Sitting of 11 March 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Attorneys and Solicitors Certificate Duty; Sheriff Courts (Scotland) (No. 2).
2° Jewish Disabilities.
3° Indemnity.

BETHLEHEM HOSPITAL.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he rose to put a question to the hon. Secretary of the Treasury on a subject which had before occupied the attention of the House. It related to those unfortunate creatures who were sent either for care or security to Bethlehem Hospital. His hon. Friend would remember that a Report had been issued by the Lunacy Commissioners in reference to this asylum, in which it was stated that the female lunatics were subjected to great cruelties, and to treatment of a most disgusting character; that some of them were made to stand naked in the cold weather; that they were then washed down by a mop and pail, and sent back to their wretched cells. The Commissioners reported also that the property of the corporation was worth 20,000 l. a year, and was under the management chiefly of the Corporation of London. He felt it his duty
34
to put this question in consequence of what took place yesterday in the Court of Common Council. A meeting of that body was held on that day for the despatch of business, at which, after disposing of the question of the Jews, they considered that of Bethlehem, and Mr. Gilpin moved—
"That this Court do appoint a Committee to make a searching inquiry into the present and recent management of Bethlehem Hospital, with especial reference to the treatment of patients in that hospital; and that they he directed to report to this Court the result of their investigation."
A Mr. Abrahams seconded the Motion in a speech which was much applauded, and was considered most creditable to his humanity; and a Mr. Gresham "warmly commended the spirit in which the Motion was brought forward, Mr. Gilpin having ingenuously declared that his object was to do justice to the Governors, as well as to aid the cause of humanity." Finally, however, the Motion was withdrawn. What be wished to ask the Government was, whether any steps had been taken to prevent the recurrence of the abuses detailed in the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners upon Bethlehem Hospital, whether any further Report would be laid upon the table of the House, and whether the exemption from supervision which now existed in the case of this asylum was likely to be removed?
MR. FITZROYsaid, he was not aware of any further Report with respect to Bethlehem Hospital which was likely to be laid before the House; but in a Bill lately introduced into the other House of Parlialiament by the late Lord Chancellor, a clause was inserted by which the exemption from visitation in the case of this asylum was repealed, and Bethlehem Hospital henceforth, if that Bill passed (as there was no reason to doubt it would), would be placed, with respect to visitation, on exactly the same footing as every other establishment for the care and treatment of lunatics.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
MR. H. HERBERT presented a petition from Robert Edmund Bower, then in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, for having refused to take an oath, or make a declaration, previously to tendering his evidence before the Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition presented against the return of Sir Alexander Cock-burn for Southampton. The Petitioner prayed the House either to let him make

35
an affirmation before the Committee which shall be binding on his conscience, or to set him at liberty. He would now move that the Petitioner be discharged from custody, without payment of fees. It might perhaps be proper to say a few words in explanation of the circumstances under which this person was placed in custody. On Wednesday morning, he (Mr. Herbert), as Chairman of the Southampton Election Committee, felt it his duty to report Bower's conduct to the House. Bower's refusal to take an oath or make a declaration took place on Tuesday, and the Committee then felt that they were justified in putting their powers with regard to witnesses in execution, by ordering Bower at once to be placed in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. But, from everything that had taken place, the Committee believed that Bower had bonâ fide a conscientious scruple to taking an oath or making a declaration; and even if Bower had not presented this petition, the Committee would have asked the House to consent to his release. He (Mr. Herbert) might add that the case for the petitioners had closed, and that their counsel had stated that he had no wish to keep the man in custody. There could, therefore, be no earthly purpose why Bower should remain any longer in custody.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the Motion, but rather to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the extremely unsatisfactory state of the law on the subject. His remarks were not intended to apply exclusively to the proceedings of Select Committees of that House. By the present state of the law there were provisions for relieving certain persons from taking oaths. The persons so privileged were Quakers, Moravians, (as well as persons who had been either Quakers or Moravians), and the sect called Separatists. He did not pretend to know what were the distinguishing characteristics of that sect. Now, when it happened that a witness presented himself to give evidence in a Court of Law, who did not belong to any of the religious bodies just named, but who, like them, had an objection to taking an oath, the Court was obliged to commit him or dispense with his evidence. He thought it would be extremely desirable to give Courts of Law in such cases power to receive evidence on affirmation. Of course, if it was believed that a witness pretended to have a conscientious scruple to taking an oath,
36
merely with the view of evasion, no one would sympathise with him if he were committed by the Court.
Ordered—" That Robert Edmund Bower be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, without payment of fees; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."
MR. BRIGHTobserved, that the Motion of Mr. Herbert included exemption from payment of fees by Bower.
It was then agreed that Bower should be released without being subjected to costs.

BRIDGENORTH ELECTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would beg to give notice that on the Motion for issuing a new writ for the Borough of Bridgenorth he would move as an Amendment that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of certain electors of that Borough, complaining of the corrupt practices that prevailed at the last and previous elections. He would now move, in accordance with his notice, that the petition from the electors f Bridge-north, presented on the 10th of March, be printed with the Votes.
MR. WHITMOREsaid, he wished to say that the petition to which the hon. Member referred did not represent the feelings of the electors of Bridgenorth generally, but had emanated from a hole-and-corner meeting of a few individuals, the great body of the electors having had no opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. The House should bear in mind that after eight days' investigation before a Select Committee, one single case of indirect bribery only had been reported out of a constituency of 700. Under such circumstances he considered that it would be very hard if the writ were suspended. Of the persons who had signed the petition one was imbecile, two were dissenting ministers, and the rest were shopkeepers and innkeepers. He had no hesitation in saying that the constituency of Bridge-north, taken as a whole, was as pure as any in the Kingdom, and that the statement referred to on a previous evening by the hon. Member for West Riding (Mr. Cobden)—that an organised system of bribery and corruption existed there—was wholly incorrect.
SIR JOHN SHELLEY,in explanation, said, that he had presented the petition as that of "certain" electors of the Borough in question, and the statements of the

37
hon. Gentleman himself proved that it was so.
MR. COBDEN: Sir, as I have been referred to, I wish just to say one word. The hon. Member (Mr. Whitmore) has impugned the truth of a letter which I read to the House on a former occasion, charging the constituency of Bridgenorth with bribery and corruption. I wish to say that since then, I have received many other communications to the same effect, from parties I know to be respectable, confirmatory of that statement. If, however, the hon. Member is convinced that the statement is unfounded, and that no corruption, intimidation, or bribery exists in Bridgenorth—that it is not as bad as Sudbury was, but that it is, as he says, as pure a constituency as any in the Kingdom—then I ask him to offer no opposition to the Motion for inquiry, seeing that the result must, in that case, lead to the confounding of those persons who have made the charge, and to his own triumph.
Motion agreed to.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.
On Motion, "That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next,"
MR. BRIGHTrose and said: Sir, I gave notice the other day of my intention to put a question to the noble Lord as to the course Ministers proposed to take in reference to the future government of India; and in doing so, while speaking to the Motion of the adjournment of the House till Monday, I am quite aware that it is not desirable to occupy any long time even on a subject so important, the more especially as another question, also of great importance, is to be brought before us to-night; and I will endeavour, therefore, to confine my observations within the smallest possible compass. I believe the House will feel, with me, that at this particular juncture there is scarcely a question of greater importance can come before it; and I feel fully justified in alluding to it as one of the representatives of that constituency which, of all the constituencies in the Kingdom, is probably the most deeply interested in circumstances connected with the question of the future government of India. Another ground why I feel myself justified in calling attention to this subject is, that, in the year 1848, I obtained and presided over a Committee to inquire into the obstacles which existed to the cultivation and growth of cotton in India, and that subsequently I brought before this House a pro-
38
position to send a Royal Commission out to that country, to investigate on the spot what were the obstacles which existed to the extensive cultivation in India of the raw material of the chief article of the manufactures of this country. That Commission was refused by the Government of the day, though it was approved by many distinguished men in the House. It was approved strongly by the late Sir Robert Peel, who spoke to me on the subject both before the Motion was brought on, and afterwards. It was approved also by the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham). It was approved by the late Lord George Bentinck; and I believe I may say that the noble Lord now at the head of the Government in this House was not unfavourable to it; but it was opposed by the then President of the Board of Control and the representatives of the East India Company. Having made these various efforts to obtain inquiry, I consider that I am justified in asking the Government not to be precipitate in any legislation on this important question. But though the inquiry was then refused, it has since been thought necessary, by three successive Governments, that some inquiry should take place. Two years ago, the Government of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed; but afterwards, when the Committee was about to be nominated, the noble Lord's Government went out of office, and on the accession of the Earl of Derby it was nominated by his Government in the course of the last Session, and sat. And again, in the present Parliament this Session, the Ministry of the Earl of Aberdeen, considering that the inquiry was necessary, reappointed the Committee, and its labours have been resumed. Now, it is an unfortunate thing for India, that the Indian Government, as represented in this House, is always of a fluctuating, uncertain, and, I fear, incapable character. It is incapable, not from the character of the individuals composing it, but front the peculiar circumstances of its constitution. The House may not have observed, that within the ten months since the early part of the year 1852, the Supreme Governor of India (for it is admitted that the President of the Board of Control is the absolute ruler of India, so far as any individual in this country can be so)—has been changed no less than four times. At the beginning of last year, in February, the President of the

39
Board of Control was Lord Broughton, formerly Sir John Hobhouse. I will say nothing of his government, or of the manner in which he administered Indian affairs, except that he was one of the most contented and somnolent of statesmen that ever filled that or any other office. After Lord Broughton, we had Mr. Fox Maule, now Lord Panmure, in February also, as President of the Board of Control, and he remained in office about three weeks, I believe. On the abolition of the Government of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Henries), was appointed President of the Board of Control, and he remained in office until the change of Government took place about Christmas, when that right hon. Gentleman was succeeded by another right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood). Now, I have no doubt all these were well-meaning men; but nobody will believe that they knew more about Indian affairs than their neighbours—nobody ever discovered that they had paid any particular attention to Indian questions; yet whether a man has been Secretary at War for several years, or Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anything else, if he be of the official and routine party, he is quite fit for the government of India, or any other office to which it may suit the views of those who were making the Cabinet to appoint him. But not only have we had four different Presidents of the Board of Control within ten months, but we have also had as many as six different Secretaries to the Board of Control: most of them, I believe, were Members of this House, one of whom (Mr. Layard) has left the country, and another will, I suppose, be appointed in his place. The House will thus see that there is nothing like a continuous government in the Board of Control, and there is naturally a great indisposition on the part of any person coming casually and for a short period into the office to attempt to grapple with a great question like the government of India. But we have some inquiry of some kind—we have a Committee—with many eminent men sitting as Members upon it—and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) at the commencement of the proceedings of that Committee divided the subject of the inquiry into eight branches or heads, and placed at the beginning of them—as that to be taken first
40
—the circumstances and method of the Home Government of India. Now I am not a member of that Committee, and speak, therefore, merely from hearsay; but I am given to understand that that branch has already been pretty much gone into, though I think the House will agree with me that that is precisely the branch that was the least important to make inquiry upon. For there is no one in this House, I believe, who is not already fully acquainted with the position of the Home Government, of its theory, and its method of action. We all know the constant underground wrangle which is kept up between Leadenhall-street and Cannon-row, and of the ingenious schemes which are resorted to to prevent open squabbling, so consequently inquiry into that part of the case was therefore the least important. Yet that was put first on the list, and the inquiry was pressed on that point, and I am told it is concluded, so far as it was necessary to inquire for the purposes of legislation. Now I venture to say that that which most of all will describe or indicate the true character of the Government, is to be found in the condition of the people who are governed. And yet, so far as the inquiry goes, the whole case of the condition of the native population of India is left untouched. If there be any truth in rumour, so far as the Committee has gone this Session, and judging from the evidence that has transpired, there has been perhaps, with one exception, nothing in the shape of adverse evidence produced before the Committee. There is, however, adverse testimony to be obtained, and adverse witnesses to be examined; and whether the East India Company or the Board of Control may be in their constitution good or bad, it is at least essential to form a fair judgment, that unbiassed and impartial witnesses should be examined, and that the evidence should not be confined to persons connected with the Government of India, or who have been the greater part of their lives in the service of the East India Company. I will refer shortly to the petitions which have been presented to this House from various parties in India—some from European and Christian inhabitants, and some from the native inhabitants, to show what the feeling of the people of India is in the matter. But it may be said that the witnesses examined before the Committee impugn this evidence, and say the natives know nothing of the case, and their opinion is not there-

41
fore to be taken. But I am afraid if you act upon that principle you may hereafter find that you have made a fatal mistake, and one that it may then be too late to remedy. I have here a petition from the British and Christian inhabitants of the province of Bengal. I will not go into the particulars of the statements of the petition, further than to read three or four lines from it. After referring to the internal policy and government of India, they say—
"That adverting to the inadequate manner in which the objects of the last Charter Act have been carried out, and to the several facts above stated, your petitioners suggest the expediency of making the new arrangements of the Government for a shorter term of years, and at first only for one year."
And they pray the House to take the matters stated by them into its fullest and most serious consideration. This shows that the opinion is not an isolated one. I will now read a paragraph from the petition of the native inhabitants of Madras. This petition is one of great length, is very ably drawn up, and I may say I have seen several private letters from very influential persons in Madras, stating that if a Commission of Inquiry be sent out to the Presidency they are prepared to establish every fact stated in the petition. This is the paragraph:—
"That while your petitioners extremely regret that, owing to want of sufficient time, and to the insuperable difficulty of obtaining access to official documents, they have been unable to exhibit so amply and definitely as they could desire, the vast number of major and minor grievances to which they are subject, under the operation of the existing system of Government; they earnestly entreat that those which they have thus imperfectly touched upon may meet with the patient consideration of your honourable House, as well as that the opportunity may be afforded of substantiating the facts they have submitted before an impartial commission of investigation and inquiry assembled in India, composed of persons both in and out of public employ, and of Europeans and natives conjointly, chosen partly in Europe and partly in this country, as the sole means by which the real state of these territories, and the true condition of their population, can be elicited; and that, for the accomplishment of this object, the present charter of the East India Company may be annually renewed till the investigation is completed."
First we have the petition of the European and Christian inhabitants of Bengal, then we have the petition of the native inhabitants of the Presidency of Madras, both concurring in their prayer, and making in effect the same statements. I have now another petition to call your attention to,
42
namely, one from the native merchants, shipowners, bankers, and other inhabitants of the Presidency of Bombay, and these petitioners, after detailing many particulars, conclude in these words:—
"That your petitioners further pray, that the Act now existing be re-enacted for one year only, so as to permit time for those minute and important investigations which seem so indispensable in the construction of a new constitution for India, especially as patient care and attention are not likely to be bestowed upon them if immediately or hastily gone into under the political excitement now prevailing in England."
This, I apprehend, refers to the change of Government last year. Here is another petition, also, from the Bombay Association and other native inhabitants of the Bombay Presidency. They say—
"Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your honourable House to embody in any measure of legislation which may come before you for the future government of India the principles herein-before set forth, and that your honourable House will not rest content, but adjourn the final settlement of the plan of the Indian Government until all available information from trustworthy, competent, and disinterested sources has been laid before you; and your petitioners venture to hope that your honourable House will limit the period of existence for any future government of India to ten years, in order that the interests of so many millions of British subjects may be more frequently brought under the consideration of Parliament."
These petitioners ask for inquiry in the same way as the others, but they do not pray that the new Charter shall be limited to one year, but that the system established shall be such as to be frequently brought under the notice of Parliament. Then, the almost unanimous opinions of the press of India is in favour of further inquiry, and for an alteration in the form of government in that country. The grievances of which they complain are, that the law is administered in the Company's Courts under circumstances which are productive of great delay and expense, and which eventually amount to an effectual denial of justice—that the police of India is such as to afford little security for life or property—that the police themselves are in many cases little better than dacoits or gangs of robbers that infest the country—and that the taxes levied on the people are not levied in such a manner as to inflict the minimum amount of injury to the industry of the country, but that they are besides extremely onerous. They say that a thorough inquiry and reform are necessary; and they treat the question of material improvement as every man does

43
who has investigated the subject, namely, as a matter only to be spoken of with astonishment and contempt. They show that there are virtually no roads in the country; that within thirty-five miles of Calcutta, on the high road to the north, bridges which were washed down in 1847 have never been permanently repaired; and they describe the impossibility of introducing articles from abroad into the interior, or of conveying the products of the interior to the ports by reason of the absence of the ordinary means of communication. The petitioners also complain that the railroads which have been authorised to be made are proceeding with a dilatoriness, a want of energy, and a complexity and inefficiency of management and hopelessness of results, unequalled and unparalleled in regard to any other railways in the world. And with regard to irrigation, they say it is now in an infinitely less satisfactory state than it was under the old Governments of India. The canals and reservoirs, or tanks, have been allowed to go out of repair, the river banks have been neglected, and multitudes of lives have been lost by famine which might have been prevented had the Government paid ordinary attention to the work of irrigation, by securing the vast mass of water which falls in the rainy season, and applying it in a way to sustain the productiveness of the soil during the whole year. They all ask for inquiry, and join in condemning anything like permanent legislation on the system that has hitherto existed. It may be said that everything is conducted in all open manner in India—that we have all the information on the subject already in our possession; and that inquiry there is unnecessary. Now this is not the case. I have here a copy of the Bombay Gazette of the 24th November, 1852, in which there is a letter from Surat, describing the measures taken by the officers of the Government to prevent their native servants from giving any information to the British public; and, from other circumstances that have come to my knowledge, I believe the truth of the statement here made. That letter states that every attempt made to communicate information as to the actual condition of the ryots, on the part of the native servants of the Company, was met by threats of instant dismissal. This shows that there is reason for the Government using great caution, seeing that they are proceeding on the evidence of one side
44
only, for I should be sorry to see the Earl of Aberdeen's Government in the position of the celebrated Welsh Judge who always thought it convenient to decide when he had heard one side only, knowing that he was unable to grapple with the difficulties of the case when he heard both sides. I have stated that the condition of the people may be always looked upon as a true index of the character of the Government, and upon that point I will read an extract from the Bombay Times on the 14th April, 1852. If it be said that these are but newspaper statements, I ask if we had such statements made by any newspapers of credit with regard to the condition of any county in England, they would not be regarded as substantially true, or, if not, whether instant means would not be taken to obtain such an exposure as should prevent the repetition of such statements for the future. The article in question described the misery and degradation in which the ryots lived, adding that matters were growing worse every day, and concluded by remarking that when the revenue failed, and the Government became crippled in consequence, then possibly some attention might be paid to the condition of these people, but it might then be found too late. I have stated that in 1848 I moved for and obtained a Committee of Inquiry into the reasons why cotton could not be grown more extensively in India fur the supply of the home market. I will now refer to the Report which that Committee—on which three East India directors sat—unanimously agreed to. In reference to the general condition of the people, they reported, and the House must bear in mind that our witnesses, like the witnesses before the present Committee, were almost all servants of the Government, but it is only due to them to say, that they gave their evidence honestly and honourably. That Committee reported—
"That it appears from the testimony of almost every witness that the condition of the cultivating population of India is one of extreme poverty, especially those engaged in the cultivation of cotton in the presidencies of Bombay and Madras—Bengal yielding but a small amount of cotton. The great mass of the cultivators are without capital, or the means by which capital alone can be improved and extended. They are indebted to the money lenders for the means of purchasing the seed, and are compelled to give them security on the growing crop, the price of which they frequently fix, while they charge 40 to 50 per cent for their loans."
But whence has this power of the moneylender arisen? The money-lending power is

45
the effect in the first place, though afterwards a contributing cause, of the misery of the people. If it were not for the extreme poverty of the people, the result of bad government in the first place, money-lending could not be carried on in this usurious and ruinous manner. This, then, is but a secondary cause by which the people are reduced to the degraded condition in which they are now placed, the main cause being, as I believe, the unaccountable neglect of the Government. I will give another fact from an authority which I believe no East India Director or President of the Board of Control can question—the authority of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) who was examined for two days before the Committee of 1848. I put a question to the hon. Gentleman as to the amount the East India Company had expended in the fourteen years, from 1814 to 1848, in substantial improvements for the good of the people they governed, as bridges, canals, banks, roads, or similar works. No doubt the hon. Gentleman had good information, obtained from the India House, for notice was given of the question the day before it was put, and the reply was, that the sum expended in such works during the fourteen years had been 1,400,000 l., or at the rate of 100,000 l. a year. Why, Manchester, with its population of 400,000, had expended double that sum within the same period for improvements for the benefit of the people. And when I asked the hon. Gentleman afterwards what was the revenue taken from the people of India during those fourteen years, he stated in effect—the precise answer, I do not now recollect—that the Indian Government had extracted from the population of India in that time no less than 316,000,000 l. sterling. If any one can contradict this statement, it is open to their contradiction; but if it is a fact, it affords ground for doubts whether any conclusion should be come to for the permanent Government, without a more rigid inquiry than has yet been established. With regard to the revenue, Sir Robert Peel, when he introduced his Budget, and when he proposed the Income Tax, referred to the revenue of India, and said—
"I am quite aware that there may appear to be no direct and immediate connexion between the finances of India and those of this country; but that would be a superficial view of our relations with India which should omit the consideration of this subject. Depend upon it if the credit of India should become disordered, if some great exertion should become necessary, then the credit
46
of England must be brought forward to its support, and the collateral and indirect effect of disorders in Indian finances would be felt extensively in this country."
I have not got the returns of the revenue for the last two or three years, but only those as late as 1849; but I believe that the returns of the period since that year afford no relief to the gloomy picture I am about to present to the House. I find that the deficiencies of the revenue have been in round numbers in 1840, 2,400,000 l.; in 1841, 1,700,000 l.; in 1842, 1,700,000 l.; in 1843, 1,300,000 l.; in 1844, 770,000 l.; in 1845, 740,000 l.; in 1846, 1,500,000 l.; in 1847, 970,000 l.; in 1848, 1,900,000 l.; and in 1849, 2,300,000 l.; making a deficiency of 15,280,000 l., from 1840 to 1849, inclusive; and circumstances are now occurring in India which hold out no prospect of an abundant revenue or any surplus in the present year. The House will, perhaps, permit me now to offer a few observations on a subject of great importance to my constituency and the part of the country with which I am connected; I allude to the cultivation of cotton in India. For years it has been promised by the Indian Government that they could and would supply a large amount of cotton to this country; but will the House believe that, during the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, or thirty-five years ago, there was imported from India on an average a far greater number of bales of cotton than in the three years from 1849 to 1852. The average number of bales imported in the three years, 1817, 1818, and 1819, was 184,000; while the average number in the three years from 1849 to 1852 was only 142,000 bales, being a decrease of 42,000 bales. The hon Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) has made some observations with regard to the price; but is not the price of cotton in India and America subject to the same fluctuations; and yet, in 1818, there was imported from India a much larger number of bales of cotton than from the United States; but since that time there has been a great diminution in the quantity imported from India, while the quantity imported from the United States has increased from 200,000 bales in that year to 1,719,000 bales. In 1852 I wished to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) especially to the manufacture of that article of cotton, on the importation of which an enormous sum is annually expended, besides not

47
less than 45,000,000 l., in wages, and other accompaniments of that manufacture. The exports of cotton fabrics in 1852 amounted to 30,000,000 l. Am I not, therefore, justified in asking that the question of the Government of India shall not be summarily disposed of to suit the convenience of some of those who are connected with India, or the convenience of the President of the Board of Control, or the Members of a Cabinet which do not yet sufficiently understand each other; while there might be a scandalous sacrifice of the interests of the district in this country with which I am connected, or, even of the interests of India herself, if this question was settled on any other principle than this—having conquered India it is the duty of this country to give the best form of government to her 100,000,000 of inhabitants? I will read a letter I have received from a gentleman of the highest character in India, and which is dated 4th October. He said—
"In India we were all expecting a sweeping alteration in the Charter, when, to our horror and dismay, we find that the Act of 1833 is to be renewed without any alteration. Whigs, Derbyites, Peelites, and Russellites seem all of opinion that India is a bore, and the sooner her affairs are dismissed, the better."
What I want of the Government is, to tell the House if they have made up their minds on this question. I hope they have not, and that that will be the answer of the noble Lord. I understand that there is an impression abroad that there will be great danger in the renewal of the present form of government for two or three years only, with a view to its establishment on a permanent basis. There are people about Cannon-row who say it will be dangerous to take such a course, and that it will lead to agitation in India; and the cant phrase is used about our holding our dominion in India by so extraordinary a tenure that if it is rudely touched the whole thing may crumble into dust. A Government that has ruled the people of India for one hundred years in one part of that empire, and for fifty years in another part, ought to make itself such an anchor in the affections of the people, that no agitation ought for a moment to endanger it. I consider that the best way to prevent agitation will be to let it go out by the next mail that it is not intended permanently to continue the present Administration of India, but that the present Act will be renewed for two or three years, with a view to the establish-
48
ment of a permanent Administration. The result will be a conviction in the minds of the people of India that Parliament and this country are alive to the awful responsibility of this question; and then they will not agitate for the overthrow of anything: the most enlightened and intelligent of the inhabitants of India will come forward with suggestions and advice, in such a spirit of kindness and with such a desire for united action, as will enable the Government here, in the next few years, to frame such a system of government for India as I wish to see conferred upon her. The noble Lord will perhaps object, that I have gone further on this subject than I ought in simply asking a question; but I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the magnitude of the question, and in candour give me credit for having such an object as to induce the noble Lord to forbear from making such a retort. I am importunate on this subject, knowing, as I do, its magnitude. No one out of office has paid so much attention to this question as I have done. I have twice brought it before the House, and I have long been associated with those who had, by means of private subscriptions, sent out a gentleman of great intelligence and ability, the late Mr. Alexander Mackay, to India for purposes of inquiry; and although it pleased Providence not to permit that gentleman to return, yet the information he had gathered was such as only to confirm and deepen the conviction which I have long entertained, that Parliament should thoroughly investigate the subject before it resolved on acting. I take the liberty of asking the noble Lord (not with the view of embarrassing the Government, although I candidly confess that any proposition verging on a permanent renewal of the present system will meet with my opposition to the utmost, but I wish to ask the noble Lord if the Government have come to any decision, and, if they have, whether it is proposed that the measure they intend to bring forward will be of a temporary or a permanent nature? If it is of a temporary nature, for how many years it is proposed to renew the present Government of India, and when the measure which is to be brought forward will be laid before the House?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I cannot, in spite of the disavowal of the hon. Gentleman, help complaining of his conduct this evening. He has taken the opportunity of a formal Motion, that this House adjourn until Monday, not for the

