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

-natives wished to be rid of it, and they would not cultivate it unless they were obliged to do so, but the collectors had orders to force them to cultivate it, and in case a native received an ad vance of money from the company, and refused to culti vate opium, he was punished. The cultivation of op ium was forbidd en to every one, except those whom the East It: 4l a Comp any emp loyed; and after it had been ra is e d, ▪ t was purchased by the Company from the grower at on e-fifth of its real legitimate price in the market. It 'lv , as then brought to the Company's detAls, where an en -1 anted price was put upon it; and filially, it was dis- P etched to the coast of China, where smugglers were InPloyed for the purpose of running it ashore. And ▪ what was the result? The monopoly wits the cause of scarcity; scarcity promoted competition; and the Chi nese were beginning to grow opium for themselves, in Spite of their laws, which pronounced its cultivation to be illegal. So th a t what happened to the salt mono poly was about to happen to the opium monopoly. Nor should it be forgotten that both these monopolies of salt and opium were maintained at present in spite of an ex re" engagement that they should be abolished. When " was proposed to introduce into the East India Com- P,, s eY's Bill of 1833 two clauses, which would have had Charles effect of putting an end to these monopolies, Mr. per Grant stated to the Honourable Member who i ;"'"ed the insertion of the clauses, that the Go :raiment—both that at home and in India—had ';',,°fe shoo the determination that the taxes on opium and E - T v s, t uld he removed. That was in 1833; and on the of July, 1840, Lord Sandon put a question to the 'gut 9_ontrol, son. Baronet the President of the Board of which was answered by the Hon. Baronet the : 1 e tn,Per for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), as a director of the East India Company. The question was, whether 8 directors of that company had taken any steps to ietatrste themselves from the manufacture of opium in a l : dis ? The answer returned was, that there had been 1 - Y e t no instructions sent out to India of the nature el uded t s; -os but that the whole question was under the 'thea"limis consideration of the Court of D irectors. Wh y , very reason fur extending the t erm of the Com pany's charter to twenty years was for the express pur rosse of enabling the Company to remove the monopolies; r i u yet the salt monopoly, the opium monopoly, the to el,lZ,? to the short, every monopoly continued to b the present moment, except those which had , fl ee e abolished by the inevitable laws of freedom.- -N 4 'ear, hear.) The tobacco monopoly was so completely • i t e h e hands of the East India Company, that they were to specify what districts should grow tocacco in a Year, and they compelled the unfortunate natives to a 51 55 tobac co at a pr i ce na med by themselves. And r after the price had been fixed and enhanced, the to bacco produc e d w a s so bad that, unless steeped in liquid ammonia, nobody would purchase it, except the natives, who bad no choice, and the soldiers, who bad no money. With regard to the minor monopolies, it was customary to put them up to sale, and the pur chaser, having paid the stipulated price, was entitled to collect the police of the district in which the m ono p ol y Wll5 held, and to perambulate it in quest of contraband stores. He could even enter into private houses at the head of his force, and make a search for bees-wax, honey, or any of the other articles included in the class of minor monopolies for which he had paid the purchase money. Such were the sources of the revenue of British India in the raising of which nine-tenths of the popula tion were annually cold up, and which never exceeded in amount 20,000,0001., notwithstanding the enormous in crease of our territories from time to time. And yet these territories, when smaller in extent, and not sub jected to monopolies and import duties, had yielded un ifier former dynasties a revenue never less than :30,000,000/. per annum. If these things were true, ought they not to be corrected? and if they were not true what possible objection could the court of directors have to an inquiry into the whole subject? It was not his in tention toenter at length into this question further than;to make this remark. In the changes which have taken place in the machinery for the collection of taxes since we became seised o f th e so il o f I n di a , we ha v e the key to the great decline of that country. For what had been T the secret o f those changes ? Had they not all ten d e d towards transferri ng th e v ill ag es, the provinces, and the States from th e natives and proprietors t h emse l ves to th e hands of foreigners —raw, inexperienced boys—brought np in England, for the most part at an exclusive college, where th ey were taught to consider themselves super i or, t only to the natives whom they were to rule, but even to the servants of the company under whom they were ; o . set Into their hands the whole power was given. Ise natives were as fit to manage their own affairs as any 'oth e r People. Was an y one of them who had ever visited this country not fit to compete with the Company's ser _ante, even in the highest offices? Yet it was only to the lowest offices that the Company ever