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

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of the house was withdrawn from the choice of the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