The Sun. — London, England, 1853-03-12 00:00:00

(gear.) In 1818 we obtained from India a larger number o f bales of cotton than we had from the whole of the United States of America ; and while of late years the quantity of cotton coming from India had been decreasing, the quantity from the United States had been largely on the increase. (An Hon. Member : Freight.) In the matter of freight there was scarcely any difference at all. Now last year the exports of cotton goods and yarns from this coun try amounted to 30,000,0001., being very nearly half of th e whole exports of the United Kingdom ; and even in the manufactures of that great trade, exclusively of the sum paid for cotton, not less than 45,000,0001. was expended in wages and expenses of various kinds incident to the manu factures. Now he contended that it would be a scandalous sacrifice of the interests alike of England and of India, if this question should beioettled on any other principle than this, that, having conquered India—whether rightly or wrongly was not now the question—it was the duty of this country to establish the best possible government for the millions of people who were subject to our control in that part of the world. (Hear, hear.) Ho would read a short extract from a letter he had recently received from a gen tleman of high character in India. It was dated the 14th of October, 1852, and the writer said—" In India we were all in expectation of the most sweeping alterations in the charter act, when, to our horror and amazement, we find the act of 1833 about to be introduced with scarcely any alterations —Whigs, Tories, Derbyites, and Russellites being a pparently agreed that India is a great bore, and the sooner its affairs are decided the better." Now what he (Mr. Bright) wanted the Government to do to-night was, that if they,had made up their minds as to the course they were about to take with respect to India, to say so. He hoped they had not made up their minds, and that that would be the answer he should receive from the noble lord. The noble lord might say that he had gone into this question farther than he ought to do on an occasion like that. (Hear, hear, and no, no.) But he hoped the noble lord would appreciate the magnitude of this question, and the objects he (Mr. Bright) had in view in bringing it forward. Therefore it was that he asked the noble lord—and in doing so he disclaimed the slightest idea of embarrassing the Government—whether the Government had come to any decided opinion upon this question ; if they had, whether it was in favour of a temporary or a long re newal ; and, if so, would he state the number of years, and tell the house when the measure which was to be brought forward would be brought under the consideration of the house 7 (Hoar, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot, in spite of the disavowal of the honourable gentleman, help complaining of his conduct this evening. (Hear, hear.) He has taken the opportunity of a formal motion that this house adjourn until Monday—(hear, hear)—not for the purpose of asking a certain question of which he has given notice—not for the purpose of even stating facts and making explanations which might be introductory to this question, but he has taken the opportunity of making a speech of an hour's length in utter condemnation of' the Government which for the last seventy years has ruled over the territory of India. (Hear, hear.) It is obvious that such was his in tention. Without saying whether that condemnation was deserved or not, I say that it is obvious that his purpose was to say that that Government was to be utterly condemned, and that something new was to be put in its place ; for if a regular motion expressing that purpose had been made, the honourable gentleman would no doubt have been met by those honourable members who take a different view of this question, and who would have expressed their sen timents upon it at as great length as he has done. (Hear, hear.) I must confess that the statement of the honour able gentleman does not all convince me of the wisdom of the views which he has propounded. Neither, sir, does the tone in which he undertakes this question induce me to think that he does approach it in that spirit in which a question so grave ought to be approached. (Cheers.) He is ready to say that he expects from my can d our suc h an interpretation of his motives that I am to believe that nothing but the purest desire for the welfare of India and the good of his country animates him in his speech. lam not to utter a word—though no doubt imputations are easily enough made against a Government as against indi viduals ; but, on the other hand, while he demands so much candour, while he lays the ground for assuming that I am bound to be frank and candid on this subject, his own candour is very small in amount. (Hear.) He seems to take it for granted that we can propose no measure for the government of India unless we are animated by some dis creditable motive. Now I beg to say, without making any imputation upon him, that the view of the Government is, to do that which they conceive is the most fitting for the welfare of the 100,000,000 of people who are subject to the sway of this country. (Hear, hear.) Now I beg, before answering in any way the question of the honourable gen tleman, to state what has occurred of late. It is well known to the house that the government of India—which has lasted, as I have said, very nearly seventy years—ex pires in April, 1854. Two years before that period— namely, in April, 1852—the right honourable gentleman now the member for Stamford, and then President of the Board of Control, moved for the appointment of a select committee upon the subject of India. In making that motion he took occasion to enter into the progress which had been made since the last act of 1833, and produced facts which, as he stated, must be gratifying to the house. He said that, although there was a deficiency in the re venue at the present time owing to the recent wars, the revenue had increased from 18,000,000/. to 24,000,0001. He stated that the imports had increased from 6,000,0001. to 12,000,000/. ; and the exports from 8,000,0001. to 18,000,0001. ; and he went on stating various facts of a similarly gratifying character. He declared that the mea sures for the administration of justice had placed that administration in the hands of a great number of natives by whom justice was dispensed ; that that administration had generally been found satisfactory, and that there had been a very small number of appeals from their decisions. He made various other statements with regard to educa tion and with reference to the general state of India ; and had declared that since 1817, much had been done towards the improvement of India. He ended with a statement of the plans in contemplation, some in the nature of public works, one of which was a great road which was to cost no less than 1,500,000/. ; and having made those statements he moved for a select committee. He was opposed by an honourable gentleman no longer a member of this house, the late honourable member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey). But that honourable member was again met by a gentleman who has not only had great experi ence of the Government in this country, but also consider able experience of the government of India—l mean the honourable member for Montrose; and he declared that he was glad to hear that the Government had it in contem plation to renew the government of India on something lik the same foundation on which it had hitherto rested, and he stated if that government fell to the ground it would be the ruin of England. He pointed out, with great force, that if it had been truly said by the hon. gen tleman who had opposed the motion that there was great poverty in India, the poverty must always be considered as comparative—that if he meant to compare certain dis tricts in India with those of England no doubt they were extremely poor, but if he compared districts in India under the British Government with those under the native princes, then the comparison would be totally different. (Hear, hear.) He would see that the state and condition of the people under the British rule were far better than those of the people subject to the rule of the native princes. That was a perfectly just and true observation ; and I own I am surprised that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bright) should say, upon the authority of a petition from an Eng lish county— Mr. BRIGHT (interrupting) —I referred to a paragraph which had appeared in a respectable English journal. Lord J. RUSSELL—I understood the hon. gentleman was comparing the people of the two countries. It amounted therefore to a statement founded on a news paper paragraph. Well, these are matters that are com parative, and the state of the ryots in India must be con sidered in, regard to what had been their former condition. In the course of that debate I stated that I trusted that the Government of this country did not forget their o wn responsibility on this subject—that, whatever might be the character of the committee, you should not refer to a select committee a question of this imp or t ance f or the i r decision—(hear, hear)—that you could only refer it to them for the purpose of information, and that upon the Parliament of this country must rest the responsibility of bringing forward and passing at the fitting time such a measure as they think best. (Cheers.) I am still of the same opinion. I still think it is incumbent on the Go vernment of this country to bring forward, at the fitting time, the measure which they think best fitted for the government of India. The committee proceeded to in quire • and there was, at the same time, a committee of the douse of Lords appointed. Both committees divided the subject of inquiry into eight heads. The first was with respect to the authorities and agency by which the government was carried on both in England and in India ; and the House of Lords stated, in report ing to their lordships' house, that the general ten dency of the evidence