The Press.
London, England, 1857-06-27 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

tend in any degree to render more likely the passage
of the bill, her Majesty's Government would think
themselves deeply responsible if for slight reasons
they opposed them. Not attaching any importance
to the provisions, but considering them unobjection •
able, he should not therefore object to their adoption.
After a short conversation, in which Sir F. The-
siger, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Wigram, Lord Blandford,
Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Bentinck, and Mr. C. Gilpin
participated, the clauses were agreed to, and ordered
to be added to the hill.

CIVIL ESTIMATES.

The house then resolved itself into a Committee
of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates.
The first vote, of 102,8511., to complete the sum
necessary for the works and expenses of the new
Houses of Parliament, gave rise to a long discussion,
chiefly with reference to the allowance to Sir Charles
Barry, and Sir H. Wruzuonev moved to reduce the
vote by 20,0001., but the proposition was rejected
upon a division by 175 to 65.
In the course of the discussion Sir B. HALL, in
reply to inquiries, admitted not only the decay of
the stone, but that, notwithstanding the galvanising
process, the rust was eating into the iron in the
roof of the building.
Upon the vote of 15,1451. for the Department of
Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues,
Mr. CAIRD, according to notice, proposed to reduce
the vote by 1,4811., the excess beyond that of last
year. The hon. member also entered at some length
into the debateable question of the mismanagement
of the royal forests. He said the management of
this department involved the treatment of a capital
sum of not less than 12,000,0001. sterling:—

The sum which was brought under the criticism of
Parliament was only one-fifth part of the money expended
on the Woods and Forests ; and it was a remarkable

circumstance that while during four years that portion of
the expenditure which was annually brought under the
criticism of Parliament had increased 1,0001. a year, the
part which was not brought under the criticism of Par-
liament had increased to 27,0001. a year. The gross aver-
age receipts of the whole revenues of the Crown under
the management of this department amounted t, 390,0001.
a year, and during the last year the gross expenditure in
the collection and management of that sum, including the
usual expenditure on landed estates. such as that for build.
ings and improvements, was 130,0001., or not less than 33
per cent. on the total amount of revenue received. Since
1852 the gross hereditary revenues of the Crown had in-
creased very considerably. From the sum of 376,8001., to
which they amounted in 1852, they bad risen in 1858 to
404,5001., showing an increase of upwards of '27,0001., and
now there was actually paid over a balance to the credit of
the Exchequer less by 2,0001. than there was in 1853. He
found that last year the Forest Department realised
64,8001., and that the cost of collection and management
was 45,5001., leaving, therefore, 19,3001. as the revenue
from 120,030 acres of land. He might be told that 20,000
of these were composed of land of a very inferior quality,
but taking the acreage at 100,000, and as the total amount
of profit was 19,3001., those 100,000 acres might be said to
have realised something less than 3s. 10d. an acre. And
what was the case with respect to the extent to which the
royal forests supplied our dockyards with timber ? Why,
of 550,0001. worth of timber bought annually for use in our
dockyards the royal forest did not supply 1.50 th part. The
fact was that our ships were not built of British oak. The
best oak came from the Continent—from Italy, and from
the forests of Central Europe. It was justly held a matter
of importance to make ourselves independent of a foreign
supply of any article ; but in the case under consideration
it was impossible that a crop which in a country like this
required 150 years to bring it to maturity could ever be a
profitable one. As guardians of the public purse the
house were bound to investigate this subject. The gross
income derived from these sources was. 410,0001., and if the
charge for management were reduced to fifteen per cent.,
and if the income could be increased by ten per cent., the
clear net revenue would be quite equal to the whole amount
paid over to her Majesty in the Civil List.

The motion was ultimately withdrawn, and the
vote, as well as several others, was agreed to.
On the report of the Committee of Supply,
Mr. Cowsx called attention to the want of ac-
commodation for the administration of justice in
the sheriff courts in the city and county of Edin-
burgh.
Sir J. Oottxr corroborated the statements of Mr.
Cow as.
The Loan ADVOCATE said there could be no doubt
of the evil, and the Government hoped next session
to propose a general measure that would remedy it.
The report was agreed to.
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of the
Reformatory Schools Bill.
The house divided upon the question, and the
second reading was carried by 154 to 6.
Leave was given to Mr. EvAss to introduce a bill
for the incorporation of Public Charities.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