49
purpose of asking a certain question of which he has given notice—not for the purpose of even stating facts and making explanations which might be introductory to this question—but he has taken the opportunity of making a speech of an hour's length in utter condemnation of the Government which, for the last seventy years, has ruled over the territory of India. It is obvious that such was the hon. Gentleman's intention. Without saying whether that condemnation was deserved or not, I say it is obvious that his purpose was to say that that Government was to be utterly condemned, and that something new was to be put in its place; for if a regular Motion expressing that purpose had been made, the hon. Gentleman would no doubt have been met by those hon. Members who take a different view of this question, and who would have expressed their sentiments upon it at as great length as he has now done to the House. I must confess that the statement of the hon. Gentleman does not at all convince me of the wisdom of the views which he has propounded. Neither, Sir, does the tone in which he undertakes this question induce me to think that he does approach it in that spirit in which a question of such grave importance ought to be approached. He is ready to say that he expects from my candour such an interpretation of his motives that I am to believe that nothing but the purest desire for the welfare of India and the good of his country animates him in his speech. I am not to utter a word—though no doubt imputations are easily enough made against a Government as against individuals; but, on the other hand, while he demands so much candour, while he lays down the ground for assuming that I am bound to be frank and candid on this subject, his own candour is very small in amount. He seems to take it for granted that we can propose no measure for the government of India, unless we are animated by some discreditable motive. Now I beg to say, without making any imputations upon him, that the view of the Government is, to do that which they conceive is the most fitting for the welfare of the 100,000,000 of people who are subject to the sway of this country. If we are persuaded of the propriety of any different course than that which we are about to pursue, we will be ready to undertake it; and I am not prepared to say that those who imputed to us any motives which they think will take away from the value of that which the Govern-
50
ment proposes are not themselves actuated by motives that reflect on them the highest credit. Now, I beg, before answering in any way the question of the hon. Gentleman, to state what has occurred of late. It is well known to the House that the Government of India—which has lasted, as I have said, very nearly seventy years—expires in April, 1854. Two years before that period—namely, in April, 1852—the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) now the Member for Stamford, and then President of the Board of Control, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee upon the subject of India. In making that Motion, the right hon. Gentleman took occasion to enter into the progress which had been made since the last Act of 1833, and produced facts which, as he stated, must be gratifying to the House. He said that, although there was a deficiency in the revenue at the present time owing to the recent wars, the revenue had increased from 18,000,000 l. to 24,000,000 l. He stated that the imports had increased from 6,000,000 l. to 12,000,000 l.; and the exports from 8,000,000 l. to 18,000,000 l.; and he went on stating various facts of a similarly gratifying character. He declared that the measures for the administration of justice had placed that administration in the hands of a great number of natives by whom justice was dispensed; that that administration had generally been found satisfactory, and that there had been a very small number of appeals from their decisions. He made various other statements with regard to education and with reference to the general state of India; and declared that since 1817 much had been done towards the improvement of India. The right hon. Gentleman ended with a statement of the plans in contemplation, some in the nature of public works, one of which was a great road which was to cost no less than 1,500,000 l.; and having made those statements he moved for a Select Committee. He was opposed by an hon. and learned Gentleman no longer a Member of this House, the late Member for Youghal (Mr. Chisholm Anstey). But that hon. and learned Member was again met by a Gentleman who has not only had great experience of the Government in this country, but also considerable experience of the government of India—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume); and he declared that he was glad to hear that the Government had it in contemplation to renew the

51
Government of India on something like the same foundation on which it had hitherto rested, and he stated if that Government fell to the ground, it would be the ruin of England. He pointed out with great force, that if it had been truly said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had opposed the Motion, that there was great poverty in India, the poverty must always be considered as comparative—that if he meant to compare certain districts in India with those of England, no doubt they were extremely poor, but if he compared districts in India under the British Government with those under the native princes, then the comparison would be totally different. He would see that the state and condition of the people under the British rule were far better than those of the people subject to the rule of native princes. That was a perfectly just and true observation; and I own I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) should say, upon the authority of a petition from an English county—
MR. BRIGHT: I said, if such statements had been made by any newspaper of credit with regard to the condition of an English county, they would not be regarded as substantially true; or, if not, whether instant means would not be taken to obtain such an exposure as would prevent the repetition of such statements for the future.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I understood the hon. Gentleman was comparing the people of the two countries. It amounted, therefore, to a statement founded on a newspaper paragraph. Well, these are matters that are comparative, and the state of the ryots in India must be considered in regard to what had been their former condition. In the course of that debate I stated that I trusted that the Government of this country did not forget their own responsibility on this subject—that, whatever might be the character of the Committee, you should not refer to a Select Committee a question of this importance for their decision—that you could only refer it to them for the purpose of information, and that upon the Parliament of this country must rest the responsibility of bringing forward and passing at the fitting time such a measure as they think best for the government of India. I am still of the same opinion. I still think it is incumbent on the Government of this country to bring forward at the fitting time the measure which they think best fitted for the government of India. The Committee proceeded to inquire; and there
52
was, at the same time, a Committee of the House of Lords appointed. Both Committees divided the subject of inquiry into eight heads. The first was with respect to the authorities and agency by which the Government was carried on both in England and in India; and the House of Lords stated, in reporting to their Lordships' House, that the general tendency of the evidence taken before them was in favour of continuing the present system of administering the affairs of India through the Board of Control and the Directors of the East India Company. The Commons' report was in nearly similar terms. So that with regard to that first point, which must be the main object of any Bill that may be introduced into Parliament, the two Committees gave their testimony as to the favourable tenor of their evidence; and be it remarked that there were many persons examined before those Committees, who were perfectly competent to give an opinion upon that subject. In so saying, I do not think a man is disqualified from giving an opinion upon this subject because he happens to have had considerable experience of India, and has held high office there. One person of high authority, namely, Lord Ellenborough, gave an opinion adverse to the constitution of the Government as it at present exists, and proposed a different mode of government. I think I am correct in saying that the opinion of the Committees generally went rather with Lord Hardinge, another Governor of India, than with Lord Ellenborough. At the commencement of the present Session the Committee was reappointed, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) stated that he had hopes that they would be able to go on with the remaining subjects of inquiry, and that it was indispensable that Parliament should legislate on the Government of India in the course of the present Session. Since that time the Committee have proceeded with their inquiry; but though many of those subjects are of the greatest importance, there is only one way in which they can deal with difficulties incident to the subject. If the Government of India had been totally different from what it has been for the last twenty years, totally different from the account given by the right hon. Gentleman—if we had found it was a Government like some of those we read of—that it had been a Government of the most cruel rapacity, that the people were suffering under the

53
yoke of oppression and corruption—then it would be a question with this House whether or not we should totally alter the nature of that Government; and the evidence in this respect is of the utmost importance, but I believe there is not the least possibility that that evidence will be of any such character. But there is no reason why the Committee should not proceed to consider all the points of inquiry, and with respect to the most important of them—the revenue, the judicial system, and the naval and military means of the Government of India—produce to this House all the evidence that is necessary for forming an opinion upon this subject. I do not at all find fault with the Committee for want of diligence. It is well known that the Committee sits twice a week, and three hours on each occasion; and if it was necessary to have further evidence immediately, without asking them to imitate the late Lord George Bentinck—who on one occasion of this kind gave an example which will never be forgotten—I think if they sat twelve hours in the course of a week—if they sat four days for three hours, or three days for four hours—that would not be asking too much of their attention on this important subject. It may be thought, however, by some that it is desirable that the convenience of the Committee should be consulted; but I think it would be far better that the Committee should suffer some inconvenience than that the welfare of India should be at all endangered by a regard to their convenience. But, Sir, after all, the question arises—is it, or is it not, for the benefit of India that, according to the hon. Gentleman's proposition, the renewal or the formation of a Government for India should be delayed for two or three years, and that during all that time the people of India should be kept in total uncertainty as to the nature of the Government to be proposed. The hon. Gentleman read petitions, some of them asking for an inquiry in this country, and some of them for inquiry in India, and one of them asks for a sort of Committee of Inquiry in India, not for the purpose of renewing anything like the present Government—because that is put totally out of the question—but for the purpose of forming a totally new Government, which at the end of two or three years will, most probably, become temporary. I believe nothing will be so dangerous to the peace and welfare of India as that two or three years should be spent in
54
inquiry on this subject. I believe there is no people more attached to their institutions than the people of this country; but if you were to form some kind of a constituent assembly to discuss whether monarchy is a good thing, or whether the House of Lords is a good thing, and say that for two or three years you should make that a subject of inquiry, I am not quite sure that the confidence of the people in their institutions would not be to some extent shaken. With respect to the Government of India, the opinion of the Government is that they ought to introduce in the course of the present Session that measure which they think best calculated to provide for the permanent welfare and happiness of the people of India. They hope to frame such a measure, and to introduce it to this House at a period which will give sufficient time for its discussion. I should be departing from my duty if I were to say what is the nature of the measure, or the terms on which it is proposed to be enacted. I hold that it would be unwise and dangerous if I were to state the details of a measure, without at the same time giving all the reasons for it, and to ask this House, without a reasonable interval, to come to a decision upon it. And I think this course has this advantage—those who oppose the measure will be obliged to produce some definite plan as an alternative. So long as we go on leaving in doubt and darkness what is to be the future Government of India—one Committee framing one measure, and another Committee framing another, and some self-constituted association proposing a third scheme; all this tends, in the meantime, to destroy and impair that which has hitherto existed, without setting up any of those new schemes in its place. But if another plan is proposed, that plan can be proposed in contradiction to the plan of the Government; and this House, and the other House of Parliament, will have a fair opportunity of discussing and deciding what is the measure best fitted for the Government of India. To that test we are willing to come, and by that test we shall be glad to abide. There is no person, I should say, more capable of framing a scheme on this subject than the Earl of Ellenborough, whose experience at the Board of Control, whose great talents evinced as Governor General of India, whose remarkable abilities, and whose thoughts have been turned in an especial manner to this subject—all enable him to

55
frame a great and comprehensive scheme for the government of India. But let him, or let any Gentleman opposed to the Government on this question, produce that scheme, and we shall fully and fairly discuss those measures upon their merits. My own opinion is, that nothing would be more dangerous than to give the Crown the whole control of the thousands upon thousands of the population in that part of the British dominions. Then we should endeavour to avoid that danger, and to frame a Government upon principles more in conformity with, and more favourable to constitutional freedom. With respect to the Government that has existed—and existed for a period, as I have said, for seventy years—nothing, I should say, would be more likely to fail in theory than the Government of a Board of Directors controlled by a Board entirely dependent on them, and they, again, having their orders transmitted to a Governor General at a great distance from the mother country. But in framing that Government the experience of seventy years is not to be despised. The experience of those seventy years, from 1784 to 1854—when this Act will expire—must furnish material elements in every way worthy of the consideration of the House in reconstructing or renewing the system of administering the affairs of India. I will only now say that we shall be prepared to legislate on this important subject in the present Session; and when we think that all the information that has been obtained in reference to the question has been sufficiently long in the hands of the Government and the House to enable us to legislate on the subject, we shall bring forward the measure which we mean to propose; and in the meantime we shall deprecate as a great evil the postponement for two or three years, for purposes of agitation, a question of this kind.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he could not help expressing his deep regret at the nature of the answer which had been given by the noble Lord to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester; and he trusted, before this subject was pressed to a conclusion, the nohle Lord would see reason to come to a different opinion. When the Indian Charter was renewed for the first time in 1793, no one would deny that the public mind was far more familiar with the then state of India than it was at present. The proceedings against Warren Hastings had kept alive a continual feeling upon that subject. There had also been laid
56
before Parliament the results of the labours of the two Committees which first laid bare the state of Indian administration—that of Mr. Burke, and that of Mr. Dundas; and since that period the Charter had been twice renewed. Upon the first of those renewals, Mr. Fox declared his indignation at the attempt of Mr. Pitt to smuggle the Charter through the House. The Reports of those Committees were to this day perfect text books upon Indian administration. Previous to the charter being renewed in 1833, a Committee of that House was appointed; they were appointed in February 1830, and produced thirteen volumes, the sixth of which he recommended to the perusal of hon. Members, as a perfect history of India during the preceding twenty years; whilst the first volume contained the evidence of Mr. Hope Mackenzie, which was only equalled by the masterly and vigorous testimony of the Earl of Ellenborough, just given before the Committee now sitting. He recommended these papers to the attention of the House; and in doing so, he must again protest against the course which, he regretted to see, the Government had determined upon adopting.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he also must express great regret at the statement just made by the noble Lord, for whose character and public services he entertained the most unfeigned respect. It appeared to him impossible that the House could proceed, upon so short a notice, to the decision of a question, the importance of which could not be overrated, and which concerned the interests of 130,000,000 of our fellow subjects. Now, when the noble Lord appealed to the experience of seventy years' government of India, surely he (Mr. Phillimore) might remind the House that he appealed to a circumstance which beyond all others pronounced a full condemnation of the system which, up to twenty years ago, India had endured. If the noble Lord looked to the speeches of Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke upon this question, and, above all, to that magnificent speech delivered by Lord Grenville in 1812, in which he developed the wisdom of a statesman and the humanity of a philanthropist, he would find that even all the restraints of long official experience had not prevented those great men from expressing, in sentiments of loud and general reprobation, their condemnation of that very system to the merits of which the noble Lord now appealed. He (Mr. Phillimore) would state

57
three simple facts which nobody could possibly dispute, and which appeared to him to demand most serious and anxious consideration. One of the facts was, that in spite of the letter and spirit of the law last passed for regulating the affairs of India, no Indian native—with one or two exceptions—had been allowed to obtain any office of consideration and importance in his own country. What would be our own feelings as Englishmen under such treatment? Was the House to be told that 130,000,000 of God's creatures were so depressed below the level of our own civilisation, that no two of them were fit to hold situations of importance in their own land? Was such language to be addressed to the British House of Commons? Another of the facts to which he referred had reference to the question of the internal communication in India. So scandalous had been the neglect of internal communication, so reluctant had been the Indian Government to spend money upon public works in a country from which 8,000,000 l. yearly were drained, that local famines had been the result, and that actually the native inhabitants lay down to perish when food was absolutely within their reach if proper means of sending it had been provided. The third was the cruel and oppressive tax on salt, which, like our corn laws, interfered with the support of millions—a tax which obliged the people to pay four, five, and, sometimes, ten times as much for a necessary of life as they did under their native rulers. These circumstances called strongly for the serious attention of that House, for they proved that the welfare of 130,000,000 of people, the inhabitants of India, had hitherto been only a secondary and subordinate subject on the part of their governors. Such facts pointed to one conclusion most distinctly—namely, that the Court of Directors ought to be discarded as an instrument for the government of India; and if that House, consented to be hurried into a precipitate measure upon a question of such vast and awful importance, he could only say they would, by it, stand condemned to the most remote posterity.
MR. H. D. SEYMOURsaid, he also regretted to have heard the speech of the noble Lord upon this subject. The noble Lord had denied the poverty and the misery of the people of India, and yet refused to receive before the Committee the evidence by which, it was alleged, the existence of those evils could be proved. Such a
58
course as this he (Mr. Seymour) could not but regret, respecting as he did the high character of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had chosen to bring into question the statements which appeared in the press upon these subjects; but he (Mr. Seymour) would remind the noble Lord that it was not the press only which produced the allegations by which the present system was condemned. Great statesmen, like the Marquess Wellesley and Lord Grenville, had condemned the system; and after the evidence which had been received, the House would be justified in condemning it also, certainly until it was clearly proved that India was not suffering from the measures to which reference had been made. Most hon. Gentlemen had probably read the Madras petition. In speaking on that petition, a very strong statement had been made by a high authority, Lord Campbell, who said, that having sat as a Judge in the Judicial, Committee of the Privy Council as a Court of Appeal on Indian Affairs, he could, from the enormous evils that had been brought before him, believe every word in that petition. It was useless, then, for the Government to shut their eyes to these matters, and say they did not know that misery and degradation were to be found in India, when, if they took the proper means, they might have it proved by evidence which could not be denied. The miserable condition of the people of India was not proved merely by newspaper reports; it had been admitted in the book of a gentleman who was the great apologist of the Court of Directors. Mr. Campbell, at page 360 of his work, called Modern India, said the Madras officers to whom he had talked, candidly admitted that at present the state of things there was most unsatisfactory; that the people were wretchedly poor; that their land was of little value; and that the difficulty was to get people to cultivate it upon any terms, and that cultivation was only kept up by forced and by Government advances. Mr. Campbell also alluded to the system of collection.
"Only imagine," he said, "one collector dealing with 150,000 separate tenants, not one of whom had a lease, and all of whom paid according to his cultivation, and according to the number of cattle, sheep, or children, for which he got a reduction if he could make out a good case."
If, added Mr. Campbell, the collector were one of the prophets, and lived to the age of Methuselah, he would not be sufficient for the duty; but as he was only an

59
ordinary man, and a foreigner, and continually changed, it would be strange indeed if the native subordinates could not do as they liked, and, having power, if they did not abuse it. And he added, that it was generally agreed that the abuses of the whole system were something frightful, and that extravagance, peculation, chicanery, and intrigue, were unbounded. This was likewise the case under the Government of the Company in the years 1802 and 1811, when Sir Henry Strachey, one of their most distinguished servants, gave that evidence as to the condition of the people, which must be familiar to every student of Indian history. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said the Indian revenue had increased. But how? Mr. Campbell explained how. He said that the real revenue of the country had diminished, but that an apparent increase was kept up by the confiscation of the lands of the middle classes. And he (Mr. Seymour) believed it was unanimously acknowledged by almost every servant of the Company who came back to this country, privately at least, that we had, by our system, wholly destroyed all the middle class in India; and had left nothing but our collectors, of whom there was one to every 1,000,000 of inhabitants, and the miserable ryots, who had barely the necessaries of life. If you spoke to travellers who bad visited our dominions in India, they gave exactly similar accounts. Why should everybody, then, except official persons, be disbelieved? Who had hitherto been examined? Twenty-four gentlemen, all officials, and interested in keeping up the old system, had been examined as to the government of India, with a population of 150,000,000. Now it was most unfair for the noble Lord to allege that the objection to the examination of official persons was, because they were officials; for the unanswerable objection made by former speakers really was, that none but official persons were examined. If it were thought that all which was said on the other side of the question was untrue, and that what was alleged in the petitions from India was false, let the parties be asked to come forward to substantiate openly their statements. Allow them either to be substantiated or disproved. But if the Bill were framed before the inquiry was closed on the two most important subjects—the revenue and the judicial system—it would have been framed without sufficient evidence, and the responsibility of all the
60
evils which might be perpetrated by it would rest upon those who framed and who voted for it.
VISCOUNT JOCELYNsaid, as a member of the Indian Committee, he must entirely deny the statement that had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, to the effect that there was a difficulty thrown in the way of any person being heard before the Committee who was capable of giving important evidence. On the contrary, he believed he spoke the sentiments of every member of the Committee when he said that it was their wish to obtain, as far as it was practicable, all the evidence possible, so as to elucidate the great and important inquiry upon which they were engaged. Perhaps he might be permitted to say that if a suggestion which he had humbly made to that House in 1850 had been acted on, he thought they would not now be in the condition in which they found themselves. That suggestion was for the appointment of a Committee. If that course had been taken at that time, they should now be ripe for legislation on the subject, and all the information which they would then have received would be sufficient for their present purposes. He, however, acknowledged that, as far as his feeling went on the subject, it appeared to him that if the legislation proposed by the Government was such as merely affected the Home Government here, and the Indian authorities abroad, the information before them was sufficient. He must acknowledge, however, that he could not see how far the further inquiry they were about to make into the revenue and the judicial and other departments, would assist them in the consideration of such legislation. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had properly and rightly stated that it was the duty of the Government to legislate upon this subject; and it was, he considered, impossible for a Committee of the House of Commons to declare and determine what the future government of India should be. It appeared to him that the Committee, so far as obtaining information to enable the future Government of India to carry out and improve the internal administration of the country, would be performing a most important duty, inasmuch as it would be then seen where the real evils existed, and what ought to be done in the way of a remedy. That he took to be the great object of the Committee's inquiry, but he thought the Committee wholly incapable to determine the best mode of re-

61
medying the judicial grievances, or to decide what was the best revenue system—whether the ryotwar, mouzawar, or the zemindary. Those were questions for those whom Parliament in its wisdom thought fit to entrust with the administration of Indian affairs. Well, but had they evidence at present to justify them in their proposed legislation? He acknowledged he thought that they had, and he should like to see laid upon the table the propositions of the Government for remedying the admitted evils of the country. He thought that very great and very serious alterations were necessary both at home and abroad. He was not prepared to admit that the Government for the last seventy years had been such as was described by an hon. Member opposite. He denied the truth of that statement. He, however, thought far more might have been done, and ought to have been done, than had been done for that great empire. It appeared to him that it was no excuse for the Government to say that the revenue of the country had been swallowed up by an internal war. To his mind, one of the great sins committed by the East India Company was, that they had not encouraged the introduction of English capital and English capitalists. He believed that that was the only source from which internal improvement could be secured to India. Believing, as he did, that great alterations were required in the home department of India, in order to give vigour to the Government both here and in India, he trusted that the Government would not think of adopting any of those quack measures which he had seen recommended in some of the public papers. If they hoped to effect a sound cure of the evils complained of, the Government must go far deeper into those evils than any of those measures to which he had referred had gone. They must strike down at the root of those evils if they hoped to render their measure at all efficacious. There were many eminent men, no doubt, in the present Government—men of greater capacity for business than perhaps were ever assembled together for many years—men who were fully capable of looking well into the question, and of effectively legislating upon it. The question was well worthy of their legislation and their consideration, for it was a question in which there were 150,000,000 of people deeply interested, but in the settlement of which they had no voice whatever themselves. He said it was their
62
duty to look into the question, and if they believed that they were not prepared at that moment to legislate with vigour, let them postpone it until such time as they considered themselves competent to deal with it. Better to postpone for some time longer the consideration of the question, than to run the danger of legislating hastily and in error, and of handing over the government of India, for another period of twenty years, without any hope of that improvement which this country had a right to expect.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he also felt regret at the statement of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). There could not be a doubt that the wants and the evils from which the people of India were suffering should be ascertained before that House proceeded to legislate. Now, who were the representatives of the people of India in this country? It would be idle to reply that the Court of Directors represented them, for the Court of Directors only represented 800 civilians, and a few officers employed in India. The Court of Directors had, in point of fact, no sympathy whatever with the people of India. It had been said by the noble Lord, that if rapacity and corruption could be alleged against the Government of India, there must be some reason for delaying legislation. Well, on this point he would meet the noble Lord; for if any Member had waded through those extraordinary and mystifying productions called the Outram papers, which had emanated from the India House, he could hardly fail to see that, if corruption did not actually exist, there was a belief in the corruptibility of the officials of the Government existing in the minds of the natives of that part of India. Colonel Outram, who was a most distinguished officer, he regretted to say, had been removed while engaged in the active investigation of corruption. He had brought his inquiries nearly to a successful issue, when he was removed from his office, as he (Mr. Otway) believed, in consequence of the vigour with which he had acted. He (Mr. Otway) had moved for certain papers which would throw greater light upon this matter, and he must respectfully urge the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control to expedite the production of those papers. They contained matters affecting the character of the administration of justice in India, and they affected the character in their corporate capacity of the Board of Directors. He hoped, under

63
such circumstances, that they would be laid on the table before the debate on the measure of the Government; but if the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) could not extract them from the India House, he (Mr. Otway) would bring the case before that House, and found a Motion even upon the mutilated and mystifying documents which had been produced.
MR. COBDENsaid, that being a member of the Committee on Indian Territories he felt it necessary to explain the grounds upon which he differed from the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Jocelyn). The noble Lord said he saw-no objection to the House proceeding to legislate upon what might be termed the machinery of the Indian Government, after the inquiry which had already been, made; and in so doing he treated the question in a way which required just a word or two of plain interpretation, Now, when they talked of the machinery of the Government of India, they talked of that to which they were afterwards to leave the administration of affairs in that country. If they said, "We are now only going to set up a Government, which is not a matter of so much consequence as affecting the Government in past times," it appeared to him they were dealing with words, and not with things. He would illustrate his meaning. If they were going to ascertain the value of a watch, they would not at once content themselves with counting the number of parts, or with seeing that the whole watch was entire, but they would inquire how it would go, how it kept time, and what would be its motions. In the same manner if they contented themselves with inquiring what was the machinery of the Government of India, and, because they found officials to tell them it was a good Government, they immediately renewed the charter which set up the machine for twenty years, it appeared to him that they had not instituted the kind of inquiry which would be satisfactory either to reason, to common sense, or even to ordinary justice. Before they proceeded with legislation they must ascertain how the machine had worked in India; and in order to ascertain that, they must hear evidence from some other persons than officials. Up to the present time, however, not a single person had been called before the Committee who was not employed either by the Honourable Company or by the India Board. Certainly there had been two
64
witnesses who had given rather adverse evidence; but one of those was the Earl of Ellenborough, who had been Governor General, and the other was a civil functionary. The fact, then, remained that the Committee had not had before them one single independent witness. They had not had one adverse witness from India. Now he thought the doors of the Committee room ought to be opened to all, and that the same course ought to be pursued in respect to witnesses from India as was adopted in reference to witnesses at home. At home, whenever any public inquiry was made by a Committee of the House of Commons, the expenses of the witnesses were paid; and, in the present case, so far from shrinking from inquiry, they should have before them the representatives of the malcontents in India, bring them over from India at the public expense, and examine them upstairs. He must add an observation with regard to this precipitate legislation. It was proposed to bring in a Bill to settle the Government of India when the Committee had not got through one quarter of the evidence which they proposed to themselves to take. Was there ever such a thing done before? Had the House ever before instituted a solemn inquiry before a Select Committee, and proposed to legislate upon it before it was one quarter finished? The noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn) said the Committee was not appointed to arrange or determine the Government of India; it was set up, according to his view, only to obtain information to enable the House to legislate. This was all he (Mr. Cobden) wanted. Wait until you had the evidence before you began to legislate. If there was danger of agitation and discontent because a provisional Act was passed for a temporary Government, what danger might not be apprehended from the fact that the Committee of Inquiry had been treated so little as a reality that the House would not wait to see what evidence they had collected? It might be an inferior and secondary question, but he would ask the noble Lord, as a member of the Committee, what he intended to do with the members of the Committee if he did not intend to avail himself of their inquiries? He said they might go on with their investigations. But, surely, in the present state of public business, they might be better employed than in making inquiry after the noble Lord and his Colleagues

