Commons Sitting of 5 February 1858

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT for Northampton County (Southern Division), v. Viscount Althorp, now Earl Spencer.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—for Northampton County (Northern Division), George Ward Hunt, esq.
1° Tay Fisheries; East India Loan.

RELIEF OF LUCKNOW—MR. CAVANAGH.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary for War if it is the intention of the Minister for War to advise Her Majesty to confer any mark of favour on Sergeant "Caraugh" (Cavanagh), of the 88th, for his gallantry in passing through the rebel army with important information from Lucknow to Sir Colin Campbell?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under some misapprehension as to the identity of the individual to whom his question referred. He (Sir J. Ramsden) had inspected the muster roll of the 88th regiment, and found that no sergeant of the name of "Caraugh" was borne on its books. He also believed, seeing what was the position of the 88th regiment at the time, that it would have been impossible for any man belonging to it to have been within the walls of Lucknow, as the regiment itself had been left with General Windham's force at Cawnpore; but, in a general order, dated the 10th of December, 1857, issued by the Governor General of India, he found the following paragraph relating to a Mr. Cavanagh:—
  "His Excellency the Commander in Chief mentions with just appreciation the valuable aid which he received from Mr. Cavanagh, of the uncovenanted civil service; and the Governor General in Council offers his special thanks to Mr. Cavanagh, whose conduct will be borne in mind by the Government."
  He might further say that he was not aware that the Governor General had sent
  758
  home any recommendation relating to Mr. Cavanagh; but, if he did, of course it would receive the attention which it deserved.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (IRELAND)— GRAND JURY LAWS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUMEsaid, he; wished to ask the Secretary of State for Ireland, Whether he means to introduce a Bill this Session; and if so, how soon; for the better regulation of the weights and measures of Ireland? also, whether he means to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Grand Jury Laws of that country?
  MR. HENRY HERBERTsaid, he had already given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the fairs and markets in Ireland; and that measure would, to a certain extent, establish a uniformity of weights and measures. He had also prepared a Bill on the subject of the Grand Jury Laws, but he could not say when the business of the House would enable him to introduce it,

  TRANSFER OF LAND—QUESTION.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would ask the Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill for the registration of titles, and the facilitating the transfer of land?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had hoped that he should have obtained permission to introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners on the subject of the registration of titles and the transfer of land. He believed that measure to be one of great importance, and most beneficial to the community, and that it would have rendered the registration of titles and the transfer of land as easy and secure as the registration and transfer of funded property or railway shares. He had prepared a Bill on the subject; but great difficulty had been felt with regard to the proper principle of legislation in a quarter which was entitled to the highest respect, and to which he had been bound to defer; and he could not feel that there was at present any prospect of that Bill being introduced in the current Session of Parliament. He was happy, however, to say that measures which would unquestionably facilitate the transfer of land, though less extensive in their na-

  759
  ture, would be shortly laid by the Lord Chancellor before the other House of Parliament.

  THE WARRANT OF 1854—QUESTION.
  GENERAL PRELsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of War what steps are to be taken to remedy the evils which he admitted, on the part of the Military authorities, had arisen from the operation of the Warrant of 1854?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that on the last occasion, the hon. and gallant Gentleman put this question, he (Sir J. Ramsden) stated that the subject had, for some time, engaged the attention of his noble Friend at the head of the War Department, and the authorities at the Horse Guards. They were fully aware that the Warrant of 1854 had not answered the expectations of those who framed it; but, in attempting to make any alterations in it, the points to be considered were so various, and the difficulties so extremely great, that his noble Friend had not been able to decide on any plan that would conduce to the efficiency of the service—which was the main object to be kept in view—and, at the same time, be more favourable to the interests of the officers than the Warrant of 1854. The subject was one which had caused great anxiety to his noble Friend and the Commander in Chief; but, although various projects had been considered, no satisfactory conclusion had as yet been arrived at. Of course, when it was, it should be communicated to the House.

ROYAL BRITISH BANK DIRECTORS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUARTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General if it is his intention to continue the proceedings which had been commenced against the directors of the Royal British Bank?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he had never hesitated in his resolution to carry on the prosecution against those parties in the most effective manner. The only doubt he had felt was, whether he ought not to have instituted other proceedings of a similar nature.

THE PRINCESS ROYAL'S MARRIAGE.

  ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I gave notice yesterday that I would to-day move an Address of congratulation to Her Majesty on the recent marriage of the Princess Royal. By the strict rules of the
  760
  House I could not bring forward that Motion until after the Orders of the day, but I am sure it would be more agreeable to the House that it should take precedence of other business, and I, therefore, move that the Orders of the Day be postponed until that Motion is disposed of.
  Motion agreed to. Orders postponed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to perform a duty which is no less gratifying to me than I am persuaded it will be agreeable to this House, namely, to move that this House should address Her Majesty to congratulate her upon the recent marriage of the Princess Royal with Prince Frederick William of Prussia. There has been no event, I think, since the marriage of Her Majesty herself which has so much enlisted the feelings and so much excited the interest of the whole British nation. There could be no stronger proof of this than the immense multitude which a few days ago assembled in the streets of the metropolis amidst all the inclemency of a winter's day—the snow falling and a piercing wind blowing, to bid a last farewell to Her Royal Highness on quitting the shores of her native country. It was, indeed, natural that the people of this country should feel an interest in everything which related to the Princess Royal. She was the firstborn of that marriage which excited so much interest in the nation, and although the events of her childhood and early years are in general not much known to the world at large, yet the nation has by some means or other known and watched the progressive development of the amiable qualities of Her Royal Highness. It has known how her warm affections have been matured by increasing years, and it has seen how an admirable education has formed and cultivated her mind. Sir, it is often the fate of princes and princesses that their marriages are merely marriages of political convenience. They are put together at the altar, having known of each other nothing more than what vague and distant report has conveyed to them of their mutual intellectual qualities and character, having seen of each other nothing more than some faint resemblance conveyed in a painted miniature. The Royal pair of whom I am now speaking have been more fortunate. They indeed have belonged to that class whom, it is said,
  "——gentle stars unite, and in one fate
  "Their hearts, their fortunes, and their feelings blond."

  761
  They have had the advantage of knowing each other for a considerable period. They have had the means of estimating mutually the high qualities which adorn them both. That knowledge of each other's character, and the esteem which has been grounded upon that knowledge, will be, I trust, the surest foundation for their future happiness, and the best security for their domestic enjoyments, with which I am sure every one must wish they may be blessed. A marriage such as that which the Princess Royal has contracted roust realise the fondest wishes of an affectionate mother; and there is this also in the circumstances of her marriage, that although the Princess Royal is probably destined hereafter to fill a brilliant and distinguished position, yet for the present at least there is nothing in her high station which may prevent frequent visits to this country, or interfere with those domestic meetings so dear to all families. Therefore, Sir, without further preface, as I feel I should be doing injustice to the sentiments of the House if I were to think that any arguments or reasoning of mine were necessary to lead them to an unanimous vote, I shall simply conclude by moving the Address I have put in your hands. I will mention that when this Address is agreed to I shall move that it be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House, being satisfied that that mode of presentation will be as gratifying to the Members of this House, as I am authorised to state, it will be to Her Majesty.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to congratulate Her Majesty on the happy Nuptials of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal with His Royal Highness the Prince Frederick William of Prussia; and to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction which this House feels at an event so gratifying to Her Majesty, and which they trust will be so conducive to the domestic happiness of Her Royal Highness.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am sure that Her Majesty's faithful Commons never united in an Address to the Crown with more complete cordiality than they do upon the present occasion. Nothing, in my opinion, Sir, has been more remarkable or more interesting in the late unanimous expression of feeling with regard to this Royal Marriage on the part of this country than the strong domestic principle which has pervaded the whole of this great and powerful nation. That feeling is the purest, as it is the strongest, source of social happiness and of national power.
  762
  That general homage was offered, I am sure, on this occasion principally because there has been a conviction on the part of the country, as the noble Lord well reminds us, that this alliance has been brought about not so much by political considerations as from the impulses of nature and affection. That domestic feeling has been strongly exhibited in this country on the present occasion from the wishes that have been felt by the nation to express their attachment and respect or the Royal parents of our Princess; because they have long felt that under the illustrious roof under which she has dwelt, there is as much respect felt for the happiness of the hearth as for the splendour of the throne. Sir, in the new career which opens before the Princess Royal all those incidents which can combine for the happiness of individuals are present. She certainly bears with her the good wishes of the Parliament and people of Great Britain; and when in due season she shall fill that brilliant position to which the noble Lord has referred, I have no doubt that the time will come when Englishmen will be as proud of the Queen of Prussia as they now are of the Queen of England.
  Motion agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I propose, Sir, that the House shall meet at two o'clock to-morrow, for the purpose of presenting the Address. I believe that Her Majesty will receive the Address at three o'clock; but if the House meets at two, we shall then be able to state precisely to the House at what hour Her Majesty will receive the Address.
  Agreed to.
  Address to be presented by the whole House. Privy Councillors humbly to know Her Majesty's pleasure when She will be attended

THE ALIEN ACT.
MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I gave notice yesterday that I would to-day put a question to the noble Lord on the Motion that the House at its rising adjourn until Monday, but as it appears we are to sit tomorrow, I will now move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of putting myself in order. My object is to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether there have been any communications between the Governments of England and France with respect to the Alien Act or any portion of our criminal code? The House, I believe, will understand the rea-