Mr. LowE, in a committee of the whole house,
moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law
relating to joint-stock banks. The object of the bill
was simply to extend to joint-stock banks the opera-
tions of the act passed last session with reference to
joint-stock companies. In future, therefore, joint-
stock banks might be formed like any other joint-
stock company, by a memorandum, and the applica-

SATIJEDAY,

tion of the few simple provisions contained in the
act of last session. There would be a register
of the shareholders, which would be prima-facie
evidence of the persons who were to be called upon
to contribute. Such a bank would be liable to
certain powers of inspection by one-fifth of the share-
holders ; and in case it came to be wound up, as
soon as it was handed over to the court which was to
wind it up all actions against the shareholders would
be stopped. It was proposed to retain the present
limitation of shares in joint stock companies to 1001.,
and the proposed bill would not make any alteration
in the law, which at present required the liability of
shareholders of joint-stock banks to be unlimited.

The house then went into committee.

Mr. MALINS, Mr. ROEBUCK, and Sir J. SHELLEY
expressed regret that, it was not proposed to give
these banks limited liability.
_ _

Mr. HENLEY hoped that the bill would prevent
shareholders making away with their property.
Leave was given to introduce the bill.
The remaining business having been despatched,
the house adjourned, at twenty minutes past one
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TVISDAY.
VEXATIOUS BOTTS.

Lord BROrOHAY obtained leave to introduce a
bill, similar to that which he had introduced last
session and the session before, to prevent vexatious
litigation.
The bill was read a first time.

DIVORCE DILL.
The third reading of the Divorce Bill was dis-
cussed at some length, the first amendment being
one moved by Lord REDESDALE, which, if carried,
would have deprived the new court to be established
of the power of granting divorces d vinculo. Lord
CAMPBELL deprecated any such restriction ; Lord
MALMESBLRY supported the amendment, and con-
demned thole provisions in the bill which attached
penal consequences to a conviction for adultery.
Lord WicELow also lamented all the evil conse-
quences which he foresaw might flow from any act
which affirmed the dissolubility of marriage ; but
Lord BROUGHAM reminded the house that marriages
had always been dissoluble, and that, as a matter of
course, if certain conditions prescribed by a standing
order of that house were fulfilled, a divorce was
granted. He did not believe that there would be any
great increase in the number of divorces after the
passing of the bill, to which he recommended their
lordships to agree, with the exception of that clause
which entailed the punishment of the adulterer
otherwise than by a pecuniary fine. Lord CARNARVON
and the Bishop of OXFORD also spoke in favour of
the amendment ; but, after a reply from the Loa')
CHANCELLOR, it was rejected by a majority of 57.
Two other amendments were negatived without a
division ; but one, moved by the Lonn CHANCELLOR,
striking out the words " fine and imprisonment," to
which Lord Brougham had objected, was carried by
a majority of 20.
Another amendment, moved by Lord NELSON,
and supported by the Bishop of OxFoito, pro-
viding that the re-marriage of divorced persons
should be only a civil marriage, and that the
clergy should not be compelled to solemnise such
marriage, was also defeated, principally upon the
suggestion of Lord CAMPBELL, by a majority of 28,
as was one almost similar moved by the Bishop of
ExETIR.

On the question that " the bill do pass," the
Bishop of OXFORD once more protested against it,
and divided the house, but was defeated by a
majority of 21.
The bill therefore passed.
The Roman Catholic Charities Bill was read a
second time.

The Smoke Nuisance (Scotland? Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Their lordships adjourned at ten minutes to ten
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TrEsnAr.

FINSBURY PARR.

On Lord R. GROSVENOR moving the second read-
ing of this bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS (Lambeth) moved that the bill be
read that day six months, on the ground that parks
were of a purely local benefit, should be made by a
local subscription, and not by grants from 6overn-
ment, which in this case proposed to give 50,0001.
towards the expenses of the park.
A long and animated debate ensued, in the course
of which Sir GEORGE GREY and Sir CHARLES WOOD
strongly opposed the amendment.
Lord PxLmEttsvox frankly acknowledged that the
Government had agreed, if the bill were brought in,
to propose to Parliament to grant 50,0001. towards
this object, and he defended the arrangement upon
the point that Parliament ought to take a larger and
more liberal view of these things, and that the whole
country wa,: interested in these metropolitan improve-
ments. " London belonged to the empire at large,
and it was quite a perversion of terms to suppose

JUNE 27, 1851.

that great improvements here only concerned the
inhabitants of the metropolis."
A division was taken upon the question that the
debate be adjourned, which was carried by •114 to
128. This decision was understood to be adverse to
the principle of granting public money towards such
objects.

