The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

u - iid "the taste, de on into he naive of the untrY ad they d it Yi o mmitte o by the 11 sisal' , forreel that ill wind t h rful war row, he, 3tly an d 210 natives wished to be rid of it, and they would butcultivate it unless they were ohlieel to do so, eut h ' „ „ e collectors had orders to force them to ,: u thyate it, and in case a native received an ad , a , e e° of money from the company, and refused to culti ''Le opium, he was punished. The cultivation of opium In dia forbidden to every one, excspt those whom the East i t tAi% Company employed; and after it had been raised, w as purchse by the Company from the grower at on e e *"fth of its re d al legitimate price in the reerket. It W as l then br ought to the Company ' s dee_Cgs, w h ere an tn fteeed pric e was put upon i t; an d fleetly, it was clis - Patched to the coast of China, where smugglers were "toyed f or t h e purpose of runn i ng i t as h ore . A n d , t w ust was th e resu l t? T h e monopo l y was the c aus e o f -eare itY; scarcity p romo t e d com petitien; and the Chi -8 -e s° were begin n i ng t o grow o pium for themselves, in Pite of their law., which pronounced its cultivation to be illegal that what happened to the salt mono- Pol y was about to happen to the opium monopoly. Nor sh ould it be forgotten that both these monopolies of salt II" opium were maintained at present in spite of an ex itpss e ngagement that they should be abolished. When 1 ., w as proposed to introduce into the East India Cote- Pony'' Bill of 1833 two clauses, which would have had Ih e " c ", ' e t c'f putting an end to these monopolies, Mr. m e n -a%as Greet stated to the Honourable Member who e - p -veu the insertion of the clauses, that the Go ve-ntnentboth that at home and in India—had 8-aolenteshtoo the determination that the taxes on opium and Bth of.;1.1:1 blB4ood. That was in 1833; and on the (loiguhtr-to- , Lerd Sandon put a question to the Baronet the President of the Board of w hich was answered by the Hon. Baronet the tkember for Iloniton (Sir J. W. Hogg), as a director of the East is Company. The question was, whether e directors of that company had taken any steps to s e e themselves from the manufacture of opium in , a ` o ta• The answer returned was, that there had been J e t 11 0 instructions sent out to India of the nature al luded nc; to, but that the whole question was under the a t b"°us consideration of the Court of Directors. Why, eo e ',ivy reason for extending the term of the Cora rill's charter to t ears was for the express pure '4)i° Compa ny enablinthe wen to remove the monopolies; k 'd Yet b a the salt monopoly, the opium monopoly, theto eat m onopoly —in s h or t, every monopoly continued to t° the present moment, except those which had m e n abolished by the inevitable laws of o f Isear.) The tobacco monopoly was so completely :Vie hands of the East India Company, that they were pe to opecify what districts should grow tocacco in a r, and they compelled the unfortunate natives to ta ise tobacco at a price named by themselves. And 1 3 „ ter the price had been fixed and enhanced, the to liquid produced was so bad that, unless steeped in the ammonia, nobody would purchase it, except haeduatives, who had no choice, and the soldiers, who : ° 'oloney. With regard to the minor monopolies, out es customary to put them up to sale, and the par teesr, having p a id th e s tip u l a t e d p r i ce , wa s entitled to „7"ect th police of the district in which the monopoly ss held, g aud to perambulate it in quest of contraband stor ar ri• could even enter into private houses at the b e , — of his force, and make a search for bees-wax, of ° °Y, or any of the other articles included the the class unnor monopolies for which he had paid purchase P' n ey. Such were the sources of the revenue of British -edits in the raising of which nine-tenths of the popula tion were annually sold up, and which never exceeded in : t scunt 20,000,0004 notwithstanding the enormous in tbeade of, our territories from time to time. A n d yet isse territories, when smaller in extent, and not sub- J ., e cted to monopolies and import d u ti es , h a d y i elded un der former dynasties a revenue never less than "„ 0 1000,0001. p e r annum . If t h ese things were true, 'tight they not to be corrected? and if they were not true , /ql at possible objection could the court of directors have a n inquiry into the whole subject? It was no t hi s in holion to enter at length into thi s ques ti on f ur th er th an ,t o reake.this remark. In the changes which have taken place h e "the 'machi nery f or the collection of taxes s i nce we thsine seis e d o f t h e soil of India, we have the key to e great declin e o f t h at country. F or what had been secret of those changes ? Had they not all tended 'oteards tran sferring the villages, the provinces . , and the states from the natives and proprietors themselves to the bands of for eigners —r aw , inexperienced boys—brought et in England, for the most part at an exclusive college, ;were they were taught to consider themselves superior, ac) the to the natives whom they were to rule, but even ° servants of the company under whom they were 44 ? Into t h e i r hands the whole power was given. Th e natives were as fit to manage their own affairs as any th h i: r e P eo ple. Was a n y one o f them who had ever visited ,atiteountry not fit to compete with the Company's ser the even in the hi g h es t offices? Yet it was only to Well west offi ces t h at the Company ever appointed them. toi o L th ent should we, without inquiry, without the ap ie" r e nt CI a Commission to visit India (for he be dresse ;eat, no inquiry could ever avail to effect any re teoto,,?l,l°°al grievances without a Commission being Itith„::',' ° the spot and armed with full Parliamentary hi t g i e o t ti , ,T h i te L o Y ) :wae it right, he asked, without investiga re-consign the Government of India ola "ands of the East India Company? But had e ci f;" n ot confine the Commission to the subjects he stice w i e ,P'u t Y mentioned; because,lif there was ono griev teen f or teu More than another had claims upon English- S Z., ti tass, it was a corrupt administration ot jus ield e i S a in t . 4 e Years ago a Commission was appointed to ~,c o eflicting elements of what was called law in h ad th e - ,7 Code. The result of that Commission (which 40 ,000/ "'"stance of an eminent lawyer, with a salary of Jelled ; Year) was the preparation of certain documents tye,"„Peuel code; but that collection of papers her Ma eocm,."o'rernment has laid upon the shelf. A further testf7' ss ion had a l so b een appointed, for the purpose of col oti u r g the l aw equal for men of all religions and of every !s th e ' ~u The result o f t h at a pp o i n tment appeared only t a rt e e - m4e of th ose remar k a bl e Acts of Council passed hi s %T a r , but which he was aware had been disallowed 4 cttel ,ear bY th Board of Control, called the " Black blo t ., 00 jaßut the Indian Government .. had found the mss s of ' en tent mode of establishing the equality . of d the t ot rery colour before the law, not by elevating b "gr s e n ' an to the position of the Englishman, but by 44 1. Englisman to the level of the Indian. d uet it",,, -e "tat the " Black Acts" had been disallowed; itehre:f_zea,ustttriemarkable fact that nothing had been "'ter s s upply the place of those enactments ; and years of reform administration in India, r e %ite r t ! gil til abuses so ably denounced in Sir James The masterly speech remained still unredressed. b e • ad ritiniat 7 • 4 hr.. ratton of justice was still a .. mockery; trial Nei," ha d no existence; and the publicity of the pro tcte,,tr of the courts of justice was denied. One re tt, ea le instance of how justice was administered, was had brought of a native contractor for the Government who the en action for an enormous amount against 'tie: t it:4a Company, but the Company brought, not ''.'clit sa -sa etion, but a criminal prosecution against . their J 1 0 ), °ter in one of their own courts, where no trial by *ri li e l ' e d.,no publicity were allowed, for the alleged for k ettar documents. On this charge the man was now 'Pep, ~u )d Y, and before his own action against the Com- Ap t if ir ,'?Ulll be .brought on, there was little doubt he ),lah,ll_,De-convlcted and condemned. He (Mr. Anstey) doe to tO have an inquiry instituted as to what the na ils,. thought of such a system, and whether it was V a ster in India ; for he believed that neither the plan k, !ter the nativ es o f India could be more incompetent Isdine administration of government than the East It hie Company had sh own th emse l ves . A not h er h ea d Proposed inquiry into the system of the Indian rt,„,urilent should be its foreign department. tie ) ; q i. Ontes had a right to know what the natives ,eq't of the policy of the Government in this parti -4+o,hat they thought of such dispatches as that of' Nti c ,ttettsie refusing to be bound by the Company's tbl with the native states, or to recognise their laws tt> their institutions regulating the right of succession adoption of an heir where a prince had no regu 'itilft.gt e,,als descendant. This native custom had been ktee t e : ' the celebrated &Mara case, and other fla ky,t instances; and he wished to ascertain from the t i 64 il t l i g" of the native states of India what they „its tr ,, of their own rights in this matter. Ho should nthknow from the natives under our rule whether '4' continued so much impressed with our good h th a „ rtd Our scrupulous observance of treaty obligations ; It tiv ",, e ` ,"re in the days of Lord Amherst. The last tt lY had visited y our shores had told us that the th: h , - I",„tY for attachment to our power in the hearts lt re tons of India, was their confidence that we at l o op s toted justice and the claims of solemn oblige ' • What was the course of the Indian Govern -1 4 1 . 1 te es A ny act of aggression, however flagrant or tt !t otlibilasured. impunity from the Court of Directors i ll tee tte e met this one condition—that it increased the It t k _ s of the company and added to its territory— 'str melPed to keep u h dividend of per cent. 44 tse p t e rth. tO the proprietors of East India Stock. n ranCh of the inquiry under the head of the be tels,department related to these wars, those mop ; i k e 4r l i'l e ; rets and aggressive wars, which England, or W ee 7 ra e in her history, had engaged in since 1833. s to Affghanistan was one of these instances; and a d . et of , tie i ttery 1 ° 33 had an express clause conveying extra tt.t,s e v , th PoWer s to she Board of Control on matters of 1 1 ;:ters j i r e e ; The secret committee of the Com tof Di -1,1% ho se de lent themselves as an instrument for promot et,sy, h n e.c hemes of aggressive conquest. He rejoiced 1 1 ,h th -W ,eyer, that the price of their subservience to t t llised ° Ceotlrt of Directors had looked had never been r th •I' t hem. The expenses of the war had fallen 0 . 