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 of 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
Gevenaor- General practically supreme.
Lord LYVEDEN said his great objection to this bill was
that it seemed to tome 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 not think thero 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, mid resumed
at clause 9.

Sir B. BRYDGES said he did not intend
amendment d to propose the
effect of
omission of the whole clause, provided h
the hon. member (Mr. S. Estcourt) to the that the
common fund should be based upon assessment calculatederd.tt"
by adding to the annual value of the lands and h
ments in each of the parishes, a sum equal in poundse :ter-
ling to the amount of the numbers of the population of
such parishes according to the last census, be acceded to.
He had considerable experience in the working of the ori-
ginal as well as the amended law. He felt bound to pro-
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 wt 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. He 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
re,tctantly to oppose the amendment. He had paid great
attenn.n to the evidence produced before the committee,
and he felt ..tisfied that some alteration, such as that pro-
posed by the bilr, was necessary.

Mr. DENT said he 'oped the house would reject the
Innendment and adopt the ciawie which was the main point
bathe bill. He 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
employment all the year round.
Mt' 114-11 said hefeltbound to accept the bill as a whole,
from
conviction that it would operate beneficially. He
thought the amendment would do away with the most im-
portant element of the measure, namely, the equalising of
the contributions throughout the country for the poor.
Mr. DODSON
—PPerted the bill, and said that the dimi-
nution of the status of irremovability would not increase
the number of irremovable poor and illustrated this asser-
tion by reference to Leeds, Manchester, and 3ther large
towns.
Mr. CA.YLEY said that the grkvanes
proposed to be
remedied in the present case toss
-.4 exemption of close
parishes.
But if they altered' the tai ti
cases parishes would have to pay perms some
ps 3s in the
peaind,
though the property was b
assented to
e mostoll unjust. If
such tax, which would b
9th clause proposed, they molt
the principle which the

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
mane gement 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 up')n 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 o
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..
-- - -

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 eomprised shall, notwith-
standing anything therein contained, be calculated as here-
tofore."

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

Mr. K. 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. PAKINGTON 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 were likely to be numerous.
Some further discussion took place, at the termination
of which the chairman was ordered to report progress.