inquired whether it was probable there would be any reduction of the duties on Neapolitan Olive Oil. Also, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a bill with respect to the transfer of goods by document between principal and factor.

replied, that with regard to the first question it was impossible to make a precise statement on the subject at present. With respect to the second question it was the intention of his noble Friend (Lord Clarendon) to introduce a bill into the other House on the important subject referred to.

begged leave to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, to an important subject, which he (Mr. Hume) thought they were at this particular period, before proceeding to take her Majesty's Message into consideration, bound to take into their most serious consideration. He held in his hand certain Indian newspapers, which contained the most grave and serious charges against Lord Keane, for conduct which, if borne out by facts, and not satisfactorily explained to that House, must, of course, put an end to the question which the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had given notice of bringing forward this evening with reference to Lord Keane. Certain reports having been circulated for many months publicly in India, to the prejudice of Lord Keane, it might have been expected, that an enquiry would have been naturally instituted by the Government on the spot, for the purpose of ascertaining how such reports had originated, and whether well-founded or not; but no inquiry had taken place. The late disgraceful conduct of the 2nd Bengal cavalry in the face of the enemy, had revived those reports with increased bitterness, and their conduct had been attributed to the circumstance of Lord Keane having at the time the 2nd regiment of Bengal cavalry was under his command, ordered one of the troopers of that corps, who was innocent of any crime to be shot. The allegations contained in a letter which appeared in the Agra Ukhbar newspaper, which he held in his hand was made by the writer of it, who signed himself "Injured Innocence." He would first read an extract from the Bombay Times of the 1st of January, 1841, which states—

"That the 2nd Bengal cavalry had been dismounted and disarmed, and were on their march to Bengal. Hitherto speculation and surmise had been at fault to account for the dastardly scene at Purwan Durrah. In default of this, violent and angry discussion has been stirred up afresh, in reference to the death (the murder it has been unhesitatingly called) of one of their troopers, in the Affghan campaign, with which the name of Lord Keane had all along in some shape been connected. It has been matter of astonishment to every one, that for the satisfaction of the army, and for the sake of the character of the late Commander-in-chief and his staff, no official investigation was ever entered into on the subject."

The writer of the letter in the Agra Ukhbar manifestly was a witness of much of what he describes, and the following-quotation will enable English readers to understand the nature of the charge against Lord Keane, or as he then was, Sir John Keane, for having given orders to shoot a trooper near to his tent, who, it appeared, had died in consequence of the wound he had received from those who had acted in obedience to such orders from Sir John Keane. He (Mr. Hume) knew nothing of the transaction except from the public papers; but from them it appeared that so early as April and May last year, the charges were publicly made; and the extracts from the letter in the Bombay Times of the 1st of January, will explain to the House the nature and extent of the charge.

"The Agra Ukhbur has published a letter from an old correspondent which makes no mystery of the wretched affair of the trooper of the 2nd regiment of Bengal cavalry, who it is now unequivocally asserted was put to death by order of Lord Keane; The Friend of India speaks of it as a fact, perfectly well known? The Calcutta Press and Bombay Courier has stripped the lion's hide from off the conqueror of Affghanistan. But the Agra Ukhbar is rampant, he says, that with respect to the first cause, that the trooper was murdered, I have never seen it publicly contradicted, though I have heard it said, that a certificate was given, that he did not die of the wound. Why, I ask, was this certificate required? The letter proceeds,' Although the victim to the angry passions of the Commander-in-chief, was not thirty yards from his tent, and he had every opportunity of ascertaining what the man was really about, he still insisted on securing him as a prisoner, he directed his being shot, and disgusting as it must be to the feelings of every soldier, he found a ready sycophant to execute his instructions."

It is also stated, that the regiment to which this trooper had belonged, immediately demanded an inquiry into the cause of their comrade's death, but (as the letter went on to state) no enquiry took place, and no satisfaction was granted, the matter was hushed up. Circumstances had remained in that unsatisfactory state, and the regiment to which the deceased man had belonged, had continued in a state of discontent until the action at Purwan Durrah. Since then the regiment had been disarmed, and they were marching back to Bengal. It appeared that the charge which he had read, had been made against Sir J. Keane, not in one paper only, and on one occasion, but it had been made in various forms for many months in the public newspapers, in the presidencies of Bengal and Bombay. He now held some of these papers in his hand, from which he had taken the liberty of reading it. The letter was signed by a person styling himself "Injured Innocence," and it was understood that the name of the writer had also been given to the editor to admit of enquiry. The charge of murder against a man of Lord Keane's high standing and respectability—a man holding so important a position as the gallant officer had been called to fill, was a circumstance that demanded an explanation in this House, for it was impossible that a charge could be brought against any man that could so seriously affect, not only his honour, but also the honour and welfare of the British army. "The extraordinary misconduct of the 2nd Bengal cavalry regiment, has revived the charge of the murder of one of the troopers, and it has been a matter of astonishment to every person, that an investigation upon the subject had not taken place, as well for the satisfaction of the army, as for the honour of the Commander-in-chief." He (Mr. Hume) submitted to the House, that as a trooper of the 2nd regiment of the Bengal cavalry had been put to death as alleged there publicly by order of Lord Keane; and as the charge of murder had. never been contradicted, or any explanation given, although it had been said, that a certificate had been given that the soldier did not die of the wounds which had been inflicted upon him, he (Mr. Hume) would ask, why was this certificate given, and why was not an enquiry instituted? The state of the law, indeed, to render such a document useless; as the law maintained that the intent to murder was as criminal as the actual commission of the murder itself. But there was one paragraph of the extract to which he wished to call particular attention, viz.— "That although the unfortunate victim was but thirty yards distant from the tent in which he (the commander) was at the time, he took no opportunity of ascertaining what the man was about, but, instead of so doing, he ordered the man to be shot, and he found a ready sycophant to execute his orders." That was, continued the hon. Gentleman, the substance of the grave charge he made, on the authorities he had stated, and hoped that the Government would postpone this vote until the matter was inquired into, if the explanation which the right hon. Baronet should give was not satisfactory to the House.

expressed his surprise that his hon. Friend should have been influenced by the gross calumnies against Lord Keane, which had appeared in the Indian newspapers, calumnies which, gross and unfounded as they were, ought, however, to be contradicted, He was glad, that his hon. Friend had not waited for the vote which his noble Friend was about to propose, and that he had, as he thought there was something worthy for the consideration of that House in these rumours as to the conduct of Lord Keane, he had called for an explanation before that vote was proposed. He must, however, express the surprise he felt, that the hon. Gentleman, on the mere authority of newspapers, and such newspapers, too, as he was sorry to say circulated in India at this day, should have thought it possible that an English general officer could be guilty not only of murder, but of being an accomplice in murder, such as those papers had distinctly charged him with—namely, murder under the pretence of a discharge of duty. The hon. Gentleman had read extracts from certain newspapers, copies of which he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) then held in his hands, and he was certainly surprised, that when the hon. Gentleman read those newspapers, he was not shocked at the terms in which the charge was made. Was this charge ever heard of before Lord Keane left India? There were Gentlemen present in that House connected with the East-India Company. He saw a director opposite (Mr. Hogg), and he would ask him whether he had ever heard, or whether the court of directors had ever had the slightest cognizance of any such fact, or of any such charge having been made? When he saw the charge in the newspapers, he made it his business to inquire immediately whether there were the slightest ground for it. He sent to the East-India House, and the gentlemen there informed him they had heard of none. He next inquired in his own department, and found there was no account of any such occurrence. Then, of course, it became his duty, for he had no other application to make, to inquire of the parties concerned, of those who were in the campaign with Lord Keane, and he had also inquired of Lord Keane himself, for he felt that a charge of this sort was not to be passed lightly over, especially if it were to be brought before Parliament, in order to prevent an hon. Officer, who had served his country nearly half a century, receiving those honours that were about to be conferred upon him. He had felt it his duty, that neither the stories of an "Old Correspondent," nor of "Injured Innocence," should be allowed to take away the character of an old English general. The truth of the case was this he would put the House in possession of the facts, and then leave it to judge whether there were any ground for the imputation. He was sorry to be obliged, in narrating these facts, to say that a portion of the Bengal cavalry that had advanced into Afghanistan, had not distinguished itself for bravery. Lord Keane was informed, at the capture of Ghusnee, that the second regiment of Bengal cavalry were marauding, and that they were about to commit depredations upon the standing crops of a village, the principal men of which came to Lord Keane himself in his tent, and, upon their knees, implored him to save that which was to be their food for the next, half year. Lord Keane immediately sent for the Provost-marshal, and said, that he could not permit such disgrace to be brought on troops which had previously distinguished themselves in discipline and good conduct, and who were advancing into that country for the purpose of restoring the monarch whom the Governor-General of India had declared to be the legitimate sovereign. He therefore ordered the Provost-marshal to place a certain number of videttes around the fields of corn; and to prevent any person from advancing into them to cut down the corn or to feed their horses, he ordered the vi- dettes to fire at first over the heads of the marauders; but at any rate not to allow depredations to be committed. Lord Keane felt, that he could not allow the character of the British soldier to be compromised by such marauding. He gave his orders to a competent authority, the Provost-marshal, and he did not conceal from the House, that he believed Lord Keane gave those orders with a view to repel the marauders, and that he meant them to be obeyed. What occurred, he was sorry to say, was this, the 2nd regiment went out for the purpose of marauding at night, and some of the videttes fired—they fired upon those who had gone into the field to cut down the corn. It did so turn out, that although the infantry stationed to protect the property of the natives fired over the heads of the depredators, one of the troopers was wounded in the leg, and it was said he afterwards died. But he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) would say, that if the man had been shot on the spot it would hare been perfectly justifiable; and he would further say, that if every person (being cognizant of the orders of the Commander-in-chief) thus plundering the property of people no way concerned in the war, who had not arms in their hands—if every person who was guilty of such a trespass had been wounded or had suffered death, and if Lord Keane had been brought before that or any other tribunal in the world on the charge of shooting them, he would have been acquitted. Lord Keane was only doing an honourable but a painful duty when he did that, for which so much villanous abuse had been heaped upon him. Having now justified Lord Keane from that charge, he might be permitted to appeal to those gallant Officers who heard him, for the character of that noble Lord. It was quite superfluous for him to pronounce any eulogium upon the merits of the noble Lord, and they were more competent than he to pronounce an opinion upon such a subject; but he would take leave to tell the House this one fact, that during the whole advance, not only was there no man punished with death, but positively no corporal punishment of any kind was inflicted on one single soldier, either of the native troops or of the British regiments. There was not a single court-martial for the trial of any serious offence during the whole of that very important and arduous campaign. He trusted, that he had said enough to convince the House that the death of the sepoy was not owing to the conduct of the noble Lord, or formed any ground for the House to refuse the vote which his noble Friend meant to ask. He was sorry to be obliged to detain the House, but he considered it necessary to go into some details, and the point to which he had now to advert gave him more pain than even the grossly calumnious charges made against the noble Lord. It was also of a more grave character—not as it affected Lord Keane, but those officers who had signed their names to the military commission. The House was aware, that in the course of the campaign a disaster had befallen our troops under the command of Major Clibborne, while endeavouring to relieve a fort. No imputation rested upon that gallant officer, for he was attacked by about seven or eight times his number, when he was obliged to retire. No imputation, whatever, he repeated, attached to the gallant officer in any way or shape, but our troops were so unused to any reverses that the Bombay government very properly ordered an immediate inquiry, in order to find out the cause of the disaster. Certain officers assembled; there was a major-general, a colonel, and two officers engaged in the inquiry. The House would be surprised —he had almost said shocked—to hear, that before the report of that inquiry could have been sent up to head quarters for confirmation or revision, the report itself appeared in a Bombay newspaper, just at the time the packet was about to sail; just at the time when such a report reaching home before the general commanding-in-chief had had an opportunity of seeing it, might operate injuriously to Lord Keane. And here he must take the liberty of saying, that that was one of the most extraordinary military reports he had ever seen. That the publication of that report must have emanated from some person concerned in the inquiry, there could be no doubt. There could be no mistake on that head; and whoever that person might be, as long as he had the honour to hold his present responsible situation, he should think it his duty, for the protection of the character of the noble and gallant Lord, and so he believed would the Court of Directors, to deal properly with those who had so grossly betrayed their confidential duty. It was not for him then to say anything more with respect to that report, and he begged pardon of the House for detaining them so long. He should not, however, have performed his duty, had he not said so much in favour of the noble Lord, who, after nearly half a century of service, had been so cruelly maligned by a rascally paragraph in a newspaper. He trusted the House would do justice by agreeing to the motion.

wished to know if the right hon. President of the Hoard of Control had received information whether or not Lord Keane or the Indian government had ordered any legal proceedings to be instituted against the authors of these libels?

said, he ought to have mentioned, that so shocked were the Bombay government by the appearance of the report of the military commission, that they had thought it their duty to censure the publication of it: and they had called upon the officers to explain how it had appeared. With respect to the Bengal cavalry, he had a report of certain proceedings that had taken place upon the conduct of that unhappy regiment, and it was to be disbanded.

