The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-09 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.

On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR,
The Commons' amendments in this bill were agreed to
BRIBERY, &c., BILL.

On the motion of the Duke of NEWCASTLE,
The amendments of the Commons in this bill, limiting
its operation to one year, were agreed to.
Their lordships adjourned at five minutes to nine
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at two o'clock.

Sir J. SHELLEY presented a petition from a Liver-
pool paper, praying that unstamped papers under an
ounce in weight may be transmitted through the post on
payment of a penny.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT.
MEDICAL REFORM.

Lord D. STUART wished to ask the Secretary of
State for the Home DepartMent, whether it is his inten-
tion to appoint a commission to inquire into the present
state of medical education, and the laws regulating the
practice of medicine, surgery, midwifery, and pharmacy
in the United Kingdom ; or to appoint a committee of
the House of Commons for that purpose. And, whe-
ther, if a commission is appointed, it is to be composed
of practitioners in medicine, surgery, midwifery, and
pharmacy from England, Ireland, and Scotland, or those
only practising in England.
Lord PALMERSTON had already stated that it
was the intention of the Government to appoint a com-
mission, or ask a for a select committee to enquire into
this subject, but it had not yet been determined whether
the enquiry should be through the former or the latter
medium.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
Sir J. PAKINGTON had been given to understand
that Acts of Constitution had been transmitted to this
country for confirmation by the Crown from New South
Wales, South Australia, and Victoria, each containing
the principle of a nominated upper chamber, and he
should be glad to know what steps the Government in-
tended to take with regard to these acts.
Sir G. GREY said it was quite time that such acts
bad bAen received, but they could be confirmed without
the sanction of the Pa'rliament, and therefore instruc-
tions had been sent out to the Colonies that they would
be reserved fur future consideration.
BRIBERY BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in moving that the Lords'
amendment to this bill be considered forthwith, ex-
plained the nature of these amendments which will be
found fully reported in our Lords report of yesterday.
The motion was agreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the house do
agree to these amendments.
Lord HOTHAI objected to these amendments, and
expressed his surprise that the noble lord should have
asked the house to agree to them, seeing that already
more than once he had voted and spoke against them.
It was, moreover, exceedingly strange that these amend-
ments
had been introduced not at the instance of the
noble lord's opponents, but on the motion of one of his
own colleagues. He strongly objected to that amend-
ment which struck out the clause allowing
reasonable
not
travelling expenses to county voters, and
hhe could
they would
help thinking that if the house agreed toit,.o
exorte the
so far stultify their former decisions as t
scorn and contempt of the country. At the same bime,

. - 68

Mr. MALINS complained that no notice had been
given of agreement to those amendments being moved.
There were many at this moment within two miles of
the house who did not know what was going on, and
, who had no reason, to know what was going on. He
justified the course which he and his friends were tak-
ing, and which he admitted, upon ordinary occasions,
was exceedingly to be deprecated, upon the ground
that they were asked to reverse the oft•repeated deci•
sion of the house, and to do it without reasonable
notice.

Mr. BENTINCK had not been in the house upon
the two former division, but should vote for the present
amendment, if it were pressed, upon the ground that it
was a most unjustifiable proceeding to attempt, at this
period of the session, and in such a house as was then
assembled, to force on a measure of this kind without
proper notice. It was a positive act of deception on
the house. A. measure of this magnitude, and in-
volving such great interests, ought to have been brought
forward and discussed at such a period of session as
would have insured a proper attendance of members.
The house divided—

Ayes
Noes
Majority —66
Lord HOTHAM then again moved the adjournment
of the house, and another division took place with the
following result:—
Ayes
Noes..