taken before them was in favour of continuing the present system of administering the affairs of India through the Board of Control and the directors of the East India Company. The Commons' re port was in nearly similar terms. So that with regard to that first point, which must be the main object of any bill that may be introduced into Parliament, the two commit tees gave their testimony as to the favourable tenour of their evidence ; and be it remarked that there were many per sons examined before those committees who were per fectly competent to give an opinion upon that subject. In so saying, I ti do not think a man is disqualified from giv ing an opinion upon this subject because he happens to have had considerable experience of India, and has held high office there. (Hear.) One person of high authority, namely, Lord Ellenborough, gave an opinion adverse to the coannistitu_tion..of the Government, as it at present exists, proposed a different mode of government. I think I am correct in saying that the opinion of the committees generally went rather . with Lord Hardinge, another gover nor of India, than Wi th Lord Ellenborough. In the com mencement of the presenti session the committee was re appointed, and the re the Board of Control gslhon. gentleman the President of ted that he had hopes that they would be able to g i nqu iry, and that 1 3 t, on With the remaining subjects of rnindispensable that Parliament should legislate on the government of India in the course of the present session. that time the committee have proceeded with their ineiginieztbnt though many of those subjects are of the i n which they Can (liernabreNvurttiZhilofeedlffitdhiverehtiadeiss on ly one way incident to different subt. If the gove for the last 20 years, , to t t o all tail y ydifferentfrforommwthahetaccount given by the riht hon. gentleman — if w e had foun d it was a government like ment some of those we read of—that it had been a government of the most cruel rapacity, that the people were guff, • n g under the yoke of oppr ession and corruption—then it would be a question with this house whether or not should totally alter the natu re of that ,government ; and the evidence in this respect i s of the utmost importance, but I believe there is not the least possibility that that evidence will be of anysuch character. (Hear.) But there is no reason why the committee should not proceed to consider all the points.of inquiry, and with respect to the most important of them—the revenue, the judicial system, and the naval and military means of the government of India—produce to this housa all the evidence that is necessary for forming an opinion upon this subject. It is well known that the committee sits twice a week, and three hours on each occasion ; and if it was necessary to have further evi dence immediately, without asking them to imitate the late Lord George Bentinck—who on one occasion of this kind gave an example which will never be forgotten, I think if they sat twelve hours in the course of a week—if they sat four days for three hours, or three days for four hours — that would not be asking too much of their attention on this important subject. It may be thought, however, by some that it is desirable that the convenience of the com mittee should be consulted ; but I think that it would be f n a i r e _b!_tte_ . r that he committee should suffer some inconve daZez:aab tha t the welfare of India should be at all em ail, th e q,,, Y a i • o regard to their convenience. But, sir, after ng to the hon. India that :dace arises—is it, or is it not, for the benefit of the renewal : ° th rth e gentleman's proposition, formation of a gwernment for India should be delayed for two or three years, and that during all that time the people of India should be kept in total uncertainty as to the nature of the government to be proposed. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman reads peti tions, some of them asking for an inquiry in this country, and some of them for inquiry in India, and one of them asks for a sort of committee of inquiry in India, not for the purpose of renewing anything like the present govern ment—because that is put totally out of the ques tion—but for the purpose of forming a totally new government, which at the end of two or three years will become temporary. (Hear, hear.) I believe nothing will be so dangerous to the peace and welfare of India as that two or three years should be spent in inquiry on this sub ject. I believe there is no people more attached to their institutions than the people of this country ; but if you were to form some kind of a constituent assembly to dis cuss whether monarchy is a good thing, or whether the House of Lords is a good thing, and say that for two or three years you should make that a subject of inquiry— (a laugh)—l am not quite sure that the confidence of the people in their institutions would not be to some extent shaken. With respect to the government of India, the opinion of the Government is that they ought to introduce in the course of the present session that measure which they think best calculated to provide for the permanent welfare and happiness of the people of India. They hope to frame such a measure, and to introduce it to this house at a period which will give time for its discussion. I should be departing from my duty if I were to say what is the nature of the measure, or the terms on which it is pro posed to be enacted. I hold that it would be unwise and dangerous if I were to state the details of a measure with out at the same time giving all the reasons for it, and to ask this house, without a reasonable interval, to come to a decision upon. it. And I think this course has this advantage—those who oppose the measure will be obliged to produce some definite plan as an alternative. (Hear, hear, hear.) So long as we go on leaving in doubt and darkness what is to be the future government of India—one committee framing one measure, and another committee framing another, and some self-constituted association proposing a third scheme ; all this tends, in the meantime, to destroy and impair that which has hitherto existed, without setting up any of those new schemes in its place. (Hear, hear.) But if another plan is proposed, that plan can be proposed in contradiction to the plan of the Government ; and this house, and the other house of Parliament, will have a fair opportunity of discussing and deciding what is the measure best fitted for the govern ment of India. To that test we are willing to come, and by that test we shall be glad to abide. There is no person, I should say, more capable of framing a scheme on this subject than Lord Ellenborough, whose experience at the Board of Control, whose great talents evinced as Go vernor-General of India, whose remarkable abilities, and whose thoughts have been turned in an especial man ner to this subject—all, enable him Ito frame a great and comprehensive scheme for the government of India. But let him, or let any gentleman opposed to the Government on this question, produce that scheme, and we shall discuss those measures upon their merits. My own opinion is, that nothing would be more dangerous than to give the Crown the whole control of the thousands upon thou sands of the population in that part of the British domi nions. Then we should endeavour to avoid that danger, and to frame a government upon principles more in conformity with, and more favourable to, constitutional freedom. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the government that has existed—and existed for a period, as I have said, for 70 years—nothing, I should say, would be more likely to fail in theory than the government of a board of directors con trolled by a board entirely dependent on them, and they, again, having their orders transmitted to a governor-gene ral at a great distance from the mother country. But, in framing that government, the experience of 70 years is not to be despised. (Hear, hear.) The experience of those 70 years, from 1784 to 1854—when this act will expire —must furnish material elements in every way worthy of the consideration of the house in reconstructing or renew ing the system of administering the affairs of India. I will only now say that we shall be prepared to legislate on this important subject in the present session, and when we think that all the information that has been obtained in reference to the question has been sufficiently long in the hands of the Government and the house to enable us to le gislate on the subject, we shall bring forward the measure which we mean to propose ' • and, in the mean time, we shall deprecate as a great evil the postponement for two or three years, for pm-poses of agitation, a question of this kind. (Cheers.) _ _ Mr. BLACKETT could not help expressing his deep regret at the nature of the answer which had been given by the noble lord to the hon, gentleman the member for Manchester, and he trusted before this subject was pressed to a conclusion, the noble lord would see reason to come to a different opinion. Mr. J. PHILLIMORE expressed great regret at the statement just made by the noble lord, for whose character and public services he entertained the most unfeigned re spect. It appeared to him impossible that the house could proceed, upon so short a notice, to the decision of a question the importance of which could not be overrated, and which concerned the interests of 160,000,000 of our fellow subjects. Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR also regretted to have heard the speech of the noble lord upon the subject. The noble lord had denied the poverty and the misery of the people of India, by refusing to receive any evidence by which the existence of those evils could be proved. Such a course as this he could not but regret, respecting as he did the high character of the noble lord. If it were thought that all which was said on the other side of the question was untrue, and that was alleged in the petitions from India was false, let the parties be asked to come openly forward to substantiate their statements. (Hear, hear.) Allow them either to be substantiated or disproved. (Hear, hear.) But if the bill were framed before the inquiry was closed into the most important subjects—the revenue and the judicial system—it would have been framed without sufficient evidence, and the responsibility of the measure would rest upon those who voted for it. Viscount JOCELYN, as a member of the Indian com mittee, must entirely deny the statement that any diffi culty whatever was thrown in the way of anybody being heard before that committee who could afford information upon the state of India. On the contrary, he only spoke the sentiments of every member of the committee, when he said it was their earnest wish to obtain the utmost in formation they could possibly have upon this great and important question. (Hear, hear.) Ho must, however, be permitted to say, that had a suggestion which he made in the year 1850 been acceded to, the house would not have been in its present difficulty. In that year he pro posed to her Majesty's then Government the appointment of a select committee of inquiry upon this subject ; but lie failed to obtain it. He lamented his want of success, for had it been otherwise the subject would now have been ripe for legislation, inasmuch as every gentleman would have been satisfied with the in formation so obtained. (Hear, hear.) With reference to the immediate subject before the house, it appeared to him that if the legislation proposed by her Majesty's Government was intended merely to affect the home government of India, the amount of information now be fore the house was sufficient for that special object ' • and he could not see how the further inquiry about to be made into the revenue, judicial, and other departments of the ad ministration in India could affect that portion of their le gislation. (Hear.) As it appeared to him, the noble lord had most properly and rightly stated that it was the duty of the Government to legislate upon the subject; it was im possible for a committee of the House of Commons to de clare and determine what should be the future government of India. The province of such a committee was, it seemed to him, to obtain information ; which information, when obtained, would assist the Government which might be appointed to carry on the internal administration of the Indian empire, show them where the evils complained of lay, and point out the remedies that ought to be applied. Such he thought was the great object of the present in quiry. Then the question arose, was there sufficient evidence to justify the Government in legislating ? (Hear, hear.) He candidly acknowledged he thought there was sufficient evidence ; but at the same time he should like to see them lay on the table their proposition for remedying the existing evils of India. Certainly, very great and serious changes were necessary in the government o f India ; but he could not admit, as some honourable gentle men had stated, that it had been for the period of seventy years a curse to the people, though he thought that it , might and ought to have done much that it had not done. (Hear, hear.) There was no excuse for allowing the re venues of the country to be swallowed up by internal wars. Its internal capabilities ought certainly to have been im proved to the benefit of the people ; and one of the great sins of the East India Company had been that they had not encouraged the introduction of English capital and English enterprise, for it was only through such agencies L that great internal improvements could be effected. Be lieving, then, as he did that great alterations were required in the home government of India in order to impart vigour to its administration, he trusted that her Majesty's Ministers were not prepared to support any quack mea sures, such as he had seen in some of the public prints. They must improve the system from the root. Were they then prepared with a measure likely to eradicate the evils of India ? There were in the present Government men of greater capacity than had been assembled upon the Minis terial benches for many years ; and surely it was a ques tion wortky of their gravest consideration, how the govern ment of India should be administered. It was a question in which 150,000,000 of souls were deeply interested, but one on which those 150,000,000 of souls had themselves no voice. It was their duty, therefore, to look carefully into the question ; but if they were not prepared at this moment, let them postpone the question. (Hear, hear.) It was true there might be danger in delay, but there was far greater danger from legislating in error and in haste, and from handing over the government of India for another twenty years, without either a hope or expectation of that improvement which the country had a right to demand. (Hear, hear.) Mr. OT WAY also felt regret at the statement of the noble lord. There could not be a doubt that the wants and the evils from which the people of India were suffering should be ascertained before the house proceeded to legis late. Mr. COBDEN said that, being a member of the com mittee on Indian territories, he felt it necessary to explain the grounds upon which he differed from the noble lord opposite (Lord Jocelyn). The noble lord said he saw no objection to the house proceeding to legislate upon the machinery of the Government, after the inquiry which had already been made ; and in so doing he treated the ques tion in a way which required just a word or two of plain interpretation. Now, when they talked of the machinery of the government of India they talked of that to which they were afterwards to leave the administration of affairs in that country. If they said, " We are now only going to set up a government, which is not a matter of so much consequence as affecting the government in past times," 'it appeared to him they were dealing with words, and not with things. (Hear, hear.) He would illustrate his me aning. If they were going to ascertain the value of a watch, they would not at once content themselves with go, how it k© pt the number of parts, or with seeing that the p n entire, time, but an d t they wouldt would inquire i u t i s r would watch was In . th . e same manner if they contented themselves with in quiring what W as me how it the machinery of the governm en t o f India, and, be cause they found cials to tell them it was a good government, they immediately renewed the charter which sot up the machine for twent to him that th e or d sa i h t iasr ordinary a c t j o u r: t e e e i . t h e ( r H t e o a e h a o s a o r n . ) , f had not insti y tu y te e d ars, th i e t r appeared tionqicioirmymlovnhicshenszoiodr to d be Before they proceeded with legislation they ascer tain how the machine had worked in India must order to ascertain that the y must hear from evidence an t i c' in other persons than officials. Up to the present time, h o o nl w a ever, not a single person had been called before the com mittee who was not employed either by the Honourable Company or by the India Board. Certainly there had been owe witnesses who had given rather adverse evidence • but I tne of those was the Earl of E llenborou g h, who had been Governor-General, and the other was a civil functionary. The fact, then, remained that the committee had not had before them one single independent witness. They had not had one adverse witness from India. Now, he thought the doors of the committee room ought to be opened to all, and that the same course ought to be pursued in respect to witnesses from India as was adopted in reference to wit nesses at home. At home, whenever any public inquiry was made by a committee of the House of Commons, the expenses of the witnesses were paid ; and, in the present case, so far from shrinking from inquiry, they should have before them the representatives of the malcontents in India, bring them over from India at the public expense, and examine them upstairs. He must add an observation with regard to this precipitate legislation. It was proposed to bring in a bill to settle the government of India when the committee had not got through one quarter of the evi dence which they proposed to themselves to take. Was there ever such a thing done before? Had the house ever before instituted a solemn inquiry before a select committee, and proposed to legislate upon it before it was one quarter finished ? The noble lord (Lord Jocelyn) said the committee was not appointed to arrange or determine the government of India; it was set up, according to his view, only to obtain information to enable the hou se t o l eg i s l a t e . This was allhe (Mr. Cobden) wanted. Wait until you had the evidence before you began to legislate. If there was danger of agi tation and discontent because a provisional act was passed for a temporary government, what danger might not be apprehended from the fact that the committee of inquiry had been treated so little as a reality that the house would not wait to see what evidence they had collected? (Hear.) It might be an inferior and secondary question, but he would ask the noble lord, as a member of the committee, what he intended to do with them if he did not intend to avail himself of their inquiries? (Hear, hear.) He said they might go on with their investigations. But, surely, in the present state of public business, they might be better employed than in making inquiry after the noble lord and his colleagues had made up their minds as to what they were determined to do. There was one part of the evidence of Lord Ellenborough upon this subject which was of great importance. His lordship distinctly said, " when you have At up a government for India, that government must govern for India. You cannot enter into details." If, therefore, the noble lord was go i ng t o take the matter out of the hands of the committee, he (Mr. Cobden) entreated him to discharge the members from their duties at once, and leave them to attest' to other matters upon which they might possibly be of some use. (Hear, hear.) Sir R. INGLIS did not rise for the purpose d prolong ing the discussion, but he agreed with his noble friend that nothing could be more unfair than incidentally and