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

, 1858

ing the produce of such surplus land (100 acres) to the
payment of the principal money and interest, atuounting
in all to a balance of 284,730!. gs. 3d., doe to Government
in respect of Battersea-park, Chelsea-bridge, and the em-
bankment of the Thames at Chelsea ; and to submit that
Chelsea-bridge be opened to the public toll free, and was
entering into some details about the matter, when
Mr. FITZROY rose to order. There was a bill relating
to the tolls on Chelsea-bridge, which was read a first time
last night, and which stood on the orders for committal ;
and it was therefore irregular to enter on the discussion of
the matter now. (Hear.)
The SPEAKER said the conclusion of the motion was
to submit that Chelsea-bridge should be open to the public
toll-free. It would be irregular to discuss, on the question
of adjournment, a subject on which there was a bill before
the house ; and the hon. member must confine his observa-
tions. to the latter part of his motion.
Mr. ALCOCK then, amidst frequent calls of " Order,"
proceeded to refer to some figures connected with Batter-
sea-park and Chelsea-bridge ; and expressed his opinion
that the surplus land would furnish the means of finding
the necessary funds.

BENTINCK said it had been stated by the hon.
member (Hr. Berkeley) that this was an imperial and not
a local question, and he joined issue with the hon. member.
They had not been fr.voured with any argument to show
that this was au imperial, and not a local question. He
believed it was a strictly local question. The government
were asked to apply for plenary powers ; but to do what ?
why, to put their hands into people's pockets. It was a
disgrace to the richest city in the world to hand round the
begging box. He-would not allow one shilling to be taken
out of the pockets of his constituents if he could help it.
Mr. CUBITT thought it was right that every town
should pay for carrying away its own filth, but if they im-
posed that duty on the metropolis, they ought to leave it
to the metropolis to say how it was to be done. (Hear,
hear.) The house twelve years ago decided that every
house should drain into the sewer, and every sewer nin
into the Thames. Parliament compelled every house to
drain into the river, and though there were sewers for
forty miles along the banks of the Thames, they said the
inhabitants of the metropolis should pay fur cleansing the
river.

Lord J. MANNERS said if the hon. membar (Mr. Berke-
ley) had boon in his place at the Board of Works for only
24 hours, he would never have dreamed of charging apathy
against the members of the housa on this subject.
Tho hon. gentleman was about the only ono who had not
within the last fortnight suggested some plan or other.
(A laugh.) The hon. gentleman had come forward in a
decided manner, not to say what ought to be done, but
that the Government ought to he impeached if they did
not do something. They were prepared to bring before
Parliament, at the very earliest opportunity, a measure to
settle this long-standing and difficult question. He be-
lieved that to raise questions upon this subject now would
only throw difficulties in the way of a subject essentially
difficult at present. He had been asked whether the Board
of Works had sent any scheme for his sanction. He could
only say that the board did yesterday submit to him their
plan, bat of course be could not be expected to give any
opinion on it at once. The point where the outfall was
proposed to be by the plan was Barking-creek. He most
respectfully declined to enter into the question whether
the metropolis ought or ought not to pay for the drainage,
for he thought that that question ought to be deferred till
they produced the measure which they were determined
to produce at the earliest possible opportunity.
CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS FOR THE TROOPS IN

mit to the noble lord the desirableness of his striking out
this clause, and establishing a provision giving full powers
to the Secretary of State.
Lord PALMERSTOINT said he was very anxious that
the clause should remain as it now stood in the bill. Who
was the officer they were 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 he 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 "ho 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 were 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 clause. The hon, and gallant colonel referred to
the operations of the secret committee when he was a
member of the Court of Directors. What, ho asked, was
it that led to the Affghan war, and the slaughter of 15,000
human beings, and expenditure of 15,000,0001., but the act
of the secret committee ? and what also was it that led to
the Burmese and Seikh wars, loss of life, and vast expendi-
ture of money. but the act of the secret committee, and
that without consulting the Court of Directors?
Mr. V. SMITH 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.

fir 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 on the paper an amend-
ruant to the effect that the Vice-President for the time
being, and such two other members of the council re 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 beon abused or exceeded.
After 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 expolionced 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 towards native princes was one of
the most important matters in connection with the govern-
ment of India, and the advice of the council should bo ob-
tained in such a matter. The council ought to be as well
entrusted with the policy in India as the Secretary of
State himself, for their advice would be roost valuable.
He could not imagine but that a council of 15 would r.ot
ho fully competent to give proper adviceto a Minister. with
respect to India; and on that account they ough:G at all
times be made aware of what was about to be done re-
specting that country. In a case of war or an er.-penditure
of a large sum of money, the council ought to loe 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 stops were, taken. Re
should certainly, for all these reasons, vote, for the amend-
ment.

