Sitting of 11 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Royal Military Asylum; Jamaica Loan.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL, AND LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, his object, in moving that the Chairman should report progress, was to endeavour to induce the Government and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) to defer all legislation upon these important Bills until the next Session, because, at that late period of the Session, it was utterly impossible to do justice to those measures. Ireland was at the present time in a greater state of prosperity than it had enjoyed for a long period; and there was not that immediate urgency for passing a measure of this description this year, which undoubtedly there appeared to have been some years ago. They could, therefore, afford to wait for some time, to have the measures gravely considered and matured; and it was far better to adopt that course than to take up the worse part of the code introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and pass it into a law this Session. To show that it was utterly impossible to pass those Bills at present, he might mention that the hon. and learned Member for the county of Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) had thirty-four Amendments to move to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had given notice of 156 Amendments. And on the Leasing Powers Bill there were forty-five Amendments to be moved by its original proposer. The notices of these Amendments had been only given on the preceding day, and there was not sufficient time to give them the consideration they absolutely required. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had brought forward those Land Bills, he made a prayer to Almighty God at the end of his speech, as he often did, for the success of the whole; and he (Serjeant Shee) did not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could now come forward and ask the House to pass the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and Leasing Powers Bill, without the Tenants' Compensation Bill. A Committee had been appointed on the subject last Session, and though he would not say it was an unfair Committee, he would have preferred a Committee of English and Scotch gentlemen who understood what the just rights of the people were, and, above all, who detested the idea of a potato estate with mud cabins for their tenantry. The Bill

35
sanctioned by the Government last Session to afford compensation to tenants for improvements contained a sound principle, which would have been capable of future extension; but unfortunately the House of Lords had thrown out the Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill in a House of only twenty-five Members, eleven or twelve of whom were short-sighted Irish landlords, directly interested in the question. It was not endurable, and was calculated to bring the Constitution of the country into contempt, that a few Irish landlords in another House should thus set aside the deliberate opinion of that House and of the leading statesmen of the country; and now the Committee were asked to pass the stringent clauses of these two Bills now before it without the compensating clauses of the Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill. He hoped, however, that the Government would not weary in well-doing, and would not be deterred from bringing in or supporting a measure embodying the same principle of justice to tenants by the obstinacy of those who resisted such a fair principle. He believed that if the Government only passed a Leasing Powers Bill and a Landlord and Tenant Bill, without accompanying them by a tenants' compensation measure, they could never satisfactorily settle the vexed question of the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, whilst they would incur public odium and contempt by legislating for the benefit of the landlords, and entirely neglecting the interests and just claims of the tenants of Ireland. He therefore hoped that the whole of the Bills on this subject now before the House would be deferred till next Session, when they would have proper time to consider them, and to deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Napier's) numerous Amendments. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to examine the various provisions of the two Bills under consideration, contending that they were all liable to fatal objection by their failure to recognise the principle of just compensation and protection to tenants.] The fixture clause of the Leasing Powers Bill was, in his opinion, most inadequate to protect the interest of the occupier. The advocates of these Bills professed to be desirous of encouraging agricultural improvement; but they introduced no provisions really calculated to attain that end. As to the Leasing Powers Bill, though there was much in the Bill that was good,
36
the notion that it would afford a remedy for the improvement of land in Ireland was the most preposterous that ever was entertained. When he first went to Ireland, at about twenty years of age, he was surprised at the difference between the residences of the country gentlemen and the squalor and misery about them. He thought he was not wrong in stating that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in influencing a noble Lord of great ability and promise in the other House (Lord Donoughmore) to introduce the Landlord and Tenant Bill in opposition to the measure introduced by Government last year, had done his best to strangle the Tenants' Improvement Compensation Bill. He would oppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition to the utmost, and he trusted the Government would not lend its assistance to a project which was inconsistent with the whole tenor of their lives as public men, and inconsistent with the course they thought proper to pursue last year. If the Bills were agreed to, it would be the most absurd piece of legislation which had ever insulted the good sense and liberty of the subject, and he called upon Government and the House to join with him in preventing the passing of such a measure.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should support the Motion of the hon. and learned Serjeant, for he considered that it was impossible, with the slightest justice to the tenants of Ireland, to legislate at the present moment on this question. He trusted that Government would not go on with these Bills this Session.
MR. KIRKsaid, there were fifteen or sixteen pages of Amendments which were proposed to be made in these Bills, and it was impossible for the House fully to consider them this Session. Moreover, the people of Ireland had not had time to consider the Bills. Under these circumstances he thought it would be better to postpone them.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought it would be convenient if Government would now state the course they intended to pursue with regard to these Bills.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Serjeant that it would be better that there should be no legislation than to have these two Bills; but he deeply deplored that there was to be no efficient legislation this Session. The good crops which were now on the land would be used by the tenants as the means

37
of emigrating, so that the country would lose more of its people and capital. He implored Government not to commit themselves to these Bills. The Bills of last Session contained many good provisions, and if Government had stood by those Bills they would have done much to settle this question. He would also appeal to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin and the Irish Conservative Members not to attempt to proceed with the Bills, seeing that they would not settle the question.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, that so far from looking upon this question simply as a landlords' question, without taking into account the question of justice to the tenantry, he had always been disinclined to give his assent to any measure, from whatever quarter it emanated, that was not based on full justice to the tenant class. He regretted that the Government of the Earl of Derby had not had an opportunity afforded them of settling the question, convinced as he was that they were sincere and honest in their desire to effect that object. Indeed, he believed that, if they had the same chance allowed them which had been given to their successors through two Sessions of Parliament, they would have brought it to a settlement ere this. And he thought he was entitled to ask the Government to explain how it was that at the end of a second Session of Parliament they found themselves as far as ever from a satisfactory solution of the question? The tenantry of Ireland had a right to expect legislation with regard to it; so also, in short, had every other interest in that country. But what was the course which the Government had adopted? He charged them with acting neither fairly nor honestly. They first pledged themselves to deal with the question last year, but they allowed the Bills to remain in Committee upstairs and on the table of that House until the end of the Session had nearly arrived, and then it became impossible to proceed further with them. A similar course had been pursued this year. Was there a Government or was there not? Could any private Member of that House attempt to take up a question of this importance with any hope of conducting it to a successful issue? Certainly not. There were many private Members who would be glad to do so if they saw any chance of success; but the only persons who had it in their power were the Government of the day, and they
38
had attempted nothing of the sort. The responsibility of doing it lay upon the Government, and the Government of the Earl of Derby had acknowledged that responsibility, and applied themselves on the earliest occasion to the endeavour satisfactorily to discharge it. But the Government of Gentlemen sitting opposite were chargeable with the grossest and most censurable neglect. He now called upon them to tell the Committee frankly, did they support these Bills or did they not? Would they go on with them, or was it their intention to shelve them, and so put off the settlement of the question to a future that might never arrive? He condemned their conduct as trifling with the House and the country, as well as with the great and important interests that were at stake.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must contend that the Committee to whom the Bills had been referred had faithfully performed their duty, and any delay that had occurred was not attributable to that House, or to the Government, but to another place. He maintained that these were not Government Bills, but the Bills of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier). They all hoped that the present Session would cone to an early close, and it was utterly impossible to discuss Bills which came down in such a mutilated shape, and with compensating clauses that were a delusion. He would recommend that the Bills should be withdrawn, and that the duty and responsibility of future legislation on this subject should attach to the Government. It was abdicating the functions of Government to leave such highly important Bills in the hands of private Members. He trusted that next Session the Government would bring in measures on this subject upon their own responsibility.
MR. BELLEWsaid, he must deny that the Bills were now those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier). True, their substantive matter was first introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to whom the credit was due for what little good remained in them; but in the mutilated condition in which they appeared before the Committee, he utterly denied that they were the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bills. The Duke of Argyll was the man who, in another place, moved the third reading of the Bills; and if they were not now Government Bills, at least by adoption, he could

39
not understand what Government Bills were.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that if these Bills had been Government Bills, he did not scruple to say that they would not have been proposed for the consideration of the House at that period of the Session. He could assure hon. Members opposite that nothing could have been fairer than the course taken by the Government upon these Bills, or more courteous to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier). The Bills undoubtedly originated in that right hon. and learned Gentleman's skill and ability, and when he (Sir J. Young) came into office, he took them up and forwarded them by every means in his power; but he had never claimed the merit to himself of having prepared them. During the last Session of Parliament a Committee was appointed to consider the Bills, and they were fairly and fully discussed in that Committee. Late in the Session they were sent up to the other House, where they were taken charge of by the Duke of Newcastle; but it was found impossible to carry them in the course of that Session. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cried "hear." The Bills he alluded to were the Landlord and Tenant Bill, the Leasing Powers, and also, be it remembered, the Tenants' Compensation Bill. Having been read a second time in the House of Lords, it was then resolved by that House to send them to a Select Committee at the commencement of the present Session. The result was, that two new Bills were produced—the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and the Leasing Powers Bill—both bearing a great resemblance to the Bills of last Session, but unaccompanied by any Tenants' Compensation Bill; and he was bound to admit that these two Bills by themselves would be unsatisfactory to the people of Ireland in case they were not accompanied by a Compensation Bill. As far as the Bills went they were good. He believed the Landlord and Tenant Bill was a good consolidation of the law. The Leasing Powers Bill also was a very good measure, and, taken by itself, would be a great improvement on the existing law. But was he to take these for a whole code? Should they legislate on a part of the question only? Would that be acceptable to the people of Ireland? He thought it would not. As far as he knew, every Irish Member who supported the Government in that House had come to him and
40
expressed a wish that the Bills should not proceed further during the present Session. What he had done was this: he had endeavoured to obtain from his noble Friend who regulated the business of the Government in that House such precedence for the consideration of these Bills as would enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go on with them; and when the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine (Lord Naas) asked him to say what were the intentions of the Government, surely those intentions were sufficiently explained by the fact that Government had given up this morning to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to press forward the Bills, which he contended were still in his hands. If there were no hope of carrying them during the present Session, he did not think it would be fair or right to press them on the House. [The right hon. Baronet was proceeding to speak of Mr. Serjeant Shee's Tenant Right Bill, of which he said he had never been the supporter, when his attention was directed by the Irish Solicitor General to the clock, which indicated the near approach of the hour of four, the time appointed for the suspension of the morning sitting. He thereupon abruptly resumed his seat; and Mr. NAPIER rose to address the Committee.]
SIR JOHN YOUNGprotested that he had not completed his speech, and had sat down merely because he understood the hour for adjournment had arrived.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that it was a matter of the most vital importance to the people of Ireland that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) should be allowed to finish his remarks.
THE CHAIRMANheld, however, that Mr. Napier was in possession of the House.
Mr. NAPIERthen rose and said, he must express his surprise at the decision come to by Government after the course they had previously taken with regard to these Bills. It was then for the first time that he had heard the intention of the Government not to proceed with them. They had been taken out of his hands entirely, and had gone up to the House of Lords as Government Bills.
[At this point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's address, four o'clock, having arrived, Mr. BOUVERIE vacated the chair.]
House resumed.

COUNT PAHLEN—RUSSIAN SUBJECTS IN LONDON—QUESTION.
MR. I. BUTT: Sir, I have given notice

41
of my intention this evening to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon a very important subject, but that noble Lord being absent, as I see a right hon. Baronet who is also one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State is in his place, I think I am perfectly justified in putting the question to him. If the right hon. Baronet cannot answer it, it is no fault of mine, nor do I wish to impute any blame to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department on account of his not being in his place at present. The question I am about to put is in reference to the arrival in this country, and the presence in London during the past week, of a very eminent Russian gentleman; and, in asking that question, perhaps the House will permit me to preface it with a few explanatory words. The gentleman to whom I allude is a member of a very distinguished Russian family, his name is Count Pahlen; he has been engaged in the Russian diplomatic service, and his brother occupies at this moment a distinguished position in the Council of the Emperor of Russia, and is said to be on the most intimate and friendly terms with him. Count Pahlen has arrived within the last ten days in this city, and since his arrival he has mixed freely in society, and it is stated that he has been introduced into some society under the special patronage and auspices of one of Her Majesty's Cabinet Ministers. I think it is fair to mention the name, in order, if the statement is incorrect, that a proper contradiction may be given to it. It is stated that, under the auspices of Lord Granville, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, this gentleman has been introduced into the society of this city. I must say that the presence of an alien enemy, or his arrival here, is a violation of the law, and the question I wish to put to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, whom I now see on the Ministerial benches, is, whether that gentleman has arrived here with that protection which could alone entitle him to be in this country—the safe conduct of Her Majesty? In the terms of my notice, I wish to know whether the Government are aware of the presence in London of Count Pahlen, a Russian subject, and one who has been actively employed in Russian diplomacy; and, if so, whether his presence here is with the permission and sanction of the Government?
SIR GEORGE GREY: I have myself no information whatever upon the subject, and I must request the hon. Member to repeat his question upon the arrival of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether any official communication was sent from the Colonial Office in 1853, to either the Governor or the Bishop of New Zealand, on the subject of the removal from the Estimates of that year of the usual Vote for the Bishop's salary? He wished also to ask whether any official communication that the usual allowance had been withdrawn had been sent to the Bishop of New Zealand, and if so, whether there was any objection to lay it upon the table of the House, together with any answer which may have been received from the Bishop?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in answer to the first question of the right hon. Baronet he had to state that he could not find that any direct communication on this subject was addressed either to the Governor or the Bishop in the early part of 1853, when the 600 l. a year, up to that time voted for the Bishop's salary, was withdrawn from the Estimates. He understood, indeed, that the attention of the Governor was called to the manner in which the Vote of 5,090 l. was appropriated, but that the Bishop had at that time left the Colony. He (Sir G. Grey) had, however, directed that an official intimation of the withdrawal of this allowance should be forwarded to the Bishop. He had done so in consequence of having received a letter from the late Governor of New Zealand, which induced him to believe that the Bishop was not aware of the withdrawal having taken place. He could have no objection to produce both the letter which had been written to the Bishop of New Zealand and that Prelate's reply, if the right hon. Baronet would move for them.

THE CANADIAN CLERGY RESERVES— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that since he put a question to the right hon. Baronet a few evenings ago, as to whether the Government had received any in-

43
formation with respect to recent events which were said to have transpired in Canada, another mail had arrived in this country. He wished to know whether that had brought any despatches from Lord Elgin, and if so, what was the nature of the intelligence which they contained? He wished particularly to know whether it was true that the Canadian Assembly had been dissolved in consequence of a Resolution upon the subject of the clergy reserves having been carried as an Amendment to the Address, and in opposition to the Government?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman put this question a few evenings ago, the Government had not received any official intelligence on the subject. They had on Monday last received from Lord Eglin despatches, stating the circumstances under which the Assembly had been dissolved. The Governor opened the Session with a speech on the 13th of June. An Address was proposed in answer to that speech, and upon that Address two successive Amendments were moved. The first expressed regret that the Government had not recommended during the present Session a measure for the secularisation of the clergy reserves, and for the abolition of the seignorial tenures. That was rejected by 54 to 16. Subsequently, however, another Amendment, speaking of "an immediate settlement of the clergy reserves," was proposed. That proposition, which was supported by several Members who had opposed the former Amendment, was carried by 42 to 29. An Act passed the Canadian Legislature last Session, by which the number of the members of that body was increased from 84 to 105; and the provincial Government of Lord Elgin both concurred in thinking that it was inexpedient to submit a question of such importance to the present Assembly, but that it would be better to postpone its consideration until another Assembly was elected under the new Act. Under these circumstances, Lord Elgin, acting under the advice of the Colonial Government, had prorogued the Assembly with a view to an immediate dissolution.

INDIA—TENURE OF LAND IN MADRAS.
MR. BLACKETTrose to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying for the appointment of a Commission to proceed to India to inquire into the
44
tenure of land in the Presidency of Madras. The hon. Member said that the subject of the tenure of land was of great importance in British India and its dependencies, and he believed he could show on official authority that the present system adopted with regard to the tenure of land tended to prevent the accumulation of property, to precipitate the decline of the Indian population, and to render it difficult to establish anything like a healthy and stable civilisation in British India. He must, in the first place, refer to a point which had been much discussed in relation to this subject. The House was aware that the land revenue formed the main basis of Indian finance—in fact, that not less than 15,000,000 l. out of the 26,000,000 l. of the Indian revenue was derived from the land revenue—and therefore it was not surprising that the tax should have been the subject of much investigation, and that it should have been hotly disputed whether the land-tax in India was a tax in the ordinary sense of the word, or whether it was merely the legitimate rent of the land. Whatever might be their opinion on that question, he thought the House would agree with him that, whatever its origin, the smaller that tax could be made, consistently with the interests of the State, the better it would be for all classes, for the wealth of an empire depended on what was left in the pockets of the people, and not on what was taken out; and be this impost a tax or rent, it ought to be levied in such a manner as would be least onerous to the cultivator, most productive to the revenue, and, above all, most favourable to the operations of private industry. That, however, he believed, had not been attained under our present administration. They were aware that the tenure of land was different in different portions of India. According to the settlement made many years ago in Bengal, zemindars paid a fixed sum into the Treasury; in the North Western Provinces the village system was in operation; in the larger portion of Bombay and Madras the ryotwarry. He believed it was always injudicious in the State to undertake the duties of landlord; but it must be remembered that the founders of our Indian empire were placed in a difficult position with regard to the land revenues, and the policy it was expedient to pursue with respect to the tenure of land—and he admitted that the East India Company, stepping into the shoes of the

