The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

OUR RELATIONS WITH FRANCE.

11Ir. WHITE wished to know from the right hon. gen-
tle:l:an the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether those

friendly relations between this country and Franca, which
the sight hon. gentleman, on the 4th of May last, stated
then existed, wer4 still maintained between the Cabinets
of the two countries, and whether he would state how
things stood in reference to the Danubian provinces ?
The CHANCELLOR of 1113 EXCHEQUER, in answer
_ . _

to the hon. member for Plymouth, said the Conferencts in
Paris were still sitting on the question of the Danubian
provinces. He might state that friendly relations existed
between the two Cabinets. It was arranged that the
proceedings of the Conference should be secret, and they
were so, us far as he knew; and that being so, he was
quite sure the hon. member would not wish him to violate
that which it was agreed should be kept secret while the
Conference was sitting. (Hear.)
PUBLIC HEALTH.

Lord EBRINGTON expressed a hope that hon. mem-
bers would not hurry out of town in reference to their
own health, while the bills in reference to the public
health and local management referring to the health of
the country generally, were yet to be considered.
SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.

- . ------.
Mr. WALPOLE said, if any considerable progress
should be made in committee on the India Bill on Monday
evening, he hoped to be able on that evening to go on with
the Scotch Universities Bill; and if not, he hoped they
would be able to go on with the bill on Tuesday.
The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
The house then resolved itself into committee on the
Government of India Bill.
On clause 19, relating to the duties of the council,
Mr. VERNON SMITH referred to the manner in which
matters were carried on by the Secret Committee of the
Court of Directors, and said, in his oFinion, it would be
better to adopt the words of the act of 1833, which referred
to the department of the Secretary of State.
Lord STANLEY said the right hon. gentleman mis-
apprehended the clause, for its only object was to point
out the duties respectively of the Secretary of State and
the council, in convection with the correspondence.
Col. SYKES asked if the noble lord intended that a
despatch should have the signature of the Secretary of
State only?
Lord STANLEY—The secretary of State only.
After a few words from Mr. WILLOUGHBY, the clause
was agreed to.
On clause 20 being proposed, empowering the Secretary
of State to divide the council into committees,
Sir E. PERRY objected to the clause. He thought that
every member of the committee should be prohibited from
any connection with banking or mercantile business of any
kind whatever.

Lord STANLEY said that no absolute rule was laid
down, but it was expected that the members should give
up to the business of the council as much of their time as
was deemed necessary.
Mr. V. SMITH thought the question a most important
one, and the answer to it not at all satisfactory. If these
committees were occupied daily, they would not have much
time for other matters ; but a minute ought to be made on
the subject if words to the purpose could not be put into
the act. He suggested also that instead of the business
being divided into six, it should be rather into three de-
partments.

LordSTANLEY' said the rule the house agreed to was,
that the Minister should make the first arrangement, and
thou the council should regulate for themselves. With
respect to a minute being made, they could outdo so before-
hand, and before they knew what would be absolutely
necessary.

Col. S'iLi"K ES thought the Secretary of State would have
a right to oxpect that a majority of the council should at-
„,„l hey wOl-1111 tirul plenty of busioesq to tran-
sact.

The clause was the❑ agreed to.

On clauso 21 being proposed, appointing the president
chairman of the council, and, in his absence, the vice-
president,
Sir E. COLEBROOK moved to insert the words, " or
in the absence of the secretary, a member chosen by them-
selves."

Mr. AYRTON thought the alteration totally unneces-
sary, but he suggested that, in the absence of the Secretary
of State, the under-secretary should fill hia place.
The amendrLent was then negatived without a division.
The clause, as amended, was agreed to, al were also
clauses 23, 24, 25, and 26.
On clause 27 being proposed,

Sir G. C. LEWISsaid this clause proposed to renew, in
a varied form, the powers of the secret committee. If the
proposed council were to consist of a smaller number be
should have no objection to the abolition of a secret com-
mittee. it ought to be distinctly understood, however,
that the powers of the secret committee would not be
strained, and that it should be as little resorted to as pos-
sible.