65
had made up their minds as to what they were determined to do. There was one part of the evidence of the Earl of Ellenborough upon this subject which was of great importance. His Lordship distinctly said, "When you have set up a Government for India, that Government must govern for India. You cannot enter into details." If, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was going to take the matter out of the hands of the Committee, he (Mr. Cobden) entreated him to discharge the Members from their duties at once, and leave them to attend to other matters upon which they might possibly be of some use.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he did not rise to continue this discussion. He believed, with his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), that nothing could be more unfair than incidental discussions of this kind without notice. [Mr. BRIGHT: I gave notice to the noble Lord.] The notice was not upon the paper for the day, and he was not aware, on coming down to the House, that a single word was about to be said on Indian affairs. He believed that nine-tenths of the hon. Members then present came down to the House with the full expectation of hearing a discussion on the Jew question. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) proposed to make a diversion on his (Sir H. Inglis's) side, he had succeeded; and he should claim his vote, and the vote of all hon. Members who had followed him. Pro tanto, so far as their eloquence had extended, they had prevented the Jews receiving that justice which was contended for on their behalf; but he did not wish to be confounded with young India or middle-aged India; he contended, with the noble Lord, that the question was ripe for decision whenever the Government introduced a measure on the subject. The question submitted to the Committee was, in popular phrase, the mechanism, the organisation, of the Government of India at home and abroad; and were they to consult master manufacturers on that subject, to the exclusion, or at least the supercession, of the witnesses whom the Committee had already examined, of a Governor General of India, of another Governor General, of another acting Governor General, and Governor of Bengal, of a Governor of Madras, of a Governor of Bombay, of two Commanders-in-Chief—hosts of men pre-eminent in the India service, than which no service could produce higher authorities? Were they to take those men's opinions as of no value? How could they have per-
66
sons to give evidence except those who had had personal experience? Had those men not had personal experience of the working of the Indian Government at home and abroad? Were they to take men from the manufacturing towns in England, and say they were higher authorities on Indian matters than those eminent persons? He did not say the hon. Member for Manchester contended that he and his friends were absolute and exclusive authorities; but were they equal to those he had referred to, or would their opinions be of anything like so much value as the opinions of those persons? The hon. Member said he did not give them as authorities. That was his (Sir R. H. Inglis's) complaint. He said that the hon. Gentleman, a man of Manchester, was not more competent to give an opinion upon the administration of India, than the eminent men whose opinions they had had, and that those opinions had been confirmed by the decision of the Committee of the House of Lords in very full words, and by the decision of the House of Commons in words which, if not quite so full, were at least substantially coincident with the general result. He was prepared then to go with his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) in introducing such a measure on the responsibility of the Government; and, maintaining as he did, that, upon a question incidentally arising like this, it was not fitting they should give further expression to their opinions, it was sufficient to say that he agreed with his noble Friend that there was ground—laid down for such a course; and the decision of the Committee upon whatever points remained would not affect their decision on the fundamental question what the future Government of British India should be.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, two opinions have been expressed in this discussion. The one, that we ought to conclude the investigation which the Committee on our Indian possessions has only partly entered upon, before we consider a measure of legislation upon the subject. The other, that, totally irrespective of that information which the Committee may yet obtain, and the conclusion to which the Committee may yet come, the House should at once proceed to legislate upon the future administration of the British possessions in India. Her Majesty's Government seem to be of opinion that this House ought, without waiting for the conclusion of the labours of the Committee, to legislate. I think it is to be regretted, if they

67
have adopted that opinion, that they have not taken the earliest opportunity of acquainting the House with the nature of the plan they mean to propose. If, for example, during the period that would yet elapse before Easter, we had an exposition of the intended policy of the Government in respect to India laid before the House, we should then have the advantage of a considerable interval that must necessarily take place before the introduction of the measure itself, of judging of its merits. And, therefore, we could approach the discussion of the measure itself when the period had actually arrived for its introduction with great advantage to ourselves, as well as to the important subject involved, and without any waste of time. Otherwise, it appears to me, from the present aspect of public business, a long period must elapse before we can enter into that debate. Now, I am not at present giving any opinion as to the propriety of legislating at all upon the question under present circumstances, for, as the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) has observed, this being an incidental discussion, I do not wish to give a decided opinion upon that point. I will not, then, enter into any discussion as to whether the Government is right or wrong when they propose to legislate without waiting for the conclusion of the inquiry before the Committee. But I say, if they are prepared to legislate upon the subject without waiting for the termination of such inquiry, they should have seized the earliest opportunity of making the House acquainted with the particular policy they propose to recommend for its adoption. On the contrary, instead of making such exposition of their policy, we have been informed that we are to have an adjournment for a period of very unusual duration, and more than a month must elapse before the Government, under any circumstances, can favour us with the nature of the project they intend to lay before us. But we must remember, too, that after the Easter recess we shall have to consider the financial state of the country, which the noble Lord the Member for London observed was a subject fertile of discussion, and therefore likely to occupy our attention for a considerable period. It appears, therefore, to me, taking a sanguine view of the position in which we are placed, that no discussion upon the question of the future government of India can be taken until the middle of May or the commencement of June. Well, now, I say that this is an unsatisfactory
68
state of things. When we have to consider a question of this vast importance at an interval of such long duration—a question extending itself over so many subjects-without the opportunity previously afforded us of considering the nature of the intended policy of the Government, or of thoroughly investigating the proposed scheme, I say I think it is highly impolitic that we should enter upon a subject of so much importance as the future and perhaps the permanent administration of India at the fag end of the Session. Yet it appears to me that the course chalked out by the Government will inevitably lead to that result, The present Act was passed under circumstances very unfavourable to a calm and full discussion of the subject. The subject was brought before the House and the country when it was excited and agitated by a domestic question of the greatest importance. The attention of the country and of Parliament at that time certainly was not directed to the question of Indian government in that full and unimpassioned manner that was intended. We are now proposing, although the House is favourable for discussion upon this subject, not to take such discussion until probably the end of the Session. I think, Sir, that the House should pause before it sanctions such a course. If, however, the Government would take advantage of the few days that must yet elapse before the holidays, to make an exposition of their intended policy, then I think the question would assume a different aspect; and perhaps it would not be impossible for us to enter into a discussion upon the whole question at that period when the Government would bring it forward.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must protest against that part of the debate which attributed the waste and excesses in India to the East India Company. There had been no East India Company since 1830. The Government of India had been administered by a Minister of the Crown, and for all the expense and abuses that had taken place the Government were answerable. And, as to the poverty of the people, he could show Gentlemen that the House was answerable for a large proportion of it. For thirty-five years had the House prohibited the importation of the manufactures of India except at a penalty of 50 or 60 per cent, while they deluged India with the importation of goods from this country free of expense. Being also of opinion that they

69
had not yet received information sufficient to satisfy the people of India, he protested against proceeding so rapidly, and without more consideration, to pass measures for the millions who were to be governed in that country. If they would not do them justice, at any rate let them listen and hear their prayers. The natives of India had presented a petition, praying that they might be allowed to state their grievances, and their opinion of how the last charter had operated; and he submitted that their request could not in fairness be refused. Looking to the importance of the interests involved in this question, and bearing in mind how much of the present Session would, in all probability, be consumed in discussions regarding our system of taxation, he was confident there would not be time to consider the affairs of India; and he did hope the Government would yet be induced to postpone their measures for another year, or at least until the people of India had been heard. India would not suffer; and it would give time to consider the measures ultimately to be adopted.
SIR JOHN FITZGERALDsaid, that having served for three years with the army in India, he was acquainted with the country, and felt an interest in its welfare. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) in thinking that an opportunity should be afforded to the native Indians of explaining their grievances. The Committee had heretofore been occupied with the evidence of the very persons who were themselves the authors of the evils which were now complained of. He hoped that the House would take care that justice was done, and that they would avoid hasty, precipitate, and ill-considered legislation.
SIR HERBERT MADDOCKsaid, as one who had had considerable experience in the administration of Indian affairs, he must protest against the allegations made that night, impugning the Indian Government, as totally unfounded. In his opinion, the Government of India, as well as the Government at home, had invariably exerted itself for the benefit of the people; and it was not its fault if it had not accomplished all that was desired. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that, if the condition of the subjects of the British Government in India were compared with that of the subjects of the native princes, it would at once be seen whether the comfort and happiness of the people
70
had been promoted and increased by our form of government or not. He merely said this in justice to the Government of India, including the administration in India, and the authorities who were entrusted with control in this country. With regard to the subject which had more immediately led to this conversation, he must say it was with considerable regret that he found Her Majesty's Ministers prepared to bring in so soon a Bill for the general administration of India. He certainly thought it would be wise to continue the present Act for one year longer, and permit a Committee to enter upon the investigation of those very important and numerous topics which were connected with the subject. As to the convenience or inconvenience of taking such a course, all he could say was that he was convinced, from his knowledge of the people of India, that they would remain very contented, in anticipation of the improvements which they hoped and expected would result from the future administration of that country, provided they understood that the Committee were continuing their investigations, and if, as was most essential to enable the Committee to arrive at a fair and just conclusion on the subject, native witnesses were allowed to appear before them, or to send their evidence in some other shape for the benefit of the Members of that House. He did not think it would be fair to take only such evidence as was derived from the highest authorities who had been in India; it was absolutely necessary, if they wished to understand, not only the minute workings of the Government during the last seventy or eighty years, but the feelings of the people, and their wants and wishes as to any alteration in the present system before the House proceeded to legislate, that those natives should be heard in some way before the Committee. With regard to the plan of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), until he had seen its details, he would defer pronouncing a judgment upon it, and delivering an opinion as to whether it accorded with his ideas of what was most expedient for the better administration of India or not. He should be much more pleased, however, if Ministers would reconsider their measure, and postpone its introduction until the next Session of Parliament.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, the part he had taken in the former debates upon this subject, and his known sentiments upon it, might perhaps excuse him in taking his present course in opposition to the second reading of this Bill. He could assure the House that he did so with very great reluctance, because the question had been so often discussed, and the arguments on both sides had been so entirely exhausted, that it was impossible that he could expect the attention of the House from the promise of any novelty he could introduce on that occasion. This, however, ought not to be made a ground of complaint against the opponents of the Bill, because the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), with all his great ability, and his constant reflection upon this question, had not, so far as he (Sir F. Thesiger) had been able to discover, struck out any new light, or brought forward any new argument, in favour of this measure. Inasmuch, then, as the noble Lord had adhered to the ground which he originally assumed, his opponents were compelled to meet him there, and encounter him with the same weapons they had formerly used. In justice to the noble Lord, he must admit, however much he might differ from him upon this and upon other questions, that the noble Lord had invariably dealt with the greatest possible fairness in presenting this question to the House, and bad always disdained to take any indirect course in order to arrive at the object which he (Sir F. Thesiger) was bound to believe the noble Lord had at heart. When an attempt was made last Session to cut short all discussion upon this subject by inducing the House to adopt a Resolution that the words in the oath, "upon the true faith of a Christian," formed no substantial and essential part of it, the noble Lord refused to accept that easy mode of cutting he knot of his difficulties, and maintained fairly and justly that the words in question were an absolutely essential part of the oath. Now, if he might make a single remark with respect to the conduct of the noble Lord, he would venture to say that he had only committed one mistake in the course of the discussion which took place, and that arose from his having given his
72
countenance to Baron Rothschild taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy upon the Old Testament, it being perfectly clear that the three oaths were an essential preliminary to any Member taking his seat in that House, and that none but professing Christians could take the third oath; and inasmuch as there could be no proper qualification without the three oaths being taken, that it must have been the intention of the Legislature that they should be taken with Christian solemnity, because they could alone be taken by a Christian. He thought the course taken by the House on that occasion did not redound very much to the wisdom of their proceedings; but he would pass that by, together with the ill-advised and injudicious course taken by another Gentleman, not returned to the present Parliament, in endeavouring either to obtain a Resolution of the House as to his right to take his seat in respect to the mode in which he proposed to take the oaths, or to obtain a decision of the Courts of Law upon the subject, which might have had seine influence upon the decision of that House. He thought that if anything were calculated to prejudice the claim made by the gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion, it was the course taken upon that occasion. He hoped, however, that this question would not be decided upon any prejudice whatever, but solely with a regard to its merits. He would endeavour as closely as possible to adhere to the real question before the House, and he trusted that nothing would fall from him in the observations he had to make which would create the slightest irritation, or produce unpleasant feelings in the mind of any one. There was a difficulty in anybody addressing himself to this question, arising from there being really no common ground upon which the opposing parties could meet. On the one hand, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the supporters of this measure rested their case upon social and civil grounds, apart from all religious considerations; while, on the other hand, those who opposed the measure thought that the religious question was the one which was of vital importance in the case, and which must ultimately decide it. The consequence was that, each keeping to his own field, the two parties were really not aiming blows at each other, but were beating the air, and in this contest he must acknowledge the noble Lord had a very con-

73
siderable advantage against his opponents, because he could appeal with great warmth and fervour of expression to the principles of civil and religious liberty—heartstirring expressions, which found an echo in every generous mind, and with many passed for an argument; while, on the other hand, those who were influenced by high and sacred feelings and sentiments necessarily were compelled to impose a restraint upon the expression of that very feeling, inasmuch as a popular assembly of this kind was hardly a proper arena for sentiments of that description, and they were reluctant to express themselves strongly, from fear of obtaining the character of enthusiasts and bigots. With all these disadvantages, however, he should proceed to consider this question, and in some degree endeavour to meet the different arguments which had been urged by the noble Lord; he would endeavour to show that there were peculiar circumstances which did not render those arguments so strongly applicable to the case of the Jews as to any other of Her Majesty's subjects; and he should in this manner meet the noble Lord even upon that ground which he had taken up on the present occasion as the foundation of his measure. In discussing this subject, those who opposed the measure might, without any detriment to their case, admit that the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament at the present day did not arise from any intention expressed by the Legislature upon the face of any of its enactments. He agreed with what had been said by the noble Lord, that the 7th of James I., which for the first time contained the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," was not at all directed against the Jew; that there was no intention whatever by the introduction of these words to exclude him from Parliament; nor was he in the slightest degree in the mind of the Legislature when that Act was passed. The noble Lord had stated, and stated correctly, that these words had been inserted in the oath in consequence of the description of the Treatise on Equivocation found in the chamber of Francis Tresham, who was one of the conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot. This treatise was corrected by the hand of the Jesuit Garnet, and, in consequence of the doctrines it contained, these words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," were introduced, as it was considered they would be binding if they were made part of the oath. At the same time, although this admission was made
74
on the part of the opponents of the measure, the noble Lord must concede to him that when the 7th of James I. passed, there was not a single Jew in England. They had been banished in the reign of Edward I., and they did not return to this country certainly till the reign of Charles II. [An Hon. MEMBER: They were admitted during the Protectorate.] No; he must beg that hon. Gentleman's pardon. During the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell a petition was presented on the subject of the return of the Jews, but it was not successful; and in the year 1663, he believed it would be found by searching the national records, as they were called, of the Jews, that there were no more than twelve Jews in England at that time. It was quite impossible, therefore, that the Legislature could have meant to exclude the Jews when they introduced the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," because they never contemplated the possibility of Jews forming a part of a Christian Legislature. On this subject he thought he could not do better than quote a passage in the judgment of Mr. Baron Parke:—
"But it is a fallacy to argue that because the immediate object of the Legislature was to give a more binding effect to a Christian oath, not to exclude the Jews and others than Christians, therefore they meant all such to be admitted, and consequently, that the terms of the oath ought to be modified so as to carry that object into effect, and to permit all not of the Christian faith to take the oath in a form binding on their consciences. Nothing was further from the contemplation of the Legislature. The truth is they never supposed that any but Christians would form a part of either House of Parliament. The possibility that persons of the Jewish persuasion should be peers, or be elected Members of Parliament, probably entered their contemplation as little as that of Mahomedans or Pagans being placed in either category. Both of these are, in effect, on precisely the same footing in this respect as the Jews, and the argument applies equally to them all. In enacting a provision aimed at a peculiar class only of Christians, the Legislature have in most positive terms required an oath from every Member of the Legislature which none but a Christian can take; and this enactment must have the effect of closing both Houses of Parliament against every one but a Christian."
Now, it had been asserted in the course of the debates which had taken place on former occasions in that House, that from the 1st of William and Mary down to the 13th of William and Mary no ground whatever existed why a Jew should not be admitted to a place in that House, in consequence of the omission of the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in

75
any Act of the Legislature between those periods. But it appeared to him that such an assertion was made with an utter forgetfulness of the history of the Jews during that time. He had mentioned that they were so few in number in the beginning of the reign of Charles II., that there were then only twelve Jews in this country. When at last they did return to England, they were for a long time treated and considered as aliens. He knew that this had been denied over and over again in that House, but with what propriety he would leave the House themselves to judge. It was perfectly notorious that, upon their return to this country, the alien duty was imposed upon them, and the House would find that that alien duty, so far as the export of commodities was concerned, was remitted by James II.; but, upon the petition and remonstrance of the merchants, that duty was reimposed in 1690; and, therefore, that being in the reign of William III., it did seem to him rather an extravagant idea to suppose that, because the words "on the true faith of a Christian" had been omitted out of the Act 1st of William and Mary, therefore the Jews, who were not only regarded as aliens, but were actually treated so, should have had the opportunity during that intervening period of obtaining seats in that House. How long the Jews continued to be regarded in this light, and how long an alien duty continued to be imposed, he was unable to trace; but he was satisfied that the Act about which so much excitement prevailed at the time, 26th of George II., which was an Act for the naturalisation of Jews without the necessity of their taking the sacrament, was an Act not, as had been asserted, for the naturalisation of foreign Jews, but one to give facilities for the naturalisation of all Jews resident in England, and who, he was satisfied, up to that time, and later than that time, were regarded as aliens, for he could never imagine there could have been such a ferment created in respect to this Act (which it would be remembered was repealed in the following year), if its only object had been to give facilities to the foreign Jews who might come to this country, and who, he would remind the House, had to reside here three years before they could obtain their naturalisation. The state in which the Jews continued down to the year 1830 was, he thought, as strong a proof as anything could be, not that they were excluded from Parliament by the accidental
76
insertion of words in the oath, but that they were never regarded as persons who could be entitled to sit in the Legislature; and the House would find these disabilities summed up in the speech of Mr. Robert Grant, at the time when he moved for their repeal. He said—
"They couldn't hold any office, civil or military; they couldn't be schoolmasters or ushers; they couldn't be serjeants-at-law, barristers, solicitors, pleaders, conveyancers, attorneys, or clerks; they couldn't be Members of Parliament, nor could they vote for the return of Members, if anybody chose to enforce the oath; and, finally, they were excluded from all corporation offices."
Now, was it possible, regard being had to all these circumstances, and to the state of disability in which the Jews stood in 1830, to assert that their exclusion from Parliament arose from the accidental insertion of certain words in the oath of abjuration? Well, then, in what position did the House stand with respect to this oath? They found it was the intention of the Legislature that none but Christians should be admitted to sit in Parliament. They found themselves under existing circumstances in the position of what might be considered as a barrier against the intrusion into Parliament of persons opposed to the Christian faith. The opponents of the present measure were not particularly wedded to the present form of the oath of abjuration. They might be disposed to admit that the subject of that oath had become obsolete, but it served still to denote the Christian character of the Legislature; and he, for one, would not consent to relinquish it unless something of equal force, and what was equally available, were substituted in its place. But then the noble Lord said all persons who were subjects of Her Majesty were entitled to an equality of civil rights; and no religious faith, whatever it might be, ought to be a ground for exclusion from those rights and privileges which belonged to every subject in this country. [Cheers.] Hon. Members cheered the expression of that proposition; but he was quite sure they would allow him to call their attention to what he considered an ambiguity in the language of the noble Lord with reference to this subject. The noble Lord had not drawn the distinction which he ought to have done between civil and political rights. He conceded to the noble Lord that every subject in this country was entitled to equality of civil rights; and what were

77
those civil rights? They were summed up by our great commentator upon the English laws under three heads—the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property; and these were comprehensive enough to embrace every description of claim which Englishmen could enjoy under the constitution of this country. These rights were for the benefit of all, and each individual was entitled to them; but political rights it belonged to the State only to confer. No person was entitled to political rights unless they were given him by the State, and if the noble Lord meant to include political in the term "civil rights," he (Sir F. Thesiger) was ready to join issue with him upon that point, and to say that every subject of this realm was not entitled to equality of political rights. If they were so entitled, he should like to know what would become of all our qualifications and disqualifications, and how it was possible they could be justified, for unquestionably they were vitally opposed to that principle for which the noble Lord contended. He need not advert to the qualifification for the suffrage, and the qualification for Parliament, all of which might be considered arbitrary and artificial; but, if the noble Lord were correct, even universal suffrage would not satisfy the extent of his proposition, because, by even extending the suffrage to every male, you would not give that extent of political right which was comprehended in the maxim upon which the noble Lord had acted. But the noble Lord had said—
"At no time in the history of our country, when legislative disabilities have been imposed, have they been grounded on a difference of religious faith."
Now, he did not exactly understand what the noble Lord meant by "legislative disabilities." If he meant disabilities imposed by the Legislature, then he (Sir F. Thesiger) would refer him for an answer to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, the provisions of which contained an exclusion from certain offices. That was a legislative disability. The noble Lord might say this was entirely upon political, and not upon religious, grounds. But he would venture to ask, whether it was not in consequence of the peculiar character of the religion of the individuals to whom the Act applied, that they were considered improper persons to be intrusted with those particular rights? He trusted, however, that he had now satisfied hon. Members
78
who had cheered, a few minutes since, the expression he had quoted, that at all events the point was not so clear as it at first appeared, and that it was a subject deserving of very serious consideration. Then, again, the noble Lord said—
"That we had, in point of fact, conferred political power and authority upon the Jews, because, by giving them the elective franchise, we had enabled them to choose Members to the Legislature, and in that manner had given them a part in the legislation of the country."
Now, he really did think that argument was much more subtle than satisfactory. Theoretically—he had almost said metaphysically—it might be perfectly true, but practically it amounted to what he must be forgiven for calling an absurdity, because the infinitesimal proportion of a share in the legislation of the country which a party derived from being one of many thousands to choose the Legislature, was scarcely perceivable, and for all practical purposes it was of no utility whatever. Again, it must be remembered that in the present state of the law, if the Jew exercise the elective franchise he could only choose a Christian. He could only send into that House a person of the Christian faith, and he apprehended there was a very material difference between voting for a Christian legislator, and a Jew himself coming into that House and becoming a legislator. But it had been said that political power was given to the Jews when they were enabled to become barristers, and magistrates, and aldermen. But there was a very great distinction between allowing persons to exercise powers or enjoy subordinate offices of that kind, and making them part of the governing body of the county. As magistrates they were called on to execute the laws which were made for them by a Christian Legislature; they were subordinate to those laws; they must obey them, or they were punished for their disobedience. But a Member of the Legislature was superior to all law. [Cries of"Hear!" and "Oh!"] Yes; hon. Members must pardon him for saying so. A person was superior to all law in his character of legislator; he was answerable to no one; he was amenable to nothing but that moral constraint and control which must influence the greatest as well as the meanest in the land; and therefore it seemed to him that to use the fact of Jews being allowed to take on themselves the office of magistrates as an argument for our going further and admitting them to become a part of the Legislature,

