13thatto net Vrorttiriugn in Sarliniurut.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEBB.
Novas or Loans. Monday, Feb. 15. Sepires' Punishments , Lord Ellenborongh's Question—General Windham ; the Duke of Cambridge's Statement—Bankruptcy Commissioners ; Lord Brougham's Motion for Returns. Tuesday, Feb. 16. Church-of-England Special Senices; the Archbishop of Can- terbury's Bill committed—Trustees Relief Bill committed. Thursday. Feb. 18. The Militia; Lord Paninure's Answer to Lord Carnarvon- Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Lord Brougbam's Bill read a first time. Friday, Feb. 19. Education in India ; Lord Ellenborough's Motion—Havelock's Annuity Bill read a second time. House or Con:atoms. ifonday. Feb. 15. Hudson's Bay Company ; Mr. La- bouchere's Explanation—Adjourned Debate on the India Bill. 2liesday, Feb. 16. The French Question ; Lord Palmerston's Reproof to Mr. Griffith—Dublin Police ; Mr. Geogan's Motion—Annexation of Oude ; Mr. If. Baillie's Motion—Mortality in the Guards; Explanations. Wednesday, Feb. 17. Church-rates Abolition ; Sir John Trelawny's Bill read a second time. Thursday, Feb. 18. Government of India ; Debate on Lord Palmerston's Bill concluded ; leave given by 318 to 173, hilt read a first time. Friday Feb. 19. Breach of Privilege; Mr. Roebuck's Notice of Motion—Min- ister of Justice ; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Mr. Evart—The Treaty of Paris; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Lord John Manners—Conspiracy Bill; Mr. Gibson',- Amendment carried by 234 to 213.
TIME-TABLE.
The Lords.
Row of Hour of
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of
Meeting. Adjournment.
Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday 6h 3h 46m Monday
4h .(ne 126 43m
Tuesday
611 lh son
Tuesday
4h (es 15 Oni
wethicsaar , No sitting. Wednesday 2h Ma toe
Thursday
611 7h 551 Thursday
45 in) 15 13ro
Friday 6h .... 401 16m Friday 4h .(0) lh 30m Sittingsthis Week, 4; Time, Oh 33m 15; — 35h 10m Sittingethis Week, this Session
3; Time, 40h om 21; — 1205 Om
this Soden.
DEBATES ON THE INDIA BILL. [The first debate on the India Bill requires more notice than it could receive in the Postscript of our last number: we return, though still very briefly, to some points in the debate of Friday the 12th.] Besides explaining the nature of his bill, Lord PswiratsToN sketched very slightly, but firmly, the progress-of the East India Company Os a governing body ; showing how from a commercial association it becsine
a political agent merely, and how by the existing system there is no re- sponsibility either in Cannon Row or Leadenhall Street ; points more fully worked out at a later stage of the debate by Sir George Lewis. In meeting objections to the measure, Lord Palmerston said-
" We shall be told by some that the Government of India is a great mys- tery; that the unholy ought not to set foot in that temple ; that the House of Commons should be kept aloof from any interference in Indian affairs ; that if we transfer the government to the Ministers responsible to Par- liament, we shall have Indian affairs made the subject of party pas- sions in this House, and that great mischief would arise therefrom. I think that argument is founded on an overlooking of the fundamental principles of the British constitution. It is a reflection on Parlia- mentary government. The management of India is mainly dependent on those general principles of statesmanship which men in public life in this country acquire here and make the guidance of their fu- ture course. I do not think so ill of this House as to imagine that it would be disposed for factious purposes or for the momentary triumph of party to trifle with the great interests of the country as connected with the administration of our Indian affairs. I am ac- customed to think that the Parliament of this country does combine in itself as much administrative ability and as much statesmanlike knowledge and science as arc possessed by any number of men in any tither country whatever ; and r own, with all respect for the Court of Directors, that I cannot bring myself to think that the Parliament of Eng- land is less capable of wisely administering great affairs of state in con- nexion with India than the Court of Directors in Leadenhall Street. I am not afraid to trust Parliament with an insight into Indian affairs. I believe, on the contrary, that if things have not gone on so fast in India as they might have done—if the progress of improvement has been somewhat slower than might have been expected—that effect has arisen from the circum- stance that the public at large were wholly ignorant of Indian affairs, and had turned away from them, being daunted by the complications they ima- gined them to be involved in; and because Parliament has never had face to face, in this and the other House, men personally and entirely respon- sible for the administration of Indian affairs. No doubt, a good deal has been done in the way of improvement of late years ; but that which has been done, I may venture to say, has been entirely the result of debates in this and the other House of Parliament. And, so far from any discussion on India hav- ing worked evil in India, I believe that the greater part of those improvements which the East India Directors boast of in that publication which has lately issued from Leadenhall Street, has been the result of pressure on the Indian administration by debates in Parliament and discussions in the public press. Therefore, so far from being alarmed at the consequences which may arise from bringing Indian affairs under the cognizance of Parliament, I believe that a great benefit to India, and through India to the British nation, will result therefrom. . . . , Do not imagine that it is the intention of Provi- dence that England should possess that vast empire, and that we should have in our hand the destinies of that vast multitude of men, simply that we may send out to India the sons of gentlemen or of the middling classes to make a decent fortune to live on. That power has been intrusted to us for other purposes ; and I think, it is the duty of this nation to use it in such a manner as to promote, ps far as they can, the instruction, the enlighten- ment, and the civilization of-those great populations which are now subject to our rule. We ought to remember that we have a great duty to fulfil in India; and I am sure that that duty will be best discharged if we commit its performance to the bands of men who will be accountable to Parliament for their conduct, and who will feel themselves bound to acquaint the public of this country, step by step, with the arrangements which they may make. I am confident, if Parliament should adopt the measure we are about to.pro- pose, that while on the one hand it will add to the strength of our position in India-while it will increase the power of this country, and render our in- fluence more firm and secure—it will on the other hand enable us more efficiently to perform those important duties which, in my view, it was in- tended that we should discharge when the great Indian empire was trans- ferred to our control."
Mr. BARING, in the opening part of his speech, argued that the bill would make a change in the government of India, not-merely at home but in India itself ; and he instanced those provisions of the bill where- by the Governor-General will appoint his own Council, and the Go- vernors of Presidencies the members of their Councils; the withdrawal of the power of recalling the Governor-General from an independent Court of Directors, and the transfer of the revision of official despatches from an independent to a dependent body of men. Mr. Baring defended the administration of India under the Company. He implored the House not to adopt the proposal of Lord Palmerston before it knew the wants of India. If the Company would shortly become matter of his- tory, it would furnish a chapter teeming with deeds of heroism, gal- lantry, patriotism, and self-sacrifice, with the lives of statesmen who for intelligence and purity of intention are unsurpassed. Ged grant that its continuance may not record that an English Minister, guided by an ig- norant public opinion, legislated rashly, and that by an act of that House the dominion of the Queen was converted into the shuttlecock of party.
Sir Ensmaim PERRY held, on the contrary, that the moment was most oppcoisme for passing the measure. The East India Company's government has &laded to obtain that credit and respect from the people of India which it long enjoyed. The mere fact of the proposal to abolish the Company's government having been made, must impair its efficacy for all future times. Letters cording from India anticipate a change - at home the Company obtains little consideration. Aa an unprejudiced witness, who had resided in India, he declared the East Indian Government to be effete, cumbrous, useless. The practice of the Government is not in ac- cordance with their principles. When in India, Sir Erskine had under- taken the unpaid office of President of the Board of Education at Bom- bay : the despatch written by James Mill, containing a luminous body of information for the promotion of education, was the Magna Charta of their proceedings : they applied for 5000/. to aid the operations of the Board : for three years their application was unnoticed, and at the end of that period they received a flat refusal ! That was a specimen. The bill would give the present Government no more power, but it would at- tach to them responsibility for their acts. He had no fear of patronage or favouritism. He was glad that the measure had been introduced, be- cause it would show the people of India that the feeling of the people of this country is not in accordance with the truculent spirit of the Euro- peans in India but with the general policy of Lord Canning.
