Sitting of 12 May 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Holyheae Harbour, Debate resumed—Select Committed appointed (List of the Committee).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Weights and Measures *.
First Reading—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment* [Bill 119].
Second Reading— Savings Banks Acts Amendment [Sir Henry Willoughby] * [Bill 80]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [Bill 109].
Referred to Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation, as to Orders 4 & 5 *.
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * [Bill 91], and passed; Security from Violence [Bill 111], and passed.

THE CASE OF FLOGGING ON BOARD THE "MAJESTIC."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to an article which appeared in the Liverpool Mercury newspaper, respecting the flogging of one of the crew of Her Majesty's ship Majestic; whether the particulars therein stated are correct; whether the punishment was inflicted in the presence of a surgeon; and if he will lay a Copy of the Proceedings of the Court Martial before the House?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: My attention, Sir, has been called to the vile and wicked libel inserted in the Liverpool Mercury, affecting, or endeavouring to affect, the character of one of the most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's navy, Captain Inglefield. The libel is too loathsome to repeat in extenso to this House; but I must give the substance of it. It is stated that a man was allowed by Captain Inglefield to be flogged until he fainted, that the captain smiled at his sufferings, and that after the punishment he was placed in the cockpit, where the darkness and the foul air added to his sufferings. It is needless for me to make to the House any statement as to the character of Captain Inglefield. He is an officer well known for his services and his bravery. He has been three times in search of Sir John Franklin to the North Pole, and he is also known to be one of the most humane and kind-hearted officers in the navy. But the House will be glad to hear what was the feeling of those who had the honour, and who have still the honour, of serving under this officer on this occasion. When the ship's company of the Majestic read this malicious libel in the Liverpool Mercury, they came aft on the quarter-deck to their captain, and asked permission to be allowed to contradict the calumny. They instructed the petty officers of the ship to prepare a letter, and the petty officers wrote to the Liverpool Mercury in the name of their fellow-seamen. I must, at the same time, state that the publication of this letter was an irregularity which has been very properly blamed by the Admiralty, because we permit no correspondence of any kind with newspapers. But the provocation was so great, and the ship's company was so anxious and eager that this vile calumny should be contradicted, that they pressed Captain Inglefield, and he allowed the letter to be published. As the letter has

1581
been published, perhaps the House will give me leave to read it, in order to show what the crew of the Majestic feel on the subject—
"Gentlemen,—With surprise and indignation we read in your columns of to-day a version of the punishment on board Her Majesty's steamship Majestic, on the 27th instant, of a man for mutinous conduct; and we, on behalf of the ship's company, beg to state it to be untrue. Instead of the order for the boatswain and his mates to punish the man being given in a stern manner, it was more one of regret. It was also stated that the captain was seen to smile during the punishment, instead of which it was particularly noticed by us that he scarcely took his eyes from the deck during the whole time; the man also did not faint, but appeared quite the contrary. It is customary for men sentenced to any term of imprisonment to be placed under a sentry's charge in the fore cockpit, to prevent desertion, which place is well ventilated, and large lamps burning day and night make it nearly as light as on the upper deck in daytime; also, most of the officers' cabins are on the same deck. We must also remark that the offence, instead of being of a trilling nature, was one of a very gross nature, particularly on two occasions to the commanding officer, an act which no true British tars are capable of. The offences are always committed by those who are pests to society both ashore and afloat. This man had been for former offences sentenced to cells on board and gaol ashore, but nothing would reclaim him. It is with a spontaneous feeling that we write you these facts to clear our captain of the imputation, whom we all honour for his general kindness combined with strict discipline—a fact which is proved by many of us volunteering to remain here year after year when the ship is paid down, when we could go to other ships; many of us having been here several years without committing any breach of discipline. It should also be remembered that none have the power to mitigate the sentence of a court martial but the Admiralty. Hoping you will insert this in your next copies, we bog to remain, gentlemen, yours, &c."
The letter is signed by thirty-five petty officers of the Majestic. And now I have only further to state that Captain Inglefield was carrying out the sentence of a court martial, by order of the Admiralty, upon a man for gross insubordination in striking his superior officer while on duty, and for gross insolence. I trust and believe that the House will join with me in a feeling of indignation that any newspaper could think fit to publish so grievous and so gross a libel upon a distinguished officer, without having had any proof whatever, save an anonymous letter. I have only further to add, that the man who wrote the letter wrote it under another man's name, forged that name, confessed his guilt, and that his case is under judicial investigation. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have to state that there was, agreeably with the regulations of the service, a surgeon
1582
present, and that it is contrary to custom, and not in accordance with the Naval Discipline Act, to give the Minutes of any court martial until a certain period—never less than three months—after it has delivered judgment.

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that by the Revised Code it was provided that no School should be entitled to receive Capitation Grants unless it was under a Master who was duly certificated and duly paid; and it was defined by the Code that a Master should be considered as duly paid if he had a salary equal to three times the amount of the Augmentation Grant to which he would have been entitled under the old Code. There was also a provision that he had a first charge upon the Capitation Grant to the amount of that Augmentation Grant; and there was a further provision in the Code that the Pupil Teachers should have a second charge upon the Capitation Grant. It was very important that Managers and Masters of Schools should know exactly how these articles were construed; therefore, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in the opinion of the Committee of Council on Education, the Managers of a School who have made an agreement with the Master to pay him a salary equal to three times the amount of his Augmentation Grant, as prescribed by Article 51 (b) of the Code of 1862, are bound to make provision for that salary out of private subscriptions, or whether they will satisfy the requirements of the Code by providing for two-thirds of it by private subscriptions, and trusting for the other third to the Capitation Grant; whether, in the event of the Capitation Grant proving insufficient to meet the Master's charge to the extent of one-third of his salary, the Committee of Council will make good the deficiency; and whether they will consider the School in which such a deficiency has been made good still entitled to receive Annual Grants; and whether the rules which apply in these respects to the case of Masters apply also, and in like manner, to the case of Pupil Teachers?
  MR. LOWEsaid, in reply, that the first Question of the hon. Baronet was, whether, supposing the managers of a school agreed with a master to pay him a

  1583
  certain salary, and provided two-thirds of that salary, leaving him to receive the other one-third from a Capitation Grant— which grant might never be made at all—that arrangement would be a sufficient compliance with the contract under the regulations of the Privy Council. His answer was that it would not. It was not a compliance with an absolute contract to refer the person with whom it was made to a conditional arrangement such as that on which the Capitation Grant depended. The hon. Baronet's second Question was, whether in the event of the Capitation Grant proving insufficient to meet the master's charge to the extent of one-third of his salary, the Committee of Council would make good the deficiency. His reply was that they would not. They did not undertake, and never had undertaken, to do so. The third Question was, whether the rules which applied in these respects to the case of certificated masters, applied also and in like manner to the case of pupil teachers. His reply was in the negative. In the case of certificated masters the Committee of Council only said, that in respect of the examination and attendance of the children, a certain charge on the grant might be received. In the case of pupil teachers, the Committee undertook that the teacher should have a second charge, but with this remarkable difference, that in the event of the amount being insufficient, the Committee would make up the difference out of their own funds. This Minute had been drawn up to protect teachers against masters; but in certain quarters an opinion seemed to have grown up that it might be possible by collusion, to pay first the master, and next the teacher, and so oblige the Privy Council to make up any difference which might exist between the funds in hand and the amount required for those payments. He hoped no attempt of that kind would prove successful.

BRIGANDAGE IN ITALY.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSY: I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs, that I should ask him a question to day, and he requested me to ask it of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It is, Whether a certain despatch received from Mr. Odo Russell, of which mention was made the other evening, and in which it is alleged Mr. Odo Russell contradicts a statement made in another despatch which has been laid on the table,
1584
—whether that despatch so referred to has been communicated to the French Government? Perhaps I may be allowed to state, that from my own personal knowledge and what I have heard of Mr. Odo Russell, I believe him to be not only an able diplomatist, but a gentleman of the highest honour.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I really cannot see that any object can be served by bringing into discussion what Mr. Odo Russell said and what General Montebello said, except it is with a view of establishing bad relations between Mr. Odo Russell and the French officers at Rome. Mr. Odo Russell merely stated what he had heard —namely, that certain brigands, 260 in number, had found their way from Rome to the Neapolitan territory, clothed in French uniforms—in blue coats and red trousers, such as are worn by the French troops—for the purpose of deceiving the Italian patrols on the frontiers. He communicated what he heard to General Montebello, and General Montebello denied the fact. Mr. Russell spoke from information which he had received, and General Montebello spoke from information which had been communicated to him. The only important part of the statement was, that 260 men had actually crossed from Rome into the Neapolitan territory. As to their having French uniforms, that is no reflection on the French authorities. It was not alleged that those uniforms had been given to those men by the French authorities. On the contrary, Mr. Russell stated, in his despatch of the 14th of January, that he had communicated to General Montebello what he had been told the practice which prevailed was—namely, that cast-off uniforms were bought by the committee of the Jews in the Ghetto; that these old clothes were sent to certain convents on the frontiers of Rome; that the brigands went there one by one; that arms had been sent to these convents concealed in herring casks; and that, being armed and equipped, the brigands were sent on from these convents. In his despatch Mr. Odo Russell states that General Montebello said that might have been the case previously, but he had taken steps to prevent anything of the kind from occurring in future. The General gave his word of honour that no armed man could pass from the Roman territory to the Neapolitan territory from that time. If anything of the kind has passed since—and I am afraid it has—it only shows that the agents whom General

1585
Montebello has employed have not been as watchful as he had expected they would be. But this I say, that at the present time Rome being governed by a French garrison, and the Pope being only a puppet in their hands, it rests with the French garrison to prevent these transactions, to prevent the committee which I believe is sitting—if I am asked on what authority I make that statement, I can only say that, from information, I believe it—to prevent that committee from continuing the organized system of sending bands, either armed before they set out, or armed after they get there, to commit outrages in the Italian territory. We have been told—on information which I hope is not correct—that a great expedition is contemplated to take place during this month of May.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord a Question which naturally arises from the statement which he has just made to the House, and in which he has not replied to the Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for the King's County in reference to something that was said here a few nights ago by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the authority of a despatch which was not on the table. As I understand it, the rule is, that when a Minister quotes a despatch, that document is to be laid on the table of the House. It now appears the noble Lord has quoted from further despatches, and on the information he has received he has not hesitated to make a most serious charge against the Sovereign of a country with which this country is in friendly relations. I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether he is prepared to lay the despatch on the table?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is altogether a new doctrine to me to be told that a Minister, making a statement from information which has come to his knowledge, is bound to lay on the table of the House the document from which that information is derived. I admit no such principle. It is perfectly true that when a Minister reads a paper he is bound to lay it on the table. I made no charge against the Roman Government except that charge which, unfortunately, cannot be denied—that the authority of the Pope is null, that it is overridden by 20,000 French troops. In that state of things, whether the fault rests with the French Government or the Roman Government—I believe it rests with both—I say both are chargeable with the responsibility of the acts committed by
1586
bands sallying forth from Rome to commit outrages in the Neapolitan territory.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I do not wish to enter into any argument with the noble Lord, but I beg to repeat a Question which he has not answered. Will the noble Lord lay on the table the despatch from which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary made his statement?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I will look into the despatch and see if there is anything in it that should prevent us from laying it on the table.

IONIAN ISLANDS—REMOVAL OF JUDGES.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rose to move an Address for Copy of Memorials presented by Sir George Marcoras and Sir Typaldo Xydras on the 16th day of September 1862 to his Excellency Major General Sir Henry Storks, Her Majesty's Lord High Commissioner in the Ionian Islands, and Copies or Extracts of Correspondence relating thereto. He should think it a grievous thing if the Secretary of State should refuse to accede to a Motion for placing on the table the Memorials of those two gentlemen. He believed that the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office fancied that there was something in the Return of which he ought to be afraid, and had therefore refused to produce it. It would soon be seen whether that was the case. By the constitution of the Ionian Islands, as the House was probably aware, the judicial and administrative officers went out of office every five years. These two gentlemen, for whose Memorials he was about to move, went out in their turn in the year 1862; but though they had served England for a period of about forty or fifty years with the utmost ability and loyalty, were not re-appointed, without a single precedent being shown or reason given for so unusual a course on the part of the Executive. They were Judges and Members of the Supreme Council, and throughout all their lives they had acted with honour and honesty to the English Government. The course which had been taken towards them was not only unjust to them, but it was impolitic as regarded England. He was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, because once on a time the right hon. Gentleman made an excursion to Barataria. Sancho Panza did the same thing once, but he proved himself

  1587
  a clever administrator, and there he (Mr. Roebuck) would stop. These two gentlemen, whose names he found some difficulty in pronouncing—one of them, he believed, was called Sir George Marcoras and the other Sir Typaldo Xydras—had been passed over, as he had said, without any notice and without any cause. They had therefore presented Memorials to the Lord High Commissioner complaining of the way in which they had been treated. He had the Memorial of one of them in his hand, but, unfortunately, it was not in the hands of all hon. Members. If it had been, he would have had no difficulty in the matter, for the case was so plain that even the ingenuity of the Under Secretary for the Colonies would have been at a loss to answer it. Sir George Marcoras began public life in Cephalonia in 1826, where he attracted the attention of Sir Charles Napier, at whose request he took part in public life, and acquitted himself entirely to the satisfaction of that great man. As time went on, he was employed by various Lord High Commissioners, and in every case gave satisfaction. At length he arrived at the summit of his profession, and became Member of the Supreme Council of Corfu, and one of the Judges of the land. He was not complaining of the illegality of the manner in which these two gentlemen had been treated. James II., when he dismissed the Judges who gave judgment in favour of the seven bishops, did what he had a perfect right to do by law—but he lost his throne in consequence. The two gentlemen to whom he referred, as he had before stated, had passed about forty or fifty years in the service of the British Crown, and had ever shown themselves loyal and honourable. Notwithstanding the valuable services they had thus rendered, at the end of the five years, when, according to the constitution of the islands, all the judicial functionaries vacated their offices, they were suddenly passed over by Sir Henry Storks, and were not re-appointed to the offices which they had held for so long a time in a manner honourable to themselves and serviceable to this country. Sir Henry Storks, who had thus acted, was a rude, ill-conditioned soldier. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen had better not drive him a great deal further, or things might be stated which would prove to the letter what he had said. The Seven Ionian Islands had been given to England by the Treaty of 1815, to hold as a sort of deposit for the protection of Europe. It was thought
  1588
  necessary that England should hold them, but it was also requested that England should govern them with justice and honour. To do that, one thing was necessary. We might grant to a people powers which they might not be capable of exercising, but there were things connected with good government which did not belong to the people, but to the Government. We gave them a constitution—and there we were wrong; but we had not dealt fairly by them in the administration of justice—and there we were wrong again. The inhabitants of those islands could not govern themselves as an independent constitutional country; but it behoved England to govern them as England ought to govern her dependencies. England had not done that. The noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office had indulged in dark insinuations concerning these gentlemen, but he (Mr. Roebuck) asserted that there was nothing against their character; and if anybody said there was, he challenged them to come forward and prove their charge. They had passed their long lives in honour and in doing service to England, and the treatment they had received was a bad return to make to them. The indepencence of the Judges was of the essence of good government. He did not confine himself to constitutional Governments, but wherever civilized men had banded themselves together for the purposes of government, the independence of the Judges had been found to be imperatively necessary. These two gentlemen were made Judges on the supposition that at the end of five years they might be dismissed, but no instance could be cited of a Judge of the Supreme Court being dismissed on his quinquennium, as it was called. That was what he wanted to be answered. It was true that four Judges of inferior courts had been dismissed by Sir Thomas Maitland, but the Colonial Secretary of the day thought that so great a breach of good government that he desired their immediate restoration. They were restored accordingly; one of them retained his office until death, another retired from old age, and the other two were still actually in service. [An hon. MEMBER: They must be old now.] The same Lord High Commissioner dismissed a member of the Supreme Council, because he kept a mistress, following the example set him by the Lord High Commissioner himself, but the Colonial Secretary ordered his immediate restoration. The man was restored, but unfortunately he had died from vexation

  1589
  in the mean time. That was the sort of thing which happened in Barataria, but the place was so small that the great eye of England passed over them. We might send a great man out there, and he might "play fantastic tricks before high Heaven," but the world did not note them. And yet men lived there, died there, were miserable there, and were ill-governed by the Colonial Office. He wanted a distinct answer to the question, Why had these two gentlemen been passed over? Let not the Under Secretary indulge in dark insinuation against these gentlemen. They had not mingled with politics; they had done their duty simply as Judges. He remarked the hon. Gentleman's manner as he said this, but he defied him or anybody else to prove that they had mixed in politics, or that they had lent themselves to the enemies of England. Some people, he knew, had indulged in the hope that the Ionian Islands might be handed over to Greece; but he warned the Goverment, that though they could withdraw from the protectorate, they had no power to hand the islands over to Greece. They had power to dishonour England by ill-governing the Colonies, but they could do nothing to alter the fate of a Colony by attaching her to any other Power. He wanted to know why the Memorials of those gentlemen, who considered themselves ill-used by Sir Henry Storks and the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office, were not laid on the table of the House. Their Memorials were most proper in form, most admirable in the terms in which they were drawn up. No objection could be made to them on that head. Why, then, should not those Memorials be produced, so that the Members of that House and the world generally might be able to form some opinion as to the reasons for their dismissal? The noble Duke who was at the head of the Colonial Department of Her Majesty believed, no doubt, that his judgment was infallible. He (Mr. Roebuck) should think that experience would have taught the noble Duke the errors of his ways. Experience, it was said, makes fools wise; he did not think so—it makes wise men wiser, but fools are ever what they have been. No application to that noble Duke would induce him either to re-consider his judgment or to give any reason for it. Perhaps in that he was wise. But those gentlemen, who were English subjects, wanted to know why they were thus ill-treated because there happened to be a man over them who mistook obstinacy for firmness,
  1590
  and who believed that what he had once decided should for them at least be irrevocable. In this country, unfortunately, great men were picked up by chance. "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." What was the case in that particular instance with the noble Duke? One thing, however, he was sure of, that the great name of England could be left with safety in charge of the House of Commons, which would not see that great name sullied by any act of injustice, no matter how weak or how small the person upon whom it was inflicted. They were in that House to overlook all those great men, and to do justice between the Queen and her dependencies. He would now appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who had acted a certain part in those islands, and who had done a great deal, as he had said, to make the Supreme Council independent, and he would ask how their independence could be maintained if, upon mere caprice and without reason given, two of its Judges should be thus dismissed. He would state one fact more. They were two English Judges in that court, and neither they nor any other persons who by the Constitution of the country ought to have been consulted were consulted; and the Judges who were put aside discovered their suppression first from the Gazette, and not from any information that was communicated to them. In short, they had made a breach in the independence of the judicial bench, and they had done what they could to make the Ionian people feel that English Government was a curse, not a blessing. He begged to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before the House, Copy of Memorials presented by Sir George Marcoras and Sir Typaldo Xydras, on the 16th day of September 1862, to His Excellency Major General Sir Henry Storks, Her Majesty's Lord High Commissioner in the Ionian Islands."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, there would be no difficulty about the production of the papers moved for; the Memorials would be at once laid upon the table, and also the correspondence to which the Memorials had given rise. They had been already moved for in another place, and they would be laid before both Houses without delay. But though the Motion was, in fact, unopposed, he could not feel himself exonerated from the duty of saying a few words, by way of comment, on the observations of the hon. and learned Gentle-