13
79
Majority —66
Mr. MALINS thought the noble lord the President
of the Council would agree with him, that it was not fair
that such a subject should be discussed without notice.
In order, therefore, that such notice might be given, and
that those hon. members who were absent might hare
an opportunity of attending, he would propose an ad-
journment until Thursday. He would have preferred
Friday, but ho understood that the prorogation was to
be on Saturday, and he could see that Friday might be
inconvenient ; but he trusted that the noble lord would
think that, in proposing Thursday, he was suggesting a
fair compromise. There was another reason for the
postponement. It would afford the noble lord an oppor-
tunity of giving an answer to the question he had asked
just now, and which, be thought, respect for the country
and the house demanded should be answered, as to the
reasons which had led the noble duke (his colleague) to
move in the other House of Parliament to undo that
which the noble lord in this house had himself pro-
posed to do.
The SPEAKER said the hon. gentleman could only
move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. MALINS therefore altered his amendment ac-
cordingly, on the understanding that, if carried, the dis-
cussion should be resumed on Thursday.
Lord J. RUSSELL said a postponement so Thursday
would give hon. gentlemen opposite a great advantage.
It was obvious that they might pursue the same course
on that day and on Friday as they had pursued to-day,
and then the only alternative would be, that the proro-
gation must be postponed or the bill be lost.
Mr. BRIGHT said it appeared to him there was some-
thing not quite so honest as they might expect in the
course which hon. gentlemen opposite were taking.
They were objecting now to the further progress of the
bill, on the ground that a particular clause beenhadhad
clausew i thdrai
in
int, butaod
t theyho hadgro
ground
dteodf againsttheir
otphpeo withon
thtehrat
e!
fore, must be sought, not in the withdrawal of the clause,
(Hear,but i n
hear.)the ancient
H o inveteratethought t
hheotstthi lei toyb
objection
tti
oh
oe abillitself.wthena tt
of notice savoured very much of a court of law ;
those hon. members who were still in town, and had
tnhoowt,iongwhthoathatdhegosouebjoeuctt woasf
ttoowbpe,
whichtto
detain
them.
Thbee
mustd sufficienti
sc u sbeed , means
ostshead to have ascertained before they left
of
t k
to represent a map-
htwhether
de
dlthere
eudffiw ac
ise
membernatn
importance
businesspcloaritmauedoe
rity of the house. How did he know that? The noble
lord the President of the Council, on whose recommen-
dation only the house had agreed to this clause, had
changed his opinion upon it ; and they all knew that
the noble lord's conversion was generally followed by
the conversion of a.
dthg:eheroo eopohnaHfl topes
ebaemwlo weaphnol
changedl people
u others. He remembered
certaineddt apoc
hsnutctoathahoneiritgihds
reyti
wndooaa
gt
opinions
theii
eanst twirling
abrhlla ieent
opinionshadtemporary
i
rdoaef
sgawbt
aorahmmel phsvtleene: drmahain4enet
.;40wrOdwa:t
(Hear.)
oteewerraloasrrpti,
e
measure—as a majority of the House of Commons had
adopted it—as the House of Lords had thought it of
sufficient importance to warrant a suspension in its fa-
vour of the resolution it had passed this session—as the
whole subject must be reconsidered at all events within
the next two years—it was worth his while to persevere
in a Course which, supported by 13 members—just " a
baker's dozen"--against 79, could lead to no practical
result!

Mr. HILDYARD contended that the objection made
upon the ground of want of notice was the objection,
not merely of a lawyer, but of a statesman, and defended
the course which the opposition had pursued.
Mr. BENTINCK maintained that it was perfectly'
consistent with the opposition that had been given to a
bill which they believed to be bad, mischievous, and in•
efficient, to support the re-introduction of a clause, the
omission of which they considered made a bad measure
worse.

Mr. WILLIAMS contended that if this clause were
to become law, bribery, rank bribery, would be, for the
first time, legalised. What hon. gentlemen opposite
were contending for was the establishment of bribery by
aot of Parliament.
Lord HOTHAM said the honourable member for
Lambeth had asserted that this clause would legalise
rank bribery ; he left him to settle that question with
his noble 'and right hon. friends upon the Treasury
bench, 'who had supported it upon four or five several
occasions. (Rear.) He thought the hon. member, who
always claimed great credit for the purity of his own
,ricing his con-
most
to
a st unworthy
motives, should have avoided imputing motives to others.
s
Nothing but a most sacred sense of duty would have in•
duced him (Lord Hotham) to place himself in this posi-
tiono which was most distasteful to him, but o from
which
he felt he could not recede without sae •fi •
rthy
tci irerne
ntido
eurs
of ef etl
hi negps ,r
iavni
ide
o.ceogn
os ef ntthi
e .n
The house then divided—
LoFrdorlithoeTmlloAtil,oni ........
.... .
m...0.v..e.d ...t.h.e...ad..
j.
. . .
....................
Against it .................................... 11
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE
ehould accept the compromise which he (Mr. Dun-
comb') had
.
here suggested that the noble
doerbdats
Proposed—namely, that the bill should