, although he had not been personally called upon to answer the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet opposite, yet felt impelled to confirm most fully the statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman on both heads. He believed, that not one syllable of truth was contained in the charges against Lord Keane. He had heard that the sepoy trooper had been wounded under the circumstances detailed by the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the affair of Major Clibborne, Lord Keane had nothing to do with that disaster, or with the circumstance that had led to it, inferiority of force.

had told the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who had asked the question of him on the night the noble Lord had given notice of the present motion, that no intelligence of the events alluded to had reached him. If the charges that had been brought against Lord Keane had any foundation in truth, would the House believe, that no complaint, no representation would have been made to the constituted authorities either in India or at home? It had been said, that the cavalry had made a remonstrance, but that statement was unfounded. Lord Keane had again and again issued orders—those orders had been disobeyed, and at last he had discharged that duty which, perhaps, it would have been better to have dis- charged a little earlier. Of the whole marauding party only one had been wounded, and whether that individual had died from the effects of the wound or not, he was unable to state.

explained, that it was not he who had introduced the mention of the military commission, it was the President of the Board of Control who had done so. He (Mr. Hume) did not, perhaps, differ much from the hon. Baronet in thinking that it was wrong to have published that report until it had been in the hands of the Bombay government. He thought it a most singular state of things if, in India, newspapers should be found hardy enough to put forward such serious charges like those against a distinguished officer upon an anonymous communication, and persist in repeating them for so many months, without any notice being taken by the Government of them. It was said, that the writer of the letter signed Injured Innocence, had given his name to the editor, and was thus to be found out and prosecuted if there was no foundation for the charge. If the death of the trooper was caused in the way stated by the right hon. Baronet, he (Mr. Hume) was not the man to complain; but the newspaper he had quoted said the contrary.

said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. No names were given to the letters containing the villanous charges against Lord Keane; if there had, some opportunity for proof would have occurred. But the correspondents of the Bombay Times and the Agra Ukhbar were anonymous.

said, there were the public tribunals to appeal to. There was the Board of Control; there was the India House. It really was too bad, that a gallant officer should be traduced in the way that Lord Keane had been maligned.

thought, that the explanation of the right hon. Baronet was as satisfactory as possible, and, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny ought to admit, that it was so, even if it were for no other purpose than to allow the House to approach the discussion free from bias or difficulty,

was enabled distinctly to state, that not only no such certificate as had been alluded to was granted, but Lord Keane was not aware, that any man had died until he saw the account in the Agra Ukhbar. The Order of the Day for the consideration of the Queen's message was read, and the House resolved itself into a Committee.

said, it was quite unnecessary for him to make any statement of the merits of Lord Keane, that subject having been brought before the House last year, on the consideration of the vote of thanks. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, had, on that occasion, laid the whole conduct of the expedition fully before the House, and had enabled the House to judge of the gallantry and ability with which Lord Keane had discharged his most important duties. He could not possibly conceive the grounds upon which the hop. Member for Kilkenny meant to oppose the vote he was about to have the honour of submitting to the Committee. The proposal he was about to make was the same as that which was made in the case of Viscount Lake, in 1808, and the Committee would agree with him, that it was useless to confer the highest honours of the country upon individuals, unless at the same time adequate means were granted to support the dignity that was conferred. He repeated, he could not understand the ground of opposition, when he considered the eminent services which Lord Keane had rendered to this country in India. He would say, that the name of that distinguished individual stood as high, if not higher, than it had before the commencement of the present discussion. The noble Lord concluded by moving: —

"That the annual sum of 2,000l. net be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annuity to commence from the 8th day of February, 1041, and to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon Lieutenant General John Lord Keane, and the two next surviving heirs male of the body of the said John Lord Keane."

said, he certainly should not wait to hear the objections that were about to be made by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny to the motion proposed by the noble Lord; for he was so satisfied of the justice and policy of the grant, that he could not believe, any objections that could be urged by the hon. Gentleman Would have power to shake his opinion. He should avail himself of the opportunity of seconding the proposal, although the speech of the noble Secretary of State did not require the assistance of a seconder. He was not awed by the menace of opposition; still less was he to be dissuaded from the course he was about to take, by the preliminary discussion on the merits of Lord Keane. He cared not whether Lord Keane prosecuted those newspapers or not; he should be sorry to impose upon that noble Lord the necessity of instituting prosecutions in India against the authors of the scandalous attacks that had been made upon his fair fame as a justification of his title to the honour that was to be conferred upon him. He had never before heard of a charge so preposterous, as to endeavour to make a noble and gallant officer who had ever been conspicuous for his bravery and his ability, responsible for the cowardice of those who had run from their duty. The man who signed "Injured Innocence," ought perhaps more properly to have designated himself "Detected cowardice." To run away was bad enough, but to make Lord Keane responsible for it, and to attempt to vindicate it, by ascribing it to a wound in the leg given to a man detected in an act of insubordination upwards of a year previous, only excited disgust. He would not disturb the unanimity which he hoped would be found to prevail upon this vote by any reference to political opinions. In military transactions all such opinions ought to be left entirely out of sight. However much politicians might differ as to the expediency or propriety of any particular military expedition, all that was required of the soldier was, that be should execute the instructions given to him. It was no part of the duty of a military commander to inquire whether the service in which he was employed was politically right or not. All that was demanded of him was implicit obedience. And when they came, in the House of Commons, to estimate the merits of military men, those merits must be considered abstractedly, and without reference to the policy which led to their development. Under no circumstances ought the differences of opinion which might be entertained as to the policy which dictated a military expedition, be allowed to operate to the disadvantage of the officers who were engaged in it. He might, perhaps, lament that the proposition now made by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not been submitted to the House at an earlier period. He thought the general rule should be, that the ho- nours or distinctions conferred for military service should be followed, as soon as possible by the pecuniary reward. There might be good reasons for the delay in this instance; but he thought that the better rule was that which he had mentioned, and he trusted that the delay that bad taken place in the case of Lord Keane, would not be followed as a precedent. Now, by what test was he to try the merits of Lord Keane, and to ascertain the amount of praise to which that noble Lord was justly entitled? If he tried him by the test of privation and suffering, he found the army under Lord Keane's command, and under Lord Keane's example, submitting with indomitable endurance to the greatest privations to which an army could be exposed, overcoming the most formidable difficulties, by strict obedience to command, and furnishing an example of discipline unknown in the world, except in the ranks of the British army—a discipline which, in his opinion, distinguished British troops even more gloriously than their exploits in the field. If he tried Lord Keane by the test of brilliant military achievement, he thought the capture of Ghuznee was as brilliant an affair as ever shed a lustre on the arms of Great Britain. If he tried him by the test of the general success of the expedition in which he was employed, he thought that that test was also decidedly in favour of Lord Keane and of the army which he commanded. If he found, then, that the general usage of Parliament had been, in cases where the necessity arose for it, to accompany honorary distinctions for great military services with such a pecuniary provision as should enable the distinguished soldier to support the honours conferred upon him by his Sovereign, he should be exceedingly sorry to make the first exception to the rule, in the case of exploits performed in India. That, in his opinion, was the last place to which the exception should be applied. In those distant regions, where the achievements of the army were carried on, not under the eye, as it were, of the Legislature, where their deeds were comparatively unobserved—where their exploits, unlike those which took place nearer home, failed to attain the degree of popularity which made them in the mouths of all as "familiar as household words"—it was important to let men employed in those distant regions, know that neither the Parliament nor the people were forgetful of their me- rit, and were ready to bestow, for services performed in those remote quarters, the same reward that would certainly have been bestowed for similar services performed nearer home. Having said thus much upon the subject immediately before the House, he could not but take that opportunity of expressing his deep regret at the loss of the gallant officers who fell in the course of the campaign. It was impossible that Parliament could enter into any public recognition of their individual services, on account of the comparative inferiority of rank; but no man could read the accounts of their gallantry, of the sufferings they endured, and the valour they exhibited (when the exploits of the Indian army were spoken of, and the skill of its commander acknowledged), without remembering the gallant services of those of inferior rank, whose endurance upon the march and bravery in the field, had contributed so much towards the accomplishment of an achievement that must for ever hold a distinguished place in the annals of successful military enterprise. He took that opportunity of offering this slight tribute to their memory, and he begged to express his full concurrence in the resolution moved by the noble Lord.

confessed, that he had seldom felt greater pain than in giving the vote that he felt himself bound to give upon the present occasion. He admired, in common with the House, the exploits of the Indian army under Lord Keane. He entirely disregarded, as he had already stated, all that had been stated at the beginning of the evening. He trusted, that that subject was for ever disposed of; and that whilst, on the one hand, it could not for a moment influence the mind of any reasonable man, and induce him to give a vote in opposition to the resolution now-proposed; so, on the other hand, he trusted hon. Members would be careful not to allow their minds to receive from it what would not be an unnatural bias, and be induced to mark their indignation against a charge so utterly unsupported, and so improperly brought forward by the Indian newspapers, by agreeing to a vote which otherwise they might not deem called for by the circumstances of the case. There was, as he had said, an inducement to agree to the motion before the House from admiration for the exploits of the Indian army, and the conduct of Lord Keane; there was also a natural feeling of reluctance to take upon one's self the invidious duty of disputing the propriety of conferring rewards for public service. On the one side were these feelings; but, on the other, he could not forget that in voting upon a proposition of this description, they were called upon not to be governed by any feelings of that nature, but by a pure consideration of the public interest, and by what that interest really required. He believed that in the greatest nations of ancient and modern times, before the periods of their decay, the wisest monarchs and rulers had ever shown a great parsimony in the distribution of rewards for public service. It was well known that that was the case with our own Elizabeth. It was well known that she was particularly sparing in the distribution of the rewards which she thought it necessary to give. It was equally well known that the consequence of that parsimony—of that sage reserve in using this means of exciting emulation and eagerness in the public, service, was, that slight rewards coming from her carried with them more real distinction than much greater rewards conferred by other sovereigns. A knighthood, or even a simple expression of her approbation, was considered far more really honourable than the grant of a peerage from her weak and pedantic successor. It was a wise principle, with regard to the public service, to be very sparing in the distribution of great rewards—it was a wise principle that great rewards should only be given upon very great and high occasions. But at the same time, whilst this was the case, there was a natural tendency on the part of governments to fall into the opposite error. There was always a strong temptation to do that which was popular at the moment. To confer rewards was always a grateful and an acceptable duty, whilst to withhold them gave an appearance of niggardliness and absence of generosity. Hence it too frequently happened that governments were too apt to fall into the error of a prodigal distribution of rewards. And in discussing this topic, it ought not to be forgotten that every fresh error of this sort invariably afforded a ground and an argument for further errors of the same description. Every mistake that the legislature was guilty of in a too lavish distribution of rewards naturally and necessarily led to an increase in the demand. It was impossible to withhold from one distinguished individual similar rewards to those which had been conferred upon another for services of the same nature; and thus we went on from time to time, step by step, and little by little, gradually raising and increasing the scale of rewards given for public service, until at length they came to constitute an enormous item in the public expenditure, and to take a conspicuous place amongst the burdens which pressed most heavily upon the nation at large. At the same time it must be remarked, that whilst this increase in the scale of rewards was going on, no corresponding increase was given to the incentive to the discharge of public duty. He thought that in the very case now under their consideration the House was falling into this error. Why was it that it was now deemed necessary to grant this great reward of a peerage, accompanied by a pension for three lives, to Lord Keane? Because the House of Commons had adopted with too great facility, or without due reserve, former propositions of this kind, and because the Government by a too lavish distribution of those rewards which cost the country nothing, which, more sparingly administered produced a great effect on men's minds, had rendered those rewards valueless in the estimation of those who would otherwise be ambitious of attaining them. Was it not remarkable, that at the end of twenty-six years peace, during which no great naval or military service had been performed, and in the process of which few additional claims to reward or distinction could have arisen beyond those which existed at the end of the war—was it not remarkable that, under such circumstances, we should find the number of those who were members of the great military Order of the Bath, as high as when the peace of Europe was restored? He believed, that if a wise policy had been pursued in this respect—if the distinction conferred by admission to the Order of the Bath had been husbanded, and reserved for cases only of distinguished service and merit, the Government would have had a cheap, and at the same time a satisfactory mode of rewarding such services as were now under the consideration of the House. Every consideration, therefore, induced him to believe, that it was a wise policy not to distribute these rewards with great profusion. If he came to apply that principle to the case which was now before the House, and were to examine into the nature and extent of the services performed by Lord Keane which they were called upon to reward, he was aware that he should find great difficulty in explaining the considerations which operated in his own mind, and impelled him to take the course he was now pursuing. He thought, upon the whole, it would be better that he should not attempt to do so, because he felt, that it would be impossible to enter into that explanation without letting fall remarks or using words that might be construed possibly, though much against his intention, as evincing a disposition to disparage or diminish the value of the services of Lord Keane, and the brilliance of the exploits of the army that acted under his command. This was a question which, after all, must be left to the mind of every man; and, in his opinion, when he looked at the nature of the service on which Lord Keane was employed, and at the achievements he performed, he was bound, standing in that House, to declare that he did not think upon the whole that those services were of sufficient importance to justify the legislature in granting a pecuniary provision, not only to Lord Keane himself, but to his two immediate successors. He thought that the services performed by Lord Keane might very justly and very properly have been rewarded by the highest honours that could be conferred, without calling upon Parliament for a provision of the nature now proposed. He thought, also that the case would have amply justified an appeal to the liberality of the House of Commons in favour of Lord Keane himself; but, for one, he had the greatest possible reluctance to granting these pensions, not only in possession to the person who performed the service, but in reversion to those who succeeded him. This he thought a very dangerous principle; and although in each particular case the burden, when compared with the revenue of this great country, appeared to be very trifling and insignificant, it must not be forgotten how great was the tendency of cases of this kind to accumulate and run up. A pension granted now might last for a long series of years. In the mean time, other demands of the same nature arose and were conceded, so that at length an accumulation was formed, that became a large and sensible burden upon the resources of the country. He could not but remember, that in the form of half-pay and pensions, and what was commonly called "dead weight," the burdens upon the finances of the country were now so great, as in many instances to have compelled Parliament to postpone grants for active service which he thought were very urgently required. In fact, the weight of these demands had been in times past, and were still, very severely felt. The principle of the whole was the same; and in his opinion, it was the duty of the House to prevent any further accumulation of charges of this description. He was perfectly aware, when he urged this argument, that he was performing a highly invidious duty. It was a strong sense of the duty he owed to those who sent him there that compelled him to do so. He thought, that the Members of that House, in the discharge of the task for which they were responsible to their constituents, namely, in watching over the pecuniary interests of the country, were not at liberty to be guided by their own feelings of what it might be liberal and pleasing to do in behalf of a brave and gallant man. They were bound to apportion rewards for public service, not upon that principle, but upon the conviction of what they believed necessary, and no more than necessary, to stimulate and encourage merit in the public service in general. That was the only principle upon which, in his opinion, rewards of this kind ought to be given. He was well aware, that his objections were liable to this answer—that Lord Keane having been now made a Peer, it would be extremely unjust and cruel if the House were to refuse to him, and to his immediate successors, a pension corresponding to the rank he had attained. He was not prepared to deny the force of that argument. He confessed, that that was a consideration that had weighed with him, and had increased the difficulty that had attended his making up his mind to give the vote that he had determined to give upon the present occasion. It had, also, made him greatly wish, that in cases of this kind, when a pension was considered as a necessary accompaniment to a peerage, that the custom were different, and that instead of granting a peerage in the first place, and then coming to the House of Commons for a pension, the opposite course were observed, and the granting of the peerage made contingent upon the obtaining a pension. He thought, that that would be a far better, a far wiser, and a far more reasonable course of proceeding. He was, however, quite aware, that it had not been the practice—he was quite aware that a different rule had hitherto been acted upon. He did not complain, therefore, of what had been done in this case. But as the rule (an unwise one in his opinion) had been acted upon, he was bound not to consider the hardship to the individual, but to consider whether, if the whole matter were now brought before the House for the first time—whether if the peerage had not been granted, he should be prepared, as a Member of the House, to approve of the grant of the pension and the peerage together. That was the opinion which substantially he felt himself called upon to give; because the Crown possessed an undoubted right to confer honours according to its own discretion, and the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the advice which they gave to the Crown in the distribution of its marks of honour and distinction; but if it were the clear and undoubted right of the Crown to grant those honours, it was equally the clear and-undoubted right of the House of Commons—nay, it was the incumbent duty of the House to exercise a very severe discretion in all matters relating to the increase of the burdens upon the finances of the kingdom. That being the case, although he feared that the honour conferred upon Lord Keane might be rather an incumbrance than a reward, and greatly as he should regret that circumstance, yet he was bound to keep his judgment unbiassed, and to give his vote upon those great considerations of public policy to which he had already adverted. He would not add any further remarks in support of the vote he intended to give, except once more to declare, that he gave it with unfeigned reluctance, and that it was not inconsistent with the declaration that he set a very high value on the services of Lord Keane, and of the army under his command; and that it proceeded solely from a conviction, that if grants of this nature were to pass by as matters of course —if no individual would take upon himself the odious and unpleasant duty of raising his voice against them, they would gradually increase and multiply, gradually become more and more common, until at length the amount of service to acquire them becoming less and less, the higher rewards for more distinguished services, would have to be screwed up and increased in order to retain their relative value. It was this strong conviction that imposed upon him the duty—a duty from which he could not shrink—of declaring his disapprobation of the vote now proposed.

