said, he had given notice of a question with reference to the conduct of the Governor of Bombay towards the family of the Nawab of Surat, which it would be expedient for him to preface by a short statement of the case. The late Nawab of Surat had made over his territories to the East India Company upon a stipulated pension for himself and his family of 15,000l. per annum, reserving to himself rights of sovereignty over his immediate family and dependents. This state of things ceased with his death, upon which event some difficulties arose in connection with his representative, a daughter. In consequence, an Act of the Supreme Legislature of India was placed in 1848 for the administration of the estate of the late Nawab of Surat, to continue privileges to his family. By section 2 of that Act, the Governor of Bombay in Council was empowered to act in the administration of the property of whatever nature, left by the late Nawab of Surat, &c., and no act of the said Governor of Bombay in Council in respect to the administration to, and distribution of such property was to be liable to be questioned in any court of law or equity. The Governor of Bombay in Council, having proceeded to act in execution of the powers thus conferred upon him, had exercised that power in a manner not satisfactory to a member of the family of the Nawab, and, in consequence, that member of the family sought to have the proceeding reheard or the distribution thought right by the Governor of Bombay in Council brought under the review of the Judicial Council, as a matter of right, and in the exercise of its ordinary administration. The Judicial Council, however, by the mouth of Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce, held that under the third section of the Act, under which they sat, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, because the Legislature of India had framed an Act enabling the Government of Bombay to deal with the subject-matter in his executive capacity, and not in a judicial manner, but that they had jurisdiction in the matter, if Her Majesty should be pleased to refer it to them. And he said—

"In the extreme case which may be supposed of corrupt or tyrannical abuse of such powers as these—which is not suggested—there must always be open to all the Queen's subjects those rights of complaint—in the last resort, either to Parliament or to the Crown—neither Parliament nor the Crown ever being deaf, we must assume and believe, to the voice of reason and abstract justice."

The petitioner, therefore, was left to take such course as he might be advised, with reference to an application to the Crown, through the Board of Control, or otherwise. Under these circumstances, he (Sir E. Perry) begged to put the question of which he had given notice, whether, as the Privy Council have decided that the determination of the Governor of Bombay in Council against the claim of the daughter and only surviving child of the late Nawab of Surat to succeed to his private property was an executive and not a judicial act, the Board of Control will take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whether the judgment of Mr. From, on which the decision of the Bombay Government has proceeded, is not a fit matter to be referred to the Privy Council for their opinion as to its soundness in point of law and its conformity with the evidence in the case— whether, if an Act of the Legislature of India takes away from any subject of Her Majesty the right of appeal to ally court of law or equity, there are any means by which such individual complaining of injustice can obtain redress?

said, he did not see any necessity that existed for taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on a question which had been decided in so distinct and formal a manner; nor did he see that there were any means of meeting the views indicated in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The law which had been passed on the subject was a special law, rendered necessary by the difficulties which had arisen.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would not consent, at least, to instruct the Governor of Bombay to suspend the distribution of the property until the opportunity of remedying the grievance by an appeal to that House, or otherwise, had been afforded?

said, the property, he believed, had already been distributed.

had reason to believe that it had not yet been distributed.

said, he would take that opportunity of giving notice that he should, early next Session, call the attention of the House to the propriety of taking some steps by which the grievances arising out of such legislation in India should be averted for the future.

said, he was of opinion that some competent tribunal should be created for the special disposal of these cases, and with adequate powers. Some such tribunal had been advocated by Sir Robert Peel in 1834, and it would prevent a great deal of oppression and injustice towards our Indian fellow-subjects.

moved that the House should take into its consideration the Lords' Amendments in this Bill.

said, he begged to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was competent for the noble Lord to bring the subject under their notice at that moment. There stood upon the paper a number of Orders of the Day, while the Motion of the noble Lord was placed upon the paper in the shape of a notice.

said, that previous to the establishment of a rule to which the House had some time ago agreed, the Amendments introduced by the Lords into a Bill might be taken into consideration at any time. That rule, however, had provided that the Lords' Amendments should not be taken into consideration upon the day upon which they came down from the other House, but should be fixed for some subsequent day, unless the House was pleased to order otherwise. It was competent, however, for the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), having given notice of Motion upon the subject, to move that those Amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.

said, that a general assent had been given by the other House of Parliament to the Bill as it had been sent up to them from the House of Commons. The important definitions of bribery and treating and undue influence, and the important provision which related to the appointment of an election officer, had undergone no alteration. The last day upon which the Bill had been considered in that House a former decision of the House bad been reversed—he meant that with respect to the declaration to be taken by hon. Members at the table. It had then been asked whether it was not competent to expunge those other declarations in the Bill which were consequent upon the principal one. They had been informed, however, from the Chair that it was then too late to take those other declarations into their consideration. Now, in the House of Lords those declarations had been struck out. An important clause, Clause 23, legalising the payment of travelling expenses to the voter, had also been struck out by the House of Lords. He himself had proposed that clause to the House, in the belief that it was desirable to confirm the law as it at present stood. The House would bear in mind, however, that the necessity for the clause in question depended in some measure upon the declaration to be taken by Members of Parliament, and that declaration having been struck out, the clause with respect to travelling expenses no longer retained its former value. He proposed that that House should agree to the omission of this clause. No doubt, when a declaration was to be required from every Member of that House that he had not incurred any illegal expenses, it was most essential that there should be a particular definition of what expenses were or were not illegal, but that declaration had been struck out. The only effect of agreeing to this Amendment was, that the law would remain in its present state; but he might say that, while this Bill treated one part of the subject of bribery and corruption, there was another part of the subject— namely, that which referred to the trial of offences before Election Committees; and he hoped to be able to deal with that subject during the next Session of Parliament.