45
Native princes, found themselves necessarily burdened with many duties which, under other circumstances, they would never have attempted to discharge. But he thought that the Company ought to have remembered that the discharge of these duties was only a disagreeable necessity, and that, having undertaken them, they were bound to endeavour to discharge them in a manner which would promote the welfare and prosperity of the Natives, and should have looked forward to a period when they might terminate this vicious characteristic of Asiatic society. This, in fact, was the policy of the founders of our Indian empire. He would, however, ask the House whether it was possible to detect any vestige of this sagacious policy in the manner in which the ryotwarry system was now administered? The system was directly opposed to every policy the British Government ought to have pursued; and instead of tending to stimulate private enterprise, it introduced the agency of the State to an extent that had no parallel in the history of the world. The Indian Government, by the ryotwarry system, attempted a task which would be difficult to the most favourably situated Government in the world—namely, that of acting, not nominally, but in deed, as landlords of their whole territory, and of placing a money rent upon every field within their vast dominions. How difficult was the task of the collectors to whom this duty was intrusted might be easily seen when they considered the immense extent of their districts. In the Madras Presidency, districts, extending, on the average, over an area of 7,000 square miles, and in some instances, as at Bellary and Cuddapah, over an area of 13,000 square miles, were placed under the superintendence of one collector, with a few English assistants, who made their tours through the districts, ascertaining, or attempting to ascertain, how much land each individual cultivator intended to bring into cultivation, and watching and checking the produce of the soil under every variety of season and of climate. The effect of this system, undertaken under great disadvantages, and charging the Government with immense responsibilities, was to break down the cultivators of the soil so completely that such a thing as private property in land, in any appreciable sense of the word, was altogether unknown. No doubt the tenant kept his holding so long as he paid the land-tax, but that tax pressed so severely
46
upon his means of subsistence as to leave him at the mercy of the Government. In this case, too, the word "Government" was synonymous with swarms of corrupt Native functionaries, under whose administration it was impossible that the tenant could accumulate capital from the produce of the soil, which was consequently without a marketable value—the sure sign of agricultural depression and distress. He (Mr. Blackett) did not think that Colonel Read or Lord W. Bentinck or Sir T. Munro ever contemplated such consequences as likely to result from the ryotwarry system. Sir T. Munro's idea seemed to have been to give the tenant of the soil permanence and fixity of tenure, to make the land-tax approximate as nearly as possible to a permanent quit-rent, and to provide that the exactions of the State should cease to keep pace with the profits of industry. It was obvious that for a fixed settlement of the tax to be beneficial to the people, it must be at a moderate rate. Now, what was the state of things in this respect in the Presidency of Madras? It had been said by the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir C. Wood) that the question at what were called the annual settlements in that Presidency seemed only to be a settlement of how much of the stipulated rent should be remitted to the ryots each year in consequence of adverse seasons, which rendered them unable to pay their full rent. He (Mr. Blackett) thought, then, that the House ought to consider whether the land-tax in Madras was so moderate in amount that the tenants might have a reasonable prospect of being able to pay it, or whether the tenants were liable to vicissitudes, depending in no degree on their own care and foresight, and leaving them a mere equitable title to the consideration of their landlords. The President of the Board of Control had admitted, on a former occasion, that the amount of rent originally imposed was now too high in consequence of the general fall in the value of produce in Madras. The assessment, which pressed with peculiar severity upon the cultivators of the soil, was originally fixed under a survey made some fifty years ago, confessedly under circumstances of great disadvantage and imperfection, and in some instances without the aid of maps. The principle upon which the rent was then fixed was this—the quality of the ground was estimated, and the probable percentage of profit on the gross produce of the soil was commuted into a money rent,

47
at the market prices of the day, and such rent was then saddled on the land for ever. He thought this was a great misfortune, for at the time to which he referred, many circumstances combined to render the market prices of Indian produce unusually high. Ever since that period prices had been steadily falling, while the ryots were still called upon to pay an assessment calculated upon the high rate of prices which prevailed sixty years ago. In regard to the survey, however, he believed that, notwithstanding its imperfection, it gave a fair average estimate of the value of the land at the time it was made. But what would the House say, when he told them that the assessment was so high upon the best land as actually to drive the laud-holders to cultivate poor lands at a moderate assessment rather than face the difficulty of extracting from good soil crops sufficient to enable them to bear up against the enormous taxation with which it was burdened? They had the testimony of Mr. Dykes and Mr. Bourdillon that there were many villages in various parts of the country in which large portions of culturable land were permanently waste, because the assessment was so excessive that the crops would not cover it, and that a large extent of the most productive soil in the country was permanently kept out of cultivation by the excessive demands of the Government. Sir Thomas Munro rightly understood that the State must necessarily be the worst landlord in the world, chiefly because it acted at a distance, and through the instrumentality of innumerable agents; he was determined to prevent the State, as effectually as possible, from all opportunity of interfering between the tenant and his profits, and, therefore, he laid down the rule that no tax should be increased or imposed in consequence of any improvement of the land made by the tenant. Of course, if the State effected any improvements, by irrigation or otherwise, which increased the value of the property, the State would derive the advantage of an additional rent; but it was intended that the tenant should reap the benefit of any improvements effected by himself. He (Mr. Blackett) thought, however, that in this respect the policy of Sir Thomas Munro had been abandoned, for it was stated by Mr. Dykes, the collector at Salem, that when the ryots attempted to improve the cultivation of the soil by planting orchards, by sinking wells, or by other means, in recent days, they had been sub-
48
jected to an additional assessment. Sir C. Trevelyan, in his evidence, alluded as a notorious fact to the very objectionable principle imported into the ryotwarry system since the time of Sir T. Munro, of imposing a tax upon the improvement of land, and stated that, in the Madras Presidency, that tax operated far more effectually in discouraging the improvement of land, than the old tithe system did in England. Mr. Peacock was called on the part of the East India Company, but he did not contradict the evidence of Sir C. Trevelyan upon any single point of importance. He (Mr. Blackett) considered that the evidence threw a great deal of light upon the necessary opposition which existed between the interests of the responsible Government of India and those of their local agents, whose main anxiety must be to make up a good revenue for the year. He complained, not that the East India Company acted under disadvantages, but that they adopted and perpetuated a system of taxation which greatly aggravated the disadvantages under which the best and wisest Government in the world must labour. The general result was that the native population of India had been reduced almost to a state of beggary under this state of things. He thought another objection to the ryotwarry system was the immense power which it placed in a swarm of Government functionaries, consisting of native agents; no one was more anxious than he was to see the native Indians raised by official employment; but when he contemplated the characteristic defects of the Indian character, and when he thought of the long-continued system of injustice which had stimulated their vices, the last thing in the world he should wish to see was their ingratiating themselves with their English masters at the expense of their poor fellow-countrymen. He had before mentioned the enormous extent of land placed under the control of a single collector; and the House could conceive the pressure which might be exercised by the native assistants of such an individual upon a population of 80,000, 100,000, or even 150,000 persons, a vast proportion of whom were trembling on the verge which separated indigence from absolute starvation. Sir G. Clerk, the late Governor of Bombay, spoke of this as one of the drawbacks of the ryotwarry system. The evidence of Mr. Dyke was to the same purpose, and that of Mr. Bourdillon, whose peculiar authority on the question could

49
not be doubted, graphically described the manner in which the unhappy ryots were ground down beneath the monstrous exactions of the collectors' servants, whose cruelty towards the persons subjected to their power was only equalled by their servility towards their employers. Mr. Bourdillon said—
"The enormous amount of constant and inquisitorial interference was an evil of immense magnitude, but that was greatly aggravated by the power which was lodged in the hands of subordinate and ill-paid revenue officers. The number of convictions for peculation bore no proportion to that of the instances of its commission, and peculation was by no means the only or the chief corruption of that class of the population; and if that was the state of matters with the chief class of subordinates, it was hardly necessary to say that the same vices obtained among the whole race of subordinates down to the very lowest."
He (Mr.Blackett) fully admitted the difficulties with which that system was surrounded; but it was the gravest condemnation of that system that it could not be carried out without the employment of means that converted it into an engine of the most intolerable oppression. The evils of the existing state of things were so great, so antagonistic alike to the prosperity and happiness of the Indian population and to the real interests of the Indian Government and of this country, that, whatever the difficulties might be, it was the duty of the House to take measures for overcoming them, and for placing the tenure of land in India—and especially in Madras—upon a sound and just basis. The returns showed in the most startling light the depressing effect which the system had upon the land revenue of India, and it was, indeed, impossible but that such a system must operate as an insuperable bar to agricultural improvement. The revenue was annually declining, as was shown clearly by the accounts for 1852 and 1853 as compared with those for 1848–49 and 1850–51. With regard to the value of the land, he found in the Appendix to the Report of the Committee of last year a return of the prices produced by land at the last revenue sale; and it appeared that in the eleven years ended 1852 the annual rental of the property put up for sale was 115,486 l., and the price it fetched was only 160,000 l. Again, with regard to the population, the House could hardly conceive the frightful speed with which the multiplication of small holdings had proceeded, creating a larger and larger body of wretched
50
serfs, without capital, without credit, without any means of duly cultivating the soil, and themselves scarcely able to keep soul and body together. In the district of Coimbatore alone, the number of these pauper cultivators, holding from one to thirty-five rupees in land per annum—or from 2s. to 70 s.—had increased from 971 to 3,607, while the number of the comparatively wealthy tenants, holding from fifty to 500 rupees in land, had decreased from seventy-eight to twenty-eight. He knew it was said that the Hindoo law of inheritance was at the bottom of this state of things; but was that any reason for our persisting in a system of taxation which seemed to have been contrived and established to strengthen a Government by the suicidal experiment of weakening society? Never had such a scene been presented by any land that had been held for so many years by a civilised Government. The picture which Mr. Bourdillon—one of the most experienced persons concerned in administering the ryotwarry system—drew of the condition of the population under this system, and not merely that of the very wretchedest, but of what were deemed the favourably situated among them, was perfectly appalling—prostrate physically and mentally, pressed down by debt, by destitution—exhibiting a dead level of squalid pauperism, misery, and starvation. The President of the Board of Control had expressed the opinion that the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Indian Government; but the conduct of the Indian Government on the subject, and especially that of the Madras Government, as particularly illustrated by their unworthy treatment of the Commission appointed to inquire into public works in that Presidency, clearly proved that the matter could not, with any expectation of beneficial results, be intrusted to that Government. It was essential that the Government of India should be brought to recognise the principle of property in behalf of the cultivators of the soil, and should discontinue that barbarous system of serfdom, which, however it might appear to Indian officials a perfectly legitimate situation in which to continue the unhappy ryots, was a principle from which the founders of the Indian Government would have shrunk with horror. The claim of the State to the land in property was the prime vice which it behoved the Imperial Parliament to extirpate—it was no more than the delusion which had

51
induced ignorant and barbarous rulers to grasp at the riches of their subjects, instead of waiting patiently until capital produced its inevitable results; it was exactly analogous with the ignorant blindness of the savage, who, as Montesquieu expressed it, cut down the tree to get at the fruit. To obtain anything like a satisfactory result two or three healthy English minds must be applied to the inquiry, aided, of course, by the best assistance that could be obtained from competent Indian information. All he desired at present was, that a beginning should be made. He was now only asking the House to do what the Government had already done in the cognate case of Ceylon. The Ceylon Commission was expressly authorised to inquire into the state of the tenure of land, and what they recommended was, that the tenant cultivator should be allowed to redeem his land tax, and so get an inalienable possession of the soil. If that principle were recognised in India, they would soon see the immense impulse it would give to the industry of the country and its social progress. It was in no spirit of hostility to the East India Company that he had brought this subject under the consideration of the House; and he would now only express his belief that by adopting the Motion which he had placed on the notice-book, the House of Commons would immensely facilitate the task of developing the resources of British India.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to proceed to India to inquire into the Tenure of Land in the Presidency of Madras."
MR. LOWEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that he had nothing to do but to state a case against the present way in which the land revenue was collected in Madras in order to entitle him to ask the House to take the strong and unusual course of addressing Her Majesty to send out a Commission composed of Englishmen to India to inquire into the matter. It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman had by no means made out so strong a case as to justify any such course; indeed it would require a very strong case to induce the House to take such a step as that. The theory of the Indian Government was, that on that side of the ocean there should be despotic rule, checked, on this side only, by the control of the Home Government and of
52
Parliament, so as to secure at the same time, the power, the influence, the terror which arose from a despotic Government, silently modified by the responsibility which here awaited those who exercised that sway. Such being the essential theory of our Indian rule, nothing but the strongest and clearest necessity should induce the House to sanction any course by which the authority of the, Indian Government should appear, in the eyes of its subjects, to be superseded by an authority checking and controlling it from without; by which an authority delegated from the English Parliament should be paraded in the eyes of the natives, as checking and controlling the local Government. He did not say that a case of necessity might not present itself so strong, so overwhelming, as to countervail such considerations; but no such necessity had been made out by his hon. and learned Friend, and he, therefore, trusted that the House would permit no step to be taken of this nature, calculated, as it was, to bring the Indian Government, and especially the Madras Government, into contempt in the eyes of the Native population. Asiatics could not understand the theory of governing powers, limited and controlled by what were well understood here as constitutional checks; and, consequently, to set before them the Government under which they lived as itself a subsidiary Government, subject to be directed and governed by powers elsewhere, would be to expose that Government to the utmost risk. His hon. and learned Friend talked of applying healthy English minds to the inquiry he proposed; but the extreme probabilities were, that the persons whom he might theoretically select for the inquiry might, whatever their other qualities, labour under the fatal defect of ignorance of the practical state and working of Indian affairs. No one attended to Indian matters in this country except persons who had political, commercial, or official reasons for studying them systematically; and the healthy English minds contemplated by his hon. and learned Friend would, therefore, though filled with the best intentions, run the risk of falling unconsciously into the hands of persons who would be anything but sound and sure guides for them. Another objection which he entertained to the Motion arose out of what his hon. and learned Friend said about the Government of Madras. He would remind the House,

53
however, that since last year the Government of Madras had been changed. The new Governor who had gone out (Lord Harris) was a nobleman of great ability and experience in the government of tropical countries, and he anticipated the greatest benefits would arise from his administration. Certainly he (Mr. Lowe) would be sorry to inaugurate the government of this nobleman by what might be regarded as a mark of want of confidence in his administration. These, then, were reasons which seemed to him to show that his hon. and learned Friend had more to do than to make complaints against the revenue system of Madras in order to make out his case for sending out a Commission of Inquiry. But he would go further. He would say that, in order to make out his case, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have been able to show one at least of three things. He ought either to have shown that there were grievances in Madras which were not recognised and admitted by the Home Government, or he ought to have shown that, admitting these grievances, the Government were not preparing, and had no notion of preparing, remedies to meet them; or again, if he could not prove this, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have been prepared to show that the Government of India was doggedly set against redressing these grievances, and that nothing except the stimulus of a Commission inquiring upon the spot would induce them to do justice to the population of the Presidency. His hon. and learned Friend however, had shown none of these things; and it was upon this ground, waiving the objections which might be urged to the appointment of a purely English Commission to proceed from this country to India for the purposes of inquiry, that he grounded his opposition to this Motion. The Resolution purported to refer to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the tenure of land in Madras. Although, however, he had listened with great attention to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, he had heard nothing which he could fix upon with regard to the tenure of land at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said a great deal about the collection of revenue; but as to the tenure of land he had said nothing which he (Mr. Lowe) could hear except in almost the last sentence of his speech, in which he spoke of allowing the ryots to redeem their rents and thus become pre-
54
prietors of the land. Now, if this were the object of his hon. and learned Friend, he confessed he did not think it would be worth while to send out a Commission merely to inquire whether or not the ryots ought to be allowed to redeem their rents, because he had only to refer to the speech of the hon. and learned Member himself to ask the House whether to give such a permission would not be (in the situation in which the hon. and learned Gentleman described the Madras ryots to be) merely a cruel mockery? These persons were described by his hon. and learned Friend as being in the lowest state of want and misery, as trembling on the line which separated indigence and starvation, and at the same time, in order to give the Commission a subject on which to report, they were to suppose these miserable creatures to be in a condition to redeem their rents, and to become owners and proprietors of the soil. Now, he thought this was far too visionary an idea upon which to ask this House to send out a Commission to India? But he would go further, and, putting aside that which his hon. and learned Friend admitted was not a very probable or a very near contingency, he would ask the House what result was expected from the Report of such a Commission as was suggested? His hon. and learned Friend had spoken not merely against the abuses of the ryotwarry system, but against the ryotwarry system itself, and was of opinion that that system ought to be put an end to. But what would his hon. and learned Friend substitute for it? If the Commission were to go and inquire on the spot, of course they must inquire about something. It would be of no use denouncing the ryotwarry system if something were not substituted in its place. If all that could be gained from the Report of such a Commission was simply the declaration that the system was a very bad one, but that it was desirable to abide by it in the main, it would scarcely be worth while to issue a Commission for such a result. But probably his hon. and learned Friend might say, "There are other systems—other land systems—in India, as, for example, the village system and the zemindarry system; and a Commission might very properly inquire whether one or other of these might not be more suitable to the Presidency of Madras than the ryotwarry system." Now, he (Mr. Lowe) contended that such an inquiry would be utterly nugatory, because

55
we knew beforehand, having ample means of forming an opinion on the subject, that such a change could only aggravate and increase the very evils of which his hon. and learned Friend complained. If the Government abolished the ryotwarry and substituted the zemindarry system in Madras, they would be only setting up Native instead of Government landlords, and he declared without fear of contradiction, that they would not in any way ameliorate the condition of the ryots by doing so. The experience of Bengal, where the zemindarry system had been introduced and where the ryots had unhappily been abandoned to harsh and cruel Native landlords, was most unfavourable; for here the population were as miserable as any in India. He need go no further for testimony to the truth of what he alleged than the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, who had drawn a most melancholy picture of the Hindoo character, and had described the Natives as characterised alike by servility and cruelty. Now, what greater iniquity could be perpetrated by a Government, which was in itself and in its own tendencies neither servile nor cruel, than by being accessory to any measure which should hand over the cultivators of the soil in India to a set of men who were so described? It could not be right to hand over a race who were notoriously unable to help themselves and to resist oppression to persons who were stigmatised as servile and cruel. This, at any rate, would not be the way to remedy the evil complained of, and he supposed it would be generally acknowledged that it would be better for the native Hindoos to fall into the hands of the Government of India, with all its faults, than to hand them over to a body of men so described, and who were quite unable to discharge their duties as landlords. Then, should they take the village system? Should they say, "We will form these people into communities with reference to each village, and the whole village should be bound to pay to the Government a particular rent?" Should they adopt such a system? He admitted that it had been found to work well in the North West Provinces—but why? Because the villages there formed communities and brotherhoods of their own; because among them there was a community of feeling; because everybody was a clansman and a friend, and they had no separate or divided interest. Was this the state of society in Madras? No. The village system in Ma-
56
dras was broken up, the villages were inhabited by persons of different castes and of very hostile feelings, and there could be no greater cruelty and extortion than that which you would authorise and sanction, if you were to form these Madras villages into communities for the purpose of paying the rent to the Government, and thus place the weak inhabitants of a village in the power of the strong. You would then see cruelty and servility working their natural results, and he could not look without a shudder to the effect of such a system. Yet these were the only alternative land tenures; you must choose between the ryotwarry, the zemindarry, and the village systems. You could not wait until the ryot grew rich and could buy his land; you had no choice between handing him over to another Hindoo far more cruel than the Government of India in its worst times had ever been, or of binding him up with others in a small community where every man would prey upon his neighbour, and where the poor would be trampled down and almost annihilated and destroyed. His hon. and learned Friend had then, he thought, shown no ground for inquiry into the tenures of land, because the evils attending every tenure which could be suggested as a substitute were each of them far more objectionable than that which at present existed. But there were other grounds for opposing this Motion. The grievances connected with the ryotwarry system, as described by his hon. and learned Friend, and as recounted in any works of authority upon India, were thoroughly well known and understood. Further than this, the remedies for these grievances were also perfectly well known and understood, and it was the wish of the Government to put an end to those grievances as soon as possible. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more objectionable than to send persons to India on a crusade against the ryotwarry system, because he was prepared to prove that they must continue this system in Madras, without denying one single objection which had been urged against it by his hon. and learned Friend. The abuses which had been pointed out were no part of the system itself; they were only evils and excrescences which grew out of it. Remedies for those evils could be substituted and might be applied, and when in operation he contended that the ryotwarry was the best system of land tenure which could be applied to Madras in the present

