The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-18 00:00:00

intention of the Commissioners of Sewers, what was
their object in carrying it to so great a distance, when a
shorter outlet, and, it might be presumed, at least as
good a fall, might be obtained near Westminster-bridge;
and whether, if an outlet were at once male for the new
sewer near Westminster-bridge, the carrying off the
sewage, by means of pumping it up, might not be alto-
gether avoided.
Lord EBRINGTON replied that the wall which was
to be erected at the outlet of the sewer in Scotland-
yard was to be of a temporary nature, because the Com-
missioners of Sewers were desirous that the Thames
should not be polluted by the sewage water
of the metropolis any_ longer than was necessary.
He was not competent to give an opinion as to the su-
periority of the plan which bad been adopted for the
erection of these sewers, but it had been approved of
by men who were capable ofjudgiug as to what was most
advisable under the circumstances.

Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to ask the Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Greene) whether he could
give the House any information regarding the three
great cesspools which it was said had been constructed
under the new Houses of Parliament, and also whether
he could lay on the table a copy of the controversy which
he understood had taken place between Mr. Barry and
the Commissioners of Sewers regarding the drainage of
the new houses?

Lord ASHLEY said there was only one cesspool,
though there were many tributaries. In 1843 a corre-
spondence took place between the consulting engineer of
the sewers acd the architect, but he could not say
whether or no Government would consent to lay it on
the table.

Mr. BANKES wished to know if the steam-engine
now constructing in Parliament-gardens would be built
to consume its own smoke.

Viscount EBRINGTON was understood to reply in
,he negative.

GREECE.

Mr. B. OSBORNE wished to put a question to the
ion. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire relative to
the affairs of Greece. The Hon. Baronet, from time to

time, had moved for papers relating to the Greek busi-
mess, which had recently been laid on the table of the
House. Now, he wished to ask the Hon. Baronet when
he intended to draw the attention of the House to the
subject?—(Cheers.)
Sir J. WALSH really must correct a mistake the Hon.
' Member for Middlesex had fallen into. He had never
moved for any papers whatever, but he had on one or two
occasions put a question across the table on the subject.
He did not, however, think that his having done so
necessarily obliged him to undertake the serious task of
bringing the matter formally before the House.
GROWTH OF COTTON IN INDIA.

Mr. BRIGHT then rose to move that an humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty
to appoint a commission to proceed to India, to inquire
into the obstacles which prevent an increased growth
of cotton in that country, and to report upon
any circumstances which may injuriously affect
the economical and industrial condition of the
native population, being cultivators of the soil
within the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras.
He felt certain that the House would not require
him to offer any apology for bringing forward the
subject to which his motion referred; fur at the
first glance he felt persuaded that every Member of
the House must acknowledge the importance of the
subject which he was about to bring under their notice.
Whatever might be the fate of the resolution which he
was about to propose—whether he succeeded in obtain-
ing this commission or failed, at least there would
be but one opinion in the House with regard
to the importance to which it referred, namely, the ob-
taining of an adequate supply of the raw material of one
of the greatest textile manufactures of this country,
The trade employed directly or indirectly probably not
much less than 2,000,000 of the population of the United
Kingdom, and it employed an amount of capital far
greater than was to be found engaged in any other of
the manufacturing trades of the United Kingdom. Thai
trade also produced a very much larger amount of the
whole exports of the United Kingdom than did
any other branch of our national industry, and
that had, as a matter of course, a very great influence
over the imports. The raw material on which that ca-
pital was engaged, in the working up of which 2,000,000
of our population obtained their livelihood, was a sub-
ject not of local, but of national importance. The whole
import of cotton into this country in 1800 was not more
than 56,000,0001b5. weight. It had increased very
rapidly, and in 1849 it had reached the
enormous amount of 754,000,0001b5. weight. Our sup-
plies of this material were drawn first of all from the