Mr. MoNeavoic Mures said that Lord Palmerston had advanced no reason to show that recent unhappy events were due to the double government. How could those who supported the measure of 1853 vote for this bill ? It takes away the direct check afforded by the Court of Directors, and the indirect check of individual Directors in the /louse of Commons. He had looked in vain for a plea for choosing a moment like this to launch such a -scheme. Mr. Vanserranr demanded inquiry before legislation. Mr. AYRTON spoke as one who had lived many years in India. The continuance of the government in the name of the Com- pany is not only inexpedient but almost impossible. The substitution of the Crown for the Company is absolutely necessary to maintain the loyalty of the people of India. The statements in the Company's pe- tition were untrue. The great things done in India have been done not by but in spite of the Company. The mutiny, for from being a ground for delay, is a reason why the Government of India should be made more effective ; and the sooner the change is made the better. Sir JOHN ELPHINSTONE condemned the bill, because it would substitute an irresponsible for a responsible body, and lead to an abuse of patronage. The Cmasention of the EXCHEQUER dealt with the statements of the petition. Two main assumptions run through that document : one is that the Company acquired our Eastern empire, the other that its go- vernment has been one of the best that the civilized world has produced. But if we owe them gratitude for having acquired this empire, they must show the enormous supposed advantages we derive from it, and that they have not done. He wholly disputed the doctrine that India was acquired by the Company. The Company, when even a mere trading body, invariably held that all wars and territorial acquisitions should be avoided. It was in defiance of their instructions, that men of energy like Clive, successful and rapacious governors like Warren Hastings, laid the foundations of empire. From the first the servants of the Company were an insubordinate and a mutinous race. The Di- rectors said, be just, but do not forget our remittances. What was the easiest way of making a remittance ?—to plunder a province. And when Clive and Warren Hastings came home, how were they treated ?— one put an end to his life under the effects of Parliamentary censures, the other was impeached. The Indian empire was founded in defiance of the constant policy and repeated injunctions of the Directors. In treating the claim of the Company for credit as a model govern- ment, Sir George showed that the government of India practically passed out of the hands of the Company in 1784. No civilized government ever existed "more corrupt, more perfidious, more rapacious than the govern- ment of the East India Company between 1758 and 1784; and the high character the Company have bestowed upon themselves is founded upon their acts since the time they have become subjected to Parliamentary control.
" All that can be said in favour of the Company dates from 1784. I chal- lenge them to find one bright page on their annals during the time when they were not subjected to Parliamentary control." It is by confounding the acts of two periods that the Company ean claim for themselves such ex- traordinary credit. In 1784 public opinion had no sympathy with the Com- pany. The institution of the Board of Control by Mr. Pitt reduced the Company to complete subordination. In 1793 Mr. Dundas perfected the double government. In 1813 their monopoly of trading with India was taken away ; but another twenty years passed before they lost the mono- poly of the trade with China, and with it the abolition of the whole of their trading powers. " Observe the change which the East India Company hid then undergone. Having originally been only a trading company—having acquired incidentally governing powers, at first their governing powers were placed under the 'control of a board of the Executive Government ; they were made absolutely subordinate to that board, so that they were only subordi- nate governors:. but they retained their original capacity for trade. In 1833 they were prohibited by law from trading ; to that by that time they had lost altogether their original functions as dens,-and they retained only a portion of sovereign power in having certain subordinate capacities. That was the change which uncles the legislation of Parliament the eharacter and power of the East India Company underwent. Be it observed that it was a constant diminution of authority, id power as well as of legal rights, and a perpetual invasion of these functions under the authority of Parliament." In 1853 there was another invasion of the original constitution, and one- third of the Court of Directors was formed of nominees of the Crown. " The fallacy which pervades the petition of the Company is this—it speaks of the East India Company as one and indivisible, as if from the time of the battle of Plessey down to the last renewal of the charter it had remained un- changed in character, functions, and influence. The truth is, it has under- gone as many changes during those hundred years as the English constitu- tion between the Heptarchy and the reign of Queen Vittoria. It is the merest and most transparent sophism, therefore—it is offering an insult to our understandings to attempt to palm upon us an argument of that sort de- rived from a state of things wholly different from the present."
Without imputing any blame to the Company with respeet to the present insurrection, Sir George said it had brought forcibly under the view of the Executive Government the clumsiness and inefficiency. of the present form of the home government of India. " The whole experience of that system shows that it is embarrassed by needless delays; that it encourages pro- crastination, divides responsibility, and throws obscurity on the seat of power. Wherever power is conferred responsibility is always exacted ; but I think the converse of that proposition also is true, and that if Parliament wishes to exact responsibility it must also concentrate power.. Why is it that Parliament has a difficulty in following up responsibility with respect to Indian administration ? It is became the seat of power is indistinct. Something is wrong. Parliament asks who are to blame. What does the President of the Board of Control say ? He tells you that the matter was brought under the consideration of the Court of Directors s the Court took some time considering it : their views were not distinct, so that the oppor- tunity for action was lost; or that a reference was =AM by them to the Governor-General, and that the answer was delayed. If yen go to the Court of Directors, they will say that the matter was referred to the President of the India Board : he did not give a very clear answer—(Laugister)---I am not referring et all to the present state of things—(Reneteed laughter)—that there was a difference of opinion between them, discussion arose, and in the mean time the opportunity was lost. This is the way 12 which Parliament is met when it seeks to hold sonic one responsible for the administration of India."
The argument that it would be dangerous for Parliament to interfere, Sir George met by showing that all past amelioration. in India has been brought about by the interference of Parliament. "I look with great satis- faction to the prospect of a more stringent and attentive scrutiny of Indian affairs by this House. I wish to see the responsibility for Indian adminis- tration concentrated in a narrow sphere ; I wish to see that responsibility clearly undertaken by this House ; and I do not doubt that the result of the change will be an improvement in the government of India." The closing part of Sir George's speech consisted of an exposition and defence of the provisions of the bill relating tospitt. renege, and of its gene- ral arrangements for consolidating the home government without en- dangering any interests in India. Mr. MANGLES replied to the doubts expressed by Sir George Lewis as to whether our trade with India would have been ae great had India re-
mained in the hands of the Native Princes. No one in India would ex- press doubts. Under the rule of the Company, the lower provinces of Bengal have been covered with indigo. Tea is largely imported from India. From 3,000,0001. to 6,000,0001. is sent to England, not as a tri- bute, but as a consequence of our dominion. It pays dividends, retired
allowances, and the Queen's troops. These are direct advantages_ which England derives from India. Mr. Mangles said he was no alarm ist, but he deprecated the change proposed, because it will have an in- jurious effect on the Natives, who already infer from the truculent con duet of the Europeans that there is to be an aggressive policy against their religion.
