The Sun. — London, England, 1853-06-24 00:00:00

PPP - IMPERIAL PARLIA R4ENT. ROUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) THE INCOME TAX BILL. ttii ° t ,n ee the or d er of the day being read for going into com a this bill, th e 8 Earl of CLANCARTY would say one word as to h e a ?' i tension o f this tax to Ireland, with respect to which d„ .4 2,d not think that the matter had been fully consi tiZ• It had been said, and said truly, that where equal equal laws and equal privileges, there shou l d kilo ril e taxation. He could not acquiesce with those in ""ught Ireland stood on an equality with England badger and and Privileges , and hence he thought that in the 40tfet Ireland had been most unfairly dealt with. Ire alb°ne was made to bear an increase of taxation, 0 048 8 . Angland had all the the benefit of variou s . remis th • l ie Was of opinion that, bearing in mind how eee4ter island had suffered in times of famine which den e d, Bo lately, some cons id erat i on oug h t t o h ave .(Bnvill towards that coun t r y, t o enable it to reco ikt ti. ria the prostration under which it then laboured. pr em r,,e Course pursued in this bill was calculated to de "le'rising energies of the Irish people, and to lead 4 , to consider, not unjustly, that their condition had ei"' received that impartial consideration to which they P al entitled. This was not the course which Sir R. tim e d ad followed in 1842 and 1845, although at that ?se - d - th ei and was far more able to bear the burden pro '4l•l --an it Was now. The oble earl oppos i te (the tibia Aberdeen) had said he n was obliged to impos . e ~tiate r . i n order to enable him to take o ff the consoli % annuities • but , for his own part, he must express Pm - • mion that it would h ave been bett er t o h ave left i porsolidat es annuities as they were, instead of m of t h g t his fresh burden. Much as he deplored many the, political ac t s o f Si r R o b ert P ee l , h e must say c e : in this instance, that statesman showed a clearer th,..ln'eliension of the state of Ireland in this respect tee'Ztthe noble earl at the head of her Majesty's Govern the end the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the-I:chequer. Every sixpence drawn by this tax from . 1 , 2 0 t e th - 4 , 88 of resident landlords, who were, of necessity, h eat naost prosperous class, was money abstracted 4 1,0 the best purpose —namely, the employment of the ili,l„ii,g population of Ir e land. This portion of the the b iTmeed, was in it se lf a comp l e t e exemp lifi ca ti on of I llet -ras e"penny w i se an d poun d f oo li s h ;" by striv here° eff t but a little—f or th e amoun t to be raised he l b rel attd au but small—it did a very great harm. Itish "Van, so he would conclude, by denying that the ThPotsessed equal privileges with England. ette : a .r l of ABERDEEN said as the subject of the Tp e ol , of the income tax to Ireland was discussed on 4 0, DeA 3' last, it was unnecessary to return to it; the less e 'irtriZ a l 3B , in consequence of the speech of the noble k g i ;"me Earl of Clancarty) having very little in its bear- Pktreel - ° n i the q uest i on. I t con t a i ne d top i cs w hi c h ap "lnst to justify the idea that the noble earl had lki eh ed to c l ose it with a motion for the repeal of the 118, '` t 7.„ laugh.) In truth, it was little else than a ev ances, and, even in these, the noble earl had the ith • 4 a most contradictory course. He objected to %lon - Z (41 , 4 40n of the income tax—that was intelligible thr - nlit then he equally objected to the remissio n . t he -- t . , e t w hich had pressed upon Ireland, in objecting to r emission of the Consolidated Annuities. One p1.q.,.-9.lxliow how to please him. If taxation did not hg,. - v ein, and the remission of it were equally displeas 44ii ;,`; 4 t was Government to do ? (A laugh.) He (the l iar* "` - Aberdeen) must say that, if it were not for the keeVesire which the present and preceding Govern tliatte„:44 felt to develop the resources, to consider the t i'k ( A" and to relieve, as far as possible, the difficul -4)81C-ix:land, there was not muoh encouragement to 1 , 11 :0 11 ,ese efforts if they were to be met in the manner eeted -e ,', the noble earl had met them. He utterly re qkt;ri'ue assertion of the noble earl that Ireland was th e w ith injustice and illiberality, for the very reverse Th'e intention and the practice of the Government. T h e hous e th en went into committee on the bill. 0 11 8 ' clause s up to 13 were agreed to. e laose 13, tlli rd e Earl of WICKLOW gave notice that on the e iki a „ ire ading he should move the exclusion of the 13th ° f fee ' and substitute one to provide for the assimilation ClC B ,, B esenaent in Ireland to that in England. 8 4 % 0 74 LIP to 56 we re agree d t o a ft e r a d esu lto r y dis he • to, w re maining clauses and th e s c h e dules we r e agreed kd " the house having resumed, the bill was reported, I,irdered to be read a third time on Monday. to: L, ORD CHANCELLOR presented petitions from ne land societies against the Registration of As % Bill. fror g e i Ptike of NEWCASTLE presented a petition ''' c 'nlan Catholics of Boston, in Lincolnshire, net the inspection of nunneries. .b ECCLESIASTICAL LIVINGS. Th e B , of OXFORD laid upon the table a bill thihnctutate the exchange of livings by bishops, arch -41(42,8' and ecclesiastical corporations, which, on the u 414 i t " nf the ri g ht rev . pre l a t e , was rea d a fi rs t time, the second reading fixed for Tuesday. Peperi eio'clocr lordships adjourned at twenty minutes past k. 4#4l: ft OF COMMONS—{YESTERDAY. ) 1 --., RAICER took the chair at four o c ock. GOVERNMENT 0 F INDIA . BILL. / 13 a : ti th e motion for the second reading of this bill, diste ti , S TANLEY_ —who, we regret tc to pr s c a p y c , se w t a h s e v f e o ry no i w n: 1- Aai hea d in the gallery—rose . . I lie a r t hineAdulent :—" That, in the opinion of this house, I lK tlrt s: illfc lrnation is necessary 1,,,..- permanent enable government toot. r i -- " e W ith advantage for the telia • e k ... ! a ild that, at this late period of the session,it it is d i i n a. - t:edient to proceed with a measure which, w hile 1 k i , b , a existing arrangements, cannot be considered as a flea to the following a,""erent,),--His lordship then spoke the orb; t i : -- -31r. Speaker, in rising to move first place assure the L '4 I have given notice I can in the but Or custom, ti4e that it is no mere matter of fo rm it, and because I l se t is really because I feel q tk,,e shall not very 'e ask for its kind indulgence — an ven ter greatly intrude Ire upon it, that I ven sit:4, Ps, it will be allowed I have not very commonly soli -1 (Re ar, hear.) And, sir, in . the very outset of my ii,ations I a m bound to admit that in the statement -4 w l . , 4'4lch the right hon. gentleman the Pres w id e en a t re of n t o h w e 4 4 , 1 °I. Control introduced the bill which . t lay him of to the kelf ~ g notice of the house, h . e did no ot 4o l'en to the charge of ambiguity—either on the ground it 4 having fully explained . the provisions of the measure sc t ,,, er as to the details which he produced on the same tleman has not failed to jlll. Indeed, the right hon. policy gen of Indian l'itilain his views on every 4 '44 1 ' 4114 e su ffi cient clearness ques tionad distinctness. (Hear, I sith' The right hon. gentleman n w th e e nt w t h h o r l o e u sy gli a , w in ni re o v f ie o w nr , Ipt44lCreat ability and ingenuity, Ildo.,1)4 Ministration, in all its departments . (Hear, o the . A nd, although no one ca n . feel more deeply than I Al b , 41 , o ruentous interest and imp . ortan h c c e n o . f g t e h n e tl s c u m b e j n ec c t f , kay - '484)., I shall be able to rel i eve hon. if I beg at tii, 44rehension which they may . en it 1/1. °4lllaet, to assure them that it is not my intention, as 141t00.,.(),t my duty, to follow the rig ht co h n on ei . de g ra en b t l l e em pa a r n t W th' ls4 the whole, or even through a ny °4 select which now awaits our decision . 14,444tient of which I havedoes not deal Sir, the ,1 4 , 1 : 1 it does not profess given tdea n l—with the question, I Nt sco ner or lat er we shall have toetto h determine—withecarried o the . (1 11.„ 1°1 ', how i s t h e future governm ent tli ,. Qt of , ilea t) I do not, sir, ask the house to administration of our pass a ver- 1,4 C c ensur e or acquittal upon the 1441:4tel:kitories—I do nottorntehane future to t tc he co h m ou m se it , look tither fo r to the present or She 411 approb a ti on or cond d e e m sc n ri a h t e i d on ae o t f h t e h a a y t s w te h m ic c h f ` I Q 11,1„ e°lllreonly, but vaguely, holbs' gove rnment. (Hear, hear.) O then which contrary, Inow the 1 5,,1 5 e and t en d ency o f th e amend m ent 4t, all is to prov e th a t it i s no t a t this moment possible, 141 4 /Nitta that it is not expedient or h advis o a f bl t e h , c to se come ' h lst cle , e ision upon either one or oter tlete B j, 4'44 while, sir, I accord all t h a t,l w n o o n w ld , a sk * lttar lt fte tite is it ' wise, is it justifiable, t hat , when 4 4.0 . close of a protracted session, that en. to t to the admission of even the o ri pi g n h i t on h i o n n. ln g dia it 0..... 143:4e e1f, the verdict of public 14. t omot be received in time—tha t now, i n n ow r , cf b er e c f n or c e e 141 1 11 4 k 7 ° Pillion of the people of Englan can in any way Qs sa l t of the Governmen t 11 when the or, - ..e.q t o d • but above a , , 1 41 ) ,, I , be fully mature , 41441:"ttes appointed by this and the other Par roth.ouse.no..forma. 70111e°terevli-defuorcet,hane and recording of gatheringi i theki iiarpo:le evidence , giving the p r n e h c l o i r c ding that evi dence, henefi b t but generall .d y ed the that now, be tlehisions to which they had been gm. afore tl ,tile se c ommittees have not yet apparent lyapproached sir ex. Meat-ge terra of their inquiries—is it, I would ask, , e, is it advisable, is it hardly possible to legislate ow, for hon. t'Q,,StZtcanent government of India? ( Hear .) .. ," t4e hrq e d,,. ll Will ecollect that the prese e n a t t P f a e r r lia m m er e e n Nts Ys of November, that they t t h ra an et si i x ii ~..9 ' St'Nl7llelA tlaey adjourned to meet again in February. i4ttlii; now , then, towards the close o f f t t h n e e ia m rg o e n s t t h a o n f d J m un e e el , tr,14leor!11,110n of one o t:, ll at }1 ,, 4 .1' . 'I, h onlle.s which ,during the last twenty years, - ti s 'i li l , l 4 a a i Zrint the . lasthalf century, has been submitted I adopting that line of argument, One ~,lise' t P 'Avail), sir , li I l i l at I am laying th m lt e ei f s e measure is P i as !Itl e i' l ll• It will be said, of course 1, Ihtet,,Paztrattionnt importance— that there exists so keen 1.11 1. - :: 4lll : 4 l:ttet r iiii :: in its regard in the minds of the public—that ~" etzep_of mere personal or party consideratign ought rarliament from cheerfully acce di ng her to din th ar e y p p ro e: (tear.o the session a little beyond t place, pro that ) Now I shall say to that, inth e fi rst blcetit,°llsidering we have been here since early in the anti l lth of Nove mber—considen'ng that a utot e l t. Oth n. in o .e r ,`4,4ltb A ugust, we shall have sat for period think it is ii i with only two short interrupt ion s—l thettik>as.be expectation—l think it is not probable, -Ik e a with ho will consent to continue itssi f tti s n ir gs l fa o r w in n to l ta.4 erlfroaching a utumn.. (Hear.) For mysel , the :14e!'ive no course ore prejudicial to the minduct of 44Niiinistation of public affairs, more i nconvenient to itollrlile l e v el l g i 1 a tPieorneeoef this' house , , e t h i e a j n uri that s w t eo should c h.a_ sit_r en.rinloytf. 