  1591
  man. He did not intend, however, to subject his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office to the indignity of defending him from the aspersions thrown upon him in language not usually heard in that House. If any reasons had been given which would justify the use of terms very unusual from one Gentleman to another, and still more unusual when the person assailed was absent, it might have been necessary for him to go into the matter. But the world would, of course, perceive that the sole reason which the hon. and learned Gentleman had for applying those epithets to his noble Friend was, that the noble Duke chose to differ in opinion from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had dealt very largely in what might be called righteous indignation on this subject. Righteous indignation was a very good thing, but in some minds it was apt to create the food upon which it lived, and first to imagine the unrighteousness and then give vent to the indignation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had disposed of this case more suo. He formed a syllogism which he presented to the House in this wise:—Any Government, in any part of the world which ever removed a Judge was deserving of condemnation: the Government of the Ionian Islands had removed a Judge; therefore, that Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies were deserving of the condemnation of the House. But the matter, though in one sense simple, was not simple in the sense in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken. It required to be dealt with, not upon broad and sweeping principles, but with a knowledge of the constitution and the state of affairs in the country where it had taken place. That the case was to be judged solely by the laws and constitution of the Ionian Islands, and not by the laws and constitution of Great Britain, was a consideration which lay at the very root of the matter. His hon. and learned Friend had not gone so far as absolutely to deny the written law of the Ionian Islands as it might be found in the library of the House, but he made very light of it. Now, there could be no doubt that the absolute irremovability of the Judges by the Executive was a principle unknown to the laws, constitution, and practices of the Ionian Islands. The people of these islands had ideas different from ours. They felt, and had reason to know by experience, that the principal danger to the independence of their Judges arose not from the Executive,
  1592
  but from other quarters. There were dangers from the popular Assembly, on which the Judges were as much dependent as on the Executive, their salaries being subject to the revision of that body. There were dangers from the long possession of office by gentlemen themselves, and by their relations and adherents. All these things constituted, in the Ionian Islands, the real danger to the independence of the Bench; and if there was not always an actual danger, there was often a suspicion of danger in the minds of the community. The words of the Charter of 1817 plainly and clearly laid it down that all appointments of every kind should terminate every five years, with the termination of the Parliament, and the Judges were expressly included, for they were coupled in the same sentence with the Ministerial officers of other departments. But then it was said that that provision was a mere dead letter—an antiquated piece of law which it was monstrous to revive. So far from that, it was a real living portion of the Ionian Constitution, one which the Ionians themselves had kept in existence within their charter until that day, and one which had been frequently acted upon by the Senate, with the approbation of the Lord High Commissioner. In 1838, Sir H. Douglas the Lord High Commissioner of the day, had brought that particular provision of the charter under the notice of the Home Government, but it was thought, that taking into account the peculiar position of the Ionian Islands, it was not desirable that it should undergo alteration. Again, in 1842, Mr. Stuart Mackenzie submitted a Bill to the Ionian Assembly with the view of converting the commissions of the Judges into commissions for life; but that Bill had met with so violent an opposition that the Lord High Commissioner was obliged to withdraw it, while his conduct in proposing it had been censured by the Secretary of State, Lord Derby. In 1848, he might add, when the most sweeping changes were made in the Constitution of the Ionian Islands, none took place in respect to the provision in question. It was evident that all this was not the result of accident, but was in accordance with the wishes of the Ionian people. As to the practice, it was true that cases of non-re-appointment of members of the Supreme Court at the end of five years had been rare; still such cases had existed, and there was one which was exactly parallel to the present. He could

  1593
  not admit the existence of any difference in principle between the case of members of the Supreme Council and the other Judges in the Ionian Islands. In the highest judicial offices of all it was evident that the changes could be few, in consequence of the small-ness of their number—two only—and of the small number of men capable of filling them; but in respect to other judgeships changes had been frequent. In 1852 there were four cases of non-re-appointment and substitution; in 1850 there were eleven. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Those were removals.] Those cases were not removals, but non-re-appointments and substitutions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look to the list furnished by Sir Henry Ward to the Duke of Newcastle some years since, and published in the Parliamentary papers, he would find that Sir H. Ward distinguished between the numerous cases of removal to another post, and the cases of non-re-appointment and substitution of another Judge. The Judges of whom he spoke were not Judges of petty courts of no consequence in the islands, but Judges who transacted all the ordinary judicial business of the islands. In 1834 Lord Nugent, then Lord High Commissioner, reported to the Secretary of State, Mr. Spring Rice, that it was thought advisable by the Senate to leave out the names of two Judges of the Supreme Council of Justice, and to appoint two other gentlemen in their place, and that course was taken, not on account of any charges or insinuations of judicial malversation, but for reasons of public policy which seemed sufficient to the body who had the right and the power of judging on the question—the Senate of the Ionian Islands. Their decision was approved by the Lord High Commissioner and the Secretary of State. The question of the legality of such a step was not allowed to sleep, and having been referred by the Secretary of State to the Law Officers of the Crown, Sir John Dodson and the late Lord Campbell, they pronounced the course pursued to be perfectly legal and constitutional. Such as he had described being the law and practice of the constitution, the Senate had deemed it right to act as they had done in the present instance. There was no doubt that they were acting within both the letter and the spirit of the constitution when, in 1862, upon the formation of a new government, they came to a determination that two members of the Supreme Council should be allowed to retire on their pensions. That course was approved by the
  1594
  Lord High Commissioner, and sanctioned by the Home Government. But it was contended that the fact, that under the pension law annual contributions were made from the salaries of the Judges was in itself a proof that the provision of the constitution to which he referred was meant to be set aside; but that law, which laid down that there should be a pension at the end of twelve years, and that at the end of three years more, the close of a quinquennium, it should be increased, and be further increased at the end of twenty and twenty-five years, on the very face of it took into account the provision affecting the tenure of office. It was, however, urged, that if the two gentlemen to whom the Motion related had been allowed to remain in office ten months longer, they would have been entitled to a higher rate of pension, of which it was a hardship to deprive them. Now, while he was happy to say that those gentlemen, who had served the Ionian Islands long and well and against whose characters he made no charge, were in the enjoyment of the pensions which they had earned, and which, judged by the standard in the Ionian Islands, were of very large amount, be thought that to allow them to remain a certain time longer in office in order to entitle them to an increase of pension would be to set a very bad precedent. And how, let him ask, had the action of the Senate and the Lord High Commissioner in the matter been received in the Ionian Islands? In this country it had been received with severe criticism in a very limited quarter, and had called forth the righteous indignation of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but in the islands it had been received with universal satisfaction by all, save, as was but natural, by the persons concerned and their friends. The newspapers there had not a word to say against the proceedings; while the two Judges themselves had never appealed to public opinion to pronounce in their favour through their own press—a press which for years past had turned liberty into licence, and which always rejoiced when an opportunity offered of finding fault.
  Strictly speaking, he had said enough to satisfy the House that there was no sufficient reason for its interference in the matter; but surprise might, perhaps, he felt that the principle of the irremovability of the Judges, except for great and proved judicial misconduct, to which so much value was attached in this country, had been received with so little favour in the

  1595
  Ionian Islands. If hon. Gentlemen reflected a little upon the nature of the constitution of those islands, their surprise would be diminished. If the Judges were to be independent, they must be independent not only of the Executive but also of the Legislature. At present they were entirely dependent for their salaries upon the vote of the popular Assembly, which revised them every two years, without the concurrence of the other House of Parliament. It had been the opinion of every Lord High Commissioner, including Sir H. Storks himself, as would be seen from the papers when they were produced, and of every Secretary of State who had considered the subject, that the two changes must go together; and that if the Judges were to be made absolutely independent of the Executive power, it was absolutely necessary that they should be made equally independent of the popular Assembly. It was that consideration which made the Ionians object to the alteration of the existing system. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, and he challenged contradiction, that those two Judges had been absolutely unconnected with politics. No assertion could be more entirely opposed to the real facts of the case. On the contrary, these gentlemen had, indirectly at least, through a host of relations and dependents filling every department in the State and having seats in the Legislative Assemby, been notoriously, closely, and intimately connected with politics in the Ionian Islands. Until of late years, the Government of the protectorate was carried on by a party very much resembling that which was known by the name of the "family compact" in Canada. The Government was carried on through a small party who were called the friends of the protectorate, and, as its friends, had at their disposal all the good things of the Ionian world. The great changes which took place in 1848, in many respects imperfect and unsatisfactory as they were, struck a blow at this system, and the party to which he was referring—he said nothing against the private character of any of its members—including these gentlemen, had ever since been, more or less openly or covertly, the enemies of the existing system, He did not find fault with any one, either English or Ionian, who desired to remedy the evils which existed under the constitution by entering upon a constitutional course, and substituting realities for what were, in many respects, only mischievous
  1596
  semblances; but the party to which he referred only wished to alter the existing state of things by re-action and retrogression. That had been, to a great extent, the action of a party to a great degree existing within the Government itself; so that the Government constantly found that the real centre and source of opposition to its policy arose from the heart of its own ranks. Sir Henry Storks, of whom the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken in a way in which he was ashamed to hear, had, from the first, set his face against this system. He had governed the Ionian Islands in a fair, manly, and upright spirit, and had done his best to free England and the protectorate from every suspicion of underhanded manœuvring. He had established a system of competitive examination for entrance to appointments, which had effected a complete administrative revolution. He had put an end to all interference with the elections, had thrown himself upon public opinion, and had endeavoured to show that he was governing the Ionians in their own interests, and through legal, constitutional, and generous methods. Last year it became necessary for him to make up his mind whether he should go on in the same good course, and crown the work which he had undertaken, or whether he should shrink from a task which was certain to subject him to great obloquy, and to lead to his being vigorously attacked by those who had an insufficient knowledge of the subject in this country. It became the duty of the Senate, in conjunction with Sir Henry Storks, to remodel the Government of the Ionian Islands. The long, almost unprecedented tenure of office by these gentlemen—considering how notorious was their indirect connection with political pacts—considering that in the public departments the habit had long prevailed of filling up all the offices with the relations, friends, and dependents of these three gentlemen; that the inevitable tendency of such a state of things was to excite suspicions, whether well founded or not, in the minds of the public—considering that the party in question were undermining the constitution they pretended to respect, and paving the way for something in the nature of a coup d'état— and considering, further, that this opportunity, occurring at the end of every five years, was one provided by the constitution itself to carry out the changes required by public policy, and not necessarily as a punishment for judicial corruption or mal-

  1597
  versation, the Senate and Sir Henry Storks made up their minds to allow these three gentlemen to retire, and they appointed in their stead three of the best men whom it was possible to select. The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, thought it would require very strong grounds to justify interference on their part with the Ionian Executive, especially as the Senate and the Lord High Commissioner had been acting within the spirit of the constitution. And, for his own part, he conscientiously believed, that if Sir Henry Storks—who had been handled so roughly by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but whose character, he was convinced, had suffered no stain—were destined to be the last Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands, his firmness, uprightness, fair and honest dealing, and his sincere wish to promote the real interests of the Republic, would do credit to the protecting Power which appointed and which maintained him.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he was perfectly aware that it would be improper for any one to allow himself to be influenced by private friendship in the consideration of a matter that related to the performance of a public duty; but as the discussion had taken place in the absence of the individual whose conduct had been impugned, he should not he doing justice to his own feelings, in reference to the Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands, if he did not express his opinion, founded on an, intimate knowledge of the character of Sir Henry Storks, that he was the last man likely to be guilty of an unconstitutional or arbitrary act. While holding the position of Secretary of State for War he (General Peel) was brought into constant and confidential communication with that officer, who had been appointed Secretary for Military Correspondence by his predecessor in office; and such was his opinion of his zeal and ability, that when applied to by his right hon. Friend (Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton), he could not avoid expressing his opinion that he was eminently qualified to fill the high position then about to be bestowed upon him. There was no opportunity of judging at the War Office of the politics of any gentleman, because they all performed their duties without reference to politics; but his private knowledge of Sir Henry Storks enabled him to say that they did not agree in political opinions. He believed the gallant officer belonged to the
  1598
  more "advanced" class of politicians—but what that meant he was sure he did not know. His right hon. Friend was entitled to credit for having appointed him to fill the office of Lord High Commissioner, on account of his personal qualifications, and not from any political or private reason. Since Sir Henry Storks left this country he had naturally paid great attention to his Government, and he was bound to say that no man, placed in a most difficult position, had ever performed his duties with greater advantage to the public or greater credit to himself. It was perfectly notorious that to govern the Ionians was an arduous task, for part of the population was always dissatisfied. They were described as two parties—one in and the other out of office; the one that was out of office being always opposed to the Government, though that was by no means exclusively an Ionian peculiarity. The difficulties of the Lord High Commissioner's position, however, were greatly increased by the course which this country had taken. After the celebrated despatch by Earl Russell on the 27th of October 1860, in which he laid down that people were the best judges in their own affairs, and that Her Majesty's Government turned their eyes with pleasure to the gratifying prospect of a people building up the edifice of their liberties and consolidating the work of their independence amid the sympathies and good wishes of Europe, how could they be surprised that the Ionians should feel anxious to gratify the noble Lord with a similar spectacle? He, for one, did not find fault with them, but at the same time hon. Members should recollect the position of the Lord High Commissioner. So long as the Protectorate endured, it was clearly the duty of the Lord High Commissioner to maintain the authority of the Government which he represented, in spite of the anomalous position in which that protecting Power was placed by the declarations of its own Foreign Secretary. Could any reasonable man, under these circumstances, say it was possible to draw any comparison between the case of the Ionian Islands and this country, or to lay down a rule which would be applicable to both? No one who read the constitution of the Ionian Islands could say that the step which had been taken in the case of these three gentlemen was illegal. He was not going to defend the motives either of the Senate or of Sir Henry Storks, for he did not know what they were. He only asked hon. Members

  1599
  to believe from him that Sir Henry Storks was the last man who would be guilty of an unconstitutional, illegal, or even of a harsh act. If, moreover, Sir Henry Storks, before making other appointments, had submitted his intentions to the Home Government, and had received their approval, clearly the responsibility rested no longer upon him, but upon Her Majesty's Ministers.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he agreed with every word which had fallen from his right hon. and gallant Friend regarding the talent and capacity of Sir Henry Storks. It was quite right that in doubtful cases a witness to character should be called, and a better witness to character than his right hon. and gallant Friend could not be found in the House. But he thought the matter ought not to be looked at solely as one affecting the Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands personally. He wanted to ascertain for what reason something, which on the face of it looked like a very serious wrong, had been inflicted upon two gentlemen who for all the House knew, were totally guiltless of misconduct. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies occupied by far the greater part of his speech in proving, what nobody had attempted to deny, that the removal of these gentlemen had been legal. His hon. and learned Friend below the gangway (Mr. Roebuck) had not said a word to show that the step was illegal. No doubt, according to the constitution of the Ionian Islands, all civil offices without exception were voidable after a term of five years, and the re appointment of the officials after the expiration of that period was optional with the Government. But hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to contend, that because an Act did not transgress the letter of the law, no objection could be taken to it in a constitutional point of view. He would put an analogous case. In this country those who were called the permanent civil servants of the Crown held their offices absolutely at the pleasure of the political heads of the department, and there was nothing, as far as the law was concerned, to prevent any Secretary of State coming into a department from making a clean sweep of those employed in it, and putting in his own friends. But, however legal such a step might he, was it not evident that any person taking it would commit a monstrous violation of the well-understood constitutional rule? What was the test
  1600
  by which the proceedings in the Ionian Islands was to be tried? Surely this— was it according to precedent or the established practice of the country? The hon. Gentleman opposite, with all the advantage of the archives of the Colonial Office, had only been able to point out a single case in half a century in which a similar removal had taken place; and that case, if he recollected right, was one with which political reasons had nothing whatever to do. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had made matters much better when he had argued in favour of the unlimited right of removal of these Judges. The hon. Gentleman said, that in a small community, broken up into political parties, personal prejudices and animosities ran so high that it was absolutely necessary—to do what? To protect those persons holding official stations, who might be the innocent victims of such prejudices? No, but to hand them over without protection or hope of redress to the mercy of a dominant political party. Was that the tenure on which Judges in any country ought to hold their offices? The hon. Gentleman seemed to refer the removal of these Judges to political causes, and said that their removal was very popular with the press of the Ionian Islands. It might, however, happen that it was popular with that portion of the press which had been for years declaiming against British power in the Ionian Islands. It might be right or wise that the British protectorate over the Ionian Islands should, under certain circumstances, be abandoned. Upon that point he expressed no opinion; but if the abandonment were decided upon, the Government ought to be especially careful not to surrender as victims to popular opinion those whose unpopularity might have been caused by the supposition, that they had been on the side of the protecting Power. It was stated, as an excuse for Sir Henry Storks, that the Senate were primarily responsible for this act, and stress had been laid on the independence of that body; but would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knew the condition of these islands as well as any man, say that the Senate would have ventured on such a step unless they had known beforehand that they would have the sanction of the Lord High Commissioner? If the Colonial Office could exercise any control in such a matter, the present case appeared to him to be one in which it would be very fittingly brought to bear. All that his hon. and learned