4 14 eilr finances; la they amounted to forty-four mil ti;tit of t 81 .4 8, and since that date there had been no ac feeliemem• Now he (Mr. Anstey) wished to know lslsr br ere bs of India on these trausactioas, and wheth . er egarded by the native population as redounding t he ier ;eon e t character for honour and probity or not. an ts of the Company themselves had disapprovd otqloceedinga. Sir George Wade appeared, from k 1 , 1 1% hmajaPera, to have been in favour of the Affghan „ts ti k a p ,.'e (Mr. Anstey) could show that he was all hk l ttieV . l4 „, s , tit, and would pledge himself to prove his do m es „.,4ue tonsitlerations to which he (Mr. Anstey) Veteir" adverted were chiefly those of justice and , Lot Ty $e knew th at there were minds which a t :Ppr ot e e r i t , Pahle of being moved by such considerations let lion e mg Political subjects. To such be begged ti t th oti elthough he was almost ashamed to reduce the kont°auch miserable dimensions) to the analysis by yo b of g ° n l erY Martin, of the customs, arid other ac- I tti ltli i t 'n public) nature, laid before Parliament, from it4: ° „ 4 4 2 , d emonstrated in a most masterly manner 4t sy Zoad never been contradicted, that under the itt.of t o e v _ r n of administration in India, under the hi e t , (l tl t t 'itte alone, 20,423,901/. sterling was annually tiqs, tie on the price of only eight commodities, Vets to t te e only had justice done her, would be sup -11,tk".111,N, 1 0 1 1° . 41 her territories. These eight articl, s 4,4 ititton, silk, rum, coffee, tobacco, linseed, and 'ts h ° et %Jae n° had also read to the court of proprietors, l ao l l 4 ,l ; ` r stdiction, a statement showing that the us (S:,Syst,2k, if they were enabled by the Company's tt t py orlito consume only one-tenth per head of the Nearn riti,h tuanfactures consumed by each mem- I! POpulation in the West Indies, that ' l " 4 , %MAW eiOon trade of 72 millions slur!. ing. That was an estimate of the price which the Bri tish people annually paid for not coercing the Government to do justice to their fellow-subjects in India. By the Act cf 1833 a compromise WaS effected between the two govern ing bodies of India. It: gave the Court of Directors ab , ,olute power within the Indian territory, and the Board of Control was expressly prohibited from meddling with the internal regulation of Lelia. But the Board of Con trol received such extraordinary powers that Mr. Hope APlcen- and Sir Charles Cochrane had retired from it with di,gust. In fact it could not be called a board. He called it a commission, the whole of the powers being virtually absorbed by the president. That was the na ture of the compromise effected by the Bill which the House, in 1333, so hastily and improvidently passed. The patronage of India was divided between the Presi dent of the Board of Control and the secret committee of the Court of Directors, and, in fact, nobody in the world exercised such powers as the Hon. Member for Honiton had done in India, and Lord Broughton had at home. Well, then, he asked the House whether they would not institute an inquiry belbre they renewed such a compromise? He thought the time had come when the Government should retain the patronage of India in its own hands; and they might safely take steps to abo lish the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. The East India Company were originally a corporation or merchants, having exclusive privileges of trading; but now circumstances had greatly altered, and there existed no monopolies in the trade with India but one. The Hon. Member concluded by moving as above. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD seconded the motion. Lord JOHN RU6SELL thought the House was hardly in a state to enter into a discussion of all the various measures on which the Hun. and Learned Gen tleman had touched, or into the whole question of the government of India. It appeared to him that the Hon. Gentleman had mistaken the position of the Go vernmen and the House on this subject. A Noble Friend of his had already stated that it was not the in tention of the Government to move for a Committee in the present year to consider this important subject, adding that every information that could be procured would be laid before the House previously to the re newal of the Act of 1833. His Noble Friend did not say, and it certainly was not the intention of the Go vernment to say, that when that information was ready, the House, if it thought fit, should not appoint, as on former occasions, a Select Committee, which might inquire into the whole of this subject before the Act was renewed. His Noble Friend said that the Government had no such alterations as were pro posed in 1812 and 1833, of such vast magnitude that they themselves should think it necessary to appoint a Committee with the view of considering those altera tions; but that if the House, previously to the settlement of this great question for another term of years, should think fit not only to have opinions before them, but to refer those opinions to a Committee, and institute an inquiry into the mode of governing India, there would certainly be no objection on the part of the Government to such an inquiry. The Hon. Gentleman had gone into an immense detail of various measures relating to the finance, law, and government of India; he had made many statements and proposals, which on a review of them would be found to relate, in many cases, to ar rangements that had been abandoned and were now ob solete, to exclusions that no longer existed, and to re forms which had been already carried into execution. — (Hear, hear.) Of course it was not desirable that there should be a debate in that House respecting all those various subjects without more information being laid be fore them than they now possessed. But the Hon. Gen tleman said that the best mode of' obtaining that infor mation was to send out a Commission to India, in order to inquire on the spot into all those topics. Now, he entirely differed from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman on that point. He believed that to send out such a Commission would be the worst step the Crown could adopt, or which that House could advise the Crown to adopt, previously to the renewal of the Act of Charter. With regard to the present Government of India, the Hon. Gentleman himself had stated nothing to show either that Lord Dalhousie was incompetent to conduct it, or that any measures had been already taken which the Government considered to be doubtful, or fit subjects of inquiry. But he was sure that if, setting aside the authority of the Government of India, they were to send out a set of Commissioners there, who were to make inquiry into all these things—who were to set out with an announcement—for that would be the effect of it—that the salt monopoly, that the laws re lating to opium and tobacco, and in short all branches of finance, law, and government were about to be changed owing to the report of those Commissioners—they would only produce great excitement throuuhout India, and would for the time destroy all authority in that country. He owned be thought it would be far better, if the House should think fit to make inquiries, that they should take place, as on previous occasions, before a Committee of that House, and that, at all events, the House should not assent to the proposal to pray her Majesty to appoint a Commission to go to India. A question of much less compass than the present, relating to the growth of cot ton in India, was under the consideration of the House no longer ago than last year. The House did not think proper to adopt the proposal then made; but if there were objections even to that proposition, there were ten fold greater objections to such a motion as had just been made. The Hon. Gentleman, in the last place, as an encouragement to appoint such a Commission, said that they might g overn India without the Court of Directors, without the Court of Proprietors, and without the Board of Control; he meant, therefore, to propose some en tirely new Government for India. Now, be contended that that was not a question which should be submitted to any Commission— Mr. ANSTEY—On the contrary, I did not propose anything of the kind. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—WeII, that was a question which they could not now consider, but when it came duly before the House, and Parliament was called upon to legislate in respect to the renewal of the Act now ex isting, under which India was governed, it would be competent for the Honourable and Learned Gentleman to propose a substitute for the present system. As far as his own belief went, he thought that whatever might have been the case in former times, the government of India was now an enlightened government. As far as he was acquainted with their prcceedings, he regarded the Court of Dir' ctors as a body of very able and expe rienced men; and for his part he should not approve that change in the mode of governing India which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed. In the present state of the House it was not fit to adopt such a proposition, and he certainly could not on the part of the Government give his assent to it. Mr. HUME was very much obliged to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for bringing forward the subject, though he did not agree with him on many of the points touched upon. He should be the last man to propose to govern India without the Court of Directors, or some other competent authority. Undoubtedly he should say that the greatest errors since the last charter had been committed by the Board of Control. He was decidedly of opinion that an inquiry should take place. When the last renewal was made in 1833 a very important and extensive inquiry took place into the various depart ments of the subject, which were all examined with great attention, and the evidence of men of the first talents and experience was taken. By the arrangement then made the Company ceased to be traders, and on that ground alone he thought an inquiry was needed, in order that the consequences of the change should be ascer tained. In the courts of justice he believed great im provements had been made, but there was room for more. He should, however, certainly not recommend a Commission to proceed tojndia. He believed that some of the ablest men among the servants of the East India Company were now in England, and from them they might obtain information concerning the presi dencies of the utmost importance. There was only one department for information as to which it was necessary to proceed to India; he meant the relations between the Company and the native princes. A great number of treaties regulating those relations existed, and it was of great importance that we should not lose the character we had hitherto held in India as faithful observers of compacts; but he was afraid this was gradually happen ing. Acts of injustice had been perpetrated which had made a very bad impression on the natives of India. An instance of this was the deprivation of the right vested in Indian princes of appointing their own heirs, in de fault of relatives, to succeed them. He could not think it either wise or just in Lord Dalhousie to have made such an unprincipled regulation, for so he must call it it being contrary to all treaties, and that merely for the, purpose of taking possession of Sattara. There were other points OA