without notice to involve the house in a discussion upon the affairs of India— Mr. BRIGHT—I gave notice to the noble lord. (Hear.) Sir R. INGLIS—The notice was not upon the paper for the day, and he was not aware, on coming down to the house, that a single word was about to be said upon Indian affairs. Nine-tenths, or rather ninety-nine hundredths of the members attended in expectation of hearing adiscussion on the Jews' question. If the honourable member for Manchester had intended to make a diversion ufon his (Sir It. Inglis's) side, he had miquestionably succeeded—(alaugh) —for he had pro Canto prevented the Jews from receiving that justice which he thonght they ought to have. It so hap pened, too, that all the speeches had issued from the same narrow angle ; but why should young India contend on such a matter with middle-aged England ? (Hear, hear.) With the noble lord he (Sir R. Inglis) contended that the question was ripe for discussion whenever her Majesty's Government were pleased to introduce their measure. The question to be submitted was the mechanism aid the or ganisation of the Government of India athomeand abroad; and on this question was the house to consult Manchester manufacturers only, to the exclusion of one governor-general, of another governor-general, of an acting governor-general, of the governors of Bengal and Madras, two commanders in -chief, and hosts of men pre-eminent for their experience of Indian affairs ? Were the opinions of such men to be treated as of no value ? Would you take met from any manufacturing town in England, and say they were higher authorities on the subject of India than the nen whose opinions had been taken ! With all respect, he would venture to say that the hon. gentleman the representative for Manchester was not more competent to give an opinion upon the future administration of the Governnent of In dia than the eminent men to whom he had refe:Ted. The opinion of these eminent men, too, had been confirmed by committees of the House of ords and the Home of Com mons, in words which, if not quite so full, were, atleast, coin dent with their general result. He (Sir R. Ixglis) was, therefore, prepared to go with the noble lord in his inten tion to introduce a measure upon the responsibility of Go vernment ; but he was bound to say there were smie points on which he might agree with the hon. member for Man chester. It was not fitting, however, to give my further opinion on such a subject upon a merely incidental ques tion. Mr. DISRAELI said that in the course of the discussion two different opinions had been expressed. According to one view the committee upon Indian territories ought to conclude their inquiries before the house proceeded to legis lation—whilst the other opinion was that, totally irrespec tive of the information obtained by the committee, or of the conclusions to which they might arrive, the house should at once legislate upon that most important topic— the administration of our Indian possessions. Her Majesty's Government seemed to be of opinion that the house ought, without waiting for the conclusion of the labours of the committee, to legislate for the administration of the Indian government: Now, he thought it was to be regretted, if her Majesty's Government had adopted that opinion, that they should not have taken the earliest opportunity of letting the house become acquainted with the plan they meant to propose. (Hear, hear.) If, for example, during the remaining part of the session before Easter, an exposi tion of the intended policy of the Government with regard to India was laid before the house, the house would have the benefit of a considerable interval for its consideration ; they would be able to approach the discussion with very great advantage, and without that waste of time which otherwise, as it appeared to him from the present aspect of public business, must take place before they could enter upon the debate. He world not express any opinion upon the present occasion, this being an incidental dis cussion, as the honourable baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had stated, though he had not hesitated, while deprecating discussion, to give a most decided opinion. (Hear, hear.) Nor would he enter upon the discussion whether the Government were right or wrong in making up their minds to propose legislation without waiting for the com mittee to conclude its labours. But, he maintained, if they were prepared to legislate without waiting for the termi nation of the investigation, that they should have seized the earliest opportunity of acquainting the house with their plan. But, on the contrary, instead of making an exposi tion of their policy, the house were informed they were to be adjourned for a period of very unusual duration ; and more than a month mist elapse, under any circumstances, before the Government could favour them with their pro ject. After Easter, it must be remembered, the house was to have the financial statement brought under its conside ration, and the noble lord had himself stated that this was a subject which would be very fertile of discussion, and would occupy a very considerable period. It appeared to him, therefore, that the house would be taking a very san guine view if they supposed they could enter upon the dis cussion of the question of the future government of India until the middle of May or the commencement of June. This was a very unsatisfactory prospect. (Hear.) Now, when they had to consider a question of this vast impor tance, at intervals of so much length, w h ere so muc h was at stake, and when they might have the opportunity of considering the question with all the information before them, it was highly impolitic to enter into such an impor tant—he might say such a solemn—deliberation at the fag end of the session. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the course chalked out for the Government by themselves would eventually lead to that result ; and that, nearly at the end of the session, the house would be called upon to consider the future administration and the permanent go vernment .of India. (Hear, hear.) The house should recollect that when the present act was passed it was passed under circumstances very unfavourable to fair and full discussion. The subject was brought be fore the house at a time when the country was excited and agitated by a domestic question of the greatest importance. The attention of Parliament was cer tainly not then directed to the question of Indian govern ment with the full authority and dispassionate attention that was intended ; and it was now proposed, although the time was favourable for discussion, to enter upon it at the end of the session. The house should pause before it sanc tioned such a course. (Hear.) But if the Government would take advantage of the present lapse to make an ex position of their policy, the question would then assume a different aspect, for it would then not be impossible to enter upon its discussion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME warned the Government against the inex pediency and injustice of proceeding to legislate upon the affairs of India without waiting for the facts and evidence that might be brought forward by the millions who were to be governed. The natives of India had presented a peti tion praying that they might be allowed to state their grievances, and their opinion of how the last charter had operated ; and he submitted their request could not in fairness be refused. Looking to the importance of the in terests involved in this question, and bearing in mind how much of the present session would in all probability be consumed in discussions regarding our system of taxation, he was confident there would not be time to consider the affairs of India, and he did hope the Government would yet be induced to postpone their measures for another year, orlat least until thelpeople of India had been heard. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. F. FITZGERALD rose amidst cries of " ques tion," to express the hope that the select committee would be permitted to examine the people of India, as by that means alone would they be able to arrive at the truth. The only evidence they had yet heard had been given by the very parties against whom the natives complained. Sir H. MADDOCK, as a servant of the Government of India, protested against the accusations which had been thrown out against that body during the course of this conversation. The motion was agreed to. THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. A petition in favour of this bill was presented by Sir G. PECHELL, from Brighton. Petitions against the bill were presented by Sir H. HAL FOSD, by Colonel FORESTER, and Sir. T. AOLAND. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the second reading of the bill. Sir F. THESIGER, in moving to defer the second read ing for six months, observed that the subject was exhausted, and that, as Lord J. Russell had adduced no new argu ments in support of the measure, his opponents could only combat him with the same weapons. There was a difficulty, he remarked, in discussing this question, arising from there being no common ground on which the antagonists could meet each other, the supporters of the measure resting it on social and civil grounds, apart from religious considerations, and its oppo nents holding that the religious question was of vital import ance, and must ultimately decide the issue. He agreed that 7th James I. was not directed against Jews, there being not a single Jew then in England. When they re turned, they were treated as aliens—the aliens' duty being imposed upon them—and this operated as a sufficient ex, elusion from Parliament. The intention of the Legisla ture was that none but Christians should be admitted to a seat there. The subject of the oath might have become obsolete, but it acted as a barrier against the admission of persons not Christians. Lord J. Russell, in arguing that religions differences were not to be the ground of exclusion from civil rights, had not distinguished between civil and political rights ; and the argument that because they were allowed to act as magistrates, they might form a part of the Legislature was utterly without foundation. There was something peculiar to the Jews, who were separate and distinct from the people with whom they lived, which t i i nfi o t n h t is bill became from being members of a national Legisla ture. But the strong and overruling objection to their ad mission r es t e d, i n hi s o pi n i on , upon religious grounds, and, a y m an e d dlaive,siigntwediouly made, b y bffiy. whichstlegistlahteivezlemieclaraesof our 'faith should form a part of our Christian Legislature. Mr. B. OSBORNE.