  1601
  Friend (Mr. Roebuck) or himself asserted was, that these gentlemen were placed, by the act of the Ionian Government, in a position most unfair to them and prejudicial to the public service. No charge or imputation had been brought against them. They had been dismissed without cause or explanation; and if it were contended that no disgrace had been inflicted on them, and that their term of office had expired, the answer was that their removal might be legal and not contrary to the letter of the constitution, but that, as a matter of fact, they had been subject to an act of arbitrary, authority, for which only one precedent could be found in half a century. Such a proceeding did, therefore, cast an imputation on them, and he thought they had a right to ask, as in the case of a naval or military officer when he demanded a court martial, whether there was anything against them or not. If any charge could be brought against these gentlemen affecting their characters, simple removal was scarcely a sufficient penalty. If, on the other hand, no allegation could be made against them—and this was, he believed, the fact—he was bound to say that, from whatever motives or ideas of public policy, a very rare and exceptional act of injustice had been committed, and a precedent set which was liable to be grievously abused.
  MR. EVANSsaid, that having the honour of being acquainted with the gentlemen in question, he must express the great disappointment with which he had listened to the account which the Under Secretary for the Colonies had given of the matter. No doubt, the Judges were removable in the Ionian Islands, but the hon. Gentleman had failed to show that these gentlemen had given any cause for their removal. He thought it very likely that these gentlemen, as his hon. Friend suggested, had taken a part in the politics of the island, and that they had assisted the Government. It was, however, rather hard, that because they had been unable to accommodate themselves to the new system of things in the island, they should therefore be removed. The Secretary to the Senate, who had been a most faithful servant to his country, had been removed under precisely similar circumstances to the two Judges. He thought that some sufficient reason ought to be given for the removal of these gentlemen. They were men of long services and high character, and he certainly thought they had not had justice done to them.
  1602
  When it was said that their removal was perfectly legal, he might reply that so would be the removal by the Crown of all the magistrates throughout this country; but unless some good reason were given for such a step, it would hardly be considered proper or constitutional.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that some curious points had suggested themselves in the course of the discussion. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had laid great stress on the pensions afforded to these gentlemen; but in what position were the Ionian Islands to guarantee those pensions? He thought they were hardly treated in this way. After the despatch of Earl Russell, which had been referred to by the late Secretary for War (General Peel), there was great agitation in the Ionian Islands in favour of annexation to Greece, and these two gentlemen expressed opinions more or less in accordance with it; but that agitation arose from the despatch of Earl Russell, and therefore Her Majesty's Government were responsible for such agitation. There was, however, another point to be mentioned. He yesterday asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it had been arranged that Prince William of Denmark would accept the throne of Greece, but he answered very vaguely. He (Mr. B. Cochrane), however, could almost undertake to say—at least, that was the nature of the information he had received from those best qualified to form an opinion—that Prince William would not accept the throne; and he wanted to know, if that were the case, how Her Majesty's Government would be able to maintain and carry on the Government of the Ionian Islands, after they had expressed such strong opinions as to their annexation to Greece? The fact was, that the question of the Ionian Islands was becoming one of the greatest importance. He believed that Sir Henry Storks was a most distinguished officer, and a right-minded man, but he agreed with the noble Lord that these two gentlemen had been placed in a false position,
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that as he took a considerable interest in the Ionian Islands, he had listened attentively to the debate, and what he had gathered was that no one doubted the power not to re-appoint these gentlemen. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had laid that down distinctly, and the only question was one of discretion. Then, as to the practice, it appeared that there had been only one in-

  1603
  stance of the removal of a high judicial functionary in forty-five years. The records of the Colonial Office might show what reason existed for that removal, but the Under Secretary for the Colonies had not condescended to tell the House what it was. He had tried to gather why these two judicial functionaries had not been re-appointed according to the almost universal practice, and he understood the Under Secretary to say, because there existed in the Ionian Islands something like a family compact—though what that meant he (Mr. Henley) did not know. Because these gentlemen were the friends of this family compact, which was working inconveniently to the Government, these Judges were not to be re-appointed. The plain English was that these judicial functionaries were not re-appointed, because they were supposed to have something to do with the political opinions of those who were not in accord with the Government. He did not think that that was very sound ground for exercising a discretion in the re-appointment of persons in a community so graphically described by the hon. Gentleman when he said it was quite clear the Judges were corrupted either by the popular or by the executive body. The hon. Gentleman said they were liable to be placed under a double fire, either of being pressed upon by the Houses of Parliament, who would not pay them, or by the Executive, who would not re-appoint them. If that were so, he did not think it was very fair to turn them out when no judicial act of misconduct was alleged against them, and only because they were supposed to be members of some compact not quite agreeable to the present state of things, and rather favourable to adhesion to this country. It seemed an odd reason for dismissing Judges, and their non-re-appointment after so many years really did amount to dismissal.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had listened to the discussion with some regret, because he thought that the House was necessarily, from an insufficient acquaintance with the state of society, politics, and constitution in the Ionian Islands, in a position of extreme difficulty for comprehending its own relation to the matter before it. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, in his speech, proceeded on the principle of the Ionian Islands being a Colony which was governed from Downing Street. The Ionians, by the law of Europe, were an independent State, and it was extreme rashness to say
  1604
  that it was a gross error to give them a constitution. We gave a solemn pledge, in the face of Europe, to give them a constitution; and having given them the pledge, we gave in the name of a constitution what in reality was a most corrupt despotism. Of late years efforts had been made to convert it into a constitution, and efforts had been made by Sir Henry Storks, under great difficulties, imposed by the nature of the amended constitution, to govern in the spirit of a constitution. It might sound ridiculous to say that the Ionian State had a Government of its own. He granted that for a length of time that Government had been almost entirely nominal. But of late years a series of Acts and measures had been passed, the whole aim of which was to give reality to the action both of Ionian opinion and Ionian authority. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman laid down a basis which could only mislead the House when he asked them to discuss this question as if it were a colonial one. He would state how the matter stood, and he would ask hon. Gentlemen to observe the condition of things in this country and as they existed in the Ionian Islands. Much had been said as to the length of service and as to the judicial character of the persons who had not been re-appointed. In England, if a man who had served for twenty or thirty years was removed from office without sufficient cause, every one would call out that the grievance was aggravated by the length of service. But in the Ionian Islands the general rule was, that all persons quitted office at the end of five years. In the Ionian Islands, civil office was almost the only mode of rising in life for the more intelligent portion of the community. The protectorate had the disadvantage of closing to the Ionians many careers which would otherwise have been open to them. There was no career for them in military service, in representing their country abroad, or in filling many of the highest offices of the executive Government. But he must say that the corrupting influence of England, ever since the time we undertook the protectorate, must be kept in view, in order to estimate matters rightly. The Ionian Government had been carried on by a compact between a certain portion of the Ionians and the earliest representatives of British power, by which the former were to be friends to the British protectorate, and were to hare a monopoly of office in return. The monopoly raised many candidates, and the

  1605
  candidates were satisfied with quinquennial dismissal. Therefore, in the Ionian Islands office was no reason why the holders should continue to retain it, but was a primâ facie reason why they should quit it. With regard to the judicial character of the office, in this country judicial office was happily separated by a broad line from other civil offices. It was not so separated in the Ionian Islands. There the Judges were looked upon in the main like other officers, not so much with a view to the duties to be done, as with a view to the benefits and emoluments to the holders. There could not be a more remarkable instance than when Sir Henry Ward, finding what the law was, gave the first impetus to the constitutional system. He thought it right to govern upon constitutional principles, and those principles required that patronage should be distributed not so much in regard to the duties to be performed as in respect of the several claims put forth in proportion to the population. He believed that Ithaca, or at any rate Santa Maura, was one of the smallest islands. [An hon. MEMBER: It is nearly the largest.] He spoke of the population. The Government of the islands did not consider the number of the Judges ought to be according to the space of the islands, but they said that some of the islands had a larger share of the judicial offices of the country than, according to the population, they were entitled to; and thereupon the Senate, in Sir Henry Ward's time, allowed some of the Judges to drop out of office in order that they might dispense the patronage among other applicants. Now, could there be a clearer proof of the practice which prevailed? It was impossible to comprehend the politics of the country unless they made themselves acquainted with all classes of people there. He had spent many months in the islands for the purpose of obtaining information, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen that they had gained very little insight into the character of the Ionians if they had not made themselves acquainted with all classes. He knew the channel through which the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had derived his information. But he would venture to warn hon. Members against placing reliance upon the testimony of this or that individual. A spirit of deceit prevailed among the upper classes of the islanders. It was hardly possible to bring home anything to anybody; and when they were endeavouring to find out who had done this or who had done that, it was like a game of
  1606
  blind man's buff, where the unfortunate man with the handkerchief folded over his eyes tried to get hold of some one, and every one with his eyes open was endeavouring to escape. The only view of Ionian politics, to be sound, was to be acquired, not from this or that person, or from a dominant clique, but from the endeavour honestly and impartially to collect from every quarter the sentiments of the people. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel) had described the condition of the Ionian Islands as that of a place where a certain number of people who were in office approved the measures of the Government, and a certain other number, out of office, disapproved all the measures which were proposed. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave that description, he thought he need not have travelled so far to find the original of his picture. But, in point of fact, the picture, though fairly drawn as a picture of this country, was not fairly drawn as respects the Ionian Islands. There was a party who called themselves the friends of England. It was the fate of many institutions to be ruined by its friends, and it had been the fate of England to receive the greatest wounds to its character and reputation from its friends in the Ionian Islands. They were friends to England on condition of England withholding from the people the entire reality of free Government, and continuing to them a perpetuity of office. That party held office until 1848, undisturbed, and since the change made in 1848 they had felt some discomfort at the prospect of losing office. That was one party, and they called themselves the Friends of the protectorate. The next party consisted of the demagogues of the country, always trumpeting forth union with Greece; and he must say that it was not easy to determine which of the two parties had the smallest claim to the favour, confidence, or approval of their countrymen or of that House. There was very little to choose between them. Besides these parties there were in the islands gentlemen of high character and constitutional principles, which would secure for them regard if they were Members of that House. Such were the different parties; but the party described as the Party of the Protectorate, had, in fact, been the greatest enemies to the protectorate; because they were only friends to it on condition that all office was to be continued in their hands; and whenever they saw a disposition on the part of the authorities to

  1607
  establish in reality a constitutional régime, that moment they joined hands with the demagogues, and roused the people against the Government. Judges in the Ionian Islands, as he had before said, were not separate from party, but were supposed to enter into the transactions of party just as much as other persons in those islands. He could speak highly of Sir Giorgio Marcoras as a man of honour, integrity, and accomplishments; but Sir Giorgio Marcoras did not conceal his connection with the party of the Friends of the Protectorate. He did not mean to say that the practice of the abandonment of office was so uniform or so frequent in the case of Judges as in that of other functionaries; but it would be a great error to suppose that certain broad distinctions between the two classes of cases were acknowledged to exist in the Ionian Islands, as in England. The question had been brought before the House in reference to the dismissal of the President of the Senate. [Mr. ROEBUCK: I did not refer to him.] That showed the superior knowledge of the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Evans). The hon. and learned Gentleman had only referred to the case of Sir Giorgio Marcoras and Sir Typaldo Xydras. Speaking of the President of the Senate, he would take upon himself to say that his non-re-appointment as President was not only a righteous but a wise act, and the only course which it was possible for the administrators of the Government, whether Ionian or British, to take, to establish themselves in the confidence of the Ionian people. He was satisfied that for that act alone Sir Henry Storks deserved the favour, and not the disapproval of that House. With respect to that gentleman, he felt that he was under no reserve at all, but of the other two gentlemen who had been referred to, he was not prepared to say anything.
  He had been arguing the question as if it was to be decided on its merits, but he submitted that it was not to be decided on its merits. The Ionian authorities were not amenable to that House, which had no power in the matter but the power of calling the Duke of Newcastle and Sir Henry Storks to account. The noble Lord the member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) thought that the Ionian Senate would not have ventured on the proceeding without being assured of the concurrence of Sir Henry Storks. That was possible, but the Senate was an independent authority, and was not the servant of Sir Henry Storks.
  1608
  It was the head of the Ionian State, and was at once a legislative and executive body. It was invested by the Constitution with the power of appointing to all offices, and the members of that body were ready to justify themselves for having adopted a step which they deemed to be necessary, in order to persuade the Ionian people that Great Britain was in earnest in the intention of giving them a constitutional government. Let them place themselves in the position of the Ionian authorities. England was discredited in Europe on account of the way in which affairs had been administered in the Ionian Islands. In Paris, Brussels, and every foreign capital the unanimous cry was that the fair fame of England was not adequately represented in the government of those islands. Now, it was well known that a certain party had been fomenting every sort of opposition at the risk of throwing the country into disturbance, because their monoply was in danger, and it was natural that the people of the islands should say that they could not believe England to be sincere as long as the heads of that party were allowed to be in possession of the monopoly of offices, continually chopping and changing them about among themselves. The Senate determined to convince the people of the reality of their intention to establish honest, constitutional, and free government, as far as they could under the laws in force, and they felt it their duty not to re-appoint those gentlemen to office, but appointed others in their place. What was the situation of Sir Henry Storks? He had no power to require the Senate to re-appoint, and all he could have done was to put a veto on the appointments made by the Senate. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that if Sir Henry Storks had made use of his veto, he would have deserved to be condemned for his conduct in that House, because as to character, efficiency, public standing, reputation, and command of the confidence of the Ionian people, there could be no comparison between the three gentlemen who had held the offices referred to in the course of that debate and the three gentlemen who had been appointed in their place. It was not a case on the merits of which the House could form a judgment, because they were not realy cognizant of them. Sir Henry Storks had strictly confined himself to the discharge of his constitutional functions. He had acted in conjunction with the Senate, and the House could not condemn him without condemning the Senate also. In

  1609
  his opinion, there were no grounds to warrant such a condemnation.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he had listened with unbounded astonishment to the very unsatisfactory speech just delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in his opinion, had granted the whole case, for he distinctly admitted that these Judges had been superseded for having dabbled in politics. After having told them that this country was to give lessons to other countries in constitutional practice, such was the lesson they were to teach. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) deserved credit for having brought the matter before the House, and that no thing could be more unsatisfactory than the explanation given by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and more astounding than the defence set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that amid the cloud of words with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had overshadowed the subject, one thing came out clearly, and that was that the real ground of objection to the gentleman whose case he had brought forward was that they were friends of England. He could perfectly understand that coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because he recollected his doings in the Ionian Islands, and was able to explain them only by supposing that he was not a friend of England. It was said that England had no power in the matter and that the Senate had done it all. Now, he had in his pocket at that moment a letter from Corfu, written by a gentleman living in that country, of the highest possible character, and not attached to any of the parties the right hon. Gentleman had described, who was an Englishman and an English lawyer, and he told him distinctly that the Senate was the mere tool of the Lord High Commissioner, and that the President of the Senate called in the morning before the sittings took place to take his orders like a footman, and that he took his orders from the Lord High Commissioner; and so far from having an opinion of their own, the Senate only obeyed the commands of the Lord High Commissioner. But the right hon. Gentleman told him he knew nothing of the Ionian Islands. Thank God, be had not had the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, but he knew this, that they might ask people to govern themselves constitutionally who had not the capacity of so doing. But there were certain rules that were applicable to the good government of any peo-
  1610
  ple, and one of these rules was that they should have an independent judicature. If they had not that, they had no means of securing the pure administration of justice, He listened to the Under Secretary for the Colonies with great care, and what he did was to raise up fabrics in order to dissolve them. He (Mr. Roebuck) admitted that the thing was legal, and he gave an illustration. He said that James II., when he discharged the Judges who had given judgment in favour of the seven Bishops did that which was perfectly legal, but he lost his crown. And so on that occasion they did that which was quite legal, but they did that which was unjust to the men who were dismissed, and impolitic as regarded England. And he had heard no answer to that. He should not occupy the time of the House about the language used respecting Sir Henry Storks and the Duke of Newcastle. Were they not servants of this country? They had brought this country into contempt and disgrace, and the conduct they had pursued was not to the honour of England. He had only moved for the memorials. The Under Secretary talked about certain correspondence. If there were any correspondence, he hoped he would add it. He had been told that there was no answer, and he should be glad to learn that there had been, as then they would not have added arrogance to their other faults. He must say, that if the conduct of the Colonial administration was illustrated by this case, it was high time that they should reform it altogether.
  Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
  Address for,
  "Copy of Memorials presented by Sir George Marcoras and Sir Typaldo Xydras, on the 16th day of September 1862, to His Excellency Major General Sir Henry Storks, Her Majesty's Lord High Commissioner in the Ionian Islands, and Copies or Extracts of Correspondence relating thereto." [Parl. P. No. 329.]

EAST INDIA (WASTE LANDS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to move a Resolution declaring the expediency of promoting the settlement of waste lands, and the redemption of a portion of the land tax of India. The question involved in his Motion was really the turning point between the old and new systems of finance in India. When the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn was Secretary of State for India, he wrote a despatch

  1611
  to the Government of that country to inaugurate a new system, similar to that followed in European countries. But in the following year the present Secretary for India wrote other despatches, reverting to the old system, and declaring his opinion that it ought to be unaltered. The noble Lord in his despatch encouraged the settlement of Europeans in that country. The present Secretary for India in words indeed admitted the expediency of such a course; but in deeds he placed the greatest obstacles in the way of the settlement of Europeans in that country, and he had thereby diminished the products which otherwise would have been sent to this country, and had prevented the transfer of English capital to that country. In primitive countries, where there was little accumulated wealth, the Government was usually supported by a heavy charge on the soil. Such was the case in India, not that the rulers of that country disclaimed other modes of taxation; far from it. Personal property was taxed from very early times, and he remembered the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward, when defending the income tax in India, the law of Menu, to show that even the income tax was included in the old Hindoo law. In this country also, up to the time of William III., the land tax furnished the principal portion of the revenue; but on the rise of commerce the land tax assumed less and less importance in our financial system, until at last it almost disappeared. And in almost all the civilized countries of the world the same result was going on. In all prosperous countries the land tax was comparatively insignificant, while in poor countries, such as Turkey and China, it was esteemed of great importance. Our Colonies in America and Australia never thought of having recourse to a land tax, because new communities, having the laws proper to civilized States, possessed credit which enabled them to obtain advances from the accumulated capital of this country for the purpose of developing their own resources. He maintained that India was in precisely the same relation towards this country that the American and Australian Colonies were, and that it would be easy gradually to extinguish the land tax in India. The latter country had an advantage which our Colonies did not possess, of a numerous and industrious native population. The heavy rent-charge upon the soil was a check to the accumulation of capital, and consequently to the prosperity of India, render-
  1612
  ing land an unmarketable security. Thus, at Calcutta the rate of interest did not exceed 5 per cent, but up the country it ranged from 12 to 20 per cent. The Government, however, had borrowed money at 3½ and 4 per cent, which was an unnatural state of things in such a country, and not a matter for congratulation. In Naples under the Bourbons money was very low in the public funds, but the reason was that the Bourbons discouraged those enterprises which would have caused money to be laid out in developing the rich resources of Southern Italy. In 1849 Earl Russell introduced into Parliament a plan for enfranchising the church lands, leaving them subject to a heavy rent charge. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and was referred by them to a Select Committee; but the land agents and others who were examined showed that the effect of that rent charge would be to make the land unmarketable as a security, and therefore to depreciate its value. The plan was consequently abandoned. India was suffering from such a rent charge, varying from 25 to 60 per cent, and the results were the same as were foreseen in the case of this country. The land tax of India produced £21,500,000; while the Customs only brought in £2,400,000, the total revenue being.£43,000,000, or an average of about 2s. 6d. per head of the population. In our Australian Colonies, with a population of 1,300,000, the amount of taxation was between £4 and £5 per head. The expenditure on the army and navy was calculated at £13,000,000; law and justice, £2,500,000; the interest on the debt, £3,500,000; and the public works at £2,500,000. He submitted that the land tax was excessive in amount, and that it was more than was sanctioned by the Hindoo law. The old Hindoo law said the land tax might amount to 8 or 10, or even 15 per cent, and in case of invasion it might be justifiable to levy even 50 or 60 per cent. The heavy tax dried up all the other sources of revenue, checked improvements, and necessitated an enormous expenditure upon public works, which, as at present conducted, was an evil to the country. Nor did he believe that the revenue would suffer by a change of system. Mr. Laing had made a calculation between Bengal, where the land tax was permanently settled, and Madras, where it was at a very high rate, and settled from year to year. In Bengal, where the settlement was seventy years old, the tax produced 2s.