Although I regret that my noble Friend thinks it necessary to oppose this vote, yet I am not sorry that he has stated, with the ability which belongs to him, and with the temper and respect proper to be observed towards the individual who is the object of the vote, the general principles upon which he is disposed to proceed with respect to propositions of this nature; because, being of an entirely opposite opinion from that expressed by my noble Friend, his speech gives me at least an opportunity of stating the views which I entertain upon the subject, and of putting fairly to the House the issue upon which our adverse opinions are to be decided. My noble Friend speaks, in the first place, of the practice of ancient times. He tells us that the Romans observed great parsimony in the distribution of rewards for public service; and that Queen Elizabeth and some of the other great sovereigns of this country had observed a similar frugality. It is to be recollected, with respect to those periods, both of ancient and of modern history, to which my noble Friend has adverted, that there were then very different rewards to be attained. A Roman general returned from a successful campaign, laden with spoils, and retired with a private treasury filled with the produce of those spoils. This occurred at a time when they were often so ignorant of the value of what they had obtained, that one of the greatest of them, having acquired a great number of works of art of the highest order, and ranking highest in the estimation of those capable of appreciating them, made a contract with the ship-owner, by whom they were to be transferred to the conqueror's home, that if they should suffer shipwreck, or be injured upon the passage, he (the ship-owner) should be bound to supply other works of art of equal merit. Such was the spirit, and such the understanding, upon which a general of ancient times entered upon the service of his country. And in the days of Elizabeth, were there not great rewards of the same kind? Did not Sir Francis Drake bring home treasures of silver that would probably shock our eyes, if displayed as a part of the conquest of Lord Keane? What, indeed, should we say, if we saw waggon-loads of silver drawn through the streets to Lord Keane's house as the result of his campaign in Affghanistan? In the days of Elizabeth, public men, too, were rewarded by high privileges and great monopolies, which in our time would never for a moment be sub- mitted to. Were not the Cecils rewarded? Was not Sir Walter Raleigh rewarded? I belive Sir Walter Raleigh had about 3,000l. a-year granted to him by Elizabeth —a sum as compared with which 2,000l. a-year in the present day was utterly insignificant. If we come down to far more modern times—which I need not go through, as my noble Friend has not followed them—but if we come down almost to our own day, we must remember that it was in the power of the Crown to give great offices, to grant large sinecures, to give large pensions, and to bestow great rewards on those who had performed high service to the Crown. All that has since been abolished. Of late years the House of Commons has said, I think very lightly and properly, that it shall not be left entirely in the discretion of the Crown to make these large money grants—that the consent of the House of Commons should be first required; and then it was always added, "who can ever doubt that if there is a real service performed—if it is not a job to serve a political friend, but a bonâ fide grant to reward a naval or military man who has performed valuable service for his country—who can ever doubt that the House of Commons, under such circumstances, would show its gratitude? Who can ever doubt but that the House of Commons would be too happy to co-operate with the Crown in rewarding these merits?" It was said, further, that it would be an additional satisfaction to the individuals who had performed good service to find that they were not only graciously rewarded by their Sovereign, but that the voices of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were likewise in their favour; and this, it was added, could not fail to make whatever reward was bestowed more acceptable to those upon whom it was conferred. Such was the language hold in Parliament when it was proposed to abolish the large pensions and places, and other sources of reward previously held by the Crown. Then, I ask, is this a case, or is it not a case, in which valuable service has been performed? I have stated before, that last year the House had an opportunity of fully considering, and did fully consider and fully testify, by the unanimous opinion of those best qualified to judge the value of the services performed by Lord Keane. Like the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) opposite, I put aside the question of policy. I do not ask you to give any opinion as to the policy of the expedition in which Lord Keane was employed. I will even go further, and suppose that that policy was entirely wrong—that the Government at home, and Lord Auckland in India, were wholly mistaken in the policy which induced them to direct a British army to cross the Indus, and to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of deposing Dost Mahomed, and of placing Shah Soojah upon the throne. I will suppose that policy to have been wholly mistaken; but tell me if Lord Keane, having crossed the Indus —having even surmounted the difficulties of the Bolan pass—had found the hostile tribes too numerous, or the dangers and length of the march greater than his small force could accomplish—if, under such circumstances, he had failed in that courage, fortitude, and perseverance, which distinguished him, and had retreated from the enterprise, what would then have been the dangers to which our empire in the East would have been exposed? And if we had been obliged to comedown to this House, as probably we should have been obliged, to ask for an addition of 5,000 or 10,000 men to the army, to restore the moral force which Lord Keane's abandonment of the enterprise would have weakened, if not lost—and if we had proposed an expense of 120,000l., or perhaps 300,000l. a-year more to support that addition to the army—would it not have been necessary for the House of Commons to have incurred the expense, however great, to support the integrity of our Indian empire? Be it recollected, that this is on empire comprising 90,000,000 of subjects; and a military expedition undertaken that should not be successful—which should not have the brilliant results of Lord Keane's, in which such a place as Ghuznee was attacked and taken in a few hours, would be followed by most calamitous effects, and not only by most calamitous effects to the empire itself, but by most expensive votes in this House. Therefore, with the view to economy alone, to acknowledge these great services—to tell men who have deserved well that we, the House of Commons, concur with the Crown in thinking they have behaved well—and thereby to encourage other men to behave in a similar manner, is, after all, upon the mere consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence, the wisest and the cheapest course to pursue. So much, then, for my noble Friend's argument, that the services performed in this case are not of sufficient importance to call for any high reward. I come next to the statement of my noble Friend, that he regrets very much that we have proposed to continue this annuity to Lord Keane's two next heirs. I have already stated that I followed, in this respect, the example that was set in the case of Lord Lake, and of many other distinguished military men who served in the great war which terminated in 1815. But, I think, it is a reasonable course to pursue. It seems to me that you cannot well offer a peerage to a man whose circumstances are not affluent, and who would not have the means of supporting the dignity you proposed to confer upon him. I know that Lord Seaton, and Lord Keane, and many other distinguished officers, would say, "If I am offered a peerage, and a peerage alone, I must consider that, if I accept it, I shall be placing my son in a conspicuous situation, as a peer of the United Kingdom, and, at the same time, deprive him of many walks of professional life in which a respectable income might be acquired; therefore, with all deference to the Crown, which offers me this reward, I must beg to decline it." This would be the common operation of the offer to confer honorary distinctions unaccompanied by pecuniary reward. My noble Friend says, that the peerage should not be offered till the grant from the House of Commons had been first obtained—that is to say, that the prerogative of the Crown should be submitted to the decision of the House of Commons. I differ entirely from that doctrine. I hold it to be an unconstitutional doctrine. I will never, as a Minister of the Crown, bring forward a proposition for a grant of money with the view of taking the opinion of the House of Commons as to whether any individual should be made a peer or not. I would not put into the Speaker's hands the question, "ay" or "no," whether Lord Keane should be made a peer of the United Kingdom. With the respect that I undoubtedly entertain towards this House, I do not think that that would be a course proper for me to pursue. Unquestionably the Crown would do no such thing. I tell you what the Crown would do, and what it would be obliged to do— it would grant peerages to those meritori- ous officers who happened to possess sufficient property to maintain the rank in which they were raised, and who could, therefore, accept the honour without difficulty to themselves, or injury to their families, and it would not offer peerages to those meritorious officers who had not sufficient property to sustain the rank. I have said, that the doctrine of my noble Friend was not consistent with the just and acknowledged prerogative of the Crown—is it a doctrine favourable to democracy? Suppose the Crown had said to the Grahams, the Hopes, the Cottons, and others of the distinguished officers who served in the last great war, "You are all possessed of large estates—you have great property—you can support any dignity, any honour that we choose to confer upon you; therefore, you shall all have peerages; but with regard to other officers, whose services have not been less valuable, nor less brilliant, we find that they have very little property and would not be able to support the peerage, which otherwise they have well earned, and we should be quite ready to confer, without going to the House of Commons for a pension, and as the House of Commons is not disposed to grant pensions for services of this nature, therefore they shall not have peerages." If the noble Lord's views were adopted, that must be the doctrine of the advisers of the Crown; and a doctrine more hostile to the true rights and merits of those who rise from the democracy of this country cannot be imagined. It would be at once to say, "The great naval or military officer who obtains a brilliant victory, and has, at the same time, a large amount of private property, shall be made a peer; but he who has not this advantage—who is a younger brother or a poor man, shall be refused the distinction to which his services would justly entitle him." It has been a favourite doctrine with some gentlemen—amongst others, I think, with the hon. Member for Kilkenny—a doctrine in which I have always been very happy to concur—that in the army the opportunity should be given for men to rise from the ranks—that commissions should be given to them—and that the private soldier should not be deprived of a share of that promotion which is the proper reward of merit. That doctrine is a just one, and of late years it has been acted upon by the Commander-in-chief. Let us suppose that one of those men who hare risen from the ranks—the son, perhaps of a small farmer, or of a labourer—suppose him in a situation of command, and that it falls to his lot to achieve one of those brilliant victories that immortalize his name, and associate it with the history of his country by services that can never be forgotten— suppose, in such a case, the advisers of the Crown were to say to him, "If you were a rich man, we should feel it our duty to advise the Sovereign to confer a peerage upon you; but as you are a poor man, and an obscure man, having no fortune to support any dignity that may be offered you, and as the House of Commons are not disposed to make any pecuniary provision for men in your situation, we are under the necessity of refusing you the highest honour to which a British subject can aspire—the honour of being admitted to the British peerage." I think, upon all these grounds, whether with regard to the comparison between ancient and modern times, or the comparison between the times of our fathers, and those in which we live ourselves, or with regard to the services performed by Lord Keane, his admirable fortitude—his indomitable courage—his happy maintenance of discipline, and his brilliant conquest at Ghusnee—I say that, upon all these grounds, and upon the ground of supporting the Crown in a grant of this nature, by a vote from the House of Commons as due to merit, whether it be merit in a rich man or a poor man, and lastly, upon the ground that the vote is not proposed by her Majesty's advisers for any object of a party or political character, but simply and purely for services rendered to the nation;—upon all these grounds, I confidently ask the support of the House to the resolution I have had the pleasure of submitting to its consideration.

