Sitting of 6 June 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Plymouth, Roundell Palmer, Esq
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Common Lodging Houses.
3° Income Tax; Consolidated Fund £4,000,000.

BURY ST. EDMUND'S ELECTION.
MR. WALPOLEappeared at the bar and reported that the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the return for Bury St. Edmund's, had determined that James Henry Porteus Oakes, Esq., had been duly elected a burgess to serve in the present Parliament for that Borough.

SLIGO (BOROUGH) ELECTION.
MR. DIVETTappeared at the bar and reported that the Select Committee appointed to try the return of Charles Townley, Esq., for the borough of Sligo, had agreed to the following Resolutions, namely:—
"That Charles Towneley, Esq., is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Sligo.
"That the last Election for the said Borough is a void Election."
And the said Determinations were order-
1208
ed to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, that the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
"That the said Charles Towneley was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last Election for the Borough of Sligo.
"That Jeremiah Joyce O'Donovan, and Alderman of the Borough of Sligo, was bribed by Henry Stonor, by the promise of payment of 1037., being a portion of an outstanding Election account, to forbear giving his vote, which he had promised to Mr. Somers, and in consequence absented himself during the Election.
"That it was not proved that the acts of bribery and treating were committed with the knowledge and consent of the said Charles Towneley.
"That the influence of the Roman Catholic Priests was exercised in a manner inconsistent with their duty as ministers of religion, and destructive of freedom of choice on the part of the voters."

INCOME TAX BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhaving moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
COLONEL HARCOURTsaid, that he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very hard bearing of the tax upon the pilots belonging to the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth. The earnings of the crew of each pilot boat amounted to about 150 l., which was shared in certain fixed proportions amongst the members of the crew; and yet, although their united incomes only amounted to the lowest sum upon which income tax was charged, each of these poor men was charged with the tax. This was an evident injustice, arising, he believed, from an error on the part of the collector, which a simple declaration on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prevent again occurring.
MR. HUMEsaid, that all the anomalies in the collection of this tax which had been proved to exist before the Income Tax Committee were continued by this Bill. Retaining, however, all the objections which he had ever held to the tax in its present form, and believing still that no tax upon income could be a just one, and that a tax upon property only was the proper mode of raising the necessary revenue, he should not now offer any opposition to the Bill, because he saw that the Government were determined to pass it in its present forth; and great as he thought its defects, he believed they were more than compensated by the advantages which would be derived

1209
from the other financial arrangements by which the reimposition of this tax was accompanied. The imposition of a tax on the descent of real property would, for instance, he so beneficial, that there was hardly any price he was not prepared to pay for it. He believed, however, that the country would not long bear the inequalities of the present income tax, but would insist that it should be levied in the only fair manner, as a tax upon property.
MR. HEYWORTHbelieved, that it would be both impolitic and unjust to levy our taxation on property alone, for in that case millions would escape taxation altogether. He believed that the income tax, even in its present form, was as just a tax as any that was paid. The only question was, whether it would be a lasting tax; for if it were, he believed it would be possible to make it as just as any tax could be.
MR. GROGANsaid, that, by the 12th clause, the collector general of rates for the city of Dublin was to transmit to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue copies of the poor-rates "made by him for the relief of the destitute poor in the several electoral divisions, or parts thereof, in which he is by law authorised to make and declare such rates." Now, the fact was that the collector general for the city of Dublin did not make any rate; he only assessed it when made by the board of guardians; and the clerk of the board of guardians was, therefore, as in other parts of the country, the proper person to apply to for copies of the rates. He would also call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the amount of remuneration paid to those officers for performing that duty.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, that this measure had been maintained on these two distinct grounds; first, that England being liable to an income tax, Ireland should be so too; and, secondly, that the consolidated annuities having been remitted to Ireland, it was only fair she should pay the income tax as an equivalent. He denied, however, that either of these reasons was well founded. Up to the present time it had been a recognised principle that the taxation of Ireland, as compared to that of England, should be in the ratio of one to twelve. This was the first time that that principle had been deviated from; and before this was done, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to prove either that England had declined, or that Ireland had increased, in prosperity, or that all former Chancellors of the Exchequer
1210
were wrong. But he had not done any one of these three things, and he (Mr. Kennedy) could not therefore think that he was justified in imposing this tax on Ireland. It had been usual, when Ireland was agitated, to say, "Be peaceable, and you shall have justice." Agitation had now ceased, and what justice was extended to Ireland? Why, her taxation was increased, and the people were placed in a worse position than they were in before. The principle of England was always to divide Ireland when she wished to govern her; and this had not been forgotten in the present Session. He protested in the name of his constituents against the imposition upon them of so unjust and impolitic a tax.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he had opposed this measure at every stage, and it was now useless to carry that opposition still further by dividing against the third reading. He should not, however, do his duty, if he did not protest against the injustice, and, as he thought, the illegality, of this measure, as far as regarded Ireland. There were three tests of the amount of the taxation to be imposed on Ireland according to the Treaty of Union. Now whether they took the test of the amount of the exports or imports, or of consumption of the people, it was clear that not only could they not, in accordance with that treaty, impose any new taxation on Ireland, but they were bound to diminish the present taxation. It had been admitted by Mr. Goulburn, that the proportion of the taxation of the empire which was fixed upon Ireland at the time of the Union was unjust; and yet the fact, of her having failed for some time to pay it was now adduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show that there was a debt due from her. He (Colonel Dunne), however, denied it. He hoped that Ireland would never lie down under the injustice that was now being done to her, but that she would in every constitutional manner protest against the imposition of this tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he gave the hon. and gallant Colonel full credit for the perfect consistency with which he had contended against this measure, for—as he thought —the advantage of Ireland. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should not, however, then enter further into this subject, than to protest, once for all, against the assertion that the Budget was intended to impose or did impose, additional taxation

1211
upon Ireland. This was a question of figures; and if hon. Gentlemen would set against the income tax and the spirit duties which were to be imposed upon Ireland the amount of the consolidated annuities which were to be remitted, together with the amount of the relief which Ireland was to receive from the reduction of the indirect taxation, they would find that she was a considerable gainer by the present Budget. ["Oh, oh!"] He must remind the hon. Gentleman from whom those peculiar sounds proceeded, that questions of figures could not be settled by arguments of that kind; they could not be settled either by exclamations or by something less articulate than exclamations, which he would not stop to characterise. His main object in rising was to answer two or three questions which had been put to him in the course of the short conversation which had taken place. The hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for the Isle of Wight (Colonel Harcourt) had stated the case of certain pilots who were associated together, and upon whose joint earnings, though they only amounted to 150 1., it appeared that the income tax was charged. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) apprehended that these parties supposed that they were liable to this tax solely in consequence of their want of acquaintance with the law. In all cases of partnership when the proceeds amounted to 150 1., there was a primâ facie case of liability to this tax; but he believed that it was in the power of the partnership to claim exemption upon their individual assessment, supposing that their several incomes from that and other sources did not amount to 150 1. a year. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Grogan) with respect to the amount of remuneration provided by this Bill for the clerks of unions for furnishing copies of the poor-rates, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had reason to believe, from information received on the best authority from Dublin, that the remuneration provided was sufficient; but if it were found to be insufficient, it would be in the discretion of the Treasury to make a larger allowance. The case of the collector general of rates in Dublin would be met by the insertion of two words in the twelfth clause.
MR. MAGUIREwished to remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he charged Irish Members with meeting figures by exclamations, that he had been specially challenged by the hon. Member for Port-
1212
arlington (Colonel Dunne) to a contest of figures, and that he declined it. Not an Irish Member had come down to the House without figures, and not a single argument from the Treasury bench, or the independent benches opposite, had unsettled these figures. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, He now abandoned all idea of opposition to the Bill; but he wished to be satisfied as to the occupiers of houses in towns. Were those who were told they were free from the tax yet to be harassed and annoyed on account of others who had to pay it? He wished an assurance that would satisfy the humbler classes in the towns.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, after a little delay, and some exclamations from the Irish benches, rose and said, the hon. Gentleman asked him to give an assurance that would satisfy his constituents.
MR. MAGUIRE: Well, one that will satisfy me as a Member of this House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he doubted whether any answer he could give would satisfy either. This was a question of administration and detail, and, as he had already stated, it was impossible to give an answer with respect to the point at which it was desirable to draw a line in reference to the person that was to be charged, whether the landlord, the occupier, or the immediate lessor. What the line would be he could not at present state, because there being no organisation of officers in Ireland for the collection of the tax, it would be very imprudent on his part to profess to give an answer with certainty.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
The House divided: —Ayes 189; Noes 55: Majority 134.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, C. H. W.

Brown, W.

Adair, H. E.

Browne, V. A.

Adderley, C. B.

Butler, C. S.

Alcock, T.

Butt, G. M.

Aspinall, J. T. W.

Butt, I.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Ball, J.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Bell, J.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Benbow, J.

Caulfield, Col. J. M.

Biddulph, R. M.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Biggs, W.

Chambers, T.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Charteris, hon. F.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Cheetham, J.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Bright, J.

Christy, S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Clay, Sir W.

Brotherton, J.

Cobden, R.

1213

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Layard, A. H.

Cocks, T. S.

Lee, W.

Coffin, W.

Legh, G. C.

Collier, R. P.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Crook, J.

Lowe, R.

Crossley, F.

Luce, T.

Denison, E.

Mackie, J.

Dent, J. D.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Dering, Sir E.

MacGregor, J.

Divett, E.

M'Gregor, J.

Drummond, H,

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Dundas, G.

Martin, J.

Dunlop, A. M.

Masterman, J.

Egerton, E. C.

Matheson, A.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Matheson, Sir J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Milligan, R.

Evans, W.

Mills, T.

Evelyn, W. J.

Moffatt, G.

Ewart, W.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Fergus, J.

Monck, Visct.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Monsell, W.

Ferguson, J.

Morris, D.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Murphy, F. S.

Foley, J. H. H.

Norreys, Lord

Forster, C.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Fortescue, C.

O'Connell, M.

Fox, W. J.

Oliveira, B.

Freestun, Col.

Osborne, R.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Palmer, R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Peel, Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Pellatt, A.

Goderich, Visct.

Phillimore, J. G.

Goodman, Sir G.

Phinn, T.

Goold, W.

Pilkington, J.

Gordon, Adm.

Price, Sir R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Price, W. P.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Ricardo, O.

Gregson, S.

Rich, H.

Grenfell, C. W.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Hadfield, G.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hail, Sir B.

Russell, F. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Sadleir, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Sandars, G.

Harcourt, Col.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Hastie, A.

Scully, V.

Heard, J. I.

Seymour, W. D.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Herbert, H. A.

Smith, J. B.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Smith, M. T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hindley, C.

Smollett, A.

Hogg, Sir J.W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hudson, G.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hughes, W. B.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Hume, J.

Stuart, H.

Hutt, W.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Jermyn, Earl

Thompson, G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Kendall, N.

Townshend, Capt.

Keogh, W.

Vane, Lord H.

Kershaw, J,

Vernon, G. E. H.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Kirk, W.

Vivyan, Sir R. R.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Walcott, Adm.

Laing, S.

West, F. R.

Langton, H. G.

Whatman, J

Laslett, W.

Whitbread, S.

1214

Wickham, H. W.

Wyndham, W.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Williams, W.

Wilson, J.

TELLERS.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Hayter, W. G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Berkeley, C. G.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hawkins, W. W.

Bagge, W.

Hill, Lord A. E.

Bailey, C.

Hume, W. F.

Baillie, H. J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Keating, R.

Bateson, T.

Kelly, Sir F.

Bennet, P.

Kennedy, T.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Ker, D. S.

Blair, Col.

Kerrison, Sir E. C.

Blake, M. J.

King, J. K.

Bland, L. H.

Liddell, H. G.

Booker, T. W.

Lucas, F.

Brady, J.

Maguire, J. F.

Brisco, M.

Manners, Lord J.

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Mitchell, W.

Clivo, R.

Montgomery, H. L.

Coles, H. B.

O'Brien, P.

Corbally, M. E.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Huffy, C. G.

Potter, R.

Dunne, Col.

Stanhope, J. B.

Esmonde, J.

Sullivan, M.

Forster, Sir G.

Taylor, Col.

Frewen, C. H.

Thompson, Ald.

Fuller, A. E.

Vance, J.

George, J.

Williams, T. P.

Greene, J.

Wyndham, Gen.

Greville, Col. F.

TELLERS.

Grogan, E.

Verner, Sir W.

Halsey, T. P.

Brooke, Sir A.

Bill read 3°.
On Question that the Bill do pass,
SIR FITZROY KELLYthen moved to add the clauses of which he had given notice. The hon. and learned Member said he would not at that advanced stage of the Bill occupy more than a very short time in making the observations which he felt it his duty to offer to the House; but he could assure the House that his proposal was not brought forward from party spirit, nor, indeed, was it in reality at all opposed to the general principle of the measure; and he appealed with full confidence to Gentlemen on both sides of the House for an impartial consideration of his proposal. He had fixed upon the limit of 300 1. a year, because, however great might be the inequalities of the tax yet uncorrected, still it must be admitted that persons having an income of more than 300 l. a year, although they might be perplexed to make their income meet their expenditure, would nevertheless be able, with ordinary economy, to secure all the necessaries, and even some of the comforts of existence; but going below that sum, and considering more especially that class of persons possessing incomes of from 100 1. to 200 1. a year, many of whom were to be

1215
found among the constituents of nearly every hon. Member in the House, they had, he considered, the highest possible reason to complain of the application of the tax to their incomes at all. The first class of persons upon whom the new system would fall with great severity was that of the poorer clergy and curates, who were in possession of incomes little greater than 100 l. a year, and who, having hitherto been exempt, were now to have the tax extended to them; and this appeared to be still more hard when it was considered that these persons were compelled to maintain a certain position in society; and were also, in respect of that position, often called upon to extend charitable relief to others. Another class of persons who would suffer by this measure were the class of small tradesmen, and, although he did not now intend to recapitulate the arguments which he had on former occasions addressed to the House, still he could not help observing that it did appear to him unfair that the same tax should be levied upon incomes which were permanent, and subject to no deductions, and upon the incomes of those poorer tradesmen who were struggling to make both ends meet by their own industry, and who, with limited capital, were subject to bad debts. He hoped he would not appeal in vain on behalf of that class of persons to those hon. Gentlemen who had thought fit to support the Government in all the propositions of the Bill; and that he should receive support in his proposal, which tended, according to his judgment, to mitigate the severity with which the tax fell upon many persons who found extreme difficulty in contributing to the revenue at all. There was another class of persons who had suffered greatly from recent legislation—he meant the class of small farmers in the agricultural districts—and he might say that there were farmers residing at no very great distance from himself, whose incomes had been, on account of recent legislation, diminished one-half, and on such persons the extension of the income tax would fall very heavily. He would not unnecessarily detain the House; but he would repeat that, in his opinion, that class of persons possessing incomes no larger than from 100 l. to 200 l a year ought not to be taxed upon the same scale as those possessing a larger competency. He had a precedent for the appeal he was now making, for it was well known that in the year 1806, when the income tax was raised from 6½ to 10 per cent, a distinction
1216
was made in favour of various classes of persons almost identical in form to the one which he was now proposing, inasmuch as at that time the tax was reduced in respect of certain classes, from 10 to 5 per cent. If, in the midst of the greatest and most expensive war in which this country was ever engaged, and at a time when the exigencies of the State were more urgent than they had ever since been; when, also, no Minister was able to point out how to raise a sufficient sum to meet the necessary expenditure—if at such a time a reduction such as he had mentioned bad been made, he could see no reason why such a reduction should be denied now. After the many discussions the Bill had undergone, he would do no more at present than place his case before the House; and he believed that no one could reflect upon the application of the tax to the various classes of persons to whom he had alluded without perceiving its hardship; that no one could reflect upon the condition of those persons without feeling some sympathy for them, or without an inclination to support the measure which he was proposing. He would submit to the Government that the adoption of his proposal would not make any serious difference in the amount actually produced by the tax; and even that was of less consequence, inasmuch as he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the financial views which he had brought before the House, considerably underrated the income which would be derived from the sources of revenue to which he had referred. Considering, then, the small difference which would be made in the revenue of the country by acceding to his proposal, and the incalculable advantage which it would bestow upon the poorer classes of the community, he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would take it into his favourable consideration, and would grant the remission which he ventured to recommend.
Clause (That nothing in this Act contained shall be held to make any larger sum than threepence-halfpenny in the pound payable upon any income whatever under two hundred pounds a year; or any larger I sum than fivepence farthing in the pound upon any income under three hundred pounds a year),
Brought up, and read 1°.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry that he could not accede to the request of his hon. and

1217
learned Friend to take this clause into his favourable consideration. His reasons for not doing so were obvious. All persons knew that one of the great dangers by which the income tax was beset, was the exemptions by which it was accompanied. The consideration on which exemptions had been formerly justified was, that there was a certain point in the progress down the scale of direct taxation beyond which it was not advisable to pass. The sums to be levied, for instance, might be so small that they would not pay the cost of collection, or if they were collected, the vexation attending it would be such that it would not be expedient to attempt it. When Mr. Pitt introduced the income tax, he proposed 60 l. as the limit; and between that sum and 200 l. he proposed a variety of graduations; he likewise introduced exemptions similar in nature to those proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, in favour of married persons having a number of children, and others in favour of the clergy, and of officers, under certain circumstances. It was gradually found out to be unwise to continue these exemptions, and whatever might have been the particular privileges before enjoyed, it was thereafter determined to make one fixed exemption. Such was the Act of 1842. When the income tax was first framed it was on a very complex basis, and the lesson which experience had taught was, that it was wise to get rid of all graduations, and simplify distinctions as much as possible. His hon. and learned Friend, then, asked Parliament to go back to a system which experience pronounced to be bad, and to abolish a system which had worked well. His proposal involved a breach of principle, and, without his hon. and learned Friend at all intending it, it tended to communism. It was dangerous to property. If he were asked why he stopped at 150 1. a year, his answer was, he did so because he found that margin recognised by law, and because he found a system already at work which embraced such a limitation; and he would impress upon the House, that in matters of this kind a very little experience was worth a great deal of abstract reasoning. If, however, he had to argue the question upon its abstract merits, he was willing to admit he might find it very difficult to prove that the limitation ought to be placed at 100 l. a year. Still the proposition of the Government was so far intelligible, that it proposed the exemption of a class, that is,
1218
the labouring class, from the operation of the tax. That, at all events, was based upon the perfectly understandable ground that it was very difficult to get at such a class, for most of them in the populous districts were lodgers, not housekeepers, which would make it impossible to collect the tax with any degree of efficiency. The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, called upon the House to reverse the principle which experience had taught to be the best, and the principle of his Amendment was one which, if admitted, ought to have a much wider application; for he defied him to prove that the man with 400 l. a year was always better able to bear the tax than the man only in receipt of 100 l. a year. Considering the range of income in this country, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thus opened the door, the consequence would be that great numbers would be found rushing through it, and he therefore hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
MR. SPOONERthought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite overlooked the fact he himself recognised—the principle of a graduated income tax, which was all that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) was contending for. No one pretended to say that in many instances of persons possessed of an income of 400 l. a year, the payment of income tax might not be found very oppressive. But what his hon. and learned Friend wanted to effect was, that the labouring classes should not be taxed. Now, surely his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean to contend that parties with but 100 l. or 150 l. were not often mere actual labourers. Why, what did the right hon. Gentleman mean to do with artisans who receive but two guineas a week? And when he talked about his only subjecting this class to a very trifling tax after all, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing the question upon a very narrow basis indeed. Some allusion had been made to the precedent afforded by Sir Robert Peel, and to the fault found with him for placing the limitation where he had. He (Mr. Spooner), however, had no recollection whatever of any such objection having been raised; but he distinctly remembered the protest entered more than once by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) against the very great cruelty and injustice of making persons possessing incomes of only 150 l. pay the tax upon the full amount of that income, rather