appointed them. Well, then, should we, without inquiry, without the ap r'ihtnsent of a Co mm i s sion to visit India (for he be vetl that no in qu i r y cou ld e ver avail to effect any re cress for local grievances without a Commission being "EU out to the spot and armed with full Parliamentary t a i n e lhh ritY)—was it right, he asked, without investiga hiji, to r e - cons i gn th e G overnme nt of India l e the hands of the East India Company? But 1, 6 weuld not confine the Commission to the subjects he ad already mentioned; becauseaif there was one griev iltiee which more th an another had claims upon English for redress, it was a corrupt administration of jus • ' Some years ago a Commission was appointed to Ind ia th e con fli ct i ng e l ements o f w h a t w a s ca lled law in e ad d ia into a code. The result of that Commission (which 10 eethe assistance of an eminent lawyer, with a salary of 01. a year) was the preparation of certain documents j es • 7 (1 a penal cod e; but that collection of papers her Ma.- ea s a'Y , Government has laid upon the shelf. A further 10 7 5 1 Mission had also been appointed, for the purpose of imie Ki ng the law equa l for men of all religions and of every i n r. The r esu lt o f that appointment appeared only la s t e shape of those remarkable Acts of Council passed this Year' but which he was aware had been disallowed Actj eal4 „., by the Board of Control, called the " Black Moe; „ -131 it the Indian Government had found the Mee nf -° hvenient mode of establishing the equality of the f„,, e very colour before the law, not by elevating de rr „ran to the position of the Englishman, but by IVTag the Eoglisman to the level of the Indian. ass it re teiced that the " Black Acts" had been disallowed; was a remarkable fact that nothing had been 4131 e 0 to raft er supply the place of those enactments ; and the frightful years of reform administration in India, abuses so ably denounced in Sir James ant's masterly speech remained still unredressed. Th e a dministration of justice was still a mockery; trial v yinrY had no existence; and the publicity of the pro eeedings of the courts of justice was denied. One re markable instanc e o f h ow ju stice was administered, was the had of a native contractor for the Government who a brought an act i on f or an enormou s amount ag ai ns t thea o East -India Comp a ny, but the Company brought, not c ross -action, but a criminal prosecution against their on tractor in one of their own courts, where no trial by .Jury and no publicity were allowed, for the alleged for gery of documents. On this charge the man was now In custody, and before his own action against the Com pany could be brought on, there was little doubt he would be convicted and condemned. He (Mr. Anstey) Wished to have an inquiry instituted as to what the na tives thought of such a system, and whether it was Popular in India; for he believed that neither the plan ters nor the natives of India could be more incompetent for the administration of government than the East India Company had shown themselves. Another head of his proposed inquiry into the system of the Indian Government should be its foreign department. The House had a right to know what the natives thought of the policy of the Government in this parti unler—what they thought of such dispatches as th a t o f Lord Dalhousie refusing to be bound by the Company's treaties with the native states, or to recognise their laws , ?r th e i r i nstitut i ons regu l at i ng t h e r i g h t o f success i on - the adoption of an heir where a prince had no regu lar lineal descendant. This native custom had been violated in the celebrated Sattara case, and other fie- Rvent instances; and he wished to ascertain from the • S overeigns of the native states of India what they .nought of their own rights in this matter. He should "ae to know from the natives under our rule whether t hey st ill • continued so much impressed with our good faith and our scrupulous observance of treaty obligations al they were i n t h e d ays o f L or d A m h erst . Th e l as t 3 , ( 1 , 4 !i1e who had visited our shores had told us that the 1 security for attachment to our power in the hearts of the millions of India, was their confidence that we at "Ist respected justice and the claims of solemn obliga tions. But what was the course of the Indian Govern tent? Any act of aggression, however flagrant or ini quitous, insured impunity from the Court of Directors et it only met this one condition—that it increased the revenues of the company, and added to its territory— that it helped to k ee p up the dividend of 10i per cent. guaranteed to the proprietors of East India Stock. Another branch of the inquiry under the head of the foreign department related to those wars, those mon strous, secret, and aggressiv e wars , which England, for t he first time in her history, had engaged in since 1833. The war in Affghanistan was one of these instances; and t he Act of 1833 had an express clause conveying extra ordinary powers to she Board of Control on matters of t his nature. The secret committee of the Coln t of Di rectors had lent themselves as an instrument for promot ing these schemes of aggressive conquest. He rejoiced „,, s aYs however, that the price of their subs e rvi en c e t o "eleh th e Court of Directors had looked had never been realised by them. The expenses of the war had