VrItatto anit VtartAings in Valiant.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEER.

nOTSE op LOBOS. Monday, June 27. Encumbered Estates Court (Ireland) Con- tinuance Bill, committed—Tynemouth, Commission of Inquiry agreed to—Barn- staple, Commission of Inquiry agreed to—Income-tax Bill, read a third time and passed—Charitable Trusts Bill, passed—Excise Duties on Spirits Bill, read a second

time.

Tuesday, June 28. Royal Assent to Income-tax Bill, Bail in Error Bill, and Hackney Carriages Bill. Thursday, June 30. Free Black Labour ; Question and Answer—Excise-duties on Spirits Bill, committed—Jamaica; Duke of Newcastle's Statement—Punishment of Transportation Bill, read a first time. Friday, July 1. Encumbered Estates Court (Ireland) Continuance Bill, com- mitted—Soap-duties Bill, read a first time. House or Commons. Monday, June 27. Government of India Bill ; debate re- sumed, and further adjourned—Lunacy Bills, committed—Leasing Powers (Ire- land) Bill, committed—Stamp-duties Bill, read a second time. T,sesd' was IS Irish National Education Board ; Question and Answer—She- riff-C ommitted—Vote by Ballot ; Mr. Carter's Motion for a

parti r of Land (Ireland) Bill, read a second time and re- fe t of Common Law (Ireland) Bill, committed—Li- rd Dudley Stuart's Ballot Motion. pent of India Bill, adjourned debate finished, and imrjected by 322 to 140 ; Bill read a second time- .onamitted—New Writ for Liverpool.

Ilk. Acts; House in Committee, Resolution against to 61—Succession-duty Bill, in Committee—West- eriff-Courts (Scotland) Bill, passed. TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

The COMMAS.

Hour of Hour of

Hour of ROW of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday Sh lh 5m Monday 4h .(ws) 2h 15m Tuesday

..(m)

5h .. Sb 23m Tuesday Noon .... 4h Om

Oh 13h 4551 Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... eh Om Thursday 5h ; . eh 1051 Thursday 9h .(,1) 5h Om Friday 5h Sb Mm Friday 4k (n) lh SOin

THE INDIA Buz.

The adjourned debate on the India Government Bill was resumed on Monday.

Mr. Com= led off the assailants of the measure ; and began by cri- ticizing the appointment and conduct of the Committee on Indian Ter- ritories.

He had attended the inquiry until it was announced that the Government bill was ready, before the inquiry was half over : it was then evident that Ministers had prejudged the question, and he therefore declined sanctioning by his presence any of the further proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Cobden mainly addressed himself to the vexed question of the double or single government. He could not see that the present form of govern- ment was a double government at all. No powers, except the disposal of patronage, are granted to the Court of Directors. The very nature of the governing body leritod:amismuintinteetelillgittee.prIzddellardintz sckaredofoltesosaa Tete. ry—.

Marshman seemed to have little knowledge of the fundamental principles of the double government ; and all this mystery is productive of the greatest evils. We have recently been simplifying the procedure in our own law-. courts ; we have baiiished John Doe and Richard Roe ; but we still have John Doe and Richard Roe in the government of India. What is the ad- vantage of such a system ? Does it benefit either the people of England or of India ? The natives of India, according to Mr. Halliday, consider the granting a twenty-years lease to the Company a farming" of them out. That disposes of the whole question as regards the people of India. Mr. Halliday also, in his evidence, states that if India were governed in the name of the Crown, it would increase the stability of our empire, and add immensely to the re- verence with which the people regard our sway. But the greatest evil of the present form of government is that public opinion cannot be brought to bear upon Indian affairs. If it could, wars and annexations would not take place ; the Governor-General would be controlled and made to explain war- like declarations, if he held a responsible position in the House of Commons or stood in the character of a Colonial Minister. At present, through the Secret Committee, the Board of Control can make any order—an order to an- nex China if it pleases; the Governor-General is bound to carry it out, and the Directors will know nothing of it until it be a fait accompli. How is it that twenty-four honourable men can be found to submit to this humilia- tion ? As the Directors are not paid for their services in stipends, but by patronage, numbers of places which should be given to Natives are given to Europeans : if the double Government were abolished and a responsible Mi- nister appointed, public opinion would insist on the Natives getting some of the patronage. That the Natives are well fitted for the highest offices, was proved before the Committee. All the great authorities in Indian matters- Monro, Malcolm, Elphinatone—concur in opinion on this point. Sir George Clerk and Mr. Halliday take the same view of the question. But the only way of insuring the employment of Natives in the higher offices is to take away the patronage from the Court of Directors.

After a digression on the origin of the Burmese war, Mr. Cobden entered into an elaborate statement upon Indian finance ; showing that the expendi- ture has exceeded the income by twenty-eight millions since 1833; and contending that, financially, there was nothing satisfactory in the past, still less in the future. We cannot leave a more perilous inheritance to our chil- dren than this debt and embarrassment of India. Since the settlement in 1833 debt and territory have proportionately increased; and if Pegue be annexed farewell to all improvement in Indian finances. The question will recur with increased liabilities. We cannot escape responsibility by putting the Government of India behind a screen and fancying that we ourselves are not responsible. Mr. Cobden's conclusion was, to vote for the amendment, with the view of deferring the consideration of the question as to the permanent govern- ment of India for two years.