which the opinion of a committee would be usetul; fur instance, whether the practice of allowing a Governor- General to proceed to the hill country for a stay of six or eight months in the year, remaining isolated during all that time and remote from the seat of Government, was a wise one or not. He cer tainly thought objection could not fairly be made to functionaries filling offices of great labour and responsi bility availing themselves of an interval of repose in order to shake off the lassitude induced by the climate of India and to recruit their energies. But, in the pre sent year, he understood that Lord Dalhousie had pro ceeded into the mountains, on the way to China—he did not know how far off—but at an immense distance. He saw by a paper which had been put into his bands that the very moving of the Governor-General required eleven thousand coolies, who were brought from eighty miles distance, in order to provide means of transport. And for what object ? To remove Lord Dalhousie so far from the seat of his government. Why, that was a number sufficient to employ at making a military road from Kurnaul to the Punjaub, an improvement which was almost indispensable. It was not on the ground of expense merely that he objected to this, but because Lord Dalhousie was thereby removed from the neigh bourhood of functionaries filling highly important offices, with whom he should be in communication. The Commander-in-Chief, too, was said, to be follow ing the example. He bad great doubt whether it was wise to allow their officers thus to absent them selves from the scene of their duties. There was the Go vernor of Bombay, too, who was away for half a year. In sae ing this, he did not wish to offer any opinion or to cast blame,he merely m ent i one d th em as ma tt e r s de servingus conside rat i on . M an y matters enema ser serious rated by the Hon. Gentleman had not much practical Martin's theory, fo r examp l e , bearing on present circu mstances. Th ere was M r . m y which would not bear a moment's examination. He wanted to know how far the Board of Control really acted as a check on the proceedings of the Indian Government, which was the purpose of its creation? The system which had existed was enough to ruin any country. There was the Affghan war, which bad been begun, conducted, and closed, without the knowledge of the Court of Directors, who were required to pay 12,000,000/. sterling, though they knew nothing about it until after all the mischief had been done. Then there was the Burmese war, which entailed a debt of 9,000,0001. on the Company, owing to an improper and incompetent person being sent out. The secret committee, consisting of three of the directors, might at any time send out orders to com mence a war, which would be carried on at the cost and THE SUN, riik of the proprietors, and all this done without the mat ter ever being brought before; tae Court of Directors. After acts were done the Governmert considered themselves bound to support those who did theen,snd thus the great and important interests of India might be sacrificed, and the proprietors ruined. L,t teem profit by experience, and prevent the evils which had arisen from former proceed ings of the borne Government and the secret committee. The Company noW had relations with from fifty to an hundred native states; if any dispute arose between them, there was no power to settle it, and the only re sort was to Parliament. What profit could be gained by that might be seen from the manner in which Parliament had acted in reference to the case of the Raja of Sattara, who had been robb Ed of his territory, died in exile, and had his property confiscated. He would not, however, abrogate the Court of Directors, as the Hon. Gentleman proposed. If the House should be so infatuated as to place India under such a Government as that of the Colonial-office at the present moment, it would not long remain in our possession. There was no time to be lost; and, supposing that the information wanted could ba obtained in the course of this year and the m xt, Government might be enabled to give the question due consideration, which it had not obtained on the last occasion of the renewal of the charter, and to produce a well-framed measure at the commencement of the succeeding session. Sir J. W. HOGG said the Court of Directors were as anxious as the Hon. Member for Montrose for an open and searohing inquiry into everything connected with the administration of India. It would ill become that House to continue the administration of the affairs of that country in the Board of Directors, unless they were satisfied by a searching inquiry that in so doing they would advance the interests not only of this country, but still more of the people of India. lied the Hon. Member who brought forward this motion confined himself to im pressing upon the House the necessity of a full inquiry (about which, however, there could not be the slightest difference of opinion), and to explaining the grounds on which he thought that that inquiry should be conducted by a commission sent out to India,rather than by a Com mittee of that House, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) could have understood his course. Ho had not dons so, but had adopted one which was both uncandid and unfair, since, when professing to call for inquiry, he took a range of subjects, commencing almost with the first time that a British foot was planted in India, and extending over al most the whole subsequent history of that country; and during his speech he had cast imputations of the vilest character upon every authority and every indivi dual who came under his notice. The statements of the Hon. Member were, in many instances, quite unsupported by history, and by documents and returns which were before the House, and were available to every one. The Hon. Member had told the House that the great griev ance of India was the non•employment of the natives in situations of emolument. It was true that, previous to the last renewal of the charter in 1833, the natives were employed only in the humblest and most subordinate situations (scarcely any of them obtaining a salary of 100/. a year). But at present there were natives re ceiving salaries of 600 L 7001., and 8001. a year; and although previously they had not a voice in the adminis tration of justice, shortly after 1833 the moonses and sudda ameers were enabled to adjudicate on questions involving property to the extent of 500/. and 1,0001.; and since then this restriction had been removed in that pre sidency, and the sudda ameers could now in the first in stance adjudicate without any restriction founded on the amount at stake in the cause, or on the religion or colour of the plaintiff or defendant, and whether the litigants were natives or Europeans. And if the litigants were dissatisfied with the result of the trial, the appeal lay, not to the district judge, but to the highest tribunal in the country. The administration of justice in the first instance was in fact almost entirely in the hands of the natives, in the presidency of Bengal; and as appeals from their decisions were not more frequent than those which formerly took place when the judges in the first instance were the servants of the Company, the experi ment might be considered to have been made with entire success—success which was entirely owing to its having been made cautiously and gradually. The natives were also largely employed in the collection of the revenue. The Honourable Member's statement that the land-tax in - inclia - V - vasinpfaseiFt;cording to the value of the crop (whether, for instance, sugar, indigo, or cotton), and not according to the productive powers of the soil, was wholly incorrect. The reprehensible system of imposing the tax according to the nature of the crop existed in small portions of the presidencies of Madras and Bombay fourtcenfor fifteen years ago, bat it had not existed for a great number of years in Bengal, and was now entirely abolished. With re spect to the alleged monopoly in salt, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) had satisfied the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilbraham (to which the Hon. Member had referred), that that gentleman's Cheshire constituents, or any one else, might carry salt to India, provided they paid a duty equivalent to the excess of the charge made by the Government over the cost of production. There was no prohibition against the importation of salt into Bengal, and so far from its being " contraband," as the Hon. Member had said, it was actually imported from the Straits of Malacca, Bombay, Madras, and Ceylon, and it might be imported from Cheshire on the same terms. Whether the Government put too high a tax on salt, or whether they should manufacture salt at all, was quite a different question. The Hon. Member had next charged the Indian Government with laying a tax upon wells; but the very book from which he had quoted showed the great encouragement which they had given to the con struction of works of irrigation. Then, too, it was not correct that the growth of opium was a monopoly, or that the Ryots were compelled to cultivate it. It was prin cipally grown in Central India, by persons who cultivated it voluntarily, sent it to Bombay, and paid the transit tax. The Honourable Member for Youghal next as sailed the civil service of India. The Honourable Mem ber for Montrose had paid that service a just and well merited compliment ; and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) believed that there never was a class of men more distinguished for their talents or integrity in scenes of great trial and danger. It was seldom that a case occurred in which a member of the civil service was charged with ineffi ciency, and a case of corruption was almost unpa ralleled. The accusation which the Honourable Mem ber for Montrose bad brought against that House of not listening to the Setters case was a very unfair one ; that case had been listened to for 13 or 14 years. The " desclate widow " had now 2,500 rupees a month for the support of herself and family, and the reason it had not been paid to her before was, that she had listened to bad advisers, who counselled her not to ac cept it. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) did not like to hear any imputations cast upon Lord Dalhousie; he believed that there never was a Governor-General to whom both India and this country were more indebted, who had never been surpassed for energy, for humanity, and for administrative talents; and he was sure that when his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) was more familiar with the administration of affairs is the Punjaub, "and knew the state of disorder in which that country was for many years, be would be delighted to hear that it was now almost an uninterrupted garden, throughout which peace and industry reigned undisturbed; the old works of irri gation had been re-opened, and almost the last dispatch he had signed, with the sanction of the President of the Board of Control, authorised the expenditure of 500,0002 upon new works of irrigation, a grant urgently pressed for by Lord Dalhousie. The extent, too, to which education had been carried in the Punjaub would exceed the belief of Hon. Members. With regard to the absence of Lord Dalhousie and his predecessor, Lord Hardinge, from the seat of Government, would any one tell him that, during the recent disturbances on the north-west frontier. Calcutta was the place for the Governor-General ? His place was at the scene of action ; nor was it merely during the disturb ances that ,their presence was required ; for when they ceased, the most important duties of re-organ izing the administration of the province commenced ; and then was the time when the effect of such administrative talents as Lord Dalhousie's was felt. And when the House considered the small number of civilians employed in the Punjaub, and the small aggre gate cost (although each individual was well paid), they would be astonished at the quantity of work done there, and the amount of revouue realised. Not a single officer had been added to the civil service in con sequence of the annexation of the Punjaub. After re ferring to the full and detailed character of the informa tion with respect to every department of Indian affairs, which might be obtained at the India House in London, and stating that any one conversant with Indian affairs would prefer to seek for information (either as to the, principles or details) there rather than in the Council Chambers of the Presidencies in India, the Honourable Member denied the imputation that a collecter was esteemed by the authorities, either in India or at home, merely on account of the amount of revenue which he exacted. One collector had, in fact, brought upon him self the well-merited censure of the Government be cause great injury had been inflicted by an injudi cious increase of the revenue. He hoped that he had been able to satisfy the Honourable Member that the absence of Lord Dalhousie from his presidency was not uncalled for. He quite admitted that the Go vernor-General had better reside at the seat of govern ment, except in the case where a vast extent of new territory had been annexed; and he could say, that Lord Dalhousie had accomplished more in the organization of the Punjaub than could possibly have been accomplished by any man, however able, residing at a distance of 1,800 miles, at Calcutta. Lord Dalhousie was also obliged to absent himself from the seat of government on account of his health, for he was not a man of strong constitution; his physical was not equal to his mental vigour, and at one time the greatest possible apprehensions were enter tained that be must be compelled to return. He (Sir J. W. Hogg), however, hoped that his Lordship might be able to remain in India to accomplish the greet objects in the promotion of which he was now engaged. He hoped that the House would call for information of the fullest and most searching character; and he ventured also to add the expression of a hope that when that in formation was obtained, the country would be of opinion that the East India Company had not been unfaithful stewards and administrators of a country which was.the richest, greatest, and most valuable possession of the Crown.—(Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT said that the Commission of Inquiry fur which he moved last session related merely to the growth of cotton and the economical administration of India, leaving out of view everything connected with po litics. That motion having been rejected, the persons connected with the trade of Lancashire, for whom he had acted, had themselves dispatched to India a gentle men of high character, very considerable experience, and most unimpeachable integrity, to inquire into these snbjects. They were, therefore, doing for themselves what he thought the Government ought to have done for them. The motion before the House contemplated an inquiry of a widely different character; he thought it would have been better had it been so framed as merely to express the necessity for a full and searching inquiry being made before the renewal of the charter, if is was renewed. On that point he thought they would all have agreed, although it did appear open to a very LON DON, EVENING, FRIDAY grave question whether the inquiry into the political part of the Government of India co , Yd Lis so well car ried on in India as in this country. Ho thought it would be easy to come to a rational conclusion ('U the subject, without taking much evidence. The great fault of the present mode otgovernieg India was, that there was no one office, board, or individual in whom that Govern ment was vested. The Court of Directors had no control over some of the most important matters connected with the Government of India, which were directed from a back street in the neighbourhood of that House, and by quite a different set of authorities. The confusion between these two Governments, which arose from the conflicting circumstances that are constantly occurring, made it absolutely impossible that there should be any thing like a really good government of a country so dis tant as India. The President of the Board of Control stated in his evidence before the Salaries Committee last session, that he was the uncontrolled Governor of Julia in all matters connected with its political affairs. He thought the secret committee to which allusion had been made was one of the most extraordinary bodies in existence. It was composed of the President of the Board of Control, n ith the chairman, deputy chairman, and the senior member of the Court of Directors; and in their harWs was the power of peace and war and all the great political events connected with India. Bat the President of the Board of Control was absolute over his colleagues; if he chose to say that war should be de clared in India on the arrival of the mail, they could not prevent it, but were bound to sign the dispatches which conveys(' such an order, though they might believe that the results to India would be most calamitous. That was a monstrous thing to exist with regard to any country--(Hear, hear)—and notwithstanding the glowing accounts of the Govern ment of India with which the lion. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) periodically favoured the House, he contended that it was contrary to common sense that a country could be well governed under such an arrange ment. The Court of Directors managed the collection of the revenue, and its expenditure too, for the most part; then the administration of justice and of the in ternal affairs of the country were under their control, unless the Board of Control chose occasionally to step in and interfere; and with regard to the enormous pa tronage which India must always give to somebody so long as it is governed from here, it was at the disposal of the East India Company, with the exception of such a portion as they gave to, or was taken by, the Board of Control; he had no doubt that was a matter which the two bodies arranged between themselves to the exceed ing comfort of all parties concerned. He thought it de sirable that a searching investigation should be made into this matter. It was supposed, about sixty or seventy years since. ' that if that patronage should be vested in the hands of the Government of the United Kingdom, they would be enabled to corrupt almost every public man in the country. He doubted whether it had not corrupted just as many men under its present administration as it could have done under any other; but it was a thing likely to take place, and which he believed had taken place; between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control arrangements had been made, the full particulars of which had not come before the public, but with re spect to which sufficient had oozed out to lead him to the conclusion that the use of that patronage was by no means so pure as might be hoped, though ho did not mean to say that it was much more impure than might be expected under the circumstances. His Honour able Friend the Member for Montrose seemed to be of opinion that the great bulk of the East India directors were intimately acquainted with India, and had a most profound interest in the well being of that country. He believed that, except the in terest which we all took in anything with which we were in the habit of intermeddling, the Court of Directors had no more personal interest beyond that of their patronage in the government of India than if they were the directors of the Great Northern or Great Western Railway, and that the Court of Proprietors had no more of that kind of interest on which a government should be founded, and on which the responsibility of government should rest, than if they were the share holders in a railway having a capital of twelve millions sterling. In fact not so much, because in the railway company the dividend must depend upon the manage ment, but the dividends of the East India stock did not depend upon any such thing. The Hon. Baronet would have the House believe that improvements went on in India at an extraordinary rate; but he could not have for gotten the statements made to the Committee of which he was the chairman in 1848; he believed that without an exception, the witnesses—almost all of whom had been servants of the Company (able and honest men he believed they were)—declared that almost without an exception, the cultivators of India 'were in a state of most abject poverty. They had governed the country for half et century in some cases, and for a century in other cases; and if they had governed it well, with its fertile soil, and admirable climate, and docile popula tion, would it be in its present state oFabject poverty? —(Hear, hear.) His Honourable Friend had spoken of the state of Ireland, which every one knew was not only a disgrace to this country but to the civilization of the age; and the state of the population of Ireland was owing to the same causes that had produced the present condition of the population of India. In Ireland the people had no ownership in the soil of the country, and in India the people had no interest whatever in the ownership of the land of their birth.—(Hear, hear.) To that circumstance was to be attributed the state of things that at present exists.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had spoken of what was doing in the Punj sub with re gard to irrigation, but it would be hard, after all the remonstrances on the subject, and which afforded a com plete answer to the extravagant eulogium of the Hon. Gentleman, if some attempt was not made to construct roads and promote irrigation in that empire.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) had stated a fact before the Committee of 1848 which was a complete answer to the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, at least up to that period. The Hon. Member for Guildford stated before that Com mittee that, from the year 1834 to the year 1848 (the fourteen years that had elapsed from the passing of the last Charter Act) the sum expended by the East India Company out of the whole revenues of the country in the making of roads and the construction of works for irrigation, canals, banks, and bridges, amounted to 1,400,000/., or just 100,000/. per annum; and the lion. Member for Guildford fur ther stated that during these fourteen years, to use the words of the Hon. Baronet opposite, they had realized a revenue of not less than 300,000,0001. sterling.