44 4,1 4 , o nghout the year, without the admiss io n " " ° t te - 'luring which to reflect upon what we have done, I teea t°llsi der aild mature our measures for ri ght re lie ea rs I therefore say air, that it is neither nor IQ sye - ' u le that the present session should be protracted w tot th e the :middle or the close of August ; that will allo a the N, (liscussion of this great question six weeks, or t to a. ''''Y outside two months, and that I think would n o t they very le two period to give to this subject , even if till were not other questions to occupy our time. But, o less look at the notice paper for this very day, 111,,auao 28 orders uo the list. We have in deed av I see vast hot of f htisiness before , s. It may be, perhaps, bu t-rate iruportanne, and some of which we cou l d afford to postpone ; but all will allow that, at this parti i cular period of the session, there is always a certain quan ' tity of business to be got through, which keeps us sitting within these walls for some twelve hours a day during four days in the week. Now I have looked through the parlia mentary annals for the last few years, and I have compared the time during which Parliament and the Governmnt have been occupied in passing of great measures. I will begin with the Reform Bill ; I go back to no more remote peribd. I find that the Reform Bill for England alone was introduced as early as the 12th of December, 1831—that it was read a third time upon the 22d March, 1832, and that it came down to us from the House of Lords in the month of May, its consideration having occupied the time of Par liament altogether for six months before it was passed into law. Of course it may be said that that was a measure of no ordinary character; that itwas one which all but effected a revolution in this country. But be that as it may, I apprehend that no one will be disposed to deny that the question which we are now discussing affects to a far greater extent the interests, the well-being, and good government of a far larger population. Well, again, to take the instance of the act of the emancipation of the negroes. I find that that measure was introduced into this house early in May—that it remained in this house above three months—and that it was not passed till the end of the session. Again, the measure for the repeal of the corn laws was introduced into this house in 1846, the statement of Sir R. Peel was made as early as the 27th of January, the bill was read a third time on the 15th of May, and on the 15th of June it was read in the House of Lords—having exactly occupied five months in passing into law. (Hear.) And to refer to a measure to which I myself never attached as much importance as others, I will take the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, passed in the year be fore last. That bill was introduced on the 7th of Feb.—it remained before this house for the greater part of the ses sion, not to pass through the House of Lords until its very close. Well, then, I will submit that there is no instance within the memory of any living man of this house of a measure of such magnitude and importance as that which the right hon. gentleman has the charge of being intro duced at so late a season of the year, and of a similar attempt to pass such a measure with such unexampled haste. (Cheers.) And let it be remembered that every one of the measures which I have cited as parallel cases were measures upon which the public opinion of this coun try was more or less formed. That, however, is not the case with the bill now before the house. If you look back to our former legislation, even with reference to India, you will find that a much longer period was allowed for deliberation upon every former occasion. In 1833, for instance, when, if ever there was an occasion when this house was overloaded with business, when if ever there was a time when the Indian measure might have been carried with rapidity, when the Government of Lord Grey was occupied with a vast series of public measures—in 1833, I say, when there was every excuse for passing through this measure for the renewal of the char ter with more than ordinary rapidity, how was that ques tion dealt with ? A committee was moved for in February, 1831, just three years before the expiration of the charter. The committee was again re-appointed in January, 1832, and it closed its sittings, and reported to the house in August, so that a full year was allowed for the considera tion of their report. The plan of the Government was proposed to the Court of Directors in February, 1833, by whom, after having been submitted to the Court of Pro prietors, it was accepted. And thus, so far as the measure was concerned, it came perfectly unopposed before Parlia ment. It was brought before Parliament about the middle of the session, it encountered no opposition, and it passed the same year. And although the measure then introduced admitted less extensive changes, I find that while it actually occupied the attention of Parliament during the same period as the bill now before us, I find that as far as the oommittee was concerned, that one year more was taken to deliberate on the question than had been allowed on the present occasion. In 1833, then, when the changes intro duced were much less extensive than those which the right hon. gentleman proposes, I find that the ministerial state ment was made in the month of March, evidence having been taken, not as now, before a select committee, but before a committee of the whole house, a mode of procedure which, if it was more inconvenient than that at present in practice, had undoubtedly this advantage, that it led the members of the house to obtain correct views as to the bearing of the evidence, as well as more generally in formed the public on the points on which a decision was desirable. (Hear, hear.) Well, after all that evidence had been taken, and after the ministerial statement had been made, I nevertheless find that the measure did not pass until the very close of the session. (Hear, hear.) And looking back so far as the year 1783, when the great organic change was made, and which con stituted the Court of Directors—looking back to that year I find that the Government introduced the first of two bills on the 18th of November, and the second was pro posed on the 12th of January. These two measures were finally passed in an autumn sitting, after having been eight months before the Legislature. Now, having stated this much, I believe, sir, I am entitled to say that on a refer ence to precedents the right hon. gentleman opposite is not justified in calling upon Parliament to pass this bill during the course of the present year. And I have said also that it is not desirable that a bill of this nature should pass without the people of India themselves having had some opportunity to consult of its provisions. Now, here I admit at once that when I speak of public opinion I am not speaking of native opinion. True, I greatly value the opinion of the natives of India—(loud cries of Hear, hear)—upon every question of local grievance, and upon questions of purely local interest. But when you come to deal with a great constitutional change in that country —when you are dealing with a great work which will affect the whole administration of India, I would not be inclined to attach any very great importance to the views of the natives who might choose to give their opinions. (Cries of Hear, hear.) But I do say, that when a measure of this kind- is put forward, which touches, as it does, not only the interest of all the Europeans resi dent in India, but likewise those of all the civil and mili tary officers employed in that country—all of those men who have passed many years in India—most of those men whose attention has been naturally and neces sarily directed to this subject—l must say that the fact of the opinion of all those upon the measure of the Government not being yet known furnishes the very strongest reasons against it. (Hear, hear.) And I will state further, that it appears to me you are throwing away a great advantage indeed if you abstain from consulting the opinions of a class whose evidence would be of the most incalculable value. (Hear, hear.) For, be it remembered, the number of those who have come over to this country is very small. Almost every witness examined had been in the military or civil service of the company, some of them, however, though certainly not the whole of them, having since retired from the service. Now if this were a bill relating to some subject connected with the adminis tration of the poor law in this country—to the county votes, our object would be to circulate the bill as widely as possible, in order that its provisions might be made known to those who would be affected by it, before it finally received the sanction of Parliament. But, again, I will say that, even in England itself, public opinion is not as yet matured upon the subject, though that, perhaps, is not a matter susceptible of direct proof, but is rather a matter for demonstration. Still, if I am to describe what is the actual state of opinion in England, I should say there is a very general feeling of dissatisfaction as respects the mode in which the affairs of India have been managed, and that some great change is necessary, if not desirable—quite as general, I should say, as the state of ignorance as to what that exact change should be. That is the state of publio opinion which I believe to exist in this country, and that is what I mean by saying that the state of public opinion is as yet hardly matured. But I have heard it argued in this house that although the committee up stairs have not closed their sittings or concluded their labours, still they had before them the evidence necessary to guide the house as to the formation of the constitution of the home Govern ment, although they may not have sought for information with regard to the probable working of that constitution amongst the people of India themselves. That, however, I submit, sir, to be a most erroneous course to follow, and one which I conceive to be wholly at variance with a due regard for those principles of good government, by which the administration of the affairs of our Indian empire should hereafter be distinguished—(hear, hear)—for if you want to know whether it is necessary to make a change — and if a change, what change—it is best to ascertain in the first place what has been the working of our government already. (Hear, hear, hear.) I certainly cannot conceive how you are to jndge of a government otherwise than by your experience of it. You judge of a tree by its fruit. You judge of an administration by its effects on the popu lation over whom it has been placed. (Renewed cries of hear, hear.) Sir, I have heard it said by the noble lord opposite, the member for the City of London, though not in this house, yet I have heard him say on a great public occasion, that the East India Company were now placed upon I their trial. Well, I admit that fact—no other issue is before us. But what does the right hon. gentle man opposite popose to us to do ? Why, by the very nature of his proceedings he calls upon us now—without further investigation, all on a sudden, uninformed, and undeter rained—to return our verdict. (Cheers.) Well, I am inclined to believe that I have thus made out a primp facie case against any immediate legislature. (Hear, hear, hear.) But when we use an argument of this nature, we are very often met by gentlemen of high authority and repute—though, perhaps, they have not, after all, so much evidence to support their views— but still we are met by the assertion that any delay in giving a permanent form of government to India would be productive of the utmost mischief. And indeed the right hon. gentleman opposite, in confirmation of that opinion, cited the high authority of the present Governor- General of India. I, sir, own I should be the last person to question or detract from the high authority of the Mar quis of Dalhousie, for I believe that India was never ruled by a more indefatigable or a more able minister. And to any opinion of his, deliberately formed and clearly ex pressed upon a subject on which he is so well acquainted as India, I am inclined to pay all possible deference. (Hear, hear.) But, though I do not mean to argue that the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), in giving Lord Dalhousie's opinion without communicating to us at the same time the whole contents of the letter in which that opinion was given, although I do not for a moment mean to affirm that he has not fairly represented that opinion, still I do think that it is quite possible, with all respect to the right hon. gentleman, and the overnor- General, that he may have sent a leading question to India, and received in return the answer which he anxiously wished for. