The Sun. — London, England, 1853-07-01 00:00:00

'PERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from Glou cester, in favour of the establishment of tribunals of Commerce. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from Kelso, in favour of the substitution of affirmations for oaths. The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from Glasgow, praying for the reform of the Legislative Assembly of Jamaica. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from Mr. Robert Owen, praying for a select committee to inquire into his scheme for the education of the people. EMIGRATION OF AFRICANS TO THE WEST INDIES. In reply to Lord BROUGHAM. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said there was an exist ing arrangement—he could not say whether it was made by the Colonial-office or not—with Messrs. Hythe a ade and Hodges, by which they were enabled by a stipulated sum to introduce free emigrants from the coast of Africa to certain of the West India colonies. Though he believed that firm had carried out the arrangement in a most praiseworthy manner, he admitted it might give rise to great evils, and, perhaps, degenerate in other other hands into an encouragement of the slave trade, and the matter would, therefore, be watched over most carefully by the Government. He had no objection to produce the contract with the parties in question, but it would be delirable to accompany it by other docu ments. Earl GREY explained that the contract was entered into by the Colonial-office in 1848, when the greatest distress prevailed in the West India colonies, and when it was desirable to import free labourers into them from the coast of Africa. He bore testimony to the integrity with which Messrs. Hythe and Hodges had carried out the contract, and stated the precautions which he had taken when in office, to prevent the emi gration of these labourers becoming a means of trafficing in the slave trade. The subject then e dropp d Rushbro o k' s Divorce - B ill, the Colonial Bishops' Act Extension Bill, and the Patronage Exchange Bill, were severally read a second time. The Excise Duties on Spirits, and the Juvenile Men dicancy bills went through committee. STATE OF JAMAICA. The Duke of NEWCASTLE laid on the table papers relating to the dissagreement between the Governor of Jamaica and the House of Assembly of that island. The Noble Duke having entered at some length into the history of the dissensions which had arisen between the Executive Council and the Legislative Assembly, referring to the crisis at which the difficulty had arrived, in the non-renewal of the import and rum duties, which were the sole resource of the island's revenue, stated that her Majesty's Government had determined to recall Sir Charles Grey, the present Governor, and replace him by Mr. Barkley, lately Go vernor of Guiana, at a reduced salary of 5,0001., beine. 1,0001. less than that of the present Governor. 3,5001. of this would, for the next three years, be paid by this country, the remainder being secured by a colonial fund. It was also proposed to assist the island by a loan of 5,000/., at 3 per cent., to enable them to effect a reduc tion in their public establishments, by giving compensa tion to the present officers, and also to establish a sink ing fund to pay off their debt, which amounts to 700,000/., on which the island is at present paying 6 per cent. The Earl of DERBY agreed with the noble duke it would be premature at present to enter into a discusion on the state of Jamaica, and the causes of the distress that existed in that island. He was so far from finding fault with the course that was proposed to be pursued, that, in fact, a similar line of conduct with regard to Jamaica had been determined upon by the late govern ment—(hear, hear)—he had the pleasure of saying, that the gentleman who had been selected as go vernor—Mr. Barkley —was well fitted for the dis charge of the important duties that would devolve upon him, as his experience in the West India Island especially qualified him for effecting the changes which the state of the island required. He (Earl Derby) would, however, have been better pleased to have seen 3 . 1 r. Barkley's new efforts marked with a more excep tional character, and that he had gone to Jamaica as Commissioner rather than as governor. In fact, he should have gone out with special powers to report on the state of the island, rather than as a permanent governor. By ad optinz th a t course. G overnment might have given him a higher salary than they could possibly give him as governor. He thought that 5,0001. a year, which was to be the reduced salary, was higher than should be given in the reduced state of the finances of the island, and that a greater reduction than from 6,000/. to 5,000/. should have been made. He hoped there would be a guarantee that the income of the island would be able to meet its expenditure, and to pay the interest of the money to her advanced. Earl GREY could not agree that it would have been desirable to have sent out Mr. Barkly rather as a commissioner than as a governor, because it was im portunt that that gentleman should have all the power and influence which a governor was supposed to be pos sessed of. He should not have objected to a legal corn mission being sent out with the governor, with the View of aiding persons in the colony to so arrange the law as to get rid of the difficulty in which the colony was placed, owing to its institutions, which were origi nally made applicable to a system of slavery, whereas the Population of the colony was now free. He had great confidence in the resources of Jamaica if they were pro perly developed. Jamaica was blessed with a soil of great fertility, and a climate well calculated to promote that fertility. All t h at was required was, that the in stitutions of the colony should be remodelled in the way that he suggested, and if this were done he anticipated that the greatest good would arise t o th e co l on y. If, ho wever, the subject was neglected, he had the greatest fear that the state of Jamaica would be most perilous. Earl ST. VINCENT addressed the house, but in so low a tone that it was impossible to hear his observations. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he bad heard the sen timents of the noble lord in reference to Jamaica, but he could not concur in his apprehensions in reference to that colony, whether it regarded its social or commer cial character. His observations led him to think that if the finances of the country were properly managed, t hey would be equal to the expenditure of the colony. The subject then dropped. PUNISHMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the first reading of a bill, the object of which was to substitute for trans- Portation in certain cases the punishment of imprison ment. The bill was read a first time, and their lordships adjourned, 11° USE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. NEWEMBER. Mr . Ir oltsmAx took the M oaths and his seat for Stroud, in the room of Lord Moreton, who has succeeded to the earldom of Ducie• PRIVATE BUSINESS. Rt /li i ih v e __ B aYsvvater, Paddington, an d H o lb orn -b r id ge Dock 4{,ricstßirkenhead D oc k Company ; Birkenhead North- W es2rt ee n s ; Llynvi V a ll ey R a i lway; London and aud Nuor_tolin-yy and Buckinghamshire Railways London estern Railway (Tring and Oxford) ; New castle- ecc, It ch l' ci . -!.:37ne Improvement ; Pendleton, Swinton, prov enion Swansea Valley Railway ; and Pimlico Im- Th e Loston s were read a third time and passed. South st affor _Ud . Midland Counties Railway and Docks, with Docks a nulr Railway, Battersea Park, and Har- Mr. GREnipier Bills were read a third time. a4-c! presented a petition from the attornies of M La r n . c H as A e DPlr-slthe Registration of Assurance Bill. against the E c i uea V presented a petition from Sheffield Mr. SPOO_NE . R p o r : ge ß n i t l e L d petition from Birmingham against the Kegistration of Assurances Bill. Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from Cocker mouth in favour of the ..tahlisluneut of ocean penny postage. Mr. MILLIGAN present e d _ trustees of the East Morley Savings mention from the alik'oma t gai he n e s l t ect ee ers r. of the ' te fain parts of the Savings Bank Bill. r Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from of the city of Peterborough , . complaining ference of Earl Fitzwilliam in the two last electioi: fort.- , • that city, for the purpose of controlling the voters intimid a ti on , p ersua sion, treating, and bribery The petitioners also alleged that the late petition_ pr esented against th e re t urn o f M r . Whalley was in fact instigated and su s t a i ne d a t t h e expense o f the said Earl Fitzwillia m . The petition prayed in conclusion for the appointm ent of a sel ec t comm i ttee to i nqu i re i n t o these circumstances ; and the hon. member gave notice that on a future even , log he should move for a select committee for the pur pose of inquiring into the allegations of the petition. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Lewish am , comp l a i n i ng of the unjust treatmen t o f the poor in the union workhouse of that place. Mr. CHEETHAM presented petitions from various dissenting congregations against the Education Bill. Mr. ALEX. HASTIE presented a petition from Glas- ROW in favour of the India Bill. ~ Mr. R. CURRIE presented petitions from Northamp ton and other places in favour of marriage with a de ceased wife's sister. HIGHGATE ARCHWAY. In answe r to Mr. FREWEN, " Mr. FIT ZROY said that there was no intention he part of th e G overnment, and, in fact, the Go vver4enment 11. had no r i ght to demand, that the Trustees of act. Igbgate Archway Road should apply for a new Mr. t A , COLONIAL SUGAR. quer wheq-i_LeLLIE asked the Chancellor of the Exche fused to It li , r it was true that the Government had re in bond ; an d British Plantation Sugars to be refined the dutie s or, whethe r t h e Government intends, when vilege of ref: li n a ll sugar s were equalised, that the pri equal to 2 s . per g in bond, which was considered a bonus foreign slave gro e :t-, should b e continued in favour of the British coloni e ri st an gar, and refused to the produce of The CHANCEL' that -a-t that the hon. gent lero of the EXCHEQUER said facts, as the Government: must be mi s t a k en as t o th e refusa uesti lof the sort. w ith b r ad gi d ven no decided or fi na l egar to the second part of the qon, that Wa s a matter for f u t ure consideration. GOVERNME NT Mr. WARNER asked th e pr ' INDIA. Control, whether, in the event oefsi t tent of the Board of to the second reading of the India Lhouse consenthw 1.1 1, 1. her Majesty he s Government would be willing, in expressed opinion of many members 4'atille h w ou it s h e, t to insert a clause limiting the duration of the intended act f 'seed so thoroughly as was ex p ec t e d, or g i ve b e tt er ser to some certain short term of years ? 