The Sun. — London, England, 1858-05-01 00:00:00

this question. He could not understand why they might not be permitted, in connection with hon. g thenei tlemen one on the other side of the house, to advocate r opini upon it, especially as they were told it was not a party question. No one could doubt that it was one of the most important su bjects that had ever been brou ght that his for ward in that house. (Hear.) He was certain noble friend was neither prompted by party feeling nor animated by a spirit of faction in bringing forward this motion, but that, on the contrary, in doing so he ex pressed not only his own sentiments but the convictions of a great number of persons who entertained the gravest doubts as to the expediency of proceeding at once with Indian legislation. Immediate legislation was not so easy as some persons seemed to imagine, nor had they been hitherto so lucky in the result of their colonial measures as to warrant the conclusion that it would be Ta ii,e to proceed in this hurried manner to legislate upon subject of such vast importance as the future govern ment of India. He was warned by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer not to speak diirespectfully of the wis oto of Parliament ; he did not wish to do so, but be foul& not forbear calling the attention of the house to an essay of the great philosopher and historian, Mr. Hume, ;who, in speaking of politics as a science, remarked that a free Government always managed its dependencies worse than did an arbitrary Government, and he con trasted, not very complimentarily, the conduct of France in regard to its foreign dependencies with the conduct of England in respect to Ireland. Mr. Hume wrote before the difficulties with Canada, and before it was found that the best mode of governing a colony was to allow it.to govern itself. From the nature and constitution of the Indian mind, however, there must always b g e_ a_e arbitrary Government in India, and Ir a k_ed o , was it a trivial thing to dovetail an arbitrary Gh -vernment with a free constitution He spoke of t e house with great respect, and adm theired use oit in the ommon C highest d egre e, but he was convinced, if :f could not legislate in a manner satisfactory to Canada, that legislation being consistent with the pro ervation of the principles of freedom, it could not do so for India, the government of which n ecessarily involved totally Were the Government in a position tierent rinciles. o ff a dvisethe hopuse with weight upon the Indian ques tion I They had brought in a bill, th had abandoned it, and they ha d now, at the suggestion ey of the noble lord the member for the City of London, brought in these re solutions. He did not complain of their taking that course ; he had no charge of vacillation to bring against the Government ; for he thought it might be fairly said that they had acted as they had done, not from any change of mind, but from the difficulties of their position. They were driven to the coarse which they pursued, and no one who heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night could entertain any doubt whatever as to his real sentiments. He reiterated his opinion that they bad better not legislate at all ; but if they were determined to legislate, the bill he had pro paged was the best ; and he concluded neither with a ruction for non-legislatios nor in favour of a bill, but for a committee upon resolutions. No member in the house could be so young and so green as to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied, or that he would have taken the course which he had if he was cer tain of that large majority upon ordinary questions which gave to a government importance and real power. " 0 that some power the gift would gie us, To see ourselves as others see us." lie heard from every quarter what a precious mess the House of Commons had got into—(laughter)—and would anybody deny that that was the opinion of hon. mem bers themselves I The hon. gentleman opposite said that it was for the honour and dignity of the house that they should proceed to legislate. His (Sir F. Baring's) opinion was, that it was for their honour and dignity, when they made a mistake, that they should retrace their steps. He was not an ad vocate for the East India Company, but be thought it strange that, considering the many eminent men the company had produced people would be rather asto nished, after some 70 or 80 years of government, that the only complaints against the system were that Leadenhall street and Cannon-row were some distance from each other, th a t frequent messengers were required, and a good deal of money was spent in cab hire, and that those were the only grounds on which the company was to be destroyed. Mr. M. GIBSON would not have ventured to address the house, which he thought was ready for a division, bad not the right hon. baronet taken upon himself to give him such a very peculiar title, by calling him the father of all mischief. (Laughter.) He never felt more gratified in his life than when he had been instrumental in that piece of mischief, the destruction of tie Conspiracy to Murder Bill. He was opposed to that bill, and took Vie course which he thought was best to defeat it. He bad been successful in accomplishing his object. The right hon. baronet seemed to yearn after a species of dictator ship in that house. Now he (Mr. M. Gibson) did not complain of Government having recourse to the advice and opinion of Parliament. (Cheers.) He thought the time wile approaching when Parliament would more and more advise Ministere, and Ministers dictate less to Par t ament—(hear)—and it was a subject of great congra tulation to him to find the Government of the day willing to take the 13(!nee into its councils. He believed that if the Goveinment of the noble lord the member for Tiver ton had taken the house more into its councils it would not have fallen. He bad heard the speeches in favour of the motion now before the house, and he declared he had not heard one good argument why they were not to change the government of India—not tolegidate at this particular moment—it being at the end of the month of April, and they having yet four months of the session before them. There were no doubt legitimate reasons fir delay in reference to legislation upon this subject, but those reasons had not been assigned in the present instance. No man could say that it was not in their power at the present moment to possess themselves of all the information that could be desired upon the sub- j.c , . By a reference to the voluminous evidence taken be. fore the committee of 1858, of which he was a member, all the information necessary to lead the house to a decision upon a legislative measure could be procured. He con curred in the propriety of the course suggested by the noble lord the member for London, inasmuch al it would give the house an additional stage for the consideration of a subject of such importance and of so great and com plicated a nature as the present was. He therefore thought that proceeding by resolution was the best pos sible course that could be devised under the circum atancee. He did not c. - insider it at all an evil that the Government had adopted a change in their course of proceeding on this question in consequence of the sug gestion of the noble lord the member for London. He was the more fortified in his opinion that her Majesty's Government had acted wi se ly f rom th e f ac t announced by the right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Control, that the noble lord the member for London had distinctly suggested the propriety of pro ceeding by way of resolution previous to the introduc• tion of the measure on India by the late Government. (Rear.) He would ask whether it was not the object of those who asked for delay to defeat the measure altoge ther if they could. (Hear.) Jeremy Bentham, a great writer on political fallacies, said he never knew an in stance in which delay in respect to any particular mea sure-of legislation was pressed, that it was not the inten tion of the parties who urged that course to defeat if they could the measure altogether. The right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth, amongst his other argu ments against legislation, used that which might be termed the hobgoblin argument. (Laughter.) When that right bon. gentleman could not convince their rea son he endeavoured to frighten them by all sorts of ter rors from the consideration of the question. He hoped that there would be an early division upon the proposi tion, and that the house would immediately proceed to the discussion of the resolution. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I presume that as those who sit upon this bench had the honour of first introduc ing a bill on this subject, the right hon. gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the house are of opinion that we should first express our intentions in regard to this mo• tion. I can have no hesitation whatever in stating that it. is my intention to oppose the motion of the noble lord. (Hear.) I entirely agree with the hon. member for Taun ton (Mr. A. Mills), that it would be most inconvenient, not only as regards the interests of the country so con nected with India, but with the honour and dignity of this house, if we were now to attempt to retrace our steps, and to do nothing at all upon the subject. (Hear.) The noble lord bases his motion on the ground of change of circumstances. No doubt, sir, many circumstances have changed since this question was first introduced to the house in the present session. I am, for exanaple, ad dressing this assembly from this side of the house instead of from the other. (Hear, and laughter.) That change of circamstaneee may have its effecte and its consequences; but I cannot think that any such change of circumstances can furnish as wi h any reason fur not proceeding with this question. