The Press.
London, England, 1857-12-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 12, 1857.

1198

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed the next day.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS—Tursam
GENERAL HAVELOCK.

Lord Grusvnin moved an Address, in answer to
her Majesty's Message, recommending the grant of
a pension of 1,0001. a year to Sir Henry Havelock.
Lord DERBY expressed his entire concurrence in
the motion, and took the opportunity to call the
attention of the house to the way in which Colonel
Inglis had fulfilled his duties as Commandant of
Lucknow.

The Address was agreed to unanimously.
EXETER-HALL SERVICES.

Lord STIAFTESBURY, when the order of the day for
the second reading of the Religious Worship Act
Amendment Bill bad been read, explaining the
object of the measure as affecting the rights of in-
cumbents to prohibit Church of England services in
their parishes, concluded by saying that he was
willing to postpone the bill for a time ou account of
the representations which had been made to him
that the Bench of Bishops were opposed to it. He
therefore begged leave to move that the bill be read
a second time on the Bth of February next.
Lord DERBY expressed his satisfaction that the
bill was to b.!! postponed. He was not competent to
say whether the Exeter-hall services had dons good
or not, but he was averse to legislation on this par-
ticular case, involving as it did an alteration in the
whole parochial system. As the bill was to be post-
poned to a fixed day, he hoped there would be no
premature discussion of its principle on the present
occasion.
_ _

The Bishop of ST. DAvIDS deprecated the undue
haste with which this measure had been pressed
forward. He sympathised heartily with the effort to
extend the influence of the Church among the
working classes, but he hoped this object might be
effected without any important innovation on the
parochial system.
The Bishop of LONDON had no charge to make
against the incumbent who had prohibited the
Exeter-ball services. He had no doubt acted con-
scientiously, but at the same time. as he, the Bishop
of London, believed, without the exercise of a sound
discretion. He could net believe that it was ever
the intention of the law to give an incumbent a
monopoly which should stand in the way of the
teaching of the Gospel.
Lord CAMPBELL believed, though he would not
commit himself to an opinion, that the powi.r pro-
posed to be given to the bishop might he safely
granted, and that it would be exercised most bene-
ficially for the Church and the people.
Lord PANMURE, stating that he had frequently
attended these meetings, expressed his regret that
the services had been suspended. As a sincere
friend of the Church of England, he desired nothing
more than to see such congregations as those which
assembled in Exeter-hall last summer assembled in
Westminster Abbey.
The second reading of the bill was postponed until
the Bth of February.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE rose to explain his
absence in the earlier part of the evening, and to
express his cordial concurrence in the vote to which
the hou3e had come with regard to Sir H. Havelock's
pension.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY.
INDIA.

Mr. V. SMITH, in reply to Sir J. Pakington, stated
that it was not intended to include iu the papers on
Indian affairs, promised in her Majesty's Speech, a
memorial from Calcutta praying for the recall of the
Governor. General, that memorial not having been
transmitted through the usual channel. In replying
to another question relating to correspondence
between the Government and the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Company with reference
to the conveyance of troops to India by way of
Egypt, Mr. Smith recommended the papers to be
moved for.

liability in partnerships in general, to apply the
same principle to joint-stock banks.
Mr. COWAN opposed the motion.
Mr. COLLIER said, if the resolution had been based
upon the principle of non-interference, leaving
parties to do as they pleased, he should support it;
but, as it pledged the house to the condemnation
of unlimited liability, he was compelled to vote
against it.
Mr. EWART and Mr. WILD shortly supported the
resolution, which was opposed by Mr. L. KING.
Mr. WEGUELIN remarked that there was a distinc-
tion between partnership concerns that traded with
their own money, and banks trading with the money
of others. To limit the liability of banks would be
to limit their credit, which was their sole capital.
He opposed th., motion.
The CHANCF.LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he COD•
cnrred in the objection of Mr. Collier to the form
of the resolution, and protested against being bound
down to a formula that the unlimited liability of
joint-stock banks was injurious to the interests of
the public, the inference being that it should be
prohibited. These banks had two functions—one
the issue of notes, another the receipt of deposits ;
and there was a distinction in respect to liability
between these two functions. When a country bank
issued notes, although they were not a legal tender,
they did practically discharge the function of money ;
therefore the notes of a country bank circulated
upon the credit of that bank, and it would not be
just to deprive the holders of the security of un-
limited liability, which was not, in that case, injurious
to the interests of the public. The whole question
would, however, fall within the scope of the inquiry
of the committee the reappointment of which he
should propose on Friday, and he was under the
necessity of opposing the motion.
Mr. MALINS was of opinion that Parliament should
not stop short in the application of the principle of
limited liability, which should be applied to banking
as well as to other branches of trade.