rose amid cries of "question," and "divide." He said it appeared to him, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, looked but a short way before him when he called in question the arguments of the noble Lord below him (Lord Howick.) That noble Lord had objected to the granting Peerages except for great and extraordinary conduct; and more so, to the giving a pension in the present state of the dead weight and burdens on the people. He (Mr. Hume) agreed with the noble Lord. He (Mr. Hume) wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who supported the present motion, whether in the appeal he had just made to that House, he meant, that they should create hereditary Peers at the present day, and pension them now with the certainty that they would have them beggars at the third generation? When notice of the present motion had been given, he (Mr. Hume), had at once intimated his intention of opposing it, and was not then acquainted with the charge made by the Indian newspapers against Lord Keane—that had not originated his opposition. In the first place, he objected to the principle of an aristocracy pensioned by the people, as it was proposed to do to Lord Keane, because he had not fortune to support the rank conferred upon him. He did not, by any means, object to the prerogative of the Queen. Let her create as many Peers as she pleased; let her make shoals of Dukes, Marquesses, and Viscounts. The more she made, the less value would be attached to the Peerage. He made no objection to that; but he objected strongly to the practice which had of late years been adopted in this country, that of creating peers who had not the means of supporting the dignity of the station to which they were advanced. He could not suppose that the noble Lord meant to say, that the Queen of this country could be properly supported by an aristocracy, who were to be supported themselves by pensions from the people. If the noble Lord's argument meant anything, it meant, that as the Queen had created Sir John Keane a Peer, we were bound, by a vote out of the taxes, to support the family of that Peer. According to the noble Lord's observations, it appeared, that the son of Lord Keane, being the son of a Peer, would be prevented from engaging in any professional occupation to provide the means of supporting himself, and that it was, therefore, incumbent on the nation to give the son and grandson pensions: and thus, by only providing for the dignity of the Peerage, up to the second generation from Lord Keane, they were in a manner admitting, that the fourth Peer necessarily must be a beggar. Thus, to support that dignity, the noble Lord appealed to the representatives of the people, and called on them for a pension. Did the noble Lord, he would again ask, mean to say, that the honour and interest of the Crown would be best supported by an aristocracy which should be supported by the vote of that House from the taxes of the country? There was a sufficiency of experience before them, to make them careful in such votes as the present. If he was asked for examples, he could point to the pension list, and there they would find whole families, widows, sons, and daughters, annually receiving money from the taxes, because their husbands and fathers were poor, and had been created Peers. The House of Commons ought not to allow the public money thus to go to the pensioning of Peers, who would be hereafter, of course, pensioners, and subservient to the purposes of the Government, and depend upon the Crown for their support. If the creating a Peer was such an honour as the noble Lord described, could he not adopt the plan of making life Peers, and limit the pension, if any was given, to the one individual. By that system of creating pauper peers, they destroyed the value, if any was attached to the honour; and he could not but think, that it would have been more honourable to Sir John Keane to have made him a life peer on his military allowances, than to make him and his family pensioners, as they were now proposing to do. The right, hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, had said, that he approved of the justice and policy of the present motion; that was, he thought, the reward of a peerage was not too great, and that it was sound policy to make Peers, who had not income enough to support that station, and render it necessary that the people should be taxed to enable them to support the dignity of their Peerage. This was the ground upon which the right hon. Baronet thought this motion just in principle, and sound in policy [Hear, hear! and Laughter.] He (Mr. Hume) thought, that the present was not a time for levity, but a time in which they should look to the distressed state of the country, and take care what they were about. This was not a time for increasing in such a manner the present burdens of the people, when misery and wretchedness existed to so great an extent in the kingdom. Was it to be supposed, that the officers of the British army wanted such inducements as those to make them do their duty? Did the soldiers require, or did they ever receive, such for their gallant conduct? His second objection, then, to the present motion was, that it was not a well-timed one. They had a heavier load of taxes and debt already than they were able by their present income to pay; and the House should observe, that for the last four years, they had a deficiency in the revenue to the extent of five millions sterling, together with a considerable increase in the military and naval expenditure of the country. The noble Lord had spoken of the glory and success which attended the arms of Great Britain in foreign parts; but he (Mr. Hume) would call their attention to the great degree of misery and distress which existed in so many of their towns and villages at home. This House was always ready to tax industry, and not property in that House, and to take money out of the pockets of the people, whenever it was wanting. As an increase of taxes must take place to meet the increased expenses, and to pay for this pension, he (Mr. Hume) hoped the rich would lay on a property tax, and not further to burden the necessaries of life as they had so heavily done. For his part, he regretted the noble Lord below (Lord Howick) had not expressed his opinions against pensions and pauper peerages, when Lord Seaton was created a pensioner, and he (Mr. Hume) would not have had to fight that battle as he had had on that occasion, like the present, almost single-handed. In conclusion, he consoled himself, that he had done his duty to his constituents in endeavouring to prevent the extravagance, and he would add, the injustice of the House, by this act; and he announced his intention of dividing the House upon the motion, and placing on record his opposition to so profligate a grant of money.

bore testimony, from a long and intimate acquaintance, to the merits ef Lord Keane. In answer to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he could say that the officers of the British army were influenced by considerations as pure and honourable as the officers of any service. Nine-tenths of them gave their services to the country gratuitously, for they bought their commissions for a sum which would purchase an annuity equal to the amount of their pay, and the only reward they sought was the acknowledgment of their country that they had done their duty. But when an officer was placed in an important and hazardous situation like Lord Keane, and that officer, after discharging with signal success the important duty confided to him, was honoured by his sovereign with a call to the peerage, he did think that officer had a right to look to the country for the means of enjoying his dignity. When the noble Lord (Viscount Howick) said, that to grant the proposed rewards would be the means of increasing the same sort of rewards in future, he forgot that the argument cut both ways; for, although the present instance might be taken as a precedent in the bestowal of future honours, yet it at the same lime served to stimulate and encourage the service to honourable exertions. The noble Lord had also complained that the order of the Bath had been kept up to its original number; but the noble Lord forgot that there were many officers who had commanded regiments in the Peninsula and at Waterloo, who well deserved to be appointed 10 the vacancies as they occurred. With regard to what had been said as to the gallant lord, the subject of the present discussion, he could only state that he firmly believed that he fully deserved the honour proposed to be conferred on him. He would not go into the history of Lord Keane's services, but be would advert to some circumstances well known to himself, to show that. Lord Keane had fairly earned the honours bestowed on him. The advance to Candahar was through the Bolan pass—a pass of the most formidable character; and it was hardly possible to imagine the degree of fortitude and discipline necessary to surmount its difficulties and dangers. After arriving in Candahar his noble Friend found it necessary to halt and refresh his army. When he again advanced he discovered that he had not the means of transport for his heavy artillery and his commissariat, and it being necessary, above all, to provision his army, he was forced to abandon the heavy guns. Having been told, that the fortress of Ghuznee was not very strong, he thought it advisable to march upon it, but was surprised at finding how strong it was. Having opened a fire upon it he found it perfectly hopeless to attempt to carry it except by assault or breaching a gate. He, therefore, having found a gate, put into requisition Colonel Pasley's plan and blew it down, but in consequence of too much powder having been employed, the beams and part of the masonry were brought down with it, and the breach was so small that the troops were compelled to creep in on their hands and knees. Fortunately a few companies were enabled to form before the enemy rallied from their consternation, and the British bayonet did the rest. It was entirely owing to the decision of his noble Friend, who, when it became a serious question whether he ought to obey his orders or not, that he was enabled to carry Ghuznee at a moment when the whole of the peasantry were prepared to take arms against him, and when Dost Mahommed with 12,000 troops was within a few miles of him. Had he failed or abandoned his attempt, it is impossible to say what the consequences would have been; as it was, he triumphantly succeeded, and placed on the throne the sovereign whom he was ordered to restore. He thought his noble Friend had well deserved the honours bestowed on him, and he trusted the House would agree to the vote.

could not consent to give a silent vote, because, although he felt it to be his duty to vote against the motion, he did not wish any one to infer from that, that he meant to disparage the services of Lord Keane. On the contrary, he thought they ought to be amply and nobly rewarded, but still he could not agree to the present motion. He conceived that Parliament had a right to tax the people of the present day, but had no right to tax a future generation. It was on this principle alone that he would vote against the motion.

recollected, when the military sinecure appointments were done away with, the hon. Member for Kilkenny getting up in his place and stating that he would support the claims of military Gentlemen to rewards. "Take," said the hon. Member, "the military appointments from the Crown, and any officer who comes and claims from the House of Commons a reward for his services shall have my vote." Several hon. Members concurred in these views, but now, when a strong case was made out for compensation, the hon. Member turned round and said he did not choose to create a pauper aristocracy. He thought such conduct to say the least of it, not fair.

expressed a hope that he might be allowed to take that opportunity of suggesting to her Majesty's Government that it would have an important influence on society, if they would establish some mode of conferring honours on those who distinguished themselves in saving life, and not confine the highest honours to the naval and military professions. It might not be expedient in all cases to confer the honour of knighthood for such services as Captain Clegg performed last year in rescuing from destruction upwards of one hundred persons; but he would have our Sovereign imitate the conduct of the King of the French, and bestow gold and silver medals as honorary rewards for acts of heroism in saving life. Such honours would be highly estimated, and stimulate men to cultivate the arts of peace, and illustrate their country by acts of usefulness.

said, that he had had the honour, at a meeting of the directors of the East-India Company, to propose a vote of thanks to Lord Keane; and after what had occurred, he could not conceive how any person could object to reward services which had been of so great importance to the country.

said, in voting against the motion, he did not mean to detract from the services of Lord Keane, but only to do what he conceived to be his duty to his constituents.

thought, that on an occasion of this kind, it was the bounden duty of every Member to support the proposed grant. When the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Howick) objected, as he understood him, to military men being raised to the peerage, he thought there were certain cases in which this had been done, particularly in regard to the noble Lord's own relative, Sir Charles Grey, who had been rewarded for his distinguished services in the West Indies. Another relative of the noble Lord's, during the period of Earl Grey's administration—he meant Sir Henry Grey—had been made a Knight Commander of the Bath. The noble Lord was also a member of that Government which granted a pension to Sir John Newport, to make room for the appointment of Lord Monteagle. He thought, then, that the noble Lord ought to have been the last person to object to a motion like the present, which he hoped the House would at once agree to.

said, he did not think it was quite consistent with the rules of that House, that any Member should make personal reference to any other hon. Member. Besides, the hon. and gallant Member should recollect that the parties he had alluded to received titles only, not pensions. With respect to what had fallen from his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, he thought his noble Friend had not done justice to the observations which he had made. What he stated was, that they ought to reserve the high rewards of a pension and peerage to the greatest service. In illustration of that, he might mention the fact that Lord Nelson, notwithstanding all his brilliant successes in the naval service, did not obtain his peerage or his pension from Parliament till after the battle of the Nile. Previous to that engagement he had only the ordinary pension granted for wounds received in the service.

said, he must vote against the motion, merely because the proposed grant was continued to the successors of Lord Keane. He regretted that Government had proposed anything so directly contrary to their principles, but he had been long enough a Member of that House to know that the contrast between professions out of the House and acts within it, was melancholy in the extreme.

wished to declare that he should support the motion.

moved—

"That it is expedient to reduce the duties payable on rum and rum shrub, the produce of any British possession within the limits of the East-India Company's Charter, to a duty of 9s. 4d, the gallon.

said, he had deferred rising to the latest moment, because, from what had passed on a previous evening he had been led to expect that some gentleman would have been anxious to enter into the question of the existence of slavery in India, but as no Gentleman had thought that branch of the subject worthy of his attention, he should proceed to express his views on the question immediately before the House; namely, the alteration proposed by the right hon. Member opposite, in the discriminating duties on East and West-India rum. If he were to enter into a history or defence of all the discriminating duties which had been established in the different colonies of this country, he would have to enter upon a subject too extensive for a single evening's discussion. He should then confine himself to the simple question before the House, the subject of the petition which had been presented by his hon. Friend near him (Sir A. Grant). In dealing with questions of this sort it had generally been the practice of Government to take one of two courses. Either having acquired such information as their official facilities enabled them to obtain, they laid a proposition, before the House, for discussion in the House or, having ascertained that such proposition affected certain interests, they referred the matter to a committee, before which all parties might state their claims and their grievances, and acted on the decision of that committee. But in the present case the Government had adopted neither of these modes of proceeding. It had taken a course calculated to deceive the parties interested, and, having thus lulled them into security, had adopted a step calculated to inflict gnat injury, perhaps absolute ruin. This was altogether a new practice, and he should be glad to hear from any Member of the Government on what principle it had been adopted. He was not there merely to advocate the interests of the particular body with which he was unfortunately connected, he was not seeking for the West Indies a measure of justice more extensive than what might be accorded to any other of our colonies; but he was pleading for the interests of every man who embarked his capital in trade or manufactures, on the faith that he was to be secured in a certain relative position, and who suddenly found that position disturbed without notice to the injury, and perhaps ruin, of his property. He would state the case fairly as it stood. In the last Session of Parliament a petition was presented by the East-India company, in which they stated a variety of grievances under which they considered themselves to labour with respect to the distinctive duties on East-Indian produce. That petition was fairly drawn up, nothing could be fairer than the manner in which it was submitted to the House. Indeed it was only necessary to remember who were the two hon. Members by whom it was put forward to be convinced that they would not lend themselves to anything unfair, however conducive it might be to the interest of the parties with whom they were connected. When that petition was presented to the House, it was suggested that it would be expedient to refer it to a committee, rather than that the House should express at once an opinion upon it. He believed the suggestion in question came from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or from one of his colleagues. [Mr. Labouchere—It came from myself.] In consequence of that suggestion the petition had been referred to committees both of that and of the other House of Parliament respectively. The committee in the other House investigated, at considerable length, the evidence and allegations laid before them. That committee in the House of Lords included persons conversant with the affairs and circumstances of the East Indies and the matters which they had to deliberate on. It was attended by Members of the Government, who took part in, if they did not actually direct its proceedings. The Members of the Government who attended it were, first, the noble Lord who presided over the council, a committee of which specially had charge of all matters of trade, and who from his proficiency in business, and general acquaintance with matters of trade, was to be presumed to be so far qualified to fulfil his duties on the committee. The other was the noble Lord who held the office of Privy Seal, and who, he believed, now filled that of the Duchy of Lancaster, than whom he would say there was not any one of his colleagues better qualified to form a judgment on the matters submitted to him. That noble Lord, from a combination of circumstances, was peculiarly fitted for grappling with the subject of the committee's inquiries, he having filled the office of commissioner of Customs, and thereby having become intimately conversant with the nature and operation of duties—how and in what quarters their pressure was likely to be particularly felt—and what their effects were on the interests of the different possessions of the Crown. The committee appointed by the other House of Parliament, from these causes, naturally commanded the respect of all who took an interest in the question. He now came to the report made by that committee as regarded the effects of spirit duties. As the passage was not a long one he should read it, but in the few observations he had to make, he should not refer immediately to evidence, unless the truth, of what he alleged was denied. He should speak as on the understanding that he should get credit for stating the truth, without troubling the House by quoting the evidence, unless it became necessary, by denials of what he stated, to prove the accuracy of his allegations. The right hon. Gentleman read the following extract,—

"It would have been very gratifying to the committee had they deemed themselves justified in recommending further, at the present moment, that the duty upon East-India rum should be at once and in all cases assimilated to that levied in British ports on rum, the produce of the colonies in which slavery has been recently abolished; but they are reluctantly compelled to admit, that the circumstances detailed in the evidence, as to the state of transition in which those colonies now are, afford grounds for excepting them at present from the rigorous application of the general principle of equality.