said, he still retained all those objections to the Bill which he had urged against it upon the third reading, but he should not upon the present occasion enter into a recapitulation of those objections. The course he meant to take was to call the attention of the House to the manner in which, and to the time at which, the House of Commons was called upon to take into consideration the subject of the noble Lord's Motion. For his own part he must say that he had never yet, during the time he had sat in that House, seen a Minister ask the concurrence of the House to an Amendment against which, in conjunction with his colleagues, he had spoken and voted. The present Bill had undergone considerable discussion in that House, and also the severe scrutiny of a Select Committee— and, indeed, the consideration of it could not be concluded before the day arrived after which the Lords had determined not to receive any more Bills from that House. They had, however, for various reasons, consented to take this Bill into discussion, and among other reasons stated was a feeling of deference to the opinion of that House.

I understand that the noble Lord is about to enter into a detail of the proceedings with respect to this Bill which took place in the other House; but the proceedings which have taken place there, in Committee, with regard to it, are not properly matter for discussion in this House.

The noble Lord was perhaps justified in calling him to order; but he thought that the noble Lord himself, in asking the House to consider what had never been printed, and of which they had no Parliamentary knowledge, was scarcely taking a legitimate course. The clause to whose omission from the Bill the noble Lord now asked them to give their assent, was one which had been considered upon no less than five different occasions, and upon every one of those occasions the noble Lord had either spoken or voted in its favour. The whole force of the Government had, in fact, been arrayed in support of it; and yet the noble Lord had no hesitation in asking the House of Commons to sanction its removal from the Bill. It was vain to say that to reject this Amendment would only leave the law in the same condition as it at present was, for surely it was not unreasonable, on the part of those who desired to see the law settled with regard to this subject, to complain of its being left in its present state. He contended that if the House consented under any pretence to the proposal of the omission of this clause, they would expose themselves to the scorn and contempt of every man throughout the country. What, then, was to be done under the present peculiar circumstances? To take the sense of the House would be a perfect absurdity, for, at that advanced period of the Session, when very few hon. Members besides Members of the Government were in London, the Government would, he was well aware, be able to carry any measure they pleased to bring forward, even if it were a proposal to make bribery at elections a capital offence. He scarcely knew what course he should take in order to resist the unjustifiable attempt of the noble Lord to reverse the decision at which the House of Commons had arrived. He must, sorry as he should be to be compelled to do so, if the noble Lord persisted in asking the House to assent to the omission of the clause in question, adopt a mode of proceeding the object of which was to protect that House from an improper interference with its action, let that interference come from whatever quarter it might. During the long period which he had sat in that House he had never felt it to be his duty to resort to the mode of proceeding to which he referred; but he had seen upon one occasion, no less than thirty divisions taken in Committee of Supply by the noble Lord's colleague, the late Lord Durham, and the last of those divisions had been taken on the question whether fresh candles should be lighted or not. There was a limit to all human endurance, and the present was an occasion upon which, he thought, the noble Lord might be considered to have passed that limit. The noble Lord, in fact, called upon the House of Commons to stultify itself by giving its assent to a proposition, the effect of which was to declare that it was prepared to act in a manner which would reflect disgrace upon its proceedings. Under these circumstances, he should implore of the noble Lord to reconsider the determination at which he seemed to have arrived, and not compel him, and those who might concur in his view of the matter, to have recourse to either one or the other of two alternatives —namely, either to take a course which it must be most repugnant to their feelings to adopt, or to make a pusillanimous and disgraceful surrender of the duty which they owed to their own consciences, to that House of which they were Members, and to those constituents whom they had the honour to represent. If the noble Lord, however, should persevere in the course which he had signified it to be his intention to pursue, then he (Lord Hotham), when they should have arrived at the 23rd clause, should move that the consideration of the Amendment of the House of Lords with respect to that clause be agreed to that day month.