Mr. HANKEY moved, by way of amendment, the
following resolution :—" That the present law, en-
forcing tho unlimited liability of shareholders in
joint-stock banks, requires alteration."
After a short reply by Mr. HEADLAM the original
motion was negatived, and upon a division Mr.
HANKEY'S resolution was likewise negatived by 118
to 47.

The house adjourned at a few minutes before ten
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS-WEDNESDAY.

The Bank Issues Indemnity BiliWaS-;ead a first
time, it being understood that any discussion on the
measure should take place on Friday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNEsDAy.

The report of the committee upon the annuity to
Sir 11 enry Havelock led to a brief discussion, in the
course of which suggestions were thrown out for ex-
tending the annuity.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed that much value would
be taken from rewards of this nature if they were
suggested by members of Parliament, and that
some latitude and discretion in their distribution
ought to be left to the Crown and the Executive Go-
vernment.

Sir J. PAKINOTON said he hoped that upon this
occasion the observations of Mr. Gladstone would
have no tendency to check the expression of a feel.
ing which did honour to the house, and ho strongly
urged the Government to continue the annuity to
Captain Havelock.
During a conversation which the SPEAKER stopped
as irregular
Mr. V. SMITH was permitted to read a telegraphic
despatch which he had received, dated 31st of Octo-
ber, from Calcutta.
The resolution was agreed to, and a bill founded
thereon was ordered to he brought in.
On the report of the Committee of Supply,
Sir J. PAKINOTON inquired what was the present
state and condition of the Clive Fund, and whether
it was still devoted to its original objects? He ad-
verted likewise to what he thought an abuse of
patronage. It had been announced that 110 infantry
cadets, besides cavalry, were to be sent to Bengal in
1858, although there were 700 officers of the native
army of Bengal unemployed owing to the mutiny of
their regiments.
Mr. V. SMITH said the question relating to Lord
Clive's Fund involved details into which he could
not enter off-hand without notice. The supply of
cadets for the Bengal native army was in the hands
of the Court of Directors of the East India Company,
and the number of cadets referred to did not amount
to halt of the amount required for the army, the sur-
viving officers being mostly of higher rank than the
grade of ensign.
Questions were likewise put by Sir H. Wm-
LOUGHDY, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. W. Wir.i.uots rela•
Ling to the Indian finances, which were replied to in
some detail by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQRER•
who said :

Hitherto the whole of the expenditure of India has been
borne by the revenues and resources of India. 1 think that
we must look to the continuance of that state of things as
soon as India shall have passed through the present crisis.
It is possible that while the present state of anarchy con-
tinues in some of the provinces of India, the Indian Trea—
sury may be unable to meet some of the current expendi-
ture of the East Indian Government; that its means of
borrowing may be somewhat crippled, and that some
limited and temporary assistance may be required from
this house. I feel assured that if, on a full statement of
Indian finance—of revenue and expenditure—which will
be made to Parliament in due time, it should appear that
some assistance is requisite, this house, always ready to
give a fair consideration to questions of that sort, will not
hesitate to do what may be necessary for the maintenance
of our Indian empire. At the same time lam bound to
state that as at present advised I do nut anticipate any
large or serious charge to this country arising from the
necessities of the Indian Exchequer. My belief is that
the Indian revenue will be found before long sufficient to
meet a large part of the current expenditure, and that the
credit of the East India Company will be sufficiently re-
stored to enable them to borrow what may be necessary to
supply the deficiency. And although I should in case of
necessity not hesitate to appeal to the liberality of Parlia-
ment, I do not anticipate that the occasion will require
that any formidable or serious demand should be made 0a
that liberality.