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen may have more or less confidence in the existing Government. The right hon. gentleman who has just eat down declared it ae his opinion that her Majesty's late Government had fallen from inherent weakness, and that they would have acted much better if they had taken Parliament into their councils. I may here observe, in passing, that if the right hon. gentleman would but look at the division lists et the house, he would find that the late Government Lad, generally speaking, as large majorities as any Mi nistry could reasonably hope for ; such a fact implying that Parliament was v ry much of the same opinion as ourselves on general questions of legislation. (Hear.) Sir, I will not enter into the question whetaer the course now adopted by the present Government is the best which under the circumstances they could have taken. My opinion undoubtedly that it would have been more fit ting for them, when they thought proper to wi:hdraw their particular bill upon India, to have brought in another bill rather than to clll on the House of Commons to proceed by way of r eso l u ti on . B u t , a t t h e same ti me , looking at things as they now are, I am perfect y ready to go into committee on these resolutions, and to consider them %puisttibaiesiwnictehrewhdeastire of ma ki ng th em as cons i s t en t as upon tho, en• ject. appears to me to be sound legislation be use to considere consequences But. I do entreat the f acceding to the motion of tho !loth, lor:lo."7cnenees tAs regards.the speech of tho rty:ht hors. gentlema n the tueuibe for Portsmouth (Sir F. Bar;ng), that wa sp eec h , not i a s in favour of the motion cf the rich , e lord, todneflaje thismember measure for a br H un - Bee son—it was not in support lion tins who wanted to put off legislation ar ;it was rather an ar g um ent against any another year on this matter at an y time. ([fear, hea r ) legislationhp ,t my right hon. f riend will excuse me if I foibearueanswer inght- arguments which I do not think meet the question a t present under our consideration. the ground upon which the present Government when they came into office stated their determination on this subject was a Sound and constitutional one, The noble lord at the bead of the Government stated that originally he was adverse to legislation at this time on the question . ; but inasmuch as Parliament had , b y a large majority, recorded their opinion that legislation upon India was necessary, he thought her Majesty's Government wee fully justified in giving up their oWn notions on THE SUN, LONDON, _ SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1858. the matter, in deference to the deliberate judgment of this house. (Hear, hear.) Let the house new consider what the effects would probably be of leaving India in its present disturbed state under a system of Govern ment condemned not only by one, but by two administra tions here, and not only by those administrations, but by an immense majority of the House of Commons, as well as by public opinion generally. Let us but consider how weakened in its moral strength is the present Indian government by all these circumstances, and how hampered it must be by its own doubt as to the duration of its authority. lam persuaded, sir, that the change from the existing Indian government to the direct authority o the Queen would have a salutary e ff e ct on the population,f as well as upon the native mind of India . itself. The natives, in my opinion, would look with infinitely reatethe r respect and attachment to the direct governmengt of Queen than they can ever be persuaded to look . to the government of a company of merchants, however indivi dually respectable they may be. (Hear.) And as to the effect upon the Indian array, I . will venture to say that there is not an o ffi cer or a man in that army who would not feel prouder in being told that he was transferred to the immediate service of the Queen than if he were to continue in that of the East India Company. (Hear.) Well, if that be the case, if the local army feel them selves in a po.ition of inferiority as compared with that of the Queen's own army, surely that fact of itself is a sufficient justification for the proposed legislation. (Hear.) But there is another consideration, which I think should also have weight with us. The mutiny, hap pily, is now nearly suppressed. Those acts of severity, and those measures incidental to the present state of things, may happily soon be terminated. The period is fast approaching when it will be the duty as well as the interest of all governments that a system of clemency instead of punishment should be pursued ; and that a distinction should be made between those who have timely surrendered to our authority, and the actual mu tineers who have been waging war against us to the last. I say, then, that a change of system will come with much more grace and effect when it comes in the shape of a direct act of the Sovereign of this country, than from the present authorities in India. It would, I think, be a most fortunate coincidence, if at the same time this system of indulgence was commenced it was also an nounced that the Government at home had been now changed, that the people of India are now placed under the benevolent sway of the Sovereign of England, and it is to that authority that they are henceforth to give their allegiance. (Hear, hear.) Concurring entirely, then, in the opinion expressed, I believe the House of Commons is prepared to come to an early division upon this question. I have myself no doubt of the result of that division ; I am sure that her Majesty's Government share in the opinion I have expressed upon the motion of the noble loci, and I am prepared to resist the motion of my noble heeled and go at once into committee for the consideration of the resolutions. (Hear, hear.) Lord STANLEY—Sir, I think I am bound on the part of her Majesty's Government to acknowledge, in the first instance, the perfect fairness and entire can dour in which this subject has been treated by the noble lord who has made the motion now under consideration. It must be evident to every one who heard him—what ever his own individual opinion may be on the question —that he has not sought to bias their minds by an ap peal to class influences, to give the subject a political character, nor to view it as one upon which a party dis cussion might be taken ; but rather as a question involv ing the greatest and most momentous considerations that could well be considered by a Brieish House of Com. mone. But when I turn to the arguments of the noble lord, I confess I am utterly unable to appreciate their value. The arguments of the right hoc. gentleman the member for Portsmouth Ido indeed understand. The noble lord has told us, not only in the tone and spirit of his speech, but in express words, that this house is un fit to legislate upon this subject. He has said something about the difficulty of substituting for an absolute go vernment like that of India a constitutional government like that of England. There may be difficulties on our part such as he describes, but surely those are not difficulties which will be less in 1859 than they are in 1858. (Hear, hear.) If it be objectionable to legislate now upon India, it will be equally so then. We have been told of the great difficulties and perplexities that are involved in any attempt to change the government of India. Sir, no man who has considered this question can, I think, deny that it is one of the most difficult and most complicated that has ever been brought before parliament. But I ask, are those difficulties and com plications such as will be gradually reduced by time / Is the India question one that will settle itself alone, or is it not rather one which will create an increase of per plexities and difficulties the longer it remains untouched ! (Hear, hear.) We are told that there are grave differ ences of opinion in this house upon the particular mea sure which we should adopt in regard to the future government of India ; and that those differences of opinion establish a reason for not legislating at all upon the question. Well, sir, I can only say that if legisla tion is to be postponed until there is something like a unanimity of opinion amongst the leaders of the various parties in this house, I think that we shall have to wait a long time before such a period has arrived. There was no such unanimity Isere and agreement of opinion in the great debates of 1783, when the then Board of Control was first instituted,land the doble government of India was first established. The two great parliamentary leaders at that time were at issue upon the question. There was no unanimity of opinion in 1833, and certainly there was no great agree ment of opinion in the discussions which took place on this subject five years ago—discussions which occupied this house more than, I believe, 20 nights. (Hear.) Wel', then, we are told that this is a question with which a strong Government only can deal. Now that I think is rather a delicate matter for any one to touch upon. It is difficult, in my opinion, to say what constitutes a strong Government. An administration may be even strong, in regard to its general policy, and yet may not be able to influence the House of Commons to an equal extent in regard to Indian legislation as to English ques tions generally ; and for this reason the Government that is depending fur its strength on the support of political parties, can only expect that support when its mea sures are in accordance with the principles upon which those political parties are formed. But with regard to Indian administration the case is somewhat different. We have seen great differences of opinion expressed in the debates that occurred two years ago on this sub ject. We have seen wide differences of opinion expressed amongst those who, agreeing generally upon English legislation, are utterly at variance upon the subject of Indian politics. Itb nk, therefore, as a matter of argu ment, we are not justified in entertaining any such ob jection in reference to this important subject—namely, that no Government who cannot command a decided majority in this house has a right to deal with the Indian question. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, we are told that public opinion has not sufficiently declared itself. Now what is meant by public opinion declaring itself upon 'retire l We know upon questions of domestic policy that a very large number of persons out of doors gene rally take a warm interest, and that this house wisely follows, instead of leads, the general opinions. But we must recollect that this Indian question does not affect personally a very large number of persons out of doors. There has not been heretofore, nor is there likely to be hereafter, a strong pressure of public opi nion upon any Government on this subject. There is no doubt at present a very wide and great interest mani fested in regard to India, but that interest has been created by the recent debates in this house and by the recent occurrences in India. If, however, we are to judge the future by the past, that interest will be greatly diminished when those occurrences have passed away. But the very fact that there is now a greater interest felt upon Indian subjects than there was two years ago, or than there is likely to be two years hence, furnishes, in say opinion, one of the strongest arguments why we ought not to delay dealing with the question before us. (Hear, hear.) Ido not think that any one who eat on the committee of 1853, or who remembers how long that committee eat—how great was the investigation it entered into—the vast volumes which had been laid before that committee for reference—l do not think, I repeat, that any one who recollects the debates of 1853, how long they lasted, and how minutely the whole details of this question were considered, can now seri ously urge that we need further inquiry. I may be told, sir, that many petitions upon this subject have been pre sented to the House of Commons to which we are bound to pay respect, and that some of those petitions pray for further inquiry before we adopt any particular plan for government of India. But what, I ask, is the meaning of this prayer for further inquiry / When those petitions pray fur further inquiry, they simply mean that the House ef Commons should examine into the various propositions that have been laid down to consider the principles brought forward in those petitions, and so having considered them to act upon them (Hear.) I now wish to allude to what I consider to be the most serious part