The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--(YEsTERDSY,)
ANNEXATION IN INDIA.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE postponed the motion of
which he had given notice, as he believed it was in some
degree connected with the subject alluded to in Lord
Canning 's proclamation.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH—The noble earl has
done justice to one governor-general—may I ask him to
do justice to another ? I do not mean myself ; for, of
course, I do not expect that—but I mean Lord Dalhousie.
The motion of the noble earl is the strongest possible
censure upon the policy of Lord Dalhousie, which was
supported by her Majesty's late ministers ; but it does
not state fairly the principle upon which Lord Dalhousie
did what he did. If his policy is to be censured, let the
principle of it be stated in his own words ; and I do re-
quest that the noble earl, when he does bring forward
his motion, if he ever does bring it forward, will state
the principle he condemns, in the very words of the noble

marquis Who preceded Lord Canning.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
CUSTOMS DUTIES (No. 2) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
EXCISE DUTIES BILL.

On the motion for the third reading,
Lord MONTEAGLE said he did not object to the
very high rate of duty which it was proposed by the bill
to levy upon Irish spirits, provided only that it could be
collected. Perhaps he should be told thrthemeinpa their
resent
duties were punctually paid ; but he would
lordships that the price of grain had latterly
been very
high ; and when that was the case the revenue authori-
ties had seldom much to complain of. But in point of
fact smuggling wa:i
e increase ; for while the tcon-
sumption of spirits of late increased, the number of
boand hgallons taken for home consumption had diminished.
The difference must, therefore, have been made up by
spirits smuggled or illegally distilled. There was another
matter to which he wished to refer. The admirable
body of revenue police had been abolished, and while a
fair provision had been made for its younger members,
those who had grown old in the service had been
treated fa a most miserably parsimonious manner. The
Government would save 40,0001. by the proposed ar-
rangement, and they might do an act of justice to these
men for 20,0001. a year. He bad no pers.,nal knowledge
of any one of these parties, but he appealed to any noble
lord connected with Ireland whether he had not justly
estimated the services of this corps. He should not
make any motion on the subjeot,;but he hoped t:te Go-
vernment would look into the matter and do what was
just.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE was understood to
say that his noble friend seemed to think that this mea-
sure would increase illicit distillation in Ireland, but it
was believed that that would not be so. As to the
quantity of spirits consumed in Ireland, it must be
borne in mind that the population had diminished, for
while in 1841 it was 8,502,000, in 1851 it was only
6,500,000, and at the commencement of this year it was
only 6,000,000. He did not deny that the operation of
increased duties was to diminish to sem° extent con-
sumption, but it was admitted on all bands that the t,)O
free use of spirits was not good. His noble friend ad-
mitted that the police force had acted with great effect in
checking illicit distillation, but he could not go with him in
thinking that illicit distillation had increased in licensed
distilleries. He thought it was wise to put the spirit
duty of the two countries on the same footing.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that this
matter was one of very great importance to Ireland, and
he dreaded lest illicit distillation or the adulteration of
spirits should increase. With reference to that class of
persons to whom his noble friend (Lord Monteagle) had
referred, they had been turned out of the public service
at a time of life when it was almost impossible for them
to devote themselves to anything else, and he recom-
mended their claims to the notice of the Government.
The Earl of DERBY said that, as to the particular
class alluded to who had been superannuated, he must
say to the noble marquis opposite that it was quite suffi-
cient fir the Government to have to defend their own
measures without having cast upon them the burden of
defending the measures of the late Government. This
was the second time within a short period when
leading members of the late Government had ac-
cused them for acts of their own. (Hear, hear.) The
late President of the Board of Trade had attacked the
Government as to the arrangement for telegraphic com-
munication with India, and had made an admirable
speech, pointing out the superiority of another plan,
without waking to the consciousness that the plan so
objected to was that adopted by the late Government of
which he was a member. (Hear, hear.) The noble
marquis protested as to the injustice of the superannua-
tion.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—No.
The Earl of DERBY—To the great hardship then in-
flicted on the officers of the revenue police by reason of
the inadequacy of the compensation. It did happen
that that compensation had not been assigned by the
present Board of Treasury, but by the Government of
which the noble marquis was so distinguished a mem-
ber. (Laughter.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE—A complaint