at this period of the session, it was hopeless to oppose
the Government, because the attendance of members was
so small, that Ministers could if they chose snake
bribery a capital offence • and he should, therefore,
abstain from going to a division on the motion of the
noble lord. He, however, called upon the noble lord,
both for the sake of his own consistency and the cha-
acter of the house, to reconsider the determination he
had come to, and disagree with the Lords' amendments
so far as they related to the travelling expenses claim.
Some verbal amendments made by the Lords having
been agreed to,
Lord HOTHAM moved that the consideration of the
Lords' amendments, which struck out the travelling
expenses clause, be postponed until this day month.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree with the noble
lord in thinking that the house would be at all dis-
paraged in the estimation of the country by.agreeing
in this amendment of the Lords. If the motion of the
noble lord were carried it would have the effect of de-
feating the bill for this session.
Mr.. HILDYARD said there was no wish to de-
feat the bill altogether. All that his noble friend re-
quired was simply to negative this amendment of the
law ; and if his motion would have the effect attributed
to it by the President of the Council there would be no
objection to alter its terms. The House of Lords, in
striking out this clause, had acted from caprice.
Mr. HUME said the Lords had a perfect right to
make the amendment if they so thought fit ; and it was
an insult to the House of Lords, nay, it was revolution-
ary, to say that they acted from caprice in doing so.
With regard to this bill, he did not believe it would be
effectual unless the ballot were engrafted upon it ; but
at the same time he thought the Lords had done right
in rejecting these travelling expenses. If a man would
not take the trouble to vote without having his expenses
paid let him stop away ; give him plenty of polling
booths, but no travelling expenses of any kind.
Lord HOTHAM explained that he should take every
opportunity of obstructing further progress of this bill
unless the travelling expenses were re-inserted in it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE supported the Lords' amend-
ments, but strongly censured the upper house for at-
tempting to control the House of Commons by refusing
to read bills a second time after the 25th of July, which
was tantamount to trenching upon the rights of the
people and the prerogatives of the Crown.
Sir J. PAKINGTON approved of the resolution
which the Lords had come to, and hoped they would
adhere to it in future sessions. This bill in its present
form was a delusion, and it would be no great loss to the
country if it were altogether thrown out.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. G. Butt,
Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Malins, Sir 0.
Burrell, and Lord R. Grosvenor took part, the house
divided, when there appeared—
For agreeing to the Lords' amendments ..: 78
Against doing so ..,
21
Majority
—57
lord HOTHAM then moved that the house "do now
adjourn." His only desire was that the bill should re-
main in the state in which the House of Commons had
declared it should remain.
Mr. HILDYARD explained that if the House of
Lords bad thought proper to reject the bill, he had said
the Lords would act capriciously, and to every word of
that he intended to adhere.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment l6
Against it B4
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
Lord HOTHAAI then moved that the debate be now
adjourned.
After a few words from Mr. HILDYARD,
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the noble lord (Lord
Hotham) would try the question as to the decision of
the House of Lords, or that of this house.
Mr. V. SCULLY hoped the house would now be
satisfied that it was not the Roman Catholic members
of that house who were always instigated by factious
motives, when English and Scotch noblemen and gentle-
men, with small minorities, were equally pertinacious
when they believed themselves in the right.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE suggested that the noble lord
should reserve his forces until he had moved the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, to confine the
operation of the bill to one year—that, if carried,
would enable him to amend it in the course of next
session.

reran in in farce for one year, on the misunderstandin,,
that, the noble lord (the President of the Council) would
pledg ehinsself then to bring in another bill.
Lord 110THAM said that in the course he had pur-
sued he had been actuated by an imperious sense of
duty. If the noble lord would accept the proposal now
thrown out he might be induced to waive present
of position.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if his hon. friend the
=ember for Finsbury meant to propose the duration of
the bill for a year to the end of the "then next session,"
he was willing to accept the proposal. (Hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that such was the intention
of his suggestion.
Lord HOTHAM, under these circumstances, with-
drew hia motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished it to be understood that
he would be at liberty to amend this bill in a future
session, or, on future consideration, continue it as at
present framed.
Mr. MALINS rejoiced that this compromiie had been
arrived at, and trusted that on a future occasion the
noble lord would introduce the clause which had now
been under consideration. (Hear.)
The Lords' amendments were then agreed to.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