Sir JAMES GaAnui defended the omission of a fixed period, on the ground that defects can be altered and correctives applied from time to time : he went over the admissions which he found in Lord Stanley's speech, seriatim, complimenting his ability and candour, but weakening the force of his arguments ; and recited the leading characteristics of the Government proposition. This he did at considerable length ; and having thus cleared the way, he dilated on the two questions under discussion— delay, and the double or single government. As to delay. This is a question of policy. India is surrounded by me- nacing circumstances—revolution in China, war in Burmah, and a state of affairs in neighbouring nations in which a though there may be nothing of danger there is something to be regarded. Persona the most competent from past or present position to give advice,—Lord Dalhousie, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Hardinge, Mr. Wilberforce Bird, Mr. Herries, Lord Broughton, Lord Panmure, and Mr. Thomas Baring,—all strongly recommend instant decision and oppose delay. As to the reason of the matter, is it wise or ne- cessary wantonly to incur the risk of shaking confidence in this country, the steadiness of its government, and the firmness of the hand that grasps it ? Then the position of the Government which proposes immediate legislation —a division among its usual supporters in Parliament, and a spirit of oppo- sition in its opponents—shows that nothing but a paramount sense of public duty could have induced them, having regard to party interests, to incur the risk of wantonly making such a proposition.

As to the double or single government, it is no objection to say that the East India Company, as an instrument of administration, in concert with the Imperial Government, is an anomaly. Is not the possession of India itself the greatest of all anomalies ? Are there not anomalies of this very descrip- tion in our own representative form of government ? Then as to the charge of timidity. Government proposes to apply limited remedies, not suddenly broached but repeatedly demonstrated ; and those who seek further changes are bound to show their absolute necessity. Ac- cepting the challenge to judge of the tree by its fruits, Sir James cited the names of the most distinguished witnesses before the Committee, and quoted from a letter of Mr. Marabman, and extensively from the evidence of Mr. John Stuart Mill, to show that the double government is sound in principle, and has worked well by the more deliberate discussion it produces ; and that the Court of Directors is a real check on the Board of Control. Further test- ing the tree by its fruits, Sir James drew illustrations from the story of the Affghan war. I have heard something about a question put elsewhere, as to whether the sons of horse-dealers might not be sent out to India. See how it applies here. The officers of the Queen's army had met with a great disaster. There were two distinguished officers at that moment in command of two armies upon opposite sides of Affghanistan ; one General Pollock, the ether sittings this Week. 4; Time. lsh 3551 — this Session. 92; — 21813 4m Sittings this Week, 6; Time. 4111 30m — this Session, 121; — 831h Dan

General Nott. I do not think that even on this occasion, and in this as- sembly, after that question has arisen, and when we remember that the Queen's officers had sustained a great disaster, and by whom that digester was retrieved—I do not believe, I say, that General Pollock will condemn me if I recall to the recollection of this House that he was the son of a humble shopkeeper in the city of London, and that General Nott was the son of a publican from a remote corner of South Wales. How did they retrieve the honour of this country ? One was told either to retreat from Affghanistan, or to advance and recover Ghuznee, as he considered beat. It was open to him either to retreat or to advance. He hesitated not. His decision was taken in the course of one night, and General Nott decided to advance. What was the decision of General Pollock ? He found his army dispirited. Their fate was hanging in the balance. He had the moral courage, far higher than any other courage of the most brilliant description, to resist all pressure and inducement to advance until the feeling and spirit and morale of his army were fully restored. Never was the saying better exemplified, cunctando restituit rem.' He hesitated not when the proper moment arrived • and the glorious consummation took place, that those two Generals of the iast India Company's service sustained the honour of the British arms and saved from destruction our empire in the East. Is this system lightly to be set aside ? Is this form of government to be hastily rejected ? We have the advantage of the opinions of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington in favour of that system of government. They never hesitated, or doubted, amid all our difficulties, that those difficulties would be overcome ; and if they were now alive, I am satisfied that they would counsel and entreat you, as ihave done, not rashly or hastily to tamper with such a system."

Quoting a speech of Mr. Macaulay delivered twenty years ago, to the ef- fect that men who had governed mighty provinces and resided at the courts of tributary kings returned to their native country with little more than scanty competence, Sir James exclaimed—" That was the boast of Malcolm ; that is still the noble, independent boast of Elphinstone: and again I say, trying the system, by its fruits, prune that tree if you please, dig a trench round about it if you will, but I implore you to pause and to hesitate before you cut it down. I believe it to be sound at the heart. I believe it to be a system, on the whole, of good government. It is not incapable of improve- ment : we have endeavoured to improve it." His reply to Mr. Cobden's allegation of constant war was, that all the Governors-General he had known went out with the intention of preserving peace, but found it impossible : war "is not British policy, it is Indian ne- cessity." As in the case of Burmah, the proximate cause of the war was the last insult ; and in the eye of the Asiatic, insults tamely submitted to are fatal to empire. He also met Mr. Cobden on the subject of the debt. The debt of India in 1833 was 38,000,000/. ; the debt of India is now 53,000,0001. The addition to the debt upon the face of the account so stated is 15,000,0001. But then there was in 1833 only 8,400,0001. of balances in the Indian ex- chequer ; there is now 15,000,0001. of balances: that surplus of 6,600,000/. subtracted from the 15,000,000/. of apparently additional debt leaves stand- ing only an addition of 8,400,000/. of Indian debt ; and this after the war with Burmah, and after the Punjaub war, and the war in Scinde,—all wars most expensive and most important, which have been conducted one and all to a successful conclusion, with an addition to the debt of only 8,400,0001. Meanwhile, although the debt has increased from 38,000,000/. to 53,000,0001., the revenue has increased from 18,500,000/. to 29,000,000/. Many able men have been sent out under the system of patronage as it exists at present; but still it is a system not conducive to the welfare of the country. That is why Ministers have devised a plan to put an end to it. Testifying to the employment of Natives to an extent that would have sur- prised Malcolm, Monro, and Elphinstone, had it been predicted to them in 1833, Sir James said that no more dangerous course, in the present critical situation of affairs, could be taken than for the House to reject this mea- sure; for the rejection of this measure would be the effect of adopting the amendment.