of the question—l mean, the danger cf un settling men's minds, and of creating disturbances in India. I confess, air, if I were the colleague of the noble viscount opposite when, at the beginning of the session, he proposed to introduce a bill upon the future government of India, the danger of unse:tling men's minds is an argument which at that time would have had considerable weight with me. But the case was altered when that measure was laid before Parliament. I will venture to remind the house that I was one of those who supported the noble viscount in the division which took place on the introduction of his bill. But at the same time I am willing to admit that those who took a mere despsnding. view of the matter had fair grounds for their argument that it was better not to iulerfere with the Indian adminis'ration until the rehel -lon bad been suppressed. But the very same reason a h;ch male hon. membe's unwilling to disturb the go e nneent of India for fear of disturbing the public mind ire that country can im /V, I think, be adduced in favour of immediate legislation, from the fact ef the public mind beings, wholly unsettled in regard to this question. (Hear.) S . r, Ido not think that any one in this ouse can re tend to know what is the real effect produced the Native in the oative mind by the discussions which have token place in this house. I have heard it contended —and no doubt the argument is plausible—that it will bo a great encouragement to those who are in arms against our sway in India if they learn that the govern ment against which they aro contending is deposed by the authority at home. But I think, sir, it wi 1 have a still more injuriou s e ff ec t i n th e minds of the people of Idiaift h eoyf t h h e i a s r, not that the power of the compar y has been tak en awa y ,but country tha t t o a t n ik a e tt t e h m e p a t u n t 3 h a t b y y fr t o h m e tGo vernmenthecoulpany had failed because the company had such powerful friends at home, they w e r e ena bl e d t o resist successfully such a proceeding f on the part of her Ma jteoactyo'isleGidevzetrhnemeeffnetc. (Bear,) t our say, s i ir l , i t f . we are seri.usly may produce d i u s c upon the native mind, we must r , 4 l l : e n t that danger of the most serious character to produce upon the native mind an of disunion and di visions at ho me upon this subject. (Hear.) This would be a fair ergo invent Against raising the question at all, but the question 'laving been once raised, and it being made known everyvvhere in India that her Majesty's Govern ment had introduced a measure to place the power of governing that - country in the hands of the Crown in stead of the co vapany, I think the only safe and wise course to purse e is to complete the undertaking which we have begun. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman said whatever no ay be the merits of the measure itself for the future go vernment of India, it will induce natives to look for still g, -eater changes in regard to them, that they may suppose , we have no sympathy for them, and hat we mean to govern India henceforward for the ex. elusive interests - Of England, without paying any regard to their interests or prejudices. I say, sir, if any such alarm is entertained by the natives of India, the only way to allay such a faelinv is to agree on a measure of legis lation as speedily as possible, c)nsistently with the due consideration cf the importance of the subject, and thereby to show the voundlessness of those apprehen sions. Toere is one pin t more to which I wish to allude. What is the beet time to undertake so large a work of legislation? There is not at present before the house any proposal for making any organic reform of a domestic character. We are still at a comparatively early period of the session. Four years ago, the right honourable gentleman th.e then President of Board of Control introduced his India Bill at a later period of the session than now. Now, we cannot tell what political events may occur in the course of the year, which would make it uncertain that we should have so much time to give up to the consideration of this question if we delay it much longer. If her Majesty's Government had con sulted their own ease, and desired to save themselves from the trouble, the difficulty,and embarrassment which mint necessarily attend discussions of this kind, their °Woes curse would have been to accept the resolutions of the noble lotd, and with them the responsibility at tending such a proceeding, although they did not ori ginally undertake it themselves, but inherited it from those who had preceded them. (Hear, hear.) S.r, we did not take that course. We thought we had a duty to discharge. Toe responsibility was cast upon us, and from that responsibility it was not, we thought, in our power to relieve ourselves. Having undertaken it, we are determined to discharge it, with the favour of this house, to the beet of our power. (Cheers.) The house divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority —390 The announcement of the numbers was received with laughter and cheering. who had spoken in the highest terms of the East India Company Burchhart, in his work, said, " that the inha bitants of Mecca declared that though the Europeans danced with their friend's wives, drank wino, and ate pork, yet their Government was a most just and enlight ened one." French travellers, M. de Richmont, and others, also bore testimony to the feelings of the inhabitants with regard to the Government of India. Sismondi bore similar testimony. The hon. gentleman here read several articles from the works of foreign travellers in Persia, Affghanistan, and other countries, to show the good feeling which was entertained towards the Government of India. Amongst these travellers were Baron Von Hugel, Jacgremont, Fer rier, M. Chavalier, and Malmaison. Complaints had been made against the Company that they sent out youths to India instead of grown men. Why nothing could be more advantageous than sending out youths as apprentices to learn their business there. Them were three great sub jects of vilification of the Company. The first was the administration of justice ; the second, the state of the po lice; the third, the deficiency of public works. With re gard to the subject of administration of justice, lot them consider the people with whom they had to deal. The at tempt to administer justice upon the English system would be the wildest possible scheme that could be proposed. The people of India could only be brought by degrees to govern themselves. A great outcry had been raised against what was called the " double government." But he ven tured to say that nine out of ten members of the House of Commons were in favour of an independent council. ( Bear.) Did not that mean a double government ? (Hear.) If India was to be governed well, there must be such an in dependent body to stand as a fender between factions in the House of Commons and the government of India ; and, if it was the desire of the house that the Government should be centred in the Crown, he only hoped that such a council would be really independent. (Hear.) Sir E. COLEBROOSE opposed the first resolution, on the ground that before transferring the government of In dia into new hands there ought to be a full explanation as to the nature of the proposed council who were to assist the Secretary of State, and the character of the assistance which they would render him. Taking the first resolution in connection with the second, the powers of the Lew council would be nil; whereas the powers exercised by the present Board of Directors were of a substantial character. Those powers derived significancy, because they were exer cised by a permanent body acting under a fluctuating go vernment, and on account of the independent principle on which the directors were elected. There was something definite in the constitution of the East India Board ; but there was no security contained in the bill that the new council would not ultimately become unwieldy. (Hear.) At all events, let security be taken that the new council should possess the same powers as those exercised by the present board of directors. This suggestion he should em body in an amendment at the proper time, but now con tented himself with moving the rejection of the resolution under discussion. Sir C. LEWIS had hoped that the vote which had been come to by the house, after much discussion, that the reign of the company should cease, would have been re garded as conclusive. ThP,t vote was so taken, and was accepted by a majority of the members of the present Go vernment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he considered the company as no longer a living body, and that all they could do with respect to it, was to per form with decency its obsequies ; and the President of the Board of Control, when asked whether the bid had been submitted to the Court of Directors, said that after the vote come to by the house, he looked upon the directors only as so many private individuals. It seemed to him that those who had advocated delay in legislating for India had father advocated a perpetual renewal of the lease of the company. Their arguments had commenced by insisting on the necessity of delay; but they had always resolved themselves into an eulogium on the merits of the company, find into a recommendation to maint tin the present system. This reminded him of a s ling of Lord Bacon, which he attributed to as ancient wise man. An ancient sage, said Lord Bacon, on being asked what was the proper time for marriage, replied, " for a young man not yet, for an old man not at all." (Hear.) Such seemed to be the advice of those who advocated delay in legislating for the govern ment of India. At present they were told that the disturbed state of India ought to prevent legislation this session. But if they delay till another session no doubt they would then be told that India had had returned to a state of tran quillity, and that it would be folly to disturb it. Whatever, therefore, might be the state of India, the advocates of de lay would always find a reason, or rather a pretext, for pro longing the power of the company. Regarding the vote of the house as decisive of the fate of the company, he should DOW con dder what was the best substitute for it, and not whether it ought to be maintained. He might remark that, vet en he spoke on a former occasion of the weakness of the double go, eminent, he intended to allude not to the execu tive in India, but to the defective constitution of the home government of India. The mutiny had brought forcibly before the members of the Government the elements of pr )crastination and perplexity which characterised the home government of India. It was, therefore, upon the defects inherent in the hones governme nt of India, and not upon any want of vigour in the Governor-General, or in the commissariat placed at his disposal, that he had rested his arguments in favour of a c hange. Mr. Burke in a speech on the India Bill of Mr. Fox, had well characterised the defects of a system of double government. The speech was made before the double government was established, and before the India Bill of Mr. Fox was introduced, but it accurately described the manner in which