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Sir C. WOOD—No no. Lord STANLEY—WeII, the right hon. gentleman says " No," and of course his denial will be accepted by all who have heard him. But, nevertheless, I may suggest that, after all, Lord Dalhousie's opinion amounted to this, per haps. He said—" If you have a measure ready, the sooner you legislate the better, and the sooner you settle the question so much the more advisable." (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly that was so. It is a point on which I must entirely concur with his lordship, and one on which, I imagine, no difference of opinion prevails, either in or out of this house. (Loud cries •of hear, hear.) That, how ever, was not the real question the question to be determined is whether, under all the circumstances I have mentioned, and towards the close of a session, the post ponement of the work of legislation for one or two years was not the course far more to be preferred, to legislating in haste, and on imperfect information ? (Hear.) And again, I own that I am not without sympathy with those right gentlemen who lay such stress upon the opinion of a noble lord, delivered in another place. I certainly at tach the greatest weight to the authority of Lord Ellen borough, and I am willing to admit that he has painted in the very strongest colours the danger of postponing legis lation. But, while I admit the great authority of the noble lord, his experience, and his unwearied assiduity, I am not quite so sure that Lord Ellenborough can be quoted so safely in favour of immediate legislation. Although the noble earl announced in his place that he was desirous of immediate legislation—which is quite a natural conclusion for the noble earl to come, considering the position which he had occupied in respect to India—nevertheless, Lord Ellenborough expressly declared at the same - time, that the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite was one which, in his opinion, was more calculated to produce agitation than to allay it. I have heard a some what singular argument employed bya distinguished mera- THE SUN, LON bar of the Government in another place. I heard it said, as to waiting until we have full information on the sub ject, that even to a master any one head of Indian inquiry, it would take a period, not of months, but probably of years. Now, I think that an argument founded upon such a statement is ridiculous. It is said that, because you cannot obtain complete and accurate information on the whole question, that therefore we shall dispense with information upon any one point—that, in fact, by not making ourselves masters of all the details it is not worth our while to attempt mastering any of them at all, and therefore that it is better to let them alone. (Hear, hear.) Now this is a kind of argument in which I cannot concur. But passing from this question, what are the arguments that have been alleged against suspending legislation for another year? We are told that we are likely to have a serious agitation in India. But what is meant by this apprehended agitation ; Does it mean a disturbance ? Does it mean an insurrection ? Does it mean an agitation backed up by physical force? Well, then, if that is really the meaning implied by this word " agita tion," I must say I believe that a more frivolous or absurd apprehension has never disturbed the mind of men. (Hear, hear.) Let us look back to all our former history con nected with legislation in India. Why, I believe that there is not a single instance on record of anything more than a comparative trifling disturbance having taken place in consequence of a delay in our legislation for India, ' excepting the one case which occurred in Madras at the beginning of the present century. I do not be lieve that, with the exception to which I have referred, you can point out a single instance in which any thing like a serious disturbance took place in India under such circumstances. If we look back to the years 1783, 1813, or 1833, when the charters were to be re newed, we find nothing whatever had occurred in India to warrant such an apprehension. We have frequently be fore placed the Government of India upon their trial. We have frequently before tested their patience in respect to our legislation. And at those periods to which I have referred, our movements were as well known to the natives of India as they are now, when we ask you to assent to a little further temporary suspension, before you enact a measure which, under the circumstances, must be ad mitted to be one of an imperfect character. I need not go back to those periods to which I have referred for the pur pose of showing you the absurdity of your apprehensions in respect to delaying legislation. I need only remind you, that during the last two years it was well known in Indi% that it would be in the power of Parliament for a limited period to renew or to change the existing form of govern ment for India. Well, then, I ask you, have any distur bances arisen in India in consequence ? (Hear.) If no dis turbances have taken place between the years 1850 and 1853, although it was well known that durng that period the fate of the Government hung upon the decision of Par liament, I do not see any ground for apprehension now, merely because you require a little longer time, in order to enable you to introduce a complete and efficient measure for the future government of India. (Hear.) But, in point of fact, I do not believe that there is any one who is acquainted with India who can entertain any apprehen sion of insurrection or disturbance by reason of this delay. There are, on the contrary, many reasons for supposing that no isturbances nor insurrections will take place. In the first place, let us consider the immense military force we have in the country, and that the natives of India are an unwarlike people. Let us recollect that there is no unity of action amongst them ' and that the result of the whole policy pursued by the East India Com pany has been to diminish as far as possible the num ber of wealty and influential men amongst the natives. (Cries of Hear.) At this moment, if there was any in clination to disturbance in India, there is not to be found in any part of the country a leader that could reckon on a large proportion of followers. Why, there is at present a total absence of men who would be qualified or desirous of leading such a movement : and the experience of the best informed persons on the subject is that such a movement could not really occur. Though many independent states had been subject to revolution within a short period, they have never risen against the supreme power or have never attempted to break the link that bound them to this country. Well, then, it does not appear to me reasonable to suppose that the same people and the same races who had seen their native rulers destroyed and their native Governments destroyed without a murmur—that, because we deem it necessary to pause for a little longer before we enact a measure for the Government of India they would exhibit their impatience in the way of disturbance or in surrection. (Hear.) Moreover, it is highly probable that the great mass of the people of India will know nothing whatever of the merits of the bill, even when it is passed into a law. But perhaps it is supposed by those who ad vocate immediate legislation that delay would occasion something like that sort of agitation which we have in England. Now, in the first place I believe that anything like an agitation such as we have in England is totally alien to and repugnant to the habits of the natives of India. But even if a large number of petitions were to be poured into this house, and even if there was a greater de gree of attention paid by the natives to their local griev ances—even if they did find out that they wanted several public works deemed necessary for the improvement of the country, together with a mitigation of taxation, I don't think that any agitation of such a kind would prove a great injury to us. On the contrary, I believe that if you could get the people of India to take a little more interest in their own public affairs, you would not be injuring the stability of the English Government, or creating any degree of disturbance.that could give us the slightest cause for uneasiness. I believe that such a movement in the public mind of India would materially assist you in carrying on the administration of Indian affairs. I certainly do not understand what is meant by saying that there is a danger of creating agitation in India, because it is known that the Legislature of this country is ready to provide remedies for their grievances. I can understand that when men know that the doors of Parliament are closed against their complaints, that, in such a case, there would be something to gain by violent means, inasmuch as there was no hope of succeeding otherwise ; but I cannot imagine anything to provoke an agitation by physical force when the people themselves are fully conscious that, whatever those griev ances may be, they have a constitutional, a peaceable, and an accessible remedy in this house, which was ready to take their grievances into consideration. (Hear, hear.) Well, but after all, I do not understand upon what ground those who support the measure of the Government are justified in speaking of the danger of agitation arising from delay. We are told that if you do not legislate immedi ately, there will be a serious agitation in India. Well, but the bill of the right hon. gentleman himself a provi sional measure. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman introduces a measure which he says is, at all events, an experiment, and that if it is found not to work, it will be in the power of Parliament either to revoke or alter the bill. Why, what is that but suspending legisla tion? It is introducing a provisional state of things for a limited and indefinite period. I can understand how those who are satisfied with the present state of things can argue against the danger of a provisional state of things and introducing such a measure as that proposed by the right hon. gentleman ; but I confess that I do not under stand how that argument can be used by those who sup port the present bill, and far less by those who have intro duced the measure. (Hear, hear.) Well, as regards the actual administration of affairs in India, what, I ask, will be the result of putting the government on its trial for some time longer ? Sir, I believe that the result will be this—that all persons ho are employed under the Govern ment will work under an increased sense of responsibility, and with more activity, in trying to set their houses in order before the arrival of the next session. (Hear, hear.) Certainly it is very often said—and I believe with truth— that there is more local reform and improvement effected in the two or three years before the expiration of the char ter than in the ten years preceding. That I believe to be literally the case, and I think there will be a still stronger inducement to those employed in the Government of India to exert themselves in effecting those improvements that are desirable when they know that they will have the short interval for proving themselves worthy of their posi tion between the present period and the next session of Parliament, for I think that the result of suspending legis lation for another year will be good. I know not whether it is worth my while to refer to certain objections and taunts which I have heard made in other places against this proposition on our part for delay. I have heard it said that although we are now proposing to suspend legislation, yet that it was the intention of the late Government to have legislated immediately upon the subject. Now I beg to say most distinctly, that that allegation is utterly un founded. I have looked back to see what had been the language held by the leader of the late Government at the time when this question was brought before Par liament. I find that the noble earl had