The debate, which closed with the speech of Mr. Mangles on Friday, was resumed on Monday by Mr. ROEBUCK; who supported the bill, as a first step towards giving the Indians a better government than they had yet received. From the time when Mr. Pitt, through Parliament, palmed a " sham " upon the people and established the Board of Control, that Board had been the irresponsible governor of India. The Chancel- lor of the Exchequer had explained to them with a good deal of humour, —which coming from him, told,—that the Court of Directors, as com- pared with the Board of Control, is nearly powerless. Jeremy Bentham said "a board is a screen," and the Board of Directors had been used as a screen whenever a difficulty occurred. The burden was thrown upon the shoulders of the Court of Directors, who in turn threw it back as a shuttlecock to the Board of Control ; while the public, with eyes open and mouths agape, stood bewildered, not knowing whom to blame. That is a true picture of the present home government for India. There are two things to be done. A machine, called the home govern- ment, must be arranged to bring the opinion of Parliament and the people to bear upon the actual governors of India. Next, a government in India must be constituted to carry out their matured plans. For the first opera- tion no knowledge of the people of India is required. Now, Lord Pal- merston's bill does away with the double government of India and puts a Secretary of State in its place. But it makes a great mistake. It proposed a Council of eight. The very principle that makes the present Government mischievous, divided responsibility, tells against this Council. The Coun- cillors will not vote, but they will share the responsibility. He would be -bound to say,- that if he lived long enough to see a Secretary of State for In- dia appointed, he would hear him declare at the table of that House that he had done his best, and that he was quite of the same opinion as the Council. The Council would not have seats in that House—it would not be under their control. The Secretary of State might be, but it would be too late ; he would exculpate himself by the opinion of his Council, and the House would be bound to believe that being composed of " Old Indians" they knew something of India. That was a very dangerous principle—danger- ous both as regarded the government of India and as regarded the people of England. The best home government would be a Secretary of State who should choose his own advisers, and in whom all responsibility should centre. Mr. Roebuck urged the House not to be afraid of the bugbear of patron- age, which could be thrown open to competition. Upon the point of time, he said that the present is the best time. There is no excitement, no cry ; a calmer House could not be found.
Mr. DUFF followed on the same side.
Mr. Warr-mime made an elaborate speech against the measure, full of smart hits at opponents, and long quotations from the speeches of Sir Charles Wood and Lord Macaulay in 1853, the speeches of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lansdowne in 1833, and of Mr. Burke upon the trial of Warren Hosting. _ , At the outset, Mr. Nihiterliffle made much of the fact that Lord Palmer- ston had brought no complaints against the East India Conipany-,-he began with a compliment to the body he intends to destroy. Afterexpressing his surprise, Mr. Whiteside described the circumstances under which the sub- ject came before the House. The charter was renewed for tweuty years in 1833. When 1853 approached, both Houses appointed Committees ; the sub- - ject was fully investigated ; and the verdict of those Committees was favour- able to the Company. Since that time there has been no investigation ; yet now, without further inquiry, without alleging a solitary justificatory fact, Lord Palmerston proposes to overthrow the Company, simply because it ex- ists. To show the inconsistency of Ministers, Mr. Whiteside gave an ela- - borate account of the speech made by Sir Charles Wood in 1853—" with the -assent of the noble lord, who sat beside him and applauded every word he spoke,"—describing the great benefits conferred by the Company, on India ; showing that there was no divided responsibility, and giving the Directors a • high character for zealous and unremitting attention to business: " There is, however,- one question which required an answer in 1853, as it also re- quires an answer now. The noble lord has told us that the existence of the -double government creates difficulties and delay in the despatch of business, —a good argument, if it be true. But what examples does the noble lord give us ? what illustrations does he supply? what fact does he state ? Does he tell us that on any given day any demand which has been made upon the Directors with the view of crushing the mutiny has been refused, or that upon any particular occasion a wise and beneficial law has been proposed and rejected ? The right honourable baronet, now First Lord of the Admi- ralty, told.the House in the speech to which I have referred, that there
• never was a greater misrepresentation or falsehood than such a statement ; . and he mentioned two cases in which decisions had been arrived at upon very important subjects within a fortnight, and before the return of the mail to India. The first of those decisions referred to the establishment of electric telegraphs, and the other to an important financial measure—the reduction of isiterest upon the debt ; and the right honourable baronet stated
• that he never witnessed greater promptitude and ability than were exhibited in the settleme 4 of those questions within a limited time. Yet the First Lord of the Treasury, who was a member of the Government when the right honourable baronet made the speech from which I have quoted, and who : listened to that speech without adducing any facts to contradict or gainsay the statements of the right honourable gentleman, calls upon the House to . reverse the system of government which was then sanctioned." Next Mr. Whiteside quoted several paragraphs in praise of the Company and the double government from the speech of Lord Macaulay in 1853; and . the testimony of the Duke of Wellington in 1833 to "the best, the most . purely-administered government that ever existed." Lord Palmerston says - that as the Crimean war drew attention to our military arrangements, so in consequence of the mutiny in India we ought to change the system of government for that country. " He appealed to the management of the Crimean war. - I simply ask you to compare the conduct of that war with what has of late been done in India, and I think a sufficient answer will be supplied to the suggestive argument of the noble lord. A few gallant men placed in positions of authority in India were, it is true, surprised, but not - dismayed. Thee! -ptv4ed i
themselves prompt in action, fertile in resource, . heroic in fortitude. By the exercise of those high qualities they have pre- served to you an empire. Yet the return which the noble lord would make to the body which established the system under the operation of which none but men of ability, capacity, and energy—such as the men to whom I have
been referring—are raised to important situations, would be to overthrow its power by force of an analogy drawn between its administration and the management under the auspices of her Majesty's Ministers of the Crimean war. Yes, that is the course which the noble lord asks you to take ; as if he thought nobody was entitled to respect except those who starved an army, who ignored merit, who sheltered incapacity, who screened high offenders, and who stifled truth."
Mr. Whiteside loudly called for inquiry, and menaced Ministers with a day of reckoning. Then he turned to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and drew a slight sketch to show that Sir Georgo Lewis's con- demnation of the Company's history prior to 1784 was a gross perversion of facts. Burke said that if ever this nation stood in a position of glory in Asia, it was during the second rule of Clive. " That is my answer to the j
right honourable gentleman." The just rule of England in India did not begin with the introduction of Parliamentary influence. The operation of English public opinion on India cannot prove a wise or beneficial thing. There was a popular Minister who lost America by persevering. in a policy
which he believed to be the expression of English public opinion. You may lose India if you attempt to operate on the opinions of the people of In- dia without reference to their laws, usages, character, and religion."
Mr. LOWE described Mr. Whiteside's speech as resting more upon au- thority than argument. He reminded Mr. Whiteside, that in 1853, he had himself voted with the minority who then proposed to transfer the government of India to the Crown. The control of which the Court of Directors boasted was altogether nominal; the Court had no initiative, and was not the adviser of the Board of Control.