bad been made before he joined the late Government,
and he had intended to bring it under the notice of his
colleagues.
The Earl of DERBY wondered that the noble mar-
quis had allowed the matter to sleep so long, (A. laugh.)
It was at all events very extraordinary that the noble
marquis had accepted office in the government that bad
inflicted such hardship on a body of his countrymen—(a
laugh)—if indeed it were a case of hardship ; but he did
not think it was. He thought that these men had
received as much as they were entitled to. Upon the
consolidation of the revenue police with the general
constabulary of Ireland, every man who was fit for
service in the revenue police was transferred to the con-
stabulary police. They then had to deal with those who
were incapable of performing their defies, and they were
dealt with in this way. All who had served for a period
of time which entitled them to receive less than half of
their pay and emoluments had assigned to them a seat
equal to half of their pay and emoluments, a sum larger
than by any circumstances they were entitled to under
the Superannuation Fund Act. Those who had served
for a longer period, and came under the Superannuation
Aet, had assigned to them the utmost amount that the
Lords of the Treasury could assign ; this applied to those
entitled to more than half their emoluments. The
complaint really was not that the government had done too
little for one class, but too much for the other. It was
the old parable of the labourers in the vineyard : their
eye (said the noble earl) is evil because ours is good. A
memorial had been prepared in which superannuation
was calculated upon the basis of pay and allowance',
whilst the government took as their basis for superannu-
ation, pay and emoluments. "Allowances" included
such items as forage for a horse ; but when a man left
the service he, of course, had no claim to such an allow-
ance. Nothing could be more unjust than to regulate
superannuation in reference, not to pay and emoluments,
but to pay and allowances. What he said was this, that
they had given to those who had only been a short time
in the service more than they were entitled to, and they
bad given to those who had been longer in the service
the maximum that they were entitled to claim ; and under
these circumstances he could not seethat the parties basi
been dealt with unfairly. There may have been cases of
individual hardship, but as a general rule he thought
twat the late Board of Treasury had treated these parties
with justice and liberality.
Lord MONTEAGLE explained that be had said that
both governments had done wrong. Nothing could be
more unjust than to suppose that these men were claiming
to receive compensation far horses and other allowances
no longer necessary, for no such claims had been brought
orward.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said he was in-
formed that the noble earl at the head of the government
had stated that it was the practiceof the late government
to blame their successors for their own measures, and
there was no doubt that the present government had
h
shown great facility in abandoning ownmeaseres
and adopting those of the late governmenrt With regard
to the electric telegraph, what took place, so fa
collec'ed, was this—He had referred to negetiatr asio he 3
n r
withe-
the Austrian government, and remarked that thenobl3
viscount (Lord Palmerston) had stated in the other
house a few weeks before that all negotiation had (teased
on the subject. It would be most detrimental to the
public that the Austrian government should have the
control of the telegraph. He said he hoped that an at-
tempt would be made to see whether the same ser-
vice could not be performed by English capital on more
advantageous or cn equal terms, especially as the Aus-
trian Government intended to get the telegraph by Eng-
lish capital. The noble earl, he understood, was pleased
to say that he bad only carried into effect the recom-
mendation of the late Government, but he understood
there was no minute, no decision of the late Govern-
ment. (Hear.) There was a proposition from the Sar-
dinian Government, to which no answer had been re-
turned, and he must say that be was totally unable to
get any satisfactory ans wer from the Government on
this subject.
The Earl of MALMESBURY—As to its being im-
possible to get an answer from the Government, he
would tell their lordships what had occurred. In the
first place, the noble lord gave notice.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said he had given
no notice.
The Earl of MALMESBURY—The noble lord's re-
lative told him at the bar of the house that the noble
lord was going to ask a question. The noble lord himself
seemed exceedingly uncertain whether he would bring
on the matter or not ; and after wandering about the
house far two or three hours,.said he would not bring it
on._ As to the Sardinian Government, he had seen a
document signed "J. Wilson," the name of a minister
of the late Government.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—The noble earl
referred to a question relative to the Cagliari, and not to
a question as to the electric telegraph, the minute as to
which could not be considered as the act of the late
Government.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Exchequer:se:d (2,000,0001.) Bill was also read
a third time and
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMNIONS.—(YEsTERDar.)
INDIA.—VOTE OF CENSURE ON TIIE
GOVERNMENT.