used the follow ing words on the 2nd April last year :—" By the report of the committee of this and the other House of Parliament, her Majesty's Government are ready to be guided in the course which they ought to take in reference to India ; and to these committees must be deputed the important task of considering how the affairs of India hereafter shall best be conducted." Why, the meaning of those words is clearly against immediate legislation. And the right hon. gentleman who then held the office which was represented by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), in moving for a committee of this house, used similar lan guage. Well, I have referred to those observations for the purpose of showing what the intentions of the late Government were in respect to this subject. I certainly am not aware that it was ever the intention of the late Govern ment to have legislated for India previous to the presenta tion of the reports of the committees that had been ap pointed by both houses of Parliament to inquire into the subject. I wish now to make an observation in reference to the form of the amendment which I have submitted to the house. In the words of my amendment I have merely stated that further information is necessary to enable Par liament to legislate for the future government of India, and that, therefore, it is inexpedient to proceed with the present bill. Of course that amendment is open to objection if I intend to convey by it an opinion that we ought not to legislate in some form in order to meet the difficulty that arises by the expiration of the charter. Now I wish to state distinctly that in the amendment which I have proposed, although my meaning may not be very clearly expressed, that the intention of it is that we shall continue the act for a limited period of time. I now wish to make a few remarks upon the measure of the right hon. baronet (Sir C. Wood.) That measure consists of a variety of details and of many provisions. As to many of those provisions we are agreed, and I have no desi r e toin terpose any unnecessary objections. There is, however, one or two of those provisions which I think exceedingly objectionable. The three main provisions of the right hon. gentleman's bill are these—first, the non-renewal of the charter; secondly, the plan by which the patronage is to be disposed of ; and, lastly, the constitution of the Court of Directors. Ido not deny that all legislation at all times and in all countries must, to a certain extent, be experi mental. But, I confess, that instead of proposing a mea sure so confessedly experimental as the present is—a mea sure which is framed in such a way as to leave it open to Parliament at any period to alter or revoke—l think it would be much better if the right hon. gentleman had taken a fixed term of years, and had said that this India Bill, whether it be good or bad, shall have a fair trial. Now that, in my opinion, would be a better and a wiser course for the right bon. gentleman to have taken than the one he has adopted. I think that when the right hon. gen tleman leaves his measure open, to be altered at any time that Parliament shall think proper, he utterly destroys his own argument used as any amendment, that there will be an agitation in India if we refused to legi slate until next session. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman dwelt at some length upon the question of patronage. The East India Company has been exposed to some reflections as to the manner in which they have disposed of their patronage. In that censure Ido not concur. I think that the patronage by the East India Company was better disposed of under all the circum stances of their position than some persons are disposed to admit. But I say at the same time, that the system of placing so large an amount of patronage in their hands is one which I think is not calculated to promote the interests of the public service. You give to the directors of the Com pany an allowance which is perfectly inadequate for the services they have to discharge. These services are per formed in private, and are not brought forward under the public eye. A director is not paid for his services in pecu niary emoluments—it is said that he is paid in patronage. ISut when you say that, you employ a phrase that carries ON, FRIDAY EVE with it an idea that patronage is not distributed for the good of the public service. If he is merely to-act betwoen conflicting claims for admission to employment, that privi lege which is conferred on him is of a very invidious cha racter. Under the old system his salary was not one-third, and under the new system scarcely one-half, of that which was paid to the head clerk of a public office. The patron age that is given to him under such circumstances necessa rily implies that he is allowed a large discretion in the dis tribution of the patronage for private purposes. I appre hend that so long as, under these circumstances, anything like this system is maintained, you will find that the patron age will be employed in the way I have just mentioned, and you will not find that such employment of it will ever be sanctioned by public ?pinion. The right hon. gentleman opposite condemns this system of leaving so much patron age in private hands. From that condemnation of it, it was not I think unnatural for us to suppose that he would do otherwise than abolish the system, or at all events gradu-, ally to diminish it. I confess that I myself was under that impression up to the moment that the right hon. gentleman had made his proposition. But when I came to look at the effect of his proposed measure, and when I compare it with the system at present in operation, it appears to me that the amount of reform which he proposes is absolutely dis proportioned to the language with which he introduced that part of his scheme to the house. I find that upon an average of 18 years past, the directors have had annually in their gift 286 military, and 35 civil appointments. The patronage under the existing system was therefore divided into 24 parts. Let us remember that one civil appointment in pecuniary value is worth as much as three military ap pointments. For convenience, then, of calculation, let us turn into value of military appointments what every direc tor has at present at his disposal. We shall find, then, that there are 10 and a fraction of military, and one civil appointment, annually in the hands of each director. In stead of having 24 directors in office, it is now proposed to have only 18. The patronage, therefore, will be divided into 18 instead of 24 parts. The civil appointments are to be taken away altogether. Under the new system, therefore, there will be 13 cadetships to each of the direc tors, while under the old system the number was 14. Now, I do not consider that this is a great reform in the system of patronage. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") With regard to the plan with which he proposes to deal with the civil patronage—the right hon. gentleman has introduced a principle in respect to civil patronage which I believe to be unknown in this country—l suppose I may call it a Chinese principle—this is a principle of unlimited intellec tual competition for admission to office. Ido not for a moment mean to deny but that the introduction of such a system is an improvement upon the present one. I believe that it is infinitely better that these appointments should be reserved for persons who, by their intellectual merits. aro more capable of filling them. I approve of that prin ciple. But, though lam far from condemning the experi ment the right hon. gentleman proposes to make, still I cannot help thinldng that he will find some practical diffi culties in carrying out the details of his plan. In the first place, the competition will be open to all England. Ido not know the number of applications there have generally been for civil appointments ; but, if it were anything like the number of applications which all persons receive for situations of infinitely less importance, I apprehend that the number will be considerably greater than he appears to calculate upon. (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, that the right honourable gentleman will find a practical difficulty in submitting to an examination this enormous and unwieldy number. There may, no doubt, be some thing in the principle of making a man's fortune in life depend upon his proficiency at an early age ; but I think that the system the right hon. gentleman proposes in re spect to those examinations is rather exclusive, in refusing admission to civil offices to all those who have not distin guished themselves at an early period of life. Upon the whole, the general principle of intellectual competition I think is so infinitely better than the present system, that I am unwilling to find a fault with the details of that part of the measure. I think, however, that you are running some risk of flooding India with over-educated mediocrity. If the principle of competition is adher ed to, I would sug gest that it would be advisable to distribute some part of that patronage amongst the principal educational establish ments of the country, instead of leaving it dependent upon any peculiar form of education the nature of which we do not know. (Hear.) I think that by doing so you would have an opportunity of getting as large a number and as equal a chance of distinguished and efficient men. It is a question whether some part of the patronage might not be kept advantageously for distribution by Government—not certainly for purposes of political influence, but for distri bution amongst the sons of those who had distinguished themselves in the civil and military services of the country. (Hear, hear.) This would be a cheap mode of rewarding such persons, and it would be extremely valuable to a class of men, many of whom at present live in England and are by no means in wealthy circumstances —a cla ss of men than whom, I think, there are none more labo rious or in defatigable. Well, I come now to the question as to the manner in which the right hon. gen tleman proposes to deal with the home government. Ido not think it necessary to dwell on that curious and rather complicated machinery by which he proposes to carry out his plan ; I take that o p p lana i s on. N it wi o ll w this question necessarily be, permanentlyestablishednecey leads us to andin full eratthe consideration of the general question of a double or single government. Whatever is said against a double govern ment as at present existing I must say that I nev er heard any scheme proposed for th e go vernment of India which did not, to a certain extent, contain the principle of a double government. But if the legislative council which the right hon. gentleman proposes is to be anything cor responding to the council in India, which I believe is the plan laid down by the right hon. gentleman, you must give to the members of that council the power of recording their opinions. You must, I think, also give them, to a certain extent, a control over the minister ; and in the same proportion as you permit them to control the =meter you will be introducing the principle of a double govern ment. (Hear.) I take the real question with regard to the government of India to be, not whether there should be a double or a single government, but what the double govern ment is to be, and in what manner it is proposed to give efficacy to it. And looking at the plan of the right hon. gentleman, I confess it does not seem to be one that is well calculated to give efficacy to this double government. If there is one thing you require more than another in that council, or body, or whatever you choose to call it; if there is one thing more than another which is absolutely indispensable to the due performance of their duties, it is that they should be independent of the Government. What is the plan, then, of the right honourable gentle man ? Why, he takes the members of the existing board, makes one-third of them nominees of the Crown, and allows them at the same time to have a seat in this house ; therefore, it is absolutely impossible that they should not to a great extent be under the