This is the manner in which Indian affairs are managed by the home Government. " Whenever the President of the Board of Control is of opin- ion that any particular matter requires secrecy—and of this he is the sole
judge, without any appeal whatever—he is allowed to frame a despatch, which he sends to India through the Secret Committee of the Company. This Secret Committee the Company is required by law to appoint ; the members of it take a solemn oath not to divulge the matters which pass through their hands ; they have no right of remonstrance or representation, but they are bound to send out immediately the orders of the President of the Board of Control as they receive them. So that in the great transac- tions of war and peace, the government of India is not only not carried on by the East India Company, but the act of Parliament expressly excludes it from all knowledge of them. In the great acts of policy the East India Company have no share whatever, either for good or evil. It can claim no praise for its justice and wisdom ; nor can it, on the other hand, be blamed for its cruelty or breaches of faith. It is passed by altogether. With re- gard to ordinary business, matters of revenue, or judicial matters, for in- stance, the Company does not stand in a much higher position. Every week the President of the Board of Control has a meeting with the Chair- man and Deputy Chairman, at which any matters requiring discussion are brought forward. The President's wishes are expressed,. and then these two gentlemen go to the India House and prepare a previous communica- tion,' which, if they agree with the President, would probably be an echo of his opinions. These previous communications,' it must be remem- bered, are not prepared by the Court of Directors, but by the Chairs and the clerks in the respective departments. From the India House they are sent to Cannon Row ; where they pass under the inspec- tion of the Secretaries, and are laid before the President ; who approves them, just as the head of every department approves the despatches which are about to be sent out. Then, when the President has not only made up his mind as to what he will do, but also as to the very form of words in which his instructions shall be conveyed, the question is brought before the East India Company, and the Court of Directors are allowed to prepare a draught despatch, which agrees or not, just as their views agree or disagree, with the previous communication. The President of the Board of Control, upon receiving that draught, may alter it ; and if he does he is obliged to give his reasons in writing ; which are generally brief, and much in the manner in which one would give reasons to people the result of whose opinion is not of any great consequence. The Directors give their reasons in turn, and then the President may .send out any draught he chooses. What amount of control, advising, or initiative is there in all this ? The head of a department makes up his mind what he will do, and settles the form afterwards in which he will order it to be done ; it is then the privi- lege of another department,. which has no aceess to harm and no opportunit of discussing the matter with him, to propose akotally different despatch which the Head can alter as he likes when he gets it before him, merely on the penalty of giving some short reasons in writing for so doing. Such a check as this is perfectly nugatory, and the Council proposed by the bill will have a hundred times more influence over the President than the Court of Directors has under the present system. The President of the Board of Control never receives advice from the Court of Directors; all he receives is their opinion of what ought to be done after he has made up his own mind, and the reasons which they may choose to give him for their opinions ; and yet upon the strength of this the East India Company claims to be'regarded as an integral part of the Government of India !" The-existence of the Company produces a fearful amount of delay. They arc an " independent clog," not an independent check. Mr. Lowe stated two cases by way of illustration. This is the process in the case of a rail- way—The East India Company guarantee the dividends, and therefore, of course, they are obliged to control the expenditure : there is a railway board in India, and their proceedings are referred to the Government engineer; their decision goes, he believed, through the Government of India ; it comes home, then, to the railway board in England, on which the East India Company is represented ; from that board it goes to the East India Com- pany ; and having passed through all the forms of the India House, it goes finally to the Board of Control, first to the permanent Secretary, then to the Parliamentary Secretary, and then to the President, who sanctions all that has been done. That is the process through which every yard of railway in India has to pass before its construction is commenced. The other sample of delay was Lord Macaulay's penal code. That code was prepared in 1840, and from that time to this it has not been carried into effect : it was just on the eve of being acted upon when the mutiny broke out—and that, like the fire in Caleb Balderstone's larder, was sufficient to account for every failure and every shortcoming. Taking passages from the Company's petition embodying objections to the then supposed scheme of Ministers Mr. Lowe showed that all those objec- tions applied to the actual state of 'things. One of the main objections to the East India Company is that it prevents the government from being placed in the hands of the Queen. The only place in our empire for this anomalous exception is where an Oriental people reside, whose sole idea of government is monarchy. The notion of the Natives is lhat India is farmed or leased out to the Company to be squeezed ad libitum. Nor does the mat- ter rest here. The history of India is one catalogue of differences and bickering more or less violent. There have been other revolts than the present. There was a revolt in the time of Olive, another in the time of Sir George Barlow. When the Supreme Court was established it looked with contempt on the Company's Courts, and took upon itself supreme con- trol. Mr. Lowe urged the House not to delay passing the bill, bemuse the
East India Company could not longer stand in the same strong and re- spected position m which, by the aid of Parliament, it formerly stood.
Mr. Cnawronn, the seconder of Mr. Baring's amendment, and Mr. LIDDELL, opposed the bill. It was supported by Mr. SLANEY.
Sir HENRY RawLsrsobt said he would not enter upon the historical question, but confine himself to the question before the House, and prove the inconvenience of the double government by a statement of particular facts.
With all matters of peace war, and negotiations, three members of the Court alone are concerned. It is a fact that the Directors knew nothing of the origin, progress, and settlement of the Persian war until they read of them in the blue book. Therefore the whole of the Directors ought not to be held responsible. He would try and describe the gestation of an Indian despatch from conception to the moment of parturition.
The ideas expressed in a despatch are first conceived by one of those able secretaries whose fine Roman hand has been recognized in the petition which has been presented to the House. Having been thus conceived, it is com- municated to the chairman. If approved, it is draughted or embodied in writing. The deputy-chairman and one or two other Directors who are supposed to know something about the matter are then consulted, and if the draught is approved it is sent marked " P. C." (previous communica- tion) to the Board of Control. It goes through a certain manipulation in that department with the details of which he was not acquainted, and comes back embellished with red ink, those mysterious-looking characters in red ink being the essence of the whole document. When there arc addi- tions or alterations marked on the margin it is submitted to the committee —a body consisting of five or six individuals. The despatch is examined by them, and compared with the collection of papers referring to the subject, and it sometimes lies for a week or even three weeks on the table of the committee. If there is any disagreement with regard to the despatch the chairman and deputy-chairman are consulted, and, finally, it is passed either as it came up in red ink from the Board of Control or with altera- tions. All this is merely preliminary. It now goes before the general court to be examined by the whole eighteen members, and lies on the table a week for inspection—sometimes even three weeks or a month. He had known such a document lie for more than a month. If it is agreed to, it is passed on a second time to the Board of Control for approval ; but if the Board of Control find that it differs from the state in which it was sent to the Directors the alterations are reintroduced and it is sent back again. When it arrives a second time it is again submitted to the Committee of Di- rectors and goes through the same process as before, being either altered or ap- proved. If it is not approved, it is necessary to draw up a remonstrance ; which remonstrance is transmitted along with the despatch back again to the Board of Control. Some of the members, perhaps, enter their dissent from the remonstrance, and this also is sent to the Board of Control. If the Pre- sident thinks the remonstrance of any great value, he gives his reasons for the course be has taken in writing, and sends the despatch back once more to the Court of Directors, who have then no alternative but to transmit it to India. Now, could any reasonable man possibly conceive a more obstructive or unbusiness-like series of proceedings ? He considered the proposed change with regard to India from two points of view. How: ill it affect the Natives ? Here he quoted the evidence of Mr. Halliday to show that the change to the government of the Crown would be practicable and beneficial. It would produce no appreciable effect on the uneducated classes, because they are under local and individual influences— such as that exercised by Colonel Jacob over the Scinde Horse, and Sir John Lawrence in the Punjaub. But the educated classes understood the differ- ence between the Crown and Company ; and whether inInclia, or Turkey, or Persia, he found them unanimous as to the superiority of the Crown. The Eu- ropeans would prefer it. They have mireverence for the Company. All their aspirations are associated with the Crown, which bestows rank and honours. The argumentfor delay is specious and attractive ; but delay would be attended with danger.-Publicity is given to all these discussions, and the people of India have been led to believe that the East India Company is .doomed. A mere re- spite would have a most prejudicial effect. The authority of all the Company's officers must be weakened ; disorganization must follow, and a state of things ensue which might cause the new Government, when introduced, to fail. He doubted whether the country at all appreciates the extent of the civil diffi- culties in India. He had seen letters from the first civil officers there de- scribing a deplorable state of things. They complain that there is now a great chasm between them and the Native population which cannot be bridged over; that there is ne common ground on which they can approach the Na- tives in order to draw their sympathies towards them ; that all the old land- marks are cut away, and mutual confidence destroyed. How, then, is order to be restored ? He did not suppose that the Queen's name would do every- thing, but he looked upon a proposition like the present as a most wise pro- ceeding. It meets the requirements of the occasion—serves as a new start- ing-point and as a basis for the construction of a new government. It in- vites the.people to look forwards, instead of backwards, and to indulge in hopes for the future, instead of regrets for the past. While eget:ming of the principle of the bill, and deprecating delay, Sir Henry did not give the measure unqualified support. The number of Coun- cillors is too few • their independence must be provided for. Other objec- tions he would state in Committee.