763
son why I put this question. They must have heard that since the event which I am sure inspired every Englishman with feelings of regret and detestation—the recent attack upon the life of the Emperor of the French—there have appeared in the pages of the Moniteur certain addresses to the Emperor of France from the French army. Those addresses, naturally enough, were expressed in terms of great indignation at the attempted violence against the Emperor's person, and also strong condemnation of and denunciations against the authors of the attempt so made. Now, Sir, if these expressions had rested there, I should be the first to sympathise with and give my cordial concurrence to every sentiment they contained. But from the French army there came also accusations against England, as though England were a participant in that attack upon the person of the Emperor of France. I will, with the permission of the House, state the immediate object of my question. Hon. Gentlemen are aware that the Moniteur is not an ordinary paper; it is in fact the Gazette of the French Government. Everything it utters is under the immediate inspection of the French Government, and that Government is the Emperor. Therefore what appears in the pages of the Moniteur is, in fact, the reflex of the opinions of the Emperor of France. Well, Sir, in the pages of the Moniteur there appear these attacks upon the English people; and one colonel of a French regiment of the line—full, I suppose, of military ardour, and that loyalty which he and the French army have always exhibited to every ruling Monarch that has appeared in France—asks the French Emperor to be led against that haunt, that den, the répaire, of homicide, meaning England, Sir. Well, that language is published in the pages of the official Moniteur. It is published in fact by the French Emperor. That is his opinion; and I wish now to state my opinion. The French Emperor is the person to direct against England accusations of being the den of conspirators, and who could speak with greater knowledge of the fact than himself? Has he not enjoyed the protection and hospitality of England? Has he not, too, while so enjoying that protection and hospitality, acted the part of a conspirator himself? Did he not leave these shores armed with the great name of his predecessor, the name of the Great Napoleon; did he not, armed with that name, and with a tame
764
eagle, go to Boulogne and there attack the throne of King Louis Philippe; and did he not murder the man who in the performance of his duty opposed his landing? And this is the man who chooses to publish in the pages of the Moniteur accusations against England, for being the haunt and the den of homicides, where conspiracies are all hatched, and which ought, therefore, to be subjected to invasion and the rapine of his soldiery. But it is not confined to that—the brother of the Emperor of the French (the Count de Morny) has chosen in the Legislative Chamber of the French nation, to accuse England of being participant in this attempted crime. And not only he, but the Count de Persigny, the ambassador of France—in England, in the presence of Englishmen—has dared to make the same accusation; aye, Sir, and in the presence of Englishmen he has not been answered—the only reason that I can conceive being, that the persons who heard him did not understand the French language. For I cannot believe that any Englishman could hear his country so libelled, no matter by whom, without indignantly repelling the accusation on the spot. Those persons who heard the Count de Persigny accuse England of being participant in the criminal proceedings to which I have alluded, ought thereon immediately, and on the instant, if they understood him, to have answered him. They did not; but I will. I will say to him that no man more than I estimates highly the alliance between England and France; but there is something I estimate still more highly, and that is the honour and position of England. And so believing and so feeling, I would have told him that there is nothing in the character of Englishmen that in any way so ever conduces to or lends a sanction to assassination; there is nothing in the history of the country from the beginning to the end that can justify such an accusation. No English King has fallen by the hand of the assassin, though Kings of France have. We have condemned a King to the block, it is true, but it was in open day. Neither have we sent or hired anybody to kill any other sovereign for our own national satisfaction—privately I mean, and by assassination. My answer to Count Persigny would have been that the people of England are above assassination. When they feel indignant they express it, and go to war, if necessary, to vindicate their honour; but they do not

765
seek to avenge themselves privately, or by secret expeditions in steamboats, or, by assassins, make private attacks upon any foreign Government, or any foreign Sovereign. They do not make conspiracies in London to pull down a Government in Paris. Their course is open and honourable in dealing with their enemies as with their friends. When I came into the House yesterday with the determination of giving the notice I did give, I heard in my ear something like a whisper about a contemplated change in the Alien Law. It was said that at the solicitation of the Emperor of the French we were about to alter our Alien Law. I will say nothing, Sir, of the ingratitude of the man who now asks us to alter a law by which he has profited so largely. But I say that England owes her position among the nations of the world in consequence, in a great measure, of the manner in which she has treated the people of all nations who have sought the asylum of our shores. We are here the refuge for the destitute of all nations. Louis Napoleon has come here; Metternich has come here; the Bourbons, Louis Philippe have all sought and obtained a safe refuge here; but no man said, no man had a right to say, that we should alter our laws because we gave them that refuge; and I say, if we change the law on this occasion we violate the first principles of our constitution, we degrade ourselves before the world, and are no longer the English people that our forefathers were. Well, I come to the House with my ear full of this inspiration. What, then, was my surprise to hear from the noble Lord an announcement that he would on Monday move for leave to introduce a Bill for altering the law in regard to conspiracies. What suggested to the noble Lord the necessity of such a change? Was it that any person of authority—for I presume that the noble Lord, with all his varied accomplishments, is not a lawyer—has told the noble Lord that the law of England could not reach conspiracies, or that the punishment which the ameliorated law of England awards to such crimes was insufficient? For at least a quarter of a century we have been doing all we could to render the criminal law of England less bloody than it had previously been. A quarter of a century ago our criminal code was the most cruel in Europe; but from that time to this we have by experience learned that a mild punishment certainly administered is the most effectual preventive of crime. Our own
766
domestic experience has taught us that; and I want to know who has suggested to the noble Lord that we should retrace our steps; that whereas conspiracies have hitherto been visited by fine and imprisonment, we should alter and bring back the law to the old standard of cruelty which we had abandoned. Sir, my question to the noble Lord is one of very significant importance. If England wishes to hold her place among the nations, if she wishes still to maintain her own independent position, no solicitation of an ally, no threatening on the part of anybody, ought to lead us to alter our laws. I have been told that some justification for the insolence with which England; has been treated in this matter is to be found in the speech made last November, by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, at the Mansion House. God forbid that the people of England should be made answerable for all the indiscretions of the noble Lord. I do not say, I do not believe, that the noble Lord was imprudent on that occasion; but admitting that he waft, no man knowns better than the Emperor of France how very little the noble Lord expresses the feeling of the people of England. If there was on that occasion a little menace—a little vapouring on the part of the noble Lord, it can scareely be said that the people of England, as a nation, is to suffer for the bad taste of the Minister. Now, if that be so—if it cannot be said that the noble Lord is the people of England—rand, as we had already publicly and unanimously expressed our detestation of the attack on the Emperor of France, I want to know what could have induced him to turn round upon the people of England as he has done, and manifest that hostility which he has through his own press, and his own ambassador, shown; towards this country. The question I have to put to the noble Lord is—has there been any correspondence with the Court of France or the Minister of France on the subject of an Alien Bill, or upon the subject of an alteration of our criminal code.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I can have no difficulty in answering the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There has been a despatch addressed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs to M. de Persigny, the French Ambassador here, bearing upon the late transactions at Paris, and urging upon him the ne-

767
cessity of applying to Her Majesty's Government to take such measures as they, in their wisdom, might think fit in reference to the circumstance, not to dictate any measures, but simply to put the case to Her Majesty's Government to deal with as they might think proper. That is the nature of the despatch, and I can have no difficulty whatever in laying it before Parliament. But, Sir, in replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel bound, in the first place, to repel the charge which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made against the Count de Persigny. Count de Persigny never accused the British nation of sympathizing with assassins, or with intending to give protection to assassins. He stated distinctly to Her Majesty's Government—Count de Persigny has repeatedly stated to me—in reference to the strong expression of feeling which had been made in his own country, that we must feel with him that allowance must be made for it in the circumstance that had called it forth—that the people of the Continent, not knowing the nature of our laws, and applying to us the principles by which they are themselves guided, naturally form expectations which those who know the principles and working of our system of government are aware cannot be carried out. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to anticipate a discussion which would more properly arise on Monday next, when I shall have to move for leave to bring in a Bill of which I have given notice. I shall not allow myself to be led, by his example, into a premature discussion of that measure, but when I propose it I shall be prepared to state its nature, and the reasons upon which it is founded. But I must protest against the ground the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman alludes to certain violent and intemperate speeches, addresses which have been made in France, and urges that on their account the Parliament of this country ought to be prevented from taking any steps which otherwise, upon the merits of the case, Parliament might think proper to adopt. Why, speaking of intemperate speeches, I might well retort upon the hon. and learned gentleman—
"Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes."
If any man is less than another entitled to complain of violent language and personal vituperation on the part of the people of a foreign country, I should say it is the hon. and learned Gentleman him-
768
self, who is in the habit of indulging in most unbridled vituperation against every Government and every man living, whether at home or abroad. If there is anything upon which we pride ourselves in this country it is our freedom of speech, and that principle leads us so frequently to pass over the violent effusions of the hon. and learned Gentleman—thus respecting the principle, though we may disapprove of the manner in which he exercises it. I say, it would be most undignified in the people of this country—nay, it would be most childish conduct in the people of this country—if, because of certain violent expressions, certain intemperate addresses made against the people of England, they were to allow themselves to be swayed from the course they might otherwise think right to pursue in reference to their internal legislation. We ought to make due allowance for the irritation which has been naturally excited in France. Let us put an inverted case. I will suppose that there issued from Paris on more than one occasion murderers with the intention of perpetrating against our Sovereign atrocities similar to those which have been attempted in Paris, would not the people of this country feel the greatest indignation, and would they not be likely, in speaking of such attempts, to go beyond the precise accuracy of courteous and temperate expression which nations ought to be guided by in their transactions with other nations. I trust, therefore, however we may lament or disapprove these violent expressions of feeling in France, that we shall make allowance for the circumstances under which they were made—that we shall consider what would have been our own feelings in a similar case, and under similar circumstances—and that we shall not be led away by considerations of what may have been said by individuals in France or elsewhere from that course which, upon the merits of the question, we may think fit to follow.
MR. HORSMAN: I have listened to the speech of my noble Friend with great attention and at the same time with very great regret. I regret the manner in which he has referred to the subject-matter of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and I regret very much the manner in which he has spoken of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not intend to take any part in this discussion, but I do feel that we cannot, in justice to any hon. Member of this House,

