The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-10 00:00:00

EAST INDIA COUNCIL BILL.

Lord DE GREY and RIP ON, on moving the second
reading of this bill, explained its objects, the changes it
proposed, and the necessity which existed for its adoption.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought, as regarded
the Government of India, that it was most mischievous to
make great and frequent changes, and that the provisions
of this bill had gone beyond the necessity of the case, and
urged that they should govern India for India, and through
the people of that country. He objected altogether to the
principle of the bill.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that the bill made very little
alteration in the Government sf India, and therefore the
animadversions of the noble earl were undeserved. The
bill made no change in the relations between the Governor-
General and his Council, except in the direction of strength-
ening the hands of the former, in the event of any sudden
action being necessary on the part of the Government. The
noble duke explained that the principle of the measure really
was to simplify the governmental functions, and render the
Governor-General practically supreme.
Lord LYVEDEN said his great objection to this bill was
that it seemed to come to this, that they had found the
Legislative Council unmanageable, and they were going to
make throughout India a number of small parliaments. He
warned them that these local councils would lead to a sepa-
ration of the presidencies. There was another evil in the
bill, that the Governor of Bombay or Madras would "ex
necessitate" become Governor-General in case the Gover-
nor-General were to die. Now the governor of either of
these presidencies might be a very fit man for that office,
but be unfit for the governor-generalship. He thought it
would be better to have a provisional Governor-General.
The Earl of DERBY said he did not pretend to enter into
a discussion of the important questions which were in-
volved in this bill, but he wished to ask for an explanation
on one or two points. His noble friend (Lord Ellenborough)
had made great objections to the leading principles of the
bill. Any observations from his noble friend on this sub-
ject were deserving of great consideration ; and one of those
objections he thought especially worthy of consideration,
namely, as to giving increased legislative powers to the
local council. There was another portion of the measure
to which he did not attach the same importance that his
noble friend did, viz., that of the Governor-General, in the
enlarged council, being empowered by his council, because,
when he looked at the mode in which the council was con-
stituted—one half being persons holding official situations,
and the whole of them being selected by the Governor-Ge-
neral himself, he did sot think there was any danger of the
council becoming too independent, but he agreed in the opi-
nion that the Legislative Council, as recently constituted,
being a little mockery, was wholly unsuited to India. He did
not rise to discuss these matters. With regard to the pub-
licity to be given to the proceedings of the council, he
wished to know whether any distinction was to be drawn
between the two capacities of the council, or rather the two
councils, one the Executive, and the other the Legislative
Council. Nothing could be more inconvenient than to have
the discussions of the Executive Council carried on in public.
Another point on which he wished for information was
with regard to the third clause, which stated that no person
shall be appointed to this office unless he has been or shall
be in the service of the Crown for ten years. This was
nonsense, and he presumed that the clause had been al-
tered in the House of Commons, and part of the old clause
had been left in by mistake.
Earl GRANVILLE said when the council was sitting
in its executive capacity no publicity whatever would be
given; and as to the Legislative Council the matter would

be left to the Governor-General. With regard to the other
matter, no doubt the explanation of the noble earl was the
right one, and the clause would be altered when they got
into committee.

The bill was then read a second time.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
BOUNDARIES OF BURGHS EXTENSION
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
LANDED IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed
at clause 9.

Sir B. BRYDGES said he dpirdovnidotdintend to propose the
e)
totht e amendment of
omission of the whole clause,
assessmenthe effect that the
the hon. member (Mr. S. Estconrt
calculated
common fund should be based upon
by adding to the annual value of theociluastird heredita-
PoPopundst.ments in each of the parishes, a sum
ster-
ling to the amount of the ntimbers of the
such parishes according to the last census, be acceded to.
of
He had considerable experience in the working of the otr°.
ginal as well as the amended law. He felt bound to pry,.
test against the principle of a larger area of rating than ex-
isted at present. He considered every inducement should
be held out to landlords to make them give employment to
the poor in their respective localities. But if the system
of union rating were adopted it would do away with this

inducement.
Lord HENLEY said that although he had great respect
for the proposer of this amendment, still he thought the
effect would be injurious, as it would lead to the eviction of
the poor from various parishes.
Mr. ADDERLEY said he could not support the amend-
ment of his hon. friend, as the arbitrary check it imposed
would defeat its object. He believed the more they localised
the burthen of poverty the better it would be for the interest
of the community. lie thought, however, that the clause
required amendment though not that proposed by the hon.
member (Mr. Estcourt.)
Mr. TOLLEMACHE said that he also had considerable
experience in the working of the law, and he felt bound
reluctantly to oppose the amendment. He had paid great
attention to the evidence produced before the committee,
bald he felt satisfied that some alteration, such as that pro-
posed by the bill, was necessary.
Mr. DE} T said he hoped the house would reject the
amendment and adopt the clause which was the main point
in the bill. Ho did not consider that poverty in a parish was
produced by mismanagement, but from the fact of the num-
ber of persons in certain parishes being without regular
elleYment all the year round.
from BALL said he felt bound to accept the bill as a whole,
tho-- a e°iwiction that it would operate beneficially. He
'gatthe amendment would do away with the most im-
portant element of the measure, namely, the equalising of
the contributions
tNthroughout the country for the poor.
Mr. DO
supported the bill, and said that the dimi-
nution of the etatu
irremovable poor,
would not increase
the number of
tion by reference to poor, and illustrated this asser-
towns. Leeds, Manchester, and ether large
Mr. CAYLEY said that the en,.
remedied in the present case was"-:tvPicte proposed to be
parishes. But if they altered the
existing
system, in some
exemption of close
cases parishes would have to
g pay pet.he.
pa 3e. in the pound,
though the property was bought without reference to any
such tax, which would be most unjust. If they aaeented
to
the principle which the 9th clause proposed, they Welt

rely on it that they would be admitting the thin edge of
the wedge, which would inevitably lead to the adoption of
union rating. He also objected to the clause as conferring
management on an irresponsible body.
Mr. PAGET supported the bill, as he thought its action
would be to make it the interest of each parish to have a
rating sufficient for their wants.
Mr. LYALL supported the clause. He had no doubt
the effect of it would be to include in the :rating some few
parishes which were exempted, and unjustly so, from con-
tributing their quota to the support of the pauperism of
the country.