such a govern ment would work. Mr. Burke said that the scheme of a council of directors really controlling a Secretary of State could only be kept in order for a very short time ; that either the directors would dwindle down to clerks, or the locretary would, often through design and often through ne;lect, leave everything to them, and that procrastina tion, confusion, and delay would ensue. Such was Mr. Burke's view of double government. With regard to the resolution before the house ho hoped the wording of it would be carefully considered, inasmuch as it was some what ambiguous with regard to the sovereignty of India as declared to be vested in the Crown. The true character of the home government of India was not a sovereignty veeted in the company, for they were only a pro p i Lary Govetnaient holding their sittings in London, under the control of Parliament and the Crown. It was competent to Parliament to sweep away that proprietary government at any time, and to place the Crown in direct administrative relation with the territory of India. Our colonial history afforde 1 numerous examples of proprietary governments like that of the East India Company. The majority of the American colonies were n't first placed under proprietary governments created by charter, similar to the charter of the company, with this difference, that the American charters authorised the guarantees to colonise new settlements iu addition to carrying on trade. These proprietary governments in America had been put an end to by the progress of free institutions, and the action of free settlers effected a change in America similar to that which they were now about to try to effect in India by the aid of Parliament. For one, he should never regret that Mr. Fox's bill of 1783, which would have annulled the power of the company, had not been passed by the legisla ture. He regretted, also, that the power of the company had not been put an end to when their monopoly was ex tinguished. He believed that whatever excellence had l ii been imported into the Government e India had come from the superintendence of parliamentd of the Board of Control. It was not due to any excellence in its con stitution as a joint-stock company, for all probability, had it been left to its own management it would in no re spect have differed from the direction of ether joint-stock companies. The time had now arrived for putting an end to that superintendence, and he trusted the committee would not hesitate to come to a vote by whi c h th e com plicated governrefnt of India might be simplified, and by which the last vestiges of the company's government might be abolished. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY said that differences of opinion existed as to the constitution and members of the new council, their emoluments, and patronage ; but no attention seemed to have been paid to the ftnocea of India. At the proper time he should move that %Amu' of the election of the new eeuncil being left open, the council should con sist of the present members of the Court of Directors. By adopting this course he believed there would be a greater chance of ensuring legislation this year. Mr. HORSMAN contended that the proper time for legislating for India would have been when India was at peace in 1853; that the inopportune time was the present, when India was in flames. It was ungenerous to choose the period of disaster for degrading the company. But the rdhwtojol denounced itsode ud,f r fonahogcneure and hs havedts taking even broader grounds, he maintained that during measure which should meet the full extent of the emer gency. Our difficulties in India had. shaken that empire w i t e owant a ehm u ece t noar h .nu o nn r at i o(t t r Hifyyv countrymen afeirnnt, couragehfi wedheheGl hear.) o rta h. v yn) e ado r r nnaostsrhe- But capacity,Gde w e ao n ennr e- i they sanguine the crisis was over? He was afraid it was the . natural consequence that those who were slow to be lieve the crisis was coming, had run too rapidly to the conclusion that it was passed.: He feared that our future tonour in India would be one long continued crisis, unless we learned to know and to govern India better than we had done. The Government of India had been so conducted that it hail excited dis trust in the native mind, and from that cause our Indian army had been in a state of smouldering mutiny from the mutiny of Velore to the late outbreak. The cha ratter of Englishmen was not to foresee danger, though their courage to meet disaster when it came was more re markable than its belief in it and to tditealietfontnnooto,fbht nlaeht,nbt ittdes hebotne: mutiny r, was impossible t o frame a past heedless, culpable, and criminal conduct towards Bat if anything could have awakened pthroevicdoeui3itgrayint3ot its India, it should have boon the impressive warning they had received. The British Parliament had, however, assembled. and its benches had been thronged by honour able members who had listened to the proposition of the Minister for the better government of India. But as yet no information had bon given on a roost material point, viz., whether India, under the Government of the C own, would be able to pay its own expenses. (Hear.) That was an imporl;aut question, and he urged the committee to press her Majesty's Government for an answer. (Hear.) Hitherto this country had not been liable for the deficien cies of India, but he was inclined to believe that if they transferred the government of India to her Majesty's Go vernment, the ratepayers of this canary would be liable for any deficiencies that might hereafter arise. (Hear, and no, no.) —ll6 Oa eu ld li ke to h ave t h e ques tion satisfactorily answered, bec ause he felt conv i nce d th a t if they transferred the government th e E ngl i sh G overnm ent would be respon sible for the Payment a of the m ilit ar y and judicial esta blishments in India as much as they were for those of England. (Hear.) With the change of government they would confluence with a deficiency of two millions, with an increasing expenditure and an increasing d eficienc y of warm), whi c h h ad been Enticipated this year by a loan of 8,0)0,00S., with t h e c h an ce of its being increased n ext ye ,T. (1/ ar, hoar.) There wore three sou rces o f revenue and India,lainadand a s th l e t' two principal being the revenue derived from d sixteenth ethi third millions, s of opium. in creased, a nd, the tex on salt fell so heav il y on the poor mate that in F ungal i t aineunted to absolute prohibition, ,aud could not n e o l t a übdo was heavily taxed accompanied With great m isery—(hear, hear, hear) but when they c til73 to the revenue derivable from opium, they found it of a most preearione character, and might be seriously affected eiuher by China legalising its growth, or America rowingg it in some of her Atlantic pos sessions, but in addition to that, the growth of opium would assume a different character when the Government was transferred to the Crown, because a State could not ignore cert a in mora l an d l eea l o bj e ctions and obligations that belonged to the trade 'which a company The result would b e that the y weuld commence with de ficiency of 2 milli ons t o which must be added 3, 1 „ the loss of the revenue on opium, making together N . m!1- lions, which in th e could do. present circumstances of Th em, if its revenues failed, that deficiency would have to be made up by the taxpayer of England. (Hear, and no , no. ) The Chan cellor of the Exchequer in the early part of the session shared these appreh ens i ons , an d he should like to know if the right hon. gentleman knew of any mode, should such a contingency hepp e n by which England would be reliev e d of the lospnsibilite'. His objection to th ese p rocee d i ng s in transferring th e government o f India to England was, that by so doing they worCd be taking on themselves obligations and liabilitie.3 they had not yet fully considered, or with out evidence that they had been folly considered. He felt satisfied it would turn out a mere hhuffie of offices in Lon don, leaving India more to chance than he thought it safe or wise to do. Ho warned the house against precipitately legislating on this subject, which might be the means of causing greater danger to arise than existed from the pre sent state of things. (Hear, bear.) _ _ Mr. BOWYER said the time was come when thetransfer of government must be made, and he assented to the reso lution before the house from a conviction that the de liberations of that house would lead to the constitution of an independent council for India, possessing the requi site knowledge and experience for governing that country. (Hear, hear.) He thought, however, the real meaning of the resolution was to transfer the government of India to that house, but he did not think that house was fit to un dertake it, and the result would be, if it were left to the house, that it would be made a vehicle for party struggles and political strife, notwithstanding expressions to the contrary in;that house. Everyone who frequented the clubs of London, or moved in political circles, must feel that it was at present connected with party strife, and that the question was looked upon in connection with the possibi lity of the continuance of the present Government in office, and the probability of the return of office of the noble lord the member for Tiverton. (Hear, hear.) Monarchy was the system of government most in accordance with the feelings of the people of the East, and he thought if India were put under the direct authority of the Crown of England it would have considerable weight with the native princes. India could not be governed like a colony. It was a con quered empire, and as such should be made a portion of the English empire. (Hear, hear.) Col. SYKES contended that the wording of the resolu tion was a misnomer. Relative to the territories of India, they were already under the authority of the Crown and not of the East India Company. He denied that it was ex pedient to make the proposed change for the East. Lord Canning's Administration had not broken down here, nor had the Government in India failed. The Indian Govern ment was able to break the neck of the mutiny by the cap ture of Delhi, before the reinforcements from England could arrive there, since which time there had been such a succession of successes that one failure had not been known. The dangers that were said to exist had long since ceased, and he contended there was no necessity "now" for mak ing the transfer. He denied that the popular voice was in favour of the proposed change. Out of 327 petitions that had been presented, only four were in favour of a transfer of the government, the remainder having reference to the abolition of caste and extension of Christianity. He warned the Government against the course they were pursuing, and read an extract from an Indian work, written by a native, in praise of the East India Company's Govern ment in preference to the former governments of that coun try. He thought it was dangerous to lead the people of India to believe that the Home Government intended to interfere with caste, and extend Christianity there, and in conclusion he read extracts from the speeches of Lord Ma