769
allow imputations to be made such as upon tills question, in which we are all interested, have been cast, in ray opinion, most unfairly upon the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not complain that there were individuals in France who had insulted the national feeling of England. What my hon. and learned Friend said was this—that parties in France, nearest to the person of the Emperor, most in his confidence, and not private parties at their own instance, had concocted and circulated these charges and addresses; that French colonels went with addresses to the Emperor; that they were graciously received by him; that the addresses were published prominently in the official Moniteur, and circulated under the Government influence throughout France, to show an excitable people what was the language which the Emperor appeared to approve as addressed to him with regard to his ally, and to show also to the people of Europe what were the terms in which they might suppose that demands had been made upon the Government of England for security against a repetition of the crime with which the French Government had branded the people of England as accomplices. Now, the whole gravamen of the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that it was the authorities of France—the Government of France—which had made these attacks upon the people of this country, and it was on that account that he attached to these attacks an importance greater than if they had emanated from individuals. I think that what my noble Friend stated as to the manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield deports himself in this House was rather more severe than just. I, like my noble Friend, have sat many years in this House with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and I must say that so far from having been surprised at his expressing himself in strong language, I should have been much more surprised if, with his feelings, he had to-day failed to express himself in that bold tone which characterizes him. It is the pride of my hon. and learned Friend to take his own course in this House, and to do what he thinks right, irrespective of party ties and obligations. In so doing he has certainly very frequently thrown broadcast in this House the expressions of his censure and disapprobation; but this I will say, that we who for years have watched his conduct are convinced of his integrity of
770
purpose and of his purity of motive, and that, while he is careless of what enemies he makes, there is no man in this House more free from personal enemies than my hon. and learned Friend. Then I do feel that he has been rather severely dealt with by my noble Friend. He has expressed his own sentiments, and for them no other man is responsible. Nor does he shrink from that responsibility. To say, however, that his language is invariably a strong example of that which he complains of with regard to others is, in my opinion, after the long experience which I have had of his neither brief nor undistinguished career in this House, not just. My noble Friend cannot point his finger to any act of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield which is a stain upon his honour. Allow me now to say one word upon the subject brought forward. I understood my noble Friend to say that there has been one despatch from the Government of France and that it will be produced. I do not know whether any answer to that despatch has been made by our Government, but I presume that previous to the discussion on Monday we shall have all the papers laid upon the table. I think it is also desirable that we should be furnished with the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, because if they agree in the opinion expressed by high legal authorities in another place very recently, it will be manifest that the change of the law we shall be asked to assent to next week is not necessitated by any defect in the law itself, but by other circumstances of which the House ought to be made aware. I own that I myself attach very great importance to the proposition that is to be made to us next Monday. I will not now anticipate the discussion, but I do hope that we shall have all the information possible brought before us to enable us to judge both of the propriety of the demand that has been made by the Government of France and the propriety of the concession which, as it appears, the Government of this country is prepared to make.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would not detain the House for one moment. He assumed that the noble Lord would concede the request he was now about to make, that the despatch of the French Government should be laid upon the table, and also the answer of Her Majesty's Government to it, as soon as possible, so that hon. Members might have it in their hands before they were called upon to enter in

771
the discussion next Monday. With regard to what the noble Lord had said of him (Mr. Roebuck), it passed by him "like the idle wind, which he regarded not." He asked the noble Lord to point to any expression he had used that could bear out the description that the noble Lord had given of the language he was in the habit of using. He might have uttered strong opinions, but he defied the noble Lord to show that he had used violent language, nor had he used such language on the present occasion. He would ask the noble Lord and the House to recollect what he had said. He had said that England had been insulted, and that the insult came from the Emperor of the French. Was there any violent language in that? That was a strong statement no doubt—but was not the evidence in support of it strong also? Why, the people of England had been threatened before—even in his time—not that he could recollect it, for he was a child when it occurred. The great man who bore the name now held by the Emperor of the French—the first Napoleon—he, from the opposite shore of the Channel, threatened England with invasion; and though he disagreed in the policy adopted by our ancestors on the occasion, he could not but admire their towering port, and the thoroughly courageous demeanour with which the menace of the great Napoleon, surrounded as he was by his legions, and fresh from the victories of Ulm, Austerlitz, and Jena, was met. Our ancestors hurled defiance at him—they fought him and conquered him; and if our ancestors treated with contempt and defiance the menaces of Napoleon le Grand, should we, their descendants, quail before the threats of Napoleon le petit?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would lay the despatch from the French Government on the table to-morrow. No answer to it had been sent.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LADY HAVELOCK AND SIR HENRY HAVELOCK'S ANNUITY.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will be in the recollection of the House that, in our short meeting before Christmas, a gracious Message was delivered to this House from Her Majesty, stating her wish of bestowing a signal mark of her favour upon Major General Havelock, and that some provision might
  772
  be made for him by this House. That Message having been taken into consideration by this House, it was agreed to grant to Sir H. Havelock an annuity of £1000 a year; and a Bill founded upon that Resolution was subsequently introduced. During the discussion which took place upon that Bill and upon that Resolution, a strong feeling was expressed on the part of the House, that an addition should be made to the proposed grant; and Her Majesty's Government undertook, upon the re-assembling of Parliament, to introduce a provision for extending the annuity for two lives—namely, that of General Havelock, and of his son. Unhappily it has not been in the power of Her Majesty's Government to redeem that pledge; for, at the very time that the dignity of a baronetcy was conferred upon General Havelock, and that the annuity to accompany it was voted by the House, the gallant officer had already fallen a victim to his exertions in the service of his country. The honour conferred by the Crown, and the bounty of this House could not, therefore, take effect, and it be-came my duty yesterday to move the discharge of the order for proceeding with the Bill which had been introduced with respect to the subject. The Government, however, being desirous of carrying substantially into effect the recommendation of the Crown, and being also desirous of acting upon the understanding which had been come to with this House, has decided upon proposing an annuity of £1000 a year to the widow of the late gallant general. By a most gracious act of Her Majesty, Lady Havelock has been placed in precisely the same position as she would have been if her husband had been alive when he was created a baronet; and we have thought that we should be giving effect to the wishes of this House by proposing a grant to her of £1000 a year. We propose also to grant an annuity of like amount to the present Sir H. Havelock. Now, Sir, I think that, under the circumstances, this House would not have objected to vote an annuity of £1000 a year to the present Sir H. Havelock, even if he were an undistinguished man, and had merely succeeded his father in the ordinary manner of hereditary honours; but I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the present Sir H. Havelock has proved himself worthy of the gallant and heroic deeds of his father, and has himself, in the course of his military profession in India, rendered

  773
  distinguished services to his country; and, looking to his own merits, I think that the House would feel themselves justified in conferring upon him a token of their approval. I will state to the Committee what has been the military career of Sir Henry Havelock:—Brevet Major Havelock entered the army (Queen's service) as ensign in 1846, became lieutenant the 23rd of June, 1848, and captain on the 9th of October, 1857. In the course of his career he had received the thanks of the Commander in Chief, who had expressed great pleasure in recommending him for his promotion to a company shortly after the action at Cawnpore, and recently for brevet rank of major, no less as a reward for his own gallant and meritorious services than as a tribute to the memory of his gallant father, by whose side he fought in those numerous engagements which rapidly followed each other in brilliant succession and terminated in the relief of Lucknow. Major Havelock was decorated with the Victoria Cross for his cool bravery at Cawnpore. It was on that occasion that Major Stirling, a gallant and distinguished officer, fell at the head of the 64th regiment. Major Havelock's horse was shot under him at Busserut Gunge on the 29th of July; he was severely wounded in the right arm by a musket shot at Lucknow, and has been repeatedly mentioned in despatches. The principal service of Sir H. Havelock, however, was that for which he had been decorated with the Victoria Cross, and on this point I will trouble the Committee with an extract from a telegram from the late Major General Havelock to the Commander in Chief, dated Cawnpore, August 18, 1857, and which appeared in the London Gazette of January the 15th:
  "In the combat at Cawnpore Lieutenant Havelock wag my aide-de-camp. The 64th regiment had been much under artillery fire, from which it had severely suffered. The whole of the infantry were lying down in line, when, perceiving that the enemy had brought out the last reserved gun, a 24-pounder, and were rallying round it, I called up the regiment to rise and advance. Without any other word from me, Lieutenant Havelock placed himself on his horse, in front of the centre of the 64th, opposite the muzzle of the gun. Major Stirling, commanding the regiment, was in front, dismounted, but the Lieutenant continued to move steadily on in front of the regiment at a foot pace on his horse. The gun discharged shot until the troops were within a short distance, when they fired grape. In went the corps, led by the Lieutenant, who still steered steadily on the gun's muzzle until it was mastered by the rush of the 64th."
  774
  In that most gallant charge the commanding officer unfortunately lost his life, but Major Havelock happily survived the daring attack. I will not trespass longer on the attention of the Committee further than to express the hope that the Resolutions which I shall now place in your hands, Sir, will be unanimously agreed to.
  Motion made,

  1. That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annuity to commence from the 5th day of February, 1858; and to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon Lady Havelock, the Widow of the late Major General Henry Havelock, of Lucknow, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, for the term of her natural life.

  2. That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to commence from the 5th day of February, 1858; and to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon Sir Henry Marsham Havelock, Baronet, eldest son of the late Major General Henry Havelock, of Lucknow, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, for the term of his natural life.

  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly interpreted the feeling of this House in. anticipating that the proposition of Her Majesty's Government would meet with our unanimous approbation and concurrence. I believe that among the long catalogue of illustrious men who have fallen in India, few have been more sincerely regretted than the late General Havelock; and, if anything could add to the regret felt at the death of that gallant and admirable man, it would be that he died before he was aware of the manner in which his services were appreciated by his countrymen. Throughout the country there exists but one feeling, and that of gratitude to Her Majesty for the honour she has conferred upon Lady Havelock and her son; and I am also convinced that all parties, both in this House and out of doors, will feel that Her Majesty's Government have done no more than their duty in proposing to transfer to his widow the pension that was intended for General Havelock himself, and in also simultaneously recommending the grant of a pension to his son. I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this House would have cordially concurred in that course, had Major Havelock had no personal claims of his own. We know, however, that that officer is treading most gallantly and most nobly in the footsteps of his father; and we must all join in earnest hope that he