Mr, WALTER could not see the justice of allowing one
parish to throw its share of the relief of the poor upon an-
other. Union rating must be the system ultimately to be
arrived at, and he considered it most fair and just.
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment. He consi-
dered they were legislating prematurely and without in-
formation.

After a few words from Lord H. VANE,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said his experience, as chairman of
the board of guardians, led him to entertain the same view
as the hon. member for Berkshire.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the clause introduced a new
principle in rating which ought not to be admitted without
the fullest consideration. It was proposed that accord •
ing to the amount of a man's property he was to be
rated towards the support of the poor, but he thought that
the amount of population should also be taken into consi-
deration, and by uniting the two a fair result would be
arrived at. If the principle of the clause was admitted
it would be found in a few years impossible to stop at that
point.

Mr. VILLIERS said the clause was to remedy an injus-
tice that had existed for 12 years. He therefore opposed
the amendment.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment lOO
Against it
Majority.. —37
The amendment was accordingly rejected.

Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the addition of the follow-
ing proviso to the clause, viz. :—" Provided also that the
contributions of extra parochial places to the common fund
of the union in which they are comprised shall, notwith-
standing anything therein contained, be calculated as here-
tofore." _

Mr. VILLIERS objected to the proposed addition to the
clause.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR thought the bill would press with
great hardship upon parishes which had but few poor .per-
sons residing there.
After a short discussion, Sir J. PAKINCTON amended
his proposition as follows • "Provided also that extra
parochial places which have hitherto paid no
contribution to the common fund of the unions in which
they are comprised, shall, notwithstanding anything herein
contained, be hereafter exempt from such contribution.
Sir J. GRAHAM supported the amended proviso.
Sir G. LE WIS would agree to the amendment if any
very strong argument could be urged in its favour, or if
the class of cases wet° likely to be numerous.
Some further discussion took place, at the termination
of which the chairman waa ordered to report progress.
THE NEW ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

Sir W. ATHERTON, the Attorney-General, took the
oaths and his seat for Durham.
The sitting was then suspended.
At six o'clock the house resumed.
BOROUGH OF GLOUCESTER.

Mr. H. BERKELEY wished to ask the Secretary of
State for the Home Department whether it was his inten-
tion to move, in committee on the Election Law Amend-
ment Bill, a clause for the disfranchisement of Gloucester
for five years, and whether that penal sentence was to date
from the last election or to be prospective?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said if the bill came on in the present
session, which was somewhat doubtful, it was his intention
to move such a clause. The time would be computed from
the date of the commissioners' report.
Mr. H. BERKELEY said he would withdraw his motion
for the issuing of a writ for Gloucester. If the bill came
before the house he should move that the writ be issued,
and if not, he should feel it to be his duty to lay the case of
Gloucester before the house.

MERCANTILE MARINE FUND.
Mr. CRAWFORD wished to ask the President of the
Board of Trade in what manner it was intended to deal
with the large balance in hand and annual surplus which,
as appeared by the accounts of the mercantile marine fund
annually laid before Parliament, now stood to the credit of
that fund ?

Mr. GIBSON said that the revenue from light dues in
1860 was £282,300, and taking the average of the last seven
years, the expenditure was annually £207,907, leaving a
surplus of £74,400. From that surplus must be deducted
the expenses fir lifeboats, and rewards for saving life,
amounting to £6,000 a year, leaving £68,400. It was pro-
posed to apply that to the reduction of the light dues in
this way—to take 15 per cent, off the coasting voyages,
which would amount to £12,856, and 10 per cent. addi-
tional for coasting and over-sea voyages, amounting to
£54,120, thus giving relief to the shipowning interest to the
extent of £66,976. In other words, after these reductions
took full effect, the shipowner who in 1854 paid £lOO on a
single ship, and who now paid fear sn ID-ver-nen ventsel ZAU,
and for a coasting vessel £65, would for the future pay only
£4O. In that way it was proposed to dispose cf the surplus
of income over expenditure. With regard to the balance in
hand it was thought that that would not be more than suf-
ficient for the new buildings and lights which were ren-
dered necessary from time to time by the requirements of
the trade.

INLAND REVENUE BILL.

In reply to Mr. HENLEY,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could postpone this bill till the 19th, but he did not think
he could fix it for an evening sitting, as it was necessary to
get forward with supply. The provisions of the bill were
mostly provisions of relaxation, and if ;there were any con-
troverted points he would postpone them till next session.
ELECTION LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

In reply to Mr. HUNT,

Sir G. LEWIS said it was his wish to proceed with this
bill, but in consequence of the slow progress of the com-
mittee of supply, it was necessary to give precedence to the
estimates over every other subject. He would state on an
early day what it was proposed to do with the bill.
BANKRUPTCY BILL.

In reply to Mr. CRAWFORD,
_ _

Lord J. RUSSELL said he believed it was the intention
to proceed with this bill on Monday, but he could not say
positively that it would come on then.