57
condition of the Presidency. He would take the objections urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the ryotwarry system, and on the strength of which he wished to destroy it. His hon. and learned Friend declared the assessment to be too high. Well, this was a conclusive objection to any system. The best system in the world must necessarily fail if the assessment were too high. If you asked a man more than he could afford to pay for his land, you must inevitably be working out his ruin and destruction; and this objection would apply to every system of tenure in the world. The next objection entertained by his hon. and learned Friend was to the excessive amount of Native superintendence, and upon this point he (Mr. Lowe) so thoroughly agreed with him that he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman went even quite far enough. The ryotwarry system presupposed an accurate survey of the land, and such a survey, as far as he could find, in Madras had never been made. As the necessary information was therefore wanting, a large degree of inaccuracy was the result. In like manner, the classification of the land had been attended to by untrustworthy persons, and required much revision and care. Upon this foundation was built a system of great minuteness, and involving much inspection. The ryot must settle with the Government authorities how much land he had to cultivate and pay for in the year, and must receive a ticket or certificate recording these facts, which was given to him by the collector. These things had to be gone through every year, and it would therefore be seen that the system was one involving minute superintendence, in which the Government appeared not so much the landlord as the partner of the cultivator of the soil, and which was most injurious to the welfare of the population. Besides this, he was quite prepared to say that, notwithstanding the subject had been frequently pressed upon the Indian Government, there had been a tendency to tax improvements, which, of course, ought not to be taxed, and which it was quite unnecessary to argue ought not to be taxed. He allowed, too, that persons were now required to retain in cultivation larger portions of land than they required at the mere whim of the tax collector; and that the system, as at present administered, was vexatious, and afforded constant opportunities of bribery and extortion. All this might be admitted, but did
58
it furnish any objection to the ryotwarry system in itself? It was a strong objection to the practice of annual settlements and to the interference of the Government every year, but it was no objection to the system adopted in Bombay, where they gave leases of thirty years, and made settlements once for all during that period, so that for thirty years the ryot was free to do what he pleased, and was free from the superintendence of the Government officer. If such a principle as that were adopted in Madras—and he knew of no reason why it should not be—the objections of his hon. and learned Friend would vanish at once. It did appear to him, therefore, that the objections of his hon. and learned Friend were not objections to the ryotwarry system in itself, but objections to the abuses which had crept into that system. The want of proper assessment, and the high rate of assessment, could be cured by law; the immense quantity of Native interference and the vexations arising out of it could be cured by giving leases; and in like manner a remedy could be afforded to cases where taxes were levied on improvements, and where Natives were compelled to cultivate a larger portion of land than they wanted. The evils complained of were patent and notorious, and when the remedies proposed were applied—when an accurate survey had been made of the land—when the number of settlements was reduced, and the ryots were placed in possession of the securities asked for on their behalf—what possible tenure of land could his hon. and learned Friend imagine which could be more suited to develope the resources of the country, and to advance the civilisation of such a people than the ryotwarry system? These things being perfectly understood, he asked why they should send out a Commission of Inquiry? Here were evils patent, and remedies, which nobody cared to deny, ought to be applied. But the Government, in his view, ought to build upon the base of existing institutions, instead of going on a wild-goose chase after new systems, which might or might not be applicable in the course of some hundred years—though this point he did not mean to argue—but which, at any rate, were inapplicable now. Whatever might be the faults of the Indian Government, the ryot would gain nothing by having any middleman placed between him and the Government. The only other use of the Commission of Inquiry, if it did

59
not lead to the adoption of a new system of land tenure, would be to stimulate the Indian Government in remedying the faults of the system now in operation. His hon. and learned Friend was afraid that without such stimulus nothing would be done by the Government. Now, he entreated him to believe that the Government did feel the grave responsibility which pressed upon them in this matter, and he did trust that the result of a few years would be—if the House would have patience to allow the proposed reforms to be worked out—to show that the Government were able to redress all the practical grievances complained of, without interference with the system which formed the basis upon which the tenure of land rested in Madras, and upon which he believed it must continue to rest; and that they required no Commission to be sent out to India, either to bring to their minds those grievances, and to suggest remedies, or to stimulate their diligence in redressing them.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he must remind the House that the evils which attended the tenure of land in the Madras Presidency had been admitted for many years; and so long since as 1840, the answer to a memorial on the subject was, that not a year should elapse before a remedy was applied. Yet, in spite of this promise, not the slightest attempt had been made to meet the complaints of the inhabitants of the Presidency, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster now held out the same delusive hope. He did not believe, with the hon. Member, that the sending of this Commission to India would weaken the authority of the Government there. The people of India were not such fools as they were represented to be, and knew well enough that the real strength of their Government did not lie in India; and therefore the sending this Commission would show the inhabitants of the Presidency that the Government at home had a paternal feeling for the welfare of the people, and were not afraid to acknowledge that those whom they had deputed to take charge of the people had not properly fulfilled their duties, and that as soon as that fact had come to their knowledge they had sent out men to find out what remedy should be applied, and how they could best ameliorate their condition for the future. The condition of the people of India was a perfect disgrace to this country, and to every party who had ever had anything to do with India; and
60
it was the duty of the House of Commons to enforce upon the Government the necessity of applying remedies to the grievances under which any portion of Her Majesty's subjects were suffering. The inquiry into the internal condition of any people would always be productive of good in bringing to light facts which the Government would otherwise never know; and the result of such an inquiry could but tend to strengthen the hands of the Government in carrying out the remedies required;—and for these reasons he considered the appointment of this Commission most desirable. With respect to Southern India, the statistics of the East India Company showed that the land was of no value. Why was it that no Governor General of India, since Lord W. Bentinck, had visited that part of the empire? and why was it that he had never been directed to inquire into the causes which led to this disgraceful state of things? The Governor General could find time to go to the newly-acquired Burmah, or to the pet Punjaub; but why had no visit ever been paid to Madras? He did not think that the Native servants of India deserved all the blame which was always so freely cast upon them, in connection with the existing state of things in India. No doubt they were not all of them of that high character they would desire to see; but there were "black sheep" among the Company's European servants, and their delinquencies were not unfrequently screened by the Government at home. The Native officials were very much underpaid, and it seemed, therefore, to be acknowledged by the Government of India, like that of Russia, that a little peculation was allowable. Another great error in the existing system was, that, in reality, no one knew to whom the land really belonged. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control stated, on a previous occasion, that the land belonged to the Government; but it had been stated on authority as high that the land really belonged to the occupier; so that, in reality, it appeared that no two persons were agreed as to whom the land actually belonged. He himself thought that the right hon. Gentleman was correct, and that the land belonged to the Government. But what was the condition of the holder of that land? If a person held land, he had to pay as much as two-thirds of the gross produce annually to the Government, and, indeed, in some places

61
more than the gross produce; so that it was impossible that land could be of any value to the holder, and the consequence was, that one-third of the best land was lying waste and untilled, and the persons who, under a different system, would be encouraged to cultivate that land emigrated in large numbers to Ceylon, or to the Mauritius, and other places. In Ceylon they found it possible to buy land, and the result was, that the greater portion of the land in that island was cultivated by those Tamuls who had been compelled to emigrate from their own country. The system of forcing the revenue was also kept up to a great extent. Persons might not wish to take land, but the subordinates of the collectors would say, "We must make up the revenue," and they would actually compel them to take land. With regard to the tenure of land in the Madras Presidency, he had been much astonished, upon speaking to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control on the subject of moving for copies of the list of rules regulating the holding of land, to hear that it would be impossible to produce them, and that no copies of them had ever been sent to this country. These were rules which affected the happiness of a large class of British subjects, and they ought, he thought, to be made public, instead of being kept scret, not only from the public generally, but from those persons whose interests were most deeply affected by them. He believed that there was no farmer in England who did not care more for his stock than the East India Company did for those human beings intrusted to their charge, and that these rules were kept secret was an instance of that fact. He had himself tried to obtain a copy of them, and could not, until at last he had succeeded in obtaining a copy—he was not ashamed to say it—surreptitiously. It appeared to him that the great object of the Madras Government was to get 10 s. a year out of a man who had only 8s. This was not always an easy task, and tortures, similar in their character to those which were applied in the beginning of the last century, were resorted to for the purpose of extorting the required amount. In certain districts this torture goes on every year; and although the civil servants may deny the fact, it is proved by the testimony of many English merchants. Every statement he had made could be proved by the evidence of the collectors them-
62
selves, if the East India Company would produce their Reports. He had applied for them to the President of the Board of Control; but that right hon. Gentleman, not of his own motion, but prompted by Sir James Melvill, would not produce them; if he had, this would not have taken place. It was impossible to obtain any useful information about India, for the Reports and documents laid on the table were always prepared in a most slovenly manner, and were either so meagre as to be of no use, or so voluminous that no one could wade through them;—it was impossible, too, to gather from them information on any particular point, because indexes were carefully omitted. The condition of the country was now very different from what it was twenty years ago. The Presidency of Madras contained 700,000 inhabitants; yet a man, if worth 10,000 l., was considered a rich man; a few years ago it contained many rich Armenians; they had all disappeared, the native merchants were bankrupt, and the whole trade had passed into the hands of a few English houses connected with the civil service. All persons engaged in commerce were entirely dependent on the good offices of the Government; an official had only to show indirectly that he did not like a person, and the Natives would take care not to supply him with anything. Mr. Bowman, the manager of the Porto Nuovo Iron Company, had stated to him that they found it impossible to carry on their business in those districts where the collectors were hostile to them. He had himself visited South Arcot and other districts, and the authorities stated that of these about one-fifth was cultivated; but the Natives assured him that one-fiftieth was nearer the proportion. He had travelled for miles through a desert country; the population was in a most miserable condition, and they formed a striking contrast to the Native officials. If there had been greater communication with India some years ago, the bad management would not have been allowed to go on, and things would never have come to their present state. The district through which the Madras Railway passed was a complete desert; the engineer had stated to him that not one-tenth of the ancient waterworks were kept in repair; the Government would neither mend the tanks themselves nor allow the people to do so. The policy adopted presented a striking contrast to that pursued by Mr. Thomason in the

63
North West Provinces, which had been attended with such good results. The Madras officials admitted the wisdom of that gentleman's proceedings, and only regretted that there was not some person in their district of sufficient authority to introduce the same practices, which would be a blessing to the people and produce an enormous revenue to the Government. It might be said that a step had been taken in the right direction, as an order had been sent out not to tax improvements; but why had the execution of that order been delayed for six months after it reached Madras? The people had actually been taxed, although the order of the Directors had arrived out and was known to every servant of the Company. One of the great evils of India was, that the laws were not attended to. The House might pass good laws, but the officials knew the Treasury must be filled; if they disobeyed orders, their conduct might be overlooked; but if the Treasury were not filled, if they did not get the last rupee, they knew that they would lose their places, and that others would get them, and the unfortunate Natives would not be better off. But what was the result of the order he had referred to? At Coimbatore he found that new wells had been dug alongside the old ones. The Government said, "We will not tax the new wells, but the old ones must still be subject to it." The result was, all the old wells were abandoned, and in that district alone 3,000 new wells had been dug at an enormous waste of human labour, caused by that short-sighted policy—that desire to grasp money which defeated its own ends. When he was at the foot of the Neilgherry Hills, he saw at each side of his route the most magnificent vegetation. On inquiry, he found that the collector had with difficulty obtained permission to let about a hundred yards at each side of the road at a rent of 10 s. This strip was highly cultivated, but beyond that, land of the same quality lay waste, because the Government demanded 20 s., which nobody could afford to pay. The Natives say they cannot touch the land, because if they did they would bring down a host of officials upon them. The labour is there, and the land is there, and both together ought to make capital, yet the Natives were forced to remain idle at home, or emigrate if they wished to do anything. This neglect of the interests of the country and this utter want of common sense appeared incomprehensible; but they proved how just were
64
the general complaints contained in the Native petition presented last year. Every day facts were coming to light that condemned the East India Company. 150,000,000 of people ought not to be handed over to a bastard Company, a Company only in name, who could not choose their own Directors. They had no interest in the country; their mortgage. on the revenue was a mere nothing—it was only an annual charge of 640,000 l. on a revenue of 27,000,000 l. No matter how much the country improved, they could not get more than 10½ per cent on their original stock, and it was impossible ever for them to so mismanage the revenue as that it should not meet this charge. Some great alteration must take place, and the country no longer present a spectacle that was a disgrace to human nature. The country on the opposite side of the Neilgherry Hills was in a very different state. The people of the Malabar Coast were opulent and prosperous, because they were not a race to play tricks with; but the Natives of the Coromandel were brokenhearted and dispirited by centuries of oppression. On the Malabar Coast the Moplas were an enterprising and industrious race; they were called the "Yankees" of India. This was the only spot in India where private property in land was recognised; and it was impossible to find a more happy, active, or opulent race than its inhabitants, every man living on his own plot of ground, like a yeoman in England. Surely it would be worth while to try the experiment in other parts of the Presidency, and, if it succeeded, to extend it throughout. When private property in land existed all over the world, why should it not be tried in India? He was glad to think that the Governor General had something of the kind in contemplation, as he saw that a portion of land near Calcutta was to be sold out and out. Perhaps the noble Lord would next turn his attention to the neglected Presidency of Madras. Mr. Norton some time since built a house near the city, where he (Mr. Seymour) had the pleasure of dining with him, and he was astonished to find that his host had not the slightest idea of the position in which he stood towards the Government. The house was built on their land, and he could not tell but that next year the assessment would be raised to the full value of the building, without regard to the money that had been expended on it. It was impossible to expect that English capital could

65
be embarked in the country under such circumstances. The Rev. Mr. Blenkinsopp, one of the Company's chaplains, was anxious, not long ago, to establish his son as a coffee planter, and applied for a lease of a quantity of land. He was informed that he might have a lease for twenty-one years, subject to any conditions, as to rent or otherwise, that the Government might think fit to impose during the interval. The rev. Gentleman very properly refused to embark his money on such terms. The collector finally offered to let him have the ground for twenty-one years, at 2s. an acre, and an undertaking that at the end of the term the rent would not be raised beyond that of the adjoining land. It could not be expected that money would be invested in land on such terms. The Natives were all emigrating to Ceylon, which was becoming a flourishing colony, but India would remain in the neglected and forlorn condition in which it was at present. This question well deserved serious consideration, such as it could not receive from the servants of the Company. The Directors said their officials in India were already too hard worked. This matter required special officials, and if they were not to be found there, they should be sent from this country. It would be no insult to the Government there, and the House would have the whole thing clearly before it, and India would not much longer be left in its present degradation. It was stated that in the south one-half of the gross produce of the wet land and 35 per cent of the dry land was taken by Government; but in the North Western Provinces only one-tenth. Such a difference ought not to exist. 22,000,000 of people were not to be treated in such a way. It was the duty of Government immediately to take some active steps. It would not be sufficient to transfer a Governor from a West Indian colony to the East. However earnest, however clever he might be, it would take years to become acquainted with the nature and wants of the country, and he must almost of necessity fall into the hands of interested parties. The persons best acquainted with Madras admitted that an instant remedy was required. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he did not accede to the Motion, would, in concert with the Directors, take into consideration the best mode of redressing these grievances, and would avail himself of the services of the old servants of the Company now in England, who
66
were well acquainted with the Presidency of Madras, and consult with them as to the best means of restoring peace and happiness to the suffering people.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he must say he had seldom heard in that House a speech wherein any hon. Member had dealt so largely in assertion and so little in proof as that of the hon. Member who had just sat down. ["No, no!"] Although that assertion might not meet with the approbation of some hon. Members, he was compelled to say that the statement of his hon. Friend—who had proceeded to India immediately after the House rose last Session for the purpose of collecting information—and he gave him credit for the sincerity of his intentions and his anxious desire to obtain that information—was unsupported by proof. What was the Motion before the House? He (Sir J. W. Hogg) had listened with great attention to the temperate speech made by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, and who confined himself to the subject-matter, deprecating a general discussion on Indian Government, which question he observed had been fully discussed last Session, and ought not now to be reopened; but what course had the hon. Member for Poole taken? He opened his carpet-bag, produced his memoranda, and dealt out every possible charge on every possible subject from the statements of every person be met with in the course of his tour. The hon. Member had made his speech in support of a Motion for a Commission to proceed from this country to inquire into the affairs of India; but let him beg the House to bear in mind the observations with which he had concluded his speech—that there was no use in referring complaints to the Governor of Madras, because he had been only recently appointed, and that it would require several years before he could become acquainted with the habits and usages of the inhabitants; and further, that persons who went out from this country were very apt to fall into the hands of interested and designing persons, who, with the very best intentions on their part, might lead them wrong. He apprehended that his hon. Friend was a living illustration of the truth of his own remark, for, acting with the best intentions, he had fallen into the hands of interested and designing persons who were in connection with an association at Madras from which had emanated a petition of a more extravagant and unfounded character than any document he

67
ever remembered to have seen laid on the table of the House or adduced before a Committee; a document which well merited the observation of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, that it was a tissue of the grossest mis-statements, the grossest perversions, and the grossest exaggerations. Moreover, when he proceeded on his tour through the country, his hon. Friend, instead of using his own excellent sense and discretion, allowed himself to be attended by two of the emissaries of that very association. Now, he asked the House what was the description of information that could be expected to be gathered by his hon. Friend in a hurried tour, he never having been before in India, and conveyed to him through the medium of two emissaries from such an association? Would it not be of the most exaggerated character? No doubt, his hon. Friend had stated to the House what had been told him and what he believed to be true; but was it a statement upon which the House would like to legislate? But his hon. Friend was betrayed into errors which he had himself adverted to in order to anticipate any remarks he (Sir J. W. Hogg) might make—errors, he considered, which destroyed the utility of the whole inquiry. He admitted that he called the parties before him and made inquiries of them as to the treatment which they had received from the authorities, as if he were deputed by Government. [Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. I never said anything of the kind.] At all events, wherever he went that impression was spread by the two emissaries, and the people everywhere assembled around him in multitudes, and were addressed by the emissaries to that effect. His hon. Friend was as incapable as any man in that House of stating that which was not strictly accurate, and he was quite sure his hon. Friend did all he could to remove the misconception spread by the interested persons to whom he had alluded among the ignorant population of the districts they visited; but there could be no doubt that the impression in their minds was that he was proceeding through the south of India as a Royal Commissioner, to whom the people were to come and make their complaints in order that they might be laid at the foot of the Throne and before Parliament. ["No, no!"] That impression was spread abroad and encouraged, he knew, without his hon.
68
Friend's knowledge, and he knew further that his hon. Friend took every means to reprobate it, and to state that such an impression was altogether devoid of truth. But he must add that he had also heard—his hon. Friend would correct him if he were present—that attempts were made to levy contributions from the people on the ground that he was a Royal Commissioner, and in order to meet the necessary expenses. His hon. Friend shook his head in dissent—if the charge were incorrect, he would at once withdraw it; but as the justification for having made such a statement, he would read the published report from the two emissaries, made after his hon. Friend's departure from the country. Speaking of a certain place, they said—
"Here the ill-will of the Government was first made manifest to our design; Mr. Seymour was spoken of as a humbug and an agitator, and the people were told that it was of no use their giving money; but this did not prevent the people from coming to Mr. Seymour, nor did it prevent the subscriptions from proceeding."
So that it appears that the hon. Member's tour was made use of by those interested persons as a means of levying subscriptions for the purposes of that association, and that he had been made a dupe of. But the House could easily understand the sensation which the presence of his hon. Friend would excite in districts where, except the judge and the collector, the face of a European was seldom seen. In such a district the hon. Gentleman, he understood, was in the practice of taking out a sheet of paper covered with pictures of various kinds of torture, and asking the people, as he pointed to one or other of the representations, "is that the kind of torture to which you were subjected?" He must think that was an act of grave indiscretion. His hon. Friend had referred, apparently as the strongest case of abuse which he could produce, to the coffee plantation of Mr. Blenkinsopp. Now, what were the facts of the case, even upon his hon. Friend's own showing? Here was a lease of twenty-one years given for the land, together with an obligation that after that period the land should not be more highly taxed than similar land in the district. That was called an absurd and preposterous and an uncertain tenure. But he must beg to tell the House that the rent of all the land in Madras was fixed, and could not be exceeded. That was to say, the best land;