—However he might differ from the major part of the position laid down by the hon. and learned member for Stamford, he certainly agreed with what he concluded his speech, that it was wholly impos sible to produce any novelty in so exhausted a subject. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, deserved credit for novelty. He gave a new reading of history, which he (Mr. B. Osborne) confessed never to have heard before. He said that Jews were never heard of in the country till the reign of Charles IL (" no," from Sir F. Thesiger). If the hon. and learned gentleman displayed the same accu racy in his history as he had in his law, he would have known of the remarkable offer made by the Jews in the time of Oliver Cromwell, to purchase St. Paul's Cathedral in order to turn it into a Jewish synagogue. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Had the hon. and learned gentleman been as correct in his history as he maintained the hon. and learned gentleman ought to be, he would have told the house that the Jews in the time of Oliver Cromwell were numerous enough and rich enough to make an offer for the purchase of St. Paul's Cathedral. Giving the hon. and learned gentleman credit for thisnovelty, for which he felt grateful, he must confess he addrpssed himself to the ques tion at issue, if not with despair, at least with despondency. It was no very consolatory thing to the advocates of reli gious equality to consider the present state of the question. In 1830, when it was first brought forward in that house by Mr. Grant—all honour to him—the question had been de bated frequently, and the principle had always been acknow ledged by that house --the leading members and statesmen on both sides, though differing on all other subjects, were all agreed in their sentiments on behalf of religious liberty. The wisdom of Mackintosh and Macaulay had been re sponded to by the late Lord G. Bentinck and by the pre sent Mr. Disraeli. Therefore it was not a consolatory re flection to find in 1853 the qu.estion " dragging its slow length along, and the same miserable arguments brought forward as were used in the 13th century to justify the ba nishment of the Jews, to keep them now from their legis lative places in that house. The same arguments were now produced in the same intolerant spirit, and an equal amount of ignorance was displayed as was the case in the middle ages. The hon. and learned member for Stamford used nearly the sane terms and same arg umen t s as were use d b y one o f th e lights law, Lord C o k e , to do away with the writ d de es h pa iriinfcg of the ocontbilneveltrenclo. The hon. and learned gentleman, V, used the weapon of the hon. member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), who said, " If you admit Jews to Parliament, you unchristianise it." Now was the hon. and learned gentleman really serious in making that declaration ? If such an act unchristianised the Legislature, the same consequences must have followed when the Legislature agreed to admit Jews to civil offices, and another step in this h ea th en i s i ng process mus t have been taken when the House of Commons came to a vote that Jews ought to be admitted to seats on the bench. Could any man in his heart think that the legislature was un christianised by these concessions to the Jews ? If any one admitted this argument, he must go further, and say this was not a Christian country, and that there were only two Christian countries in Europe—Spain and Portugal ; for in those countries there was no religious toleration allowed. They would tolerate no one who refused to conform to the Roman Catholic religion. (Hear.) But in this country, where all sects were tolerated, where all modes of worship were allowed and protected, it was absolutely an offence to common sense to say that the admission of the Jews to Parliament would unchristianiee the legislature. The hon. and learned member for Stamford went on to say there must be a declaration of Christianity by every mem ber of that house. That declaration was taken at the fag-end of an oath, but there were two great parties —the Roman Catholics and the Quakers—who were excepted from that operation. If the hon. and learned gentleman was sincere in his declaration, why did he not come down to the house and put a notice on the books to the effect that a declaration of Christianity shall be made, not at the tail of a worn-out oath, but made in a separate oath taking precedence of all other oaths. Let that declara tion be, that every member, upon taking his seat, shall state thatihe is a Christian. With respect to the common adjuration to be taken, he could conceive no m ore so l emn farce than to see an hon. gentleman led to the table of that house, knowing the folly he was about to commit. (Oh, oh.) Honourable gentlemen did not perhaps know that they were required to abjure the de scendants of a person who had left no descendants, and that in doing this they . committed a positive absurdity. He for one—and the opinion was shared by a large ma jority—thought that this question ought not to be dis cussed on religious grounds, but simply on its political bearings. If the tenets of the Jewish polity were dange rous to the state, and tended to the disorganisation of our institutions, then he admitted a case for exclusion would be made out. But, he said, they were bound to come down to the house and state that no Jew ought to be allowed to canvass or to appear on the hustings as a candi date ; and not come there, and, by a side wind, attempt to debar the Jews, when elected, from taking their seats in that house. He would not assent to the proposition that it was necessary to make a religious declaration in order to discharge civil duties. The hon. and learned member for Stamford raerred to one of the most remarkable men of the present day—the Archbishop of Dublin, and the posi tion in which the right rev, prelate placed the question. That right rev. prelate said it was not a question of Jew ish disabilities, but a question of Christian claims. Were Christian men to be debarred from selecting men whom they might think fit, provided they selected those who would do no mischief to the state ? It was not so much the claims of the Jews as the rights of the Christians which were at issue. They were disfranchising some of the most wealthy persons in the world. The city of Lon don had three times sent a representative to that house, but the house had refused to receive him, and had thereby virtually disfranchised the City. Let the house take care that in excluding Jews they were not debarring Christians from their rights. (Hear.) He would now turn with pain to what had fallen the other evening from the hon. member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), whose observations were, from peculiar circumstances, worthy of attention. But he had heard the speech of the hon. bart. with regret, for he endeavoured to lower the question from one of public principle to an attack on an individual. The question had nothing to do with the merits of Baron Roths child, and when the hon. baronet made use of the invidious reflection on Baron Rothschild, in relation to usurious boane, the hon. baronet, in the remarkable sense of the words used by the hon. and learned member for Stamford, had stated only half the truth. (Hear, and laughter.) Tho hon. baronet, with the cry of religious liberty on his lips, but with penal restrictions in his heart, had endeavoured to lead away the house from the question, by a reference to vulgar prejudices; but when the hon. baronet came to facts the hollowness of his case was seen. The hon. baronet quoted the case of juvenile offenders. He (Mr. Osborne) had been searching the report, and could find no mention of the invidious crimes attributed to the Jews. The charge, he believed, rested on the assertion of Mr. Serjeant Adams, who was alleged to have said that certain Jews were re ceivers of stolen goods. The hon. baronet endeavoured by his statements to induce the house to believe that the Jews were reckless from their crimes and of bad morals. He would turn from the eccentric fallacies of the hon. baronet to the pure wisdom of his late father, who, speak ing on the subject of religious disability, said, " it was not right to inflict a penalty for religious error, civil disabili ties being in the nature of a penalty." In his opinion keeping men from the just object of their ambition in the country was a persecution which differed only in degree from torturing and burning. He believed in ex cluding the Jews they were putting again on them the yellow badge they were formerly required to wear. Let the house remove that badge by admitting the Jews to their rights. The hon. and learned gentlemen quoted from a pamphlet by Hollingsworth, in which it was stated that the Jews intended going in a body to Palestine. Now at this moment emigration was very rife, and yet he found the only people who did not emigrate were the Jews. In the constitutional countries of Belgium, Sardinia, and Hol land, the Jews enjoyed the same privileges as Christians. In France and Austria there were no disabilities on account of religion. And when the hon. and learned gentleman asserted that the Jews were a different and separate nation who never amalgamated with the people with whom they dwelt, he was as wrong as in his Oliver Cromwell history. The evidence to the contrary was to be found, first, in an extract from the report by the Minister of Public Instruc tion in France, which stated that since