Sitting of 3 July 1863

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—India Stock.
First Reading—Way wardens' Contracts (Lords) *
166
[Bill 205]; Pilotage Orders Confirmation* [Bill 206]; Waterworks Clauses* [Bill 207]; Railways Clauses* [Bill 208]; Companies Clauses [Bill 209].
Committee—Fisheries (Ireland) [Sir Robert Peel] [Bill 137]—R.P.; Partnership Law Amendment [Bill 172], on re-committal—R.P.; Prisons (Ireland) [Bill 178].
Report—Prisons (Ireland).
Considered as amended—Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Provisional Order)* [Bill 184].
Third Reading—Militia Ballots Suspension *, and passed.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL
[SIR ROBERT PEEL].
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL

  [BILL 137.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clause 18 (Appointment of Commissioners under Sign Manual).
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he would move to add to the clause certain words, the effect of which would be to provide that after a vacancy the new Commissioner should be of the same profession as the Commissioner in whose room he was appointed.
  MR. O'HAGANproposed another Amendment with the same object.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he trusted that able and independent Gentlemenun connected with Ireland would be appointed by the Government to discharge the delicate and difficult duties of Commissioners.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could assure the Committee that it was the desire of the Government that the first three Commissioners should be men, not only of high character, but men who would discharge their duties in a thoroughly independent and impartial manner.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, he thought it would be better to follow the example of the Alkali Bill, and appoint Inspectors who should go before the proper legal tribunals, instead of investing Commissioners with powers and duties foreign to the law.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he was quite content to leave the uncontrolled nomination of the Commissioners to the Government. He believed that not a single Irish Member had approached the Government on the subject of the nomination of these Commissioners.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 19 to 27 were also agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Power for Commissioners to state case for Court of Law or direct issue of Law).
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that the clause was useless for the protection of the public, and he should therefore move its omission. It would enable the Commissioners to shift the responsibility from themselves and involve the public in litigation. It would be much better to give the Commissioners a summary jurisdiction than to allow them to take a poor man into Chancery.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, he could not see the force of the objection. They intrusted the Commissioners with great power, and he thought it was not too much to give them the power, if they thought proper to exercise it, to take the opinion of a high legal tribunal on some of the litigated questions connected with the Act of 1842.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the clause was introduced to save time, trouble, and expense to all parties. When the Commissioners found that some difficult point was sure to be litigated, the clause provided that they might state a case, and name the parties to it, as a quicker and surer way of getting a decision.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 29 withdrawn.
  Clause 30 (Power of Commissioners to compromise).
  MR. HERBERTsaid, that as the Committee had respected the rights of the owners of stake weirs, it was only fair that they should also respect the rights of the owners of bag nets. The Act of 1842 allowed the use of these bag nets, but by this Bill they would be abolished, in order that those neighbours of those proprietors who might be owners of stake nets should be enabled to catch more fish. As a compromise, he would move an Amendment giving the Commissioners power to allow bag nets to continue for a period not exceeding ten years, provided that the nets were legal under the Act of 1842, and that the owners did not possess in the same district any other nets, weirs, or fishing rights.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the Government did not propose to press the clause, the powers of which were too large and too loose. He was disposed, however, to agree to an Amendment declaring that the Commissioners might allow bag nets to continue for a limited time, not exceeding ten years, provided the owners had no other nets or weirs in the neighbourhood. He
  168
  did not believe his Amendment would meet with much favour, because some hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that the ideas of justice and salmon ought to be altogether dissociated. He would appeal to the generosity of the Committee to agree to this Amendment. In every other case, if the Committee had inflicted some injury, they had done some good to the parties who might complain. In the case of the owners of stone weirs, it was thought that the Bill would confer a benefit upon them against their will. The stake weirs put down were only those existing contrary to law. When persons owned bag nets who had also stake nets, they would receive some compensation in the increased take of fish by the stake nets. Therefore the class of bag net owners who would benefit by the extension of time would be very small, not more than half a dozen or a dozen, and they were persons upon whom the Bill would otherwise inflict an injury without any compensation. He would again repeat that, in his opinion, the Irish Act of 1842 trenched on the general rights of the public; but Parliament had allowed vested interests to be established under that Act, and bag nets for twenty years had been permitted. The effect of his Amendment would be, that the Commissioners would have the power of granting an extension of the time, and might also impose restrictions and regulations in case the nets or weirs were carried too far into the stream.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he strongly objected to give the Commissioners a discretion to allow bag nets to continue for ten years. [Mr. H. A. BRUCE: Where the owners have no other means of fishing.] An appeal had been made to the generosity of the Committee; he appealed to their justice, and asked them to consider the rights of the poor. In 1846 the draught net fisheries on the coast of Ireland gave employment to 100,000 persons; now the number was reduced to 50,000, the fishery being monopolized and injured by bag nets. If the Amendment were agreed to, the extension would be for ten years in every case, because the Commissioners would not be likely to give one proprietor two years and another ten years. He called upon the Committee not to act like children, and showing compassion to the proprietors, forget the compassion due to the poor and the public. He believed that before the bag nets could be abolished under the Bill the proprietors would get a very good slice of the fishing of 1864. They would be

  169
  able to get the fish until the month of April or May next year. That was a greater extension of time than the proprietors of these bag nets deserved, either on the ground of law or justice. However, as an appeal had been made to the generosity of the Committee, he would consent to give the proprietors of the bag nets the whole of the season of 1864, which would be dealing very handsomely with them.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Mallow would extend to many clauses which had been already passed. He thought that some consideration ought to be extended to persons whose rights were about to be confiscated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 31 (Provision on the Determination of the Office of the Commissioners).
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEproposed, as an Amendment, that the Inspectors should be appointed by the Home Secretary instead of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 15, to leave out the words "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland," and insert the words "one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must protest against the Amendment. The Lord Lieutenant was the proper person to possess that sort of patronage, and every Bill for Ireland gave it to him. When the House thought proper to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy, it would be right to give such appointments to the Home Secretary, but not before.
  LORD NAASsaid, he concurred in thinking that all the Irish departments ought to be under the Irish Government.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that to give the appointments to the Home Secretary would be to remove them from a focus of jobbery and party influence.
  MR. SCULLYdid not wish to take a single feather out of the tail of the English peacock (he did not speak of the present Lord Lieutenant), who was usually sent over to govern Ireland. He should vote for giving the patronage to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because the country was likely always to have a decent and respectable Home Secretary, but was not always equally secure in regard to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who might be some "shave beggar" sent over
  170
  to learn his trade, and thereby to rise to eminence as a statesman afterwards.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, that if it were wished to get rid of the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it ought to be done by a direct Motion, and not by a side wind like the present Amendment.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, the Committee were, it seemed, about to rob the Lord Lieutenant of one of the brightest jewels in the Irish Crown—namely, the appointment of two fishery Inspectors. According to the hon. Member for Cork, the views of the Lord Lieutenants ought to be retrospective, because peacocks had eyes in their tails. He should vote for the Amendment, because the control of the English and Scotch Fisheries Acts was in the hands of the Home Secretary, and why should Ireland be excepted? To give this appointment to the Home Secretary would only be a proper compliment to the Home Office, by which the Bill had been so ably drawn up and introduced to the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 11: Majority 51.
  LORD NAASsaid, he would recommend that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted in the Bill on the Report. It would give greater weight to their decision if they were named in the Bill.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord. If the Commissioners were named in the Bill, disputes would arise as to the appointments, and the result would be the loss of a great deal of their influence. The appointments would only be for about two years.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he was glad the Government had declined to accede to the suggestion of the noble Member for Cocker-mouth.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 32 and 33 were also agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation Clause), which had been postponed.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he considered it was unnecessary, and he should therefore move its omission.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, he was of the same opinion.
  Clause omitted.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) he would move that a new clause be added

  171
  after Clause 8, inflicting a penalty of £50 on any person keeping a weir after notice.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he objected to the clause, but he would withdraw the objection if his hon. Friend would consent to add a provision that no such action should be brought under the section, when the proprietor or occupier had obtained the certificate of the Commissioners under the Act.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would then move a clause in substitution of Clause 9, relative to the construction of free gaps. At their last sitting the Committee determined that there should be a free gap in all weirs, and the present clause, which was copied from the English Fisheries Act, would carry out this wish.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he thought that the Commissioners ought to have the power of fixing the situation of the free gap. He therefore proposed to add the words "that the gap should be in such a situation as the Commissioners should direct."
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that no such discretion was given to the Commissioners in the English Act. The gaps might be so placed as to be rendered inoperative, and he could not consent to intrust the Commissioners with such a power.
  MR. F. L. GOWERsaid, he must repeat the assertion he had made at the last sitting—that the Act confiscated property to which the owners of these weirs were as much entitled as the owners of land to their estates. They had therefore a right to ask for compensation in the event of loss. It was asserted that there would be no loss, but in that case no compensation would be wanted.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that if the Bill were the means of increasing the number of salmon, it would give compensation to the owners of weirs. If it were a measure of confiscation, it was no more so than the English Bill. That measure had been found to work well for England, and so would the present measure for Ireland.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he must admit that the English Act manifested as flagrant a disregard of chartered rights as that now proposed. Inasmuch, however, as the unanimous feeling of the Committee seemed to be against granting compensation, the Government had not deemed itself called upon to withdraw the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid,
  172
  he should support the clause. It would never do to leave the Commissioners the choice of the part of the river where the gap was to be made. The owners of the stone weirs claimed compensation in case of loss; but in that case, if the Act worked well, and if there were gains over the present average, the amount of the excess must be paid over to the public. ["No!"] Oh, yes! the public would have a right to this set-off against the losses of bad years. The consequence would be that the owners would be losers by such compensation clauses, whereas if they accepted the Bill without them, they would be the gainers.
  LORD NAASsaid, that the limit of 40 ft. inserted in the clause as the width of the free gap was enough for the English rivers, which were much narrower than those of Ireland. He thought that a gap of 60 ft. would not be too large for some of the Irish rivers, and he should therefore propose an Amendment to that effect. He had no wish to conceal that the object of his Amendment was to apply only to the great lax weir at Limerick.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he had no obtion to the Amendment where the river was 600 feet wide.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he should support the proposition, though it would only be applicable to one weir in Ireland.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision would be applicable to five of the weirs of Ireland. He would propose that the width should be fixed at 50 feet.
  MR. Longfield's Amendment agreed to.
  MR. F. L. GOWERsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment, to add that all expenses incurred by the Commissioners should be paid by the conservators of the districts in which the weirs were situate out of the funds placed at the disposal of the conservators. It was most unjust that these expenses should fall upon the owners; and it was no apology for such injustice to say that it was part of the English Bill.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would support the proposal, but he feared the conservators might not always have funds at their disposal. He proposed that the expenses should be borne by the grand juries.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that he could not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. F. L. Gower). The money in the hands of the conservators of the rivers

  173
  was no more than sufficient for the protection of the fisheries, and would be quite inadequate to defray the expenses of making gaps in weirs. The proprietors of these stone weirs would have to pay, as in England, for the making of the free gaps.
  MR. F. L. GOWERsaid, he was willing to add to his Amendment the words, "if they have sufficient monies for the purpose."
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he would suggest the postponement of the matter till the bringing-up of the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would move a new clause to follow Clause 15, providing that no fixed net, save bag nets, should be allowed to extend "beyond the mean level of ordinary spring tides, and the low water of ordinary neap tides."
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to press the clause.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that if the hon. Member pressed and carried his clause, he would upset the Bill.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member would not attempt to impede the working of the Bill by pressing the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEproposed to substitute for Clause 17 a clause providing for payment of additional duties on fixed engines.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had hoped the Committee would have got through all the clauses that morning. As it was, they must either go on with the Bill next Friday or that evening. [Several hon. MEMBERS: To-night.] It was the only choice they had, and he should be glad if they could pass the Bill through Committee at the evening sitting. [An hon. MEMBER: Up to what time?] Up to any time.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

INDIA—CLAIMS AGAINST THE LATE GOVERNMENT OF OUDE.—QUESTION
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Ii he can explain why the claims on the late Government of Oude, all the parties to which are in England, cannot be investigated here, instead of in India?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that although he was aware the parties were in this country, all the evidence was in India; and therefore the investigation would take place there.

HARWICH HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, How the Foreshore in Harwich Harbour, near the entrance to the Stour, purchased by the Commissioners appointed by the 7 Queen Anne, c. 26, for the purpose of Fortifications, came into the possession of the Woods and Forests.
MR. PEEL, in reply, said, the Foreshore in Harwich Harbour, near the entrance to the Stour, purchased for the purpose of Fortifications, came under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests by virtue of an Act of the 10 & 11 Geo. IV.

CONSIGNMENTS TO NEUTRAL PORTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General or Mr. Solicitor General, Whether, in the existing state of affairs in America, it is contrary to International Law to consign arms, ammunition, or medicines to the ports of Quebec, Nassau, Matamoras, and Havana, or any one of them; and whether a vessel bound to any of the above-mentioned ports containing such articles would be liable to condemnation by a Prize Court?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, in reply, that it was somewhat strange that the hon. Member should think it necessary to ask a Question which had been asked and answered over and over again in that House. He should have thought everybody must be aware that the consignment to the four ports named, or to any other neutral port, of the articles enumerated, providing it were a real and bonâ fide consignment, actually intended to be delivered at those ports, would not expose the vessel, having them on board to condemnation by a Prize Court. He considered it necessary to say, that he thought there was some danger of persons deceiving themselves by such questions as these. The most familiar principle of public law was what he had stated, and the Prize Courts in America would answer the question put exactly as he had answered, t. The question for their decision always was as to the application of the law to a particular case, and whether, as a matter of

  175
  fact, the goods were bonâ fide to be delivered at one of these ports. He was not aware of any case in which the Prize Courts of America had claimed to lay down any new principle upon this subject.

SEIZURE OF GROWING CROPS IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will introduce this Session a Bill on the subject of the Seizure of Growing Crops in Ireland?
SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that he proposed to give notice that night of his intention to ask for leave on Monday to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Seizure of Growing Crops in Ireland.

THE BENGAL MILITARY FUND.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If, in pursuance of a Despatch to the Governor General of India, dated 27th December 1862 (No. 482), Her Majesty's Government are prepared to guarantee payment of pensions to widows and orphans of subscribers to the Bengal Military Fund, at the rates now paid?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that the hon. and gallant Member must be aware that those funds were under the management of individuals who were Members of a Committee and of the Service. The Government of India were not responsible for their management. If, however, the funds were handed over to them, the Government would of course be responsible.

THE NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER BANN.—QUESTION.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether their Lordships will sanction the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland advancing to the Town Commissioners of Coleraine monies for the Improvement of the Navigation of the Bann, under the provisions of their Act obtained this Session; and whether they will sanction a free grant of part of the money for the same purpose, it being for the completion of a great work executed by the Board of Works in Ireland?
MR. PEEL, in reply, said, the Board of Works in Ireland had not made any application
176
to the Treasury for a loan to the Town Commissioners of Coleraine for the improvement of the navigation of the Bann. It would depend very much upon the security offered by the Commissioners whether the Board would recommend such a loan. He was not aware that the Treasury had power to make a free grant for the purpose.

UNION RELIEF AID ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he will postpone the Second Reading of the Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance Bill till after the interview which he has promised to give on Wednesday next to a deputation from the Magistrates of the Counties most interested in the question involved in the Bill?
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would consent to postpone the second reading of the Bill until after he had received a deputation alluded to by the hon. Member. At the same time, however, he must state that the responsibility of delaying the progress of the Bill would attach to the hon. Gentleman.

FRONTIER DEFENCES OF CANADA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL ANNESLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received the Report of the Commission sent out last year to inquire into the Frontier Defences of Canada; and, if so, whether it is their intention to carry out at present the whole or any part of the recommendations contained in that Report?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the Report referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend had been received, but its recommendations affected the Colonial Government at least as much as the Home Government. Up to the present time certain political occurrences had prevented the Colonial Government from taking into consideration the Report of the Commissioners, and consequently it was impossible to say, at present, what steps would be taken towards carrying out the whole or any part of its recommendations.

THE LAND PURCHASED AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, in the absence

177
of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Commissioners of 1851 are to be paid the sum of £120,000 for Land at Kensington before the Government is placed in clear possession of the Land?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the sum of money voted by the House, which amounted, I think, to £67,000, has been paid to the Commissioners to enable them to clear off certain impending obligations. We have no power to pay any further sum, and we cannot have such power till after a further Vote has been granted by this House. I think the most natural arrangement would be that the rest of the money should be paid on the completion of the conveyance and the transfer of the land. At the same time, I do not know the precise course which will be taken; but whatever it is it will be explicitly stated to the House.

AFFAIRS OF JAPAN.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to ask, Whether he is to understand that Her Majesty's Government object to lay upon the table the Papers relating to Japan?
MR. LAYARDreplied, that he should decline to lay any further Papers on the subject of Japan upon the table until the result of the negotiations now going on became known to the Government.

UNITED STATES—RECOGNITION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has now obtained the consent of the Head of the Government to fix Monday week for resuming the discussion upon his (Mr. Roebuck's) Motion in reference to America?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he had not been able to see his noble Friend since yesterday. He believed, however, it was certain that his noble Friend would be in the House on Monday next, when he would give an answer himself to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

COTTON FROM INDIA.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. CAIRD: Sir, I regret that the indisposition of the Secretary for India, about a month ago, prevented me at that time bringing before the House the question of cotton supply. The delay will probably render it necessary for me to modify the terms of my Motion, for at so late a period of the Session we could not hope to enter upon so large a question, before a Committee, with any probability of gaining much information. But the subject itself is so important that a discussion upon it, before the recess, may be useful to show the prospects we have of supplies of cotton, and the certainty that from one source or another the increasing price will be gradually and not tardily followed by increased production. Events in America should convince us that it would be most unwise again to permit an almost exclusive reliance to be placed on that country. Already in every zone where cotton can be cultivated, and where there is a supply of labour, that labour has been raised in value by the absence of slave competition. Should the turn of events lead to a greater cost in the production of cotton, and consequently to a higher future range of price, it would still be by far the cheapest article of clothing. The trade may for some short period continue to be curtailed for want of a sufficient supply of the raw material, but we have only to look at the Returns of the imports in the first three months of this year to be satisfied of the early prospect of considerable supplies. Compared with the same period of 1861 the imports, exclusive of the United States, have increased fourfold, and have already gone far to make up the total cessation from America. For thirty years, India has given us somewhat less than a fifth of our supply, and has kept her ground against America, varying a little under the influence of price, but maintaining, since 1850, a steadily increasing proportion of the whole cotton supply. And it is worthy of remark, that in India alone free labour has been able to sustain a competition with that of slaves. For the West Indies, which, previous to emancipation, gave from 5 to 8 per cent of our supply, since 1835 have almost ceased to export cotton. Brazil, which, previous to 1830, gave 10 to 15 per cent, had, under her modified system of slavery, fallen to 1 per cent in 1860. And the same rule may be traced in the decreasing proportion of imports from all other countries. But mar-