1219
than making it take effect only upon a certain proportion of that income.
SIR GEORGE GOODMANwas of opinion, from what he knew of them, that the agricultural constituencies were generally satisfied with the income-tax scheme of the Government, so far as it affected them; at all events the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) was not likely to give them more relief than the scheme of the Government.
MR. E. BALLsaid, that though the larger class of farmers throughout the country were at present in a thriving condition, the small farmers had not in any way shared their prosperity. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir P. Kelly), in a correct manner, by treating it as if it involved the non-payment of the tax at all by those in the receipt of but small incomes. It amounted to nothing of the kind. He called upon the House to accept the Amendment as a matter of justice to the small farmers.
MR. LAINGhad great experience with respect to small farmers in Scotland, namely, men with rents of 10 1. or 15 1., and up to 51 1. a year. The prosperity of that class might be measured by the circulars of the Manchester cotton manufacturers, for the welfare of the two classes fluctuated together. He happened to have received that very morning a letter from a friend who had supposed that the recent commercial legislation would have been ruinous to the small farmers; but he now confessed that he had been agreeably disappointed, for they had never been so well off before. If any class had suffered at all, it was not the large nor the small, but the middling agriculturists—the position of whom had become analogous to that of the small manufacturers, who were unable to compete with men of more capital and intelligence. The principle of the proposed clause was really of a very revolutionary character. If it were admitted, they could not stop short of constituting every board of income-tax commissioners a court of equity to assess each man's tax according to his supposed ability to pay; and if they did that, confiscation must follow. These Amendments were grounded upon a mistaken estimate of the supposed unpopularity of the income tax with those who paid it under Schedule D. He believed that if those persons were offered the option of continuing the income tax,
1220
and of having an equivalent amount of indirect taxation restored, or even of having other direct taxes imposed in its stead, they would, in nine cases out often, prefer the first alternative. Take the hardest case that could be cited—that of the professional man, struggling into practice, who was obliged to make a certain appearance without actually earning anything. At present, as those men had no income, but were consuming their own capital, they were excused; but if they had to pay a heavy house tax, for instance, they would be made to contribute as much as if they were in the receipt of large earnings. He (Mr. Laing), believed that the income tax was really a very popular tax.
MR. BANKESsaid, the result of his own observations induced him to differ from the remarks of the preceding speaker, so far as regarded the condition of a corresponding class of small farmers in England. Many of that class were at present unable to derive a profit from their trade, or to pursue any other trade; they were not willing to emigrate and so abandon their native land, though at the present moment they did not know how they were to live by farming. It was with a view to relieve that class that he would support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly). He could not deny that farming, in many instances, was a prosperous trade at the present moment; but in connexion with that admission was the fact, that numbers of the class of small farmers were rapidly quitting the country, because they could not find a living in it.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 144: Majority 113.
SIR FITZROY KELLYthen moved to deduct 5 per cent from the amount of the tax paid upon all incomes under 400 l. a year, in respect of each child of the party paying, born in wedlock, and under twenty-one years of age, and unmarried, He would say in a single sentence that he had founded that Amendment upon a principle which was already recognised by Parliament, and acted on by Mr. Pitt. But the real principle upon which he proceeded, was the principle that every man should be taxed according to his ability to pay.
Clause (That every person shall be entitled to a deduction or return of 5 per cent from the amount of any tax payable or paid, by virtue of this Act, upon any

1221
income whatever not exceeding 400 l. a year, in respect of each and every child of such person born in wedlock, and unmarried, and under 21 years, when such Tax accrues due),
Brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," put, and negatived.
SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, his principal reason for bringing forward the clause of which he had given notice was, that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had given notice of moving a clause upon the third reading to a similar effect as this, relating to Ireland; and if that clause had been agreed to, the Scotch landowners would have had an unanswerable case to bring forward. He understood, however, that that clause had not yet been acceded to. He was not asking for an exemption in favour of Scotland which did not exist in England, but he only asked for the same boon to be extended to Scotland that was going to be, or had been, granted to Ireland. The case was one of comparison between the owners of land and of houses. In Scotland there were many rates or assessments which were paid by the landlord, who, consequently, received a larger rent, to enable him to defray those expenses in proportion to the value of the property of which he was the owner. In England the same taxes were paid by the occupier; therefore the money did not pass through the owner's hands, and did not come within the clutches of the income-tax collectors. There were throe of these heads of rates: first, one-half of the poor-rates; secondly, the assessments for the repair of churches, parsonages, schools, and school-houses; and, thirdly, the expenses of prisons, of the prosecution of criminals, of the constabulary, of the building of bridges, and other things—all these were paid by the landlord in Scotland. In some counties, also, the highway rates were levied, partly from the owner and partly from the occupier. Altogether, the Scotch landlord paid about 6 per cent upon the rent more than the English landlord. He might put the case in another way, which would make it clearer to the House. The profit derived from landed property could be put under three heads: first, there was the rent, or the landlord's profit; secondly, there was the tenant's profit; and, thirdly, there was the sum devoted to the payment of these rates. In both countries the landlord and
1222
the tenant each paid the income tax upon his own share of the profit; but in England the money paid for these rates was paid directly to the collector without passing through the landlord's hands, and was not known to the income-tax collector— not taken cognisance of by him. In Scotland it was paid by the occupier to the owner, and in passing through his hands 7d, in the pound was, deducted from it by the income-tax collector. The arguments which had been urged against this proposition were, first—although this argument had not been much relied on—that the rate of assessment under Schedule B in Scotland was different from that in England. The payment of these rates would, to a certain extent, give a tenant a claim for deduction; but this could not have been the ground on which the difference in the rate of assessment under Schedule B was made, because the greater portion of the farms in Scotland did not pay a largo enough amount of rent to bring them within the income tax. Therefore, the rate of assessment under Schedule B could make no difference to them. The principal argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer against this proposition was, that the system of repairs in Scotland was different from that in England. He had some difficulty in understanding the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this argument. Before the right hon. Gentleman had announced his financial scheme to the House, there had been a meeting held of thirty Scotch Members, at whose request the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. A. Smollett) had written to the right hon. Gentleman respecting the inequality in the assessment. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to that letter, repeated the argument of the difference in the system of repairs. His hon. Friend again wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, stating that, in his opinion, and that of thirty other Scotch Members, no such difference existed; and he (Sir A. Campbell) entirely agreed in that opinion. After such a denial of his argument, he thought the right hon. Gentleman owed them some statement of the reasons upon which he had formed his opinion. He had, as yet, given no reasons whatever. When the right hon. Gentleman was stating his objections to this plan, he had been met with cries of "No, no!" but he merely turned round to hon. Members and said, "I differ from you," but had given no

1223
reason for doing so. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had been examining the usual form of Scotch leases, in most of which there was a clause to the effect that the landlord was bound to put the premises in proper and tenantable repair, and the tenant was bound to keep them so during his lease; but this clause was added—"ordinary wear and tear excepted." The object and the practical effect of these clauses was merely, in case of any disagreement between the landlord and tenant, to prevent the tenant from injuring his landlord by unfair play to the premises. An hon. Friend near him had just told him that he had that morning received a letter from his steward, asking for the repair of a farm in the middle of a lease. His usual practice was, that, at the beginning of a lease for fifteen or eighteen years, the landlord expended one year's rent in putting the farm in proper order. The only other argument urged against the proposal was, that if they once interfered with the mode of assessment of the income tax, they would have so many different claims from various quarters, that the whole thing would be set wrong. He referred to the 16th clause of the Income Tax Act of 1842, to show that the present case was not without a precedent. It might be asked why the Scotch landlords did not make covenants with their tenants; but the fact was that they were precluded from doing so by the clause he had just mentioned. The question was mooted, in the year 1844, before Parliament, when it was negatived simply upon the understanding that the income tax should continue only for three years. Now, however, they were asked to pay it for seven years, and, therefore, he thought it was high time that this injustice to Scotland should be remedied. He believed he had put before the House the true state of the case—namely, that there was money which was not actually paid to the Scotch landlord for rent, but which passed through his hands to be paid over to the tax collector; and that a similar system did not exist in England. He had shown there was a precedent for the Motion before the House: firstly, in a clause in the English Income Tax Act; and, secondly, in the clause just about to be proposed, granting to Ireland that same justice which he now asked for Scotland.
Clause (In charging the duty under Schedule A of this Act, in respect of lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages, in Scotland; an allowance or deduction
1224
shall be made for the amount of all parochial and county rates, taxes, and assessments, which by law or custom are paid by the owner thereof),
Brought up, and read 1°.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman, in proposing this clause to the House, founded it partly upon the general argument, and partly upon the special ground of the exception made to Ireland. As far as regarded the general argument, they had discussed it on a former occasion, when he opposed a clause much more limited than this, and it was rejected by a large majority, on the ground that it was impossible to concede it without unsettling the general structure of the income tax. The hon. Gentleman had said nothing to show that that argument was not applicable to this clause, and on that ground he was compelled again to oppose it. It was not the mere question whether the Scotch landlord paid 6 or 7 per cent, which was not paid by the English landlord. The income tax as it stood was a system of compensations, and if they were not to re-enact it until its inequalities were removed, he could not lay upon the hon. Gentleman a more difficult task than to remove them. He thought the hon. Gentleman would rise from such a task a sadder and a wiser man. The hon. Gentleman had little conception of the structure of the tax, when he talked of removing all inequalities. If the Scotch landlord were worse off than the English landlord with respect to rates, there was still another question to settle, whether he was worse off on the whole. If this claim were conceded to the landlord, what would they say to the householder? The Scotch landlord paid 5 per cent on repairs, including all he laid out when he renewed his leases. The householder in England, if not in Scotland, had to spend from 15 to 20 per cent for repairs. If they made a deduction of 15 or 20 per cent under Schedule A, or if the hon. Gentleman succeeded with this Motion, there would be a host of the most formidable claims under Schedules D and E, which were now in abeyance. This was a small corner of a great question. It was whether they should have the income tax in its present shape, full, he granted, of inequalities, but which in a considerable degree compensated one another, or whether they should enter on a task, perfectly hopeless to perform, of endeavouring to remove those inequalities. That was all he should say

1225
on the general question. But the hon. Gentleman had referred to a special case, and thought because a concession was about to be made to-night to Irish landlords, the same concession ought to be made to Scotland. Now, he bogged to assure the hon. Gentleman that no concession was about to be made to the Irish landlords. From the first introduction of the present Bill, it was founded upon a basis which did exempt, and was intended to exempt, Irish landlords from the payment of income tax on poor-rate. As the Bill was first introduced, the income tax in Ireland was to be assessed on the poor-law valuation, and the poor-law valuation in Ireland was framed on a principle which actually excluded the poor-rate from the calculation; and therefore, from the first, the Government bound themselves to the Irish landlords that they should not be assessed with the poor-rate. Perhaps it might be said, "Why did you do so?" He could not answer on the abstract question. His answer was, on the whole case, as a measure of policy and prudence, as a measure applied to Ireland for the first time, and as a measure for which there were not the same facilities of correction in Ireland as there were in England. Rental and real rent were not the same in Ireland as in England and Scotland, and the Government had made the Irish landlords liable to the income tax instead of the occupiers. It might be said that was an insignificant matter. In England or Scotland it might signify very little whether they went against the landlord or the occupier. He was not sure that it would signify very little even in England and Scotland, but it signified a great deal in Ireland. If they attempted to push too far the argument with regard to inequality, it would end only in aggravating inequality and injustice. But that was not so much the point. The point which he wished to dwell on was this: that with regard to the proceedings of the Government, there was no change in principle; that the Bill was founded from the first on the basis of assessment in Ireland upon the poor-law valuation, and the poor-law valuation entirely excluded the poor-rate. The clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) was simply intended to apply the principle, already recognised, to particular and exceptional cases where the valuation included the poor-rate. So much with regard to the particular case of Ireland. With regard to the general
1226
case of England and Scotland, he should allow it to stand as it stood the other night, when the House decided by a large majority against the alteration.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who said that no one could attempt to remove the inequalities of the income tax without rising from the task a sadder and a wiser man, showed himself every time he spoke a more unjust man. They assessed the proprietors of land in Scotland on incomes which they never received; they compelled them to act as unpaid collectors of taxes, and then charged them on the amount they collected. The injustice was monstrous; but it did not at all shock the right hon. Gentleman, His hon. Friend had understated the case. In one parish where he had property, on the occasion of building a new church, the demands in the shape of legal and positive burdens absorbed the whole of his rent for one year. The next year the clergyman's house had to be repaired and the garden put in order, and he had to pay between 200 1. and 300 1. The following year there was a new school-house to be built; so that in three years he did not get a third of the amount of rent on which he had to pay income tax. If the right hon. Gentleman had not lost all feeling, he would appeal to his sense of justice upon this question. The distinction which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to draw between Ireland and Scotland was a mere shuffling of the cards—a mere delusion— a mere sophistry, in which, as a master of that kind of argument, he delighted sometimes to indulge. The Scotch were a tax-enduring, long-suffering, and uncomplaining people; but it was a little too much to deny them all justice, and if he stood alone he would divide the House upon the clause,
MR. SMOLLETTthought that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated his intention to allow the poor-rate to be deducted from the Irish proprietors, they were justified in taking the sense of the House again upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman had given some ingenious reasons why this boon should be bestowed on Ireland, and not on Scotland. Perhaps there were other reasons. Ireland was disloyal and turbulent; Scotland was orderly, loyal, and submissive to the law. The Irish Members opposed the Government in every possible way; the Scotch Members, or a great majority of them, had supported the Government in passing this income tax. For these services the

1227
people of Scotland were to have the injustice and inequality continued for the remaining seven years, which had been so ably pointed out by preceding speakers. He trusted the hon. Member would divide the House, and he should certainly vote with him.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, it was his intention to give a vote directly in the teeth of a vote which he gave the other night. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer then stated that Government would act upon the broad and general principle of not attempting to equalise the income tax, letting a little too much justice on one side go against a little injustice on the other, he said that he did not desire that an exception should be made in the case of Scotch landlords, though they were unjustly treated. But the right hon. Gentleman had departed from that general principle of allowing no deduction for rates in any case, and now allowed it in the case of Ireland, and refused it in the case of Scotland, the reduction in England being already effected by the way in which the rates were laid upon the occupier. His Irish friends would say, "Look at your conduct and look at ours. You supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer against us and against everybody through thick and thin, and now he conies at last to a reduction of rates, and he takes it off us and keeps it on you." He did not like to be exposed to that taunt. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have some consideration for them, and he should certainly endeavour to obtain that consideration by voting with the hon. Member opposite.
MR. KINNAIRDwould, for the same reasons as the hon. Member for Greenock, record a different vote to-night from that on a former occasion.
MR. I. BUTTwas bound in justice and fairness to confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government had not departed from the principle of the Bill with regard to Ireland. The Amendment he proposed did go beyond that principle, and the right hon. Gentleman steadily and determinedly resisted it. The clause he now proposed was simply for the purpose of placing exceptional cases upon the same footing as the general assessment under the poor-law valuation. He was very unwilling to give the slightest support to the Government; but as an honest man be was bound to state that they were merely carrying out the principle on which the Bill was originally
1228
framed, by assenting to the clause, and they had steadily resisted an alteration which he had pressed upon them.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, as he understood the Government were about to con-code something to Ireland which had not been conceded to Scotland, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote in favour of this Amendment.
MR. WILKINSONdid not understand that anything was to be given to Ireland which was not to be given to Scotland, and he must appeal to the forbearance of the Scotch Members, to their loyalty, to make allowance for the difficulties in adjusting the different claims in a way which was confessedly unjust and unequal. As Scotchmen had proved to be the best agriculturists in consequence of the difficulties of their climate and similar causes, so he hoped that the taxation to which they were subjected would be equally good for them.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, there was no disposition on the part of the Government to favour one party more than another. The only reason why they took the poor-law valuation as the ground of their assessment was, that in Ireland there were so many different interests, that it would be Impossible to levy the tax upon any other principle.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 98: Majority 44.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen brought up clauses allowing the poor-rate to be deducted from the assessment in Ireland, which were agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had another Amendment to propose. The House would remember that he proposed to provide that the receipts for insurance in certain insurance companies should be accepted as deductions from a man's assessment on the income tax. Now, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was engaged in presiding over a Committee who were engaged in examining into the state of insurance and joint-Stock companies. As the new tax could not demanded before the 10th of October next, he proposed to take advantage of the remaining part of the Session to introduce a Bill determining some fixed and simple provisions which would be required to be complied with by all companies before their receipts for the

