, and from thence to the dangers of the common cause in Asia, to which the failure of the Foreign Legion prevented our sending any defence. In the Crimea our large armaments would be met by a Corresponding Russian force, aug mented by troops set free by the present policy of Austria. Recurring to the Vienna Conferences, he should have been glad if, for his own justification, the whole o'' the despatches which he had sent home could have been p►inted, which be trusted they would be at some future time ; and adverted to the opinion of the Turkish Plenipotentiary —one of the hest-informed men of his nation on European affairs —in favour of the last Austrian proposal. After some compliments to the faith of our French ally, and wishes that the Ministry might be able at the reassem bling of Parliament to give a good account of their proceedings, he came at last to Italy, and argued, from the bold and generous conduct of the Ring of Sardinia, that he had a right to expect the moral support of this country in restoring a better system to Italy. In the Papal States crime, outrage, and misgovernment prevailed everywhere—patriotic men were suffering in Neapolitan dungeons—Tuscany bad repudiated the principles she once professed of religious toleration—and, in the midst of all this, Italy was occupied by foreign troops. One essen tial point in the prosperity of Italy was the liberty of Rome ; yet that city had long been occupied by French soldiers, who were to have withdrawn when the domestic authority should have resumed its sway ; but the prospect of such a result was just as distant as ever. He Loped that the Govern- ment of France, in concert with our cwn, might devise some just system of Government in the Roman States, enabling France and Austria to with draw their troops, and that foreign influence would no longer crush the hopes of Italy for freedom, justice, and national policy. Mr. WILKINSON denied that in the prosecution of the war we were dependant on the opinion of Turkey. Our defence of Turkey was but a means to an end— that end being a check to Russian aggrandise ment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that he meant by his reference to Turkey to assert that i we con tinued the war for other than Turkish interests we must subsidise her. Lord PALMERSTON began by denouncing the late speech of Mr. Gladstone, who had been a party to the commencing the war, had assisted in carrying it on, and now declared it unjust, conjured up imaginary disasters, and magnified the resources of the enemy and our own difficulties. After repeated protests of his intention to prosecute the war with vigour, he observed, on the Turkish opinion of the Austrian proposal, that the Government at Constan tinople fully agreed with that of France and England in rejecting it. At the same time it must be remem bered that the Turkish was not the only question, that beyond the defence of Turkey lay the still greater difficulty of the grasping ambition of Russia, and, therefore, the terms of peace ought to rest with those who had a greater interest in that peace than Turkey herself, and whose views on European policy were more likely to be right. Coming to Italy, he pronounced a glowing euloginm on the patriotism of Piedmont., which managed its newly• acquired representative institutions as though it had been used to them for centuries. The state of the rest of Italy offered a painful contrast, where foreign influence joined with foreign arms in destroying the wellbeing of the people. At the same time he denied thet Austria was increasing her forces in Italy, and asserted that whatever course that Govern ment might pursue it would never take up arms against England and France. He referred in some detail to the attempts to introduce a better otganisa tion into the administration of the Papal States, and to the causes of their failure, adding that both 753 France ana Italy would take advantage of any opportunity that offered for the improvement of Italy. Mr. HENLEY made some observations on the part taken in former times by Lords Palmerston and Russell in the matter of nationalities ; complained that no expectation had been held out that foreign bayonets would at any time be withdrawn from Italy; and did not believe that there had been any fair opportunity for putting an end to the war, which we must fight out, now that we were in it. GRANT TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY. Lord PALMZIISTON stated on Monday that, although the Government could not continue the grant of 1,0001., which bad been given out of a special fund, on its own responsibility, yet that a similar grant would appear next year in the miscellaneous es. timates, which would afford the house an opportunity of discussing it. The money, he added, had been judiciously and economically expended. Lord JOHN Russell. had previously explained that the original grant had not been a misapplication of a charitable fund, but given from a fund of " special service and royal bounty," and had expressed his hope that a parliamentary grant would be annually voted. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. The details of this bill, which had come'down from the Lords, was explained in the Commons on 'Mon day by the ArroeNer GENERAL. Its object was to enable the settlement of charitable property withodt the expensive process of Chancery. lie himself be lieved that there onght to be no limit to the species of property thus dealt with : the Lords, however, had restricted the operation of the measure to property of 101. annual value, which he proposed to raise to 301. The powers of the existing board of commis• sioners would he materially enlarged—giving them the privilege of examining witnesses, of appointing local inspectors, of sanctioning the removal of teachers in schools, of repairing, improving, and even alienating property, when circumstances ren dered it necessary and 'expedient. ' Mr. KNIGHT was willing to strengthen the hands of the commissioners, as at present constituted, brit objected to so violent a change, as one which can verted an inspecting and remedial board into a board of administration with absolute control. It was, monstrous to deal thus with thirty-five millions of money. The commissioners already possessed mix.: mons powers, the extent of which they seemed anxious to conceal from the public. Sir W. Jolliffe, Mr. Peliatt; and Mr. Cairns took a similar view, observing that the court of the commis sioners was to be a close one, and that great danger was to be apprehended from the exercise of such un limited powers. The last hon. member recommended a select committee next session for a satisfactory settlement of the subject. On the other hand, Dr. MICHELL thought the com missioners might as safely be trusted as the Court of Chancery; Sir G. GREY begged the house to go into committee, that the Objections of detail might then be examined; and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL traced the history of charity measures for twenty yetteS; contending that they all tended towards the plan now proposed. Mr. HENLEY, after adverting in detail to various points of the bill, recommended that the judicial powers proposed to be given to the commissioners should he struck out. Mr. MALINs and Sir W. HEATHCOTE made the same recommendation, to which the ArrottNtr-GltromAt reluctantly consented, saying that he must be con tented to take what he could get. On this assurance the house went into committee, and in the course of that and the following night the hill went through committee in its mutilated shape. It has since been read a third time and passed. CRIMINAL JUSTICE. The third reading of this bill was opposed Monday by Mr. T. CHAMBERS It cre a t e d, h e sal a new tribunal, superseding the old cr imi na l t r ib nals of the country without necessity—the only mice being to hasten the trial of prisoners—while the large towns the delay between the trial and the committal did not now on the average exceed three weeks. Summary powers of decision were given to the magistrates in cases where the value of property most fal- stolen was not more than five shillings—a . lacious test, as often an offender was prosecuted in important cases for a very small part of the whole property lost, for reasons of legal technicality. The offender would be tried by a close court, and in the rural districts thrown helplessly into the hands of the police. lie moved that the bill be read a third time that day three months. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied by saying tha the bill dealt simply with cases which did not deserve the delays, expenses, and formalities of a regular trial. The prisoner would in all cases be offered the option of a jury, if he chose to avail himself of it. The amendment of Mr. T. Chambers was nega tived, and the bill was subsequently reads third time and passed.