  179
  vellous has already been the change produced by the cessation of American supplies. From 80 per cent of our imports of cotton in 1860, American cotton fell to 5½ of the small supply of 1862, while Indian rose from 14 to 71 per cent; Brazil, from 1 to 10 per cent; Mediterranean, from 3 to 11 per cent; and the West Indies again took its place as a source of our cotton supply. When we find that from India we received more cotton last year than the entire annual supply from all quarters previous to 1840, and when, moreover, we find that supply growing, within the last eight years, gradually but steadily, from 300,000 bales to 400,000, 500,000, 600,000, 900,000, to 1,073,000 bales, we can have no reason to despair of an early and sufficient supply, even though America remain partially closed against us. The increase of price has had its natural effect in immensely stimulating production; and the facility with which that can be done, in countries where cotton has been already grown, is far greater than is usually supposed. I referred to this last year, but will venture to repeat it. In agriculture, it is difficult, and a work of time, to introduce a new article of culture; but it is a very easy and simple matter to extend the culture of an article at present produced. That is the true explanation of the rapidity with which, in certain quarters already, the increased price has been met with a doubled supply.
  As I have recently had an opportunity of visiting some of the cotton-growing countries of the Mediterranean, and made cotton cultivation the object of my special attention, I will venture to offer to the House the results of what I saw and heard. And first with regard to Egypt, which, from the vast fertility of its soil and its abundant supply of labour, has been, and is likely to continue to be, the largest cotton producer in the Mediterranean. The produce of an acre of cotton, which, previous to 1860, was not worth more in that country than about £5, yielded upwards of £20 in 1862. The cotton crop of 1862 gave thirteen millions sterling to Egypt, six of which were clear profit above the ordinary cost of production. Now Egypt possesses immense capacity for a rapid extension of cotton culture, and the greatest exertions which enormous profits can prompt are at this moment being made. With a favourable season, it is not improbable that Egypt may yield 250,000 bales in 1863.
  180
  In Smyrna the same energy to take advantage of the present prices has been displayed. A few years ago no cotton was exported from Smyrna, which last year sent out 60,000 bales, and is expected to more than double that quantity in the present year. In Sicily and Italy (which has for ages been a cotton country) every little or large farmer who has ever before grown a plot of cotton is this year planting it on every acre of land where they think it can be grown. The value of the last crop in many instances was not merely a matter of largely increased profit, but exceeded the fee-simple of the land. With the Sicilian farmer, it is not a question of doubling the usual cotton culture—it will be increased tenfold. In many places the pressure of an increased demand for labour is being anticipated, and the wages promised for the picking season have advanced 50 per cent. There can be little doubt that the same cause is operating in Spain and Algeria, and it will probably be found a moderate estimate to put the total production of the Mediterranean in 1863 at 500,000 bales.
  In Italy the most sanguine expectations are entertained of the future production of cotton. A commission, ably presided over by Signor De Vincenzi, who last year represented the Italian cotton interest at the Great Exhibition, has been appointed by the Government, with the express object of clearing away every impediment and opening every facility for its extended culture. Hundreds of thousands of acres of land are believed to be suited to it, and admit of irrigation. Seed is supplied in every quarter to those who apply for it, and printed instructions for planting and management are everywhere circulated. The quality of the cotton is equal to average American; and as a winter crop of beans or barley, or potatoes, can be taken before the cotton crop is planted, it is argued that with the advantage of a double crop and the abundant supply of labour, the Italian will be able hereafter to hold his ground against future competition from the Slave States. From Brazil this increase has been very rapid, and 200,000 bales are expected from the present year's crop in that country; while the West Indies and our other Colonies will contribute in a small degree to the general supply. The Egyptian and the Mediterranean cottons being of superior quality, and labour cheap and abundant, there is every probability that the increased culture of cotton there will be

  181
  continued, and that these countries will be found capable of contributing not less than one-fourth of the whole future cotton supply. But for the remaining three-fourths we shall probably have to look to America and India. The future supply from America depends altogether upon the terms upon which the war may be concluded. The Southern States possess advantages for the growth of cotton greater than those of any other country. They have a fertile soil, intersected by railways and navigable rivers, and a climate peculiarly adapted to the production of a large crop of fine quality, without, as in most other cotton countries, being compelled to resort to irrigation. Their slave system admits of the most perfect organization of labour, and it is a delusion to imagine that it is more costly than free labour. I have carefully studied this part of the question, for it is the key to the whole system, and I assert, that with unrestricted limits of expansion, and a victorious slave constitution, no country will be able to grow cotton so cheaply and plentifully as America. A Southern cotton estate may be almost self-supporting. The whole food and clothing of the negroes is produced on the estate by their own labour, or is bought by the sale of their surplus produce, other than cotton. The interest of the invested capital in the negroes is more than compensated by the increase in their numbers. The cotton crop is nearly all profit, for there is no rent to be paid for the land, as in Europe, or land tax to the Government, as in India. The skill displayed in the culture of the crop is not equalled, on a great scale, in any other country. Combined capital and sagacity have done their utmost to increase the production and thus lessen the cost.
  The growth of the Southern States in 1840 was 1,600,000 bales, when the price here was 9d. a pound. In 1860 it had increased to 4,600,000 bales, while the price had gradually fallen to less than 6d. a pound. That fact ought to settle the question of the cheapness of slave labour, in a country vast enough to admit of constant expansion. Then, again, the combined energy and intelligence of the planters was devoted to facilitating the means of exporting their great staple. The cotton is ginned on the estate, and baled and pressed before being sent away. Fraudulent admixture is never thought of in a country where buyer and seller are alike intelligent, and where the courts admit of
  182
  a ready remedy. But all this prosperity was founded on the basis of slavery, and cannot, in the opinion of the planters, be maintained without it. Besides slavery, however, it required the constant power of expansion to new and fresh land. The slave system has been a quick, moneymaking system, without reference to its permanence. As soon as the old land was exhausted, new land was broken up. Old cotton lands, when worn out by successive cropping, become and wastes. Immense tracts, amounting to perhaps one-third of the best cotton lands in the older States, are now reduced by this exhaustive system to desolate, sunburned, uninhabited regions, upon which even weeds refuse to grow. The power of moving to the territories west of the Mississippi, where fresh land was to be had, was becoming an every day necessity to hundred of planters; and should the entrance to these territories be shut up, they must either abandon cotton planting, or adopt a system of careful tilling and manuring. The effect of this would at once cause a rapid rise in the cost of production, and place the Southern cotton planter more on a par with those of other countries. From this, I think, it will be clearly seen that the pre-eminence of the American cotton-grower is mainly due to the double system of slavery and wasteful cultivation. What, then, are the probabilities that this may continue? If the South should be everywhere victorious, cotton will very soon be as largely cultivated as ever, though the cost of production will be increased by the planter's proportion of the interest of the war debt. If she is shut up from the territories west of the Mississippi, the cost of production will be greatly increased, and the produce diminished; and if the final issue should be the entire subjugation of the South, and the gradual emancipation of the slave, there will be an enhancement for years in the cost of production of American cotton. The extent planted this year is not expected to yield more than 250,000 bales; and between what has been destroyed, and what has been lost and rotted for want of the means of baling and storing, it is believed that there do not remain more than two and a half million bales available for export. Come when it may, this will be immediately absorbed; and it must be perfectly obvious that we must for some time to come look to other countries as well as America for cotton. And no conclusion of the war seems now to be pos-

  183
  sible which would admit of cotton being produced with the same abundance and cheapness as before. But already the system has been introduced of a gradual transformation from slavery, through serfdom, to freedom. General Banks, in Louisiana, and General Payne, in Tennessee, have instituted a plan which enforces labour on the plantations, and regular monthly payment for that labour; and both parties find it to work advantageously. If the North prevail, this system will be substituted for slavery; and it can hardly be doubted that the Southern States will thus gradually re-extend their cotton culture, and again take their place in the first rank of cotton supply. Whether, therefore, the issue of the war is for the North or South, we may safely anticipate that it cannot last much longer, and that, with a moderate increase of price, we may confidently look to America for at least one-half of her former average supply.
  If we suppose that the future range of prices shall be 50 per cent beyond that of the past few years, we may hereafter expect 1,000,000 bales yearly from the Mediterranean, Brazil, and other quarters, and at least 1,500,000 bales from the Southern States. With what India can yield, there would thus seem to be no need for alarm about a possible extinction of our great cotton industry. For a time the present check may continue, but every month is bringing increased supplies, and the stock at present in America may any day be thrown open to the markets of the world. I confess that I feel some satisfaction in thus coming to the conclusion that we are not likely to be forced to rely mainly on India; for, after a careful study of the blue-books and Indian Reports on cotton culture, I am bewildered by the contradictions and varieties of opinion and the confusion and collision of authority, and the want of any guiding mind to unravel the difficulties and give direction to well-considered plans for developing the growth of cotton. The only thing that comes clearly out from the 500 pages of blue-book is the constant readiness of the Secretary of State to discourage every attempt made by the Indian Government with that object.
  I have consulted not only recent Returns but Reports of Committees of former years—Mr. Bright's Committee of 1848, and a Committee of 1846, appointed in Bombay from the resident merchants, of whom the hon. Member for the City was one. That Committee found that very little de-
  184
  cline had taken place in the export of cotton from Bombay during a period of twelve years (the average annual export being 306,000 bales), although the price had during that time fallen from 3¾d. to 2d. a pound at Bombay. They found that an increase of price of a halfpenny a pound restored the trade to healthy action; and that this increase had been the result of a slight loss of production by an unfavourable cotton season in America. What, then, may we not anticipate from India, from the stimulus of an increase of price almost fabulous? and that increase, not the result of a temporary failure of crop, but from such a total disorganization of labour as will, in all probability, lead to a steady continuance of a higher range of price for many years to come. In the first three months of this year the imports from India have increased from 213,000 cwt. in 1861 to 652,000 cwt. in 1863. From Calcutta, which did not send us a pound in 1860, there have been exported to England 133,000 bales in 1862. The facts, therefore, are against the Secretary of State, who discourages the hope of any great increase of Indian cotton. And in discussing the Indian question, it is necessary to distinguish between what are the legitimate functions of an Indian Government, as compared with our own. The Indian Government is not only a despotic Government, but it is a great absentee landlord, managing its estates by resident agents. It is the duty of such a Government to initiate and carry out all those local improvements, such as roads and means of irrigation, which in this country would properly be left to individual landowners.
  It seems that great exertions were made by the various Governments in India to meet the prospective cotton famine in England. On 28th February 1861 the Governor General transmitted a well-considered Regulation on the subject to the various Indian Dependencies. In this he laid down clearly what the Government ought not to attempt to do, and what they could do with advantage. It is distinguished by practical good sense, and, if it had been permitted to be carried out without interruption, it was, so far, all that could be desired.
  On the 25th July the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India disapproves of the Governor General's offer to pay the travelling expenses of gentlemen deputed by commercial bodies to accompany the Government officials into the cotton districts.

  185
  "It was objectionable, and ought not to be repeated." A whole page is devoted to a discussion of the principle of paying such travelling expenses. And the Governor General is obliged to justify his offer of travelling expenses by showing that the result of that offer had been the mission and report of Mr. Saunders on the cotton districts of the North West Provinces—one of the ablest documents in the blue-book. The Governor General then proposes to offer prizes for the growth of superior qualities of cotton, to test the possibility of improving the quality. The Secretary of State throws cold water upon this also. The right hon. Gentleman makes light of prizes for the improvement of agriculture in India. Is he not aware that immense advantages have attended the prize system of the three National Agricultural Societies of these kingdoms? Improved breeds of cattle, improved processes of husbandry, improved agricultural implements, and the general diffusion of knowledge on these subjects, fostered by the spirit of competition, have been the consequence of the prize system. The stimulus of private interest, which the right hon. Gentleman regards so lightly, is often dormant until roused by the much stronger stimulus of honour and the desire to excel. Other countries as well as ours have recognised this powerful motive, and have wisely made use of it for the improvement of agriculture. The French Government, under the Emperor, expends annually £25,000 in money, and about 5,000 medals of honour, for this special object. The beneficial effects are found in the diffusion of agricultural knowledge and improved processes in every district of France.
  Again, in Madras, the governor proposes to remit the rent on certain small tracts of land to be used by the ryots in experiments for improving the quality of native cotton. This is sanctioned by the Governor General; but the Secretary of State, the moment he hears of it, disapproves and directs that the offer be withdrawn, and the Governor General's Council, thus snubbed, withdraws the order, with a hint to the Secretary of State that he has failed to appreciate their object in making the original offer. This repeated interference in trifles could have no other effect than to damp the efforts of the officials in India. But to turn to matters involving much larger results. The Governor General transmits Mr. Saunders' Report on the Doab, to the importance of which he
  186
  calls the attention of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, passing over the great questions treated of in that Report, the tenure of land and perpetual settlement, and the subject of a contract law, devotes himself to the vigorous condemnation of the objectionable system of seizing loaded cotton carts when required for government transport. And again, in reference to a Report upon Oude, he contents himself by saying that the particular points will, of course, be considered in the departments to which they respectively belong. In the whole compass of the 500 pages of blue-book, I do not find one intelligent suggestion offered by the Secretary of State to the Indian Government. In several instances, as I have shown, he disapproves of trifling orders, which, even if erroneous in principle, were hardly worthy of notice; but he initiates nothing himself. With regard to the question of land tenure, which was so ably handled on a previous debate by the hon. Member for Poole, why did not the Secretary of State send out his instructions for Lord Canning's guidance, instead of waiting for eight months to criticise and set them aside?
  Then, with regard to a Law of Contract, why did he not instruct the Indian Government on the course they should follow, rather than discredit them afterwards by disallowing their proceedings? It is impossible, upon a perusal of the Indian papers, to come to any other conclusion than that, if there is to be an increased supply of cotton from India, it will not be through the aid of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Saunders, the Government Commissioner, shows clearly, that by superior cultivation alone both the quality and the quantity of cotton is improved, and by no other subsequent process can this be accomplished. But without going into great detail, and for the moment placing out of consideration the great cotton districts in Bombay and Madras, I will ask your attention to a single tract of country, where for many years there has been no export of cotton—the Doab, lying between the Jumna and Ganges, on which a careful and full Report has been made by the Government Cotton Commissioner, Mr. Saunders. This tract contains upwards of 12,000,000 acres of good land, which is three times the extent of the cultivated land in Egypt. It has a population of 9,000,000, or over 350 persons to the square mile, an average in excess of the population of China. It

  187
  has a deep porous soil of great fertility, well adapted to the growth of cotton. It is crossed and traversed by numerous canals which run nearly its whole length, and furnish the power of irrigation. The roads everywhere are good, and the railroad to Calcutta runs through its centre. Fifty years ago there was a large export of cotton from the Doab to England and China, but during the last thirty years it has been grown only for home consumption. Now this tract of country, in every way so admirably suited to cotton, seems to be only one out of a great number which are mentioned or referred to in this blue-book. The railway, for about 300 miles, is still incomplete, so that hitherto it has afforded no means of conveyance for the cotton. It is clear, however, that there is abundance of land in India most favourably situated in every way for irrigation where necessary, which will soon be opened up by railways, and with a native population of farmers and labourers through whom any extension of cotton culture may be made with the utmost facility. "It may almost be said that the supply would only be limited by the demand, so large is the field of production." Such is the conclusion of Mr. Saunders' Report. So much for the power of India to increase the supply. Can the quality be improved? The general testimony of the Indian officials is in the negative, as their general belief in the uniformity of the yield at 60 lbs. an acre is positive. But in some parts of India the introduction of American and Egyptian seed has been followed by increased produce and better quality; and the uniform experience of other countries is that careful culture and intelligent management have the same effect. And while much may be done in the improvement of the staple, and greater freedom from adulteration, much is at the same time being done at home to adapt the existing machinery to the use of Indian cotton.
  The present circumstances of India are most favourable for cotton enterprise. The great cotton region of Dharwar is about to be tapped by the railway from Bombay. This will reduce the cost of inland transport by one-half, and enable the produce of the Dharwar Cotton Fields to be laid down at Liverpool, at a total cost for carriage of little more than a penny a pound. The ryots are said to be rapidly improving their condition, and becoming independent of the native bankers and traders, and thus capable of selling their cotton to the
  188
  European merchant without such intervention. But if they cannot be moved to a vast increase of production by the stimulus of an increase in price from 3d. to 1s. 6d. a pound, no facilities of railway, road, or harbour, can be expected to tempt them. If the enormous wealth which has been poured into India for cotton last year, amounting to nearly twenty-five millions sterling, fails to set in motion every means of meeting the demands of this country which enterprise or rapacity can devise, then we must come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to look to India for more than a million bales of cotton. If the yield per acre cannot be increased beyond the average of 63 lb.—as stated in the Government Reports—it cannot be for the interests of India to grow so meagre a crop. For no conceivable advantage in the cost of labour could, in that case, enable her to compete permanently with Europe or America. To produce one million bales, India must have six million acres under cotton; while Egypt, Italy, or America could produce the same quantity on one. Possessing, as India does, a suitable soil, and abundance of labour, it seemed to me that farther inquiry might have tested this important point.
  I feel it impossible to conclude without some reference to the circumstances under which Mr. Laing was forced to resign his position as Indian Finance Minister. He gave up his seat in this House, and a high office in the Government, to proceed to the unhealthy climate of Calcutta. He there, by great ability and industry, carried forward towards completion the plans initiated by Mr. Wilson. He foresaw the successful issue of these plans in a rapidly-filling exchequer; and, at a critical time for this country, he felt himself justified in advising large outlays on those works for opening up the communication of the country, which have been dwelt upon by all authorities for the last twenty years as most beneficial for India. The Secretary of State, living comfortably at home, with no similar opportunity of acquiring knowledge, corrects Mr. Laing in such a strain as no honourable man could submit to, and Mr. Laing resigned his post. But what is now the result? Mr. Laing's successor, in his financial speech of 30th of April last tells us, that instead of the surplus which Mr. Laing estimated, £179,814, the amount had actually been £936,925. And this after allowing all the omissions and deductions which Sir Charles Wood

  189
  expected would result in a deficit of £284,086. It is impossible not to feel that so grave an error, and so great an injustice, on the part of the Secretary of State, must lessen his authority in this country upon Indian questions. At this moment, with the welfare of 180 millions on the one hand, and the wants of our manufacturing people on the other, there is no office under Government which demands higher talent and more scrupulous conscientiousness than that of Indian Minister. Turning to the Motion on the paper, I feel that the lateness of the Session may be pleaded for refusing a Committee; but I hope that this discussion may help to re-assure the country regarding the probability of an increased supply of cotton, and to show the extreme rapidity with which other countries have already contributed to fill up the gap caused by the unhappy war in America.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any further measures can be taken, within the legitimate functions of the Indian Government, for increasing the supply of Cotton from that country,"—(Mr. Caird,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend in many of his observations, though he did not hold the sanguine views which he entertained. He agreed with him in his general conclusions as to the resources of India being so large, that if this country did not in a short time receive large augmentations of its cotton supply from India, the Indian policy of the Government would be very much to blame. Looking at the state of the manufacturing districts, he submitted that it was the duty of the House to inquire into the capabilities not only of their East Indian Empire, but of their whole colonial possessions for the production of cotton. Since the breaking out of the war in America, the great cotton districts in the North had been afflicted with an amount of distress beyond anything ever heard of or known in this country. Capital had been lying waste; labour had been pauperized and banished from its home, and the prospects of the manufacturing districts of the country were very gloomy. Formerly this country con-
  190
  summed 50,000 bags of cotton per week—42,000 of which were derived from the Southern States of America. That was to say, 85 per cent, of the whole quantity imported came from America; of the remainder, 8 per cent came from Egypt and other foreign countries, and 7 per cent only from India. In the last few years, indeed, the supply from India had increased, not however because cotton was more extensively cultivated there, but because England drew away the stocks intended for the use of the natives of that country. There was no reason to suppose that much more cotton was produced in India now than there was three or four years ago. With great discretion Lord Russell, when the unfortunate convulsion took place in America, addressed a communication to his friend the Chairman of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, expressing his opinion that the trade of Lancashire was about to be embarrassed by being deprived of a large supply of American cotton. His Lordship stated, that he had felt it to be his duty to instruct British consuls in all parts of the world to direct their attention to the supply of cotton. That was a laudable service rendered by the noble Lord; and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had displayed considerable alacrity in following the same course; but while they had been urging foreign countries to send us more cotton, the Government had been neglecting to stimulate the cultivation of that article in their own Colonies and dependencies. He wished to know whether it had not occurred to Her Majesty's Government to instruct the governors of the various Colonies to exert themselves in this matter. The House had been passing Acts to provide extraordinary employment for the people in the north of England, but the Government had neglected to do their duty, and the consequence was that they had withheld from the people that material which would have supplied them with labour, comfort, and abundance. He hoped the debate would stimulate the Government in their arrangements for the cultivation of cotton in India. They had lately seen in the lobby of the House a beautiful specimen of cotton from Jamaica. Now, there were hon. Members in the House who possessed estates in the West Indies; but he was not aware that any communications had been made by the Government to the officials in those islands to stimulate them to grow cotton. The