Mr. R. D. MANGLES said the Government of India bad
the power of communicating with the secret committee on
any subject whatever under the act of DM. The effect of
this had been very mischievous; for matters which all the
world might have known with advantage bad been kept
secret, and perhaps, the house did not know that for come
years after the conquest cf Scinde the government of that
province was under the secret committee, the Court of Di-
rectors knowing no more about it than did the Emperor of
Russia. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the Court of Di-
rectors had shown themselves as competent to keep their
secrets as any Cabinet of tier Majesty's Government was,
whether Whig or Conservative. His opinion was that if
there were anything worth keeping secret, it would be so
kept by.the council, if properly elected.
Mr. AYRTON said they seemed called upon to take a
course on the present occasion, iu reference to the secret
committee, calculated in its nature to censure the Court
of Directors in recalling the Earl of Ellenbc.rough, an act
which he thought was a very wise and a very proper one.
He thought it necessary that they should now define whe-
ther the Secretary of State should have the power of send-
ing out any despatch which be should not be bound to
communicate to the secret committee without the notice
laid down in the 21st clause. He therefore begged to sub-

mit to the noble lord the desirableness of his stiikiug out
this clause, and establighing a provision giving full powers
to the Secretary of State.

Lord PALIII-ERSTON said ho was very anxious that
the clause should retuain as it now stood in the bill. Who
was the officer they wore dealing with ? Why, with the
Secretary of State, to whom they should leave the full
discretion now provided by the elauso. The clause pro-
vided that ho should be at liberty to exercise his judgment
about communicating with his colleagues, and in his
opinion he should be perfectly at liberty to do so, and to
adopt the course which ho deemed most prudent.
Mr. ROEBUCK said it appeared to him that the clause
now under consideration seemed to be " the key-stone of
the arch." Power was given to the Secretary of State to
do three things, the last of which was that "he might
do what he liked," Now that arrangement was, in fact,
creating what they were most anxious to ,get rid of,
namely, a "double Government." They wore led to that
course by their own " cowardice." In his opinion they
should give up their council, and confer full powers on the
Secretary of State.
Colonel SYKES had a motion on the paper for striking
out this elanse. The hon. and gallant colonel referred to
the operations of the secret committee' when he was a
can't of Directors. What, he asked, was
it, that led to the ..tulgirLin :1.,1„::! et .1. 1"),OCO
human beings, and expenditure of 15,000,000 t., but the act
of the secret committee ? and what also was it that led to
the Burmese and Seikli wars, loss of life, and vast expendi-
ture of money. Lut the act of the secret committee, and
that without consulting the Court of Directors?