1 vants to India than the present system had done. The Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government would not jurisprudence of India he regarded as defective, and he introduce any such clause into the bill. thought Parliament ought to carry out the spirit of the ADMISSION OF JEWS INTO PARLIAMENT. act of 1833 with regard to th e em pl oymen t o f th e na - In answer to Mr. D UNCOMBE, tives, an that they ought to have all the b ene fit o f th e Lord J. RUSSELL said he had no intention of covenanted service. The power of levying war in India was a moist dangerous power to give the Presid e nt o f th e bringing any measure before Parliament this session of Board of Control and the Secret Committee, and the that description. wonder to him was, that it had been exercised with so THE CAMP AT CHOBHAM. little precipitation and injustice. He did not consider Sir G. GOODMAN asked if there would be any ob- that the natives of India were sufficiently prepared for a jection to inform the public beforehand of the days on decisive change ; when they were so he would be pre which reviews were to take place at Chobham? pared to go as fir as any practical man could go • and he Lord PALMERSTON said th e m a in object of assem- must comfess that he believed the time not to b e ' far dis- Ming the troops at Chobliam was to prepare them by taut Wien the government of India must be invested in previous instruction for all the exigencies of war. One the Crown. He was willing to admit that the government essential point was, that they should never know before- of India had worked wonderfully well, considering the hand what they were tcs do the next day, whether they manner in which it was constituted. The body of men would be awakened in the middle of the night or at day- who were to form the Government of India were elected break. If the public were let into the secret, it would by about 2,000 electors, who took no interest whatever be difficult to keep the troops in the dark ; but those in India, and the company had long ceased to be a who were anxious to witness those interesting evolutions, trading ompany and had become territorial lords. On might be certain that every day when it did not rain,.. the other hand, they had been connected w ith th e govern- 1 those who v i s it e d th e scene were per f ec tly cer t a i n of ment of India for many years, and, that being so, he seeing thing s wor thy o f th e t rou bl e o f go i ng th e re. considered the course proposed to be pursued by the TB:E NAVY. Government the most safe and practicable. He himself, Sir J. GRAHAM gave notice that, on Tuesday next, in thinking or speaking on this subject, was actuated by he should move for leave to bring in two bills, one to a spirit of independence, and looked neither to the Go make better provision fir the entry and services of sea- vernment nor to any party, but, considering the matter men in the navy, and flee other for the purpose of esta- impartially, he spoke as he felt it to be his duty, as the blishing a volunteer coast guard, to be transferred to the representative of a large commercial constituency. navy in cases of need. Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR always felt considerable PERFORATED STAMPS. diffidence in intruding himself upon the attention of the house upon any ques ti on , b u t h e f e lt i t t h e more i n ad- Mr. WILSON stated, in reply to a question, that the perforated stamps would be ready for delivery to the dressing them on the present occasion on a question not public in a few days. only affecting the interests of his constituents, but of STAMP DUTIES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said per- several millions o f hi s f e ll ow crea t ures. H e h a d h ad the haps it would be for the convenience of the house that honour of presenting a petition from Sunderland, pray he should state that if, .33 the Government anticipated, ing that the house would pause before legislating for the debate on the second reading of the India Bill ter- India, and that it would not pass any measure altering minated in the course of to-night, he should take the the existing system of government before takin evidence resolutions relating to the Stamp Duties the first thing g to morrow evening, and after them to resume the com- upon the subj ec t f rom th e b es t sources, i nclud i ng the mittee on the Succession Duties Bill. natives of India themselves. If, indeed, shipping LIVERPOOL WRIT. were the child of commerce, and commerce depended Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR said he observed that upon prosperity, and prosperity was an attendant the Liverpool writ stood at No. 14 on the orders for to- upon good government, then there was nothing sur night, and therefore there must be little chance of its prising that his constituents, themselves intimately being disposed of at the present sitting. Now , connected with th e s hip p i ng i n t erests, s h ou ld take looking to the importance of Liverpool, and the a deep interest in the issue of this debate. (Hear.) number of large commercial measures that were before the house, it could not be the wish of the He had himself, after well considering the ma tt er , Government that Liverpool should be unrepresented ; arrived at the conclusion that the amendment proposed and he should be glad to know if the Government would by the noble lord ought to receive the support of the have any objection to place the order first on the list for house, and that some time should be given to enable the to-morrow evening ? house to come to a conclusion on this important subject Lord J. RUSSELL was afraid the question would from the elements which might come to their hands. give rise to a good deal of discussion, and he could not The right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admi consent to the proposal of the hon. member. ralty had stated that the tree ought to be judged by its GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL—ADJOURNED fruits, and he believed that the fruits of the tree upon DEBATE. examination would not be found agreeable. Looking to On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned the question of peace and war, he would ask the house debate on the Government of India Bill, to consider what had been gained by the wars which had Mr. RICH rose and urged upon.the house the neces- been undertaken in India, and of which four were ag sity of delays The house had been sitting so long that it gressive wars, made upon the independence of neigh was now in a jaded state, and looking at the advanced bouring powers, and for the sake of aggrandisement ? period of till session it was hardly to be expected that What advantage had been gained by the war against the the house would give this question that attention which Affghans, against the Beloochees in Scinde, the Mah its importai - ke demanded. Besides it would seem the rattas in Gwalior, the Sikhs in the Punjaub, and now, for Government had been undecided about bringing this bill the second time, against the Burmese. The Affghan in this session, while a larger meaning had been put up on war was simply an attack upo n th e i n d e p en d ence , an d the advice Which Lord Dalousie was said to have given on an attempt to overthrow the dynasty, of a friendly neigh the subject than the noble lord himself intended. No harm hour, and which resulted in the sacrifice of a gallant could follow delaying this question until a future session. army. What, again, was the real nature of the war in He thought, under these circumstances, it was mani- Scinde ? The excuse made was, that it was for the pur festly the duty of the house to pass a short co n ti nua ti on pose of obtainin g th e comman d over t h e nav i gat i on of bill of tie existing charter, in order that it might wait the Indus, and thus to promote commerce with the cen for the report of the India Committee before it proceeded tral part of Asia, but the result was that the Ameers of to legislate permanently on the subject. No party Scinde were cajoled, conditions imposed upon them triumph could result from the postponement of this mea- which it was impossible to comply with, and, finally, sure, nor could it give rise to the inconvenience of un- they were deposed and their territories annexed. In the necessary agitation in India or at home and he hoped Punjaub, taking advantage of civil dissensions, an army in the end the Government would be i n d uce d t o was marched to the S u tl ej , an d, a ft er f our pitched battles give way. The complaints alleged against the on that, it succeeded in gaining possession of the coun present Government of India were these first, try ; but, from misgovernment, it became once more it was said the natives were unjustly excluded from the necessary to march an army of 35,000 men to the banks high offices of State, and that the law was badly admi- of the same river. But had the means of support nistered. Then it was said the anomalous form of the ing the Government been increased by that expe double government was objectionable, because it gave dition ? On the conarary, it added glory to the rise to a divided responsibility. All these complaints, British arms, but did little service to the commer he believed, were well founded, and something ought cial interests of the country. The assumed revenues to be done to remove the cause of them, which this bill of the Punjab were about 1,300,0001., and the civil certainly did not do. It contained some points of use- charges amounted to 1,120,000/., thus leaving a surplus ful reform, but unfortunately it left the constitution of of 180,000/. ; that charge did not, however, include the Court of Directors and the distribution of the patron- military charges, which might probably amount to a age untouched, while its duration was not limited to any burden of 800,0001. per annum. In Sattara the case fixed period, which was a strong reason in favour of de- had been almost similar, and in 1852, in a communica lay. At all events, however, if they were to have this tion from the Court of D irec t ors t o L or d D a l housie, it bill, its operation should be limited to five years ; was stated we were not prepared to find that the anneza but on the whole he thought it would be much better tion of Sattara would entail a charge on the general re- 1 to defer legislation altogether for the present, and he for sources of India. The hon. member for Montrose had I one should vote for the amendment, attempted to vindicate the Court of Directors from the ' Mr. CUMMING BRUCE condemned the exagge- Affghan war, and letters had been published, written ; rated and embittered attacks which had been made on by some of the directors, deprecating the war, but Sir ' the system to which we owed our Indian empire. Ad- John Hobhouse, then President of the Board of Con vocating a double government, he stated that he had trol, avowed that he was the author of the system under been disappointed by the plan of the Government, which that war was commenced. The system had been which weakened what it should have strengthened, and weighed in the balance, and ought to be condemned by increased power which was already almost despotic. the house. He would now call the attention of the The proposed system of nominees would subvert the house to a few statistics, which he would read. The independence of the Court of Directo rs , an d h e wou ld public debt of