79
was utterly without foundation in reason or principle. But even if there appeared no reason in all this to persons not of the Jewish religion which might make them pause before they assumed they were right in such an unqualified way, he never could forget there were peculiar circumstances connected with the character and position of the Jew which rendered all these objections not merely applicable in his case, but afforded them additional strength. He would venture to refer every hon. Member in that House to his own reflections on this subject, when he regarded the position of the Jew as he existed in all the countries to which he had been dispersed; and he would ask them whether they did not feel that the Jews were separate and distinguished from the nations in which they lived—that they were among them, but not of them—that from their peculiar customs and habits, and institutions and religion, they formed no alliance with these nations—that they lived among themselves—and that they were nowhere incorporated with the great body of the people? Nor did the Jews, if they were sincere in their professions, consider that any nation in which they lived was their abiding home. Whether they interpreted the prophecies rightly or not, there could be no question about it that they were looking to another country than that in which they lived, and that they expected at some indefinite period to be restored to the land of their forefathers—that "there their treasure is, and there their hearts must be also." And in reference to this part of the subject he would for one moment draw the attention of the House to a passage which he had met in a very interesting work:—
"There is a restless desire always vibrating amid the Jewish population in Europe to emigrate to Palestine. This arises from their religious principles and hopes. It is also an inheritance of feeling from their cradles, for, as Jews, they are born in countries to which they do not belong. The home of their nation is Syria; to that place their eyes, their hopes, their hearts are always turned. If protected, it is no dream to say that 100,000 persons would move from different countries in Europe to the shores of Palestine."
He said, then, there was something peculiar in the position of the Jew, which rendered him an unfit person to be a member of a national Legislature. But even on an inferior ground his religious tenets would prevent his efficiently performing his duty to his constituents if he was returned to the House, and he wished to call their
80
attention to this circumstance. Suppose the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) should think it necessary, in consequence of some important business which he thought required the attendance of all Members, to move for another call of the House, and that the call happened to take place on a Friday evening—was the House prepared to say that respect for the Sabbath of the Jews would induce them to accept an excuse from a member of the Jewish persuasion if summoned to attend in his place? Take another case. Suppose an hon. Member of the Jewish persuasion should be chosen on an Election Committee; they all knew that, by the Act, those Committees sat from day to day, with the exception of Sunday, Christmas-day, and Good Friday—days, be it observed in passing, which the Jews utterly scorned and disliked. And suppose the Sabbath of the Jews should arrive and find him on that Committee, what would the House do under the circumstances? Would they introduce an Act of Parliament for the sake of excusing the Jews from attendance and serving on Election Committees; or would they adopt the course of allowing them to take the chance of the Election Committees falling on their Sabbath? These might appear very trifling circumstances, but they were the peculiar circumstances which affected the Jews, and which made them, as it seemed to him, more unfit to become Members of that House than any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, there was another argument to which he must refer—it had been frequently used in that House—and it was that with respect to the deference which ought to be paid to the selection of a large constituency like that of the City of London of Baron Rothschild as a Member of that House. He found that Archbishop Whately rested his opinion in support of the measure on the last occasion on this ground altogether. He said—
"The question was not whether Jews should sit in Parliament, but whether in this free and enlightened age the Christian electors of this Christian nation should have the right to choose whom they liked as their representative, or whether their hands were to be tied in this respect."
Now, it appeared to him that nothing more unconstitutional than any opinion of this kind could hardly be imagined. It seemed to suppose that constituencies, if they were only large enough, were, at their own free

81
will and pleasure, to make choice of whomsoever they pleased, and that, if they were only powerful enough, their selection was to give the law, and that they could in effect remove all impediments to the man they chose to enter the Legislature by the mere force of their will. Now, he really wished that those hon. Members who were so fond of contrasting invidiously the representatives of large with those of small constituencies, would turn to the pages of Burke and consider his sentiments on the subject. He said—
"Parliament is not a Congress of ambassadors from different and hostile countries, each maintaining as an agent the interests of those who sent him against the agents of other bodies; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly, with one interest of the whole nation, not with local purposes or local prejudices for their guide, but the general good as the result of the general reason of the whole. You choose a Member indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a Member of Bristol—he is a Member of Parliament."
He ventured on that high authority to think, therefore, that no constituency, however large, was entitled to choose any person, but that they must choose a person whom the law qualified for admission into the Legislature; and that not they alone, but the entire nation, had an interest in the person chosen, and had a right to determine if he was duly and properly qualified to sit in Parliament. It would be a very dangerous and unconstitutional precedent to establish if the City of London, at its mere whim and caprice, was to choose whomever they liked—they might choose an alien, a clergyman, or the returning officer—and then to give them leave to say, "Is it our will and pleasure that this should be so, and we will have him as our Member." He had rested his case on this ground to show that there was not such undoubted and unquestionable right in the Jews on this subject as was maintained by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for any person to become a Member of the Legislature of this country, and he turned now from it to that which really was, as he considered, the strong and overruling objection to the admission of the Jews into Parliament, and which rested entirely on religious grounds. He felt, when he approached this part of the question, under a conscientious obligation not to express any sentiments which he did not sincerely feel and believe. Now, he never could forget that, if this Bill passed into a law, it would be the first legislative declaration avowedly and designedly made,
82
by which the enemies of our faith were admitted to a seat in this Christian Legislature; and when the noble Lord said his object was to complete the edifice of religious liberty, he (Sir F. Thesiger), and those who felt with him, certainly could not help entertaining the opinion that the noble Lord was taking away from the religious foundations of our constitution. He was not at all disposed to pursue the objections on those high grounds on which he knew many of his hon. Friends felt disposed to place them; he did not think that by consenting to admit the Jews into Parliament they would in the slightest degree interfere with the Divine will. It was true there were the strongest prophetic denunciations with respect to the fate of the Jews, who were to be "scattered through every land, and to cease to be a nation;" but it appeared to him to be rather presumptuous to think that anything they could do would advance or retard the designs of the Almighty, or that there could be any necessity for the assistance of man in fulfilling His ways. On this subject he was disposed to say with the poet—
"Let not my weak unknowing hand
Presume thy bolts to throw."
He felt the greatest possible respect for the conscientious opinions of hon. Members who thought otherwise on this subject; but he did not think they could safely place their arguments on such high and mysterious ground. There was a lower and, as appeared to him, a safer position which they could assume, and on which he would venture to ask for some attention to his arguments. He thought there could be no doubt that the framework of our legislative system was formed on Christian views and principles. They commenced their proceedings by invoking the blessing of God through the intercession of the Redeemer. They were compelled, as the law at present stood, to take an oath which made them at least professing Christians, and they were required to observe certain days which were consecrated to the observance of Christianity. All these circumstances showed that the Christian principle was the vital and essential, and fundamental principle of our system, and they would entirely destroy that system, they would violate that sacred principle, by deliberately admitting one single enemy of our faith, which they were all bound to acknowledge, with respect, to form part of this, our—at present—Christian assembly. Now, objection had been made to the term, occa-

83
sionally used in speaking on this subject, of "un-Christianising the Legislature." It might, perhaps, be liable to some misconstruction; but it was quite clear that if he was right, and if his view of the essential principles on which the Legislature was founded were correct, the admission of a single Jew was such a violation of those principles that they might, using very solemn words in no light spirit, say—"A little leaven leaveneth the whole." There was no doubt at all that Christianity was a part of the law of the land, and at all events that maxim must be understood in this sense—that our laws were made with reference to and in accordance with this Christian rule and principle. He would not stop to consider whether the important functions of the Legislature embraced the spiritual as well as the temporal welfare of those committed to their charge. But if he was right in saying our laws were made with reference to the standard of Christianity, then they would debase and lower that standard by admitting there should be no solemn declaration that the persons who were to assist in making those laws were to be Christians, but that persons who certainly adopted a lower standard than that of Christianity should be admitted to make them, and to reduce everything, therefore, to a lower level. Now, the laws which proceeded from so high and sacred a source were the laws which governed this country, and in their character they would necessarily infuse something of their sacredness into the character of the people. A person opposed to the faith of a Christian might well desire to be a member of a society governed by Christian laws; and he (Sir F. Thesiger) was ready to admit him to the rights and privileges of that society so far as respected the equal enjoyment of all civil rights, as he had already stated; but if he desired to become a part of the governing body, he must ask first whether that man was a friend to the system under which the laws of that society were made, or if he was opposed to it; and if he was opposed to that system, he, for one, would not admit him to the governing body. These were the sentiments he entertained on the subject, and which he expressed to the House sincerely and conscientiously, believing they were right. On that subject he would read a passage from an authority whose views on the subject were supposed not be orthodox by hon. Members opposite, be-
84
cause he did not agree with them on this, though he did on most other subjects. The Archbishop of Dublin said: "If a man believes that he is bound to refuse obedience to the law of Christianity, and will not pledge himself to regard it as paramount to all human legislation, he cannot properly be a member of a society which regulates its proceedings according to that law." But then it was said, "If you exclude the Jews from the Legislature, you are guilty of persecution." Now, with very great deference, he must say that this was an abuse of terms. "Persecution" he understood to be the infliction of some pain or disability unjustly, either as a penalty for religious opinions, or for the purpose of inducing persons to abandon them; but there was no such object in the exclusion of the Jews from the Legislature. The sole object they had in that exclusion was self-defence, not in the low sense of defence against danger, but in that of security against the violation of a sacred principle; and they might just as well call bolts and bars which have the effect of stopping the entrance into a house of a person who was likely to do mischief there, persecution, as to apply the term to the exclusion on such grounds of the Jews from Parliament. If the House took this fatal step, he believed they would do the greatest violence to the religious sentiments and feelings of the nation. There was a strong and growing feeling upon this subject, which was sufficiently indicated by the petitions presented against this measure. And anything more mischievous and fatal at the present moment than the idea that the House of Commons was indifferent to religion, could hardly be imagined. God forbid he should suppose that the supporters of the Bill were indifferent to religion! but in such a matter as this, to seem and to be would have the same unhappy influence upon the country. When the noble Lord got rid of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," why should he not go a step further, and say that persons professing no religion at all should be qualified to sit in that House? There were in this county a great number of conscientious Deists, perhaps a larger number of Deists than of Jews. They might not desire, like Bolingbroke and Gibbon, to take their seats under false pretences, and they would come to the noble Lord and say—" We do not wish to enter the House of Commons with lying lips and a

85
deceitful tongue; we are anxious to avow our disbelief in Christianity, and to take our seats upon the natural religion that guides and governs mankind." Was the noble Lord prepared to give way to such representations, and to admit Deists? The Jewish religion was but Deism. [Mr. BETHELL: Revealed Deism]. It was revealed religion, he heard it said; and he had heard it contended that as the Jewish religion was the forerunner of Christianity, the Jews had a claim upon those who professed Christianity for admission to that House. But he was sure his hon. and learned Friend who had kindly suggested the remark, would agree with him that half a truth frequently amounted to absolute falsehood, and this was one of those cases. Nor did he know why the noble Lord, having admitted the Jews and the Deists, should refuse admission to the "fool who says in his heart, There is no God." Such a person might say, "Away with the mockery of all forms of religion! every subject of this realm is entitled to all the privileges of a citizen." [Cheers.] He understood from that cheer that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not wish the noble Lord to stop at the Jews, and that he was to make everything smooth for the admission of persons of all religions and no religion. [Cheers.] Those cheers furnished him with an additional reason for opposing a course which would be attended with the most mischievous and fatal consequences. It was clear now, and the noble Lord must have seen it, that he could not stop short in the course he had now begun, and that he must give up, one by one, all that consecrated the Members of that House to their duties—that, in completing the edifice of civil liberty, he would give so much liberty as to lose all the semblance of religion; that he would abandon everything that gave grace and dignity to their functions, and everything that gave solemnity to the proceedings of that House. Entertaining these feelings, he had to move that the measure before the House be read a second time that day six months.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM,in seconding the Motion, said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which this question would affect the two important questions, the education of the people, and the relation between Church and State. With regard to the first topic, the House was aware that there was a great difference of opinion on the question
86
whether education ought to be secular, or whether it ought to be combined with religion. He believed the majority—he might say, the large majority—of that House were opposed to merely secular education; but he would ask, how could they insist upon religious education after declaring by their votes that it was immaterial whether the Legislature was founded on Christianity or not? If it was, indeed, unimportant whether a man was a Christian or not, he thought they would be deprived of their strongest argument in favour of religious education. How can you teach a child that this is a great Christian country, that all her institutions are founded on Christianity, and then turn round upon him and tell him that it is perfectly unnecessary that the persons who are to legislate for this great Christian country, who are to mould and adapt and alter all her institutions, should be obliged to profess Christianity? What inference could the youthful mind draw from this fact, but that it was immaterial what a man believed or disbelieved, whether he is an idolater or a Christian? The next argument was, what the effect would be on the relations between Church and State. This was a delicate subject, and one of which the solution became more difficult every year; but it was impossible not to perceive that persons of very opposite principles were converging towards the same point—the separation between Church and State. He was an advocate for that union, not only for the sake of the Church, but also for the interest of the State. He thought it was no mean consideration that on some important question a Minister might be placed in such a position, that the Jews, if once admitted, might turn the balance either for evil or for good. They had heard of a party which was denominated an Irish Brigade; they might yet live to see a Jew brigade, and the interests of Church and State might be sacrificed to a Jewish minority. Under these circumstances, he seriously appealed to all true friends of the Church to say, if the admission of unbelievers to Parliament was calculated to facilitate legislation on this difficult and delicate subject; bearing in mind that the same principle will force us to admit, if occasion should arise, the representatives of the most degrading forms of Indian idolatry. They had already had the question of the clergy reserves debated in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the

87
measure for their confiscation in a speech of great eloquence. That, in a chosen defender of the Church, was certainly surprising—in a representative for the University of Oxford it was still more wonderful; but he supposed the right hon. Gentleman, having tried his "'prentice hand" on the Church of Canada, would be prepared, with still fewer scruples, to deal with the Church of Ireland. No doubt that object would be greatly facilitated by the admission of additional unbelievers into that House—persons ready to vote away all religious endowments—persons who utterly scorned and denied all that that House held most sacred, who by their faith and law were bound to keep themselves separate and distinct—a nation within a nation, whose firmest hope and dearest belief must be bound up in the destruction of the Christian faith, and the annihilation of all that Christians held most sacred and most dear.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, however much he might differ with the major part of the propositions laid down by the hon. and learned Memher for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger), he concurred fully in the observations with which the hon. and learned Member commenced his speech, when he said it was totally impossible to produce any novelty on this most exhausted subject. At any rate, the hon. and learned Gentleman deserved credit for having introced a novelty into the debate, for he had given a new reading of history, from what, at least, he (Mr. Osborne) had ever read before, when the hon. and learned Gentleman said there were no Jews in this country until the time of Charles II. If he had read history aright, there were many Jews in this country in the time of Oliver Cromwell; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed his researches in history as much as he had in law, he would have known of a very remarkable offer made in the time of Oliver Cromwell—no less than an offer to purchase St. Paul's Cathedral, to turn it into a Jewish synagogue.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: I said there were only twelve Jews here in 1663.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: The hon. and learned Gentleman did say there were no Jews in this country until the time of Charles II., and he ought not to try to
88
throw impediments in the way when his error was being exposed. He maintained that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been as correct in his history as he ought, occupying the position which he did, he would have told the House that in the time of Oliver Cromwell the Jews were so numerous and so rich that they made an offer for the purchase of St. Paul's Cathedral; and in remarking upon the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there were no Jews in England until the reign of Charles II., he was merely giving him credit for having introduced into the debate a novelty for which he was sure the House felt grateful. He confessed he addressed himself to the question with feelings, if not of despair, at least of despondency. It was no very consoling reflection to the advocates of religious equality to consider that for upwards of twenty years this question had been advocated. He believed it was in 1830 that Mr. Grant—all honour to his name!—first introduced it to the House. It had since then been frequently discussed; the principle had always been acknowledged by large majorities of that House, and the leading and most distinguished men on both sides of the House, differing on all other subjects, had echoed one another's sentiments, and had agreed upon this. The power and eloquence of Mackintosh and Macaulay had been responded to by the late Lord George Bentinck and the present right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire Mr. Disraeli. Therefore he said it was not a consoling reflection to the advocates of religious liberty that in 1853 this question was still dragging its slow length along, and the same arguments were used for excluding the Jews from Parliament which possibly were used in the thirteenth century as reasons for banishing the Jews the Kingdom, in the same intolerant spirit, and with some little of the ignorance which might have been displayed in the middle ages. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford had used almost the same terms and the same arguments which another great light of the legal profession used on doing away with the writ de heretico comburendo. The great arguments for burning heretics were advanced in the same terms and in the same manner by Lord Coke; but he little thought to hear, in the year 1853, another great luminary of the law repeat those arguments for preventing Jews taking their seats in Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman adopted

89
the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis)—that the admission of Jews would unchristianise the nation. He must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, was he really serious in making that statement? If the nation would be unchristianised, really it was unchristianised already; it was unchristianised when the Crown admitted Jews to be magistrates and to be sheriffs. Nay, more—London and Greenwich must have been unchristianised when they returned Jewish Members to that House; and the Parliament of England had made great progress in this heathenising process, by voting, as they had done for the last twenty-three years, that Jews ought to be admitted to seats in the Legislature. Could any man believe in his heart that by admitting Jews to that House they actually unchristianised the Legislature? Could hon. Gentlemen be sincere in that argument? If so, they were bound to admit that this country was not a Christian country. If the argument were carried to its legitimate conclusion, there were only two Christian countries in Europe—Spain and Portugal. And they were Christian because they allowed no toleration of any other worship. The House would recollect the question by a right hon. Gentleman as to persecutions in Spain for nonconformity to the religion of that country. If toleration was unchristian, he said there were only two Christian countries in Europe, Spain and Portugal, because there but one sect of religion was allowed. But in this country, where all sects were tolerated, where all modes of religious worship were protected, it was an absolute offence to common sense to say that the admission of the Jews to the Legislature would unchristianise the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that it was necessary to have a declaration of Christianity by every Member entering that House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that, why was he content to leave the declaration at the fag end of an oath which a portion of the Members—Roman Catholics and Quakers—did not take at all? If the hon. and learned Gentleman was sincere, why did he not come down and put a notice on the books of the House that the declaration of Christianity should be made by every Member, not at the tail of a worn-out oath, which he wished to see done away with, but preceding all oaths. He conceived no more
90
solemn farce could be enacted in that House than to see hon. Members led up to that table, and abjuring with a sort of sluggish, desponding manner, knowing the folly they were about to commit—[Cries of "No, no!"] He would not dispute with the hon. Member who had interrupted him, because the hon. Member was, no doubt, not aware that there was no survivor of this Pretender—none of his descendants were in existence. Hon. Members were positively led up to the table to abjure fidelity to a man who had left no descendants, and which they all knew to be a positive absurdity. He, for one, considered that this question ought not to be discussed, as the hon. and learned Member for Stamford had discussed it, on religious grounds, but simply on its political bearings. If the tenets of the Jews or their ecclesiastical polity were dangerous to the State—if they tended to disorganise the institutions of the country—he admitted a case would be made out for their exclusion from the Legislature. But then he said they were bound to submit a Motion upon that subject, and declare that no Jew was qualified to appear on the hustings or to canvass for the suffrages of his fellow-countrymen, and not by a side wind, the result of accidental combination, to debar their taking seats in that House. He never would assent to the proposition that it was necessary to make a religious declaration to pay due regard to civil duties. The hon. and learned Member for Stamford had adverted to the position in which the Archbishop of Dublin had placed this question. He, for one, fully joined in the admiration of the talents of that right rev. Prelate. He did not think, however, it was a question of Jewish disabilities, but rather a question of Christian claims. The question was, were constituencies to be debarred from selecting such men to be their representatives as they might think fit, provided they did not entertain sentiments dangerous to the institutions of the country? Three times had one of the most important constituencies in the country, the City of London, sent an hon. Gentleman to represent them in Parliament. This branch of the Legislature had never denied the claim of the constituency to make that choice; still that hon. Gentleman was not allowed to take his seat, and the constituency was virtually disfranchised by Baron Rothschild not being allowed to take his seat. The question

91
was not so much the claims of the Jew as the rights of the Christian, and by excluding the Jew they were debarring the Christians of their political rights. He turned now, with some pain, to notice the remarks on a previous occasion of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel). Whenever the hon. Member spoke he would be listened to with attention, if only on account of the name he bore. He entertained high feelings of regard for the late right hon. Baronet; and he could not help saying that he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Tamworth with great regret. He thought the hon. Member endeavoured to lower a great question of public principle to a private attack on individuals. With the merits of Baron Rothschild that House had nothing whatever to do. He did not intend to offer one word of observation as to the virtues of Baron Rothschild; but this he would undertake to say—adopting an expression of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford—that when the hon. Member for Tamworth made use of that invidious reflection on the house of Rothschild making loans to foreign countries at usurious interest, he only stated one-half the truth, and what that was they had heard defined by the hon. and learned Member for Stamford. The hon. Member for Tamworth had not only stated but half the truth, but seemed totally ignorant of one-half the case; he came down to that House with the modern cry of religious liberty upon his lips, but with the old feeling of penal restrictions in his heart. The hon. Baronet had referred to the report and evidence of the Juvenile Offenders Committee, in support of his statement that the Jews were more than usually addicted to crime; but when he came to search through that Report he could find no mention of the crimes attributed to the Jews, save an isolated fact spoken to by Mr. Serjeant Adams, that certain Jews were receivers of stolen goods—there was nothing to show that the Jews were remarkable for their bad morals in this country. The hon. Baronet should recollect the name he held, and not condescend to make sweeping assertions without due inquiry; least of all should he sneer at that wealth which was accumulated by the exercise of honest industry. He would turn from the eccentric sallies of the son, to the matured wisdom of the father. What was the opinion
92
of the late Sir Robert Peel? He would quote the words in answer to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford, that religious disabilities were not in the nature of penalties. In 1848 the late Sir Robert Peel said—
"I cannot admit the right of the Legislature to inflict a penalty for mere religious error, because I hold that civil disability partakes of the nature of a penalty. I speak of religious error simply and abstractedly. If you can certainly infer from that religious error dangerous political opinions, and if you have no other mode of guarding against those political opinions except by the administration of a test for the purpose of ascertaining the religious opinions, in that case you may have a right to impose the penalty of exclusion from certain trusts."—[3 Hansard, xcvi. 520.]
Would any one tell him that keeping men from attaining the highest object of their ambition was not in the nature of persecution—that it was not as much a torture as burning? It differed in degree, but in principle it was essentially the same. If they carried out that principle to its legitimate conclusion, wherein, he would ask, was it a less species of persecution than the putting on the yellow badge which Jews in former times were compelled to wear? The yellow badge still remained, and it was for that House to remove that badge by admitting the Jews to all their civil rights. The hon. and learned Member for Stamford had quoted a pamphlet by Hollingsworth to support the statement that the Jews were all intent on going in a body to Palestine. They all knew that emigration was very rife at the present moment, but the last to emigrate were the Jews. Let them remember how the question was treated by foreign States. Unfortunately there were now only three constitutional countries in Europe—Belgium, Sardinia, and Holland—and in all those the Jews had seats in the Legislature the same as Christians. In France and Austria there were no disabilities on account of their religious convictions. And when the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Jews were men of a different nation, who never amalgamated with another people, he was as wrong as he was in his history with regard to Oliver Cromwell. What was the evidence on that point? The Minister of Public Instruction in France (M. Merilhon), in 1830, wrote thus:—
"Since the Constituent Assembly placed the Israelites on a footing with other citizens, they have partaken of our glory and misfortunes. Their blood has flowed on the same fields of battle. Their children have been brought up in

93
the same schools. They have become imbued with the same principles, adopted the same habits, and become the most deserving citizens."
That was the testimony of France; and what was the case in regard to Prussia? Prince Hardenburgh, in an official letter to the Prussian Consul at Hamburgh, dated 1814, bore the highest testimony to the merits of the Jews—the people who the hon. and learned Gentleman said were a separate nation, and were all to go to Palestine. Prince Hardenburgh said—
"The history of the last war against France has proved that, by the most faithful attachment they have rendered themselves worthy of the State which has incorporated them in its bosom. The youth of the Israelite confession have been the brethren in arms of their Christian fellow-citizens. They have also afforded examples of true heroism, of a glorious contempt for the perils of war; and the other Israelite inhabitants, especially the women, have rivalled Christians whenever it was necessary to make sacrifices for their common country."
Such was the evidence against vague declarations and quotations from a pamphlet which he believed no one ever heard of before. The hon. and learned Gentleman also quoted the judgment of Baron Parke in Mr. Salomon's case. He wished he had quoted the judgment of Baron Alderson, who said in effect that it was impossible that the law could be allowed to remain as it was at present. The House, however, should not rest on his testimony. The words were few, and he would read them, leaving the House to put what Baron Alderson said on the subject, though giving a judgment adverse to the rights of Mr. Salomon's, against what the hon. and learned Member for Stamford had quoted:—
"I think it would be more worthy of this country and the Legislature, if they intend to exclude the Jews, to exclude them from privileges, if they are to be excluded at all, by direct enactment, and not merely by the casual operation of a clause intended apparently in its object and origin to apply to an entirely different class of subjects."
Surely when they considered the origin of this phrase—when they considered the pamphlet written by the Jesuit Garnet—
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: I said corrected by the hand of the Jesuit Garnet.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Mr. Baron Alderson quoted it as written by the Jesuit Garnet.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: No; you are mistaken.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Granting
94
that it was corrected by the hand of the Jesuit Garnet, and not written by him, but he believed he (Mr. Osborne) was right, he said so far from the House taking advantage of this pamphlet, corrected by the hand of the Jesuit Garnet, so far from taking advantage of a phrase, intended, not as a weapon against the Jews, but as a defence against Jesuit professors—so far from taking advantage of that phrase, and excluding their Jewish fellow-countrymen from a seat in Parliament—it would be more becoming and more worthy of that House to move a direct enactment, and test the sense of that House and the country on that point. He had not that overweening respect for the Parliaments of George I. and George II. that he thought they should cling to obsolete prejudices and unreasoning phrases. He thought they ought at once to simplify these oaths; they ought to carry out the recommendations of the Commission which sat in 1845 on religious disabilities, and not to seek to split up the House into theological brigades. The noble Lord the Member for Grantham (Lord W. Graham) seemed horrified at the idea of a Jewish brigade; but this was not the way to avoid it. He held that allegiance to their Queen and the interests of their common country, should be their ruling principle, and that the House should not be split up into theological or causistical sections. If they were Christians, they were bound to do as they would be done by; and when the hon. and learned Member for Stamford quoted Hollingsworth and other obscure writers, he would take the liberty to quote Bishop Newton, who said, "It is more fitting to strive to be the dispensers of the mercies of heaven, rather than the executioners of the cruelty of man." That was a noble sentiment, worthy of a Christian Prelate, and he hoped the House would echo that sentiment, and that they would pass this Bill by no miserable majority, but by a majority worthy of them and worthy of the times in which they lived.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, the speech of his hon. Friend who had just sat down was not so sound as that by which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) introduced this subject, and in which he said that it was impossible to separate religion from politics. They could not leave their religion with their great coat in the lobby, and be political when they came into that House; and then go back to the lobby again and there assume their religion. He admitted