influence of the minister of the day. (Hear, hear.) Now Ido not ask the house to pledge itself to any opinion upon the nature of the government which is henceforward to be adopted in India ; but this I have no hesitation in saying, that if you are not merely to keep up a continued agitation upon the subject, but if you propose to introduce any change or reform whatever, no reform can be complete or serve the people of India which leaves untouched the Court of Proprietors. (Hear, hear.) A great deal is to be said for a double government, and a great deal is to be said for the maintenance of the Board of Directors and the Board of Control in the performance of their present duties, but I have never yet heard any single argument adduced by any one in defence of the main tenance or the existing Court of Proprietors. They share in no responsibility, they have no Indian experience. they take noparticular interest in Indian affairs, they exer cise no control over the directors who are elected by them, and they are themselves in a position of absolute irresponsi bility to the public. Various schemes have been suggested for making the court of proprietors a really effective and useful body, but any measure which continues that court on its present footing is ameasure which I, forone, shall not ac cept as an efficient measure of reform. The right hon. gen tleman proposes a bye-law for the purpose of doing away with canvassing; and I have:no doubtfthat the canvass for the directorship, as it is now carried on, is a very great and serious evil, and that it operates more than any other cause in keeping good men out of the direction. The bye-law the right hon. gentleman proposes is this. It prohibits any canvassing or solicitation for votes by any proprietor on behalf of himself or of any other proprietor. But the sole result that I can see of that plan is that the candidate will not be allowed to employ as his canvassing agent any pro prietor of the court. And I believe, if you retain the court of proprietors on the present footing, absolutely irre sponsible, and having no peculiar interest in Indian affairs and as long as you leave a large amount of patronage in the hands of the directors, that any act passed for the prohibi tion of canvassing will be a nugatory act, and you might as well pass a law that no one shall apply to the goverment here for an appointment. (Hear, hear.) What I wish to point out to the attention of the house before I take leave of this part of the subject is, that the bill of the right hon. gentleman, as I understand it, ie not a measure of reform doing away with the abuses which have been com plained of, neither is it a simple measure of con tinuance, retaining the existing system on its present footing. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman, so far from removing, tends in my opinion to aggra vate those abuses, because the power is now whollyvested in the Board of Control, and the directors have not in reality that independence which they profess to have, and the effect of the measure of the right hon. gentleman is to mrke the Court of Directors still more than ever dependent on the Board of Control. 'lt is not for me, at this stage of the measure, to dwell upon that vast series of subjects which occupied about three-fifths of the speech of the right ho gentleman. The right hon. gentleman entered into a renew of the whole system of the company's admi nistration in India ; and he complimented them upon that administration in a highly flattering manner. Now I do not complain that the right hon. gentleman should have felt a desire to justify, as far as he was able the conduct of the directors, and to place their administration in the most favourable light possible. But this I must say, with re ference to what the right hon. gentleman stated as to the foreign policy of the Indian G ove rnment, that there is not a territory in the whole world which is so ab solutely safe from all danger of invasion from without as the British posessions in India, There you have a frontier of about 2,000 miles ; and along its whole ex tent there are only two points, which together do not exceed 100 miles, by which it is possible for a foreign army to penetrate into India. Therefore, as regards foreign in vasion, we have no reason to apprehend any danger what ever. But whilst we have a sufficient guarantee for the safety of our empire, at the same time there are some cir cumstances connected with Indian administration which it is most necessary to notice in this house, because they appear to indicate that the state of that country, safe as it may be from external aggression, is nevertheless critical, and requires mature and careful consideration. If I look back over the years which have elapsed since last the charter was renewed, I find thatfifteen years of that period have been years of war; that, whereas in other countries the normal state is one of peace, in India , whatever be the cause, it is one of war ; and when I hear it asserted that our policy in India has at all times been a defensive and not an aggressive policy, I must say that those who take that view road history in a very different manner from that which I do. lam not going into a history of the recent wars in which we have been engaged. I am per fectly ready, for the sake of argument, to acquit the Go vernment of India of having unnecessarily forced on these wars ; but I apprehend that every one of these wars may be, indirectly, if not directly, charged on the foreign policy of the Indian Government. (Hear.) If you choose to in terfere in the internal policy of states with which you have infinitely less to do than you have with the disturbances now taking place in China —if you so interfere, in defiance of every rule of justice and morality—then your policy must be essentially agressive ; and I venture to say, upon the authority of those who had the best opportunities of judging, that there is scarcely a native prince or an intel ligent native of India, who has reflected on your public policy, who does not believe that the object of your ambi tion is territorial aggrandisement in India. (Hear.) With out entering upon the history of these wars, I say that it is impossible rot to perceive that the recent wars which led not only to an increase of territory, but to an increase of debt, have been, directly or indirectly, the result of that great blunder and great crime, the invasion of Affghanis elm, (Hear, hear.) One most important element in Indian, affairs which I think the right hon. gentleman ING, JUNE 24, 185 3. passed over rather li ht. y. n the ftnanc a art e question. Anything more unsatisfactory in ha statements with regard to Indian finance since the renewal of the last charter it has never been my lot to see placed before the English public. (Hear, hear.) Why, out of the 14 years which have elapsed between 1838 and 1850, both in clusive, it appears that every single year, with the exception of 1849 and 1850, shows a deficit. The total amount of de ficit on these years is 15,500,0001. sterling, and the actual result is, that, since the renewal of the charter in 1834, 20,000,0001. has been added to the debt. Of course it will be said that, after all, it is a most insignificant sum when compared with the debt of the United Kingdom; but then there is a great difference in the position of the two coun tries. In England you might double your revenue in any one year of emergency without difficulty ; but I am per fectly certain that if you were to attempt to raise in India the public tax 20 per cent., the attempt would utterly fail. True, the area of taxation in India has of late years greatly increased. No one doubts that from India, with the addi tion of Scinde, the Punjaub, and other smaller states, you draw a much larger revenue now than you did before these accessions of territory, but I think it is very doubtful whe ther that increase of revenue has been proportionate to the extent of territory you have added to your empire there. It has often been stated that Scinde does not pay its ex penses, but then you are always referred to the case of the Punjaub, and told that, whatever your other annexed ter ritories may have done, the Punjaub has always been pro fitable. Now, from some cause or other, the territory of the Punjaub may be profitable. But I find the financial expenditure and revenue of the Punjaub, within the last two years, contrasted in this manner. At th e b eg i nn i ng I think of ast year the total revenue of the Punjaub was 2,000,0001., 1,600,0001., of which was derived from the land. The total civil expenditure, including also the mili tary expenditure for certain irregular local troops, was 1,300,0001.; leaving a surplus o f 700,0001. t o d e f ray th e expenses f the general Government of the Punjaub. Now, taking the average of the military expenditure of India, the cost of that part of the army which is maintained in the Punjaub ought to be about 2,000,0001. That, added to the expense of the civil Government of the Punjaub, would make a total ex penditure for the civil and military services altogether of about 3,300,000/. ; and seeing that in the year to which I refer you only drew a revenue of 2,000,000/.lfrom the Pun jaub, a deficit remains of 1,300,0001. (Hear, hear.) I now come to the subject of public works • and I do not deny that something has been done, especially in the last few years, in regard to public works in India. (Hear, hear.) I am very far from denying that, in this respect, some improvements have undoubtedly taken place. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman quoted the other day those three great works— works of which any Government may be proud—works which are always referred to when this particular question is before us. He told us of the Grand Trunk Road, the Ganges Canal, and the Jumna Canal. But it is not by taking a few isolated and individual instances that you can get at what the Government has done in a matter of this sort. The real and only fair test is to see what proportion of revenue has been expended upon public works ; and upon this the details are various and conflicting. I find it stated by one writer that the amount expended on pub lic works is half a million sterling yearly, by another the amount is put at 350,000/. ; but Mr. Kaye, whose work has so often been quoted in the course of these discussions, and who is a very high authority upon the subject, says the total sum expended upon an average of the last 15 years has not exceeded 300,0001.—the aggregate amount of the revenue of India at the same time considerably ex ceeding 20,000,0001. a year. It may be said, however, why, after all, should it be so grave a charge against the Government that it does not take to itself the con struction of works which in this country is left to the en terprise of private individuals. But the position of the Government in India is altogether different from that of the Government of this country, or any other Government in Europe. (Hear, hear.) In almost every part of India, with the exception of Bengal,we have assumed that which is virtually equivalent to the proprietorship of the soil. (Hear, hear.) We are in the position in India of a great universal landlord. Ido not say whether the Government is or is not to be properly considered as landlord ; but I do say, that where the small proprietors, or the small tenants, call them which you will, hold directly under the Govern ment, and pay a land tax, or a rent exceeding 30 per cent. upon the total produce, a tax so levied cannot be consi dered otherwise than the assertion of a virtual proprietor. ship. The Government, therefore, takes upon itself the duties of proprietor of the soil • and I do not think you will find a landl or d i n thi s country who would consider it sufficient to expend from 2 to 3 per cent. of his gross re ceipts upon the repairs and improvements of his land. (Cheers.) Mr. Kaye has one or two remarks upon this subject which are well worthy the attention of the house. (The noble lord then read an extract from the work of Mr. Kaye, to the effect that over a large portion of north-wes tern Provinces of India particularly, all the staple pro ducts of the land were at the mercy of the seasons ; that the droughts were most terrible in their results ; that Upper India had been visited by periodical famines in con sequence ; and that there was absolutely no means of guard ing against the recurrence of those calamities, except by the abundance of irrigation.) Public works, then are not merely a matter of profit, but a matter of humanity. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the proportion of the annual revenue which the Indian Government bestows upon works of public utility and necessity, I may again quote the testimony given by Mr. Kaye, himself, be it remembered, the apologist and eulogist of the Indian Government. (The noble lord here read another extract from Mr. Kaye's work, in which that gentleman states that though there has been a progressive tendency on the part of the Indian Government to promote public works, yet the amount of money expended in those works is miserably small in comparison with the immense sums which have been lavished upon unproductive wars ; and that roads have not been made, canals have not been dug, and bridges have not been built, in the number which the wants of the country demand, solely because the money necessary for the construction of such works has been abstracted from the public to meet the expenses of the ruinous wars in which we have been engaged. Mr. Kaye added that, in every investigation with regard to the work ing of the machinery of the government of India, the re sponsibility for this waste of treasury, which, properly ex pended, might have conferred incalculable benefits upon the people of India, should be traced to its source.) That (continued the noble lord) is the language of the apologist and the eulogist of the Indian Government. But, before quitting this subject, allow me to give you a single instance which is known to myself of the extent to which the neg lect of public works has impeded the progress of India. The instance I am about to give is taken from the Madras presidency ; and that presidency is considered as not being behind any other. The presidency is 20,000 square miles in extent • and two years ago there was in the wh o l e pre sidency only one road, which was maintained in any tole rable order. That road communicates from Madras to Ar cot and Vallore. Now, let the hous e observe the expense of transit upon that road. A quantity of goods, weighing 1,000 lbs., costs 41 rupees, or 95., for transit the whole dis tance, being more than 3d. per ton per mile ; or, for the whole distance, 18s. per ton. At the same time, the freight of similar goods from England to Madras was only 7s. per ton. In other words, it cost more than twice as much to send the same amount of goods inland from Madras to Vellore, as it costs to send them all the way from England to Madras, via the Cape, 15,000 miles by sea. Of course, the sole defence, the sole argument, attempted to be set up when a matter of this sort is mentioned is to say, "We regret it, we lament it, we think it a very un satisfactory state of things ; but after all there is a want of money, and therefore we cannot remedy it." My answer to that is, that I believe it would be perfectlyright for the Government of India, even with its present debt, to bor row money for the construction of public works. (Hear.) Remember that in India you have no alternative. These works must be done by the Government, or they will not be done at all ; and when we know that the works at this moment in operation are paying 10 per cent., or more, on the expenditure for their construction, independently of the greater certainty which they give you in the collection of your revenue—when we find that to be the result, I think it may be reasonably and fairly expected that the Government of India should not allow any deficiency in their resources to prevent them from carrying on and ex tending works of public necessity, which are also certainly highly remunerative. The next subject to which I will briefly allude is that of the judicial administration in India. And this I will venture to say, that any one who has read the evidence given before the Parliamentary committees— any one who has read the work published by Norton on the Government of India—any one who has read and seen not merely the assertions and arguments, but the official, in disputable, and recorded facts which they contain, must at once admit that the judicial administration of India is:in a most unsatisfactory state. I know you have to encounter great difficulties in your judicial administration in India. At the very outset you have this difficulty, that the best legal education can only be obtained in England, and not in India, and that a knowledge of the manners, habits, and feelings of the people can only be obtained in India, and not in England. And, upon the wh o l e , I think that the general state of the judicature is one that at this moment requires your most careful and deliberate con , sideration. A question equal or next in importance to that of finance, of judicature, and of public works—is that of education in India. And I am perfectly ready to admit, that in the case of Indian education, as well as in that of the Indian judicature, we have to meet a complication of difficulties. You had formerly certain classes—they do not now exist—who were very much averse to any system of education which was promoted by the English authorities, and which was calculated, as they thought, to interfere with the feelings, manners, and habits of the natives. You have also among Europeans many who, entertaining views which are perfectly natural, though unsound, believe that no education should be given to the Hindoos at the expense of the British Government, unless it is calculated at least to assist in proselytising the people to Christianity. You have, moreover, a deficiency of local organisation and local self-government. through whose instrumentality it might be possible to raise local funds for the purpose of extending education over the whole country. I am ready to allow that all these are obstacles, and obstacles which I do not desire to underrate. At the same time, when I look at what has been done, and consider what, even under all the diffi culties might have been done, I cannot but think that the Indian Government has in this respect failed in doing its duty. The amount expended upon education is about 50,0001. or 60,0001., say the larger sum. This is considerably less than per cent. on the revenue of the country. Mr. Marsh man, in a recent pamphlet, takes a very forcible view of this. Hear his opinions on the subject—he says, " the sum devoted to education is so niggardly and so unworthy of a great company, that I abandon it altogher." The state ments of Mr. Marshman are confirmed by the opinion of the public, and altogether show that, in regard to educa tion, the proceedings of the Indian government have been such as to require a searching examination and inquiry. I have now concluded. (Hear.) I have to the best of my ability endeavoured to show to the house that it is impo litic as well as inexpedient, to legislate on the subject of the government of India at the present moment. (Hear.) I have shown that the dangers of delay so strongly urged on the other side of the house when first this bill was laid before it, are futile when they are not imaginary. I have endeavoured to show that while on the one hand the mea sure of the Government effects no substantial reform in the present system, on the other it does not profess to substi tute a better form for that which now exists. I have en deavoured to show, taking one after the other, of the Indian administr a ti ons , and in so doing I have expressed only my conscienti ous opinion, that in whatever respect the Indian Governments may have been successful, and I freely admit that they have been successful in many most important matters in administering the territory over which they held control, there is yet, in their administra tion of the last 20 years more especially, ample room and sufficient cause for a strict and searchin* investigation into their government, before we proceed either to pass a ver dict or approval as regards their past conduct, or before we decide upon leaving in their hands any portion of that power which they have up to this period of time wielded in India. I now move the amendment of which I have given notice :—" That, in the opinion of this house, fur ther information is necessary to enable Parliament to legis late with advantage for the permanent government of India ; and that, at this late period of the session, it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it disturbs existing arrangements cannot be considered as a final settlement." e question being p ut, Mr. LOWE said he could not but express his apprehen sion that the latter part of the noble lord's speech had tended to divert the attention of the house from the real question before it. The question raised on the second reading of the bill was whether or not they were to deal with the future government of India. The question raised by the noble lord was the preliminary one of whether they were to go into the question at all, and though he had no doubt that the noble lord in introducing it acted in con formity with a sense of duty, yet he could not but think that before the debate closed the house would have cause to regret that he had done so. He feared that throughout the debate they would be bandied about between the pre liminary question and the main question, and he thought it moat expedient that the house should keep to the issue raised by the Government. (Hear, hear.) He had to complain that the noble lord had not only introduced the preliminary question, but after urging such arguments as he thought fit in favour of the amendment, had diverged into others which were quite beside the question, which was in substance what should be the form of the home Government. The noble lord's amendment was somewhat peculiar in its phraseology. The first part of it, according to the noble lord's own admission, did not bear on the question before the house at all ; and the second offered a reason which seemed to him quite inadequate. The amend ment was this -" That, in the opinion of this house, fur ther information is necessary to enable Parliament to legis late with advantage for the permanent government of India." Now, what had that to do with the question before the house? (Hear, hear.) The noble earl had told them over and over again that they were legislating for the provisional government of India, and he made that an ob jection to the measure. If that were the case, the first clause of the amendment had nothing to do with the ques tion, for the Government was not proposing a permanent measure, and why it w as i nser t e d he could not imagine, unless it was with the view of introducing the popular topic, that there was not sufficient information. The latter part of the amendment was equally puzzling—" And that at this late period of the session it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure ;"—he should have supposed that the noble lord was going to say " a measure of immense magnitude," that they were going to have another allusion to a permanent measure, but the words were—" to proceed with a mea sure which, while it disturbs existing arrangements, can not be considered as a final settlement. (Hear, hear.) The " late period of the session" might be a very good rea son for not going into a measure of a permanent character, but surely the fact that the measure was not of a perma nent character, that it did not aim at settling everything, was a reason which told them otherwise. (Hear, hear.) The first part of the resolution, therefore, appeared to him not to apply to the bill at all ; while the second part af forded a reason for doing exactly the contrary of what the noble lord wanted them to do. (Hisar, hear.) But, pass ing that over, he would call the attention of the house to the state of the case with regard to this measure. They all knew that last year Parliamentary committees were nominated by the late Government to investigate the sub ject of Indian government. The noble lord said it was not the intention of the late Government, had