Mr. CARD WELL gave notice• that he thou,
on
Thursday next move a res)lution in the followina tar
m 5:
That the house, whilst it abstains from txpretssingmE::
opinion as to the policy of any proclamation by
VleGoverno'r
General in India in relation to Oade, has seen with re-
gret and serious apprehension that her Majesty's Go-
vernment has addressed to the Governor-General of
India, through the secret committee of the East

India House, a despatch, condemning in strong
terms the conduct of the Governor-General of
India, and that they are of opinion such a course,
on the part of her Majesty's Government, must tend,
under the present circumstances in I❑dia, to pro-
duce a most prejudicial effect in that country, by
weakening the authority of the Governor-General, and
encouraging the further resistance of those still in arms
against us." (Loud cheers.)
OATHS BILL.
On the motion that the Lords' amendments to this
bill be agreed to on clause 5.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that they should not be
agreed to by that house.
Mr. NE WDEGATE supported the amendments.
Sir R. BETHELL urged that it was the duty of the
House of Lords to have attended to the feelings of the
people of this country, and to have agreed to the
bill in the form in which it was sent up to their
lordships' house. The House of Commons had on
repeated occasions passed such a bill as this, and with
increasing numbers and in various Parliaments. He
hoped the house of Lords would not drive the House of
Commons into collision with them, and compel this
house to seat Baron Rothschild by resolution. If it was
necessary he would move such a resolution,
After some remarks from Sir J. PAKINGTON in expla-
nation,
Mr. S. WARREN, amidst cries of " divide," ad-
dresssed the house in favour of their lordships' amend•
ments. If the learned gentleman (Sir R. Bethell)
thought the House of Lords would yield to his threats,
he would find he had never committed a greater blunder
in his life. Only two Jews had been elected to serve in
Parliament, and no petition had been presented to that
house from members of the Jewish persuasion in favour
of the bill. The people of England, as a body, were
opposed to the introduction of Jews into Parliament.
("Hear, hear," and " divide").
After some remarks from Mr. T. DIINCOMBE and Sir
J. PAIINGTON,

The house divided, when the numbers were—
For disagreeing with the Lords' amend-
ments to clause 5, inserting the words
" on the true faith of a Cnristian
For the Lords' amendments

... 26S
150

Majority . 113

The other amendments were also disagreed to.