  191
  efforts made by Earl Russell had been exceedingly successful. Turkey, Italy, and Spain were beginning to grow cotton. They were getting an increasing supply from Egypt. Even from Morocco there was a prospect of obtaining a supply, and China had sent some very beautiful and excellent cotton to our relief. It surely could not be expected that cotton-spinners should become growers of the raw material as well as manufacturers of it. To expect that would be most unreasonable; but if facilities were afforded, many of their own Colonies were in a position to furnish an adequate supply. Look at what America was doing. 160 acres of land were offered to able-bodied emigrants; but Australia only made the paltry offer of fourteen acres, the value of which was not equal to the cost of the emigrant's passage. In India there were also difficulties which retarded the cultivation of cotton. The French Government were doing a great deal to increase the supply of cotton. About this time last year an offer had been made by the French Government of 60,000 acres of land in Algeria, through himself, to an Anglo-French company for the cultivation of cotton. The hon. Member for Stirling district and others immediately determined to send out competent inspectors, with the view of surveying the land, and a considerable sum of money as well as a considerable amount of labour had been spent in provisional arrangements. At length, when it was thought the experiment of cultivating cotton in Algeria was about to produce satisfactory results, the red-tapery of France put difficulties in the way—military difficulties they were said to be; and although the Emperor of the French would have been glad to see the project carried out, it had to be abandoned. The French Government were doing much at the present moment, draining the land and establishing reservoirs for purposes of irrigation, with a view to the cultivation of cotton in Algeria. He wished he could say that our own Government were offering inducements at all comparable to those held out by the French Government. It had been said that the cotton trade itself had not exerted itself in this matter. But for thirty years the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had been enforcing on the Government the necessity of diminishing their dependence on America for the supply of cotton; and within the last three or four years they had sent no less than 300,000 tons of cotton seed to various parts
  192
  of the world. He himself had, along with some other gentlemen, joined an Australian cotton speculation, which promised to be attended with success. In Queensland cotton was being successfully grown, and it was found that one acre in cotton-crop yielded £40. A supply of ten bags had been received in this country from Queensland which had been grown on ten acres, and which had been sold for upwards of £400. They must also turn to Natal and other places for supplies of cotton, and especially to their Indian possessions. It was said that the Indian Department did not wish to interfere with the great economical laws of commerce, but he would be glad to know if the growing of opium was included in the policy that was said to guide the Indian Department. When it was said that in the Southern States of America cotton could be grown at a small cost, it should be recollected that they were likewise informed that excellent cotton could be grown in India at three farthings per pound, and there was no question about the power of India to supply them with all they required. Some time ago the hon. Member for Birmingham endeavoured to provide for the contingency that had since arisen. If the policy then suggested by the hon. Member had been adopted by Lancashire, they would have been spared this calamity, which had almost overwhelmed the most industrious people in Great Britain. He was not aware that any Committee of Inquiry would materially develop the resources of India in a manner that would be immediately useful. They had information before them, and what they now wanted was energetic action. He had received an important communication from Calcutta which contained the following statement—
  "I am convinced that India could compete with America in the growing of cotton, and render England independent of foreign countries, and save you from the fear of a repetition of the present calamity. No great undertaking can be carried on in India with a prospect of success without Government support. The Government of India is well disposed to develop the resources of India, but cannot control the subordinates."
  It was really very annoying that Europeans in India should be considered as interlopers, and that subordinates should be allowed to thwart the policy of the higher Members of the Government. The people in Lancashire had waited patiently for the supply of cotton, and there should not be either apathy or negligence on the part of the Department that could assist to obtain it. He would conclude by expressing his

  193
  sober conviction that they need not look to America at all for future supplies of cotton. They had abundant means in their own possessions to supply them with all they wanted, and with more than they wanted; but, at the same time, they ought to do all they could to develop the resources of the country from which they could obtain a supply.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he could hardly suppose that the hon. Member for Stirling wished a Committee to sit in the dog days, and he therefore presumed that the Motion was merely made as a peg on which to hang an Indian debate, in order that hon. Gentlemen might discourse on what was called the apathy of the Indian Government in the development of the resources of India. Although good might come from ventilating the subject, there could be no practical result from the Motion, as the hon. Member for Stirling had not made a single practical suggestion. Last year the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Smith), who brought forward the subject, had a practical suggestion to make; he supposed that Lancashire would be flooded with cotton if the Godavery could be opened to navigation. The right hon. Member, though he might have known it was a delusion, promised the hon. Gentleman that his pet scheme should be carried out without further inquiry, in order to conciliate hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House, who, although they vituperated the Indian Secretary's policy behind his back, were discreetly silent in the House, and were the stanchest supporters of a Liberal administration. Somewhere about the same time Lord Shaftesbury stated, in another place, that because that project had not been carried out before, 6,000,000 bales were rotting for want of a market; and a more complete illustration of the stupendous ignorance in high places on these subjects could not be conceived. He himself had taken the opportunity of warning the House against placing any reliance on the scheme for opening the Godavery, which he was convinced would turn out to be a delusion, and information which had been received since that time completely confirmed the justice of his views. The Calcutta correspondent of The Times in a recent letter, stated that Colonel Bruce, the Inspector General of Police, happening to be at Nagpore in the discharge of his duties, had returned to Calcutta by the Godavery route. He reported to the Governor General what he had seen, and in
  194
  his report that gentleman, who was an intelligent and disinterested, although an official witness, stated that at the height of the monsoons he embarked in a canoe and a raft, the raft drawing twelve inches of water, at the spot where the navigation was expected to commence, and, proceeding down the river, it took him thirty hours to go the first twenty miles, the canoe and raft requiring in many places to be drawn over the shallows by main force. Colonel Bruce recommended the abandonment of the upper part of the navigation, and the concentration of effort upon the lower sections of the river, us what he had seen and heard convinced him that the upper portion of the river could be made navigable for only two or three months in the year. He said, too, that when the river was opened, no cotton would ever come to it for transport down, because the cotton grown in Berar was plucked and pressed in February, and people would not keep their cotton in the district until it would be exported by the river. Even if they did bring it to the river, it would have to break bulk two or three times, which would be fatal to the scheme. Various other suggestions had been made on this subject. At a meeting which took place last year in one of the manufacturing towns, the hon. Member for Birmingham had recommended that the Government should exempt from the payment of rent for two years all land within their territories on which cotton was grown. That was a suggestion which a Committee of that House would hardly occupy a quarter of an hour in discussing. Its obvious effect would be to deprive the Government of India of a revenue of half a million sterling, which under the circumstances they could very ill spare. Another suggestion had been made by the hon. Member for Stockport, which had been often discussed both in that House and out of it—namely, that at the commencement of the cotton crisis the Government should have caused notice to be given in the various cotton-growing districts that they would receive any quantity of cotton from the ryots, and guarantee a price of 3d. a pound, which was 1½d. more than the ordinary payment for the article. It was his opinion, that if such a proclamation had been issued, it would have been received by the people of India with the utmost distrust; and an obvious reason why it would have been a failure was, that in all the places under their sway in India cotton had fetch-

  195
  ed two or three times that price during the last two or three years. Mr. Temple, the Chief Commissioner in the Nagpore territories, reported that during 1862 the price had been 7¼ d. per pound, and that on the 1st of January in the present year it had risen to 11 d., when the produce of the crop was known. If prices like those did not lead to increased production, was it reasonable to suppose that any Government guarantee of the kind suggested would be of the slightest good? They had been told that the ryots were entirely eaten up by usurers, that the cotton grown was grown under contracts, and that the ryots were so ground down that they could hardly keep body and soul together. If that were true, would it be mended by the proclamation of a Government guarantee of 3d. a pound; or were they to set the example of putting aside the contract system just after they had made the breach of civil contracts in India a penal offence, subjecting those guilty of it to fines, to imprisonment, to stripes, and to hard labour? He denied that the ryot was in the state in which he was represented to be. He had lived for years in the agricultural parts of India, and mixed with the ryots in almost every district, and he totally denied that they were eaten up by usurers. On the contrary, he had found that the supposed victims were a docile, industrious, and prudent race. In India cotton was grown as a matter of business. The people there knew their own interests, and they attended markets and fairs much more regularly than the people of England. But the fact was, that during the last two years crops of every kind fetched three or four times as much as they did formerly, and the consequence had been, that whenever there was an upward tendency in the cotton market, more land was put into cultivation; and that when prices sank, cotton cultivation, following the natural laws of supply and demand, diminished. All that the ryots wanted was to be let alone, and that there should be no government interference with prices. The Cotton Supply Association of Manchester had sent up a Petition in which they had stated a number of mere truisms on the advantages to India of the speedy construction of railroads, canals, and other means of conveyance. Had hon. Members forgotten the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India at Halifax, when he stated that the Government, urgently pressed on that point, had borrowed money, and were prepared to send it out to Lord Canning, when they
  196
  were stopped by Lord Canning, who told them that there was actually more money in India borrowed for such purposes than could be expended without reckless waste, in consequence of the impossibility of sufficient inspection? The right hon. Baronet stated, that for the last five or six years they had been borrowing at the rate of £7,000,000 sterling on the credit of the Indian revenue for railways alone, and that no less a sum than £11,000,000 was being annually spent on public works under Government inspection. He (Mr. Smollett) doubted very much the expediency of giving credit for £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, as had been done on the single responsibility of the Secretary of State. Transactions of such magnitude ought to come under the supervision and control of Parliament. The statements that the sums of money already available for improvements in India could not be used was received with a shout of incredulity and derision in Manchester. They said that it was strong language to be used by the Secretary of State; that he had dismissed the great financier, Mr. Laing, from the service with ignominy, because he proposed to take a million sterling annually from the surplus to spend on useful roads; and yet a few months after he had proposed to spend the whole surplus of £4,000,000 created by the ingenuity of Mr. Laing. The fact was, there was no surplus at all. The money proposed to be spent was in reality borrowed on the Stock Exchange in England where the money market was easy. The railway associations were not associations of capitalists who ran any risks, but gentlemen who had no money to spare when discounts were high; but when discounts were at 2½ per cent, they lent money at 5 per cent, and when the pressure came they repudiated their transactions, and said that they could not carry on the work without assistance. That happened in 1861–2. In July 1861, the money market being very stringent, and discounts £6 or £7 per cent, the railway associations informed the Minister that they could not go on unless he supplemented them with cash. The right hon. Baronet, to prevent a crisis, borrowed £4,000,000 on the London Stock Exchange, and took authority from the House to borrow as much more. But in July 1862 the rate of discount had fallen to £210 s. and £3 per cent, and the railway association flooded the market with bonds, debentures, and stock. They raised £7,000,000 or

  197
  £8,000,000, and put a handsome profit into their pockets; they repaid the loan at 5 per cent, and the consequence was that there was an accumulation of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 in the Secretary of State's office, which was devoted to paying the expenses of the Government of India; and consequently, when the Indian accounts were gone into, they having paid nothing out of the Indian revenue for the expense of carrying on the Government, there appeared to be a surplus of £4,000,000, which was dilated upon as showing the elasticity of Indian finances and the prosperity of the country, whereas it was, in fact, nothing more than borrowed money. There was one more question. The Cotton Supply Association desired a change of the law of tenure and a settlement of the land in India, so as to give security and an impulse to the growth of cotton. Now, he (Mr. Smollett) agreed with the Association in this matter, provided they were agreed as to what a settlement of the land of India meant. The only true permanent settlement of land in India, which would be productive of benefit, was an extension of the settlement of land on the principle adopted by Lord Cornwallis in 1793, and to which Lower Bengal was indebted for its prosperity. The principle of that settlement was to denude the Government of its character of landlord, transferring the groups of farms, called villages in India, to proprietors of estates, who paid a gross amount to the Government, and made their own arrangements with the tenants. But that was not the sort of settlement gentlemen connected with the cotton trade wished to see extended to other parts of India. The hon. Baronet proposed to retain the Government landlordism, and to collect the revenue by Government officers, not in gross but in detail, fixing an annual rent upon every field or quarter of a field, payable notwithstanding a deficiency of produce or depreciation of specie. Such an arrangement would tend to perpetuate the system of agrarian communism prevalent in Southern India, and to break up the great principle of self-government inherent in the village system. It certainly must prevent colonization, because it was not to be supposed that capitalists would lay out money on land for which they were not to get an increased rent; and yet that system was supported by the Manchester school, who nevertheless, talked of the immense importance of colo-
  198
  nizing British India. A great change had, however, taken place in the public mind in respect to India. Last winter agitation was triumphant in the provinces; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, was one of the best-abused men in the kingdom. Even at the beginning of this Session he was regarded by his Colleagues on the Treasury bench as the Jonah who must be thrown overboard if the Treasury ship were to be saved. Now, on the contrary, he was as popular as any of his Colleagues, always excepting the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who was a universal favourite. Quite recently he received a letter informing him that at Glasgow a vote of confidence had been carried in the present Indian Administration, although last winter the same commercial body, led away by popular clamour and the eloquence of Mr. Laing, declared against the measures of the right hon. Baronet.
  MR. COBDEN: Sir, I wish to address a word to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India, in the hope that I may be able to call back the practice of this House in regard to Motions of this kind to that which prevailed in former times, but which in his case, and in the case of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, has been departed from lately. On the last occasion when the question of India was brought on by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour) in a very elaborate speech of two hours' duration, the right hon. Gentleman abstained from speaking until nearly midnight; and on the occasion of the Chinese debate my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs declined to rise and speak at all, and the debate therefore came to an end. Now, the good old practice was—and I wish to see it restored—that when the policy of the Government is arraigned in this House in a well-considered statement, the Minister representing the Department so arraigned should vindicate his policy, and also submit his view of the case to the House; it is then our duty to criticise, and, if necessary, to correct what we may believe to be the erroneous policy of the Government. But if we elicit no statement from the Minister till midnight, and the right hon. Gentleman is merely to listen to the compliments of the hon. Member for Dumbarton or the complaints of other Members, and then to make a statement in reply, no one has the opportunity of commenting on his arguments. I think it would be more respectful

  199
  to the House, and more convenient for the conduct of public business, that the practice which has always prevailed until within the last few months should be restored. If we are now to have a repetition of the India debate simply because on the last occasion the right hon. Gentleman did not speak early, and if on Monday we are to have a repetition of the China debate because the hon. Member for Southwark did not speak at all, I say it would be better both for the interests of the Government and of the House of Commons that the practice so recently interrupted should be renewed. We have been imitating the Von Bismarck Parliament at Berlin; we seem to have come here rather to receive the orders of the Government than to impart our own views. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Smollett), alluded, in rather severe terms, to the conduct of those who out of doors hold one language respecting the right hon. Baronet and in the House another. Now, I think that the hon. Member, in his own person, is one of the most extraordinary cases of that betrayal of out-of-doors opinions I have ever seen. The hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting, in Manchester, of the Cotton Supply Association, and certainly did not spare the right hon. Baronet. The meeting was presided over by my friend Mr. Cheetham, the Chairman of the Cotton Supply Association, and my hon. Friend's speech was afterwards published as a pamphlet. I will read the briefest possible abstract. In page 4 he says—
  "The defects of our Indian administration are the true cause of India's comparative sterility and poverty; the chief obstacle to all progress being the want of a secure tenure of land."
  In page 6 the hon. Gentleman says—
  "The want of a secure tenure of land in perpetuity, similar to that enjoyed in the British Colonies, is the great necessity of the times in India."
  Now, to-night the hon. Gentleman tells us that all these poor ryots want is to be allowed to be let alone, that they know the state of the market, and that if only let alone they can carry on their business as well as English farmers. According to the hon. Gentleman's speech now, and the high compliment he pays to the head of the India Department, nothing is wanted, and these ryots are perfectly happy and contented. Now, I do not wish to be misunderstood in the very few words I have to say on this question. We have often been taunted with not maintaining our principles
  200
  of free trade in our dealing with these Indian questions; but are we in our relations with the Indian Empire governing by the principles of Adam Smith? The Government here is the most gigantic absentee landlord in all the world. This country owns the land of India, and this Parliament is responsible for its government, for it is the ultimate appeal. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Indian Department is, in fact, the agent and trustee of this great Indian farm. It is not as though the Indian ryots were intelligent enough to cultivate the land and turn it to the best advantage. Why, there is not a ryot who pays 19 s. or 20 s. a year of rent but is visited by a sub-collector from the English Government, and the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there is a great deal of fraud and oppression perpetrated. [Mr. SMOLLETT: Hear, hear!] All that is done under the authority of the English Government. The collectors have sub-collectors, who not only gather these miserable rents, but have the settlement of the rent from time to time, so that the poor ryot does not know what further claim may be made upon him, and is not sure that he will pay the same rent next year as last. In fact, it is scarcely known what arrangement is made between these collectors and the ryots. Under these circumstances, if we urged that the Government should—under the peculiar conditions we have found ourselves in during the last two or three years—have endeavoured, in the first instance, through their collectors, and then through the native collectors, to reach these poor ryots, to inform them of what is going on in Europe, and of the impending great rise in the price of cotton, given them encouragement to plant cotton, and offered them seed, that, I say, was perfectly legitimate. It would not be considered illegitimate even in England for a landlord thus to encourage an intelligent tenant to improve, say, the breed of his stock, or to introduce better implements. Under these circumstanoes, and seeing that we have the Indian Empire on our hands—I do not say for our ultimate good, for I doubt it—what is so natural—as it is the country of all others that could give us at a short notice a great supply of cotton—what is more natural than that the cotton manufacturers in England, and I, as well as their representatives in Parliament, should expect from the Government and from the right hon. Gentleman, that in the face of the threatened privation

  201
  of cotton which they foresaw, they should have endeavoured to promote among those poor cultivators the knowledge of what was impending, and stimulate and encourage them to supply the deficiency? Has the Indian Government done that? If they had merely done nothing—if they had merely neglected to do their duty, I could hardly, perhaps, stand here with so strong a case as I do; but when I see in the blue-book to which my hon. Friend has alluded that the right hon. Baronet has, I may say, with the most cold-blooded indifference, actually put obstructions in the way of the authorities in India when trying to give some stimulus to the production of cotton—I say, that if we had an Opposition in this House—which we have not—the right hon. Gentleman would be impeached for his neglect of duty. I will read a little extract from the blue-book. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could blot it out, or that it had not been written. It appears that the Governor of Madras had authorized the collectors in the districts to exempt thirty acres of land from the land tax and the rent, if they were used for the purpose of trying experiments in cotton, wherever they thought it desirable. The collector, I presume, is a gentleman who rules over an estate containing, probably, as large a population as Yorkshire—a million or two—besides being the Judge or head magistrate—almost, in fact, the despot of that territory. [Mr. SMOLLETT: Not always the Judge.] Well, generally the head magistrate. My right hon. Friend hears of the arrangement, and sits down and writes a despatch to the Governor of Madras in July 1862, in the midst of our great depressing emergency, from which I will read a short extract—
  "I observe that you have authorized the offer to a few intelligent natives, to be selected by the collectors, of a remission of assessment for five years on such spots of land (not exceeding thirty acres in each case), as they may be willing to devote to the improvement of native cotton, due care being, of course, taken to ascertain that the terms of the agreement are satisfactorily fulfilled. …. I cannot approve of your having given to the collectors generally a discretion to remit the permanent revenue upon land to the extent of thirty acres in favour of any persons who may display a willingness to devote the land to the improvement of native cotton."
  Among the despatches there is one from Mr. Wedderburn, an acting collector, who says that about five hundred acres had been employed in experiments in the cotton culture, which would not have been so employed but for this inducement. Now,
  202
  only think of a Minister, governing a territory about, I believe, 700,000 square miles in extent, sitting down and telling the Governor of Madras that he is not to allow the collector to permit thirty acres of land to be appropriated tax-free to experiments in the growth of cotton! Is it not miserable? Is it not more worthy of the management of a chandler's shop than of the administration of a great empire? I venture to say that no proprietor of an estate in England of a few thousand acres, if he received a letter from his bailiff, stating that a farmer wanted to try experiments in growing chicory, or anything that afforded the prospect of a good return, would thus deter him from doing a thing dictated by common sense, and likely to lead to good results. There are two changes that have for years been recommended by the highest authorities in India as the means of improving the state of things in that country. The one is the settlement of the land in perpetual tenure, and the other is the sale of waste lands. Now, I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Smollett) would agree with me upon the sale of waste lands as he does upon perpetual tenure. I think I have heard him make some remarks on former occasions rather unsound on that subject. He seems to be afraid of parting with the land unless he can get a good price for it. [Mr. SMOLLETT: For the value it would bring.] What you want is that the land should be occupied and turned to some useful purpose; and when you find the American Government offering land for threepence an acre, how can you expect people to go so far as India to buy land dearer than it could be bought for in America? Your main object should be to get the land occupied, and not to throw obstacles in the way of settlers. The right hon. Gentleman has written out instructions upon the land question, upon which I must make a remark. It must be painful to him to hear the remark I am about to make, but it is necessary that persons in office should hear unpleasant things when their conduct requires animadversion. I am going to read an extract from a despatch, which I should hardly have believed the right hon. Gentleman had written. It would seem to be a despatch which somebody else had penned and signed in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. We know that a Minute had been prepared of Regulations for the sale of waste lands, attributable

