The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY

ought to be heard. They might strike, if they pleased,
but hear them first. There was neithtx wiscitSm, justice,
or expediency in depriving the corporation of their pro- '
pees:. To do ro would be an act of confiecatioe.
Jr, CRAWFORD eccended the motion. He raid
the corporation cf London were ea anxious as any
one to have the corporation rlaced on a footing
with the spirit of the times, but they were averse
to the conficating character of the bill. The
bill was read a second time on the understanding
that the corporation should be heard against it before a
select committee, though the right lion. gentleman the
Home Secretary appeared to be of a different opinion.
The conviction on the minds of many hon. members was
that the bill was to be sent to a select committee after
its second reading, and the corporation heard before them
Sir G. GREY said there were no rights of property in
a corporation the same as in an individual. The muni-
cipal corporation bill establh;hed the principle of dealing
with corporate funds •Witheut compensation. The best
course for the honourab'e and learned gentle-
man to have taken would have teen to move
the committal of the bill this day three
months or to have gone into committee, and on these
clauses have urged the arguments he had used in sup-
port of his motion when they could have been consi-
dered. If the further. progress of the bill was to be
delayed, it should have been done by a direct mo-
tion. He by no means raid delay was not neces-
sary at this period of the reason and the state of
the Thames--(hear, hear)—for probably de'ay would be
advantageous. Ifs, however, warned the Corporation
against imagining that the bill would then be amended
in accordance wit their wish. It would then in all pro.
liability be amended more in consonance with
the interests of the public which in many instance were
opposed to those of the corporation. (Hear.) He be-
lieved the result of delay would would be to carry out
more folly the valuable recommendation of the Royal
Commissioners, and the Corporation of London would
then probably reJet they had not accepted the concession
this bill gave them. If the further progress of the bill was
delayed, he should consider himself no longer bound by
this bill, and he should consider himself freer to act mo e
in accordance with the recommendation of the RAyal
Commissioners relative to police and other mat-
ters. (Hear, hear.) He considered it was better to
go into committee on We bill, and then they could con-
sider the expediency of the corporation of Londoo being
permitted to impose duties on corn after Parliament had
abolished the core tax.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS congratulated the corporation
on their having retained the services of one of the most
eminent gentlemen at the bar in their defence, with
reference to the right of the corporation to levy a tax
upon corn Messrs.. Coombe, Delafield, and Co. many
years since refused to pay it, and the corporation of
London had not the courage to go into a court of law
and enforce it. Re denied that the corporation of
London had borrowed a million of money without
haring the most ample means of payidg
it off by the interest of the property in
whic'a it was invested or by the imposition of local taxes.
The only sum borrowed without these advantages was
9200/. for the building of Holloway prison. The At-
torney-General entered into many details connected
with the income and expAen cure in comparison wi•h the
Governmental expenditure of a similar character. Tie
would support delay if there was a probability of the re-
commendation of the Royal Commissioners being carried
out, and believing it might be accomplished by agreeing
to the motion, he would vote for it.

Mr. S. WOR,TLEY had strong objections both to the
principle and the details of the bill. He called attention
to the improvements the Corporation cf London had
effected, and urged they were entitled to greater consi•
deration than they had hitherto received, The bill in
its present shape was undoubtedly a violation of the
rights of property. He suggested that the clauses
which affected the property of the corporation should
be postponed until some arrangement should le made
with the corporation.

After some remarks from Mr. W. MARTIN,
Mr. WALPOLE contended it was a waste of time to
discuss the details of the bill now. It would be better
to go into committee, where they could be better con-
sidered, and if necessary amended. The coal tax ought
not to be discussed now, because it formed no part of the
bill. (Hear, hear.) He thought they should deal
leniently and liberally to the corporation, and he denied
that there was any attempt to act towards them in an
off-band manner. The bill was just to the corporation
and to the public, and if it were delayed it might next
session assume a shape less advantageous to the corpora-
tion. (Hear.)

Sir B. HALL asked the hon. and learned member for
West G!oucester if he intended to press his motion to a
division

Mr. BOLT —Yee.