  775
  may long continue in the same career of glory and honour, and live long to enjoy the favour and gratitude of his country.
  MR. KINNAIRDobserved, that he wished to add one word in proof of what he was sure the country deeply felt—namely, that this was in no way a reward which was not entirely deserved. He held in his hand an extract from one of the last letters written by this lamented General, in which great anxiety was expressed as to his inability to make a provision for his wife and family. General Havelock said that, after forty-two years spent in the service of his country, all that he had been enabled to save was a sum of £4,000, which, with a small life assurance of £2,000, was all that he could leave for the maintenance of his family. When the country was made aware of this fact, there was no doubt that it would give its warm and cordial support to the proposed recognition of the services of the late General Havelock.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he could not allow the occasion to pass without declaring, on the part of his constituents, his entire concurrence in this Resolution. He knew that no words of his could do justice to the subject; and, at the same time, he was anxious to express what he was sure was felt by every Englishman—namely, sorrow for the irreparable loss sustained by the British army through the death of General Havelock, and admiration for deeds which, though performed in a land where heroic actions were too numerous to be recounted, had yet, from their daring and rapidity, their strategical bearings, and their important results, been rarely equalled, and certainly never surpassed, in the annals of war. Into the private life of General Havelock it would be presumptuous for any one of them to enter. He was, however, the perfect type of a Christian warrior; and although, unhappily, he did not live to know of the recognition of his services by a generous Sovereign and an admiring people, still he had something far better to sustain him—namely, the consciousness that he had performed every duty to God and man, and that his last efforts had been successful in rescuing a brave and heroic garrison from a fate at which even now we shuddered. As long as the faithful discharge of a soldier's duty, as long as the unostentatious performance of a Christian's obligations, as long as the display of brilliant courage and the highest military talent were honoured and esteemed as they
  776
  ever would be in England, so long would the memory of General Havelock be cherished and revered.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was far from desiring to disturb the unanimity of the House with respect to this Resolution, especially as he had no doubt that the proposition of the Government would be gratifying to the feelings of the country; but he wished to point out how the proper functions of the House, on occasions of this kind, were overlaid by its own forms, and by the anxiety they felt to give immediate effect to their benevolent intentions. Introduced as it was only yesterday, this Bill, he presumed, was to go through all the forms of the House consecutively and without delay. On a money Bill, hon. Members were unable to offer any Amendment without notice. At any rate, the effect of the measure passing through so rapidly was, to prevent on a former occasion, as he apprehended it would prevent now, any hon. Gentleman from proposing an Amendment. In point of fact, then, the function of the House to reward distinguished merit by pecuniary grants devolved practically on the Government. No doubt the Government would be anxious to follow the general wish of the House on such a matter; but they might not always be successful in accurately collecting that wish. This was actually the case during the late Christmas Session, when the Government proposal was not such as to meet the approval of the House, and there was no opportunity of moving Amendments upon it at the time when that divergence of opinion became manifest. Indeed, it was solely owing to the accidental and lamentable circumstance of General Havelock's death before he could receive his pension that the Government had had time to gather the real feeling of the House, and to propose a provision for the widow. For, had the previous Bill passed before Christmas, and this distinguished General fallen shortly afterwards, Lady Havelock would have been left without the proposed annuity. It would, no doubt, be a strong consolation to brave men engaged in performing great public services to know that, if they fell victims to their duty, their families would be taken care of by the State; and he begged to suggest that, in future, the practice should be adopted of offering a provision for the widows of distinguished generals, to whom Parliamentary grants were awarded. Special grants by Parliament were too rare

  777
  to make such a rule burdensome to the country.
  MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, that there was not a person in the House more ready than he to grant public money for eminent services done to the country, and no services could have been greater than those performed by the late General Have-lock. He rose, not to oppose the Motion, for he thought that Lady Havelock was eminently entitled to a pension, but to call attention to the greatly increased reward as compared with that of last year. Then it was proposed to give an annuity to General Havelock for his life; and it was the wish of the House that it should be extended to his son for life; and there was no opposition to that. If the proposition had been to grant General Havelock £2,000 a year, he (Mr. Williams) would have made no objection; for he thought it was the highest policy to reward eminent public services such as those of General Havelock. But the ground laid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for granting £1,000 a year to Major Havelock wholly failed. The right hon. Gentleman did not rest the claims of that officer to a pension on the merits of his gallant father, but on his personal bravery in the field. The right hon. Gentleman might have pointed out a thousand officers as much entitled to a similar reward on personal grounds as Major Havelock. What must be the feelings of distinguished officers of higher rank than Major Havelock, who had received no pecuniary reward, and one or two of whom had received but a slender acknowledgment of their services from Her Majesty? In particular, he thought that Colonel Greathed was entitled to a higher reward than he had received. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the courage of Major Havelock. Why, there was not a man in the first relieving force that reached Lucknow, officer or soldier, who had not displayed as much courage as he. He did not oppose the proposal, but he could not help pointing out that this was a Motion for an additional £1,000 a year beyond what was originally proposed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must pro-teat against the doctrine of the hon. Member for Lambeth. The statement of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) as to the slight provision which General Havelock had been able to make for his family was in itself a justification of the course pursued by the Government, and would commend this vote to the feelings of every right-minded man. It was the greatest
  778
  wisdom to hold out to those who were willing to devote their lives to the service of their country, and whose avocations did not permit them to make such provision themselves, the prospect that their families would be provided for after their death. We were not anxious to encumber our officers with enormous wealth, the enjoyment of which might tempt them, perhaps, to neglect their proper avocations, but we ought always to be ready to provide for the relatives of those who for many years had otherwise devoted, or in the chance of war had risked their lives in the public service, and thus to relieve their minds from cares which might interfere with the performance of their duties. This was the species of reward which was the most acceptable to the most honourable minds, and could the late General Havelock know what was now being done for his family, he would prize such a return much more than he could have valued the highest honours which could have been showered upon him during his life. He therefore rejoiced that they could afford to overlook the services of Major Havelock, in the determination so universally expressed to recognize the virtues, the courage, the talents, the perseverance, and the Christian virtues of his honoured father.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it right to remove a misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) laboured, when he thought that the Government had acted precipitately in this matter, and that the House was now in Committee on a Bill for granting an annuity to Lady Havelock and Major Havelock. The truth was that the House was proceeding in the most formal and deliberate manner, and was now only in the first stage of the business for they only were on a Resolution on which a Bill was to be founded. Therefore if the hon. Member wished to make any remarks on this subject, he would have ample opportunity in the future stages of the Bill. His principal object in rising, however, was to remove a strange misunderstanding, by the hon. Member for Lambeth, (Mr. W. Williams) of the remarks he had made. The hon. Member understood that he laid the ground of the Resolution solely on the personal merits of Major Havelock, and irrespective of the signal services of his lamented father, whereas he thought he had distinctly stated that he believed that the House would have been prepared to accede to a proposition for granting this annuity to

  779
  the son of General Havelock, wholly irrespective of his personal merits. The original proposition was for an annuity to General Havelock only; and it was the expressed wish of the House that it should be continued to his son; that is, that it should he granted for two lives. The Government acceded to the wish of the House, but that was not the original proposition. Since that understanding had been come to, the lamented death of General Havelock had become known, and the position of things had changed. It was impossible that the original intention should be carried into effect; and it became his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to submit to the House a different Resolution, though one still carrying out the spirit of the wishes of the House; and he had said that, irrespective of the personal merits of the present Sir H. Havelock, it would no doubt be the desire of the House that it should be carried out. At the same time he felt it his duty to add, and he thought it was not an immaterial circumstance, that the present Sir H. Havelock was not the mere recipient of an hereditary honour; that he was not one of those quibus beneficia populi Romani dormientibus deferuntur, but that he had by his own exertions, and by his undaunted courage, earned for himself an honourable position in the ranks of the army. He did not assert that there were not other officers of the same rank as brave and as distinguished, but he did say that it was a matter for the consideration of the House that the present Sir H. Havelock undoubtedly had personal merits independent of his relationship to his distinguished father. These were the grounds on which the Resolution was based, and he thought that the House would agree with him, that they were not irrelevant.
  MR. INGRAMsaid that every one must agree that this pension was rightly given; but at the same time he thought it ought to be charged on the revenues of India. There were two parties to these pensions, those who received and those who paid them. He thought that the people who had stirred up the insurrection ought to feel its effects, and to pay for it. The pension to the Marquess of Dalhousie was charged on the revenues of India, and why should not this be paid from the same source? At the same time he was far from saying that Major Havelock did not richly deserve it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was always the case
  780
  that officers in the Queen's service should have their pensions charged on the Consolidated Fund. It was so in the case of Lord Gough, Viscount Hardinge, and others. With regard to officers in the service of the East India Company, the custom was to grant pensions charged on the revenues of India; and in the case of General Wilson, who had received the same pension as General Havelock, it was charged on the revenues of the East India Company.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, that he wished to explain, that in the remarks he had made, he had not intended to find fault with the Government for the proposition they had made, for no one sympathised more in the gallant deeds of that great man than he did: but it did happen last Session that the forms of the House precluded discussion on the subject.
  Resolutions agreed to; to be reported on Monday next. House resumed.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that he had introduced this Bill in the early part of the Session, but as he had received many suggestions on the subject, he thought it better to withdraw the Bill and introduce another. He, therefore, moved that the order for the second reading be discharged.
  Motion agreed to.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill for enabling the East India Company to raise money in the United Kingdom for the service of the Government of India. The Bill which he desired to introduce had been rendered necessary by the emergencies which had arisen out of the state of affairs of India, and it would probably surprise no one, that in consequence of the confusion which existed there, the East India Company should come to Parliament to ask for power to borrow money. The provisions of the Bill would be strictly confined to the necessities of the present emergency, and would extend only over the present Session and that of 1859. The House might not, perhaps, be aware how the borrowing powers of the East India Company stood. It was rather singular, that while in India the Government of India had an almost unlimited power of borrowing, subject to the approbation of the Court of Directors and of the Board