95
that on political grounds there was not one single argument to be brought against the Bill. There was no fear of the Jews forming any foreign allegiance. They cared not one rush for any Christian community. They would not be at the trouble of supporting any one Protestant sect or of pulling down another. He was speaking of those who were faithful among them. They were looking forward to the time when they should trample upon the Gentiles like ashes under the soles of their feet. They cared very little about principle, but a great deal about interest. There was not a single point that he knew about them which would make their entrance into that House a subject of the slightest political importance. But, in the first place, Parliament was a high Christian court. It was said, indeed, that this was a religious question, and therefore unfit to be discussed in that House. Then, if it was a religious question, and if the House was not fit to entertain a discussion upon it, the question itself was not fit to be introduced into that House. This question was essentially a religious question, and they could not upon any grounds separate a religious character from it. He said this upon the highest Christian authority—the Pope. ["Hear, hear!"] He was the highest Christian authority, whether they acknowledged him or not. The Pope said that he was the vicar of Christ. He is right. So is every bishop. So is the Sovereign of this country, teste the Pope himself. One of the earliest popes who ever wrote to an English Sovereign counsels him to take care that his people, meaning the laity, should be taught the Scriptures, "out of which," he says, "take your law, and therewith, by the permission of God, govern your kingdom of England, for therein you are Christ's Vicar—vicarius Christi." In a subsequent letter to the same Sovereign, he uses the same words. Now, not only is a Sovereign the Vicar of Christ, but so is the head of every family, which is the meaning of the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger), who said there was none over the legislator, and there is none over the Sovereign in his Kingdom, nor over the head of any private family which is consecrated by the sacrament of marriage. Hear, then, what the law of the Church says to those who are in this high position. It declares concerning the conduct to be pursued towards the Jew—and it is the universal Christian law—not the middle ages, but the young ages—from
96
the earliest time the Church declares that you shall not live in the same house with them, you shall not dine or take tea with them—and a dozen other prohibitions, which are all put down, but which I need not trouble the House with; and it is added, in these said recited cases, to communicate with the Jew seems to be mortal sin. The Sovereign of this country dare not, among his counsellors, take any one who will not bow the knee to Him to whom every knee shall bow; and whether this House pass it or not, it is the duty of the Sovereign to refuse to give his assent. But you turn round and say that every man has a right to worship God as he pleases. He denied it—["Hear, hear!"]—he denied it point blank. He was glad of that cry of "Hear" from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The declaration generally came from gentlemen who were called Bible Christians. Now, he should like to know where they found in the Bible authority for the statement that a man was sent into the world to worship God as he himself pleased. From his small knowledge of the Scriptures, he knew that the way in which a man should worship God was accurately prescribed, and that no Christian dare worship Him but in that one way. Moreover, he found that the first gentleman who took his own way in this matter, and was what might be called an Independent or Free Churchman—was Cain. It was very fine to talk of the universal equality of man; but this was mere unsanctified benevolence. He had been struck by a passage he read not long ago, in which it was said that the time was when the nations of the earth were bound together in unity with Rome for their universal centre, while the talisman which bound them was credo. All this was changed. True, we were still bound together, but our centre was the Stock Exchange, and the talisman which governed us was not credo, but credit. It, is not credo—no one says I believe in anything; but credit, he believes some one else. The Bill before the House originated in these circumstances:—The rabble of London, partly out of the love of mischief, partly from contempt of the House of Commons, and partly from a desire to give a slap in the face of Christianity, elected a Jew. If you can with safe consciences admit him, do so; he, with a safe conscience, could not and would not.
MR. E. BALLsaid, that he believed he was doing that which was most in accord-

97
ance with the Christian doctrines, and was most calculated to do God's work, when he supported this Bill. He could not agree with an hon. Member who said that it was not persecution to keep a Jew out of that House; for he considered that it was just as much persecution to withhold from any man that which was his due, as to take from him that which he had. No class of persons, compared with their numbers, had done so much to advance this country in wealth, in commercial and monetary transcendence, and in all that constituted national greatness, as the Jews had done; and they had, therefore, as strong a claim as any other portion of our people to share our national privileges. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had addressed the House first that night, said that the atheist was also excluded by this oath. But that was not the fact; for while the atheist, without any misgiving of conscience or fear of God, took the oath and was admitted, the more conscientious Jew was alone excluded. Inferences unfavourable to the Jewish claims had been drawn from the occupations followed by portions of that people. But the fact was, that Christians had oppressed the Jews, prevented their trafficking like other men, deprived them of their municipal rights, and had thus driven them to resort to cunning, craft, and subtlety, and to exercise the ingenuity which they possessed above other men in doing what was disreputable. It was said, again, that the admission of Jews to that House would unchristianise it. But if that were so, then every time that a Jew went into a jury-box, took his seat as an alderman, or voted as an elector, he unchristianised the body in whose deliberations or actions he took part. It had been well remarked by an able writer, that it was the hard fate of Jews to be persecuted alike by infidels and Christians; they were hated by Voltaire and Gibbon because they were living evidence of the truth of the Old Testament; and they were detested by Christians because of their (the Christians') faith in the New Testament. He was told that they were God's people, and that we ought not to interfere with his dispensations towards them; he admitted that, but he did not find that he was anywhere appointed to carry out these dispensations. After giving this subject the best consideration possible, he believed that he should best carry out the principles of Christianity, and act in a manner the most acceptable to God,
98
by supporting the measure before the House.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANEsaid, that he would adduce as an authority in favour of the vote he should give on this occasion, the work of Mr. Gladstone, entitled, The Church in its Relations to the State—a less exalted person, but a more consistent politician, than the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). In that book it was declared that "conformity to the religion of the State was an indispensable qualification for office;" and one reason why it was so was stated to be, because otherwise they could not join in a supplication to God for guidance in the task imposed upon them. He felt the more called upon to make this statement, because the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) had said that the oath taken by a Member of Parliament was a solemn farce. He did not consider it so when he took it, and he believed that the hon. Member, in the opinion he had expressed, occupied a very isolated position. They had had an example of the value of these oaths only the other day, when, after the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) was pleased to indulge in language towards the Church of England such as no Member who had taken the oath was warranted in doing, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) got up and said that, so long as the necessity for taking that oath existed, he could not join in the expression of such sentiments towards the National Church. In the Bill now before the House it was proposed that the oath which had acted in this manner as a check upon this hon. Member, should be taken away. It had been said that the Jew had a right to come into the Legislature; but this was answered in a few words by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) in 1848, when he said that a Jew could not be a citizen of England, pledged to sustain its interests as paramount, without forfeiting the noblest expectations of a restored nationality. The Jew, not being an Englishman, had no right to a seat in the English Legislature. It was, indeed, said that, being admitted to act as jurors and magistrates, they should also be allowed to take their seats as Members of Parliament; but was there no difference between framing laws and carrying them out? Why were they asked now to alter the oaths of Members of Parliament? It was formerly said that the reason was to be found in the

99
fact of the connexion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) with the City of London, which had three times returned a Jew to that House. But it was no longer a question personal to that noble Lord; it had become a Cabinet question; he supposed because, as members of every religious denomination were in the present Cabinet, they thought it right that the Jews should be represented there, too. On a former occasion the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had appealed to Gentlemen on that side of the House, and had begged them to consider what they were, and what they were about to vote for. He might, were it becoming in him to do so, make similar appeals, with Hansard and bygone division lists in his hands, to hon. Members on the other side of that House, and noble Lords in the other, by whom it was said that this measure was to be carried. He trusted that Gentlemen returned by Protestant constituencies to uphold the Protestant constitutions of the country, would not be led away by specious and subtle arguments to support a Bill whose real effect would be to unchristianise a Legislature which had existed up to the present time on Christian principles.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, I am anxious to make some few observations to the House, in consequence of the speech which has been addressed to it by my hon. and learned Friend who opened this discussion. Now it is not my wish to go into that part of the question to which he alluded with regard to the history of these oaths, the intention with which they were originally devised, and the changes in the mode of their application which have since resulted. That question has been decided by a Court of Law. In the case of Mr. Alderman Salomons, the whole question was set at rest. We have now to decide, not whether under the existing oath the Member for the City of London can take his seat, but upon the question of policy, whether this, the one sole and last restriction upon religious liberty, is any longer to be retained. If, therefore, I make any allusion to the history of the oath, I would do it merely to call the attention of the House to the state of confusion in which this question has got, through the changes which have been made from time to time in the oaths administered at this table, and the distinction made in these oaths with respect to the religious profession of the persons taking them. What says my hon. and
100
learned Friend (Sir F. Thesiger)? He says that in the Act 7 James I., "for the better discovery of Popish recusants," the words at the end of the oath were added, as they were considered to be more binding than any others, and to have strengthened that part of the oath in which all mental reservation was disowned, by the addition, "I take it heartily, on the true faith of a Christian." That portion of the oath, which has been decided to be the substance of the oath, and not merely its form, has now passed entirely to the oath put to Protestants, and does not occur at all in the oath put to Catholics. There sits, under the gallery, an eminent merchant of the City of London, returned three times by upwards of 7,000 voters—by persons whom I will not designate as the rabble of the City of London—but by persons accustomed to exercise their franchises in favour of men of no small eminence, and who have on several occasions sent him to Parliament in defiance of those restrictions. And the proposal of my noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and of the Government, is not what was stated just now by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat (Lord A. Vane), and by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Thesiger), who, on this occasion, no doubt unwittingly, but still grossly, misstated an argument of Archbishop Whately. We do not propose that, in consequence of that election, the existing law should be broken through and set aside; but we take it as evidence of a state of feeling and of public opinion that makes it prudent in this House to take this question into consideration, with a view to alter a law that presses upon a large portion of our fellow-subjects. Archbishop Whately never said that if a constituency elected a person not qualified, that therefore he should sit. Although a legislator, he does not yet consider himself above the law, and he would not propose any such infraction of our law. What Archbishop Whately said was, that the law as it stood was a restriction on the power of the electors who were Christians to choose what man they desired, and that therefore the law should be altered. It was admitted, I think almost even by my hon. and learned Friend, that the exclusion of the Jews by this oath was accidental. He urged, indeed, and I think with truth, that at that time the Jews were admissible, not because the Legislature wished to admit them, but be-

101
cause it never took cognisance of the question. But, still, the exclusion is now accidental; that is, it was directed against others; but now, by the change of circumstances, it excludes them. The Earl of Shaftesbury himself admitted that, and even went further, for he said that, if that accidental exclusion did not exist, if the bar was not there, he, for one, would not propose to rear it against the Jews. Well, but if it is a question of principle, why should we shrink from the course? If it is right that the Jew should not be admitted to Parliament, why should not a barrier be erected against him supposing that it did not now exist. In the year 1678 Mr. Penn was called before a Committee of the House of Commons for refusing to take the oaths, and in the course of the discussion he used these words, which are worth reading, because there is a similarity between his position then, and the position of the Jews now:—
"We think it hard that, though we deny, in common with you, those doctrines of Rome so zealously protested against, yet that we should be so unhappy as to suffer, and that with extreme severity, by laws made only against the maintenance of those doctrines which we do so deny."
I apprehend the Jews do that to an extent to satisfy the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).
"We choose no suffering, for God knows what we have already suffered, and how many sufficient and trading families have been reduced to great poverty by it. We think ourselves a useful people; we are sure we are a peaceful people; yet, if we must suffer, let us not suffer as Popish recusants, but as Protestant Dissenters."
The grievance, so far as the Quakers were concerned, has been long since removed—not, however, so long since, for I can recollect the occasion of its being done; but with regard to the exclusion of those other persons, which is equally accidental, the full effect of the oath is maintained. At this moment it has given rise to a case of grievance in the metropolis of the Empire; and if you continue to be deaf to the entreaties of those classes of religionists, and if you refuse to remove the disabilities under which they labour, depend upon it that you will have more cases of the same description. You will have more cases of the election of Jews than you would have if the Jews were admitted to Parliament, because the persons who are enthusiastic advocates of religious liberty will elect Jews to Parliament; and simply as a protest against the degradation that is
102
placed upon that portion of society. It was said by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) that if this were merely a question of policy, there would not be one word of argument to be urged against it. I will not enter into the religious grounds to which he referred, and as to the arguments I confess I am unable to understand them; but with regard to the question of policy, I ask, Is it for creed you exclude the Jew? I think not, because I observe that hon. Members are unwilling to pledge themselves to the opinion or to the principle that you have a right to exclude men simply on account of their religious belief; but then you say that you exclude the Jew on account of his nationality. You admit that no Englishman can be excluded on the ground of religious belief; but then you say the Jew is not an Englishman. But if a man professing the Jewish creed is not an Englishman, to what country does he belong? He may become naturalised—he may be an Englishman born and bred—and where can you point out the flaw in his title to be called an Englishman? You refuse no service from him. You raise taxes from him. You not only admit of, but insist on, his acceptance of civic office. You exclude him, you say, on account of his nationality, his origin, and his race; but if that be true, and if you say there is an inherent nationality about the Jew—about his race and about his origin—why do you not exclude a converted Jew? His race, his origin, and his blood are the same; and on what principle did you allow a converted Jew to sit in Parliament for several years? You admit in this debate that the Jew can be naturalised—that he may be an Englishman born and bred—and you attempt to prove that he has another nationality; but there is no such thing as a Jewish nation—and I say you have given no proof of the assertion, that although he may be formally and legally naturalised—that although he may be an Englishman, and although you may exact English duties from him, he is only "amongst us," but not "with us," and that he has no sympathy for the nation in which he lives. Is it the fact, is it true, that the Jew has never been absorbed into the people of the nation amongst whom he lives? How have we treated the Jews? Have we welcomed them when they came to us from the different countries of Europe, so as to make them sympathise warmly with the practices of this country? What

103
is the history of the Jew in this country? It is a history of persecution. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It is a history of fine, imprisonment, and persecution. [Cries of "No, no!"] No, not now; but you have no right to claim upon your side of the argument the merit of the relaxations which have been made in his favour, because they were not made with your sanction. You must recollect that for many years the Jews were in a state of degradation, not only in this country, but throughout Europe; and has there been no change in their conduct, or in the Jews' character, since the laws against them were relaxed? Has there not been a better appreciation, on the part of the Jew, of the lights of Christianity, in consequence of the altered arrangements between him and the Government and Legislature under which he lives? Is it not admitted that the Jews have cast off many of those antisocial doctrines that they formerly maintained? The English Jews have shown their wish to be absorbed into the country in which they live; to bear their part of the public burdens, and to give their services in return for the privileges to which British subjects are entitled; but at the same time have we done all that is necessary on our part? It is true that you have admitted the Jews to civic offices; and I do not know on what principle my hon. and learned Friend opposite does not move for the repeal of the Act by which they are enabled to fill those civic offices. He laid down as his opinion that you should admit the Jews to civil rights; he said that you ought to give him personal liberty, and the rights of possessing personal property; but if that is to be all you are to give, will you be giving him the full rights of citizenship? Hear the opinion of another lawyer on the subject; here is what Lord Bacon says:—
"It seemeth admirable unto me to consider with what a measured hand and with how true proportions our law doth impart and confer the several degrees of this benefit. The degrees are four. The first degree of persons, as to this purpose, that the law takes knowledge of, is an alien enemy; that is, such a one as is born under the obeisance of a prince or State that is in hostility with the King of England. … The second person is an alien friend, that is, such a one as is born under the obeisance of such a king or State as is confederate with the King of England, or at least not in war with him. … The third person is a denizen, using the word properly, for sometimes it is confounded with a natural-born subject. … The fourth and last degree is a natural-born subject, which is evermore by birth, or by Act of Parliament,
104
and he is complete and entire. For in the law of England there is nil ultra, there is no more subdivision or more subtle division beyond these: and therein it seemeth to me that the wisdom of the law, as I said, is to be admired both ways, both because it distinguisheth so far, and because it doth not distinguish farther. For I know that other laws do admit more curious distinction of this privilege; for the Romans had, besides jus civitis, which answereth to naturalisation, jus suffragii. For, although a man were naturalised to take lands and inheritance, yet he was not enabled to have a voice at passing of laws, or at election of officers. And yet, farther, they have jus petitions or jus honorum. For, though a man had voice, yet he was not capable of honour and office. But these be the devices commonly of popular or free estates, which are jealous whom they take into their number, and are unfit for monarchies; but by the law of England, the subject that is natural born hath a capacity or ability to all benefits whatsoever."
But even supposing you are right—which I do not admit—I want to know on what principle you can justify the admission of Jews to the offices they now hold. Surely there may be more danger to the State in admitting a Jew to a position where he is employed in administering an executive office—where the decision he makes affects the rights of Christians—where he administers oaths to Christians, and can act by his own will, untempered by the contemporaneous action of any other man on the subject, than in admitting him into this House. Compare that with the position of a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion in this House. Is Parliament to be told that his presence will unchristanise the Legislature and the Nation? Is it not idle to suppose that the presence of two or three gentlemen of that persuasion could make any difference in this House? My hon. and learned Friend says there are offices from which they should be excluded; but what does my hon. and learned Friend mean by saying that he would limit their rights to the possession of personal property, and the right of personal liberty, and nothing else?—
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: I said, civil rights.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: We are advancing in the argument then; for once admit their fitness and right to possess those rights, and you have no right to use the argument that they should not be admitted to a share in the legislation of the country. I am willing to admit that those who maintain the policy of admitting the Jews to Parliament, labour under a great disadvantage; there are religious prejudices arrayed against us, while we have only ab-

105
stract right to sustain us. We cannot make an impression upon the Legislature by influences that are brought to bear upon them on other occasions. Their numbers are few and insignificant; we cannot talk of them as Lord Plunkett did of the Roman Catholics; we cannot threaten you with the ira leonum vincla recusandum; the Jews cannot say, as Mr. O'Connell used to say, "we are eight millions." There is no necessity, if our foreign relations should become unsettled, of sending "a message of peace" to the Jews. Those who entertain this question, are therefore bound to consider it more generously than they would otherwise do. You have the whole force and weight of prejudice in your favour, but that will ultimately fail. At present what happens? The most eminent men at your own side, one by one, leave you on this question. Lord George Bentinck, who was never afraid of defending his extreme opinions, left you on this subject, and voted against you: the most successful and brilliant orator you have is on this question altogether against you; and the young man of greatest promise amongst your ranks has now for the first time opposed you on this subject. That is not all—yesterday there was a meeting of Convocation in Oxford to address to this House a petition against the Bill of my noble Friend; and for the first time in the House of Convocation there was resistance to such a proposition. ["Oh, oh!"] It would appear that the hon. Gentlemen opposite have a worse opinion of the University of Oxford than it deserves. They thought that the University was impervious to truth or justice; but I am happy to inform them it is not the case, for yesterday, when this petition was moved in Convocation, a discussion took place, and thirty-one voted in the minority against seventy-three—the minority including seven of the Hebdomadal Board. I am so far from thinking that religion has nothing to do with politics that I believe unless religion be the animating spirit to guide us in all our measures—unless we infuse into our measures the real spirit of Christianity, our legislation will be nothing worth, and the prosperity of the country will pass away. But when you talk of religion, there is another principle which you are constantly confounding with it, I mean sectarianism. But if Parliament is to be a representation of the whole mass of the community, then I say that in a free country like this, with great licence in matters of reli-
106
gious debate, in a country in which religious bodies are divided into innumerable sects, this House must reflect their different opinions, or it is not an accurate representation of the country. You do not say that you unchristianise the Bar, or that you unchristianise the Bench, by admitting Jews, and you cannot say that the nation is unchristianised by their existence in it; and the great truth which, after all our changes of constitution, has now became an axiom is, that no British-born subject should be excluded from his political rights on account of his religion. My hon. and learned Friend says that, for his part, he does not attach any importance to the argument which has been frequently used in this House, that by doing away with the restrictions on the Jews we are setting ourselves against the intentions of the Divine power. I think almost everybody will agree with me that, whatever we intend to do, we cannot affect to be the instruments of Divine power. We have no right to call ourselves the instruments of those great dispensations which are effected by means which are unknown and incomprehensible—still less have we a right to arrogate such a position to ourselves, for the purpose of protracting the severities or punishments which the Almighty may have decreed against our fellow creatures. I should lament if any Gentleman in this House, from such a principle as that, chose to set himself up as a systematic persecutor of the Jews. I know many Gentlemen object to the word "persecution" being used in consequence of the refusal of political rights, and it is said to be an exaggeration of the term; but it is not, for you still persecute, though in a different manner from that formerly adopted. I believe there is a more enlightened spirit abroad; but, at the same time, I cannot conceal from myself the fact that it is owing to changed manners, and a certain squeamishness on this point, that we are obliged to substitute political disabilities for burnings, and so on—just as we have substituted a more cautious and less destructive method of resenting an insult than our forefathers did, who ran a man through the body, or shot him with a pistol because he took the wall of him. It is the change of manners that has made us more scrupulous and nice on these points; but we must not in our optimism think we have entirely lost the spirit that animated them. It is true that we cannot carry out our wishes in the same manner,

107
and must confine ourselves to small restrictions and petty annoyances; but there is not less of the sign of an intention to persecute, and it is not the less accepted as the declaration of a desire to do so. An hon. Member has objected to the Bill, because he says it will remove from the oaths we take the profession of Christianity. I don't doubt that he has formed that opinion from observing that a large number of the petitions lately presented to this House on the subject are all identically to the same effect, and bear the same character. Not far from this House there is a democratic club formed with a view to influence the decisions of the House by external agitation, and they have issued a petition signed by a number of persons, now amounting to about 10,000, in which it is stated that Her Majesty's Government are about to remove the profession of Christianity from the oath taken by Members of Parliament before they take their seats. Now, in the first place, the profession of Christianity is not required in every case before a Member takes his seat. It is not made by the Roman Catholic Members; and if you read the Roman Catholic oath, you will see there is no profession of Christianity required by it. I say there is no intention by this Bill to annul the profession in the oath we take. I would wish to see those oaths greatly simplified; but in the morbid state of feeling on this subject, who would be the man bold enough to encounter the amount of prejudice that would be levelled at his head if he attempted to do so? It was only the other day that the oath we take staggered a noble Lord in the House of Lords, who refused for some time to take his seat in that House because he could not conscientiously swear to a particular statement laid down in that oath; and he was obliged to have recourse to the subtilty of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to relieve his conscience. The petition to which I have referred prays, "that the House will not consent to sacrifice the Christian character of this Christian nation." If that is to be done by omitting the profession of Christianity, it does not exist already in one of the oaths that is not attempted to be touched, and I think that an argument founded upon a statement of such little accuracy cannot long take hold of the public mind. I do not believe the tendency of this measure is in the slightest degree to weaken Christianity in this House or in the country.
108
If I thought so for one moment, God knows I Would not give my consent to it; but I support it because, on the contrary, I believe that by passing this measure we shall set an example to all the countries of the world that our profession of Christianity is not a mere theory we hold, but a practice we apply; that we do not seek to use it as a means of annoyance or disturbance to others, but, on the contrary, that we are impressed with the true spirit of religion, from which freedom is deducible as a dogma, and that we believe that, so far from religion and liberty being antagonistic, they are united; and in this country, professing, as the great majority does, the Protestant faith—a faith which, I maintain, has a political signification as well as a religious, and that political signification is liberty of conscience—I say we will show to all the nations of the earth that we do not look upon religion merely as a weapon to be used against those who differ from us in theology, but that we are determined to carry out in our legislation the spirit of the Gospel, which is a spirit of mercy and of love, and of good will amongst men.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had done great injustice to the hon. and learned Member who had opened this debate (Sir F. Thesiger); who certainly had not made those charges of indifference to religion against those with whom he did not agree in opinion, which had been freely indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were couched in mild language, and were set off by a gentle manner, but they were intended to convey imputations against others of as grave a character as could well be supposed. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the people of this country held those opinions as matters of principle, why did the right hon. Gentleman denounce that principle as a religious prejudice? That was not a very likely mode of changing the convictions of Gentlemen who were as conscientious as himself. The right hon. Gentleman also went on to designate the religion of the Members of that House as sectarianism; but if they were to admit persons of every faith into that House, be they Jews, Mahommedans, atheists, or anything else, what was to become of their common Christianity, and where were they to derive the principles which were to form the basis of the legislation of that House? The right hon. Gentleman had asserted