said, that the noble Lord seemed to consider that clause to be a very essential portion of the Bill; but the fact was that the Bill which he (Lord J. Russell) had introduced at the commencement of the Session had contained no such provision; and he believed that no such provision was to be found among the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Suffolk (Sir E. Kelly). It certainly was not true that the adoption of such a clause had been regarded as one of the primary objects of the measure. But it was true that when they had been discussing the declaration clause, it had been strongly urged that if every Member were to be compelled to declare that he had incurred no expenses except legal expenses, they ought to define as exactly as possible what expenses were legal and what expenses were illegal; and it was in consequence of that argument that he had been induced to advise the House to agree to the clause then under their consideration. But he should confess that he thought the arguments used in that House against allowing candidates to pay election expenses had appeared to him very strong, and that they had certainly made a considerable impression upon his mind. It had been argued that by that clause they would open the door to many practices which should be clearly considered corrupt, and which were very akin to direct bribery. He could not help thinking that there was considerable weight in the objections thus put forward against the clause; and in his opinion it was desirable that they should agree with the Amendment of the Lords, and omit the clause from the Bill. It was not one of the essential provisions of the measure, although some hon. Members on both sides of the House had chosen so to represent it. If the House of Lords had undertaken to define what expenses should be legal, and what expenses should be illegal, he could understand that there would be some force in the objections advanced by the noble Lord against the course which the Lords had pursued, because the decision to which the House of Commons had come would then have been directly reversed by the other House. But the Lords had taken no such course; they had merely decided in favour of the omission of the clause; so that if the payment of travelling expenses had heretofore been legal, it would still continue legal under that Bill. It might be desirable that Parliament should come to some definite decision upon that point; but as the Bill now under consideration contained many other useful provisions—provisions, for instance, defining what was bribery, what was treating, what was undue influence, and providing for the appointment of an election officer with a view of ascertaining and limiting the expenses of elections, he thought that it was well worth the approval of the House, although it did not peremptorily deal with the question of the legality or the illegality of the payment of travelling expenses. He could not, therefore, conceive that the noble Lord could have any reason to say that that House would be at all disparaged by agreeing to that Amendment of the Lords. On the contrary, he was exceedingly glad that the Lords had not made any further Amendments in the Bill, and that in spite of the Resolution to which they had come, not to consider any Bills after the 25th of July, except Bills of Supply, or Bills of extreme urgency, they had thought proper to proceed with the present measure after that date. That fact showed that the House of Lords were more aware than the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) appeared to be of the urgency of that measure. It showed an earnest desire, on their parts, to put a check to those corrupt practices, and it likewise showed that they entertained very considerable deference for the wishes of the House of Commons, in which House the question of the propriety of issuing new writs for the five boroughs which had, for some time, remained unrepresented, was to be considered on Friday next. Under all the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him to be very desirable that the Bill should pass as soon as possible, and that if new writs were to be issued for Cambridge and the other unrepresented boroughs, they should have an opportunity of seeing whether the measure would be effectual in preventing that corruption by which those boroughs had hitherto been disgraced. He had, therefore, no hesitation in advising the House to agree to that Amendment of the Lords. He trusted that if the noble Lord opposite should divide the House upon that occasion, and if his Motion should be rejected, he would see that the feeling against those corrupt practices was so strong that it was not considered advisable that the House should delay until another Session some remedy against their recurrence.

said, that the noble Lord President of the Council had addressed the House apparently under the supposition that the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Hotham) wished that the House should reject the Bill altogether. But he (Mr. Hildyard) did not certainly understand that that was the wish of the noble Lord.

said, that the Motion of the noble Lord was that the Amendment should be considered on that day month; and the effect of its adoption would necessarily be to defeat the Bill for the present Session.

said, that he was sure that if that would be the effect of the Motion his noble Friend would be prepared so to amend it as to show that he wished the Bill should pass at once, but should pass with the clause which had been struck out by the Lords. [Lord HOTHAM: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord the President of the Council had told them that that was a matter of no great importance; but if it were a matter of only trifling importance, why should not the House of Lords coincide in a decision to which the House of Commons had come after prolonged deliberation? He said that that was an exercise of the privileges of the House of Lords which the Commons ought not to tolerate. In that case the Lords had thought proper to reverse a decision to which the House had come by very considerable majorities, and with the sanction of every noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench. Why should the Members of that House be subject to the caprice of the House of Lords? If that clause were struck out, the legality or the illegality of the payment by candidates of the travelling expenses of voters would still be left in doubt and different Committees of that House would be found deciding that question differently. It was only natural to suppose, however, that ultimately county Members would be deterred from incurring the risk of paying those travelling expenses, and then the poorer class of county voters would in many instances be virtually disfranchised. He hoped that the House would not, by adopting the Amendment, succumb to the caprice of the House of Lords, and that that House would not consent to the omission from the Bill of a clause to which they had before repeatedly given their sanction by large majorities.

said, it would appear from the language employed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed them that the Liberals were at present the constitutional party in that House, and that the self-styled Conservatives were the enemies of the constitution. The doctrines laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman would lead to a complete revolution in the constitution of this country. For his (Mr. Hume's) part, he had always defended the constitution as composed of King, Lords, and Commons; and no man could be more anxious than he had always been that each of these bodies should perform its special duties in our legislative system. He had frequently complained that the Lords had overstepped their rights by sending Members to the House of Commons; but he had never insulted them by complaining that they had exercised their undoubted privilege of dealing as they might think proper with any Bill that might be submitted to their consideration. If they were not to be allowed to exercise that privilege, why, he would ask, should measures be brought at all before them? He must confess at the same time that he attached but little importance to the Bill; he had even abstained from taking any part in its discussion or in the divisions upon its various clauses; and he had told the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) not only on this, but on similar occasions, that he believed the only effectual mode of putting a cheek to bribery at elections would be the adoption of the vote by ballot. He thought it only fair that Members of Parliament should not be saddled with the expense of bringing voters to the poll. He had no particular anxiety to see the franchise placed in the hands of men who would not be prepared to go to a polling-booth to record their votes; and if the present polling-booths were too distant for any electors, he would only recommend that the number of polling-places should be increased, and that one of them should, if necessary, be erected in every parish. Under any circumstances he felt that a candidate ought not to be put to the expense of a single shilling in order to ensure his return to Parliament; for he was but the servant of the public, and, as a servant, he ought not to be compelled to purchase his employment.

