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

(gear.) In 1818 we obtained from India a larger number
of 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 the
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
apparently 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 candour such 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 importance for their
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, Iti 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 With 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
inquiry, and that 13t, 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
only one way
incident to different subt. If the gove
for the last 20
years,
,tottoalltaily
ydifferentfrforommwthahetaccount given by the riht
hon. gentleman—if we had found 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, •
ng
under the yoke of oppression and corruption—then it
would be a question with this house whether or not
should totally alter the nature of that ,government ; and
the evidence in this respect is 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
fnaire_b!_tte_.r that he committee should suffer some inconve-
daZez:aab that the welfare of India should be at all em-
ail, the q,,,Y ai•oregard 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 :°thrthegentleman'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 of
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
meaning. 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
pn entire,
time, butan
dt they wouldt
would inquire
iutisr
would watch
was
In.th. e same manner if they contented themselves with in-
quiring what Was me how it
the machinery of the government of
India, and, because 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 the
or
dsai
ht iasr
ordinary
a c t
jour:t
eeei.t h e(rHteoa ehaosaorn.
),f
had not instiytuyteedars,thietr
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 they must hear fromevidence antic' in
other persons than officials. Up to the present time, hoonlwa
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 Ellenborough, 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 house to legislate. 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 going to
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, where so much 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
tiinfiotnhtis bill
became
from being members of a national Legisla-
ture. But the strong and overruling objection to their ad-
mission rested, in his opinion, upon religious grounds, and,
aymaned dlaive,siigntwediouly made, by
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 arguments as were used by one of the
lights
law, Lord Coke, to do away with the writ
ddeeshpa
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 heathenising process must 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 more solemn
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 freely as others; 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 sentiment, and he hoped the house would echo
it by passing
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 the purpose of excluding
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 other provisions in lieu
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 ; Lord John Russell, Har-
lingen ; Jersey, Berbice ; Mary Emma, Melbourne and
Geelong ; Ellen, Leghorn; William, Malta and Alexandi:a •
Harriett, Valparaiso and Lima ; Rose, Stettin ; Amethyst,
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, Ham_
burgh ; Einigheit, do. ;Diana, Sydney ; Belle, Leghorn ;
Urania, Melbourne • St. George, Sydney; Fame, Calal.s. •
Triton, Ostend ; Ra:vensbourne, 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 out, and supplied 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, do. ;
Tiger, Hamburgh ; Neptune, do. ; Vier Brodre, Odessa ;
Yorkshire Lass, Port Launey ; Courier, Guernsey ; City of
Boulogne, Boulogne ; Ocean, Havre ; Galat3a, Guenu.ey ;
Duchess of Sutherland, New Diep ; Forerunner, Teue-
riffe Bathurst, Sierra Leone, Accra, and Fernando Po ;
Heise Odessa ; George Heinrich, Odessa; Peggy, Jersey ;
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 ;
DZaonwo,nibetaehraorany;
neisohlin'osp,
Hope,
ecw Bonnrounr, sNweeiwk ; COrlaesaknesti
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.