India, beari ng i n t eres t, as i t stoo d b e f ore rather that the Crown should give to distinguished we commenced our career of conquest and annexation, Indian servants seats in the Council of the Board of was, in 1792, 7,129,934/. After commencing that Control. He objected that the bill would do away with career, it stood as follows :—ln 1814, 26,970,7861. To all permanence, and leave a kingdom to be scrambled which last-mentioned sum must be added 5,000,000/. for. He did not concur in Lord Stanley's amendment, supplied from the commercial treasury of the company the addition to which bound us to legislate in two years in aid of the Indian finances during the currency of the —a course which might be inconvenient. Legislation charter, which ended in 1834. The average annual de should not, he thought, take place until the opinions, ficiency in the last five years of the charter— years of not of the Governor-General, but of the gov ernors o f peace—which terminated in 1814 w as 134,662/. ; i n th e the presidencies had been obtained. To the proposed next five years, principally war, which ended in 1818-19, system of competition he was opposed, and he instanced 736,853/. ; in the five years of peace which ended in cases in which illustrious men had not distinguished 1823-4, 27,531/. ; in the five years ending in 1828-29, themselves during the period of education. Taking three of war, 2,878,031/. ; in th e t en years en di ng various exceptions to the present system of I n di an G o - 1849-50, 1,474,195/. The estimated deficiency for vernment, he made several suggestions of his own for 1851-52 was 780,000/. This, then, was the financial improving it. He urged the necessity of encouraging condition of India under the present system, which, he the spread of the great civilizer, Christianity, and ex- maintained, had brought the exchequer of India almost plained in conclusion that it was not competent to him to a state of insolvency. The opium trade had been the to propose any amendment of his own. means of keeping up the revenue of the country, pre- Mr. MARJORIBANKS would venture to reply carious as that trade was. With regard to the revenue briefly to the charges brought against the Court of Pro- derived from salt, there had been a reduction of the re prietors, though he was well aware these were neither ceipts from the Government monopoly in Bengal the entertaining nor the instructive points of the debate. of 23 lees ; Madras, 2 lacs ; Bombay, 2 lacs. Th e He should, however, feel that he was not d o i ng j us ti ce Custom s ' d u ti es had also, on the whole, fallen to the Court of Proprietors, from whom he had received off, comparing the f our y ears ending 1849-50 much favour, if he did not rise and say a few words with 1845-6. In Bombay there had been an in in their vindication. The hon. member for Inverness- crease of 12,34,153 rupees ; in Agra, of 10,90,532; in shire wished the house to believe that the practice Madras the falling off had been 18,36,695 rupees, and in was t o give votes in exchange for patronage. He de. Bombay it had been 6,95,586 rupees ; thus making a nied this. The hon. member also said there were total falling off of 2,05,596 rupees. These were some batches of sixty votes lying at certain bankers. Had more of the fruits by which the tree was to be judged. this been the case, his canvass would have been much Those figures, which he believed to be perfectly correct, easier, for though the bankers gave him their best wishes showed that the Indian exchequer was in a deplorable they only gave him two votes. He doubted whether all state. It did not remain for him, at this advanced pe the bankers in London if they combined their votes riod of the discussion, to show how shamefully public could muster 300 votes. He would defy any one to works in India had been neglected. The first duty of the point out that a single vote had been purchased by direct Government should have been to subdue the great water or indirect means. He thought it was a most unfounded power of the country, and to direct it, by means of irri charge against 1,600 respectable proprietors, to say that gation, reservoirs, and other artificial means, to purposes they could be influenced in their votes by corrupt mo- beneficial to the population and advantageous to the per tives. Having now completely vindicated the Court of manent resources of the empire ; but no works of that Proprietors he would proceed to notice some of the kind had been executed. (Hear, from Sir J. Hogg.) charges against the company—with reference to the re- The hon. baronet cheered him, but he was informed that port that had been moved for by the hon. member for Colonel Outram and Major Franks, who were now in Montrose, lie begged to state that the report in question London, joined issue with the hon. baronet on that point, had been furnished months ago ---the report, however, of as well as Mr. Chapman. The prosperity of Madras Mr. M`Kay had not yet been furnished. He could not mainly depended on irrigation ; yet it would hardly be help regarding the measure as a measure of delay—and believed that it was only in 1848 that the Indian Govern he agreed with those who said that delay was not de- ment first began to direct attention to the public works sirable. Each day proved the absurdity of the charges of that presidency. Mark the consequences of this ne brought against the company. glect. In 1803 the revenue of Madras was 206,000/. ; Mr. NAPIER supported the amendment, as, if he in 1844 it was only 107/. I n 1828 th e popu l a ti on was advocated the bill, h e wou ld i m ply th a t it was sufficient 700,000 ; while in 1848 it was reduced to 400,000. Mr. for its purpose, whereas, by voting for the amendment, Marshall's book showed it to be a statistical law that the he did not repudiate the bill, but only urged that a most consumption of manufactures in a country is in proper important subject should be duly considered. He de- tion to its means of internal communication. The con scribed the bill as a meagre, paltry palliative for the sumption of our manufactures in the British West Indies evils of India, and he especially condemned the proposed was 14s. per head of the population ; in Chili it was 9s. plan of revising the Indian code of laws by means of 3d. ; in Cuba, 6s. 2d. ; in Peru, ss. 7d. ; in Central commissions—a work which Parliament ought to under- America, 10s. ; and in India only 9d. (leer, hear.) take. After dilating upon the duty of England to spread Our importation of Indian cotton had been nearly sta- Christianity in India, he said that if this bill were all tionary for the last 11 years, while that from America that could be done for that country, he would consent had increased from 1,018,361 bales to 1,784,388 bales. to it only from stern necessity, and after the fullest in- How was this to be accounted for ? Why, while Anse quiry should be completed. He warned the house, as it rica had 11,000 miles of railway open, India had only valued its character, and the happiness of the millions of 100 miles in formation. After all that had been said about India, not to pass this bill in its present condition. the matter of law and justice in India, it was unnecessary Mr. JOHN M‘GREGOR approached this question for him to trouble the house on that point. The hon. as an independent member representing a constituency member then proceeded to denounce the zemindar and whichilc took as great an interest in the affairs of India as ryotwar systems as the fruitful souces of cruelty and previous] e li 7..): o onstituency in the kingdom. The error committed oppression to the native population, and next directed and blood' 114 si ! , . e g f entlernen in this debate was in proposing to attention to the case of the Carnatic stipendiaries. By ti : on a r t for the people of India as if they were legisla- a treaty signed in 1801 the company obtained possession nited States. There never was a country that of the Carnatic territories, on condition of paying a sum the populationrit7k to 1757 had been subjected to such perpetual of money to the members to their Sovereign's family. tnentse: had d one ha wars as India. The British Government The company was now revelling in the revenues of the Government had t Y e could note t r d and cruel things in India, but he, for one, Carnatic, but they refused to pay the stipendiaries the the good they had done, considering money due to them, and these unfortunate persons were had to deal with. The spirit of our reduced to a state f ruin. He would say, with respect of the Govern mercy itself, compared with that to the home Government, that the only two powers dition of the pe o pl e 0 1 1 .1 had preceded them. The con- which the East India Company, according to Mr. Mill, wretched and miserable ?,dia had, indeed, been more could exercise, were the power of suggesting measures, in India than that of anyefore British rule commenced and the power of commenting on measures after they disecouple of whom history made had been resolved upon ; and this was quite in harmony mention. Among the the fact, that we had ha l I to ties of the question was with the admission made by Mr. Jones, that, " after all nations speaking different s a , do with from 37 to 40 the labour and thought that might have been bestowed to introduce LTindoo and m a r o u n r i s, and that we had on Indian affairs at home, India must, nevertheless, be t e h r i e r d d of as the re y e nee 7 of pr. !. law into our ad- governed in India." He could use no better argument the soil had against this double agency at home, the only effect of ministration. al wa ys been Sovereign ; one-third as belonging to tiellonging to the which could be to keep up a mask and a sham, and to proprietor ; and one-thi rd as belon • e zetnindar, or shift from the proper shoulders the load of responsibility eseg to the ' considered of the soil. He believed that the System rot or which they ought to bear. (Hear, hear.) Then, as to of the Secret Committee, Lord Hardinge had spoken of it taxation in India required great improvement, especial] "a . the tax upon salt. (Hear, • hear )He did not Yas mystery not understood by the public, why the ot consider Board of Control should give an order to the Secret this the best bill th a t could have been brought in, Committee." And he adduced as an instance of this, an but, on the other hand, to make great and sweep_ p officer of high position and ability in India having writ ing changes, with a population of e 14150,000,000 pro- ten a letter couched in somewhat indignant terms to the fessing different religions, and speakin,different fan_ President of the Board of Control, complaining of the guages, having their traditional hatreds and prejudices,., conduct of the Secret Committee, and it was not until and in a country where the Hindoo population were named by Lord Hardinge, that the President was in fact divided into castes, was attended with great danger and the Secret Committee, that the writer of the letter was difficulty. (Hear, hear.) The error to be guarded,, made aware of the fact. (Hear, hear.) This was only against was in legislating according to English ideas, another illustration of the mask and the sham