Sir HERBERT MADDOCK approved of much in the bill ; especially of that provision which deprived Directors of patronage and opened the ser- vice to competition : but he wished it had been carried farther, and that a large portion of the military appointments had been made on the same plan. The power of the Governor-General should be increased, and Natives should be educated and employed. He should vote against the amendment ; because if the bill were rejected it would have a prejudicial effect on the minds of the people of India, and bring the Queen's Govern- ment into disrepute.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE replied to Sir James Graham, and supported the amendment. Mr. MoNcetrost MILNER supported the second reading.

Mr. BRIGHT, after all he had heard, retained his opinion that it would be the wiser course to reject the bill, and delay all permanent legislation for two years.

He argued for delay at great length; treating Lord Dalhousie's opinion as the reply to a leading question or hint from Sir James Hogg or somebody. "If this measure were delayed for two years, not all the Dalhousies or Boards of Control in the world would persuade Parliament to pass a measure of this kind." Mr. Bright renewed his attack upon the Company for their judicial system, their neglect of public works, and their management of the finances. He described the constitution of the Home Government. The Court of Pro- prietors has no control over the Court of Directors, and the Court of Directors has no control over the Secret Committee, and the Secret Committee has no control over the Board of Control. The press has no control over that body and Parliament itself is deluded and baffled whenever it attempts to lay hold of anything connected with India. After ten years' experience, he defied any one, unless he were a member of the Government, or acted with the Go- vernment, to grapple with any question that took place in India—to lay hold of it—to fathom it—to remedy it if it were a grievance, as he would any ques- tion at home or in the Colonies. That was the grievance he complained of as to the government of India as at present constituted ; and no Government or bill that continued that subterfuge—that put that mask on a great empire— would ever meet from him any other opinion than that which he b ad expressed of the present Government, and of the bill which Sir Charles Wood had in- reduced.

As to the war expenditure, perhaps if the English people had to pay it, they would take more interest in India. But while the Directors taunted the Board of Control with causing that war, they had never protested against it. He was not the defender of the Board of Control; but the men who sat in Leadenhall Street as the accredited rulers of India, holding the govern- ment of a great empire, and saw these things going on, and never told their grief, but sat there, with their 3001. a year, revelling in the corruption of their patronage, and sheltered from the public opinion of the United King- dom or the English press, had no right to stand up and charge anything against the Board of Control. By the course which Parliament were now taking, they were ignoring our own constitution, and casting mud upon the representative institutions which we professed to value so highly. The Crown, the courts of justice, the highest interests of this great nation, and those of our great dependencies, are amenable to the high court of Parlia- ment. But this Indian empire is isemething so vast, so distant, so dan- geroug, so mysterious, that it cannot be brought upon the table of that

House lest it should become the victim of faction on one side or the other. He did not believe a word of it. Whatever evil faction did in that House, yet from the contests which they waged there came the vast supe- riority in many .things which was to be found in this country over most other countries in the world ; and if matters in the Colonies were now bet- ter than they had been, or were rendered more secure to the people of those colonies, it arose from the constant assaults of Members of that House upon the Government of the day, and from the constant appeals of the press to the judgment, benevolence, and intellect of the people of this country. With regard to the Indian empire, if it were said that having been conquered by force of arms it was to be kept only by force and terror—if it were to be go- verned by a government in a mask—if the people and Parliament of Eng- land were to be shut out from all consideration with regard to it—why, then, the glory of that House would have departed, and we should have proved ourselves a nation which, having conquered a country, had main- tained merely the conquest of arms, while we had not the intellect, the be- nevolence, or the ability to govern it as it deserved. The debate was continued by Mr. HARDINGE on behalf of the bill ; and by Sir JAMES WEIR Hoe° in amplification of his previous defence of the East India Company. It was further adjourned, on the motion of Mr. Rim.

On Thursday the debate was resumed and concluded. In a very thin House, Mr. RICH made a speech not only against the bill, but against the past government of India under the East India Company, and gave his support to the amendment. The discussion, until near its close, had the same monotonous characteristics as preceding discussions ; and following Mr. Rich, long speeches of the same character, on either side, were de- livered. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE defended the Company ; criticized the bill; but opposed the amendment. He also went into the details of a plan for the government of India, based on an independent constituency of persons in this country who have property in India ; the disposal of patronage by the Governor-General, the Directors, and our academic in- stitutions ; and providing for government in the name of the Queen. Mr. Bruce strongly objected to the mode of disposing of patronage laid down in the bill. Mr. MAJORIBANKS defended the Court of Proprietors, and opposed the amendment. Mr. NAPIER felt bound to give his honest support to the amendment : but he did not repudiate the bill—he only said that delay is necessary. Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR advocated the bill. Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. supported the amendment in a long discourse; which, however, consisted of materials already used on previous nights, put into a new shape ; closing with a sentimental allusion to the India of the future, coming up out of the wilderness " leaning on the arm of Bri- tish sympathy and guided by the genius of British reform." At this stage of the debate Sir CHARLES WOOD rose, and asked the House to descend from the poetic elevation to which they had been led— to turn away from that sight in the wilderness of India ' leaning on the arm of British sympathy," to the more practical question, whether or not the bill should be read a second time that night ? Sir Charles then took up various assertions made by preceding speakers ; correcting some, refuting others, and setting the contradictory arguments of the Opposition against each other. This he did with great effect, defending the bill as he went along. He pointed to Mr. Hume asking for delay to keep up the East India Company, and to Mr. Bright asking for two years to pull it down. He showed that Mr. Blackett had complained of the non-pro-- sentation of public documents, notably on Indian finance, which were ac- tually on the table ; and that he had wrongly employed the statistics both as regarded the state of the debt and the consumption of salt. To Mr. Bright's description of the state of Bengal from newspaper reports he replied, that Mark:root-1's _Magazine or Sir Fitzroy Kelly's speeches last year might as well be quoted as descriptions of the condition of England. Then Mr. Bright said the measure was as good as a permanent lease; while Mr. Hume found fault with it because it was provisional; and Lord Stanley said it was an experiment. Mr. Cobden's exposition of the finances of India he met by a counter-statement. Debt had increased since 1833 by about 500,000/. a year; but revenue had increased 2,000,000/. a year. Out of the last four years there had been a surplus in three. He contended that the onus of proof lay with those who wished to defer legislation ; he sustained the Government policy; and insisted that they would be trifling with a most important sub- ject—with the welfare and possibly the security of our empire in India—if they dealt with the question after the manner proposed by Lord Stanley. Mr. DISRAELI began by hoping to imitate the statesmanlike speech of Lord Stanley on moving the amendment; and then launched into an exordium on the spirit of party.