That was the opinion, it should be remembered, promulgated not merely by a committee but by distinguished members of the Government. The committee considered the depression that existed in the West Indies to be occasioned by the operation of recent legislative enactments, and taking into view the low wages, the exuberant richness of soil, and the other advantages existing in the East Indies, they were fearful of any departure from a system which, while it afforded some degree of protection to the interests of the West, did not deny prosperity to the East-Indies, or injure the cultivation of the sugar cane, though it did not transfer to the latter a new profit at the expense of the other. Such was the opinion, not expressed lightly, but after a full and careful review of the evidence brought before it, arrived at by the committee of the other House. He (Mr. Goulburn), as one of those interested in the subject, was prepared to assent to that opinion. By the postponement suggested by the committee a time might have shortly arrived when the question might have been properly raised. The feelings which actuated him were by many persons, felt by those, even, who were adverse to the principle of the distinction in the duties. Even such persons were willing to continue things as they were at this present period until the West Indies had in some degree recovered from the various blows which had been inflicted on their prosperity. Hundreds of persons relying on that report, continued to expend sums in the improvement of their estates and the encouragement of labour, in the hope that better times would arrive, when they might get some return. And he would contend, that under ordinary circumstances they would have acted with discretion in so relying on a report of a committee of the House of Lords, which had the sanction of the Government itself. That report was communicated to this House, it came before the committee appointed by this House on the same subject; and, though the committee in question did not contain any Cabinet Minister, it yet contained Members of the Government; and no one would deny, that the noble Lord who was placed in the chair of the committee was both a member of the government and was deserving of all praise, for his knowledge of and attention to business. The report of the Lords, saying that the time had not arrived for placing the duties on an equality, was placed before the committee of this House. They sat for a considerable time, heard much evidence on the subject, and the report which they made was this:—

"Finding it impossible to conclude in the present Session the evidence proposed to be laid before them, they think that they shall best perform their duty by confining themselves to reporting to the House the evidence already taken,"

Now, if the West-India proprietors were led, by the report of the Lords, to expect that no immediate alteration would be proposed, was not this report of the Commons' committee calculated to confirm them in that impression? Was not an intimation clearly expressed therein that the committee would in the ensuing (the present) Session resume the investigation of the subject and take fresh evidence? He would put it to any man of sense whether it were possible to anticipate the step now taken? Could it have been anticipated, that at the earliest moment of the Session, before the enormous volume before him was in the hands of members long enough, with the ordinary degree of industry to permit of its being gone through and understood—that, in such a state of matters, the first thing the Government did would be to take a step in direct opposition to the opinions expressed by committees of the Lords and Commons, to opinions promulgated with the authority of the Government itself, and propose an equalisation on the duties, affecting more than one kind of spirits. He said more than one kind of spirits, for though they were told that rum alone would be affected by the proposed alteration, there was, he believed, no man who read over the evidence, and who had consulted those conversant with the spirit Trade, that could entertain a doubt that every kind of spirit manufactured in India would henceforth share the benefits of the alteration. It was well known, that the rum flavour could be imparted to spirits in such a manner, that the most experienced could not detect the difference, and that a quantity of such spirits was imported as rum; no one, therefore, could doubt that the effect of the proposed equalisation would be to admit every kind of spirits made in India, so that the effects would be much more extensive than the statements made in support of the alteration would lead those to suppose who had not examined the subject attentively. But arguing as he was for the maintenance of the opinion expressed by the committee of the House of Lords, he (Mr. Goulburn) would ask what reason was there why the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman could not be postponed to some period more safe, in reference to the great interests connected with the West Indies? a gradual alteration would render the fall less sudden and ruinous. Why should it not be gradual. By delaying this matter there was no great suffering interest which they would run risk of injuring. There was no evidence that the parties engaged in the East Indies in the manufacture of rum or sugar were suffering. There was no large invested capital to be ruined by the measure proposed; they were not called on to remove any obstruction or prohibition which inflicted injury on the interests or the commerce of the East Indies. Quite the contrary. The evidence told them the contrary. The committee of the House of Lords stated the contrary. The evidence said, that the present system only withheld from the East-Indian producer a new source of profit to which he had looked forward. It stated that a great profit was derived from the manufacture of East-India sugar; that that produce was doubling; and that even the rum alone which was sent over to England at the present rate of duty produced a great profit. Such were the facts which the right hon. Gentleman would find in the evidence of the witnesses. But how was it with the West Indies? Was their sugar trade increasing? The very contrary. From returns on the table it was plain that the produce of the West Indies was annually decreasing. It might easily be calculated, what the effect must be on the civilization of those colonies if, by any sudden blow to the prime elements of their commercial prosperity, they withdrew at once the capital now engaged in the payment of labour, and in diffusing the means of civilization and employment. In the course of a few years the state of society there had undergone a complete revolution. But a short time since the great mass of the population were in a state of slavery. It was indisputable that that circumstance, by limiting the cultivation to particular fertile spots, increased the amount of the produce on them to a degree much greater than the number of labourers em- ployed would cause to be supposed. New he rejoiced as heartily as any one that the period of slavery had gone by; he would never measure the advantages which the system of slavery had conferred on individual proprietors against the advantages accruing to the great body of the people from the acquirement of freedom. He approved of the measures which had been passed for the improvement of the condition of the slaves, and in that for conferring freedom on them. He did not now regret that act, suffering though he did, in common with others, in his personal interests from its consequences. Many who had property in the West-Indies, and who considered, that property had duties as well as rights, had expended the money received by them at the period of the manumission of the slaves in endeavouring, by timely preparation, to make the system of freedom work well. He was himself aware of many who were possessed of property there, who had no debts on their estates, in paying which they would have laid out the capital they received. That capital they expended in the improvement of the estates and of the condition of the labourers; in endeavouring to introduce them gradually to freedom, and prepare them for it; to induce them to a regular cultivation of the soil. What was the result? When money had been expended to a large amount, under the impression that the apprenticeship would continue for the period appointed—when these proprietors were endeavouring to fulfil the intentions of the Legislature—a vote passed, unfortunately for them, to discontinue the system in existence, and they were plunged into a state of hardship and difficulty which it would be impossible for any one not closely acquainted with the circumstances to form a conception of. He spoke of that which had occurred to others as well as himself. By the sudden burst of freedom, a wild, but natural, exultation, was spread amongst the people; a disinclination to labour was excited: one third, and in many cases, one-half of the crops was left uncollected. And, when he said uncollected, many Gentlemen would not understand the amount of injury implied by the word. It would be supposed that nothing was incurred but the loss of the third or half of the particular crop uncollected. But this was altogether a false view. In the tropical climates, a revolution of years and the expenditure of a vast capital were required to repair the injury inflicted by the neg- lect of collection in one year only. Such was the consequence of departure from the principle of apprenticeship that had been laid down. He certainly thought that if that had not taker, place, the condition of the West-Indies would be different from what it unfortunately was at present. Such being the difficulties in which these colonies were placed by the change of system, and now, when the proprietors were endeavouring, by a continued expenditure of capital, to recover from the blows inflicted on them and the devastation of their property, all he asked was, a compliance with the suggestion of the committee of the House of Lords, that a measure should not now be pressed on the owners of property in Jamaica and the other islands which would involve them in ruin. Taken as a mere question of duty, what was the condition of the West Indies? See what an amount of additional duty was practically imposed by the changes that had occurred in the state of society. They had in evidence that the cost of production was doubled compared with what it formerly had been. Take the ad valorem duty on the joint productions of sugar and rum, the distinctive duty in favour of the West-Indies was about 12 per cent. Now, the additional charge which arose from the alteration from slavery to freedom in the West Indies, was a charge equivalent to double that sum. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to understand his argument. What he meant to say was, that the distinctive duty between the articles was twelve per cent, in favour of the West-Indies; and that by emancipation and its consequences, the price of labour in the West-Indies had so increased, and other expenses had so accumulated, as to make more than that difference to their prejudice. He was now arguing against the immediate change proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and in the hope that he would consider the report made by the committee of the House of Lords. There was at this moment no particular necessity for the proposed alteration, when, in fact, a more than equivalent duty had been imposed on West-India produce. He would put aside the question of slavery, which would be alluded to by others; but he felt called on to remark that in the East Indies, whether actual slavery existed or not, those who cultivated the land were unable to dissever themselves from it. They were bound to remain on the soil, to cultivate it, and to give to the landlord a certain portion of their produce. That fact was stated by gentlemen who had spent a great portion of their lives in India, and who were favourable to the proposed change. In however modified a degree, this species of slavery did certainly exist in the East Indies; but nothing of the kind existed in he West. There the labourer might work to-day in one part of the island, might depart where he liked, and might never be heard of again. In the East, on the other hand, from the condition and usages of society, there did exist that connexion between the cultivator and the soil which bound the individual, more or less, to it, and produced a great facility and cheapness of labour. This circumstance, again, should induce them to take a considerate view of the claims of the West Indies. His argument was, not that there should be a permanent distinction, but that some regard should be had, in arranging the question, between the difference in the cost of production. In the committee which had lately sat on the import duties, which was composed of political economists, and which was certainly not favourable to distinctive duties, it was, nevertheless, admitted, that a difference should be made between a country in which there were no taxes, and one in which there were many, because taxes added to the cost of production, nor was it against the principles of sound political economy to make a distinction between places so differently circumstanced? They should likewise consider that they were dealing with places widely differing in the kind of market which was open for the productions of each. In the East they had a market for their sugar of no less than 100,000,000 of persons. A witness had stated that over 100,000,000 were supplied with the sugar of the East Indies. It travelled across the entire continent till it met that of Russia, its only competitor. The produce of the West Indies was excluded from these parts by laws of nature more powerful than political regulations. A witness had stated the average consumption of sugar in the East Indies was about 56lbs. per head per annum, and this would make a consumption of more than fifty million hundred weight of East-India sugar. This was no idle calculation. It was made by a gentleman well acquainted with India, who filled a high station in the country, who had been there a long time, and who, from his talents and knowledge, had been appointed secretary to the Treasury. Look at the different position of the West Indies. The market for their sugar was limited to twenty-eight millions of persons in the British islands. The article came over here in a raw state. But had it the command even of this market? No. It had to meet the competition of the other sugar which shared the privilege of the supply. Under these circumstances, was it unfair to ask for the postponement of such a measure as the one now proposed between parties and places so differently situated—the one having the supply of an enormous market, without any competition; the other confined to a market which was not only contracted, but in which a keen competition was to be encountered! When he saw that the East-India Company were a body who possessed an immensely preponderating power, and unlimited means of extending their traffic in the produce of India, he could not persuade himself that by postponing the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman any danger to the interests of that country would be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman might impute to the West Indies an exclusive monopoly if he would; that would be hard language, but no argument; and the right hon. Gentleman had himself answered it at the beginning of his own speech on the introduction of this measure, for he stated that the price of rum on the Continent always regulated the price in England; and therefore that it was not in the power of the West-India proprietor to make his own price in the market. The right hon. Gentleman doubted the effect on West-India interests of an equalisation of the duty on East and West India rums: was he aware that on the day following, the one on which he made that proposition West-India rum fell full fifteen per cent? He might from that fact know the alarm of the capitalists who held large stocks of rum and the probable consequence of this equalisation to their interests? For these reasons, he (Mr. G.) thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have acted more prudently, more wisely, and more justly, if he had adopted the resolution of the committee of the House of Lords, and not, as he was now doing, attempted to subject the West-India colonies to the additional disadvantage of a new competition, at a moment when every assistance should rather be given them in the struggle they were compelled to make for existence under the new order of things. He was well aware that, as compared with the enormous population of India, the population of the West In- dies was as nothing; but he also knew, and he trusted the House would never forget, that these colonies were among the very first foreign settlements of Great Britain—that they had been the nurseries of our commerce, the main sources of that naval power and national strength; to which we are mainly indebted for our other greater and perhaps more valuable conquests, and that the time might come when this country would itself feel the consequences of their calamity or distress.