fallen wis a b n e d d W to h kw r ttenthoe i ken their fi na nces; they amounted to forty-f our mil lions in 1848, and since that date there had been no ae- Z o Unt of th em . N o w he (Mr. Anstey) e feelings of India on these transa ctions, e!' were regarded by the native populat ion as re dounding to Theeur national c h ar acter for honour and probity or not, of servant s o f t h e C om pany themselves had disapprovd `; proceedings. Sir George Wad e a pp eared, fro m the official papers, to have been in favour of the Affghan lo re bu t he (Mr. Anstey) could show that he was all rortT.inst it, and would pledge himself to prove his The consiCeratious to which he (Mr. Anstey) humane as yet adverted were chiefly those of justice and 131th itY• He knew that there were minds which w ereh et capable of being moved by such considerations att:eProschin g p o li t i ca l su bj ec t s . T o su ch he begged ion (althou g h h e was a l m ost ashamed to reduce the 440_111- :tion t o suc h m i sera b le di mens i ons ) to t h e ana l ys i s by ec:eNtontgomery Martin, of the customs, and other ac tiaaliet,of a public nature, laid before Parliament, from 1 41 ." It was demonstrate d i n a m o s t masterly manner L' 4 B, and h a d never b een contra di cte d, t h at under the e sent s system of administration in India, under the leslet(o)lEr_eve,nue alone, 20,423,901/. sterling was annually which, if on the price of only eight commodities, plied to It India only had justice done her, would be sup wereus from her territories. These eight articles fl oc. sugar, cotton, silk, rum, coffee, tobacco, linseed, and Andqi, he had also read to the court of proprietors, ti, , , 4 ,; e. 7 3 :contradietion, a statement showing that the na fiseet 3 I "dia, i/ they were enabled by the Company's gamic R Y si- e' to c in,urne only one-tenth per head of the b r , Y of British mantactures consumed by each mem etar negro population in the West Indies, that I t " Su annual export trade of 72 millions Merl 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 of 1833 a compromise was effected between the two govern ing bodies of India. It gave the Court of Directors absolute power within the Indian territory, and the Board of Control was expressly prohibited from meddling with the internal regulation of India. But the Board of Con trol received such extraordinary powers that Mr. Hope M'Kenzie and Sir Charles Cochrane had retired from it with disgust. 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 louse, in 1833, so hastily and improvidently passed. Tee 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 before 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 alto ltsh, the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. The East India Company were originally a corporation or me rchants, 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 RUSSELL thought the House was hardly in a state to enter into a discussion of all the various measures on which the Hon. and Deemed 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 vernment 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 he 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 govern 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. ANSTET—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 proceedings, he regarded the Court of Directors 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. H e 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 to,lndia. 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 bad hitherto held in India as faithful observers of compacts; but be 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 Seaters. There were other points on which the opinion of a committee would be useful; for instance, whether the practice of allowing a Governor-General to proceed to the bill country for a stay of six or eight months in the year, remaining isolated . during all that time and remote fro m 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 hands 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 lug the example. He bad great doubt whether it was selves t r f o to° f a il IBot the sbc t a h eyn e i e r t oofo o t ffi hwe c hi e ro r swat duties.s hu a swltyhoe hereto ee a r b w s ha e as n l tf thea t b y G e e m aor: In saying thi s , he ' did not wish to offer any opinion or to cast bleat ! , he merely mentioned them as matters de serving serious consideration. Many matters enume rated by the Hon.res! ? At e ntlem circumstances.a Gentleman had not T h much ere waspractical tr.. bearing on p Montgomery Martin's th eory, f or exam pl e , which would not bear a mom ents examination. He wanted to know how far the Board of Cont ro l rea ll y acte d as a c h ec k on the proceedings of the Indi an G overnment, which was the purpose of its creation? The system which bad existed was enough to ruin any country. There was the Affghan war, which h ad been be gun, conducted, and closed, without the kno wled g e of the Court of Directors, who were required to pay 12,900 000/. sterling, though they knew nothing about it until after all the mischief bad been done. Then there was the Burmese war, welch entailed a debt of 9 , 000,000/. on th e Company , owing to au improper and incompetent person b e i ng sent out. The secret committee , consisting of three of the directors, might at any time send out orders to corn _ ;nonce a war, which would be carried on at the cost