The debate now grew weaker. On the part of the Opposition, it was sustained by Sir JOHN WALSH, Mr. ADAMS, and Mr. ELLIOT. They di- lated on the abuse likely to follow the extension of patronage ; the danger that would arise from Parliamentary discussions and from the influence of British public opinion in India • the good and efficient government of the Company. Mr. Elliot said that when he was Secretary of the Board of Control he was surprised at the rarity of delays ; there are more in the Treasury. On the other hand, Mr. A. MILLS, Mr. WYLD, and Mr. DANDY SEY'AIOUR supported the Government, and enforced the arguments of previous speakers on the same side.
Colonel SYKES moved that the debate should be adjourned. Lord PALMERSTON said he was willing, but he hoped it would be finished on the following night. Mr. GROGAN said he had a motion on the paper, and he should go on.
The House divided, and the motion for adjournment was carried by 280 to 32.
In reply to an appeal from Lord PALsranwroir, Mr. GROGAN and Mr. BAILLIE saidthey should proceed with their notices, which stand first on the paper for Tuesday.
The debate was brought to a close on Thursday night. In order to allow it to proceed, Mr. Roebuck and other Members who had notices on the paper gave way. The debate thus began early, and ended earlier than is usual on such occasions.
The first speaker was Colonel SYRES. He was entirely opposed to the Ministerial proposal. In defending the East India Company, he made a statement of the course of business at the East India House to wet the statements 'Mr. Lowe and Sir HenryRawlinson. In sub-, stance, it amounted to this, that in the great majority of cases-1481 out of 1621 were the figures he gave—the despatches emanating from the independent minds of the Directors were not altered at the Board of Control this showed that the Directors do really possess an initiative. What delay occurs is caused by the interference of the Board of Control in minute details. The bill is therefore based upon a fiction of obstruc- tion that has no foundation in fact. Sir CHARLES WOOD, the next speaker, quoted his own and Sir James Graham's speeches in 1853, to prove that though the bill of that year was proposed as the best measure at the time, the Government then contemplated further changes. Sir Charles himself had said—" The times change, and in these days no man can say how soon the necessity for alterations may arise." He contended that the contemplated circumstances have arisen which make it desirable to substitute the Government of the Crown for that of the Company, and to have a Minister with a Council responsible for India. He bore tes- timony to the Court of Directors of his day—" they were as good a Council as any man could have" : but the change is necessary, because the double government in its present form is a source of weakness. Mr. Wimouotrity made an extensive speech, interlarded with quotations, in defence of the past administration of the Company. He opposed the contemplated change, because it is inopportune, and will have a bad effect on the minds of the Natives. He also iwelt at length on the danger of Parliamentary interference, and of the abuses of patronage. Mr. CAMPBELL, as one who had passed the greater part of his life in India, gave the House the result of his experience : it was decidedly in favour of the change. The name of the Queen will be like oil thrown on the waters, and will smooth the way for a return of quiet throughout the country. That is the opinion of his Native correspond- ents, as well as his own opinion.
Sir EDWARD Ly-frox made a dashing speech against the bill. The bill, he said, is audacious, incomplete, and unconsidered. It will throw power into the hands of a set of irresponsible nominees of the Minister of the day. It will enable a rash Minister with complaisant nominees, looking for advancement, to commit fatal blunders. " If you want clerks, call them clerks, and let them be nominated : if you want to have councillors, councillors must be free." Look at the bill : nomination is its principle, its axletree. Lord Palmerston says that Vigour and promptitude are wanted—that there are checks in the " double govern- ment " : but he never discovered these checks until they threatened to be inconvenient to his " single government." Sir Edward was in fa- vour of governing in the name of the Queen, but he thought that might be done without destroying the Company. The affairs of India are in future to have the superintending and vigilant wisdom of Parliament; but, depend upon it, " we shall never interfere very actively except when we can injure a hostile Government" or " asperse an illustrious name." [Sir Edward's oration provoked about an equal amount of cheering and laughter.]
Lord Jonas RUSSELL said that this speech was another illustration of
the strange nature of the debate. Mr. Baring had contended that it was not time to legislate, and confined himself very much to that topic ; but, while few of his supporters had spoken for delay, they had urged every argument to show that the present form of government should not be disturbed. Lord John could not consent to hang the question up in sus- pense by agreeing to Mr. Baring's proposal ; and he pictured the danger of doing so.
The cheeks that were necessary in 1,784 are not wanted now, because the '
Company has been deprived of its poTe'r. In the constitution of the Com- pany there is a great danger. It was girl by Lord Metcalfe, Lord William Benthick, and men versed in Indian affairs. That danger was the great army of Bengal. While that army existed, our position was precarious. The question is, not how did the mutiny originate, but what was the cause of our having this great army ? Why, it arose from the system introduced by Mr. Pitt.' When Mr. Pitt wanted to send the King's troops to India, the directors opposed him, and he had to carry a bill before he could send them. There has been always a great jealousy of augmenting the British forces in India, and a decided preference has been shown for Native troops. That is the source of the danger. Now we cannot again raise an army like that ' which has mutinied ; we must increase the Queen's troops. " But when' you have made that change, you will have broken down the very foundation' of the _power of the East India Company." And as the military power must
i
rest with the Crown, so the civil power must follow it. That is the urgent cause for legislation. As to the future, he would support the great services of India, and do everything to make the Council independent. With regard to the danger of party debates on Indian affairs, that must be met. It is a condition of our existence, a part of our constitution ; and we must bear- with it in Indian matters as we have borne with it elsewhere.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the bill was not a measure to transfer the go- vernment of India from the Company to the Queen, but only to transfer the patronage from the Company to the Government in Downing Street. The effect of the measure would be to create a council of nominees, se- cluded from Parliamentary criticism, having no influence 'unless they pan- der to the interests of the Minister, and liable to be got rid of in twenty- four hours. A single solitary Minister could not deal with Indian af- fairs : the consequence would be that he would have to trust entirely to the Governor-General, who will be able to do what he pleases, and who will manage the 'Minister in London by giving him the patronage of India. If we want to establish the authority of the Queen in India, it is in India we must begin the change, by .doing what is necessary to effect good govern- ment. There is another point—consider the influence of the Government proposal on the finances of this country. There is a chronic debt of two millions per annum in India. The increase of troops will raise that by four Or five millions. To meet that increase this year, they have the loan of ten million. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly introduce us to a British deficit of more than seven millions. We 'are asked to take upon ourselves the liabilities of India : are we prepared immediately to deal with a deficit of eleven or twelve millions ? By passing the bill, they would entail on this country the engagements of India, and find that they had no control over its expenditure. They were beginning at the wrong end. They ought first to have put down the rebellion, then have sent out a com- mission with plenary powers to place the resources of India in a sound and healthy condition, and then have substituted the government of the Queen for that of the Company.