said, he felt it his duty to remind the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire that his Amendment, if carried, would lead to the rejection of the Bill. If the noble Lord only objected to that particular Amendment of the Lords, he should merely move that the House should disagree to that Amendment.

said, he felt it his duty to avail himself of every form of the House, not for the purpose of defeating the Bill, but for the purpose of ensuring the rejection of that Amendment of the Lords. If the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would move that the House should disagree to the Amendment, and if that Motion should be adopted, he (Lord Hotham) should not offer the slightest opposition to the further progress of the Bill. His only wish was that it should remain in the state in which it had been sent up to the other House.

said, he understood the noble Lord to state that unless that clause were reinserted in the Bill he would obstruct the progress of the measure altogether. [Lord HOTHAM: Hear, hear!] That was a perfectly intelligible object, and for that object the Amendment of the noble Lord was a perfectly correct one. The noble Lord the Lord President of the Council had congratulated the House on the fact that the House of Lords had, in the case of the Bill now before them, waived the Resolution they had passed not to consider any Bill, except Bills of Supply, after the 25th of July. But he (Mr. Duncombe) saw no ground for congratulation in that circumstance. The Amendment which the Lords had made in striking out this clause was obviously a compromise. There was no question that the Government had been placed in a false position by the course which had been taken in this matter; but the House of Lords seemed desirous of placing the House of Commons in a false position of much more dangerous import by the Resolution under which they had sought to restrict the proceedings of that House. It appeared to him that the House of Commons would be deserting their duty to themselves and to the country were they to permit the Resolution of the House of Lords to become a precedent. It was a Resolution, moreover, which altogether trenched upon the prerogative of the Crown; for, supposing Her Majesty to have thought fit, instead of proroguing Parliament, to adjourn it for two or three months, was it to be permitted that the Lords should say they would not receive any of the Bills which might result from the resumed sitting, because they had not been brought up to their Lordships' House before the 25th of July in this year? He regarded the Resolution as altogether vicious, wrong, and unconstitutional. He perceived that the Lords had introduced another Amendment into the Bill, to the effect that it should continue in operation for a period of two years, and thence to the end of the next Session of Parliament; or, in other words, that it should remain in force for a period of three years. But as he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that the Bill was a trumpery and inefficient one, he meant to bring forward an Amendment to that proposal, and to move that the operation of the Bill should be limited to a period of twelve months. As this was intended to be an experimental measure, so also let the ballot be experimental.

said, they had all heard that the views of hon. Members were often influenced to a greater extent than they were aware of by the side of the House on which they sat. He was glad the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who had so long sat on the sunny side of the House, should now feel disposed to give the benefit of his great experience and weight as a champion of the rights and privileges of the House of Lords. He thought, in his new character, the hon. Member could not do better than enter into a compact with the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had just attacked the House of Lords in a manner wholly undeserved because of its Resolution in reference to not receiving Bills after the 25th of July. Now, so far from having done anything unconstitutional, or anything that could be held to militate against the privileges of the Commons, the Lords never, in his opinion, took a course more wise or constitutional than in the case just mentioned. He was sorry Her Majesty's Government should take such an active part in putting aside a Resolution which was essential to the maintenance of the privileges of the House of Lords as an independent branch of the Legislature. What was the state of business in the House of Lords this time twelve months? The accumulation of Bills on their table was such that it was impossible they could give them attention. They were called upon in the month of August not to exercise an independent function, but to register whatever Bills the House of Commons might desire to crowd upon their table. He hoped in future Sessions the Lords would not only arrive at a similar Resolution, but that they would also adhere to it, as well as be supported by the House of Commons. As regarded the question now before the House, he should say it was not creditable to the character of the House; it was not a desirable or decorous proceeding that, in the middle of August, with a mere skeleton of the House present, they should be called upon to rescind and reverse the determination arrived at on so many occasions by a full House. It might be contended that if the Lords made Amendments in their Bills at so late a period of the Session, and sent them back, what else was to be done? But in the present case that had not happened. They found, on the contrary, a Member of the Government, in another place, proposing to reverse the resolution of the House of Commons—a resolution deliberately arrived at, and not alone deliberately arrived at, but also urged for adoption by the Government itself. The Government, therefore, were not in a position to urge on the House the necessity of the case, and, therefore, he should feel bound to vote with his noble Friend the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire in the course he was taking. But they were told if the Amendment of his noble Friend were carried it would be fatal to the Bill. His noble Friend, however, had stated that such was not his object. However, he (Sir J. Pakington) agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) that if the result of the Amendment was to put an end to the measure in the present Session the loss would not be very great. He supported the Bill up to the last division, but he had no hesitation in avowing that upon that occasion the Bill was so mutilated and so altered for the worse, that he did not think it was desirable the Bill should pass; and his apprehension was that if the Bill should pass in its present shape, it would only be a delusion. He did not say that the Bill had no merits. It consolidated the laws relating to bribery, and it gave a better definition than they had yet had of what bribery was; but it was not intended for a Consolidation Bill, or a Bill for de- fining bribery, but as a Bill for putting an end to those scenes of bribery and corruption which had disgraced some recent elections; and in that important respect he believed that the Bill would be an utter delusion. Without a declaration to be taken by the successful candidates, he believed that the nomination of an election officer would be a perfectly useless appointment, and that the Legislature would fail in the great object which it had in view. Upon that ground he was prepared to give any vote which would impede the further progress of the Bill, and upon that ground he regretted that the Government thought it desirable to press it. He could have wished that, instead of carrying this now imperfect measure through Parliament, they had taken the recess to consider the subject, and at the commencement of the next Session had brought forward a well-digested measure, which might then have been deliberated upon and passed by both Houses.