— (Hear, hear.) There was no other body except the East India Company against whom such a fact could be stated. They had raised 22,000,000/. or 23,000,000/. a year for fourteen years from a people that had no me chanical contrivances or steam or means of that kind for creating wealth, being purely an agricultural popflation, and yet they had expended only 1,400,000/. in that period on improvements that were necessary for the prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) There was no party in the country but the Government that could make improvements, and if they wore not made by some body nothing like prosperity was to be expected in that country.—(hear.) The picture which the Hon. Baronet opposite had drawn would lead the House and the public to believe that there was no part of the extended em pire of Great Britian, even in the country in which they stood, that was governed so admirably as British India; but he (Mr. Bright) believed the contrary to be the fact. —(Hear, hear.) He did not want to hand it over to the Colonial-office, in which there was something that was not altogether Leadenhall-street, nor altogether Can non-row—(Hear, hear)—but he wanted to know if there could not be some government formed for India that would be responsible to the House ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet Baronet said they could obtain informa tion at the India House, but he (Mr. Bright) had never heard that the Board of Directors were very liberal in giving information. They had heard of seeking needles in a haystack to show the difficulty of an undertaking, and they all knew when returns were moved for re specting India how difficult it was to get them. Though they could send a letter to India in five or six weeks, and get an answer in five or six weeks, they could not get returns in less than two years.—(Hear.) And then they came in a great variety of such weights and coins as are to be found in India, for no other purpose he could see, but to make the returns as incomprehensible as possible to every person.—(Laughter.) The Hon Baronet, acting by the direction of the President of the Board of Control, might send something out to Lord Dalhousie. The most trifling matter might cause it to be sent to that most imbecile Government in Bom- bay ; then it might be sent to Calcutta, then to Lord Dalhousie, then to the Court of Directors, and then to Lord Broughton. Ho (Mr. Bright) did not know what that Noble Lord was i❑ his young days, but he .7as not very active now.—(A laugh.) He (Mr. Bright) never saw a man in such a state of preparation for the House of LirdJ, as the Noble Lord had been for a long time in that Houso.—(Laughter.) That was precisely the mode in which the Government of India was carried on. They heard of thimble-rigging, but they could never tell in the case of the East India Company under what thimble the pea was placed, and could not ascertain what WAS done.—(Hear, hear.) Amongst some of the most able and honest servants of the East India Company, it was a universal complaint that the dilatory character of the East India Company was such that practically it came to this—that there was no responsible Govern ment at all for this country.—(Hear, hear.) That was the point to which he wished to call the attention of the Noble Lord. In two years they would have to enter into a consideration of the Charter Act, and he would ask the Noble Lord if he would then undertake this subject? Perhaps it was cruel to ask the Noble Lord to undertake anything—(A laugh)—seeing that it was impossible to judge whether the Noble Lord, or some other Noble Lord, would have the arrange ment of it ultimately. He hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the. Government would have it, and he should see whether, on consultation, not with the Court of Directors, or with Lord Broughton, but with the committeemen connected with India (he was sure there was a score of as able men returned from India as were to be found in the metropolis), he could not obtain the fullest information respecting the matter.—(Hear, hear.) Let them take the evidence of those men before a Com mittee of the House, and see if they could not form a Government by which they would get rid of the present want of responsibility—by which they would get rid of the meddlesomeness of the Board of Control and the submis- siveness of the Court of Directors—a Government that, whilst it was responsible to the House for all the great principles which should direct the acts of its government of India, would at the same time be sufficiently free to exercise its discretion with regard to a vast amount of details that must ever attend the government of such a country.—(Hear, hear.) As the Noble Lord had given him reason to expect that an inquiry by Committee would take place, he (Mr. Bright) would recommend the Hon. and Learned Gentleman aho had so ably brought for ward the question to bo satisfied with the expression of opinion he had elicited from the Noble Lord, and not press his motion, fur he (Mr. Bright) conceived that was tho best way of attaining the object ho had in view. Mr. MANGLES begged to observe that, on his ex- APR IL 4, 1851. f amination before the Committee ; to which tho Hon. Gerrieman had re!erred, it would appear that every , thing he had said which might appear unfavourable to the Government of India was credited and relied upon, while the testimony he bore to the proper administra tion of that Government seemed to be entirely discre dited. Ho bed admitted frankly that they had not done all that should have been done for the improvement of the country; but still that they had done a great deal, and were doing more.—(Flear, hear.) There was an enormous expenditure on the embankments necessarily kept up for the protection of the country from inunda tion, and when the Hon. Gentleman talked invidiously of the vast revenues of the Government, and the small sum they laid out, did he really know what the expendi ture of the country was? There were the expenses of the police, and of the judicial administration, and the expenses necessarily incurred in giving every other be nefit' resulting from good government to the country. — (Hear.) Important as were public works, they wore not the only things that were necessary, but important public works bad been undertaken. There was the greet Ganges eanel,wh ich would cost at least a million, and would be the most mageiticent work of irrigation that ever had been carried ou. It would carry water through the whole of the immense plains that lay beta-. en the Ganges and the Jumnis, being, at the same time, a source of irri gation and canal for navigation iu that district.--(hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentleman who brought forward this motion:had spoken of some unfor tunate man who, as he alleged, was prosecuted in the courts of the country, and said he had eo doubt but that by this time he had shared the tato of Nuncomar; but did not the Honourable Gentleman know that Nuncomar was tried and condemned in one of the Sovereign's courts, and executed under the sentence of one of the Sovereign's judges?—(Hear, hear.) Let the Company be_tried by the evidence of the English statesman who now governs India, and it would be seen whether his testimony would not entitle theeCompany,to claim a verdict in their favour.—(Hear.) Mr. ANSTEY replied—He thought the proposal of the Noble Lord, to have an inquiry before a Com mittee of the House of Commons, would be useful and desirable, but he also considered that a local inquiry was necessary. He thought, however, he would be best consulting the interest of British India by asking the leave of the House to withdraw the motion.—(Bear.) The motion was then withdrawn. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Lord J. RUSSELL having moved that the resolution adopted by the House on the sth of August last, on the subject of Jewish disabilities, be read by the clerk, and the resolution having been read accordingly, proceeded to say that he rose in pursuance of that resolution to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the disabilities affecting the Jews. He had so frequently stated the reasons that induced him to ask for a removal of those disabilities, that it would not now be necessary for him to go at any length into the arguments he had formerly used. But there were matters which re quired to be stated, and which placed the question in a somewhat different position to that in which it stood for me.ly. The House would remember that the Hon. Member for the city of London, Sir Lionel de Rothschild, in the course of the last session, presented himself at the table of the House, and proposed to take the oaths on the Old Testa ment, and that desire of his was complied with by a resolu tion of the House. He proceeded to take the oaths appointed to be taken by new Members, until he came to the oath of abjuration, in which were the words "on the true faith of a Christian ;" and he then declared that those words were not binding on his conscience. He was then desired to retire, and the House came to a resolution that he should not be permitted to take his seat until he took the whole of the oath appointed to be taken by new Members. Therefore it would appear that there was no obstacle whatever to his taking his seat in the House except his rejection of those words. It became, then, still more material than it was be fore to consider with what purpose these words were inserted in the oath as now taken. It appeared from the report of the Select Committee that in the reign of Elizabeth the Members were first required to take the oath of allegiance. Iley took the oath on the Holy Evangelists, and the words now in question were for the first time introduced in the reign of James I. It appeared also equally clear to any one who attended to the history of these Acts, that the words were introduced merely to give solemnity to the oath. They were not introduced with a view to exclude the Jews, but to give solemnity to the oath by which the allegiance of those whose allegiance was doubtful might be secured. He believed that the words "So help me God" were introduced exactly with the same object, and that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" had no other moaning than that he was now ascribing to them. Of course in those times Jews were not admissible into Par liament, and what ho was arguing for was, that the words which were objected to 1 y Baron 1 Rothschild were words not originally placed there for the purpose of excluding him ; they were placed there with a totally different intention, and they were to be taken by those whose allegiance was suspected, in order that by that means a solemn sanction would be given to the oath. If the meaning of Parliament had been different, Parliament would have taken a different course in the matter; it would have required some distinct affirmation on the part of each Mem ber as to his actual religion, instead of attaching a form of words to the cud of the oath, stating his profession of Chris tianity. This would appear to be the case in the time of the