which and in opposition to the traditions, usages, and religious was kept up to hide from public view the real source of prejudices of the natives. Ever since 1832 Parliament responsibility. But if the power of commenting on mea had possessed so much knowledge of India that 110 hon. sures was a nullity, an d if th e p resen t bill s t r i ppe d th e member had the right to s a y th a t h e h a d n ot had an East India Company of the whole of the patronage, then, opportunity of acquainting himself with the affairs of he asked, what was left to the Company but interference India. His objection to delay was, that in India legis- without influence and rights without responsibilities ? lation was expected this year, an d th e G overnor -G ene ral (Hear, hear.) I n conclusion, he would say that, if we considered that immediate legislation was necessary. He were true to ourselves and the trust that had been re regarded the provision in the bill leaving Indian legisla- posed in us, and if India were true to herself, self-confi tion open to revision as a wise and general policy on the dent, and self-sustained, she would not lag behind in the part of the Government. He doubted very much whe- path of progress that lay before her, but would be seen the system of competition for appointments would sue- I coming up from the wilderness leaning on the arm of THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 1, 1853. British sympathy and guided by the genius of British reform. (Cheers.) Sir C. WOOD hoped the house would excuse him if he asked them to descend from the elevation to which they had been led by the poetic imagination of the hon. gentle man, and to turn away from that sight in the wilderness of India, " leaning on the arm of British sympathy," to the more practical question whether they were, or whether they were not, to read a second time the bill for the go vernment of India. (Hear.) They were drawing, he hoped, to the close of this discussion, in which, looking to the state of the house, not only that night, but on previ ous evenings, it would appear that a majority of the house took but a small interest. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore, they would be able, before that evening closed, to come to a division on this most important question. He would trespass on the patience of the house for a very short time ; but, holding the position which he had the honour to fill, there were some observations which he felt it incumbent upon him to make in answer to statements that had been brought forward in the course of the debate. (Hear.) It was remarkable that in the course of this discussion very little indeed had been said in favour of the motion of the noble lord the member for Lynn, and still more remarkable were the diversities of opinion and the contradictory argu ments that had been urged in its support. (Hear.) Pro bably it was foreseeing this would be the case that led the noble lord to say the onus of proof lay with the promoters of the bill ; for, if his motion were to depend upon the arguments brought forward in its favour, ono set of these arguments might be made to pair off against the other. (Hear.) He denied that the onus of proof lay with the promoters of the bill. It was incumbent on the house to provide for the future government of India, seeing the present system of government would come to an end next year, and the onus of proof, therefore, obviously lay with those who opposed the natural and ordinary course of pro ceeding. (Hear.) The noble lord said that in former times, when the charter expired, a Suspension Act was passed—that previously to the expiry of the charter the Government came forward and provided for the future go vernment of India by a temporary measure—[Lord Stan ley—l did not say so.] He had only to say that he took down the words used by the noble lord at the time, and he added that there was no insurrection in India in conse quence. If be did not make this statement, then he must say that he had grievously misapprehended what fell from the noble lord on that occasion. The argument of the lion. member for Montrose was that there ought to be delay in order that communications should be received from the Board of Directors. He complained that the Court of Directors had only very recently been informed of the nature of this bill, whereas in 1833 a long correspondence took place previous to the bill being introduced. But the question was now very different from what it was in 1833. The act passed in that year involved an interference with the privileges of the East India Company as a commercial body, and with their interests as traders, and a consider able time was required to enable them to wind up the commercial concern. But now there was nothing of that kind. They were merely trustees for the government of India, and it rested with the house to say in whose hands the government of India should be placed for the future, and what the nature of that government should be. The hon. member for Montrose said, he considered it of im portance to wait for evidence from India, whereas the noble lord, on the contrary, said he attached little or no weight to the evidence that might be derived from India. (Hear.) He had listened with the greatest attention to the speeches which had been delivered in the course of that evening as well as on previous occasions, and had heard a great deal of detail, and many opinions given, as to the various modes in which the government of India should be conducted, both at home and abroad. Among others the right bon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Con trol, went into considerable detail with regard to the mode in which he would govern India ; but not a single word had been urged as a reason why they should delay proceed ing with this bill. (Hear.) There had been proposed various amendments to clauses of the bill, but little or no argument had been adduced in favour of delaying the bill itself. The only real argument ho had heard urged in favour of delay was that brought forward the other evening by the hon. member for Manchester, who gave a reason, which, whether good or bad, was at least intelligible, and he was supported in it by the hon. member for Richmond. The argument amounted to this,—" Give us two years' delay that we may agitate to pull down the East India Company. (Hear, hear.) Now, this might be a reasonable enough argument on the part of those who wished to pull down the East India Company, but the hon. member for Montrose, who wished to keep up the company, neverthe less joined the hon. member for Manchester in asking for delay—the object of the one being to pull down, and of the other to keep up the East India Company, (Hear, hear.) Now, that those who thought the government of India nearly perfect, and wished to perpetuate it, and those who attributed to that government every abuse that occurred in India, should both unite in wishing for delay, seemed to him to be the most contradictory kind of support th a t cou ld b e g i ven to any pro position. (Hear, hear.) It did not seem to him that agitation was the proper mode of settling a question of this importance. To decide what the future govern ment of India should be was a question second to none that could be brought forward, and it was one that re quired the calm and deliberate consideration of that house. (Hear, hear.) He trusted, therefore, the house would not be led away from the fair and full consideration of this question on the ground of an appeal to public opinion. (Hear.) Such was not the proper mode of obtaining the calm and deliberate judgment of that house, and he hoped they would not jeopordize those important interests that were at stake by refusing to deal with the question as it now came before them. (Hear, hear.) The ground on which the hon. members for Manchester and Richmond desired delay was, that the subject might be submitted to public opinion, and they seemed to consider that that public opinion, agitated by such speeches as had been de livered on this question, would be the best mode of settling the whole controversy. He did not think, however, that that would be the wisest mode of determining a question of such importance as .the future government of India ; and he believed a majority of that house would see the propriety of not giving in to such a proposal merely in order that the system of governing India might be pulled down by agitation. (Hear, hear.) Reference had been made to an expression which he quoted from Mr. Mill, that enlightened public opinion was the best security for good government. To that opinion he subscribed, but he believed that unenlightened public opinion was the worst authority to which they could appeal ; and he must say that if public opinion was to be enlightened by such state ments as were made in that house on this subject, it would be very greatly misled indeed. (Hear, hear.) He must say that the misstatements that had been made, embracing, as they did, every prejudice that could be excited against those who administered the government of India, exceeded anything that he over remembered to have been made in that house. (Hear.) The hon. member for Manchester told them, the other night, that a report on public works, which had been received in this country, had not been laid on the table of the house, and then he imputed to the East India Company the most unworthy motives for withhold ing such a report from the house. Now, he thought the hon. gentleman might have had the charity to suppose that the company were not actuated by any improper motives ; and, if he had referred to the votes of the house, he would have found that the report in question was laid on the table in August last, and that his complaint was entirely without foundation. (Hear, hear.) Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blackett), on a former oc casion, stated that a report on territorial aggrandisement (as we understood) had not been laid on the table of the house. [Mr. Blackett here gave an explanation of his statement.] The hon. gentleman was bound to ascertain from the best possible authority what the fact was, and if he had referred to the votes he would have found that on the 14th of May that report was laid on the table of the house. (Hear, hear.) Then, in taking his information from the appendix to the committee's report, his hon. friend had made what he must call as ludicrous a mistake as it was possible to make. In giving an account of the out standing arrears of rent for 20 years the amount of arrears was stated at the end of each year ; but his hon. friend had added the outstanding balance at the end of each con secutive year, and then came down to the house and said the sum of the whole was the amount due from the land revenue of India that had failed to be collected. (A laugh.) They had heard a great deal about the salt duty, and more than one gentleman had referred to the diminished con sumption of salt as a proof of the miserable condition of the people of India. An hon. gentleman quoted from an Indian newspaper a statement to the effect that there had been a great falling off in the consumption of salt, but he did not take the trouble to refer to the next number of the same newspaper, which stated that an unwitting mis take had been made to the extent of 40,000 tons. (Hear, hear.) But the great mistake committed was taking the revenue as a criterion of the falling off of the consumption, totally forgetting in the comparison which had been made of one period with another, the fact that in the meantime the duty had been reduced. In Madras, where there was no reduction of duty, the revenue had increased ; in Bom bay it had also increased; but in Bengal there had been a reduction of 5 per cent. in the duty, and the amount of revenue showed a diminution. (Hear.) The hon. member for Sunderland spoke of the miserable condition of India and of the consequent impossibility of the people taking so many of our goods as other countries did. But the hon. gentleman forgot that there was a considerable domestic manufacture in India, and that if we sent manufactured goods there we displaced, to a great extent, the domestic manufacture of that country. To suppose, therefore, that our manufactures should go there and increase, as in Bra - zil and elsewhere, was to show a total disregard of that which must necessarily be the state of the exchanges. Notwithstanding this, however, within the last 10 or 20 years our exports to India had increased far more in pro portion than the total exports of this country . . To India they had increased about 112 per cent., while the total exports had increased in nothing like proportion. Then the hon. gentleman referred to a quarrel between a couple of zemindars which was fought out with spirit, and a policeman who was looking on never interfered to prevent it. This the hon. gentleman quoted as a proof of the won derful deterioration which had taken place under our rule in India. Well, he was sorry that that should have taken place, but he had heard in this country of the inefficiency of parish constables and of faction fights in Ireland which had not been interrupted, yet he had never heard such things alleged as reasons for altering the whole of our con stitution, and abolishing the system of King, Lords, and Commons. But, supposing it to be true, even to a greater extent than the hon. gentleman alleged, was it or was it not an improvement on that state of things when they were exposed to a troop of Sikh horsemen dashing over the whole country and plundering every village? He certainly felt justified in saying that whatever external war there might have been, internal war and dissension had entirely given way under the dominion of British rule in India. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman had read some account of the miserable state of the ryots iu Bengal from, he believed, the Calcutta Review. But if the hon. gentleman would turn to the pages of the Quarterly Review, or to Black wood, he had a very strong impression he would find descriptions of the miseries of this country—of deserted homesteads, and all the rest of it—owing to free trade and the abolition of the corn laws, quite as harrowing as any which he had quoted. If he went no further even than the speeches of the hon. and learned member for Suffolk, not more than six months ago, he would find accounts of misery in this country quite as appalling as that which he had read of the state of the ryots in Bengal. (Hear.) After all, too, that misery existed under the system which the hon. member for Manchester recommended. That hon. member always confined his indignation to their not esta blishing a system of landowners in India similar to that which existed under the permanent system of Bengal. Yet it was under that permanent system, so created, that the misery existed of which he had read an account, and which was to he attributed, not to the exac- time of the Government, but to the exactions and extor tions of those landowners of whom the hon. gentleman so highly approved. The hon. member for Manchester referred to some evidence which he said had been taken before the committee, though it had not been re ported, depicting the miserable state of the inhabitants of Bengal. At all events, there had been one witness who, in the strongest language and with the utmost fervour, had contrasted the condition of tke people in the British do minions in India with that of those who were still under native rule. The hon. member for Sunderland went at some length into the state of the revenue of India, and described it as all but bankrupt. He (Sir C. Wood) should not have thought it necessary to take much notice of that, except that statements of the kind, if allowed to pass un contradicted in that house, might alarm the people of India, or those who depended for their incomes upon the interest of the Indian debt. He would state, therefore, how little foundation there was for the apprehensions in which the hon. gentleman had indulged, and which had been sanctioned also by the hon. member for the West Riding. It was perfectly true, that since the last charter India had been engaged in a very considerable and expen sive war, and no doubt a great addition had been made to the debt in that period ; but the whole Indian debt at this moment was less than two year's revenue of India, and that, certainly, looking to what we were accustomed to in Europe, was no very formidable amount. The in crease in the debt, since 1833, was about 500,0001. per annum, while the increased land revenue from the same territory was upwards of 2,000,0001. per annum. The additional charge, therefore, was one-fifth of the additional income, independently of the income of the newterritories, which amounted to about 1,500,0001, more. The hon. gentleman had corrected him when, on a previous evening, he stated the Indian revenue at 26,000,0001, H e (Sir C. Wood) knew at the time, however, that he was rather understating than overstating it. On looking at the returns of the last three years he found that the revenue in 1850-51 was 27,000,000/. ; in 1851-52, 28,000,0001. ; and in 1852-53, 29,000,000/. In 1849-50 there was a surplus of 364,0001. ; in 1850-51 a surplus 0f415,000/.; in 1851-52 a deficiency of 469,0001.; and in 1852-53, paying the probable expenses of the Burmese war, a surplus of 544,0001. With an income, then, increasing at the rate of 1,000,0001. per annum in the last three years, with in three years out of four a surplus, and with the whole debt less than two years' income, he could not say that such a state of the finances ought to inspire them with very great alarm of total and immediate bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.) There was another remarkable statementas to our acquisitions in Scinde. An able officer had the command there. He had taken up his quarters at a small mud port, with very few inhabitants. The exertions of that officer, in laying out roads, and promoting irrigation, had been such that that place was now a flourishing town with 10,000 inhabitants. That was the manner in which the country had been im proved under our rule, and so much for the accuracy of the statements which were made, to prove the inefficiency of the present system of government, which, nevertheless, the hon. gentleman who had attacked it, wished to preserve by supporting the motion of the noble lord for delay. He confessed that he thought every argument which had been used tended in favour of the second reading of the bill, and against delay. They had not the least impugned the authority of the Earl of Dalhousie's opinion, which had not been given in answer to any leading question from him (Sir C. Wood), and which he thought therefore, was entitled to the greater weight, but they had referred to the opinion of the editor of the Friend of India. Now he would read one short extract from the letter which that gentleman had addressed to Mr. Bright on the subject of delay. That gentleman knew what had taken place in that house, what the arguments both for and against delay were, and this was his deliberate opinion : " I will venture to assert, after witnessing the mode in which the Indian campaign has opened in Parliament, that nothing could be more disastrous for India than to prolong this agitation' for two years, during which the intelligent natives' would be led, however erroneously, to imagine that their representations would be welcome to their friends in England in exact proportion to their virulence and unscrup ul - Two years of such unhealthy agitation, by rai s i ng hopes which must be disappointed, and fostering a spirit of disaffection to the British Government, might even tend to shake the principle of loyal obedience in the native com munity." (Hear, hear.) He trusted that those who were not pre pared to trifle with this great question, but who had regard to the safety of that empire, would take that opinion of a person who was competent to give an opinion, if any one was, and who was quite independent of the Government, and would not be led away into supporting a motion for delay from which no possible good, but much mischief, was likely to arise. One of the first objections which had been taken to the bill was that it was enacted for no fixed term, and upon that question of the effect of their being no fixed term nothing could be more absurdly contra dictory than the opinions which had been given by the various members who had spoken. The noble lord said, that the measure of the Government was clearly an experimental one; the hon. member for Montrose said that it was merely a provisional one, and the hon. member for Manchester said that it was more permanent than a lease for 20 years. It was difficult to answer arguments on both sides. If they would only tell off one against the other he should show where he stood; but re a lly the mode in which the hon. gentleman who had argued it con t ra di c t e d them selves on this question was quite ridiculous. The noble lord thought that one great advantage in a term was, that the attention of the country became at that period concen trod upon India, and they then must legislate, whatever were the circumstances. Was that the best mode of ar riving at a deliberate conclusion upon a matter of this na ture, determining that, whatever the circumstances, whe ther there were war or what not, they must deal with a question of that vital importance ? The hon. member for Montrose said, that they proposed a " provisional govern ment." Why, they proposed to place the Government of India upon the same footing as the Government of this country. Was the Government of this country provisional? The hon. member for Elginshire said that they were putting it upon a footing so fluctuating and insecure that it de pended upon the " Aye" or "No " of that house. Was that putting it upon the footing of this country ? When they placed the Government of India upon the same footing as the Government of this country, as the Government of our colonies, and of everything else which we possessed,he could not think that they were open to the charge of putting it upon a fluctuating and unstable basis. (Hear.) The hon. member for Montrose had certainly used an extraordi nary argument for him, for he had advocated the exploded doctrine of finality, and had stated as his objection to the measure that it was one which might be altered and