the Jews had been put on the same footing as other citizens, they had become equal partakers of the glory and the misfortunes of France, that their blood had flowed as f ree l y as ot h ers; and that' they had adopted the same principles and had become equally good citizens. In Prussia, so far from the Jews being a separate nation about to emigrate to Palestine a document from the Council of Hamburgh to Prince Hardenberg stated that the history of the last war against France proved that the Jews rendered them selves worthy of the state in which they were incorporated, that the Jewish youth were brethren in arms, and afforded examples of heroism and contempt for the dangers of war, and that they were always ready to make sacrifices for their common country. These were historical facts which ought to be placed against the quotations from a pamphlet which nobody ever heard of. He would quote the words of Baron Alderson when delivering judgment in the case of Mr. Salomons. That learned judge said it was impossible the law could remain as at present ; that it would be more worthy for the country to exclude the Jews from privileges, if they were to be excluded at all, by a direct enactment rather than by the indirect operation of a clause intended to apply to a totally different class of cases. To this conclusion there could hardly be a dissentient. Was it right the house should take advantage of a pam phlet corrected by Garnett the Jesuit, to exclude the Jews? The phrase in question was intended not as a weapon of offence against the Jews, but against the Je suits. It was not right to take advantage of an ambi guous phrase to exclude the Jews in 1853. We ought at once to simplify the oath in order to carry out the recom mendation of the commission of 1845, and have one form of oath for all members. There ought not to be a theolo gical brigade in the house. The hon. member appeared horrified at the idea of a Jewish brigade, but the hon. member was taking the very course to effect that purpose. He contended that the house ought not to be split up into theological brigades. If they wished to show the faith of Christians, they were bound to do as they would be done by. And as the hon. and learned gentleman had quoted Hollingsworth, he would quote a higher authority, that of Bishop Newton, who said it was more fitting we should strive to dispense the mercies of Heaven rather than to exert ourselves to diffuse the punishment of man. That was a great sen ti ment, an d h e h ope d t h e h ouse would echo it by passi ng this measure by a majority worthy of them and the time in which we lived. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DRITMMOND admitted that, on political grounds, there was not a single argument in favour of the exclusion of the Jews. But this was essentially a religious question, and upon this ground he opposed the bill. Lord J. RUSSELL said—Having been heard on a for mer occasion on this subject, I trust the house will allow me to give some answers to the arguments that have been used against the proposition I have brought forward. Be fore doing so, may I be allowed to mention a matter which is personal to myself, and which has been raised in the course of this discussion on the last night of the debate, in regard to my position in respect to this question. It was represented by an hon. member who doubtless had heard it out of doors, that I had introduced this question solely out of regard to my constituents, who had elected a Jew to represent them in Parliament. Now, it so happened that before there was any question of the election of Baron Rothschild, I had been asked by the Jews to undertake this question, and if I am asked why, I can only say that I have always taken a part in questions of this kind—that I had spoken on the second reading of a bill introduced by Sir Robert Grant, in 1833 or 1834, and it so happened that I spoke on a question of a similar kind in 1846. Many years ago I undertook a question of a similar kind for the Protestant dissenters—namely the removal of the disabili ties imposed by the Test and Corporation Acts, and I imagine that I acted in that case from the same motives. I had no personal interest in the matter. (Hear.) But feel ing very strongly the reasons urged against persons being excluded by what I conside-ed an unjust restriction, and being called upon by the persons suffering under these un lust restrictions to undertake their cause, I did not hesitate to do so. With regard to the historical portion of the question—namely, the object of introducing the oath, I believe we are all agreed. The hon. and learned gentle man near me said that these words were not introduced to exclude the Jews, but for a different purpose—to impose a more rigorous test upon the admission of Roman Catholics. If an application had at that time been made for the ad mission of the Jews I think they would not have admitted them, but then it would not have been upon religious grounds, but because they were aliens ; and that objection was taken so late as the reign of William 111. I will not contend that the Parliament of the day, if the question had been brought before them, would not have excluded the Jews ; what I contend is, that, in point of fact, Parlia ment never introduced that declaration or test for the pur pose of placing a religious bar to the admission of the Jews. Therefore, it remains for us to consider, not whether we will remove what was a bar for th e p urpose o f exc l u di ng the Jews, but a bar for a different purpose, which now operates to their exclusion. If we take the opinions of those who oppose it from the opinions of the hon. member for Surrey, there would be very little difficulty, because he admits that on political grounds he sees no reason for their exclusion. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last took x much less strong ground, because all the arguments on the subject go much more to the exclusion of sects different from the Established Church than to the exclusion of the Jews. Because it is obvious that the questions brought into this house are much more likely to lead to opposition from others than from the Jews. Take, for instance, the question of the union of this country with Scotland. Presbyterians were admitted into the house, and questions arose upon episcopal authority, according to which Pres byterians were totally unfitted to decide, being opposed to episcopal authority altogether. Take, for instance, the question of the extension of the Protestant Church—the Roman Catholics can have no sympathy with us in any bill which may be introduced into this house for that pur pose. The argument, if good for anything, goes to the ex clusion of the Roman Catholics ; but when we come to the question of the Jews, there are few questions on which they will feel an interest contrary to the majority of Churchmen. An hon. gentleman suggested the question of the observance of the Sabbath ; but I cannot say that we have made much progress in that question, or that the discussions on it have been creditable to this house. As regards the maintenance of the Protestant Church and clergy, we should have far less enmity from the Jews than from many sects whom we have already admitted. The question is simply reduced to this—that there is a differ ence of religious opinion. It is on account of the religious error of the Jews that you propose to maintain their exclu sion. Upon that question I feel that it is too late in the day to argue. Those who maintain that on account of the wide difference between Jews and Christians the Jews should be excluded, go upon a principle which 1 cannot urge, but against which I have the strongest opinions. My belief is that the imposition of political disabilities on men because of a difference of religion, is exactly the same in principle as if yon visited them with fine and imprisonment. The difference between persecu tion in former times and the present had been pointed out, but those who condemned the Madiais, did it upon precisely the same principle as those who excluded the Jews. For my part, I cannot agree in it because it is a religious per secution. Here are the two principles opposed, and you must take either—you must stand upon one or the other. If you take it upon the one, then all religious persecution may be justified—all penalties may be imposed which have led to those dreadful scenes of civil war and dissension and desolation which have prevailed from the beginning of history to the present time. The other principle is that which has gradually grown up with our civilisation—which tends to make men love one another—which induces them to live in harmony as one family, and in conoord with the state—which leaves every man in possession of the inde pendent exercise of his own religious convictions, and which thereby removing all penalties and dis abilities, all punishments for the profession of faith, does, I believe, conduce more than the severest punishment, more than fire and rack—(oh, and cheers)—more than solemn oaths and declarations, to the diffusion of just opinions. (Cheers.) It is because I hold these opinions— because I am not indifferent to the triumph of Christianity —because I believe that Christianity will triumph amidst the greatest liberty and the free diffusion of opinion—on these grounds I believe that its triumph will be aided and crowned by the removal of the last remnant of disabilities. (Loud cheers.) Mr. NEWbEGATE asked, if all political disabilities were considered persecution, why retain the disabilities in the bill ? If people of all religious opinions were to be re presented in that house, why not Atheists ? He prayed the house to retain its religious character, and not create a new religious qualification. Mr. V. SCULLY, on his own part and on that of the Roman Catholic body generally, gave his cordial support to the bill. The house then divided, and the numbers were— For the second reading 263 Against it 212 Majority for the second reading 5l COMBINATION OF WORKMEN. Mr. DRUMMOND obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend and explain an act passed in the sixth year of George IV., to repeal the law relating to combinations amongst workmen, and to make oth e r p rov i s i ons i n li eu thereo. The Consolidated Fund Bill passed through committee. The Metropolitan Improvement Bill, as amended, was considered, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday. The Land Improvement (Ireland) Bill, as amended, was considered, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday - . The Oaths in Chancery Bill went through committee, The Indemnity Bill was read a third time, and passed. The house adjourned at five minutes after twelve o'clock SHIPP IN° IN TELL IG.EN OE_ CUSTOM-HOUSE—MARan 11. ENTERED INWARDS.