1229
payment of premiums would be received as exempting their holders to that amount from the income tax. In this way no preference would be shown to one company over another, and he would therefore strike out the description of these companies in the 43rd clause, and insert in lieu of it, "any insurance company which shall be registered according to any Act of Parliament that may be passed this Session."
MR. COWANsaid, he was a Member of the Committee referred to, and the right hon. Gentleman would be aware that a difficulty had arisen with respect to the word"registered"—whether it meant provisional or complete registration. The right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that many of the older companies were unwilling to be registered under the Act of 1844, and to get over that difficulty he would propose the insertion of the words, "or any company established prior to the passing of the last-mentioned Act."
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsupported the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, as he knew one company in the receipt of a quarter of a million per annum which was not registered at all, and who would not avail themselves of the clause referred to by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the more open the matter was left the better.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that was precisely the object of the clause, which, as it stood, would leave the matter altogether open.
MR. SPOONERsaid, if the matter remained open, it would be quite right; but it appeared to him that the Bill to be afterwards passed would confine the privilege to those companies who were registered according to its provisions.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: They must submit to some registration.
Amendment agreed to.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he wished to know whether any provision would be made for the repayment of advances made by the Lowther's Town Union in Ireland under the Temporary Relief Act, and the repayment of which had been promised by the Government to the union?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had communicated with the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject, but they disclaimed any such assurance as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. If, however, the board of guardians of the union would state the names of the persons who bad given the
1230
assurance, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be in a position to state whether the Government was or was not responsible for the repayment.
Bill passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [3rd June], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the Government of India."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, it was with no ordinary anxiety and solicitude that he approached the consideration of this question, and he should have refrained altogether from addressing the House on it, had he not been influenced by the desire to contribute whatever faculties he possessed to what he believed to be the cause of truth and justice and sound policy, and to deliver his opinion on a subject which all would agree was intimately connected with the interests of the country, and on the proper solution of which depended the happiness of a large portion of our fellow-subjects. Differing as he did very much from some of the propositions advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control the other night, there was one part upon which he was ready to concur with him. He quite agreed that, however theoretically absurd and anomalous the frame of the Indian Government might be supposed to be, still, if it had contributed to the happiness and welfare of the subjects of that part of Her Majesty's dominions, it ought not to be abolished or altered. But if he could succeed in showing that it had failed in those sacred duties which it undertook to fulfil, and if that failure could be shown to be owing not to accident but to causes to which the attention of the Legislature had been repeatedly solicited by its greatest and wisest statesmen—causes, the effect of which was predicted by Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Lord Grenville, and others equally competent— then, he said, they had an argument of practice as well as a deduction of reason against the continuation of a system which general reasoning as well as repeated experience had conspired unanimously to reprobate. He would immediately meet the right hon. Gentleman on the issue he proposed—the practical advantage conferred by the existing system of Government on the Natives of India. Let them see whether the ar-

1231
guments used when the Charter was last under their notice, and the most eloquent advocate of which was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), did not furnish the strongest reason for its rejection. The right hon. Gentleman, when the Bill of 1833 was introduced, insisted on the necessity of employing Natives, and on the paramount necessity, as he called it, of a code for India. He said—
"There is one part of the Bill upon which, after what has recently passed elsewhere, I feel myself irresistibly impelled to say a few words. I allude to that wise, that benevolent, that noble clause which enacts that no Native of our Indian empire shall, by reason of his colour, his descent, or his religion, be incapable of holding office."— [3 Hansard, xix. 534.]
What had been the practice of the East India Company? Why, from that time to this not a single Native had obtained an office to which he was not eligible before. What became, then, of this noble clause? The next point was the necessity of a code. On that point the right hon. Member for Edinburgh had declared that no country ever stood so much in need of a code, and that in no country could the want be more easily supplied; and he described the law as a mere matter of chance, the Judge making it, under an absolute Government, and a lax morality among the officials, without a bar or public opinion to control him, so that it became a curse instead of a blessing. What was the commentary on this text? Why, one of the most active and able civil servants in India had told them that, up to the year 1853, nothing whatever had been done. Mr. Cameron had declared that he had sent remonstrances, appeals, and recommendations, but that the answer had been a sneering recommendation that he should take Westminster Hall as his model. That was at the very time that these strongholds of chicanery were being reformed; and yet the Court of Directors ventured to recommend them as a model for the legal institutions to be applied to India. Mr. Cameron had further declared that none of the amelioration plans which he had suggested had ever been taken into consideration. These were the efforts of the Government of India to remove evils which their own advocate had described as a scandal and a curse not to be endured, and which might have been remedied with very little trouble. This was the system which had been suffered to remain. How had it been allowed to operate? On this point he
1232
must say, he had listened with great surprise and mortification to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood). The right hon. Gentleman stated, that though it was true that anomalies and abuses existed in the law of India, yet that if our own laws were inquired into, similar defects would be discovered; and he added, that he made that statement on the authority of an English Judge. He did not know from whom that information had proceeded, nor was he an admirer of English law; but the person who had made it had certainly uttered the grossest calumny. Evils, no doubt, existed; but they were of a totally different character. [The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted extracts from the evidence given before the Committee now sitting by Mr. M'Leod and Mr. H. Mackenzie, both of whom declared that, under the present operation of the law in India, there was neither protection for the person nor for property; that, according to the degree in which it had been enforced, the people had suffered; that the authorities complained of the people, and vice versa; and that the consequences were a vast system of lying and litigation.] It might, perhaps, be said, that that was not the state of things lately; but as no remedy had been applied, the grievances must continue. He wished to lay before the House a true picture of the state of things in India in this respect, in order that the House might judge of the value of the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the state of the law in England; and the House would see at once that, if the comparison held good, the whole country would at once be in a flame of indignation, and Parliament would be compelled to petition the Crown to remove Judges who should have acted as some of the Indian judges had done. If he wanted anything to convince him that the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman had been clouded, and his good nature biased, that part of his speech would furnish him with abundant evidence. He would read to the House Mr. Lewin's evidence on this point, which must be admitted to be cither a tissue of malignant falsehoods, or facts. Mr. Lewin stated—
"There are men now on the bench at Madras who are not only unfit for the office which they hold, but who have been guilty of acts which would render them unfit to be intrusted with the life of a flea almost, instead of the life of a human being as they now are. There is now a man holding the office of sessions judge who returned a trial to the Sudder Adawlut when I was Judge. The facts came before myself, and therefore I

1233
know them perfectly. The letter occupied one side and a half of a foolscap sheet of paper: he recommended one man to be hanged; another man to be transported; and a third he recommended should be set free, because there was not a "westage" of evidence against him, the word being spelt in that way. After some discussion in the Sudder, we called upon him to forward the original document; the original document was found in the handwriting of a native attached to his court, and in that document there was the very same mistake, the word being so spelt, "westage," clearly proving that he had not even seen the document on which he had recommended a man to be hanged. There is a case referred to at the end of Mr. Norton's book in which I was concerned. In that case two judges of the Sudder had been passed over for several years as incompetent. At the time that the office of circuit judge was changed to that of sessions judge, those men were circuit judges, and they were allowed as sessions judges to retain the salary of circuit judges, being old judges. The Government of the day wished to effect the saving of the difference of salary, and therefore those two men were put in; they were obviously unfit, but yet they had the adjudication of this case. Though I had nothing to do with the matter, I heard that several men were going to be hanged, and, mistrusting the judgment of those men, I looked into the proceedings. I found that the men on whose evidence they were going to hang four people, were the very people who had committed the murder. This led to a request on my part that the ex officio chief judge, a member of Council, should be called on to give his opinion on the case, which he did, and he agreed with me. It then became necessary to appoint a fifth judge, and the chief secretary was appointed. He also agreed with me, and the men's lives were saved."
He held in his hand a book, the statements in which were not dependent on the authority of the writer, but which were all taken from authentic reports presented to the House. It was a pamphlet on the administration of justice in India, circulated in England at the instance of the Bombay Association, who declared that the remarks of the author applied equally to the Presidency of Bombay; and he begged leave to quote a few more cases from it, in order to show what their fellow subjects on the other side of the globe were actually suffering under this system. [The hon. and learned Gentleman read another series of extracts from Mr. Norton's pamphlet, exhibiting the manifold defects of the system. They referred chiefly to the errors arising from the documents being drawn up in a language not current in India, which was said to lead to a tissue of errors; to the number of times individual cases were tried, some as often as six, seven, and eight times; to the passing of judgment without the defence of the accused having been heard; to the youth and incompetency of the judges, who had to administer justice
1234
in a country with the customs and language of which they were but very imperfectly acquainted; and, finally, to the scandalously improper observations which judges were in the habit of interpolating in their judgments.] He would not, he said, weary the House by making many more extracts; the evidence he had quoted already would be sufficient to show how great was the evil and suffering inflicted upon the people of India by the operation of the civil law. But the case of the administration of the criminal law was still more frightful. Mr. Norton, in his pamphlet, said—
"It is impossible to peruse the records of the most serions criminal cases without being struck by the total absence of a proper tone of mind on the part of the criminal judge. We find conclusions arrived at altogether unsupported by the evidence, questions omitted in most important points, and judgment given upon conclusions not suggested by the premises, and frequently announced in a most reprehensible manner."
There was a case, too, of a man who was accused of bribery; the charge being that he had received a bribe from some nabob or other. The judge received the accounts of the nabob's wife's servant, but refused to call the nabob himself, or to order his accounts to be produced, though they were tendered for the accused, and he was condemned to a lengthened imprisonment. He had another case to mention which was still more fearful. It was one of murder, in which the accused was tried, found guilty, sentenced to death and executed, when his innocence would have been apparent to the judge who pronounced the sentence if he had only examined the witnesses himself, and had not arrived in Court too late for the purpose. This was but an outline of the state of the administration of the law in India; but it was certainly enough to prove the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—that there was a resemblance in the administration of the law in India to the administration of the law in this country—to have been made without consideration or inquiry into the documentary evidence. Our administration admitted nothing of the kind he had mentioned. No cases such as those he had referred to could be found in our reports. They might, perhaps, be found in the orations of Cicero, where he described the administration of justice in Sicily under Verres. It was not a question of convenience or of comfort, but one of positive existence to the people of India. The great object of society, its main principle, was the administration of justice.

1235
Mr. Hume had told them that the organisation of Governments was for the purpose of taking care that justice should be properly administered. He challenged denial to the fact, that the one great obstacle to the efficient and proper settlement of India was the fear and terror of the natives for the British courts. There was no loss or hardship to which a respectable native would not submit rather than expose himself to the accidents of a law court, because he regarded his appearance there as a preliminary to his ruin, and as the certain badge of discredit. They could not retain their power in India much longer with such an administration of justice as that he had described. He had the evidence of an intelligent native of Calcutta, who declared that much of this state of things was caused by the incompetency of the judges, their ignorance of the language, and their being intrusted with charges too extensive to permit thorough investigation into the cases coming before them, and that the consequences were general perjury, false testimony, and bribery. Why, the payments to the European officials had been raised in order to place them beyond the necessity of corruption; but the native was paid in such a manner that it was almost impossible for him to get a living without having recourse to bribery. There was one remedy which the Government of India had positively refused to apply. It was the employment of natives. All the evidence he had been able to find was in favour of that step, and the only excuse which was made was one which, to his mind, was an impious libel upon Providence. He could find no other terms fitly to characterise the assertion that the natives of India were in no way fit to hold office in their native land. On this point he would quote the evidence of one of the most distinguished civil servants of India, and who was by no means an enemy to the East India Company. Sir George Clerk said, in his evidence before the Committee of this House—
"I should say that the morality among the higher classes of the Hindoos was of a high standard, and among the middling and lower classes remarkably so; there is less of immorality, and less of extreme poverty, than you would see in many countries in Europe. In all their domestic relations, and their charity to their neighbours, they are superior to what you will find in many countries; it is not so much so, perhaps, with the Mahomedans, but still I should say that there is no striking degree of immorality among them.
"Is it your opinion that confidence might be placed in the natives for the performance of the
1236
duties of many higher offices than they are now employed in in those districts? — Certainly, if allowed salaries sufficient to place them on a respectable footing.
"You mean that if their allowances were such as to maintain them in the relative station in which they ought to be as compared with Europeans, confidence might be placed in their honest and straightforward conduct?—Certainly, for official business of most kinds.
"Does your experience enable you to say, that where a sufficient salary was allowed, and due confidence placed in them, you have found the natives fit for any duties connected with the Government of the country?—I have felt the want of the power of giving those rewards which the natives prize more highly than a salary in hard coin. Such rewards are essential, perhaps, to command their devoted service, including loyalty. You cannot now expect that. They disregard, comparatively speaking, money salaries, though these of course are not unacceptable, and render them quite efficient as official men.
"Will you state what those rewards are to which you refer, which you think they prize above money?—Those rewards which the native Governments of India would confer upon them for good service; a village, for instance, in perpetuity, rent free, or a small portion of land, from one acre to one thousand."
That was not the evidence of Mr. Norton or Mr. Mill, but of an old and distinguished servant of the East India Company; and the advice he tendered had been given to them over and over again by Sir T. Munro, Mr. Strachey, Sir J. Malcolm, and others, and had as often been disregarded. That was indeed the oppression which made the heart sick—these were the cases in which the iron entered the soul. If a Hindoo were permitted to come here and plead his own case, and to answer the sweeping charges of indiscriminate corruption and rapacity made against his countrymen, was the House quite sure that they would not be reminded of the origin of our Empire in the East, or whether he might not remind his stern moralists of the name of Omichund, and of the cases at Baroda in Bombay, or whether he might not ask them if they had ever read the report which was made studiously unintelligible, and how it came to pass that all the energies of Government were exercised on behalf of a cruel and a corrupt official? Might he not ask whether in modern European history there were not instances in which admiration and allegiance had followed perfidy and violence— perfidy as deep, and violence as great, as any that they read of in the annals of Oriental story? Were they quite confident he could allege no instances where money had gilded over serious imputations— where rank and station, genius

1237
and education, had bowed down and worshipped successful speculation, without any very searching inquiry into the cause to which the success of the speculator was to be ascribed? Were they quite sure that even with regard to the employment of the Committee during the last three months, they would be able to give a satisfactory reply to the questions of their interrogator? The right hon. the President of the Board of Control, curiously enough, in his search for the golden age of India, instead of going to the days of Acbar, went to the period which immediately preceded our own dominion in India, when the Peninsula was most convulsed, for a picture of native government. It would be about as wise if he had gone to the days of Attila for an account of the Augustan era. If a Hindoo were to apply the same arguments to us, might be not turn to the 18th century, and, misled by the councils of the men who had invariably slandered those whose dominions they had attempted to confiscate, ask if we had ever heard of the days of the Regent Orleans, of Louis XV., of Catherine of Russia, of the incestuous Court of Dresden, of the atrocious bigotry of the father of Frederick the Great, and of the days when men were kidnapped from one end of Europe to the other to fill the armies; of their cruel punishments if they fled; or (coming to later times) of the sack of Warsaw, of the partition of Poland, of the crimes which occasioned and the horrors which attended the first French revolution? And, if another Genghis Khan or Tamerlane were to sweep over Europe, what would they think if he assigned these events as reasons for not allowing the Natives to hold any offices in their own country? The right hon. Gentleman passed over the land question lightly enough, and contented himself with saying there were different customs in the different provinces, with which it would not do to interfere. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what the first and universal custom was—that the East India Company had assumed the right of the proprietors of the land, and invariably neglected to perform their duties. He would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman would say of a conqueror who, supported by a large army, "relieved the burdens of the people" by taking all the rent of the land, and then proceeded to impose on them most oppressive taxes? The Zemindary settlement of Bengal in 1793 was adopted in ignorance of native tenures, and was a lamentable mistake and a complete failure, though the
1238
work of a most excellent and well-intentioned man. Such had been the effect of that Zemindary system, that there did not exist more than one family at the present day of those with whom the original compact had been made; all the rest had been ruined. That was the account given by the historian Mill. As a contrast to the description given by the right hon. Gentleman of the former condition of Bengal, he would read a passage from the work of an able writer, Holywell, who declared that "under the native rule property and liberty were safe—robberies unheard of, whether public or private—and that travellers were escorted on their journeys from place to place by guards who were responsible for their security." That once happy country at this moment was one dead level of uniform misery, in which all were involved alike;—the producers, cultivators, and consumers of the richest country in the world, had, under the government of those whom the House was now asked to invest with renewed powers, sunk to a dead level of the greatest wretchedness and there was not one single opulent proprietor to be met with in the whole district. In Madras, where the ryotwar system was adopted, and where one European collector had to settle the bargain with 300,000 cotter tenants, the consequence and result were, that there did not exist on the face of the civilised world more complete degradation than that of the ryots under the collectors in Madras; and yet the Directors, in spite of the earnest remonstrances of Elphinstone, proceeded to transfer this system to Bombay, where the misery it produced was so appalling they were obliged to retrace their steps and reverse it. The strongest condemnation of the system lay in the fact that they had adopted a different method in the northwest provinces, the administration of which was so highly praised by all who had witnessed it. Such was the working of the administration by the Directors; and the House might judge of it by the single fact that in Bengal one-tenth of the land was set up for sale to pay off those arrears. It was impossible to contend that such a state of things could be founded upon good policy, justice, or equity;—and the House would recollect these were circumstances for which the Company were entirely responsible, as they had taken the management into their own hands. The conduct of the Government of India with respect to public works had been equally disastrous in its effects, and not