confessed, that he had heard the speech which had been just addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, with the greatest satisfaction, because, attaching as he did, the greatest importance to the present motion on its own merits, but still greater on account of the principles which it involved, he did rejoice at the assurance, that a right hon. Gentleman, possessed of so much ability, and of so long an experience, had only to produce arguments of so little substance, that it would require only a comparatively short statement from him, inferior as he admitted himself to be. Still he trusted, that he should easily convince the House, not only that it should not oppose, but that it ought to adopt the present resolution. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by condemning the Government for having assented to the appointment of committees of the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, during the last Session of Parliament, and then, after the House of Lords had expressed an opinion not unfavourable to the present measure, but, on the contrary, favourable in the highest degree, the right hon. Gentleman blamed the Government, and especially him (Mr. Labouchere). Having weighed well the report, and the evidence on which it was founded, he agreed with the committee in the principle which they had laid down, but had not been able to agree in the recommendation of delay. It was not for him to speak slightingly of the recommendation of the committee of either House of Parliament, and particularly not of a committee that had upon it noble Lords for whom he had the highest respect. He held, that no Minister of the Crown, placed in the situation in which he was, had a right to skulk behind the report of a committee of either House of Parliament in defending himself, either for bringing forward propositions which he did not in his conscience believe to be just, or for refraining from bringing forward those which he deemed to be inexpedient for the public interest, He thought that committees were invaluable for the purpose of collecting information, and of suggesting general principles to be acted upon, but as for the determination of the mode and the time of carrying into effect particular measures, he firmly believed, that that could be best done by persons who had the means of official information, and of conversing with those individuals whose interests were at stake in the proposed alterations. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted him with the fact of two members of the committee being noble friends of his. He acknowledged that to be the case, but he believed that those two noble lords had attached much greater importance to the statements of those who were interested in West-Indian produce, as to the effect of the proposed alteration, than they were entitled to. Those persons had stated, that the effect of the adoption of the proposed measure would be a sudden blow, and a check to West-Indian property. He, however, had been able to convince those noble Lords, that this would not in reality be the case, and he trusted that, before he sat down, he should be able to state reasons to the House, which would lead hon. Members to the same conclusion. The question between the right hon. Gentleman and himself was reduced to a very narrow compass. The right hon. Gentleman had not said, that this should not be done, because the West Indies had any indefeasible right to any advantage over the other colonies of this kingdom subsisting in any other part of the world, but all that he said was, that there were circumstances which called for some delay in applying those principles, which he considered to be abstractedly just. He should be able to show to the House, however, that although the effect of the motion must be of great importance, they would necessarily be gradual—that it could not produce any sudden effect, and that all those representations which had been made, were founded upon exaggerated views of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had reminded him of the statement which he had made, as to the condition of the rum trade, when he first brought forward this subject to the House. He had stated, that at this time there was a greater quantity of rum brought to the United Kingdom than could be consumed, and the consequence was, that the surplus was exported to places where it met with foreign and with East-India rum, but that it maintained a monopoly in the English market over those articles; and the right hon. Gen- tleman argued that the price of the article in the foreign market must, of necessity, regulate that which it obtained at home. This did not prove, that if they altered the duty, they did not alter the value of rum in the same way as they would in the case of sugar if they let in foreign sugar. But, he was asked, where was the advantage which East-India produce would derive from this alteration? He believed, that the Leeward-Island rum and the East-India rum were of the same quality, and would compete with British rum; but the Jamaica rum was of a different quality, and the price was nearly double. Jamaica rum thus maintained a monopoly price in the English market. He believed, that if the East-Indies brought their rum here, their manufacture of the article would be improved, and they would be enabled to compete with the Jamaica rum, and finally reduce the prices which were now obtained for it. Was not this, he asked, an object which it was most desirable should be attained? It would require some time to elapse before the manufacture could be improved and the new article introduced; but he would remind the House, that at this moment the prices of rum in England were higher than they had been during the last five years. He therefore contended, that it was for the interest of this country, that an inducement should be given to the East-India proprietors to produce the finer as well as the inferior kind of spirit. He thought, then, that the House must be satisfied, that in acceding to the proposition which he had made, they would take a step advantageous to this country, as well as to our East-Indian colonial possessions, and which would give no sudden blow to the interests of the West Indies, nor reduce the colonies in that part of the globe, as had been suggested to a state of hopeless and irretrievable ruin. But, furthermore, he would beg the attention of the House to what was a very important branch of the subject, he meant the effect to which the present system of discouraging the East-Indian rum, and encouraging that of the West-Indies had upon our supply of sugar. The system had a species of double operation. What was its operation in the East-Indies? It was stated to the committee by Mr. Sym and Mr. Rogers, gentlemen of the highest respectability, and who had embarked large capitals in the cultivation of sugar in our eastern possessions, that they had already reached a point at which they could find no market for their molasses; they could make their molasses into rum, but for that also they were unable to procure a sale. Mr. Sym was asked—

"The natives generally abstaining from rum, and the demand for molasses ceasing, you can anticipate, unless the export of rum be permitted, no demand for molasses, if you increase the growth of sugar?" and his answer was "No. I do not see how we shall have any demand for our molasses."

He had quoted this only to show that it was at least the opinion of those who had embarked capital in the sugar trade in the East Indies, and whose efforts we were bound to encourage, that the present system of duty operated as a serious detriment to their labours. He would now turn to the West Indies: and what, he asked, was the effect of the duty there? There had been some very remarkable evidence given upon this point, and he would refer to the statement of a witness, whose character would be allowed to be of the highest respectability. Mr. M'Queen was a man possessed of very large estates, and he said that the cause of the high prices of Jamaica rum was this, that the high price of the West-Indian rum induced the cane-growers there to convert the larger proportion of the produce of their estates into spirit, and that the consequence, therefore, was, that more rum came to this country, and less sugar, than had hitherto been the case. He had had the management of many fine estates in the West Indies, and he said, that he himself had sent out orders to several of them, directing that less sugar and more rum should be sent home. The right hon. Gentleman said, that this was very advantageous to England, and to the West Indies, but what was the effect on the market? Was it not too bad, that in the present short supply of sugar from our British possessions in every part of the world, we should resort to a system of this kind. In the East Indies, which was the only place to which we could look for filling up the void which was left, arguments were advanced against the establishment of manufactories for sugar. Seeing the injurious operation of the existing duties, both in the West and the East Indies, and being convinced of the gross iniquities of the system; and, on the other hand, being convinced, that there was no real ground for saying, that by taking the step which was proposed, they should be dealing a blow to the West Indies which would be fatal to their prosperity, he felt, that he should have broken his faith with those gentlemen connected with the East Indies, to whom, in a conversation which he had had at the commencement of the last Session, he had expressed his willingness to refer the subject to a select committee, and to consider and give effect to the evidence which should be produced, and apply a remedy to any evil which might be shown, if he had not brought forward the proposition which was now before the House. He need not detain the House by referring at much greater length to the subject; and, indeed, he was almost ashamed to argue the question upon the narrow points on which it had been placed. When he looked at the situation in which we stood with regard to India, drawing from our dependencies there nearly three-and-a-half millions of taxes towards the support of the Government, for which we gave her no return at all, except that to which he thought the House would agree they were entitled, namely, justice; when he reflected, that upon this point India had received from us nothing but injustice, that we had utterly destroyed her manufactures by our manufactures—that the district of Dacca, the Manchester of India, had dwindled to insignificance before the strides which our British goods had made in our Indian possessions, he thought, that upon the merest principles of justice this proposition ought to be acceded to. He would not weary the House with any long details, but there were some facts of importance to which he could not help referring. He held in his hand a return of the cottons and muslins of British manufacture, which had been exported to India. He found that return showed, that the amount exported had increased every year. The right hon. Member read the following account of the

QUANTITIES OF COTTONS AND MUSLINS OF BRITISH MANUFACTURE EXPORTED TO INDIA.
	Yards.		Yards.
1814	818,208	1835	51,777,277
1821	19,138,726	1837	64,213,633
1828	42,822,077

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite(Mr. Goulburn) had based his main defence on what he supposed was the impregnable position of the report of the Committee of the House of Lords; but that argument had been fully met by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman next took his stand on the proceedings of the committee of the House of Commons, on the ground that that committee had made no report. But why had they made no report? Was it that they were not convinced of the propriety of equalising the duties? No; but because they were delayed through their whole proceedings—he could not believe, from any unworthy motives—but undoubtedly, in fact, by the conduct of the hon. Member fur Mauritius (Mr. Irving). If, indeed, that hon. Gentleman had the remotest idea of delaying the labours of the committee, and disabling them from making a report—which he was bound to believe could not have been the case— the course he had taken would have that unquestionable tendency. The right hon. Gentleman next said, that the rum of India found a market in the east, and therefore required no extension of its market here. But two witnesses before the committee, one of whom was Mr. Trevelyan, stated, that there was no market in the east for East-India rum, and that it could not be sold at a profit unless the market of England was opened to it. He begged him to refer to the evidence of Mr. Rogers himself, an owner of a factory in India. That gentleman said, that "under the present system there was no effective competition between East and West India rum." The right hon. Gentleman, however, was hardly satisfied with that, but also said there was a large market in the interior of Asia, for sugar itself. That he certainly was astonished to hear; for, if it were so, how came it that we had had so much sugar of late years imported into this country from the east? Mr. Larpent also, a person who had been habituated all his life to trading in the east, stated, to the committee, that there was no market there for sugar; and further, that the market relied on for rum was the market of this country. He should have been glad if the measure now proposed had been of a more comprehensive nature; he thought that the equalization of the duties might have also been extended to the article of tobacco. The tobacco of India was not equal in quality to that of Virginia, and if the duties were equalised an opportunity might be afforded to the poor consumer of obtaining a cheaper article. The course of policy in our commercial character to be adopted towards India had been long pointed out by the current of events. So long ago as 1831, when witnesses from the manufacturing districts were examined, before the East-India committee, this important fact was established: that it was possible, in consequence of the vast superiority of our machinery, to import raw cotton from India, spin it into yarn, send it back to India, and undersell the yarn manufactured by the natives themselves. That was the consummate triumph of capital and machinery. From that moment it became clear that our policy with regard to India; was changed, that we Mere bound to call forth her natural productions—sugar, rum, cotton, tobacco, and indigo—articles that were at that time in the infancy of production. A new policy was marked out by the course of events, and by that course our conduct should be regulated. In pursuance of this policy, we carried, in a few years, the equalization of the sugar du- ties; and now came as a corollary to that measure, as a supplement to it, the equal lization of the duties on rum. He was anxious to call the attention of the House to the extreme injustice of maintaining any duty (such as the duty on rum) which enhanced the price of sugar, especially at the present moment. At the close of the year 1839, the stock of sugar in this country was computed at 47,000 tons; at the end of 1840 it was only 20,000 tons; and the consumption had fallen since the year 1835, when it was 200,000 tons, to 165,000 tons within three years—a diminution of no less than 35,000 tons, with a fast increasing population. Was this the time, then, to continue the discouragement of the production of sugar by maintaining this discriminating duty? Was it a time for maintaining the high duty on the coffee of Mysore? Mysore was virtually a British possession; why should we do an injustice to the people of India, and irritate their feelings, by imposing a higher duty on the coffee of Mysore, than on coffee from the West Indies? He knew not whether the reforms intended to be made by the Board of Trade were to be followed by reforms on the part of the Board of Control; but he trusted that such would be the case, and that justice would be done to the people of Mysore. He had always thought it important to reduce these duties, not only for general reasons, but for this, that whenever the production of one article in India was extended, it encouraged the outlay of capital in the production of many more. For instance; when the cultivation of indigo was extended, it had produced a very beneficial effect on other articles, and the cultivation of shellac almost immediately followed. One of the most important circumstances stated by the witnesses who were called before the committee was the immense capability of India, in the production of cotton. Every species of cotton was to be found in the different parts of India, from the finest sea island to the commonest cotton of Surat. The cultivation of cotton would be encouraged by the facility given to the production of other articles. At the same time the consumption of our manufactures in India would be increased. Notwithstanding the vast capabilities of India, and the industry of the British people, the consumption of our manufactures was less in India than in any part of the British possessions. While our colonies on an average consumed British manufactures at the rate of 1l. 10s. per head, the natives of India consumed only a quantity at the rate of 6d. or 1d. per head. Ought we not, then, to take their raw productions, as an encouragement for them to take our manufactures? He now saw rising many prospects of advantage to the British capitalist in India; the transit duty had been abolished, except (he believed) in Madras, a great relief to commerce and manufactures, and a great inducement to the employment of capital in India. British settlements, he hoped also, was increasing. In the last Session of Parliament he had moved for a return to show the extent of settlements in India. It was impossible at present to trace their full extent; but he believed they were increasing. Greater certainty, he trusted, had been introduced into the tenure of land, without which the producing powers of India would never be developed. He hoped the time was coming when one uniform system of tariff and customs would be established over the vast regions of India, similar to the great confederation, or Zoll-Verein in Germany. The resources of India would never be called forth while they legislated for it in isolated portions. India should be included in one vast and comprehensive system, and consolidated into one vast confederation.