—The Sultana and Selina, from Port Vendres ; Elizabeth, Caen ; La Bretagne, Port Launey ; Fortunate, Malaga ; Queen of the Chase, St. Michael's ; Gem, Leghorn ; Elizabeth and Mary, do. ; Tiger, Hamburgh ; Neptune, do. ; Adolphe, Charente ; Margaretha, Rouen ; Vier Brodre, Odessa ; Yorkshire Lass, Port Launey ; Courier, Guernsey ; Les Amis, Rouen ; City of Boulogne, Boulogne; Lucy Aimee, Nantes ; Esperance, Rouen ; Jubilee, Guernsey ; Catharina, Quim per ; Agenoria, Malaga ; Leonor, Seville ; Flower, do. ; Victor, Caen ; Duchess of Sutherand, New Diep ; Salem, Charente; Punch, Genoa ; Forerunner, Teneriffe, Bathurst, Sierra Leone, Accra, and Fernando Po ; Thecla, Boston ; Hebe, Odessa ; George H&nrich, Genoa ; Alfen, Ken motes ; Peggy, Jersey ; Frithiof, Callao and Berwick ; General Murray, Guernsey ; White Mouse, S. Mary's ; Lord John Russell, Harlingen. ENTERED OUTWARDS FOR LOADING.—The John Bull, for Hamburgh ; Mersia, Melbourne and Port Philip ; Jong Johanna, Amsterdam ; Albion, Boulogne ; Forerunner, Bathurst, Sierra Leone, Cape Coast Castle, Fernando Po, and Teneriffe ; Niagara, Sydney ; Lor d John Russell, Har lingen ; Jersey, Berbice ; Mary Emma, Melbourne and Geelong ; Ellen, Leghorn; William, Malta and Alexandi:a • Harriett, Valparaiso and Lima ; Rose, Stettin ; Ameth y st, Pernambuco Ocean, Havre ; Coromandel, Hobart Town. CLEARED OUTWARDS WITH CARGO.—The Tory, for Port Stephen • Elizabeth, Antwerp ; Mercury , second clear ance ; *ilhelm, Gothenberg ; Maria, Stettin ; Juno, Konigsberg ; Fernandite ' Cadiz and Seville ; Elseina, H am _ burgh ; Einigheit, do. ;Diana, Sydney ; Belle, Leghorn ; Urania, Melbourne • St. George, Sydney; Fame, Calal.s. • Triton, Ostend ; R a : ve nsbourne, Rotterdam. LIVERPOOL, March 11.—The Jane Glassin, arrived here from Bombay, lost mizen topsail and main topmast head, in a squall, Nov. 17, in lat. 3 S., long. 87 E. The Devon. port, arrived here from New Orleans, spoke the Mary Hol land, from Valparaiso to Liverpool, Feb. 28, in lat. 19 N, long. 31 W., 157 days ou t, and su pp li ed her with provi sions. GRAVESEND, March 11.—Arrived--La Bretagne, from Post Launey ; Fortunate, Malaga ; Queen of the Chase, St. Michael's ; Gem, Leghorn ; Elizabeth and Mary, d o . ; Tiger, Hamburgh ; Neptune, do. ; Vier Brodre, Odessa ; Yorkshire Lass, Port Launey ; Courier, Guerns e y ; Ci ty of Boulogne, Boulogne ; Ocean, Havre ; Galat3a, Guenu.ey ; Duchess of Sutherland, New Diep ; Forerunner, Teue riffe Bathurst, Sierra Leone, Accra, and Fernand o P o ; Heise Odessa ; George Heinrich, Odessa; Peggy, Jers e y ; Frithiof, Callao and Berwick. MALTA, March 4.—The Gefion (Norwegian), from Con stantinople to the United Kingdom, has sunk off the coast of Barbary ; crew saved. CLYDE, March 9.--Wind, S.W. Arrived—Canmore, Harvey, from Baltimore ; Envoy, Dixon, New York ; D Za o n w o , ni bet a e h ra o ra ny ; neisohlin'osp, Hope, e c w B onn r o un r, s N we e i w k ; C Orl a e s a k n e s t i Conrad, Barclay, New York. GRIMSBY, March 9.—The Aurora, from London to Sun derland, which was an shore near Spurn Light, on the 2d, was brought into dock this morning, without damage. VESSELS SPOKEN WITH. The Helen Douglas, Calcutta to London, Feb. 11, lat. 33 N., long. 35 W. The Bengal, Calcutta to !London, Feb. 9, lat. 30 N., long. 36 W. The Medora, of Glagow, bound west, Feb. 6, lat. 21 N., long. 34 W. The Lady Sale, Singapore to London, March 3, lat. 49 N., long. 21 W. The Lady Franklin, London to Jamaica, Feb. 10, lat. 21 N., long. 41 W. The William Jardine, Calcutta to Trinidad, Jan. 1, lat. 25 The The hha eet Monarchy, o L3 r i 6e t x a from onm g 36 S. long. 22 E. H.M. ' S. Rapid, Dec. 12, lat. 13 S., long. 41 E. Calcutta .ar22 a i nil tEiu. la to Jan.Lo London, lat. F 2 e 3 b . S 2. 10ng. 2, at 2 E. The Marquis of Londonderry, Calcutta to London, Dec. Mauritius to London, Helena. The Henry Woolley, Mauritius to London,Feb. 2B, 47 N., long. 28 W. Feb. 9 , lat. I>S The Caroline, Quebee to Pernambuco, • N., long. 34 W. The Acadia, Liverpool to San Francisco, Dec. 7, lat. 52 S.,long. 58 W. The William Jarvis, New Orleans to Liverpool, Feb.l3, lat. 37 N., long. 33 . Jan. Feb off S a let. The Missionary, from Cardiff, let. 51 N., long. 7 W. The Seaton, Aberdeen to Port Philip, lat. 47,10ng. 9. The Lord B.edesdale, Madras to L ondon, Feb. 13, la t. 32 N. long. 35 W. The Roberts, Calcutta to Hull, same date. TheN lo ais, Queenstown to Newfoundland, March 1, l a t . 46 N., 10ng.27 W. The Albatross (ship), Liverpool to Melbourne, Jan. 20, let. 13 S., long. 3 7 WW. The May Queen, Coringa to London, March 1, lat. 44 N., long. 28 W. The Gloriosa, London to Calcutta, Feb. 22, lat. 48 N., long. 8 W. [A uvE uTisumiiNT.]—Holloway's Pill s f or I nv i gorating the Weak and Strengthening the Debilitated. —These wonderful and efficacious pills are the only medicine adapted to invigorate weakened constitutions, persons of low and nervous habits, or those who are suffering from bad digestive organs, or others whose health has become deranged by bilious affections, disordered stomachs, or liver complaints. Those affected with coughs, colds, asthma, or shortness of breath, should have recourse to these invaluable pills, as their mighty powers will be found a certain and efficacious remedy for alt these complaints, imparting at the same time strength, new life, vigour and buoyancy of spirits to the afflicted, and may be taken with perfect safety at any period of life.—Sold by all druggists, and at Professor Holloway's establishment, 244, Strand, London. THE SHARE MARKETS. BRITISH RAILWAYS. RAILWAYS. Closing Prices thisday. Baslness done this day. Paid Aberdeen..... ........ Imbg. Nottng. Bost & Eastu. IBirning. Wolverh 1 Stour Valley . Birkenhd. Lancsh Cheshire Junct...... Do. Chesh. & Birk., £5O & £25 Cons.... Do., .420. Bri3tol & Caledonian. Ches:,er & Holyhead Cork and Bandon.... Cork, Black. & Pass. Dublin&Belfast June. Dundee Perth &Aber deen Junction ....... Do. New ....... ....... East Anglian (X 25 L. & E. & L. & D.) Do., (XlB E. & H.) Eastern Counties Eastern Union, Class A. late E. U. Sh Do., do. Do., B & C East Lancashire East & et Ind. Dk. & Bi_ _niag. June Edin'ov -gh di Glasgow Edinb. and Peeb' es Edinb. Prth. &Dundee Glasgow & S. Western Great Northern Stk Do., A. Stock Do., B. Stock Sth. &West. (Ire. ) Great Western Irish Soati-Eastern. Laneas,,e & Carlisle Do., Thirds ....... Laneash. &Yorkshire Do., Fifths Do., Wst. Riding Un Leeds Northern.... Liv. Crsby. di So utb pt London & Blackwall Lond. Tilb. & Sthend. Lond. Bright. & S. Cs;;. London & N. Western Do. Fifths Do. ,10/.5h.,M&8...0 London & S. Western Do., £50........ . ..... Do., £40.... ..... Lr dndrry.&Coleraine dndrry. & Ennisk. !.fanch.Shef. &Lincln. Do., Man. &Lin. Un. Midland Do. Eirming.& Derby Midland G.West.(lr.) Do. 6 Shr-es .......... Newcastle &Car"sle.. New market Do. Br-y Extensions Newpt.Aberg.&Htfd Newry & Enniskillen Newry Warrenpoint & Rostre Norfolk.. Do., New... ..... Northu. Counties Ui North BriUsh North Devon, No.l Do., No. 2.. ..... Do., A Deferred ' Do., B Guaranteed North StaTordshsre ' North Wes tern.. N. & S. Westru. June. Oxford Worcester & Wolvernamp;:,on..... Scottish Central ...... 1 Scottish Midland Shrewsbury & Birmg. Do., L. dr N. Westn. Guaranteed Stock... Shrewsby. di Herefd. Shrewsby. & Chester (Nor. W. Do. Halves, d 0....... Do. Oswestry ......... Shropshire Union.... South Devon South Eastern... South Wales S. Yorksh. River Dun Stockton & Hartlepl Thames Haven Dock and Railway Vale of Neath... Waterfd. & Kilkennyl Waterford&Limerick I West C0rnwa11........1 Wmbled on &Croydon' Woodford York Ne wctl. & Berw. Do. Extensions...... . Do. G. N. E. Purchase York & N. Midland.. PREFEREN , Aberdeen Do., No- 2, 7 p. o Eris. & Ea. 4 p. c. St Do. 4 p. c. Shares CalcOonian £l.O Chester & Holyhead Guar. 5i per cent... ,Cork &Bar don N - p.c. Dundee 'erth &Aber &en Junction 2,astA nglian (._3los; 6 per cent..... ...... . Do. (4.5) 7 per cent.. Do. ( 9 7 175) 7 P. ct.. Eas. ern Counties Ex tension, 5 p. e. No.l Do., No. 2.. ....... Do., New 6 P. C. St.. Eastern Union, Scrip Guar. 6 per cent.... EastLancash. 6 p.eLs. Edinb. Prth. &Dundee 5i per cent........... Glasgow & S.Western guar. 5 per cent.... Great Not Lim. 5 p. c. Do. 5 p. c., Redeem., at 10 p. c. prem Gt. Southn. &Westn. (Ireland) Eighths... Gt. Westn. (Berks Hants Ex. 5 p. c.).. G. West. fixed 4 p c. Lan. & York. F. £2O, Do., 6p. , Stock... London and Brighton Guaranteed 5 p. c... Do. FreZ., 5 p. c. St. Do. Convertible, sp. c., 1852 . .... . Do. New Guar. 6 p.c. London & S. Western, Con. Thirds. Londonderry& Coler. Shares Londy. & Ennis 2 Sh Manch. ,Shef., & Lin., Shares, No. 1...... Do. New, £lO Do., £6. Marypt. &Carl. 4 p. c. Do. 4 per cent Do Mid. Consol. 6 h. c. St. Do. Consol. Briskol di Eirm. 6 per cert Do. Pref. 4:3 per cent Norfolk Extension Do. Guar. N per ct Do. Way. - Val. 5 p c North Br ',ish North Staffordshire Oxford Worcester & Wolverh. £15,6p. c. Do Shrews& Birm. N. C-'- Shre vsby. & (Nor. W. Min),B p. c. Do. 5 per cent South Devon Do. New S. Eastern (Reading Ann.,) of £1 Os. 6d. S. Yorksh.4p. e. Guar. Waterfd. &Kilk. 6p. c. York Newcastle and Berwick, 4 p.c.Pref. Do. York& N. Midland H & S. Porch..... FORE. Antw erp&Rotterdam BelgianEastn. Junct. Charleroi & Erquelin. Dijon : ~ndßesanon Dutei Wienish Fast Indian..... .. Do. Extension Gt. Indian Peninsula Gd. Junct. of France, Gt. Western of Canada' Shares.. Lucca & Pistoja sp.c. pr0f.......... ....... Luxembourg. Do. (Railway) Do. Do. (Canal) Do. 6 p. et. pref Lyons & Mediterran Madras Namur & Liege (with , interest) Do. (ex interest) Northern of France Do. 201. 