1239
less than 250,000 persons had perished miserably from famine in consequence of neglect in this matter. Yet it had been stated by a most eminent civil servant of the Company, "that he was certain, if the Company had spent but 500,000 l. on public works, the revenue would have been increased, and the country would have presented a complete contrast to its present condition." Another source of well-grounded complaint was, that, contrary to the principles so ably advocated by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, none of the Hindoos were allowed to hold office, even as high as that of an ordinary common judge. The consequence of this conduct was that the ties which connected India with this country were precisely the reverse of those to which Burke had so forcibly referred, when, arguing for American independence, he said our hold on the Colonies lay in their natural affection, their kindred blood, and sympathies. Nil separatum clausumve was the argument of the Roman for submission. With us, everything was separatum clausumve. In India all these were directly against us. There was an extraordinary perverseness about the proposal of the right hon. Baronet with respect to the disposal of the patronage. Both Pitt and Grenville considered that the patronage ought to be vested in the East India Company, but that the political direction of India should be transferred from the Company, and placed under the complete control of the public councils. The grounds, however, upon which those statesmen came to that opinion had now passed away. The commerce of the Company had gone, and the right hon. Baronet, after taking away the patronage, the only necessary part of the evil, allowed the evil itself to remain. He proposed to keep up what had been justly called a "sham Government," with irresponsible power, with all its opportunities of clandestine management, and this, too, after having taken away the only justification which any statesman could urge for its retention. The right hon. Baronet said that the government of India was "an anomaly," and that our Indian empire was also an anomaly; so, because the empire was anomalous, its government must be anomalous too. Such a mere play upon words, applied to statesmanlike principles, he confessed he had never heard. The idea had not even the merit of novelty; for the light hon. Baronet must hand you back to Dr. Johnson's famous aphorism, "Who drives fat oxen must himself be fat." But
1240
so far from the anomalous state of India calling for a government of a similar character, the very existence of the anomaly was sufficient to induce the Legislature to consider and devise the best form of government for the country. When, however, it appeared that the favourite Governor and chosen organ of the Company were intimating a desire for a continuance of that power which had proved so lucrative to their friends, and which had been the cause of such unspeakable misery to mankind—when they found that, in spite of the enormous wealth wrung from the incessant toil of the ill-requited Hindoo, the Government was advancing deeper and deeper into hopeless debt, and rapidly arriving at the goal of bankruptcy—when, in spite of an empire larger than that of Charlemagne, they were engaged in irritating powerful neighbours on most trivial questions—when, after having opppressed Oude, seized Sattara, threatened the Nizam, and depopulated whole districts, they with infatuation which the most shortsighted ambition could hardly explain, had interfered in matters as sacred as custom, as national pride, plighted faith, ay, as religion itself could make them, thereby lacerating, where they were most sensitive, the loves, feelings, and affections of a large portion of their subjects, and especially of the feelings of that army upon which the salvation of their empire must depend—when they were doing all these things, were disregarding every rule which the wisest statesmen had laid down to guide their conduct—when "justice" was but another word for delay and for folly—when "protection" was but another word for servitude and oppression—when the terror of falling under the power of the Company was considered, from one end to the other of the East, as the greatest of all possible calamities—was it, or was it not, time for Parliament to interfere? Ought not Parliament at once to declare that such a state of things should not be allowed to continue? Was it to be endured that such enormous power should be left in the hands of those who had exercised it in the manner he had attempted to describe? If these things were so, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord to abandon their ill-considered Bill, and entreated them not to provoke that certain retribution which, sooner or later, would overtake injustice. The noble Lord had rendered great services to his country; but such a Bill as this went far to cancel them. Never was

1241
so magnificent an opportunity so miserably flung away. If the right hon. Baronet still persevered in his infatuated course, he (Mr. Phillimore) would call upon every hon. Member who loved righteousness and hated oppression, who venerated those paramount and immutable laws which were written in the heart of every man—be his colour, his clime, or his creed what it might—by the unerring hand of our Creator, for the sake of this country, for the sake of India, and for the sake of Europe and of the world, to prevent those consequences which, sooner or later, must inevitably follow a measure so pernicious and deplorable, so unworthy of a great nation, and displaying such consummate ignorance of the science of government.
SIR J. W. HOGGsolicited that kind indulgence which the House accorded to those who did not obtrude themselves on its attention, but who rose in discharge of a public duty, and for the purpose of self-defence. He should not have taken any part in the debate on the Motion for the introduction of this Bill, if the ordinary course had been pursued, and the Bill had been permitted to have been introduced, taking the discussion, as is usual, on the second reading. But that course had not been adopted. The hon. Member for Manchester, who followed his right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), not only argued against the introduction of any measure at all at the present time, and against what he termed the system of double government, which it was the object of this Bill to maintain, but preferred a frightful bill of indictment against all who had been hitherto concerned in the government of India; and it was because he felt himself called upon, to the best of his ability, to endeavour to refute these charges, that he craved the indulgence of the House. It appeared that there was to be something like a division of labour among the opponents to this measure. The hon. Member for Manchester had preferred the indictment with his usual vehemence and ability, while the different counts were to be distributed among the Gentlemen who surrounded him; and it appeared that the Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had undertaken the department of law and declamation. Upon this subject great agitation—he might say great clamour—had prevailed out of doors, and he was glad that such agitation and clamour had prevailed; he was glad that associations had been formed, that every charge, public or private, which could be raked up against
1242
the East India Company had been raked up, and had been sedulously circulated in speeches and by pamphlets. He rejoiced that this course had been pursued, because the House and the public now knew that everything which industry—he would not say malignity—could ascertain or invent, had been put forth against the Company. They had it all, true or untrue; there was no doubt of that. All this had been circulated, but hitherto there had been no opportunity of reply. That opportunity, he was happy to say, was now afforded, and in the only place in which those who had been thus assailed could reply to these charges and calumnies. His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) had, in the first place, adverted to the question of time, and had urged strong and cogent reasons to show the necessity for immediate legislation on this subject. This was the opinion expressed by every witness examined before the Committee; it was the opinion given by all those most competent to judge; it was the opinion of Lord Dalhousie. The hon. Member for Manchester did not attempt to answer this mass of authority, but repudiated it all, and ventured to say that he did not consider Lord Dalhousie a better authority upon this question than persons who had never been in India. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) did not believe that there was another Member in the House who would rise in his place and make such a statement. He wanted to know why the hon. Member for Manchester asked for delay? It was true he had said that a Committee was now sitting, and an inquiry now pending. Well, that at first sight might appear to be a reasonable ground for delay; but those who heard the hon. Member would know, that throughout the whole of his speech, from the beginning to the end, he had not adverted to one tittle of evidence that fell from one single witness, nor referred to a single document produced before the Committee. His speech consisted of shreds and patches, of bits and scraps, from old pamphlets and magazines, and of extracts from the evidence of a few witnesses examined, not before the Committee' now sitting, but before a Committee which sat four years ago, and over which the hon. Member himself presided as Chairman; of fragments from old Reports, most of them anterior to 1833. [Mr. BRIGHT: No, no!] Yes, and one of them of the date of 1792, when our responsibility as the governing Power had scarcely commenced, and when the war with Tippoo was raging. These were the authorities

1243
and these the documents on which the hon. Member relied. There was, however, one witness examined before the Committee to whom the hon. Member did refer, Mr. Marshman; he spoke of his great ability and extensive knowledge of India, and he spoke most truly. But when the hon. Member wished to avail himself of the testimony of Mr. Marshman, did he read his evidence before the Committee? Not a bit of it. When he wished to quote the authority of Mr. Marshman he read from the Friend of India, although Mr. Marshman was in this country. He adopts Mr. Marshman as an Editor when it suits his purpose, and repudiates him as a witness giving his evidence under that solemnity of feeling which must impress the mind of any Gentleman appearing before a Committee of this House. When the hon. Member came to speak of the state of Bengal, did he read the evidence of Mr. Marshman on that subject before the Committee? No such thing. He read from the Friend of India the report of a row between two Indigo planters, and then told the House to conclude that such was the usual state of the Province of Bengal. He would ask the hon. Member for Manchester what he would say if any Gentleman in Calcutta were to tell the good people there, that in this England, of which we so much boasted, there was no security for life or property, and in confirmation of that statement were to read two or three police reports from the columns of the daily papers? What estimate would the hon. Member form of any person who adopted such a course? He (Sir J. W. Hogg) thought few hon. Members could have listened to the speech of his right hon. Friend, on Friday, without going away well content with the present state of India, and its prospects for the future. A more able, clear, temperate, and candid statement he had never heard. The hon. Member for Manchester, however, had been pleased to sneer at that speech, and to say that it was equally remarkable for its length and its deficiency in matter. He even indulged in speculation as to the manner in which the right hon. Baronet had got up his speech, and said that no doubt the right hon. Baronet had sent to Mr. Melville, the distinguished Secretary at the India House, for information. In his (Sir J. W. Hogg's) opinion that was the highest compliment the hon. Member could have paid his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend having only recently assumed his office, sends for the public documents relating to India,
1244
and applies for information to the Gentleman who has charge of them, and who of all living men is the most competent to afford it. He only wished that the hon. Member for Manchester had adopted the same course, and had applied to sources equally authentic, as by so doing he would have escaped many of those errors and blunders which, in the course of the evening, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would take the liberty of exposing. As the hon. Gentleman had indulged in a speculation as to how his right hon. Friend had got up his speech, he would hazard a guess as to how the hon. Member had got up his.
He (Sir J. W. Hogg) believed that any one of the rather numerous knot that surrounded the hon. Member, whenever he read anything in any book, or received any letter from any person containing anything abusive of the East India Company, immediately up with the scissors, cut it out, and sent it to the hon. Member, who strung them all together, and (to use a favourite expression of his own) thus formed the hocus-pocus of his speech. Hon. Members always talked as if India had been a sealed book during the last twenty years. Was that correct? Not a single enactment had been framed by the local Government of India that was not immediately laid on the table of this House. Not a rupee had been received or expended during the last twenty years that had not been accounted for, and the details laid before Parliament as regularly as is done with regard to the finances of this country. Had there been no inquiries regarding India? There had not been a transaction of moment in India the papers respecting which had not been laid before the House, and there had been debates upon almost every one of them. There had been Committees upon salt, upon the duties levied on Indian products, upon cotton, upon steam communication, and almost every subject connected with India; and if the House wished to know the extent of the aggregate of the information since 1833, he begged to inform them that the accounts, reports, and papers relating to India filled 53 folio volumes. And yet they were told that India had been a sealed book. All he could say was, that if a competent knowledge of Indian affairs had not been obtained, the fault was not the want of adequate materials, but of the requisite industry and application on the part of those who failed to avail themselves of the information within their reach. Be-

1245
fore proceeding further, he would again advert for a moment to the question of time. Influenced solely by his strong regard for India, and notwithstanding many expressions which must have escaped in the heat of debate from the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, he was sure the House would give credit to him, and to those with whom he was associated, that where such mighty interests were at stake, they were incapable of being influenced by personal considerations. Influenced solely by his strong regard for India, he conscientiously declared his conviction that immediate legislation was peremptorily required. He entertained this belief quite irrespective of what that future legislation might be. If the present system had worked well—if it had conduced to the prosperity and happiness of the people of India, and had added to the honour and glory of this country—continue it. If they had discovered defects in its constitution or working, remedy them. If it has failed in the discharge of its all-important duties, and in accomplishing the great object for which it was framed, then away with the system and with the instruments, and form another and a better government: but do something, and do it now. Do not hang up India to agitation for another year, the course so strongly and so eloquently denounced by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) at the commencement of this Session. Do not spread doubt and mistrust through the length and breadth of that mighty empire whose destinies Providence has committed to your rule, and where confidence and security now happily prevailed. Do not paralyse the power and influence of the local Government, and render it incompetent to do good or to restrain ill. He should be sorry to excite any undue alarm, or to intimate any apprehension that delay would endanger our hold on our Indian empire; but he solemnly declared his conviction, that it would tend to disturb the tranquillity of the country, to suspend all measures of useful progress, and to lessen, if not destroy, the almost superstitious impression as to our power; that it would induce doubts and vague surmises as to the future, and would force into mischievous activity the most dangerous elements that could agitate that country. Whatever, therefore, their legislation might be, he earnestly hoped that it would be prompt and immediate.
The hon. Member for Manchester had said, and said truly, that the main question at issue in this debate was the system of
1246
double government. He entirely concurred with him in that observation; and it was because he attached the greatest importance to that system that he was prepared to vote for the introduction of the Bill, but should at present abstain from going into the details of the proposed measure. The hon. Member for Manchester had pointed out, with his usual force and ability, the objections which occurred to his mind to the system of double government. He urged that it was anomalous; that it occasioned delay and obstruction; that there was no responsibility; and, using his favourite expression, declared that the whole system was a mere sham. Such was not the opinion which had been expressed by those who were best acquainted with the practical working of the system. [Mr. BRIGHT: Look to Lieutenant Kaye's book.] He (Sir J. W. Hogg) was glad— he was more than glad, he was thankful to the hon. Member for that interruption; and, had it not been for that interruption, the matter might have escaped his recollection, and he might have omitted to expose what he should call great want of candour on the part of the hon. Member, if he did not believe that the hon. Gentleman had been furnished with his scraps of quotations, and had not himself read the books from which they were taken. What would the House say when he (Sir J. W. Hogg) told them that this quotation from Mr. Kaye, which the hon. Member brought forward with such ostentation, had no reference whatever to the system of government in this country, but referred to the system of local government which prevailed in Calcutta in 1772. Mr. Kayo, after eloquently pourtraying the evils that arose from the system of government then prevailing at Calcutta, concludes with the passages read by the hon. Member as applicable to the present system of double government hero, whereas they referred exclusively to the Government at Calcutta in 1792—
MR. BRIGHT: The hon. Member had misrepresented what he had said altogether. He had stated that Mr. Kaye, in the pas-sago he had quoted, referred to the system of government which prevailed in Bengal in 1772. Afterwards, however, in the next quotation, when the author alluded to what was stated by Mr. Tucker, he was referring to the present Court of Directors and the Board of Control. He had made the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and had said that Mr. Kaye had expressed just the views with regard to the

1247
double government which existed seventy years ago, as he (Mr. Bright) expressed with regard to the system of double government now.
SIR J. W. HOGG: He (Sir J. W. Hogg) would leave the House to judge of the explanation afforded by the hon. Member. So strongly did the quotation from Mr. Kaye's book strike him, conversant as he was with that book, and knowing that Mr. Kaye entertained opinions directly opposed to those in support of which his authority had been cited, that he had referred to the passages which preceded the extract read by the hon. Member. In page 78, Mr. Kaye says, "But although in 1765, the revenues of those provinces became our own, motives of policy, natural but shortsighted, impelled Olive to leave the actual administration in the hands of the old native functionaries, to be carried on in the name of the Soubadhar." It was Olive's policy to maintain the name if not the authority of the Soubadhar, and that policy was founded on an apprehension of giving offence to foreign Powers. This led to great confusion, and to flagrant oppression among the natives, which Mr. Kaye eloquently denounces; but his denunciation of that system ought not to have been brought forward in this House as any authority for an attack upon the present system of government at home, and still less, ought it to have been brought forward from a work, the whole tenor of which is in favour of the existing system. But the hon. Member said he had coupled the quotation from Mr. Kaye's book with the minute of Mr. Tucker. Now, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) had exactly the same complaint to make of the unfair use attempted to be made of the respected name and high authority of his friend the late Mr. Tucker, whose minute, from which an extract had been read by the hon. Member, had no reference whatever to the system of double government. Mr. Tucker was one of the stanchest advocates of double government, and so far from having expressed any opinion opposed to that system, his desire was to extend it further, and apply it to the proceedings of the Secret Committee, where the President of the Board prepared the despatches without concert with the other Members of the Committee. The minute referred exclusively to the Secret Committee. Mr. Tucker stated that the orders emanated solely from the Board, and he protested strongly against the indignity of being compelled to sign despatches in the preparation of which he had no part, and of the purport
1248
of which he might possibly disapprove. He then adds in his own strong and nervous style, that for the discharge of such duties "a secretary or a seal" would do as well. He repeated that neither the minute nor the occasion on which it was recorded, had any reference whatever to the system of double government, in reprobation of which it had been quoted. It had been alleged that the Court of Directors was a mere sham, and had neither power nor authority. Now he (Sir J. W. Hogg), standing there, stated boldly and broadly that under the existing system the practical government of India rested with the East India Company—and he would give his reasons why. Every measure originated, and by law must originate, with the Court of Directors. The President of the Board might desire the Court of Directors to consider any particular subject; but he could not direct the mode in which it should be treated, or the opinion that should be expressed. He would state the course of proceeding. The Court was divided into three Committees. Every subject was first considered by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, who gave instructions for the preparation of the despatch. It was then submitted to the Committee who had cognisance of the subject, and some of whom were probably conversant with the details, and the locality of the measure. After passing through the Committee, it was then submitted to the consideration of the whole Court. It was quite true that the despatch, after having undergone all this investigation and discussion, might be altered by the President of the Board; but the Court could require him to assign in writing his reasons for the alteration; and in this free country, where public opinion had such influence, was not this restraint sufficient to prevent the exercise of caprice, and to restrain the President from making any alteration which he could not support before the House and the public? Such was the system, and he would ask how it had worked? Had it, as had been alleged, occasioned collision and obstruction? It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Melville, that of all the despatches which passed the Court of Directors not five per cent were touched by the President of the Board. He admitted that when the draft despatches were first sent to the President in what was termed P. C, or previous communication, the alterations were more frequent. Of these, less than one half were altered; and Mr. Melville states that the alterations made were generally verbal, and did not affect the sub-