  781
  of Commissioners, in England the Court of Directors had hardly any such power. All that they had, had been given to them by Acts of Parliament, which bad been passed from time to time, beginning with the first which was passed in the reign of William III., and ending with 21st of George III. These Acts gave them power to borrow sums, amounting altogether to £7,000,000, of which at the time the mutiny broke out they had raised £4,000,000, and they had therefore, power to borrow only £3,000,000 more. The Government in India supplied all that was necessary for expenses there, and the home Government gave notice at the commencement of every year what amount of money was to be remitted from India; which was either received in money, or bills were drawn on India. The mode of regulating the supply of bills was, that when they found the supply of these bills superabundant they checked" it by raising the rate of exchange; and, on the other hand, when the supply became slack they increased it by lowering the rate of exchange. Such was the manner in which money had hitherto been received from India for the purposes of the home Government. During the past year the Board of Directors limited their calls upon India rather below the usual amount. They gave the usual notice that £4,000,000 would be required, but they did not receive bills for more than £500,000 or £600,000. When the rebellion broke out, however, they were compelled to see how to make all their resources available. An application came in the autumn from the Government in India, requesting them to draw no further bills on India, and stating, moreover, that their own necessities would require a transmission of bullion. To that application the Directors immediately replied that they would draw no more bills on India, and would raise the rate of exchange to such an amount as would prevent merchants from taking them in preference to private securities. They also transmitted bullion to the amount of £1,000,000 as requested, and gave the Government of India notice that a further supply would be sent. On the 10th of December, however, they wrote to the Government of India that, as a considerable sum might be expected in the shape of subscriptions to the five per cent loan in India, in consequence of the rate of interest having been practically raised to six per cent, they thought they would not require a further supply of bullion. It was
  782
  not surprising that the Directors should have found themselves in difficulties. The additional expense thrown upon them had been very considerable. In the summer their resources consisted of borrowing powers to the extent of £3,000,000, a cash account of about £1,000,000, a reserve fund of £1,000,000 in Three per Cent Stock, and £1,800,000 of Exchequer bills. All these resources had been called into requisition, and were now nearly exhausted. He had received a statement from the India House, showing the receipts and disbursements in the first four months of the present year, and what they were expected to be from the 1st of May, 1858, to the 30th of April, 1859. The receipts from the 1st of January to the 30th of April, 1858, were as follows:—Cash balance on the 1st of January, £1,187,963; bills of exchange on India, £40,000; loans on security of East India bonds and interest, £70,310; securities, £2,430,000; Indian railway companies, £1,000,000; total, £4,728,273. The disbursements in the same period were:—Dividends to proprietors of East India stock on Indian transfer loan property, and interest on home bond debt, £432,888; military and other stores, purchase of steam vessels, and transport of troops and stores, £755,909; stores supplied by Her Majesty's Government, pay-office claims, retiring pay, pensions, &c, of Queen's troops, postal arrangements, mission to the Court of Persia, and establishment in China, £1,257,560; civil service annuities payable in England, civil absentee allowances, furlough, and retired pay to military and marine officers, and advances on account of the civil, military, and provident funds of India, £403,582; bills of exchange from India, bullion consigned to India, family remittances, remittances by the Administrator General, and miscellaneous, £359,214; general charges for home establishments, civil, military, and marine pensions, recruiting, &c, £168,000; Indian railway companies, £918,912; total, £4,296,065; leaving a balance of receipts over disbursements of £432,208. The estimated receipts in the financial year 1858–9 were—balance at the 1st of May, £432,208; bills of exchange on India, £120,000; from Her Majesty's Government on account of ordinary supplies, £120,000; Indian railway companies, £2,500,000; total, £3,172,208. The estimated disbursements were—dividends, £980,000; military and other stores and

  783
  transport of troops and stores £1,099,442; stores from Her Majesty's Government, pay-office claims, retiring pensions, &c, £1,474,711; civil service annuities, &c, £1,403,480; bills of exchange from India, &c,£152,600; general charges £595,800; loan from the Bank of England £ 1,000,000; bonds to be paid, £653,900; amount repayable to security fund, £315,000; minimum amount required to be held in cash, £1,000,000; Indian railway companies, £2,511,093; total, £11,186,026, showing a balance against the Company of £8,013,818, which, however, would probably be reduced to about £7,500,000. It was in order to provide for the raising of that sum that he now proposed to ask the House to extend the borrowing powers of the East India Company. A sum of £8,000,000 would cover the deficiency, but as it had been intimated to the Government that a further transmission of bullion might be required, he proposed, with the consent of the House, to empower the Company to borrow £10,000,000. The only other alteration he proposed in the existing law was to enable the Company to receive subscriptions in England for Indian loans. He could not imagine that there would be any objection to this Bill, because the House had always shown itself ready during these disturbances in India to provide the means of suppressing them. It was clear that the Court of Directors ought to have the means of defraying their expenditure in this country, with which alone he was now dealing, and of making provision for sending troops to India. He believed that the mode in which he proposed to provide them with these means was, upon the whole, the best and easiest that could be adopted for the present emergency. After consulting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the highest commercial authorities, he had come to the conclusion that the best mode of raising the required sum would be by debentures rather than by bonds, and therefore he proposed to enable the Company to negotiate loans in that manner. As there would be so small a balance in hand in April, it was desirable that this Bill should pass as speedily as possible, and he was sure the House would have no objection to expediting its progress, as any information that was required he should be happy to afford either in private or in the House. The necessity for such a proposition had been foreseen and came as no surprise on the money market. The only reason why
  784
  the Bill was not introduced in the short Session before Christmas was, that as Parliament had met only for a particular purpose, it was thought no measures not applicable to that purpose should be brought forward, while there would be sufficient time before April, 1858, for its consideration. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he fully agreed with the President of the Board of Control that no one could feel any surprise that the Indian Government should require assistance in the present emergency, and he believed there could be no doubt that the House of Commons would be ready to support by grants of money in this country our dominion in India; however, at the same time he could not refrain from expressing his great astonishment at the mode by which Ministers proposed to aid the Government of India. If he could have anticipated the proposal to extend the borrowing powers of the East India Company, and their continuance for two Sessions, or at least a year and a half, ha should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to preface his observations by the declaration that Her Majesty's Ministers did not intend to interfere at present with the system of Government in India. Upon whom was the House asked to confer these borrowing powers? The noble Lord at the head of the Government had given notice of his intention to place India under the more direct control of the responsible advisers of the Crown. That involved, if not the extinction of the East India Company altogether, at least its extinction as a governing power. What Government was to borrow this money, for what was it immediately wanted, and in what proportion? The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, did not give the House any information on those points; it might perhaps be gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that only a small portion of the £10,000,000 was wanted to pay any immediate expenses or advances, and the rest was to be borrowed successively at different periods, as required, between this and the middle of next year. Was, then, the East India Company to exist till that period as the governing power of India? If not, who, he would again ask, was to borrow the money and to have control over it? He had always conceived that on the proposition of any loan it was first inquired, previous to assent being

  785
  given to the loan, whether the money was required for reasonable, legitimate, and necessary purposes, and, next, by whom the money was to be borrowed, and by whom it was to be spent? It appeared to him, also, that another consideration should be that the money should be borrowed on the cheapest and most favourable terms. It seemed to him, however, that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman failed in all these essentials, and was, besides, most mischievous and unconstitutional, for who was to have the borrowing power? The East India Company, according to general report, was in extremis. Surely, it would not be proposed to give to a dying body the power of borrowing and disposing of money, or of leaving that power to some other body to come into existence afterwards. Perhaps the whole of the plan with respect to the Government of India was not yet matured, but let a corner of the veil which covered that marvellous wisdom of the Treasury bench be raised up, and let the House be informed at once who was to have the power of borrowing—who was to have the management of the loan. He thought that the House, before granting that power, should understand who was to be responsible for its expenditure. If the management was to be in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should have perfect confidence in his character and integrity; but it would be impossible for him to watch the disposal of the money. It must go through some other channel, and if the power should be delegated to an agent, the money and the paymaster-general might both disappear. Before granting the power now asked for, the House ought to know by what Government the money was to be raised, by what Government it was to be spent, who was to be responsible, and whether or not it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in giving to the East India Company the power of borrowing until the middle of next year, to continue their authority until that period. He considered that as money was wanted, the best thing that Government could do in the present emergency and state of affairs was to refrain from agitating the public mind by legislation with respect to the form of administration for India. He must here guard himself from being supposed to express any but his own individual opinion, for he had no communication with the Directors of the East India Company
  786
  on the subject; and he knew not whether they were in favour of the Bill now proposed to be brought in or not. In taking charge of their petition, in the general sentiments of which he concurred, he was not committing himself to the support of any policy, and would not have undertaken the duty of presenting it except in the exercise of an independent judgment. In the exercise of that same independent judgment he was commenting on the measure of finance now under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that the money should be raised in England. Now, he could quite understand that if the loan in India was not filling up as rapidly as could be wished at 6 per cent, that there should be a necessity, or at any rate a desire to borrow money here. But if the Government of India was to be the Government of the Crown, why not give to India the privilege of enjoying the advantages of the country of which it was part? When the double Government was objected to, and it was said that it would be an advantage to place India directly under the Crown, why refuse to India the most apparent advantage of facilitating for it the power of borrowing money? He for one believed that the lending of money to India directly by the Crown might be done with perfect security, and with the certainty of its gradual repayment out of the revenues of India. But, whether it was done directly or by guarantee, he believed that the operation would be perfectly safe to this country, and that it would be a benefit to which India was legitimately entitled. The Government had guaranteed money on loan to Canada, to Demerara, and to other colonies, not only with advantage to those colonies and security to the mother country, but had also by such means riveted the bonds of mutual interest between this country and its dependencies. Could the same advantage be denied to India, at the same time, when it was said that England was going to take the direct government of India into its own hands? The right hon. Gentleman possibly might say that they were chary of guaranteeing loans; but had they not guaranteed a loan to Turkey with the view of putting the finances of that country into order? Were the finances of India of less importance to this country? Had they not given money to Sardinia for troops to aid in the war with Russia? He was not now arguing whether that was right or wrong, but would it be more objectionable to guarantee a loan for