caulay, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Metcalfe, the Earl of Ellenborough, Mr. Charles Grant, and Lord J. Russell in favour of the present system of Government. Mr. WYLD said he was rather surprised at the argu ments advanced against the resolution. The first was that the Crown took on itself the responsibility of the deficiency , of the revenue. That was the argument of the hon. mem ber for Stroud, but such deficiency must be m.t somehow. In any way the people of England would have to be re sponsible. No doubt many questions would have to be settled, especially with the Nepaulese and Sikhs for the assistance they had rendered in the war, and these could not be settled by the company as well as they could be by the Crown. Then with respect to patronage, the governin ent already exercised a great portion, for they appointed a third of kthe directors, and exercised half the patronage. No moment, in his opinion, was more opportune for the in terference of the Crown than the present, and the settle ment of the question could only be effected thereby. Mr. GLA.DaTONE said that the two important divisions they had had, although having reference to time, yet bore considerably on that of the transfer of the Indian govern ment to the Crown. He should not go into the question of policy, but he wished to advert to one or two difficulties with respect to the termsof the resolution, and then to a particular point which had hitherto attracted little attention, but which would attract a great deal more before the resolutions were matured in the chap of a bill. He thought the reso lution unfortunately drawn, because it appeared to be based on the fact that the powers of the company were ter minable by war; but in order to give it a rational form, it ought to state that public policy or expediency required that termination at the present moment. It was no rea son, because an inaccurate form of words was adopted in the act of 1853, that they should adopt an inaccurate form now. The real fact was, that the territories of the com pany were at this moment under the government of the Crown, and the only thing that could be alleged was, that they were under the administration of the Crown. The distinction was clear, and therefore the language of the resolution was inaccurate in saying that it was expedient that a transfer of the government to the Crown shall take place. There was a still more serious objection to the third clause of the resolution, " in order that the direct supe rintendence of tho whole empire might kbo placed under one executive authority." That assumed that the whole of the rest of the British empire was under one executive; but that was not the fact, for, in truth, the Crown exer cised a more direct superintendence over the territories of the East India Company than It did over a large portion of the rest of the empire. Let the house compare the condi tion of Canada and all other places to which Parliament had given free constitutions with that of India in respect to the superintendence of the executive. In the fernier s u s hi /. e a do lly e n i n o g d t i r o e c r e t f u s us refuses e i t r s i n s t a e n n c d t e i e n n c e t , all o a c t t s h at f tc P ha a se r e l C i t a rb m oewr en n t cw ; ) and it was in very rare cases that they exer cised any executive authority. If that were so, then un doubtedly the recital in the resolution before the com mittee was incorrect, the clause was unnecessary and might be entirely omitted, which would save much discussion. But there was another question of considerable difficulty, in point of strict and dry right, which confronted them at the outset, and which arose out of the breadth of the I.nguage in which they had described the extent of the enterprise they were about to undertake. Lot them con sider the position in which an act of parliament founded on such a resolution would place them in regard to the creditors of the East India Company. The territorial debt upon India was 50,000,0001., which had been obtained in the form of loans to the company in the name of the Governor General, and the acknowledgment which the hon. gentleman real sot out that he promised to pay the amount specified on behalf of the company within the speified time and the notice named. In the ordinary course a person about to lend would consider first of all the person to whom he lent the money, and next the security upon which it was lent. What did the resolution do? It proposed to make important changes in the security without the consent of the creditor, and in such a case as that it was not enough to s a y th a t no harm was done to iritu, but they had no right to stir an inch in the alteration of his securities until he had been satisfied on the matter. The proposal distinctly was to change the borrower. At present the East India Company borrowed the money; but in future it was proposed that the borrower should be the British government, the security not being upon the Consolidated Fund. The house, however, must not be too sure that the measure would have no influence on the Consolidated Fund, for in any case the Indian creditor was justified in complain.- ine of the violation of his legal rights; they would find themselves involved iu a contention out of which there would be no other escape than that of giving him a security on the Consolidated Fund. (Hear, hear.) He wished to know if it were meant under these resolutions to offer to the Indian creditor the option of being paid off according tothfiersct resolutionondi now beforetionsuponwhichh the houseehadadv w ance a d s h v i a s g m ue d on s e n y. The g , neral, and in itself was of no legal efficacy whatever. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. —The hon. gentlemen who have addressed the committee, although they have evinced a thorough knowledge of the subject, have rather entered into the general question of the policy or impolicy of this great change, instead of referring particus larly to the precise language of the resolution. The right hon. gentleman who last spoke has, however, very properly applied his critical powers to the language of this resolu tion. He says it is a resolution which has no legal efficacy. hy, we don't pretend that it has any legal efficacy, It is a resolution which, if carried with the other resolutions of which I have given notice, will be the basis upon which we intend to found a measure. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that it is a very proper step in the first instance, when this house is endeavouring to lay down the general principles upon which we may act, that we should begin by attempt ing to describe in a resolution the policy we recommend. expression. Now ofthi s I nature don't be lieve toThe right hon. gentlema n com p lains of the language of this resolution in so far as we talk of the " Gove rnmen t o f t h e East India Company," and he has adduced some reasons f or use language which is not o p en to t h e criticism of a refining and acute intellect — (h ear) —but the q ues tion the commit tee have to decide is whether , upon the whole, the expres do übt i i t n i g s the accuracy o possible expres sion wo have used is a pr o p e r a nd practical expression. i n dealing of that it with u w It is taken from the Act of 1851. (Cheers.) That ant is entitled an Act for regulating the territories, which, to use the term of its title, are " under the Govern ment of the East India Company." (Hear.) It appeared to LP, therefore, that we should be acting regularly, and using language which would be intelligible to the house and to the country, if we availed ourselves of an expres• sion which was sanctioned by an act of Parliament. Wear.) I cannot help thinking, notwithstanding the cri ticisms of the right hen. gentleman, that the committee will be of opinion that, ripen the whole, this is rtriglTt expression. When it is remembered that our proposal is virtually to repeal the Act of 1853, it seems to me that the proper course was to use the very language which was employed in that Act. The right hon. gentleman has also objected to the expression in th e l as t li ne and a half of the resolution—•` in order that th e di rec t super i etendence of the whole empire may be placed under ono executive authority." We are only responsible for that expression inasmuch as we made what I cannot h e l p thinkine, a happy selection which is, I beli e v e , th a t of Mr. Pitt.° (Hear.) I maintain that the expression is perfectly applicable. The change we are proposing is one from the direct .treally perspicuously, ou r object. and I super intendence of the East I n di a C ompany to the direct super intendence of the C rown, an d t h e expression is one to which nobody can a b icr ib e,an am b iguous meaning, and it agree e on os the what suggestion distinctly t i s h of the r i g ht h on . gen tl eman , th a t either with reference t o th e express i on " the G overnor o f therefore with sufficient ca nn o t precision, the East India Company," which I think is not only popu laily, but even technically, correct; or with regard to the last part of the resolution, which conveys an idea of the intention which, so far as that resolution is concerned, we wish to accomplish, any alteration is desirable. The ri t ,det hon. gentleman has opened a subject of much greater im portance, though it appears to be not so germane to the re solution before us as to a subsequent one. But I am at a loss clearly to understand what is the strength of the right lion. gentleman's objection. He would seem to insinuate that in this trent& r of the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown the security of the pubic creditors in India is changed. But I maintain that by the transfer proposed that security has not changed. The public creditor in India has exactly the same security as he had before. (Hoar.) Before, it was the trustee who (Hear.) HisNNlV,aass o responsible w t i o l h b i a m d ; i r w, t l l i m a ser whom that trustee ble fo secu rity wilt be, as before, upon the revenue and the territory of India ; and that security will not be limited by a trans fer of the Government of India from the trustee to the per son for whose benefit that trustee acted. (Hear.) I am not at all surprised Halt the right Lou. gentleman and thea other gentlem an w h o a dd resse d us in the coarse of evening should v i ew w ith n atural apprehension the en i!