Lord J. RUSSELL Mo;ed the appointment of a corn.
mittee for drawing up the reasons of the Commons dis-
agreeing to their Lordships' amendments, with a view
to a conference with their Lordship, viz., Lord John
Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir J.
Pakington, Lord Stanley, Sir F. Kelly, Lord Palmer-
ston, Sir G. Lewis, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Labouchere, Sir
J. Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cardwell, Sir R.
Bethell, Mr. Bright, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Horsman,
Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Headlam, Mr.
Roebuck, Mr. Moncreiff, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Mr.
Deasy, and Mr. J. A. Smith.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE in accordance with precedent
of a person returned to that house who had not taken
the oaths, moved that Baron Rothschild be one of the
committee, in order that he might state his reasons and
opinions at the conference.
Mr. DILLWYN seconded the motion. If Baron
Rothschild had the right of sitting on a committee, he
ought to be allowed to do so. The very fact of a mem-
ber of the Jewish persuasion acting as a member of a
committee would give a practical illustration of the ab-
surdity of the present law—an illustration which per-
haps might have some effect in another branch of the
Legislature. (Hear, and laughter.)
The question having been put,
Mr. NEWDEGA.TE rose, amidst much laughter,
and said the house bad on two different occasions de-
clared that Mr. Salomons and Baron Rothschild were
incompetent to sit or vote in the house, and he con-
ceived the precedent referred to by the hop. member for
Finsbury inapplicable to the present case in the face of
such decisions. (Hear.) He wished to ascertain the
opinion of the right hon. member the Secretary for the
Home Department whether a person who had been de-
clared incompetent to sit in the house could be ap-
pointed a member of a committee ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE said he had been somewhat taken
by surprise by the proposition of the hon. member for
Finsbury. (Laughter.) He thought the house ought
carefully to consider the proposition of the hon. member
before coming to any positive decision. He (Mr. Wal-
pole) was not at all aware that ouch a course of proceed-
ing was about to be taken, and therefore had not had
time either to look at the precedent, or to consider the
effect of the proposition. To the best of his recollection,
the act of Parliament attached the penalty to members
for voting or sitting during debate. If so, pcossitly it
would not only apply to the present case. One thing
struck him on the face of the precedent which had been
quoted, namely, that in 1715, no person was duly quali-
fied to take any part in the proceedings of the house
without being sworn, not merely at the table, hut before
the Lord High Steward. He could not find whether Sir
Joseph Jekyll had not been sworn or not. If he had been
so sworn, be would have been returned to the house as
a member, and that was a material element in the con-
sideration of the question. All he could say was that,
if Baron Rothschild by constitutional precedent was
entitled to sit on a committee, hs would offer no ob•
jection to his doing so. (Hear.) Dirt he asked the house
to consider whether they were really right in following
the course recommended, and adopting a novel proce.d-
lost which might lead to inconvenience and difficulty.
(Hear, and oh, oh.)
Mr, BOUVERIE said his attention had been called,
to this point some tiros ago, and he thought there could
be no doubt, on the face of the precedent, that Baron
Rothschild was entitled to sit on the committee. He
should therefore support the motion. (Cheers.)
Mr. LYGON thought it desirable that the house
should know whether Sir J Jekyll was sworn before he
acted on the committee, because, if so, there would be a
great difference between the two cases.
Lord J. RUSSELL had been as much taken by sur-
prise as the right hoe. Home Secretary by the proposi-
tion which had just been made. Three or four years ago
he had looked at the precedent referred to, and believed
that Sir J. Jekyll served on that committee before be
took the oaths, but he rather thought the omission was
owing to the accidental circumstance of his not having
arrived in time to do so. It was perfectly understood
at the time that Sir J. Jekyll would take the oaths as
soon as he had the opportunity. At the same time, he
thought the precedent sufficiently strong to justify the
hon. member for Finsbury in proposing that Baron
Rothschild should be added to the committee, and it the
hon. member pressed the question he should certainly
vote with him. (Cheers.) He thought, however, that
it would have have been more courteous to the house if
notice had been given of the proposition. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the question bad been
treated with the most perfect fairness by his right bon.
friend (Mr. Walpole.) Whatever were the opinions of
honourable gentlemen as to the question of the admits.
idon of the Jews to Parliament, he believed that none
desired to interfere with their legal rights, and if Baron
Rothschild had a legal right to sit on a committee he
believed the general feeling of the house would be in
accordance with the view empressed by his right hon.
triend, There was considerable difficulty about the
question, as it turned on the construction of a precedent
with which the great body of members of the house could
noefoxtf pa eiorcbnt
jeeedscst toto
that bt he
thee a
pc oq
se hon.t ap i
on nt eemdm.eeran
btHeoret
fttorhrue stle ud e Finsburyaatsi
o na
nmw
o'atut tlbeare
till to-morrow. (Hear.)
Mr. WARREN rose as a friend of Baron Rothschild
to express a hope that a little more time would he
allowed for the consideration of the matter. (Laughter
and cries of Oh, oh.) He would advise Baron Roths-
chile's friends to consider the position in which they
were about to place him—(laughter)—and to examine
carefully the nature of the liabilities which might attach
to him. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON recommended the hon. mem-
ber for Finsbury to yield to the suggestion which had
been thrown out, and allow more time for considera-
tion. (No, no.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was not aware that the
committee would have been nominated immediately. If
the ordinary course had been pursued of placing the
names on the paper, he should have given notice of his
iMention to propose the name of Baron Rothschild. The
resolution of the home in the case to which he had re-
ferred was perfectly clear on the subject ; and all he
asked the house to do was to permit Baron Rothschild
to act on the committee, although, as was the case with
Sir J. Jekyll, he had not been sworn by the clerk at
the table. (Cheers.)
Mr. MELLOR trusted the house would not act rashly
in a matter of such importance, but adjourn its conside-
ration until to-morrow.
Lord H. VANE suggested the propriety of taking the
subject into consideration as a matter of privilege at
halbpast 4 to-morrow. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. SHELLEY concurred in the suggestion.
T ateh
eC
dHeAb
aNt
eCbEe L.
(1.41 j OR n ot.fd tt hi
lel
hEaXi i
-Cp
aLls
tE4QtUo
-EmRO r
rmo owv. e d
The motion
that
bate was alourNynaesdthaenr!oprduitnagni ly'. agreed to, and the de-
THE STATUE OF DR. JENNER.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to ask a question with
respect to the statue of Dr. Jenner in Trafalgar-square.
He thought it highly ina.r:toaprer to place such a statue
among the naval and
and everybody spoke with ridicyuleand disgust of the
manner in which the site had
:luetsehcraadteaty
wished to know whetm-r the government
jectioo to the produc ion of the correspondenceHobe-
which
had taken place on the subject!
Lord J. MANNERS had no objection to the
produc-
tion of the papers, but said he should like to consult hisright hon. predecessor on the subject.
THE NEW ZEALAND LOAN.
On the question that the house resolve itself into a
committee of supply,
Sir J. TRELA%'NY rose to call its attention to cer-
tain pa-isagee in the evidence given by one of the wit-
nesses before
the New Zealand Loan (500,0001.), Guar-
antee Committee, and to c impare the Fame with records
of .he pri ceeclings of the New Zealand house of Assem-
bly, in which the witness referred to took part. Also to
call attention t , certain dealings with the natives for the
sale of their lands, and to the manner in which recent
cont-acts made with them with respect to schools rind
hospitals by a government officer have been carried into
effect. What he complained of was simply this, that
Ah e n the bill was under discussion many h P. members
had been unduly influenced by evidence which was in
some respects very inaccurate. In his evidence before the
committee Mr. Sewell stated that if Parliament proposed
to advance 200,0001. instead of 500,000/. the proposition
would not be acceded to by the colony, the fact being
that the House of Representatives had passed a resolu-
tion, in which Mr. Sewell concurred, that the smaller
rooo,,tudnitsts.hould be accepted. Tee other case involved 1
Betish nation,
the honour good faith, and justice of the
30,000,0__i I appeared that Mr. Mantel' had bought
Vt.) of acres of the