United States of America ; secondly, in point of
quantity, from the British possessions in India; thirdly,
from Brazil; fourthly, from Egypt; and fifthly, the
British West Indies. Taking the import of the last five
yeare, the United States of America had furnished 78i
per cent. of the cotton consumed here, the East Indies
about 10i per cent., the empire of Brazil about 7 per
cent., Egypt 3i- per cent., and the British West Indies
about per coat. The increase had been enormous in
the United States; it had been very little, if at all, from
British India; it had been very large from Egypt;
almost stationary from Brazil ; and in the East
Indies the supply had fallen almost to nothing.
We derived 78q per cent. from the United States, and
although the increase there had been very large, yet the
crop was so exceedingly fluctuating that periodically the
cotton trade of this country suffered great difficulty and
embarrassment, either from a real or from a
menaced insufficiency of supply. In 1838 the
crop was only 1,360,000 bales ; in 1848 it was
2,700,000 bales; in 1849 it was 2,000,000, vary•
ing thus 700,000 or 800,000 in only two
crops, or a ftliing off at least of 25 per cent.
These facts were st,fficient to show the House that it
was their bounden duty to tale some steps to relipve the
manufacturing interests from the (fleets of these fluctua-
tions. There was another point, too, to which he must
call their attention, and that was, that the whole of the
cotton was the production of slave labour. Now, with.
out going any further, he thought they were quite
justified in saying that the institution of slaver)
would not last much longer, and in whatever way it

was disturbed, there was great fear that for some time
aher a great interruption would take place in the pro-
duction of cotton, and a great blow be inflicted on the in-
dustry of this country. To what other country could
they turn for this supply? Neither Australia nor th
new colony of Natal could be expected fur some t.dmo to
be able to furnish any facilities; the growth. of cotton in
the West Indies had been v: e
.etuaisy extinct
for some years, and the British Possessions in India
e ere the only places left to which they could
t
turn their attention. That this idea was by no means a.
vain one was proved t)y the efforts of the East Indii,
Company, for the laet eixty years, to promote the growth
of cotton in t 1: elr territories, at an expense of not less
than 100,0001. a-year, and the Select Committee of that
Rouse had reported that all the natural circumstances
of that country were favourable to the experiment.
lie did not mean to encourage the growth of cotton by
depressing any other branch of industry, but he intender
that they ihould do so by those lawful means of which
a Government might properly avail itself for the
purpose of stimulating the energies of the
people. Now it was an extraordinary fact
that . notwithstanding all the exertions , cf the
Government cf India to encourage the growth of cotton,
I no satisfactory results had been arrived at; and he
n ishtel to know who it was that had been in error—
whether that House, the East India Company, or the
1 .
%lanehester Chamber of Commerce, had been in error. He
knew not whether the Government would grant the Com-
' mission of Inquiry which he proposed, but if they die
not, he thought they were bound to hold out some hope
to the country, that they would propose some measure
which would be at least as effectual as that which he now
'proposed for the adoption of the House. Now it could al-
ways be ascertained from the condition of a people whether
the Government of their country was favourable or
unfavourable to their progress and prosperity. That was
a fact which could not be too universally known; and
ho should be able to show that the condition of the cul-
tivating population of India was by no means satisfac-
tor3--that they were in a condition of extreme,
abject, and almost universal poverty. He had
never yet met with any person acquaint^d
with India who denied that the condition of the culti-
vating population was unsatisfactory. All testimony
was concurrent on that point. A celebrated Baja, who
visited this country twenty years ago, stated in a pam-
phlet which he published that, such was the melancholy
condition of the agricultural labourers in India
that he always alluded to ' it' with - great
pain. Three years afterwards a distinguished gentle-
man connected with India, Mr. Shaw, who was a judge
as well as the author of a standard work on India, said
the British Government was not regarded in a favourable
light by the native population, and among the rea-
sons which he mentioned as giving rise to this
state of things, was the gradual impoverishment of the
country by a system of taxation and extortion un-
paralleled in the annals of any country.—(Hear.)
I The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote similar
nuthoritics for his opinion of India, and then went on to
state that he did not read these extracts for the purpo..e
of throwing obloquy upon the Government of India,
nor did he wish in the slightest degree
to exaggerate in colour the evidence he should adduce
in support of his motion. He brought that•evidence
forward because ha intended to found his chief argil.
meats upon it. He did not say, nor could it be said,
that this miserable state of things was the
fault of the people of India themselves, nor
did he wish entirely to attribute it to the
faults of their Government—their fiscal system, or the
administration of their laws. There was nothing in the
character of the people of India, which should induce
this country to believe that they were not capable
of producing large and increasing supplies of
cotton, the result of their own industry. He came
next then to the question of government, and he might
state in the beginning he had no hostility to the India
Company, no portion of feeling against them mixed with
the motives which had induced him to bring forward this
question. He believed he should have from
them and the House, an acknowledgement that
he had kept himself from bringing charges against them.
' He had contented himself, and should continue to do so,
with bringing the simple facts before the notice of the
House. Now there were two main points upon which
all the evidence concurred. With regard to the present
condition and future prospects of the people of India
there was no dispute whatever, but with regard to the
internal improvement of the country there was consider-
able difference of opinion. The Hon. Member read
several letters from gentlemen in the civil and military
service of the East India Company, from a soldier in a
regiment of Fusileers in India, from Colonel Grant and
Major Coffin, describing - the wretched means of road
communication in the districts of Ghoozeran and
Ghoozerat, the great cotton growing districts of the East.
He would recommend to the attention of the Indian
Government the account given by Mr. Dalrymple, in
1798, of the ancient Gentoo Government, and the
ineani adopted -by ' them to ensure a continuity of
favourable crop.. He would also mention a report