  787
  the maintenance of our Indian empire? Again, this money might be raised and lent on bonds which the East India possessions would guarantee. When the English three per cents were at 95 and the East India Company were borrowing money at 6 per cent, would it not confer a great advantage on India and give a favourable introduction to the abolition of the double Government to allow India to enjoy fully her union with this country? But this was refused. It was said, "You shall be under the Crown for the purposes of power and honour, but as to the question of credit, you shall have none of our credit." When the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give to the East India Company the power of borrowing for two years, and the probability was that that Company would not live for many weeks, the absurdity of such a plan must strike every Member of that House. It seemed to him to be contrary to every principle of constitutional usage to grant a minister, who was not known, the power of borrowing £10,000,000, to dispose of existing obligations and debts, leaving the remainder to be managed no one knew how. He was not aware whether any opposition would be given to the measure at its present stage, but he trusted some hon. Member, of greater influence than himself, would express his opinion on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not think that the House, on a mature consideration of the question, notwithstanding the high financial authority of the hon. Member for Huntingdon and the weight with which he speaks on matters of this nature, will come to the conclusion that the Bill proposed to be brought in is founded upon incorrect principles of legislation on the two points in respect to which my hon. Friend has impugned it. The two points which he raises against this Bill are—first, that we seek to obtain for the East India Company a power of borrowing money, which, in consequence of expected legislation, that body may not be able to exercise hereafter either in respect to the borrowing or the expenditure of the money; and, in the next place, he argues that the exigencies of the Indian treasury ought to be satisfied, not by loans borrowed on Indian credit, but by loans raised on Imperial credit. Now, I venture to maintain, with great confidence, after full consideration of the subject, that the proposed Bill is founded on correct principles in both these
  788
  respects, although that policy is diametrically opposed to the policy recommended by my hon. Friend. It will hardly be disputed by any one that the necessity for the Bill arises from the East India Company, the existing Government, desiring to raise money by loan for the payment of the expenses of their home treasury. If that be conceded, we have made considerable progress in the solution of this question. What is the condition of the Company with respect to borrowing powers? In India their power of borrowing is unlimited, and is included in the legislative power of the Governor General and Council. They have already created a considerable debt, and it has never been asserted that any distinct statutory authority, or any consent on the part of this House, was necessary to enable the Governor General in Council to borrow money. There is always a loan open in the three Presidencies of India, and the borrowing power of the Company in India, so far from having been disputed, has constantly been actively exercised. With regard to this country the borrowing powers of the Company have been peculiar, owing to the manner in which their anomalous authority has been created. Having been originally a trading company, which accidentally acquired sovereign and governing authority, their power of borrowing was limited by Act of Parliament, as Parliament would limit the borrowing power of any ordinary joint-stock company, such as a railway company, or the Bank of England. Owing to that circumstance it is necessary for Parliament to give to the Government of India acting in this country a specific statutory authority to enable them to borrow money in the United Kingdom; but as, although originally exercising merely mercantile functions, they have now become a political body, they have not the same advantages in the money market which are possessed by the local Government of any other dependency or colony. If, for example, the Governments of Canada or of Demerara wished to effect loans in this country, and if their credit enabled them to borrow, there is nothing in our statute law to prevent them from exercising that power to any extent to which they may be able to induce lenders to come forward; but the East India Company is peculiarly situated, and it is therefore necessary for us to ask Parliament to remove those restrictions by which, from the accident of its having been a trading company, it has been em-

  789
  barrassed. What we ask, therefore, is, that the existing Government of India in this country—that is to say the Board of Directors of the East India Company, subject to the approval of the Hoard of Control—may have the power of borrowing money to a certain extent in the United Kingdom, in order to defray the expenses of their home treasury. If they exercise that power they will exercise it subject to all the laws now in existence which regulate their power of borrowing. The power, therefore, is clear—the responsibility is complete—so long as the existing state of things shall remain unaltered. If it should please Parliament, upon the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, to make any alteration in the constitution of the Home Government of India, it will undoubtedly be their duty at the same time to provide for the transfer of this power, and to take care that for the future any borrowing powers created by Act of Parliament shall be exercised under proper responsibility, and that the application of the money obtained under such borrowing powers shall be subject to all the laws which regulate the expenditure of the Government of India. No dangerous interval will, therefore, occur, but there will be a clear power and complete responsibility, both during the currency of this Bill and under any amended system which Parliament may think fit to adopt. I cannot admit, then, that there is the slightest weight in the objection of my hon. Friend with regard to the principle upon which this Bill is framed. A necessity exists for authorizing the present home government of India to raise money for the wants of the home treasury. While the existing constitution of the home government continues, this Bill is adapted to that constitution: the power will be exercised, and the money will be expended under the existing law. If, however, Parliament should think fit to alter the present constitution of the home government, it must deal with this power as well as with all the other powers inherent in the East India Company, and no peculiar difficulty can arise with regard to this Bill, which does not apply to the whole of their other powers. They have already a small unexhausted power of borrowing upon Indian bonds, to which all the objections of my hon. Friend are fully as applicable as they are to the Bill of my right hon. Friend.
  I now come to what I cannot but consider a most alarming proposition on the
  790
  part of my hon. Friend—namely, that the loans for the service of the Indian Government should be raised, not on the credit of the revenues of India, but upon the credit of the Imperial Exchequer; and he argues that Her Majesty's Government are in some degree bound to accede to his principle, because it is understood that they are about to propose the abolition of the political powers in this country of the East India Company. I confess that I cannot see the smallest connection between the premisses and the conclusions of my hon. Friend. We have only to look to the other dependencies and colonies of this kingdom to see manifold instances in which there is a direct relation between the Crown and the dependencies—in which no proprietary body is interposed between the Crown and the dependent communities; but, nevertheless, the exchequers are just as distinct as the Imperial Exchequer and the Indian Exchequer. The loans effected by the Colonial Governments are effected upon colonial credit, unless an Imperial guarantee should be given by specific legislation of Parliament. My hon. Friend has referred to the cases of a Canadian loan and of a Demerara loan, and says that, these examples ought to lead us to adopt a similar course with regard to India. Now, my hon. Friend must be well aware that the Canada loan was effected under peculiar circumstances, with a view to the settlement of differences then pending with the colony, and that it can hardly be regarded simply as the case of an Imperial guarantee for a colonial loan. Surely the case of the Demerara loan and of loans guaranteed for various islands in the West Indies—small communities which were exhausted by the measure for the emancipation of slaves, and which were in a condition of great financial distress—afford no example for extending the Imperial guarantee to an exchequer generally so wealthy as that of India. During the last Session an Imperial guarantee was given to the island of New Zealand on the ground that it was a young and struggling colony, and that there were peculiar relations with the New Zealand colony which rendered it expedient that the assistance of the British Treasury should be given to that nascent community. But these reasons do not apply to our East Indian dominions. They have never hitherto been a burden upon the British Exchequer; but, on the contrary, in the early history of our relations with India, we find that an attempt

  791
  was made to extract from that country a contribution to the English Exchequer. That "tribute," as it was called, was paid for a series of years; and we know to what an extent the delusion has prevailed that England is, in some incredible degree, enriched by contributions from India. So far from the Imperial Exchequer being called upon to guarantee Indian loans, and to become itself tributary to India, it has been the common belief of foreigners—and to some extent the opinion has been shared by our own countrymen—that the Imperial Exchequer derives assistance from the Indian revenues. I do not wish to revive a long-settled dispute as to the tribute of India in aid of the expenditure of this country; but, believing that it would never be possible, or that, if possible, it would not be just or expedient, to call upon India to meet the financial wants of the Indian Government, I cannot for one moment admit the principle that, except for some extraordinary purpose—except on account of the failure both of the Indian revenue and of Indian credit—it would be expedient or just to aid the finances of India by the credit of the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, differing entirely from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon upon the two important questions which he has raised, I justify the Bill of my right hon. Friend as founded upon principles of sound policy, and as deserving the support of this House when it shall come regularly under discussion.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring) can scarcely flatter himself that Her Majesty's Ministers will withdraw their intended Bill for changing the Government of India because, as they are reminded, it is brought forward during a period of great emergency; for my hon. Friend may recollect that it was in the midst of a great emergency that, after full and complete consideration, Her Majesty's Ministers arrived at a conclusion that such a policy ought to be recommended to Parliament. Considering the intimation on that subject which was contained in the Speech from the Throne in December—considering the documents, consisting of correspondence between the highest authorities connected with the Government of India at home and no less a personage than the First Minister of the Crown in this country, which, if not formally placed upon the table, are, I believe, in the possession of every Member of this House—considering that only last
  792
  night the First Minister of the Crown in another place signified the intention of the Government to bring forward speedily a measure for changing the governing powers of India in this country,—I think my hon. Friend can scarcely flatter himself that his appeal will be successful, and that the Government will abandon that intention. It does not appear to me, however, that Ministers are acting with that ingenuousness and candour to the House of Commons on this subject which we have a right to expect. After the notification from the Crown, and the correspondence that has taken place between the ministers of the Crown and the Court of Directors, after the announcement made to the other House of Parliament on this subject, it appears to me very remark-able that the House of Commons should be the only place in which no official intimation has been received from Her Majesty's Government of their intentions on this important subject, although our attention is now called to a measure of great magnitude, which affects the whole revenue of India, and in which the interposition of the House of Commons is necessary to carry out the government of that vast country. Nor do I see that the right hon. Gentleman has met the difficulty of this question, because the point really is—what will be the most advantageous terms on which the home government of India can raise the money required? We are told to-night that it is the determination of the Government that, whatever charges may take place by reason of any loans raised in this country by the home government of India, those charges shall fall upon the revenue of India, and upon that only. Now, Sir, I am not going at this moment to question the policy or propriety of that determination. But if that be the determination of the Government, and if the loans proposed to be raised are to be a charge on the revenues of India, it becomes an element of calculation to those who lend whether the security will be best under the government that now exists and administers the affairs of India, or under the administration of the government projected by Her Majesty's Ministers. That is a distinction of the utmost importance—one which the House is bound to consider—and so far as the financial question is concerned it involves the whole question of the policy of the change about to be made in the government of India. I agree, therefore, with my hon. Friend the Member for