Sir 13. HALL said he regretted the hon. and learned
member had decided on adopting that course. He
dissented from the principles laid down by the hon. and
learned member for West Gloucester. Scarcely five
years since, when Sir C. Wetherell was in opposition,
he used the same argument on the Municipal Reform Bill
as the hon. and learned member for West Gloucester
had used on this; occasion, but he (Sir B. Hall)
need not remind the house that the predictions of that
day had not been verified. He hoped if this bill
stood the Government of the day would consider
it to be their duty to bring in a bill founded strictly on
the report of the Royal Commissioners of 1853.
Mr. S. WARREN believeci.that in the present state
of affairs matters were not ripe for an invastigation and
decision by that house. The bill in its present form was
downright confiscation. It attacked the rights and
foundation of property and menaced the sanctity of pro-
perty whether that of corporations or private persons.
The question before the house was, whether they would
compel the Corporation of London to submit to
the going into committee on a bill that deprived them
of the greatest portion of their property, before the cor-
poration had had an opportunity of being fully heard
before a competent tribunal. He thought the house
ought not to adopt each a course.
Mr. LOWE considered the rights of property in cor-
poration ought to be respected, and not taken from them
except under paramount circumstances.
Lord J. RUSIIELL consid, red the right of metage
ought to be abolished, and the question of compensation
was a grave one. He had no wish to dispose of hose
sights in a summary manner, and he thought it should
be reserved, with that of the coal duties, for future con-
sideration.

Mr. LABOUCLIERE said that the corporation, when
they abolished the street toll 4, recognised the right of
interference with the other tolls and duties. The rights
and privileges possessed by the Corporation were given,
not to the few inhabitants who now lived within a cer-
tain boundary called the City of London, but for public
purposes, to the whole of the metropolis of the British
empire.
Mr. J. T. MORRIS d d not object to the passing of
that portion of the bill rela.ive to the political change,
but be was no prepared to purchase it at the expense
of the confiscation of the revenue of• the corpora'ion.
The question of the whole of the metropolis being ad-
naitted to the privileges and rights of the corporation
had nothing to do with the proposed interference wila
the rights of property, on the security of which large
sums cf money had been advanced for the benefit of the
cit:z:ns and the public generally,
At 10 minutes to fuer o'clock the debate was ad-
j ,ureed by the forms of the house. The sitting was then
sulocuded.
• The Louse resumed at sTx o'clock.
ALLOWANCE TO WITNESSES.

Mr. POWELL a,ked the Secretary of State for the
flume Department whether Government intended to
publish a mire liberal table of allowances to wit-
nesses at sessions and assizes, and whether such table
would be published so early as to be made nee of at the
approaching assizes and sessions ; also, whether Govern-
ment intended to propose a more liberal scale of lees for
solicitors who were engaged in conducting prosecutions ?
Mr. WALPOLE said Vie table of fees now in force
must continue until the commissioners made their report.
While the commissioners were pursuing their inquiry he
thought it would be inadvisable to make any change.
LOCAL GO.
In reply to Lord GODEBICEI.

THE LOC IL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Mr. .‘7IILPOLE said that if the bill did not come on
that evening it would be taken on Tu'sday at a morn-
ing sitting,

REGISTERING OF JUDGMENTS IN IRELAND.
Mr. S. B MILLER asked the Attorney-General for
Ireland whether his attention had been called to the re-
cent decisions in the Courts of Queen's Bench and Com-
mon Pleas in Ireland, with respect to the detects in the
form of the affidavits generally adopted for regis!ering
judgments on mortgages in Ireland, and whether it vgas
his intention to bring forward any legislative measure
during the present session in consequence of such de•
cisions.

Mr. WHIrESIDE had seen the decision referred to.
He under,tood property to the value of about a million
was affected by it. He intended to introduce a bill to
remedy the de feet as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONERS FOR EXHIBITION, 1851,
BILL.

On the consideration of this bill as amended,
Mr. WILSON said he had given notice of certain
amendments. By the bill Government was to retain a por-
tion of the land lying in the south east corner, but it was
to be used for the sole purposes of the Derirtment of
Science and Art. Toe government would soon have to
decide where the new barracks required for the troops
were to be built; and ho asked the house not to bind
themselves to use this land for the purposes of science
and art only. He thought it would be desirable that
they should not tie their hands. He begged to move
the insertion of the words of which he had given notice,
the effect of which would be to allow the government to
dispose of the land for any public purpose.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not agree:odstrel
connected
wtto, o,
inhlthsento,tegiwxceoete proposal in the shape it was put. The
land had been purchased by the commissioners on the
le
t
distinct understanding that no buildings should be
r
pus
rpose
olrnueedreepntwA'o
removed, government,
with
omim et
eittOlistte:u ietspfh;e:treth hen.i
he)s1::: esapacoadrrft
art, He
mf
gentlemanoscienceernnsteoowmsf aooeSiulf:laolidertarhrace
ac-
cept the amendment if the words "for purposes of sci-
ence and art" were added to it.