  203
  partly to Lord Stanley and partly to Lord Canning. That Minute was not very objectionable; it was generally favourable. But hero is the Regulation which my right hon. Friend has substituted for it. I am reading from the blue-book what purports to be the right hon. Gentleman's language. He says—
  "The applicant shall deposit with the collector the estimated expense of such survey and demarcation, and on completion of the survey the lot shall be advertised for sale by auction to the highest bidder. If the land is sold to some other purchaser, the applicant will obtain repayment of the money he has advanced for the survey."
  This is a joke; the right hon. Gentleman cannot be serious. Conceive a man advancing money for a survey that he may have the privilege of buying the land by auction, and in the hope that if he does not get it he may his money back again. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say—
  "Should he become the purchaser, he shall receive a deed signed by the collector, putting him in possession of the land, subject, nevertheless, to all general taxes and local rates, and to any other claim, whether of Government or otherwise, that may have been, or may hereafter he, established in any court of competent jurisdiction."
  This is telling any unfortunate man who may wish to buy land, that if he does so, he will buy, with his eyes open, a lawsuit in regard to half a dozen claimants. It seems incredible almost that that document could have been sent out by the right hon. Gentleman, and at such a time as this too! I do not know that the sale of waste lands would greatly contribute to the growth of cotton in India. It might or it might not. But a very high authority upon Indian affairs—I allude to Mr. John Crawford—speaking of the cultivation of coffee in Ceylon, says—
  "The success of the culture of coffee in Ceylon has sprung from the investment of English skill and capital, with the liberal principles on which the sale of wild lands has been conducted, a fair administration of law and police, and the abundant supply of labour furnished by the voluntary emigration of the half-starved population of the neighbouring continent. A better practical example of the beneficial results of free trade and free culture could not well be adduced; and it well deserves to be noticed, that herein the Government of Ceylon forms a contrast to the jealous and frustrating policy still pursued, and chiefly under home instructions, in continental India."
  I believe Mr. Crawford is right in saying that all the obstruction to improvements in India comes, as a rule, from the delays at home, and from the actual impediments
  204
  thrown in the way of the administration in India. Depend upon it that it must be more and more a question for this country to consider how it can transfer the Government of India with due responsibility to India itself. Nothing but evil can come from attempting to govern a country twelve thousand miles off by an agency in this country. My hon. Friend has told you how much larger the increase of the cotton supply has been in the Mediterranean countries than in India. What has been the progress in India? Last year India sent us about 1,000,000 bales of cotton. This year it has sent us 1,100,000, or perhaps a little more. In some countries the cotton supply has been doubled in a twelvemonth, while in India the increase has been only ten per cent; or, rather, there has hardly been any increase at all, because there has been vile adulteration in the supply—dust, rubbish, and great stones have been packed up in the cotton bales. What has been the temptation offered to India to increase the growth of cotton there? We are now paying to India 16 d. per lb. for what in 1860 we paid only 4d.[An hon. MEMBER: In Liverpool.] We are paying to India this very year £21,000,000 more for our cotton than we have paid for the same quantity of cotton in 1860. You would say it was quite impossible under these circumstances that you could fail to have a largely-increased supply from a country like that. Well if we do not, I attribute that very much to the circumstance that the poor cultivators were not informed sufficiently early of what was likely to happen in this market. They have very likely heard now. My right hon. Friend told us last year they were ignorant of the prices we were paying. My complaint against my right hon. Friend is that a year or two years ago he threw obstructions in their way. If due vigilance had been observed, if your collectors and other subordinates had been instructed to inform the agricultural population of the prospects of our cotton market, we should have had a larger supply of cotton from India. A great deal has been said about the manufacturers coming to this House and asking for assistance in obtaining a supply of cotton. Now, I do hot come to this House or to any the else to help me to get cotton. I say you are in possession of India, and for Heaven's sake, in the present crisis in Lancashire, try to get cotton there in a legitimate way. I maintain that this is a matter in which not

  205
  merely the cotton spinners and manufacturers of this country are concerned. I wish to say a word with regard to the position in which Lancashire stands with regard to this House, and what I may call the governing classes in this country. A calamity has befallen us, national in its effect and national in its origin. It is not a calamity that has befallen us through any neglect of duty. It is not because business is dying out, because coal or iron is exhausted, because skilled hands have gone out of the country, that this crisis has happened. You have capital in Lancashire ready to employ all your people, and ready to compete with all the world. You have the most ingenious artisans and the most enterprising capitalists in the world; but they have been deprived of the raw material of their industry, and by no act of their own but by a national act. This blockade of the Southern ports of America is part of the national policy. We say commercial blockades are a mode of carrying on war which we must maintain. But I say, when a calamity like this falls on a portion of your population by operation of national policy, it is the interest and the duty of every class in the community, according to their station and their means, to do their utmost to mitigate that calamity. And with regard to this Indian question, I hold the right hon. Gentleman first and foremost responsible. But I maintain that all those who are engaged in India, all those who benefit by Indian employments, are bound to use their best exertions to mitigate the evil under which our cotton manufacture is suffering. I remember that the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, when speaking on this question, said there are a great many employments in India, many had obtained high honours and high rank in the service of India, but he never heard of any of the people of Manchester getting any of those appointments. Speaking myself as a representative of a cotton constituency, I do not come here in formâ pauperis. I ask for nothing in the way of charity, but I complain of you for not having done your duty in this matter, and I demand that you do it. Nor do I wish anything to be done in this matter that is hostile to the interests of India. I do not want the rights of India to be sacrificed for the benefit of the cotton spinners of Rochdale. I only ask that their own interests may be consulted. I ask that your superior intelligence and your superior morality shall be
  206
  employed in improving the condition of the people that you have made dependent on you. I maintain, as was said by De Tocqueville, that our only title to be in India at all is because we are supposed to be superior to the people of that country, and can therefore confer advantages upon them—can improve their morality and their prosperity—can give them a secure tenure of land, and those rights and privileges which we ask for ourselves. And I again say that their interests and our interests can be brought into harmony by the employment of such courses as I recommend to the right hon. Gentleman. I maintain that what I demand may be done in the interest of that community, and in the interest of my constituents. I would scorn to stand here and ask anything for my constituents, if they were starving, at the expense of the agricultural population of India.
  MR. PENDERsaid, he was anxious to call attention to a few points that appeared to him to bear on the question; but before he referred to these one or two points, he would revert to what fell from the hon. Member for Dumbarton as to the quantity of cotton in India, and to a statement made by a noble Lord in the other House. He believed that that statement owed its origin to Members of the Indian Council. He had occasion last summer, in conversation with a noble Lord, to refer to the apathy of the Government, and the noble Lord retorted by saying that there was abundance of cotton in India if British merchants would send out to fetch it. He (Mr. Pender) stated, that if the British Government would send out an agent to India, he would send out an agent with him; that if the cotton was found, he would buy it; and if any large supply could be found, he would pay the expense of the Government agent as well as of his own agent. The noble Lord asked him to put his offer in writing, and he did so; but the reply of his noble Friend was that it was not compatible with the duty of the Government to pay the expense of agents. He said he would pay the expense, and the end of the whole thing was—"There is plenty of cotton in India, if you will send out agents and money to improve the cultivation." His reply was, that he knew that as well as the noble Lord who made the statement, and therefore he might state to his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, that he was afraid there was a good deal of ignorance prevailing as to the quantity of cotton in India. There

  207
  were those who considered that the present condition of Lancashire was owing more to over-production than to the lamentable war in America. The production of cotton goods in 1860 and 1861 no doubt was great. It amounted on the whole to £80,000,000, of which £40,000,000 worth was exported; but that was not more than the largo consumption of those two prosperous years 1858 and 1859 justified. Still, at the outbreak of the American war there was no great glut of goods either in the home or in the foreign market, although it was evident that for a time the supply had overtaken the demand. He was therefore willing to admit that there would have been a fall in the price of cotton goods if there had been no war in America, and that the exporter and producer would have suffered to some extent. But the large profits of previous years would have enabled them to bear the loss with comparative case. The existing depression in the cotton trade arose from causes very different to those which had produced a similar state of things in former years. Previous crises were the natural checks to the successful trade of former years. Then low prices were a consequence of the depression; those low prices opened new markets, and the end was an enlarged field of consumption and an increased rate of production. Unbroken prosperity ought not to be expected in the cotton trade more than in any other trade. It had its bright and dark periods, but the more markets were extended, and the more the wages of labour, especially in India, the less liable would the trade be to fluctuation. The present depression was unlike those of former years, because it was produced by a deficient supply of the raw material, while there was a high price for cotton and large stores in hand, especially in India and China. These large stores existed, not because the consumers in India and China did not require the goods, but because the price demanded was above what they could afford to pay. In 1858 the quantity of cotton goods exported to these countries averaged 4 yards per head; in 1859, 5 yards; in 1860, 4 yards; in 1861, 4 yards; and in 1862, 2½ yards per head. These figures were conclusive that the stocks on hand were not the result of over-supply, but of diminished demand, caused by the high prices at which they were held by the importers. There prevailed, too, an impression in some quarters that the cotton manufacture in England reached in 1860 its highest point of prosperity, and that
  208
  now we were to witness its decay. Never was there a more baseless assumption. Those who held such views could have little faith in the progress of civilization. We had never yet supplied one-sixth part of the cotton manufactures the world wanted and would consume if their means enabled them; and there had never yet been produced a tithe of the raw cotton that could be raised. It was no extreme view to take that at no distant period India, where the almost universal dress of the people was cotton, should, as the people became better employed and better paid, consume as much cotton manufacture as the whole world now consumed. The resources of India were boundless. Railways, highways, improved navigation, irrigation, improved land tenure, would, when the present crisis had passed, create a demand for cotton goods that it was impossible to estimate. We were passing through a great change as to cotton, he admitted; but it was not a change to be looked upon with gloomy apprehensions. It was not a change leading to decay, but leading to new and wider fields of supply of the raw material, to new markets and greater demand for our manufactures, to better employment in the cotton districts than ever, for free-labour cotton, so long suppressed by the want of encouragement in India, but which now was likely to supplant the cotton grown by slavery. This was India's opportunity, and the epoch cast a grave responsibility on her rulers. Having in view the universality of the want for cotton manufactures, he was satisfied the want would be supplied. A demand so universal never yet failed to produce a supply, and it would not fail now.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he rose to order. He wished to ask if it was in accordance with the usage and rules of the House that an hon. Member should read the whole of his speech?
  MR. PENDER: I am quoting from figures, and it is necessary I should refer to them. Do not let me be told that without American cotton our manufactures must cease, I undertake to say, that with a sufficient supply of Indian cotton, even as it is, at 6d. per pound (and that price would well pay the grower and the importer), not a mill in the cotton districts would stand idle, not an operative be unemployed. Decay of our cotton manufacture! I look upon this as a period above all others pregnant with its growth. Great Britain and all Europe consumed in 1860

  209
  about four million bales—4,080,000 of cotton in round numbers—costing forty millions sterling. This is a prize worth competing for, and already the competition is becoming active. In Turkey in Europe, in Egypt, in Asia, in South America, and in Australia, premiums are being given, taxes remitted, and bonuses bestowed, to encourage the growth of cotton. Even the Portuguese, proverbially slow, are bestirring themselves in the remnant that remains of their once great Indian possessions. Letters which I have received from an Indian correspondent say—
  "Bombay, December 26th.—The Goa Government is bidding high for the export trade of the Southern Mahratta country, and has made a splendid road up to our frontier, leaving only some three miles to be made by our Government to connect Goa with Dharwar. This Sir Bartle Frere has pledged himself shall be made. The Portugese have takan, off all export duties, and made Goa almost a free port. I called on the Governor, and he offered land for presses, and every encouragement to settle."
  "A very fine specimen of the Southern planter has got 25,000 acres for the cultivation of cotton, coffee, and tobacco, and is confident of success."
  "Paufein, Goa, March 6th, 1863.—I have today had an interview with the Governor of Goa, and he expresses his great anxiety to induce Europeans to settle on plantations, and says he will do his utmost to assist them in every way.
  "The liberal terms on which he has already granted land proves this is not mere talk, but that the Government really wish to open up the country—a sure indication that the Goanese are waking up from their lethargy.
  "The terms on which the Goa Government have granted land are as follows:—The land is to be given for the first five years rent free; after which one rupee per acre on all cultivated land for fifty years, at the expiry of which, if the planters have carried out the conditions of the lease, a renewal to be made for another term of fifty years."
  This is a somewhat marked contradiction to the despatch from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Indian Board (Sir Charles Wood), read by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden). Sir, I do not quarrel with the refusal, but with the tone of the letter, which is sure to be understood on the spot by the collectors that they are not to trouble themselves about cotton, and by the ryots to mean that the less they have to do with cotton-growing the better; and it will be felt here as a discouragement to European settlement in India, and European efforts to produce better cotton in India.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: The hon. Member for Rochdale is not correct in his representation of the practice in this House, because it has always been univer-
  210
  sally the rule, that when, a personal attack is made on a Minister, and his conduct is impugned, he should be allowed to hear all the charges against him before being called on to reply to them. That was the course I pursued on a recent occasion, with the general concurrence of the House, and the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn said that I was perfectly right in not rising till the attack was exhausted. Certainly, on the present occasion, when the hon. Member for Rochdale considers me deserving of being impeached, and that nothing but the want of an active opposition saves me from it, I hope that I am not less entitled to the usual courtesy of the House. With respect to the subject itself, I fully admit its great importance, and I concur in the opinion that it is to India we must look for any large increase in the supply of cotton, if there should be a failure of supply from the United States. I do not, however, mean to say that a supply of cotton may not come from other parts of the world besides, and the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion referred to several countries from which an increased supply might be expected; but unless I entirely failed in catching the figures correctly, I must say that the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in the amount of cotton imported from Egypt and other ports on the Mediterranean, and that he placed it at an amount very much indeed above the fact. He stated the amount imported from Egypt in the first three months of the year at a figure so high that I thought I must have misunderstood him. [Mr. CAIRD: Upwards of 2,000,000 cwt.] I had understood the hon. Gentleman to say so, but this amount is so totally wrong, that I was unwilling to quote the words, lest I should have mistaken the hon. Gentleman. He has now, however, repeated the statement. That amount must be reduced very largely, for, according to the trade and navigation papers on the table of the House, the real quantities of cotton imported from Egypt were 233,000 cwt. in the first three months, and 381,000 cwt. in the first five months of the year. The hon. Gentleman went on to charge me with having always discouraged the notion of a large importation of cotton from India. That is the oddest accusation that I ever heard; for I have always been afraid that I stated too strongly my expectations of what the supply of cotton from India might be. At the same time, I have always expressed

  211
  the opinion that that supply could not come at once, but must be gradual. To divert land from the production of one description of crop to the production of another must be a gradual process. Machinery may be multiplied in a short time, and the produce of it rapidly increased; but I repeat that land can not be suddenly diverted to the production of a new description of crop, especially in India, where the main crop is bread stuff, or grain of some kind for the food of the people. Therefore, though I have held out expectations that there would be a large increase in the supply of cotton from India, I have always guarded myself by saying that that increase must necessarily be gradual. I believe that the supply will come now, because now, for the first time, there has arisen that which is the indispensable stimulus for the production in India—that is, the prospect of a fair, reasonable, and certain price. That is the condition which will produce a supply of cotton, and I do not think that anything else is necessary. I have the greatest confidence in those principles of commercial policy and political economy which the hon. Member for Manchester seemed rather to disparage in his speech to-night. My conviction is, that an adequate demand, evidenced by a rise in price, will produce an adequate supply. I have held those principles throughout all my political life with the greatest confidence, and on former occasions they were warmly advocated by gentlemen who belong to what is called the Manchester school, and who declared that the best and kindest thing that could be done for trade and manufactures was to leave them alone, and that bounties and protection were not only hurtful to the community at large, but to the very trade itself which was protected. But it is said by the hon. Member for Rochdale that India is an exceptional case, that we are a despotic Government and a great landlord, and as such are bound to teach the people how to cultivate their land. I do not believe they need teaching at all. They know very well how to grow any crops for which they are satisfactorily remunerated. The hon. Gentleman next told us what a miserable set of creatures the ryots are. Such, however, is hot the account given of them by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and my hon. Friend opposite very truly stated that such was not a true picture of their condition. Some remarkable letters have lately appeared in a Bombay
  212
  paper, written by Mr. Smith, a stockbroker in Liverpool, who, after going through the Southern States of America last year, visited the Bombay Presidency, for the purpose of ascertaining what were the prospects of cotton cultivation there. On one point I do not quite agree with him, for I think he underrates the probable production of cotton in India. I entertain much more sanguine expectations than he does on that score, and in point of fact the exportations from India during the first five months of this year far surpass Mr. Smith's calculations. Mr. Smith says—
  "The position of the ryot in the cotton districts is excellent, as far as the occupancy of the land is concerned. When their payment to the Government is £5, the value of their property is often £50, and their position is rather that of a small proprietor than that of a tenant farmer."
  Now, that is the account not of any Government official, not of any prejudiced person, but of an impartial and independent gentleman travelling through the country with the view of ascertaining the progress of the production of cotton. This single statement made by such a witness on the spot completely contradicts the allegation of the hon. Member that the ryot is a miserable, half-starved creature, who does not know how to turn his land to account and who requires Government tuition. I think the observations of my hon. Friend opposite, as to the utter absence of practical proposals on the part of those who support the Motion, are perfectly well founded. The Government are called upon to do something, but neither in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, nor in the course of the debate, have I heard a single suggestion of a practical character as to what the Government ought to do. As far as I am concerned, the Government of India are perfectly ready to go to any extent within the bounds, as is expressed in the terms of the Amendment, of their legitimate functions; but I should like to know more precisely what is expected from us. I never recollect a Committee being moved for without some explanation being given by the mover of what he desired to see done, but to-night not a syllable to that effect has fallen from any of the Gentlemen who have taken part in the debate. At this period of the Session, it is too late to have an inquiry; but that is not the great objection to the Motion, so much as the absence of any practical suggestions by the hon. Member and those

  213
  who support him. I am ready to admit that there is one imperative duty which the Government of India have to discharge, and that is to improve the communications of the country. I have never denied that. On the contrary, I have done my utmost to promote that object. I had prepared various statements to show what we have done, but I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for relieving me of all trouble on that point by his admission that the communications of India are as good as those of the United States, and that the only disadvantage of India is that it is a greater distance from this country than America.
  MR. CAIRDexplained that he said only that the communications of India might be made as good as those of the American States, and that the cotton-growing districts of India were not at a greater distance from the ports of shipment than those of America.
  SIR CHARLES WOODresumed:—The words of the hon. Gentleman were that the communications in India would soon be completed. Some Members have spoken as if the growth of cotton in India were still a mere experiment and required encouragement from the Government. Why, cotton is the natural production of the country. It was from India that America obtained it, and for years and years past cotton has been grown largely there, not only for home consumption, but for exportation to China and Europe. It is, however, not many years ago since the East India Company introduced what was then a novelty—the cultivation of American cotton in India. They established model farms, they distributed American seed among the ryots, and encouraged them to plant it. These experiments established beyond all dispute the fact that there are many parts of India in which American cotton can be successfully grown, and that the ryots were perfectly able to grow it. The East India Company managed that matter in a much better way than by remitting taxes for a time, for they gave a certain price for all cotton delivered at an appointed station and of good samples. The price of American cotton at that time was such that British merchants did not think it worth while to pay what was asked for Indian cotton, and the consequence was that the cultivation fell off. The Government proved the capacity of India to supply American cotton, but it was
  214
  not their business to grow cotton on a large scale for this country. That can be done only by the native cultivators on land paying the ordinary rent, and under the usual conditions of private enterprise. There is not the slightest need of prizes in order to induce the ryot to cultivate good cotton; but it is a mistake to suppose, that although I thought them unnecessary, I prohibited them. They were offered in all the Presidencies, but without any real advantage; and in the Madras Presidency the result was, that a man who had grown thirty acres of very moderately good cotton, and who was the only competitor, got £1,000. I do not think, however, that such a proceeding is at all likely to promote the cultivation, if a rise in price from 100 rupees to 400 rupees per candy failed to do so. Some time back I had the honour of receiving a large deputation in regard to encouraging the growth of Indian cotton, who made these two requests to me:—That there should be an alteration in the mode of levying the duties, and that the communications throughout India should be improved. The first request was complied with at once. I sent instructions to India, and with the concurrence of the merchants of Calcutta the duties were placed on a satisfactory footing. As to improving the communications, I said that it was the duty of the Government to do so, and that we would proceed with them as rapidly as we could; but I said that there was much that was required for improving the quality of the cotton, in regard to picking, cleaning, ginning, and packing the cotton, which could not be done by Government, and must be done by private individuals; and that it was necessary for our common object that they should do their part. I urged this upon them, and said that I was confident that by the time they had accomplished this, in regard to the cotton grown near the sea, or within reach of easy communication, they would find the roads ready for bringing down the cotton from the interior, and I pointed out to them how many cotton-growing districts there were near the coast, on the great rivers. I am sorry to say that I do not find that much, if anything, has been done towards this end. The hon. Member for Birmingham points to Surat cotton as a byword amongst the manufacturers. Now, Surat cotton is grown close to the sea—the cost of conveyance is a trifling consideration at present prices. If Surat cotton is