amended as time and circumstances mightrequire. Such an argument to come from so ardent a reformer as his hon. friend he confessed he had never yet heard. He had heard many declamations against finality, but such a bold assertion in favour of it he had never heard in that house or elsewhere. What said the noble lord? He said that this measure was " So obviously experimental that it was left open to altera tion from year to year. It would have been better to come forward with a well-considered plan, and to say, Here is a constitution for India; be it good, be it bad—let it have a fair trial.' " That was exactly what the Government did. Here was a measure which they considered to be the best that they could give. In their opinion it was the most wise and prudent that they could adopt. They believed it to be good; and if good, they believed it would be permanent • but if expe rience should prove it to be bad, and if it should not an swer their expectations, it might be altered as time and circumstances might require. Were they to be told, then, that it was an objection to any measure for the government of any country that those who proposed it believed it to be the best they could propose, but that if time and circum stances, showed amendments to be necessary, they would not be deterred from amending it by any doctrine of finality such as was proposed by the hon. member for Mon trose ? Several hon. gentlemen had referred to the opinions of natives of India, but the natives appeared to have come to a much wiser conclusion than the hon. gentlemen who attached such importance to their views ; for since the dis cussion of the present question a second petition had come home from the Native Bombay Association, and this was the opinion which they expressed with regard to a term of years : " Your petitioners, not foreseeing the chance of arousing the interest and attention now bestowed on Indian affairs, petitioned your hon. house to limit the period of existence of any future Government of India to 10 years; but your peti tioners are now emboldened to ask your hon. house not to debar them for any period of years from requesting a revision of what may be injurious in the coming India legislation. It is simply necessary to pass an act providing for the best form of government both in England and in India, without limiting its duration to any number of years—an act which, like any other statute, might, if deemed requisite, be modified, altered, or repealed, as occasion might require. It cannot be neces sary to embrace all the subjects involved in the discussion of Indian affairs in one act ; and the constitution of the home Government, the constitution and powers of the several local governments, the construction of a new judicial service, and each independent branch of inquiry, if made the subject of separate legislation, would, in all probability, receive more careful attention, and be more satisfactorily disposed of than if the entire mass of Indian information be gathered together in one, and thrown into a single enactment." That was exactly the course which they were taking. They proposed a bill for the government of India, not embracing the whole Indian question in one act—one which, if it answered their expectations, would be permanent, and, if not, might be altered as circumstances required. He did not think that he need make any observations upon the subject of patronage. The noble lord said, that he entirely concurred in the principle of admission by competition. The noble lord, indeed, suggested some alteration in the mode of regulating that, and all he (Sir C. Wood) could say was, that there was nothing in the bill which prevented the consideration of those points in committee, The last question upon which the noble lord had given an opinion was as to the form of the home government ; and it must be observed that, not only was the noble lord himself in favour of a double government, but that scarcely any one in the house had advocated a single government. The noble lord said that the double government ought to be re formed, and that the Board of Control should be a consti tuent part of the government of India. His hon. friend the member for the West Riding had quoted Mr. Halli day's opinion, but he had not exactly quoted that gentle man's words, but had made him say that the double form of government, was exceedingly bad and mischievous. What Mr. Halliday had said was : " I have a very high opinion of the mode in which the go. vernment of India has been conducted in all its branches. . . . . I would recommend nothing like organic change, nor anything beyond careful and even, I may say, experi mental alteration at present, in a matter of such very great importance." To substitute a single for a double government, however, would be an " organic change" of a most radical descrip tion. In the course of the present discussion it had b een said to them tauntingly, " You contend everything is so He was not aware good, why do you change anything?' that he said everything was good, or that he h a d not ad mitted that many things . had been ill done, and many others omitted to be done in India. Still, he had thought it right to defend the government of India from the indis criminate charges which had been made against it ; and he asked, was it not wise to make use of the Court of Di rectors, a body which did and must exist for the next 20 years, and against whose administration, so far as they had a share in the administration, no case of gross mismanage ment had been proved. Almost every witness who had been before the committee, whether connected with the Court of Directors or not, had pointed out as the great fault of the constitution of the Court, that the necessity of a long and tedious canvass had deterred the best Indian servants from coming forward as candidates for a seat at the direction. That was the evidence given by Mr. Shep herd, one of the ablest directors of the Court, by Sir H. Maddock, by Mr. Willoughby, by Colonel Sykes, by Lord Ellenborough, by Lord Hardinge, by Mr. Melvin, by Mr. Bird, by Mr. Robertson, and by Mr. Mill, every one of whom had great experience, and spoke with much authority upon such a question. That blot the present bill endeavoured to remedy by the Govern ment placing in the court six experienced Indian servants. These, some might say, ought to be elected by the Court of Directors and approved by th e Crown. The Govern ment thought that they ought to be nominated by the Crown, but this again was a question which ought to be discussed in committee. There was another very important portion of this question which was the changes that were proposed to be made in the Government—not at home, but in India. He entirely concurred in the statement that India must be governed in India, and that what we did at home was of far less importance than what was done there. The hon. member for the county of Elgin said that he would confin e th e changes to the home Government, because with that they were acquainted, while they knew nothing of the Government in India. Mr. C. BRUCE. —I did not say that we knew nothing of the Government of India, but that we should have the opinion of the Governor-General, and of the local gover nors, before altering the system there. Sir C. WOOD continued—He had already stated that he had the opinion of the Earl of Dalhousi e , and that the bill had been framed in ac cor d ance with that opinion. He had had also the opinion of persons connected with the Government of India, and he did not know that they should gain anything by sending the bill back again. The changes which they proposed were in entire accordance with the whole of the evidence. The bill had now been in th hands of members a considerable time, and he had not heard any material objection made to one single change that was proposed in the government of India. With re gard to a complete code of laws, none had been drawn up in a complete shape. One had been prepared by his right hon. friend the member for Edinburgh, which was now under the consideration of the Legislative Council in India, who were trying whether they could pass it into a law. The hon. gentleman had found great fault with the Govern ment for disregordiug the opini on o f Si r E. R yan and other great law reformers ; but if the hon. gentleman had entered into the subject with big usual care, or had listened to his (Sir C. Wood's) opening statement, he would have known that the commission to be appointed in India was at the suggestion of those very gentlemen ; and the most ardent Indian law reformers were to be upon that commission, and that it was in deference to their opinion that he had been obliged to postpone the bill for im proving the judicature in India. (Cries of Divide.) The groat evil of having one legislative system for one part of India, and a different system for another part of the same country, could only be obviated by constituting one legislative body for the whole of India. He would not go further into these matters, though he must say they were questions of a most important nature. (Hear, hear.) He would only say, that no objection having been raised to the measure which might not fairly and properly be discussed in committee, it did not appear to him that any sound argument had been urged against the second reading of the bill. He thought if they were to deal with the question as the noble lord opposite proposed, they would be merely trifling with a most important subject—with the welfare, and possibly with the security, of the empire in India. That empire was of a most anomalous and extraordinary description. If well governed it might be one of the strongest empires in existence; while, if ill-governed, no one could deny that its position might be most critical. Now, what were the measures taken by her Majesty's Ministers for promoting the good government of India ? They had adopted, with regard to Indian government, all the suggestions of the most experienced Indian servants, which they thought calculated to provide for the security of our Indian empire. Lord Ellenborough had told them that they held the empire of India by the superiority of mind and intellect possessed by the persons whom they sent out to govern that empire, and Her Majesty's Govern ment endeavoured, by their proposals with regard to the system of education, to improve still further the mental superiority of the persons employed in the public service in India. They had also been told that their power in India depended in a great measure upon the conviction of the people that they were better governed under the sway of the British than they would be under native rulers. That there were defects in the system of Indian govern ment he was willing to admit. These defects Her Majesty's Ministers bad taken the best means in their power to deal with, and he did not know any defect for which this bill did not endeavour to provide a remedy. The questions re lating to land tenures, improvements in public works, and other matters, were subjects which could not be dealt with here, but which must be dealt with in India • and Her Majesty's G overnmen t h a d , i n this bill, proposed esta blishment of machinery which they thought best calculated to promote in this respect the welfare of that important empire. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has complained of the imaginative powers of the hon. member who preceded him, but he has himself shown that even in that respect he can successfully complete with the hon. member for Sunderland—(a laugh), for the right hon. gentleman seems to me in his reply to have answered several speeches which have not been delivered—(hear, and a laugh), and the consequence has been that hon. gentle. men on both sides of the house have interrupted him in the course of his statements. It will be my lot, in the observations I shall presume to offer to the house, to have to comment upon some statements which have been pre viously made, but I shall endeavour to make those remarks in so fair a spirit, that I trust at least I shall not call for the interference of any hon. gentleman until i have re sumed my seat. I can assure the house that, in endea vouring to consider the all-important subject before us, I hope to imitate that temperate spirit which characterised the statesmanlike speech in which the amendment now before us was introduced to onr notice by the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) I agree with the First Lord of the Admi ralty, in remarking with satisfaction the many intimations that have been given during this debate of a desire on both sides of the house to come to the consideration of this subject in a calm and unimpassioned spirit—(hear, hear) ; but at the same time I must take the liberty of observing that I cannot but feel that hon. gentlemen, in intending to express so laudable a disposition, have, I think, been somewhat inadvertently betrayed into re marks which may lead to very inconvenient, very disagree able, and even very dangerous misconceptions. We have been told frequently during the debate that this is not a party question, as if a party question were necessarily an improper question. (Hear, hear.) We have been told frequently during the debate that this subject is not considered in a party spirit, as if a subject considered in a party spirit were necessarily considered in a partial and unjust spirit. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, as we are all of us members of that which is a house of party, and which, if it were not a house of party, you may depend upon it would not long exist in this country, I think this is a point upon which there should be clearer conceptions than at present appear to prevail in this assembly. I con sider purely party questions are questions which concern the distinctive principles of the two great parties into which a popular assembly is necessarily divided. Aristo cracy or democracy—protection or unrestricted competi tion—an endowed and established church, or complete dependence on the volUntary system—these are principles perfectly distinct : they are professed by different parties, they are are party principles, and, if brought into discus sion, such discussions are debates upon purely party questions. But it is taking a very limited view of a party question to bound it merely by the description upon which I have ventured. Hitherto it has been supposed that when any great legislative difficulty has been brought under the consideration of Parliament, there has been a noble and generous emulation between the two par ties of the country which should solve the difficulty in the most satisfactory manner, and—when a question of controverted policy arises—which should recommend the course most for the honour of the country and most for the advantage and welfare of the people. (Elear, hear.) Sharing these views, I confess that I cannot under stand how a great party in this house can take refuge in some neutrality upon a subject like that now heft)] e us, and shrink from expressing without the slightest equivocation the views which they entertain. (Hear, bear.) If we approve the proposition of her Majesty's Ministers, we are bound, in my mind, to give to that proposition not only our support, but our cordial and complete support. If, on the other hand, we believe that it is a course of a very questionable character,—if, further, we believe that it may lead to disastrous results, I deny that it is in our power to refrain from expressing onr opinion. I say that we owe it to our constituents—to those who sent us here—(loud cheers from the Opposition benches)—we owe it to the country, we owe it even to ourselves, fairly to place before Parliament and the country the rea sons why we differ from the course recommended by the Government, and to give Parliament and the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the two policies submitted for their consideration. (Cheers.) I know I may be told that a party government leads to great excesses. It is my opinion that the excesses of party government are not greater—perhaps not so great as tie excesses which are experienced under despotic govert• ments ; but, for my own part, I prefer the excesses cf even of party government to the excesses of despotic go vernments—(cheers)—and I believe we shall find in th's country that the more enlightened it becomes, the greater and more powerful will be the check of party excess in the common sense of this house, and in the influence of that omnipotent opinion, the power of which we all recognize. Well, I say, then, entertaining these views, that I feel it is absolutely necessary th a t I should frankly express my opinions upon the subject now under consideration. I have made these observations because I have the mis fortune to differ on this question from many gentlemen whom I greatly respect, with whom I act in political con nexion, and for many of whom I entertain great personal regard ; but, for my own part, I cannot incur the respon sibility of giving my approbation to the measure which the right hon. gentleman bas submitted to our notice. The consequences of that measure will sooner or later be before us. Even if this government which we are now planning lasts for that space of 20 years which has been so often adverted to, there are many now present who will pro bably be present when that period has terminated. I may probably not be here ; it is not impossible I may be here ; but there are many gentlemen on this side the house—young men, who are devoting their time and talents to the service of their country—who at that period will probably still be taking an active part in public trans actions ; and when that time comes I should be very sorry that they should refer to the debates of the year 1853 (hear, hear)—and regret that they were so wanting in sagacity or moral courage that, because party incon venience might accrue (cheers from the Opposition)— they shrank from expressing an opinion upon one of the most important subjects that can engage the at tention of Parliament. (Loud cheers.) There has been some controversy during this debate as to the exact subject which is under discussion. The Secre trary of the Board of Control accused my noble friend (Lord Stanley) of introducing a second subject into our debate. Now, it appears to me that that was an observa tion—a criticism on the part of the Secretary of the Board of Control, which was not well founded. It seems to me that there can be no mistake whatever as to the question which is before us. It appears to me that the question is accurately, completely, and precisely expressed in the title of the bill on the table of the house. What is the title of that bill ? It is, " A Bill to Provide for the Government of India ;" and an amendment has been moved, which, in fact, says that this plan to provide for the government of India, while it disturbs much, really settles nothing— (cheers from the Opposition benches)—and that, if such be the case, considering that a Parliamentary committee has bean sitting for years to investigate the condition of India, but has not at this moment half fulfilled its duties —(cheers and laughter)—it is expedient that we should wait for the increased information to be gained from the inquiries of that committee, and that, considering th e l a t e peri xl of the session, we should continue the existing act for the government of India, and hesitate before Ive pace a precipitate proposition, the consequences of which, we believe, are not adequate to meet the necessities of the case. (Hear, hear.) Now, that is the question before us. (Cheers.) A plan for the government of India is proposed by her Majesty's Ministers. We join issue on the point that it is not an adequate and sufficient plan—(cheers)-- and we say that, in consequence of •the lateness of th e ses sion, and th e i m p er f ec t s t a t e of the Parliamentary investi gation we have ourselves authorised, we should pause in our progress. This is a proposition that has been de scribed as something strange and unprecedented —as some thing dangerous to England and d angerous t o I nd i a —(hear, hear)—as a weapon borrowed from the enemy, as an arrow from the quiver of Indian reformers—(a laugh)- as a course unheard of, not to be tolerated without authority, and certainly likely to produce conse quences which must be deprecated. Now, in the first place, is it an unprecedented course ? There has been come talk of the term of two years being allotted to a con tinuance bill of the present act, and some hon. gentlemen have argued as if it were proposed that two years should elapse before we began to legislate for India. Now, on the contrary, wh a t my no bl e fr i end anticipates is, that, her Majesty's Ministers, in full possession of the fruits of tLe Parliamentary investigation, should take advantage of their autumnal recess (a laugh); that they should mature a bill which probably both houses of Parliament would approve (cheers) ; that they should introduce that bill to our notice the moment Parliament met in February ; and it would probably be passed in a month, and receive the Royal assent before the existing act expired. (Cheers.) That is what we propose; that is what we wish; and that is considered an unprece d ented proposition. (Hear, hear.) Let us see if it is an unprecedented proposition. Tho go vernment of India has been a question submitted to the Parliament of England twice during the present century— in 1813 and again in 1833. Now, what occurred in 1813 ? It had long been among thoughtful statesmen a subject of great lamentation and regret that, by a combination of peculiar circumstances, Parliament had ever been called upon to legislate for India in a hurried and precipitate manner. I could quote—if, at this time of night, and having some other remarks to make, I could presume to quote—l could quote the opinions of some of the gravest statesmen and the greatest warriors to that effect ; but the authority to which I am going to refer is one which, at least, will not be questioned by a considerable portion of her Majesty's Government. Late in the session of 1813—in the month of June—a bill for the government of India was introduced into the House of Lords ; and what wasthe course taken by no less a personage than Lord Grey on that occasion? (Hear, hear.) Lord Grey came forward and said, "It is impossible to entertain this important question so late in the session. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The system of discussing Indian subjects, and the most important of all Indian subjects—the govern ment of India—at the fag end of the session, ought no longer to be tolerated. (Cheers.) I recommend that it continuance bill of the existing act should be passed, and that Ministers, the Parliament, and the country, should have the intervening space to consider of a measure ade quate to the occasion." (Hear, hear.) But was Lord Grey alone in his o pi n i on on that occasion ? lam speak ing, remember, of the first occasion when Parliament was called upon to consider this subject during the present century. lam speaking of the year 1813, when we were in the midst of the European struggle, and when certainly, if a Ministry could be excused for legislating somewhat precipitately, they might not have found apology very ne cessary. But we have been referred during this debate to another high authority, both by the right hon. member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) and the First Lord of the Ad miralty (Sir J. Graham). The name of Lord Grenville has been mentioned by those right hon. gentlemen. Now, with the exception of Mr. Burke, there probably is at this moment no greater Parliamentary authority than my Lord Grenville, whose reputation is one that rises, a circum stance which proves that he was in advance of the age in which he mainly flourished. But great as was, and as is, the reputation of Lord Grenville—though in political economy, and though in diplomacy, he was superioka perhaps, to any man of his time, and far in advance of the majority of the community—there was no sub ject on which he was so pre-eminently an authority as upon the subject of India. The right honourable member for Edinburgh referred the other night to Lord Grenville's last speech upon that subject as a master piece. What did Lord Grenville say in 1813, when the Ministers came forward to propose a bill for the government of India? He said he could not for a moment sanction such a course as that Parliament should be called upon iu the month of June hurriedly to discuss a subject so im portant in its nature. He entirely agreed, he said, with Lord Grey ; but be did more. He delivered an indignant protest against the policy recommended by the Ministry ; and when the Ministry, unwisely obstinate, as Ministers generally are—(laughter)—would not consent to the sage counsel of men like Lord Grey and Lord Grenville, what did they do ? Openly and publicly, and in the most solemn manner, they said in the House of Lords that they consi dered the policy of the Government in this respect so fatal, that they would no longer attend the house during the dis cussion, and they consequently absented themselves from the house. Ido not say that this is a course of conduct which we ought to follow. I have no doubt that it is a Whig precedent which Ministers would gladly wish in this hot iaonth of June to see us pursue, but this is a harder age than in 1813; and I suspect Ministers will find a legi timate but prolonged opposition to this measure. Now, what happened in 1833 ? Mind, lam saying this in an swer to the free criticisms which we have heard of late as to the unprecedented course, the almost factious proceed ings we are adopting. I have shown you the authority wo have for the course we are taking. I respect authority as much as any man in this house. Ido not wish. however, to lay too much stress upon authority. The argument from authority has a necessary limit. We respect authority ; but certainly in this house—which after all is the temple of free discussion—we cannot prefer authority to the con viction of our own senses, or to the results which reason, knowledge, and information press us to adopt. But what happened in 1833, the very period when the present act passed ? When that act was introduced into this house by Mr. C. Grant, supported by the right honourable gen tleman the member f or Edi n b urg h , t h ere st ill remained in the House of Commons, in opposition to the then Go vernment, a most distinguished man, Mr. C. Wynn— (hear)—a real statesmen, a connexion by blood, and deeply united in political career with Lord Grenville—a man of most enlightened mind, of great capacity, of perhaps un rivalled Parliamentary information, and recognised as a first authority on Indian subjects. (Hear.) He had been a member of the Government which preceded the Govern ment of 1833 ; he had been President of the Indian Board; and *hat did he say in 1833, when in the month of June a bill for the government of India was brought into the House of Commons ? " Observe the unfortunate circum stances in which we always legislate for India. In 1813 a continental war—in 1833 a domestic revolution." (Hear.) Charles Wynn was sensible of the extreme difficulty of proceeding with the discussion of the affairs of India under the circumstances which then existed, and what did he do? He recommended the Government to introduce a short bill on the points that were necessary for continuing the government of India, and then to proceed to legislate in a maturer spirit, and, after an interval, on all the great questions which, in resistance to his advice, they had included in the bill of 1833. Well, Orin, the coarse which Lord Grey and Lord Granville recommended in 1813, and which Chas. Wynn recommended in 1833, is the course which my noble friend, consulting with those with whom he chiefly acts, has thought it not unreasonable to recommend to the House of Commons in 1853. Now sir, I beg the h ouse t o remember what happened in 1833. I take it that the house will agree with me, that all our arguments, our illustra tions, and our inferences should be drawn from the law of 1833. In 1813 and 1833, by a gradual process, the East India Company had ceased to be a commercial corporation. The trade to India ceased in 1813, and the trade to China in 1833. The directors in 1833 represented only the pro prietors of a joint-stock company. Their books were closed, their accounts were cleared, and they were intrusted with certain political functions. Beyond 1833, then, I maintain that we have now no necessity for a moment to advert. It may be interesting to appeal to the character of Lord Clive and to the deeds of those heroic men who rose in his school, but they have really nothing more to do with the matter now in discussion than the ignominy and disgrace of the black hole of Calcutta. (Hear, hear.) In 1833 we established a form of government, or, to use the words of the title of the bill, we provided for the governmeent of India. We provided for that government with as much knowledge as was then furnished to Parliament and the country by the Ministry of the day. There were great admissions then made by those Ministers and by eminent authorities on the state of India. What were those admissions ? It was complained that in 1833 that the government of India had been one which had necessarily led to ruinous wars. (Hear, hear.) That was a great complaint. It was said then that the consequence of this system of warfare was, that the state of your finances prevented you from im proving the condition of the people, and also from improv ing the condition of the country. It was said, also, that, from the want of resources, the education of the native po pulation was not only neglected, but had not even com menced. It was said, fifthly, that the mal-administration of justice was of such a character that it was necessary that a code should be immediately constructed and introduced. (Hear, hear.) I am not now giving any opinion upon these points; I am merely representing to you the statements which were made by men of the highest authority, in and out of office, at the period of 1833 ; and it was in conse quence of, or rather with these admissions and statements, • that the bill of 1833 was introduced to your notice. Now, what is the state of affairs in 1853 ? How is it altered with respect to those five main points ? Observe, I am not now entering into any argument on th e subject. lam not stating my own views. I am merely attempting to place before you what I believe to be an impartial narra tive of the statements which we have to encounter. Well, twenty years have passed ; the interval has elapsed for which we had legislatively provided ; and what do we find ? We still have great complaints. What are they ? Constant wars—(hear, hear)—constant deficits—(hear, hear) no education— (hear, hear)—few public works— (hear, hear)—mal-administration of justice. (Hear, hear.) Well, but are not these the five great Omit which were urged in 1833? Why do we hoar of them again in 1853 ? (Cheers.) Are they to be the five points of your charter ? (Laughter.) I say that when you find in 1833 and 1853 the same great complaints on subjects of vast import ance, it becomes the Parliament to consider the (fa's tion. (Hear, hear.) Well, but we have still, although it may be imperfect, a great body of evidence before us. Wo have had our committee, and the House of Lords have had their committee, sitting for two years and taking evidence on various points. Now, what do we find there ? W e find this remarkable characteri s ti c in the evidence t a k en both before the committee of th e House of Lords, a n d th e committee of the House of Commons, that tho se ev il s are not denied. They are expl a ined ; they are a p o l og i sed for; extenuating pleas are urged in favour of those who exer cise power, but the m ost experienced servants of the company and the Crown will not come forward and tell you that you have no wars —that y ou h ave not continual Nears • they do not tell y ou th at the native do not tell you that the conditi on o f th e population of flu" is a wealt hy popu lation; they and thriving country is changed; that the means of communication, which were wanting, have been provided ; that the works whi c h, in 1833, it was said should have been accomplished h ave been accomplished. (Hear.) All those great autho rities—those men who have been employed, and justly em ployed, by the Crown and the company--(lo not come for ward and say, that the native population are educated ; they do not come forward and say that the administration of justice is satisfactory. (Hear.) All that they do is to pour in upon us a grea t fl ood of information and of light a which springs from knowledge, and to give us the means of forming an opinion —I hope not a prejudiced opinion —on the subject, and the result is that there rsmain in 1853 the same complaints on the great cardinal points na in 1833 ; and that we have had a body of evidence, of autho ritative evidence from head-quarters, laid upon our table, proving that those complaints are well founded. Well, then, is it possible that under these circumstances we can proceed to legislate "to provide for the government of India" as if we wore legislating for a railroad ? (Hear.) Are we to be told that this is a question on which discus sion should not be indulged in ? Are Ministers to be allowed to triumph in the fact that Parilaiiient'and the people of this country take no interest in this question t (ROTS low) If they really do take Ito interest in :~ I