said, that it appeared to him the Bill, as it had come from the House of Lords, was, upon the whole, a useful measure. It certainly could not be denied that it contained many provisions calculated to carry into effect objects which Members of that House on both sides desired to have fulfilled. He would not go into the conflict between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, which had nothing to do with the question. The matter was, whether the Bill had sufficient merit in itself to entitle it to the adoption of the House as it now stood, and he thought it had. The noble Lord opposite had truly pointed out that in neither of the three Bills which had been submitted to the Select Committee had there been any clause which affected to deal with the question as to the legality of the payments to which this clause referred. It might be desirable, hereafter, to define what was legal and what was not in relation to such payments, but this future expediency afforded no reason why the present Bill should not pass —why another recess should pass away, and another Session, before any attempt was made to put down bribery and corruption. No doubt the Bill, as it came from the Committee was better than it was now, but let them take the measure as it stood, and let a short Bill be introduced next Session to supply any defect in the particular point under discussion, which it might be expedient to deal with.

said, he had no faith in the Bill as a remedy for the evils of bribery, or in any legislative action by way of penalty. The only effectual way, in his opinion, of putting a stop to malpractices at elections would be to extend the franchise on the one hand, and adopt the system of the ballot on the other.

said, he thought that the House of Lords was perfectly justified in the course they had taken. At all events, they had greatly improved this Bill, which he hoped would be passed in its present shape. He differed from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in thinking that the House of Lords did an unconstitutional act in passing their Resolution of the 2nd of May. That was a most useful Resolution, and one to which he hoped the House of Lords would adhere in future Sessions. With respect to the clause under discussion, he thought it would be inconsistent, and against all right principle, to call upon candidates to pay the travelling expenses of voters, and he should give his hearty support to the Lords' Amendments.

said, he would beg the noble Lord the President of the Council to say, after the House of Commons had decided five times by large majorities that the actual and reasonable travelling expenses of voters should be paid by the candidates, and after every Member of the Government in that House had voted in favour of the clause to that effect, that the resolution to which the House had deliberately come should be set aside because the House of Lords had decided, upon a single night's debate upon the whole Bill, that the clause should be expunged. The effect of omitting the clause would be to leave the question of the legality or illegality of travelling expenses in a state of greater doubt and uncertainty than before; and it would be impossible either for an election officer or an Election Committee of that House to show how they were to deal with such cases. He thought that, instead of passing the Bill in its present imperfect and dangerous shape, it would be far better to delay it till next Session. But he would like the noble Lord the President of the Council to explain how it came to pass that a clause, which was supported in the House of Commons by all the Members of the Government in that House, was struck out on the Motion of another Member of the Government in the House of Lords. It could not be that the noble Duke acted without the knowledge or consent of his colleagues. He believed that in some matters the noble Duke did not allow the other Members of the Government to interfere with him; but this was not a question of that description; and at all events the matter was one in which an explanation was most assuredly due to the House. Seeing that the Bill as it now stood was one of little value, while it was calculated to create the greatest possible embarrassment at elections, he trusted that it would be allowed to remain over till next Session, when it might be made really effective for the suppression of bribery and corruption.

said, he thought candidates should be allowed to pay the travelling expenses of poor voters, who had not the means of going to the poll at their own cost. He would also suggest that more polling-booths should be erected in large counties, and in any future Bill he hoped that point would not be lost sight of. The omission of the clause which allowed travelling expenses was a harsh and injudicious act, and he would therefore vote against it.

said, he must deny the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), that the Government had to a man supported the clause in that House. The Attorney General not only voted, but spoke, against the clause. He rejoiced exceedingly at the course which bad been taken in the other House, for he saw an opening for incalculable mischief in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. So great, indeed, had been his objection to the clause, that he had felt it his duty to vote against the passing of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to take a very extraordinary view of the duties of a candidate. Formerly, if a man went down to a borough and openly stated his intention—and kept to it—not to pay more than legal expenses, he was held up to honour; but now there seemed to be an idea abroad that a great portion of the expenses, properly belonging to the borough, ought to be got out of the candidate.

said, in pursuance of the feeling he had on this subject, it was now his duty to move that the House do now adjourn. In doing so, he would take the liberty of saying one or two words in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord the President of the Council, who appeared to be under the impression that he (Lord Hotham) had stated that this clause involved the principle of the Bill. He neither said so, nor did he feel it to be any such thing. But what he did say was, that there was no clause in the Bill on which the House had expressed a more decided opinion, or on which more divisions had been taken. It was on that ground that he considered the House ought not to assent to the omission of the clause. He had no other object in view than that this clause should remain in the Bill, although it had been said that a question was sought to be raised as to whether the Bill should be proceeded with or not. For his own part, he would scorn taking the opportunity of doing indirectly what he could not do directly. His objection was solely to the omission of this clause. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was to decide whether the Bill should pass or not. It was not a question between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but a question between the Ministers of the Crown in that House and the Ministers of the Crown in the other House of Parliament. If the noble Lord was willing to determine that the repeated decisions of the House of Commons should be maintained and that the clause should be restored, then he (Lord Hotham) should not offer one further word of objection to the Bill.