109
that public opinion was changing upon this question, and instanced several Members of that House upon that (the Opposition) side, who had either always held the same opinions upon this subject, or had changed their original opinions upon it. But were the views of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this measure making progress as concerned the votes of that House? Why, the last Parliament supported a measure of this kind by a larger majority than the noble Lord had succeeded in obtaining upon the introduction of this Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman took them for evidence of this growth of public opinion to the University of Oxford. Now, it was not very remarkable, considering the opinions held by one of the representatives of that learned body, that an attempt should have been made to create a diversion in favour of this Bill at the late meeting of the Convocation of the University; and the right hon. Gentleman surely did not derive any very great force from the fact that it was impossible to get thirty-one gentlemen to vote in a different manner from the seventy-three other members of the Convocation. Therefore he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have called that witness into the box, seeing how little the testimony was worth. The right hon. Gentleman had thought it worthy of him to affix the term (which was, perhaps, quite complimentary on his own side of the House)—the term "democratic" upon a society which he said congregated somewhere in that neighbourhood, and circulated petitions upon this matter. He (Mr. Henley) did not exactly know to what the right hon. Gentleman alluded; but if any society circulated petitions they would not be signed if people did not approve of them; and it came rather ill from the right hon. Gentleman, considering with whom he was now associated, to talk of the circulation of petitions, for his own side of the House were much greater adepts at the trade of getting up petitions than the other side claimed to be. But what were the real merits of this question? It had been argued on the other side as if every man had an abstract right to enter that House without any qualification whatever; and it had been charged upon those who said in broad language that the qualification of being or professing to be a Christian was necessary to enable a Member to take his seat in that House, that they showed a persecuting spirit. The right hon. Gentleman,
110
in his studied peroration, did not hesitate to say that the opponents of this Bill, were it not for the change that had taken place in the manners of the times, would be ready to go back to the fires of Smithfield, and would burn people on account of their religion. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the profession of Christianity was not required from the Roman Catholic Members of that House on taking their seats. Now, he (Mr. Henley) very much doubted the accuracy of that statement. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a Roman Catholic did not call himself a Christian? Was that the right hon. Gentleman's enlarged Christianity? The right hon. Gentleman knew that every Gentleman presenting himself at that table could not take the Roman Catholic oath unless he declared himself to be a Roman Catholic, nor could he take that oath except upon the New Testament. He (Mr. Henley) did not regard this as a political but as a religious question. The right hon. Gentleman might call that prejudice if he liked, but such was his opinion. If anything more than another completely refuted all the arguments of the other side, it was this very Bill itself; because how could it be consistently maintained that a person not being a Christian was competent to enter that House, and to make laws affecting the Church and the religion of this country, and yet that he was not competent to advise the Crown upon such matters? The restraint which this Bill imposed upon a Jew from giving advice to the Crown, in certain specified instances, was, in his (Mr. Henley's) mind, just as great an exclusion and as great a persecution as was the refusal to admit the Jew into that House. Surely the making of laws that were to bind the whole community, and to bind the persons who had to give advice to the Crown, was a much more solemn and more important function than the office of giving advice to the Crown, which might or might not be followed. And when it was said that they permitted the Jews to hold the office of magistrate, his answer was that a magistrate had only to administer the law, and if he did wrong there was a tribunal which might be appealed to to set him right; whereas those who were entrusted with the power of making laws were subject to no control but their own conscience, and hence the necessity of imposing these oaths. Having, therefore, seen no reason to change the opinions he had formerly en-

111
tertained upon this subject, he must still vote against the second reading of this Bill.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, after two nights of debate upon a Motion which I had the honour to introduce, I trust the House will allow me to give some answer to the arguments which have been used against the proposition which I then brought forward. Before doing so I may be allowed to mention a matter which is certainly personal to myself. It was raised in the discussion which took place upon the last night of debate with regard to my position in respect to this question. It was represented by an hon. Member—following, I have no doubt, what he had learnt out of doors—that I had introduced this question solely from a regard for the constituents whom I represent, who have elected a Jew for the purpose of sitting in this House. Sir, it so happens that before there was any question of the election of Baron Rothschild, I was solicited by the Jews to undertake this question; and if I am asked why they so solicited me, I can only say that I had always taken a part upon questions of this kind—that I had spoken upon the second reading of a Bill which was introduced to this House by Sir Robert Grant, as far back as the year 1833 or 1834—and it so happened, likewise, that I had spoken upon a question of a similar nature a little before the time (I believe in the year 1846) when the members of the Jewish persuasion requested me undertake this subject. Sir, in a similar manner, many years ago, I was asked by the Protestant Dissenters to undertake to bring forward a Bill for the removal of the disabilities which were imposed upon them by the Test and Corporation Act. I imagine that the Protestant Dissenters thus applied to me for the same reason. I had no personal interest in that question, any more than I have a personal interest in this; but feeling a very strong regard for any class of persons who are excluded by what I think unjust restrictions, when called upon by those who were suffering under such a grievance to undertake the advocacy of their cause, I could not refuse to do so. Sir, with respect to the argument upon this question, in reference to one point at least, I think, we have now pretty nearly come to a unanimous agreement; so that only one point now remains to be touched upon. We are all pretty nearly agreed upon the historical question as to the introduction of the oath we are now considering. The hon. and learned Gentleman op-
112
posite (Sir F. Thesiger) concurs with me that the excluding words in the oath were not introduced for the purpose of shutting out the Jews, but for another and a different purpose, namely, that of putting a more stringent test upon the Roman Catholics. I am quite willing to concede, on the other hand, that if it had been proposed at that time to admit the Jews into Parliament, the Parliament of that day would not have permitted them to take their seats in this House. But I think the ground that would have been then taken to justify their exclusion would not have been a religious ground, but would have been the objection that they were aliens—the objection which was afterwards taken so late as the reign of William III., as the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated. I do not contend, then, that the Parliament of that day, if this question had been brought before them, would not have excluded the Jews. What I contend for is this, that in point of fact Parliament never did introduce any declaration or test to set up a religious bar for the exclusion of the Jews. Therefore, it remains for us to consider now, not whether we shall remove a bar which has been deliberately set up in order to exclude the Jews from Parliament, but whether we shall remove a bar that was established for a different purpose, and which now by accident, as it were, tends to the exclusion of the Jew. That, I believe, is the whole of the historical branch of the question, upon which there is now very little difference of opinion. Well, then, Sir, if I were to take the opinions of those who oppose this Motion—such as the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond)—I should say, also, that I think there can be very little difference between us upon the political grounds of this question; because the hon. Gentleman admits that there are no political reasons whatever to warrant the exclusion of the Jew. Upon this point I think the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, taking a ground much weaker than that of the hon. Member for West Surrey, totally failed to show that upon political considerations you can exclude the Jew, because all the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman urged upon this part of the subject go much more in favour of the exclusion of other persons belonging to the denominations dissenting from the Established Church, than for the exclusion of the Jews, because the class of questions to which he refers are much more likely to meet with opposition in this House

113
from those who differ from the Established Church than from the Jews. Take the Union with Scotland, which introduced the Presbyterians into this House. All questions with regard to episcopacy and episcopal authorities are matters upon which, according to the principles of the right hon. Gentleman, the Presbyterians are not fit to decide—they are opposed to episcopacy altogether, and, according to his argument, they ought not to be allowed to sit in this House. Then take the case of questions affecting the maintenance of the Protestant Church or the Protestant religion; the Roman Catholic Members of this House have no sympathy with any Bills or any Motions that may be introduced into this House on that subject, nor even with the maintenance of the law as it now exists, and the argument, if it be good for anything, would go to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics. But when we come to the case of the Jews, there are but very few questions indeed upon which they would feel an interest contrary to that of the majority of the country. The question of the observance of the Sabbath has been referred to—that is the only question on which the Jews might be opposed to Christian institutions; but I hardly think it is one that would ever lead to discussion in this House, and I cannot see that they could make any great progress if they introduced any Bill upon the subject of the observance of the Sabbath. Well, then, the question is simply reduced to this, that there is a difference of religious opinion—it is on account of the religious error of the Jews that we are asked to maintain their exclusion from this House. Now, Sir, upon that question I feel that it is too late in the day to argue. The proposition that on the ground of their religious opinions on account of the wide difference between them and the Christians, the Jews ought to be excluded by a Christian Legislature, proceeds upon a principle upon which I cannot any longer argue, and towards which I certainly have the strongest antipathy. My belief is, that the imposing of a penalty, the imposing of a disability upon a man because he is of a different religion, is in principle exactly the same as imposing further penalties—the same as imposing fine and imprisonment, and even inflicting the punishment of death itself. There is a great difference in point of severity, no doubt; but my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) pointed out,
114
in his admirable speech, that there is no difference in principle between the persecutions that prevailed in former centuries, and a disability like the present. In point of principle, those who condemn the Madiai to imprisonment on account of their religious faith are not doing otherwise, nor acting upon any other principle, than those who exclude the Jews from Parliament. This is undoubtedly—as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said—this is a question of principle. I admit that there is a principle in opposition to this measure, but it is a principle which, for my own part, I cannot distinguish from the principle of religious persecution. Well then, I say, here are two principles opposed to each other; and hon. Gentlemen must take their stand upon either the one or the other. If they take their stand upon the one principle, it is the principle upon which all persecution has been justified, upon which all penalties have been imposed, and which has led to the dreadful scenes of civil war, of dissension, and of desolation, which have been witnessed from the earliest history of the world down to the present time. The other principle is the principle which has gradually grown as civilisation has extended, which tends to peace, which tends to make men love one another, which induces them to live harmoniously in their families, which induces them to live in concord with the State, which leaves every man in the possession and independent exercise of his own religious convictions; and which thereby removing all penalties, removing all disabilities, removing all punishment from the profession of faith, does, I believe, conduce more than the severest inflictions, more than the fire and the rack, more than the most solemn oaths and declarations, to the diffusion of just opinion, and to the prevalence and supremacy of truth. It is because I glory in those opinions—it is because I am not indifferent to the triumphs of Christianity, but because I believe that Christianity will triumph in the greatest liberty and amidst diversity of opinions, it is upon these grounds that I hope that that triumph will be aided by the removal of the last of those disabilities.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as one who had long taken a deep interest in the subject, and who conscientiously opposed the measure submitted to the House, he could not sit silent under the imputation cast by the noble Lord, who, deliberately

115
reaffirming the opinion of his Colleague who preceded him, had accused of per secution every man who would maintain the profession of Christianity as a qualification for that House. The noble Lord had assumed as the basis of his argument, that no peculiarity of religious opinion ought to disqualify any man for any civil or political office or function, and said that this was a religious question, and that those who voted against this measure would be guilty of religious persecution. But if so, how would the noble Lord justify the restrictions he proposed in this Bill—the exclusion of every Jew, however eminent, from the "office of Guardian, or Justice, or Regent of the United Kingdom," or Lord High Chancellor? That was "persecution," according to the noble Lord's own definition. Why did the noble Lord propose to forbid a Jew to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? Why did the noble Lord, by the provisions of his Bill, forbid a Jew to hold any office in the Ecclesiastical Courts, or take part in the administration of the Universities? The noble Lord had condemned all such exclusions as "persecution." The noble Lord had either condemned the provisions of his own Bill, or his own Bill condemned the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had been for five years proposing Bills for the admission of the Jews, not only to that House, but to these very offices; and if it took him five years to discover that they were unfit for admission to these offices—that their admission to these offices would be dangerous to our institutions, why were Members now to take his opinion in preference to their own conscientious convictions that it was dangerous to the interests of the State that laws should be made by Jews for a Christian country? The Secretary at War referred to the case of Mr. Pease, as though the claims of the Quakers, who had been admitted to the House, were analogous to those of the Jews; but Mr. Pease declared that he held all the doctrines of the Church of England, except on matters of discipline. Mr. Pease made that declaration in his evidence before the Committee on Oaths, which sat in 1850; to which he begged to refer hon. Members who doubted that assertion. There could therefore be no analogy between the cases of Mr. Pease and of Baron Rothschild, for the former had declared himself emphatically a Chris-
116
tian, and the latter avowed himself no less honestly a Jew. The Secretary at War said that the exclusion of the avowed unbeliever in Christ was the last miserable remnant of religious intolerance upon the Statute-book. It was the barrier between the Christianity of the House and the introduction of down-right atheism; for when the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill said that if the Jew was admitted, there was no principle on which the atheist could be excluded, he was met by responsive cheers from the other side of the House. But would the House tell the people of England that it had provided that the atheism of the country should be represented? Hon. Members opposite had asserted that as the principle of this Bill early in the evening. If the principle was just that all opinions should be represented without restriction, why not atheism? And if all opinions—that term includes all virtues—why not all vices? There was no limit if this barrier was broken down. The noble Lord had alluded to the persecution of Francisco and Rosa Madiai; and had ventured to assert that those who would maintain the profession of Christianity as a necessary qualification for admission to that House, were actuated by the same spirit as the persecutors of Francesco and Rosa Madiai. He (Mr. Newdegate) was surprised that the noble Lord had ventured to allude to that case. Did he think it would be any consolation or encouragement to those faithful Christians, who had given up everything rather than abandon the profession of their faith—their Protestant Christianity—to hear that the Legislature of Protestant England had cast from it the profession of Christianity? Would not the ultramontane priests, at whose instance they had been cast into the Tuscan dungeons, if this measure were to pass, seek them in the solitude of what the Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) called "their comfortable prisons," and say, "We told you there was no difference between Protestantism and infidelity? What need have you of further proof? Protestant England has rejected Christianity, as the characteristic of her Parliament." Would not the efforts of our missionaries be crippled throughout the world, and the sincerity of a country be doubted which called itself Protestant, and was willing that its legislation should be no longer Christian? Would the Jewish gentleman himself, who was so sincere in

117
his rejection of Christianity as to give up the object of his ambition rather than abandon the profession of his faith, respect our sincerity? It was useless to argue that every man who might harmlessly exercise subordinate and ministerial functions, was therefore fit to legislate. Legislatorial functions were very different from magisterial. There was no guarantee that the tolerant spirit of Christianity should pervade our laws but the Christian character of those who framed them. This Bill would make the profession of Judaism a qualification for admission to Parliament equivalent to that of Christianity;—and what was Judaism? A religion lamentably intolerant in its doctrines. Let not hon. Members imagine that by passing this measure they would get rid of religious discussion. This measure would not get rid of religious discussion; it would but send it to the hustings, where coarse voices would be found to cry—" Vote for the Jew!" "Out with the Christian!" "Judaism is as good as Christianity!" "Christianity is no better than infidelity!"
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that if the House would indulge him for the short space of two minutes, he would undertake to reciprocate its kindness by confining his observations within the time he had limitted himself to. He could not allow that debate to conclude without some Irish Catholic Member rising, to express that he gave his cordial support to the present Bill. He had the honour to represent the largest Catholic constituency in the Empire, comprising four bishops, some hundreds of clergy, and half-a-million of inhabitants; and he believed, he expressed the unanimous sentiments of those prelates, priests, and people in voting for this measure. The false imputations so freely cast upon Roman Catholics in connexion with the case of the Madiais, peculiarly entitled one of their body to be heard on this occasion. Those imputations were entirely unfounded. Whatever might be the opinion of Roman Catholics in regard to the correspondence which had taken place on the Madiai matter, he had never heard any Catholic, cither in or out of that House, express approbation of the Tuscan law, under which those persons had been condemned. But if the hon. and learned Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) was right in his argument, that there is no persecution in using bolts and bars for the purpose of excluding persons from particular places, merely because their religion
118
differs from that of the English State, it would equally follow that there was also no persecution in using bolts and bars to prevent the Madiais from preselytising persons from the religion of the Tuscan State. He believed that persecution was equally involved in both those processes, and he could not concur with those who regarded the present as raising a religious question apart from persecution for conscience sake. Obscure pamphleteers had been referred to on the other side; but he would quote the words of an illustrious Irishman, whose authority had always carried great weight in that House. The late Duke of Wellington, when moving the second reading of the Maynooth Endowment Act, in the year 1845, concluded his speech with some impressive words, which appeared peculiarly applicable in the present case. In reply to arguments similar to those now urged against the present measure, that distinguished Irishman, emphatically stated—
"There is no religious principle involved in this question. But there is a great Christian principle involved in it—the principle of abstaining from persecution. And if you are strong, it is your duty not to persecute the weak. It is your duty not even to appear to persecute the weak, and I entreat of you to stand by me in enforcing that principle, and to give your unanimous assent to this Bill." [3 Hansard, lxxx. 1174.]
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 263; Noes 212: Majority 51.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Brockman, E. D.

Alcock, T.

Brotherton, J.

Anderson, Sir J.

Brown, W.

Anson, hon. Gen.

Browne, V. A.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Bruce, H. A.

Ball, E.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Ball, J.

Butler, C. S.

Baring, H. B.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Barnes, T.

Caulfeild, Col. J. M.

Bass, M. T.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Beaumont, W. B.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Bell, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Berkeley, Adm.

Challis, Ald.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Chambers, M.

Bethell, R.

Chambers, T.

Biggs, W.

Charteris, hon. F.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Cheetham, J.

Blake, M. J.

Clay, Sir W.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Clifford, H. M.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Clinton, Lord R.

Bowyer, G.

Cobden, R.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Brady, J.

Coffin, W.

Brand, hon. H.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Bright, J.

Cowan, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

119

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Hume, J.

Crook, J.

Hutchins, E. J.

Crossley, F.

Hutt, W.

Cubitt, Ald.

Ingham, R.

Currie, R.

Jackson, W.

Dalrymple, Visct.

Keating, R.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Keating, H. S.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Kennedy, T.

Denison, J. E.

Kershaw, J.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Duff, G. S.

Kirk, W.

Duff, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Duffy, C. G.

Laing, S.

Duke, Sir J.

Langston, J. H.

Duncan, G.

Langton, H. G.

Duncombe, T.

Laslett, W.

Dundas, F.

Lawley, hon. F. C.

Dunlop, A. M.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Locke, J.

Ellice, E.

Loveden, P.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Lowe, R.

Esmonde, J.

Lucas, F.

Evans, Sir De L.

M'Cann, J.

Evans, W.

M'Gregor, J.

Ewart, W.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Fagan, W.

Maguire, J. F.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Mangles, R. D.

Ferguson, J.

Marshall, W.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Martin, J.

Fitzgerald, Sir J. F.

Massey, W. N.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Matheson, A.

Forster, M.

Matheson, Sir J.

Forster, C.

Maule, hon. Col.

Fortescue, C.

Meagher, T.

Fox, W. J.

Miall, E.

Freestun, Col.

Milligan, R.

French, F.

Mills, T.

Gardner, R.

Milner, W. M. E.

Gaskell, J. M.

Milnes, R. M.

Geach, C.

Michell, W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Moffatt, G.

Glyn, G. C.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Goodman, Sir G.

Monck, Visct.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Moncreiff, J.

Grace, O. D. J.

Monsell, W.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Morris, D.

Greene, J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Gregson, S.

Murphy, F. S.

Grenfell, C. W.

Murrough, J. P.

Greville, Col. F.

Norreys, Lord

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

O'Brien, P.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Hadfield, G.

O'Connell, M.

Hall, Sir B.

Oliveira, B.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Osborne, R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Otway, A. J.

Hastie, A.

Owen, Sir J.

Hastie, A.

Paget, Lord A.

Headlam, T. E.

Paget, Lord G.

Heathcoat, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Heneage, G. F.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Herbert, H. A.

Peel, F.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Pellatt, A.

Heywood, J.

Peto, S. M.

Heyworth, L.

Phillimore, J. G.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Phillimore, R. J.

Hindley, C.

Pigott, F.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Pilkington, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.

Howard, Lord E.

Potter, R.

Hudson, G.

Price, W. P.

120

Ricardo, J. L.

Sullivan, M.

Ricardo, O.

Swift, R.

Rich, H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Tancred, H. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Russell, F. C. H.

Thompson, G.

Russell, F. W.

Thornely, T.

Sadleir, J.

Towneley, C.

Sandars, G.

Townshend, Capt.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Traill, G.

Scholefield, W.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Scobell, Capt.

Vane, Lord H.

Scrope, G. P.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Scully, F.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Scully, V.

Vivian, H. H.

Seymour, Lord

Wall, C. B.

Seymour, H. D.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Shafto, R. D.

Walter, J.

Shee, W.

Warner, E.

Shelburne, Earl of

Whalley, G. H.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Wickham, H. W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Smith, J. A.

Willcox, B. M.

Smith, J. B.

Williams, W.

Smith, M. T.

Wilson, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Stanley, Lord

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wrightson, W. B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wyvill, M.

Stapleton, J.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Strickland, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Hayter, W. G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Berkeley, C. G.

List of the Noes.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

A'Court, C. H. W.

Christopher, rt. hn. R.A.

Adderley, C. B.

Christy, S.

Annesley, Earl of

Clinton, Lord C. P.

Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

Clive, R.

Arkwright, G.

Cobbett, J. M.

Bagge, W.

Cobbold, J. C.

Bailey, Sir J.

Cocks, T. S.

Baillie, H. J.

Codrington, Sir W.

Baldock, E. H.

Coles, H. B.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Colvile, C. R.

Barrington, Visct.

Compton, H. C.

Barrow, W. H.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Beckett, W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Bentinck, G. P.

Davison, R.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Dering, Sir E.

Blair, Col.

Dod, J. W.

Boldero, Col.

Drummond, H.

Booker, T. W.

Du Cane, C.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bremridge, R.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Brisco, M.

Dundas, G.

Brooke, Lord

East, Sir J. B.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Egerton, Sir P.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Egerton, W. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Egerton, E. C.

Burghley, Lord

Elmley, Visct.

Burroughes, H. N.

Emlyn, Visct.

Butt, L

Farnham, E. B.

Cabbell, B. B.

Farrer, J.

Cairns, H. M.

Fellowes, E.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Filmer, Sir E.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Floyer, J.

Chandos, Marq. of

Forbes, W.

Chelsea, Visct.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Child, S.

Forster, Sir G.

121

Fraser, Sir W. A.

Naas, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Frewen, C. H.

Neeld, J.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Neeld, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Newark, Visct.

Goddard, A. L.

Newdegate, C. N.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Gordon, Adm.

North, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Granby, Marq. of

Packe, C. W.

Grogan, E.

Pakenham, Capt.

Gwyn, H.

Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

Hale, R. B.

Palmer, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Peel, Col.

Hall, Col.

Percy, hon. J. W

Halsey, T. P.

Portal, M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Prime, R.

Hamilton, J. H.

Pugh, D.

Harcourt, Col.

Repton, G. W. J.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Robertson, P. F.

Herbert, Sir T.

Rolt, P.

Hildyard, R. C.

Scott, hon. F.

Hotham, Lord

Seaham, Visct.

Hume, W. F.

Seymer, H. K.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Irton, S.

Smijth, Sir W.

Johnstone, J.

Smith, W. M.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Smyth, J. G.

Jones, D.

Somerset, Capt.

Kendall, N.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Ker, D. S.

Spooner, R.

King, J. K.

Stafford, A.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Stanhope, J. B.

Knight, F. W.

Stephenson, R.

Knightley, R.

Stuart, H.

Knox, Col.

Sturt, H. G.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Laffan, R. M.

Thompson, Ald.

Langton, W. G.

Tollemache, J.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Tudway, R. C.

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Turner, C.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Tyler, Sir G.

Leslie, C. P.

Vance, J.

Lewisham, Visct.

Vane, Lord A.

Liddell, H. G.

Vansittart, G. H.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Verner, Sir W.

Lockhart, A. E.

Villiers, hon. F.

Lockhart, W.

Vivian, J. E.

Lovaine, Lord

Vyse, Col.

Lowther, Capt.

Waddington, H. S.

Mackie, J.

Walcott, Adm.

MacGregor, J.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Maddock, Sir H.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Malins, R.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Mandeville, Visct.

West, F. R.

Manners, Lord J.

Whiteside, J.

March, Earl of

Whitmore, H.

Mare, C. J.

Wigram, L. T.

Masterman, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Wodehouse, E.

Meux, Sir H.

Worcester, Marq. of

Miles, W.

Wyndham, Gen.

Miller, T. J.

Wyndham, W.

Mills, A.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Montgomery, H. L.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Moody, C. A.

Morgan, O.

TELLERS.

Mullings, J. R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Mundy, W.

Taylor, Col.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLs.—1a Cathedral Appointments.
2a County Elections Polls; Inland Revenue Office; Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Office of Examiner (Court of Chancery); General Board of Health.
Reported.—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.