  215
  so bad, it is, I fear, because the system of purchase is such as to give a premium for fraud. There is, as has been said, a price for quantity, but none for quality; but this is the fault, not of the Government, but of the purchasers of cotton, and cotton agents. Through the cotton-growing districts, in the upper part of the Bengal Presidency, a railroad has been carried, in addition to the water communication by the Ganges, and the Bombay and Baroda railroad runs through the northern part of the cotton-growing districts in Bombay. Then we come to Madras. The Madras railroad is completed from coast to coast, running through the main cotton districts of that Presidency. It is some years since the East India Company established a Government farm in Madras, and it is an acknowledged fact that the ryots know perfectly well how to grow cotton. I can state, on the authority of Mr. Brown, who is, generally speaking, an assailant of the Government, and consequently no friendly witness, that in Madras the native cultivators not only have very little to learn, but can grow cotton better than the American planters who came to India. He states his conclusion in the following words:—
  "That at the end of the fifth year the planters retired from the field altogether, confessing candidly that they could not compete with Coimbatore farmers in growing equally good and equally cheap American cotton per acre."
  One of the American planters also stated that he found the cultivation in many parts of the Bombay Presidency also quite as good as in the greater part of America. I do not mean to say, of course, that all the cotton in India is grown as well as in America, where capital is freely applied and the business is more remunerative; but I believe that the cultivation is fairly carried on, and in a manner as well adapted to the soil as the ordinary cultivation anywhere else. It is nonsense to talk of these people as unable to cultivate their land at all. Again, in Dharwar, the cultivation of American cotton has been largely extended, and the roads are capable of carrying away any amount that is likely to be produced there. The hon. Member for Stirling has acknowledged that Berar will soon be opened by railways, and that all the best cotton districts are becoming more easily accessible every day. He stated, in a few words, that in a short time India would be on a par with the United States. The hon. Member for Rochdale complains that nothing has been done to make the
  216
  people acquainted with the demand for cotton. Why, as truly stated by the hon. Member for Stirling, two years ago—in February 1861—the Government of India did all that could be expected of them. They sent commissioners round to make known to the collectors and through them to the people that there was a great demand for cotton; they distributed seed; they issued handbooks, containing all the information that could be obtained; and they devoted a considerable sum to the construction of roads. Which of the two hon. Gentlemen are we to believe?
  MR. CAIRDexplained, that what he had said was, that the excellent measures proposed by the Indian Government were disallowed by the Minister at home.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: The hon. Gentleman said, that the Indian Government had been most active, and that their Regulations were sound in principle, and did all that could be desired. He then complained that they were checked by my interference. What was my interference? It was, that I thought it no part of the business of the Government to pay commercial travellers who went to buy cotton in India, that I believed prizes to be perfectly useless—but nevertheless I allowed them—and that I objected to give certain portions of land for the purpose of trying experimentally what had been proved many years ago to the satisfaction of every person in India. Such are the grievous measures with which I have discouraged the growth of cotton in India, and for which, according to the hon. Member for Rochdale, I deserve to be impeached. It is quite true, he made two other charges against me, which are easily disposed of. He read a paragraph, which he quoted as from a despatch of mine, and then said it was of such a tenor that it was incredible that I should have written it, that somebody else must have written it, and that I had unwittingly signed the despatch. I quite agree that the thing is incredible, for there is no such passage in the despatch. He then praised very much the mode of selling waste land in Ceylon, and blamed me for not following the example of that colony. The fact is that waste land in Ceylon is sold by auction exactly as I have directed that it shall be sold in India, and in the course of the recent debate on the sale of waste lands I referred to an Indian newspaper which had pointed this out. These two charges, therefore, may be dismissed, and the grounds of im-

  217
  peachment are reduced to what I have stated. I am surprised that no suggestions have been made to-night as to what it is that Government should do to promote the cultivation of cotton. Suggestions have been made to me before, but I confess I thought they were perfectly inadmissible. One was that the Government, in some way or other, should turn merchants, and buy cotton, insuring certain prices for a certain period to the ryots. I have no doubt we might have made a remarkably good transaction, as far as profit is concerned, if we had acted upon that recommendation; but is the House prepared to say that the Government ought to embark on such a course? I stated in my place last year, soon after receiving this suggestion, that we were not prepared to buy cotton; that it was no part of the business of the Government to do so; that the purchase of cotton must be left to private enterprise. At the same time, I stated as broadly that to those persons who might be disposed to go to India to buy cotton we were ready to give every aid and assistance which the Government could afford. If there is one thing which has been proved more than another, it is that it is desirable to send English agents into the country to become large purchasers of cotton, not purchasers in detail, because that is impossible, but on a large scale. That is what has been recommended, without exception, by everybody who has inquired into the subject. A gentleman, well acquainted with India himself, came to me—on the part of some gentlemen who professed to be willing and able to purchase to a very large extent, through agents sent out for this purpose—the object of his visit being to ask how far the Government would be willing to assist in this matter. I asked him to have the goodness to put down upon paper what he thought we ought to do. He accordingly wrote down his suggestion. I acquiesced at once, and I hold in my hand the offer that was made through him in consequence. It was as follows:—
  "If any number of gentlemen interested in procuring cotton from India are prepared to send agents to purchase cotton there on a large scale, the Government will do their utmost to further such an undertaking. They will give directions to the Government in India to recommend such agents to the local officers in the cotton districts, or to send a person with the agents to such local officers. In either case the various officers will be authoritatively apprised of the interest which the Government take in the operation, and they will be directed to give every assistance to the agents
  218
  and to procure for them trustworthy guides and interpreters for the purpose of facilitating their intercourse with the natives."
  It may be said that even this was going a little beyond the proper functions of the Government; but I was so anxious that every facility should be given for the purchase of cotton by authorized agents sent from this country, that I at once offered that this should be done. From that day to this, however, no application, has been received from any one, and I do not think that any agents have been sent out. I do not blame the manufacturers for not sending agents, if they are content with the ordinary operations of supply and demand. But when they press for Government interference beyond the ordinary functions of Government, they ought at least to make those exertions, which can only be done by private persons. On the part of the Government, I have only to say, that while I was unwilling to undertake functions which ought to be left to private enterprise, I was ready to afford the facilities I have described. Is it so extraordinary that anything of this kind should be done? Is it not the practice as regards other goods, and indeed as regards cotton elsewhere? Not long ago I read an article in a Review, sensibly written by a gentleman of great knowledge in regard to the purchase of cotton. The writer says—
  "In the States of America the cotton planter has been followed to his plantations by the agents of the European spinners, and the stimulant of the price paid for the article, according to its quality, being obtained by the planter, has promoted the growth of the best classes of cotton, and has vastly extended their cultivation."
  Why should not the agents of the European spinners adopt a similar course in India? If they did, I have no doubt but that a like result would be obtained. At all events, if the spinners will not send their agents to India in this way, they have no right to blame the Government for not doing what they ought to do for themselves, more especially after the offer of every facility on our part has been made to them. But another suggestion has been put forward—namely, that we should remit the land tax upon land used for the growth of cotton. It was mentioned apparently with favour by the hon. Member for Birmingham at a meeting there, and I need hardly argue against such a proposal, though it has been advocated to some extent by the hon. Member for Rochdale this evening. Indeed, Mr. Fergusson, whose authority is quoted against me on these matters, in his pamphlet

  219
  recently published, says on this point—
  "Of all the suggestions that have been put forward for encouraging the growth of cotton in India, none is so utterly impracticable as that propounded of remitting the land revenue on any land cultivated with cotton."
  Now, that is the opinion of one of the greatest opponents of the Indian Government on this suggestion. Let me tell the gentlemen of Lancashire that there is a great principle involved in this matter. They are not to suppose that the high price of cotton has produced distress in Lancashire alone; it has also produced great distress in India. In Cuddapah, in Guzerat, and other parts of India, the native weavers and spinners having been thrown out of employment. Happily for many of these poor people, other employment has been found for them on the railways and other public works carried on by the Indian Government, and thus they have been saved from severe suffering. But what would be said to me by the natives of India if, in order to increase that export of cotton which is producing destitution among them, I were to take money from the taxes which hey pay? It is natural that the gentlemen of Lancashire should be anxious for anything which might relieve the distress of their workpeople, who have borne their sufferings so patiently; but certainly the distress of Lancashire ought not to be alleviated at the expense of the people of India. If any Vote of public money should be thought necessary for the benefit of our factory operatives, it surely ought to be taken out of the taxes paid by this country and not out of those paid by the people of India, who are themselves suffering from the same calamity. I remember that one of the arguments used in order to induce me to buy cotton on the part of the Indian Government, was that it would be better to supply cotton to the Lancashire operatives than to vote money for relieving their distress. I did not think it necessary to dispute this position, but I observed that in that case it clearly was the Government of this country, and not the Government of India, which ought to undertake this duty. The money for relieving distress in Lancashire would be voted, by this House, and the money for the alternative clearly must be drawn from the same source, and I referred them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I confess that I certainly have not heard of their applying
  220
  to my right hon. Friend. It was far easier to find fault with the Secretary of State for India. I have heard of a government imposing a charge on the whole community in order to prevent suffering in a part of it, as, for instance, to prevent a scarcity of food; and that they were justified in so doing; but I never heard yet of a proposal to impose a charge upon the whole of a people in order to promote a measure which would aggravate the distress under which a part of it was suffering. There is no difficulty in obtaining cotton in India if people will only go there for it. The Cotton Supply Association despatched their secretary to Dharwar, and I sent Dr. Forbes with him, the Government paying the latter's expenses. The secretary of the association, however, when he got there, would not buy. Dr. Forbes said that the people flocked round him and asked him to do so, but he refused. The secretary mentioned that he was going further up the country, when the people said they would keep their cotton for him until he came back, if he would only buy it from them; but to purchase was not within the scope of his powers. Whatever might be the ultimate object of his being sent to India, I had always understood that the first in point of time was the purchase of cotton in the interior by European agency—and now it seems that the power to do so was withdrawn from him before he reached India. Mr. Stanborough, an English merchant, has stated that he had no difficulty in buying cotton in Berar, that the growers were willing to sell the cotton to him in preference to mortgaging it to the soucars, or native bankers. My belief is, that as regards any interference on the part of the Government, so far from doing good, it is far more likely to do harm. A most complete example of this is afforded by what took place in Dharwar. There the Government introduced the cultivation of American cotton, and it went on for some time under their superintendence. It was found that the ryots could grow it very successfully; and when that fact was established, the Government withdrew its interference, as forming no part of its permanent and proper duty. It appears from the report of the Collector that the moment the pressure of the Government native officials was taken off, the ryots, who had previously felt themselves compelled to grow American cotton, instantly gave it up, saying that it caused them a loss. The

  221
  result was that in a single year the cultivation fell from 20,502 acres to 3,357. Nevertheless, the cultivation had taken root, and after a short interval began to increase rapidly by the voluntary action of the ryots. In his report to the present Collector, Dr. Forbes says—
  "In 1848–9 a new period commences, which may be called that of free cultivation, the ryots having been left entirely to themselves. From that time forward, with one or two checks, the increase has been steady up to the past season, in which, in the Dharwar Collectorate and Jagheers included within its boundaries, it amounted to 214,310 acres."
  I saw, not long ago, Major Wingate, a most able officer, who knows the whole country in the West of India better than anybody I could name, and I asked him to tell me whether there was anything that Government could do to promote the growth of cotton. His answer was—
  "The less you meddle the better. The ryots are suspicious; and if you interfere, they will suppose that you have some hidden motive. The cultivation has already extended; and if you let them alone, it will extend very largely."
  That is the result of the concurrent testimony from all parts of India, and it is confirmed by the quantity of cotton which has come home. There may, from some other places, be an increase of a few thousand hundredweights more, but the increase in the quantity received from India has been very remarkable. In the first instance, it arose from the sweeping up of all the old cotton that was to be found in the country. The intimation was given by the Government in the spring of 1861, long before a word was said in this House. The crop of 1861 came into the market in 1862, and last year, for the first time, there was a considerable increase in the quantity of land sown. The import of cotton from India amounted in the year 1859 to 1,700,000 cwt.; in 1860 to 1,800,000 cwt.; in 1861 to 3,295,000 cwt.; and in 1862 to 3,500,000 cwt. During the first five months of 1861 the import was 342,000 cwt.; of 1862, 734,000 cwt.; and of 1863, 962,000 cwt., so that the import during the first five months of the year was nearly trebled in three years. I therefore do not think that hon. Gentlemen have much reason to complain of what India has done to increase the supply of cotton. What has been the effect in other respects of this cultivation on the Bombay Presidency? I mentioned last year that the people in that Presidency
  222
  were ploughing up grain a foot high to sow cotton. The price of grain in Bombay is now 100 per cent higher than it was a year ago, and there is no doubt that much of that increase is due to the extended cultivation of cotton. There is the evil of the pressure on the people from the increased price of food; but as regards the increased production of cotton, the prospects are promising, though I am afraid that in parts of India, the crop of this year has been much injured by the rains. Do let us apply to cotton and to the people of India those principles of common sense which apply to all the rest of the world, and do not let people imagine that there is something so exceptional in India that cotton can be raised from the ground as it were by the stroke of the magician's wand. The increased production must be gradual. Mr. Smith, whom I have quoted before, says that he believes that the increased quantity of land sown with cotton last year is about 25 per cent; that if anything like the present prices continue, you may look for a similar yearly increase in the cultivation, and that in six years you may get from India about the same quantity that you used to receive from America. I do not like to hold out expectations which may not be realized, more especially with regard to a crop so delicate and uncertain as cotton; but I believe that at even lower prices than the present we may look for a large increase in the supply of cotton from India. I also believe that no stimulant whatever is required by the people of India except that of profit. All that the Government can do is to increase the means of communication, and the Government of India is authorized to spend money with that object to any extent—the only limit being that they shall get good work. Whatever is within the legitimate functions of the Government we are perfectly willing and anxious to do; but it would be wrong for us to step beyond our province, and more especially to adopt any of those measures which have been recommended to-night, and which would impose a charge upon the taxpayers of India to relieve distress in this country. I do not believe that this is a purpose to which the revenues of India ought to be applied. With that exception, I am ready to do all that I can to promote the growth of cotton in India; and I believe that this is due not only to the population of Lancashire, but is essentially for the welfare of India itself.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he fully concurred in the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the promotion of the cultivation of cotton in India. He had been a good deal astonished to hear the proposal to remit the land tax upon the small portions of land on which it was designed to try experiments with regard to the cultivation of cotton. The question of the waste lands had but little to do with that cultivation. Complaint was made that the Government had not stimulated the cultivation of cotton in India; but the question was how they could stimulate its cultivation. He believed that in all those parts of India where cotton could be successfully grown it had been grown for centuries past; and he further believed there was no quarter of the globe where its cultivation was so thoroughly understood as it was by the natives of India where cotton was grown. There were districts in India as highly cultivated as the districts in the neighbourhood of London. Some people were apt to compare India with America as regarded the cultivation of cotton; but America was a wild, literally unsettled country, whereas in India they found a Country which had been in cultivation for centuries, and a country where the subdivision of property and the rotation of crops were understood even long before this part of the world knew anything about such things. It was therefore wholly beside the question to institute any comparison between India and America. He thought the Government had rendered all the assistance they could properly give in a matter of the kind. They had bestowed a great deal of attention on the subject. They had incurred heavy liabilities and responsibilities in improving communications. They had listened to every reasonable proposition which had been made to them; and he did not think they were open to the charge which had been brought against them of indifference on the subject. It had been asked why did not Lancashire send agents to India to buy cotton; but, however cute the agents of Manchester might be, he undertook to say they would be beaten out of the market by the natives of India in five minutes. They seemed to think that the natives of India had no mercantile capacity; but that was an entire mistake. Having lived some years among them, he could say he had never seen a body of men who had more intelligence or a more accurate knowledge
  224
  of the principles that govern men in mercantile business than the people of India, and no men, on the whole, were more honest or faithful in carrying on their business. At the same time, he thought that European intervention might be of use in the process of packing and preparing cotton for the market of England. He had never participated in the charges made against the Indian Government, and he retained the confidence in their administration he had always felt in connection with this subject.
  MR. BRIGHT: I have abstained on several recent occasions when this question has been brought before the House from offering any observations upon it, because I am quite willing to confess that I do not see—what some hon. Members fancy they see—a mode by which in a very short time any great increase in the production of cotton can be made in India. There is no royal road to learning, and there is, I think, no short cut to that which we want to obtain in India. The difficulty of the question is as great as anybody has described it to be—I think greater than anybody has described it—but it does not follow that we shall get out of it, or overcome the difficulty by any legislative or administrative miracle, such as some hon. Members and some persons down in Lancashire seem to imagine to be possible. The right hon. Gentleman relies very much upon true economical principles, and he says—what is now common in all the school books—that a demand will bring a supply. But though it is a very common phrase, it has its qualifications, and there are obstacles which entirely overthrow it, I will undertake to say, that if a number of years ago, which we all remember, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to do certain things in Ireland by the rule of demand and supply, he could not have done them. He could not, for example, have obtained a high degree of cultivation or an improved quality of grain—say of oats or wheat from a class of cultivators among whom the land had been long divided into quarter of an acre patches, and who had been accustomed to live on "lumper" potatoes. And in the case of India there must be surmounted the neglect, the oppression, and the total violation of all economic law, during the whole period that country has been governed by us, and I dare say to a large extent for a much longer period than that. The question of the tenure of land is one which seems agreed upon by the hon. Member