did not agree with the hon. Member for Wigan, that it was not the duty of the Government to consult the West-India interests in this matter, but he could not help saying, that West-India interests appeared to him to have the most direct and obvious connexion with English interests in relation to this subject—a connexion not of ruin, as had been said by his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Goulburn), but a connexion of palpable benefit. On the ground of West-India interests he was anxious to call in free labour sugar from other countries. He considered that by the introduction of capital into India, and consequent improvement of lands, which he conceived would result from the proposed measure, a great benefit would be conferred upon India and upon West-India interests. But he thought he was bound to look also to another interest. He could not conceal from himself the vast importance of introducing the manufactures of this country into our East-India possessions, but it was impossible that we could expect to secure a market for our manufactures in those countries unless we received their produce in return. Looking then at the manufacturing interests of this country, he said it was important that such a measure as that now before the House should pass without delay. Then if he looked at British interests in India, would any man tell him that there could be a bond so palpable, and so secure, as that of identity of interest wherewith to bind the natives of India to this country? What other bond had we? Identity of religion there was none. Identity of language there was none. Identity of interest, then was that alone on which we had to depend, and if we did not encourage that identity of interests, how could we hope to preserve for any length of time those important possessions? The geographical position of our East-India possessions, with reference to the empires of China and Russia, ought not to be lost sight of. It was important to show to the natives of India, that while the policy of Russia was commercial monopoly, and the exclusion of the commerce of other countries, the policy of England was that large and generous policy which, while it sought to introduce into India the manufactures of Great Britain, would, on the other hand, throw open our ports to her raw material; and thus convince her, that it was not only for her advantage of civilization, but to her interest, to remain connected with this country. On these grounds he should support the resolution of the Government. He would not enter into the question, whether the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had broken faith with the West-Indian interest or not; that he would leave to him and the right hon. Gentleman below him; but he thought he owed it to the Government to say, that having the report of the committee, and the evidence on which that report had been founded in their hands, it did become them to take a direct line, and he believed they had taken the line that was most advantageous to the permanent interests of this country and of India. Mr. Hawes was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge had left altogether out of sight the interests of the consumers. The high price of sugar had caused them much misery, but that was a point on which the right hon. Gentleman had been wholly silent. There could be no doubt that the West-India colonies, according to the representations of the owners were in distress; but it was a mistake to suppose, that their distress was of modern origin; they had been living for some years past upon a species of Parliamentary charity, and were no worse off now than they had been more than half a century ago. He was prepared to shew that by a reference to evidence of unquestionable character. The hon. Member quoted extracts from the work of Bryan Edwards, from the debates in Parliament, and from reports of committees, to shew, that for a long period antecedent to the commencement of this century, estates had gone out of cultivation, and that the planters had complained continually of being in distress. He referred, also, to a report of the Jamaica Assembly, quoted by Bryan Edwards, to show the distress of the West-India interest, before the abolition of the slave trade. That report refers to a period of twenty years, from 1772 to 1792 states, that in that period, 177 estates were sold for debt, 55 thrown up, 92 in the hands of creditors. In fact, whether the state of the West-India interest was considered before the abolition of the slave trade, or afterwards, and before the abolilition of slavery, or again in later times, after the emancipation bill, the receipt of twenty millions as a compensation for the abolition of slavery, at all times, and under all circumstances, the West-India interest was complaining of distress. To what was this to be attributed? He attributed it to the undue protection which had been afforded to their produce. It was this which had prevented them from employing the plough or machinery; and hence seeing the uneconomical system of cultivation which they had adopted, what other result could be expected than that which had happened? Had the principles of free trade been adopted in respect to these colonies, he was sure that their interests would have been benefitted by it. Turn now to the East Indies, they asked for no protection. All they desired was, to be placed upon the same footing as the West Indies. The East-India grower of sugar, had enjoyed no protection whatever; yet, under that system, the trade had materially increased, and was in a situation ultimately to become most prosperous. Again, as regards cotton, the same results were apparent. Cotton was sold in this market, at half the price of American cotton, slave-produced cotton. This showed, that the produce of free labour of the east, could, and did, compete in price, with the produce of slave-labour of the west. He thought, these contrasted facts afforded the strongest argument in favour of the adoption of the principle of free trade—to be applied, no doubt, with caution, and a due consideration of what is best for the interests of India, and the colonies generally. In proof of the advance of the trade in indigo, also, in the East Indies, the hon. Member referred to documents to show, that whereas the produce of Indigo in 1786 was valued at 57,000l.; in 1809, 1,105,678l.; there was shipped from Calcutta in 1830, 2,000,000l.; and the crop was estimated at in 1840, 2,300,000l. The East Indian Indigo trade was wholly unprotected, and had driven out of the markets of the world the produce of the French and Spanish slave colonies. But it declared that the East Indies were entitled on the ground of justice and of right to equal privileges in the trade with the mother country. Why then came the merchants in the East-Indies to postpone claims founded in justice to the merchants and proprietors of the West Indies. It was the interest of the western country to obtain the raw material on the cheapest terms, and if protection were to be given to any colony, it was the East Indies that was entitled to it; nevertheless all they asked was, that their produce should be admitted into the home markets on free and unfettered principles of trade, on equal terms especially with West-India produce. The indigo of India was superior to that of any other country, and the cotton produced there could be obtained at half the price of American cotton, which was the produce of slave-labour. He believed, moreover, that the sugar at this moment produced by free labour, provided the colonies could buy what they wanted in the cheapest markets, would be able to enter into

said, this question had been considered purely as a question between the East and West Indies, but he contended that the question ought to be discussed with reference to the peculiar circumstances in which the West-India colonies were placed. An important feature in the objections to this measure was the impossibility of finding a test to ascertain whether simulated or real produce of the East Indies was imported; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had quoted the opinion of the chairman of a committee of the East-India Company, who had said, that he would as soon rely upon the certificate of a revenue officer of the East-India Company as upon the certificate of a Government officer. But he begged to remind the hon. Gentleman, that the revenue officer appointed by the Government of this country could have no other interest but to do his duty in enforcing the proper regulations; and he could not help thinking that there was a broad distinction between the revenue officers appointed by the Crown and those appointed by the company. The argument of his right hon. Friend the Mem- ber for the University of Cambridge had no reference to a comparison of the East and West India interests; it was founded entirely on the peculiar position of West-India property. He was not going now to argue upon a state of things which existed fifty years since, and which appertained to a state of slavery. The West Indies had been placed in a novel position. He stood not there to defend slavery; but when the measure for its abolition was introduced, it had found the landowners of the West Indies possessed of certain rights which they had acquired on the pledged faith of this country. The country might be quite right to deal with those rights, but the impossibility of dealing with them without compensation had been acknowledged by the grant of 20,000,000l. He was not going to deny that 20,000,000l. was a large sacrifice for the people of this country to make. But when he came to the term compensation, he had a right to impress the House with the difference of the position in which he now stood. He could appeal to Mr. Bernal, and if it were for him to leave that chair he would confirm the statement which he made, that the West-India proprietors had suffered great loss from that measure. He appealed to Mr. Bernal with reference to the income which he enjoyed before and that which he had enjoyed since the passing of that bill. It was quite right that the House should understand that. The argument used in favour of the measure was the reduction of the quantity of sugar; but what they did raise now was raised by the payment of high wages, which they had not paid before, and the remuneration the West-India proprietors received was wholly insufficient to cover that loss. It might, perhaps, be said, that he was here affording an argument in favour of encouraging the production in the East Indies, but that was not so. He only asked that they might have fair play. In former times the West-India produce had been more than enough for our consumption. Our West-India colonies manufactured about one-third more than we consumed; and though, notwithstanding the good behaviour of the emancipated population, the high price of labour had necessarily diminished the production, he had no doubt that in Jamaica, which was the principal of our West-India colonies, and with which he was particularly acquainted, the supply would, if they had fair play, be again raised in a short time to what it was under the old system. Since the termination of the apprentice- ship he had gone on cultivating his property at a great loss. The high price of sugar this year might, perhaps, relieve him from actual loss, but that was a state of things which could not endure very long. The estates must, in the end, go out of cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said distinctly the other evening that both parties attached too much importance to the matter, that the West Indians felt that it would do rather more harm to them than it really would, and, that upon the whole, he did not think it would do the East Indians much good. It was a question at all events whether something ought not to be conceded to the alarm of the West Indians. To some portion of the House these were matters of vital importance. As to the question before the public, the price of sugar was certainly high, but of that price it was to be remembered, the public had to pay about 25s. for war duties, which were pledged to be removed upon the expiration of the war, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year had increased, by raising the customs 5 per cent. He would now suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, a verbal amendment upon his resolution, which might save the trouble of dividing the House. Instead of the resolution as it now stood, he would suggest that the words should be "gradually reduced," which would pledge them to the principle of the resolution, but would remove the objection to it on the score of surprise.

would, for the present, I exclude from his view of the subject the state of slavery in the East Indies, but would call the attention of the House to other topics. There were three great interests which should be considered by the House before it came to a determination on the subject. In the first place, they ought to consider the effect of the present system, and of the proposed measure on the consumer they also had to consider the just claims of the inhabitants of their extensive dominions in the east; and they likewise must not exclude from their serious attention the state and condition of the population of their West-Indian colonies. These were the three great points they had to look to. He most heartily concurred in the great principles laid down by his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, as to the effect of their proceedings in India; and that the greatest consequences might result from their proceedings on this question. He believed, that Great Britain had no right to go to a foreign territory, and make the great conquests which she had done in India, and to continue to hold possession of the country, on any other principle than for the promotion of the benefit and happiness of the inhabitants of the country. He confessed, however, that he could not look back on the history of our connection with India, without strong feelings of shame and sorrow. He might admire the glory gained by our arms, and the great achievements of our warriors in those climes; but he felt, at the same time, that there were shades of a dark hue in the history of British India, which must excite painful feelings. If our proceedings in that extensive territory were carefully regarded, it must be admitted, that however much we might admire the victories gained by the bravery of our troops, that the measures that had been adopted in the government of the country, were not calculated to promote the benefit and happiness of the people. If any one wished to see how badly our duty to the people of India had been performed, it was only necessary to look back to what had been done during the last ten years. They need only refer to the result of the labours of the committee of 1832, and to the report that had been then prepared. No one could read those documents without feeling, that it was the duty of the British Legislature to do all in their power to remedy these particular acts of injustice, and to do all in their power to raise the prosperity of the country, and to remedy some of the evils that had been inflicted on its inhabitants. Who could read, in the recent report of the committee of the House on East-India produce, the account of the destruction of the manufactures, and the decline of the produce of Dacca, without entertaining the strongest feelings of sympathy and pain? Entertaining this view of the subject, it was impossible, that he should not feel disposed to give every possible aid and relief to the inhabitants of Hindoostan, and, as far as they justly could do so with regard to other interests, raise them up from their present sinking and declining state. Again, looking to the condition of the great body of the consumers of colonial produce in this country, it was impossible not to feel deeply and keenly the injury and privations inflicted upon them by the high price of sugar. This operated with the utmost severity on the inhabitants of this country; and it was not possible to suppose, that they would long continue to bear it, without making their complaints heard in the House, in a manner which could not be mistaken. From the highest to the lowest—from the wealthy and respectable middle classes, to the inhabitants of the cottage of 40s. a-year—all felt aggrieved at the monopoly price of this article of necessary and general consumption. The chief objection, however, to the proposed measure was the fear, that attempts might be made to introduce slave produce into the home market. Now, he, in spite of what had been said by his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, as to the insignificance of this consideration, both actually and morally, might be told, that there was a great distinction between the dear labour of our colonies, with the cheap labour of the Brazils and Cuba, but he was satisfied, that with the same advantages of soil, and with the same convenience of ingress and egress for its produce; and, above all, if the slave-trade was truly and honestly put down, there was nothing to fear in the competition between free and slave labour. But if his hon. Friend meant to assert, that the produce of the colonies of Great Britain would stand in competition in the foreign market with that of those countries which openly and avowedly carried on the slave-trade, he did not hesitate to say, that he did not believe, that they could do so for a single moment. At the present time, the price of Cuba sugar was 23s. per hundred weight. In that island thousands of men were annually employed in breaking up a new soil, without any regard being had to their lives, but were treated worse than post-horses. He believed, that it was utterly impossible, that any produce of free labour could be brought into successful competition, as long as the demand for labour, without regard to human life, was fully supplied in these slave countries. This was one of the points of view in which he regarded the present question. As for the argument of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that the West Indies were in a state of transition, and that they should be allowed some time before any change was effected, and that, therefore, this measure should be postponed, he believed, that it very much overrated the difficulties of the case. It was his firm conviction, that this measure never could affect them, and could not produce any mischievous effects in the West-Indian colonies. He would not repeat the argument of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), on this subject, but he was sure, that the result of the strictest investigation would be, to show, that the evils that were anticipated were altogether groundless. He recollected, that in the discussions on the proposition to admit the sugar of the Mauritius at the same duty as that of our West-Indian possessions, and which he strongly opposed at the time, under the conviction that the slave-trade was still carried on in the former colony, Mr. Huskisson said, more than once, that he never for a moment believed, that East-India produce could enter into successful competition with that of the West Indies. The view taken of the subject by that distinguished statesman had been fully confirmed by the result of the admission of East-Indian sugar at the reduced duty into the home market. It had been stated, that, the result of the competition of East-Indian with West-Indian rum, would be to throw the latter entirely out of the home market. But what was the case at the present moment in the foreign market? Did the introduction of East-Indian rum into those places so materially affect prices, or drive West-Indian produce out of competition? The truth was, from all that he could learn, that the West Indies were recovering from the state of depression in which they had fallen. As a proof of this, he would mention, that in the island of Antigua, which was formerly one of the poorest of our colonies, with a worn-out soil, there had been a great increase in the produce of the colony, which was now in a most thriving state. Again, in Barbadoes, it appeared, that with the exception of last year, when there had been a falling-off in consequence of a severe drought, there had been a gradual increase in the produce, and the colony was in a flourishing condition. The same was the case with British Guiana, Trinidad, and other of our colonies, but he admitted, that this might not be the case with Jamaica, or other colonies, where, he believed, that there would be found circum stances of a local nature, materially to interfere with the prosperity of the colony. With respect to the present measure, he would only observe, that he would not support any bill on the subject, unless it contained ample provisions to prevent the importation of slave-grown rum into this country. If this were not done, the West Indians would have good grounds of complaint, and the people of England would be justified in remonstrating, after they had given 20,000,000l. to put a stop to slavery in the colonies. He would not, at the present moment go into the question, of the distinction between domestic or prædial slavery in the East Indies, but he would take care at a future stage of the bill to ask the House to take such steps, to prevent the introduction of slave produce as the country was justified in demanding as a protection. He might be told, that there was no slave produce now; if that were the case, the restrictions which he should propose, could do no harm; but if there was slave produce, he only proposed to adopt proper checks and cautions. He hoped to bring forward a motion which, if slavery should exist, would finally put an end to it.