said, he wished to correct a great misrepresentation of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that he had said the House of Lords had acted capriciously. What he said was that if the House of Lords thought proper to reject this Bill because the House of Commons adhered to a clause upon which they had five times divided, and which they had carried by large majorities, they would, in so rejecting it, act capriciously, and on them would be the consequence of that rejection. To every word of that statement he adhered. By majorities of nearly three to one that House had declared that reasonable and actual expenses of travelling were not illegal. The clause was not an enacting, but a declaratory clause, that the payment of the reasonable and actual expenses of voters was not illegal. The House of Lords had struck out that clause, without declaring that the payment of those expenses was illegal. What, then, would be the condition of county Members? They would not be able to pay a single farthing on account of such expenses without risking the loss of their seats.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he trusted, after the manifestation of the opinion of the House, that the further opposition to this Bill would be withdrawn.

said, he was astonished the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should talk of the manifestation of a majority in that House, when it was well known the present manifestation was the manifestation of a minority, against which there had been a vote of at least three to one of that House. The noble Lord the President of the Council had now all his supporters still in town, but the great bulk of the Members who would support the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) had left town.

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down was remarkable for his calmness. It could not well be said of the hon. and learned Gentleman—

"Whose own example strengthens all his laws, And is himself the great sublime he draws."

The hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in supposing this clause formed any part of the original Bill. The clause in question had been added to it at a later period of the discussion, and it never formed a portion of the original Bill. He trusted the noble Lord would not now put the House to the trouble of dividing, but would take the sense of it on the main question, that they agree or disagree to the Lords' Amendments. The noble Lord must perceive, that in the division which had taken place, not merely the ordinary supporters of the Government voted in favour of the Lords' Amendments, but also many of those who sat upon the noble Lord's own side of the House.

said, he would remind the noble Lord that, not many weeks ago, he had stated that, if he conscientiously believed he were right, however small the minority who supported him, he would persevere. He also begged to remind the noble Lord that a great many Members who had formerly opposed the view taken by the House of Lords, were now out of town, and had not had notice that the question was to be discussed.

said, that the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Member adverted, upon which he (Lord J. Russell) spoke as stated, was where a minority attempted to contravene the wishes of the majority.

said, he had taken a deep interest in this Bill from the commencement. It was not special or partial legislation, but applied equally to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and he trusted the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) would not again uselessly divide the House.

said, he would advise the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. F. Hume) not to press his Amendment to a division, but that he and his friends should reserve their forces for his (Mr.Duncombe's) Amendment, that the operation of the Bill be limited to twelve months.

said, he must complain that no notice had been given of agreement to these Amendments being moved. There were many at this moment within two miles of the House of Commons who did not know what was going on, and who had no reason to know what was going on. He justified the course which he and his friends were taking, and which he admitted upon ordinary occasions was exceedingly to be deprecated, upon the ground that they were asked to reverse the oft-repeated decision of that House, and to do it without reasonable notice.

said, he had not been in the House upon the two former divisions, but should vote for the present Amendment, if it were pressed, upon the ground that it was a most unjustifiable proceeding to attempt, at that period of the Session, and in such a House as was then assembled, to force on a measure of this kind without proper notice. It was a positive act of deception on the House. A measure of this magnitude, and involving such great interests, ought to have been brought forward and discussed at such a period of the Session as would have ensured a proper attendance of Members.

said, he thought the noble Lord the President of the Council would agree with him, that it was not fair that such a subject should be discussed without notice. In order, therefore, that such notice might be given, and that those hon. Members who were absent might have an opportunity of attending, he would propose an adjournment until Thursday. He would have preferred Friday, but he understood that the prorogation was to be on Saturday, and he could see that Friday might be inconvenient; but he trusted that the noble Lord would think that, in proposing Thursday, he was only suggesting a fair compromise. There was another reason for the postponement. It would afford the noble Lord an opportunity of giving an answer to the question he had asked just now, and which, he thought, respect for the country and that House demanded should be answered, as to the reasons which had led the noble Duke (his colleague) to move in the other House of Parliament to undo that which the noble Lord in that House had himself proposed to do.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman could only move that the debate be adjourned.

said, he would therefore alter his Amendment accordingly, on the understanding that, if carried, the discussion should be resumed on Thursday.

said, a postponement to Thursday would give hon. Gentlemen opposite a great advantage. It was obvious that they might pursue the same course on that day and on Friday as they had pursued to-day, and then the only alternative would be, that the prorogation must be postponed or the Bill be lost.