and TLI $ 1 ... Jill lit SUN, LON DON, risk of the proprietors, and all this done without the mat ter ever being brought before:the Court of Directors. After acts were done the Government considered themselves bound to support those who did them,and thus the great and important interests of India might be sacrificed, and the proprietors ruined. Let them profit by experience, and prevent the evils which had arisen from former proceed ings of the home 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 robbed 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 be obtained in the course of this year and the next, 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 sncceeding session. Sir J. W. HOGG said the Court of Directors were as anxious as the Hon. Member for Montrose for an open and searching 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. Had 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. He had not done 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 Hoe. 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 1004 a year). But at present there were natives re ceiving salaries of 6001. 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 India was imposed according 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 fourteenior fifteen years ago, but it bad 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 bad 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 teat 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 had brought against that House of not listening to the Sattara 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 its the Punjaub, and knew the state of disorder in which that country was for many years, lie 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 500,000/. 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 Puujaub, 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 revenue 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, fur 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 he 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 r i c hest, greatest, and most valuable possession of the Crown.—(Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT said that the Commission of Inquiry for 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 mon of high character, very considerable experience, and most unimpeachable integrity, to inquire into these Enbjects. They were ' therefore, doing for themselves what he thought the Government ought to have done for them. The motion before the House contemplated en inquiry of a widely different character; ho thought it would have been better had it been so framed as mere ly to express the necessity for a full and searching inquiry being made before the renewal of the charter, if it was ranewed. On that point he thought they would all have agreed, although it did appear open to a very F 1 D Y EVENIN G, grave question whether the inquiry into the political part of the Government of India could be so well car ried on in India as in this country. He thought it would be easy to come to a rational conclusion on the subject, without taking much evidence. The great fault of the present mode of governing 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 witn 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 India 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, e ith the chairman, deputy chairman, and the senior member of the Court of Directors; and in their hands was the power of peace and war and all the great political events connected with India. But the President of the Board of Control was absolute over his colleagues; it 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 conveyed 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 Hon. 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, th oug h h e did no t 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 bo 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 any thing 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 ho 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 moat abject poverty. They had governed the country for half a 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 of abject 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 1,400,0001., or just 100,0001. per annum; and the Hon. 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 300,000,000/. 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 population, and yet they had expended only 1,400,0001. 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 were 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 Direct ors w ere very liberal in g iving 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 suc h we i g ht s an d co i ns 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. He (Mr. Bright) did not know what that Noble Lord was in his young days, but he .vas not very active now.—(A laugh.) He (Mr. Bright) never saw a man in such a state of preparation for the House of Lords, as the Noble Lord had been for a long time in that House.