  1613
  per head, while in Madras it produced 3s. 7d.; but then the produce from other taxes was in Bengal 2s. 9d. per head, while in Madras it was only 1s. 9d. That proved that a diminution in the land tax would not necessarily injure the revenue. If the redemption of the land tax were allowed, there would be no need of a large military expenditure in India, owing to the increased contentment of the people, and a revolution in Indian finance would be the consequence. The general opinion of our able Indian administrators was, that they had not gained the hearts of the people, but that nothing would accomplish that object so effectually as by giving them the possession of the soil. To such advice as that no Minister responsible for the lives of his countrymen in India, and for the large amount of British capital invested there, ought to turn a deaf ear. The attention of Indian officers was called to that subject by the Colonization Commission of 1857 and 1858, and in that very year the first step in this direction was taken by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, Mr. Halliday, who in a remarkable Minute showed that the light had dawned upon him, and that there was no just ground for treating India exceptionally from any other portion of the British Empire. Mr. Halliday's Minute alluded to the feeling of insecurity which attached to the present system in India, and recommended that the lands should be sold at an upset price on conditions similar to those which had worked so well in Ceylon. Mr. Halliday also undertook, on his own responsibility, to order the sale of lands in fee simple in Darjeeling; but the Government soon put a stop to the extension of this system. On the other side of India Mr. Rogers, who held a high position in the Bombay service, in a remarkable Minute which was duly forwarded to England, insisted on the importance of selling to the peasantry the soil they cultivated, a thing that might be regarded as the summum bonum of a ryot's ambition; and that would be sure to bring into circulation great masses of wealth at present hidden in the ground or worn in the shape of ornaments. Mr. Rogers also contended that it would not entail much loss on the revenue. He (Mr. H. Seymour) could multiply extracts showing the great benefit that would arise from the redemption of the land tax. In India there were two great social evils. One was female infanticide, which was due to the expense occasioned to families if they al-
  1614
  lowed their daughters to grow up and be married. The other was the habit of hoarding. Mr. Rogers thought that the proposed reform would tend greatly to diminish the former practice, far more rapidly than could be hoped by any probable spread of popular enlightenment. As to the other custom, the natives had now but two modes of saving money—keeping it in hoards or laying it out in the purchase of jewels for their women. India and Ireland were, in fact, the only countries in which the practice of hoarding still prevailed; and neither was in a very satisfactory state. It was one of the most remarkable achievements of the Emperor of the French that he had prevailed on the people to bring out their hoards and invest their money in small amounts in Government securities; and if the Indian Government could in the same way induce the Indian people to bring out their hidden treasure and invest it in the soil, they would do more than anything else to strengthen our empire in India, and to promote the welfare of that country. While he was at the Board of Control in 1857, several gentlemen interested in the growth of cotton applied to him to bring the subject under the consideration of the Government. The result of the efforts then made was, that an official despatch was sent out from this country; but it contained so many "ifs" that it was at once seen in India public opinion here was one way and the opinion of the Court of Directors another; and nothing was done. But, soon after, the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn was appointed Secretary of State for India, to the great satisfaction, he believed, of every friend of that country. It was his conviction that in the few months during which the noble Lord filled the office he did more for the real good of India than any Indian minister that had preceded or succeeded him, no matter how long his tenure of office. He wrote a despatch which would prove to be the initiative of the new system of finance which must be adopted in India. The noble Lord, on assuming office, possessed the great advantage of having travelled in the country, and become acquainted with the wants of the people from personal inspection. He came to his work with a matured judgment, and he did not hesitate to adopt a very important step. The Indian Council clung to the land tax; but when the noble Lord prepared his despatch, they seemed not to have a word to say against his argument, though it would ap-

  1615
  pear they had given utterance to their opinions on the subject since the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) assumed office. When the noble Lord wrote his despatch, the Sepoy war was just over; but the American war did not commence for eighteen months after. The price of Surat cotton at Liverpool was from 3½d. to 4d. per lb., and the price of New Orleans cotton at Liverpool 7d, In the opening paragraph of the despatch the noble Lord said there had been many applications from individuals and companies to grow cotton in India. Suppose the policy then inaugurated by the noble Lord had been continued from that time, what might not have been the result? Should they not have had cotton at a much cheaper price than that at which it was selling? The noble Lord gave instructions for grants in perpetuity in cases in which there had been grants on rent charge. He described how easily the new process of a redemption of the land tax could be carried out in certain parts of India, where the Zemindar might pay into the Treasury an amount which would produce the same sum as his rent. He pointed out the political advantages of a system which, by attaching the Zemindars to the government of the country, would counterbalance any inconveniences of detail. The noble Lord and the present Secretary of State were of one mind in thinking that there ought to be a permanent settlement; but the noble Lord would effect it by permitting a redemption of the land tax, while the right hon. Gentleman would bring it about by a Government valuation, which might be asked for during a period of half a century before there was a proper adjustment. The Indian Government, seeing that the noble Lord was in earnest, treated his despatch in a very different manner from that in which they had dealt with the court of directors. Scarcely a week elapsed before they sent out circulars requesting information to every part of India, and by the following autumn they were in a position to answer the Home Government. The Government of Madras were not favourable to the plan, but they stated that in their Presidency there were 11,000,000 acres of land not irrigated, and 2,000,000 of irrigated land, which was assessed to an amount of £1,500,000 sterling. Why should not that land be devoted to the most useful purposes? He did not accept the dictum of the Government of Madras. He believed, if the opinions of the persons holding official positions at that place had been
  1616
  given, they would be found to be more favourable than those which appeared in the papers laid before the House. Coming to Bombay, they found a series of able opinions all entirely coinciding with the views of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley). There was Mr. Rogers, who declared the measure to be the most beneficial which had ever been proposed since our connection with India had commenced—beneficial to the Government as highly as to the rulers. Mr. Seaton Kerr endorsed the opinion of Mr. West; Mr. Turquand expressed similar sentiments. Mr. Fawcett quoted the words of Sir Charles Metcalfe, that it would conduce to the stability of our rule and the welfare of our Indian subjects. Captain Anderson, the head of the revenue survey in Bombay, wrote strongly in favour of it; and he was the person whose opinion Lord Elphinstone said he would take in preference to any other in India. Lord Elphinstone, whom the Government of the Earl of Derby and the former Government of the noble Viscount had selected to be Governor General of India, in case anything happened to Earl Canning, recommended it as the true policy to encourage the redemption of the land tax on every ground, financial, agricultural, and political. Coming to the North West Provinces, he found Mr. Hume, another gentleman of great experience whose attention the question had engaged for many years, giving a similar opinion. Almost every collector in these parts of India gave his opinion in favour of the redemption of the land tax. The Lieutenant Governor of the North West Provinces, said of it, that if practicable, no more politic measure could be carried out. A similar opinion was given by the financial commissioners of the Punjab, and by the Governor of the Punjab; there was, in fact, a remarkable concurrence of opinion on the subject. In November 1860 Mr. Fergusson, the Secretary of the British Land Association, made various suggestions with the same view. After that a whole year passed away in India, and nothing was done. At last, in October 1861, Earl Canning issued his celebrated Regulations, so much criticised by the Government at home. Earl Canning said that he had found a general concurrence of opinion among all the officers whom he had consulted as to the great benefit which would accrue both to England and India from the measure. He allowed settlers to receive waste lands in the shortest possible

  1617
  time, and in order to prevent jobbing he fixed a certain limit, and required that a certain portion of the price should be paid down in ready money. He allowed, too, the redemption of the land tax on certain terms. These Regulations of Lord Canning were received both in India and England with great acclamation, and for nine months they were supposed to be the law of the land. Land was bought and sold under them, and passed through various hands, nobody ever supposing that it was the intention of the Secretary of State not to confirm them. The right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in the spring which congratulated him on the liberality of the policy. The right hon. Gentleman never let out that he meant to veto the Regulations; he received their congratulations, shook hands warmly with them on parting, and expressed his pleasure that at last there was a subject on which they could congratulate him. Almost immediately after receiving that deputation the right hon. Gentleman sent out his despatch, which certainly was not so able a one as that of the noble Lord opposite. It was very confused and illogical, and seemed more like the production of some gentleman who had been connected with the old East India Company than of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The only way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the question, was by describing the evils which would flow from the adoption of the system prescribed by the noble Lord's despatch. The first paragraph which he seized upon was that in which the operation of the despatch was limited. He said he was glad to find that the rights of the natives were not to be violated. Those who had had much to do with India knew that that was the very plea which had been used for the last half century by the directors of the East India Company, first to keep Europeans out of India altogether, and then to keep the land tenure from them. The right hon. Gentleman then cancelled at once the despatch of the noble Lord opposite by saying that under no circumstances would be allow the redemption of the land tax, and he went on to use words which must have been put into his mouth by one of the eminent gentlemen of former days, Mr. Ross Donnelly Mangles, or some other old East Indian, to the effect that the land tax was the pillar of the Indian Government; and so on. He repeated all that had been said and written
  1618
  on the subject fifty years ago, and in fact signified his intention to keep to the old Oriential despotic system. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the deplorable occurrences that had recently taken place in New Zealand. But if the Government were to mismanage their affairs in India as they had done in New Zealand, the same results would follow. Then the Secretary of State laid it down that it should be entirely at the discretion of the local authorities to fix a price on the land. But what principle had been laid down in the despatch of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and in the proclamation of the late Earl Canning? Why, that it was most important to have the question of price so regulated that a person in London might know how much he should have to pay for land upon his arrival in India. He should like to know whether it was the custom at the India Office, as it was under the noble Lord opposite, to give every information that might be required to persons intending to proceed to India. The right hon. Gentleman also said it was an outrageous proposition to talk of dividing the assessed and unassessed lands of India into two portions; and he argued most unfairly against Earl Canning's Regulations. He (Mr. H. Seymour) asked how it was, except through some mismanagement on the part of the Government, that there were any waste lands in the neighourhood of the canals? The object of the late Secretary of State was to make the European settlers independent of the local authorities, whilst the right hon. Baronet sought to restore the old system. There was another very important point to which he would draw attention, and it was this. The Secretary of State insisted that every piece of land should be set up to auction, whether there was more than one applicant or not; Earl Canning's poclamation provided that auction should take place only when there was more than one applicant. His hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, in an able pamphlet which he had written upon the question of land in Australia, said the auction of land was the curse of the country, and that the only object of such, a system appeared to be to prevent the poor man from getting land, and to throw it into the hands of speculators and landsharks. Mr. Fergusson, secretary to the Landowners' Association, in a pamphlet which he had written, expressed himself in this way:—That no man would waste his time, his labour, and his

  1619
  money in seeking for land which, under the auction system, might be taken from him by a speculator; and that while, under Earl Canning's Rules, hundreds of thousands of acres had been applied for, under Sir Charles Wood's Rules there had not been an application for a single acre. It stood to reason, that with the auction system, a man with money had a great advantage over a man who had knowledge and but little money, for he might allow the latter to go into the country and select a piece of land, and then come and buy it over his head. The evils which had arisen from the system had brought about its abolition in Australia; a fixed upset pi-ice was laid down, and a man living in London could know the price he should have to pay for land in Victoria. As for the survey, which the right hon. Baronet required, he did not approve it. Nothing could be better than the system adopted in America, and which he understood had been adopted in Australia. He had seen in Minnesota the whole country dotted over with what were called "claims;" a man who wished to settle there had a right to 160 acres around his hut, a right of pre-emption, and he became owner upon paying a dollar and a quarter when the surveying party arrived. He was aware that many hon. Gentlemen differed from him on the subject of survey, but on that of auction he apprehended very little difference of opinion existed. Since the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman, a totally different spirit seemed to have been infused into the officials in India. Instead of the liberal spirit by which they were pervaded under the guidance of Earl Canning, and the noble Lord the late Secretary for India, the spirit of obstruction was now in the ascendant. It appeared from some despatches which had been laid before the House, that in Central India there was a tract of 16,000 acres, which was let for £5, or 50 rupees a year; but the farmer threw it up, because, as he said, he could not pay the rent. Mr. Meek, and other gentlemen of high commercial standing in this country, wished to raise some capital with the view of devoting it to the cultivation of the soil of India. Mr. Meek applied to the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces for that land, and the latter assented to his having it at about 6d. per acre. An advertisement of that was put into the public papers, when down came a letter from Colonel Durand, Secretary to the Government of India, censuring the proposal to give that large tract of land, as
  1620
  being contrary to the rules. The Chief Commissioner excused himself by saying that he thought he had power to do it under the Rules of Earl Canning; that, moreover, the case was a special one; that natives could not be induced to take the land, and that unless some European took it, it must lie waste. That, however, did not satisfy the Government of India, and a severe reprimand was addressed to the Chief Commissioner for going contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's Rules. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: No.] Then, he would say, for going contrary to the Rules of Earl Canning on the 17th of October, although, he must add, he could not believe that without a despatch from the Secretary of State such a "wigging" would have been given to the Chief Commissioner. Mr. Temple stated that there were but two alternatives before them—namely, either to leave the whole tract in an utterly unproductive condition, or make over at least a portion of it, to European capitalists; in the former of which cases it would be a source of evil, and in the latter a source of benefit to the country round about it, as well as of ultimate profit to the State. The same gentleman also said that there were boundless tracts of country with no pre-existing rights and without owners, and that the valleys of the Godavery, the Mahanuddy, and other rivers, might, with skill and capital, be turned into great cotton-producing districts; that sugar, indigo, and other products, might also be grown there, in which case a demand would spring up for their exportation. He then proposed some rules and an upset price, which, he thought, might induce British settlers to come into those provinces. Those Rules, however, were sharply disallowed by the Government of India, and higher prices and more restrictive conditions enforced in their stead. But the Secretary of State would, perhaps, tell him, there were no waste lands in India. A glance at the map of India, with its vast unsurveyed and unexplored regions, would prove the contrary. Mr. Temple, the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, and his subordinate officers, bore testimony that such lands existed in abundance. Much of this land was most suitable for the European settler, because it gradually rose in height as it receded from the coast, until it came upon a vast plateau, edged by the Godavery, which had its source in Bombay, and flowed across to the Gulf of Bengal. Mr. Temple spoke of one

  1621
  district alone of this country as extending over 25,000 square miles. Mr. Laing was of opinion that one-third of India was waste. Besides the 25,000 square miles above alluded to, there were other tracts of surpassing fertility, the cultivation of which had been neglected. In the Terai, at the foot of the Himalayas, there were 400 or 500 miles of the richest land in all India, and hearing traces of ancient cultivation. No doubt it was insalubrious, but its fertility was very remarkable. A gentleman who applied to the India Board on the subject of irrigation works in Scinde, and who went to the country to make his calculcations, estimated that 20,000,000 acres in Scinde might be irrigated at 1s. per acre if proper works were erected. In the Punjab, also, he calculated that there were 47,000,000 acres, only 14,000,000 of which were assessed. He thought he had said enough to show that there was quite a sufficient extent of waste land in India to afford a field to any number of European settlers who might go to that country. Another unfortunate result, he might add, which had flowed from sending out the despatch to which he referred was that it tended to destroy in a great degree the prestige of the Government of India by upsetting the Regulations that had been come to by that Government. The tendency of that despatch was to induce the people of India to look to the Home Government for instructions rather than to the Governor General. A short time ago a meeting was held in Calcutta, which was presided over by an eminent Queen's counsel, and at that meeting speeches were made and resolutions passed condemnatory of the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman on the grounds he had stated, and expressing the opinion, that if the views contained in that document were persevered in, the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India would be sadly impaired. It was unnecessary to show that India was a great cotton-growing country. Forty years since a far larger quantity of cotton was exported from India than at the present day, and it was quite clear, therefore, that there was no good reason why it should not again produce that commodity to a considerable extent if the necessary steps were taken for the purpose. He should like to know, however, what had been done by the Secretary of State for India for the promotion there of the cultivation of cotton. Its production had last year been increased a thousand-fold by the action of the Turkish
  1622
  Government, which had taken pains to spread the information that the price of the article had increased in England, and had urged the expediency of growing it; but he should like to know what information and advice of the same kind had been circulated among the native population of India. He believed that not a single despatch had been written by the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. How different was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman to that of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) when he was Secretary for India. The noble Lord took the most prompt steps when in office to encourage the growth of cotton in India; but during the whole time the right hon. Gentleman had been in office it did not appear that he had made a single effort in that direction. It took the Southern States of America a great many years and great expenditure in the shape of bounties to bring the old Indian plant to the improved pitch of the present staple; and if they wished to improve on the Indian staple, they must, he maintained, adopt a similar course. Sir George Bowen, the Governor of Queensland, had offered 1,000 acres free to those who would go out to that colony and cultivate cottan; and he was sorry to see that there was so wide a discrepancy in the matter between the action of the Secretary for India and the head of the Colonial Office. The only remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was a permanent settlement in India; the probable cost of a permanent settlement in Madras alone being, in his opinion, likely to be three-quarters of a million. If that were so, it was quite clear it would cost several millions for the whole of India, while it would take twenty or thirty years to accomplish such an assessment as the right hon. Gentleman proposed. From what he had stated it would appear that the opinions of the chief authorities in India were favourable to the proposal of Earl Canning and the noble Lord opposite, while they were unfavourable in the main to that of the right hon. Gentleman. His object in making the Motion was, not to lay before the House a Bill of indictment against the right hon. Gentleman, but simply to show what the state of things was in reality. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to leave the ordinary supporters of the Government in the false position of having to wait for liberal measures until the Conservative party came into power? No one could believe that the existing system could survive the right