In eulogizing the unimpassioned spirit of the debate, Members had been betrayed into inconvenient and dangerous misconceptions. They had been told this is not a party question,—as if a party question were necessarily an improper question. The House of Commons is a House of Party ; and were it not, it would not long exist. " I consider purely party questions are questions which concern the distinctive principles of the two great parties into which a popular assembly is necessarily divided. Aristocracy, or

democracy—protection, or unrestricted competition—an endowed and es- tablished church, or complete dependence on the voluntary system,— these are principles perfectly. distinct; they are professed by different

parties ; they are party principles, and, if brought into discussion, such discussions are debates upon purely party questions. But it is taking a very limited view of a party question to bound it merely by the description upon which I have ventured. Hitherto it has been supposed that when any great legislative difficulty has been brought under the consideration of Parliament, there has been a noble and generous emulation between the two parties of the country which should solve the difficulty in the most satisfactory manner, and—when a question of contro- verted policy arises—which should recommend the course most for the hon- our of the country and most for the advantage and welfare of the people." Therefore, he could not understand how a great party could take refuge in some neutrality. On the contrary, they owe it to their constituents and to themselves to state why they differ from the Government. He made these observations because he differed from many gentlemen with whom he acted in political connexion. But he should be sorry if the young men on his side, who are devoting themselves to the service of their country, should, when the next India bill is debated, "refer to the debates of the year 1853, and regret that they were so wanting in sagacity or moral courage that, be- cause party inconvenience might accrue—(Cheera from the Opposition)— they shrank from expressing an opinion upon one of the most important sub- jects that can engage the attention of Parliament." He denied that the course they had taken was unprecedented ; or that there was any doubt as to the exact question before the House. Ministers proposed a plan for the government of India ; "we join issue on the point that it is not an adequate and sufficient plan "—that is the question. As to precedent—in 1813 Earl Grey and Lord Grenville objected to such hurried legislation ; and actually declared they would not attend the discussion of the measure ; and they absented themselves accordingly. "I do not say thi.t this is a course of conduct which we ought to follow. I have no doubt that it is a Whig precedent which Ministers would gladly wish in this hot month of June to see us pursue: but this is a harder age than in 1813; and.I sus- pect Ministers will find a legitimate but prolonged opposition to this mea- sure." In 1833, Mr. Charles Wynn recommended a short continuance bill, and then legislation in a maturer spirit. It is not necessary to look beyond 1833. There are five complaints now urged ; what are they Constant wars ; constant deficits; no education ; few public works; maladministration of justice. " Well, but are not these the five great pleas which were urged in 1833 ? Why do we hear of them again in 1853 ? Are they to be the five points of your Charter ?" (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Disraeli contended that the

Lord JOSE RUSSELL promised to make no observations upon Parlia- mentary Reform—the great question of India was sufficient ; but he could not avoid remarking upon the lesson which Mr. Disraeli seemed .disposed to give to his party. There is nothing dishonourable in struggling for the ascendancy of prin- ciples which you believe will-promote the welfare of the country. But a party ought to have a settled purpose—a decided policy ; and on this occa- sion Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli have both been wanting in the preference of any policy that they can recommend. (Cheers.) Neither threw much light on the question before the House, and Mr. Disraeli had to prop up the amendment by weakening the influence and combating the arguments of two gentlemen, the highest authorities of his party—one of whom Lord Derby pitched upon as President of the Board of Control, and the other the Chairman of the India Committee—whose experience and sagacity Mr. Dis- raeli ought to be the last man to call inquestion. "That is the way in which a great party is weakened." (Cheers.) Turning to the amendment, Lord John said that Mr. Bright—whose con- duct had been frank, direct, and intelligible—had ventured to affirm that if two years of agitation were given, no Government founded on the East India Company would be sanctioned by the House. And Lord John agreed with Mr. Bright. "If," he said, "for two years you have continual agita- tion, excited hopes, and inflamed opinions on the subject of the government of India—if for two years you should support throughout India the notion that the present Government of India should be displaced, and that some- thing more grateful to the popular feeling, some representation of all classes, something wild and impracticable, should be put in its place—and if you find every man who has not been successful as a lawyer, or who has been disappointed as an applicant for office—(Cheers and laughter)—if you find these all adding to the agitatioxia this oetinlisfl and endeavouring to indis- pose the people of India to expect and approve of, a Continuance of the present system of government,—I own I am willing to avow that the enact- meat by Parliament of such a government would be highly problematical. But is that all ? Will nothing else be seen in that time ? Is it only the continuation of the Government that would be iu question ? Would it not be the very empire itself ? Could any man tell me that at the end of the two years there would be any surety that British rule would still exist in India ? " (Cheers.)

If greater dangers existed in 1833, Lord Grey met them by prompt legisla- tion; and to complete his precedent, Mr. Disraeli should admit the policy of doing in 1853 what was done in 1833. Lord John defended the double government, the proposed mode of distri- buting patronage, and the reform of the Court of Directors. Nothing could be more injurious, more dangerous, than placing the patronage in the hands of Ministers. He would not go into the mode in which our govern- ment in India has been conducted, but he praised it in general terms, and declared that our rule has laid the foundation for a change of character, by which the people will learn that in English estimation truth and justice are to take the place of falsehood and venality. The House divided on the question "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question "—Ayes, 322 ; Noes, 140 ; Govern- ment majority, 182. The bill was then read a second time.