  225
  for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) and some hon. Members on this side of the House. But every witness examined before the Committee which I obtained in 1847–8 gave the same testimony, and all evidence from that time to this comes to the same point, that unless you can give the cultivators or proprietors a tenure of land which will make their property secure, it is impossible to have that continuous and rapid improvement which under other circumstances we might hope for. So, with regard to the rent, no doubt there has been during late years a considerable reduction in the assessment in many parts of India; and wherever that has taken place I believe the Government have received a larger revenue from the smaller rent than they did before from the higher. The question of public justice, too, is one of very great importance, and under the old East India Company there was, perhaps, no country where there was so much delay and cost in obtaining justice as in India. Then the right hon. Gentleman says a great deal has been done with regard to roads, and my hon. Friend for the City, who is up to his lips in Indian railroads, will of course bear him out. Railroads have, it is true, been constructed in India, at an enormous expense; but the right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken when he endeavoured to bring forward the testimony of the hon. Member for Stirling in favour of that which he had accomplished. Railroads have been made, but many of them have not been made with any special reference to commerce, and do not as yet touch those districts where cotton principally grows. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded to the small farmers by whom the land was chiefly cultivated, and said they must grow food for themselves. Now, that this happens is owing, I will not say to his neglect, but to that of his predecessors in office, for there is such an absence of roads—I do not speak of railroads, by which Government officials pass from one part of the country to another, but of ordinary highways—that almost every district must grow its own food, because if, in consequence of any vicissitude, there happened to be a deficiency in any particular locality, it would be nearly impossible to obtain a supply from so short a distance as even twenty, thirty, or fifty miles. It has even been known that the price of food at one point has been five or even ten times as much as it has been at another point perhaps not sixty miles distant. That ab-
  226
  sence of common roads makes it necessary that every farmer should grow food enough for his wants, and therefore no farmer can become simply a cultivator or producer of cotton. He will have some cotton, but probably the largest portion of his land is occupied with food for his family. Now, what we want in India really is what I hope we are beginning to have—we want a new life altogether—a revolution of ideas in the Government, and a revolution, too, in their practice. Such a change would, I believe, bring about through the whole country a revolution in the condition and minds of the people, and you will then have far more life and activity than you have ever seen before. But this is not a work that can be accomplished in a Bingle year. It must come after many years of the cultivation of sound principles and better practices; and it was with a view to that that so long ago as fifteen years I asked the House of Commons to make changes with regard to India that probably by this time would, if adopted, have produced good results. But the House of Commons does not like change. Nobody could induce it to pay any attention to this question, and the last person to pay any attention to it was the Chief Secretary of State for India, who was at the time President of the Board of Control. And then, when there comes this great calamity of the failure of the cotton supply, everybody runs to everybody else asking that something should be done, and there is a contest between those who are suffering in Lancashire through their representatives in this House and the Secretary of State for India, as to who is to bear the blame. I maintain now, as I have ever maintained since I first devoted my mind to the study of this question, that the great points to be taken into our consideration are the questions of policy and Government; and that so long as you choose, as you do at present, a Governor General for India, with a few gentlemen controlled by a Secretary of State here, and a Council whom it is possible he may not control, there is no chance whatever that 150,000,000 of people, speaking as many languages and comprising as many nations as is the case in Europe, can be satisfactorily, justly, and wisely ruled. That being my opinion, I have always proposed that Parliament should give to the several presidencies in India the power to govern themselves each within its own limits. But that power should be infinitely

  227
  more extensive than it is now; in fact, quite as extensive as the powers confided to the general Government at Calcutta. If we had at Madras, Bombay, in the Punjaub, the North West, or in Bengal, separate and independent governments, I should ask that in each of those presidencies there should be formed a competent Board of Works, whose sole duty should be to examine the country, to determine what public works ought to be made, to make surveys, plans, and estimates, and that the works should be undertaken in some cases by the Government and in others be handed over to capitalists either of India or England. Under that system you would probably have five times, probably ten times as much capital laid out in public works in India as you can possibly have under the present system; and you would find, moreover, that if these public works were undertaken and executed, the whole country would receive new life, just as you find any district in this country receives new life when it is opened by the best mode of communication—a railroad. It is only thus that the vast territories of the United States have been brought so rapidly under cultivation and have yielded such vast products of corn and cotton as we have seen of late years. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India is enthusiastic on the subject of railways, but he does not seem to me to be able to nurse more than one child at once, or to have more than one idea. He is very great with the hon. Member for the City of London, and the City railway interest, but he does not appear to believe in the least in anything else. I am satisfied that there is much to be done in the way of improving communication in India besides the great lines of communication which are already made; and a durable road along which carriages can travel conveniently at all times of the year would be an immense gain to that country. Even in that very province of Bengal to which the hon. Gentleman referred, roads were in such a state not long ago, that when the Governor of Bengal was here, and was asked whether he ever travelled through his Presidency, he said "No; there are no roads on which to travel." A few years ago it might be said with truth that there were more good and metalled reads in any one of a dozen or twenty counties in England than there were in the whole of the broad territories of India. That such should be the case is not I think creditable to the Government; and if the
  228
  country remains in such a condition, it will not be creditable to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman thought he had been very successful, no doubt, in overthrowing the arguments of the hon. Member for Rochdale. I paid great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, though I did not understand a good deal of it. But perhaps he will listen to what I am going to say. The right hon. Gentleman objected to a quotation which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale made, and he quoted with some approbation from a pamphlet by Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson, however, says, when dealing with this very point, that so far back as 1858 Lord Canning turned his attention to the tenure of land in India, and that the conclusions which he arrived at were embodied in rules under the date of October 1861, which were liberal and encouraging. Nine months, however, after the publication of those rules, orders were sent out, putting a stop to the sale of waste lands, and Mr. Ferguson says, that while under Lord Canning's rule 100,000 acres were applied, there was not, he believed, under Sir Charles Wood's, an application for a single acre. Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member for the City of London, I think that the subject of the waste lands has a great deal to do with the general question of improvements in India. The temper and manner in which the Secretary of State deals with this subject is also of importance. The right hon. Gentleman says that the extract which my hon. Friend read is not in his despatch, but that is a mere quibble to which he ought not to descend. The passage read by my hon. Friend is contained in the supplemental Rules issued at Calcutta, in August 1862. The right hon. Gentleman must therefore have been aware of it, although it is not in his despatch; for it is, as I have said, contained in the Rules issued by the Government at Calcutta, and which were, of course, framed in obedience to instructions from home.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the words were not in his despatch as stated by the hon. Member for Rochdale, and could not have originated in any way from his despatch, as the Rules in which the words really were, were published in Calcutta five months before the despatch was written.
  MR. BRIGHT: But those supplemental Rules have not been cancelled by the right hon. Gentleman, and are, so far as I know, still in operation.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I have not got the sale of waste lands papers by me. If I had, I could refer to the letter to show the hon. Gentleman how the matter stood. The Bengal Government saw that the Regulations of the Government of India professed to bar private rights, which could, in fact, only be barred by a legislative enactment, and they therefore omitted an apparent promise to bar rights which they could not legally do, observing that such rights could only be barred by law, and that when the law necessary for this object was passed, no Rule would be required. This is the state of facts as regards the Government of Bengal, which seems to me to have been perfectly right; but as regards my despatch having influenced them, I repeat that the Rules were published five months before my despatch was written.
  MR. BRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman will, I presume, admit with regard to the general question of what has been done, first under the waste lands proposition of Lord Canning, and then what has been done under the altered state of things which he has effected, that in the one case there have been a great many applications for land, and in the other there has been none. That is stated in the pamphlet to which the right hon. Gentleman has appealed as an authority. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: It may be so.] The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have not been to him lately with deputations from Lancashire, but I will now take the liberty of stating to the House that the greatest possible dissatisfaction exists with regard to the manner in which this question of cotton supply from India is treated at the Indian Office. I am not going to say that there are not unreasonable expectations as to what can be done. I believe there are, and for that reason I have not during the last two or three years troubled the House with specific propositions, because I do not see any specific proposition that could make any great and immediate change. I am not in the habit of proposing things that the House cannot understand. Notwithstanding this, I am free to state to the right hon. Gentleman what is the state of feeling down in Lancashire, because I think it is necessary that he should know it, and that the House and the Government should know it. There is a general complaint—it may arise from the unfortunate manner of the Secretary
  230
  of State for India—that the deputations which come to him on this matter are treated in a manner that is flippant and irritating; and that generally, instead of entering cordially into the consideration of any propositions that are made, his conversation and manner are wholly obstructive. Now, I believe I am stating in mild terms that which is said almost universally by every deputation which has come to the India Office in connection with this question during the last two or three years. It has been carried so far that I know many gentlemen down in the manufacturing districts—some of whom have heretofore not been supposed to call in question that which was done by persons in authority—who have said over and over again that they would no longer go upon any deputation to the Secretary of State for India. It may be, as I have said, his unfortunate manner; but I am telling the House, and I am telling him, that which I know to be the truth with regard to the opinions of merchants, manufacturers, spinners, members of the chamber of commerce, and so forth, who have gone to the India Office to discuss this question. When they have spoken to me, I have said to them, "You cannot probably point out to Sir Charles Wood what he can do to bring you a million bales of cotton." Well, I believe I have told them the truth, as I am telling the truth to the right hon. Gentleman. But it does not follow that nothing can be done, and it does not follow that when gentlemen who have these vast interests at stake—not merely their own personal interests, but the interests of the population among whom they live, come to a Government department—they should not be received and conversed with in a manner, that when they go away, they will at least be satisfied that they had spoken to a statesman who is anxious to do the best he could for the great interests which they represented. I am speaking to the right hon. Gentleman in a friendly spirit, and though he may think otherwise, I have defended him as long as I could; but I know that there are men in Lancashire, who are worthy to be listened to by any Member of the Government, who have said that they will no longer go to the India Office, because they find that they are not treated with that courtesy which they receive from other Ministers, and that the Secretary of State for India did not seem to comprehend the gravity and importance of the interests

  231
  which they were intrusted to lay before him. I have now said what I have to say upon this question. I do not believe the Secretary of State can work miracles. I do not believe that any person can get two or three million hales of cotton immediately. I believe that such dispositions might have been made twenty years ago that you would now have had as much cotton as you want, and much more than you would use if you gave the price you now offer. But there is no escape from the neglect of the past time. The oppression—for there has been much of that—and the carelessness with which you have acted in regard to India cannot be atoned for by expressions of regret or by any sudden act of legislation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for what I have said. I shall be thankful if he will; but if he will not, I shall forgive him, if he will only pay a little more attention to the subject, and treat my friends with a little more courtesy than they say he has treated them when they come to see him.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he had listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and had heard no arguments in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Stirling, but merely a general support of the expressions of the right hon. Member for Rochdale, who went so far as to say that the conduct of the Secretary of State had been such, that had there been any Opposition, there would have been ground for his impeachment.
  MR. COBDEN: I did not mean Tower Hill; I meant to say that his conduct would have been called into question.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he only quoted the words of the right hon. Gentleman, who might put what interpretation on them he pleased. The hon. Member for Birmingham, without using any argument or pointing out that anything had been done which ought not to have been done, or anything left undone which ought to have been done, condescended to repeat reports to the prejudice of the Secretary of State for India, which he was satisfied were without the slightest foundation. He heard the rumour some time ago, and feeling, as he had a right to feel, great personal interest in the reputation of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he addressed himself to the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire, who had introduced a deputation of working men.
  MR. BRIGHT: I did not refer to the
  232
  working men. I did not know there had been a deputation of working men. I said merchants, manufacturers, and spinners.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the hon. Member indulged in vague charges and aspersions without naming the persons on whose authority they rested, and he was giving as a reason for saying they were without the slightest foundation, that the hon. and gallant Member who accompanied one deputation told him they were perfectly satisfied with the manner in which they were received, and that they were received with that courtesy which he knew his right hon. Friend invariably showed to every deputation. These charges were produced by ordinary gossip, and he wondered that the hon. Member for Birmingham should have condescended to repeat them. The hon. Member for Birmingham had endeavoured to prove that the ordinary laws of demand and supply do not operate in India. To this the fact that in the first four months of this year the export of cotton from Calcutta was nearly double the amount during the whole of last year was a complete answer. The statement was also refuted by other facts. The Russian war created a demand for articles which India could supply, and the result was a rapid increase of their export. The export of jute from India was 350,000 cwt. in 1852, and in 1860 it was 1,000,000 cwt. The value of the export of seeds had increased from £450,000 to £1,785,000; and in the face of these figures it was impossible to say that the ordinary influence of demand upon supply did not apply to India as much as to any other country in the worlds The main position in dispute was whether the ordinary principles of demand and supply would produce their usual effects, or whether it was necessary for the Government to interfere in some way or other. The hon. Member for Birmingham, in addressing the House, and more particularly public meetings in the country on these matters, always carried himself seven or eight years backward. He perpetually referred to the Committee of 1848, of which he was Chairman, and ignored all that had been done in the mean time. He perpetually stated that the peasantry of India were sunk in the deepest poverty; that no improvement had taken place in the administration of justice, and that the communications in India were in a lamentable state. Any Gentleman who had read the papers on the subject would know that there was unimpeachable evidence as well from Govern-

  233
  ment servants as from gentlemen unconnected with Government, that the peasantry of India—particularly in the cotton districts—were in a constantly-improving state. With regard to communications, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member sneer at the railroads, and assume that the Government had paid too much attention to that particular mode of communication. The draught Report of the Committee of 1848, drawn up by the hon. Member himself, expressed the opinion that "the system under which India can most speedily be supplied with railway communication is that which is most deserving of support," and that private enterprises for that purpose ought to be dealt with most liberally by the Indian Government. That was precisely what had been done by the Government, and, instead of the railroads being merely for the convenience of Government officials, they were projected through the main producing districts of the country. The hon. Gentleman ignored, too, all that had been done by the Government for the improvement of the administration of justice. He must know that a code of civil procedure had been passed in 1859; that a code of criminal procedure had been passed in 1861; and that a new penal code had been passed, as well as a great measure for the amalgamation of the Sudder and Supreme Courts. More had been done for the improvement of the administration of justice since the direct Government of India had been assumed by the Crown than had been done for years before. The Secretary of State and the Council had done all in their power to increase the export of cotton from India. They had been in constant communication with the Cotton Supply Association—experiments had been continually made, and very recently cotton from Peru had been sent to be tried in India—he hoped with considerable prospect of success. One thing the Secretary of State had constantly refused to do, and that was to tax the people of India in order to encourage the growth of cotton, and he was satisfied from what had taken place that the House and the country would allow that the Government of India had done its duty in this matter. The hon. Member for Birmingham had quoted from a pamphlet in support of the reckless accusations of the hon. Member for Rochdale, but the rule to which he had referred was in reality circulated in India by the local Government before the Secretary of State's despatch
  234
  arrived, and it simply referred to the existing state of the law. As to the regulations for the sale of waste lands, the hon. Member for Poole had already raised a debate on that subject—in which, by the way, neither the hon. Member for Birmingham nor the right hon. Member for Rochdale appeared to support him, and there was no necessity, therefore, why he should renew the subject on the present occasion.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he had told the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State on a former occasion what the effect of a laisser faire policy with regard to the growth of cotton in India would be. Could the Government account for the fact, that though the price had risen five or six-fold, the supply had not increased? In the year 1860–1 the number of bales imported from India was 986,000; in 1862, it was 1,072,000, and in the present year it was not expected to be larger than it had been last year. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood), in a speech at Halifax, had mistakenly represented him as having proposed that the Government of India should turn cotton merchants. To correct the misrepresentation, he need only refer to the speech he made in the House last Session, and he then said that with regard to the use of Indian cotton the question was not merely a question of price, but it was also one of quality. The manufacturers of this country would always give the full price for Indian cotton, but the reason it had fetched a low price was that its quality was inferior. If Indian cotton were of the same quality as American, it would fetch the same price. The question, then, was, could India produce as good cotton as America?—and it was answered by experiments tried twenty years ago, which showed that cotton equal to American could be produced only under European superintendence. What the manufacturers thought when the American war broke out was, that the Government would have availed themselves of the large field offered by India to grow cotton, but they had not done so. In corroboration of a remark made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, he could assert that he had gone on many deputations to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India, and he had scarcely ever done so that the parties acting on the deputation were not offended. The right hon. Gentleman did not do justice to himself. By the manner in which he received deputations he deprived himself of a great deal of

  235
  intelligence which would be very useful to him. The Pasha of Egypt did not act in that manner. He was glad to avail himself of knowledge and experience; and what was the result? The imports of cotton from Egypt in 1861 were 94,000 bales, last year they were 140,000 bales, and this year they would be 250,000 bales. The profits from the growth of cotton in Egypt would amount to more than the produce of all the gold mines in Australia. If the English Government had taken up the question as they ought to have done, thousands of their impoverished countrymen who were now walking about in idleness would be profitably employed. When the American war broke out, what was the course taken by our Government? They sent persons to rummage out the old records of the East India Company, and to write books showing that cotton could not be grown in India. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the ryots would not grow cotton from American seed, was easily explicable. At first the Bombay merchants, in their ignorance, gave higher prices for native-grown cotton, and of course the ryots shaped their operations accordingly; but since that error had been rectified by the prices obtained in the English market there had been no indisposition on the part of the ryots to grow cotton from American seed. On the contrary, the quantity of land under cultivation had gone on growing till it reached 300,000 acres. Indian cotton had a very bad reputation in Lancashire, because out of 1,000,000 bales of Surat Cotton at least 200,000 were complete rubbish. He greatly feared, that whenever cotton could be procured elsewhere, the article imported from India would cease to be taken, and that heavy losses would fall upon all who were engaged in that trade.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that if he were laying out a programme for investigation before a Committee, he would suggest, in the first instance, that it should be seen whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had done his best to sell the waste lands. There was reported to be a large estate in the centre of India suited for the growth of cotton, and only producing £5 a year to the Government; yet, when an English company-offered to buy this, and undertake the growth of cotton, they met with a refusal from the Indian Government. Mr. Temple, one of the highest officials in India, reported that along the Godavery, for hundreds
  236
  of miles, there was a basin of cotton land admirably suited for the application of British capital. Mr. Temple, however, only received a "wigging" from the India Office for that information. He should suggest, as the second head, the present tenure of land as a fit subject for inquiry. It was stated, that the Government took 30 to 40 per cent of the gross produce of the soil, and while that was so they must expect to have a pauper tenantry, instead of a tenantry with capital sufficient to develop the resources of the country. The third head which he would suggest for inquiry, was, what were the impediments in the way of English enterprise. They were to be found in a gigantic system of monopolies, and in that obstructiveness which had been mentioned in the circular. They could not go to any of the public companies, except, perhaps, that over which the hon. Member for London presided, without learning that they experienced obstructions everywhere; and if concessions were obtained, it was through the influence of Members of that House. The fourth head was the state of the public works, upon which the Secretary of State was wasting £5,000,000, but nothing could be more disgraceful than the jobbery to which they gave rise. The fifth head of inquiry, was the mode of improving the staple of cotton, which he contended should be done by a system of prizes, as Lord Canning had recommended, and as had proved so successful in the hands of the American Government. He had made definite objections to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman; but his chief objection was to the illiberal spirit which had been infused by that right hon. Gentleman into the Indian officials, a spirit so unlike that which had prevailed under the administration of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), his predecessor in office.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he could not help remarking upon the extraordinary change of opinion which had been manifested that night by the Gentlemen connected with the Manchester party. Those Gentlemen had urged upon that House to become a great protection society for the growth of cotton for Lancashire, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) was grossly abused because he would not become their principal agent. Now, if he (Mr. Ferrand) had stood up to-night and called upon the right hon. Gentleman to assist the agricultural interest to grow corn, he should undoubtedly have been met by hon. Gentlemen opposite with a great howl. Now, he would

  237
  advise hon. Gentlemen to trust to supply and demand for the future. Let them not come down there whining for protection. At all events, if they abandoned their principles, let them like honest men say that they had failed, and that protection to native industry must be applied once more in the case of the cotton trade as well as the agricultural interest. In 1846, when the late Sir Robert Peel came down to propose the repeal of the Corn Laws, hon. Gentlemen opposite hounded him on with every imaginable insult to the agricultural interest, and he (Mr. Ferrand) wished to remind them that he had warned them that they would be the first, when free trade was established, to come again to Parliament, and on bended knees sue for protection to their industry. He therefore felt justified that night in holding them up to the country in their proper position, as deserting their own principles without having the honesty to avow it.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he was satisfied with the result of the discussion, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