presented to the Governor-General, Lord Dalhonsie,
by the merchants of India, which, he thought, Mowed
the great inattention which had been shown to the re-
quirements of British India, which contrasted strongly
with the great and liberal public works of the ancient
princes. There was only another document to which he
would refer, and that was to the evidence of Mr. Mangles
before the Select Committee, who admitted that while the
gross revenue derived from India was at least
280,000,0001. Something under 4,000,0001. had been
spent on internal improvements. He tuought ho had
made out a ewe against the East India Government for
inattention to the internal improvement of those provinces.
He would call the attention of the House to the manner
in which the revenue was raised by assessment on the
land.

(LEFT SPEAKIN G.)

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
:Sittings at Nisi Prius b fore the Lord Chia Justice and
a Special Jury.)
NEWNHAM V. STEVENSON AND ANOTHER.

This case, which occupied the Court the whole of
yesterday, was resumed this morning, and again occu-
pied the Court during the whole of the sitting. There
was no point of interest, but the evidence was tedious
and at great length.
The jury returned a verdict, at a late hour, fur the
defend t.

COURSE OF EXCII)
B.(nster,.. ......•••• 12 21,4,
Dltto, Circe months .. 12 3;;1'
Itotterdain .. •••• • • • • 12 3%
25 75
Brussels •••..•.• • • • - • 25 75
fiw.nOurgh M.D. 13 12%
Paris, 3 days'sight • 25 55
Ditto, 3 months 25 7734
Aarseilles •••••• • • •• • • 25 80
Bourdeaux . • ..... •
Frankfort on 251a1n0...,, 121%
Berlin • • .......... • • • •
Vienna, effec. tlo •••• •• 12 15
Trieste, ditto.. •••••• •• 12 18
P‘atersburgh, Sll. Rble.. 37%
Hadrid ••..•••• • • • • • • 49%
Cadiz •• 49%
Barcelona • •..•• • • • •
5evi11a.................-
•.%

I.NGE,-(THIS DAY.)
Gibraltar.. .... • •
Leghorn .... • . 30 70
tleaoa ........ .... 26 20
Milan
Venice...." • • • • • • • • • •
Naples .. ............
4051
?Merino, peroz ........ 12154
Jlcssina .. 122
Lisbon—. • • 53%
0p0rt0.................33/8
Etio Janeiro • • • • • •
Buenos Ayres —
New York, 60 days'sight
Philadelphia .... • • ....

PRICES OF MILLION, PER OZ.
Foreign Gold in bars.. £3 17 9
Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons .. 0 0 0
New Dollars • . . • 0 4 10
Silver in bars • . 0 0 0

- -
GRIBISBY, JuNE 17.—The Karen Andres, Newcastle
to Arundel, was assisted in last evening with damage,
and very leaky.