—(Laughter.) That was precisely the model as which the Government of India was carried on. Theyn eard 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 who had so ably brought for ward the question to be satisfied with the expression of opinion he had elicited from the Noble Lord, and not press his motion, for he (Mr. Bright) conceived that was the beat way of attaining the object he had in view.. Mr. MANGLES begged to observe that, on his ex- L 4 1851., amination before the Commit'Cee, to which the Hon. Gentleman had referred, it would appear that every thing he had said which might appear unfavourable to the Government of India was credited and relied upon, the testimony he bore to the proper administra tion of that Government seemed to be entirely discre dited. Ho had 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.—(Hear, 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 were not the only things that were necessary, but important public works had been undertaken. There was the great G anges caual,which would cost at least a million, and would be the most magnificent work of irrigation that ever had been carried on. It would carry water through the whale of the immense plains that ley between the Ganges and the Jumua, being, at the same time, a source of irri gation and canal for nevigatien in that district.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable arid Learned Gentleman who brought forward this motiote,had saoken of souse unfor tunate man who, as he alleged, was prosecuted in the courts of the country, and said he had no doubt but that I,:y this time he had shared the fate of Nuncomar; but (lid not the Honourable Gentleman know that Nuncomar was tried and condemned in one of the Sovereign's courtF, and executed under the sentence of cue of the Sovereign's judges?—(Hear, hear.) Let the Company be tried by the evidence of the English statesman who uow governs India, and it would be seen whether his testimony would not entitle the,Company,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.—(Hear.) 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 national Church, then the House 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 the 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 measnre 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 palpable enough. Foreigners must think but lightly of the profession of Protestantism made by the people of England, when they saw a large majority of the House of Commons dealing in the way they 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, bad not unfairly come to the conclusion that Protes tantism was nugatory, and bad 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, yet 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 into Committee, and 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 the 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. MULLINGS 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. ARKWRIGHT 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. LABOUCHERE 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—he was the last from whom he should have expectel opposi tion to a measure for protecting ingenuity in inventions, whether those inventions emanated from a foreigner or an Englishman. Mr. SPOONER hoped his lion. 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, fraud,land corruption, while it would give undue protection to .the foreigner over 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 merly. 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 betaken 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. They 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 meaning than that he was now ascribing to them. Of course in those times Jews were not admissible into Par liament, and what he was arguing for was, that the words which were objected to by Baron 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 end 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 in 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 these capacities. Nor could it be reasonably supposed, on the other hand, seeing the ccmparatively 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 difference 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. the Englishman. Mr. MUNTZ 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. After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE, The House divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... ... 132 Against it ... ••• ••• ... 42 Majority ••• ... —9O The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Clauses up to 6 were agreed to. Sir J. ROMILLY proposed to strike out the ith 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 le theyhii tors if had not in the same situation as to their designs as exhibited them at all. Mr. SPOONER admitted they could not protect foreign designs abroad, but that was no reaso n why they should not protect their own. He thought a good deal of mischief would result from the Exhibition, and agreed with hi s li on. Friend the Member for Birmingham in thinking that b tha i t ll i , f tbexey hibitors fancied their designs were secured by this would be mistaken. The clause was then added to the Bill. On the preamble being proposed, Mr. ARKWRIGHT moved the omission of that part of it which related to and recognised the Exhibition. Mr. LABOUCHERE 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 it. Mr. SPOONER 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. ROMILLY said the House h a d a ll owe d t h e Bill to be brought in, and had passed the clauses for the purpose of protecting designs that might be exhibited. It 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 an 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, whic h 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 m ention was made of it they would be called upon to grant money for it ; b ut the Government had last session distinctly disclaimed any intention of asking for such a grant; and the likelihood of doing so this session was much less.