Mr. V. SIIITII said the powers of the Secretary of
State should be more clearly defined, and he did hope they
would give the Secretary of State the power to negotiate
with foreign States, and to deal with questions of peace
and war, without the sanction of the council. They should
give the Secretary of State the power which it was the
object of the bill to give him.
Sir E. COLEBROOK said it would be most dangerous
to take from Parliament the responsibility which belonged
to it, and throw it upon the council. The real check
against such wars as the Affghan war should be in Parlia-
ment.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE thought it would be wrong to let
the Secretary of State negotiate, with foreign States, and
to decide on questions of peace or war without the know-
ledge of the council. He had placed ou the paper an amend-
ment to the effect that the Vice-President for the time
being, and such two other members of the council as the
Secretary of State should determine, should be a secret
committee of council.
Lord STANLEY did not think such an amendment
would secure the object of the hon. member. Such a check
would be illusory, and would only diminish the responsi-
bility of the Secretary of State. The taking of the powers
of a secret committee was a necessary evil. These powers
were well defined in the act which had been referred to,
though they had possibly been abused or exceeded.
Af 601 r a few words from Mr. R. D. MANGLES,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could imagine in cases of a
mixed Indian and European war the Secretary of State
could act without the sanction of the council. But the pre-
sent case was a different one. They had determined upon
having a council of men expel ienced in Indian affairs; and
yet in the 27th clause it was proposed that in the matters
of most importance the Secretary of State should act with-
out the knowledge of the council. It appeared to him that
this proposition was at variance with the rest of the act.
The policy to be pursued tows, ds native princes was one of
the most important matters in connection with the govern-
ment of India, and the advice of the council should be ob-
tained in such a matter. The council ought to bo as well
entrusted with the policy in India as the Secretary of
State himself, for their advice would be most valuable.
He could not imagine but that a council of 15 would not
be fully competent to give proper adviceto a Minister with
respect to India; and on that account they ought at all
times be made aware of what was about to be clone re-
specting that country. In a case of war or an expenditure
of a large sum of money, the council ought to he consulted
and their opinion taken. They would have no barrier so
good to prevent war in India as to consult this council
and take their opinion before any steps were taken. He
should certainly, for all these reasons, vote for the amend-
ment.
The committee then divided, when thr numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority - —24
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 29 being proposed,
Sir E. PERRY proposed to insert the words, "and the
appointments of lieutenant-governor of provinces or terri-
tories, and the appointments of members of the council
of the Governor-General of India, and of the several pre-
sidencies." At present these appointments were in the
hands of the Governor-General, but that clause vested
them in the majority of the council. He thought that all
patronage should be taken from them, for under the old
systam that was the greatest blot ou the government of
the Board of Directors. They ought to throw it open to
public competition, and not leave it in the hands of any
body. It would be better to place it even in the hands of
the Minister than leave it to the council.
Lord STANLEY said the matter referred to had
nothing to do with the question now before the house.
Mr. VERNON SMITH assured the noble lord that the
act which ho was about to propose had been in the plan
contained in the bill of the noble lord the member for
Tiverton, and in the first bill of the present Government,
providing that the presidential council should be estab-
lished by the Governor-General and the governors of presi-
dencies.
Lord STANLEY thought there was much to be said on
the subject, but the course proposed would be intolerable,
and the element of independence of the council would en-
tirely lose its character.
Sir ERSKINE PERRY thought that all the appoint-
ment., whether of Governor-General or Governors of
Presidencies, ought to be left in the hands of the Secre-
tary of State.
Lord STANLEY explained, and said the most desirable
course was to adhere to the mode proposed.
Mr. J. P. WILLOUGHBY was of opinion that of all
the provisions which the noble lord proposed in the bill
this was the most import ant., and it ought to be dealt with
with mature consideration..
Mr. J. WILSON said the feelings of the civil service in
India were, to his knowledge, quite the reverse of what the
noble lord stated.
A conversation ensued, in which Mr. Vernon Smith
(who was of opinion that the Judicial Legislative Council
might be got rid of, and the salaries of 10,0001. a year be
saved), Mr. Mangles, Mr. Fortescue, and Lord Stanley took
part, and clause 29, as amended, was ordered to stand part
of the bill.
Clause 30 was agreed to.
On clause 31 being proposed, referring to competitive
examinations for appointments in India,
Sir E. PERRY submitted that it would be better if the
noble lord would lay down the same rule for the civil ser-
vice in relation t. competitive examinations, that he laid
down for the military, and he begged to move an amend-
ment to that effect.
Lord STANLEY said the clause had been drawn up
under loga,l advice.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained the principles
upon which the clause was drawn up, and said the Secretary
of State was merely put in the same position that the Court
of Directors weroin with respect to the appointments. The
Court of Directors were bound by the act, and the Secre-
tary of State should be also bound by it.
After some further conversation, in which Lord Stanley,
Lord Goderich, and the Solicitor-General took part,
Sir E. PERRY consented to withdraw his amendment,
and the clause, as amended, was ordered to stand part of
the bill.
On the question being put that clause 32, as amended,
should be agreed to,
Mr. CAMPBELL thought it would be a dangerous
thing to allow the council to exercise patronage.
Sir DE LACY EVANS was of opinion that the patron-
age should be vested in the Secretary of St ate for India.
Mr. T. BARING thought that the house and the coun-
try would look with great jealousy upon their giving all
the patronage to the Secretary of State. The Court of
Directors !had never used patronage for a political pur-
pose. Cquld the same thing be said if they permitted all
the patronage to be exercised by the Secretary of State?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the discussion upon
patronage would come on, upon clauses which were yet to
be proposed.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to, as was also
clause 33.
Clause 31 was struck out.

On clause 36 being proposed,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wanted to know what was to
be tho position of creditors of the East India Company, as
the bill would transfer the property of the Company to the
Govornrnent.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
position of the creditors would ba the same as it was for-
merly. The change was simply a change of trustees.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 37 being proposed,
Mr. WILLOUGHBY moved an amendment to the
effect that the new Government of India should bear the
debts and liabilities of the East India Company.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it better if the
words were introduced in bringing up the report, and he
should then have no objection.
Mr. 'WILLOUGHBY withdraw his amendment, in
order to comply with the hon. and learned gentleman's
suggestion.
The clause was then agreed to.

oWelausediibeing proposed,
Mr. WILLOUGHBY proposed to leave out, after
"chargeable on the revenues of India," the word "alone,"
the object of which was, that the public creditor should
not be placed in a worse position when the transfer of the
Government of India took place to the Crown than they
now were.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained,
and expressed a hope that the committee would retain the
Maw() fig it stood, inasmuch as it would give the public
its, "at br, rinaonapn,l bef,„,
A conversation ensued, in which ME. “L(.l the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL took part, and in which
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the matter was a very
grave one, and not, in his opinion, to be disposed of in the
manner in which the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer dealt with it. Would the public creditor
have the same security under the bill that he now had ?
The right hon. gentleman said he would, but ho (Sir 11.
Willoughby) thought otherwise, and that the bond debt
would not be secured by the bill as it was at present con-
stituted.