Commonwealth, when a different oath was appointed to be taken, which none but Protestants could take. On the 24th of June, 1657, it was declared by Parliament that every Member before taking his seat in that House should make oath to uphold the Protestant religion as founded on the Holy Scriptures, and to encourage and support the profes sion thereof. This was clear, for those so swearing professed not alone Christianity, but the form of it embraced by the Protestant religion. There was no trace in any subsequent legislation down to George I. that there was any intention to make those oaths bind ing for special purposes, so as to exclude the Jews from Parliament. But there were two Acts passed, one of George 1., with respect to persons registering their names for real estates, the other the 13th of George 11. respecting persons settling in her Majesty's colonies of America, in which it was provided that with regard to Jews the words " on the true faith of a Christian," should be omitted ; and it had been argued by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, whom he was glad to see again in that House - (Hear, hear) —and argued, he (Lord J. Russell) thought, justly as well as ably, that Parliament having legislated in these special cases for the Jews, the words could not be omitted in the form of an oath taken is that House without the sanction of a distinct Act of Parliament. The consideration was, in his (Lord J. Russell's) view, perfectly valid, and he thought that had it not been for these Acts of Parliament, the general argument would hold good that all persons should take those oaths and none others which they declared to be binding on their consciences. That was the opinion also of Lord Hardwicke, and many other eminent lawyers. Such being the case, however, it would be admitted that persons of the Jewish religion could not well take their seats in that House unless Parliament relieved them from the effect of these words in the oath. The question was, therefore, should they proceed to release the Jews from that obligation by taking away that part of the oath which prevented the admission of persons of their religion to Parliament?— (Hear, hear.) This question, however, had been argued by him (Lord John Russell) so often on previous occasions that he should not enter on the subject further than to say it really came to a bare question, if religious opinion was to disqualify men any longer from the full enjoyment of their social and political rights.--(Hear, hear.) The moral law which governed the Jewish nation at the time of the advent of the Saviour could not be objected to by any one ; neither could the conduct of the Jews in this country, as moral agents.— (Hear, hear) On neither ground could there be any objection. The Jews professed the same allegiance to the Crown as the other subjects of her Majesty, and took the same oaths; and those of them who acted as magistrates, as sheriffs, or as members of corporations, had always discharged their duties fully and satisfactorily in those capacities. Nor could it be reasonably supposed, on the other hand, seeing the comparatively small number of Jews there . . were in this country, that the few who could by possibility be elected to Parliament would make any difference in respect of the Christian character of the Legislature. One or two, or three Jews, which would probably be the greatest number elected, could not in any wise alter that character. It, therefore, came to be a bare question whether the diffetence of religious faith between the Jew and the Chris tian should deprive the Jew of political power and civil office in the state.—(Hear ' hear.) That subject had, how ever, been argued fully on former occasions; and it was ge nerally conceded that nothing of this nature should be of power to prevent the enjoyment of those privileges and rights. He (Lord J. Russell) therefore moved the Committee to take the resolution into consideration. Sir H. H. INGLIS said that for the last twenty years he had resisted all such measures as that proposed by his Noble Friend, and he should equally resist that measure itself.— (Hear.) His Noble Friend had conveniently omitted to state, on referring to the first insertion of the words in question, that the oath antecedently taken was equally binding in the Christian sense, inasmuch as it was always taken on the Hoy Evangelists or upon some symbol of Christianity. The object of the motion was to admit not only Jews, but men of any, or of ao form of religion.—(Hear.) He could hardly un derstand such an object, as applied even to a new country, because he held it to be a dereliction of man's duty to God to act without desiring to spread his Gospel and make it the bond both of public and private proceedings.—(Hear, hear.) It was possible - though scarcely probable that the number of Jews that would be returned to Parliament might not exceed three; but, as regarded the principle, three was all the same as thirty— (Hear, hear)—and his Noble Friend had himself witnessed within the past four weeks, the power of a small body of religionists over the affairs of the country, in shifting the balance of parties. In his opinion the admission of enemies and aliens to Christianity to Parlia ment would have a disastrous effect upon the country. The question was, therefore, one of higher import than cotton or corn, and had far larger objects than mere material interests. He was, therefore, anxious to maintain the Christian religion as the religion of the country; and to that effect to maintain the Christian interest intact in the Legislature. He could not eonceive the number of enemies so admitted so small as his Noble Friend had suggested; and if they let in the Par see, the Brahmin, and others, as well as the Jews, he could not but foresee that ey would form a nucleus which would be of the most serious injury to the Established Church. and through that to the best interests of the country. Under these circumstances, and not because of three or four Jews, he felt bound to oppose the motion in limine. And he did so, not because he objected to the consideration of the question on its merits, but because he believed the course taken by her Majesty's Government was one of groat danger to them selves, as well as to the best interests of the country.— (Hear, hear.) If it were true that Christianity was part and parcel of the religion of England , it w as part and parcel also of the religion of the Jews to regard the Divine Founder of that religion as a crucified imp oster. Could he (Sir E. H. Inglis) admit one o f tho se who believed this to legislate for the Christianity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) No earthly consideration could induce him, there fore, to open the doors of that House to any man who should conscientiously, he admitted, make use of the power con ferred on him to disparage every Christian institution. He, therefore, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months. Mr. M. GIBSON was surprised, if the Jews and men of no religion were so formidable, that the Hon. Baronet should be satisfied with the imperfect security of a declara tion of Christianity.—(Hear.) The position in which the House was placed with respect to the question before it was, in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion, rather humili a ti ng . B aron Rothschild had been first elected in 1847 ; and yet it was now the middle of the session of 1851 when the Noble Lord proposed to remove the religious test which prevented that Gentleman from discharging his duty to his constituents of the city of London. Baron Rothschild had been twice elected, and two Bills which had been passed in that House to admit him as a Jew had been rejected elsewhere. The Noble Lord had got rid of the difficulty last year by a Com mittee of Inquiry; but the Honse had adopted a resolution to pass a Bill on the earliest opportunity. The Noble Lord did not now redeem that pledge, for he only moved another resolution. lie (Mr. WW1)) contended that a Bill similar to the former should have been brought in at the very cons mencemeut of the session, and if it were again rejected else where, he was of opinion that some decided step should be taken in the matter. It should, in fact, be made a Govern ment question, and the other branch of the Legislature should be informed that the House of Commons would no longer submit to such a course. Mr. PLUMPTRE hoped the House and the country would reject the measure. He regretted that the Noble Lord had shown so little respect for the religious feelings of the coon try.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Whatever might be the feeling of the House on the subject, the bulk of the people regarded it as a purely religious question. The question was, whether Jews should be admitted in a professedly Christian assembly? He believed the great majority of the people of England were decidedly opposed to such a proceeding. He admitted the Jews were a loyal people, as well as an ancient and won eerful people; but he could not forget that they had rejected, and continued to reject, that Saviour in whom this country believed. He held it would, not only b e a grea t ingrati tude to God, but a great :peril to the country to admit into a Christian Legislature those who rejected the Founder cf Christianity; and he, therefo re , trusted the house would not give the proposition of the Noble Lord its support.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. WEGG-PROSSER said he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the country had resolved on the principle o f religious freedom ; and it w as hi s ow n opinion likewise, that, as regarded religion, all men should be perfectly free. The question then arose, was th e case o f the Jews a peculiar one deserving of exce pti. n? He did not think with some Hon. Gentlemen that the House was called on to act as executors of God's vengeance against that people; nor could he hold with those who maintained that the legislature should be exclusively Christian, seeing the country was not ex lusively Christian ; still less with the argument that the Jews were aliens, when they all knew that every man born in this country was in the Queen's allegiance. The difficulty in the case arose from the legislation of Parliament upon re ligious subjects. If the original system of the country was in force —namely, that no man could sit in that House who was not a member of the n a tion a l Ch u rch, th en th e H ouse might legislate on religious matters; but that system could not now be pursued, and therefore they were compelled to proceed forward. lie saw no reason, consequently, that the Jew or any other person should be excluded from a seat in that House on the score of religion.