GOVERNMENT MEASURES FOR JAMAICA.

The Duke of Nnwessnas announced the measures proposed by Govern- ment in consequence of the unfortunate dissensions which have arisen in Jamaica, and which have impeded the plans of retrenchment in that co- lony. The Duke explained how the difficulties arose. The constitution of Jamai- ca originated neither in a charter from the Crown nor an act of Parliament, like that of other colonies, but in a patent granted by King Charles the Second ; shortly after which it assumed almost its present form. The power of the Crown was always small, and dissensions similar to those which have disturbed the island for the last thirty years began under the second Governor, appointed during the reign of Charles the Second, with the very same measure of refusing a revenue bill. The constituency of the island, in a population of about 400,000, does not exceed 3000. The qualification of the voters is threefold,—possession of pro- perty worth 101. a year, an annual rental of 501., or an annual payment of 51. in taxes. The Assembly possesses unusual financial powers : any mem- ber may introduce a money-vote or a money-bill; the Assembly votes the bills, expends the money, and has the power of auditing the public accounts. Taxes are imposed and repealed with reference to particular classes, and not to the general revenue and expenditure. The taxes are levied under bills passed for only twelve months ; the revenue being derived to the amount of 2530001.—eight-tenths of the whole—from the import-duties and the rum- duties. There is no civil list; the salaries:even of_the judges depend upon an annual vote.

The Duke of Newcastle very rapidly. traced the course of the present differences ; explaining how the Legislative Assembly and the Leiria- lative Council were in conflict on the subject of retrenchment , how when the retrenchment bill of the Assembly was rejected by the Coun- cil, the Assembly endeavoured to effect the same object by passing money-votes with strict appropriations ; how the Governor attempt., ed to introduce moderate councils by adjourning the Assembly, mote than once, to give time for reflection • and -how, finally, the import-duties and rum-duties acts had been suffered to expire, no revenue having been collected since the 30th of April, and about 10001. a day being thus lost to the revenue of the island since the 30th of April. The principal object of quarrel was certainjudicial and public salaries; which might require re- vision, but then it should be effected in a legitimate way. The Governor had explained as an act simply of prudent foresight what hid been re- ceived as a threat, when he said that he should be obliged to dismiss the police and relieve the colony from the heavy weight of the present prison es- tablishment, by introducing something like the ticket-of-leave system ; lan- guage which certainly was to be regretted. The Duke explained that Ministers could not accept the suggestion of the Governor to constitute Jamaica a Crown colony ; nor would they invoke the interference of Parliament without extreme necessity. On the 21st De- cember last Sir Charles Grey completed his period of service; and, in accord- ance with a notice given by the late Colonial Secretary, Sir John Pakington, he would be replaced by another officer. The appointment has been offered to Mr. Barkly, who arrived in this country very lately on leave of absence from British Guiana, where he had succeeded under circumstances of great difficulty. Mr. Barkly has accepted the offer, and has himself proposed that the retrenchments in Jamaica should begin with his own salary, to be lowered from 60001. to 50001. Of that sum 15001. is paid out of the Council fund, the remainder out of the vote of the Assembly ; and it is proposed to pay that remainder, for three years, by a vote of the British Parliament. The island debt amounts to about 700,0001., including loans from this country of about 160,0001. It is proposed that the Imperial credit should be lent to the island for a loan of 500,0001. probably at 3 per cent, which would save 15,0001. to the island. Of that saving, about 9000/. or 10,0001.iwould be set apart as a sinking-fund, to repay the debt in thirty years. A further credit would be extended to the island, say for 50,000/. ; which would enable the Colonists to abolish certain useless offices, and to grant compensation to the present holders. It would be necessary for the Colonial Legislature to take such measures as would render the guarantee practically a nominal one, by securing the permanent voting of taxes as in this country, and placing the finances under the proper management of paid and responsible public officers. That must be done be- fore other assistance, such as loans for immigration, could even be enter- tained ; though the Duke did not preclude himself from proposing other measures of assistance to the island. He also expressed himself favourable to the introduction of "responsible government" into Jamaica, probably with modifications suited to the special circumstances of the island. He con- cluded with an exhortation to the planting interest, now so rapidly declining, to place matters on a better footing "at the eleventh hour," and, before the Black population should attain that share of political power which is inevi- table, to arrange the better government of the island. These propositions were received with recognitions of the necessity, but with some exceptions, especially on the point of responsible govern- ment, from the Earl of DERBY and Earl GREY. Lord ST. VINCENT wished more relief. Lord WHARNCLIFFE heartily approved. Here the subject dropped.

FREE BLACK LABOUR.

In reply to a question from Lord BROUGHAM, the Duke of NEWCASTLE, corroborated by Earl Ganz, explained that a contract had been entered into between the Colonial Office and Messrs. Hytho and Hodges, most respectable shipowners, under which the latter undertook to supply the West Indian Colonies with such rescued slaves as might be willing to go. Subsequently they also undertook, subject to strict regulations, to get free labourers from the Kroo coast.

ssitai at grtireoveshria ' Tug: latoreemsra.t.

ssIantothaflikiltStirS for' the third .tending or the Income-tax Bill, Lord sassoesideiesplikiy-it-conelderible length against the principles of the tax: Taliftteefalliqliatetly upon capital inasmuch as it falls upon the profits of thesfP*Aorastitai, made for imprOvenaents in -agriculture, commerce, and sraturfa'grifff,I,Ildsis is an evil incidental to the tax and immoveable ; for no all'ar91W cgs-Pe made for those-years when there are no profits at all. lie urged at great length the arguments, so often repeated, that the tax is unequal oadlinquisitorial; and the machinery-by which it is raised, is so drelidf4-ithat he would note if he could avoid it, intrust it to any Go- vernment. But he felt that, with all its evils, the tax is a matter of ne- cessity, and ear/MA-be spared. He did not expect that it would expire in 1860s, He recalled the circumstances under which the old Income-tax was repealed, in defiance of the Government of that day ' • through the instrumentality of nightly, dissuasions on petitions,—apopular privilege no lorikei allowed in the House of Commons.