  1623
  hon. Gentleman. Surely, then, it would be better for him to make the necessary alterations rather than to allow the credit of them to be taken by a political opponent? He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a further consideration to the subject, adopting such measures as would relieve the distressed districts at home, and unite in closer ties to this country that great empire of India which their forefathers conquered by their courage and energy, but which they could retain only by establishing enlightened laws and institutions suited to the present age.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the occupation of Waste Lands in India by settlers, and the redemption of a portion of the Land Tax of India, are desirable objects, especially with a view to the present state of the Cotton industry in this Country; and that it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government take further steps to carry them out."
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Poole had brought the subject forward. The House always rejoiced to hear a racy attack upon the India Office by a Gentleman who was once connected with that Department, and who, if he had an opportunity, would doubtless be very glad to connect himself with it again. He was also glad that the Motion had been brought forward, because it would give the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India an opportunity of defending the conduct of his office in the House, instead of going down to Halifax, as he was obliged to do last winter. The Resolution itself was harmless enough, and as the Parliamentary termination of an agitation out of doors, in the course of which the impeachment of the right hon. Baronet was demanded, it was somewhat ludicrous. During the whole of last winter a great outcry was kept up against the right hon. Baronet, who was accused of ignorance, incapacity, and breach of faith, for the course he had pursued with respect to the sale of waste lands in India, and he and those who entertained similar opinions were said by the press in India, which favoured the agitation, to have made cowardly attacks upon the memory of a great statesman. It now suited the purpose of some gentlemen, and was part of the tactics of the scurrilous press of India, to speak of Earl Canning as a great statesman whose attempts to wrest the land of India from the grasp of the despots of the India Office had been foiled and thwarted. He was not about to attack the memory of Earl Canning. He served in
  1624
  India during the mutiny, and had witnessed with admiration the calmness and composure which that noble Lord displayed in times of great peril and at periods of unmanly panic. But it should not be forgotten that those who now spoke of Earl Canning in terms of fulsome adulation then attacked him with the utmost bitterness, pursued him with rancour, and for years endeavoured to drive him from the high position which he then occupied, and which they said, most untruly, he had discredited. It was only at the eleventh hour, when he lent his reputation to some acts of a questionable nature, that he was described as a great statesman. The organ of the agitation in this country was Mr. Laing, who, in his speeches at Manchester and Glasgow, as well as in his written addresses to sympathizing friends in India, had been constantly in the habit of asserting that the cherished policy of his noble Friend Earl Canning had been altogether subverted by the Secretary of State. He did not pretend to be acquainted with Earl Canning's cherished policy, but this he did know, that it formed no part of the original programme of his administration to promote the sale of waste lands in fee simple or to permit the redemption of the land tax. These measures were suggested by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, in a despatch of the 31st of December 1858, in which the difficulties and dangers which were supposed to surround these questions were largely discussed, information was asked for, and a report was ordered to be sent to this country in order that the matters might be sifted, discussed, and determined here by the Secretary of State in Council. The years 1859, 1860, and the greater part of 1861 were consumed in inquiries, and no report was sent to this country. Suddenly, on the 17th of October 1861, there appeared in the Calcutta Government Gazette a proclamation which set forth the rules and regulations under which persons might purchase waste hinds in India in fee simple and these rules and regulations did not appear to have been much read by the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate. They were for the most part suggested to Earl Canning by an irresponsible association in Calcutta, called the Landowners' Association, the Secretary of which was as much surprised as any one to find that the crude suggestions which he had made had been almost literally adopted without any inquiry. That proclamation was sent to England. It

  1625
  received a long and dispassionate consideration at the hands of the Secretary of Stale and the Indian Council; and on the 9th of July 1862 a despatch was sent to India of which he would say that the amendments which it made in Earl Canning's proclamation were conceived in a just and liberal spirit, and that its tone and language were quite unexceptionable, What was it that Earl Canning proposed to do? He proposed to give to every one the fullest permission to purchase waste lands in British India. There was, indeed, a restriction that the grants should not in the first instance exceed 3,000 acres; but that was set aside and treated as a nullity by the officials. There was no reservation of mines, minerals, or the rights of the Crown to forests. The Government did not even reserve the right to make roads through the country which they were about to give away. Each person was to be served in the order of his application. There was to be no preliminary survey, but only some superficial survey after the sale, in order to fix the boundaries. If after possession had been taken, some party should spring up, claiming rights in the soil or ownership in the land, the Government undertook to eject him and put the allottee in possession, making, as they said, compensation to the owner, but how that was to be done did not appear. The proclamation went even further than that. It stated that no authority, nor any court of law, was to entertain any claims connected with the ownership of these lands unless they were made within twelve months after the time of allotment; and, as if to prevent the real owners from knowing anything about what was going on, it was provided that those who obtained allotments should not be required to exercise any right of ownership. It was to be left to their discretion to do anything or nothing with that for which they had given the Government a fair price. That fair price was fixed at 5s. an acre all over India, allowing, however, a deduction of one-fourth, on the theory that in grants of 3,000 or 4,000 acres one-fourth would be found to be useless and valueless to the purchaser. What was the action of the Secretary of State upon this proclamation? It had been stated over and over again that the whole policy of Earl Canning was subverted. There was no truth whatever in that statement. The policy of Earl Canning, which was to sell the land in fee simple, was confirmed in the fullest manner; but the Secretary
  1626
  of State required that considerable alterations should be made in the details of the rules by which effect was given to that policy. In the first place, he disapproved of the uniform price fixed by the proclamation, and, observing that the land must necessarily vary in value according to its situation, the facilities for its cultivation and irrigation, and its natural fertility, he directed that the lands which were considered salable should be classified, that a minimum price of each class should be fixed in the districts by the local officers, and that when application was made for the purchase of any land, it should be put up for sale by auction at that minimum price. He could not see the force of the objections which had been taken to that mode of proceeding. Much of the land of India was not worth, and would not be valued at, 5s. an acre. The Secretary of State also directed that the survey should precede instead of following the sale. That was an alteration which would be recommended by common sense, if for no other reason, on account of the propriety of ascertaining before the land was sold that it was really unoccupied, and that there were no persons who claimed a beneficial interest in the soil. The Secretary of State disallowed so much of Earl Canning's proclamation as altered and over-rode the law of the land. The Secretary of State insisted, and with great propriety, if an alteration was needed in the law of limitation connected with the occupation of land, that the law should be altered by an Act introduced and discussed in the Legislative Council, and not by means of a Proclamation issued without notice. The illegality of this course of action by the Viceroy was sufficiently clear. The redemption of the land tax was a measure impossible to be carried out under present circumstances in India, particularly in districts where the individual settlement system prevailed, for there the purchase of small plots of land piecemeal would, in his opinion, be an unmitigated nuisance. The measures originated by the Secretary of State were conceived in a spirit of equity; but immediately on their promulgation a great outcry was raised by a set of land jobbers, who fancied that under the regulations which Earl Canning had hastily adopted they would be able to obtain large tracts of country at wholly inadequate prices. One large estate, the extent of which was unascertained, but was supposed to contain 16,000 acres, was sold, not at

  1627
  5s. an acre, the maximum fixed by Earl Canning, but at about 6d. an, acre. That was done without the knowledge of the Governor General or of any other person except a subordinate in one of the offices of the Chief Commissioner in the Central Provinces of India; it was a transaction fraught with the greatest jobbery and with every imaginable irregularity. On the other hand, it was mentioned in one of the recent overland mails, that under the rules made by the Secretary of State, a large tract upon one of the spurs of the Himalayas, forty thousand acres in the whole, had been sold by auction, and had produced 30 s. an acre. So far from the Secretary of State deserving censure for his amended rules, he thought him entitled to credit on that account, and he hoped some assurance would be given that his administration in that spirit, which had given great satisfaction to the native population, would be carried still further. And here he might pause, and allow the right hon. Gentleman to defend his policy from the attacks of his political friends behind him, if it were not that he wished to consider another phase of the question, whether the sale of lands in fee simple in India was a great and comprehensive measure or the reverse. To the opinions which he had last year expressed on that branch of the subject he deliberately adhered. Although the proclamation of the Governor General had been received by all the accredited organs of public opinion in this country with exultation; although it was said to be the greatest measure which had originated in India during the present century; that now, for the first time, India was thrown open unreservedly to British enterprise and capital, and that the grants had been wisely limited to 3,000 acres to prevent jobbers from acquiring provinces as large as Yorkshire, with a view to making fortunes by retailing them; and although it was said that the Governor General had acquired enduring fame for himself, and by an unpretending proclamation had created a social revolution, he was still of opinion that it was a small and fragmentary measure, utterly unworthy of the encomiums passed upon it. In newly-discovered or newly-established colonies, like British Columbia or Australia, inhabited only by tribes destined to become extinct, the sale of lands was absolutely necessary, but the case of India was widely different. There were 150,000,000 of inhabitants in the British Provinces, of whom three-fourths
  1628
  were engaged in tillage operations, and had been probably for 1,000 years. The land in the plains was held by the Government as landlord, collecting the rents of their farms, in India called villages, from the tenantry by establishments organized for that purpose. The boundaries of these farms were as clearly defined and as well known as were the limits of any farm in Great Britain. Nine-tenths of the good land was included within these village limits, the rest being proved by experience to be either unwholesome or unfitted for cultivation. There were, no doubt, considerable tracts of land among the hills capable of being made to produce coffee, pepper, &c.; these tracts were held on leasehold tenure for a long number of years, and it might be advantageous to the occupiers, or to their successors, to exchange these leaseholds for tenures in fee. But nobody expected to obtain great revenues from the sale of waste lands or jungles in the plains; and those who anticipated that immigration would take place to a great extent, or that cotton would be grown upon the wastes of India in quantity sufficient to relieve the suffering manufacturers of Yorkshire and Lancashire were labouring under great misapprehension, if not under a total delusion. He repudiated the idea that he was opposed to colonization or to the sale of lands. On the contrary, when in India, in upholding those principles he was opposed to the officials under whom he served, and he had suffered accordingly. He was for the freest possible immigration, consistently with the rights of the natives. But if colonization were to be carried out to a great extent, Government must be denuded of its existing rights as landlord, and a middle class, which at that time had no existence, must be created, to stand between the cultivating tenant and the Government officer. In point of fact, there must be an assimilation to the permanent settlement introduced into the three provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, by Lord Cornwallis. The advantages which had sprung from Lord Cornwallis's Act had been immense, in a social, moral, and political point of view. But the scheme of Earl Canning for the sale of waste land in fee simple was a small measure, and to dignify it by the name of a great and comprehensive system was not only opposed to truth, but an outrage on common sense. To sum up, he had endeavoured to establish three or four principles; first, that the

  1629
  sale of jungle land in fee simple was a small measure, unworthy of the commendations put upon it; that the regulations of Earl Canning were hastily adopted and incapable of being properly carried out; that the amendments of the Government in July 1862 were just and salutary; and lastly, he had expressed his contempt of the outcry which had been raised against the policy of the Secretary of State by an agitation which was, in his opinion, at once ignorant and selfish.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he hoped that the strong feeling, which formerly prevailed among those who had passed their lives in India, against the colonization of that country by English settlers was dying away. Every reasonable man at that day wished to see India colonized by those who would bring capital, skill, and enterprise into that country. A belief prevailed in some quarters that a contest was going on between a body of spirited Englishmen, who wished to colonize India, and some narrow-minded and hard-hearted official in the India Office, who was determined not to stir out of the usual official routine. A little study of the subject would, however, soon dissipate that notion. A few capitalists had seen a sudden chance of making great profits; while, on the other hand, it was the duty of the Secretary of State to look to the interests of the 130,000,000 who were consigned to his charge. He believed that such was the nature of the contest between the Secretary of State for India and those who were so strongly opposed to him on the question. There were, he thought, solid reasons for some of the modifications which the Secretary of State had introduced into the plan proposed by Earl Canning. It was, however, supposed that there was some insecurity of tenure in the scheme which would not have been there if the plan proposed by Earl Canning had been adopted. It was, however, inaccurate, to represent, as was sometimes done, that under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) a settler who had bought land in India might be disturbed in the possession of his estate. The difference was, that under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the survey was to begin the process. There was a fear in some quarters that the settler would lose a great deal of time before he got the survey made; and it was, no doubt, important that he should get into the possession of his land at once. But all that was want-
  1630
  ed was that the boundaries of his piece of land should be marked out before the sale. In order to obviate delay, why should not the Government have a staff of young surveyors at Calcutta, the expense of their operations being defrayed by the settler? He saw no reason why an even less expensive process should not be adopted. Why should not the collector of the district send one of the native officials to go with the settler and mark out the ground? He quite concurred in the opinion that the survey should precede, and not follow the sale. A printed advertisement might not be a sufficient notice to the natives; but if they saw an official going over the ground and marking it out, and if any previous proprietor had any claims upon the land, he would know what was going on, and could put in an appearance. The difficulty of persons coming in at the last moment and purchasing lands, marked out by first settlers, over their heads, occurred in New South Wales, because the auctions were held in the metropolis; but these auctions would be local, and there would be no probability of its happening in India. As to selling by auction instead of at a fixed price, the Government, acting on behalf of the Indian community, was bound to get the real market value of the land, and to apply the produce to the diminution of taxation. With regard to the redemption of the land tax, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State refused to assent to Earl Canning's proposal to allow of a general redemption, because it involved an immediate permanent settlement; and in some parts, which were rapidly improving, the present assessment was too low. But if, on the one hand, the contingent advantage of an increased assessment would be lost by a present permanent settlement; on the other, the redemption at 5 per cent would enable the Government to extinguish a part of the present debt, on which the interest was 6 per cent; would save the cost of collecting the land tax, which amounted to 20 per cent; would render unnecessary the immense expense of a future new assessment; and would diminish the cost of managing so much of the debt as would be extinguished. Moreover, the abolition of the land tax would greatly enhance the wealth of the people, by getting rid of the extortion of native collectors, and encouraging the people to improve the cultivation of the soil; and, in a political point of view, would

  1631
  make them more attached to our rule, by the knowledge that their rulers were desirous to protect them in their possessions, and to deal with them in fairness and justice. With sincere diffidence he ventured to express an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman might have taken a bolder course; but he heartily thanked him for having adopted a scheme for the sale of waste lands, and still more for the assent which he had given to the permanent settlement of the land tax wherever the assesment was a fair one.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Poole should have stated that the Hindoo princes exacted only 25 per cent of the land tax. He had been a redemption officer in India, and he could state from his own experience that every dynasty, whether Hiodoo or Mohammedan, had exacted from the population the uttermost farthing, and had not scrupled to take possession of large estates, and, baring alienated them, to confer them in perpetuity on worthless favourites and parasites. After the prolonged debate which took place last Session on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire, which embraced all the points raised by the hon. Member for Poole, he had hoped that the question would be permitted to slumber. The practice of reviving old stale questions Session after Session in order to afford certain hon. Members an opportunity of making a speech was much to be deprecated, and was calculated to create a feeling of uneasiness in the minds of their European and native fellow-subjects in India. For his own part, he was bound to say that the views he expressed in the previous Session remained totally and entirely unchanged—nay, more, that the correctness of them had been fully confirmed by conversations which he had held with many eminent Indian authorities —namely, that the terms held out by the Secretary of State for India and his Council were sufficiently liberal to attain the objects in view. Independently of there being no available waste lands—except on the hilly ranges and in the Sunderbunds— from the fact that all lands, whether described as being under cultivation or culturable, assessed or assessable, had been subjected to the keen eye and supervision of the settlement officer, and his settlement had been made accordingly, it was absurd to suppose that Government had the power to isolate large blocks of land, and convey them in perpetuity to separate proprietors.
  1632
  But assuming for the moment that the Government possessed that power, surely land without tenants was useless and valueless, and the tenants in India had positive rights of occupancy which could be neither ignored nor annihilated. It therefore would be sheer madness were that House to tamper with the land or land-marks of a village simply because the pressure came from a small section of the community, ever ready to think that the natives and their land were made for them to despoil. Referring to his past experience as a magistrate and collector of a district, he could assure the House that the worst and most aggravated cases of affrays which took place in India were those connected with the land, and that the villagers would defend their claim over a strip of land, which might be waste and valueless, with their lives. He might quote a case which came under his own observation on the occasion of a strip of alluvial land appearing in the middle of the Ganges between two villages. On the villagers of one of them attempting to plough it those of the other village crossed over armed with bludgeons and tulwars, and before his police could interfere a most desperate conflict ensued. Under these circumstances, he ventured to say, that when that House departed from the traditionary obligation which had been placed upon the honour of the British Empire to respect the religion and property of the native subjects in India, the seeds of such discontent would be sown, which would sooner or later ripen into a great national insurrection, in which proprietors and peasants would be found cordially and heartily banded together in order to shake off the British yoke. With regard to the Law of Contract, which had provoked so much criticism both in this country and in India, and which was so closely wrapped up with the question before the House, he thought the interference of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India was unnecessary, uncalled-for, and mischievous. It should be borne in mind that in legislating upon it the late Earl Canning and his Council—composed of such practical men as Mr. Beadon, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; Sir Bartle Frere, the Governor of Bombay; Mr. Drummond, the Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces; Sir Robert Napier, and Mr. Laing—distinctly laid down that it was not to have retrospective effect, but that it was simply an Act to extend the provisions of Section 5, Regulation 8 of 1859—a Regulation to provide for the

  1633
  punishment of breaches of contract by artificers, workmen, and labourers in certain cases. ["Question!"] He begged to inform the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that lie was speaking to the Question. It also appeared that the provisions of that Act were already enforced against those who entered into engagements for the cultivation of opium and the manufacture of salt under our close monopoly system. Again, that the adulteration of cotton was treated as a criminal offence, for by late advices from India it was known that a cotton broker had been sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour by the authorities in Bombay for this offence. That being the case, he must confess that he was not disposed to attach any importance to the elaborate address which was presented to the right hon. Baronet a short time since, eulogizing his proceedings so highly in the matter. On the contrary, he quite agreed with that ill-used, indefatigable public servant Mr. Laing, as expressed in a letter which appeared a few months since in the leading journal of the day, namely—
  "The signers of this address represent a party who have always taken the side of the debtor against the creditor, and of the workman against the master, especially when the former has a dark face, and the latter, to the offence of being rich, adds that of having English blood in his veins."
  Mr. Laing continued—
  "No one doubts their benevolence, but many doubt their judgment, and point to the present aspect of the slavery question as a proof that philanthropy, unrestrained by common sense, is often the surest means of defeating is objects."
  He found a confirmation of these remarkable words in a pungent extract of a letter of the late Lord Redesdale, in that interesting work, The Diary and Correspondence of Lord Colchester.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to order. He would submit that the law of contracts had nothing to do with the question he had proposed to the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would take that opportunity of stating that he had not interrupted the hon. Member for Windsor by calling out "Question!" for he thought the hon. Member's observations pertinent to the question.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, in that case he had to apologize to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for the mistake he made. The extract from Lord Redesdale's letter, to which he referred, was as follows:—
  "The philanthropists are the bane of the age
  1634
  from one end of the world to the other. Their supposed philanthropy is mere weakness; it springs from an indolent yielding to sensations, implanted in us for wise purposes, but which, if indulged beyond the line of wisdom, will lead to the same excesses as the indulgence of any other passion."
  Approving, therefore, as he did, of the modifications which had been made by the Secretary of State for India and his Council in regard to the question of waste lands, he thought with regard to the law of contract, it was much to be regretted that the right hon. Baronet, instead of relying upon his own by no means perfect information and rather crude judgment, had not paid greater deference to the experience of those eminent local authorities to whom he had referred, and who had been always actuated by feelings of the strictest impartiality and justice in their administration of that distant country, where the interests of the different inhabitants and races were so conflicting.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that they had been dealing that night with two important questions, and he regretted that they had not had an opportunity of discussing them separately. The one was the redemption of the land tax and the other was the sale of waste land in India. Both those questions were of enormous magnitude and very complicated, but he was afraid those who had witnessed the aspect of that House for the last two or three hours would come to the conclusion that they did not materially interest either Parliament or the general public of this country. He wished to say a few words on the larger question of the two—namely, the manner in which it was proposed by Earl Canning and by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India to deal with the land tax. It was unnecessary that he should go into any lengthened argument on the subject, because, though the manner in which he proposed to deal with that matter and the form of proceedings were different from that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, still the difference was rather in the form and manner of proceeding than in the principle laid down. If he rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, he had initiated a change far more considerable than he (Lord Stanley) had proposed. The Government of Lord Derby did not propose, in the despatch of December 1858, to deal with the tax generally, or to make it perpetual over the whole of India, but to allow a certain number of persons, if they desired