3 p. c. Bds (fmy. B. &Ams. Shs.) NorwegianTrunkPref Paris and Lyons Paris and Orleans Paris and Rouen Pai;s and Strasbourg Pa-isCae - a&Chcrbrg. Quebec &Richmond Rouen and Havre Sambre and Meuse Southern u p i : pe . 5 Indiaf t Scrip West Flanders per c. Western of Prance... l West. of Switzerland Zea1and......... ..... 29i 61 7i —64dxd 21 22 31} 2i d 104 105 G 4 654 22 —22 A 18 . ; 191 li - lil3 8 - 9 5i - 34 44 - 134 -13 g 10; - 14 - 84 - 73 55 - 57 76 - 78 32 34 I 62 64 81A — B2. 45 47_ 122 - 124 1071 1.08 91A -- 92 6t 92 97 13 t i 144 78 78 4 4gd 3d 16 —16 A d 81 9A 1-1.41 — 1 p Lac 165 Ll9i 1204 2 3p 90 . 4 91 13 A p 5 4 11 12 19 21 29 t i 30 31 3 d 76/ —76 f 44 46 50 52 3 3i 3. 3 d 38 31 9 10 53 55 7 24- 2f, d i 35i d' 41 4 d 8 81 3i 4i p 471 48} 100 102 64 - 66 64 6611 70 75 ... dis 18 -- 20 9 -- 10 14 -- 15 3i -- 3 d 21 -- 22 78A -- 79 36 -- 37 121 -- 131 4 -- 44 19 -- 21 1i 24 14; -- 154 9 -- 9A 29 -- 31 91 -- 10 id-- ip 7i -- 7 d 21 -24 d 59 -- 60 SHARES 1106 - 1081 100 iO7 19 20' id— par 61 - 61 - 3i - 4 - i - -2 p 1 # -li p 14/., 5 18i -- 19 3 - 31 127 = 129 110 - 112 81 9 7 4 105 , --107xd par p 150 152 ... --- sci. •.. xd •• • -- xd 3 1 7 - 3 i p 10 -- 11 13/ -- 14 8 - 9 10 118 1 P 1146 -148201 221 - '23 p 5 -6/ - 2 f 108 - 110 25 - 26 p 11 14— 16 18 li 17 p ( par— 26 —26 i 20 21 id par -° - 102 1 5 -. 51 P - iPI id-pr 1 -- 13 -13 i 21 - p 2f -- 6/ -- 6i p 11 -- lip 1! -25 p -- 2 p P 7i 8 1 , - 1$ 14 - d par p, 2 —2 4 p - 374 171 - 18 p l 421 - 43 42 -42 i 33A - 34 4t - s:.fp P 2 204 21 , 9 9?" iip p 4 51 idis p 10 E li 11 pm Ad p 29i 30 29i 131 i t x d 81i 46 7 6/ 1231 4 13i pm 7 8 i i 4i B 104 5 120 191 20h I 1 91 i 90i i d 763 ii xd 131 i x d. 36i xd 70 z d tl2i z d 59i 60 x d Pm pill 14i 15 x d I.l]. 3.0 151 a d 148 7i x d 108 7 9 8 a :IGN. i i Pm LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS. Faith RAILWAYS. Leasing Compans. Closing Prices this lay. Business this day. Bedford and Bletchley.... Birm. & Oxfd. guarantee Do.withoutgrl Birm.Woly. &I London N. West., iGt.Westn Do 30 -31 29i -30,3/4 Dudley guar. Do. wthtguar. Buckghamsh . Clydesdale Je. E. Lincoln. gr. Gl El : it l i s lt t l i p : l . w & i c : e a D D u y u t k . .F . .. r a . : 30 31 29 30 105 —lo7xd 521 —s3lxd 151 153 321 331 IL. &N.W Caledou.. Gt. Notrhu Gt. Westn. Yk. New. dz Benv Y.&N. Md Do Do Hull & Selby. Do. Shares. Do. Shares. Lon. & Greenw Do .Preference Lowestoft gr. 4 per cent... Do. 6 per et..., Maria .Bxton.' and Matlock Middlesbro' & Redcar . 111 --113xd 55A —s6Axd 267 --27Axd 13i -14 i 254 -- 26 19 --19pul 25 -- 27 S. Eastern Do (Norfolk Do Lu. &N. W & ALUM IStektou Darling Midland 3 - 3i 'Midld.Bradfd. Northern and , Eastern op. c. 'Do. 6 per ct.. Do.Fixedsp.c . 'rest. di Wyre liiiii :: 108}1 ... E. Count Do Do L. & N . W &Ln& Yk Do 64 66xd ▪ id. ▪ zd 11 100 100 ,18 Do. 1 Shares. Roys:m.&Hit., Do.Shepth.St.l Shef. Roth. & IGt.Northn IDo , Lancash.dE Yorksh MrMClean ;Stockt. & 152Yr&1! 1 151 - Goole g. 5. p.c S. Staffordsh.. WearValleygr 6 per cent ... Do . Wilts ctSomi-st -- xd i id Darling Do 1 32i -33 i 1103 - 104 Gt. Westa MINES. 1 all Agua Fria 10s. all Anglo Californian ... I p 1 10 2 Australasian - 2 p 4 20 5 Australian 64 p 6 '2 1 all Australian Cordillera par p 1 all Australian Freehold. 1 p 1 all Ave Maria par p 1 1 all Baden (Gd. Duchy of) par p 1 all British Austrin. Gold / pli 20 13.5 British Iron 7 9 35 241 Brazilianlmp.(issuod at £5 pm 5 6 42 5f 30 all Do. Cocaes & Cuiada 2 21 20 15. Do. St. John Del Rey 29 —3O 1 1 Carsons's Creek par p 40 all Cobre Copper 46 47 46 5 1 Colonial Gold 24 3 431 • 14 Copiapo all Copper Min. of Eng 6O 70 25 all Do. Pref. 71 p. cent 7l —81 p 5 all English and Austin Copper Smeltg. Co ll 4 d 4 20 all General I7A 181 2 all Great Nugget Vein 34: 3 p 51 3 all Great Polgooth . ll —ll p 1 all Lake Bathurst.. idis— par 1 all Liberty — I p 11 1 all Lond. &Californ. Gold Quartz Crush. Co — d d 1 all Mariquita. 10 9 Mexican&S.Amerien. 71 8 7 1 all New Granada $ p 1i 1 all Nouveau Monde II 11p 24 5 1 Port Philip 1 1. p2l 1 all Quartz Rock par 1 p 50 all Rhymnoy Iron 22 —24 p 15 Do. New 7 —7l 30 104 Santiago de Cuba 6 7 1 all South Australian par 4 p 10 7 Tin Croft ll 13 281 all United Mexican 6.1 7 6} 1 all Waller 4-3 p la 1 all West Granada 4 - P 1 all West Mariposa par— p 1 all Yuba 4 — A P JOINT-STOCK BANKS. 40 all Australasia -92 93 93 50 all British N. American ... 59 4 20 2 Chrtd. Bnk. of India, Australia, & China 21 2ip 100 25 Colonial — 100 20 Commercial of Lond — ... 4 English Scottish and Australian 2l 31 p 20 71 Lond. Chart. Bk. of Australia 5l slp 124 50 20 London and County 50 10 London Joint Stock — 103 20 Lond. &Westminster 20 2 London Bank of Aus tralia and India 50 22A National of Ireland ... 25 all Oriental Bank of Corporation 25 5 Do. New — 100 25 Provincial of Ireland ... 10 all Do. New — ••. 5 1 Royal Australn.Bkg & Gold Imp Co par 25 all South Australia 52 53 25 all Union of Australia.. 77 78 21 Do. Now Bl 9 5 . 0 10 Union of L0nd0n...,, 40 all Union of Madrid MISCELLANEOUS 100 35 Australian Agricult. 110 20 4 Australsn.Pcific.Mail [ ex P ee l Sz,ad [ a rid g 10 5 Australu. Royal Mail xd ... 38A Brit. American Land ... ••• 100 32 Canada ••• 5i 6 5 5 Crystal Palace — 4 2 Crystal Pal.of France 20 1 Eastern Steam... . 1 1 Electric Teleg. of Ir — 15 14 Gen. Steam Navigat — 100 50 General Screw Steam ... 20 2 Irish Beetroot Sugar 1 all Nat. Pat. Steam Fuel ~. 10 2 Netherlands Land — 20 21 Nrth.ofEuropeSteam 50 all Peninsular & Oriental 50 25 Do. 100 60 Royal Mail Steam . . . . 25 25 South Austral. Land 58 60 60 9 1 • 1 Submar. Telegraph ll 5 2 Univeral Emigration and Colonization.. . . . 100 281,Van Diemen's Land 19i 204 20 191 201 i•ó 20 10j 201 COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL—MARCH 11. Of At this day's market there was the usual attends n i e e the the town trade, but f ew b u y ers f rom a di s t anc e, and t he transactions were quite insignificant. Fine wheat, 1 , 11 o ut absence of business, mu s t b e no t e d nominally w"t o• change, but inferior samples were decidedly easier to , joa American flour was offered f rom th e quay a t a redun evr of 6d per barrel on Tuesd a y' s p r i ces , w hi c h l e d to for sales at 24s Gd for Philadelphia, and 23s 6d to 23d D at a Western Canal. French fl our was qu it e neg l ec t e d. ` - ',"6,1 were scarcely inqui re d f or , an d oatmeal was o ff ere d a" beO s ' per load decline, with little or no effect. Barley, „th i s and peas were saleable in retail at late rates. , L l '7ol corn on the sp o t was aga i n rather lower for both wal" e, yellow, and floating c argoes par ti c i pa t e d i n th e decl in u d Galatz, arrived, not beinc , worth above 32s per cll . ' , Ibralla 30s per qr;, cost, freight, and insurance. LIVERPOOL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.—Meg.I°. s. d. s. d. per sea e°f .. 0 6 to 0 8 20 lbs .. 0 5A... 0 6 ditto 0 3... 04i ditto 0 2i... 0 3 ditto • 0 2i... 0 3 ditto .. 5 0 ... 5 3 per 90 lbs .19 0 ...21 0 per W TI • 30 0 ...33 0 ditto . 20 0...21 0 ditto 4 0 5 0 ditto Hay, old „ clover ... Straw, wheat ~ oats ~ barley Potatoes, kemps Turnips Carrots Mangold wurtzel Manure WAKEFIELD—MARCH 11. e We have fair supplies of grain t o thi s d a y' s market' r e st wheat trade continu es ex t reme ly d e p resse d, the furip qualities being fully is per qr. lower, whilst all other de r d e . tions are nearly unsaleable. Barl e y mee t s a lbuit' e liw mand, at rather lower prices. B eans , oa t s , and !them— tho turn cheaper. Average for the week ending March 7 W h 186, 3,250 qrs., at 47s 64d; barley 330, 33s ; oats 20s ; beans 190, 36s 64d. BRISTOL SUGAR—Daum 11. 'reek Our sugar market has been ch arac t er i se d this of much firmness, and had there b e e n a l arger a ssortine l .;oo West India offering, a considerable amou nt of b lisi ,qoes would have been done. In all the sales effected, ,P; of have been rather in favour of the impo r t er . The sel - tho Mauritius have amounted to over 15,030 mats, a 0 ;-` prices obtained for them have been in all instances m u ch vanco of those recently quoted. There has not been n i cifi y doing in refined goods ; but the currencies of thi s . se'unight have been supported. There is very little toe; ness done in rum ; indeed, the sales effected Ws quite in retail. BIRTHS. OF A SON. th On the 9th inst., at Almorah-house, Vassal-road , l ' lor Brixton, the wife of 11. B. Wilkinson, Esq. OF A DAUGHTER. tacli On the 10th inst., at 15, Curzon-street, the Guernsey. . Wi On the Bth inst., at MARRIED St. Pancras New church, A lli° Allen, Esq., of Wye, Kent, to Eli za J ane , younge" " — don' ter of Thomas Allen, Esq., o f C am d en -t e rrace, etuji town. On the 10th inst., at St. M ar k' s, Liverpool, LientmuMil e W. H. Wall, of her M a j es t y ' s 61 s t R eg iment, to Ma tta Emily, eldest daughter of the Baron Charles Felix ‘-"' do Cothi, of that town. ID. On the Bth i ns t. D at his seat, E Dalham-tovrer, Milatli°l"re' aged 70, George Wilson, Esq. • On the 9th inst. at Lyndon T. Rectory, the R ev. Arnold, age d 53 , e l dest son of Dr. Arnold, of Stamford. On the 2d i ns t ., N . J . S por l e, th e em inent ballad eon - On aged 41. Go ll ° 4 0n the 9th inst., at 13, Great Stanhope-street , Sir Edward Kerrison, Bart., K.C.B. , G.C.H. age d ', „‘ Tu g On the Bth inst., in Paris, aged 63, G. F. 1;," / Det hame, Esq., second son of the late Sir W.A. Cnnyvg Bart., of Nilncraig, N.B. 0 LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office,No. "—of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, is the count/. Middlegez, Saturday, March 12, 1853. all 100 all 100 all all all all 20 50 50 100 25 i~~ . DON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1853. 50 25 100 St. 6 25 12 12 25 124 12 12 St. 10 25 10 19.6 10 20 20 20 25 25 St. 50 81 all 100 all St. 10 St. St. 50 165 St. 20 all 111 100 50 40 25 25 100 all 3i 100 St. St. St. St. 100 100 100 100 13A 20 20 50, all . 100 all 15 21s. 1 100 20 11i 100 100 6 100 100 all ally 8 100 - 100 all all all 100 all 100 161 li 2 91 108 i 4i i li i ad ad ad ad