69
the land that was subject to irrigation was subject to a certain rent, which was the maximum rate through the Presidency; inferior land was let according to its presumed lower value, at a lower rate; but every tenant knew at once by looking at the rent of the best land what was the very highest sum which he could possibly be charged. In place of such an arrangement being unreasonable, he contended that it was fair, right, reasonable, and just. Now, if this was—and by the selection it appeared it was—the very worst case of abuse which his hon. Friend could meet with in the whole of his peregrinations through the south of India, then he (Sir J. W. Hogg) did not think that a handsomer compliment could be paid to the Madras Government. As to the other statement his hon. Friend had made respecting Mr. Norton not knowing what he would have to pay for his house, the statement was altogether incomprehensible. The fact was, there was no tax on houses in India. In the three Presidency towns, indeed, there was a house tax to defray the expenses of the police, but in all the rest of India the tax was laid wholly on the land; and if a tenant paid the assessment on the land, he might build upon it or do whatever he pleased without any additional tax. Another of the objections was, that there some change in the title to the land had been introduced, which was represented as a great hardship, when it turned out that the Governor had given to the people of Calcutta the power of redeeming the land. His hon. Friend had also spoken of the energy and industry of the Moplas on the coast of Malabar. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) was sorry to say that official information of a very sad and melancholy character enabled him to bear full testimony to their energy, but it was not the energy of industrious enterprise. They were, in fact, a parcel of ruffians who infested the country, and murdered men for the sake of religious bigotry. These were the men who had been selected for the eulogy and panegyric of his hon. Friend; for his part, he wondered that his hon. Friend did not shudder at the very mention of the Moplas. Then his hon. Friend had introduced a charge against the Government in the case of the Porto Nuovo iron mines. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) did think that these statements, which of course his hon. Friend had received from the Porto Nuovo Company, betrayed the very extreme of audacity. What were the facts of the case? So anxious were
70
the Indian Government to encourage the iron mines of Porto Nuovo that they advanced one sum of money to the Company after another till they had paid the sum of 100,000 l., which they might as well have thrown into the sea. A new Company was started, and this new Company was patronised by his right hon. Friend the President of the India Board and by the majority of the Court of Directors, who gave the new Company an assignment of the 100,000 l. advanced to the old Company for 10,000 l. paid down. He was happy and proud to say that, though he was in a minority, he resisted this arrangement, for he did not see why the money of the people of India should be taken to encourage a scheme, which, however beneficial it might ultimately prove, was only a private speculation. Now, was not his hon. Friend astounded at the audacity of the parties who had so misled him? [Mr. SEYMOUR: Not at all.] Then his hon. Friend would make a very bad Commissioner, and if his right hon. Friend should think of sending out a Commissioner to India, he hoped the hon. Member for Poole would not be appointed. Complaints had also been made with respect to the want of encouragement of mercantile firms at Calcutta, but no complaint had been made to the Government of India about it, and it was a little suspicious to find persons coming to the House of Commons for a remedy which they could have obtained from the local Government. Returns, it was said, had been refused, but those returns were private and confidential returns from the revenue officers to the Government, and it would be highly detrimental to produce such returns unless there were circumstances which rendered it absolutely necessary to do so. The complaint, therefore, on that head, he considered not well founded. His hon. Friend had also sneered at the Governor General, and talked of his arrangement of the Punjaub as his "pet Punjaub scheme." Now, he would ask those hon. Members who had read Lord Dalhousie's Report upon the affairs of the Punjaub, whether it was a fit subject for sneers? To his mind, it would ever remain the most enduring monument of the energy, the ability, the wisdom, and the administrative skill of the Governor General. The annals of the world could not show another such instance of a country in a state of anarchy and confusion, being, as if by magic, transformed into a land of order, and peace,

71
and industry, yielding a large revenue to the conquerors. His hon. Friend sneered at Lord Dalhousie's frequent absences from Calcutta. It was true that, soon after returning from the Punjaub, he again left Calcutta; but he left it to proceed to Pegu, the seat of war, in order that by his presence he might expedite operations, and bring hostilities to a speedy close. He believed they never had a Governor General who at greater personal sacrifice had seen more of the country than Lord Dalhousie; and yet, apparently because the Governor General did not come to meet his hon. Friend in his peregrinations, he thought fit to sneer at him for visiting every part of India except Madras. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) was sorry that his hon. Friend (Mr. Danby Seymour) should have thought it necessary to refer to past times in order to endeavour to throw imputations upon those who had ruled India. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the peculation of the Company's servants; but if solitary instances of the kind had occurred a hundred years ago, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) thought the integrity which had distinguished the civil service of India during the last sixty years might have prevented the hon. Gentleman from raking up such charges from the ashes of the past. The hon. Gentleman, however, went on to say that such cases might occur now, and he had the hardihood to assert that the East India Company screened the defaulters, and gave them pensions derived from the revenues of India. Now, the only case to which the hon. Gentleman could have referred was that of an officer in the civil service. In that case the defaulter was tried and convicted; he was entitled to a pension of 1,000 l. a year, for which he had paid month by month from his salary, and in that sense had fully earned it: when he came home he found that the Directors had deprived him of the full amount. Was that screening an offender? The defaulter applied to the Court of Queen's Bench, who said the "screening" East India Directors had pressed too heavily upon him, that as he had paid towards his pension he was entitled to it, and they ordered that it should be restored to him. He must apologise to the House for having detained them so long on these questions, and he turned with pleasure to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who made this Motion (Mr. Blackett), in whose statements there was much that met his concurrence. Had the debate been allow-
72
ed to rest upon that able and pertinent speech, it need not have lasted an hour. That there were evils connected with the land tenure all were ready to admit, and the only question was, how they were to be remedied; he could assure the hon. Gentleman that it was his own wish, and the desire of all who had an interest or a part in the administration of India, to ascertain the best remedy for those evils, but he could also assure the hon. and learned Member that it was no easy matter to discover what the best remedy was. The hon. and learned Mover knew very well, from the researches which it was plain he had made, that this subject had engaged the attention of the greatest, the wisest, and the best informed men that had been connected with India. There were differences of opinion, not only as to principle, but even with regard to facts. With regard, now, to this very ryotwarry system, that was now held to be so execrable, perhaps the House was not aware that its author was no less a person than Sir Thomas Munro, who was at first opposed to it; but after communicating with its first advocate (Colonel Reid) he became a convert to it, and the ryotwarry system, wherever it now prevailed, was introduced by the Court of Directors on the representations and advice of Sir Thomas Munro. Now, Sir T. Munro was not led to that conclusion by any views of political economy, but his main argument in favour of the ryotwarry system was, that it did away with middlemen, and that the same man was landlord, tenant, and labourer, deriving, from the union of the three characters, the benefits accruing from each. Not only so, but Sir Charles Metcalfe, when he introduced the system of what was called the North Western Settlement, said, he gave up the riotwarry system with reluctance, but be found he could not introduce it without giving up the system of village tenure—that system of little village republics which had preserved the population of India unchangeable amidst the fall of so many dynasties. As between the ryotwarry system and the zemindarry system, the preference was not so apparent as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose. The Government must in every case be a better landlord than the zemindar, and if the zemindar were to come in the place of the Government, he would have the same difficulty to deal with. Was the zemindar a more considerate landlord than the Government, where he had the power in his own

73
hands? Was he so in Bengal? The very reverse was the case. And yet the zemindarry system was introduced by Lord Cornwallis, another benefactor of India; and that system was then as much lauded as the North Western system was now. The hon. and learned Member had told them that a system was now tried in the neighbourhood of Bombay—which he (Sir J. W. Hogg) hoped would be successful. It was a maintenance of the ryotwarry system thus far—that the land was divided into fields, each of which was held by one individual; the quality of the land was ascertained by an accurate survey, and a particular price was put upon it which was admitted on all hands to be moderate. It was provided that the bargain should be binding upon the Government for thirty years; for that term the ryot might, if he pleased, retain possession, and his rent could not be raised a single farthing. But the tenant had this advantage—that at the end of a year he had the option of giving up the whole of his holding, or as much of it as he thought fit, and at any time during the term of thirty years he might relinquish his tenancy by giving a year's notice. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) must confess that he thought this was going rather too far, and that such a regulation might tend to destroy that feeling of responsibility which would induce a tenant to endeavour to fulfil his contract and to pay the stipulated rent. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Blackett) had truly said, that a great deal of ground in Madras was too highly taxed, because the price of grain had fallen so considerably that rates of assessment which were perfectly fair in Sir T. Munro's days were exorbitant now. This circumstance showed the necessity of improving the means of communication and public works in India, for, if the production of grain was increased beyond the amount required for consumption in a particular district, means ought to be provided for conveying the surplus elsewhere. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) hoped and believed that the system of communication which had been established in the southern districts of Bombay, and which was nearly completed in the northern districts, would be extended to Madras, for the subject was now prominently engaging the attention of the Indian Government. If this system should be found to succeed in Bombay, it might be applied to Madras; he used the word "might," because the more a man read and investigated, the more cautious he
74
would become in deciding summarily upon the affairs of India. The hon. and learned Member had talked of sending Commissioners in India; but if they searched the whole of Her Majesty's dominions, they would not find such a Commissioner as they had now in India in the person of Lord Dalhousie. That noble Lord was the Queen's Commissioner; it was his duty to superintend matters of this kind; and the subject was now engaging his most anxious attention. To show what differences of opinion might occur, even among men of great talent and information, upon questions of this kind, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) might mention that Sir T. Munro had argued that the ryotwarry system was the original system which prevailed throughout India, while Colonel Wilks and others contended that the village system was, if not the universal, at all events the general system of India. In the course of this discussion the characters of the Natives had been stigmatised by some hon. Gentlemen; but he might remind the House of the obloquy which was last year heaped upon the Court of Directors, because they did not employ in offices of importance those very Natives who were now the objects of attack, and who, it was contended, ought to be eligible to become members of the Council. He hoped and believed that the native officers in India would become honest in time, when they were better paid, and he did not think, considering their station in life, and the rule under which their forefathers had lived, that it was fair to stigmatise their conduct so strongly. He had been astonished to hear it said that British rule would deteriorate the Hindoo race. ["Hear, hear!"] That might be a very sentimental and patriotic cheer, but for his own part he believed that the British rule was regenerative, and he knew that under that rule the blessings of education were being diffused throughout India. It must be remembered, however, that the regeneration of a people was not the work of a year, or of twenty years, or of fifty years, or even of a century; but if, at the expiration of a century, a visible and marked progress was apparent among the people of India, the British nation would have reason to be thankful for the good they had effected. He considered that the greatest evils to which India had been subjected had arisen from attempts to force upon the people of that country English notions and habits; and he believed that

75
the wisest course would have been, instead of attempting to apply any particular system of tenure to the whole of India, or to any of the Presidencies, to have studied the feelings and habits peculiar to the different districts, to have adopted and protected the tenure found to be existing, and to have removed as far as possible all possibility of peculation. That had been the plan adopted so successfully in the North West Provinces by Mr. Thomason, who took things as he found them, protected the weak against the strong, and ascertained by careful survey the quality of the soil in every field, however small, and the extent to which various parties were interested in the property. He (Sir J.W. Hogg) admitted that there were evils attaching to the present system of tenure which ought to be remedied; and he had no doubt that Lord Dalhousie, if he found it necessary, would send persons thoroughly acquainted with the subject to institute an inquiry in the Presidency of Madras. He hoped it would not be thought advisable to send out from this country Commissioners whose knowledge of the matters to be investigated must necessarily be limited, and thus to supersede the Governor General in the main points of his government—the care of the people committed to his charge, and the raising of a revenue in the manner most profitable to the State and least oppressive to the people.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that he was sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) had left his place, for, had he been there, he (Mr. Bright) intended to remark that he could not help thinking that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour) would have felt that his speech had not been entirely without effect from the apparent indignation with which the hon. Baronet had risen to answer him, and had, after all, succeeded very poorly in the answer which he had attempted. It had struck him (Mr. Bright), as it must have done every Member, that the speech of the hon. Member for Poole was one of those speeches which it was impossible to answer, unless parties chose to say they did not believe a single word which the hon. Member had stated, he only having told of things which he had seen. The hon. Member for Poole had gone to India on an occasion and for a purpose which did him great credit, and he (Mr. Bright) could not conceive anything which would prove more advantageous than if hon. Members, instead of visiting the
76
Rhine, Switzerland, or the Highlands of Scotland, should, in the ensuing autumn, betake themselves to India for the purpose of investigating the state of the country, and especially of the Presidency of Madras, as was done by the hon. Member for Poole. The hon. Member for Honiton had taken greater latitude on this question than he was willing to allow to any one else. He said that the hon. Member for Poole had come down to the House with his carpet-bag, opened it, and brought forward all that he had gathered during his journey in India, and the hon. Baronet had given them a great many facts—or, rather, what he called facts—but he (Mr. Bright) had heard the speech of to-night made by the hon. Baronet at least four times before, and knew precisely what he was going to say every successive Session when he rose for the purpose of refuting, or of attempting to refute, the views advanced by a certain party in this House who were called Indian reformers. The hon. Baronet had charged the Member for Poole with going to Madras and allying himself with a Native association. He (Mr. Bright) would like to know with what party in Madras it would have been more proper for the hon. Member to have allied himself than with an association formed of intelligent Natives, anxious to communicate to Parliament such information as might advance the interests of their country? The information received by the hon. Member for Poole was nothing more than had been confirmed by every work recently written on the Presidency of Madras, and he (Mr. Bright) knew, from conversations that he had had with his hon. Friend, that he had not made any statements with reference to the Presidency of Madras, or of what he had heard from parties connected with the association, that had not been confirmed by information derived from English military and civil servants of the Indian Government. It could not be attributed as a matter of blame to the hon. Member for Poole that, as he went through the country, crowds of people came round him, and certainly if, as had been said, they never saw an Englishman but a tax collector, it must have been a refreshing sight to have found out an Englishman in India who was not a tax collector. They had the fact of an Englishman and a Member of Parliament travelling through the Presidency of Madras, met by large numbers of Natives, who came to take encouragement from him, to tell him their grievances,

77
and to ask him to be their messenger to this House of Commons. This could not be taken as a condemnation of the hon. Member or the Natives of India; but it was a most conclusive condemnation of that Government which had left the people of India with grievances, not only unredressed, but unheard and uninquired into for upwards of 100 years, during which India had been in the possession of this country. The hon. Baronet had said that somebody had made subscriptions when the hon. Member for Poole had gone through the country, and had insinuated that this was for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the hon. Member's journey, and had let this assertion down by saying that the funds were collected ostensibly for the purposes of the association; and what could be more legitimate than that funds should have been collected for the association? Even if this were true, what could be more natural than that the Natives of India should subscribe for the purpose of sending written or published evidence, or special messengers, if they thought right, in order to lay their grievances before Parliament? They were aware that before the Committee evidence had been taken from the servants of the Company, as many as chose to come, and the more welcome they were if their evidence was found to be favourable to the Company. Surely the hon. Baronet would not assert that the Natives of India under his rule and that of his compeers were not to subscribe for the purpose of laying their grievances before Parliament, and of claiming redress? The hon. Baronet was very much surprised at the story of the clergyman who would not invest his capital under the admirable terms offered by the Government, and said that he was only charged the same as his neighbours, and had no reason to find fault; but the charge was, that the neighbours had been charged too much, plundered, and ruined, and the English clergyman was rather more awake and less dependent than his neighbours, and refused to invest his capital on the terms offered by the hon. Baronet. This was generally the case as regarded the settlement of Englishmen, and Mr. Melville, in his evidence, had stated that there were no more Englishmen engaged in manufactures or the cultivation of the soil in India at the passing of the Act of last Session than there were at the passing of the Act of 1834. This was explained by the jealousy with which any-
78
thing like independent opinion was regarded in India, and any Englishman who settled there, if he did not make a friend of the collector and the Government, could not hope for considerable or permanent success. He should say that, of all the charges and articles of impeachment and condemnation brought against the Indian Government, this was the most conclusive—that, though it had possessed the country for periods varying from twenty to 100 years, yet there were not at this moment as many Englishmen engaged in the interior of the country in agriculture and manufacturing operations as would make one side of the House in a fair division on an important party question. If India had been in the hands of any other country in the world, or under any other Government than that of which the hon. Baronet had formed a part, he (Mr. Bright) believed that this state of things would not have arisen. Had it been in the possession of a despotic prince, he would certainly have had a direct interest in its success and improvement;—had it been under the rule of a democratic Government, it would have stimulated progress and civilisation by the force of its energy. The present state of things could not have arisen, excepting under a corporation by which it was governed, of which it was said—he quoted the words of a distinguished historian— "It was deaf to mercy, and insensible to shame." Unless it had been so, the population of Madras would not have been as they are;—and the hon. Baronet had not attempted to prove that the population of Madras were not in the abject and miserable condition described by the hon. and learned Member who had introduced this Motion—he had, on the contrary, attempted to justify the acts of that shameless corporation. The real question before the House was as to whether the Government should appoint a Commission to proceed to the Presidency of Madras to gather evidence on the spot as to the condition of the people, as connected with the tenure of land, and the taxation on that land. He was not going to contend that it was of much importance as to whether this Commission should go out; something might be said in its favour, and something might be urged against it, and, no doubt, they might choose two or three men in India as honest on this question as any who could be chosen in England, and who, doubtless, from their position, would