The committee then divided, when tkir numbers were-
-95
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 lientenant-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 those appointments were in the
hands of the Governor,Goreral, but that clause vested
them in the majority of t►ie council. He thought that all
patronage should be b)„:en from them, for under the old
system that was the, 'greatest blot on 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 wou'l be better to place it even in the hands of
the Minister than leave it to the council.
Lord S"j'ANLEY said the matter referred to had
nothin(.44.o do with the quation now before the house.
Mr. VERNON SMITH assured the noble lord that the
act `:✓hich he 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-
rnent whether of Governor-General or Governors of
Presidencies, ought to be left in the hands of the Secro•
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 important, 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 rot rid of, and the salaries of 10,0001. a year be
saved), 'dr. Mangles, Mr. Fortescue, and Lord Stanley took
part, -anti clause 29, as amenieci, was ordered to stand part
of 4:111a 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 to competitive examinations, that he laid
clown for the military, and he begged to move an amend-
ment to that effect.

Lord STANLEY said the clause had been drawn up
under legal 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 same further conversation, in which Lord Stanley,
Lord Gr.derich, and the Solicitor-General took part,
Sir E. PERRY consented to withdraw his amendment,
alio 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. CAMBELL 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 Si 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 fora political pur-
pose. Could 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 34 was struck out.

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

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said the
position of the creditors would be 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.
On clause 38 being 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
clause as it stood, inasmuch as it would give the public
creditor the Salllo security that he possessed before.
A conversation ensued, in which Mr. WILSON and 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
'winner in which the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer dealt with it. Would the public creditor
have the same security unciar the bill that he now had ?
The right hon. gentleman said he would, but he (Sir H.
Willoughby) thought otherwise, and that the bond debt
would not b 3 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 regard to the provisions of the clause.
Mr. CAItDWELL considered the point at issue be-
tween the hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-Geno-
ral, and the hon. gentleman the member for Bute, was one
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. They 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 liabilities to which it was now subkct.

The clause was— then agreed to, as were clauses up to
clause 43.
On clause 41 being proposed,
Mr. MOFFATP. begged to more, as an amendment, that
no large sums of money should be paid away until an
order for the payment was signed by three members of the
council. Such was tho practice in this country in all
groat establishments whoa large sums of money
were being
paid away.
Lord STANLEY road the clause, vWch 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 48 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 v a
impossible the clauses could by properly discussed,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object in 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 and negatived 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.)
Sir E. PERRY said that one of the clauses was a most
important one, and he hoped the committee would be ad-
jouined to Monday.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that he had no objection to do it, as it seemed to be the
general wish of the house.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
rem= d.

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, and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 87 were agreed to, after which the Chair-
man reported progress, and the hcuse resumed.
The Local Government Bill was postponed to Monday.
The house next went into committee on the Four Courts
Dublin Extension Bill, when the several clauses were
agreed to.

-The 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 tho bill, but ho protested against it in the name of
the people of England, and was determined to take the
sense of the house on it. Ha moved that it be read a third
time that day three months.
The house divided—
For the third remain..
100
Against it , 7O
Majority —3O
LUNATICS (":3COTLAND) 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, and for the provision, maintenance, and regulation
of lunatifc asylums in Scotland.

Leave was given, and the bill was brought in and read
a first. time.

ri.lo other business on the paper having been disposed of,
tl'.e house adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock.

CouLary fflarkets.

LIVERPOOL. JULY 2.

The market this morning had only a moderate attendance
of buyers, and the business was scarcely up to the average ;
prices of wheat, however, improved on the lower qualities ld
to 2d per bushel, and 6d per barrel and sack on flour. No
other change worthy of note.