Lord PaLmosucerow, in the course of a general reply, said that Mr. Disraeli had endeavoured to frighten the House by a financial bugbear. Far from making no difference between the finances of England and those of India, the bill makes the division more clear and precise, and puts it in the power of Parliament to control the expenditure. He insisted that it is right to begin the change at home and not inindie, because the pre: sent system is defective, and great benefit will follow from direct govern- ment in the name of the Queen. "What conflicting opinions we have heard! Some gentlemen say there is not sufficient control over the local Government of India. Well, that con- trol would be furnished by bringing the responsible advisers of the Crown in regard to Indian affairs in direct contact with Parliament. But then, those whom I should have expected to be embued with constitutional principles say, ' Oh ! for Heaven's sake, let not the House of Commons meddle with Indian affairs; there is no telling to what degree faction may pervert these questions to the public injury.' I bow with deference to opinions from the other side of the House as to the extent to which faction may be carried." He was willing to trust to the good sense of Parliament. Mr. NEWDBOATB tried to speak; but the House, anxious to divide, would not hear him.
The House then divided upon the question that leave be given to bring in the bill—Ayes, 318; Noes, 173; Ministerial majority, 145. The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers.
TUB ANNEXATION OF OUDB.
Two notices of motion stood in the way of the adjourned debate on the India Bill on Tuesday. The first, Mr. Grogan's motion respecting the Dublin Police, was soon disposed of. The second was a motion by Mr. Henry Bailie for papers relating to the annexation of Oude. When the &maxim called upon Mr. Bernie to proceed, Lord Pausraisros ap- pealed to him to allow the debate on the India Government Bill to be concluded. But his appeal was of no avail. Mr. Raman said, that on ordinary occasions, as a matter of courtesy, he should have yielded ; but the House of Commons was called upon to legislate for India, and its Members were in total darkness respecting the rebellion. It is desirable to ascertain the origin of that rebellion. Colonel Sykes had said it was caused by the insult offered to the religion of the Sepoys. Mr. Willoughby had said ho could not account for it, but he supposed a madness had seized the soldiers. Sir Henry Itawlinson said it had deserved more the name of a national than of a military movement. Mr. Baillie himself imputed it to a Mahometan conspiracy. By pursuing a policy reckless of consequences, the Indian Government gave the con- spirators a favourable opportunity. In spite of the opinions of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Wellesley, Sir Thomas Munro, Mr. Mountstewart Elphinstone, and Lord Metcalfe, the Government had pursued a policy of wholesale annexation. Since 1833, the Indian Government had an- nexed Coorg, Satter; Scinde, the Punjaub, Pegu, Nagpore, and Oude. During that period, although those annexations had taken place not a single European soldier had been added to the army in India. All the great stations on the Ganges were occupied by Sepoys. When Oude was annexed, ho bad been privately informed that the Sepoys asked their officers why the King had been dethroned; and long before the re- bellion the troops in thousands petitioned against the annexation. The mode of annexation reflected the greatest discredit upon Lord Dalhousie. The chiefs, commanding from 5000 to 10,000 men, were ready to resist; the Sepoys in our service had undertaken not to fire a shot against their countrymen. The King submitted, and for the moment paralyzed the chiefs. Sir Henry Lawrence warned the Government of the danger of relying upon Oude levies and half-a-dozen regular corps, and suggested that troops should be moved from the Punjaub. But the warning voice of Sir Henry Lawrence was raised in vain. Mr. Baillie condemned the act of annexation as well as the mode of effecting it, He went back to the early days of the century, and quoted from speeches of Mr. Fox and despatches of Mr. Canning arguments against interfering with Oude. Lord William Bentinck had been twice ordered to annex Otule„ but had net acted upon his orders. Lord Auckland found the second order, and hesitated to carry it out In. the mean time, the King of Oude Bent some presents to King William the Fourth : the Rersons who brought them heard of the intended dethronement of the King of Oude, and it became necessary to refuse the presents. King William was informed of the rea- son : he consulted—so Sir Gore Ouseley told Mr. Baillie—the fluke of Wellington, Lord Wellesley, and Sir Gore Onseley himself. They gave it as their opinion that the annexation of Oude would in all probability cause a mutiny in Oude. Owing to that interference, the intention to annex Oude was dropped. At the close of his administration, Lord Dalhousie, upon the barefaced and hypocritical pretext that the government was mis- managed, annexed Oude. Was the mismanagement in Oude greater than in other Native states—greater than in the British territories ? He was one of those who believed that the government of India should be carried on in the name of the Queen ; but that might be done without changing the general administration of the country. The necessary change is, that restrictions should be placed on the unlimited power of the Minister for India. Mr. Baillie moved for a set of papers. Mr. VERNON SMITH said that Mr. Baillie might as well have made his speech in the debate on the India Government Bill. If he believed that by condemning the Board of Control he condemned the Government Bill, he was mistaken. To find fault with the Board of Control as well as with the Court of Directors, is in fact to find fault with the present sys- tem, and it is to alter that very system that the bill has been introduced. Mr. Smith entered upon a partial vindication of the policy of an- nexation in general, and a defence of the annexation of Oude in particular. Governors-General are desirous of winning fame; fame can only be acquired in India by acquiring territory ; and it is against that the Government at home mainly exert themselves. Oude was annexed because it had been one of the worst-governed countries on the face of the earth. The Kings of Oude had not fulfilled the conditions of the treaty of 1801. They-had been warned by Lord William Ben- tinck, by Lord Hardinge, and Lord Dalhousie. Lord Hardinge gave the King two yearn to reform abuses ; Lord Dalhousie gave him seven. The oppression became intolerable. It was maintained by British bayonets. The alternative was to withdraw the troops or annex the country. Lord Dalhousie took the manly course, and annexed the country. Lord Dal- housie suggested the annexation himself, but there was not an authority at home or in India that the Government consulted who was not in favour of the measure. Mr. Baillie had complained, that with all these annexations the European force had not been increased : but that is not so. Since 1833 the Queen's troops were increased from 20,000 to 24,000, and three European regiments were added to the Company's army. Mr. Baillie had said the mutineers saw that a favourable moment had arrived ; the Crimean war would have been a more favourable moment. Mr. Smith promised to produce all the papers, if it were possible.