said, it appeared to him there was something not quite so honest as they might expect in the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite were taking. They were objecting now to the further progress of the Bill, on the ground that a particular clause had been withdrawn, but they had voted against the Bill with that clause in it; and the ground of their opposition, therefore, must be sought, not in the withdrawal of the clause, but in the ancient inveterate hostility to the Bill itself. He thought that the objection as to want of notice savoured very much of a court of law; that those hon. Members who were still in town, and had sufficient means of knowing that the subject was to be discussed, and that those who had gone out of town, must be supposed to have ascertained before they left, whether there was any business which remained to be transacted of sufficient importance to detain them. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) claimed to represent a majority of the House. How did he know that? The noble Lord the President of the Council, on whose recommendation only the House had agreed to this clause, had changed his opinion upon it; and they all knew that the noble Lord's conversion was generally followed by the conversion of a great many others. He remembered to have heard it said of a certain Cardinal that he had baptized 4,000 or 5,000 people at once by the twirling of a mop; and when the noble Lord changed his opinions a great many other people changed their opinions at the same time. He would put it to the noble Lord whether it was worth his while—as this was a temporary measure—as a majority of the House of Commons had adopted it—as the House of Lords had thought it of sufficient importance to warrant a suspension in its favour of the Resolution it had passed this Session—as the whole subject must be reconsidered at all events within the next two years—it was worth his while to persevere in a course which, supported by thirteen Members—just "a baker's dozen"—against seventy-nine, could lead to no practical result?

said, he must still contend that the objection made upon the ground of want of notice was the objection, not merely of a lawyer, but of a statesman, and he assuredly should support the course which the Opposition had pursued.

said, he maintained that it was perfectly consistent with the opposition that had been given to a Bill which they believed to be bad, mischievous, and inefficient, to support the reintroduction of a clause, the omission of which, they considered, made a bad measure worse.

said, he agreed that the clause which the Lords had struck out was one of great importance, for, if it had become law, rank bribery would for the first time have become legalised. What hon. Gentlemen wished, therefore, was to establish bribery by Act of Parliament.

said, if, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, the clause in question would have sanctioned bribery, how happened it that he himself, on four or five different occasions, voted for it? The hon. Gentleman had, as he had frequently done before, imputed motives to those who were opposed to him. How much better it would be if the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to giving his reasons for the opinions he entertained. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he would only say, that it was not the fact that those who sought to maintain the clause which the Lords had struck out wished to establish bribery. [Mr. BRIGHT: Hear, hear.] At all events, the hon. Gentleman imputed to the minority that they had an object other than that which they professed. He (Lord Hotham) could only say that, whatever might be the merits of the clause, it was one which had over and over again been confirmed by that House. It was on that ground, without any reference to the intrinsic merits of the clause itself, that he was proceeding on this occasion. The ground he was now going upon was, that there was originally a large majority extremely in favour of the clause. Nothing would have induced him to put himself in the situation he was then assuming, but a most sacred sense of duty. It was a position which was most distasteful to him, but from which he felt he could not recede without sacrificing his conscientious feelings, and consenting to a most unworthy surrender of the privileges of that House.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

said, he had hoped, when he moved that the debate be adjourned to Thursday next, that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would have acceded to so reasonable a proposition, but, as the noble Lord had not thought proper to do so, he did not think it was necessary to proceed further in dividing the House.

said, he should again move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that both sides of the House are gradually dwindling away, and as the minority are decreasing two to one, as com- pared with the majority, it is clear that in the end they must give way. Now, I would suggest that time would be saved, and the object of both parties attained, by the adoption of the compromise I suggested an hour or two ago, that the present Bill should continue in operation for twelvemonths and the then next Session of Parliament instead of for two years, and the then next Session. This, I conceive, would meet the views of both parties. The noble Lord the President of the Council would then no doubt undertake to bring in a new Bill in the course of next year, but if the operation of the Bill be extended for three years after what has taken place this evening, I think it very probable that we shall not have an effectual Bribery Bill for a considerable length of time. I hope the noble Lord the Lord President will consent to this arrangement, and that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham) will also acquiesce in it.

said, he had no other object in view than an imperative sense of public duty. He was ready to admit that if the operation of the Bill were limited to twelve months, the view he entertained of the matter would be considerably modified, and if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) consented to provide that it should continue only for one year, he (Lord Hotham), being most unwilling to interfere more than was absolutely necessary with the progress of other business, would readily acquiesce in that arrangement.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury means to propose that the Bill shall continue for one year, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament, I shall be willing to accede to that proposal. There would then be time to consider any other Bill which it might be thought desirable to introduce, but if it was limited to one year only, an attempt might be made on the first or second reading or on some other stage of such Bill, to move adjournment after adjournment, and thus prevent the passing of any measure upon the subject.

said, he believed that the words "and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament," were generally introduced into Bills not to be in force, but to cover any accident that might occur such as the noble Lord had suggested, and his object was not to run the present Bill until the end of the next Session, after the expiration of the year, but to afford the noble Lord the opportunity of bringing in another Bill next Session, and doing his best to carry it, but having the prospect of the continuance of the present Bill until the end of the succeeding Session should he fail in doing so.

said, he was willing to acquiesce in the proposed arrangement.