PVESIOIITII, JUNE S.—Sld. 16, Liysantler,
and not the Princess Helena, Adelaide, South Australia,
as reported yesterday,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 17.
LORD LIEUTENANCY ABOLITION (IRELAND)`
BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Sir R. PEEL—Sir, considering that this Bill is
brought forward by her Majesty's Government, and
that the undoubted object of it is to promote the good
government of Ireland, it is entitled on these accounts
to at least the most respectful consideration of this
House. I consider the main question to be, will the
arrangement proposed by the Bill conduce to the good
and satisfactory government of Ireland ? All other con-

siderations are, I apprehend, subordinate to that. The
withdrawal of the Lord-Lieutenant from Ireland may or
may not affect acme local and partial interests, but
still, if the result of the measure shall be to promote the
end of good government in Ireland, all other considera-
tions of partial and local injury are, in my opinion, to
be regarded as subordinate.—(Hear.) I wish I could
see with the same confidence with which some gentle-
men :ee the unequivocal advantages of this Bill ; but I
own that, while upon the whole I am perfectly willing to
consent that the experiment should be made, I am
bound, in giving that consent, to say that I do so with
much hesitation and doubt as to the advantages which,
in the estimation of many gentlemen, are likely to re•
cult from ir.—(Bear.) Of this I am confident, that if
you are to have local authorities who, without the
responsibility of the Lord-Lieutenant, will assume the
executive functions of government, Ireland will derive
no advantage whatever from the measure.—(hear, hear.)
I am quite aware of the difficulties which men, even of
high character and great acquirements, have in admi-
nistering the government of Ireland; but these difficul-

ties are not, I apprehend, so much felt on account either
of their personal qualities or on account of the constitu-
tion of the office of Lord-Lieutenant itself, as on account
of difficulties inherent in the state of society in Ireland
—(Hear, hear)—which difficulties will, to a very consi-
derable extent, continue to operate, even if this office is
removed.—(Hear.) I fear that there are some difficul-
ties inherent in the constitution as regards this matter.
When there was a local Parliament in Ireland the rela-
tion of the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant was
natural and constitutional relation. The Chief Secre-
tary was then in immediate connexion with the Lord-
Lieutenant. He stood in a subordinate capacity, all he
did emanated from the authority of the Lord-Lieute-
nant, and his relation to him corresponded in all mate-
rial respects to the relation in which a Minister of State
ordinarily stands with reference to the Crown.—(liear.)
When you abolished the local Legislature, and trans-
'erred the Secretary's Parliamentary functions to this
side of the water, you altered materially the relations
,:etween the two parties. You put the office of Secretary
aside from that of the Lord-Lieutenant; you made him
a Minister responsible for the administration of justice
in Ireland,—a Minister necessarily possessing great
power, and exercising that power sometimes without
communication with his chief', however desirous he might
be of doing so.—(He ae, hear.) You thus placed him in
position in which it was very difficult for any man
with the very best intentions to carry on the public
eusiness without the ride of oecaeional embarrassment.
—(Hear, hear.) I speak from experieece as to the diffi-
culties that have resulted from the position in which the
Chief Secretary stands with re,
tenant. At the same tire --6
removingand to the Lord-Lieu-
tenant.
"n 't% may be the effect of
the authority of a nobleman of
such
.arements as the nobleman now adminis-
:ering t
functiens of Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland, and
eih..• '
.‘c encouragement it may give to the revival of local
high l
a .reoom r• "1"1
agitation and to the struggles of party, I cannot pretend
to predict; but I certainly do not view without appre-
hension the risk that if you are to have a local Com-
mander-in-Chief, a local Lord Chancellor, a separate bar,
and altogether a separate administrasion of justice, the
removal of an authority like that of the Lord-Lieutenant
—acting independently, animated by a sincere desire to
promote the welfare of the people, free from all local
prejudices, and from all personal partialities—may to
attended with an injurious effect.--(Hear, hear.) You
have attempted to counteract and remedy the difficulty
that arises from this peculiar relation to the Lord-Lieu-