79
more easy access to information, and who would probably draw up as satisfactory a Report as any other gentlemen. He would not quarrel with the President of the Board of Control if he did not send out this Commission; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would fail in his duty if he did not, as a result of this discussion, promote the inquiry recommended, with a view of bringing about the improvements which even the hon. Member for Honiton had admitted to be necessary. He (Mr. Bright) had not done that hon. Baronet justice in saying that his speech of to-night was similar to those formerly made, for he had not made precisely the same speech—he had improved a little, as his admissions were more than on former occasions, and his assertions had been a little less courageous. What was in truth the condition of Madras? It was generally admitted that large tracts of land were lying waste, while great numbers of the population were scarcely employed—were almost absolutely naked, and in a state of physical weakness, arising from the want of the common necessaries of life. This was proved by books, papers, Parliamentary Reports, and a number of witnesses. All the evidence that had been adduced tended to prove this fact. And what was the conclusion? That the land was not unfertile, but so heavily taxed that there was scarcely any profit from working it; and between the miserable pittance derived from it and the large revenue drawn from it by the State, the whole of the annual produce of the land was absorbed, so that the land had no saleable value. This was a state of things which could not always prove advantageous to the Government, and must always prove pernicious and destructive to the people. In this district, notwithstanding the large resumptions of land by the Government, many of which were, in his opinion, unjust and disgraceful, the land revenue had not only not increased, but had declined; and this was a state of things in the continuance of which neither the Government nor the people could long be interested. The hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton had charged the hon. Member for Poole with retailing the stories heard in the country about torture, and wished the House to suppose that he referred to the practice of torture in the collection of the revenue; but would the hon. Baronet deny that the practice of torture was not an unfrequent
80
occurrence? Evidence of this the hon. Member for Poole had gathered from the evidence of Englishmen—collectors and officials—and he had also gathered evidence of that which was yet more horrible than anything which he durst state to this House. The evidence of Mr. Fisher, a most highly respectable merchant in India, given in Mr. Norton's book, clearly showed what could be done. He stated that—
"If the ryot cannot pay his rent, little consideration is paid to him. Every species of severity is tried to enforce payment—the thumbscrew, bending his head to his feet and tying him in that position, and making him stand in the sun, sometimes with a large stone on his back—all which failing, his property is sequestered and sold, and he is ruined and let loose on society to live by begging, borrowing, or stealing. Thousands are ruined in this way."
One of the Natives, a tutor of the young Travancore Princes, said—
"When a ryot is unable to meet the demands upon him his person is subjected to torture."
The fact was quite clear that the taxation was so unjust and onerous that it was impossible to pay it; and then cruelties were resorted to unknown to civilised countries, and scarcely fit for the barbarous Governments which the British Government in India had supplanted. The collector's subordinates had the excuse, so far as they were concerned, that if they did not, somehow or other, extort the rent from the wretched ryot, they were themselves dismissed as negligent in their duty. The hon. Baronet had favoured the House with a dissertation on ryotwarry to very little purpose, for any system, by whatever name known, whether zemindarry or ryotwarry, which tore from the cultivator three-fourths of the produce of the soil, was a system which impoverished the tiller of the soil and crushed improvement. It was perfectly natural that the hon. Baronet should censure the hon. Member for Poole for stating unpalatable truths. It was part of the system of the Government to which the hon. Baronet belonged to suppress all such impertinent exposures by dogmatic assertion and arrogant abuse. The Government of Madras had given a flagrant illustration of this principle of action in the outrageous conduct they had pursued towards their own Commissioners, whom they had pursued with insult and contumely for stating how matters really stood as to the question of public works into which they had been directed to inquire. It was expedient that care should be taken that,

81
if the Commissioners suggested were appointed, they should be protected from insults such as these on the part of any antiquated provincial or presidential Governor, whose narrow prejudices they might happen to wound. It was deeply gratifying to turn from such officials and contemplate officers like Colonel Cotton, whose exertions in the promotion of drainage and irrigation in India had done immortal honour to himself, and had conferred a lasting benefit to the country to which his eminent services were applied. Let not the hon. Member for Honiton suppose that hon. Members were actuated by motives inferior to his own. What was sought in such Motions as that before the House was simply that India should be governed in the manner most consistent with the true dignity of this country and with the true interests of India herself; and having been the means of subjugating 100,000,000 or 150,000,000 of people to the rule of the Sovereign of this country, what was so befitting the consideration of Parliament as the grave question now under consideration? It was perfectly competent in us to do far more for India than had been done for her by her ancient rulers; and he trusted that, so far as these discussions should be permitted to reach the natives of India, they would convince them that it was the desire of that House to apply sound principles to the government of India, and to confer upon that country all the civilisation and all the accompaniments of civilisation which it was possible to confer upon a country so differing in its conditions from our own
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would not, in the brief observations he should make, follow hon. Gentlemen in the discursive discussion they had entered upon, but confine himself altogether to the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his temperate speech, had propounded—namely, the tenure of land in India. To a considerable extent he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, that it was of little use for Members to come there and detail specific instances of alleged abuses which it was not possible for the House to inquire into or to remedy, while absolute silence as to those alleged abuses was observed towards the authorities on the spot, who could inquire into the truth of the story and apply a remedy. It seemed to him, for example, quite unintelligible how the respectable merchant of Calcutta, who was said to have sustained such injuries near Madras, had not sought
82
redress from the authorities at Madras. [Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said, the gentleman had applied for redress, and had got it.] He was very glad to hear that; but then there was no imputation whatever on the Government. As to the existence of many evils in India, no one denied that such evils existed; what he denied now, as on former occasions, was, that the tenure of land had occasioned those evils. The hon. Member for Poole himself admitted that the cause of these evils was to be found in the over-assessment of land, and had given an example where the assessment, having been reduced, land had been brought into a state of the highest and most advantageous cultivation. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member was not for an inquiry into the assessment of land, but into the tenure by which it was held. Now, that tenure could have nothing to do with the condition of the peasantry; for if the assessment were not altered, it would make no difference whether the ryotwarry or the zemindarry tenure prevailed. He was surprised that his hon. Friend had not referred to modern as well as to ancient authorities upon the subject of the tenure of land, as not only Sir T. Munro, but almost all the authorities to which the hon. Member for Manchester had referred as impartial and trustworthy, had given the most decisive testimony in favour of the ryotwarry tenure in India. Throughout the greater part of the Madras Presidency that was the native tenure, and the greatest evil with regard to the tenure of land which had ever been inflicted upon India had been inflicted by the attempts which had been made to introduce English tenures, which were utterly contrary to the habits and customs of the country. No greater example than that of Madras could be adduced to prove the folly of sending out English gentlemen to carry out English notions with respect to the tenure of land in India, and in that Presidency the attempt was a most signal failure. In some cases they found that a village tenure, and in others that a ryotwarry tenure existed; but they chose to introduce a zemindarry tenure, and sold up the whole district in order to do so. But in the course of twenty years the whole of the zemindars were sold up, and they were forced back to the ryotwarry tenure, finding it impossible, after causing the greatest misery, to carry out the system they had endeavoured to introduce. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's argument

83
about employing Native officers for the purpose of collecting the revenue, he would ask what would be the case if the ryots were handed over to the tender mercies of the zemindars? Were the ryots in Bengal, who were under the zemindars, in better position than the ryots who were under the Government of Madras? He would appeal to the books to which reference had been made, in proof of the lenient treatment of the ryots by the Government of Madras, in comparison with their treatment by the zemindars. It was obvious that this must be the case, for the zemindar was a middleman between the Government and the ryot, and would, therefore, make a profit out of the ryot in addition to the rent he paid. His hon. and learned Friend said, it was absolutely necessary to have certainty of tenure, and that, therefore, they must do away with the ryotwarry system; but that was a system which in India gave the greatest certainty of tenure, because under it the ryot held the land for ever, so long as he paid the rent; while, under the system of the North West Provinces and Bombay, he had only a lease for thirty years, and under the zemindarry system he was always at the mercy of his landlord. Why, then, should they substitute for the indefeasible right to land which existed under the ryotwarry system, the thirty years' lease of it which existed in the North West Provinces, or the tenure, nearly at the will of the zemindars, under the zemindarry tenure? The hon. Member for Newcastle had quoted the evidence of Mr. Bourdillon, a most able and intelligent man, with regard to the Presidency of Madras. Mr. Bourdillon said, that nowhere was land clung to with greater affection than in India; it descended from father to son, and could be claimed notwithstanding its having been allowed to go out of cultivation. Mr. Fisher, another authority which the hon. Member for Manchester had quoted, said, the ryots could not have a more permanent interest in the soil than they at present possessed, for if a ryot had fifty acres, and only cultivated ten, he only paid for those ten, and no one dare interfere
with the remainder. This, no doubt, accounted to a considerable degree for the quantity of land that appeared to have gone out of cultivation, for the ryot cultivated no more than suited him, and only paid for what he cultivated. Then, with regard to the point of the greater certainty of the ryotwarry than of
84
any other system, he would quote, not any servant of, or any one who might be supposed to be friendly to the East India Company, but Mr. Mackay, who had been sent out by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to inquire, among other things, into the tenure of laud in India. Mr. Mackay was of opinion that the ryotwarry tenure was the only one upon which the solid foundation of a land tenure could be raised. Mr. Norton, who would not be very favourable to the Company, was also of opinion, after having resided for some time in the country, that the ryotwarry system was the best that could exist. Mr. Fisher also expressed a similar opinion; he said they knew what the ryotwarry system was—as long as a man paid a certain assessment he had his land. He admitted that, generally speaking, the assessment was too high, but that did not alter the tenure of the land, to which, as long as a man paid his assessment, he knew that he had an indefeasible right. Mr. Bourdillon said the defects of the system were not practically felt, as land was bought and sold, and capital invested in it, without the least hesitation, on account of the certainty of the tenure. He thought it would not be necessary to add more upon the subject, although there were several authorities which he might quote to the same effect; and it might be fairly assumed that this ryotwarry system was the most certain tenure we could have in India. He believed that great ruin and misery had been entailed upon India by the attempts of benevolent gentlemen to force English notions of tenure upon an Oriental people, accustomed to widely different notions, to which they were deeply attached. No doubt those who engaged hi this attempt had done so with the most benevolent motives, but the effect of these measures had been wide-spread ruin and misery. It was to one of those Anglo-Indians, who had been so slightingly referred to in the course of the debate, that we owed the sytem now in operation in the North West Provinces, which had answered so well, being simply adopting and improving the system already known to the Natives. Where the village system prevailed the inhabitants were dealt with on that footing; if there was a landlord, that agreement was recognised; and in like manner if the ryotwarry system existed that was assumed as the basis of operations. Now, in the greater part of Madras the Natives were accustomed to the ryotwarry system in

85
the times of their Native princes, and that system was, therefore, on the recommendation of Sir Thomas Munro, continued in the districts where it had formerly prevailed. Sir George Clerk, in his evidence before the Committee of last year, distinctly stated that it was impossible to re-establish the village system when once it had broken down; and Mr. Norton's book contained a most forcible argument against this system as not so well calculated as the ryotwarry system to promote the welfare of the people. He believed nothing could be more fatal than any attempt to subvert the present system and to replace it by one founded on European notions, and he therefore believed that nothing could be more useless, or, if it produced any effect at all, more pernicious, than to send out a Commission from this country. But although he thought it would be impolitic and unwise to attempt to interfere with the tenure of land, he was far from thinking that there were not many evils in the present system which it would be advisable to attempt to remedy, and among them, no doubt, was the assessment of the land. He had always felt that the executive Government ought to take such measures as would put that assessment upon a reasonable and proper footing. With a view to attain that object, when a new Governor of the Presidency of Madras was to be appointed, a gentleman had been nominated whose name was never mentioned without honour (Mr. Thomason), because, of all men who had ever lived, he had shown himself possessed of a peculiar faculty of discovering what was suited to the peculiar condition of every part of the country, and of selecting the instruments for carrying out his designs with the greatest possible ability. But this gentleman had been unfortunately cut off in the midst of his most useful and benevolent career, even before the news of his appointment reached him. The Governor General had proposed to him to send out a Commission to inquire, not into the tenure of land, but into the assessment upon the laud; but he considered that the Government of Madras, without losing time in inquiries, might in many cases at once apply an adequate remedy, and he had pressed that opinion upon Lord Harris, not only before he went to his Government, but in every letter he had since written to him, as he had no doubt that one of the first steps towards putting the revenue upon a satisfactory footing
86
would be the reduction of the assessment in many cases. He believed that it would be necessary to reduce the assessment, and that, although the first result of such a step might be to decrease the revenue, its ultimate effect would be to increase it, by stimulating cultivation. The hon. Member for Poole had been kind enough to give him some credit for having paid attention to this subject. He could only say that, from the time he had been appointed to fill the situation he had now the honour to hold, he had felt that it was one of awful responsibility, and he had laid these matters to his heart, and had done his best to introduce every possible improvement into the administration of that country. It was, however, impossible, when old habits and feelings had to be rooted out, that improvements could be effected in two or three months. He believed that if there was an improvement in the system of collecting the land revenue, and if, by means of a large expenditure on public works, the people were placed in possession both of greater facilities for internal communication and better means of cultivating the soil by irrigation, Madras would not long continue the benighted land that it was said now to be, but that we should see a great improvement in that Presidency, which he was aware stood more in need of it, and was at the same time more susceptible of it, than any other part of India. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to take the sense of the House upon his proposition, which, even if it were carried, would lead to no good result.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought the President of the Board of Control had put the question upon a totally fallacious foundation. They were not discussing the relative merits of the zemindarry and ryotwarry systems, but simply whether—as administered in the Presidency of Madras—the working of the ryotwarry system was not disgraceful to a Christian Government. The fact was that, under the system of land tenure at present existing in Madras, not one-fifth of the soil was under cultivation; and that, to extort the enormous rents now wrung from the miserable cultivators of the soil, torture was not unfrequently employed. Such a state of things as that he thought certainly demanded inquiry from an English House of Commons. It was stated, too, in a Report emanating from the servants of the

87
East India Company, that farming in India was at present a wild speculation, which no reasonable man would undertake; and that land was quite unsaleable in the market. Was that a state of things which should be permitted to continue? The ryots were not allowed to cultivate as much or as little as they pleased; and the fact was that the country was reduced to the lowest state of degradation, and that the whole state of things was so flagrant and disgraceful that any means by which so foul a blot could be wiped from the British name ought to be adopted.
MR. MANGLESsaid, the whole question lay in a very small compass. It was as his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of control had said, not a question of tenure, it was a question of assessment; and the proof that it was not a question of tenure was to be found in the flourishing condition of the Canara district, where the ryotwarry system had been long established.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion must be quite satisfied with what had taken place, and with what had been said by the President of the Board of Control and by the other Gentlemen who had taken part in the discussion, and who, although they did not agree that the question had been properly introduced to the House as a question of tenure, had admitted the misery of the people, had admitted that excessive rents were exacted, and had not denied that those rents were extorted by torture. He confessed that he had been astonished that neither the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton, nor the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, had said a single word in contradiction of the fact, which the hon. Member for Manchester had broadly stated, that torture had been resorted to for the purpose of obtaining payments of rents which were avowedly excessive. He thought that it would strike the British public with surprise, that no Member of the Government had denied what was, at all events, a most appalling statement. People might naturally think that this was a question of tenure when, the excessive amount of the rents being admitted, instead of the rents being reduced, the first step was the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the mode of collecting them. It showed how these questions were dodged about. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had given them a starting point—he
88
said that the people would not cultivate the land because they were required to pay more rent than they could afford to pay; and he said, also, that the time for consideration was past, and that the time had come to act. The latter admission, taken in connection with the first, could only mean that the Government had resolved that the excess of rent should be reduced. Whenever that should take place a larger quantity of land would be brought under cultivation, and the revenue, instead of diminishing, would increase. The Motion had been of service, if only for extracting these declarations from the President of the Board of Control; but it was desirable that before the discussion closed the House should hear something from the Government upon the subject of the alleged application of torture.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that having been pointedly referred to, he could only say that he did not believe the statement; but having heard the allegation for the first time that evening, it was wholly impossible that he could give it an authoritative contradiction without reference to Madras. It was impossible to prove a negative, but the statement having been now made, he would undertake that inquiry should be made.
MR. MANGLESsaid, it was impossible to prove a negative; but he could solemnly declare that he had never, during the many years he was in India, heard of a single case of torture having been resorted to in Madras for the purpose of collecting the revenue.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, instances of it were recorded in the evidence. In one of the works quoted by the President of the Board of Control, it was positively stated that pressure upon the head in the heat of the sun had been inflicted until money was extorted. This was a most terrible state of things, which he could not believe would be allowed to continue. The question, however, had nothing to do with the Motion, which was for an inquiry into the tenure of land in India. This had been met by the right hon. Gentleman with a mere quibble that the question was one of assessment. But this was a mere play on terms—tenure included assessment. India, like Ireland, was rated at rack-rents, and that was its tenure. The tenure of land was at the basis of the prosperity of a country. The case of Ireland was an illustration of the system. By looking at the face of a country you could see what

89
the tenure of its land was. In Belgium, for instance, the tenure was far better than in this country, as the agriculture was superior; while, on the other hand, in Syria it was abominable. This applied remarkably to India, where the ryotwarry system was ruinous. He could not collect from the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) why the inquiry should be resisted; but the right hon. Gentleman certainly was very warm against the proposition. He thought a strong case had been made out for inquiry, and he should support the Motion.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he was astonished to hear from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) that he had never heard of the infliction of torture in India, when he must know that a Motion for inquiry into the subject had recently been made at one of the meetings of the Court of Proprietors, but had been stifled in the way in which inconvenient motions generally were at the India House. But he (Mr. Otway) knew that the practice of torture did prevail in India, and to put the matter beyond doubt he would read part of a letter addressed by a gentleman (Mr. Theobald), a member of the Calcutta bar, to the hon. Member for Poole, in which he showed beyond doubt that the practice did prevail. It was as follows—
"We have had news of the course of your inquiries, and of some of their results. Almost every vice and abuse flourishes in India. Your discovery of the practice of torture is no news to me. I believe it is practised in every lock-up house in Calcutta. In the Mofussil I had personal proof of it not long ago. Two ladies, a gentleman and myself, went up to Burrackpore, in a palkeegharre, having a coarse bag containing 400 rupees, which was certainly in the gharry just before our arrival, but was missed on arrival. After fruitless inquiry it was proposed to use the thumbscrew, and we were assured by that means the thief could be discovered; we refused permission, but were assured it was a common practice."
It was high time to depart from a system in which such practices are common. The root of the evil, in my opinion, lies in the civil service; one man is placed officially over a million of people, scattered over some thousands of square miles, and everything depends on his virtue and ability. It is absurd to make such distinctions between him and all the uncovenanted; he is the tyrant over all and is too apt to be hoodwinked by the clever but low class of Natives. Really the civilian governs only in name, the real governors are the knavish Natives. The support, also, which civilians
90
uniformly receive at head quarters makes them virtually irresponsible. There is a mutual compact among the members of this class which defeats all complaints against them, though complaints often are made, and are well founded.
MR. MANGLESexplained that what he had said was, that he had never heard of torture being applied for the purpose of the collection of the revenue; though he had heard of torture being inflicted by police officers, who exceeded their authority, for the purpose of extorting confessions from criminals.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, that during a service of thirty years in India, and in connection with its administration, he had never heard of torture having been used for the purpose of collecting rent. He had not heard of such a thing until it was mentioned in that night's debate. He did not believe such a practice existed at Bengal or Madras. There might have been individual instances of misconduct on the part of Natives of India in authority; but he was perfectly satisfied that torture had never been resorted to as a system for the purpose of collecting revenue in any part of India. He might add that he had never heard of such a thing as a thumbscrew being used in India.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 64: Majority 5.