said, there was one class which had not been mentioned in the debate, but which he looked upon as very important—the free labourers of the West Indies. The House ought to protect the great experiment of free labour which it had there set on foot. With this view he thought it of great importance to encourage the exertions of the West-India proprietors to maintain and promote the industry of those colonies. The House should beware of doing any thing which would induce the West-Indian body to withdraw their capital, or diminish their exertions in the promotion of colonial industry, and thereby endanger the success of that great experiment which had already cost the country so much. He confessed that neither of the propositions now before the committee for the immediate or gradual equalization of the duty on rum exactly met his views of the justice and policy of the case. In his opinion, the interests of the whole empire would be best promoted by fixing a limited period— say two years, when the equalization should be carried into effect. This would enable the West Indians to provide an increase of labour, which was absolutely necessary to enable them to sustain competition with those engaged in the cultivation of sugar in the east. The struggle at present was an unequal one; it was essentially fettered labour against free labour. Parliament had not yet devised measures which would allow a free immigration of labourers into the West-India colonies without the risk of inhumanity; and the price of labour being thus enhanced artificially by restrictions of our own, some reasonable space, if not positive encouragement, should at least be afforded to increase the supply. He therefore hoped the suggestion he had offered, of fixing some period when the equalization should take effect, would find some favour with the Government.

did not think it at all advisable to accede to the proposition. In point of fact, even if the resolution were passed, and the bill to be founded on it carried into effect, a considerable interval must of necessity elapse before it could come into operation. It was his intention in all cases to insist on the production of a certificate from India, so that neither the; rum now in bond, nor that now on its way to this country, could be affected by the equalization. It must at least take six months before the bill could come into operation, even allowing no time at all for the increase of the establishments in India. If the House were satisfied of the justice of the proposition, and that it could not inflict any serious evil on the West Indies by carrying it into immediate operation, he submitted it would only be trifling to adopt any amendment, the tendency of which would be to interpose any delay.

could not help thinking it would be gross inconsistency in the right hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets attempting to introduce such a proviso as he had described, "provided always, that it is not the produce of slave labour." He could not allow that a single pound of sugar was ever exported from Calcutta, or ever manufactured in India, the produce of slave labour. But if there was the remotest ground for the imputation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had thrown out, he hoped some remedy more substantial and worthy the cause of freedom would be introduced, than the ridiculous and paltry check he proposed by way of a proviso.

denied the existence of slavery in the east, and defied the ingenuity of his right hon. and learned Friend to draw up any clause to effect his purpose without throwing the whole bill into utter confusion.

said, this was a most important discussion, for it should be borne in mind that they were now, in fact, called upon finally to decide the question, and that, after the resolution had been passed, it would not be competent for them in committee on the bill to alter the tenour of the proposition so far as the increase of any duty was concerned. He had, therefore, to state very briefly to the House the impression left on his mind by reading the evidence which had been taken before both committees. His impression might be an erroneous one, but it was at least unbiassed by party considerations, and by any personal interest in the question, He was utterly unconnected both with the East and West Indies, and if he had any leaning at all, it must be towards the consumer. It was impossible, he thought, to deny the principle laid down in the Lords' report, that the colonial dependencies of the British empire should be treated with perfect equality. It also became important to consider what was perfect equality. They could not decide this by a mere equalization of duties. It would be absolutely necessary to consider whether the colonies in respect of which they were about to equalize the duties were themselves on an equality as to facilities of import. That was a consideration they were bound not to overlook; but the general principle appeared unquestionable. If the principle itself were indubitable, it appeared to him, considering the peculiar circumstances of our Indian empire, to apply, with special force, to the situation of that country. Looking to its immense extent, the vast importance, yet extreme difficulty, of procuring any satisfactory mode of adjusting the remittances from the east—above all, when he considered the injury we had in one sense inflicted on the native industry of that country by the importation of our own manufactures, he did think the general principle of equality between colonial dependencies applied with at least unrestricted force to the British possessions in India, with reference to our dependencies in any other portion of the globe. Some of the arguments brought forward against the equalization of duty did not make any impression on his mind. The facility of making spirits from rice must be disregarded; the comparative cheapness of labour, too, in the East Indies, could not be admitted as a valid objection to the equalization of duties. He came, therefore, to the other argument urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets—namely, the existence of slavery in the East Indies, as a reason for subjecting imports to discriminating duties as compared with the produce of the West Indies. He was bound to say, he could not admit the force of that argument. After referring to the best evidence he could procure upon this subject, he could not bring himself to admit that slavery existed in the East Indies under any circumstances which would entitle them to say, that equalization should be postponed until what was so called slavery was abolished. If the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any force at all, if they conceived that a state of slavery existed in the East Indies which should disentitle to equal protection, why not adopt measures for its immediate abolition? But when the learned Gentleman came to consider the connexion of that sort of forced labour with the system of task-work, he would find it more difficult than he now imagined to abolish it by act of Parliament. To postpone, however, the equalization of the duty on East and West India rum until he had actually settled that abolition, would be deferring its operation to a much more distant period than even the most ardent advocate of the West Indians could wish. To define exactly what constituted slavery in a country circumstanced like the East Indies must lead to a conflict in the Custom-house regulations, which would practically exclude any regulation of the kind proposed. So far, therefore, as the ordinary arguments applied against the principle of equalization, he was bound to say they did not produce any impression on his mind. But at the same time he did entertain a doubt. He did not agree with this passage in the report of the House of Lords—"We are reluctantly compelled to admit that the circumstances detailed in the evidence as to the state of transition in which our West-India colonies now are, afford grounds for excepting them at present from the rigorous application of the general principle of equality." If they acted on that principle, their conduct would amount to an indefinite postponement. Next year there might be circumstances which would render the application of the principle still less convenient than at present. The most satisfactory and just course, perhaps, would have been to take some step for the immediate reduction of the duty, and provide for its ultimate extinction at no distant period. He would reduce the duty on East-India rum, say 2s. a gallon this year, and 2s. more the year after, providing for an assimilation of duty at the end of three years. That would be a perfect guarantee to the East Indians that we recognized the principle of equality, and also that the Legislature took immediate and effectual measures for defining the period when the discriminating duties should entirely cease. His ground for that course of proceeding was, that the West Indies had a right to say, "You ought to have given us early notice of your intentions." He thought the experiments which had been made upon their interests and the state of society there, had been experiments of the greatest magnitude, but the existence of the state of transition should not have prevented the Government at home from laying the foundation of equalization, and, therefore, the West Indies had now a right to say, that the measure was harsh towards them. He was of opinion, that before the House proceeded to the equalization of duties in the month of February, 1841, the Government ought, in the course of last Session, to have given some notice, and announced its intention on the subject. Not only, however, was there an absence of all notice, but the proceedings adopted by Parliament had a direct tendency to mislead. For what did the West Indians find? They found that, with the consent of the Government, a committee had been appointed in the course of last year, but no intimation was given by the Government, that the object of the committee was to provide for the equalization of the duties on East-India and West-India rums. They found a voluminous report from the House of Lords—more voluminous indeed than was necessary— voluminous as far as evidence was concerned, and no intimation was given, at the time, that evidence was laid upon the Table in the course of last Session, that on the part of the Government, the equalization of the rum duties was in contemplation. The West Indians then referred to the report of the House of Lords, and they find that report leaning most justly, in his opinion, towards the East-India claims; laying down the great principles of equity, and indicating an inclination on the part of the Lords' committee to find a remedy for the complaints made by the East Indies. They found, in that report, the passage he had already quoted, and he asked any person to consider the position under such circumstances of the West-India colonies. Seeing that no indication had been given by the Government—that no report had been made on the subject by the House of Commons, but in the Lords' report there being a distinct admission—in which he did not concur—that the time had not arrived when any step could well be taken for the equalization of these duties, was it not more than probable that every West Indian would come to the conclusion that the month of February, 1841, would pass without any proposition of this nature being made. He also felt the force of the observations made by his noble Friend (Lord Sandon) with reference to West-India pecuniary interest, and he certainly thought that it was of immense importance, that the great experiment of the substitution of free labour for slave labour in the West Indies should be successful, not only for the sake of the colonies themselves, but for the purpose of of depriving France and the United States of an opportunity of appealing to the failure of the experiment made by this country as a justification for abstaining from following its example. He thought every instant precipitate removal of capital from the West Indies would have a great tendency to disturb the due progress of that experiment, and to prejudice its success; it was not improbable that some of the most respectable inhabitants of the West Indies might be tempted to withdraw their capital from those colonies fur the purpose of speculation in the East Indies, a proceeding which he feared would have a most prejudicial effect upon the result of the great experiment to which he had adverted. On the whole, therefore, he contended it would have been more consistent with justice to have taken some immediate step towards a reduction of the duty on East-India produce, thereby recognizing the principle of equalization, and giving a pledge to carry it into effect within a definitive time. Under all the circumstances of the case, and in the absence of all notice to the colonies, this, to his mind, would have been a much more satisfactory course; but he felt so strongly the justice of the claims of the East Indies—he felt so strongly the importance of some immediate step being taken for the application of the principle of equalization, that if some other hon. Member proposed a reduction in the way he stated—viz., an immediate reduction, and the definition of the time when the duty should be totally repealed—he should feel it his duty to vote for it. Unless such a proposal, however, was made, he had no wish, on his part, to disturb the unanimity of the House by calling for a division on the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, whether it were the intention of Government to propose the adoption of any measures for the promotion of emigration to the West-India colonies?

asked if the question of his noble Friend applied to emigration from India particularly, or from the colonies generally?

.—To emigration from any part of the globe.

replied, that with regard to free emigration from India, the noble Lord was aware that, by a decision of the House last year, further information was called for on the subject, and since that time there had been a report made, which, however, did not come to any decisive result. With respect to emigration from other quarters of the globe, there arose a different question, There could be no objection to voluntary emigration from India to the West Indies, individuals paying the passage-money, but it would not be just or fair to raise a tax in the colonies for such a purpose. In the next place, for the good of the colonies themselves, great care had been taken to see that emigration was properly conducted, and that there should not be that disproportion of sexes which had caused so many evils in some of the colonies. There remained a third consideration, which was to take care, by every possible means, that, under the name of emigration, nothing like the slave trade from the coast of Africa should arise. All these considerations he had held in view in looking at the laws passed by the colonies themselves. With respect to Trinidad, there an Order in Council had lately been passed, altering a former order, which forbade emigration from Africa to Trinidad as far as it related to Sierra Leone. In Jamaica, an act had passed, which he last year stated required amendment, and though the bill effecting those amendments had not yet been officially received in this country, still it had been passed with the same limitations as the Order in Council at Trinidad, and it was probable also that in British Guiana, the same measures would be adopted.

moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of Ways and Means.

pointed out an irregularity, as it appeared to him, in the course proposed. The practice has been to get a vote of supply, and then to go into a Committee of Ways and Means. Now at present only a fictitious vote had been taken, and he hoped this departure from the old practice would not be drawn into a precedent.

said, there was no novelty in the course he proposed, which had been invariably followed of late years. He admitted the vote he had taken was a mere fiction, but like many others, such as John Doe and Richard Roe, it was a very useful fiction.

said, it would be better to postpone the present vote for a day or two, rather than run the risk of establishing a bad precedent. The right hon. Gentleman said, there was no novelty in the proceeding—this course certainly was not followed in the good year 1835.

observed, that there was no novelty, except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the truth.

suggested, that it would be better to postpone the Committee of Ways and Means, in order that the system might be put in a better course. If the transfer of aid was now taken, it would, legally speaking, be a mis-appropriation, if applied before the 1st of April, 1841. In the case of the navy estimate, this had been done to the extent of 300,000l., and it was clearly illegal.

consented to the postponement of the committee.

moved the second reading of the Railways Bill.

wished, that time should be be given to afford opportunity to consider the bill.

said, if the second reading were allowed, he would consent not to go into committee on the bill for a fortnight, and would give notice of the precise day.

hoped the bill would not be committed till that day three weeks.

thought, that he had given the parties affected by the bill ample opportunity for considering it; and he hoped, that the hon. Member would be satisfied with his (Mr. Labouchere's) general assurance, not prematurely to press on the bill.

expressed a hope, that this bill would, as far as possible, be carried through in unison with the feelings of the railway companies. He did not mean, that the Government should comply with any unreasonable demands on the part of the companies, but it certainly would be more effective if passed with their approval. After all, the great security for the public was to be found in the attention of the companies. It was their interest to make travelling secure, for persons travelling for pleasure would not go by railways if they felt they could not do so in safety. As far as he could judge, the Birmingham and London, and Grand Junction Railways were admirably conducted. Whenever accidents happened, they did all in their power by making fresh arrangements to prevent their recurrence.

said, that every endeavour would be made to carry the bill with the support of the directors of the railway companies. The companies had always yielded to the representations of the Government whether they had infringed the Acts of Parliament relating to the railways, and had rendered it unnecessary for prosecutions to be resorted to against them.

hoped, that some relief would be given to the postmasters, who were much oppressed in consequence of the railways, the companies paying much less duty per passenger than the postmasters. If, instead of the duty of one halfpenny on every four passengers per railway, a penny were exacted, it would give the postmasters some relief.