BILL.
This bill, as amended, wits considered ; the third
reading to be taken this day.
MR. O'FL ATIERTY'S APPOINTMENT.
Mr. LUCAS called. the attention of the house to circum-
stances connected with the appointment of persons en-
trusted with the collection of the revenue, and referred to
the case of the -special commissioner of income tax in Ire-
land, who waa said to have quitted that country in conse-
quence of having committed
appointment to bein the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he
had communicated privately with him in order that he
might be present on that occasion. The right hon. gentle-
man had asked him to postpone his motion, but unless
some reason could be alleged for his doing so he should
feel it his duty to proceed. These rumours respecting the
income tax commissioner were current for weeks, and he
could not conceive how it was possible that the Chancellor.
of the Exchequer should not inquire into the means by
which he was misled as to the character of the man whom
be had appointed to an office so important.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
no wish upon the subject, though he was anything but pre-
pared with the requisite information.
Mr. LUCAS then brought the case of Mr. E. O'Flaherty
before the house, and demanded some explanation upon
the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
made the appointment on the recommendation of Sir J.
Young, but the functions of Mr. O'Flaherty as income tax
commissioner had ceased long before those rumours got
into circulation. There had been no defalcations on the
part of Mr. O'Flaherty, and whatever rumours prevailed
against him were applicable to his private conduct after he
had ceased his official duties.
Mr.. DISRAELI regretted that Lord Naas was not pre-
sent, and reminded the house of the case of Mr. Keogh, in
which Mr. O'Flaherty's testimony was adduced in contra-
vention of the statement of his noble friend with respect
to Mr. Keogh's appointment. His noble friend had at the
time a letter in his pocket which would have at once neu-
tralised the testimony of Mr. O'Flaherty, and shown that
he was not a person who ought to have been appointed to
the office which he subsequently obtained.
Colonel DUNNE said that on the occasion in question
Lord Naas-had in his possession a letter which contained
the most damning proof of the unfitness of Mr. O'Flaherty,
by reason of his antecedents, to hold any position under
Government, but a feeling of delicacy restrained him from
using it.
The subject then dropped.
INDIAN FINANCE.

The house then resolved itself into a committee for the
purpose of receiving a statement from Sir Charles Wood,
on the subject of the Indian revenue accounts, there not
being more than a dozen members present during the earlier
part of the proceedings.
Sir C. WOOD proceeded to address the committee, as
near as we were enabled to collect, in the following terms,
for the low conversational tone in which a large portion of
the introductory remarks of the right honourable baronet
were delivered rendered them for the most part, either
partially inaudible or totally unintelligible in the gallery :
I rise, sir, in performance of a promise made last year, to
lay before the house a statement with respect to the
finances of India, and at the same time to submit to the
house a general statement of the progress which has been
made since that subject was last under discussion in this
house. I propose, in order to enable me to do this the
more clearly, to follow the precedent set in former years—
for it is only two years short of half a century since an
Indian budget was submitted to the House of Commons—
o:)f submitting to the house a series of resolutions on the
subject of the finances of India. The resolutions will be,
relative to the commercial aspect of the country, similar
to those of former years. Other resolutions will also be
placed in your hands, sir, on the subject of the revenue
and expenditure of the several presidencies ; on the subject
of India generally ; and lastly, of those charges which are
paid in this country, showing the ultimate surplus after
defraying the whole of the Indian charges which are payable
out of the Indian revenue. The resolutions which I shall
submit to you are, in truth, as on former occasions, little
more than mere assertions of matters of fact. Former acts
of Parliament provided a form in which those resolutions
should be framed, but a later act requires the form in
which the resolutions and accounts are now framed. The
principal advantage -which I anticipate from the course
which the committee is now about to adopt, is not so
much eliciting any opinion on the subject of the finances
of India as to enable me to lay before the house a general
view of the subject of the state of that country, and to
enable hon. members to make those observations which
they think requisite thereupon, or to elicit any farther
information, so far as I am enabled to give it, upon matters
of great and absorbing interest in connection with this im-
portant subject. By the last act of Parliament, the ac•
counts, framed it a particular manner, are annually laid
upon the table of the house; but I did not think, from the
little time that I have had to turn my attention to this
subject, that those accounts are so explicit as it was desi-
rable they should be made. Accordingly, I desired the
accounts to be framed very much upon the model of the
finance accounts of this country, giving very full informa-
tion ou the subject of revenue, income, expenditure,
charge upon Indian revenue, and other subjects upon
which hon. members might be desirous of expressing an
opinion or forming a judgment.' Those accounts have been
framed with very great care by Mr. Key (as we understood)
of the East India Company. These accounts, so prepared,
have been submitted to Mr. Anderson (as we also under-
stood), the late deputy paymaster-general, and having un-
dergone a most careful revision they have been considered
satisfactory, so far as the information which they afford is
concerned. I was anxious to lay upon the table of the
house on this occasion the trade and navigation returns of
India, but found that it would not be possible to have
these returns made up to a recent period in sufficient time
to present them with the other returns. With respect to
the period to which these returns have been made up, I
greatly regret that I am unable to lay before the house
complete accounts down to a later period than the 30th of
April, 1852. Adopting, as I have already said, the
prece-
dent of former years, propose in the first instance toput
into your hands the income and charges of each separate
presidency, the general income and charges payable in
India, the home charges, and the difference, which is
of
course the ultimate surplus of Indian revenue. The com-
mittee must, however, bear in mind, that there is great
difficulty in apportioning to the respective presidencies the
precise amount of charges which ought to be placed to the
credit of each. The revenucd of Bengal, for instance, are
chargeable for the payments for suppressing piracy,
" batta" is chargeable on the Madras revenue, and the
India mail on the Bombay revenue. The charges on each
presidency do rot, therefore, correctly represent the
actual charges, and whether or not it may be desirable to
separate them accurately in future is a subject to which I
shall devote my atteution in the next session. Again,
with respect to the home payment, the furlough charges
and the pay of the whole army is from a general sum,
though obviously it must be divided between the three
presidencies. Ido not know whether it would be worth
while taking the trouble to divide the payment between
Bombay, Bengal, and Madras. I merely state this in order
that thecommittee may understand that in the resolutions to
be submitted to it, it will not have the separate charge of
the respective presidencies, nor indeed the general charges
of the Indian Government as accuratley distinguished from
that of the local governments. The statements which I
am about to make are founded mainly upon papers 12, 13,
and 29 in this general return (the right hon. baronet did
not particularise more precisely the return alluded to).
These papers represent the accounts of receipts and dis-
bursements, especially " 29," where, at page 45, will be
found a very full account of the whole. The first resolu-
tions which I shall put into your hands are with respect to
the revenue of the presidency of Bengal, including the
local charges theron, exclusive of the army. I shall state
at the same time the revenues and expenditure of the
north-western provinces, in order to afford to the com-
mittee a fair opportunity of comparing them with other
Portions. I shall then state the total charges of both, and
add to them the charge for the army. The first resolution
states that the revenue of Bengal n
. the year ending the
30th of April was as
follows :
Revenue.....