  1635
  to do so, to redeem their land for ever from the tax by the payment of twenty years' purchase down. Of course, that could only be done in cases where the burdens had been fully ascertained and assessments placed on a permanent footing. To that plan of redemption there was a very obvious objection. It was said that it would be treating capital as income, and that they were sacrificing their future income for present advantage. No doubt that would have been a sound objection if it had been proposed to apply the money to the current expenditure of the year; but when the sums derived from that source were to be applied, not to the general purposes of the Government or even to the carrying on of reproductive public works, but to pay off the capital of the debt, then it was clear that if, on the one hand, there was no gain, so, on the other, there could be no loss. Assuming the whole of the debt to be paid off, it would become a question what should be done with the remaining proceeds of the redemption but that was a contingency so utterly remote and apart from all practical considerations that it was scarcely worth while to trouble themselves about it at present. He was satisfied, that even if a power of redemption were allowed, the number of persons who would avail themselves of it would be comparatively small. The cultivator or tenant was not usually wealthy, and had no command of capital. Moreover, any one who knew anything of Indian affairs must be aware that in that country money applied to purposes of business would bring a larger return than 5 per cent. As a general rule, then, he did not think it would be found profitable, in a pecuniary point of view, to apply capital, especially when borrowed, to the redemption of the land tax. He had never contemplated that a great many persons would make use of the power of redemption; but it seemed to him most important to encourage such transactions, and to raise up a class who, being owners of the soil, would be likely to undertake improvements of permanent value upon it. Such a class would be attached to the British rule by the strongest ties (for it could not be expected that the exemption enjoyed by them would be recognised by any Government that might succeed ours), and would be as much interested in the welfare and tranquillity of India as fundholders were interested in the prosperity of England and the peace of Europe.
  There was only one objection to the
  1636
  proposal in which there was any force. In every civilized and improving country, as the area of land was a fixed quantity, and as the amount of capital was gradually increasing, it was found that as a general rule land had a tendency to rise in value, and money relatively to fall. To some extent that was the case in India, and therefore, in taking land at its present value, the Government would be accepting in exchange for it, an amount smaller than they might obtain a quarter of a century hence. On the other hand, however, it was but fair to remember that the increased value of the property would be very much due to the redemption of the tax, because no one would expend large sums on the improvement of an estate who was merely a tenant at will or on a short lease. He would, then, compare his plan with that of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman did not go so far in one direction, but he went further in another. If he rightly comprehended his plan, the right hon. Gentleman desired to make, at the earliest opportunity, not simply a permanent, but a perpetual settlement similar to that in Bengal, applicable to the whole of India, but did not think it necessary to establish a freehold tenure. Now, in that respect, both he and the right hon. Gentleman were working to the same end, although in somewhat different ways. If a man had a piece of land, and paid a land tax of, say £100 a year to the Government, receiving in return an absolute pledge that under no possible circumstances and at no future time should a larger sum be required from him, his security was as complete as if he had paid down at once the price of the land and held it as a freehold. It was only a matter of convenience whether a man would pay £1,000 down and thus rid himself of all Government claims for land tax, or would pay an amount equivalent to the interest on £1,000 year by year with absolute security against having that amount raised. All a man, in the latter event, had to do was to put his capital into the Government funds and receive as interest, on the one hand, what he paid as land tax on the other. While the two propositions, as far as their practical results were concerned, were identical, there was some advantage in the plan of freehold tenure which he originally proposed. In all countries it was the tenure preferred by the actual holders; and they would give more for it than as a matter of pecuniary calculation it was worth. He did not, however, lay much stress on that, because

  1637
  wherever the system of perpetual settlement came into operation the loss on account of granting freehold tenure would henceforth be nothing, and the former ought to lead directly to the latter. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had better have begun with freehold tenure at once, but as matters stood, he bad paved the way to it.
  As to waste lands, some doubts had been raised concerning their extent, value, and general importance. He had never been altogether able to satisfy his mind on that point. He had never seen, and did not believe that there existed, any calculation showing the quantity of lands in India which might fairly be deemed waste. There could be no question, however, that it was at present practically unlimited. In the Neilgherries, in some parts of Bengal, Oude, Burmah, on the slopes of the Himalayas, and in parts of the interior, which, so far from being surveyed, had not yet been explored, the amount of uncultivated land was infinitely greater than any number of settlers were likely to require. There was, however, a great diversity of soil and climate. It had been said it was very improbable that there was a large quantity of waste lands in India, because that country had been so long civilized and was so densely populated that all the ground worth anything must have been cultivated long ago. Those who took that view forgot the large tracts of land in many English counties which were suitable for tillage, but which, after centuries of civilization, still remained wild. The amount of land in India being practically unlimited, the question was how best to open it to Europeans and natives respecting all native rights, reserving all claims of the State, and remembering that time was money, and that indefinite delay was a great mischief. It might, perhaps, be proper policy for an individual not to sell what he could not use, and to hold on in expectation of a better price, but that was a bad policy for the Government, whose interest as a seller was quite subordinate to its interests in other capacities. The question raised that night was, whether the object in view could be obtained more effectually by the plan of Lord Canning or by the revised plan of the Secretary of State. He had not the credit of being the author of either plan; but it was his fortune when holding office to open up the inquiry by inviting the Governor General to report his views upon the subject. Lord Canning did not send him a report, but he took the matter into consideration in
  1638
  India, and after a lapse of between two and three years there was published in India, by the authority of the Governor General, without, as he believed, any communication with the Secretary of State, that set of Rules, which had been often referred to in the course of the debate. There was then an interval of about nine months, upon the expiry of which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to modify those Rules. He did not blame the Secretary of State for choosing, with the advice of his Council, to exercise his right of passing judgment upon those Regulations. He was not only justified in so doing, but he was bound to do so; because if the Government of India was to be responsible to the House and to the country, it could only be so through the Secretary of State. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in one respect. There was, as he had said, an interval of about nine months between the publication of those Regulations in India and their revision in this country. If changes were to be made, they should have been made at the very earliest opportunity, and not a mail should have been allowed to go out without at least instructions being sent that those rules should not be considered to be in force until the opinion of the Home Government had been pronounced upon them. Nothing could be worse, especially in India, than the reversal of Regulations which were actually in force, and upon the faith of which contracts had been made. When he looked at the Rules themselves, as revised, he found that they agreed with those issued by Lord Canning in most respects, but they differed in some important particulars. They both agreed in giving a freehold tenure to the land when the purchase was complete. The difference was mainly upon two points—one relating to the granting of an indefeasible title, and the other to the manner of sale, which, according to Lord Canning's Rule, was to be at a fixed minimum price. With respect to the indefeasible title, under Lord Canning's Rules, if no prior claim was registered, and if the collector knew of no objection to a grant of land, he was to advertise the application for a term of thirty days, at the end of which the applicant entered into possession of the land; and if within twelve months no prior claim was established, he received an indefeasible title. In one respect that Regulation was defective. He agreed with the Secretary of State in thinking that the term of thirty days

  1639
  was far too short to protect original claimants, and generally there was not sufficient notice to guard against the risk of injustice being done. India was a very large country; the owner or the claimant might be absent from home, and might not know anything about the application for his land until he found it in the possession of some one else. There was another serious blot, which was hit by the Home Government, that a mere declaration of the executive Government could not bind judicial tribunals; and if the original orders had remained in force, they would certainly not have been respected by the courts of law. So far he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but there his argument ended. What ought to have been done was simple. It was agreed that the term of thirty days was too short, and it ought to be extended to six or twelve months, and the Government of Calcutta should be called upon to pass a law giving legislative sanction to indefeasible titles at the end of six or twelve months. Some machinery ought also to be provided for a cheap and speedy tribunal to settle disputed claims. If these things had been done, he believed that all difficulties between the natives and the settlers would, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, be removed. But the right hon. Gentleman had gone further, and had laid down a rule that land was to be sold subject to any claim that might be hereafter made upon it. That rule would operate as a prohibition against any settlement of these waste lands, because no one would buy a piece of land merely on the assurance of the Government authorities that they did not know of any claim upon it, but leaving him subject to any litigation that might arise. He (Lord Stanley) agreed in all that could be said as to the necessity of caution in dealing with waste lands in India, as there was often great difficulty in ascertaining native claims. He had heard of instances where for a hundred years hind had been left uncultivated, the population having removed or been driven away by some former war; and yet there were families and even villages which maintained their titles over the unsettled tracts. He admitted that the Government was bound to protect the rights of the natives, but he thought it was also bound to protect the settlers and the public, who were interested in those unsettled tracts not remaining uncultivated an unnecessarily long time. The Government had a right to say to the natives, "Here is
  1640
  land for which a demand exists. Bring it into cultivation yourselves, or, if you have a doubt as to your title, bring forward your claim, and we will furnish you with an easy means of deciding it; but if you do not come forward after a sufficient lapse of time, all claim will be barred." In that respect he thought the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman had been very defective, and it was a vital point. He did not wish to go back to the rough-and-ready plan of Lord Canning; but if a reasonable time for making claims was allowed, and a cheap and speedy tribunal for deciding them were provided, then he thought an indefeasible title might safely be given.
  As to the other question, whether the sale of land should be at a fixed minimum price, or by public auction, it was one upon which some doubts might fairly exist. A strong case might, no doubt, be made out for a sale by auction, as likely to secure the highest price that could be got for the land, as avoiding all questions of priority of application, and as avoiding ail suspicion of jobbery, while it would also allow to be recognised the difference existing between the values of land in different districts and under different circumstances. But, on the other hand, there were great objections which had been adverted to. Under the system of auction-sales, all inducement would be taken from the settler to seek for land himself. No man would search in remote districts at great personal trouble and expense for land which he thought valuable for his own purposes, if he knew that as soon as he had made his choice the land would be put up to general competition, and that a person who had taken no trouble in the matter, but who happened to possess a greater command of capital, might buy it over his head. The chief difficulty, however, was, that if land were sold by auction, it must be surveyed; and on that point he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether any calculation had been made as to the time which would be occupied, even if the present staff of surveyors were doubled or trebled, in going over all these lands with a view to a public sale. It seemed to him, that if a full and regular survey were insisted on before any sales took place, they would practically limit such sales to some few favoured districts, which might be selected by Government in the first instance; while, as regarded all the rest of India, the sale of waste lands was indefinitely

  1641
  postponed, At the same time, there were cases as in the neighbourhood of a newly-opened port, or railway station, where to sell lands at a low fixed price was really to give them away to the first applicant; and he thought the proper course would be not to lay down a uniform rule for all cases. If in a certain district there were European settlers, and water communication or railway communications, opened or in process of being opened, the auction principle might be fairly worked; but that would not apply to one-tenth of these lands; and with regard to the other nine-tenths, notwithstanding the disadvantages which certainly attended such a plan, lie thought it would, on the whole, be better that the first bidder should have them at a fixed low price. No doubt the first comer would then have an advantage; but, after all, he was the pioneer, he was the discoverer, and that advantage should hardly be grudged him. Then again, there was a certain loss to the Treasury in the lower price obtained for the lands if the first comer were allowed to take them at a fixed rate. But, it must be remembered, that the Treasury got the money very much sooner than it otherwise would; and when the low price, paid immediately, was contrasted with a higher price, paid perhaps twenty years afterwards, the loss of interest in the latter case considerably diminished the difference between the two amounts. Something had been said about opposition to these plans offered by the Council in England. Now, he was bound to say, that when in office he encountered no such opposition, and that when the question of the waste lands and of the redemption of the land tax was considered by him in Council, he found no disposition on the part of the Council to consider it otherwise than in the fairest and most impartial spirit. The general feeling of the Council was, he believed, in its favour, and the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt be able to tell a similar story. The obstacles, if any, lay not with the Council at home. It was not so much a question whether one set of Regulations or another should be adopted. The main point was to impress upon officials in India that the Government in England attached real importance to the carrying out of these plans. The best system might come to nothing if it were worked by persons who were not interested in bringing it to a successful issue; and if the Regulations adopted, whatever they might be,
  1642
  were not worked fairly and liberally, that which all desired to see, the introduction of European capital and enterprise into India would not he brought about. He did not deny that among a certain number of official persons a disinclination to the appearance of Europeans in India existed, though it was rather felt than expressed. Every civil officer in charge of a district felt that it was easier to manage 10,000 natives than ten Europeans, and they not unreasonably dreaded the collisions and disputes which sometimes arose when Europeans, who had not been before brought into contact with natives, settled in the interior. It was right to say so much in defence of men who might have prejudices, but who, he believed, were doing their duty, on the whole, honestly and fairly. There was only one way of overcoming the difficulties which sprang out of that state of things—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman, by his despatches to India, by his speeches here, and by his personal influence over those who practically administered the affairs of India, should show that he really attached importance to the Question, and that he regarded the influx of European capital and enterprise, which was likely to take place, not as a danger to India, but as a means of extending the resources of that empire to a higher point than they had ever reached before.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he approved the permanent settlement, and he approved of the sale of waste lands, but he disapproved the redemption of the land tax. By establishing a permanent settlement they would make the owners of the soil rich, by allowing them to reap the fruits of their industry. The waste lands were much more limited in extent than was supposed, for every village in India had its boundaries, within which the Government could not enter. He was engaged for six years in investigating the tenures of the Deccan, and he found that neither the Hindoo nor the Mohammedan Governments had questioned the proprietary rights of the soil in the people. It was England who had broken down these rights. As to the redemption of the land tax, it would be killing the goose which laid the golden egg, for in their time it was impossible that indirect taxes in India should support the Government.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that in considering whether the sales of lands should be by fixed price or by auction, the Go-

  1643
  vernment would do well to avail themselves of the experience of America. For seventy years the Americans had adopted a plan of first surveying the land, mapping it out, and then offering it by auction at an upset price to the best bidder. In America the plan was to survey the land to be sold in sections of 640 acres, which were then divided into sixteen parts of forty acres each. Two of these sections were reserved for purposes of education. It would be a good plan to reserve certain portions of land in India also for the same purposes. The right hon. Gentleman's doctrine of raising a middle class was rather inconsistent with his acts. In America they did not put up any larger portion at a time than forty acres; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to sell 3,000 acres of land at a time. How could a poor ryot, who was desirous of raising himself by his own industry, purchase so large a quantity of land? It was only by the sale of small quantities of land that it was possible to raise a middle class. If land in America did not fetch the upset price when put up, any person might afterwards have it at that price, and any lot remaining unsold after it was first put up was sure to find purchasers subsequently, because its value was raised by a sale of the adjoining lots. The upset prices ought to be low in India, and the land should not be sold to speculators. In America a law had been passed, which came into operation in January of the present year, called the Homestead Act, which prevented any person from buying land from the Government who would not occupy and cultivate it. Perhaps the increased emigration to that country might be accounted for by the fact that every head of a family who went out there might have 160 acres of land for nothing provided he settled upon and cultivated the land. He was exempt from all taxation for five years, and had only to pay ten dollars, the cost of surveying the land, or about 3d. per acre. In America it was thought that the community was more benefited by giving away the land as a means of forcing its cultivation, than by any small revenue derived from its sale after lying waste for generations.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the suggestion that the Government of India had some sort of right in the land of that country which was occupied by the natives. If there was any principle clearer than another, it was that the occupiers of land in India were the
  1644
  owners in fee simple of the land which they occupied. The Government had no share whatever in the land so occupied. The Government was entitled to a land tax on every freehold, but there was a moral limitation to that land tax. He was satisfied with the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman in other respects. He could not help thinking that the Government had taken a most judicious course in checking the extraordinary proclamation which bad been issued in India; and he believed, if they could get at the truth, they would find that proclamation was not Earl Canning's. There was evidence on the face of it that it had been issued before it ought to have been issued in the due conduct of public business. It would have deprived the natives of India of their property, and left them to a precarious claim that must have been made within a very short period. He had seen such traces of the iniquity which took place during the early career of the English in India that be thought they ought to be startled at any proposition to give to subordinate officers in that country the right to deal with its land and property without reference to higher authority. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care to prevent the rights of the native from being touched, when what might be called indefeasible titles were being given to European settlers. Two insurrections had grown up from ill-feeling among the natives, and in dealings with India they ought to use the utmost caution. He could not help thinking that there was great truth and force in some of the remarks which fell from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), that instead of proceeding in this wild and generalizing way in dealing with questions affecting one hundred and twenty millions of people, and with land of every kind and condition, varying from £100 to 6d. per acre, it would be far better that they should have regard to particular cases as they arose. It was absolutely necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should deal with the utmost caution. He commended the course he had already pursued, but great care must, be taken that rights of the natives of India were not sacrificed in order that a few Europeans might make enormous fortunes in that country. The Motion would only tend to mislead the public, because it was idle to say that the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman had prevented the growth of cotton in India. He should vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend if it were carried to a division.
  SIR CHARLES WOODhoped the House would acquit him of any unnecessary delay in rising. He should have risen before, but he was anxious (and the noble Lord opposite said that it was only fair that he should do so) to hear the whole of the accusations that might be preferred against the course he had pursued. Certainly it had been some satisfaction to him to find that much of what was charged against him had never been done by him. Much that his hon. Friend had imputed to him had been done by others. Much had been done some time ago. The grave charge against him was, that he had prevented the growth of cotton in India and its coming to this country so as to relieve the distress in Lancashire, and his conduct had been denounced in no measured terms, where he could not answer. He was very glad now at last to meet his accuser face to to face, and he would endeavour to meet the charges fairly and fully. With all the unwillingness which his hon. Friend had so kindly professed to prefer an indictment against him, he must say, if his hon. Friend had taken the trouble to look a little further into the papers which were on the table, and to quote them a little more fairly, he would not have made many of the charges which he had urged to-night. Had he referred to the papers on the table, he must have seen that the Government of India had shown itself most anxious to promote the growth of cotton in India. He might have seen, in point of fact, that the Government of India had acted at the earliest moment, before any alarm had been excited in this country on the subject. In February 1861 they passed Resolutions, and acting upon them, at once, had actually and practically executed almost everything which had since been suggested as what ought to be done by the Government of India. With the view of extending the knowledge of the demand for cotton in this country, they sent Commissioners through the different districts to make known to the local officers, and through them to the people, what it was wished should be done by them. They offered to pay the expenses of commercial Commissioners to accompany their own officers, to show how the cultivation of cotton might be extended, and what facilities might be given for its conveyance; they gave prizes for the production of the best cotton, they distributed good seed, and
  1646
  made a considerable appropriation of money for the construction of cotton roads. One of the first despatches from the Secretary of State contained in this blue-book was entirely to approve the course which the Government of India had taken, in that respect. It would show the fairness of his hon. Friend, in quoting the despatches, that he had entirely omitted all reference to these and other despatches which showed what had been done on the general question. He only referred to one, in which objection had been taken to the remission of the land tax on ground occupied for experimental cultivation of cotton. He (Sir C. Wood) had objected to this remission for this simple reason, that it deprived the experiment of any practical value. What was essential was to know at what price cotton could be grown on land paying the ordinary charges. Upwards of £200,000 had been spent by the East India Company in introducing American seed into India; and it was ascertained that it would grow well in many-parts of India, and that the ryots cultivated it successfully. But it was necessary further to ascertain the price at which it could be profitably produced. This could not be ascertained by the Government, and it could only be determined by the cultivators practically raising the cotton on ground subject to the ordinary charge. To grow it on land exempted from such payment was for this purpose totally useless. His hon. Friend then accused him of being hostile to the settlement of Europeans in India. In the very despatch to which so much objection was taken, he had expressed an opinion favourable to the settlement of English in India. He en-entirely agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) on that point. It was a question on which many people took different views. He believed it was of great importance to India that English capital should go to India, and, as far as possible, that Englishmen should settle there. He had always been anxious to give every facility for the settlement of Europeans in India; and if his hon. Friend had taken the trouble to quote fairly, he must have given him credit for showing that wish in the despatch in question. His hon. Friend had no right to assume that he was adverse to that for which he professed himself to be most anxious. The noble Lord opposite had truly stated, that with regard to the sale of the waste lands he (Sir Charles Wood) had approved of nine-