tenant, by giving to the Secretary for Ireland necessary
additional powers. You have occasionally found it neces-
sary, or considered it necessary, to give to the Chief Se-
cretary the authority of a Cabinet Minister.—(Hear.)
That I conceive to be a most clumsy device for remedy-
ing a difficulty inherent in the constitution.—(Eleur.)
It is a device not only diseurbing the relations of a chief
to his subordinate, but one positively inverting those re-
lations.—(ficar.) When you give to the Chief Secretary
all the authority of a Cabinet Minister, and leave the
Lord-Lieutenant without that authority, you encourage
the Chief Secretary still more to assume for himself the
xercise Of independent powers.— ( Hee.r, hear.) On that
ground alone, then, from the difficulties that are expe-
rienced in maintaining the relations between these two
authorities—there being at the same time grave oVjeu-
lions to the remedy occasionally employed, that of con-
ferring the dignity of a Cabinet Minister on the Secre-
tary—it is, in short, from a reference to the difficulties
inherent in the constitution, and the employment of that
occasioral remedy, that lam inclined favourably to re-
ceive the proposal for an alteration in these arrange-
ments.—(Hear, hear.) I am bound, also, to admit that
the increased facilities of communication between the
two countries gives increased means of conducting the
government of Ireland without the intervention of a
Lord-Lieutenant; and probably nc period could be bet-
ter selected than the present for making that experiment.
But, then, I must say that that which will best reconcile
me to the working of the experiment will be that you
have unity of system in the form of government which
you aro to substitute.—(llear, hear.) I did express
strong doubts—not in 1846, as the lion. Member for
Portarlingtou (Colonel Dunne) stated the other night—.
but in 1814—I then stated the apprehensions which I
felt as to the result of the anpointincnt of a fourth Secre-
tary of State for the administration of Irish affairs;
and lam bound to say that those apprehensions have
continued till now.—(Hear.) The advantages compen-
sating for other risks and inconveniences are, in my opi.
nion, a system of unity—a system of unity of legislation,
so far as legislation can be uniform respecting two coun-
tries like England and Ireland, and unity in the way of
appointing one man to administer the whole affairs of
the Secretary of state,_(Heee,) If you htvo two Se-
cretaries of State for exercising the same or nearly the
same duties, the question must arise, whether you are
not forfeiting a great pert of the advantage you hope
to obtain from the extinction of the high. office of Lord-
Lieutenant.—(Elear, hear.) You are, in fact, by this
proposal, receding from the principle on which you
dv sting
e
acted in 1816. In that year you found the advantage of
consolidating the two Exchequers, and you resolved
that the financial arrangements of the two countries
the
would
the
ew of
fob
whole
er
sfbetter
ao
Chancellor
foi carried
thedo
of the
onothf
fieb
eby abolishing
the
E entirely Exchequer,
a
English
glish Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. Every argument that could
apply to that case will be equally applicable to the ad-
ministration of justice and the exercise of the executive
functions.—(Hear, hear.) If you are to have two Se-
cretaries of State I earnestly entreat you to consider
the nature of such an arrangement as this—to put Wales
and Scotland under one of them, and England and Ire-
land under the other.- —(A laugh.) You laugh at the
idea of such an arrang eieent, but there is no reason why
you should laugh at a proree al of that kind any more
than at a Proposal for giving one Secretary to Ireland
and another Seeretar,r for the rest of the kingdom._
(Hear.) There mig"at be rood reason for separating
Scotland from Englf and in this respect, for there a sepa-
rate system of law rend administration exists; but I re& ly
do think it would I.ie a better arrangement to have Wales
and Scotland under one secretary, and England and Ire-
land under another, than to make the distinction you
propose by this 137,11.—(Hear, hear.) If you are to have
an officer residi-de in England, and occasionally perhaps
in Ireland, with
all the authority of the Lord-Lieutenant,
then I must sae/ I foresee more chances of difference of
opinion with r egard to the administration of affairs in
Ireland then at present exist.--(Hear, hear.) If
the times br, tranuuil, and no danger of popular
commotiore arise, Chen the Irish Secretary of State
may very el :sib/ administer the affairs of the Govern-
ment, so, fee- as the employment of the soldiery in
cor:lex:ion with the civil power is concerned; but, sup-
pose t:tiere ~nay be serious troubles in Scotland, and dis-
; turbeittocte 1414,) in England and Wales, and at the same