Local charges .... ... . ............................
Leaving Surplus ...................... -25,648,073
The revenue and expenditure of the north-western pro-
vinces were as follows : -
Revenue .....................
Local charges ............

.............. £5,670,715
i waia . ii;te.......£4,268,477
............... 1,402,238
Leaving surplus .....
:torth-western pro
----
The-
the military charges of Benga.
th largest •'- -.
vinees form, as might be expected,
, an-ounting to
the whole military expenditure of India portion of
less than 5,442,2301. The net revenue— not
the net revenue, after deducting charges of racolslee"taking of
other charges of that description—of Bengal and tilrnoarnthd
western provinces was 13,225,150/. : the charzeß upon
sum, including military charges, was 8,770,330/.. ;leaving
a surplus revenue front. the Bengal and northwestern
provinces applicable to the general charges of India, includ.
jog the debt, of 4,434,3201. The next resolution is one
which will apply to the presidency of Madras, and will be
as follows :

Revenue .........
Local charges ...

£3,704,048
3,204,273

•
• - Surplus £499,775
With respect to Bombay, the account stands as follows:
Revenue 1:2,868,293' ,
. Local charges

1,')0,906
Surplus
The total net revenue of the several m
presidencies am
to 19,827,496/., and the total charges, exclusive of the army,
to 14,822,4951., leaving a total surplus a_va_i_l.a...,l)Le.f,o.r tr/-1,,,t!,,:i.
pay-
ment of the debt and home charges of s,ooex)cu,uu".___ -,.1,,.',,.'5,
terest of the India debt, payable in India, _
_L;s,.;v3?,.°.l;'"'
9/ the
and temporary debt, was at that time 1,901 i
charges defrayed in England were 2,50i,377/.
what I
charges lipon. Indian revenue, therefore,The total
beyond
have already mentioned, amount to 4,473,7361.,
leav-
ing for the years 1851-2 a surplus of income over expendi-
ture of 531,265/.„carresponding with the figures stated at the
thus
bottom of the page of the return alread referred to. That,
am 1., y statement is, I
—appy to say, a satisfactory one, and for the two preceding years there has been a surplus, though
not quite so large as for the previous year. In 1849-50
•Illen surplus 5-1,3371. in 1850-1 a surplus of
415;8664244 in 1851-2 a surplus, A 531
latest period-for which I cau ,2651., which is tha
give a complete statement.