CONSTABULARY FORCE—IRELAND.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that, in bringing forward this Motion, he was not actuated by any feeling of sectarianism; but his object was to ascertain if there had been any unfair dealing with reference to promotion in the constabulary force; for, if anything of the kind existed, it was calculated to prejudice the character of the force. The main body of that force consisted of Roman Catholics, and it appeared that they had been almost entirely excluded from promotion. The whole force consisted of about 12,500 men, of whom, as well as he could ascertain, 9,000 were Roman Catholics, and the remaining 3,500 were Protestants. With regard to the officers of that force, there was one inspector general, who was a Protestant; two deputy inspectors, also Protestants; two assistant deputy inspectors, Protestants; and thirty-five county inspectors, who were all Protestants, with the exception of one, appointed since he had given notice of his Motion. The House must

91
bear in mind that it was upon the recommendation of the county inspectors that all promotions from the lower grades were made. The paymasters, receivers, and surgeons were all Protestants. In the whole country there were 248 sub-inspectors, and of them 219 were Protestants; there were 322 head-constables, 268 of whom were Protestants; 1,800 constables, 1,300 of whom were Protestants; but of the sub-constables, who composed the main body of the force, the number of Catholics was 8,300, and of Protestants, 1,600. The effect of this system had been to induce many sub-constables to leave the force and to emigrate. He did not make this Motion, as he had just stated, with any sectarian spirit, for if the picture had been reversed, and if there were an undue promotion of Catholics, he should have still more willingly brought the circumstance under the notice of the House. The great power of this force was derived from the respect entertained for it by the people. Ireland was now almost denuded of soldiers, and the preservation of peace and order was intrusted to the constabulary, and he called on the Government not to allow a system to go on which would shake the confidence of the people in that force.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That there be laid before this House, Returns of the number of Inspectors, County Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Receivers, Surgeons, Assistant Surgeons, Veterinary Surgeons, Paymasters, Head Constables, Constables, and Sub-Constables, now forming the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and stating the pay and emoluments of each class, and the number of Catholics in each class:
"Of the number of Promotions or Appointments to each class above the rank of Sub-Constable in each year for ten years last past, and stating in each instance the number of Catholics promoted or appointed:
"And, of the number of Sub-Constables who have left the force within the last three years."
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he hoped the House would support him in resisting this Motion, for he felt convinced that the production of a mere return of figures, unaccompanied by a statement, would be commented on as all such things were in Ireland, and would have the same gloss put on it as the hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to throw over the statements which he had just made. He was prepared to assert that no injustice had taken place in the promotions in the constabulary force, nor did he believe that they had been at all influenced by any sectarian partiality. On the contrary, instead of the Roman Catholics having been
92
unjustly treated, they had received even more than their just share of promotion. It must be remembered that, though the Roman Catholics formed the great majority of the population of Ireland, they did not form the majority of those classes who were eligible for situations where education and intelligence were required. The hon. and learned Member asserted that the Roman Catholics were quitting the force and emigrating on account of the unfairness with which they were treated in respect of promotion, but the numbers of Protestants who had left the force was much greater than that of the Roman Catholics; and he must, moreover, express his entire disbelief that the reason given by the hon. and learned Gentleman was anything like the true one for the resignations that had taken place. The grievance of which the constabulary had complained in their memorials to the Government was insufficient pay, and in no single instance had any complaint been made of partiality in the distribution of promotion. Originally the force consisted almost altogether of Protestants. When Sir Duncan M'Gregor took the command of it they were nearly two to one to the Roman Catholics, though now the proportions were exactly the reverse; but it must be remembered that length of service was one of the most important qualifications for promotion, and as all the older constables were Protestants, it was not unnatural that the higher officers were mostly Protestants. Thus, among the head constables of the class first, out of fifty-four only fourteen were Roman Catholics and the remainder Protestants, the proportion being seventeen to forty; among the head constables of the second class ninety-three were Roman Catholics and 173 Protestants, or as seventeen to thirty-one; while among the constables the numbers rapidly approached their natural proportions, there being 930 Roman Catholics and 808 Protestants, or seventeen to fourteen. There was no doubt, however, that in course of years, as the length of service of the Roman Catholics increased, they would gradually emerge into the higher ranks. With regard to punishments and rewards, last year he found that 174 Roman Catholics had been dismissed and seventy-six Protestants, while special rewards were granted to sixty-three Roman Catholics and twenty-eight Protestants, corresponding nearly with their respective numbers in the force. The resignations, too, seemed to hold pretty

93
much the same proportion, being 498 Roman Catholics, and 277 Protestants, during the last year. The average service of the officers promoted was, for the Roman Catholics, 19 1–13 years, and for the Protestants 22⅓ therefore, if anything had been done it was rather to promote the Roman Catholics than to keep them back. He did not think the return moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be useful to the public service, and he should, therefore, not consent to it.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made an admirable ease for giving the return. Any evil that could result from publishing the figures would be produced by the discussion. If the return were granted, the right hon. Gentleman could take the opportunity of making any statement he wished.
LORD NAASsaid, he should oppose the Motion. He had never heard one more likely to have a mischievous effect, from its sectarian tendency; nothing was more likely to give that character to the force, which had been so free from it since the first institution. The force possessed the confidence of every class, which it would not, if it was sectarian. The Motion was an attempt to get up a grievance, and make an attack on Sir Duncan M'Gregor, than whom there was not a better or more successful officer under the Crown. He bad brought his force to as high a state of discipline as any regiment in Her Majesty's service. He wished the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had opposed the Motion, on the ground that it was an attempt to censure a meritorious officer. It would be different if the hon. and learned Member for Ennis had brought forward any case of injustice to a Roman Catholic; he did not, because none such existed. The men were leaving the force in large numbers, but that was because the Colonies presented more advantages than the low pay of the Government; but there was no discontent amongst them.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he entirely disclaimed any intention of attacking Sir Duncan M'Gregor. As the noble Lord, however, had challenged him he would produce an instance. There was only one Roman Catholic amongst the county inspectors. That gentleman, Mr. Bracher, had been appointed only since his notice had been on the book, and he believed in consequence of it; he was a most excellent officer, who had served as
94
an inspector for twenty-one years. It was not the fact that when Sir Duncan M'Gregor took charge of the force it was almost entirely Protestant; he was only ten years at the head of it, and the returns showed that long before that time the proportion of Protestants and Roman Catholics in the lower ranks was nearly the same as at present. The force was disciplined by Colonel Shaw Kennedy. He should press his Motion to a division.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 62: Majority 41.
The House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Portland, &c., Chapels.
Reported—Ecclesiastical Courts; Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges.
3a and passed—Indemnity; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Poor Law Board Continuance; Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Union Charges Continuance; Holyhead Harbours; Dublin Carriage; Linen, &c. Manufactures (Ireland).

LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILLS.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he had a question to put to the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) of which he had not given him notice, as the circumstance to which it related had only come to his knowledge within the last hour; but as the matter was of very considerable importance, he trusted the noble Duke would excuse his alluding to it. It might be in the recollection of their Lordships, that various Bills had been introduced in that and the other House of Parliament by the Government and by private individuals,
2
with a view of settling the much-vexed question of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Those Bills were referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships for consideration. In that Committee, after much time and labour had been expended on the work, two measures were elaborated, which were for the most part identical with the measure introduced by the noble Duke. The third reading of these Bills was moved by the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll); they were passed and sent down to the other House of Parliament. He had been informed, however, that notwithstanding that circumstance, Her Majesty's Government in the other House had distinctly denied that they were responsible for these measures, and that they had accordingly thrown the onus of carrying them through upon private Members; but he was still more surprised to hear it announced that there was no intention of proceeding with them at all during the present Session. Now, he did hope that when so large a number of their Lordships' House had been put to the trouble and inconvenience of attending the most laborious Committee which had elaborated

3
the two Bills, Government would have kept faith with their Lordships; and at the same time he did hope that the Government would have assumed the full responsibility of carrying them through. He therefore wished to know from the noble Duke, whether it was a fact that the Bills were not to be proceeded with this Session.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had only just heard of the withdrawal of the Bills alluded to by the noble Earl, from the noble Marquess sitting opposite to him (the Marquess of Bath), and he consequently had had no opportunity of conferring with any of the Members of the Government in the other House of Parliament as to the circumstances connected with it. He supposed, however, it had taken place at the morning sitting of that day. However, he would of course make himself fully acquainted with all the causes which had led to the adoption of that course, and he should take care to inform the noble Earl what had induced the Government to act as it had done. All he knew of the matter was, that it had always been intended, if the circumstances of the Session allowed, to carry the Bills through this year. The noble Earl must be aware, however, from the experience of their Lordships' House—and the rule would apply with much greater force in the case of the lower House—how easy it was to delay the passing of a measure if only a few persons were bent on opposing it; and as it would appear that the two Bills in question were threatened with such an opposition in the other House, it might have been found impossible to get them through during what remained of the present Session. As to the Government being responsible for the conduct of the Bills, all he could say was, that the Government were not parties to framing the Bills in any way. The Bills were not party Bills, and had not been looked upon as such; but though, technically speaking, they might not be Government Bills, there was no doubt that Government had adopted them in their essence. They were introduced by the law officers of the late Government, were then taken up by the Members of the present Government, and in an altered shape came before their Lordships' House, when they were referred to a Select Committee, of which the noble Duke the Lord Privy Seal was Chairman. He was quite sure that there was no unfair repudiation of the Bills intended by
4
the Government; and though he could not as yet say under what circumstances the Bills had been withdrawn, he was quite satisfied that that course had not been adopted from any dislike entertained by the Government to the character of the measures.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, as a Member of the Select Committee which had elaborated the two measures referred to by the noble Earl, and as one who had taken a prominent part in the discussions of last Session, when the subject was brought before their Lordships, he could not help expressing his sincere surprise and deep regret at the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to take; at the same time he readily acknowledged the noble Duke was justified in deprecating any further discussion at the present moment in reference to this topic, as he certainly appeared not to have had an opportunity of possessing himself of the necessary details. But at the same time he could not help saying how strange it was that a Member of the Cabinet, and he too a Secretary of State, should not have known what were the intentions of the Government upon so important a matter until the last five minutes. He would ask their Lordships, was it not a subject for most legitimate and natural surprise that the abandonment of a number of most material Bills should have been decided on, and yet that the noble Duke, whose peculiar measures they might be considered to be, was obliged to tell them that he was able to give no information as to the causes of such a proceeding? However, he judged the matter of so much importance—important, not merely in its relation to the loss of the measures in question, but as involving the conduct, not merely of the present Administration, but of all Governments, towards their Lordships House—that it was his intention to bring the subject formally before them on Thursday next. He certainly understood that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), who had acted as Chairman of the Select Committee, had spoken in the name of the Government, and under authority, when he told the Committee that the Government would interest itself in the passing of the measures through the House of Commons. He was, therefore, much surprised at hearing the Bills were about to be withdrawn without any apparent reason, and he could not help contrasting the conduct evinced by the noble Duke last year—when, within

5
seven or eight days of the termination of the Session, he peremptorily charged their Lordships with the duty of passing the Bills—nay, even insisting with impetuosity upon the necessity of their doing so—with the fact of his Colleagues, with a month or six weeks of this Session still before them, suddenly throwing up these Bills. Although, therefore, he could not expect the noble Duke to give any further reply upon the present occasion, he found it necessary to give notice, that on Thursday next he should again invite their Lordships' attention to the subject, when he hoped he might count on the presence of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who acted as Chairman of the Select Committee.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
VISCOUNT CANNING moved, That the said Report be now received.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that he wished to address a few words to their Lordships upon this stage of the Oxford University Bill. Their Lordships were aware that it was not the practice in their Lordships' House to place upon record any Amendments that might be moved upon Bills in the stage of this present measure unless they were agreed to. As, however, he was extremely anxious, not only on his own part, but also on the part of his noble Friend the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who was not now present, that those Amendments which he had proposed should stand upon the records of their Lordships' House, he was induced to take the present course with the view of obtaining that object. He felt he would be consulting their Lordships' convenience by at once stating that he merely wished to be printed, and laid before their Lordships, those Amendments which bad been moved by his noble Friend the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in order that they might be duly placed upon the records of their proceedings. He, however, felt that he could not part with this Bill without expressing his regret that their Lordships should have adopted it without any of the Amendments that had been submitted to them by his noble Friend. He trusted that, in another place, where much attention and a great deal of time had been given to the consideration of the question, the Bill would be so amended as to meet at least some
6
of the views which their Lordships on his side of the House entertained in respect to its provisions. He would occupy the time of the House but for a few moments, while he referred to the most important of those Amendments upon which their Lordships divided last Friday. In respect to the first of those Amendments, upon the question of the oaths taken by persons connected with the University, he must express his regret that some of the right rev. Prelates had not deemed it of sufficient importance to favour the House with their opinions upon the subject, involving as it did matter of conscience—he was certainly anxious to hear from them whether they thought that an Act of Parliament could relieve a man from the obligation of an oath he bad once taken. He would not trespass upon the attention of the House by dwelling any further upon that point. Another Amendment moved by his noble Friend was to omit the sixth clause for the purpose of inserting another in its place, to the effect that the election of the legislative body of the University should take place by the votes of Convocation instead of Congregation. Although their Lordships were pleased to reject that Amendment, he hoped that in another place the subject would be reconsidered, because he conceived that no accident could happen to the scheme of liberalising, as it was called, the University, so fatal to that object, as the course which the majority of that House had taken in respect to this Amendment. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill (Viscount Canning) had argued that the University was not doing its duties efficiently; that it was behind the age, and had not kept pace with the general advance of enlightenment and improvement which characterised other similar institutions. Now, what was the course usually adopted when it was deemed desirable to liberalise constituencies? Why, they naturally sought to extend those constituencies. Their Lordships had, however, in the present instance deliberately preferred to leave the election of the legislative body of the University in the hands of some 250 or 300 members, instead of extending the constituency to some 2,000 to 3,000 persons. He confessed he was at a loss to see the value or consistency of this proceeding; for it seemed to him to be a contradiction, considering the preamble of the Bill, and the constant complaints they heard of the bigotry and darkness of Oxford, to confine

7
the constituency to this small number when they might extend it to as many thousands. Now, in respect to the question of private halls for the students—the more he considered the subject—the more he reflected upon the character and constitution of the University and the discipline that was required there, the more he was convinced that the provision for the establishment of those private halls would be attended with the most mischievous results, both as regarded the morals of the University, and the students within its walls. He knew that a great many of their Lordships were prepared to vote for and to support the Government in regard to the clauses which would admit Dissenters to the University, if the clause in respect to the halls were rejected. He had never concealed his opinion as to those halls. To use the words of the Earl of Carlisle the other evening, he believed they would be "retreats for Dissenters." He should be sorry if his feelings towards the Dissenters should be misunderstood. In his opinion, there was no arrogance so objectionable as the arrogance of religious orthodoxy. There was nothing which so shocked him in private life as when he saw a man presumptuously stating that he was right, and that all who held different views were wrong; and he was more disgusted when he heard this said on subjects of religious doctrine and conscience than on any others. In respect to Dissenters, and those others who differed from him in religious opinions, he had always held that they were entitled to be treated upon a footing of equality with himself. He flattered himself that in his own humble and private way he had set an example of this principle. He had been frequently remonstrated with by ministers of the Church of England for not being more exclusive in his dealings, in the employment of his labourers, and the selection of his tenantry; he had always positively refused to adopt any such principle, for he thought that no such differences should exist in private life or upon private business. But this was a peculiar case. In his view the establishment of the University of Oxford was originally intended to be wedded, and closely wedded, to our Church and State. And although he was aware that it had received many endowments from Roman Catholics, and that the University had for centuries existed under the will and by the funds of Roman Catholics, he recollected,
8
too, that during that time the Roman Catholic religion was the State religion, and it ceased only to be the State religion when the Reformation was accomplished. The law then changed the nature of the case, and the Reformed religion became the State religion, and he saw no reason why after eight centuries we should alter the recognised character and constitution of the University in connection with the Church that was established by the State. Now, one or two things he thought must necessarily happen upon the admission of Dissenters to the University. First, it could hardly be expected that the number of Dissenters admitted to the University would remain exactly the same within its walls; they would either convert the members of the Church, or they would be converted by those members. The noble Duke opposite thought it would be more likely that the Dissenters would be converted by the members of the Anglican Church. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was not prepared to agree with the noble Duke that the Dissenters would necessarily have the worst of the trial, if worst it could be called. They must remember that by the Bill any member of Convocation might establish there a hall, if licensed. [Lord CAMPBELL was understood to intimate that it was at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor] Now, he was almost disposed to consider his noble and learned Friend, while presiding in his court, as infallible; but he must be excused for saving that he bad no such high opinion of his judgment in that House. It appeared by this Bill that the Vice Chancellor had no choice, if the party agree to certain conditions mentioned in the Bill, than to give him a licence for the establishment of a private hall. He did not think he was acting offensively in mentioning the name of Dr. Newman in relation to his argument. During a considerable part of the time Dr. Newman was in Oxford, if this Bill were then in operation, he would have been in a position to claim a right to establish a ball. Their Lordships might easily guess what the consequences would have been. They knew that Dr. Newman did not all at once become a convert; he was for some years gradually descending from the position in which he originally stood, and accepting the creeds of another Church. Dr. Newman's great object at that time was to convert to his own religious opinions as many as he could. Well, then, supposing that the Doctor was at the head of one of

9
those halls, he would naturally have the greatest influence over the religious opinions of the students that frequented it. There was another strong argument against the establishment of these halls—he referred to the encouragement that would be given to religious disputes. He could conceive nothing more obnoxious than this in an University. For the last ten or twelve years, up to a very recent period, Oxford had been the scene of religious disputes and theological discussions. Young men of the age usually attending the University were sufficiently presumptuous and argumentative of themselves, and the introduction of religious discussion could not but be attended with prejudicial results. This was no fancy of his. Let their Lordships remember what had taken place at Oxford within no very distant period, when every private room and association was the arena of controversies about doctrines that were bandied from one side to the other with more zeal than discretion and more passion than knowledge. Now, he asked, whether it was not more likely that these angry religious discussions would be greatly increased by the admission into the University of the champions of the Roman Catholic and of the Dissenting Churches who would be admitted into the same room, and the same society, with the members of the Church of England—and would not these private halls afford great facilities for these disputations? He conceived that there was nothing less desirable in the University of Oxford than the adoption of any measure that would give encouragement to such disputes. The life of a student at Oxford tended greatly to encourage the spirit of controversy. The students there had not the same occupation or amusements which young men in other large towns could command; and he could conceive nothing more natural than that young men should rush into those argumentative disputes upon religion which had lately brought so much evil upon the country, and so much scandal upon the Church. His noble Friend opposite said that the admission of Dissenters into the Scotch schools connected with the Church was attended with no such evils as had been referred to. He denied that there was the slightest analogy between the Scotch schools and the University. In the first place the Scotch schools were not bound up as the University of Oxford had been for centuries with the State religion; and, in the second place, the students in
10
the Scotch schools were of a much younger age generally than those that were to be found in the Universities. Most anxious that his feelings with respect to the Dissenters and Roman Catholics should not be misunderstood, he trusted he had explained, clearly and distinctly, on what grounds, and on what grounds alone, he objected to their admission to the University; and he further must express his hope that when the Bill had left their Lordships' House some parts of it to which he entertained objection would be revised in another place.
EARL DELAWARRwas anxious to express, in a very few words, his decided opposition to this Bill, as a measure which was based upon injustice, and was likely to introduce discord where peace and harmony had formerly prevailed. He regretted deeply the manner in which the measure had been dealt with. In passing through the other House of Parliament, the Bill had been modified in several material particulars and with respect to some of its most objectionable provisions, and deeply did he regret to find that in passing through their Lordships' House, not only had every attempt at further improvement been successfully resisted, but it had been actually reinvested with much of that mischievous character of which the decisions of the House of Commons had partially deprived it. But if he had before objected to the measure, his objections had been materially strengthened by what he had heard in that House. The private halls which it was proposed to establish had been spoken of by a noble Earl, the other night, as likely to become retreats for Dissenters; and if it had been correctly assumed with respect to the students in those halls that they would not be required to attend the chapel worship, it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that they would not be able to enforce attendance on the divinity lectures of the University; and, in that case, what became of the protestations of noble Lords and right rev. Prelates opposite, that nothing would induce them to introduce anything which would in any way involve a departure upon the part of the University from her standard of teaching and doctrine? With respect to the expenses of education in private halls, much of what had been said was based upon fallacy and delusion. He held in his hand a statement, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, but which showed incontrovertibly that the necessary expenses