—(Hear, hear.) He could not at the same time help remarking on the inconsis tency of the Noble Lord who then asked the House to liberate one set of religionists, while only a short time pre viously he had asked their support on what he (Mr. Wegg- Prosser) felt bound to call the persecution of another body of religionists. His main objection, however, was to religious legislation ; and, hoping to see the day when all restrictions of a religious character would be removed, he should sup port the motion in the interest of true religion. Mr. NEWDEGATE said the last time he had heard tha Right Hon. Member for Manchester on an analogous subject to that before the House, was on an appeal to the House to do nothing as against Papal aggression. Now, however, he not only urged the House, in a fever of energy, to press the measure before them with vigour, but actually demanded that the House of Lords should be swamped if they again vindicated their rights and privileges by rejecting it. The connexion between the subject under discussion and Papal aggression was palpabl e enoug h. F ore ig n e r s must think but lightly of the profession of Protestantism made by the people of England, when th ey saw a l arge majority of the House of Commons deali ng i n t h e way t h e y did with the question under consideration ; and he (Mr. Newdegate) could not help thinking that Pius IX., seeing, session after session, how this majority, with the Government at its head, had acted in this matter—seeing how anxious they seemed to be to erase from their oaths the test of Chris tianity, had not unfairly come to the conclusion that Protes tantism was nugatory, and had therefore acted accordingly. Every session that had passed —every discussion that had taken place—tended to confirm the profound dislike with which the country viewed the measure. And though they might lament the somewhat acrimonious discussion which it had given rise to, vet that discussion had done this good—it had elicited the all-pervading feeling of attachment of the people of England to the national religion. He would not do more on the present occasion than express his regret that her Majesty's Government and the Noble Lord should feel bound to persevere in the course which he conscientiously believed they did not heartily approve of; but if they did approve of it, they must be blind to circumstances which had lately oc curred, and which had most remarkably characterised the subject while under discussion. The House then divided, when there appeared— For going into Committee ... 166 Against ... •• ••• 98 Majority in favour of going into Committee —6B The House then went int o C om mitt ee , an d a resolution being come to on the subject of introducing the Bill, The Bill was introduced and read a first time. In reply to a question from Sir R. INGLIS, Lord J. RUSSELL said ,he would fix the second reading for to-morrow (Friday) week. If the Bill could not be read a second time . on that day he would give notice of the cir• cumstance. Mr. MUILINGS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to im. prove the law of landlord and tenant, in relation to imple. ments, to growing crops seized in execution, and to agricul. tural tenants' fixtures. Mr. STANFORD obtained leave to bring •in a Bill for the more efficient audit of railway accounts. The Hon. Member said his object was to get this and another Bill on the same subject referred to the same Committee. DESIGNS ACT EXTENSION BILL. On the motion for going into Committee, Mr. ARK\VRIGIIT rose to oppose the motion, and ar• gued from the evidence given before the House of Lords there was no large number of cases requiring this protec tion, and that the Bill would operate injuriously to the native manufacturer and favourably to foreigners. The Bill had been considerably altered since it was first proposed, but these alterations were not improvements. He therefore moved, as an amendment, that the Speaker do leave the chair that day six months. Mr. LABOLICHERE hoped that the House would not agree to the amendment of the Honourable Gentleman. This Bill had been maturely considered in the House of Lords, where, out of all the witnesses who had been ex- amined on the subject, only one witnesses was opposed to the measure. He had received applications from foreigners as well as Englishmen, asking for a measure of this kind to protect their inventions; and he could not help saying that of all the Members of the House—remembering the illustrious name which the Honourable Gentleman bore—lie was the last from whom he should have expected opposi tion to a measure for protecting ingenuity in inventions, whether those inventions emanated from a foreigner or an Englishman. Mr. SPOONER hoped his Hon. Friend would not oppose the House going into Committee on the Bill; there would be great danger of the piracy of inventions unless the Bill were passed. • Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment. The Bill would only create a system of trickery, fraudAand corruption, while it would give undue protection to :the foreigner over the Englishman. Mr. 111UNTZ thought the intentions of the Government were good in bringing in the Bill, but doubted their policy in so doing; he also doubted the policy of those who asked for the measure. From his experience of the patent laws nothing would induce him to exhibit an invention under this Act. A foreigner under this measure would be protected by a patent in this country and abroad, while the Englishman could not have his invention protected in foreign countries. Mr. GROGAN supported the amendment. Sir J. ROMILLY said that when a person took out a patent for an invention he made a specification of its nature and character, which was published; that specification a foreigner might take to a foreign country and take out a patent for it there, and he could not be prevented by any English law from so doing. The only way of protecting the inventor from such a piracy would be by taking out a patent in the foreign country. The effect of the proposed Bill was to protect foreigner and Englishman alike from piracy in this country. Atter a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE, The llouse divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... ••• ... - 13 9 Against it ... ••• ••• ... 42 Majority ••• gp The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Clauses u , e) to 6 were agreed to. Sir J. ROBIILLY proposed to strike out the 7th clause, and to substitute a clause to the effect that protection be extended to any new design that may be provisionally , registered, notwithstanding such design may have been pre viously published and exposed to sale elsewhere than in the United Kingdom. He proposed to have the Bill reprinted with this alteration, so that Hon. Members might see how the Bill would then stand. Mr. SPOONER asked if, under such a clause, the foreigner would have the same protection for such design here that he would have had if his design had not been ex hibited abroad ? Sir J. ROMILLY—Yes, if it had not been exposed to sale. Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought that the proposed clause would be pretty much like the rest of the Bill, which would protect foreigners rather than our own countrymen. Sir J. ROMILLY said the clause would leave exhibitors in the same situation as to their designs as if they had not exhibited them at all. Mr. SPOONER admitted they could not protect foreign designs abroad, but that was no reason why they should not protect their own. He thought a good deal of mischief would result from the Exhibition, and agreed with his Ikon. Friend the Member for Birmingham in thinking that if ex hibitors fancied their designs were secured by this Bill, the would be mistaken. The clause was then added to the Bill. On the preamble being proposed, Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved the omission of th a t part o f i t which related to and recognised the Exhibition. Mr. LABOUCIIERE could not consent to the alteration. The Exhibition had announced its own existence, and the House had already expressed an opinion that it was not de sirable to discourage -- iiir:SVOONER had suggested the omission of similar words in the preamble of the Bill of last year. By retain ing these words a plea might be afforded for claiming a grant of money from the House for the purpose of the Ex hibition. Sir J. ROMLEY said the House had allowed the Bill to be brought in, and h ad passed the clauses for the purpose of protecting designs th a t m i g ht be exhibit e d. I t was scarcely reasonable therefore to object to the preamble for referring to the purposes of the Bill. Sir R. INGLIS thought it would be far better not to re• cognise the Exhibition in the preamble. Mr. GROGAN said, of course the first object of the Bill was to give protection to the exhibitors ; but then a serious consideration was started with regard to the preamble. He begged to remind the House that the insertion of the words "Archbishop of Dublin" in a private Act of Parliament had been used by a great luminary of the Roman Catholic Church as au argument to prove the recognition of the title. (Hear, hear.) They ought to be careful, therefore, lest the preamble as it stood might be the means of involving them in expense. He was in favour of the amendment. After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP, which were not distinctly heard. Alderman - THOMPSON said it was impossible to avoid making mention of the Exhibition, otherwise the Bill would be waste paper.— (Hear.) It was said if mention was made of it they would be called upon to grant money for it; but the Government had last session distinctly disclaimea any intention of asking for such a grant; and the likelihood of doing so this session was much less.—(Hear.) Mr. KEOGH supported the original motion. He thought they had had quite enough of discussions about ecclesiastical titles of late—(Hear, hear)—without having that subject then introduced by the Hon. Member for Dublin. Perhaps he had done so because he thought the Bill on the subject fit for exhibition in the Crystal Palace. He wished to correct the Hon. Member as to what he bad said about a " great luminary" of the Roman Catholic; Church having used the fact of the name of the Archbishop of Dublin being in a pri vate Act to establish the recognition of the title. Now, it so turned out that the first person who had brought that matter forward, and who had used it, too, most efficiently for his purpose, was a Noble Lord in the other House of Parlia ment—he meant the Noble Secretary for the Colonies, Earl Grey.—(Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. SPOONER, Mr. MULLINGS expressed his surprise at the efforts made to retain the words in the preamble. It looked as if there was some motion At the bottcm. Mr. LABOUCHERE did not Want to attach more int. portance to the words than they deserved; but as they seemed to him proper and suitable, he preferred keeping the preamble as it was. There was no intention whatsoever of proposing any grant of money for the Exhibition. illr. HENLEY said the continuance of that conversation rather strengthened his alarm. One Hon. Commissioner said there was no intention of applying for money, but struggled hard to get one end of the wedge in. —(ob, oh.) Another Hon. Gentleman said there was less chance during the present than last year. He suggested that the pre amble should' be formed in consonance with the first clause; and that would leave the question open.