— (Hea r ? ) Mr. KEOGH supported the original motion. He thought they had had quite enough of discussions about ecclesiastical — w ithout having that subject then introduced by the Hon. Member fur Dublin. Perhaps he had done so because he thought the Bill on the subject fit for exhibition in the Crystal Palace. lie wished to correct the Hon. Member as to what he had 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 Sec r etary for the Colonies, Earl hear Grey. — ( llear ' 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 yva rime MM. At the bottom. 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 Holy Evangelists or upon some symbol of Christianity. The object of the motion was to admit not only Jews, but men of any, or of no 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 He e ei c h o t u ar d the Christian interest intact in the Legislatur e. did so, hisn t Noble etincei conceive i t e b u e d number berof suggested;enemies au sdo if t admitted hey let s m o t smallhe Par see, eas would form a nucleus which would be d fo h u e r but foresee f t o h r e e ß se r e ah th m a i t n t , h a e n y dothers, as wallas the Jews, he could not of th danger to them rtohuegmh seriouso t s h t at to tthe e i nbjeusrty intereststo t he Eosftatbhlei sh e ed ouour C t r h y. u . r c hu, Under these circumstances, and not because of three he felt bound to oppose the motion in one t interests of the country.-- nonotitbsecluesreithzboubtjebceteedeutsoe h th e e b c e o h n e s v ic e lra th i e o n co o u t rstehet,qkueenstibony l , it was part and sherelv them selves, t w y e ' s l Governmentw a best wass to regard the (Hear, hear.) If it were true tha Christianity d was part te'nrlgimrte.tnaeti parcelan d also of of thethiei religionlreligionis admit do f E it f tnh o g n elan e j o e f w th s ose who believed Christianity of the country.—(Hear, Divine Founder of that religion as a crucified imposter. Could he (Sir R. • No earthly consideration could induce him, there fore, to open the doors of that House to any man who should t h h e i s s r. t ) o legislate for the . 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. 3.1. 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 placed with re s p ec t t o th e ques ti on before it was, in (Mr. Gibson s) opinion, rather humiliating. Baron Rothschild lohusiseas w had been first elected in 1847 ; and yet it was now the middle of the session of 1861 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 House 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. He (Mr. Gibson) contended that a Bill similar to the former should have been brought in at the very corn- : Mr. LABOUCHERE did not want to attach more la.. mencement of the session, and if it were again rejected else- portance to the words than they deserved; but as tlae, where, he was of opinion that some decided step should be seemed to him proper and suitable, he preferred keeping the taken in the matter. It should, in fact, be made a Govern- preamble as it was. There was no intention whatsoever of ment question, and the other branch of the Legislature proposing any grant of money for the Exhibition. should b e i n f orme d that the House of Commons woald no Mr. HENLEY said the continuance, of that convensailen longer submit to such a course. rather strengthened his alarm. One Hon. Commissioner Mr. PLUMPTRE hoped the House and the country would said there was no intention of applying for money, but' reject the measure. He regretted that the Noble Lord had struggled hard to get one end of the wedge in. —(oh, ob.) shown so little respect for the religious feelings of the coun- Another Hon. Gentleman said there was less chance daring try.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Whatever might be the feeling the present than : last year. He suggested that the pre of the House on the subject, the bulk of the people regarded amble should be r formed in consonance with the first it as a purely religious question. The question was, whether clause ; and that Would leave the question open.— (Cries of Jews should be admitted in a professedly Christian assembly? '"Divide, divide.'D - He believed the great majority of the people of England Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but before the House were decidedly opposed to such a proceeding. He admitted was cleared the Jews were a loyal people, as well as an ancient and won- Mr. WALPOLE suggested that it would be as well to derful people; but he could not forget that they had rejected, make the preamble suitable to the object in the first clause and continued to reject, that Saviour in whom this country by adding words to the effect, " that protection ought to be believed. He held it would, not only be a great ingrati- afforded to persons desirous of exhibiting wares in any place tude to God, but a great :peril to the country to admit appointed to be appropriated for the same." into a Christian Legislature those who rejected the ' Mr. ARKWRIGHT was understood to withdraw his Founder of Christianity ; and he, therefore, trusted the amendment to allow Mr. Walpole's to be substituted. House would not give the proposition of the Noble Lord its . Sir G. GREY said i, appeared to him absurd to be dis support.