-SSA' 1806, when the Income-tax was 10 per cent, it was imposed till the entrof the war, and no longer. The war ended in 1814, but it broke out again .in, 1815 s and after its final termination a great.fight against the con- tinuance of the tax took place in the House of Commons. It had been said thatifieiresent Income-tax would not be abandoned in 1860 ; and he be- lieved that the campaign which took place in Parliament in 1816 could not be fought again. How was that campaign conducted ?—By means of peti- tions. For five-or six weeks, from four o'clock in the afternoon till two or three o'olook itt the morning, petition after petition was presented, and each petitionswas debated. If an account were given of the proceedings of the five or six weeks during which that campaign against the Income-tat was fought,-it would describe one of the most extraordinary scenes ever witnessed within the Walls of the House of Commons, and a resistance which was per- fectly suedessful. He might mention one incident which occurred during those discussions. After the fight had continued some three weeks or more, one night.about eleven or twelve o'clock, a question was put from the chair about bringing up the petitions ; and all the Members on one bench—who might have been supposed to be exhausted by the long sitting—rose in com- petition with each other to catch, as it was called, the Speaker's eye ; and the gallantry of those men in standing by their colours under such circum- stances so struck the House that they were hailed with a general cheer of applause. He did not think, however, that in 1860, unless a great change took place elsewhere, the same campaign and stand against the Income-tax would be possible." Lord MoSinssour felt great difficulty in agreeing to the reimposition of the tax as a substitute for a number of assessed taxes and customs-duties bearing upon the wealthier classes. But Government has certainly pro- mised that the tax should terminate in 1860 ; and he thought greater securities for the performance of that promise are contained in the bill, and in the accompanying financial measures, than in the act of 1806 re- ferred to by Lord Brougham ; and he hoped Government would take measures to secure that result as far as it is in their power. The bill was then read a third time. On the question that the bill do now pass, the Earl of WICKLOW moved an alteration of the 13th clause, whereby the mode of assessment in Ire- land would be assimilated to that in England. It is unfair that the land- lord should have to pay the tax on rents he never received. The mode of assessanent in the-bill is exceptional; and the clause drawn to remedy the grievance would not do so, for in Ireland rent is not lost from insolvent, bankrupt, or absconding tenants, but from tenants who would neither pay nor abscond.

The Earl of AnEnnEnsr defended the mode of assessment laid down in the bill. The Income-tax is extended' to Ireland under favourable cir- cumstances. The Valuation of the Poor-law—below the rental—is the basis of the tax ; and where the rental is lower than the valuation, the landlord can pay on the amount of the rent. In every point of view consideration has been had for proprietors.

In the debate that followed, Lord BEAUMONT vehemently supported Lord Wicklow's proposition; and denounced the bill as a "lie," for placing a tax as an income-tax on property that may not produce any in- come at all.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE rebuked Lord Beaumont for his sudden and impassioned attack, and -vindicated the justness of the measure. In the course of his speech, the Duke gave some statistical information as to the number of tenants in Ireland.

He had that morning received some most important statistical information which had been published as to the state of the occupiers of land. The total number of the occupiers in Ireland valued at 6/. and under was 564,144. The number of occupiers rated over 61. and under 2001. was 397,575. Adding those under 61., it made the number of tenants valued under 200/., 961,719, very nearly 1,000,000. This showed the number of persons rated under 2001. in Ireland. Now, what was the number of persons rated at 300/. ? The number was 3716—that was the total number of landlords in Ireland rated at 3001. The number of persons rated over 3001. could not be more than 1500.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE appealed to the fears of the Government. If they would not reconsider the point, they would hear of it again ; for it affected the most loyal, the most intelligent men—not disloyal agi- tators, but the very class who ought to be conciliated. Lord CAMPBELL followed on the same side. The tax would be levied on the owner ; but in some parts of Ireland rent is paid, in some it is not paid. In England the occupier has to pay the tax—why should a different system be adoptestin Ireland ? Then the remedy is a mockery, except in cases of bankruptcy, or insolvency, or absconding. Lord MONTEAGLE and the Earl of CLANCARTY also supported the amendment : but it was rejected, by 34 to 18.

The Earl of Luosst objected to the 42d clause, which provides that a reduction of one-third should be allowed on payment of rent-charges un- der the Drainage Acts. He, thought that the whole should be deducted, instead of one-third. Some discussion ensued : but this amendment also was rejected, by 21 to 10 ; and the bill passed.

ENCUMBERED ESTATES COVET CONTINUANCE BLLL.

On the motion for the Lords to go into Committee on this bill, Lord ST. Laostanns offered some objections. The Estates Court had been de- signed to meet an exceptional case, and it ought not to endure beyond the necessity of. that case. This bill was framed with the view not of winding-up, but of .continuing indefinitely, and enlarging very mate- rially, the:powers of the Commissioners. He believed that the opinions of all. the great legal authorities in Ireland, including the late Lord Chancellor.of.-that country, the present Lord Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, were unfavourable to any extension of those powers. The Loan Criestenton said that the ,question was, whether the present unwholesome state of the law ought to terminate ? The test of the propriety of continuing the Court is shown by the number who pray for the benefit of the act.