Lord Joim Roseau, gave a succinct history of the Oude question. At the end of last century, Oude was so misgoverned that Lord Welles-
ley took away half the Vizier's territories, and made a treaty with him. By that treaty the Vizier undertook to take the advice of the Company, and " act in conformity thereto" ; and in return he was allowed a Bri- tish force. The treaty may have been wrong, but it was made. From 1801 to 1856 that treaty has been constantly violated. A corrupt court spent in profligate pleasures the money wrung from the people, and when the people refused to pay taxes, they were coerced by British officers and British troops. In 1835 Lord William Bentinck described this system as disgraceful to the Company and to Great Britain. He proposed, either that the troops should be withdrawn or that the country should be an.. flexed. It was thought proper to go on for some time longer. No change was made in Oude. In 1847 Lord Harding° told the King, that if he allowed the system to continue his country would be annexed, like Nag- pore. Lord Dalhousie considered the whole question, and in stating it to the Court of Directors, said everything he could in favour of Oude. He first proposed to withdraw the British troops ; but all his Council opposed him in that, and were for annexation. The Court of Directors and the Board of Control took the same view, and Lord Dalhousie was positively ordered to annex Oude. Lord John Russell himself had given his assent to that policy; but before he concluded his speech, he severely censured the Government of India for not taking care to have a sufficient force in Oude, not only to prevent immediate resistance, but to trample out any rebellion that might arise. Ho also passed an implied censure on the Persian war, undertaken to maintain our prestige ; and said he hoped in future we should follow the oldfashioned policy of doing what is right, and letting reputation follow, as it is sure to do, upon acts. The main subject of debate seemed to be exhausted by these speeches. Lord Jonas MANNERS strongly supported Mr. Baillie's views, and amid the laughter of the House advised the Government to imitate Clive and restore the King of Oude to his throne. Mr. MANGLES worked out some of the points concisely put by Lord John Russell, and speculated on the causes of the mutiny. Colonel SIXES supported him with statistics of crime in Oude. Mr. SINNAIRD said he believed that if the advice of Lord Dalhousie had been followed in carrying out that annexation, a great part of the evil which has since occurred would have been pre- vented; for he had advised that similar precautions should be taken to those which were taken at the annexation of the Punjaab—namely, to flood the country with European troops. General Tnomesoss dilated on the atrocities of European officers and men during the inutirty—torturing, hanging, and shooting their victims. The slaughter of the Princes of Delhi was one of the foulest murders re- corded in history. This and other remarks of a similar kind drew an indignant reproof from Mr. PAIK; and the House refused to hear any ex- planation from General Thompson.
The motion for papers was carried without a division.
PUNISHMENT OF SEPOY MUTINEERS.
The Earl of EuI.xrnentonaa,wished to know whether any instructions had been sent to the Indian Government respecting the punishment of mutineers ? He asked the question because he saw it stated that Sir Hugh Rose had tried and executed 149 mutineers. He was of opinion that a daily repetition of capital punishments does not prevent a repe- tition of crime, because the Natives have a contempt for death ; and that if the ordinary proceeding of law is to be the infliction of death, it will create a blood-feud between us and the Natives which will make it im- possible to restore civil government. He suggested transportation and whipping. Earl GRA-NVILLE said, no instructions had been sent out; it would be unusual to do so. The Government concur with the principles of pun- ishment laid down by Lord Ellenborough.
THR FRENCH QUESTION.
A question put to Lord Palmerston on Tuesday drew from him a re- markable little speech on the French question. Mr. GRIFFITHS called attention to the fact that the letter of Count Walewski expressing the regret of the Emperor for the publication of the Colonels' addresses had not appeared in the Moniteur, as the preceding despatch Calling for re- dress had done; and he asked whether Lord Palmerstcues Government intended to suggest to the French Government that its publieation would conduce to a satisfactory termination of the transaction- To this Lord PALMERSTON replied- " Before I answer the question of the honourable gentleman, I would wish to put a question to the House. I would ask the House, what is their wish, and what is their intention, on a matter of great natioiial importance. Is it their wish and intention that those friendly and confidential relations -which so happily now subsist between the Governments of England and France should be maintained—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear ! ")—or is it their wish and intention to infuse into the relations between the two coun- tries a spirit of irritation, of bitterness, and of animosity ? Now, Sir, if the latter be their object, no more effectual course can be adopted—though not a very dignified one—than the continuance of personal attacks in this House upon the Emperor of the French and the French nation—(Cheers)—and therefore, though I should try to prevent it, yet of course, if the House choose to pursue that course, on them be the responsibility of such a pro- ceeding. If, on the other hand, the House attach that importance which I attach to the maintenance of those friendly relations which have so happily subsisted between the two Governments and the two countries, I do entreat them to discourage and to discountenance the continuance of these incessant personal attacks upon that Emperor, who has been the spontaneous choice of the French people. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, with regard to the question of the honourable Member, I can only say that it is not the intention of her Majesty's Government to adopt a course of proceeding such as that which he has suggested, because we think that such a course would be highly im- proper, and, if I may be permitted to say so without meaning anything per- sonally offensive, excessively absurd." (Cheers and a laugh.) Astminstasrr or IRE Law IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY.
Lord Baommaat has been again moving on this subject in the House of Lords. Already he had before the House a bill for abolishing the distinction between Bankruptcy and Insolvency, and abolishing impri- sonment for debt on mesne process ; as we could barely mention in our last Postscript, he moved on Friday for returns to illustrate the subject of that bill ; on Tuesday this week he moved for additional returns; and on Thursday he introduced a more general bill.
The returns ordered on Tuesday will show the distances that the Commissioners in Bankruptcy live from their courts. Complaints have been made that one Commissioner adjourned the Court to save the train, thereby causing delay : he lived two or three hundred miles from his district. Another Commissioner who lived fur from his Court was said to crowd into his paper as the work of three or four hours the proper business of as many days. It has been proved, that of 4000 per- sons imprisoned for one month seven-tenths were discharged without any inquiry whatever, their discharge being unopposed, and two-tenths were discharged opposed so that nine in ten of these persons ought never to have been imprisoned at all. This imprisonment was a great grievance to those debtors ; for it was proved by the keepers of prisons that, from asso- ciation with the worst classes of society, they did not leave prison the same as they entered it ; and to this course the prison-keepers ascribe a portion of that demoralization which has lately been complained. of among the trading classes of the community. Lord Brougham believed that if the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over these eases, with one addition—namely, the presence of some one on the part of the public to increase the stringency of the examinations, it would be the greatest possible check to fraud that could be devised, and they would no longer have imprisonment for debt inflicting no small amount ofhardship on the creditor. The object of the more general bill is to consolidate the Bankruptcy business with the County Courts and to effect other improvements of or- ennixation. The Court of Bankruptcy in London exercises jurisdiction over 3,000,000 of her Majesty's subjects; but, exclusively of the coun- ties contiguous to the Metropolis, there are eleven counties and parts of two counties, with an aggregate population of 2,000,000, that have no Bankruptcy court, and the business has to come up to London. In those counties, he would transfer the business to the County Court. In some cases, as at Liverpool, the Bankruptcy Commissioners are underworked, the County Court Judge is overworked. E. proposed to transfer the Bankruptcy jurisdiction, with the whole staff belonging to it, to the County Courts. The bill would give parties the option of going before the local or the London Court; it would give Judges in Bankruptcy power of imprisonment. He proposed this not as a complete measure, but as the introduction only to a greater reform. It is sometimes said in the City to men engaged in trade, Your name is on too many bills" ; and he was afraid that the same remark would apply to him. In ex- tenuation of the offence, however, and in order that his bills might not be dishonoured, Lord Brougham explained, that as in the case of the patent law, he proposed his bill with a view of going with the Go- vernment bill on the same subject before a Select Committee with the hope that a more complete measure might result. After remarks from the LORD CHANCELLOR and other Peers,—Lord CAMPBELL and Lord WENSLEYDALE deeiderating a simultaneous revision of the whole law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency,—the bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
THE CHUROID.RATE BILL.