1249
stance or principle of the despatch, so that practically the legislative, judicial, and revenue administration of India rested with the Court of Directors. He specified these heads in order to show the distinction between the general administration and the duties performed by the Secret Committee, which consisted of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and senior member of the Court. This Committee was bound by law to sign and transmit to India despatches prepared by the President of the Board; and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) saw nothing humiliating or derogatory in that obligation. The duties of the Secret Committee were limited to questions of war and peace, and treaties with foreign princes; and those were subjects which ought to be exclusively under the orders of Her Majesty's Ministers. Without such authority, how could they be responsible for the security and peace of every part of Her Majesty's dominions? The wisdom of Parliament saw that it would be unfit to commit to a body of twenty-four gentlemen, matters in which secrecy and despatch were essential to the public interests; and the machinery of the Secret Committee was therefore provided, that these, like all other orders, might issue in the name of the governing body. Upon this point he always differed from his friend the late Mr. Tucker, who was strongly of opinion that the members of the Secret Committee ought to have the power of discussing the orders issued by the President of the Board, and of remonstrating, if they did not approve of them. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) took a different view of the subject, and he thought that the power ought to rest exclusively with Her Majesty's Ministers, who were responsible to their Sovereign and the country for the security of the empire. He thought that if you were to have a little Cabinet sitting at Leadenhall Street, discussing and recording minutes against the policy of Her Majesty's Government, their proceedings might be a source of serious embarrassment to Her Majesty's Ministers sitting in Downing Street, and might prove very injurious to the public interests. It had been stated here and elsewhere that the maintenance of the East India Company, as a governing authority, would have been abandoned long since, had it not been for the difficulty of providing for the distribution of the patronage. He denied that the system had been maintained for any purpose comparatively so subordinate. He contended that the great and paramount object for
1250
which the system of double government, was adopted, and had been maintained, and would, he believed, continue to be maintained, was to protect India from the baneful influence of party spirit and party strife. He believed that the existing system was not merely the best, but was the only means of accomplishing that great object. God knew imputations enough had been cast upon the Court of Directors; but he would ask, had it ever been even alleged that in any one instance the Court of Directors had been influenced by political feelings or party considerations? He might advert to a recent instance—the recall of Lord Ellenborough. That measure was carried by the unanimous voice of the Court, although nineteen or twenty of the Directors were friends and supporters of Sir Robert Peel, whose Government could not fail to be weakened by the recall. Still they did not allow themselves to be influenced by such considerations, but acted under what they considered an imperious sense of duty. His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), when discussing the subject of double government, had referred to the noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough) as a high authority against the continuance of the present system. It was true that the noble Lord had been pleased to speak of the Court of Directors collectively, and of its members individually, in no very complimentary terms. He had alleged that the Court was a mere legal fiction; that it had neither power nor authority, and that, with three or four exceptions, they were unfit for the discharge of their duties. He had no desire to retaliate on the noble Lord (Lord Ellenborough), or to indulge in any personal remarks when such important public interests were at stake. He knew that the noble Lord possessed vast knowledge of Indian affairs, and was a man of great talent and ability; and he would only express his regret that the noble Lord in his speeches, and in his evidence, should have permitted himself to evince such a spirit of hostility to the East India Company and the Court of Directors, and thus to betray the feelings under which he spoke. The House had heard the opinions and evidence of the recalled Governor General; but he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would ask them to listen to the opinions of the same noble Lord, when presiding over the Indian department in this country, and before he was Governor General. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) could have no doubt that upon both occasions the

1251
noble Lord had expressed his opinions with a view solely to the public interests; but the sentiments were as widely different as the circumstances under which they were expressed. Whatever opinions Lord Ellen-borough might express now, it appeared that in July, 1833, he was impressed with the necessity of keeping up the character and independence of the Court of Directors, and of taking care that it should not be composed entirely of Indians. He then said in the House of Lords:—
"As to the constitution of the Home Government, can any man doubt that when the Company is no longer a trading body, and when so large a portion of its patronage is taken from it which is connected with its trade, that, a very different class of persons will become proprietors of India stock? There will be a material deterioration of the constituency, and that must, at no distant period, lead to a material alteration in the character of the representative body of the proprietors —the Directors themselves. I am by no means desirous of seeing any diminution whatever effected in the real influence of the Court of Directors; for of this I am satisfied, that it is essential to the safe and useful working of the Government of India that they should be persons of high moral character, as well as of property—whose independence and impartiality should be unimpeachable; that they should be able to deliver their free and unbiassed opinions upon all occasions—and that their uniform conduct should afford the strongest guarantee that they would ever consult the public interest."
And again the noble Lord said—
"What I apprehend is this, that the constituent body will, in the course of time, to a great degree, become composed of persons connected with India, and the result of that will be, that the Court of Directors will, in time, also be similarly composed. I look to that as being a great calamity. I am by no means desirous that India should be wholly governed by retired Indians, or that all the prejudices, all the partialities, and all the interested feeling's which may have grown up with them in the course of a long residence in that country, should be carried into the councils of the Court of Directors, and there predominate. On the contrary, one great advantage of the practical working of the system hitherto has been this— that the Court of Directors, while partially composed of persons connected with India, has yet had the means of having within itself merchants of the first eminence; persons connected with the trade of the City of London, and others who have been influential members of various classes of society. What has been the effect? The beneficial distribution of their patronage; not distributed solely among the sons of Indians—not to those who, from their very childhood, have acquired all the prejudices of native Indians by a constant residence in that country—but their patronage has embraced every class of society. There is not a class of the community which has not its representative in India; and in so searching among those middle classes from which they have derived so many useful and great men, they have produced
1252
the greatest benefit not only to this Country, but to India itself."
There was an eulogy upon the Court of Directors for the manner in which they bad dispensed their patronage, and an answer to the sneer of the hon. Member for Manchester, who had talked of the Directors consisting of bankers, brewers, and people of that kind. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) should certainly have thought that the last man in that House likely to sneer at bankers and brewers would have been the hon. Member for Manchester, It had been alleged that the patronage had been abused by the Directors. In reply to that charge he would refer to the statement of the noble Lord, who stated that the patronage had been generally diffused, and that no class of society had been shut out from it. He would not, however, rest satisfied with this defence. Attempts bad been made to prove before the Committee that deserving officers were unable to procure appointments for their sons in the Company's service. Such allegations were contained in a pamphlet published by Captain MacGregor, and were also made by that gentleman in his evidence before the Committee. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) was prepared to repudiate and deny these statements; and in doing so he would not imitate the example of the hon. Member for Manchester, who had quoted documents which it was not easy to find, but would refer to the evidence and papers before the House. The particular cases mentioned by Captain MacGregor were inquired into, and it appeared that almost every individual named had obtained one or more appointments for his sons. The most distinguished men in the India army were called, and they all bore testimony to the liberal share of the patronage that was given to officers in the service. He would refer to a return kid before the Committee of the number of cadetships given to the sons of civil and military officers of the East India Company from 1834 to 1851, from which it appeared that very nearly one third of the patronage bad been so given; and he was sure that any Members of the Committee who were present would confirm his statement, when he said, that every case brought forward in which attempts bad been made to show that deserving officers had been unable to procure appointments, had been satisfactorily answered. So much with regard to the military patronage. He would now refer to the civil, and it had been alleged here, and in another place, that the

1253
civil patronage went almost exclusively to the sons and relatives of Directors—that thirty pools had to be filled before any overflowing could find its way to the public. Now, what were the facts? From January, 1834, to January, 1852, 688 persons had been nominated to the East India College, with a view to their appointment to the civil service in India. Of these nominations, 47 had been given to the sons and grandsons of Directors, 53 to their nephews, and 59 to cousins and connexions by marriage, making altogether 159 appointments given to those related to, or connected with, the 30 Directors. 260 of the nominations were given to sons of civil and military servants; and the remainder, 269, were distributed among persons unconnected with India or the service. He appealed to every Member present whether the return he had just read did not show how grossly unfounded were the imputations to which he had alluded. The hon. Member who had last spoken had alluded to the enormous emoluments of the civil servants of the Company—a subject which had frequently been referred to in that House. He held in his hand a statement showing the allowances of civil servants, from which it appeared that the average emoluments of those of five years' standing and under, were 476 l. yearly; of those above five years' and not exceeding 10, 910 l.; of those above 10 and not exceeding 15, 1,535 l.; of those above 15 years, not including governors or members of Council, 2,845 l. Considering the education of these public servants—the risks of life and health to which they were exposed —the expenses to which they were subjected—their protracted absence from their native country—and the ability and integrity with which they discharged their important duties—he would say that their allowances were inferior to those received by gentlemen in corresponding situations at home.
The main and important point, however, as the hon. Member for Manchester had said, was, what had been the results? They might praise the constitution of the Government of India, and of the Home Government, as much as they liked; but if it had not worked well, he admitted they had not a leg to stand upon. He contended that the system had worked well, and to this test he was ready to submit. He would abstain from minute details, which were only calculated to bewilder, and
1254
would solicit the attention of the House to the general results, which he would endeavour to lay before them clearly and concisely.
Since 1833 we had had an accession of territory in India extending over an area of 167,013 square miles, and including a population of 8,572,630. In 1834 the gross revenue of India was 18,699,677 l. In 1851 the gross revenue was 27,625,360 l., showing an increase of nearly 9,000,000 l, The first question was, how much of this increase arose from new territory? The revenue derived from new territory was not more than 2,000,000 l.; so that they had yet to account for an increase of 7,000,000 l. It would probably be supposed that with an accession of 7,000,000 l. to their former revenue, new taxes had been imposed; but that was not the case. On the contrary, since 1833, many taxes had been entirely abolished, and others had been greatly reduced. The export duty had been removed from cotton, sugar, coffee, and other articles; the transit duties, amounting to a large sum, had been abolished; and the salt tax had been reduced 25 per cent; so that while there had been this great increase of revenue, there had been a simultaneous decrease of taxation. He hoped that he might apply to India the same principles of political economy and common sense that were held applicable to the rest of the habitable globe, and claim from the House and the country an acknowledgment that India had prospered under the rule of the East India Company. He would now show the House how the additional revenue of 7,000,000 l. was derived. They were told that land was going out of cultivation, and running to jungle. That might serve the purpose of declamation, but let them look to the facts. In 1833–34 the land revenue from Bengal, the North-west Provinces, and Madras, was 9,145,412 l.; while in 1850–51 the same revenue was 12,075,479 l., showing an increase of revenue from the same territory of 2,960,067 l. During the same period the increase of revenue from opium was 2,305,601 l.; the increase from salt was 85,378 l.; and the increase from customs was 206,428 l., making altogether 5,557,474 l. There was an increase derived from other sources of 1,442,526 l., which made up the 7,000,000 l. of increased revenue.
In the face of such an increase in the revenue of India, was it not, he would ask, astounding to hear Gentlemen declaiming

1255
about the misery, the destitution, and the poverty of that country? But perhaps it might be alleged that this increase was artificial, and was no true indication of the state of the people; and that they had languished, while the finances had flourished. Let them, then, refer to the returns on the table of the House, and see whether the people had consumed more, and had produced more. Let them look to the imports and exports during the period to which he had referred. In 1834–5, the value of the imports into India was 6,154,129 l. In 1849–50, it was 13,696,696 l. In 1834–5, the value of the exports from India was 8,188,161 l. In 1849–50,itwas 18,283,543 l. He called upon hon. Members to point to any part of the world where, within the same period, there had been such an increase in the imports and exports. And yet this was the languishing, misruled, misgoverned country. Had this great progress resulted from the efforts of India itself, aided by the Indian authorities, or had it been promoted by the House of Commons? He would tell them that the House of Commons had not aided the progress of India. That, year after year, the Court of Directors, and that calumniated body the Court of Proprietors, had petitioned the House to do justice to India by abolishing the heavy discriminating duties imposed and maintained for the purpose of excluding the produce and manufactures of India from fair competition. They had represented that while the manufactures of this country were admitted into India at 5 and 7 per cent, the manufactures of India were not admitted here under duties varying from 20 to 60 per cent. But their representations and petitions were disregarded; and was he to be told by the House of Commons, whose unjust legislation had retarded the prosperity and progress of India, that the country had not advanced with the rapidity which might have been expected? See how India did advance, when at length they had rendered her tardy justice, and removed the restrictions that impeded her progress. In the year before the equalisation of the sugar duties, the importation of sugar from India amounted only to 107,461 cwt.; while the average importations in the years 1850–1–2 were 1,390,138 cwt. During the five years before the equalisation of the duties on rum, the average importations were 128,156 gallons; and during the five years after the equalisation they were 675,291
1256
gallons. His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) had stated the great increase in the importation of coffee after the equalisation of the duties.
In 1806, during the monopoly possessed by that much calumniated body of which he had the honour to be a Member, the exports of cotton piece goods from India amounted in value to 1,460,000 l. In 1814, the first year of what was called free trade with India, the duty being still 62½ per cent, there were imported into this country of calicoes, and muslins 967,652 pieces. In 1814, there were imported into Great Britain 71,502 bandannahs, and of taffities, and other descriptions of silks, 31,115, at a duty of 62½ per cent; in 1836, 331,652 bandannahs, and of taffities and other descriptions of silk, only 741 pieces at a duty of 20 per cent. Now, the importation of cotton goods from India had almost wholly ceased.
He did not complain of any consequences resulting from free competition, and the fair application of the principles of free trade. But he did complain of the system of discriminating duties which had so long been maintained, and which tended to cripple the industry and crush the manufactures of India. He remembered well that when presenting one of the many petitions to which he had alluded, he had read to the House an account of the misery, privation, and destitution, of whole districts from the cessation of that manufacture from which the inhabitants, and their fathers before them, had, from time immemorial, derived the means of subsistence. It was not in India, as in this country, where a handloom weaver, or other artisan, if deprived of his usual occupation, could turn to some other branch of industry. In India, particular trades were associated with feelings of religion and caste; and when you deprived a man of the calling of his forefathers, you took from him the sole means whereby he could live, and reduced him to utter destitution. He recollected in particular having adverted to the desolation, and almost depopulation of the district of Dacca; but they had then hoard none of the lamentations now indulged in. There were, then, no exuberant feelings of philanthropy towards the natives of India. Their petitions were unheeded, and their wrongs were unredressed.
This was the case as regards India. Had England prospered during the same period? In 1814, which was the first year

1257
of what was nicknamed free trade with India—a free trade whereby everything from England was admitted into India, and everything from India was virtually excluded from England — in 1814, the first year of that so-called free trade, the British cotton manufactures exported to India amounted in value to 109,487 l. In 1849–50, they had increased to 4,421,912 l. Had Manchester any reason to complain? How had the shipowners fared? Had they any reason to complain? In 1834–5, the British shipping to India amounted to 220 vessels, or 187,870 tons. In 1849–50, the number of vessels had increased to 425, and the tonnage to 252,153, having nearly doubled. He would be glad if any hon. Member who might follow him in debate would mention any part of the world which had exhibited similar proofs of rapid advancement. The hon. Member for Manchester, in the fondness of his imagination, ever turned towards America. The hon. Member, when speaking of the manner in which India had been treated by this country, exclaimed, "Oh, that India had only fallen into the hands of America, how happy she would have been!" He would tell the hon. Member what would have been the result. Slavery would have continued to exist, and would probably have been encouraged, while under the British rule slavery had been abolished in India. [Mr. Bright here interrupted the hon. Member.] He (Sir J. W. Hogg) did not mean to say that the hon. Member had actually expressed a wish that India should be subject to the dominion of America; but the hon. Member had alleged that India would have been more prosperous under American rule. He had been diverted from his statement, and had not yet given the exports from Great Britain to India. In 1834–5, they amounted to 2,682,221 l.; and in 1849–50 to7,578,980 l., being nearly threefold. Very true, said the hon. Member for Manchester, there has been a great increase in the exports from England to India; but the greatest portion of it consists of cotton goods. Well, that certainly was a most extraordinary complaint to proceed from the hon. Member for Manchester. In the same breath in which the hon. Member made the complaint, he had the candour to assign the reason, stating that the cheapness of English cotton goods enabled the natives to purchase the few rags of covering which they required. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) could see nothing to Complain of in this. But still the hon.
1258
Member for Manchester was not satisfied. Of course not. He did not believe that the hon. Member was ever satisfied in his life. He believed in his conscience, that if any one could inflict on the hon. Member the feeling of satisfaction, he would be the most miserable man in the world. He would next call the attention of the House to the state of the finances of India. In the year 1850–51, when the period for which India had been committed to the Government of the East India Company was about to expire, and there was every temptation to represent matters in the most favourable light, the sketch estimate for the year showed a deficiency of half a million; and now the actual result showed a surplus of half a million. So far from the local Government having endeavoured to exaggerate the state of prosperity, they sent home an estimate showing a deficiency, while the actual result was a large surplus. Were things going backward now as had been suggested? Nothing of the kind. The sketch estimate for 1852–53, showed a gross revenue of 29 crores, 22 lakhs, 82,525 rupees; that was to say 29,228,252 l. The charges amounted to 26,307,526 l., showing an Indian surplus of nearly three millions. It should be recollected that India paid, and always had paid, a heavy tribute to this country as home charges. These charges were estimated at 2,415,785 l., so that even allowing for that tribute, the estimated surplus for the current year was nearly half a million, including the estimate for the Burmese war. The cash balances at the different treasuries throughout India amounted in 1834 to 7,900,000 l., while in April of the present year they were estimated at 15,239,604 l. Such being the state of the Indian finances, the hon. and learned Member for Leominster, indulging in his usual rashness and latitude of expression, had been pleased to speak of the bankruptcy of the East India Company. He did not apprehend much injury to the credit of the Company from the imputation of the hon. Member, whose notions of bankruptcy roust be somewhat curious and whimsical. The hon. Member for Manchester had given the House a statement showing the gradual increase of the debt. What was the use of such a statement? It was only calculated to mislead and deceive. He would tell the hon. Member what would have been useful and to the purpose, and would, moreover, have been fair and candid-—if he had simultaneously

1259
given the gradual increase of revenue, and had thus enabled the House to see whether the debt bore a greater or less ratio to the revenue now than in 1834. It was true that the debt had increased very considerably; but he would tell the hon. Member that the revenue had increased in a far greater proportion, and that notwithstanding all the wars that had taken place, the ratio of debt to revenue was much less now than at any period to which he had referred. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) had shown that the revenue now exceeded 29,000,000 l., while in 1834 it was about 18,500,000 l. Since 1854, the total debt, including the bond debt at home, had increased 15,244,081 l.; but what was that increase compared to the vast increase in the annual revenues? In 1834 the total debt was 38,986,720 l. In 1839 it has been reduced to 31,965,462 l., thus showing how rapid was the reduction during a period of peace. From 1839 to the present time the debt had increased nearly 19,000,000 l., equally showing how rapid was the increase during the period of war. The expenses of the Affghan war amounted to 15,000,000 l., while the total expense of all the military operations were estimated at 36,000,000 l. Who, he asked, was responsible for the expenses and the disasters of the Affghan war? Was it the Court of Directors? No, said the hon. Member for Manchester. He absolves the Court of Directors from all responsibility for that war, and states his belief that they disapproved of it. If then, as the hon. Member averred, the Minister of the Crown was responsible for that war, was it not a strange mode of obviating such evils in future, to contend that all power and authority should be withdrawn from the Court of Directors, and transferred wholesale to the very authority that caused the evil which he denounced? He (Sir J. W. Hogg) had always contended that the Affghan war was not an European war—that it had its origin in European causes, and had been carried on for European objects, and that its expenses ought to have been defrayed from the Imperial treasury—[Mr. BRIGHT: Hear hear!] Well, then, restore the 15,000,000 l., and what became of the argument founded on the increase of the debt? Restore that 15,000,000 l. and then call upon the Indian Government for public works and internal improvements.
But, after all, what was the amount of the Indian debt? It did not amount to two years' revenue. The Duke of Wel-
1260
lington, whose voice would no longer be heard in the Councils of his Sovereign and his country, but whose wisdom would long remain for their guidance and direction, had said when this question was raised—"I remember that the Government have conducted the affairs of —I will not presume to say how many millions of people— a population returning an annual revenue of 20,000,000 l. sterling; and that, notwithstanding all the wars in which the Empire has been engaged, its debt at this moment amounts only to 40,000,000 l.; being not more than two years' revenue." "I do not say," continued his Grace, "that such a debt is desirable; but at the same time I do contend that it is a delusion on the people of this country to tell them that it is a body unfit for government, which has administered the affairs of India with so much success for so many years." That is no slight tribute proceeding from the lips of such a man.
While he admitted the great expenditure which must always attend war carried on in India, he must notice the fabulous statements so often repeated respecting the cost of the present Burmese war. It had been alleged elsewhere, that at the commencement of the war the lowest expense was 130,000 l., and that the amount would probably be not less than 150,000 l. monthly. Now the truth was, that at the commencement of the war the cost was 30,000 l. monthly, and when further troops were sent the cost was estimated at 60,000 l. monthly. He held in his hand the estimate of the charges of the war for the year 1852–53, which amounted to 600,000 l. for the whole year. The hon. Member for Manchester had alleged it as a charge against the Court of Directors that they had borrowed money to pay the dividends due on their debt. Well, suppose they had done so—did the hon. Gentleman complain that the East India Company had punctually met their engagements? Would he have preferred that they should repudiate? But the hon. Member was wholly in error, and if he would read the Act of Parliament in that behalf made and provided, he would find that the dividends were a first charge on a revenue greatly exceeding 20,000,000 l., and that it could not be truly stated that money had been borrowed to pay the dividends. It might, perhaps, be said why should these dividends be a charge on the territorial revenues of India? He contended that it was perfectly fair, because at the time when the