After a few words from Sir H. WILLOITGBEY
Mr. LABOUCHEIZE said the commi-sioners were
net under a 1, gal but a moral obligation on this suhj3ct.
The qneition of building barracks kv,s mooted when the
purchase was in contemplation, and the commissioners
could not obtain the land except on the explicit under-
standing that no buildings should be erected on it, unless
connected with science and art.
Mr. CONINGIIAM believed the ampodinEnt raised
the question of moving the National Gallery. .ue
would not vote for it unless there was a eleai and dls-
tinct understanding that nothing of the kind was
intended.
Mr. GLADSTONE considered the amendment a
reasonable one, There appeared to be certain engage.

Maks from
th-T%eess sprung
meets between btehtewyeehnadthpe
4ppared to lire
maLly from the voluntary assent of this parties; they
ought to be I,ft on the same basi., / and D
ucrocrnhainseisdeiothneeraia afindd.
of be male the.
eC 'trio; !able in principle
.4 the laud out of
the position in which it now stood.
St: ItlnT iT wofoaUlbteu
inconvenientan
irnYl anomaly,res r
practice,it l
onb:do
wc,
Mr. T. BARING said thet if tract arrangement be-
tween the Government and the coma sissioner had con-
tinued on the came bating theta W ould have been no
necessity for a statute ; but as Coat had been altered
they ought to give a legal recogn itibt to what was now
merely a moral recognition.
Mr. S. HEBERT supported the amendment. The
house perhaps was not aware the t at csVf.sen t the barracls
accommodation was 1,000 she et of the number of men
acta 1:y in Loneor. .The ques, ;eon of the amendment,
however, did not depend merely i-on the barracks. The
paztneribip was novr about to be dissolved ; and ought
the Government to preclude th emselves from using
the land for any public uurpo'F-e ? It was said there was
a moral obligation, but be could ,not see what was the
moral obligation in a legal convej 'epee. The proprietor
did not sell tLe land to promote 5s -fenceand art, but to
get a good price. If they wanted. to promote that pur-
pose they ought to have given the .land for nothing.
Mr. KINNAIRD entirely coon erred in what bad
f .llen from the right lion. gentleman who had just sat
down, and thought the arrangement n,arle by the Go-
vernment was a very improvident one for the na clonal
interests.

Mr, COWPER thought the question, had nit been
quite fairly stated by the opponents of tha, clap4e.
Twelve acres of land were given up by the commis-
sioners to the Gov*rnmont for the purpose of building a
museum and schools. The !and was divt ised of simply
for the promotion of science and art, and it would not in
his opinion be right for Parliament to atahorise its ap-
plication to any other object.
Lord BLUM said he had previotr:iy expressed an
opinion to the effect that the land land should be retained
for any public purpose, and more especially for the erec-
tion of barracks, but subsequent reflection had Convinced
him that it ought to be applied only to the purposes of
science and art.

Mr. HOPE did not see why the Government should
be tied down in the manner provided for in, the bill.
Mr. SLANEY opposed the ameadmen.
The house then divided
Far the amendment
Against it
Majority against it • -45

On the motion of Mr. J. WiLsoN, an amendment' as
then introduced, with the assent of the tIIANCELLOR of
the EXCEMIIER, leaving it to the Government (as was
understood) to apply the land to purposes connected
with science and art.

Other verbal amend ants in accordance with this
having been agreed to, the bill was ordered to be re-
ported on the following day.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (No. 3) BILL.
Mr. BARING presented a petition against any change
in the form of government of India from inhabitants of
Cheltenham—(a laugh)—many of whom had served in
India, and still had interests connected with that
country.