INDIA.
THE EARL of ELLENBOROUGH presented the petition of which he had given notice, from the British and other Christian inhabitants of Calcutta, and the neighbouring parts in the Lower Provinces of Bengal, praying for Inquiry into the renewal of the Act for the Government of the Indian territories, and for Ameliorations and Reforms. His Lordship said, that this petition was signed by a different class of persons from those who had signed those petitions which had been recently presented to their Lordships from Madras and Bombay. Those petitions were signed exclusively by natives of India, whereas this petition was exclusively signed
2
by Christians. It was signed by Europeans, by natives of India, by half-castes, and also by some of full blood, but who were likewise Christians. There were about 1,280 signatures attached to the petition. Of these 429 were zemindars, or holders of land, or superintendents of indigo factories, or persons engaged in cotton or silk speculations, or otherwise in commercial pursuits in the lower part of the Bengal province; 141 were the signatures of persons connected with commercial houses, principally in Calcutta, and among the names were those of Jardine and Co., Ash-burner and Co., and others who were members of some of the most considerable commercial houses in Calcutta. There were the signatures, also, of 183 persons who were engaged in trade to a considerable extent, and were possessed of great wealth. There were 29 signatures of members of the legal profession; there were 268 uncovenanted servants of the Government, and 99 clerks in private offices, and many others whose avocations were not specifically stated. He apprehended, therefore, that this petition might

3
be understood to convey a fair representation of the opinions of those who entertained European ideas as to government in India, and who had a personal interest in the prosperity of that country. The petitioners very truly observed, that if there existed a bad state of the law, that was an evil in itself which demanded a remedy; but that, even if the law were good, and the judges who administered it were deficient in the necessary legal acquirements, or in moral rectitude, that was likewise an evil; and they finally observed, that though the law might be good, and the judges learned and upright, yet, if the executive officers of the Administration were of an inferior character, justice could not be obtained. He regretted to say, if the statements which the petition contained were proved—and he feared he should be able to ascertain that they were true—then not only was the law in India bad, but the judges were bad, and the executive officers were most inefficient. The petitioners began by stating what was the law in the Supreme Court established in the several Presidencies in India. In the Supreme Court there were administered three different codes of law—the English law for British subjects, a law for the Hindoos, and a law for the Mahomedans, respectively. These were civil codes. The English criminal law applied to all classes. For nearly eighty years these three different codes had been administered by this one court with general satisfaction to the different races, thereby establishing the fact that the judges qualified for administering the English law were qualified to administer the Hindoo and Mahomedan law to the natives. But, with respect to this extensive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, he must observe that there was one great practical inconvenience. When the charter, as it was called, which was the foundation of that court, was passed, all the English statute law then in force, together with the common law, was imported into that court; but since that period no Acts of Parliament passed in this country had extended to India, unless specifically so extended by the Acts themselves, or unless they became a part and parcel of the law of India by the Act of the legislative authorities in that country. The procedure of the Supreme Court was directed by the procedure of the Courts of Westminster Hall. But their Lordships would perceive that a judge proceeding to India to assist in the
4
Supreme Court had much to learn, for he had to learn the Hindoo and Mahomedan law, of which he knew nothing; and while learning that, he had to forget a large portion of the English law with which he was acquainted, for it was not in force there. The petitioners then proceeded to state what the law was in the East India Company's courts. The law had reference to matters of succession, inheritance, marriage, caste, and religious usages and institutions; the Hindoo and Mahomedan law for Hindoos and Mahomedans respectively, with the addition of a body of regulations and acts chiefly relating to procedure and revenue, and in which was prescribed this general rule as to all other matters—namely, that the courts should decide according to justice, equity, and good conscience in cases not provided for by the said regulations and acts. But the petitioners stated most distinctly that no code of equity had been established, that no maxims or principles had been laid down, but that it had been left altogether to the courts to work out a system of equitable jurisprudence, which after sixty years they had not done nor begun to do. With respect to the law in the courts of the East India Company, he begged to mention to their Lordships that when he was at the Board of Control, in the year 1830, having then to make preparation for the renewal of the Company's charter, he considered it would be of great importance if they could consolidate all the statutes of the English law relating to India, and also all the regulations of the East India Company which were in force in India. He at that time said that the Board would undertake the whole expense of consolidating the statute law of England as relating to India; and he had actually communicated to Sir Charles Grey, who had then lately returned from Bengal, and who was now Governor of Jamaica, and to Sir Ralph Rice, also a retired Judge, that it was his intention to intrust to them the consolidation of the statute law so far as it related to India. He proposed to the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the East India Company that they should, on their part, consolidate the regulations for the government of India. Those regulations had been formed from time to time by the gentlemen who happened to be in the Council of the Government of India—gentlemen wholly unacquainted with law, and whose regulations did not possess any precision of language,

5
but were more in a style of conversation, well understood by themselves, but extremely difficult for any man thoroughly to comprehend. Unfortunately, in many of those regulations different words were used for expressing the same thing, so that their ambiguity was extreme, and there was likewise much contradiction. He thought it of the utmost importance that those laws should be consolidated, because he knew that in the course of the work of consolidation large deficiencies would have been discovered, and many would have been obviated. From that time to this twenty-three years had elapsed, and not one stroke had yet been struck towards the consolidation either of the statute law or the regulations of the East India Company's Courts. During the last twenty years no doubt the Legislative Council of Bengal had considerably improved the general language of the regulations; but all the old regulations remained in their original state of ambiguity. The petitioners observed upon the extreme inconvenience that arose from that circumstance. They also observed, that evidence was required to be taken in writing, and that by a native clerk, often out of the hearing of the judge, who might be engaged on other business. They likewise made some reflections upon the character of the counsel, and of the officers attached to the court, which he (the Earl of Ellenborough) would not read; but it was exceedingly natural that doubts should be entertained with respect to fidelity being observed in matters so conducted. The petitioners then complained, and he must confess with great justice, of the enormous amount of stamp duties exacted in all law proceedings, not merely in civil but in criminal cases. They stated that—
"A heavy taxation on all law proceedings, by means of the obligation of using stamped paper, which rises in a series of duties in all regular actions from 2s. to 200 l. on plaints or petitions alone, and admits of no exception even for the smallest debt or demand, and waylays the suitors at every subsequent step, and obliges the Judge to stop his speech or that of his pleader with the question, 'Where is your stamped paper?' and will not permit the reception of the evidence of a witness until after an application on stamped paper of 2s. or 4s. each; and, if the proof consists of a series of letters, imposes on each letter a stamp of 2s.; and an error in a stamp is often irremediable, and the constant cause of nonsuits and other failures of justice. That the stamp duties are still more vexatious and impolitic in criminal proceedings. That your petitioners represent these details to show that the system is not less oppressive than that of the taxes on law
6
abolished in England at the united call of justice humanity, and all general reasons."
The only excuse for the continuance of such a duty was the extreme financial difficulty of the Government. The petitioners referred to the Native courts:—
"That corrupt practices were charged against these courts in a memorial to the Bengal Government within the last eighteen months, which was signed by a very respectable body of British and other Christian inhabitants of different parts of the lower provinces, including some Calcutta firms largely interested in silk and indigo and other Mofussil concerns; that the means taken by the Government to ascertain the truth of the complaint were, as your petitioners are informed, the requisition of a report on the subject from the civil service judges, and the conclusion was, not the exculpation of the courts, but a general report that they were improved."
There was one judge for each zillah or county, a zillah containing about 1,000,000 inhabitants. He was a civil judge in cases up to 500 l., as well as a criminal judge; and the appeal lay to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, a court composed of five civil-service judges. The petitioners admitted the general abstaining of these zillah judges from practices of corruption, adding, however, that more than that negative praise could not be awarded, their administration of justice caused by their want of qualification being a universal subject of complaint and dissatisfaction. Their appointments were made without professional knowledge. Those courts, though for many years they had had exclusive possession, or nearly so, of the administration of justice, had furnished no general rules: that by circular orders the Sudder Courts had done as the Emperors did by rescripts, and increased the uncertainty and difficulty of the law. The petitioners say—
"That they come to India, and are appointed to the judicial office without professional qualifications; that for sixty years they have been in exclusive possession of the whole or some important part of the administration of justice, and yet have furnished the inferior courts with no body of general rules or principles; that, though required to follow equity, they have built up no system of equitable jurisprudence, but the inferior courts still possess only the barren verbal rule expressed in the regulations; that by 'circular orders' and 'constructions' the Sudder Courts have prescribed rules and legislated somewhat as the Emperors did by their rescripts; but these 'orders' and 'constructions' are among the worst parts of the law, and have increased its uncertainty and the difficulties of all the inferior judges; and lastly, that for some years the decisions of these courts have been printed, and form a considerable body, but they are obscure and uninstructive."
There were, in point of fact, very great and

7
almost insurmountable difficulties in the way of establishing a body of judges in India, by whom the administration of justice might be well performed. In this country there was no difficulty in finding judges well qualified for their office. They were selected from barristers who had acquired a knowledge of the law; they acted in presence of a well-qualified and enlightened bar, and also generally in presence of the public. The position of Indian judges was altogether different. There was no bar from which they could be selected; they performed their duties without the presence of a single European barrister; and there was no public to hear their decisions. Under these circumstances, the difficulty was infinitely great of obtaining the services of persons who could be said to have had, even to a very limited extent, the means of acquiring a knowledge of the law they administered, or experience in discharging the duties they had to perform. He had looked at various times most anxiously-into the subject; and it appeared to him that it was the bounden duty of Parliament and of the Government of India to provide that all those persons who were destined for the judicial branch of the service should have the means of acquiring a knowledge of the law they had to administer, and should be found to possess that knowledge before being admitted to the office in which they had to administer that law. After a period of service, he thought that persons ought decisively to select their own branch of the service; and, if they decided on entering the judicial branch, that there they should remain, unless the Government should deem it more expedient to remove them to another branch. With respect to the criminal law, the petitioners stated that the law in the Company's courts was fundamentally Mahomedan, and they expressed the desire that the English criminal law as it stood should be at once applied to India. There existed this difficulty, however, that this country had at the present moment under consideration what its own criminal law should be. Another question also demanding very deep consideration was whether it was expedient, having such a body of gentlemen to perform the functions of judges in India, to require them to administer a law of which they were entirely ignorant—namely, the criminal law of England. The petitioners then touched on a matter which had attracted his attention, and that of every one
8
acquainted with India—namely, the state of the police, which the petitioners represented as a total failure as respected its proper functions. They said—
"That the police of the lower Provinces totally fails as respects its proper purposes, the prevention of crime, apprehension of offenders, and protection of life and property; but it is become an engine of oppression, and a great cause of the corruption of the people. The Lower Provinces are divided into thirty-two counties (zillahs), and contain an estimated population of 30,000,000, and comprise an area larger than France. The proper police force in these counties consist of superintendents, sergeants, and constables, amounting, in the whole, to 10,000 or 11,000 persons"—
Exclusive of rural police. The police in each district was under the control of a single magistrate, who, being compelled to reside in the same place, had no power of locomotion, and could not superintend the police. The distance, also, of the magistrate from the people who had to come before him was a great evil, and the result was, that all the objects of judicial administration were defeated. A person to whom a debt was owing, or who had been injured, was not willing to go a distance of fifty miles to prefer his complaint; and if he were willing, it was difficult to get his witnesses to go; and it had come into general practice in some courts to imprison the witnesses, in some cases to imprison the prosecutor, that they might be forthcoming at the proper time. The extraordinary practice had grown up of proving cases by false witnesses. Persons were brought to swear that an injury had been done, though they never saw it done, and were at a distance from the place where it was done at the time, and this the petitioners said was a matter of common occurrence. He admitted the total inefficiency of the police as at present constituted. He had always felt that to be one of the greatest grievances in the internal state of India. He had made some progress in reforming these abuses. He had formed four battalions of what were called military police, somewhat in advance of the police in Ireland, but by no means strictly a military police. He was satisfied that the objects of justice would be better carried out by such a police; and it appeared to him that there was a defect in the mode in which the police were appointed, and in which the force was constituted. To a great extent the patronage of the police appointments was in the persons about the court of magistrates. He had never liked to see the manner of the people who constituted that force; they exhibited

9
the humility of adulation when they approached their chief; but when there was danger they ran away; when there was the smallest indication of popular tumult no reliance could be placed upon their services. He had intended gradually to extend his system of military police over the whole Bengal province. If that had been done, it would, he was satisfied, have given the Government the means of preventing and of punishing crime; and one effect would have been of very great value—it would have enabled the Government to place in the hands of the police many duties now performed by the Army, and to diminish to a considerable extent the duties of the Army. It had been stated that if the civil duties now performed by the Army were performed by a police force, it would be possible to diminish the Army by 20,000. Their Lordships could have no idea of the number of the useless attendants on magistrates and revenue officers—it exceeded the number of the military force—and yet, as regarded the prevention of crime, these persons were of little or no use. The Petitioners, referring to the civil service, said—
"There is reason to believe, from historical evidence, that this service produces a smaller proportion of distinguished excellence than formerly; that in every kind of office superiority is given indiscriminately to this portion of the service; and virtually it has the unity, strength, and narrow interest of a close corporation, though not legally constituted as such..… That this monopoly of high office is highly prejudicial to the public interests, and exceedingly unjust towards the public servants, who are universally subordinated to this privileged service, and who, by no recommendation of qualification, or of merit, or length of service, can rise from official insignificance to the privileged order, though their duties and offices are often the same, only with different names, and usually of equal importance..… The salaries of the uncovenanted service are in no fair proportion to those of the civil service. A deputy magistrate, for example, of the first grade, one who has been vested with the full powers of a magistrate by special order of Government, and therefore after long trial and experience of his merit, has about the same salary as the inexperienced and untried civilian when first posted and placed, really in pupilage, as an 'assistant' to a magistrate, or as the civilian suspended for misconduct."
They went on to say—
"That the practice of promotion by seniority appears to set aside all considerations of qualification. The magistrate or collector is raised to be an appellate judge in civil causes, having previously been employed in the active business of police, and chiefly criminal law and miscellaneous business or revenue; and from being a judge he is made a commissioner of revenue, as far as appearance only, because the salary of a judge is a
10
few peppercorns less than that of a commissioner; in short, changes of employment take place in rapid succession, apparently without reference to aptitude, general or special, or to any consideration but the tastes, intrests, or connexions of the individual, or his length of standing; and one consequence is, that civilians are constantly found at the head of departments, offices, and courts, about which and their business they know little or nothing."
They concluded with praying for such
—" changes in the arrangements for supplying the public services in the civil department as to their Lordships might appear desirable, and particularly they submitted the expediency and necessity of inquiring into the nature and number of the public employments in India, the salaries and emoluments attached to them, and the principles on which, if at all, the public service ought to be supplied from England."
That was the prayer most earnestly a d dressed by the petitioners to their Lordships, and it was undoubtedly one which deserved their most serious consideration. In the first place, let them endeavour to find some principle by which they might be guided on that point. He had always held that the best form of government was that which afforded the greatest facilities for the discovery of superior ability, and to its employment in the public service; and that every State ought to be able to select the individuals most competent to fill all situations of public importance. But there was in the especial and anomalous circumstances of India this further commanding principle, which, in his opinion, overruled all others—that it was absolutely essential, if they desired to preserve their dominion over that country, that every person in high employment should have a deeper and nearer interest, in England, than he had in India;—it was absolutely necessary to prevent anything like colonisation, for colonisation was separation; and, situated as we were in India, it was absolutely necessary to pursue the same means of preserving our empire there as we had used in acquiring it. He was, however, by no means sure but that they might make arrangements by which they might conciliate both these apparently conflicting interests, and do that which would, to a great extent, be gratifying to the petitioners, and at the same time that which would be for the public advantage. He should object to give the Governor General and the Governors the power of taking any person whom they thought competent, and placing him at once in one of the higher offices, for such an arrangement might lead to much intrigue and im-

11
proper conduct; and, above all, it would conflict with the great principle, that all persons in high office should have an interest more in England than in India. He saw no objection to the qualification of the rule, that in cases of fitness for high office on the part of uncovenanted servants, the Governor General and the Governors should be allowed to represent the circumstances to the Home authorities, and, with the previous consent of the Home authorities, should be enabled to appoint such persons as they so thought qualified to perform good service to the State. Undoubtedly it would be necessary, if that arrangement were adopted, that the Board of Control, or the India Minister, or the authority, whatever it might be, in this country, should have in that case the same power of control as in other cases, and without which the power of the Commissioners would be altogether valueless. He recollected a case which occurred when he was in India, and in which he would have wished to make a representation to the Home Government, and to give a high appointment to a gentleman of the name of Greenlaw whom he found acting as secretary of the Marine Board. He had occasion to communicate constantly with that gentleman respecting the Chinese war; and he said, most unhesitatingly, that, had it not been for the zeal, the ability, the constant and cordial co-operation and devotion to the public service of that gentleman, it would have been quite impossible for him (the Earl of Ellenborough) to despatch the expedition to China in time to achieve the success which had led to the termination of the war. A person of that high character, eminent in all respects, was entitled to be placed on a level with any gentleman in the public service, whatever might have been his original appointment. There was another gentleman (Mr. Caird) whom he should in like manner have recommended, whom he had strongly recommended to the Mauritius Government, when it was desired to convey Coolies to the Mauritius from India—a man of superior abilities, who was so trustworthy as, he believed, since to have received employment from the Colonial Office. An arrangement might then, he thought, be established, by which the most distinguished of the uncovenanted servants of the Company might be promoted, without violating the principle he had mentioned, and at the same time with advantage to the country. To remedy the defects with regard to the
12
police, the course which he would recommend was the appointment of a military police, under the command of a military officer. It was unnecessary for him to dwell on what was stated by the petitioners with respect to roads and public works. These had been neglected, and it was necessary that a very great reform should take place. On the subject of legislation, the petitioners entered so much into detail, that it was impossible for him to do more than call the attention of their Lordships to what they said with respect to the police, as well worthy of consideration:—
"By reason of the state of the police, every landholder, planter, banker, considerable trader and storekeeper, is obliged to keep men, often in very considerable numbers, armed according to the custom of the country, to defend his property against midnight gangs, called dacoits, and other robbers. Such irregular forces, though necessary for self-protection, are, of course, liable to be employed by neighbours at enmity against one another, and by circumstances to become aggressive; and hence the frequency of affrays, which are to be deplored; but the primary evil in the whole set of circumstances is the state of the police, and its reform is the proper and essential remedy; instead of which mere legislation against crime is resorted to; ingenuities are exerted to bring the propertied classes within the criminal categories; the laws on paper are made more severe; increased judiciary powers are given to the magistracy, but the real evil remains unabated. It is obvious that legislation of this kind is only acceleration on the road to ruin."
On the subject of spirit licences, the Petitioners stated, that indulgence in spirits was contrary to the rules of caste, and the general habits and prejudices of the people, and that, in pursuit of revenue, we were demoralising the population. The Petitioners objected also to the amount of the salt duties. Since he (the Earl of Ellenborough) went out to India, there had been several reductions in these duties. Reductions of those duties were proposed to him when in India, but there was more financial difficulty existing then, and he knew that, unless reductions in a tax were great, the advantage went into the pocket of the seller; small reductions had since been made on two or three occasions, amounting to about one-sixth of the tax, and the result had been a loss of one-eighth of the revenue—some 200,000 l.; and he had very great doubt whether the diminution in the tax had been felt by the body of the people. The sum might have been expended with much more advantage on roads, and other matters in which the great body of the people were interested.

13
The Petitioners stated, that "the above facts and circumstances pressed on all rational men the consideration of the constitution of the supreme authorities." With respect to the Supreme Government of India, the Petitioners observed, he thought with some reason, upon the paucity of the members of the Legislative Council. They stated, "that, without questioning the fitness of any individual, they still regarded the Council as very deficient, and especially as wanting in variety of composition, and as of too limited attainments and experience—deficiencies which would account in some degree for the little progress made in all great improvements, and the retrograde tendency of government." They therefore "recommended a considerable addition to the Legislative Council, and especially the addition of nonofficial persons from the commercial and professional classes." That the Legislative Council might advantageously be increased in number was his own opinion. He thought it must be of very great importance to the Government that there should exist organised bodies of the Natives, to which the Government might remit any matter on which they might wish to receive their opinion. The least satisfactory part of the business of the Government of India was that which was connected with legislation. The Legislative Council had not time to attend to those duties. India was a country in which those connected with the Government could rarely obtain three consecutive hours to devote to the same subject; every day brought its work, extending often to fourteen or fifteen hours; and it was, therefore, perfectly impossible to go into the details which must be considered and examined if there was to be useful legislation. The constitution, too, of the Council was continually changing. An officer well acquainted with the Army might be suddenly displaced by one acquainted with the law only, or one acquainted with the revenue by one acquainted only with the Army. There was not at all times a representative in the Council of each branch of the service—there could not be; there was not there any representative of Madras, and Bombay, and the Northwestern Provinces, for which, nevertheless, the Council were called on to legislate. He thought, therefore, some alteration might be made with great advantage in the constitution of the Legislative Council; but he was bound to say, that in India
14
circumstances of emergency might occur from time to time which might require the instant action of the Government without any reference to that extended Council. He recollected receiving in the morning a letter from the Government of Bombay, urging instant legislation upon a point which pressed for action; the Council met at 11, and at 12 an Act had been passed and was on its way to Bombay, and it was absolutely necessary that it should be. But there was another point which he desired to impress upon those who were anxious for improved legislation—and it was this, that it was necessary to avoid altogether that the legislation of the Legislative Council should be of a local character or adapted to local interests. Calcutta resembled all other commercial cities, with very trifling difference arising from the language and habits of the people. The same legislation was not equally suited to the lower provinces of Bengal which would suit other provinces. It was impossible, with a view to the production of the same effects, to legislate in the same manner for men who never left their homes without a sword, and for men who never left their homes without an umbrella. The petitioners observed, "that the office of Governor General required adaptation to the circumstances of the empire," as it existed at the present moment. It was not very clear what their desire might be, but he thought it was their desire that the Governor General should never leave Calcutta. If that was the case, he must declare his belief that there could be nothing more injurious than to prevent him from seeing abuses with his own eyes, and acquiring personally a knowledge of the character and wants of the people. With respect to the home authorities, the Petitioners had come to a conclusion different from that which was come to by the Committee of the House of Commons, and from that which was adumbrated rather than expressed by the Committee of the House of Lords. Their opinion was unfavourable to the present double Government of a Board of Control and Court of Directors. They referred to the appointment of the Directors, and stated—
" 1. Although their functions are, politically, of the highest order, and affect the well-being of India, they are self-proposed in the first instance, and without any security for their being qualified or proper persons to be intrusted; 2, they are elected by a proprietary body whose capital is now guaranteed by Parliament, and which, therefore, has lost that interest in the government of

15
India which formed the basis of their elective privilege; and, 3, which body requires to be canvassed, and gives its votes on a well-grounded calculation of a return of benefit in the distribution of patronage; and, 4, such a system has the effect of preventing highly-qualified persons from ever becoming directors."
He (the Earl of Ellenborough) was very much inclined to agree in this expression of opinion. They said, with regard to the condition of the country—
"It might appear paradoxical to deny its prosperity in the face of the vast increase which has taken place in the foreign commerce, but it is undeniable that, contemporaneously with this increase, crimes of a violent character have increased, and law and police arc also regarded as affording little security either for rights of persons or property. Hence the limited application of British capital to agriculture and mines and the limited employment of British skill in India (the former being confined to a few valuable articles, such as indigo, for the cultivation of which the soil and climate are so superior as to afford the profits almost of a monopoly, silk, and a few others), and hence also small capitals can rarely be employed in India. The planter or capitalist in the interior never or rarely leaves his capital when he himself quits the country, in consequence of its insecurity; and from this cause results the high rate of interest of money. Landholders pay 25 and 30 per cent, and the ryot or cultivator is in a worse relation than of servitude to the money-lender.
Their prayer was—
"That, adverting to the inadequate manner in which the objects of the last Charter Act have been carried out, and to the several facts above stated, your petitioners suggest the expediency of making the new arrangements of the Government for a shorter term of years, and at first only for one year."
Now he (the Earl of Ellenborough) really believed, not merely from his own observation, but from the result of the inquiries which he had subsequently made with respect to the statements in the petition, that they were substantially correct; and, if so, we could no longer declare that the present system of government of India was one which "worked well." That had been the invariable answer when its anomalies, its absurdities, its monstrosities had been objected to. It might "work well" for those employed in the administration; it might "work well" for the Court of Directors, their friends and relations; it might "work well" for those gentlemen and their relations who got appointments in India through the directors; but the question was, did it "work well" for the people of India? Did it possess any appearance of permanence? Was it possible it could be maintained? There were two things which were often confounded by those who looked at the prosperity of India
16
and the extent of its trade. They omitted to consider that all the great benefits that had been conferred upon India—and greatly benefited it—in the extinction of the Mahratta authority and of the Pindarees, and the establishment of internal peace from one end of the country to another—they forgot that all these great benefits had been conferred by our military successes: in these the civil Government had no part. The courage of our troops, the enterprise of our generals, the genius which they had displayed on many occasions, had given us immortal fame as a great military Power, and had given to India all the benefits in the shape of internal peace which had been extended to it. Peace alone was a great blessing, leading to prosperity. The natural state of mankind was a state of progress. There must be extraordinary, unusual circumstances, arising through the worst of all possible Governments, to arrest the progress of mankind when in a state of peace. But what we were to look to was the conduct of the civil Government; what did the people owe to that? He really believed, that if you were to inquire what had been the alterations in the distribution of property occasioned by the thoughtless or inconsiderate adoption of measures for the collection of the revenue and other measures requiring the instant sale of land for arrears, you would find that the alteration in the distribution of property that had been effected by us in that country was much greater than the alteration of property effected in England by the Norman conquest, and equal also, perhaps, to that effected by the many confiscations which had taken place in Ireland. He confessed, when he marched through the upper provinces, and saw the vestiges of ancient palaces, and roads, and works, and temples, and mosques, and bridges, and serais, and all the records of the great Governments by which we bad been preceded, he felt humiliated at the thought of what had been done by his own countrymen; he felt that we were exhibiting ourselves under circumstances of disparagement, as greatly inferior to a nobler nation to which we had succeeded in the government of India. What we had now to endeavour to discover was the form of government by which a good administration might be given to India. He reverted now to his original idea that our great object should be to obtain the assistance here, in the government of India, of the most able and trustworthy persons in every branch of the

17
Government; and, having that assistance, under the direction of a Minister of the Crown, he would hope that the measures adopted and sent out from this country might be dictated by wisdom—by knowledge they certainly would be—and received in India with satisfaction. He cared not in what manner such a Council might be formed—whether you resorted to the principle of election, or that which he believed would be the more certain means of effecting the object—the principle of judicious selection; but at any rate let us endeavour so to form the Council as to justify the hope that we were imparting good government to India. Let us, as far as we could, exclude ordinary men, men of mediocrity, from that Council; above all, let jobbers be excluded. Let us endeavour, as far as in our power lay, to have the government of India conducted with knowledge, with ability, with probity, and altogether with a view to the interests of the people, and not solely to the interest of the rulers.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had listened to the eloquent and able speech of his noble Friend with the same interest and attention as that with which all their Lordships must have listened to it. It was a subject of the greatest possible importance, and it was the imperative duty of the Government, the Parliament, and the country, to apply to it all the resources of their talent, knowledge, and wisdom. He was not prepared to say that he agreed in the conclusions at which his noble Friend, with his experience in India and his subsequent reflection and inquiry, had arrived; but this he was prepared to do—to give the subject the best attention in his power, whenever it came before their Lordships, solely occupied with the feeling which the noble Earl had inculcated with his wonted eloquence, that they were to consult for the good of the people of India, and thereby for the honour and reputation, and so for the true glory, of this kingdom. He should not have ventured to trespass upon the House merely to express what he was sure was the feeling of all their Lordships, but that the noble Earl's reference to the administration of justice made it incumbent upon him (Lord Brougham) to answer an appeal which had been made to him from most worthy and respectable quarters out of doors, in consequence of some statements which had been made by more than one noble Lord, on the first of the last two occasions when the subject of India was
18
broached in that House. He had been called upon to vindicate the local administration of justice from the charges advanced against it in the petitions which had been presented to the House; and the appeal had been made to him as having moved Resolutions, three years ago, on the subject of the appellate jurisdiction of that House, and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which Resolutions were adopted by their Lordships. He was willing to answer that appeal by repeating the statement he then made: that on a comparison of the results of the appeals from the Queen's courts in India and the Company's courts to the Judicial Committee in ten years (in which the whole number of appeals was, he believed, only sixty-one or sixty-two), there was an equal number of reversals and affirmances on the appeals from the Company's courts, while the appeals from the Queen's courts showed seven reversals for one affirmance. But he was bound to add that this fact was by no means conclusive proof that the administration of justice was superior in the Company's courts to what it was in the Queen's courts, because the real cause of the difference was, that on appeals from the Company's courts, when questions of fact, as well as of law, came before the Judicial Committee, there was in the court of appeal a leaning towards supporting the decision upon matters of fact of the Company's judges; accustomed as they were to the language and habits of the people, concerning which there was comparative ignorance here; there was this leaning, unless there was a manifest error, which, perhaps, it was not very easy for the court here to be certain of, regard being had to the habits of the natives—he would not use any vituperative expression—as to the production, he would not say the manufacture, of documents. But in dealing with appeals from the Queen's courts in India there was no such leaning at all on the part of the Judicial Committee. The small number of appeals only showed that the expenses and delays rendered the appellate jurisdiction capable of affording very little advantage to the natives. He wished to say one word respecting the enormity of law taxes, described by his noble Friend, by which the suitors in the East Indies appeared to be very grievously burdened. This was an enormity so prodigious, that unless they had the most positive information as to the facts, it would appear utterly incredible. The noble Earl had said this