THE MHOW COURT MARTIAL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. COXwas understood to put some questions on this subject to the Under Secretary for War.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General or the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, on the return of Colonel Crawley to this Country, it is intended to prefer the charges against him before a Court Martial, or before the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other of the Common Law tribunals? The Government had determined to bring Colonel Crawley home to be tried on a charge of exceeding his authority. Any military officer who abused his authority in such a manner as to cause the death of a man was amenable to the charge of manslaughter. He (Mr. Butt) would carefully refrain from offering any opinion as to the case, but he believed that a constitutional principle of some importance was involved in it. He held, that the moment Colonel Grawley put his foot upon the soil of this country, he was amenable to the criminal courts. Colonel Crawley was now being brought home to be tried by court martial, but that tribunal had no cognizance of the charge of manslaughter, which, must be investigated by a civil court. The cases of Governor Wall
  238
  and of Sir Thomas Picton established this principle. Governor Wall, having unjustly subjected a man abroad to a drum-head court martial, and the man having died under the flogging inflicted, was brought to England, and, after being tried at the Old Bailey, was executed for the murder. He thought that a verdict, by a criminal tribunal, on the charge against him, would be more satisfactory than the decision of any court martial.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he could not but complain of the prejudice which such discussions excited against an officer who was yet to be put on his trial. Before Colonel Crawley had been found guilty, he was hunted down in that House and in the newspapers. As to the charge of manslaughter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, every military man knew that Colonel Crawley was not responsible for the confinement of Sergeant-Major Lilley, which took place by the order of the General in command, and from which the Colonel had not even the power to release him without permission. He wished to know on what charge Colonel Crawley was being brought home?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the question, whether the charges should be preferred against Colonel Crawley before a court martial or a civil court had been very fully considered both by the Horse Guards and the War Office, and it appeared, that as the charges against him were of a military nature, the proper course was to try him by court martial. He could only follow up the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite—namely, that these discussions on Colonel Crawley's case should not be continually brought on, because, whether hon. Members wished to prejudice the case or not, such discussions could have but one effect—namely, to prejudice the minds of persons who would, perhaps, have to examine it judicially. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Cox), he had before had occasion to inform the House that the complaint made by Mr. Smales of the imprisonment of his witnesses by Colonel Crawley had been submitted, with all the allegations of Mr. Smales, for the opinion of the Judge Advocate General. ["When?"] These allegations had been submitted at different times, for Mr. Smales had made many at different times. [Mr. CONINGHAM: Subsequently to his being cashiered?] Yes, some of them. As to the remainder of the Question, whether the Judge Ad-

  239
  vocate General had given any opinion or advice on the subject, he could only repeat what he had stated to the House the other night—that the communications between the Judge Advocate General and the Horse Guards were all of a private and confidential nature, and it was not for the public interest, and was not conducive to the ends of justice that such opinions should, before they were acted upon, be published either by communication to this House or in any other way.
  MR. CONINGHAMdenied that he had lightly made any attack on Colonel Crawley. He was one of the first to protest against that officer being made the scapegoat when officers of high rank were so deeply compromised. It must be remembered that the trial of Colonel Crawley gave no satisfaction to the deeply injured paymaster of the Inniskilling Dragoons. To cashier an officer simply for writing an insubordinate letter was almost unprecedented, and he could scarcely conceive how a body of English officers could find Captain Smales guilty on the charges preferred against him. His efforts had been directed to obtain a revocation of what he believed to be an unjust sentence. He believed there had been another court martial held upon Corporal Blake, of the Inniskillings, who was sentenced to forty-two days' hard labour, and loss of good-conduct stripes, for permitting a sentry to be outside the room in which Sergeant Major Lilley was confined, instead of inside.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he rose to order. The matter under consideration was not that of Captain Smales, concerning which the hon. Gentleman had given a notice of a distinct Motion. He protested, in the name of the hon. Gentleman's own client, against his case being prejudiced by such observations.
  MR. CONINGHAM: It is the hon. Gentleman is out of order, and I recommend him to confine his attention to the Irish Church, and to be more accurate in his facts the next time he brings it forward.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I rise again to order. The hon. Gentleman has no right to travel out of the question.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he wished to know the exact point of order in question.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: The hon. Member is introducing the case of Captain Smales to prejudice that of Colonel Crawley.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was difficult to draw the line on a Motion upon going into
  240
  Committee of Supply; but if notice of a distinct Motion upon a particular subject had been given, it was not proper to enter upon it when another question had been raised.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Brighton whether it would be advisable to continue the dicussion.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to say that the treatment of Captain Smales had been such that he was not surprised that the authorities in India and at home were not anxious to have the question reopened. The hon. Member for Liskeard had not always been so well disposed towards the Horse Guards. The tongue of the hon. Member was then untied; but it was strange how silent he was when sitting on the Treasury Bench. He then came down to interrupt independent Members who had grievances to bring forward. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take compassion upon the hon. Gentleman, and give him a place in some of the outskirts of the Administration.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would express a hope that the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County (Colonel Dunne) would be responded to; and that the House would refrain from further discussion on the subject of Colonel Crawley's case. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Coningham) would, on reflection, regret the observations he had made. Personalities were not creditable to the House.
  COLONEL DUNNEexplained that he did not allude to the hon. Member for Brighton.
  MAJOR GAVINsaid, that having been connected with the army of India, he could not remain silent when such charges were made against officers of the army. It was said that Captain Smales had been treated infamously, but no army in the world did its duty better than the army of India, and he felt bound to contradict the injurious assertions of the hon. Member.

CASE OF MAJOR FRITH.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to order that the investigation of the claims of Mr. Warren Hastings Leslie Frith and others against the

  241
  late Government of Oude may be ordered to take place in England instead of India. The claim of Major Frith arose out of a claim upon the revenues of Oude, which country having been transferred to the Government of Great Britain the liabilities accompanied the transfer. The claim arose out of a bond given to the grandfather of the present claimant, and the Secretary of State had directed an inquiry to take place at Lucknow, but had subsequently offered to allow the inquiry to take place at Calcutta. As all the documents were in this country, and as it was almost impossible that any living witness could be found in India, there could be no reason why the inquiry should not take place in England.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India would accede to the request now made.
  MR. TORRENSalso expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would take the point into consideration.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could not assent to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. The whole transactions had arisen in India. Colonel Fulton had been treated with the greatest consideration in the matter, and so far as he (Sir C. Wood) was informed, whatever evidence was to be produced could only be had in India. The Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted, and they were of opinion that the inquiry should take place in India.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 172.]

  COMMITTEE.
  MR. SCHOLEFIELD MR. SCHOLEFIELD moved that the Bill be re-committed.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CRUM-EWING MR. CRUM-EWING moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 19: Majority 13.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 178.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. REDMONDproposed to insert a clause, that grand juries should appoint boards of superintendence of gaols, &c., within the several counties in Ireland, except the county of the city of Dublin.
  Clause—
  (Grand Juries to appoint Boards of Superintendence of Gaols, &c. within the several Counties in Ireland, except the County of the City of Dublin,)—(Mr. Redmond,)
  —brought up, and read 1°.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 31: Majority 23.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° on Monday next.

  INDIA STOCK BILL.
  On Motion of Sir CHARLES WOOD, Bill to give further facilities to the Holders of India Stock, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES WOOD and Mr. BARING.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.

Preamble
MINUTES.—PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Poor Law Continuance * (No. 187); Loan Societies* (No. 188).
Second Reading—Thames Embankment (South Side)* (No. 162); Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal* (No. 153); Public Works (Manufacturing Districts)* (No. 179).
Committee—British Columbia Boundaries [H.L.]* (No. 149); Jurisdiction of Justices [H.L.]* (No. 172); Oaths Relief in Criminal Proceedings (Scotland)* (No. 72).
Report—Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Winding-up Act, 1861, Amendment* (No. 184); Telegraphs* (No. 185); District Parochial Churches (Ireland)* (No. 186).
Third Reading—Innkeepers' Liability* (No. 142); Postmaster General (Sale of Land)* (No. 168): Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (No. 154); and severally passed.

ACCUSED PERSONS—CASE OF MR. BLUNDELL.—PETITION.
LORD BROUGHAM presented a Petition from Bever Blundell, Esq., F.S.A., for giving accused Persons the Right of being examined on their Trials. The noble and learned Lord said, that Mr. Blundell complained of what he considered to be an intolerable grievance to which he had been subjected in consequence of the imperfect state of the law. Mr. Blundell, seeing that a person had been committed for trial charged with threatening the life of an attorney, wrote to the committing magistrate, giving an account of the transaction, and expressing his belief, from his knowledge of the accusers, that there was no truth in the charge. The accused person was kept in prison five or six months, his family sent to the workhouse, and, in short, he was utterly ruined. When the case came before the grand jury, of whom the committing magistrate was one, the bill was ignored; but the poor man, unable, as he said with his dying breath, to bear up against the obloquy to which he had been subjected, committed suicide.
146
The attorney proceeded against Mr. Blundell for writing the letter; but, instead of suing him for damages, in which case he would have had an opportunity of being beard, as well as his accuser, he indicted him for libel, and Mr. Blundell's mouth was therefore closed. The result of the trial was, that Mr. Blundell was found guilty; but the Judge who tried him, Mr. Justice Hill, was so dissatisfied with the proceedings, that he absolutely refused to pass sentence upon him at the trial. The case was therefore remitted to the Court of Queen's Bench. In this Court also, not only was Mr. Blundell unable to state his case, but Mr. Justice Hill was absent from indisposition, and his notes were in so imperfect a condition that they could not be used. Mr. Blundell was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, and he complained—and, in his (Lord Brougham's) opinion, justly—of the state of the law. He did not go quite so far as his friend Sir Samuel Romilly, and say that defendants in criminal cases should always be examined; but he thought that when they volunteered their statement, and offered themselves for cross-examination, their evidence ought to be received, more especially in cases where the other party had been examined.
Petition to lie on the table.

DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER.

  PETITION.
  LORD LYTTELTON presented a petition from the Incumbent and Clergy of the Rural Deanery of Southwark in the diocese of Winchester, praying for a division of the Diocese on the next avoidance of the Sec. The noble Lord said he did not propose to found any Motion on the document, except the very modest one, that it be laid on the table. Divisions of dioceses might be effected in two ways, either by a general measure, or by dealing with each particular case as it arose. Some years ago, when there was a general Bill before the House, a noble Earl, who took a great interest in the subject expressed an opinion that each case should be dealt with separately. On the other hand, when a memorial was presented to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, by a deputation from the diocese of Rochester, praying for a division of that diocese, the noble Viscount said, that while he concurred in the object of the memorialists, he thought it better to defer it until a general measure should be introduced.

  147
  Thus were they driven from the pillar of the noble Earl to the post of the noble Viscount. With regard to the case of Winchester, no doubt it was a strong one, but he did not know that it was stronger than many others. There were dioceses in this country where the population were numbered by millions and the clergy by thousands. He knew there were many persons who did not care whether the diocese contained one million or ten millions, or two thousand or five thousand clergy, provided that the country was divided into thousands of districts, each with a minister at £100 a year, without funds or friends, but left single-handed to do the best be could. That was the modern Utopia. His own impression was that the wealthy inhabitants of London, or Winchester, or Durham, or Exeter, if they wished their respective dioceses to be divided, must themselves put their shoulders to the wheel and subscribe the necessary funds requisite in all cases in which the division of a diocese took place, to form a revenue for the support of the additional ecclesiastical supervision if required. He held in his hand a letter from the Bishop of Winchester, who stated that he was not able to be present in the House that evening, owing to his being engaged in ordination, but who wished him to state that the prayer of the Petition had his hearty concurrence.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that two years ago a general Bill had been introduced on the subject by his noble Friend, but it did not meet with much favour from the House; while another noble Lord recommended that each case should be dealt with by Parliament as it arose. It was manifest that there would be considerable difficulty in finding the funds necessary for the purpose. The question, therefore, it would be seen, was one which was surrounded by some difficulties, while it was one which involved very important considerations.
  Petition to lie on the table.

  SUBSCRIPTION TO FORMULARIES OF FAITH.—PETITION.
  EARL RUSSELL, rose to present a Petition of Heads of Colleges, Professors, present and former Fellows, and Tutors in the University of Oxford, for the Abolition of Subscription to Formularies of Faith as a Qualification for Academical Degrees, The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have
  148
  to present to your Lordships a Petition of very great importance, and remarkable for the number and character of the learned persons by whom it is signed. It emanates from a large number of gentlemen of high standing, members of the University of Oxford. The number of signatures is 106, and those signatures represent persons who all are, or have been, Fellows or Tutors of colleges. We often hear, especially from politicians of a Conservative turn of mind, that though numbers preponderate on one side of a question, learning and intelligence are to be found on the other. That observation may very justly be applied to this Petition. Out of the 106 Fellows, Professors, and Tutors by whom it is signed, 65 obtained first classes in classics, and 15 in mathematics, making a total of 80 who have won that distinction. The 106 Petitioners I may add, include 17 Professors, of whom 13 are present Professors, and 71 present Fellows of colleges out of a total of 437. In making a comparison between the 366 Fellows who did not sign the Petition, and the 71 who did, I found that 56 or four-fifths of those who signed it obtained first-class honours, whereas only 75 or one-fifth of those who did not were equally distinguished. There are also other honours which have been obtained by many of those petitioners, such as University Scholarships and Chancellor's Prizes; but I will not go further into this enumeration. Your Lordships, from what I have said, will at once see that the Petition is one emanating from persons engaged in teaching in the University, and ranking among the most distinguished of those who occupy that position. I shall now proceed to state to the House what is the nature of the Petition, and what is the prayer with which it concludes. The Petition begins by disclaiming any wish to invite interference with the theological teaching in the University, or with its religious character. We may therefore take it for granted that the petitioners are—in conformity with that which I believe to be the sense of your Lordships and the country—unanimously of opinion that there should be religious teaching in our two great Universities, and that that teaching should be in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. They go on, however, to say that the subscriptions to which they refer have failed to secure uniformity of belief, or even to promote religious peace. But before I advert more particularly to this point, it is desirable, I think, that I

  149
  should trace very shortly what has been the history of these declarations. Before the Reformation, of course, the teaching was directed by the Roman Catholic Church; but immediately afterwards, during the transitions which took place from the reign of Edward VI. to those of Queens Mary and Elizabeth, changes occurred in the headships of houses and the persons governing the Universities, and the religious teaching varied. The Reformers themselves, who belonged to the Church of England, very speedily divided themselves into two classes, the one favouring or tending towards the opinions of Calvin; the other looking back with sentiments of regret to the Church of Rome, and adhering in many respects to the doctrines and practices of that Church. The Earl of Leicester, who was Chancellor of the University, in order to confirm the supremacy of the Protestant party, of which he was the head, established subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, which he required to be imposed not only on Doctors and Masters of Arts, but also on Bachelors of Arts and undergraduates. Till a very late period, this subscription was required on the matriculation of every young man who entered the Universities. The party to which I have been alluding prevailed for a time; but as soon as the Princes of the House of Stuart ascended the throne, a different doctrine came into operation; but instead of taking that which would have been the right course, of removing the subscription required by the Earl of Leicester, and maintaining religious liberality in their own case, as well as for others, this party added other tests and declarations to those which I have mentioned. At this time were established the declarations acknowledging the King's supremacy, conformity to the Liturgy of the Church, and conformity to the Thirty-nine Articles. In the reign of James II. another change was attempted which would have gone still further in the direction of the Church of Rome, but that attempt was successfully resisted. In 1854, in consequence of the Report of a Commission appointed at the request of the House of Commons, a change was made with respect to some of these declarations—that is to say, that undergraduates at matriculation and Bachelors of Arts should be relieved from these declarations. For my own part, I regretted that the question was introduced at that time; but it was thought necessary to make some immediate arrange-
  150
  ment, and to postpone a general revision of the whole subject to a future occasion. The consequence has been, that, as the Petitioners say, these declarations have failed to secure unanimity of opinion, or even religious peace in the University. There are parties still in the Church much resembling those, one of which was headed by the Earl of Leicester, and the other by Archbishop Laud. There are those who object to certain parts of the Articles and yet sign them. There are those who cannot fully "assent and consent" to the whole Liturgy and yet make the declaration. The consequence is that these parties are continually objecting to one another that they have made declarations not in conformity with the sense which those declarations required. The consequence is that religious peace is disturbed, and, I must say, some slur is thrown upon the religious sincerity of those who signed those declarations. I wish your Lordships to understand that I am speaking now solely of the declarations required by the University, and not of clerical subscription, which is a matter totally apart from the question whether it is necessary that young men who have fairly won and deserved the honours due to their attainments should be required to subscribe their assent to the Thirty-nine Articles or to the Liturgy. It was well said in a recent debate by Earl Grey that there is a very great mischief in multiplying declarations unnecessarily, and thereby producing an uneasy feeling in the minds of young men, who are told by some that the declarations merely involve conformity to the general doctrines of the Church of England, and by others that they are guilty of something akin to perjury, if they sign and do not assent to each particular doctrine and Article. It is of the first importance to consider how much the moral purity and moral simplicity of young men may be tainted by requiring of them these declarations at a period of life when they have not fully matured their own opinions. The first question it, what is the practical effect on those who take these declarations; and another question is, why should persons who do not belong to the Church—Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics—he excluded from the degree of Master of Arts, or kept away from the Universities by these tests. This, however, is practically a less important question; because, according to my observation, the tendency of the present time is that persons of the same religious de-

  151
  nomination cling closer together, rather than seek to go to places of education which are chiefly the seats of other forms of worship. But still, as to the great national Universities, and considering how many subjects of Her Majesty, whether in this country or in the Colonies, are not members of the Church of England, the door of distinction ought not to be shut to those who seek education either at Oxford or Cambridge, because they cannot assent to these forms. The petitioners say that these requirements tend to perplex the conscience, to introduce an ambiguous interpretation of solemn obligations, and to raise a danger of losing to the University the services of men of high character and ability. That, also, is a question of very considerable importance, for it is a great misfortune that there should be any chance of losing men of great genius and learning through the impossibility of their acceding to these declarations. Is it not desirable that a place of great learning, and so distinguished as Oxford, should open its doors to those who belong to different Churches, rather than shut them on account of these forms? The persons who take the degree of Master of Arts may become clergymen, but they may become barristers, physicians, or civil engineers, and what can be the use of the test in any other profession except the Church? In the University of Cambridge these requirements are no longer made. In the year 1854 they were removed in the case of Bachelors of Arts and undergraduates of the University of Oxford. But in the following year, when the Act was passed for the reform of the University of Cambridge, it was provided that the degree of Master of Arts should be allowed without any of these declarations; but, at the same time, there was a proviso that those who belonged to the governing body of the University of Cambridge should declare themselves to be members of the Church of England. I do not think that was a very good provision, because it introduced a new test, and it will not be difficult to secure the object in some other way. The petitioners agree that the religious teaching of the University of Oxford should be the religious teaching of the Church of England; and if any means are required to secure that object, it will be a proper subject of consideration. It is free for Parliament to say, "Subscription is not required for the degree of Master of Arts; but we will take care that the body who have the control of the
  152
  education of the University shall be members of the Church of England." There are various ways of doing this, into which I need not enter, as I am only asking your Lordships to agree in the prayer of the Petition, that the subscription required for the degree of Master of Arts be henceforth abolished, believing, as I do, that if that were accomplished, it would give a more general and more liberal character to the University of Oxford, while it would favour that liberty of conscience which this country should always be careful to cherish. I frankly own that I think, that though this Petition does not come from the majority of the resident members of the University, yet it is one which in its spirit will, in a short time, be adopted by a great majority. It seems to me so reasonable, so moderate, and so far from interference with the teaching of the Church of England, that sooner or later it must become the foundation of legislation. I believe that it is in the power of the University itself to declare that this subscription shall not be demanded; but we all know what obstinacy there has always been there in resisting reforms, and how strong has been what Lord Bacon calls "the fro ward retention of custom." For three centuries the University made no alteration in these matters, and probably never would have made any if Parliament had not interfered. I hope before long—not in the present Session, but in some future Session—that a Bill will be introduced which will carry out the prayer of these distinguished men. I am glad to say that the spirit of religious reform is abroad in Europe. In the two Sicilies, where by the law of 1824 the Roman Catholic religion alone was recognised, and no person could be registered as belonging to any other religion but the Roman Catholic, we find now that that provision is held to be quite inconsistent with the constitution of the Kingdom of Italy, which recognises the principle of religious liberty. When, then, we see religious persecution dying in other countries, I hope that, in a spirit of conservative reform, your Lordships will not be averse to the Petition which I have the honour to present. The noble Earl concluded by presenting the Petition.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Earl into his historical account of the progress of religious liberty, nor into that portion of his speech which seemed to have still less to do with the question before the House—what advances in religious toleration have