1261
arrangement was made, it was estimated that the commercial assets, which had been appropriated towards the territorial finances, far exceeded any demands that would arise from the payment of the dividends. Upon this subject he would read the authority of a noble Lord, whose attention was then specially directed to the subject. In the House of Lords, Lord Ellenborough said—
"The territorial finances of India have appropriated to themselves as large a sum of the commercial profits as has been appropriated to the payment of dividends on East India Stock. In fact, the China trade has been administered for the benefit of the finances of India."
The hon. Member who spoke last had accused his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) of having glossed over the subject of the tenures of land. He denied the correctness of that charge. His right hon. Friend had spoken at great length: the extent and varied nature of the subject did not admit of his being brief. It was true he had not entered into all the details of the various systems of tenure: God forbid that he should, or that the House should have such an infliction imposed upon it! The hon. and learned Member for Leominster had made the most extraordinary complaint he had ever heard. He did not complain of the Court of Directors, or of the local or home authorities, but of the whole system of revenue which prevailed in the East. His complaint was that the Government of India raised the greatest part of their revenue from land. Why, to be sure they did, and they must continue to raise it from the land, or not at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed great historical research, and he would not venture to say that many of his references were irrelevant; but surely he must know that the revenue of oriental countries was derived almost exclusively from the land. It was true that in India Government was the great landlord; and a political economist of high authority, who had been cited by the hon. Member himself (Mr. Mill), had pronounced this system of revenue to be the best in the world, because the amount which in other countries went into the pockets of landlords as rent, went in India to meet the demands of the State; so that literally the people scarcely paid any taxes at all. He would not follow the hon. Member in the details into which he had entered respecting the different tenures, the permanent settlement, the ryotwarree and the village settlements; but he would tell the
1262
hon. Gentleman that of late he had heard a great deal, and had read a great deal, about the tenures in India, but that he had not heard a single argument or met with a suggestion that he had not found powerfully stated in the Minutes and Reports of the Governments and public servants at the time when these tenures were determined on. The view taken at the time might not have been correct, and the results might not have answered the expectation; but the consideration given to the subject at the time was full, ample, and complete. It was the fashion to say that Lord Cornwallis had acted rashly and inconsiderately in settling the Lower Provinces of Bengal. He denied that he had done so. Lord Cornwallis was not the man to act rashly and inconsiderately in anything. A reference to the proceedings of the time would show that Lord Cornwallis had proceeded with great deliberation, and had consulted all competent to advise him, and that his intentions were kind, generous, and benevolent. Let it be remembered how little experience we then had of the tenures of India, and that Lord Wellesley, not only approved of the permanent settlement, but proposed to extend it. While he was thus anxious to do justice to the intentions of Lord Cornwallis, he admitted broadly that the permanent settlement was injurious to the interests of the cultivators of the soil whose rights were not protected, and deprived the State of the accession of revenue accruing from the improvement and extension of cultivation. It had been stated, that under the ryotwaree system the ryot never knew the nature or extent of the demands upon him, and could never tell one year what he would be called upon to pay the next. This was partly true, and partly untrue. It was not true that the rent varied; on the contrary, there was a fixed permanent rent, and as long as the ryot paid that rent, he could not be dispossessed. This rent, however, was only payable for the land actually under cultivation, and it was therefore requisite to have an annual investigation to ascertain what extent of the land had been under cultivation in that year. Suppose a ryot held 200 acres, of which 50 had not been cultivated, he would only be required to pay the land tax on 150. There was another reason for this annual investigation. There were occasionally droughts and inundations which destroyed the crops, and rendered necessary a remission of the land tax, which was always liberally made. Every one who had considered the subject of land tenures

1263
would rise from it bewildered and confused. He believed that, however these measures may have failed in producing the desired results, all the authorities in India had endeavoured anxiously and earnestly to promote the public good, and improve the condition of the cultivators of the soil. It was human to err, and it ought to be borne in mind that some of the greatest names in Indian history had introduced the very systems that were now so loudly condemned. Lord Cornwallis introduced the permanent settlement in Bengal, and Sir Thomas Munro introduced the ryotwaree system into Madras. It was true that the settlement recently completed in the North-west Provinces had been most successful; and the hon. Member for Leominster said, why don't you extend that system to Madras and Bombay? It was easy for the hon. Member for Leominster to put that question. But ask Sir George Clerk, ask Mr. Halliday, ask any man conversant with India, and he would express his opinion, not only with caution, but with hesitation. He would tell the hon. Member that it was knowledge, and knowledge alone, which made a man conscious of the extent of his own ignorance. That very question had been put by the Committee; and the ablest and most experienced men who appeared before it, shrunk from giving a decided opinion, and had not evinced the boldness displayed by the hon. Member. [Mr. PHILLIMORE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but he has mistaken what I said. I said that the adoption of a new system in the North-western Provinces was an admission that the old system was wrong —not that they ought to apply the new system to the old Presidencies of Bombay and Madras.] Well, he certainly had understood the hon. Member, not only to have said so, but to have applied to the Directors some very harsh epithets, because they had not extended the North-west system of settlement to Madras and Bombay. If he had misunderstood the hon. Member, he was sorry for it. In India settlements could not be safely made upon abstract principles: reference must be had to the religion, the laws, and usages of each district; and it by no means followed that a system would be suited to Madras and Bombay, because it had succeeded in Hindostan. As far as he was competent to judge, he was of opinion the system of settlement pursued in the North-west Provinces was decidedly the best, and for so far it had been eminently successful; but it must be re-
1264
membered, that it had only been recently introduced, and it was difficult to speculate as to the opinion that might be pronounced upon it some twenty or thirty years hence. It was not more in favour now than the permanent settlement had been at the time of its first introduction. By the Hindoo law, every family was joint and undivided; but any member of the family might demand a partition, so that settle as you may, the inevitable tendency is towards a minute subdivision. The next subject to which the hon. Member for Manchester had adverted, was the cultivation of cotton. A Select Committee, presided over by the hon. Member himself, had been appointed to inquire into the growth of cotton in India. That Committee examined a great number of witnesses, and made a long and careful inquiry into everything connected with the cultivation of cotton, including the tenures of land. They made an unanimous report, and he appealed to that Report in proof of the exertions made by the East India Company for the extension and improvement of the cultivation of cotton in India. They had introduced and distributed superior seeds from the different cotton-growing countries. They had procured ten Americans experienced in the management of cotton plantation; and had established experimental farms in the localities that were considered best suited for the purpose. He did not, however, place much reliance on any exertions that could be made by the Government. The production and export of cotton from India was a question of market and of price, and could not, and ought not to be forced. He believed that the cultivation of cotton in India was quite equal to that grown in the United States. The description of cotton grown was suited to their own manufactures, and their own wants; and the excess above the home consumption found a ready market in China. In both countries the refuse was used for wadding and stuffing, and for all purposes to which wool and hair are applied in this country, so that there was a ready sale even for the refuse. What was the result when cotton was shipped to this country? If there was a bad crop in America, it would sell; but if there was an abundant supply from America, no one would buy the Indian cotton, which, from the shortness of its staple, and the dirty state in which it was brought to market, was unsuited to the manufacturers of this country. Could it be expected that any one would ship cotton or

1265
anything else to a precarious market? In the early part of this century very little indigo was grown in India; now India nearly supplied the world. Why did not those interested in the supply of cotton adopt the course which had been pursued so long, and so successfully, by the indigo planters? In the indigo districts, the planters made advances to the ryots, to enable them to cultivate their lands, and agreed to purchase from them the whole produce at a stipulated price. The ryot was thus assured of an immediate sale for all he could furnish. Why did not those interested in the production of cotton adopt the same course, and thus ensure the same results? He had the honour of receiving a deputation from Manchester at the India House, and he told them, that if, instead of petitioning and agitating, a little of Manchester intelligence and Manchester capital would find its way into the best cotton districts, the results would not fail to be satisfactory. He believed that in America the cotton plant lasted three years, whereas in India it was an annual, and, moreover, could only be grown on the same land once in three years, thus enormously increasing the area required for its cultivation. Again, in America an acre of land produced 2001bs. of clean cotton, while an acre in India produced only 100lbs. The statistics of Guzerat, one of the best cotton districts, showed that the present area of cotton cultivation could not be increased; and he believed that new districts must be resorted to, in order to produce an amount of cotton that would materially aid the English market. He ventured to hope that the railways now in progress would afford access to those districts, and that ere long Manchester, that great emporium of our manufacturing interests, would not be dependent upon a foreign country for the great staple of our national industry. The hon. Member for Manchester, when referring to the proceedings before the Cotton Committee, said that there was no evidence as to the condition of the ryots in Bengal, and added his belief that if information had been afforded, it would have appeared that, owing to the permanent settlement, they were in a worse condition than the ryots in the other Presidencies. He would read to the House, as apposite to the subject, an extract from the Calcutta Review, a publication conducted with great ability, and which usually commented with great severity upon the Indian Government, and its measures:—
1266
"What strikes the eye most in any village or set of villages in a Bengal district, is the exuberant fertility of the soil—the sluttish plenty surrounding the cultivator's abode—the rich foliage—the fruit and timber trees, and the palpable evidence against anything like penury. Did any man ever go through a Bengalee village and find himself assailed by the cry of want or famine? Was he ever told that the ryot and his family did not know where to turn for a meal?—that they had no shade to shelter them—no tank to bathe in— no employment for their active limbs?"
The hon. Member for Manchester next dwelt upon the salt tax, to which he strongly objected, and he asked how could the poor natives of India, whose monthly wages were only three rupees, afford to pay 1s.6d. for their consumption of salt, amounting yearly to 12 lbs.? Well, if they could not afford to pay 1s.6d. for their salt, what became of the hon. Member's complaint that they did not expend 7s.6d. on British manufactures, as he alleged was the case in the Brazils? The hon. Member then. proceeded to say—
"If you want the strongest possible evidence of the misery of the people, I will give it to you. Salt is an absolute necessary of life: living as they do upon vegetable diet, they must have it; and yet I will show you that the consumption of salt has greatly diminished, and there cannot be a stronger proof of the misery of the people."
He (Sir J. W. Hogg) confessed that this statement startled him, because he admitted that if the statement were correct, the deduction drawn from it by the hon. Member was irresistible. The hon. Member ought to have known that the statement he made could not be correct, because he at the time held in his hands returns showing that the duty on salt had been considerably decreased, and that simultaneously the revenue derived from it had increased; and how, he asked, was it possible under these circumstances the consumption could have diminished? The authority upon which the hon. Member rested his statement, was an article in the Friend of India, dated the 14th April, in which, after stating the amount of home manufactured and imported salt, it is alleged that in the last two years there had been a decrease in the consumption of salt in Bengal of 59,285 tons. Now what would the House think when he told them, that the same mail, and perhaps the' same envelope that brought the Friend of India, of the 14th April, also brought the paper of the 21st, which contained an article acknowledging and correcting the gross misstatement made in the preceding number, and which he would read to the

1267
House. The article, which was headed "The consumption of salt," stated—
"It has been pointed out to us that our article of last week upon the decrease in the consumption of salt contains a mistake so serious as to vitiate all the conclusions at which we had arrived. The importation for 1851–2 was not 18,50,000 maunds, but 29,43,463, exclusive of salt in bond; the former amount representing only the salt imported from Great Britain. The real figures stand thus:—

Govt. sales

Imports.

Total.

1849–50

…

33,83,833

…

21,26,848

…

55,10,681

1850–51

…

28,25,100

…

26,36,030

…

54,61,130

1851–52

…

22,39,952

…

29,43,463

…

51,83,415

The falling off in two years, therefore, has been only three and a half lacs of maunds, which cannot be considered greatly in excess of the fluctuations to which the salt trade is known to be liable, and quite insufficient to support the conclusion that the consumption has permanently decreased. Indeed it is understood that the consumption for the present official year exhibits almost as great an increase, particularly in the imported article. The figures given above represent the actual amount passed for consumption, and differ, therefore, from those given in the Commercial Annual, which include the amount in bond."
He did not mean to impute to the hon. Member that he read to the House the erroneous statement, and had knowingly withheld the correction, but he did contend that he was fully justified in the complaint he had made at the outset, that the hon. Member, instead of relying upon the public documents, and the evidence before the Committee, had founded his statements on scraps and extracts, the accuracy of which other Members were unable to test. The duty on salt was the only tax paid by the people of India, and he would rejoice if the state of the finances admitted of its abolition. The whole subject had been fully inquired into by a Committee which sat in 1836, and reported resolutions to the House recommending that instead of periodical sales, which had encouraged sub-monopolies, the salt golabs should always be open for the sale of salt, in quantities not less than 100 maunds. That the lowest duty, consistent with the revenue, should be imposed—and that the same duty should be imposed on the imported and the home manufactured salt. These recommendations had been immediately and strictly carried into execution, and there had ever since been free competition between the home and foreign salt. He would advert very shortly to the opium duty, which formed a considerable item in the Indian revenues. This subject had been fully inquired into by the Select Committee in 1832, who had reported that it was not advisable to abandon so important a source of revenue, and
1268
which appeared less liable to objection than any other that could be substituted. He fully admitted the truth of the observation which had been made, that this was a precarious source of revenue. It was stated that the cultivation of the poppy was proceeding in China, and that it was probable the import of opium into that country would be legalised. If so, the duty on opium would certainly be in great peril. They had, however, heard similar statements at the time of the war with China, and papers were then laid upon the table, in which some of the Chinese authorities—hebelieved it was Commissioner Lin—had exposed the impolicy of prohibiting the importation of opium, and had contended for the imposition of an import duty, supporting his arguments with great ability, and urging the soundest principles of political economy. If, however, the hon. Member for Manchester was so full of apprehension as to the state of the finances of India, he would perhaps hesitate before recommending the transfer to the Crown of India with all its debts and liabilities. He came now to the subject of public works, and any one who had been present at this debate would imagine that this duty had been wholly neglected by the Government of India. It was not a matter that could be determined by loud and vehement assertions on one side or the other. The charge of neglect could only be satisfactorily met by a statement of what had been done, which would lead to details and occupy time far beyond the compass of a debate. He would, however, ask permission to notice some of the more prominent works.
The trunk road from Calcutta to Peshawur was in length 1,423 miles, and had cost 1,000 l. per mile. It had been commenced in 1836, and was now completed to Kurnoul, being some distance beyond Delhi. The yearly cost of keeping this road in order was 50,000 l. The trunk road from Bombay to Agra was in length 734 miles, the cost 330 l. per mile, and the yearly expense of repairs 5,000 l The road from Calcutta to Bombay was in length 1,170 miles, and the cost 500 l. per mile. To give a summary, there were of trunk roads 3,159 miles, made at a cost of 2,166,676 l., and requiring for repairs 90,000 l. yearly. The minor and cross roads were made by tolls on ferries, and by the application of one per cent of the revenue of the North-west provinces. In Caunpore alone there were 300 miles of cross roads. In Bengal the zemindars