—(Hear, hear.) cutting the expedienes of leaving - ont the word Exhibition, Mr. WEUG-PROSSER said he could not shut his eyes to when every one must know what was meant by the Bill.— the fact that the country had resolved on the principle of (Hear.) Any Government who would come forward to pro religious freedom ; and it was his own opinion likewise, that, pose a grant of money on the faith of that. preamble would as regarded religion, all men should be perfectly free. The do so on the weakest possible pretext.—(Hear.) He con question then arose, was the case of the Jews a peculiar tended they were 'not exhibiting themselves— (Laughter)-- one deserving of excepti, n? He did not think with some in the fairest light by continuing such a discussio , .. Hon. Gentlemen that the House was called on to act as Mr. WALPOLE said he had only suggested his amend executors of God's vengeance against that people; nor could ment on account of the discussion which had taken place, he hold with those who maintained that the legislature an , t would now persevere in proposing it to the Committee. should be exclusively Christian, seeing the country was not Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, and the Com exclusively Christian ; still less with the argument that the mittee divided, when there appeared— Jews were aliens, when they all knew that every man born For the preamble in this country was in the Queen's allegiance. The difficulty Against. it ... 92 .., z,li Majority L 36 The A pprentices to Sea Service (Ireland) Bill was read IL :second time. The General Board of Health Bill was read a second time. The Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill was read a se— cond time. The Mutiny Bilks-were read a third time. The House then ajourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. . _ (From the Votes and Proceedings of th e H owe o f C ot na l OWS THURSDAY, APRIL 3. OATH OF ABJURATION (JEWS) . Resolution (sth August, 1850 ) read; Motion made, and Question put, " That this House Ca i mmediately resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration. to Persons profes sing the Jewish religion." The House divided :.... MAJORITY—AYES, 16 6 . Adair, Hugh E. Gaskell, J. M. Parker, John Aglionby, H. Gibson, T. M. Pigott, Francis A lcock, Thomas Gilpin, R. T. Pilkingten, James Anderson, Arthur Grace,l3. D. Pinney, William Anstey, T. C. Granger, T. C. Power, Nicholas Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, Sir G. Pow] ett, Lord W. Bagshaw, John Grey, Ralph W. Price, Sir R Baines, M. T. Haste, Alexander Prineep, H. T. Baring. Sir F. Hatchell,' John Rawdon, Colonel Barnard, E. G. -Hawes, Beni. Reynolds, John Barron, Sir H. - iilleatlicoat, John Ricardo, Osman Bell, Jacob Aleury, Alexander Rica, E. R. Bellew, R. M. neywortli, Lawrence Robartes, T. J. A. Berkeley, Admiral Hi ggins, George Romilly, Colonel Berkeley, Henry F. Hobhouse, T. B. Rowdily, Sir Joan Berkeley, C. L. Hodges, T. L. Russell, Lord J. Bernal, Ralph Hogg, Sir j. Russell, F. C. H. Blake, M. J. Hume, .L 4. . .^ • Sadleir, John Bright, John liumphorMiliat- , ' Saiwey, Colonel Brocklehurst, John liutchilia, Ilibl42' Scholefleld, W. Brotherton, Joseph Hutt, walla u r Scully, Francis Jackson, , WiriLaza Burke, Sir T. J. Seymour, Lord Butler, P. S. Keating, Robert ; Shaft, R. D. Cardwell, Edward Keogh, William Smith, Vernon Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Smith, J. A. Henry Somerville. Sir W. Clay, James Clerk, Sir G. Stanton, W. S. Cockburn, Sir A. Lemon, Sir C. taanbogustcohne,r J. H. Staunton, Slr.Cl. Colebrooke, Sir T. Lewis, 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. Thicknesse,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, Fox Townshend, Captain Disraeli, B. Melgund, Viscount Tabun, Henry Duke, Sir James Shines, R. M. Vane, Lord H. Duncan, Lord Mitchell, T. A. Villiers, Charles Duncan, George Moffatt, George Vivian, J. H. Dundas, Admiral Monsen, William Wakley, Thomas Dundas, Sir D. Morris, David Walmsley, Sir J. Dunne, Colonel Muntz, G. F. Westhead, J. B. Ebrington, ViScOunt Norreys, Lord Willcox, Brodie Ellis, John Norreys, Sir D. Williams, John 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 Charles Fordyce, A. D. Osborne, Ralph Forster, Matthew Owen, Sir John IT.LLLIIB. Fox, W. J. Paget, Lord A. Hayter, W. G. Freestun, Colonel Paget, Lord C. Hill, Lord M. French, F. Palmerston, Vis. MINORITY-NOES, 98. Acland, Sir T. Gooch, E. S. Peel, Sir Robert Arkwright, George Goa'burn, Henry Pennant, Hon. COL Ashley, Lord Grogan, Edward Plowden, W. H. Baird, James Gwyn, Bowel Plurnptre, J. P. Barrow, W. H. Halford, Sir.llenry Reid, Colonel Beresford, William Hamilton, G. A. Rendlesham, Lord Bernard, Viscount Mayes, Sir E. Renton ,J. C. Best, John Ileald, James Ruehout, 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. H. B. Brisco, M. Lacy, 11. C. Spooner, Richard Bruce, C. L. C. Lennox, Lord A. Stafford, Angastas Buck, L. W. Lindsay, Colonel Stanford, J. F. Buller, Sir V. Lockhart, A. E. Stuart, John Carew, W. P. Lockhart, W. Sturt, Henry G. Christy, Samuel Long, W. Taylor, Thomas E. Clive, H. B. Lopes, Sir Ralph Thesiger, Sir F. Currie, 11. Lygon, Gen. Tollemache, John Davies, D. A. Macaghten, Sir E. Trevor, G. It. Dick, Quintin Mahon, Viscount Tyler, Sir G. Drax, J. S. W. Miles, William Vesey, Thomas Duncombe, A. Moody , C. A. Waddington, H. S. Duncuft, John Moore, George IL Walpole, Spencer Du Pre, C. George Morgan, 0. Welby, G. E. East, Sir J. B. Mailings. J. R. Wellesley, Lord C. Edwards, Henry Mundy William Wigram, L. T. Farrar, James Filmer, Sir E. Napier, Joseph Neeld, John Walehouse, E. Yorke, E. T. Floyer, John Neeld, Joseph Forbes, William Ossulston, Lord TELEMILS. Gallwey, Sir W. P. Pakington, Sir John Inglis, Sir H. H. Galway, Viscount Palmer, Hobert Newdegate, C. N. PAIRS. FOR. AGAMT. 