Church-rates occupied nearly the whole of the Wednesday sitting. Sir Joust TRELAWNY moved the second reading of his bill in a short and compact speech. Church-rates, he said, are not a tax upon property ; the church-rate is a tax in personam, not in rem. It is a common-law charge, but cannot be enforced at common law. If a person refused to pay, he might be taken before a magistrate ; and if he disputed the validity of the rate, the case was at once beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate. It might go in the Consistory Court, thence to the Court of Arches, thence to the Common Law Courts, thence to the House of. Lords ; it might go back to the Court of .Arches, and finally to the Ju- dicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Braintree case went through all these stages. ,Sir John said he had a long list of grievances, into which he would not enter. He appealed to the good sense and generosity., of the country gentlemen to assist him in removing the burden from the shoulders of conscientious objectors. A sharp debate ensued. Lord ROBERT Cum, said that every parish could decide for itself whether it would have a church-rate : the minor- ity must be bound by the majority. If it is not, then there is an end to the principle of government. Many persons object to war, but th,ey are not for that reason allowed to refuse taxes. Out of 7327 parishes in England and Wales, 6970 had adhered to church-rates and 357 had resisted them. It would be hard to make the church depend on volun- tary contributions to maintain her edifices. It would be a blow to the union of Church and State to abolish church-rates. He moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. Sir Aura ELTON supported the principle of the bill. Mr. BALL replied to Lord Robert Cecil's argument derived from war-taxes. A war may benefit the whole nation,—hence a minority opposed to the war must pay; but Dissenters do not attend churches that they are forOed to keep in repair. Mr. DRUMMOND said this church-rate is the only rate to which people are allowed to object.
It would have been somewhat more manly m the opponents of.the Church to bring forward a proposition to do away with her at once—to remove at once the Bishops from the House of Lords, and to get rid of tithes and all s.
the rest of things belonging in her—instead of coming in this petty-lar- cenous, sneaking way, to work her ruin. (Great laughter and cheers.) Talk about conscience in the matter ! Conscience indeed ! If we had an established church at all, we must support the building as national pro- pertyl exactly upon the same ground as we support the Houses of Parlia- ment; the Royal Palaces, the British Museum, and all other similar build-
Lord STANLEY supported the bill. He showed that the reliance of Churchmen upon church-rates has been continually decreasing. In thirty years these rates have decreased in the proportion of three to one. On the other hand, the zeal and the liberality of the people towards the Church is increasing; the animosity between the Church and the Nonconform- ists has greatly subsided; and surely the policy of the Established Church should be a policy of conciliation. Lord Robert Cecil had said that the number of parishes refusing the rate is very small : he forgot to mention the large number where no rate is asked for because it is known none would be granted.
Sir GEORGE GREY and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the bill, and suggested a compromise. Where church-rates have been abolished, that abolition shall be recognized; but vestries willing to levy rates shall not be deprived of the power of doing so. All persons, how- ever, who would declare that they were not members of the Established Church should be exempt; and the Vestry should have power to let sittings. The House was impatient for a division, and Mr. HOPE and Mr. SLaNEY vainly endeavoured to speak. When they did divide, the second reading was carried by 213 to 160.
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.
Mr. LABOUCHERE corrected on Monday a misconception of what he had said last week respecting the Hudson's Bay. Company's territories. lie did not say that Government intended to take those territories into their own hands.- He said that they were about to constitute the islatul of Vancouver a British colony, in the ordinary manner.
GENERAL WINDHAM.
The Duke of Cestearrem volunteered the following statement on Mon- day from his place in the House of Peers.
So much having been said in reference to the conduct of the gallant gene- ral who recently commanded at Cawnpo ,re Major-General 'Windham, he was sure that their Lordships would be glad to learn what were the real me- rits of the case. He had been anxiously waiting for some official despatch from India that would clear up the subject ; and he was happy to say that a statement had come to his hand that day which was most satisfactory with regard to that officer, whose military conduct had occasioned such conflict- ing opinions. Their Lordships would, he was sure, rejoice with him that his gallant friend Sir Colin Campbell, from whom this despatch Caine, en- tirely exonerated Major-General Windham from all blame in reference to the action which had given rise to these comments. There was blame at- tached to other parties, which it was not necessary for him then to refer to but as regarded General Windham, he had received from his gallant friend Sir Colin Campbell a handsome despatch exonerating him from all blame, and he had reason to believe that he would be recommended by Sir Colin for some more important command.
THE CONSPIRACY Brat.—Mr. GinsoN gave notice on Tuesday, that on the second reading of the bill to amend the law of conspiracy to murder, he should move the following resolution : "That this House hears with much conceni_, that it is alleged that the recent attempts on the life of the Emperor of the French have been devised in England, and expresses its detestation of such guilty enterprises. That this House is ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the criminal law, which after due investigation are proved to exist ' • yet it cannot but regret that her Majesty's Govern- ment, previously to inviting the House to amend the law of conspiracy at the present time, have not felt it to be their duty to make some reply to the important despatch received from the French Government, dated ' Paris, January 20, 1858,' and which has been laid before Parliament."
SCOTCH 1JsavEnsrrres.—In =ewer to a question from Lord Eicno, the Loan ADVOCATE said that the subject of University Reform in Scotland has been under his consideration. He has prepared the outline of a measure for the purpose of submitting it to the Government, and he hopes to be able to introduce some measure on the subject during the present session.
MORTALITY IN THE GUARDS.—Colonel ANNESLEY moved for a copy of a report of the medical officers of the Foot Guards. He anticipated that it would show results different from those in the report of the Commission. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT explained, that the report cast no blame whatever upon any officers who are responsible only for carrying out regulations. The statistics in the report were derived from returns presented to Parlia- ment, based on returns from the Colonels of regiments. The Commission took fifteen years, and stopped at 1853 because the war with Russia then broke out. He should not be surprised to find that the Guards can now show better rates of mortality, because the brigade is composed of young, strong, and healthy men, the old brig,- de having been almost destroyed in the Crimea. Lord Panmure has shown the greatest anxiety to carry out the recommendations of the Commission.
Several officers took part in a conversation that ensued. Sir Joule B.Ams- DEN stated, that Lord Panmure had last autumn, on hearing of the uncoils- factory state of the barracks, appointed a Committee to deal with the matter at once, with power to expend a certain sum. That Committee was com- posed of two medical officers, an engineer ; and Mr. Sidney Herbert was its chairman. Mr. Herbert had personally visited each barrack ; so that the House might be sure the duties of the Committee had been efficiently per- formed.
THE MILITIA.—The Earl of CARNARVON, in moving for some Militia re- turns, expressed his surprise that only 150,0001. was asked for the Militia. Lord PANMURE said, that sum will cover the maintenance of the embodied Militia for six months. As 8500 recruits have been raised since the 1st of January, in six months the regular Army will have been raised to the strength voted by Parliament. If more money is wanted, it will be easy to ask for it. The Earl of HARDWICXE took exception to this course; but it received the support of Earl GREY.—Motion agreed to.
THE Dunrste POLICE.—Mr. GROGAN moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the system and management of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Dublin, he said, has a larger proportion of police than any town in the United Kingdom, London excepted. In London there is 1 constable to a po- pulation of 226 ; in 1 to 320 ; in Liverpool, 1 to 442 ; in Edinburgh, 1 to 455; in Manchester, 1 to 542; in Birmingham, 1 to 694. He asserted that the number in Dublin is too large. A general feeling prevails that the police make an arbitrary use of their powers. Mr. Hamar HERBERT said that the Government have introduced two measures on the subject and have another in hand. If there has been an abuse of power, the leial tribunals will take cognizance of it. As the Government are prepared to egislate, he hoped the House would not shelve the question by granting a Select Corn- mittee.—Motion negatived, by 200 to 105.
Rom Acrs Commie-rim—This Committee consists of the following Members : The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, Sir James Gra- ham, Mr. Spooner, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cayley, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Vance, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Weguelin, Mr. Mulkey, Mr. Hope Johnstone, Mr. Ennis, Mr. Puller,. the Earl of Gifford, Mr. Fergus, Mr. John L. Ricardo, Mr. Tucker Smith, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Ball, and Mr. Tile.
Previous page