He found, for instance, that from the 31st of July 1852 to the 1st of February 1853, there had been no fewer than 240 petitions presented, which was at the rate of about 35 per month; and that from the let of Fe- bruary to the 31st of March last the number presented amounted to 60„ which was as nearly as possible at the same rate. It appeared, therefore,. that the anxiety of encumbrancers to have the benefit of the act had been going on as vigorously as ever during the last few months. He had under- stood that the very highest functionaries in Ireland thought it not desirable that the Court should be brought to an abrupt termination. He proposed to. fix the period of continuance at two years, because he hoped that by that time the Irish Chancery Court would be so far reformed as to enable it per- manently to discharge the duties of the Estates Court. Referring to the amount of property sold by the Commissioners up to the 1st of April last, he said it was no less than 8,700,0001.; of which 6,100,0001. had been dis- tributed.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought the working of the Encumbered Estates Court had on the whole been a blessing to Ireland : but it should be made permanent ; so long as it was temporary it would be a great, hardship on the rest of the real property of Ireland.

The House went into Committee ; and, with two immaterial exceptions, the clauses were agreed to.

TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. VINCENT SCULLY, in moving the second reading of the Transfer of Land Bill, made a long speech on the whole subject of land-tenure legis- lation ; going back as far as 1830, when the attention of Parliament was first seriously called to the subject ; thence jumping to 1846 ; and from that date down to the present session tracing the growth of opinion in favour of the facile conveyance of land. Mr. Scully has had considerable experience as an owner, occupier, and con- veyancer; and he had arrived at the conclusion that there should be complete free trade in land. To this the people of the Channel Islands attributed their prosperity ; and it had received the assent of the French people. He was not, however, going to propose that we should imitate France by adopt- ing their compulsory system. He simply wished for perfect freedom. By the first clause of his bill it is proposed to allow, upon the application of the owner of property to the land-tribunal constituted by the act, that the tribunal may direct a full investigation of the title to be made, and, if

found good, may order that the land should be brought under the operation of the act. The second clause explains the effect of such proceeding to be, that no person should be at liberty to embarrass the land with any future settlement or new estate ; but if the owner desires to raise money on the land, he may only do so by a land-debenture, though he may grant leases of the property. By the third section it is enacted, that after any land is brought under the operation of the act, the land-tribunal may, after a full investigation of title, make an order declaring all existing estates and interests in the land, and all encumbrances thereon, and cause suoh order to be entered in the books of the tribunal. Such entry will, as regards any estate, interest, or encumbrance appearing thereon, be con- clusive evidence against all persons whomsoever ; and the tribunal may grant to the person so entered as entitled to any such estate, interest, or encumbrance, a certificate of his title thereto. The fourth clause is one of the most important in the bill : it authorizes any person entered as owner of any estate to transfer his estate by simple entry in the books of the tribunal ; and that entry, without any deed or other assurance, will suffice to vest in the person named in the transfer all the estate and interest hi re- spect of which the prior owner has been entered in the books of the tribunal. Mortgages and all other charges upon land will be converted into one—land- debenture. The land-tribunal might charge an estate with land-debentures to a limited extent—they will bear a small interest, and form good securi- ties. The debentures, in sums it may be of 1004 each, will be registered in the books of the tribunal, and, being subject to a stamp-duty, will produce an enormous revenue to the country, and will be negotiable by simple de- livery, like a promissory note payable to bearer.

He did not expect to carry his bill this session, unless Government would take it up ; and he should rest content with having it referred to the Select Committee on the Registration of Assurances Bill, after the second reading.

Sir Tom" Yenisei made no objection to the second reading, and he thanked Mr. Scully for his speech. He announced that Government in- tend to appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole subject ; and he hoped that next session, at any rate before the Encumbered Estates Court should expire, a general plan for a permanent settlement would be prepared.

The bill was read a second time, and referred to the Select Committee on the Registration of Assurances Bill.

SHERIFF-COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

In Committee on this bill, Mr. CRAUFUR.D moved that the jurisdiction of the court should be extended from 121. to 25/. ; and that no procurator should be entitled to recover any sum of money for pleading or appearing unless the debt or damage claimed is more than 81. 6s. 8d.

The LORD ADVOCATE, supported by Mr. CHAnTERIS, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. WORTLEY, Mr. ALEXANDER HASTIE, and Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR, ob- jected to reopening before the Committee of the whole House the discus- sion of the clauses agreed to by the Select Committee without a division. Mr. Hears condemned the animus of the Select Committee ; on which, he said, there were eleven Members pledged to refuse discussion. Ho entered into some of the proceedings of the Committee, and objected strongly to the bill because it did not abolish Sheriffs-Depute. The pro- posed amendment was rejected by 82 to 14; and the bill passed through Committee.

THE IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD.

Mr. WaspotE, referring to the eighth rule of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, based two questions on it.

Hitherto the construction of the eighth rule was, that if the parent of any child objected to its being taught from a particular book, such child should not be compelled to be taught from that book ; but not that the objection of a single child was to prevent the book in question from being read in the school at all. It was reported that recently the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland had come to two resolutions,—one, that Archbishop Whately's Evidences of Christianity should be expunged from the list of books used in the National Schools; the other, that if the parent of any child objected to the use of a single book in use in the schools, that was suf- ficient to cause the exclusion of the book from that particular school. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, first, whether the Commis- sioners of National Education in Ireland had rejected or expunged from the list of books to be used in the National Schools the Evidences of Christianity by the Archbishop of Dublin ? second, whether they had determined that, if any child's parent should object to the use of any single book, it was a sufficient reason for excluding such book, not from that child only, but from the whole school ?