- enc,.e which a change like this may have upon the financest of the count r y. It b ecome s us all to examine withagnredal caution all the steps we may take in that respect, theam quite sure there is no one who can address h t commit too with sn o re a d van tage on this subject than the rig hoc* gentlem a n. But I have not heard anything 3 et, either from the right hon. gentleman or from the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsmau), which amounts to more than this —that the finances of India form a eubject of great impor tance and of great anxiety to public me t—(hear)—atul that in dealing with Indian subjects we should take care that the liabilities of this country should not be in any way in creased by the change we are recommending. (Rear.) That without any change whatever in the Government, a pos- sible liability, very much to be deprecated with respect to Indian finances, may be incurred on the part of the people of England is no novelty in our debates, and is a truth which has impressed itself on th e m i n ds o f those who have deeply considered this subject. (Hear.) But no course that we can take with regard to this present project of legislation can diminish a possible liability which existed years before. (Hear.) No doubt, as has been said by the highest authorities in this House, there is an intimate connection between Indian and English finance, and so long as India remains the principal dependency of this country we must all be deeply interested in its finances, knowing full well what are the possible consequences to England if those finances are badly administered. What wish to impress upon the committee, however, is the true and common-sense view of the question, that the change now contemplated will not increase the possible liability in this respect which existed before. (Hear.) As I mentioned to the committee just now, it is iu the 14th resolution that this point is really contained, and there you will find the words " for continuing the charge on the revenues of India alone" specifically introduced. (Hear.) I do not know that I have any further observations to make upon this resolution, because the subject of it has been so long in our minds, has been treated of late in so many modes, and in so many papers, that we in this House have pretty well arrived at a conclusion upon it. There aro other resolutions as we proceed which no doubt will lead to very great eontroversy and to protracted discussion. But it appears to me that, upon the whole, this resolution expresses the intentions of the committee in language not justly liable to criticism. That it has no legal efficacy we are of course all aware. But if it conveys, as I maintain it does, in clear and precise language what is the intention of those who propose it, and what I believe is also in the mind of hon. members, I trust the committee will pass this resolution, and, I hope. without a division. Mr. LA.BOUCHERE was willing rather to consider this resolution in its popular sense, as embodying the opinion of the House, than to go very closely into its precise mean ing, which might be deferred until the whole subject was considered in the form of a Bill. At the same time, it was desirable not to assert anything actually contrary to the fact. Now, he wished in no captious spirit to point out one part of the resolution which seemed liable to this im putation. He referred to the words alluded to by his right hon. friend (Mr. Gladstone) that the transfer was ex pedient, " in order that the direct superintendence of the whole empire may be placed under one executive authority." Now, there was one very large part of the empire which was now completely out of the direct super intendence of the Crown at this moment as the territories of the East India Company—he meant the whole of that portion of British North America held under a char ter by the Hudson's Bay Company. (A. laugh.) If the words he had quoted were allowed to remain they would assert that which was actually contrary to the fact, and, as he believed, they could be omitted without weakening the force of the resolution, he thought it would be desir able to do so. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—I do not mean to say it is absolutely necessary that these words should be in the resolution. There are, probably, a great many words in these resolutions which might be omitted, but I think it would be a great pity to strike these out. The resolution would be more meagre, and would not, think, express our meaning so well without them. (Hear.) I am not surprised that the only exception throughout the wide dominions of her Majesty which can be brought for ward in order to prove the inaccuracy of the resolutions is the case of the Hudson's Bay Company. ('` Hear," and a laugh.) The fact is that, for the moment, I thought the Hudson's Bay Company had been put an end to. (" Hear," and a laugh.) But that is the only instance which ca❑ be adduced, and I still therefore retain my opinion that the expression in the resolution conveys more fully and accu rately what I believe to be the intention of the committee than it would do if altered in the mode suggested. The resolution was then put and agreed to amid some cheering. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—The se. cond resolution embodies the principle that there should be one great officer of state responsible for the administrat ion of India, and specifies his title. It defines generally the powers and duties of that officer, who we suggest in the resolution should be called a Secretary of State. The Committee will, of course, decide whether they think he should be called a President or a Secretary of State. It is our opinion that on the whole it would be more convenient, though it is a matter of no great moment, that the Minis ter who is responsible for administering the government of India in England should be a Secretary of State, and we have attempted to express the powers and duties which will devolve upon him in consequence of the change we propose. The resolution is : " That for this purpose" (referring to the first resolution) "it is expedient to provide, that her Majesty, by ono of her Principal Secretaries of State, shall have and perform all the powers and duties relating to the government and revenues of India which are or may be now exercised and performed by the East India Company, or by the Court of Directors or Court of Proprietors of the said Company, either alone or_with the approbation of the Commissioners for the Affairs of India." That would concentre all the powers exorcised by the Board of Control and the Court of Directors in the principal officer, whose style we have defined as Secretary of State, and I hope this resolution may pass. Mr. ROEBUCK suggested the expediency of postponing further discussion upon the resolution at that hour of the night (a quarter to 12 o'clock). Mr. GLADSTONE was of opinion that it was an error to constitute a new Secretary of State, and contended that the arrangement proposed upon that point in the bill of the noble lord the member for Tiverton was preferable upon all the principles of constitution and analogy to that embodied in the resolution under the notice of the Com mittee. It would under those circumstances, he thought, be advisable for the present to substitute some such general words as " responsible advisers" for the words " Principal Secretaries of State." The CHANCELLOR of the EXC HEQUE R said he had no objection to comply with the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, and should therefore move that the Chairman report pro g ress. He should postpone any observaticns which he might wish to make with refer ence to the resolution to a future occasion, simply observ ing that he could not agree with the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Ox ord, so far as the question of constitution and analogy was concerned. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, alai the house resumed. THE INDIAN RESOLUTIONS. Lord J. RUSSELL said, it had been suggested to him that the amendment of which he had given notice upon the 6th resolution, that the members of the Coun cil "should be appointed by her Majesty, and, with the exception of the Secretary of State, should hold their offices during good behaviour," woull raise two ques tions,—first, that of appointment ; and secondly, that of tenure. As he only wished to raise a simple and direct question with regard to the mode of appointing the Council he would put his amendment in this form : That it is expedient that the members of Council should he appointed by her Majesty," and it would then raise a question, whether all the members of Coun cil should be appointed by her Majesty or not. The house went into cammittee, Mr. FITZROY in the chair. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the first resolution he had to submit to the committee embodied a principle which he believed would be recog oiled by a vast majority of hon. members. It was— " That as the territories under the governakent of the East India Company are by law to remain under such government only until Parliament shall otherwise provide, this house is of opinion that it is expedient that the trans for of such government to the Crown should now take place in order that the direct superintendence of the whole em pire may be placed under one executive authority." He need not remind the committee that by the act of 1853, the authority of the East India Company was can tinned under the condition referred to in the resolutior, and he bad endeavoured to frame the resolution in such a manner as clearly to express its object. The_ itiht hon. gentleman then moved the resolution. Mr. ROSS MANGLES said he had to perform a very uphill and almost hopeless task in attempting to oppose the resolutions which he could not but believe had the concurrence of the majority of the house. But he should not the less, perhaps the more, consider it his duty to state, to the bast of his ability, the character of that company with which he had been so long connected as a servant and as a member of the court of directors. He had only spoken on the general question on one occasion, and then at a late hour, being unwisely provoked to do so by a speech of his right hon. friend the member for Radnor, who had spoken with much less than his usual philosophy, and if he might say so without offence, with less than his usual equity and candour, not giving a fair representation of the character of that Government. Ho hoped the facts he should now bring under the consideration of the house would be suffi ciently strong to induce them to pause before they took the government of India out of the hands of that corpora tion that had gained the empire for us, and, as he con scientiously believed, had ruled it with wisdom and bene volence. In the speech referred to, the right honourable baronet had said that the Indian Government, having disco vered its weakness, it was not a matter of surprise that her Majesty's Government came forward to propose its abolition. He joined issue with the right hon. baronet on the question whether the government of India had in the season of its greatest emergency shown that weakness which the right hon. baronet had stated, as the sufficient and almost only reason for Government coming for ward to propose the abolishing of the company. It was rather a bold point for a right hon. gentleman to take up, who, though not a member of the Administration at the time of the Crimean war, was connected by office with those who were, to assert the weakness of the government of India. He should put it to the house to consider the matter, par cel by parcel, and see how the company had stood th • shock of this mutiny. Let them look at the siege of Delhi. At the time of that siege the greatest arsenal of India was in the hands of the mutineers. It was not now in question how it fell into their hands, or whether it could have been better protected, but if it were, he should answer that it was the Commander-in-Chief who was more especially re sponsible for that and that he wasappointed by the Crown and not by the company. The question was, whether the