  1647
  tenths, and more, of Lord Canning's Resolutions. By those Resolutions a fee simple was granted in the waste land to the person purchasing; all other rights were barred, and after thirty days from the sale he might gain an indefeasible title. He approved of the whole Resolutions proposed by Lord Canning with only two exceptions—he insisted that the survey should be made previously to the sale instead of after it; and whilst the Resolutions said, that if there was more than one applicant, the land should be put up to auction, he said that this should always be done. Upon these two changes, and upon these two changes only, it had been asserted over and over again during the autumn that he had rescinded Lord Canning's Resolutions, set them at nought, and rendered them utterly valueless. Besides this, he had certainly pointed out the objection to what was claimed by the Landholders' Association, that all land should be sold at a uniform price throughout India—10 s. for cleared, 5s. for uncleared land. He did think that an uniform price for all waste lands was an absurdity. He thought so still. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. B. Smith), who had just sat down, concurred in that opinion. It was just as absurd as to suppose that an acre of ground on Clapham Common was of no more value than an acre in the wilds of Connemara. He had also pointed out that the Resolutions of the Government could not really bar the claims of other parties to land. This could only be done by legislative enactment. The Government of India proclaimed that the purchaser should be put in possession of the lands thirty days after the sale, with an indefeasible title. Supposing a suit brought in a court of law for the possession of that land subsequent to the thirty days, it would have been the duty of the court to decree possession of it to the former and rightful owner. And then the right to compensation was to cease at the end of a year. The statute of limitations in India at present was twelve years. The Government could not by Resolutions alter the law. It was not in their power to do so. The Government professed to do what they had no power to do, and what any court in India could set aside as of no value. Was it not his duty to point out to the Government of India that they were perfectly wrong in doing so? Nevertheless, it was for doing this that he had been censured as a promoter of litigation so as to de-
  1648
  feat the intention of selling land. His hon. Friend complained that Rule IX. in Bengal, which said that the claims of third parties on the land should not be barred, rendered the whole transaction nugatory, and that it was prescribed by him in his despatch of July. There was not a syllable of the kind in the despatch. If his hon. Friend had referred to the papers, he would have seen that four or five months before his despatch was written the Bengal Government had found out that the Resolutions of the Government of India had no legal validity in this respect, and they gave their reasons for omitting that part of them which purported to bar private rights in the following words:—
  "The rule barring private rights, as wherever it acts at all it will act to defeat existing rights in private property, has been struck out, as such a rule could be of no force or effect, whilst it would pretend to have force and effect. Such a provision evidently requires a law; and not being yet enacted by law, its appearance in a formal set of rules would seem improper. When this provision is enacted by law, no rule will be necessary on the point."
  These reasons were given in a letter of January 1862, and appeared to him quite conclusive; but, at any rate, his hon. Friend might have seen that the course of the Bengal Government could not have been determined by his despatch, which was written five months afterwards. He agreed with the noble Lord that the proposed time of notice was too short to bar private rights, and he pointed this out in his despatch, though he did not prescribe what the limit should be. He left that to the Government of India to determine in the Act which he told them it would be necessary for them to pass. The noble Lord would find that the Government of India had, in fact, done all which he thought that they ought to have been directed to do. He (Sir Charles Wood) had left it to them to adopt proper measures—they had done so. Having thus disposed of these more general matters, he would refer to the two points on which he had been blamed so much—the previous survey of waste lands and the sale by auction. Before doing so, however, he must say a few words on what was meant by waste land. There were three descriptions of waste lands in India. There were waste lands properly so called, which had never been possessed or claimed by anybody, and which were entirely at the disposal of the Go-

  1649
  vernment; there were also waste lands in which, the Government, from forfeiture or other causes, had acquired proprietary rights; and there were the lands which were or had at some time been owned by some persons, but which were left lying uncultivated and waste. A large portion of the waste lands were of the last description, but still they might be sold under the Resolutions. He would, however, speak, in the first instance, of the first description of waste lands. A very small portion of this description of waste lands was of any immediate value for practical purposes. It was stated in the despatch of the noble Lord opposite that such lands are "extremely limited" in quantity; and the Governor General, in his despatch, said that the amount of unoccupied land ready at the disposal of Government was "so extremely small as to be of little practical importance in considering how the cotton production of India could be largely and rapidly increased." The Governor of Madras said that "only a small portion of the waste lands could be regarded as applicable to the purpose of settlers," and the Governor of Bombay said that the "land available was of the poorer sort, and where there were large tracts they were in a climate deadly to the European constitution." According to these testimonies from every part of India, the quantity of land immediately available for cultivation was extremely small. That much of it might be brought into cultivation in process of time he would not for a moment dispute. But that was a distant prospect, and for the immediate extension of cotton cultivation there was no use in looking to that kind of land. It was, however, in respect to the mode in which he had altered the Resolutions of the Government of India as regarded this land that his hon. Friend had attacked him to-night. Now, the only two changes he had made were that the survey should be made before the sale, and that the land should always be sold by auction. He had been accused of having ordered such an expensive and elaborate survey as would in practice make the whole thing nugatory; but the fact was that he had ordered no survey of that sort. In the Resolutions of the Government of India, it was said that the survey was to be such as clearly to define rights, and insure the ready identification of boundaries. He had not made any alteration in this, and it was clear that it
  1650
  was so understood in India. In an official letter from the North Western provinces it was said, "Every facility is given to applicants to indicate the position and limits of the grants they are desirous to obtain, and the survey and demarcation at that stage is an easy and inexpensive process." The Bengal rules stated that "the survey need only be in sufficient detail to insure the ready identification of the boundaries of the lot, and to ascertain its gross area." The Chief Commissioner of Oude said—
  "Nothing more was meant or has been required in practice, than a rough skeleton survey, giving the boundaries and approximate area of the tracts —nor does such a survey necessitate the employment of an expensive European agency, or entail any sensible delay. Hundreds of native surveyors, trained in the Government schools and elsewhere, capable of performing the work, are available."
  Therefore, the whole of this bugbear of an expensive survey was a pure, invention, and no difficulty had ever been felt about it in India. He would now point out the advantage of a previous survey; and, in illustration of it, he would refer to the case to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, which he called the Sonachan case in Central India, but which he did not appear at all to understand. There the Commissioner had taken upon himself to do that which was contrary to the resolutions of Lord Canning. He disposed of a large tract of land at the price of 6d. an acre, and was blamed, by the Governor General, for what he had done. There was no reference to anything in his (Sir Charles Wood's) despatch. The evil, however, was that 16,000 acres were sold, and nobody knew at all where they were, or whether it was all in one lot or in sixteen different lots. The Government of India pointed out, and truly, that such a proceeding was indefensible. In an area of 160 square miles, a gentleman had bought 16,000 acres, without the slightest indication of where the land was. Could anything prove more clearly the advantage of a previous survey sufficient to determine the position and extent of the land sold? If Mr. Meek was at liberty to go and pick out 16,000 acres, in different lots of 1,000 acres each, wherever he pleased, it was obvious that nobody else could for some time buy an acre of land in that district. Therefore, it would be a clear gain in point of time that a previous survey should take place. He would refer to another case, which equally demonstrated the advantage of such a survey. A gentleman purchased some waste land

  1651
  in Oude, and being anxious to take possession of it, he sent his servant for that purpose; but after four or five months he discovered that he had put his servant upon land which he had not bought. Would it not have been better that the gentleman should have been able to ascertain beforehand precisely what land he had bought? Indeed, he could not conceive anything more unbusiness-like, more likely to lead to delay, confusion, and complaint, than buying a piece of land without knowing where it was. The hon. Gentleman had complained very much of the uniform sale by auction, but he (Sir Charles Wood) thought the arguments in favour of that mode of sale very conclusive. The hon. Member had put the case of a young man with little brains and with a great deal of money who might buy over the head of an intelligent man with little capital who had been at the trouble of searching out a tract of good land. But that might take place just as well under Lord Canning's Resolutions as under his (Sir Charles Wood's) despatch. Here was another case in which the hon. Gentleman, who said he was so anxious not to prefer a general indictment against the head of the Indian Office, had not taken the trouble to inquire what was in the despatch, but blamed him for what he had never done. The Government of India had a right to have a fair price for the land, and it was not imposing any hardship on anybody if the ordinary means of securing a fair price were adopted. The case of certain parties at Darjeeling had been mentioned, to whom the local officer, contrary to the instructions of the Government at Bengal, had promised land at 5s. an acre, but which the Government of Bengal had ordered to be sold by auction. The parties complained that they were not allowed to receive the land at the price of 5s. In this case there was no question of survey; all the land applied for was sold to the persons who had applied for it; there was no impediment to the settlement of Europeans. It was merely a question of price. The Government of Bengal refused to confirm the irregular and unauthorized proceedings of the local officer; but they said that as the whole of the land in question might have been bought for the last few years at £1 an acre, the complainants might have it at that price if they liked. That did not suit them, and the whole of the land was afterwards sold at an average of 35 s. an acre.
  1652
  The difference between the price at 5s. per acre and at 35 s. was £41,000. If the land had been bought at 5s., it clearly might have been sold the next day at 35 s., and the only result of what had been done was to put £41,000 into the coffers of the Indian Government, instead of into the pockets of private speculators. His hon. Friend, as usual, blamed him for what had been done, though the Government of Bengal had acted without any reference to his despatch. He would refer to another case in the south of India. He would read an extract from an Indian newspaper—and it was to be observed that the Indian press was, with the exception of part of the Calcutta press, favourable to the new regulations—on the subject of the sale of certain lands in Neilgherry. The paper said—
  "The first sale of waste lands under the new Rule took place on Monday last. We understand the price realized by Government on some forty-five acres was 1,310 rupees, which, with the assessment on the description sold at two rupees per acre, and the privilege of redeeming the tax at twenty-five years' purchase, gives a total of eighty rupees per acre."
  That was £8 per acre, and why land worth that price should have been sold to gentlemen for 5s. per acre was more than he could see. He believed that the course which he had taken, both as to the survey and as to the sale by auction, was perfectly right, and did not interfere in the least degree with the early extension of cotton cultivation. In reference to this subject he wished to call the attention of those Gentlemen who were disposed to believe the complaints that he had done so, to the character of the land the sale of which he was supposed to have checked. Mr. Saunders had published a letter attacking his conduct, in which he pointed out what he considered the injustice to the intended settler; and his account of what the settler had to undergo, in search of land, was as follows:—
  "The settler desirous of purchasing lands may have hundreds of miles to travel, involving no inconsiderable expense, in search of the soil and climate he requires. In such search he will necessarily be exposed to great alternation of heat and cold; he will find no covering for his head beyond the light tent he may be able to transport along with him, and no protection from the burning rays of the sun by day, and the heavy chill and damp dew by night, save this most ineffectual covering, or the still less efficient one of the forest itself. In his search after land the explorer will be subjected to many dangers incidental to the country, not the least of which are the deadly fevers prevalent at certain seasons of the year."

  1653
  This did not hold out a tempting prospect to the cultivator of cotton. He would refer again to the district containing 16,000 acres in the Sonachan talook. In reference to this place the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces writes to Colonel Durand on the 22nd October 1862 as follows:—
  "It is quite uncultivated, though, perhaps, one-third of the area may be cultivable, the remainder being hill, rock, or thick jungle. It is said to abound with wild beasts, and, without doubt, it is now very insalubrious, and will continue so until the jungle shall, to some extent, be cleared away. At present it could not safely be entered by an European from August to January."
  Now, did hon. Gentlemen really and seriously look to the early and rapid cultivation of cotton in such districts as those? It was utterly impossible to bring land of that description under cultivation without great labour or within the period of several years. Where were the labourers to come from? They were not to be found in the districts, and we have had experience enough of the fatal effects of fever in such districts as those even on Indian constitutions to give us little hope of bringing labourers from other districts. But even if they were brought, and could live there, for the first three or four years they could only grow food for themselves; and the notion of any early or large production of cotton in such districts was simply chimerical and absurd. But gentlemen anxious on this subject might nevertheless purchase land fit for the purpose. The Governor General stated that there was no question but that there was plenty of land under assessment fit to grow cotton upon, and such land could be easily bought, though perhaps not often in very large quantities. If hon. Gentlemen were disposed to invest their money in purchasing land for the cultivation of cotton in India, let them take land of that description, which was available at once, instead of seeking to reclaim wastes which would require five or six years to bring them into any sort of cultivation. In Mr. Ferguson's pamphlet that gentleman said he had been prepared to invest a large sum in purchasing 40,000 acres in Oude for growing cotton, but that his (Sir Charles Wood's) despatch had put an end to the scheme, and that it was impossible to attempt it, when he now found that he could only obtain 3,000 acres—an amount insufficient for his purpose. That limitation was, however, imposed by Lord Canning's Resolutions, and not by his despatch.
  1654
  Nor had his despatch prevented the sale of land to other persons, for the Chief Commissioner of Oude said that almost all the available land there was now sold, but that it was not suitable for growing cotton, which was an article of import in that province. The observations which he had made applied to that which was truly waste land, but the Resolutions of the Government of India applied also to a great deal of land which belonged to somebody or another, and which could not be fairly and properly disposed of without giving the claimants an opportunity of establishing their rights. He had been told that he was wrong in his opinion as to there being no great quantity of waste land in Bengal. Well, he had written to Lord Canning on the subject, and what was his reply? Writing on the 3rd of January 1862 Lord Canning said—
  "I think it likely that you overrate the amount of waste land through which the railways pass —'waste,' that is, in the sense in which the word is used throughout the Resolution. Many lands pass through miles and miles of jungle, as does the Great Trunk road, but a very great part of such ground (on the Trunk Road the whole of it) is no more disposable by the Government as waste, is no more ownerless, than the highly-tilled fields of the Doab. It was one of the mistakes of the agent of the Cotton Supply Association to assume that the country which he saw from the road wild and unreclaimed was all 'waste land.' "
  Everybody who knew India knew that there was a portion of almost every township left apparently waste, and on which the ryots turned out their cattle. Pasture for the cattle, employed in agriculture, was indispensably necessary, in order to provide for the means of cultivating the arable ground. The Zemindars also often left parts of their estates uncultivated for a time, but the Government had no power to take and dispose of that land, which was as much the property of the Zemindars, or the village communities, as any other land that belonged to them. It was exactly like the moors in Scotland, which might be called waste land, but which were the absolute property of somebody, and certainly could not be sold by Government. He must remark, however, that ever since 1853 there had been nothing to prevent the whole of this description of land in Bengal which was under permanent settlement, from being bought by Europeans. Any European settler, therefore, might have bought, not from the Government, but from the proprietor, any portion of the so-called waste land in Bengal, if the proprietor was willing to

  1655
  sell it. There was a Regulation providing for the division of the Zemindary estates, so that the purchaser of any part could be freed from the danger of having his land sold for non-payment of the Zemindar's rent He might acquire the property in absolute freehold, subject only to a fixed quit rent. So far therefore as related to land in Bengal, what was called waste land might have been purchased by any person for nearly thirty years, and might be bought now, if anybody thought it worth his while to do so. Yet it was almost exclusively from Calcutta, that the complaints came of its not being possible to buy this land.
  But the Resolutions applied to waste land in other parts of India—where land belonging to the ryots was often left uncultivated for some years. In Mr. Saunders' pamphlet he spoke of land as waste land which had lain so for five years. This was salable under the terms of the Resolutions. In a country where manure was scarce, land was often left fallow for a few years. Natives often gave up the cultivation of their land, and went away to seek their fortune or employment at a distance. Some reasonable opportunity ought to be given to such persons of asserting their right to the land which it is proposed to sell. But that after an advertisement had been put out which many people could not see or read, a purchaser should be put in possession of a piece of land after thirty days' notice without the owner having had an opportunity of coming forward to claim his right to it, was a thing wholly unheard of. Under such a system a man might go away for six weeks, and when he returned find somebody in the enjoyment of his land with an indefeasible title. One great reason for insisting on having the boundaries roughly marked out, was that it would give notice to the neighbourhood of the intended sale. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Vansittart) was quite correct in his remarks as to the feeling of the people of India in regard to their land. Their love for it was something inconceivable, and for a piece hardly worth cultivating they were ready to fight to the death. Page after page of the minutes of Lord Metcalfe and Sir Thomas Munro proved that this was the case. The people clung to their rights of property with the utmost tenacity. In confirmation of this he would mention a circumstance which occurred to Sir John Lawrence in the Punjab. He objected to
  1656
  the proceeding of some chief who wished to turn some of his relations out of the possession of some land which had belonged to his family some thirty years before; and the chief answered that in the neighbouring district the grandson of a man who had been carried off nearly a hundred years before to Afghanistan, and had become a Mussulman, returned to the Punjab, and by common consent of the people who had in the mean time occupied the land and of the whole neighbourhood, the greater part of the inheritance of his family was restored to him. Could there be a stronger instance of the universal acknowledgment of the ancestral rights of property in land. If there was any single thing that would cause greater risk of insurrection than another and render our tenure of India insecure, it would be if a general feeling should be created among the people of that country that we were trifling with their rights of property in land. As to the suggestion of the noble Lord, with respect to what ought to have been stated in the despatch, he had left those points to the discretion of the Government of India. And no time had been lost in providing for them. An Act had been passed in which it was enacted that a three months' notice should be given, instead of one of thirty days; that within the three months any claim must be made, which would then be adjudicated upon by a tribunal on the spot; that compensation should be paid where the right to it was established within three years, such compensation to be paid, of course, by the Government which had sold the land.
  He now came to the redemption of the land tax. The noble Lord had pointed out how little difference there was in most parts of the measure recommended by himself, and that of the measure prescribed in the despatch. In both the main points of security of tenure and of immunity from being deprived, by an enhanced demand on the part of Government, of the benefit of improvements, were assured to the occupier of land. For either measure, a revision of the assessment was necessary, in order to insure a fair receipt, either of purchase money or of rent, by the Government. His measure prescribed that a fixed rent, fixed in perpetuity, should be paid to Government. The proposal of the Government of India allowed one-tenth of this rent to be redeemed, and a capital sum paid for it to the Indian Treasury. This he had not