11
in these new institutions must be greater than they were in the colleges, and that, taking the very lowest estimate, they could not be less than 21 l. per term in the former case, as against 15 l. in the latter. He could not but consider that there lurked in the present measure a desire to impair that close connection between the University and the established religion of the country, by which it had been hitherto so prominently distinguished, and which had caused it to be considered, not only in England, but throughout the civilised world, as the great bulwark of our Constitution in Church and State. Feeling so strongly as he did upon this subject, he deeply regretted that those right rev. Prelates who ought to have thrown their shields around the University had paired with those who had attacked its rights and privileges.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that he totally dissented from those provisions in the abstract which provided for the admission of Dissenters, and had consented to the Amendment, not because it involved his own views, but because it amounted to a mitigation of the evil. He objected to those provisions because they had formed no part of the original measure, and had no original connection with it, and because he considered it at variance with the permissive character of the Bill. But, beyond this, by the early clauses of the Bill, the Government had proceeded to frame a constitution which he admitted to be wise, and sound, and rational—which, upon their own hypothesis, was likely to work well, and had all the elements of reformation—and yet, before that constitution had been set at work, they virtually asserted that they could repose no confidence in the governing body they had created, and acted as though no new constitution were in existence, and as though the old Hebdomadal Board were still in force. But although they had admitted Dissenters to the University, and had relieved them of tests and subscriptions, they had not advanced them one iota nearer to that which they sought, which was, not a separate existence in private halls, but the equality of collegiate life; and this they could not give them, unless they gained the co-operation of the colleges. He looked upon the admission of the Dissenters, as effected by the present measure, as a mitigation of an evil which would have been incomparably worse had they been admitted to the government of the University. He would be the first to object to any penal restrictions, but he
12
maintained that this was a question, not so much of the admission of Dissenters to the University as of the exclusion of the Church of England—a question of disqualifying the University for the education of members of the Church. That which was asked for was more than toleration; and if it were an act of generosity upon the part of Parliament towards one class, it was an act of generosity done at the expense of another. If it were summum jus it was also summa injuria; and if the effort should be crowned with success, he thought that the results were less likely to be peace and harmony than disorder and disunion. He could not forget that the Church of England was bound up with the University in all its associations; that it had followed that Church through evil report and good report, and was its organ and exponent in the great matter of education; and it seemed to him inevitable that if this policy were to be pursued further, its tendency must be to force the members of the Church of England to seek repose in other quarters, and to drive them into other institutions, as free as possible from Government control.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was anxious to explain the vote he had given on a former occasion. He trusted that no one could imagine that he had voted against the establishment of private halls from apprehending any dangerous influence resulting from the admission of Dissenters; on the contrary, there was no portion of the Bill to which he attached so much importance as that which provided for the admission of Dissenters, because he believed that their admission would conduce to the interests of the University, to the interests of the Church, and to the interests of the great Dissenting bodies themselves. He believed, however, that to admit them at all with any hope of a beneficial result, they must admit them generously, and without any feelings of mistrust, upon the very terms of which his noble Friend was most apprehensive—upon terms of perfect equality. They would neither do justice to their own intentions nor make their legislation operative for good, if they intended to admit Dissenters upon terms which were unbecoming and unjust. He could not think that their unreserved admission would do any mischief to the Church or to the University. He felt that he might speak with authority much higher than his own upon this point, because, as long back as the

13
year 1834, he had presented to the other House of Parliament a petition in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the University, which was signed by four of the most distinguished members of the episcopacy of this country, and by some of the most distinguished members of the University, by the Archbishop of York, Bishop Thirlwall, the late exalted Bishop Boustead, the Dean of Ely, the Astronomer Royal (Professor Airey), and many others equally known to Europe. Earl Grey had presented at the same time a similar petition to this House. He was entitled, therefore, to say, on the authority of those great men, that the admission of Dissenters would do no mischief whatever to the University. This petition simply entreated Parliament to allow the admission of Dissenters to the University. There was no question at that time of admitting Dissenters into a position which might be considered by themselves—or which might ultimately be understood by others, although not intended by those by whom the present Bill was proposed—to be degrading, unfavourable, or unequal; he thought that, unless they admitted the Dissenters upon terms which, as being just, ought to satisfy them, they had better not admit them at all. But if there were danger to the Church—which he denied if they dealt with this matter rightly—he thought that that danger would be created and carried to its greatest height if the Dissenters in the University were to be admitted on terms of inferiority, formed into small confederacies through the agency of these private halls, and cut off from communion and companionship with the undergraduate members of the Church who might be pursuing their education at the Universities. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Carnarvon) seemed to think that the admission of Dissenters was inconsistent with the principle—which he (Lord Monteagle) advocated as strongly as his noble Friend—of preserving the government of the colleges to the Church of England. But was it impossible to obtain this object without abandoning the other? It was not impossible to obtain it, unless, indeed, we were to assume that the Universities of England and the people of England were much less moderate, much less calm, much more likely to be excited by the violence of religious faction, than the Universities and the people of Ireland. From the year 1793 Roman Catholics and Dissenters had been admit-
14
ted to the University of Dublin, and what had been the effect? Had it deranged in any degree the government of that University? Had it made the University less attached to the Church, or less effective as a school for the education of its members and ministers, than it would have been if the Roman Catholics and Dissenters had never been admitted? He had heard many charges against the University of Dublin, but he had never yet heard it alleged against her that she was not sufficiently orthodox to satisfy the desires even of the most orthodox among their Lordships. Well, then, if that were so, why could they not boldly effect at Oxford what had been already done at Dublin, and at once admit Dissenters frankly and freely—not into places which had been called "retreats," in which it is to be presumed they were to lurk and conceal themselves—but admit them in the open day to the full benefit of the education of the place, and allow them to take degrees in common with all other persons who received their education at that University? What was the object of these halls, and to what would their establishment lead? Were there not dangers to be apprehended intra muros et extra? Were there not persons now members of Convocation, who, under the provisions of this Bill, might set up schools or establishments of their own, under the name of private halls, in which something worse might be taught than any Dissenter would be likely to introduce? Might not undergraduates be taught to desert the doctrines, and yet adhere to the ordinances, of our Church under a false allegiance. It was said that there was power to refuse a licence for the establishment of a hall to any member of Convocation who might apply for it. But, as he read the Bill, it was obligatory on the authorities of the University to grant such a licence. He would take one case as an example. Mr. Newman, he believed, was at this moment a member of Convocation, and if he should apply for a licence for the establishment of a hall at Oxford, could he be refused, or had he a right to claim his admission? As he read the clause he must be admitted, because the only qualification prescribed was, that the applicant should be a member of Convocation. His great objection, however, to these private halls did not rest upon the possibility of a case of this kind occurring, but upon the fact that, by establishing these halls contemporaneously with the

15
admission of Dissenters, they were practically proclaiming to Dissenters that they might enter these halls, but that these were the only places of education at Oxford into which they would be allowed to enter. He thought this would be objectionable to Dissenters, and dangerous to the Church and to the University, because it would draw a distinction between two classes, one belonging to the ancient colleges, and the other to these new halls, and with such a distinction, founded, as it would be, on religious grounds, they never could expect to see cordiality and good fellowship established. On the other hand, if they adopted the system of the University of Dublin, frankly admitting all to degrees, without admitting Dissenters to the government of the colleges, or of the University—he did not ask for that—they would be taking a course which, he ventured to say, would be safe to the University, a welcome concession to the Dissenters, and beneficial in every way to all classes in the State.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he could not assent to the parallel which the noble Lord had drawn between the Universities of Oxford and Dublin. Dublin was rather an examining University than a place of education; for, if he remembered rightly, a student might reside anywhere, at the Giant's Causeway if he pleased, and only need come up to Dublin twice a year in order to pass his examination.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that although he was not prepared for such a discussion as the present— for he thought the objections raised went to the principle of the Bill, and would have been made more properly upon the second reading—he was by no means disposed to complain that the speeches which they had heard had been delayed until that night, because, if his noble Friends opposite had made on Thursday night the observations which they had made to-night, they would scarcely have had any possibility of escape from dividing against the second reading. He would confine himself to making a few observations upon some of the points which had been touched upon by the noble Lords who had spoken. He thought that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), who had charged against this Bill that it was an illiberal rather than a liberal measure, could scarcely have appreciated all that this Bill would effect for the benefit of the University of
16
Oxford, and all that it would enable the University to effect for itself. That could not certainly be said to be an illiberal measure which took the government of an institution like the University out of the hands of a few men, elected for the government of their own particular societies—elected without any regard to their qualifications in reference to the University at large—holding their offices for life, and being irremovable—whose interests were frequently separate, and in many instances directly at variance from those of the persons whom they were called upon to govern. A government of that kind could not be called liberal, and could hardly be expected to produce good fruits. It was because they were deeply impressed with this consideration, that Her Majesty's Government had determined to lay the axe to the root of the evil, and to establish a principle of government which could not be characterised as illiberal—namely, a government based upon representation. His noble Friend complained that power had been taken out of the hands of the great mass of the University body in Convocation, and placed in the hands of Congregation, which was a smaller body, to the exclusion of the larger. But his noble Friend had fallen into some misapprehension with respect to the precise character of the body which he called a legislative body, created by a constituency of small numbers. He did not admit that the Hebdomadal Council was by any means correctly designated a legislative body. The legislation of the University was by no means concentrated in its hands. It would originate measures no doubt; but those measures would be subject to revision and rejection by Congregation, and Convocation would have the same power as it had had hitherto, of placing a veto upon any measure which it might think would not be advantageous to the University. The most important point on which the noble Earl had touched was that which related to private halls, and he objected to the proposed change as inconsistent with the constitution of the University, which had endured for 800 or 900 years, and had deprecated interfering with institutions so venerable. Now, he (Viscount Canning) could conceive no stronger reason, à priori, for reconsidering those institutions. Could his noble Friend put his finger on any one of our institutions—political, social, or religious—which had existed for anything like that time, and had not undergone great and important

17
changes? The noble Earl had not stated the point with regard to the power of withholding licences with complete accuracy. He had stated that the Vice Chancellor would have no power to refuse a licence, if claimed by a person possessing certain qualifications. He (Viscount Canning) gave no opinion upon that point, but he wished to remind their Lordships that the University was not only authorised, but obliged, to prescribe what qualifications should be required, and what should be the conditions upon which alone the licence should be given. He did not desire to be understood as wishing that the University should act otherwise than liberally in fulfilling this obligation; but she would be perfectly mistress of her own position, and whatever qualifications or conditions she thought proper to lay down could not be barred or checked by any other authority. Dr. Newman had been referred to, and a suggestion had been made as to what might have happened if Dr. Newman had applied for a licence as master of a private hall. He supposed his noble Friend referred to the time when Dr. Newman was still a member of the Church of England, and resident, more or less, at Oxford. But surely his noble Friend would see that if it should be the pleasure of the University to leave any discretion to the Vice Chancellor who was to issue these licences—or if, in anticipation of such dangers as his noble Friend had had in his eye, it should make it necessary that the master should make a declaration of conformity with the Church of England— in any terms which the University might think proper to lay down—such conditions, framed in a cautious spirit, might surely meet the case of Dr. Newman, even at the time to which his noble Friend referred. He really did not see how the clauses relating to private halls, in connection with those relating to Dissenters, could with any justice, be considered as divorcing the University from its connection with the Church, or as likely to import into it polemical disputes. In the first place, the connection between the Church and the University, so far as it existed through the colleges, was altogether untouched by this Bill, and there was no intention on the part of the framers of the Bill to require the governing bodies of colleges to make any departure from the strictest rules of discipline and teaching which they might think best adapted to secure connection between the Church and the Uni-
18
versity in its full integrity. It was conceded on all sides that the number of Dissenters who would be admitted would, probably, be comparatively small, and he did not think their admission at all likely to increase that warfare of opinion on matters of faith which had existed whilst the University was wholly closed against Dissenters. He doubted very much whether opening the door to a certain number of such members, who would pursue their studies and mix in habits of intimacy and friendship with members of different religious opinions, would have any tendency to increase at all the asperity or animosity with which questions of faith were now discussed; he was, on the contrary, much inclined to think that a larger difference of opinion, differences more openly avowed than those which existed between members of the same Church, would have a tendency to soften those feelings of variance, rather than to exasperate them. He cordially concurred in the wish expressed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) with regard to the manner in which this change should have been effected. It would have given him much more satisfaction if it had been brought about by the free agency of the University itself, rather than by the intervention of an Act of Parliament; but he had explained at some length on a former occasion how it was these clauses now stood in the Bill. He explained how it had been the wish of Her Majesty's Government, to which they had openly and steadfastly adhered, that the proposal should have come from the University, and it was not until the other House had declared the contrary that they could bring themselves to deal with the question of Dissenters in this Bill at all. These clauses were, however, inserted, and he hoped ho should not be considered as using any argument unworthy for their Lordships to hear or for himself to express, though he knew it was liable to some misrepresentation, when he said that, as the other House had asserted by a large majority so decided an opinion, he earnestly trusted their Lordships would not endeavour to expunge these clauses, though fully entitled to do so. He did not urge that so much on account of the feeling of the other House of Parliament as for the sake of the University, for he conceived nothing could be more disastrous to the University than to leave it uncertain as to the opinion of Parliament—assured that in one House the opinion in favour of the admission of Dissenters

19
was strong, decided, and unmistakable, and doubtful if in the other that opinion or a contrary one was entertained. To place the University in such a position would be to cramp all exercise of freedom on the subject, and, in fact, to transfer the scene of contention from within the walls of Parliament to the University itself. Feeling as he did, that if the hands of the University had been untied she would have taken this step on her own part, he earnestly deprecated any attempt to go back to the condition in which they were when this Bill was introduced, because he thought that the real intentions of the University could not then be carried out in consequence of the course which had already been taken in Parliament.
LORD WYNFORDsaid, he would anticipate one great difficulty, which he did not see that the Bill would obviate. One of the most important parts of examination at Oxford was the divinity examination, and whether an undergraduate went in for the highest honours, or only an ordinary degree, the same extent of religious knowledge was exacted. Every person was required to possess, besides a knowledge of the Greek Testament, an accurate knowledge of the Thirty-nine Articles, and to be able to support that knowledge by texts from Scripture, and by his own reasoning. Such an examination, he considered, involved to a certain extent a profession of belief; and he did not see how the difficulty could be reconciled unless they exempted Dissenters from that part of the examination.
On Question, agreed to; Amendments reported accordingly; Amendments made.
On Clause 17 (Regulating the composition of Congregation).
LORD WROTTESLEYrose to propose an Amendment to that part of the clause which enacted that Congregation should consist, in addition to the persons specifically named, of "all such persons as shall be provided to be added by election or otherwise to the said Congregation by any Statute of the University approved by the Commissioners, or, after the expiry of the Commission, passed by licence of the Crown." The Amendment was to insert after the word "Crown" the following words:—" Provided that at least two-thirds of the persons so to be added shall be such as have attained high honours in the said University, or such as are distinguished in literature, science, or art." The principal object which he hoped to
20
accomplish by the adoption of the Amendment was the encouragement of the study of physical science at the University. When he was at Oxford this branch of study was at a low ebb, and he believed it had not made much progress since. Nevertheless, it was a study of the greatest importance at the present day. In proof of this he would quote a passage from the evidence of Mr. Lowe, the Member for Kidderminster:
"I must also"' says Mr. Lowe, "as a sincere well-wisher to the University, express my hope that the physical sciences will be brought much more prominently forward in the scheme of University education. I have seen in Australia Oxford men placed in positions in which they had reason bitterly to regret that their costly education, while making them intimately acquainted with remote events and distant nations, had left them in utter ignorance of the laws of nature, and placed them under immense disadvantages in that struggle with her which they had to maintain."
The residents of Oxford lead a life of too much seclusion, and, therefore, he availed himself of the opportunity which this clause afforded of infusing what he might call a metropolitan element into the Congregation. The proposal which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) made on a former evening to substitute Convocation for Congregation was not, in his opinion, judicious, because the great body of Convocation consisted of country clergymen, who knew much less about these matters than the Oxford residents; but the composition of the Congregation would be much improved by persons of the class pointed to in the Amendment. The phrase "high honours" employed in the Amendment was well understood in the University; but if any doubt prevailed on the subject, different words might be adopted to make the meaning clear. In framing the ruling body of the greatest educational institution in the country, Parliament ought to recognise the claims of education. The names of such men as Mr. Hallam and Sir Charles Lyell would confer honour on the body to which they might be attached. It was not, of course, to be supposed that these eminent men would be able to attend the meetings of the Congregation generally; but it was probable that they would be able to attend meetings for determining questions connected with studies and the appointment of professors; and their presence on such occasions would be of the greatest possible advantage, in consequence of their living in the world and being cognisant of the state of public opinion and of education