1269
were required, by the provisions of the permanent settlement, to keep the roads and embankments within their estates in repair. Next, as to works of irrigation, so much required in India. The Western Jumna Canal was in length 425 miles, and the Eastern 155 miles. The Ganges Canal was in length 810 miles, and the cost 1,555,548 l., of which 722,556 l. had been expended. The Ravee Canal was in length 450 miles, and the cost 500,000 l. At Madras the rivers Godavery, Canvery, and Kistna, had all been turned to the purposes of irrigation. He would not give the details, but the aggregate cost since 1841 was 291,120 l. When his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control had adverted to these great works of irrigation, the hon. Member for Manchester would express no satisfaction, would give no credit. "True," said the hon. Member, "you have expended vast sums, and constructed great works of irrigation, but why did you not do so in 1792, when a report was sent in to Government recommending works on the Kistna?" Well, he would have been glad if works of irrigation had been constructed in 1792; but the Government of that day had enough to do to preserve their footing in India, and he did not think that the House would be disposed to concur with the hon. Member in holding the Government of 1853 responsible for the omissions of the Government of 1792.
They had heard much of the blessings of the Mahomedan rule, and of the extent and grandeur of their public works. He had extracts showing the miseries and horrors of that rule that would make them shudder; but, after the length at which he had intruded on their time, he would abstain from reading them. With regard to their public works, they were such as gratified their vanity, or ministered to their luxury. If a road was made, or buildings were erected, it was only as a preparation for some royal progress, or as leading to some royal hunting grounds. When the progress ceased, or the hunt was abandoned, the road was neglected, and the building fell into decay. He would refer hon. Members to a recent work by Sir Henry Elliott, a most accomplished Eastern scholar, who exposes the gross exaggeration and fabulous statements that have been made respecting the public works of the Mahomedan emperors. It was true that the Indian Government had not expended the public funds in the erection of
1270
temples and tombs, mausoleums and palaces; but they had, without ostentation, constructed works calculated to add to the convenience and enhance the prosperity of the population at large.
The hon. Members who had preceded him in the debate, when discussing the administration of justice, had connected with it the employment of natives; and he should pursue the same course. Upon this head, and more particularly upon the employment of the natives of India, he looked with confidence to the result of the inquiry now pending before the Committee. Before 1830 the administration of India was carried on almost exclusively by Europeans: natives were only employed in very subordinate situations, and on very small salaries. Now, the universal rule and practice was, native agency and European superintendence. The administration of justice was almost entirely in the hands of the natives; and he rejoiced to add that the results fully justified the confidence reposed in them. Of original suits, 99 per cent were determined by natives; and of all suits, including appeals, 96 per cent. Natives were also employed as deputy magistrates and deputy collectors, and the salaries in the various offices to which he had alluded ranged from 100 l. to 900 l. a-year, and in one case the salary was 1,560 l. In the face of this statement, substantiated by official returns, how could it be alleged that the Indian Government had not fairly and efficiently carried out the provisions of the statute of 1834 l If the Government of India had prematurely placed natives in offices for the duties of which they were not competent, the benevolent intentions of the Legislature would have been frustrated. The success of the enactment providing for the employment of the natives had resulted from the the judgment, care and caution with which it had been carried out.
Their promotion had been gradual, and commensurate with their qualifications and fitness. But he felt satisfied that if they had been rashly advanced to situations for which they were unsuited, their interests and the public service would have equally suffered. The hon. Member for Manchester shook his head, indicating dissent: did the hon. Member mean to say that the natives of India had not a fair share in the administration of justice when they decided 99 per cent of the original suits? He believed the hon. Member dissented because no native had been admitted to the cove-

1271
nanted service. That service consisted of young men who had been educated at Haileybury College, and from thence proceeded to India; and could it be urged as a grievance that natives were not required to leave their country and go through this preparatory course before they were employed in the public service? The object was not to elevate one or two natives to the highest situations, but to employ extensively those who were competent; and the result was, that, at present, upwards of 2,300 natives were engaged in the public service. There were, besides, very grave considerations connected with the subject, into which he would not wish to enter. If natives were admitted into the civil covenanted service, he did not see how they could be excluded from the military; and then came the question, how far it would be expedient and safe to commit to them the command of our armies. It must be remembered, that the covenanted services were seniority services, where men must rise according to their standing. He put it to the good sense and good feeling of the House, if it was not better to abstain from agitating this question, and to leave it to the discretion of the Government of India to employ natives generally in the situations for which they were competent. They might rest assured that the distinguished statesmen who had filled the high office of Governor General, were as anxious as any Member of this House, to do full and ample justice to the claims of the natives of India. It had been alleged, that the Court of Directors not only had shown no disposition to carry out the provisions of the statute of 1834, but had wholly disregarded the enactment. That unfounded imputation was best refuted by the instructions sent out by the Court in the year 1834, and very shortly after the passing of the Act. He would be glad if he could read the entire despatch, but he would solicit permission to read a few extracts.
"The meaning of the enactments we take to be, that there shall be no governing caste in British India; that whatever other tests of qualification may be adopted, distinctions of race or religion shall not be of the number; that no subject of the king, whether of Indian or British or mixed descent, shall be excluded, either from the posts usually conferred on our uncovenanted servants in India, or from the covenanted service itself, provided he be otherwise eligible, consistently with the rules, and agreeably to the conditions, observed and exacted in the one case and in the other.
"Men of European enterprise and education will appear in the field, and it is by the prospect of
1272
this event, that we are led particularly to impress the lesson already alluded to, on your Lordship's; attention. In every view it is important that the indigenous people of India, or those among them who by their habits, character, or position, maybe induced to aspire to office, should, as far as pos-sible, be qualified to meet their European competitors. Hence, there arises a powerful argument for the promotion of every design tending to the improvement of the natives, whether by conferring on them the advantages of education, or by diffusing among them the treasures of science, knowledge, and moral culture. For these desirable results, we are well aware that you, like ourselves, are anxious; and we doubt not that, in order to impel you to increased exertion for the promotion of them, you will need no stimulant beyond a simple reference to the considerations we have suggested. While, however, we entertain these wishes and opinions, we must guard against the supposition, that it is chiefly by holding out means and opportunities of official distinction, that we expect our Government to benefit the millions subjected to their authority. We have repeatedly expressed to you a very different sentiment. Facilities of official advancement can little affect the bulk of the people under any government, and perhaps least under a good government. It is not by holding out incentives to official ambition, but by repressing crime, by securing and guarding property, by creating confidence, by ensuring to industry the fruit of its labour, by protecting men in the undisturbed enjoyment of their rights, and in the unfettered exercise of their faculties, that governments best minister to the public wealth and happiness. In effect the free access to office is chiefly valuable when it is a part of general freedom."
Such were the instructions sent out by the Court of Directors. They are clear, distinct, and explicit, and in strict conformity with the spirit of the enactment; and he was happy to add, that they had been fully and honestly carried into execution by the local government. Hon. Members who professed such an interest in the well-being of the people of India seemed to have entirely lost sight of the great moral and social reforms which had been effected in India. Dacoity and gang robbery had been much abated, if not entirely suppressed. The horrid system of Thuggism, whereby entire communities were professionally engaged in coldblooded wholesale murder, had been wholly extinguished. Suttee had been abolished. Infanticide suppressed within our own territories, and nearly throughout the whole of India. Slavery entirely abolished. He wished that time permitted him to refer to the labours of some distinguished men, who; regardless of personal risk, had penetrated into mountain regions hitherto unexplored; and where the deadly jungles that encompassed them seemed to prevent the possibility of access.

1273
cheered.] Yes, he well understood the meaning of that ironical cheer. It indicated distrust in his statements, and he would, therefore, solicit permission to advert to a few of the cases that were on his mind. He would first refer to Mainivava, a district near Ajmere, which, within forty years, was inhabited by savage and ferocious marauders, who murdered their daughters and sold their mothers—who seemed to recognise no tie, and were utterly regardless of life. Into that district, Colonel (then Captain) Dickson penetrated; and, alone, he accomplished as much as was ever done by mortal man in reclaiming and humanising savages. These ferocious mountaineers were rendered docile and obedient. Their barbarous and cruel practices were abolished; useful works were executed; industry was encouraged, and Colonel Dickson was more than rewarded by the success which attended his efforts, and the confidence reposed in him as a benefactor, He hoped that what he had said would induce hon. Members to read the most interesting narrative of Colonel Dickson, which united the truth of history with all the charms of romance.
He would next refer to the Bheels, inhabiting mountains in the district of Candeish. They roamed about in robber gangs. Their hand was against all, and the hand of all was against them. Every effort had been made by the native authorities to butcher and exterminate them, but in vain. When the province was ceded to us, its subjugation was effected with case, except the Bheels, who would not yield, believing that if they submitted, they would be murdered. No wonder they thought so; like beasts of the forest they had been hunted down, and like beasts of the forest they had preyed upon mankind. Mr. Elphinstone determined that an effort should be made to reclaim them, and the selection of officers for that purpose was eminently fortunate.
Colonel (then Major) Ovans was appointed Civil Commissioner, and Colonel (then Lieutenant) Outram was instructed to endeavour to raise a Bheel corps. Colonel Ovans succeeded far beyond what had been anticipated, and for that success he was indebted to his own untiring zeal and energy, and to the temper and spirit of conciliation he evinced when surrounded by difficulties that would have appalled most men. The efforts of Colonel Outram were equally successful. He combined all the requisite qualifications. He won their
1274
admiration by his daring exploits, and their confidence by fearlessly flinging himself among them. He joined their hunting expeditions, and was ever foremost in the chase as in the field. The success which attended the efforts of Colonel Ovans and Colonel Outram was complete, and the Bheels were now a civilised and industrious people. He could not omit a hasty reference to the Khoonds, tribes inhabiting hills in the district of Gangam. Till lately the existence of these tribes was unknown, and access to their mountain dwelling was forbidden by the pestilential nature of the climate. But nothing is too perilous to be encountered by a British officer, whether in the service of his country, or in the cause of humanity.
Lieutenant Macpherson, when employed in surveying the plains, became acquainted with the existence of these tribes and their revolting usages. Infanticide and human sacrifices prevailed among them to a frightful extent. With them human sacrifices were regarded as a religious duty, and the observance of it requisite to avert the wrath of the Earth Goddess, and secure the success of any undertaking.
When Lieutenant Macpherson first interfered to save a human victim, the expectation was universal that some dire calamity must befall him. As he escaped the looked-for punishment, it was believed that he must possess some charm which enabled him to avert the wrath of the ruthless goddess. By degrees he gained the confidence of those tribes, and by perseverance and conciliation succeeded in inducing them to abstain from their horrid rites. Colonel Campbell succeeded Lieutenant Macpherson, and pursued the same humane course with like success, and both dwelt among these savages in perfect security. When the soldier mounts the breach, or rushes into the thickest of the fight, he is sustained by the consciousness that his fame will reach his home, and that his deeds of glory will be proclaimed to the world. But here were men, labouring in noxious jungles in the cause of humanity, unseen and unheard, with no visions of glory to cheer them, and no reward but the consciousness that they are discharging their duty to their God and their country. He begged pardon for the digression into which he had been forced by the interruption he had met with. He would next advert to education, which, as had been observed, was closely connected with the good administration of affairs in India.

1275
Much had been clone for the promotion of education among the natives of India; but he freely admitted that much remained to be done. Where was the presumptuous man who would not admit that he had omitted much that he ought to have done? and where was the body of men, associated for any purpose, who would not humbly make the like confession? Much difficulty had to be surmounted, and many prejudices had to be encountered, and he ventured to assert, that, since 1830, as much had been done as, under the circumstances, could be reasonably expected. In Bengal there had been established of English and mixed schools 37, and of vernacular 104. In the North-western provinces, of English mixed schools seven, and of vernacular eight. In Madras, one English and mixed school, and of the vernacular he had no return. In Bombay, of English and mixed schools 14, and of vernacular 233. The total expense yearly was 66,993 l. The number of teachers, 855, and of pupils, 25,372, while nearly 8,000 l. annually was granted in scholarships, besides those established by private endowment. Besides these schools, there was a medical college at Calcutta, and a college for the education of civil engineers at Roorkee, in the North-western provinces.
He admitted that the amount expended for the promotion of education was small— too small; but he begged the House to consider how slow had been the progress of all moral and social improvements at home, where there were no obstacles to impede their advancement. How slow had been their progress with regard to legal reforms, police, gaols, the provision of dwellings for the poor, and the various subjects that had of late engrossed public attention? Parliament itself, until lately, had been sparing, if not parsimonious, in public grants for education. In 1813, when the Charter of the East India Company was renewed, the sum named for education in India was only 10,000 l. Even at home the sum granted for education for England and Wales, from 1833 to 1837, was only 20,000 l.; while in 1851 it was 150,000 l.; in 1852, 160,000 l.; and in 1853, 260,000 l. He asked them to consider the difficulties they had to contend with in India—difficulties immeasurably greater and far more formidable than any which presented themselves in this country. In India there were different races, different creeds, and different languages; while here all were born in the same land,
1276
spoke the same language, and worshipped the same God. These difficulties had been partially overcome, and he hoped that in time they would be entirely surmounted. He had no vain fear as to the consequences of educating and enlightening the people of India; he did not participate in the apprehensions which had been expressed elsewhere. He believed that their great mission was to educate and improve the people, and that it was their duty to do so, irrespective of the results. If ever they were destined to leave India, the most glorious monument to their memory would be to have advanced the people in education and knowledge, and rendered them fit for their own self-government. He was happy to say that he had now arrived at the last subject to which it was his duty to advert—the ecclesiastical establishment in India, and he would briefly state the increase which had taken place since 1833.
In 1833, the number of chaplains in India was 64. In 1852 they were 115. In 1834 the expense of the Church Establishment was 81,954 l., and in 1852 it was 107,765. In 1834, the allowances to the ministers of the Scotch Kirk was 6,243 l., and in 1852 it was 6,579. In 1834, the payments to Roman Catholic priests who administered spiritual instruction to soldiers of that faith, was 1,609 l., and in 1852 it amounted to 5,496 l. In 1830 there were 106 Missionary stations, and in 1852 there were 403. With regard to the observation made, as to the small number of Roman Catholic priests, and the inadequate allowance made to them, he would observe, that the rule was to pay a Roman Catholic priest at every station where there was an European regiment. The payment made to them varied from 50 to 100 rupees monthly, and at a few of the large stations the allowance was 150 rupees. The allowance to the Roman Catholic bishop at each Presidency was, as had been stated, only 200 rupees monthly; but that allowance was not granted to him as bishop, but for the performance of certain duties connected with the registry of births and marriages. With reference to the vast extent of India, the Church Establishment might seem small; but it must be borne in mind that the Government of India only professed to provide spiritual instruction for those engaged in the public service, and not for all residents in India. He had that day met with a very interesting book, the Missionary Intelligencer, and as it afforded strong and independent testimony

1277
as regarded the religion, morality, integrity, and capacity, of the public servants, he would beg the attention of the House to an extract:—
"Looking at the state of the country politically, we think there is a remarkable opening for the ministers of the Gospel, as perfect peace and good order reign in the whole extent of the Punjaub, as in any part of England. We see nothing to deter any prudent faithful man from travelling about in all parts, or settling in any one place, and preaching the Gospel of salvation fully, and in doing so, holding up to just condemnation all the false systems by which the people are held bound of Satan. Much more, we think there is not only a wholesome fear, but a just respect, for the Englishman. The Government of the country have done much to establish this state of things. The Governing Board are well known for their high principles, and their spirit and example pervade all the officers of Government, who seem to have been selected for energy, talent, habits of business, and upright character. The rapidity of the improvements in the country is really wonderful. A few years have done the work of an age in the Punjaub, and the people, feeling perfect security for life and property, and a strong reliance upon the administration of justice, are freed from all petty oppression, and in the full exercise of industrious pursuits, are not only contented but happy; and, moreover, the general state of European society is good.
"It does one good" (we refer to a private letter), "to see so many men of talent and rank all intent on their work, and all alive and progressing onward, and sparing no labour of either body or mind to perform their end. Everything here is on the alert. Men are on their Arab horses, and off at a moment's notice anywhere, and at a rate that would terrify some in England. Others go out and spend six months at a time in tents, and think nothing of either the hot sun by day, or the cold frosts by night as they travel along administering justice from town to town; they have sometimes to leave a station at a week's notice, and selling off, all go to a distant part of the country. And if men gladly do all these things as soldiers or rulers, surely we ought not to be behind in a better cause. They seem here to have their eyes open to everything that is going on in the whole country, making roads and canals, erecting bridges, settling the revenue, building cantonments, planting trees, and looking into the minutiae of everything. But we want more men, for the members of the Government are doing all they possibly can to encourage us, and probably there are few countries where such an opening presents itself."
He felt how inadequately he had discharged the important duty which had devolved upon him, and how unduly he had trespassed upon the indulgence and attention which had been so kindly afforded him. The subject was of vast importance, and the body with which he had the honour to be associated had been assailed, not only with charges of mismanagement and errors of judgment, but even their motives and intentions had been impugned. He
1278
did not complain of arraigning the acts of the East India Company. The acts of all public men were open to public canvass, and, if they deserved it, to public condemnation; but he did complain of some expressions which had fallen from some hon. Members, impugning the purity of the intentions of the Court of Directors. One hon. Member, a Friend of his own, the Member for Poole, had exclaimed, "What sympathy have the Court of Directors with the people of India?" What sympathy? Had they not a sacred duty to discharge, and why should the hon. Member suppose that they were not disposed to perform it? Let him say, if he so pleased, that the Directors were incapable and incompetent; but let it not be repeated that they were indisposed to discharge their duty to the people of India. For himself he would say, that he had proceeded to India at an early period of life, in the service neither of the Crown or the Company, dependent solely on his own exertions, for his success and advancement. It had pleased God to prosper his exertions, and he was indebted to that country for the independence that enabled him to have a seat in the great council of his country. He was indebted to India by every tie of gratitude and affection; and he would tell the hon. Gentleman, that feelings like those were as likely to produce beneficial results to the people of India, as the promptings of abstract philanthropy and benevolence. He could say for himself and his colleagues, that personally they cared little what might be the determination of Parliament; but their earnest wish and anxious prayer was, that the Supreme Disposer of events might so direct their councils, that they might select that form of government, and those instruments to execute it, that were best calculated to advance the interests and happiness of the people of India, and the honour and glory of this great country.
On the Motion of Mr. BLACKETT, the debate was further adjourned till Thursday.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. PUBLIC BILL.—3a Evidence Amendment.