  1657
  allowed. He certainly had been surprised by the assertion of his hon. Friend that the land revenue was a curse to India. He had always believed that it was, perhaps, the most remarkable advantage of India that £20,000,000, or one-half of its revenue, was derived from the rent of the land. There could not be any source of income so little unpopular. The land tax was perhaps the only impost which was not obnoxious to the people of India, and, for his own part, he objected to sacrifice so large a portion of that safe and secure income, upon which we could always depend. All Oriental Governments derived a great part of their revenue from land, and he should be trifling with the resources of India if he were to act upon the advice of the hon. Member for Poole. In his recorded minutes Sir John Lawrence said—
  "I deprecate the policy of redemption, because I feel certain that its effect would be to deprive the State gradually, it is true, but surely of a large portion of the one great source of income which the people have been immemorially accustomed to pay, and which has all the authority of prescription and tradition in its favour."
  Indeed, the great majority of the ablest officers in India were against the redemption of the land tax, and not one was in favour of the particular plan recommended by the Government of India. The hon. Member for Poole had quoted Mr. Hume in support of his proposition; but if he had read a little further, he would have found a frank admission by Mr. Hume that very few, if any, of the native landowners would be willing to redeem the land tax on any terms. Mr. Beadon was also against the redemption of the land tax, and in favour of a permanent settlement, Mr. Laing, in the Minute which the hon. Gentleman had quoted, said—
  "I do not refer to the question of redemption of land revenue, for it is no necessary part of the question of permanent settlement. I doubt its advantage, except in the ease of waste lands in unoccupied districts, and would certainly not allow any extension of it that can be helped at such a low rate as twenty years' purchase, which involves a direct loss to the State."
  These, however, were the terms which the noble Lord opposite had just recommended. Sir Charles Trevelyan thought the redemption of the land tax would be an unjustifiable sacrifice of revenue. In fact, all the best authorities were in favour of continuing the tax, and, what was still more important, the people themselves were accustomed to it, did not consider it a hardship, but, on the contrary, were perfectly; content to pay it. There could be no
  1658
  doubt that rent for land would be paid by the occupier to somebody, and it was well that the Government should receive a portion of a payment which was cheerfully made by the occupiers. He certainly did not believe, that if the power of redemption was given, many persons would avail themselves of it. In the North Western Provinces and in Oude, six months after the publication of the Government Resolutions, not a single landowner had applied for it. In Chittagong, where it was allowed at ten years' purchase, very few persons had redeemed. But the most complete answer, so far as regarded Bengal at least, was the feet that any landowner might, at the present moment, practically redeem his land tax. It was admitted by everybody, that if the land tax were to be redeemed, it would be only fair that such a sum should be given for it as would, if invested in Government Securities, produce an interest equivalent to the amount of the tax itself. Practically, at this moment there was a power in the permanently settled districts of depositing in the hands of the collectors an amount of public securities, the interest of which was equal to the rent of the estate, and thenceforward no land tax was payable, and the estate could not be sold for arrears of rent. This, in fact, amounted to a redemption of the land tax, with the further advantage that the proprietor could at any time withdraw the securities from the collector, and re-possess himself of his capital. If, therefore, settlers in Bengal wished to redeem their land revenue on fair terms, there was no obstacle to their doing so. Yet it was from Bengal that the complaints of not being able to do so principally came. He would not detain the House longer; but, in his opinion, the great argument in favour; of a permanent settlement rather than of redemption was that very few people throughout India would avail themselves of the redemption, whereas the whole agricultural population, without exception, would benefit by the arrangement for a fixed perpetual rent charge. He believed that the course which the Government had taken would be productive of advantage to the great mass of the population of India, and it was to the improvement of the mass of the native population, and not to that of a few settlers only, that we must look for the development of the resources and the increase of the wealth of the country. In the benefits of the improvement of the condition and the in-

  1659
  creased power of consumption of the great body of the people of India, this country must necessarily very largely participate; and, independently of our moral obligation to govern India for the good of its population, we had the most direct pecuniary interest in their welfare.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that he should rest satisfied with the debate to which his Motion had given rise, and would not press it to a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MALTA NEW DOCK.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he rose to move for a Copy of all Official Correspondence and Reports of the late Admiral Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station, and of the late Admiral Superintendent of Malta Dockyard, relating to the proposed New Dock at Malta. He would take that occasion to say, that as far as he had been able to form an opinion, the work could not be constructed for anything like the sum estimated. The site selected was also wholly unsuitable. What was called the Marsa, at the end of Valetta harbour, would have to be deepened to the extent of twenty-five feet or thirty feet to make it available for the purpose which the Government had in view; and in order simply to dredge it to the necessary depth a sum of £135,000 would, he believed, be required. Beyond that there was to be a basin, the construction of which also would cost considerably more than the sum proposed, and he wished to know whether the plans had not been decided in opposition to the opinions of the Admirals on the Station and the other most competent authorities.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Government had undertaken the construction of the work to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the Marsa in preference to the French Creek, first of all, because they had the ground at the former place on their hands, and could commence operations at once. The dock, he might add, would, according to the estimate of the engineer whom the Government had sent out there—Mr. Scamp—be constructed for £50,000, of which sum the Maltese Government were to contribute £10,000. The basin was a matter altogether irrespective of the dock, and was connected with the general improvement of the harbour. In consequence of Sir W. Martin and Admiral Codrington having expressed doubts as to
  1660
  the propriety of making this dock, Sir F. Grey and his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) visited Malta, and they had reported in its favour. As a great deal of the information upon which the Admiralty had acted had been drawn from the verbal reports of these officers, the correspondence would necessarily present an incomplete view of the case; and as it would also be inconvenient as a precedent to produce the confidential reports of officers to the head of a Department, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Officer would not press his Motion.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he thought that as the House of Commons had to vote the money for the work, it ought to have full information upon the subject.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he could see no reason why the correspondence and reports should not be produced.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the documents moved for would not contain the whole case. It was on the report of Admiral Grey and Mr. Whitbread made verbally that the Admiralty had acted.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that the Motion included "all other Official Correspondence."
  Copy ordered,
  "Of all Official Correspondence and Reports of the late Admiral Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station, and of the late Admiral Superintendent of Malta Dockyard, relating to the proposed New Dock at Malta; and all other Official Correspondence bearing on the subject."

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th May],
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of Holyhead Harbour, with a view to ascertain the best method of affording safe and efficient accommodation for the Vessels engaged in the Irish Mail Service, and for the Passengers conveyed by them."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, as the information he had received confirmed the statements he had made respecting the works, he must press the Motion for a Committee.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Government were now constructing a pier at Holyhead which would add greatly to the safety of passengers and shipping. He

  1661
  did not see that a Select Committee could obtain any more information than was now possessed by the Government and the House, and he therefore opposed the Motion.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he believed the works proposed by the Government would not make Holyhead harbour either safe or convenient, and he entertained a confident expectation that the appointment of the proposed Committee would ultimately save a considerable amount of public money.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, that nothing could be more incomplete than the proposals of the Government; and incomplete as they were, nothing had been done towards carrying them them out. A little pressure applied to the Government would be very useful.
  MR. PEELstated, that the promises of the Government were in process of being carried out. The very thing for which the hon. and gallant Member expressed anxiety—the solidification of the pier—had already been carried out to a great extent.
  MR. GEORGEdenied that driving piles with considerable intervals between each amounted, in fact, to a solidification of the pier.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 73, Noes 47; Majority 26.
  Select Committee appointed.
  And on June 1 Committee nominated, as follow:—
  Colonel DUNNE, Mr. CORRY, Mr. LAIRD, Colonel PENNANT, Colonel VANDELEUR, Lord NAAS, Mr. JOHN TOLLEMACHE, Mr. LEFROY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. DALGLISH, Colonel FRENCH, Lord JOHN BROWNE, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

SECURITY FROM VIOLENCE BILL.

  [BILL 111.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid: At this hour of the morning, those who are in favour of the third reading of this Bill, have a good right to object to my making any speech in moving that it be read a third time this day six months. But at the same time, we, who are opposed to it, have an equally good right to resort,
  1662
  if we please, to the strongest weapon of a minority, and to move the adjournment. As, however, I well know that such a proceeding would not effectually stop the Bill, and would merely entail upon the other side of the House the vexation of staying up to as late an hour on some other occasion to carry the third reading, I will propose a compromise. I will speak for eight minutes, and, if I am not interrupted, I will then sit down. On this understanding then, I proceed to say, that those who are in favour of this Bill, call us who are opposed to it, humanitarians. I confess, of the two, I had rather figure as the friend than as the enemy of mankind; but I mean to argue the question on the ground, not of humanity, but of policy. In the first place then, Sir, your existing laws are quite strong enough to repress crimes of violence, and no change is necessary. Examine the criminal statistics of the last fifteen years. Note especially the crimes of violence. Are they gaining on society, or is society gaining on them? Look at each of the three last quinquennial periods, and then say whether there is anything to alarm you? Quite recently crime has been unusually rife, but why? Simply because bad times invariably bring with them crime, as they bring with them fever or other forms of disease. This particular crime of garotting, which has frightened so many people out of their propriety, is a mere fashion of the day; for man is an imitative animal, and crime has its fashions like other things. Its reign extended from July to November. Since November there has hardly been a case of it. Is there any other form of violent crime against which it is necessary to defend yourselves by unusual measures? If so, what is it? It will hardly be denied that to change your criminal code, without very cogent reason, is of itself an evil. All those who have studied, as well as those who have practised our law, know to their cost that the reproach which can be most justly brought against our system, is its fragmentary character. It is pervaded by no principle. It is made up of expedients to meet particular exigencies, and decisions to meet particular cases. A few years ago you attempted to introduce something like system at least into your criminal legislation, and now, at the very first panic, you hasten to stultify the conclusions to which you then deliberately came. In the second place, not only is it absolutely unnecessary

  1663
  to alter the punishments appropriated to this class of crime which are now on the statute-book; but if hon. Members are utterly purposed to alter them, when and how has it been proved that they should alter them in kind rather than in degree? I can understand those who say that the course of modern legislation upon the subject of punishment is wrong; that physical punishments are better than moral punishments; and that the sooner we begin to alter the whole of our system the better; but if we are to do this, let us do it after the solemn deliberation which befits so great a step. The best modern jurists have pronounced most strongly against those punishments which are classed by the greatest of English jurists, Mr. Bentham, as "afflictive punishments." Are all the hon. Members who vote for this Bill distinctly minded to break with the doctrines of modern jurisprudence upon this subject? Are not many voting merely to protest against the remissness of the Home Office, and of the Police, or to show the criminal class that society does not mean to be trifled with; and is it really worth while to alter your legislation for any or all of these purposes? If the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman were new, it might be very right to try it; but it is as old as the worst passions of human nature. Fierce and cruel punishments are the first thought of the savage, who wishes to keep up his authority. The right hon. Gentleman imitates at a humble distance the traditional sagacity of Cochin China. There is not one nation in Europe which has not begun with punishments of the kind the right hon. Gentleman now wishes to bring back; and as fast as each of these has advanced in civilization, she has abandoned one after another. Even in Russia, they have just abolished the knout; and perhaps if the Bill passes, the question as to the particular instrument to be used might be best settled by the right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends subscribing to buy for the Government, and inscribing their honoured names upon, the knouts which are no longer required. They would probably get them cheap. I have many more arguments to advance, but my hon. Friend who sits near me reminds me that my eight minutes are over: and as the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have kept their share of the bargain, it is only fair I should keep mine. I only beg to say, in conclusion, that I shall vote with peculiar satisfaction
  1664
  against this stupid and atrocious appendix to Adderley on Human Happiness—and that I move that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
  MR. COXseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 18: Majority 53.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM EWART, Bill for decimalizing our existing system of Weights and Measures, and for establishing an accordance between them and those of Foreign Conntries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EWART, Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. COBDEN, and Mr. FINLAY.

  LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Cox, Bill to amend the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act, 1856, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cox and Sir MORTON PETO.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 119.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.
  Ordered, That the Bill, so far as it relates to the confirmation of the Orders 4 and 5 in the Schedule thereto, for the construction of Piers at Llandudno and Rhyl, be referred to a Select Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Stock Certificates to Bearer * (No. 100).
Committee—Elections during Recess * (No. 84).
Report—Elections during Recess * (No 84).
Third Reading—Cayman Islands * (No. 88), and passed; London, &c. Dioceses * (No. 95).

THE VOLUNTEER FORCE—THE NEW REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEwished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary for War when it would be convenient to lay on the table of the House the new Regulations proposed with respect to the Volunteer Force which had been promised by the noble Earl's lamented predecessor?
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, there appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the Regulations to which the noble Viscount alluded. The late Sir George Lewis had not promised to lay the Regulations before Parliament: what he said was, that the nature of those Regulations would be explained when the second reading of the Bill was moved in another place, which it was hoped would be in the course of this week. It was impossible to lay regulations on the table until it was known what would be the nature of the engagements to which Parliament was prepared to agree; but if the clauses of the measure should be adopted, there would be no objection to lay the Regulations on the table of either House. His noble Friend the Under Secretary for War, in moving the second reading of the Bill, would state the arrangements he proposed to adopt, provided the main conditions of the Bill were agreed to. Of course, the regulations would only relate to the terms of efficiency prescribed as a condition for participating in the Government allowance, not to the general conduct of the force.

LONDON (CITY) TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, said, that although it was a private Bill, its promoters felt that it dealt with a subject of such great importance that it was desirable it should be brought under the notice of their Lordships. He would briefly, therefore, state the special object for which it had been introduced. Their Lordships were no doubt aware that the traffic passing through the City had of late years increased enormously, and that the dimensions which it had attained were, at particular points, productive of considerable public inconvenience. The present measure had been introduced with a view to enable the City authorities to adopt such regulations in the shape of by-laws as they might consider necessary for the purpose of mitigating the evil which now admittedly existed. Some, few years ago the corporation caused Cannon Street to be widened, in the hope that a large portion of the traffic passing east: and west through the City might be diverted into that channel. That expectation had not, however, been realized, as, for some reason or another, Cannon Street did not appear to be a favourite line for public: vehicles. It was ascertained that one day last year, between the hours of half past twelve and half-past one o'clock, the number of omnibuses passing along Cheapside and the Poultry was 291, while, during the same time, only two passed along Cannon Street. He might mention another fact to show the great pressure of traffic along the principal City thoroughfare. It was found that between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning of a particular day, the number of; vehicles of all sorts that passed by Bow Church was 1,255, and in the afternoon, between four and five o'clock, the number was 1,252; while it appeared that the number of vehicles entering the City daily was 57,765. The Bill would enable the City authorities to regulate that enormous traffic, and he hoped that it would meet the approval of their Lordships. It was pro posed that the by-laws to be framed by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen should not come into operation until a month after they had received the approval of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. The noble and learned Lord then moved, That the House do now go into a Committee on the said Bill,
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that on this
1578
Bill being brought before him as Chairman of Committees, he found that its provisions were of a very novel and stringent character; it was a large power to give any municipal body, to allow them to determine what particular route should be taken by waggons, omnibuses, and other public vehicles in their passage through the City. He admitted, at the same time, that some such measure was necessary, in order to get rid of the obstructions to traffic which now so frequently occurred along the main thoroughfares of the City. He had not thought proper, under those circumstances, to offer any opposition to the Bill; but he thought that as it was, to some extent, a measure of a public character, it ought to be brought under the consideration of the House generally before it was adopted. He had also thought it desirable to cause a provision to be introduced into the Bill to the effect that its operation should be limited to a period of seven years—believing that if it were at first made permanent, and it should afterwards be found desirable to withdraw those powers, there might be found some difficulty in taking them away from so powerful a body as the City.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it was proposed that the contemplated by-laws should receive the sanction of the Secretary of State; it appeared to him that it was also desirable that the Secretary of State should have the power of calling on the City authorities to adopt such additional regulations as he might think necessary.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he did not think there could be any occasion for that. That City would, of course, be anxious to pass such by-laws as would best answer the end in view. Moreover, the Secretary of State would not know what were the requirements of the traffic through the City.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Government to another point of some importance, although he did not know whether it came within their jurisdiction or that of the police authorities. He alluded to the nuisance that was caused by the practice of driving a number of empty cabs backwards and fur-wards along the streets at a walking pane. A few days since be had counted in Pall Mall as many as twelve or thirteen empty cabs moving slowly along, and in some cases two of them traversed the thoroughfare side by side—the drivers conversing leisurely and agreeably with each other— but with little consideration for the convenience of passengers.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should cause inquiry to be made into the subject, and endeavour to see whether any effectual means could be adopted to abate the nuisance referred to by the noble Earl.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee; Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received on Friday next.

HARBOUR OF HOWTH.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving for a Copy of a Memorial presented to the Treasury last February relating to the Harbour of Howth; and of the answer, if any, that has been given to the Memorialists; and of any Minute of the Lords of the Treasary thereupon, said, that the harbour was constructed a good many years ago at a cost of £360,000; but it had gradually silted up, and now required to be repaired. A memorial had been presented to the Government requesting that a small portion of the funds which were at the disposal of the Treasury should be laid out on the harbour. That application was made so long ago as February; but no answer had yet been received, although the fishing season was rapidly approaching, when the delay might prove dangerous.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the object of the memorialists required an Act of Parliament, and orders had already been given to have a Bill prepared. It would be laid on the table shortly.
Motion agreed to: Return ordered to be laid before the House.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Friday next, half past Ten o'clock.