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but before the souse was cleared Mr. WALPOLE suggested that it would be as well to make the preamble suitable to the object in the first clause by adding words to the effect, " that protection ought to be aiforded to persons desirous of exhibiting wares in any place appointed to be appropriated for the same." Mr. ARKWRIGHT was understood to withdraw- his amendment to allow Mr. Walpole's to be substituted. Sir G. GREY said appeared to him absurd to be dis cussing the expediency of leaving ont the word Exhibition, whe❑ every one must know what was meant by the Bilk— ( Ifear.) Any Government who would come forward to pro pose a grant of money on the faith of that preamble would do so on the weakest possible pretext.—(llear.) He con tended t hey were not exhibiting themselves— (Laughter)— in the fairest light by continuing such a discussion. Mr. WALPOLE said he had only suggested his amend ment on account of the discussion which had taken place, and would now persevere in proposing it to the Committee. - Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, and the Com mittee divided, when there appeared— For the preamble Against it Majority —36 The Apprentices to Sea Service (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The General Board of Ilealth Bill was read a second time. The Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill was read a se cond time. The Mutiny Bills were read a third time. The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Vutes and Proceedings of the 'louse of COVW4OIIS) THURSDAY, APRIL 3. OATH OF ABJURATION (JEWS). Resolution (sth August, 1850) read; Motion made, and Question put, " That this House will immediately reaolv* itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persona profea. sing the Jewish religion." The House divided:— MAJORITY—AYES, 166. . .. -.... . Adair, Hugh E. Gaskell, J. M. Parker, John ; Agllonby, H. Gibson, T. hit. Pigott, FranelS Alcock, Thomas Gilpin, R. T. Pllkingten, Milli • - ' Anderson, Arthur Grace, 0. D. Pinney, William • Anstey, T. C. Granger, T. C. Power, Nicholas Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, Sir G. Powlett, Lord W. Bagshaw, John Grey, Ralph W. Price, Sir It Baines, M. T. Hastie, Alexander Priusep, H. T. Baring, Sir F. Hatchell, John Rawdon, Colonel Barnard, E. G. Hawes, Benj. Reynolds, John Barron, Sir H. Heathcoat, John Ricardo, Osman Bell, Jacob Henry, Alexander Rice, E. R. • Bellew, R. M. Heyworth, Lawrence Robartes, T. J. A: Berkeley, Admiral Higgins, George Romilly, Colonel Berkeley, Henry F. Ilobhouse, T. B. Romilly, Sir John Berkeley, C. L. Hodges, T. L. Russell, Lord J. Bernal, Ralph Hogg, Sir J. Russell, F. C. H. Blake, M. J. liiune, J. Sadleir, John Bright, John liumphery, Ald. Salwey, Colonel Brocklehurst, John Hutchins, E. J. Scholefield. W. Brotherton, Joseph Hutt, William Scully, Francis Burke, Sir T. J. Jackson, William Seymour, Lord Keating, Robert , Shaft°, Butler, P. S. R. D. Cardwell, Edward Keogh, William Smith, Vernon Childers, J. W. Kershaw, Runes Smith, J. A. Clay, James Labouchere, Henry Somerville. Sir W. Clerk, Sir G. Langston, J. 11. Stanton, W. S. Cockburn, Sir A. Lemon, Sir C. Staunton, Sir,. Colebrooke, Sir T. L ew i s , G. C. Strickland, Sir G. Collins, William Locke, Joseph Sullivan, Michael Cowper, W. F. Loveden, Pryse Talbot, J. H. Craig, Sir W. G. M'Gregor, John Tancred, H. W. Crawford, W. S. M'Taggart, Sir J. Thicluiesse, R. A. Cubitt, William Maher, N. Thompson, Colonel Dalrymple, Captain Mahon, O'Gorman Thornely, Thomas Dawson, T. V. Mangles, R. D. Tollemache, F. J. Denison, J. E. Matheson, Colonel Townley, R. G. D'Eyncourt, C.T. Maule, F ox Tovnishend, Captain Disraeli, B. Melgund, Viscount Tnfnell, Henry Duke, Sir James Nililes, It. M. Vane, Lord H. Duncan, Lord Mitchell, T. A. Villiers, Chariot Duncan, George Moffatt, George Vivian, J. H. Dundas, Admiral Monsell, Willi am Wakley, ThomaS Dundas, Sir D. Morris, David Walmsley, Sir J. Dunne, Colonel Blunts, G. F. Westhead, J. B. Ebrington, Viscount ;Coneys, Lord Willcox, Brodie Ellis, John 'Coneys, Sir D. Willlams,6John Evans, William O'Brien, J. Williams, W. Ewart, William :; O'Connell, John Williamson, Sir H. Fagan, William O'Connell, M. J. Wilson, James Fitzroy, henry O'Flaherty, Anthony 'Wilson, Matthew Foley, J. H. Ord, W. Wood, Sir Charts. Fordyce, A. D. Osborne, Ralph Forster, Matthew Owen, Sir John TIMMS. Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord A. Hayter, W. G. Freestun, Colonel Paget, Lord C. Hill, Lord M. French, F. Palmerston, Vl5. MINORITY-NOES, 98. Acland, Sir T. Gooch, E. S. Peel, Sir Robert Arkwright, George Goulburn, Henry Pennant, Hon. Col. Ashley, Lord Grogan, Edward. Plowden, W. H. Baird, James Gwyn, Bowel Pluniptre, J. P. Barrow, W. 11. Belford, Sir.llenry Reid, Colonel Beresford, William Hamilton, G. A. Rendlesham, Lord Bernard, Viscount Hayes, Sir E. Itenton,y. C. Best, John Ileald, James Rushout, Captain Blackstone, W. Henley, J. W. Seymer, H. K. Blair, Stephen Hildyard, R. C. Sibthorp, Colonel Bowles, Admiral Hotham, Lord Smollett, A. Breraridge, Richard Jones, Captain Sotheron, T. 11. S. Brisco, M. Lacy, H. C. Spooner, Richard Bruce, C. L. C. Lennox, Lord A. Stafford, Angestui Buck, L. W. Lindsay, Colonel Stanford, J. F. Buller, Sir Y. Lockhart, A. E. Stuart, John Carew, W. P. Lockhart, W. Sturt, Henry G. Christy, Samuel Long, W. 'Taylor, Thomas E. Clive, 11. B. Lopes, Sir Ralph Thesiger, Sir F. Currie, 11. Lygon, Gen. Tollemacho, Jobsi Davies, D. A. Macaghten, Sir E. Trevor, G. H. Dick, Quintin 1 Mahon, Viscount Tyler, Sir G. Drax, J. S. W. Miles, William Vesey, Thomas Duncombe, A. Moody, 0. A. Waddington, 11. S. Duncuft, John Moore, George IL Walpole, Spencer Du Pre, C. George Morgan, 0. Welby, G. E. East, Sir J. B. Mullings. J. R. Wellealey, Lord C. Edwards, Henry Mundy, William Wigram, L. T. Ferrer, James Rapier, Joseph Wodehonse, E. Filmer, Sir E. Reeld, John Yorke, E. T. Floyer, John Neeld, Joseph Forbes, William Ossuiston, Lord TELMILS. Gallwey, Sir W. P. Pakington, Sir John Inglis, Sir R. H. GalwaY, Viscount Palmer, Robert Newdegate, C. N. PAIRS. FOR. AGAINST. Smythe, Hon. G. Stanley, Hon. E. Seymour, H. D. Lennox, Lord Henry Fortescue, Chichester Guernsey, Lord Enfield, Lord Peel, Colonel Howard, Philip Packe, C. W. Pechell, Sir G. B. Blandford, Marquis of Cavendish, Hon. C. C. March, Earl of Clifford, H. M. Chichester, Lord J. Fitzwilliam, Hon. G. W. Lowther, Henry Jermyn, Earl Hervey, Lord Alfred Adair, Shafto Emlyn, Lord Douglas, Sir C. Corry, H. L. Anson, Colonel Bramston, T. W. Carter, B. Brooke, Sir A. B. Fortescue, J. W. Noel, G. J. Sir B. Hall and Sir W. Verner paired off for and against the Removal of Jewish Disabilities Bill. Mr. Trelawny paired off with Mr. Pugh. Mr. Smith Child paired off with Mr. Bass. DESIGNS ACT EXTENSION BILL. • (IN THE COMMITTEE.) Preamble read ; Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " Inventions," in line 3, to the words " Be," in line 6, in order to insert the words " in any place previously certified by the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations to be a place of exhibition within the meaning of the Designs Act, 1850," instead thereof:— Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble." The Committee divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 92. Aglionby, H. A. --- Gibson, T. M. Power, Nichols./ 06Cirrreeealelfneeeilli:TeChh.olam)rasc:Oelv. R il Pr i a c i w c a e r d , d o S o n i : r o C R s o o m lo be an nal rt Sir Sir B. Homily, Rice, E. l An ß l e a u r s i e t n e w g 3 l, l t ln ir . l' ll, ° l r m '.. " T. 11 Grey, R. Homily, Colonel B ne e r r k k e e l l e e y y . , C A . d L m . ir o al . Birch, Sir T. Hallyburton, Lord Hominy, Sir J. Blake, M. J. Hatchell, John Russell.F. C. H.- , Boyle, Colonel Hawes, B. Salwey, Colonel Brotherton, J. Heyworth, L. Seymour, Lord Brown, W. Seymour, Charles Shinto, R. D. Bunbury, Edward Hobhouse, T. B. Smith, John Abel Buxton, Sir E. Holland, Robert Sinollett, A. Cavendish, C. C. Somerville, Sir W. Cavendish, W. G Jackson, William Kershaw, James Sotheron, T. H. S. Childers, J. W. Labouchere, 11. Spearman, H. J. Cockburn, Sir A. Langston, J. H. Stanton, W. H. Cowan, Charles Lewis, G. C. Tenison, E. K. Cowper, W. F. Mastemian, J. Thicknesso, R. A. Craig, Sir W. G. Matheson, Colonel Thompson. Ald. Dalrymple, Captain Maule, Fox Thompson, Colonel Dawson, T. V. Mulgrave, Earl of Thornely, Thomail Douglas, Sir C. Nugent, Sir Percy Vivian, J. H. Duncan, George O'Connell, John Westhead, J. B. Dundas, Admiral O'Connell, M. J. Williams, John Ebrington, Viscount Ogle, S. C. Wilson, James Ellis, John Paget, Lord Clarence Wilson, Matthew Evans, William Palmerston, Viil. Wrightson, W. I. Fagan, William Parker, John Fordyce, A. D. Pechell, Sir G. TELkzia• Fortescue, J. W. Pigott, Francis Ruler, W. a• Freestun, Colonel Pilkington, James Grey, R. W. MINORITY—NOES, 56. Adderley, C. B. Gallwey, Sir W. P. Nam, Lord Arciadall, Captain Galway, 'Viscount Napier Joseph Arkwright, George Gilpin, Colonel Newdegate, N. Baldock, E. H. Gooch, E. S. Newport, Viset. Bankes, George Greene, John Patke, C. W. Barrington, Viscount Grogan, Edward Plumptre, J. P. Barrow, W. H. Gwyn, Bowel Renton, John C. Beresford, William rialsey, T. P. Semler. Henry Ur Best, John Hamilton, J. IL Sibthorp, Colonel Blair, Stephen Heald, James &afford, Augastal Bremridge, Richard Henley. J. W. Stanford, J. F. Brooke, Sir A.B. Hodgson, W. 11.1. Stanley, Edward Burghley, Lord Inglis, Si R. Sturt, H. G. Chichester, Lord J. Jocelyn , T,. IscOlint Taylor, T. B. Christy, Samuel .Tolllffe, Sir W. H.. Tyler, Sir G. Davies, D. A. Knox, Colonel Waddington, H. S. Edwards, Henry Mackenzie, W. g. • Floyer, John Manners, Lord J. Forbes, W. Miles, P. w. S. Frewen, C. 11. Mullings, J. B. 27LL111& Spooner, E. Walpole; S. H In judging of your own writings, doings, oir speeches, you should recollect that you are judging of your own offspring. Therefore, on all doubtful points, when ths judgment halts, as it were, upon the threshold, you should always construe them, that is, give the turn of the Rale, against yourself.—Eliza Cook's Journal. - - LADVERTISEMENT.]—The Observer and Grail stamped twenty-column Supplement; sixty folio columns for sixpence. Sunday, April 6, a full report of and on the Budget and Income-tax ; a l s o th e Quarter's Revenue Tables, further Chancery movements in Miss Talbot's case &c. The extensive publication of the Observer commenced at five o'clock on Sunday mornings, in time for all the Sun day morning railways. A Monday's edition, which is the best for the country and abroad, at four Monday afternoons. [ADvasTisEstENT.] The wonderful cures Pe* formed by Holloway's Pills astonish everybody; they rem a "•' complaints which the faculty pronoance incurable; debilitate 4 constitutions are by their use completely i nv igorated ; tlii nervous, the delicate, and the weak are mad e stron g ; and there is no other medicine known that is so certain and effectual in curing indigestion, and all bilious, liver, and eto mach complaints as Holloway's pills ; they are also an excel lent remedy for dropsical affections, and every disease incident to females, and stand unrivalled as an established family mac. tine, as they purify the blood, cleanse the system, strengthen the body, and reinstate it in the soundest health, and often after every other remedy has failed.—Sold by all Druggist', and at Professor Llollovray's Estaigilbuieut, 244, Strand. Loudon.