  793
  Huntingdon that it is a matter of grave consideration whether the House either should or can entertain at the present moment a measure of this kind which empowers the home government of India to raise—not for pressing and immediate purposes alone, but for future and distant purposes—loans to a large amount. It is and must be a matter of the first consideration to those who have money to lend, to ascertain and estimate what is the security upon which that money is lent. If the security is only to be the revenue of India, the first question with those who lend money will be as to the government by which the affairs of that country are to be administered, and the means by which that revenue will be raised. There may be, in the answer to this question, a difference between 3 and 6 per cent, and between 6 and 9 per cent. There are some who may be so sanguine of the advantages of the change which is meditated by Her Majesty's Ministers, that they may consider the security offered for the loan infinitely improved by the administration of India being placed under the Crown. But there may be, on the other hand, an influential body of persons in this country, and those peculiarly attracted to these loans, who may look with alarm and distrust to the proposed alterations of the Government, which may, in their opinion, shake the very foundations of Indian revenue and touch the resources of that country. The House will understand that I do not refuse to sanction the introduction of this Bill. That would be an act of discourtesy to the Government, to which I for one can be no party; but we ought to signify to-night that the House of Commons, in permitting the Bill to be introduced, does not pledge itself to support it at any future stage. I incline to think that when this measure is well weighed it will be found replete with grave objections, and that it will demand our most serious and earnest consideration.
  MR. CARDWELL: There can be no doubt that the East India Company are in need of money, and that for us to give them the power to raise it is not only a reasonable demand, but one that we cannot refuse. But there is a question which it is of great importance that we should understand before we take any step that commits us to the Bill now before us,—I mean the question, what are the future liabilities of the Consolidated Fund with
  794
  regard to the finances of India? It will be our bounden duty to take care that all the money which may be a charge upon the taxpayers of England, levied only for a necessary purpose, shall be levied at the lowest cost, so as to be the smallest possible burden upon the taxpayers. There is a great difference between money borrowed by the Crown and that borrowed by the existing Government of India, and it may happen that money may cost half as much again when raised by the Government of India as it would when raised by the Crown. I admit that there is great inconvenience in forestalling a discussion upon the wide, important, and difficult question which I know we are going to consider in the present Session of Parliament. I will therefore ask no question which is calculated to forestal or precipitate that discussion; but the question of what is to become of the finances of India forces itself upon us in the consideration of this Bill. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say—and if I am in error there will be ample opportunity of correcting me—that in any changes that are to take place in the Government of India the finances of India will remain upon the same basis on which they now rest—namely, the revenue of India, and that in undertaking the Government of India Her Majesty's Ministers do not undertake the responsibility of Indian revenue so as to make it, in any event, a burden on the taxpayers of England. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if any calamity should occur which would render it impossible for the liabilities contracted by the Crown of England for the Government of India, to be paid out of the resources of India, no charge and no liability can arise in regard to India for which the House of Commons can be called upon to provide out of the revenue raised by the taxpayers of England.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, no one would dispute the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) that the East India Company were in need of money; but the question was whether the course taken by the Government was calculated to obtain the money on the best terms. He thought that the House had been rather cut short of the information necessary with regard to Indian finance, and that when so large a sum was to be borrowed entirely upon the credit of the finances of India it would have been well if some general exposition

  795
  of the state of the finances of India had been offered to the House. Indeed, when Government were about to borrow so large a sum as £10,000,000 upon any system of finance, the Ministry generally condescended to give some information as to the means by which the loan was to be repaid and the interest secured. No financial exposition of the state of Indian finance was made last year, and the House was therefore in a worse position than usual for forming an opinion on the subject. It must be considered a serious omission in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he did not even tell the House whether the finances of India stood in a better or worse position than they were in when the last statement on the subject was made to the House. It appeared that money could not at present be raised in India at less than 6 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take power to let English persons contribute to these loans for India. If the security were to be exactly the same for loans raised in India and in England, the Bill might facilitate the raising of money in India, but it would also have some effect upon the rate of interest for which money could be got in this country. He was glad that the credit of the Consolidated Fund was not to be pledged for Indian loans, because if that system were once begun no man living would see the end of it. He was afraid that troubles would always arise if they were to entail a pull on the Exchequer, and he therefore hoped the Government would stand fast by the determination they had announced.
  MR. MANGLESwas satisfied that he should readily be believed when he said that it was not the East India Company who had requested the Government to bring in the Bill, the tendency of which, as far as he knew—and he knew very little—would be to dissolve the connection of that Company with the government of India; but he was bound to state that it was at the request of the Company that Her Majesty's Government had consented to bring in the present measure, which be assured the House was absolutely necessary for the current service of the Government of India. No matter in whose hands that government might be placed, it was at the present moment absolutely essential that the home treasury should have the command of much larger sums than had hitherto been found necessary. It was needless for him to say that that replenishment was rendered necessary by
  796
  the number of troops sent out owing to recent events, and the enormous pecuniary losses sustained in the course of the mutiny, which had prevented the Government of India from making the ordinary remittances. He would, however, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, specify some of the reasons why the sum now named was required. So large an amount was wanted in consequence of the enormous sums paid for the conveyance of troops; in consequence of the vast quantity of military stores which it was necessary to send out to India; in consequence of the Government of India having made a requisition upon the Company, which had been already met to the extent of £1,000,000 in silver bullion; in consequence of the probability of still larger numbers of troops and greater quantities of stores being required—for there could not be the slightest doubt that as regarded troops a number very far beyond the average would have to be sent out next year; in consequence of the possibility that they would have to make another large remittance of bullion to maintain their credit in India; in fine, in consequence of the difficulties which any Government would have to encounter before the settlement of Indian affairs could be effected. Was it not evident that the home Government must be placed in a position to surmount those difficulties? And how ruinous it would be at the present moment to stop the machinery of government, and thus deprive the authorities in India of the means of defence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire said that this money was not wanted for immediate and pressing purposes. The House would judge of the accuracy of that statement when he informed them that at the present moment the home Government of India were indebted to the Imperial Government for stores, for charges on account of troops, and other matters, in a sum of more than £3,000,000, a large proportion of which the Treasury were now pressing for, and which would have to be paid within the next month. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had read to the House an estimate of the amount required, which showed that for 1858 the expenditure would exceed £7,000,000. Probably it would be found necessary to send out troops by steam, in order to expedite their passage to India, which would cause an additional expen-

  797
  diture. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) argued that because money could be obtained at Calcutta only at 6 per cent, it was a natural consequence that the money required could not be raised at a less rate of interest in this country. But the fact was that 6 per cent at Calcutta, measured by the rates at which private merchants borrowed on the best security, in India and England respectively, did not amount to more than 3 per cent in this country. And the Company, in fact, borrowed as cheaply in relation to private individuals when it borrowed in Calcutta at 6 per cent, as the Government here did when they borrowed at 3 per cent. The Company's 4 per cent. bonds were at this moment at a premium of 20s. per cent, which at least proved that the credit of the East India Company had not fallen so low as the right hon. Gentleman thought. His hon. Friend stated that when other colonies wanted money they came into the market and borrowed it upon their own responsibility, and high legal authorities were of opinion that the Government of India might do the same; but it was thought that, in circumstances so unparalleled as the present, the fairest and most open course was to come to Parliament, state the facts of the case, and ask for authority to borrow £10,000,000 more. He did not think that this sum would he a larger margin than was wise and safe for the service of the country. He thought the House would agree with him, that whatever measure was looming in the distance with respect to the future government of India, the present was not a time when they ought to allow the machinery of Government to stand still for want of funds; but that when their resources were, as now, exhausted, they should at once authorise them to borrow sufficient to enable them to carry on such operations as would strengthen the hands of the Government in India, and supply them with sufficient men and materials to bring the great event which they had on hand to a successful conclusion.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last did not seem quite to understand the difficulty which had been raised and which he was bound to say he himself entertained. He apprehended that no one had the slightest wish—certainly he had none—to throw any difficulty in the way of the East India Company, or any other Government what-
  798
  ever, obtaining sufficient funds to carry on the public service. For his part he was quite prepared to act with liberality towards the Company; all that he asked was that such a loan only should be demanded as was sufficient for the present year. As he understood the hon. Gentleman, that amount required would be about £7,000,000. Confine it to that, and let them not be issuing debentures for a year and a half. By adopting the suggestion he now made, they would only be pursuing the just and natural course which was pursued with reference to loans required for this country. Of what use was it making a different rule with respect to the East India Company, when the probability was that in less than six months the East India Company would be matter of history? Of course he alluded only to what he supposed to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government—he did not, any more than any one else, know what the House might do; but, at all events, he thought it would be no harm to let the Government bring in a Bill which he, for one, should cordially support, the object of which should be to provide, by way of loan, for the amount of money they would require for one year. No doubt what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mangles) had stated was quite correct; the East India Company had very properly made an application to the Government, a communication had taken place, and a statement had been made as to the amount required for the service of the year; and he had not the slightest objection to a measure which would provide a liberal allowance over that; but he did object to vote money which was to be dealt with, they did not know when or by whom. On what guarantee it was proposed that this sum should be raised did not seem to him very clear. It was quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have nothing to do with it, for he had assured them that he would throw no additional sum on the finances of England to provide for the wants of India; he stated that he would take care that the finances of India should not be transferred to the general Imperial finance; and, therefore, as far as finance was concerned, he assured them that the Government of India would be no acquisition to the home Government at all. Whatever other effect it might have, he did not think the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would contribute much to getting the money at a good price. But he hoped the House would not be led away by

  799
  such a statement from the real point of the case. Let them remember what Sir Robert Peel said—"Chancellors of the Exchequer may make speeches, but good sense and good faith will be stronger than all your Chancellors of the Exchequer." If their dominion in India were restored—and God forbid that he should express any doubt about it—they would have ample funds to meet their difficulties; but if they failed, did they suppose that the nation would not have to pay? Did they fancy that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not be responsible for sixpence the people of this country would not have the good faith and honesty to pay the money?—and the right hon. Gentleman would be the very first man to come down to that House and move that the expenditure should be transferred to the general finance of the country. What he contended was, that it was the duty of Parliament to see that no unnecessary charge was imposed on the revenues of India; and that their real interest would be to raise the money at the most reasonable rate of interest, because if there was the slightest chance of their being called upon to repay it, it was their business to do so. If, then, advantage could be taken of the credit of this country, and the money could be raised at a lower rate by giving the guarantee of this country, it was for the interest of India, and ultimately of this country also, that such a course should be taken. He understood his hon. Friend to say that at the present moment the Company owed the Government £3,000,000; there would be no great harm done if, after all, it was found that the estimated £7,000,000 was not sufficient, in allowing this debt to the Government to stand over for a short time. Probably his right hon. Friend would consider whether during the course of this Bill it would not be expedient to furnish the House with an account of the exact amount required for the service of the year; and reduce the amount of the loan to that sum.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, this was not the time to address the House on the subject of the proposed plan of Her Majesty's Government, which was at present in nubibus. He would give his opinion on that plan when it came before them. The measures adopted for the preservation of our empire in India had necessitated an enormous outlay which had almost drained the Treasury of the Indian Government, and it was absolutely necessary that money should he
  800
  had in this country. Whether by guarantee of the Government of this country, or merely on the revenues of India, the money must be had. With regard to this guarantee, he would express his conviction that in the present temperament of the 180,000,000 of persons in India, if it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out the views expressed by certain parties in India and England as to placing India under the direct authority of the Crown, the guarantee of any sum of money to be raised now or hereafter, whether upon the revenues of India or the revenues of England, would in the course of a few years not be worth a rush.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he considered that it was absolutely necessary that the whole state of Indian finance should be laid before the House. The House of Commons had done many queer things in the way of finance, but they would never do a queerer than the authorising of a loan for the purpose of raising £10,000,000 without the slightest information upon a branch of finance which he did not hesitate to say was, as far as he knew, in the most critical position. It was notorious that, taking the revenue of India for the last five years, it showed, although reaching the enormous amount of £28,000,000, a deficiency on the charges, which deficiency, be it remembered, existed before the commencement of any of the troubles which had since come upon it. It was difficult, therefore, as far as India was concerned, to know what security could he granted for loaning to any extent. He quite concurred in the view of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), that they ought not to go one single step beyond the absolute necessity of the case, but should limit the loan to the amount required for the year. It was impossible not to remark that Her Majesty's Government had chosen the present critical moment to raise questions which could not fail to embarrass the Government both here and in India. He could not conceive what had induced them to think of making the slightest change at such a moment. At all events, he was pursuaded that if once the Government of India was placed under the direct control of the Ministry, it would he impossible for the House to prevent the country from drifting into liability—in other words, the finances of England would have to be abstracted to pay the deficiencies of India. It was difficult, perhaps, to trace at this moment how liability would arise, but he