Sir Joan YouNG said it was difficult to give an explicit answer to the question at the present time. There bad been a great deal of misunderstanding on the subject, both as to the practice and the opinions of the Board of Commissioners of Education. The opinions of the Board were divided, and the practice not altogether uni- form. It was unfortunate to find any differences relative to the religious education heretofore given in the schools being continued ; but the House must recollect the foundation on which this system was built. When Lord Stan- ley established the system of National Education in Ireland, he proposed to give to children of all persuasions a combined literary and separate religious instruction. Differences had arisen of late as to the construction of the eighth rule, but no formal decision had yet been come to : but he was informed means had been taken to ascertain the opinions of the Commissioners among them- selves, and the deliberate expression of those opinions had not been withheld from the Irish Government. The rule was as follows- " The Commissioners do not insist upon the Scripture Lessons being read in any of the National Schools; nor do they allow them to be read during the time of secu- lar or literary instruction in any school attended by children whose parents or guard- ians object to their being so read. In such cases, the Commissioners prohibit the use of them except at the times of religious instruction, when the persons giving it may use these lessons or not, as they think proper." Doubts had arisen relative to the construction of this rule; but the prac- tice of the Commissioners had apparently been not to insist upon the Scrip- ture Lessons being read in any of the schools against the wish of parents; and where a single child objected to the use of these works during the time of secular instruction, they were relegated to the period of separate religious instruction. It was proposed to act upon this rule in the sense that these books were not to be relegated to the hours of religious instruction, but that, if an objection were made to the reading of any religious works, a portion of each day should be set apart for their reading, with due notice of the time at which those books should be used by the children whose parents did not object to their use. Such a resolution would have been assented to by a majority of the Commissioners, provided that the Easy Lessons on Christ- ianity were omitted from the list of the religious works in use in the schools. With regard to the question, whether the Evidences of Christian- ity and the Easy Lessons on Christianity had been expunged, it was true that the Roman Catholics and many others had taken objection to these as polemical works. He hoped that no honourable gentleman would give an opinion on this subject without having read the works in question. He desired to be understood as not pronouncing an opinion himself, but he believed that no one could read the Easy Lessons without pleasure and advantage : short as this work was, he regarded it as a masterpiece of con- densed Scriptural knowledge and logical acumen. He did not suppose that practically any great alteration would be made by the withdrawal of these

i

books, because in the estimate of the number of books used in the Irish Na- tional Schools during the year, he found that while of the First Book of Lessons 260,000 copies were used in a year, of the Second Book 152,000, of the Third 76,000, of the Fourth 41,500, and of the book on Arithmetic 49,000, the whole number of the Easy Lessons on Christianity was only 1200, being at the rate of one of these volumes to every fourth school. He believed that the question had created some difference of opinion, but that there had been no more extended adoption of the work than he had described in the National Schools.

Mr. WALPOLE observed that his second question had not been an- swered. Sir Joni.; YOUNG replied, that if an objection were made on the part of the parent of a single child, the practice would appear to have been that the reading of the book would be relegated to the hours of separate religious instruction, in the way he had described.

BALLOT-VOTING.

Mr. BONHAX CARTER moved for leave to bring in a bill to " provide, that whenever a commission to inquire into the corrupt practices at any election for any county, division of a county, city, borough, university, or place, in the United Kingdom, shall have issued, under the provisions of the act of the 15th and 16th years of her present Majesty, the votes at the two elections next subsequent thereupon in any such place shall be taken by ballot." He thought it desirable that the ballot should be tried on a limited scale ; and under his bill it would be tried at Barnstaple, Tynemouth, Canterbury, Cambridge, and Hull.

The House was very thinly attended. Not a single Cabinet Minister

was present; and in the unavoidable absence of his colleagues, and at the request of Lord John Russell, Mr. FREDERICK PEEL opposed the intro- duction of the bill. The subject of the bill had already been fully dis- ensiled : if adopted, voting by ballot would not check bribery—it might check intimidation; but it also might cause greater evils than benefits. It was not fair to inflict those evils on particular districts. Mr. HENRY BERKELEY would not vote against the motion, but he could not vote for it. He objected to getting the ballot by homoeopathic doses. Here Mr. FRENCH, alluding to the Royal christening as the cause of the absence of Ministers, moved the adjournment of the House ; which was carried, amid general cheering, without a division.

Late on Wednesday afternoon, another small ballot motion was made.

Mr. FRESILVIELD moved for a new writ for Liverpool. This brought up Lord Dun= STUART, to move that the votes should be taken by ballot at the next election for Liverpool. Cries of " Divide!" arose ; but Lord Dudley persisted, and began a regular speech in favour of the ballot, by a reference to the speech of Mr. Sidney Herbert in the late debate. For this he was called to order. Then he declared he found precedents for his course on the Opposition side. But the clock striking six, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, amid much laughter.

THE RUSSO-TURKISH QUESTION.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord LYNDHURST put a question to the Earl of Aberdeen, as follows— "I wish to ask the noble Earl at the head of the Government, if he has any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the state paper published recently in the Journal of St. Petersburg and signed by M. Nes- selrode, with respect to the differences with the Ottoman Porte ? As I am not in any way connected with the Government, I may, without creating any embarrassment, venture to say, that if the copy of it I have here be correct, it is one of the most fallacious, one of the most illogical, and one of the most offensive and insulting documents of that description it has ever been my misfortune to read."

The Earl of ABERDEEN was understood to reply, that he could not at that moment say he would lay the paper referred to on the table ; but he might not be indisposed to do so in a few days.

Next day, in the other House, Mr. LAYARD renewed the notice on the subject which he gave some time since—

He thought that the time has arrived when the public is entitled to be put

in possession of full information respecting the grave state of affairs in the East; and therefore he would, on the 8th of July, bring forward the motion, of which he had already given notice, respecting the questions pending be- tween Turkey and Russia.

SUBSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION.

The Loan CHANCELLOR has brought in a bill for doing away with trans- portation in the case of certain minor offences, and substituting for it penal servitude, which should consist of imprisonment and hard labour for a certain term, and afterwards of employment on public works according to the discretion of the Executive. The bill was read a first time.