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 Etnlyn, 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 Winn the Removal of Jewish Disabilities Bill. Mr. Trelawny paired off with Mr. Pugh. Mr. Smith Child paired off with Mr. Bass. DESIGNS e,ll, mTa tMAJORITY—AYES, Preamble." s ACT iehßenenTrieehwi 1, EXTENSION (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 _ . .. . . .o . i' th e 111 jlai o i m y, b m su r ti ry,eT i Committee heocA,t,utri aloyme Charles dEiBPWst Committee e 79, divided 2iC.n Ricardo,t L e ! l a c d i : l o i t . r r e os Osman r f a : dio o b r e d s a proposed i lace f to ex b h e ib le i ft tio o n ut w eta ith n tn d thean d meaning Foreign Plantationso of the Designs t o part Question ofthep Gibson, T.M. Aglionby, ii. A. Power, Nicholas Anstey, Th omas Price, Sir Robert Baring, SW .?:.• T. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Itawdon Colonel Bellew, R. 0 .- G Berkeley, Admiral Grey, Sir G eo r ge Berkeley, C. Y. • a Rice, E. R. 113 1; 13 3r : B irch , a o y n k t i l e e u ,:Colonel rt Mi ,o j E TT. w. ' R ice, C sir olon j. el llatchell, John Russell,F. C. B. Hawes, B. SalweY,Colonel Brown, W. Buxton, Sir C. neyworth, L. Seymour, Lord 'Lindley, Charles IlobhouSe, T. B. Shafto, R. D. E, Holland, jaekson Robertivimam Smith, John Abel S mellett, A. Somerville, Sir IV. Cavendish, W. G Kershaw, James Sotheron, T. 11. S. Childers, J. W. Labouchere, 11. Spearman, H. J. Cockburn, Sir A. Langston, J. 11. Stanton, W. 11. Cowan, Charles Lewis, G. C. Tenison, E. K. Cowper, W. F. Masterman, J. Thickness., R. A. Craig, Sir W. G. Matheson, Colonel Thompson, Ald. Dalrymple, Captain Maule, Fox Thompson, Coloseld Dawson, T. V. . -Mulgrave, Earl of Thornely, Thomas Douglas, Sir C. Nugent, Sir Percy Vivian, J. U. Duncan, George O'Connell, John Weethead, J. B. Dundas, Admiral O'Connell, M. J. Ebrington, Viscount Ogle, S. C. Williams, John Wilson, Jones Ellis, John Paget, Lord Clarence Wilso. Ilis.tthew Evans, William Palmerston, Via. w r i g hoon. W. R. Fagan, William Parker, John Fordyce, A. D. Peehell, Sir G. 11ELLE141. Harter, W. O. Fortescue, J. W. Pigott, Francis grey', B. q, Freestun, Colonel Pilkington, James MINORITY—NOES, 56. Adderley, C. B. Gallwey, Sir vr. P. Nil, Lord Archdall, Captain Galway, 'Viscount Napier J ose ph Arkwright, George Gilpin, Colonel Newdegate, N. Baldock, E. H. Gooch, E. S. Newport, Viset. Bankes, George Greene, John Packe, C. W. Barrington. Viscount Grogan: Edward Plumptre, J. P. Barrow, W. H. Gwyn, Bowel Renton, John C. Beresford, William ns isey, T. p. Seyrner, Henry Her Beat, John Hamilton, J. Ty . Sibthorp, Colonel Blair, Stephen Heald, James—. Stafford, Augustus Brcmridge, Richard Henley, J. W . Stanford, J. P. Brooke, Sir A. 1 3. Hodgson, Inglis, Si R. • W. hT. Stanley, Edward Burghley, Lord .... Sturt, H. G. Chichester, Lo rd '' Jocelyn, Viscount Taylor, T. E. Christy, Samue l Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Tyler, Sir G. Davies, D. A. Knox, Colonel Waddington, H. S. Edwards, rieur3' Mackenzie, W. P. Myer, Joh n Manners, Lord J. Forbes' W. Miles, P. W. S. Frewe n, C• 11. Mullings, J. R. TIMM& Spooner R. Walpole; S. 11 In j • udging of your own writings, doings, of speeches, you should recollect that you are judging of own o ff spr i ng. Therefore, on all doubtful points, when the judgment h a lts, as it were, upon the threshold, you should always construe them, that is, give the turn of the scales against yourself.—Eliza Cook's Jet al. [ADVERTISEMENT,.] —The Observer and Gratis stamped twenty-column Supplement; sixty folio column/ for sixpence. Sunday, Apr 6, a full report of sad on the Budget and Income-tax ; also the Quarter's ReVelltle Tables, further Chancery movements in Miss Talbot's case &c. The extensive publication of the Observer commence§ 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. [ADVERTISEMENT.] The wonderful cures per formed by Holloway's Pills astonish everybody; they re . move complaints which the faculty pron ounce incurable ; debilitate ; th e cons titutions are by their use completely invigorated nervous, the delicate, and the weak are made strong ; an d there is no other medicine known that is so certain and effectual in curing indigestion, and all bilious, liver, and at°. mach complaints as Holloway:s Pills ; they are also an excel lent remedy for dropsical affections, and ev ery disease incident to females, and stand unrivalled as an establis ed family medi cine, as they purify the blood, cleanse the system, strengthen the body, and reinstate it in the soundest health, and often a ft e r every other r emed y has failed.—Sold by all Druggist, and at Profes sor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. •".4 ,: - of nest 1 bl been ned; uirl cioi! I hone here bioh . a ke, Mr. nUeS Atiire, co os, se 01 001 1. F . On to be Lmp) have ved:, a Da WO AWS! .eser lB uirft owe!, Ig olio ty of the' wentr were, ) lao len* nit* froto s it IS I