21
at the present time. Whatever might be the result of his Motion, he could not regret having had the opportunity of advocating the extension of physical education, and he would at all times gladly lend a helping hand to improve an institution in which he must ever take a lively and enduring interest.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, the tying the hands of the University was entirely contrary to the whole spirit in which the Bill was framed. There was great difficulty also in describing accurately the precise meaning of what they had in their minds. The expression used in the noble Lord's Amendment was, "such as have attained high honours." Now he could easily conceive the case of a double second-class man, who, perhaps, not aiming at honours, had been invited subsequently to continue his examination. He believed they might, with perfect safety, leave the University free and unrestrained, confident that the object of the noble Lord's proposal, in which the Government sympathised, would be attained.
Amendment negatived.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsuggested that a preliminary examination for students entering the University would have a good effect on the schools where the youths of the middle and upper classes were educated, and tend to remove the great difficulty at Oxford, the inefficiency of the previous training of the undergraduates.
On Clause 28,
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that before their Lordships passed the 28th clause he wished to make an explanation with regard to an argument which he used upon the clause in Committee. Their Lordships would remember that upon that occasion he argued in favour of giving power to the colleges to convert their class fellowships into exhibitions, and maintained that those fellowships did not give so much encouragement to the schools with which they were connected as the same amount of endowment would give if thrown into the form of exhibitions. In urging that argument upon their Lordships he alluded to the case of the Abingdon School and Pembroke College; but the report of what he then addressed to their Lordships had been much misunderstood by a party greatly interested in that report. The Master of the Abingdon School felt himself aggrieved, because he understood from the report that the present state of
22
the school was spoken of as being depressed and abject. That, however, was not what he said. What he was urging upon their Lordships at the time was, that the Abingdon School was a good example of the little encouragement which close fellowships give to the school itself; but he was not alluding to the present condition of the school, because he knew that the Abingdon School had lately had the advantage of an active master, who had done a great deal to raise its character. He was referring to the state of the school a few years ago, when, with all the advantages of its close fellowships, it was reduced to nine scholars, not having one single boarder among them. Therefore, his argument was conclusive; but he did not mean to say what the reverend gentleman had understood him to say, that the Abingdon School was at the present time in a state which would prevent parents sending their children to it; he knew, indeed, that the present master had made great efforts to improve the condition of the school, and with very considerable expense.
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that he had received a letter from the Bishop of Exeter with reference to the published report of what he had said while discussing the 28th clause upon a former occasion. The Bishop stated that he was reported to have said, with regard to the case of Exeter College, that the bishop of the diocese as visitor had refused his assent to any change in the Statutes of the college. If he did use those words, which he certainly was inclined to think he did not use, it was not right to have done so, because he was fully aware that the Bishop of Exeter had, upon many very important points, assented to suggestions made to him by the authorities of Exeter College. But he was also aware—which, indeed, the Bishop stated in his letter—that upon other points he had either delayed or refused his assent to the suggestions of the college; and accordingly he did cite the case of Exeter College and its visitor, because in replying to Lord Derby, who pressed upon him very strongly the propriety of requiring the consent of the visitor to any step taken towards the improvement of the college, he argued that that would be a very doubtful benefit to the college itself, inasmuch as, if the consent of the visitor was necessary, and if the visitor upon any pint should refuse his consent to a proposed change, the consequence would be that the college would by that refusal at once lapse into the hands

23
of the Commissioners, and, instead of being at liberty to deal with its own affairs upon its own rules, would pass over to the judgment of the Commissioners acting upon theirs.
Upon the 43rd clause (providing that no oath should be necessary on taking a degree, save the oath of allegiance),
LORD WROTTESLEYmoved the following addition to the clause—
"But such degree shall not as such constitute any qualification for the holding of any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the Church of England, and for which such degree in the said University has heretofore constituted one of the qualifications, until the person obtaining such degree shall have subscribed a declaration before a magistrate testifying that he is a member of such Church."
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the intention of the proposed addition was very good, and one in which he entirely concurred.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the effect of the Amendment would be to make the clause more stringent, which he was sure was not the object their Lordships had in view.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsuggested that the 43rd clause should be omitted altogether, and the following substituted—
"Such a degree shall not constitute any qualification for the holding of any office which has been heretofore always held by a member of the Church of England, unless the person on taking his degree shall have made the declaration now prescribed by law."
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERthought that the clause suggested by the right rev. Prelate would be more stringent than that in the Bill as it now stood.
LORD WROTTESLEYsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
Clause agreed to.
Further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

THE CENSUS OF 1851—RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDrose to move for the production of the documents of which he had given notice, namely, the details on which the returns of the Religious Census had been founded. At the time of the taking of the last Census in 1851, certain papers were sent round in order to obtain information relating to the religious worship of the population. Objections were taken by him (the Bishop of
24
Oxford) in their Lordships' House to the sending round of those papers, on the ground that it was beyond the power vested in the Secretary of State; and he had subsequently taken occasion to point out the evils which he thought would be likely to arise from papers of that important nature being circulated, without there being any power to compel the information required to be sent in. He had pointed out that those returns must be entirely dependent on the good-will of those who were expected to furnish them, and that there must necessarily be a risk of mistakes, and even deception, occurring in them. The returns, however, were made in the manner originally proposed, and were now published, embodied in a general statement issued from the Registrar General's Office, as part of the results of the Census of 1851. This statement certainly did infinite credit to the gentleman who had drawn it up, and he had evidently applied himself to his very difficult task with a determination to do his best by it. He was very far from undervaluing the result of this gentleman's labours; but he thought it must be allowed that a great public document such as this had become, which professed to fix the relative number of the members of the Established Church and of those dissenting from it throughout England and Wales, in proportion to its importance ought also to be accurate, and that to spread inaccurate statements on such a subject would be a fertile source of many evils. This Census of Religious Worship had been referred to and used in that manner, and that marked the exceeding importance that such documents, if they came at all stamped with the weight of public authority, should be accurate, and not misleading documents. He had no complaint whatever to make of the Office of the Registrar General; the gentlemen employed showed no want of care on their part in making the returns; but the fault was to be traced to the returns which were given to them as the data on which the public returns were to be founded by those who furnished the subject-matter of the reports—namely, the clergy of the Established Church and the ministers of the different Dissenting bodies. With respect to the clergy, many of them refused to send in any returns; and the consequence was, that applications were obliged to be made to the churchwardens, or any other person who could assist in the matter, or take any trouble about it.

25
For this reason the numbers given in the official documents as purporting to belong to the Church of England were oftentimes very loosely put together, and considerably less than such numbers really were. In his own diocese, in which not a very great number of clergymen refused to send the return, he had desired that every clergyman should take the trouble, on several consecutive Sundays, to have the congregations numbered, and to send him the average of the congregations so numbered. The numbers in his diocese were 117,421 according to that enumeration; but in the same year the return of the Registrar General only gave the numbers at 98,410—a considerable difference. But the greatest mis-statements in the reports occurred, not from our own numbers being lessened, but from the numbers of the Dissenters of nearly all denominations being greatly exaggerated and set forth. He hoped that their Lordships would acquit him, in dealing with this subject, of any desire to speak uncharitably or in a spirit of undue disparagement of those connected with the great Dissenting bodies, for nothing could be further from his desire, and he could not feel otherwise than glad at heart at seeing that so many of those who did not worship in the church were engaged in the worship of God elsewhere; but the reason why he brought forward the subject of these returns was, that they were made use of to militate against the interest of the Church, and to give an unfair impression of what the numbers of persons belonging to the Church of England really were as compared to the Dissenting bodies. He had, therefore, taken the trouble to ascertain in detail how far the statement respecting the persons who attended worship in these places was accurate in this Census return, and he hoped their Lordships would not think there was any uncharitable feeling in his mind when he stated that the result showed that a great increase had been made in the returns to the real numbers of the Dissenters. He was by no means surprised that such errors should have been committed. Many of their ministers were not often in the same rank of life as the clergy of the Established Church. There was no doubt that in large Dissenting chapels in large towns the ministers were men of education, and he had no doubt that, if inquiries of this kind were addressed to them, their returns would be honestly made; but those inquiries were extended to very little places
26
—to all the small licensed rooms in remote villages—to men who had not the advantages of education—and who were not the objects of general view and observation; and with regard to these he had no hesitation in saying there was continually a misrepresentation in point of fact as to the relative numbers of the members of the Established Church and of the Dissenters. He should give a few extracts to their Lordships from answers received by him to letters from different parts of the country, and as he had the name and address and character of the persons who had written each one of those letters, he was able, therefore, to give a verification of the statements contained in them. The statements were such as these:—in one parish the Dissenters filled their place of assembly on purpose to swell the numbers in the return; in another many attended in the evening who had been counted previously as belonging to a different Dissenting congregation; another correspondent was informed that the numbers of the Dissenters were much exaggerated; another said that a fair average was not given; in one parish almost all the Dissenters from the next parish attended, and vice versâ, the services being held at different hours, and so they were counted twice over in both parishes. Again, special sermons were preached in a neighbourhood in all the meeting-houses, to attract congregations and swell the returns. Again, it Was stated that the return respecting the Church was sent in by a Dissenter in a neighbouring town. Again, another writer had reason to believe that the same person attended the services of different denominations on the day of the enumeration. Another writer had reason to think that the Dissenters were particularly active on that day in requesting attendance at their conventicles. Again, it was stated that in some cases the meeting-houses could not hold the numbers that were returned except the congregation was composed of very small children. Again, it was stated that the return from the Wesleyans was greatly exaggerated, and that the Dissenters had filled their chapels by advertising popular preachers and withdrawing many of the children from the national schools on that day. Another writer stated that there were no efforts made as respected the Church, and that the unfavourable state of the weather had kept many persons who lived at a distance from attending at church on the Census Sun-

27
day, while the preachers at some of the Dissenting chapels had given notice that it church was to be a trial of strength between the Church and the Dissenters, and the congregations were to muster in strength. That statement had particular reference to the Baptist and Independent chapels. Another writer said that some of them returned double the numbers the chapels Would contain. Another person wrote to him that he had no doubt he was right about the Census; that the clergy were careless and indifferent about it, having no notice of the use to which the returns would be put, and looking upon many of the questions as impertinent or intrusive, and they either neglected them, or else had no means of giving an accurate statement, whereas the Dissenters were wide awake on the occasion. Another writer stated that the return was made in his locality by parties hostile to the Church. Another writer said that the particular person who made the return was so hostile to the Church that he would never come within it as secretary of a certain charitable body, though all the other members of the society attended. Another writer begged to express his conviction that the Census returns were really worth nothing; that in many instances there was no return of attendants made by the clergy, and that he found that three congregations of Dissenters in separate chapels consisted of the same persons. He (the Bishop of Oxford) had received many other statements of the same kind, and his object was to show their Lordships that returns obtained by this process could not he relied upon as being true statements of the relative numbers of the two bodies. There was an important fact to which he should call their Lordships' attention—namely, that in the Census returns themselves, for the town of Liverpool the number of sittings given for the Roman Catholics amounted to 8,806, while at the same time the number of attendants in one morning was represented to be 27,650. In Manchester there was the same disproportion, and in the parish of St. Giles's a still greater. In St. Giles's the return of sittings was 460, but the attendants were put down at 3,000. It appeared that 286 persons were put down as belonging to the Established Church for a whole union; whereas it was stated by a clergyman that he had returned 550 as attending his own single church in that union. The answer was, to thank him for pointing out the omission, and to
28
state that the number attending at his church had been accidentally omitted. So that, in that case, the numbers should be 836 instead of 286—a very material difference, but certainly an accident that might happen in any case; and he did not attach any weight to it, or quote it to prove his case, except in this way, that they must see from it how useful detailed information would be in checking such errors. If they could get from the different parishes the returns sent up, or a considerable number of them, they would be able to apply to the allegations he made a rule or criterion, which was all they required. Whatever the truth was on this subject it ought to be told, and there should not go forth to the public, on mistaken facts, a statement as to the relations of the different religious bodies in this land. It should not go forth, except it was true, that it was an episcopal figure of speech to say what he said—that, thank God, the great majority of the people of this country do still belong to the Established Church.
Moved—
"That there be laid before the House the details of the Returns from which the Tables of Religious Worship, presented to the Houses of Parliament in reference to the Census of 1851, were prepared."
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDSsaid, he was in a condition to confirm the statement of his right rev. Friend, though it was but very recently that his attention had been specially drawn to the subject. At the time of the last Census he had a conversation with the clergyman of a parish, who mentioned some practices that had come to his knowledge, which drew from him the observation that if such were the case, and if the returns were open to such abuses, he would very much have wished that the clergy of the Church of England should have declined making any return; for by doing so they were not assisting to ascertain truth, but were appearing to lend their countenance and sanction to that which was in the end an imposition on the public. Even supposing the returns had been correct, unless they were so guarded from abuses as to gain the general confidence of the country, they would fail in accomplishing their most important objects. With regard to the light in which the returns were considered by the clergy, a few letters he had lately received were quite sufficient to illustrate that part of the case. He found one of those clergymen stating that he really was not able to

29
give certain information about the last Census, because, having taken no pains to inquire into the matter, from his experience of the manner in which similar returns had been obtained by the Dissenters on previous occasions, he considered the Census, as far as it related to the number present at each place of worship, a mere farce. In one case, where the return from a chapel stated that the numbers attending amounted to 2,000. it was found the largest number it could contain was 1,200. He found another clergyman stating that it was generally believed that the Dissenters had made excessive returns, and the belief was supported by two facts, the first being that the returns of persons attending the different chapels in many parishes exceed their whole population; and the second being that the same individuals were well known to have been counted two or three times over as attending the chapels of different denominations. It was stated also to he a general practice that where there were several chapels of different denominations, each having its Sunday School, they clubbed the Sunday Schools together to attend each of their services at different times of the day. In many places they offered a peculiar attraction to attend, to many Welsh congregations—namely, the public catechising of the children, which not only secured a large attendance of children, but a large addition to the ordinary congregation. There was another kind of malpractice which was a still wider departure from fair dealing, because he understood that the grossest mis-statements had slipped into the calculation of the numbers attending the schools. In his own neighbourhood he found it mentioned as a fact of general notoriety, that the numbers reported from particular Sunday Schools were two or three times as large as it was possible for the buildings to contain. Another instance which came from particularly good authority, also in his own neighbourhood, was an illustration of the same practice. In that case the Dissenting minister seemed, for some reason or other, not to have found himself competent to fill up the return himself, and requested the registrar to do it for him. He stated that his congregation was 400; and then came the question as to the number of sittings, which he very innocently stated to be between 150 and 200. The registrar begged he would explain how 400 persons could meet in a room that would contain but
30
200, and he confessed that that little circumstance had frequently escaped his attention, and he desired the registrar to put down 200 instead of 400. The practical conclusion, however, did not depend on particular instances of this kind. It was a sufficient objection to the present mode of taking the returns, that the clergy viewed them with distrust, or rather with the fullest conviction that they were, on the whole, gross misrepresentations of the real state of the case. He had not made these statements in an invidious sense, or with the view of disparaging the Dissenters, but they had no right to presume that any body of men were above temptation. They had no right to place the Dissenters in circumstances in which they were exposed to the strongest of all temptations, or to leave matters of this importance to rest on the discretion of persons who were deeply interested in putting forward a certain view of the case. He really would not say whether, under similar circumstances, if the clergy of the Church of England were to be placed in a similar condition, they would be superior to the like temptation. He should hope and wish to believe that they would, but really he could not, under such circumstances, answer for them any more than for any other body of men. It was unfair to the Dissenters themselves, and highly prejudicial to the public interest, to expose them to the temptation of making such misrepresentations. He thought with a view to the future it was perfectly clear those returns could never accomplish the object for which they were designed if they were made in the manner in which the last returns had been made, and he could not himself see how they were ever to guard against such misrepresentations. Any day which might be appointed for the taking of the Census would be sure to be considered by the Dissenting bodies as the occasion for a trial of strength, on which, by canvassing in private and holding out the greatest possible attraction in public, they would endeavour to make a grand demonstration of the growing success of their cause. If the same plan was to be adopted in future, he hoped that some check would be devised which would be an effectual security against the abuses and misrepresentations which had, he was convinced, been but very imperfectly disclosed by the statements which had been made to the House.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the right rev.

31
Prelate had most legitimately brought this subject under the consideration of their Lordships, and the only regret he had in rising was, that in refusing to accede to the Motion, he should seem to place himself in opposition to the representatives of the Church of England in that House, especially on a matter on which they called for more ample and truthful information to the country at large. But, at the same time, he thought he could give reasons why it was not desirable to accede to the Motion for the returns moved for by the right rev. Prelate. The fact was, that the Census Office was now shut up, and their accounts closed; the returns were also very numerous, amounting to nearly 40,000—or, to be quite accurate, 37,381. But the great reason why he could not well consent, consistently with good faith, to the production of these returns, was, that in the circular printed and circulated by desire of the Secretary of State, it was stated that it was not intended that all the particulars in the returns should be published. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. He heartily agreed in what the right rev. Prelate who spoke last said, as to the regret which he felt that some other legal arrangements did not exist when the Census was taken. He thought it would be most desirable that information which the public were so anxious to have should have been made compulsory, and an untruthful answer declared to be penal. At the same time he could not help feeling that the discussions in that House upon the conduct of the Secretary of State in somewhat overstepping the bounds of legality by sending these queries with the first form had to some extent caused the evil complained of, because it increased the unwillingness of district clergymen to fill up the returns, and this naturally produced an unfavourable impression as to the numbers belonging to the Established Church. His right rev. Friend did not raise any question against the Census Office, or the manner in which its duties had been performed, but his complaint was, that, on the one band, the Church of England returns did not give a sufficient statement of the numbers attending places of worship belonging to the Established Church, while, on the other hand, the numbers attending the Dissenting chapels were exaggerated. It was impossible for him to give an official opinion on this subject; but from the facts he had stated,
32
arising out of the debates that took place in that House, he did think it was made out that the returns as to the Church were below the numbers that ought to have been given. As to the Dissenters, he likewise shrank from giving any official opinion. The right rev. Prelates, no doubt, seemed to have made out a strong case, and the Dissenters, he had no doubt, would take some public opportunity of telling their own story, and the public would judge between the two. Some of the facts mentioned by the right rev. Prelate were strong, others were not so. His statement, for example, as to the weather having given an advantage to Dissenters was not a strong fact, fur both would be equally affected by this, and the weather no doubt varied in different parts of the country. As to the Roman Catholics, he would only observe, with reference to the number of sittings they possessed, that their services were short and more frequent than ours, and therefore it was obvious that their chapels gave accommodation to more persons than Protestant churches did, where the services were longer and the attendances more rare. He hoped he had said enough to show that it was impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. At the same time, he was glad the statement had been made, that it might be considered by the public. Such answers as could be given would no doubt be put forward by the Dissenters, and the public would then be able to judge more accurately upon the subject. He wished to say one word as to what had fallen from a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) the other day on the subject of these returns. The noble Earl had said that the returns were perfectly useless, and that not twenty persons looked at them. Now, this was not borne out by the facts, for he had been informed that of one edition of these returns 21,000 copies were sold almost as soon as published. With respect to the increase of expense attending the Census, the former Census having cost 23,500 l., while the latter cost 170,000 l., the noble Earl was mistaken. The mistake was a natural one for him to make, for he was probably not aware that the former Census was paid entirely out of the poor rate; and that while it cost 5l. 9s. per thousand, the last cost 5l l. 4s. per thousand, being a saving of 5s. per thousand, while much more information had been obtained. The estimate was 150,000 l., but only 127,000 l. was expended, thus

33
leaving a considerable sum to be returned to the Treasury. It was necessary to state these facts, as it would create an unfounded prejudice against the manner of doing the business if the statements which had been made remained uncontradicted. He might add, in justice to the Registrar General, that he had been informed by the head of his department, that in his conduct of the whole business he showed great powers of administration and great care for the public interest in every possible way.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, that in Wales, owing to one portion of the members of the Church of England being Welsh and the other English, of two services performed on the same day one was performed in Welsh and the other in English, therefore only one-half the congregation of a church attended each service. This did not apply to the Dissenters, whose congregations were generally all of one country, and, therefore, all attended each service.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend (Earl Granville) he could not of course press for these returns, but he thought that the promise which had been referred to was one which ought not to have been given, as it was a direct temptation to an unscrupulous person to send inaccurate returns. He was convinced that no provision could meet the difficulty arising from taking the returns of the people attending the churches and chapels on a certain known day, as it would by both sides be considered a trial of strength, and would be no proof of the real religious state of the districts. Therefore, if this information was to be obtained again, he most earnestly trusted that the returns would be taken in some other way than from the attendance in places of worship on a notified Sunday.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Thursday next.