19
enormity could only be explained—though certainly it was not justified or even palliated—by the financial embarrassments of the Indian Government. Some sixty or seventy years ago, when Bentham gave to the world that immortal work—the greatest monument even of his great fame as a lawgiver and jurisconsult—his Protest against Law Taxes, he said, "It is a common remark, that he who objects to a tax is bound to find a substitute. I admit the principle, and I willingly accept the condition. My answer is—in substitution of law taxes impose any one other tax that the wit of man can devise."
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that as what he had stated the other evening when he presented the Bombay petition had been alluded to, he might remind the House that he had then made no assertion, except on the authority of the Chief Justice, with respect to the proceedings before the Privy Council: his own statement amounted to this—that the decisions of the Native Judges were found to stand the test of an appeal better than those of the English Judges. The petition just presented by the noble Earl opened many heads of inquiry into which the Committee on Indian Affairs had, as yet, had no opportunity of examining; he appealed to the members of that Committee whether the petition did not open a vast field for further investigation, which it was necessary not only to enter upon, but to exhaust, before they could determine the great question in what hands the permanent government of India ought to be placed. He might observe that an entirely false impression seemed to have gone abroad as to what had taken place in their Lordships' Committee during the last Session of Parliament. It had been stated that the Report of the Committee affirmed the principle of being then prepared for legislation on the subject of the government of India; but he believed the noble Lord who had been Chairman of that Committee would confirm him when he said that the Report in question was framed expressly to exclude and to negative that idea. So far from affirming that the Committee were then in a condition to legislate upon the government of India, the Resolution only stated that the evidence which had been brought before the Committee had a tendency to show that the principle of the present government of India had been productive of good consequences. For his own part, he (Lord Monteagle) would view as the greatest of
20
all calamities any rash legislation of a permanent character, in the present Session, in deciding the future government of India. It had been said that a postponement of legislation would be dangerous; but he (Lord Monteagle) considered that hasty, inadequate, and inappropriate legislation would be far more mischievous to India than the postponement of legislation for one year, with the view of better considered legislation hereafter. A modern writer spoke of "rash haste, the mother of delay;" and he feared that rash haste might be the mother of delay with respect to sound legislation for India. In such a case precipitation was, above all things, to be avoided. He considered the evidence on the table showed that the powers already intrusted to the Government superintending the affairs of India for the last twenty years had not been an adequate protection against the evils which the noble Earl had so eloquently described that evening. He would give one instance to show how frail a foundation for reliance the statute of 1833 bad proved. There had been no change then made that was better considered, and was better calculated to meet many of the evils of which the noble Earl had complained, than the enactment introduced into the last Charter Act appointing a Law Commission, with the object of improving the general system of legislation in India. Great importance was, he believed, attached to that clause by his noble Friend on the cross-benches (Lord Glenelg). Well, what had happened? This enactment was found inconvenient, for it placed a degree of restraint upon the actions of the Governors of India. It was stated as an excuse for not filling up occasional vacancies in the Commission, that the East India Company meant to apply for a repeal of that clause. No such application to Parliament was ever ventured. The enactment was, however, virtually repealed, because the vacancies in the Commission were never filled up, and in the lapse of time the provisions constituting the Law Commission ceased to have any effect. The legality of this proceeding was more than questionable. This was one instance of the kind, but others might be adduced. His noble Friend had adverted to one of them. In the Act as originally passed it was provided that for every vacancy in the civil service of India the Court of Directors were bound to return four candidates, from which list, after examination, the most deserving was to be

21
chosen to fill the post. That principle was adopted by Parliament upon deliberation, and with the best object—namely, that while leaving the patronage in the hands of the Indian Direction, there might be some security provided that the persons best qualified would be appointed. Was this carried into effect, he asked? But even if it had been it was soon set aside. In 1837 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons to enable the Board of Control and the Court of Directors jointly to suspend the operation of that provision, and permitting the Directors to recommend one candidate only for every vacancy. That Bill passed without any observation in the other House. When the Bill reached their Lordships' House attention must have been called to it, for it was amended, and in place of authorising only the suspension of the provision in the Act of 1833, the words "to suspend and to revive" were inserted, thereby marking that it was a Bill to suit some peculiar exigency, and that it was intended to revert to the original provisions of the Act of 1833. The measure was passed without adequate information, and it appeared to him that a most Wholesome restraint was thus unfortunately removed; for up to the present time the recommendation of four candidates had never been "revived." With regard to the question of general legislation, in the case of the code, the proceedings had been a perfect game of battledore and shuttlecock. From India the code was sent to England, from England to India. In December 1851 it was remitted again by the Directors to the Government of India with full powers to adopt Mr. Macaulay's code, or any other code; but not one single step had as yet been taken. Then in reference to the confusion of laws without the Presidencies, and within the Mofusid, the complaint was that, while there were Hindoo laws for the Hindoos, and Mahomedan laws for the Mahomedans, for the Europeans and other Christians there was no law at all. An endeavour had been made to remedy these grievances by means of the Law Commission. But this recommendation had been set aside. And although the Committee were informed last year that instructions had been given to the new Law Commissioner, Mr. Peacock, on the subject of the penal code, and that the Government of India had full authority to adopt a code, from January 1852 to the present time did not appear that any one step
22
had been taken in the matter. He had not heard that any attempt was in progress to alter the present system of appointing civil servants of the Company who had had no adequate legal education, to the responsible office of Judges in India. No means had been provided to determine and ascertain their competency; and he must say that a very different and more discriminating system ought to be introduced into this important branch of the public service: as the noble Earl had remarked, he considered that when a man had been appointed to a judicial office, it was most improper that he should be tempted to remove from such judicial office, and that he should receive a political or revenue appointment, with an increase of salary. He might again remind their Lordships that men were now actually appointed to appellate jurisdictions in India who had never presided in a tribunal of the first instance. This had been aptly described by Mr. Courteney Smith to be like putting young surgeons to learn anatomy by permitting them to practise on living dissections. He would appeal to their Lordships whether the importance of the petition had been at all exaggerated; and if that was not the case, he would ask them if they thought they would do their duty to the people of India by passing a permanent measure in the present Session on imperfect evidence to settle the government of our Indian empire.
LORD BROUGHTONobserved that, as he was a Member of the Committee which was now sitting, he did not wish to express any opinion until he had had the advantage of hearing all the evidence to be adduced; and if he were now to give an opinion, he might, upon fuller information, be afterwards compelled to adopt a different view. He was, however, desirous of saying that he thought there was no reason whatever why their Lordships and the other House of Parliament should be intent upon passing a Bill with reference to the Government of India, which, like the former Acts, should continue in force for 20, 10, or any number of years. It appeared to him that any measure adopted on that subject should be like any other Act of Parliament, and that—as was the case with all other Acts on the Statutebook—it should be repealed at any time when its repeal might be thought necessary. The reason why former measures for the Government of India were passed for a stated period was, that the East India Company was, at that time, a great

23
commercial body, in possession of most important vested interests and privileges, and of large assets. And therefore it was most proper that when the Act of 1833 was passed, a certain time should be given to them to realise their assets, and to wind up the great commercial concerns in which they had so long been engaged. Now, however, these interests were at an end. In 1854 the East India Company would cease to have any privileges, or to possess any one character which would entitle it to claim any particular consideration at the hands of Parliament. Indeed it would cease to have any existence at all. The proposal to make the new Act for no term of years, but like any other Act of Parliament, might sound like a novelty; but it did so happen that he had that day mentioned it to a friend of his who was one of the highest Indian authorities, who was formerly connected with the Government of India, and who had been connected more lately with the Home Government. That gentleman said, "I see no objection to the suggestion; indeed, I made the proposal myself in 1832." He (Lord Broughton) was not quite sure whether his friend did not say that he had made the proposal to the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Glenelg). "But," said his friend, "I was induced to give it up because at that time the East India Company had not wound up their affairs; their commercial character had not been put an end to; they had large assets; and it was in consequence of these circumstances that I did not make the proposal to those who had the drawing up of the India Bill." No such reason, however, existed now. The East India Company had now no claim upon the country or upon Parliament. The only question was for Parliament to consider whether or not they had so conducted themselves in the government of this great territory as to entitle them to a share in its future government; any share, he meant, that they might obtain as trustees of the Crown. The Bombay petitioners, he believed, proposed that the charter should be renewed for 10 years, but he saw no reason for such a measure. There was no doubt that a great quantity of new matter was daily rising up for the consideration of the Committee; indeed, the three petitions which had been presented to that House appeared to him to contain materials of investigation which might occupy a life. He did not know what might be
24
the opinion of other noble Lords; but, having had some little experience on this subject, he must say that the more he thought of it the greater difficulties he saw. There was hardly a point upon which a man might not fairly make up his mind one day, and alter it the next. New information was received nearly every day, and so far from any one of the points for examination being such as could be speedily settled, they were matters with regard to which even the best thinkers and investigators, the longer they considered them, might be placed in the greater doubt. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) himself afforded proof how difficult it was to arrive at any definite conclusion upon any of these great points. The noble Earl, when he presented a petition a short time ago, expatiated upon the inestimable advantages of education, particularly with respect to the Natives of India; but he admitted the difficulty of affording them complete education, for he said, "If you educate the people of India beyond a certain extent, India will cease to belong to England." He (Lord Broughton) quite agreed with the noble Earl; and the same opinion had been entertained by almost every authority whose opinions he had ever heard or read. He mentioned this to show the enormous difficulty of legislating upon these matters; but he did not think there was anything like a necessity for Parliament's now departing from the ordinary system of legislation as to the duration of any measure with reference to the Government of India. The Act should last so long as experience showed that it ought to last—that is to say, it should be permanent if it ought to be permanent.
LORD GLENELGbegged to inform his noble Friend (Lord Broughton) that if he would look at the negotiations which passed in 1833, he would find that the first proposal which was made to the Court of Directors was, that no limit should be fixed to the period of the Act. All the transactions upon the subject of the charter formed a regular negotiation between the parties, and preceded upon the principle of compromise and mutual sacrifices and concessions; and unless a compromise had been achieved, it would have been impossible to carry any change in the government of India. There were so many interests, and so many questions of law and practice, involved in the negotiation, that it would have required the whole twenty years to conclude it, if they had

25
not proceded upon that principle; but the proposal with respect to the term of the Act, was proposed by the Court of Directors, in order to facilitate the final settlement of the question, and that concession was made by the Government. With respect to the question of education, to which his noble Friend had adverted, their Lordships were, he believed, all agreed; indeed, it was the universal opinion that it was not only the duty but the mission of this country to India, to communicate to the natives of India the best education which it was in their power to give them. He repeated, that this was not only our duty, but the mission and vocation to which we had been called in connexion with India. From that duty we were bound not to shrink. On the contrary, we ought to do it unflinchingly and ungrudgingly; and he believed that, as with individuals so with nations, it would be found that if we did our duty—consulting, only our duty—in the doing of that duty we should best consult our safety. The noble Earl had truly said that the natural condition of man was progress, and that that vast empire, like every other part of the world, had entered upon a condition of progress. He agreed with him, and would say, further, that no scruples of any individual egislator would retard that progress; and that it was in our power to make that progress formidable and dangerous, but that it was altogether out of our power to nullify it; and especially was it out of our power to say with respect to education, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." Therefore he would repeat that it was not only our bounden duty, but our best safety, to facilitate that progress; that we had no right to pause and scruple at a certain point of our career—to fold our arms, and say, "Be this our just circumference, and these your bounds;" but that we were called upon by all that we owed to God, as well as man, and at any hazard, to exercise that duty. To retard the progress which was now slowly taking place in India, would, in his opinion, peril our very existence there; but, if the period should ever come when the natives of India should be placed in the position of governing themselves, it would be the most glorious day in British history. If the separation should only be effected with mutual affection and good feeling, he was sure that the grateful and immortal recollection of our connexion with that vast empire would afford a better protection and security
26
against future dangers than anything else which the wit of man could invent. He had much pleasure in paying his humble tribute to the eloquence, spirit, and temper of the speech which had been addressed to their Lordships by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough). He did not say that he agreed with all the propositions contained in the petition which he had presented, nor with all the opinions of the noble Earl. He would not then enter into the question of the future government of India; but he wished to advert, before sitting down, to that part of the noble Earl's speech which had reference to the condition of the law in India. The noble Earl had stated that the administration of the law was in a most deplorable and lamentable condition. With regard to that point he begged to state, that in consequence of the representations which were received respecting the state of the law throughout India, that matter formed the subject of the deepest consideration at the time of the passing of the Charter of 1833. In the Act of 1833 provisions were introduced for the express purpose of meeting that melancholy state of things. A Law Commission was appointed, and in the clause which had reference to the Law Commission, it was expressly stated that a general code for the whole of India should be prepared by that Commission, and that there should be but one and the same law throughout the whole of India. The Law Commission was directed to frame a general code, and the same law was to apply to the English as well as the native subjects of the British Crown. The general rule was laid down—and wisely—that if an Englishman went into that country he must not expect to be one of a civilised class. His noble Friend (Lord Monteagle), quoting some authority, had said that there was no law for Europeans in India. The truth of the matter was, that all cases affecting Europeans in India, except cases of petty assaults, were tried only before the Supreme Court at Calcutta; and the effect of that was that, as against Europeans, the natives, especially those living at a distance from Calcutta, had no protection from the law whatever, the expense and delay of bringing their cases before the Supreme Court—perhaps a distance of 1,000 miles—being a complete denial of justice to the Natives. The appointment and labours of the Law Commission were certainly intended to remedy this state of things, and how it had not

27
practically and really done so, it was not for him to say.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, he had no intention to occupy the attention of their Lordships for more than a few moments, and least of all to enter upon the discussion of topics with which he confessed himself very imperfectly acquainted—topics which had been treated by his noble Friend with a knowledge of the subject which entitled everything which fell from him upon it to be listened to with the utmost deference, and with a power and ability which, even if his noble Friend were not so well informed upon the subject, must of themselves command the respectful attention of their Lordships. Although he could not say, as far as his limited information went, that he was prepared to acquiesce in the sweeping conclusions at which his noble Friend appeared to have arrived with respect to the Government of India, yet, feeling as he did that his information was inferior to that of his noble Friend—though it was probable that to a certain extent the mind of his noble Friend might unconsciously to himself be prejudiced on the subject—he (the Earl of Derby) had listened with great respect to the statement of the evils and inconveniences, the existence of which be had avouched upon his own knowledge and authority. His object in now rising was for the purpose—after what had taken place in that House on a former occasion, and after the important petitions which had been presented from various parts of India—of expressing his concurrence to a great extent in what had fallen from the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle), and to express his earnest hope that the noble Earl at the head of the Government would reconsider the determination which he understood, or, perhaps misunderstood, him to express on a former occasion, to legislate permanently on the affairs of India in the course of the present Session. He frankly admitted to the noble Earl, that at the time he held the situation which the noble Earl now filled, he had the honour to propose to their Lordships the appointment of a Committee to investigate the affairs of India, in the hope and belief that the labours of the Committee would be so far advanced in the course of the present Session as to render it competent to us, at any rate to enable us to attempt, guided and aided by the labours of the Committee, to legislate satisfactorily on this question. He must now say, however, that the (comparatively
28
speaking) little progress which the Committee had made in its inquiries—not from any want of attention on their part, but from the immensity of the subject, and the constantly increasing demands on their attention—seemed to lead to the conclusion that if their Lordships were about to legislate definitively on the subject in the course of the present Session, they must do so wholly irrespective of the labours and opinions of the Committees to whom that and the other House of Parliament had intrusted the full and impartial consideration of this immense question. He understood that one of the topics of inquiry had been entirely closed by the Committee of their Lordships' House, and that upon another the evidence which had been proposed to be adduced by his noble Friend who presided over the Committee last year was, so far as he was concerned, closed also; but it was still perfectly open to any other of the Members of the Committee to call for any other evidence they might think necessary upon those topics; and it was quite clear that during the whole time of the sitting of that Committee further information might be given which would render it necessary to reopen that limited portion of the inquiry. If he was not mistaken, the Committee both of that and of the other House of Parliament had divided the subject of their inquiry into eight heads, of which but two had as yet been to any extent gone into—namely, the constitution of the Indian Government at home, and that of the military and naval establishments for the service of that country. Now he begged to be allowed to express a hope that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, if they meant to legislate permanently, at the same time to legislate piecemeal upon the affairs of our Indian empire; and he did not think that it was possible for them, consistently with the respect which ought to be shown to the labours of the Committee then sitting, to legislate definitely upon the constitution of the Home Government without a full inquiry into those topics which still remained to be investigated. Because, after all, concurring in that which must be the opinion of every man in their Lordships' House, that the object which they should have in view in legislating for India was to frame such a form of government as should produce the greatest amount of contentment and prosperity, as well as the highest degree of material and moral progress in that country—such a form of govern-

29
ment as should work best for the welfare of the inhabitants of India, and not for the interests alone of the people of England—concurring, as he did, in that opinion, he did say that, the question being whether it was desirable to continue or not the existing machinery of Government in India, it was impossible to escape from this conclusion—that the propriety of continuing or modifying that form of government must altogether depend upon the working of that system as proved by the experience which had been furnished by the past. The form of administration by which the affairs of India had hitherto been ruled, was now practically upon its trial as to whether it had worked well or not. It was impossible they could at the present moment come to any sound conclusion as to whether such had or had not been the case. The great test and trial of the success of that system of administration was, whether it had produced benefits commensurate with, or greater, than those which might have been expected from a different system in the case of a population distinguished by the customs and the habits which prevailed in our vast Indian empire. In order to elucidate that question they must examine into the financial, the political, and the moral condition of the people of that country, and into their judicial as well as into their administrative and local form of government. The real test, then, by which the present question was to be solved was, what had been the result of the administration of Indian affairs of late years upon those different subjects—subjects upon which the Committee had not yet even commenced an inquiry. Now he felt disposed that the course should be pursued of waiting for the result of the inquiries of the two Committees before proceeding to legislate permanently. He confessed that the opinion he had formed upon this question had been strengthened by what had fallen from his noble Friend opposite, who had formerly been at the head of the Board of Control. He had reminded their Lordships that in their new legislation it was not necessary, as it was on previous occasions, to make a limitation with regard to the term of years for which they passed the Act of Parliament upon this subject, and that they had an opportunity of legislating, irrespective of any claims, in such a manner as to be able to deal with that Act of Parliament in the same way as they dealt with any other measure—leaving the period of its existenee indefinite. But, if such was
30
to be the case, in what was permanent legislation to consist? Was that a statesmanlike mode of legislating, by which an alteration was made this year, and was called permanent legislation, while the Government reserved to itself full power to change that legislation in the next? [Lord BROUGHTON: As was the case with any other Act of Parliament.] Exactly so, therefore they left it like any other Act of the Legislature; but if they meant to make legislation upon this subject a monument of Parliamentary wisdom, let them not legislate in the absence of that information necessary for their purpose, but legislate with a full knowledge and full information, and in a way that would bear the test of experience and of time. Let them not, in the first instance, in consequence of their want of information, legislate this year and call their legislation permanent, and come back next year for the purpose of repealing their enactment of the year before, although they might have the power of so repealing it, unfettered by any obligation they might have entered into with the East India Company, as the contracting party. He was sure that no member of the Government, or of their Lordships'. House, could have any interest in this question but what was common to them all—that their legislation should be such as to do credit to the country, to the Government, and to Parliament, and such as should work satisfactorily and beneficially for the interests of the people of India. If that was their object—and in this species of legislation, differ as they might, it was hardly possible that party feelings should be brought to bear—they must feel that the inconvenience of a temporary Act for a single year was not to be measured for a moment with the permanent inconveniences of legislating hastily and without information; and not only that, but rejecting and repudiating, in the face of England and of India, the assistance of the very Committee which they had called upon to aid them, and whose inquiries and whose labours, by legislating upon this before they received a report from them, they pronounced to be absolutely worthless. If he might venture to suggest any course—and he knew he had no right to do so—it would be this—that they should introduce, in the course of the present Session, a continuing Act for a term of four or five years, or for a period sufficiently long to enable them completely to investigate, and maturely to weigh, the recommendations

31
of the Committee, and inserting a provision that Parliament should be at liberty, if it should think fit, to legislate previous to the expiration of that term. But, at the same time, it should not be rendered necessary year after year to come to Parliament for an annual renewal of the Act—a circumstance which would have the effect of greatly unsettling the minds of the people of India. By continuing the present system for a period of four or five years, with a reservation giving power to Parliament to deal with the question previously, in case inquiry should be matured, they would afford, as he thought, the best chance of solving this great and difficult problem, and of legislating in a manner advantageous to the interests of their Indian subjects, and honourable to the Government of this country.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: There could be but one feeling on this subject entertained by noble Lords on both sides of the House—the earnest desire, namely, to arrive at the result most beneficial to the inhabitants of the great empire for which they were about to legislate. But he could not agree to the conclusions at which the noble Earl who had just spoken had arrived, as to the wisdom of proposing, with reference to India, a legislation of four or five years. Of all the suggestions he had yet heard upon this question, that of the noble Earl seemed to him the least likely, if carried into effect, to produce beneficial results. He had heard that the Committee of both Houses of Parliament—certainly the Committee of the House of Commons—had arrived at the clear opinion that the inquiry into the affairs of India had been so far completed as to enable Parliament to deal with the Home Government of that country; and although the Committee of their Lordships' House had not pronounced so decided an opinion, still the inquiry was closed so far as related to the particular legislation to which he had adverted. It, therefore, appeared to him that they were in a condition, in consequence of the positive opinion pronounced by the Committee of the House of Commons, to deal with this important subject. He did not agree in the statement that they were incompetent to take this course without having a decision upon the whole number of heads into which the Committee had divided the subject into which it was appointed to inquire; or that it was necessary each of those heads should be investigated and pronounced upon before they could
32
proceed to deal with any portion of the question. The petitions which had been laid upon the table, embraced, no doubt, very important matter for inquiry, and alleged grievances which would very properly engage their Lordships' serious attention. But the most important topics which had been urged in the petition which had been presented by his noble Friend, were, unless he were mistaken, under the consideration of a Committee of their Lordships' House; and those topics with reference to the judicial system prevailing in India, which he had pressed so strongly upon their attention in a particular manner, occupied the minds of that Committee. It struck him to be somewhat inconvenient, and perhaps irregular, to enter into details with respect to these different points of inquiry, which were, in fact, the special subjects which they had referred to the Committee, and for the investigation of which that Committee was appointed. He had heard a great deal said—and very emphatically—of the lamentable government of India, and of the manner in which the affairs of that country had for some years been carried on under our rule. The noble Earl who introduced this subject to their notice, had told them how he viewed the magnificent roads, the tanks, the mosques, and other great works of our predecessors in India, with a sense of humiliation, and had drawn from their splendour an argument to prove the superiority of the rule which prevailed in that country in other days. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) confessed that the illustrations so suggested by the noble Earl appeared to him an altogether insufficient test of the superiority of our predecessors. He should, for his part, as soon think of drawing from the Pyramids of Egypt an inference of the higher morality, superior intelligence, and greater happiness of the wretched serfs by whom those monuments were raised. It was his conviction that our government of India, with all its defects, had been attended with inestimable blessings and advantages to the people of that great country; and he should not fear to submit to any comparison that might, in any way, be instituted between our administration of India and that of any former rulers. The blessings and advantages we had already conferred on India it was the earnest desire of the Government, guided by past experience and the mass of evidence that had been collected, to confer still more widely, still more solidly, still more be-

33
neficially. The requisite improvements in the government of India, he conceived, as he had already said, they were now in a position to legislate for, taking the present system as the foundation and basis of that legislation. He would not speak on this occasion of the improvements and modifications of which that system was susceptible; but certainly upon that system, improved and modified, it appeared to him that future legislation would be most expediently based. It was too soon to come to any decision upon the subject, and he had made these observations to declare his opposition to the suggestion which had been thrown out of framing a continuous Act for India.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, he sincerely hoped that the Government would reconsider the decision at which they had arrived, and that they would not legislate upon a subject upon which they confessed they were but imperfectly acquainted.
Petition referred to the Select Committee on the Government of Indian Territories.
House adjourned to Monday next.