FISCAL AFFAIRS (IRELAND).
Sir D. NORREYS, in moving for leave to bring in a
bill to provide for the management of the fiscal
affairs of counties in Ireland by electoral boards,
described in strong condemnatory terms the existing
grand-jury system of management, and from its
character he inferred the necessity of an entire
reform. A large sum of money, upwards of 1,000,0001.
a year, he observed, was collected and disbursed
under this faulty system, and he proposed to substi-
tute electoral boards or a system analogous to that
of the poor law :
There was no protection to the poor ratepayer under
this system. A district in Wexford had paid rates
for forty years, and could never get a single presentment.
He found that the poor•law guardians, who expended about
the same amount of money as the grand juries, worked
very harmoniously in Ireland ; and lie wished to apply
similar machinery to the county expenditure. Let the
ratepayers elect their own county boards, as they did their
guardians ; then every part of the county would be repre-
sented, and none would have reason to complain. The
oards thus elected ought not to be ephemeral, like grand
juries, but to sit for three cr four years ; by this means
they would feel their responsibility to their constituency.

Colonel FRENCH, meaning to meet the motion by
a dieect negative, defended the grand jury system,
which, he said, was simple and economical, whereas
the system proposed to be substituted was cumbrous
in its machinery and expensive.
Mr. BAGWELL considered the grand-jury system to
be one of the greatest anomalies ; but he cuuld not
vote for bringing in the proposed bill, which would,
in his opinion, make a bad system ten thousand
times worse. _ _ _

The motion *as supported by Mr.: APlLknox and
Mr. COGAN.

Mr. H. HERBERT admi►ted that certain imperfec-
tions did exist in the grand-jury system, and would
be glad, he said, to be instrumental in remedying
the defects ; but he did not believe that the system
was such as would justify the vivid description of
Sir D. Norreys. He was ready to accede to a liberal
modification of the grand-jury system :

In saying that, he hoped he would not be understood as
adopting he views of his hon. friend with regard to that
part of the subject The commissioners to whom his hon.
friend r ferred suggested alterations, but they did not
recommend the violent and extensive change which his
hon. friend proposed. The want of continuous action
between the grand jury of one year and the grand jury of
another was no doubt an evil, but that could be remedied
by the creation of a financial commission intrusted with
certain powers without sweeping away the grand jury
system altogether.
Mr. MAGUIRE, Mr. GREER, and Mr. BOWYER spoke
in condemnation of the grand-jury system, and Lord
C. HAMILTON in its defence.
Sir D. NORREYS withdrew his motion.
COTTON IN INDIA.

Petitions were presented from Manchester and
other places, praying for an inquiry into the obstacles
which impede the application of British capital and
skill to the improvement of the productive powers of
India.

Mr. J. B. SMITH then moved,—
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that
Parliament shall direct its immediate attention to the best
mode of removing the obstacles which impede the applica-
tion of British capital and skill to the improvement of the
productive powers of India.
A serious obstacle to the improvement of India and
to the resort of Europeans thither consisted, he ob-
served, in the tenure of the land, and the manner in
which the land revenue was assessed. There was
abundant evidence that India was capable of pro-
ducing not only cotton, but sugar, tobacco, flax,
hemp, and other articles, and if obstacles were re-
moved, and the condition of the people ameliorated,
the consumption of our manufactures, he believed,
would be enormous,—equal to our exports to the rest
of the world. These obstacles the Government had
the power to remove, and public works for that
object realised a profit in India, which in some cases
amounted to 200 per cent.—a result that would, in
his opinion, justify the borrowing of money for the
purpose, and India might thus be covered with
public works. But what was the state of the country?
There were no bridges, and few roads, and irrigation
was grossly neglected except at Madras, where the
average profit was 100 per cent. in return. Mr.
Smith cited authorities upon all these points, and to
show that the poverty of the ryots was so abject that
they could not cultivate without advances, for which
an interest of thirty to seventy per cent. was exacted.
In conclusion, he animadverted upon the manner in
which charges against the East India Company's
government were usually met, by denials which
eventually proved to be groundless.
Mr. T CANER seconded the motion, and urged the
immense importance of the cotton trade, in which