  801
  did not feel the slightest doubt that it would arise. It was, therefore, doubly important at a time when a measure placing the Government under the Ministry was contemplated, that they should know upon what basis the present proposed loan was to be raised. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) to say that the House represented the taxpayers of the kingdom; it represented, also, the whole empire, and it was, therefore, peculiarly their duty to see that no class slipped out of their liabilities, or they would certainly have to tack them on to the general taxation. But another question arose. When, in 1833, the Home Government was instituted on its present basis, it was expressly stated that the interest of the Proprietors was confined to the East India Stock which was converted into annuities of £680,000, which were to be a first charge on the Indian revenue, and that system of government was supported on the ground that no class of persons had so much interest in the good government of India as those whose property depended upon it. He should like to know whether they were not by the proposed Bill very much affecting the security of the Proprietors? One of the great questions to be considered was, whether Parliament was acting in good faith in matter of finance if it did not take into consideration the ground upon which the principles of the Home Government were settled at that time. He only mentioned that fact to show the necessity of proceeding with caution in dealing with the finances of India. He was quite persuaded that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would find it the most difficult of all questions to settle in his attempt to place the Indian dominions under the direct authority of the Crown.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURobserved, that the Proprietors' dividends would still be secured by their continuing to be a first charge on the revenues of India. His hon. Friend behind him (Sir F. Baring) would limit the amount of loan to the necessities of one year; and if he (Mr. Danby Seymour) understood the speech of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, the Government did really wish to limit the loan to the necessities of the present year. He believed the necessary expenditure for the present year would be nearer £8,000,000 than £7,000,000; it was always customary to keep a reserve of £1,000,000, which would bring the sum
  802
  up to £9,000,000; and surely, under such extraordinary circumstances, it was not too much to ask leave to raise another £1,000,000, which would complete the amount of the proposed loan. From the speech of his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring), he should think that he would be strongly in favour of raising the loan on the credit of this country, because he seemed to say that in any case the whole debt of India would be in the most difficult position, and he referred to a statement made by Sir Robert Peel fifteen years ago. But taking into consideration the whole subject, most people would arrive at the conclusion that the liability would fall on this country, not in consequence of any debt hitherto contracted, but in consequence of having utterly exhausted the purse of India, and being obliged to raise other loans on the credit of this country, in order to carry on wars which had arisen out of certain states of circumstances, and cost us an enormous expenditure. If the question were to be argued in any other way, why did they not go into the market at once and endeavour to save 2 per cent, instead of proposing to raise the money at 5 per cent. The present rate of interest in this country was little more than 3 per cent, and they would indeed be giving people a good bargain if they were to propose to raise money at 5 per cent on a guarantee of the revenue of this country. As the loan was put out it was solely on the guarantee of the revenue of India, and on no other guarantee whatever.
  MR. J. B. SMITHconsidered that before this loan was granted an estimate of Indian finance should be laid upon the table of the House.
  MR. VERNON SMITH, in reply, said he should omit all reference to any expected measure with respect to the future government of India, except it bore upon the objections which had been raised to this Bill. He wished to confirm in the strongest manner the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was not the slightest intention of charging the revenues of this country with the payment of any portion of this loan. The objections raised on the present occasion seemed to him applicable to the Bill when it was in Committee more than at present. The question, for instance, as to what amount was sufficient for the necessities of the year was one which it would be very competent for his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) to raise

  803
  in Committee; and he hoped that the House would, considering the urgent necessity there was for the East India Company's obtaining money, consent that the Second Reading of this measure should be taken at as early a period as possible. The urgency of the case, indeed, was admitted on all sides, as it was well known that there had been for a long time a deficiency, and he trusted no obstruction would be offered to the progress of the measure. The want of a thorough knowledge of the state of the Indian finances complained of by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, was not owing to any fault of his. What he stated last summer on this subject was equally applicable at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman wished to know whether the finances of India had improved. His own knowledge of what had passed in India during the last six months might satisfy him that it was impossible that its finances could have improved—to maintain them at an average point was all that could be expected. With respect to the amount now required, he might say that not one farthing of it was required for the general purposes to which the Indian revenue was applied, but it was only to complete the necessary home expenditure. He said that advisedly, because whether the government of India remained with the Company, or was vested in the Queen's Government, it was absolutely necessary to raise a sum of money for carrying on actual operations in our Indian empire.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. VERNON SMITH, the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER and Mr. MANGLES. Bill presented and read 1°

EAST INDIA (CADETSHIPS).

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL SYKES COLONEL SYKES moved for a Return of the number of Cadetships and different classes of individuals upon whose sons all Cadetships for India have been conferred by the Directors of the East India Company and President of the Board of Control, in the several years from 1840 to 1857, both inclusive. The Return was similar to one which had been moved on former occasions, and he had hoped that there would be no objection to its production on the part of the Government. He might observe that nine-tenths of the Cadetships in India were given to the middle classes, and he had no doubt that
  804
  his colleague in the Court of Directors would willingly allow every individual case to be marked. He expressed his opinion that when the Return was furnished it would be found that not one single Cadet-ship had been given for party purposes.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, if his hon. and gallant Friend had done him the honour to consult him as to the form of this Return, he should have been glad to have consented to it in a modified form, but it appeared to him there would be great difficulty in making the return as moved. He did not know how they were to classify individuals. Were they to state as to each individual whether he was the son of a clergyman, or a lawyer, or a Member of Parliament? He thought that would be very difficult, and if not difficult it would be very invidious. If the hon. Gentleman thought, however, he could get the Return, he had not the least objection, but he thought it not well that such a Return should be made. The reason of the middle classes going to India was, that they found it a favourable sphere for their exertions, and they had more of that patronage because they were more willing to take it. He did not know what the hon. and gallant Member meant by the middle classes. If he meant the sons of tradesmen he believed there were very few who bad received Cadetships. But there was no imputation whatever on the persons sent. They had many of them distinguished themselves, and there was no imputation on them. The Motion referred to Cadetships conferred by the Directors of the East India Company and the President of the Board of Control, whereas he knew very well that the Cadetships were all conferred by the Directors. If the hon. and gallant Member wished to show the distinction he should be too glad to show it. Then the period was fixed from 1840 to 1857. He could not tell why that period was fixed upon, till on looking at the East India Registrar he saw that in 1840 the hon. and gallant Member was first made a Director. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would restrict his Motion to the last ten years, he (Mr. Smith) should have no objection to it as far as he was personally concerned.
  COLONEL SYKEShad originally intended to make his Motion apply to the last twenty years, but he found that returns had already been published which came down to 1840. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the form of

  805
  his Motion, he had only to say that the Returns made under it would exactly follow the precedent of the Returns which had already been laid before the House. Under these circumstances, he could not consent to any alteration, and be should, if necesary, divide the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered,—
  "Of the number of Cadetships and different classes of Individuals upon whose sons all Cadet-ships for India have been conferred by the Directors of the East India Company, and President of the Board of Control, in the several years from 1840 to 1857, both inclusive."

EAST INDIA (HINDOO SHRINES, &c.)

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  SIR HARRY VERNEY SIR HARRY VERNEY moved for copies of all papers not already presented to the House, connected with the various annexations of territory in India, including minutes by individual directors, since the annexation of Sattarah; account of all sums paid to Hindoo or Mahomedan shrines, or in any way in honour or support of the religion or religious institutions of the native inhabitants of India, which were collected or disbursed by the agency of the East India Company's servants during the year 1857; copies of the petition of the inhabitants of Calcutta for the recall of the Governor General, together with any observations which he might have made thereon; and, of any despatches from the Court of Directors of the East India Company to the Government of India respecting the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the causes of the military mutiny in that country, and the means of reorganizing the Bengal army.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that he had no objection to produce the papers asked for; but with respect to the petition from Calcutta for the recall of the Governor General, he must make a short statement. That petition had been sent home to be presented to the Queen by his noble Friend at the head of the Government, He (Mr. Vernon Smith) stated at the time, and he begged to repeat now, that that was, according to all colonial doctrine, an informal manner of presenting a petition, and that it ought to have come through the Governor General. Being informal, his noble Friend had taken the usual course of returning it to the petitioners, to be forwarded again, if they thought fit, through the Governor General, when the Governor General would send a detailed communication on the subject, addressed
  806
  probably to the Court of Directors. In the meantime, however, hearing that such a petition was in course of signature, the Governor General had procured a copy of it, and had sent it to the Court of Directors, accompanied with a few hasty observations. That was a public document, and if the hon. Baronet wished to have it he should not object to produce it; but he wished the House to consider that those observations of the Governor General were only in the nature of hasty notes written on a petition casually brought up to his notice, and that they did not contain that detailed information which his noble Friend would willingly have given if the petition had been presented in due form.
  Motion agreed to.
  Account ordered,—
  "Of all sums paid to Hindoo or Mahometan Shrines, or in any way in honour or support of the Religion or of Religious Institutions of the native inhabitants of India, which were collected or disbursed by the agency of the East India Company's Servants during the year 1857."
  "And copies of the Petition of the Inhabitants of Calcutta for the recal of the Governor General, together with any observations he may have made thereon."
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.