Mr. S. WORTLEY could not agree in the views ex-
pressed by his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-Gene-
ral with deg and to the provisions of the clause.
Mr. CARDWELL considered the point at issue be-
tween the lion. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-Gene-
ral, and the hon. gentleman the member for Bute, was ono
which turned upon mere verbal construction. They could
make no law for India if such arguments as those used by
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
were adopted. Th©y should make the clause so free from
all ambiguity, that the property which was passing under
this act into the hands of the Crown should not be free
from the liabilitio.4 to which it was now snbjrct.
The clause was th€n agreed to, as were clauses up to
clause 43.

On clans 41 being proposed,
Mr. MOFFATT begged to move, as an amendment, that
no large sums of money should he paid away until an
order for the payment was signed by throe members of the
council. Such was the practice in this country in all
great establishments when large sums of money were being
paid away.
Lord STANLEY read the clause, which said that no
money could be paid away without the concurrence of a
majority of the members of the council.
Mr. MOFFATT expressed himself satisfied with the ex-
planation, and the amendment was accordingly withdrawn,
and the clauses agreed to, as were clauses up to, and inclu-
sive of, clause 47.
Clause 4S and 49 were agreed to.
Clause 50 was struck out.
The remaining clauses of the bill were then agreed to.
It was then proposed to add new clauses, and on the
first one being proposed,
Sir E. PERRY submitted that at that late hour it wa
impossible the clauses could be properly discussed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object iu bringing up the clauses now was, that they might
be printed with the bill, and on the bringing up of the
report on Monday the clauses could be fully discussed.
Sir E. PERRY reiterated his objection, and moved that
the Chairman should report progress.
Mr. WALPOLE appealed to the hon. and learned gen-
tleman to take the discussion on bringing up the report.
The motion was, however, put amuegatived without a
division.

Mr. LOWE objected to farther progress that night.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not mean to discuss the new clauses then, but he wished to
have them printed with the bill, and to have the discussion
on bringing up the report.
Lord PALMERSTON was sure the right hon. gentle-
man would see there was a very material difference between
discussing clauses in committee and in the bringing up of
a report, and he thought, therefore, the objections raised
were not unreasonable. They sat from twelve o'clock that
morning, and under such circumstances, the chairman
ought to be allowed to report progress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed
to print the clauses, and on bringing up the report on
Monday, every gentleman would have an opportunity of
making their speeches on each clause. (A laugh.)
fir E. PERRY said that one of the clauses was a most
important cue, arid he Lov,d the committee would b'3 ad-
journed to Monday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that he had uo objection to do it, as it seemed to be the
general wish of the house.

- The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
i esnmcd.

The house then went into committee on the Sale and
Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill.
Clauses 61 and 62 were agreed to.
On clause 63 being proposed,
Mr. BAGWELL moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, but the amendment was negatived without a divi-
sion, end the clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 1 to 87 wera agreed to, after which the Chair-
man reported progress, and the house resumed.
The Local Government Bill was postponed to Monday.
The house next went into committee on the Four Courts
Dublin Extension Bill, when tho several clauses were
agreed to.

Corrupt Practices PreventiOn Bill was read a second
time, and the committee adjourned to Friday.
The Herring Fishing (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
Viscount BURY proposed that it be read a third time.
Mr. B. HOPE did not intend to go into any discussion
then on the bill, but he protested against it in the name of
the people of England, and was determined to take the
sense of the house on it. He moved that it be read a third
time that cl ty three months.
The house divided—

For the third reading
Against it
Majority
LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT ACT.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a
bill to amend the Lunatics (Scotland) Act Bill, passed in
the last session, for the regulation and treatment of luna-
tics, anti for the provision, maintenance, and regulation
of lunatic asylums in Scotland.
Leave was given, and the bill was brought in and'read
a first time.

The other business on tho paper having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.

Country Markets.

LIVERPOOL. JULY 2.

The market this moraing had only a moderate attendant•
of buyers, and the business was scarcely up to the average ;
prices of wheat, however, improved ou the lower qualities ld
to 2d per bushel, and Gd per barrel and sack on flour. No
other change worthy of note.