  153
  been made in Italy since the formation of that kingdom. I beard with considerable regret—with more regret, perhaps, than surprise—the comparison the noble Earl drew between the persecution to which the Protestant religion has been and is still subjected in many Roman Catholic countries, and the state of things to which this Petition refers. The noble Earl has been good enough to allow me to look at the signatures to the Petition. I readily admit that there are among them many names of considerable eminence, whose opinions are entitled to the greatest weight; but, at the same time, the noble Earl, I think, has somewhat exaggerated the case. When we come to consider what is the amount of distinction of those who have signed and those who have not signed the Petition, I think it will be found that the majority of high honours is in favour of those who have not signed it. Again, the noble Earl has presented the Petition as the Petition of Heads of Colleges. [Earl RUSSELL: Of certain Heads of Colleges.] Yes, exactly; of certain Heads—that is, of two out of the twenty-four Heads of Colleges; quite enough, truly, to justify the noble Earl in saying "certain Heads." It is the Petition of "certain Heads, Professors, Fellows, and Tutors." With regard to the Professors, I freely admit that a considerable number of distinguished men have put their names to the Petition; but the noble Earl, when he said that the whole of those who had put their names to the Petition were either Professors or persons who were or had been Tutors or Fellows, was mistaken. He will find that a considerable number are neither Fellows nor Tutors, but merely students at the present moment. When we bear in mind that of all the members of the University, resident and non-resident, past and present, only 160 have signed this Petition, I must say, with all respect to the eminent men who have signed it, that it cannot be taken as representing the sense of any considerable portion of the University. When I heard, a week ago, of the noble Earl's intention to present the Petition, I wrote down to Oxford to know under what circumstances the Petition had been prepared, and what was the general feeling of the University on the subject. The answer I received was that of the Petition and the petitioners nothing positive was known in the University itself: it was known that there was such a Petition, and that important names were attached to it; but that the Petition had never
  154
  been laid on the table of one common-room in the University; that it had never been submitted to the Hebdomadal Council; that its signatures had been merely obtained by private canvass among those who were known to be favourable to it. These are the circumstances under which the Petition was prepared, and is now presented to your Lordships' House. But that is not all. Early in the spring there was a talk of presenting this Petition; and upon the announcement that there was such a Petition in progress, a counter petition was immediately set on foot. The Petition was then withdrawn, and the counter petition consequently fell to the ground. It was not till after the University had separated for the long vacation, when it was impossible to ascertain the feelings, wishes, and opinions of the University as a body—when it was impossible for the dissentients to express their opinions, and come before your Lordships' House with a counter petition—it was not till then that the Petition prepared in the spring, withdrawn in the summer, and withheld to the last moment, was placed in the hands of the noble Earl for presentation to the House as embodying the opinions of the University. Now, I must say, with all respect to the eminent men who have signed the Petition, that I do not think this is the mode in which a question of so much importance should be submitted to Parliament. I do not know whether the noble Earl is speaking as a Member of the Government, or whether he is merely stating his own individual wish, which may not be shared by his Colleagues; but it is important that we should know; for the noble Earl must forgive me for saying that it is unfortunate that one in his position, and with his high authority, should speak of bringing forward in another Session a Bill founded upon the recommendation of this Petition. [Earl RUSSELL: I said nothing about the Government bringing in a Bill.] No; the noble Earl certainly did not. But he, a Member of the Government, hoped, that if not in this, at least in an early Session, a Bill would be brought in for carrying out the prayer of this Petition. But, let me ask, is it desirable that from time to time, at very short intervals, the discipline and management of the University should be brought under the consideration of Parliament? It is only nine years since an Act was passed, followed by a most careful examination into the whole system of the government of the University of Oxford by a

  155
  body of Commissioners, who introduced a considerable number of ordinances, which ordinances had become the law of the University. And this is not a question that was omitted from the consideration of Parliament at that time. It is a question that was then fully and deliberately discussed. The noble Earl would have the House believe that the subscription required is required from a great portion of the youth of the University. The case is this:—It is declared by the Act that from and after the passing of the Act it shall not be necessary for any person entering at the University to make any declaration or take any oath; nor shall it be necessary for any person taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Medicine, or Music, to make any subscription, declaration, or take any oath; but such degree shall not constitute a qualification for any office hitherto held by a member of the Established Church, and for which such degree has constituted a qualification, unless the usual oaths and declarations be taken. After the inquiry which preceded the legislation of nine years ago, and after that legislation having been adopted with such full deliberation—and moreover, since the Act gave the University of Oxford the power of dealing with this as with any other ordinance—I think it most unfortunate that any Member of the Government should come forward in his place in Parliament to lay open this question, which was looked upon as settled, and bring the Universities again under the guidance and control of Parliament. And this has been done before any reference has been made to the University of Oxford itself—before the question was raised in that University—before it was asked how far it would be willing to adopt any modification of the existing subscription. I cannot answer for what the opinion of the University may be; but this I know, that the natural course for those gentlemen who have petitioned would have been to bring their proposals before the University, and to urge their case to the authorities at Oxford. They would then have had the opinions of those who dissented from them, and would thus have had the question settled, as far as the University is concerned. If after such a proceeding it appeared that the policy of the University was at variance with the public good, an appeal might have been made to the authority of Parliament. I will not enter into the great question of subscription. The noble Earl
  156
  says that the question which he has introduced applies to the general University subscription, and not to the clerical subscription; but I think this is the first step in the direction of a proposal to alter the clerical subscription. The question really raised by the noble Earl is this:—Is it desirable that the two Universities, in their management, authority, and teaching, should be in close and intimate connection with the Church of England? I think the speech of the noble Earl, and more particularly the observations he made in reference to the provisions with respect to subscription in the University of Cambridge, ought to induce your Lordships to watch very jealously, to see whether effect may not be given to the opinions which the noble Earl has uttered. I am much afraid that such a declaration, coming from one who holds the position of a Minister of the Crown, may have a prejudicial effect in respect to measures which may hereafter be proposed. I wish to speak with every respect of the petitioners, and I think it unfortunate that the noble Earl did not confine himself to the prayer of that Petition, but should have gone much further, and raised, on his own behalf and that of his Colleagues, a much larger question.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not wonder that the noble Earl should have taken a part in this discussion; and in consequence of the position which he holds in this House, and of that which he holds in connection with the University of Oxford, I was very anxious to hear how he would deal with the subject, after the very temperate and judicious manner in which it had been introduced by my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In common with all your Lordships, I always listen with pleasure to the fluent and eloquent speeches made by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in this House; and within the last month I have had the gratification of hearing him speak in most elegant Latin, which astonished not only ignorant persons like myself, but the most learned and accomplished professors of the University of Oxford; but, my Lords, I must confess that on this occasion my noble Friend has addressed the House with unusual embarrassment. In dealing with a question of such importance to the University over which he presides, the noble Earl declined to say one word which had any real bearing on the speech of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. He made attacks on

  157
  certain little portions of that speech, and he made an attack on the Petition which my noble Friend presented, founded on the number of signatures to that document. With respect to the latter point, I am credibly informed, that without regard to numerical strength, the names attached to the Petition represent some of the ablest and most useful intellects in the University of Oxford; and though I do not want to put my information against that of my noble Friend opposite, I am told that he has been misinformed in reference to the getting-up of the Petition. I am told that it had never been withdrawn from the time it was first laid on the table, and that it had been laid on the common table; and further, I have heard that Petitions in the other sense were beginning to be prepared in the University, but were abandoned. My noble Friend opposite has made a strong and, I think, a most indecorous attack on the observations of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary with respect to the probability of a measure being brought in at a future time. My noble Friend did not say that the Government intended to bring in a Bill, or that he himself intended to bring in a Bill; he only alluded to the probability of a Bill being brought in at a future time. The noble Earl considers that a great dereliction of duty, and an interference with the University; and he asks why the University should not be left to take the initiative. But I think it not unworthy of remark that the University has been content to rest for three hundred years without making any alteration in a subscription drawn up to meet quite a different state of things from that which exists at the present time. The University of Cambridge has been relieved from this grievous encumbrance by Act of Parliament, founded upon the recommendation of Commissioners; and surely, if the University of Oxford will not itself move in the matter, it is quite a legitimate subject of discussion in Parliament. I think the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) has entirely failed in his answer to my noble Friend; and I regret that as Chancellor of the University, speaking on a question of such importance to the University of Oxford and to the educated classes of this country, the noble Earl should have thought it consistent with his duty merely to dwell upon the small points in my noble Friend's speech, instead of addressing himself to the great question brought before the House.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he
  158
  did not think this was a great question of civil and religious liberty. It was a narrow question, and was just this—whether in the University of Oxford persons should be allowed to put the letters M.A. after their surnames without subscribing to the Church of England. The margin of the Church was very wide, but there was a limit in matters of this kind which he hoped their Lordships would not lose sight of.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, a few nights ago we were engaged in a discussion connected more or less with clerical subscription. We have now to do only with lay subscriptions; the proposal of the petitioners, as I understand it, tending to interfere in no way with divinity degrees. Those degrees, as your Lordships are aware, can only be taken by persons who are clergymen; and all Masters of Arts who are clergymen made at their ordination the very declarations which are now the subject of discussion. The declaration which every Master of Arts is obliged to make is exactly the same as is made by every clergyman who is ordained; and in this matter there is no difference between the declaration made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury): both are required to make this, for laymen, somewhat singular declaration, that they will use the Book of Common Prayer, and none other, in the celebration of the Sacraments. Now, I cannot help thinking that it is a mistake on the part of the University to impose on all its lay members a declaration which in their mouth is futile. In 1852, when I had the honour of being a Member of the Commission for Inquiry into the Constitution and Studies of the University of Oxford, I put my name to this statement in the Report of that Commission—
  "That the imposition of subscription in the manner in which it is now imposed in the University of Oxford habituates the mind to give a careless assent to truths which it has never considered, and naturally leads to sophistry in the interpretation of solemn obligations."
  I am quite aware that changes have taken place in the University since then, and that, in consequence of the recommendations of the eminent men with whom I was then associated, and of the further progress which was made by the Commission of which the most rev. Prelate was a Member, the subscription then required has been altered; that is, boys of the age of

  159
  twelve, if they enter the University at that ago, as Jeremy Bentham did, are not required any longer to subscribe; and Bachelors of Arts also are relieved. But the thing has been done, as good things are often done, in such a way that there still remains, to accomplish a very simple end, a most cumbrous machinery. It is desired that the government of the University should be kept in the hands of members of the Church of England; and in order to secure that object every layman who takes the degree of Master of Arts has not only to give his assent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but to the three Articles of the 36th Canon, which contain the very form of declaration required on entrance to holy orders. Now, I cannot help thinking that even at the present day, and after the changes which have been made, we might, if called upon by Her Majesty to inquire into the University of Oxford, still report in reference to these lay subscriptions that the manner in which the subscription is imposed
  "habituates the mind to give a careless assent to truths which it has never considered, and naturally leads to sophistry in the interpretation of solemn obligations.
  Not long since it was said with very considerable truth that there is a great difference between the obligation under which a clergyman lies and that under which a layman lies; and we have been reminded by high authority that free inquiry is for free inquirers. But if it appears that both clergy and laity have made exactly the same declaration, there must be some sort of sophistry—pardonable I grant—in the reasoning which makes a layman consider that this declaration is nothing at all except so far as it is binding on his friend the clergyman. Now, in my opinion, in all these solemn and sacred matters the more simply and distinctly we say what we mean the better. That was the impression which I endeavoured to convey on the subject of clerical obligations some time ago, and that is exactly my opinion with regard to these lay obligations. The noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) says that he considers this a matter of very slight importance. I confess that I cannot agree with him. When I was an undergraduate at Oxford, we had a great many declarations, and they were really very harassing for young men, especially where they had passed the earliest period of their youth, and were arriving at an age at which they could take the M.A. degree. In those
  160
  days there was a solemn promise to observe all the statutes of the University, and there was a solemn promise also to observe all the statutes of your own college, most of which had been enacted in Roman Catholic times and principally centred round the celebration of the mass, which had been abolished by Act of Parliament. Now, there grew up in those days a science of interpreting these promises, which I think was calculated to do a great deal of harm. Our time was worse than wasted in endeavouring to find out what honest interpretation we could put on the declarations which we were then required to make. My Lords, I am thankful that those declarations are gone for ever. They were a disgrace to the University, and I only regret that any shred or tatter of the same system should still remain, kept up by the authority of the University. The present form of declaration required from Masters of Arts does not, I am certain, express distinctly and straightforwardly and honestly that for which it is intended to bind the person who takes it. I agree entirely in what has been said—namely, that it is desirable that this great University, the whole greatness of which has ever arisen from its connection with the Church of England, and which has been the handmaid of the Church in its best days, should still continue its connection with the Church. I should deeply regret anything that should lead to a severance of that connection; but I trust that we live in times when both the Church and the University will face difficulties such as these, and that we shall no longer wish to maintain positions which are not capable of being maintained by sound argument. If it is desirable that laymen taking the M.A. degree should be members of the Church of England, let them say that they are in the fewest and plainest possible words; but if, on the contrary, it is thought that there may be some relaxation, and that as persons not members of the Church of England are admitted as students, so men eminent in science and learning may be enlisted as professors or teachers—if it is thought that that advantage may be gained without any danger of compromising the Church—then I do trust that the University itself will carefully consider how this may be best done, and what safeguards may be imposed, so as at the same time to prevent the connection between the University and the Church from being severed. I can conceive also that some of the petitioners,

  161
  being, as I assume them to be, attached to the Church of England, and anxious to maintain the connection of which I have spoken, may still think, that if some of those who differ from the Church were permanently connected with the University, not only by the associations of their youth, but also by retaining their privileges when they came to maturity, the result might be the softening of many prejudices which at present keep them far from us, and that both the University and the Church might thus become more truly the centre of the intellectual and religious life of England. It has been said that this matter ought to be left to the University itself; and that is also my opinion. All that I think desirable is that the University should know what are the opinions entertained from without on these subjects by persons not mixed up with the feelings and interests of a purely University life; but who, in the interest both of the University and of the nation at large, enunciate principles which may guide the University in taking into mature consideration this very serious and important subject.
  In reply to Lord BROUGHAM,
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONexplained, that a layman on taking his degree as Master of Arts in the University was required to give his assent to three Articles of the 36th Canon, the first of which related to the Royal Supremacy, and another to the Book of Common Prayer, with a declaration that he will use the form in the said Book prescribed and none other in public prayer and in the celebration of the sacraments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish briefly to explain to your Lordships the origin of the subscription, and to show how very little the existing rules apply to the great body of persons who in reality are affected by it. As to the opinion expressed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that it may be within the power of the University to alter the statute, I much doubt whether that power exists in the University independent of Parliament. Your Lordships will remember that subscription is now required from those who take the degree of Master of Arts. When a person has taken that degree, after twelve months he becomes a Regent Master. A Regent Master, by the statutes of the University of Oxford, is empowered to teach, and being empowered to teach he may teach divinity, he is a master of theology There being no limit to the
  162
  power of teaching consequent upon becoming a Regent Master, the person so qualified becomes subject to the operation of the 36th Canon, which requires that no man shall be suffered to teach, to catechize, or to be a lecturer upon divinity in either University unless he shall first have subscribed the three Articles following. The first Article is that acknowledging the King's supremacy. The second—
  "That the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said book pie-scribed, in public prayer, and administration of the sacraments and none other."
  And the third—
  "That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops, &c., and that be acknowledged all and every the Articles therein contained, being in number Nine-and-Thirty, beside the Ratification, to be agreeable to the Word of God."
  The spirit of the law was that no man should be permitted to teach unless he made a subscription to the declaration. But the great body of persons who desire to take the degree of Master of Arts do not intend to teach in the University; and as my noble Friend in presenting the Petition correctly said, the prayer of the Petition might still further be qualified by inserting, if it should be deemed right, that no man should be permitted to teach divinity in the University who had not subscribed these Articles. But the subscription at present is a bar which excludes from the Houses of Convocation a great number of persons because of their being Regent Masters, and consequently qualified to teach divinity. That is embodied in the statutes of the University of Oxford. I am sorry to say our library is not rich enough to possess a copy of those statutes, and I must therefore quote them at second-hand. The part to which I refer runs thus—
  "Quales Tutores scholaribus præficiendi sint.—Tutor vero scholares tutelæ et regimini suo commissos probis moribus imbuat, et in probatis autoribus instituat; et maximè in rudimentis re-ligionis et doctrinæ Articulis in synodo Londini, anno 1562, editis; ac pro virili suo disciplinæ in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ publice receptæ eos conformes prætabit."
  I would beg the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to observe that subscription to the Articles has been required upon those grounds. Your Lordships are aware that a Regent Master becomes a member of Convocation, which is the governing body of the University. Now, it is a great

  163
  question, which deserves full consideration whether power in the University should be intrusted to any persons who have not avowed themselves members of the Church of England. But this is a different ground from that on which subscription is at present required. My attention was singularly fixed upon this matter many years ago, when I matriculated at the University at the early age of fourteen. I was told by the Vice Chancellor, "You are too young to take the common oath of obedience to the statute of the University, but you are quite old enough to subscribe the Articles of Religion." Accordingly, as a boy of fourteen, I duly and faithfully subscribed the Articles of Religion; but not until the age of sixteen was I permitted to make a promise of obedience to the statutes of the University. That state of things no longer exists, but I mention it to show to your Lordships the gross anomalies that existed in the doctrine of subscription.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I do not wish to assert the proposition that the original reason for requiring Regent Masters to make subscription was to secure that the teachers of the University should be members of the Church of England; the question we have to consider is the effect of this rule upon the University. And the effect is this—that the governing body of the University are all professed members of the Church of England. My right rev. Brother dwelt upon the great advantages that the University would derive if relieved from this restraint by the great increase of learned men who might then hold professorships, but of which advantages the University was now deprived through the dreadful requirement that a Master of Arts should subscribe to the Articles of the Church of England. [The BISHOP of LONDON dissented.] My right rev. Brother says he did not use that argument, but I think the House, like myself, must have understood him to say that we lost many instructors whom we might obtain, but who were excluded by the requirement.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I said I thought it very desirable that the government of the University should be maintained in the hands of members of the Church of England; but that if the University could find any way of adding other eminent men to the body of teachers who were not members of the Church of Eng-and, I should be very glad.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: That is pre-
  164
  cisely what I said. Teachers not belonging to the Church of England to be admitted would be a gain to the University. But that is done already, and no professor need sign the Articles. The governing body of the University is confined to members of the Church of England, as my right rev. Brother desires, and the teaching in the University is set free, as he also desires. Then, having what he wishes, why alter the present arrangement? I know at least one distinguished man—the Professor of Chemistry—who has taught for years in the University without being called upon to subscribe. But I think that nothing should be done to alter the fundamental principle that the government of the University should be retained in the hands of members of the Church of England. My right rev. Brother pointed out what at first seemed to be an absurdity in connection with the signature of the three Articles—but the absurdity was only in appearance, because the signature to those three Articles is accompanied by a declaration that it is to apply to persons who are to be instituted to any living or gift with power of teaching in the Church of England; and then follows the declaration that those persons will not administer the Sacraments except in the form prescribed. It is only by straining the meaning of the words that they can be made to apply to every Master of Arts. My right rev. Brother said there was nothing in the prayer of the Petition to affect the higher degrees of divinity at the Universities. But, if the prayer is granted, there certainly will be nothing to prevent a man from rising to the highest degree in divinity which the University allows, without even professing to hold the doctrines of the Church of England. As to the disinclination to make this subscription, I may be allowed to mention, that since this subject was last under discussion, a Bill which was to affect the whole question came before the House of Commons, and a Petition got up by the undergraduates of Oxford, and signed by 1,030 out of about 1,300, was presented to that House, praying that no alteration might be made in the present law of subscription. If you abolish subscription in these cases, the next proposition will be to dispense with it in the case of the colleges, and then of all members of the Church. That is what is aimed at. This is the beginning of what is considered by those who urge the necessity of these changes, the deliverance of the

  165
  human mind from the trammels of submission to external truth as taught by authority, and to be believed because it is so taught. The question is whether in a Church so free as ours you can maintain anything like a tradition of dogmatic truth if you do away with this last provision, that those who undertake great responsibilities should believe the teaching which the Church has accepted as the Word of God.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that the 106 persons who signed his Petition were either Fellows or Students of Christ Church.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that Mr. Bouverie's Bill, against which the Petition to which the right rev. Prelate had referred was directed, dealt with the admission to fellowships—a subject which was expressly excluded from this Petition.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONstated, that in addition to the Petition mentioned by the right rev. Prelate as having been got up by the undergraduates in the course of a fortnight, 2,000 non-resident members of Convocation expressed their concurrence with the views therein contained.
  Petition to lie on the table.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthen moved, That the said Petition be printed.
  Objected to; and, after short Debate, the said Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Afterwards,
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDgave notice, that if he were in his place on Monday, he would move, and if not present he would get some noble Friend to move, on that evening, that the Petition presented to-night by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs be printed and circulated.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.