Lord STANLEY, in moving that the bill should b 6
read a second time, said,—Considering that this house
has been engaged from the beginning of February last up
to the present time, though not quite without interrup-
lteinandrinign s
pronvni si
ons wnhoi
et
hi n
mustdeed a
ben Indiao
dbui lele,
dbut
taol
any
bill for the government of India, I think it will as gladly
be dispensed from hearing as I shall be from offering
any very protracted comment upon the measure which
I have now to bring under its notice. I entertain
that opinion the more confidently because, although
it is impossible to hope or even to desire that any
measure involving interests' of such vast importance
shonld,pass through this house without ample discussion
and full inquiry, the majority of:points upon which dif-
ference of opinion is likely to arise may be more pro
periy discussed when the bill is in committee than upon
the second reading. The details are for the committee to
consider ; its principle is that which the house has
already on several occasions agreed to, and of affirming
which it is not likely to recede, notwithstanding that
appeal against the danger of such legislation at a critical
period,. and in favour of the postponement of any per-
manent measure which we fare just hsael urged by one
who has Po much right to speak on this question. The
principle of this bill I understand to be the transfer of
the government of India from the Company to the
Crown, the administration of Indian affairs by a respon-
sible Minister, with the proviso that that Minister shall
be assisted by a council. As to the details, it seems to
me that I had better go through them very briefly, but
in so doing I shall simply explain what it is that we pro-
pose. and shall not stop to vindicate it by any long or
elaborate arguments. The point on which it is likely
that the discussion will mainly turn is the consti-
tution and functions of the council. In this bill
we propose to adopt the number of members
wiiieh was the other day approved by the Com-
mittee—viz., 15. Besides the fact of that number hav-
ing met the approval of the Committee there are various
reasons why it should be adopted by the house. The
number of those who are at present engaged in discharg-
big the somewhat analogous functions of carrying on
the Indian business is 18. Now, if' at any future time
we find that the business which devolves upon these gen-
tlemen can be performed by a similar number, it will be
easy to come to Parliament for a further limitation, and
to carry it out by the simple expedient of declining to
fill up the next few vacancies which may occur. It would
not, however, improve our reputation for consistency if,
after having reduced the number from 18 to 12, or even
a smaller number, we were afterwards to find that the
business was too heavy for them
,to get through, and
were to be compelled to rtrace our steps, to reverse
our decision, and to revert to a number which we had
previously declared to be unnecessarily large. (Hear,
hear.) There is also a circumstance connected with
the tenure of office by these gentlemen which renders it
desirable not to keep the number down to the lowest
point. On considerations which have already been partly
di-cussed, and which it will be my duty again to submit
to the house to-night, the Government has decided to
propose that the members of Council shall bold their
offices for life. Now, it is quite clear that under those
circumstances you must make provision fur the possible
event of some small number of them beingat some future
time no longer as well fit!ed f r the active performance
of their duty as they were at the time of their appoint-
ment. Further, I conceive that if the independence of
the Council be, as this House has hitherto during these
discussions held it to be, a matter of no :light moment,
that independence esill be mole effectually secured when
the Council is so extended that even of those members
nominated by the Crown no efinister can probably have
recommended the appointeeent of a majority, or of more
than a small portion. There f ire, in order to secure tfli-
cieney as an additional guarantee for independence, and
r in consequence of the vote of tho Committee the other
night, we propose that the number of members of which
the Council shall consist shall be 15. (Hear, hear.) To
the manner of their choice, which was txolained on a
former occasion, I will now only briefly revert. We
propose that in the first instance 7 out of the
15 shall be elected by the Court of Directors from
those who are or have been members of their own
body.] In adopting that course we are following,
or rather extending, a precedent which was set in
the Act of 1853; and, considering the inconvenience
which arises in the conduct of any business, more
especially in the conduct of business ,on so extensive a
scale as that of India, from any break or defect in offi-
cial tradition, considering the difficulty of working new
machinery with new men, I think that the House will
feel that on that ground, as well as on account of their
personal ability and efficiency, it is desirable that is any
c ,until to be constituted there should be a considerable
portion of those who now form the Court of Directors,
(Hear, hiar.) - We pro-poie that the process of•election
should precede that of nomination ; that the election of
these seven members by the Court of Directors should
take place within 14, and the nomination of the re-
mainder within 30 days of .er the passing of the Act, so
that it may rest with the Crown to decid e whether, after
the election has been made, there remain any members
of the Court of Directors who ought to be selected as its
nominees. There is another reason why it seems conve-
nient to take that course. I think the house is inclined,
and just'y so, to share in that jealousy of the power and
patronage of the Crown which has been expressed by
the
,right hon. member for Oxford University. I can
well understand an objection being entertained by many
persons to the creation by the Crown alone of 15
officers of high dignity and considerable emolument.
Now, if the election of half the Council is left in
the hands of the Directors, the amount of patronage
at the disposal of the Crown is so far limited,
and the danger to which I have referred is avoided.
(Lien.) With regard to the manner in which vacancies
should be filled up, or in other words the permanent con-
stitution if the Council, we propose to adhere to the
proposition which we laid do-vn last week before the
committee—viz., that of nomination by the Crown and
election by the Couimil for alternate vacancies. (Hear.)
I have heard that described as a complicated mode of
proceeding. I cannot presume to jadge what is consi-
dered to be complicated by some hen gentlemen, hut it,
appears to me that a more simple mode of, or one more
free from that complication and embarrasement which
certainly would arise if there were what I may call a
double election—a submitting of names by ene autho-
rity and an acceptance of them by another—could hardly
be conceived. (Hear.) Although my object et present
is rather to explain than to •vindicate the proposit'ons
which we have ventured to submit to the house, yet we
have heard so much of the danger of self-election, and
of the abuses which arose from it in former times and
under different circumstances, that I think it right to
state that every argument to which I have listened upon