they remained in office, to legislate for India during the present session, or, at all events, until the committees had made their re port. But, let the house observe that the late Government did Rot let the committees separate until they had obtained from them a quasi report, in which they stated that, so far as the evidence had extended, their impression was favour able to the company ; and looking at the circumstances of the case, and especially considering the great convenience of having a measure passed during the present session, he was of opinion that, had the late Government remained in office, they would have proposed during this session a bill for the renewal of the Indian Government. The noble lord was, he submitted, now taking a course in opposition which he would not have taken in office. The noble lord said it was quite unprecedented that a measure of this kind should be brought forward so late in the session. This bill was introduced on the 9th of June. He had referred to the books to see at what period the bills of 1813 and 1833 were introduced ; he found that the bill of 1813 was introduced on the 16th of June, seven days later; and that the bill of 1833 was introduced on the 15th of June, six days later. (Hear, hear.) So that the present Govern ment would not suffer, by a comparison with their prede cessors, with regard to the period of proposing the renewal of the charter. (Hear, hear.) In 1813, Parliament had not only to deal with the government of India, but with the monopoly of the India trade ; while in 1833 it had to settle the complicated question of the monopoly of the China trade, and the terms on which the East India Com pany should cease to be a commercial company. (Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding this, however, the present Go vernment were at least six or seven days more virtuous than their predecessors. (Laughter.) The noble lord had reminded the house that the India Bill of 1784 was before the house for eight months. The circumstances of the case were peculiar. The bill resulted, as was well known, in the destruction of the Fox and North Ministry, and when Mr. Pitt succeeded to office the subject was again intro duced. He thought that so far as analogy was concerned he had now disposed of the question. The noble lord said the Reform Bill and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill occupied a great deal of time. That was very true, and the reason was perhaps a lamentable one. They knew that the amount of time which was required to pass a bill through Parliament depended on the degree of interest which it excited among large masses of the English people, and the manner in which they pressed members to take part in the discussion. If he were required to prove how little in terest comparatively this subject excited, it would be enough to refer to the comparative thinness of the house during the delivery of the liable lords's own address. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said there was ignorance and there was indecision in England upon this subject. That there was a considerable amount of ignorance he (Mr. Lowe) ad mitted ; bit it did not appear probable that if they waited a year or two the ignorance which existed would have been removed. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the second point, the alleged indecision, he must say that those who had directed their attention to the subject were far from appearing undecided. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might be the difficulties, and he admitted that they were many and various, of dealing with Indian affairs, the question was one upon which men who entered into the subject at all took up and pronounced the most decided opinions. The noble lord said the house ought to have the opinions of more of the civil servants from India. Why, they had banqueted on such opinions to satiety. (Laughter.) They had collectors, judges, civil officers of all kinds, who could give them any information. On this point ho must re mark, that though gentlemen who had resided in India in an official capacity gave most admirable and accurate in formation with regard to a particular district, they did not appear to have troubled themselves much about the rest of India. (Hear, hear.) Though it might be a para dox, he believed it to be true that for a general knowledge of India as a whole—not of particular parts—they should look rather to England than to India, rather to those who had been placed at the head of Indian affairs than to those who had been employed in administering the affairs of particular districts. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had remarked that the East India Company was on its trial ; that the committees had not yet reported, and that the question ought not to be decided till they had. He omitted to state that the jury had interposed with a ver dict of acquittal. It was hardly to be expected that, after doing that, they would turn round and declare that they were wrong, and that they now wished to convict the accused. The noble lord then went into a long argument with regard to the present state of India, and declared that he did not see any danger of agitation or insurrection. He (Mr. Lowe) did not perceive any symptoms of insur rection ; but he thought it especially desirable that at the present time the government of India should be as strong and as much respected by the population as possible. He would state very briefly his reasons for holding that opinion. He saw the Eastern world, from one end of it to the other, in a state of commotion, there being such a movement all over Asia as had not been witnessed for centuries. If they looked to the western part of Asia, they would find a quarrel between Turkey and Russia. Going a little further south, they found all Arabia per vaded by a fanatical spirit—Arabia, which had once con quered Asia, and was on the point of conquering Europe. If they went to the north they found Bokhara iu move ment. The empire of China, after being asleep for 200 years, was in a state of insurrection and rebellion ; the result of which, in relation to Asiatic minds and to coter minous countries no one could predict ; and then, coming southward, they found themselves engaged in a serious and apparently interminable war with the Burmese. (Ironical cheers.) He confessed he should admire the patriotism of hon. gentlemen more if they had not cheered in that man ner. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he thought it was the bounden duty of Parliament to endeavour to make the Indian government respected. (Hear.) The only reason which the noble lord assigned for a delay of two or three years, was that Parliament had reason to doubt whether the present government of India was a good one. He (Mr. Lowe) would put it to the house whether a state of suspense was likely to be favourable either to the prestige of English power in India or to the obedience and subordination of the civil servants —(hear, hear)—whether, on the contrary, it was not likely to weaken their hold on India at a moment when it ought to be held with the firmest hand, and exposing them to dangers of which no man could fore see the result. The noble lord might perhaps retort, that the government had exposed themselves to that objection by commencing the bill with the words, "Until Parliament shall make further provision in that behalf." Let the house observed the distinction between the two cases. By putting off the matter for two or three years they would be in reality prolonging the period of trial, inviting every one who had anything to say against the form of govern ment to come forward, and at the same time expressing a grave conviction that the system was not a good one. (Hear, hear.) If the form of government were not good, let it be changed ; but to destroy a prestige which had commenced with the time of Lord Clive, would be extremely re p re h ens ibl e . O n th e o th er hand, what the government said was this—" We have made the best pro vision that our information and intelligence will enable us to do for the government of India, but we are not wedded to what we have done, and we are willing to listen to any complaints which may be made." I n f ac t , they d id no t , like their predecessors, propose to tie up their hands for 20 years, they did not intend to let any humour swell till it was full grown before attempting to apply a remedy. (Hear.) He could not help remarking, that when the no ble lord came to deal with the bill itself, he did not appear to entertain any verry strong objections to it. (Ministerial cheers.) Ho mentioned, indeed, one or two provisions as objectionable ; but to the general scope of the bill he did not appear to be opposed. The noble lord was in favour of the principle of double government—(hear, hear) —though he did not state what he meant by it. What he (Mr. Lowe) meant by double government was this, that whereas one body had the control and responsibility, the govern ment was carried on in tho name of another body. Tile noble lord also made some minor objections, which did not go to the principle of the bill. These were matters for con sideration when they got the bill. Then as to the patron age, the noble lord should consider that much more of the patronage was taken away than he had given credit for. The admission to Addiscombe was to be open to public competition, which would take away from the company about 90 appointments in the year, and therefore the noble lord's calculation as to patronage was hardly correct. The noble lord said, " If it be right to take away part of the patronage, why not take all ?" But, this was a great ex periment, new to this country—that of opening public ap pointments t o com p e titi o n ; and, seeing that the principle it was to supersede had in practice worked well, it would not be right to establish the new one completely, until there had been taken some preliminary test of its efficacy. That rule was speecially true as regarded the military ser vice. In the civil service the principle of competition could not go wrong, but they often found that the best soldiers were men who had not particularly distinguished them selves at examinations in early life. (Hear, hear.) As re garded the civilians, the noble lord's suggestion with re gard to the children of officers would probably be adopted. With regard to the civil service generally, the course of the Government was beyond all controversy right. The civil service of India was different from all others. In other places if yon got an incompetent civil servant, an other might assist him in his duty, but in India there was an enormous amount of individual responsibility thrown on every servant of the Company. A collector sent to any di? trict might not only collect the reve nue, but also inflict misery on thousands of human beings. The most sacred duty of Government, therefore, was not merely to get persons of average ability for these situa tions, but to get , the very best men that could be found, and not to sacrifice the interests of the country to friends, relatives, or political connexions. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Lowe) had heard in another place, a noble lord with in finite eloquence and iporance plead the cause of ignorance. The noble lord had stigmatised the proposed public exami nations as the greatest absurdity that could be devised, and said that a deeply-learned man was of all others the most unfit for the business of the world. That was ter-. tainly not the experience of that house, as they found that the men who were the leaders of party, and who influenced the destiny of nations, were also those who had most dis tinguished themselves at the universities. (Hear, hear.) It was all very well to talk of the system of cramming. He knew something of that system. (A laugh.) These was no doubt a great deal too much cramming at our uni versities, but the reason was that the examinations fell into the hands of the same class of men, and sometimes _the same men who had prepared the pupils. There was a sort of oral tradition handed down which was not to be found in the books, and which formed the staple of most examinations. A number of curious points were handed low n, in the same way that problems were called by the name of the man in Cambridge who had invented them, a sort of discipline wrcani ; indeed, he was happy to think that many dodges of that kind of his own invention were still cherished at Cambridge with his name attached. (Loud laughter.) That was a very bad system, but it need not necessarily occur, since the examination would be car ried on by competent men, and not on any narrow or pe dantic system. (Hear, hear.) But the intellectuality of Indian servants was important for another reason. No thing was more distressing in the evidence than the testi mony borne to the decline of friendly feeling between the Europeans and natives. Now what he was going to say might appear far fetched to the house, but he believed that there was a close connection between the intellectual and moral faculties in the human mind, and that ignorance and stupidity were often the causes of ill-treatment of inferiors. The ignorant man looked down upon the person of another race ; but the man of intellect looked upon him as an object of curiosity and of sympathy, a thing to be studied and appreciated ; and, in this point of view, the advantage of intellectual cultivation was, in his opinion, important. He had now gone through as much of the noble lord's speech as appeared to him to bear on the bill, but had avoided that larger portion which, in his opinion, had nothing to do with it. He knew, however, enough of mercantile affairs to tell the noble lord that freights to Madras were much nearer 70s. than 7s. Lord STANLEY said he had spoken of a particular case, and not of the general rule. He bad mentioned a par ticular cargo having gone out at that rate. Mr. LOWE said, returning to the' bill, that he thought he had shown there was no case for delay, and without saying the bill was good or bad, he contended that the subject was one the house ought to entertain, and which might be very well disposed of in the present session. They should look at the question as it was likely to affect the nopeoplew brought o f forward, India. E t v h e e n p e i f o t p h l e u Ministerial wouldbillwere not on the presumption that its provisions would be carried out, and the effect on the company would be most in jurious, leaving them as it were half condemned, and restrained from doing many useful things which they would be otherwise inclined to do. (Hear, hear.) There were many important reforms, such as the regulation of furlough and the changes in the judicial system, which the company might enter upon at once if they were not hung up and paralysed by the delay of legislation. Education also would be paralysed, and Haileybury would not know what was to be its future system of management. Whe ther the government was to be double or single, it was time the question were decided ; and therefore he trusted the house would not accede to the amendment of the noble lord. _ _ Mr. PHINN said that the hon. and learned member for Kidderminster had endeavoured to persuade the house that the amendment of the noble lord was inopportune and unjustifiable, but he had failed to discuss the pro visions of the bill, to enforce its utility, or to offer any in ducements to the house to adopt the plan of the Govern ment. (Hear.) It was remarked of the Whigs that they never carried out, when in power, the principles which they advocated when in opposition ; and the present mea sure was an instance of that peculiarity. In 1783 Mr. Fox had laid down the principle that in monarchical govern ments all power should emanate from the monarch, con stitutionally advised. The principle had worked gloriously for England, and was it to be borne that in India the cold shade of a company was to interpose between the monarch and the subject ? (Hear, hear.) It was said that we were a practical people, and judged measures by their results; but he would ask what good was to be expected from this bill, which was nothing but a series of half measures, just neither to the company nor to the people of England. Now half measures were particularly unsuited to the case of India. A great authority, Mr. Burke, had laid it down that for the government of that country a whole system must be devised, and that anything short of that would be injurious both to this country and the colony. Lord Ellenborough, another great authority, said that legisla tion for India should be final, and that the question should be taken up by a strong Government, and decided in a per manent manner. His hon. and learned friend who had last spoken advocated the bill on the ground that to give the company another lease, would be only to insure re newed agitation at its termination, and in the same breath he praised the bill as giving the opportunity of alteration if it did not work well. Now, his (Mr. Phinn's) objection to the bill was that it would leave an opening for constant agitation. He should have preferred giving the company a renewal for a certain number of years, and in the mean time a permanent and well-considered measure might be prepared. He quite agreed with the hon. baronet the member for Honitnn that could it be shown that the com pany's was the best 'government for India it would be the duty of that house to maintain it ; but he thought them bound to show not only that it was good, but that it was the best that could be devised for the purpose. In form he considered the government of the company the most repulsive imaginable, a mere plutocracy ; and after all the panegyrics they had heard of its sympathy with the peo ple of India, he thought it would be ridiculous to urge that the welfare of that people was the first object of government. To judge of the result of the system, let them see what was the constitution of the govern ment. Any person holding a certain amount of stock might vote for the election of the persons who had the greatest share in the administration of Indian affairs. Now, this person did not purchase stock out of sympathy for the people of India, but looked to the ordinary amount of interest plus the amount of patronage to be obtained from the Board of Directors. (Hear.) On this subject he might quote from the Calcutta Review, an authority, the authenticity of which had been acknowledged by the hon. baronet the member for Honiton. (The hon. member here read an ex tract from the Review, to the effect that East India pro prietors had adopted a plan of clubbing their votes for the purpose of influencing elections, with an understanding amongst themselves to take the patronage in turn as it might suit the ages or views of their relatives.) The bill, to be sure, permitted the company to make bye laws to remedy this evil, but why was not the duty of making these laws made imperative? They had already received permission to employ natives in places of trust, and the world knew what had been the result. It was perfectly well known that directors went into office with their pa tronage mortgaged for years to come, and surely in the case of a system so opposed to all theory and principle, a won derful success in practice should be adduced to overcome objections to the principle. He would turn, then, briefly to the results of the government of India, and take the best test of a people's prosperity—that of the powers o consumption—from the tables that had been furnished by the directors themselves. In that article of first necessity, salt, he found the consumption in Bengal to be in '39, '4O, 16,194,188 rupees (value), in 1849-50 it was 16,107,384 rupees, being an actual diminution in ten years. It might have increased as alleged, in the north-western provinces, but he wanted to know whether the accounts did not in clude our recent acquisitions in the Punjaub, and the other annexations in the north-western provinces. Another point urged in favour of the company, was that except in the case of the land tax which was rent, taxation was un known, but Colonel Sykes admitted that in Calcutta the salt tax amounted to 11 per cent. on the labourer's income, and in Benares to 3 per cent. Then they had the tax on spirits, and a tax upon going into courts of law that amounted to 25 per cent. on the sum recovered. They had been told that the imports and exports of India had nearly doubled, but they had not told of a great monopoly de stroyed, or the newly-created trade with Australia and China, or of the opium trade, which so much influenced the imports, by increasing the means of purchase. The increase in the production and export of opium had been remarkable. In proportion as they found opium exported would they find that the imports increased. But their trade in opium was in a very precarious condition. No doubt it might be said that he was foreseeing danger that might never arise, but when they were speaking of the prosperity of a country, and basing arguments upon it, these considerations were of importance. They had heard a great deal about the increase of British shipping, but ho ventured to say that if they took into consideration the number of markets which had been opened, that increase did not indicate an increase in the prosperity of the natives of India. He did not wish to urge against the company that it had uniformly pursued a system of bad government. Ho should refrain from entering into the various merits of the zemindar, the village, and the ryot systems. He thought that the company, for their own purposes, had adopted the best land systems in India they could. It was their interest to do so, but he had looked carefully into the sub ject, and he could not see why one system should have been preferred to another by the company, and he gave the company no credit for the merits, and no discredit for the demerits, of the different systems. He believed the system of the north western provinces had operated very well, and it might have been better if that system could have been adopted elsewhere ; but he would not dis cuss that subject. Nor would he discuss the judicial system, but he would call the attention of the house to the fact, that there had been taxes laid on judicial processes in India which would have been intolerable in any other coun necnioprlem,obuecs, a a u n se they were levied on the s l comparedbasbased on n the with um at stake between the parties. Ntvilichanwdearsemo E st ng vi la c n i d ous were pri and there was not the ex cuse that the company had found this system in existence. His hon. friend the member for Kidderminster pointed out the great difficulty in the judi cial administration in India. The other day two judges were removed in India on the ground of indebtedness, in consequence of which their independence was affected. They confessed it, but justified it by saying that indebted ness was the normal condition of the judicial service in India; that the Government knew their situation when they were elevated to the bench ; and they therefore con sidered the conduct of Government harsh and oppressive, and he believed the whole newspaper press of India sup ported them on that ground. Then, with regard to public works, and the small proportion of the revenue of India which had been applied to public works. Contrast their administration in that respect with that of the native princes. He did not mean to go back to the times of the early governors of India, who certainly left works for irri gation and edifices which still existed, and attested their magnificence and care for their subjects. They were told the other day by the hon. member for Honiton, that these works were for particular purposes, and that when the court made a progress, as in Russia, works were executed. He had not so read th e hi s t o ry of India. Kaye had not to read it. Mountstuart Elphinstone had not so read li, nor'. had Thornton or Mill. He believed some of those listo: rians had suggested that theory, but they had rejected it. • They had the relics of those great works. The canal which now supplied the city of Delhi with water was 300 6 40(1 years old, and it was re-opened in recent years after having. - been silted up. Then look at what had been done by soma •f the native princes of this day. Take for instan the: great work of the Rajah of Ahamadapoor, a canal 'Which. hich. I I