The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

COMMON LODGING-HOUSES BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the second
reading of this bill.
After a few words from several noble lords, the bill
was read a second time.
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from
the citizens of Manchester, signed by the mayor on be-
half of the meeting at which the petition was agreed to,
praying that the future government of India should con-
sist of a Minister and Council appointed by the Crown,
and which should be directly responsible to the Imperial
Parliament. The noble earl, in supporting the prayer
of the petition, said that the document proceeded from
a locality which, London not excepted, had a more vital
interest than any other part of her Majesty's dominions
in the material well-being of the people of India. The
petitioners, while praying for a reform in the home
government of India, complained that the existing go-
vernment had neither developed the resources of the
country, nor provided for the wishes of the people. He
would not venture to anticipate the scheme of govern-
ment which it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to submit to Parliament ; but it was certain that
no scheme of government would meet with the approval
of the public which was not responsible, expeditious,
economical, and effective.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished to say a few
words in reference to this petition, which was one of
very great importance, coming as it did from so influen-
tial a community. He welcomed the noble earl as
another recruit in the service of Indian legislation. The
statements in the petition were additional and striking
indications of the change which was taking place in the
public mind with respect to the future government of
India. The conclusions to which the petitioners had
come were always his conclusions, as he had stated them
before the committee which sat up stairs, namely, that
it was advisable altogether to disconnect the East India
Company from the Governor of India, and to carry on
the government on the sole authority of the Crown, by
means of a president and council nominated by the
Crown. He did not, however, venture at that time to
state the whole extent of his views on this question ;
and it was gratifying to him now to find those views
stated in their fullest extent by the citizens of Man-
chester, the most populous city in the kingdom next to
metropolis.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE believed that her Majesty's
Government had nothing to do but to take care that the
bills they proposed for the government of India should
be such as would be effectual for its purpose. (Hear.)
He saw no reason for supposing that, in case the Go-
vernment should think it their duty to introduce a bill
this session, it should therefore be considered they were
legislating either ignorantly or precipitately. (Hear,
hear.)

BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord PANMURE, the bill was read
a third time and passed.
EMIGRATION TO NEW SOUTH WALES.
The Earl of GLENGALL asked the Duke of New-
castle whether the bill to regulate the indenting of as-
sisted immigrants in the United Kingdom mid elsewhere,
and their employment in the colony for a certain time
after their arrival, mentioned in the dispatch of Governor
Fitzroy, dated Sidney, Oct. 19, 1852, has passed the
Legislature of New South Wales, and if so, whether it
has received the royal assent ?
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said the dispatch, dated
Oct. 19, 1852, inclosed the draft of a bill which was re-
ceived in this country on the 22d of Jan. He had since
received a dispatch from the Governor of New South
Walls, dated as lately as the 6th of January, from which
be found that there were five dispatches between the
19th of October and the 6th of January, none of
which had yet been received. He had every reason to