The report was agreed to.
On the order for the third reading of the Bank
Issues Indemnity Bill,
Sir H. WlLLotionni remarked that the house
should have had more distinct information, before
it passed this bill, as to the causes which had
pressed so heavily upon the resources of the Bank of
England. It appeared, he said, from the evidence
taken before the Bank Committee, that a great
capitalist might, if he pleased, bring an undue pres-
sure upon the Bank, and he referred to a rumour
that a large bill-discounter had actually brought a
severe pressure upon its resources when they were
very low.
Mr. VANCE suggested that the whole management
of the relaxing power should be left in the hands
of the Bank Directors, upon their own responsibility,
the Bank continuing to publish its accounts and
making them even fuller. Ile admitted that this
would be a virtual repeal of the Act of 1844.
Mr. HUDSON insisted that the effect of the strin-
gency of the limitation prescribed by the Act of 1844
was, in times of exigency, to lock up the coffers of

Lombard-street and to produce a panic. He was
for leaving a discretion to the Bank of England.
Universal opinion condemned a system which could
not be maintained, which, pushed to extremity,
would become one of barter. The Government
should deal with this question themselves, and not
ofer it to a committee.
Mr. PHILIPPS did not think that the cause of the
present disorder was in the currency, but in natural
causes,—the excess of improper speculation, pro-
moted by the large interest upon deposits forcing
up the amount of the fixed capital. The remedy
could only be found in the conviction of the com-
munity of the great truth uttered by the late Duke
of Wellington, that high interest meant bad se-
curity.
Mr. ADAMS asked for some indication of the nature
of the representations made to the Government to
induce them to relax the act.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reiterated his
former statement, that it was not in consequence of
any representation made to the Government that the
letter had been issued, but they had acted in the
matter on their own responsibility, upon the au-
thentic accounts of the financial position of the Bank.
No pressure whatever had been put upon the Govern-
ment which they could not have resisted with facility,
and no person had complained to him that the Bank
had refused to discount.
The bill was then read a third time, and, with a
slight alteration in the first clause, passed.
The house adjourned at three o'clock.

HOUSE OF LOHDS—THuaso.ty.

The Bank Issues Indemnity Bill was read a second
time,
Lord DERBY observing that he should not move
any amendment on the subject; but he thought it
would have been better had tne Government proposed
to leave a discretion in the hands of the Directors of
the Bank of England, instead of fixing an absolute
limit :

He presumed that Parliament would reassemble in the
first week of February; and if the minimum rate of dis-
count continued, as it must do if the bill passed without
alteration, at so high a rate as ten per cent. for twenty•
eight days after, it would, he felt sure, be productive of very
serious consequences. He would not enter any further
into this question ; but he had felt it his duty to call the
attention of the Government to the point, and he hoped
that if they persisted in retaining this hill as it stood, they
would explain their reasons for so doing.
- -

Lord GRANVILLE, in reply to the Earl of Dun-
gannon, who moved for copies of all correspondence
relating to the transmission of troops for India, said
a committee was to be moved for in the other
house which would no doubt investigate the whole
subject ; and he thought it desirable that, instead of
the noble lord's motion being agreed to, that corn.
mitte should, when it commenced sitting, call for any
papers it might consider necessary.
The motion was withdrawn. _ _

Lord CLARENDON, in reply to Lord Powis, gsve the
details connected with the assassination of Mr. Sul-
livan at Lima.

_ .
Lord MONTEAGLE moved for certain accounts
ahowing the circulation and bullion of the Banks of
Ireland and Scotland.

Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TnunsnAv.
Mr. BAntso took the oaths and his seat for
Thetford.
Returns relating to the demand for additional
troops in India, and of the correspondence relating
to the conveyance of troops from England, were
ordered on the motions of Mr. VANSITTART ar.d Sir J.
PAKINOTON.
CONVEYANCE OF TROOPS TO INDIA.
Sir J. PAKINGTON

I will now ask the First Lord of the Treasury the ques-
tions of which I have given notice—Whether it is true that
Lord Strotford de liedeliffe telegraphed to her Majesty's
Government that he had obtained a firman from the Sultan
for the passage of troops through Egypt to India, and, if
so, whet was the date of that communication? Per-
haps the noble lord will allow me to ask another question,
of which I have not given him notice. It is—whether it is
within his knowledge that, by the joint iulluence of Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe anti M. Thuvenel, the French Am•
bassador, a firman was actually obtained from the Pore
for the passage of French troops to Pondicherry through
Etzypt? I will also ask what was the date of the friendly
offer made to her Majesty's Government by the Emperor of
the French to porinit British troops to pass through France
on their way to India?

Lord PALMERSTOII:
I will first answer the second question, with respect to
the application said to have been made by the British and
French Ambassadors for the passage of French troops to
Pondicherry. We have no knowledge of any such applica-
tion, and I do not believe that French troops did gc across
Egypt. With regard to the first question, Lord Stratford
de Redcliffe on the 30th of June informed the Government
by telegraph that he would apply to the Turkish Govern-
ment to allow troops to pass through Egypt on their way
to India if the British Government thought it advisable
that that course should be pursued. Ott, the 2nd of July