government of the company had shown weakness. The great arsenal of the north-west provinces was in the hands of the rebels, and there was not a soldier brought there by the company that had not been in the country before, so that they had no assistance from without, and he would appeal to every man conversant with the history of these occurrences whether the operations had been conducted in a manner indicating weakness on the part of the Govern ment or of their military system ? (Hear, hear.) How had the troops and the munitions of war been provided? The troops were not subjected to the inclemency of a Crimean winter, but they were subjected to that of the hottest sta tion in India. We did not hear of any green coffee—(a laugh)—of cavalry horses eating one another's tails for want of better and more suitable folder —(laughter) — of injury to the cavalry by sore backs, of men perishing for want of necessaries —(hear, hear)—of whole regiments of shoeless men—(hoar, hear) —or of any one of those defects which had been so lamentably apparent in the Crimea. (Cheers.) From the beginning to the end, though the arsenal was in the hands of the enemy, there was a suffi ciency and superabundance of food. (Hear, hear.) Did that indicate weakness ? (Hear, hear.) Let them look at the results which followed. Let them remember the ra pidity with which the columns for Delhi after the siege traversed the country without showing any deficiency of means upon the route. (Hear, hear.) Some of the marches of Greathed and Showers were the admiration of all mili tary men for the rapidity with which they were carried on. (Hear, hear.) Then look at the rapidity with which the Guides came up, marching forty miles a day—a rate un known in military annals, and that under the fearful sun of that; country. Did all that show weakness? (Hear, hear.) So much for Delhi. Dist the situation of the Pun jaub at this moment indicate that degree of weakness on the part of the Government which alone could justify the remarks of his right hon. friend ? The Punjaub in the hands of Sir John Lowrance, Peshawar in the hands of Edwards, and L.hore in the hands of Montgomery, did not appear to indicate to him that the Governm mat was weak. Pegs had remained in an uninterrupted repose from the outbreak to the present hour, though it was surrounded by wild tribes, and the inhabitants were of cognate tribes, and with the Burmese on their frontier. Did that indicate weakness? (Hear.) In the Doab the moment it was re lieved from the actual presence of- the mutineers perfect order was restored, in proof of which he read an extract from a letter of the Chief Commissioner of Works in India which was the last blue book. He asked whether that indicated weakness? (Cheers.) He also called their a'tention to a later letter to the same effect from an officer of high distinction (Colonel Smythe) in the Bengal ser vice. That officer had the command of a regiment of native horse artillery, of which almost every man was a Mahon:to den. He was at home on sick leave when the mutiny broke out, but, like a gallant soldier, he hastened back to his troop. They remained faithful during the whole siege, though they were deprived of their guns. They went into the trenches and served the siege train. They served with uninterrupted fidelity, and without the desertion of a single man. An officer who had exercised such influence over the men, who had so won their affection as this gallant officer must have done, deserved to be listened to with respect. The hon. member then read the letter, which was similar in effect to the former. Now, let them take Bengal proper. What had been the state of these pro vinces? Why, where there were no sepoys there in no single case had there been insurrection. The people had remained faithful to the government. Last year certain missionaries represented the state of Bengal 'as being perilous. Now, if ever there were circumstances in which the people could have manifested an evil spirit towards the g )vernment, it was during the mutiny. Every seP 3 Y bad mutinied, and there was not a single European soldier between Fort William and Patna. Thera was one policeman to 20,000 inhabitants, and yet the people were most faithful. He (Mr. Mangles) had beau vio lently attacked by Dr. Duff for having stated these things. Dr. Duff called him the magnate of Leadenhall street, and the pl'entate of the banks of the Thames, and declared that the moment he was making these state ments Bengal was in mutiny. Why, so it was ; but it w, , .3 the mutiny of the sepoys only. Then, with regard t• Ma dras, what was the state there? Tae,3 was no mutiny at Patna, although there had been a trilling eneoute there. 'Pleat was tho only case deserving the name of mutiny in that district. All the ,t. Cons wire kel,t in perfect peace by the people of India. Did that justify a measure like the one proposed? In Madras the people, who had been represented as being tyranni.,ed over, had not taken advantage of the inu.iny to rise against the Government. Look at the Dec c sn—look at Hyderabad, with a wild Arab soldiery. They were as fierce a race as existed on the face of the earth The Deccan had been kept in good order entirely by the fidelity of the Nizam to the British Government. The late Capt. Conolly had stated that any officer of the Company travelling t enativeov e bankers r the country upon untry his co m er e could er a lways representation obtai that money from h he was a Company's of fi cer. The Company had been so ' much and unjustly abused, that he trusted these banks 1 would not road the statements which had been made on the opposite side of the house. Not a single officer who had been in India, and who had written ppm the subject, but BUSINESS FOR MONDAY. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he pro- posed to take the Exchequer-bonds and the Bankers' Cheque Stamp Bills as the first business on Monday. When they had been disposed of he should proceed with the In dian resolutions. Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know when the Sinking Fund Bill was to come on for discussion, as he believed the obligations of the existing law required that it should be immediately dealt with. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said it was not essential that it should be at once brought forward. He could not as yet fix a day for its discussion. OATHS BILLS. The SPEAKER announced that this Bill had come down from the House of Lords with amendments. (Ironical cheers.) On the motion of Lord J. RUSSEL! . , it was ordered that those amendments should be taken into consideration on Friday next. PORTSIUNA BRIDGE BILL. This bill passed through committee. CHELSEA HOSPITAL JPURCHASE OF LAND) BILL. This bill also passed through committee. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. Mr. ADDERLEY, in moving the second reading of this bill, stated the p►inciple involved i❑ it simply to be the abolition of the General Board of Health in London, and the enabling the various towns throughout the country to constitute local boards independant of central control. He trusted the House, therefore, would have no difficulty in assenting to its second reading, leaving its details to be dealt with in committee. Mr. PALK said, his opposition went to tho principle of the bill, which had been so reeently printed that the towns interested in the measure had not yet had time to express their opinion upon it. The present bill would give to local boards the powers which the hon. member for Hertford by his bill proposed to confer on a central board, and if driven to a choice he should prefer the central board, as likely to be composed of persons of more general knowledge and less liable to be mixed up with local jobs. It was impossible at so late an hour (it was past 12 o'clock) to go on with a bill of that kind, and he trusted another period would be fixed for its discussion. Mr. COWPER said that the bill contained much to which he assented. The right lion. gentleman stemmed that the abolition of the Board of Health would be universally popular, but during the 10 years in which it had superin tended sanitary affairs its proceedings had been such as to induce all friends of sanitary improvement to attach very great importance to the existence of such a department connected with the Government. He therefore did not think it desirable that the house should proceed to the abolition of that board without the statement of ~ny rea sons, and without having the opportunity of at least pro nouncing a funeral oration over it, (A. laugh.) lie trusted that the second reading of the bill would not be pressed at that moment, or that it shoul l be understood that there would be a discussion as to its principle upon the motion for going into committee on tho measuro. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. PECHELL moved the adjournment of the de bate on the ground that the bill had been but a very short time in the hands of members. The abolition of the Board of Health was a great boon to the countr ~ but those who thought otherwise ought to have time to express their opinions. Sir A. ELTON said that he was connected with a town desiring such a bill as the present, but he despaired ofever seeing it passed, if there was to be a dogmatic opposition to its progress and to the cause of comfort and public health. He should give his support to the bill. Mr. WA LPOLE thought the objects of all parties would bo met by taking the second reading at once, with an un derst anling that the principle of the bill could be discussed upon going into committee, which should be fixed for a distant day. Mr. BOUVERIE remarked that there was a new prin ciple involved in the bill, as power was given to take lands without a previous application to Parliament. After a few words from Mr. AYRTON and Sir M. FAR QUHAR, The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on the 3d June. EXCISE DUTIES BILL. This bill was read a third time. LAND TRANSPORT CORPS. Upon the motion of Lord A. V. TEMPEST, the committee upon the Land Transport Corps was nominated as follows: —Gen. Codrington, Col. North, Mr. Mowbray, Lord A. Vane Tempest, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Kingscote, Lord John Hay, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Thomas Doncombe, Mr. Cowan, Captain Sturt, Lord Claud Hamilton, and Sir John R am sden. The house adjourned at a quarter past 12 until Monday. ERADPORD-ON-AVON.—W e are informed that direc tions have been issued from the General Post-office that our neighbouring town shall, fcr the future, in all cffi cial clininunilations, be called " Bradford-on-Avon." This decisi , in has been arrived at in consequence of the frequent mistakes made in forwarding hitters to Brad- Joni, in Yorkshire, instead of Wiltshire. Bath Chronicle. HEALTH OF SIR PHILIP CRAMPTON.—DUBLIN, Thurs day Afternoon.—The statement undo last night, in a Dubli❑ paper, of the death of Sir P. Crampton, is un founded. The venerable surgeon still continues in a precarious state, Dr. Livingstone and his party left this plsce at 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning (March 31), on their im portant mission, carrying with them the earnest wishes and prayers of our community.—Freetown (Sierra Leone) Spectator, April 1. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF CONIMONS-APRIL 30. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Or,ler for committee read ; motion made, and question proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair." Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That " to the end of the question, in order to add the words " the change of circumstances since the first pro posal by her Majesty's late advisers to transfer the Go vernment of India from the East India Company to the Crown, renders it inexpedient to proceed further with legislation on the subject during the present Session," instead thereof :—question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the question." The house divided—Ayes, 447; Noes, 57. AYES-447. Adderley, C. B. Fellowes, E. Morgan, 0. Adeane, H. Fenwiek, H. Morris, D. Agar-Ellis, Hon. L. G. Fergus, John Mowbray, J. R. Agnew, Sir A. Ferguson, Colonel Naas, Lord Akroyd, E. Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Neeld, John Alcuek, T. Fitzgerald, J. Newark, Viscount Alexander, J. Fitzwilliana, C. Newport, Viscount Anderson, Sir J. Foley, J. H. Nicoll, D. Archdall, Capt. M. Foley, 11. W. Nisbet, R. P. Ashley, Lord Foljambe, Francis Noel, G. Ayrton, A. Fordo, Colonel Norris, J. T. Bagshaw, J. Forester, Col. North, Col. J. Bagwell, John Forster, Charles O'Brien, P. Bailey, C. Forster, Sir Geo. O'Connell, D Baillie, H. Foster, W. 0. Ogilvy, Sir J. Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Fortescue, Hon. F. Osborne, R. Ball, E Fortescue, C. S. Osaulaton, Lord Baring, H. Franklyn, G. Packe, C. Baring, T. G. Frazer, Sir W. Paget, C. Barnard, Thomas Freestun, Colonel Paget, Lord C. Bernard, T. French, Colonel Pakenham, Colonel Bathurst, A. A. Gallwey, Sir W. P4kington, Sir J. Baxter, W. Galway ' Viscount Palk, L. Beale, S. Gard, It. Palmer, R. Beaumont, W. Garnett, William Palmer. R. W. Bective, Earl Gavin, Major Palmerston, ViiCettnt Beecroft, G. Gihson, Milner Patten, Col. Bennet, Capt. P. Gilpin, Col. Li. Paull, Henry I3entinck, G. Glyn, G. Pecheil, Sir G. Berkeley, F. Goddard, A. Peel, Gen. Bethell, Sir R. Goderich, Viscount . Percy, J. Biddulph, Col. R. M. Grace, 0. Perry, Sir E. Black, Adam Greaves, E. Pevensey, Viscount Brake, J. Greenall, Gilbert Philips, R. Bland, L. H. Greene, John Pilkington, J. BA - them-Carter, J. Greenwood, John Pinney, Col. Bouverie, Hon. E. P. Greer, Samuel Portman, W. Bouverie, lion. P. Gregson, Samuel Potter, Sir J. Bovill, W. Gray, Captain Powell, Freitag Bowyer, G. Grey, R. Power, N. Bromley-Moore, J. Griffith, C. Price, W. Brampton, T. W Grogan, Edward Pritchard, J. Brand, Hon. H. Grosvenor, Earl Proby, G. Bridges, Sir B. Gurdon, Brampton Pugh, D. Bright, John Gurney, J. H. P P u ill h er ' , D C ' hristopher hrockiehurst, J. H a da ° . L or d Brown, W. Hadfield, George Ramsden„ Si rJ. Bruce, Lord E. Hall, Sir Benjamin Ramsay, Sir A. Bruce, Major Hall, General John Rawliason, Sir H. Bruce, H. A. Hamilton, Lord Claud Rebow, J. Bruen, H. Hamilton, G. A. Repton, G. Buchanan, Walter Hamilton, J. Ricardo, 0. Buckley, Gen. Hanbury, Robert Rich, H. Buller, J. W. Handley, H. Richardson, J. Bunbury, W. B. Mulkey, T. Robertson, P. Burrell, Sir C Hanmer, Sir John Rik. J. Bury, Viscount Harcourt, G. G. Roupell, W. Butler, C. S. Hardcastle, Joseph Russell, Lord J. Buxton, C. hardy, G. Russell, A. Buxton, Sir E. N. Harris, J. D. Russell, F. W. Byng, G. H. C. Harlington, Marquis Rust, James Caird, J. Hassard, Michael Sandon, Viscount Cairns, H. ilateheli, John Schneider, Henry Calcraft, J. Hay, Lord John Selater, George Campbell, It. Hayes, Sir E. Scott, Major Cardwell, E Hayter, W. Scrope, G. Carnac, Sir J. R. Headlam, T. Seymer, H. Cartwright, H. Heard, J. Seymour, Denby Cavendish, W. Ileneage, Geo. F. Shafto, K. Cavendish, G. C. Henley, J. Shelley, Sir J. Cecil, Lord .R. Henniker, Lord Sheridan, H. B. Charlesworth, J. C. D• Hodgson, K. Shirley, E. Cheetham, John Hodgson, William Sibthorp, Major Child, Smith Belford, It. Slaney, R. Christy, Samuel Holland, E. Smith, J. A. Churchill, Lord A. Hopwood, John Smith, V. Clark, J. Hotham, Lord Smollett, A. Clay, James Howard, C. Somerville, Sir W. Clifford. C. C. Hudson, G. Spooner, R. Clifford, Lt.-Col. H. M. ii.m., W. Stanhope, J. Cdve, George Htint, G. W. Stanley, Lord • Clive, R. Ingestre, Viscount Stapleton, John Close, M. Inglis, John Steuart, A. Codrington, Sir C. W. Ingram, H. Stewart, Sir M. Codrington, Gen. Jermyn, Rt. lln. Eair Stuart, Lord J. Cogan, W. H. F. Jervoise, Sir J. Stuart, Colonel Cole, H. A. Johnstone, H. B. Sturt, H. , Collier, R. P. Johnstone, Hope Sturt, C. Collins, T. Johnstone, Sir J. Sullivan, Michael Colvile, C. R. Kelly, Sir F. Tancred, H. Coningham, W. Kendall, N. Thoruely, T. Conyngham, Lord F. Ker, Richard Thornhill, W. Conolly, T. Kerrison, Sir E. Tite, W. Cooper, E.J . Kershaw, J. Tollemache J. Cowper, W. F. King, L. Tottenham, C. Conte, Sir C. H. King, J. Traill, G. Copeland, W. T. King, Edward Trefusis, C. Corbaily, M. E. Kinglake, A. Trelawny, Sir J. Corry, 11. T. L. Kinglake, J. Troilope, Sir J. Cotterell, Sir H. G. Kingscote, Capt. R. Truman, C. Cowan, C. Kinnaird, A. Turner, J. A. Cul, W. Knatchbull, W. Vance, John Craufurd, E. IL J. Knatelll4ll-Huguessen Vansittart, G. Cross, R. A. Knight, F. Vansittart, W. Crossley, F. Knightley, IL Verner, Sir W. Cubitt, W. Knox, Col. B. W. Villiers, C. Curzon, Viscount Laboucnere,Rt.lion.H Vivian, H. H. Dalglish, R. Langston, J. H. Vivian, J. C. Daikeich, Earl Langton, W. G. Walcott, Admiral. Hamer, L. D. Lasiett, W. Waldron, Laurence Davey, R. Lefroy, Anthony Walpole, S. Davison, R. Legh, G. C. Walsh, Sir J. Deasy, R. Lennox, Lord A. F. Warre, John Denies, William Leslie, C. r. Watkins, Col. Denison, W. H. Levinge, Sir R. Wegnelin, T. Dent, Johu Lewis, Sir G. C. Welby, W. Disraeli, B. Lindsay, W. Western, S. Dobbs, W. C. Lisburne, Earl Westhead, Jesting Dod, J. Locke. J. Whatman, J. Drummond, H. Lopes, Sir Ms Whitbread, S. Du Cane, C. Lovaine, Lord White, James Duff, M. Lowe, R. White, Henry Duff, L. L ow th er , C o l . H . C. Whit es i de, J. ,Dunbar, Sir W. Luce, T. Whitmore. H. • Duncombe, Thomas Lygon, Hon.F. Wickham, U. Duncombe, A. MacarthyoAlex. Williams, B. Duncombe, Hon.W E. Macartney, George Williams, W. Dundas, G. Macaulay, Kenneth Williams, Sir W. Dundai, F. MacEvoy, E. WillyamS, E. Dunkeliin, Lord Mackie, J. Wils o n, J. Dunne. M. Mackinnon, W. Winnington, Sir T. Du Pre, C. M'Clintock, John Wise, J. Dutton, Hon. It. H. Maguire, J. F. Wood, Sir C. Ebriugton, Viscount Mainwaring, T. Woodd, B. Edwards, Henry Matins, Richard Wood, W. Egerton, Sir P. Mangles, C. Woods, Henry Egerton, W. Manners, Lord J. Worsiey, Lordj Egerton, Edw. C Martin, C. Wortley, J. S. Elcho, Lord Martin, P. Wrightson, W. Elinley, Viscount Martin, J. Wyld, James Elphinstone, Sir J. Matheson,SirJ. Wyndham, H. Elton. Sir A. H. Mellor, John Wynn, Col. Esmonde, J. Miles, W. Wynne, J. A. Esteourt, T. Miller, Taverner Wynne, W. Evans, T. W. Miller, Stearn Wyvill, M. Ewart, W. Mills, Arthur Yorke, E. Ewing, Crum Mills, T. Young, A. Fagan, W. Moffat, G. TELLER/a. Farnham, E. Moncreiff, J. Jolllffe, Sir W. Farquhar, Sir M. Montgomery, Sir G. Taylor, Colonel NOES-57. Adair, H. Gifford, Earl of Melgund, Lord Bagshaw, Robert Gladstone, W. Wilms, R. Baring, Sir F. Glyn, G. North, F. Baring, T. Graham, Sir J. Pease, Henry Bass, M. Grenfell, C. P. Peel, Sir R. Biggs, John Grenfell, Charles W. Ridley, George Colebrooke, Sir E. Greville, Colonel F. Robartes, T. Crawford, It. W. Heathcoate, Sir W. Russell, H. Crook, J. liope, Alexander Smith, M. De Vere, S. E. riorsfall, T. Stirling, W. Divett, E. Horsman, E. Sykes, Colonel Duke, Sir J. Howard, Lord E. Tempest, Lord A. V. 1 Dunlop, A. Ingham, It. Thompson, General Ellice, E. Jackson, W. Verney, Sir H. Ellice, E. Lincoln, Earl of Willcox, B. Elliott, J. E. Lyall, oleorgo Willoughby, J. Evans, Sir De Lacy Lytton, Sir E. Wortley, Major Ewart, J. 2.l.Cann, J. TELLERS. Fox, W. J. ' !..i i - Mangles, R. D. Vane, Lord H. • Gukell, J. ' - Mexprilirks, D. Gregory, W. PAIRS. For Against For Against Mr S Herbert Mr Salisbury Sir R Bulkeley Mr Laurie Mr S W Taylor Sir G Grey Mr A Baring Sir J East Mr A Smith Mr Dillwyn a r Conolly Mr Denison Mr. Gurdon voted in the majority against Mr. Spooner's motion on Thursday night, but his name is omitted in the division list. _ _ Mr. Seholefield was accidentally shut out in the division on Lord Harry Vane's amendment. Mr. Moody, General Wyndham, Mr. Warren, and the Hon. F. Scott were accidentally shut out from the division on the motion of Lord H. Vane last night. They would have voted with the Government. Mr. It. B. Wingfield requests ns to state that he voted on Thersday night against Mr. Spooner's motion for the withdrawal of the endowment of the College of Maynooth. Sir Charles Ogle (Admiral of the Fleet) entertained at dinner last evenicg Sir C. Wood, the Right Hon. L. Corry, Sir T. Cochrane, the Hon. Rear-Admiral Keppel, Rear-Admiral Milne, Commodore Eden, Sir J. Liddell, Sir Augustus Clifford, Captain Washington, Rear-Ad miral Scott, &c. THE RECENT DISASTER TO THE JAMES BAINES.—A report was presented to the Mersey Dock Board yester. day upon this accident, in which it was stated that the dock sheds were damaged to the extent of 215/. by the falling of the masts. The opinion of the dock solicitor is to be obtained as to the liability of the owners of the vessel to pay this sum. BIRT 11 S. BRADY—On the 21st ult., at 2, Wilton-place, Dublin, the wife of Maziere John Brady, Esq., of a daughter. FowLaa—On the 27th ult., at the College -green, Wor edster, the wife of the Rey. Rodney Fowler, of • daughter. NEILSON—On the 23d ult., at 39, Eldon-street, Greenock, the wife of J. F. Neilson, Esq., editor of the " Greenock Telegraph," of a daughter. SOMERTON—On the 27th ult., at 16, Princes-terrace, the Viscountess Somerton, of a son and heir. MARRIAGES. BIICIIAN—ROSS—On the 29th ult., at All Saints' Church, Knightsbridge, Lieutentnt•Colonel Fordyce Buchan, of Keno°, Berwickshire, to Anne, daughter of General Sir How Dalrymple Ross, G.C.B. COLTMAN—ROss —At the same time and place, Francis Coltman, E,q., the youngest son of the late Hon. Mr. Justice Coltman, to Laura, daughter of General Sir H. D. Ross, G.C.B. DEATH S. A LLOTT— On the 19th ult., suddenly, at Armagh, the Rev. Richard Allott, precentor of Araiagh, and rector of Killaavey, aged 75. ANDERSON—KiIIed, in the assault of Lucknow, on the 9th March, Alexander John Anderson, Esq., of Montrane, Fifeshire, N. 8., Lieut. 33th Bengal and at the time of his death attached to the 2d Puujaub Infantry. BILICE—On the 24th ult., Mr. W. Bilk; of Upway, Dor set, aged 69. Boo Ta— Ou the 26th ult., at 8, Manilla crescent, Weston• super-ware, the Rev. Robert Booth, rector of Rodman, Sussex, aged 65. HARDINGE—Ou 16th March, on board the Marlborough, at the Sandheads, on his passage to England, Major G. Ir icholas Hardiuge, of the Ben;al Army, second son of Colonel llardingo, ILA., aged 29. He served in the Sufi j and Punjaub campaigns, and throughout the siege of Lucknow. LONDON Printed and Pubtighod by NEURDO youN , of No. 112, Strand, Printor, at The Sun Office, 1 4 °' 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the coan'Y •f Middlesex, ti,turtlay, May 1, 1868. I dtc, nun a Si Tvv( tox Mr. 10 a *re Pen hors I' plan loan ...., P( tm 04