CRIMINAL CODE OF MALTA.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, a rumour had reached this country that the Maltese criminal code, which had been recently revised, contained terms derogatory to the dignity of the Church of England, and of all other denominations which were not in communion with the Chinch of Rome.
1196
He wished to ask whether the revised code, or any documents on the subject, had yet reached this country; and, if so, whether the noble Duke opposite would consent to lay them on the table? He also wished to know whether any opportunity would be afforded to Parliament of expressing an opinion upon the matter before the revised code received the final sanction of the Government?
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEreplied, that the Governor of Malta had not yet transmitted to Her Majesty's Government a copy of the revised criminal code; but he had informed the Government that he had delayed doing so until the code, which was in the Italian language, had been translated and printed. He (the Duke of Newcastle) was not at present prepared to say whether he could lay upon the fable the whole criminal code of Malta; but full opportunity would be afforded the noble Earl for ascertaining the bearings of the alterations which had been made before any conclusion was come to on the subject. He might, however, without entering into the merits of the case, take this opportunity of earnestly pressing the noble Earl not to allow his feelings to carry him away in this matter, or to take any rash steps with regard to the proposed criminal code until he was fully acquainted with the bearing of the case on both sides, as there were strong religious feelings engaged in the question.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM moved the Third Reading of the Law of Evidence Amendment Bill. He had, as their Lordships might recollect, omitted the provisions which were not so universally agreed to as those now retained, reserving the omitted ones for another Bill which had been read a second time. They were, he trusted, likely to be finally adopted, for, with one exception—the provision respecting self-crimination—all of them had received the support of the Common Law Commissioners, whose second Report now lay upon their Lordships' table. Those provisions, in his opinion, were calculated to effect a great improvement in the law both of Evidence and Procedure. It was not to be denied that they effected a very considerable change in the law; and it was most satisfactory to find that the learned Commissioners had arrived at the opinion which they pronounced in favour of them. This they had done without any communication with him. He had described them in the

1197
letter addressed to Lord Denman last August, and which was subsequently published. The Commissioners were probably about the same time prosecuting those inquiries which had led to their most able report; a report which it was impossible too highly to commend both for its sound practical sense, its cogent reasoning, and its enlarged, but moderate and rational views, He had reason to expect that the Bill founded upon this report would not be long delayed, as his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had announced that it was in preparation. He ventured to hope that in framing its provisions the learned Commissioners would take into their consideration those of the Bill to which their Lordships had given a second reading, Not because he had the least partiality to his own draft—for he had drawn the Bill last autumn in the country, at a distance from his professional brethren—but because he had submitted that draft to some of the ablest and most experienced among them; and the Bill, as presented to the House, was the result of their labours, on which he set great store after his own, to which he attached very little importance. It would be wholly unworthy of the Commissioners to reject the provisions framed, from the mere desire to have a draft differently framed. When the substance of all the proposed enactments was the same, nothing should have prevented him from urging their Lordships to pass the Bill already advanced to its last stages, but the desire to see its provisions adopted by the Commissioners in their more comprehensive measure. With this view he had separated the original Bill into two; and the clauses for completing the great measure of 1851, allowing parties to be both competent and compellable to give evidence, were the only ones retained in the Bill to which he now asked their Lordships to give a third reading—clauses, namely, respecting the examination of husband and wife, already passed in the Scotch Evidence Act.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was deeply indebted to his noble and learned Friend for his efforts to put the law upon the subject of evidence upon the only rational foundation on which it could be based, namely, that all persons capable of giving useful information should be capable of being examined. He was willing to admit that he had been one of those who were opposed to the provisions of a measure similar to the present two or three
1198
years ago; but his doubts were now settled, and he was convinced, from seeing the way in which the existing law had, worked, that they were without foundation, particularly as the husband and wife now stood in the same relation, as to evidence, as attorney and client. Whatever passed between attorney and client was professional confidence, and whatever passed between husband and wife was domestic confidence, and protected in the same way as professional confidence. He therefore approved of the Bill, and thought the public were greatly indebted to his noble and learned Friend for it.
LORD CAMPBELLentirely approved of the present measure, and said he was glad to see that his noble and learned Friend did not expect to carry his other measure for the abolition of trial by jury in civil cases. The trial by jury in civil cases had an admirable effect. It was conducive of good to the litigants and to the public; yet his noble and learned Friend proposed that it should be substantially abolished, because he proposed to abolish it in all cases without exception, unless the parties expressly and positively required it. Now, he was convinced it was infinitely better to try cases by a Judge and a jury, than by a Judge without a jury, When we talked of trial by jury, we must always consider that it meant trial by a Judge and a jury. In the great majority of cases the jury were always willing to take the view of the case which the Judge recommended; still juries were a most important, necessary, and useful check upon the Judge; and, according to his experience, where the Judge and jury had differed, it had generally happened that the jury were right, and the Judge wrong.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, his noble and learned Friend might just as accurately have described the Bill to which he referred as a measure for abolishing trial by Judges as for abolishing trial by jury— which God forbid! He did not think he had ever heard, even from the ingenuity of his noble and learned Friend—and that was saying a great deal—so great a misrepresentation of the case as that which he had now heard; for, instead of being a Bill for abolishing trial by jury, it was rather a Bill to perpetuate all that was good in trial by jury. However, when the measure came down to their Lordships, recommended by the learning and weight of the Commissioners who were now considering the subject, he was not without a hope that it

1199
would receive the concurrence even of his noble and learned Friend.
Bill read 3a.
An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BURMESE WAR.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that before putting the question of which he had given notice, with respect to the war in Ava, he hoped to be allowed to recall to their Lordships' recollection some important circumstances that had taken place since he last addressed the House on the subject, on the 24th of February. Very soon after that date information was received of a revolution having taken place at Ava; that a conflict had occurred between the Sovereign and one of his relatives; and that in consequence of that revolution all the troops which were in front of the position taken up by our army at Promo, had been withdrawn towards the capital; likewise all the forces which were between the Arracan mountains and the Irrawaddy, were withdrawn, as also the forces which had attacked our detachments in occupation of Pegu; and at that moment there undoubtedly would have been no organised resistance to the march of General Godwin upon Ava, had it been possible for him to effect that march, destitute as he was of the means of movement. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) apprehended that at that time he had about 3,500 troops disposable for that march; but being destitute of the means of moving on land, and the water in the river being so low that steamers would have had very great difficulty in accompanying him in his march, he was obliged to give up the idea of marching upon Ava, and to remain where he was when the alteration took place. Under these circumstances General Godwin detached only a small body of men somewhat in advance; but with that exception he had remained stationary during rather more than three months. He knew it had been frequently observed, both here and in India, that the first measure to be adopted by the Government of India in case of war with Ava would be to advance up the Irrawaddy with troops embarked in steamers, so as to make a demonstration against the capital itself. The Governor General expressed in very strong terms his objection to that measure; and he (the Earl of Ellenborough would say that he entirely concurred in the justice of his objections. He believed that such a measure would
1200
have been at the time one full of peril; that at no time could the limited force at his disposal be embarked with safety; and that there was no probability whatever of its producing the effect that had been anticipated from it. General Godwin remained, then, stationary at Prome. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) would now mention what changes had taken place in other parts of the theatre of war. A very enterprising officer, Captain Nuthal, having taken possession—the enemy not being on his guard —of a fortified stockade on the summit of a pass which led from Aeng to the Irrawaddy, some 147 elephants had been passed through the valley of the Irrawaddy direct to Prome. That pass in former wars was considered impracticable for animals; but the elephants had been passed through and arrived at Prome, so that to that extent there were the means of moving. However, unfortunately at the time the troops moved out to facilitate the advance of the elephants to Prome, the Burmese got possession of our draft bullocks, owing to which circumstance the means of moving were not materially improved—for although they had gained considerable facilities by the possession of the 147 elephants, it was obvious that that means of carriage must have been totally insufficient for moving the whole army. A force was also despatched under General Steele from Martaban, and the forces of the enemy having been withdrawn from the intervening country, he, without difficulty, advanced from Martaban to the position now held by him with a body of some 800 men at Tonghoo —having scattered his force in three different places on the banks of the river. That being the position of General Godwin at Prome, and General Steele being posted on his right flank, there had occurred two occasions, he regretted to say, in which we were repulsed with very considerable loss. The first was one in which our naval forces were alone engaged; and the second one, in which a considerable military and naval force, to the extent of about 600 men, were engaged. On the last occasion the repulse was attended with very considerable loss. He regretted again to remind the noble Earl the President of the Council of a circumstance which he had learned from one of the Indian newspapers—that immediately after the second repulse, our Commissioner offered a reward for the head of the Burmese officer who had defeated us. He regretted to have heard of the circumstance; but as he had heard no denial given to it, he must conclude

1201
that the statement was well founded. Now he (the Earl of Ellenborough) had never heard a reason stated why a Burmese alone should be exempted from the general rule which governed the practice of war. He also regretted to observe that nearly about the same period, at the desire expressed by some villagers, in the neighbourhood of a hostile town, the English Commissioner had consented to burn the town, containing 3,000 houses, and thus to render destitute a vast number of the inhabitants. Such circumstances as these tended to barbarise war, and to create a feeling of animosity in the country, which was certain to last for ages, and to make it impracticable for us for a long period to tranquilly and properly govern the country. So serious was the last repulse that it was considered necessary by General Godwin to despatch Sir J. Cheape, with S00 men from Prome, for the purpose of dislodging, with the assistance of the naval force, the Burmese officer previously mentioned. It was expected that operation would last a few days; but when Sir John Cheape arrived within some twenty miles of the Burmese chief's position, he found that that position was so much stronger than he expected, and the force so much greater, that he was compelled to send to Rangoon for 500 additional men. He subsequently landed with these 1,300 men, and encountered very great obstacles. He had no tents, and sure every day to have a fog which lasted from two o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock, during which time it was next to impossible to work. They were afterwards compelled to work all day under the sun in cutting down jungle, exposed to the fire of the enemy, and, what was still more dangerous, to the fire of the sun. They succeeded in expelling the troops of the Burmese commander, but again with considerable loss, that loss being more attributable to sickness than 'to the fire of the enemy. By the last accounts it would appear that the Commissioner at Rangoon had despatched a steamer to Calcutta to bring instanter a reinforcement of Europeans to protect the communications with General Steele; and if the reports in the India newspapers were to be trusted, Martaban was at this moment garrisoned by the crew of one of the steamers, and he supposed that the naval force had been detached in order to assist the few troops which were sent to maintain the communication with Beling. At that place the per-
1202
sons who had surrendered at the first occupancy rose again in arms, so that communication with General Steele was altogether suspended, He (the Earl of Ellen-borough) was not certain that there might not have been some degree of panic leading to the sudden despatch of that steamer and the demand of reinforcement, because no persons were more liable to panic than those who were most confident; and unless he was greatly mistaken, the Commissioner, who had been obliged to send on a sudden for a reinforcement of Europeans, was the very individual whom he always considered to be the principal author of this war. Such, then, was our position. We had a force at Prome that could not move; our communications were attacked both on the side of General Steele and the Irrawaddy. We had not sufficient troops to maintain our position in advance, and at the same time to protect our communications with the base of our operations. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) had always understood that to protect communication between the army in advance and the base of operation, and to have the moans of moving in all directions that the exigencies of warfare required—these he always understood to be the A B C of war; and it really would appear as if those who had the conduct of the war in Ava had actually not yet learned the very first letters of their alphabet. He predicted from the first the danger that would arise from not providing our troops with the moans of movement. He ventured to say it was impossible to beat an enemy and subdue an empire with troops that had no power of motion; and yet more, to attempt so great an operation with troops so deficient in numbers as not to be able to protect their communications. In fact, the Government and the army were in a false position, and until they got out of it, nothing could be well done. The positions taken up had been taken from political, not military, motives. It was decided to declare what was called the "annexation of Pegu;" and in order to afford a pretext or justification for that measure, it was necessary to appear to occupy that country; and hence the march of General Steele, and the attempt to accomplish more than our troops were equal to, the result being that we had brought ourselves into a position of imminent danger. The first thing to do was to beat an enemy; and if an army were placed in a position to effect that, all the difficulties were then overcome, and the desired political results followed. If, on

1203
the other hand, we should take a position not justified by military considerations, we should endanger our army, and leave ourselves no chance of succeeding in our political objects. He thought it was absolutely necessary for us to reconsider our position, which had been materially altered by circumstances which had recently occurred, and to determine altogether to relieve ourselves from the false position in which we were placed. There should be no false pride in that matter. It was much too serious a matter for the indulgence of false pride. Neither should any complaints made by commissioners or deputy commissioners, who, by an alteration of the plan, would lose their situations, be attended to. Nor should any complaints of speculators in timber, who desired to cut down the forests of Pegu, after having cut down the forests of Tenasserim, be attended to; and neither should any of those persons who, in the public press in India, had been hallooing on the Government to that most unfortunate war, be attended to. The Government should look seriously to their own position. They should abandon all illusions; they should look to stern realities, and prepare themselves for the difficulties they would have to encounter. He confessed he saw no safety whatever for us but in concentrating in Prome, Rangoon, and Moulmein, all the detached bodies which were scattered through the province of Pegu, and withdrawing altogether from the left bank of the river. That which it was desirable for us to find was a clear military obstacle between us and the enemy. We could not rest where we were, or where the Government of India had endeavoured to place us, because, in order to occupy the province of Pegu, we should occupy a false position—we should scatter our forces, and be continually in danger. We could not in time of peace occupy that position with security, even if the Burmese Government were prepared to surrender to us that territory, because, having no natural frontier whatever, but one which might be entered at any time, or at any point, by any body of men, we should be continually engaged in new collisions and new wars, and we could look forward to no other termination of our proceedings than the total destruction of the Burmese empire. He said, therefore, it was absolutely necessary for us to alter the plan, to withdraw altogether from the left bank of the Irrawaddy, except it might be necessary on that bank to
1204
retain Rangoon, and that narrow slip of land which adjoins the Irrawaddy, just before the commencement of the Delta, and extends nearly to Rangoon, and which it might be necessary for us to keep for the purpose of protecting the passage of out-steamers on the river. It might also, perhaps, be desirable that we should retain the town of Prome as a sort of tâte de pont; but we should generally retire altogether from the left bank of the river. Then it would be necessary to do that which the Duke of Wellington counselled as far back as the year 1829—namely, to make good roads between our own provinces and Arracan; and it would be necessary to make thoroughly passable at all times, and for all arms, the pass leading from Sandoway to Prome, and also the pass leading from Aeng to the Irrawaddy. Prom those passes there should be formed roads to every portion of the river, and all the military points of those roads should be protected by stockaded positions. We should then occupy every point between the mountains of Arracan and the river. To the left we should take a territory which we did not at present claim; and on the other hand we should give up the province of Pegu. We should then be placed in a position militarily strong, which we could hold against all the powers of the Court of Ava, and which, simply by our remaining there, would enable us to compel that Court to submit to any terms we might think proper to dictate; and if we should from that position determine on making a forward march to Ava, we could do so from a base so secure that we could carry on our operations with the greatest facility, and without incurring the slightest danger. He knew no other way in which we could obtain security than by adopting that modified plan. He must say that he thought the war had become one of a very serious character. He knew what had been the expense of the Chinese war. We had as many steamers employed in the present Burmese war as in the Chinese war. In the present war our steamers were constantly employed, and the expenditure of their coals and their wear and tear must be very great. The number of men engaged in the war was greater than the number which had succeeded in dictating peace in China; and he was fully satisfied that, whatever might be the representations which had been made upon the subject, when the accounts were all rendered it would be found that the ex-

1205
pense of the present war could not by any possibility be less than from 1,000,000 l. to 1,200,000 l. a year. The cost of the last Burmese war, which had lasted for two years and a half, had been 12,000,000 l. It was true that a larger force had then been employed; but it was also true that we should at present employ a larger force than that with which our operations had hitherto been conducted, for with that force it would be impossible to bring the war to a close. He had always regretted that the war had been undertaken. He admitted that there were colourable grounds for the war; and he should not be deterred from undertaking a war on merely colourable grounds, if he saw a clear, decided, great political advantage to be gained by this country. But he should say that in a case in which no possible advantage could be derived from war, and in which the greatest possible success could only lead to increased embarrassment and ultimate danger, he thought that every colourable pretext should have been seized for the purpose of avoiding a war, and that, in fact, we ought never to have entered into it at all. That had always been his opinion upon the subject. He did not think that that war could be terminated—and until it should be terminated, India could not be placed in a position of security—unless her Majesty's Ministers determined on making a very large addition to the European force at the disposal of the Indian Government. There were at present employed in Ava not less than six European regiments. Now, that force could not be detached from India without impairing our strength in many most important positions. At the present moment, in order to supply the place of a European regiment at Fort William, of which regiment a portion had been removed to Moulmein, and of which the rest was to follow, it had been found necessary to order up from Dinapore a European regiment which had always been stationed there. That was not a position from which a European regiment ought ever to be removed. It watched almost the only portion of the Mahomedan population of India that was always desirable for us to look after. It was not safe to denude Dinapore of a European regiment. He was satisfied that the addition to the European force in India ought to be equal at least to the European force at present in Ava. He had touched on the change which had taken place in our position since the war had commenced, and he entreated Her Ma-
1206
jesty's Ministers to take the subject into-their serious consideration. That which in this country was called the Eastern question was not without an important bearing on India. It was quite impossible that events could take place in Turkey, threatening with dissolution that empire, or leading to its dismemberment, which would not to a very great extent affect the security of our position in India. We were a great Asiatic Power. We should view what was at present passing in Turkey, not merely as a European, but also as an Asiatic State; and he did feel satisfied that it was absolutely necessary for us to take timely precautions, and make timely provisions-to be strong in India as everywhere else, and to be prepared at once to meet the difficulties and dangers which appeared to-be impending over us. In conclusion, he had only to ask the noble Earl the President of the Council whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give-papers explanatory of the present state of the war in Burmah, and of the negotiations entered into with the Burmese Government?
EARL GRANVILLEreplied, that the Government were not at that moment in possession of any further papers respecting this subject. He assured the House that it was their earnest wish to give every information in their power on this grave and important question, and that, as soon as-any additional papers were in their possession, they would lay them on the table. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be convenient to reply to the remarks which had just fallen from the noble-Earl.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that it might be convenient, in order to facilitate the arrival of intelligence from India, that the authorities at Rangoon and Ava should be directed, whenever an opportunity offered, to send duplicates of their despatches to Madras.
The EARL of ALBEMARLErose to suggest to the Government that they should avail themselves of any opportunity that presented itself of relieving our Indian empire of the incumbrance which would follow from the annexation of this new territory. He did not mean to say there was no necessity for the annexation, but it was a most painful necessity if it existed, and one that must entail a serious pecuniary loss upon the country. There was no one of their Lordships how present who could ever hope to see the day when this annexed

1207
territory would pay its own expenses; the seaport was 500 miles distant from the nearest portion of our territory, and the frontier was open and wide, on any point of which an arrogant, barbarous, and implacable foe might bring his whole force, whenever it suited him to do so. What he would suggest was, that the province of Pegu should be converted into an independent State, under an independent sovereign, who might be chosen from amongst the Peguan chiefs. At the close of the last Burmese war, the Peguans did elect a chief to govern them, and under him they made a very respectable stand against their Burmese conquerors without our assistance or advice, which if they had had, it was very possible they would have achieved their independence. If one of their chiefs were now appointed as their head, and assistance were given in advice and by the presence of a small force, they would be able to maintain their position, and form a friendly Power between our territories and Burmah.
After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT, Earl GRANVILLE, and the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, the subject dropped.
House adjourned till To-morrow.