Of course I shall feel myself at perfect liberty to propose either to amend this Bill in another Session, or to reintroduce it exactly as it is if I should so think fit. By acquiescing in this arrangement, I must not be understood as binding myself to any particular course in this respect.

said, he hoped the noble Lord, whether he introduced this Bill or proposed a new one, would incorporate in it the clause which had been struck out by the Lords.

then moved an Amendment in accordance with Mr. T. Duncombe's suggestion, limiting the duration of the Bill to one year, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament.

said, of course this Amendment would have to go up to the Lords for their concurrence.

said, he did not wish to oppose this Bill, but he would make an appeal to the Government to expunge the 13th clause, which would disturb the old established law of the country as to the unanimity of juries. He might be allowed to remind the House that the clause embodying a most important alteration in the law was carried in opposition to the opinion of the Attorney General for England, the Solicitor General for Ireland, as well as in opposition to the opinion of the Commissioners, in accordance with whose views the rest of the Bill was framed—namely, the Common Law Commissioners, who distinctly declared that unanimity on the part of juries ought not to be dispensed with. And to this he might add that the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London (Mr. S. Wortley) was decidedly to the same effect; while he had learned from a private conversation with the hon. and learned Attorney General that he remained of the same opinion which he had origi- nally expressed, and that he certainly did not think so important a change ought to be made without the completest discussion. What he felt bound, therefore, to ask the Government was, that at so late a period of the Session, and in the face of an understanding that the discussion as to the merits of this clause was to be postponed until the third reading, they would not press the measure this Session. For, he must say, if they were to carry it through in a House so thinly attended as the present, the public would not fail to conclude that so important a change had been made without that deliberative solemnity and discussion so eminently to be desired. And he might here observe that the clause was not at all essential to the Bill; in fact, one of his arguments against the clause was, that it did not at all properly belong to it, for it was a Bill regulating the practice and procedure of the common law courts. Now, a measure of that kind was hardly one in which provisions dealing with an institution so essential to the working of English society as trial by jury could be introduced. For himself, he believed if the clause were accepted it would lead to the abolition of trial by jury altogether; but, at all events, whether the changes it proposed were right or wrong, he felt sure all would agree that it ought not to be passed except in a full House. He thought, then, that the most equitable course to take would be to expunge the clause altogether from the Bill—or, at least, that part of it which went to establish the verdict of ten jurymen as admissible; and if it was judged advisable to introduce so important a change as that, let it be done by a distinct and separate measure next Session. If that were done he was free to acknowledge that this Common Law Procedure Act would be a very valuable improvement upon the law as it now stood, and on that account there was the more reason for regretting that the Bill had been embarrassed with such extraneous matter. There was also a few other clauses in the Bill altering the law of evidence generally, to which he was disposed to take objection. Hitherto the law of evidence had been the same in England and Ireland. Now, he thought it would be introducing a very dangerous principle, and it would lead to confusion, if they sanctioned a difference in the practice of the courts of England and Ireland on the subject of evidence. Still, he was not disposed, as he had previously stated, to oppose the further progress of the Bill on that ground, should he obtain an assurance that the Government would not press the 13th clause.

said, he readily admitted that the opinions of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and of the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Keogh) were not favourable to that portion of the 13th clause which authorised the reception of the verdict of ten jurymen in lieu of an unanimous decision. On the other hand, the Bill came down to them samctioned by the high authority of the House of Lords. On the whole, however, he would recommend the House not to insist upon that part of the clause objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt), but to defer the introduction of the principle it embodied to a future Session. With regard to the other objection of the hon. and learned Member, namely, that there ought to be one rule as to evidence for both countries, he thought there could be but one opinion on that subject, and therefore he would at once undertake that all the clauses having reference to that subject should be made applicable to Ireland as well as to England.

said, he hoped the House would on no account accede to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The principle of unanimity on the part of a jury was founded upon the most flagrant absurdity, and he would tell the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) that, though the Bill had been framed in defiance of the opinions of the hon. and learned Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, there were authorities at least equal to theirs in favour of the principle of the clause. His own opinion was, that the verdict of like jurymen given in after a lapse of twelve hours, backed by the authority of the Judge who tried the cause, ought to be conclusive, and was at least equal to the unanimous verdict of twelve jurymen. At all events, that was the recommendation of the Common Law Commission. He, for one, would not consent to this clause being struck out of the Bill; and he trusted that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would never be induced to consent to abandon a provision of so beneficial a nature, and which would tend to rescue the law of trial by jury from a charge of the grossest absurdity.

said, he thought the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) went much beyond what he intended; for his argument went to this, that every juryman should be allowed to vote exactly as he pleased, and that then the verdict should be taken according to the opinions of the majority. By limiting the number assenting to a verdict to nine, in place of twelve, they did not get rid at all of the question of principle. Now, the course which his hon. and learned Friend had proposed did not decide the question; because, by disagreeing to this portion of the Bill, a discussion between the two Houses would be involved, and thus the matter at issue would remain open. He, therefore, thought that upon a question of such very great importance, and in reference to which such a variety of opinions prevailed on both sides of the House, it would be far better to leave the law as it stood during the few months intervening between this and the next Session of Parliament, than act in a headlong manner in regard to the extensive change proposed by the Bill. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) to waive his objections, and next Session a Bill might be brought in dealing specifically with the subject.

said, he highly approved of the course proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He perfectly coincided in the opinion that the clause contemplated one of the greatest alterations that could possibly take place in the administration of justice in this country. He thought that, so far as that House was concerned, the greatest caution and consideration were necessary, and that the provisions of the clause eminently merited being dealt with in a separate enactment.

said, he had always thought it absurd to compel unanimity on the part of twelve jurymen. That was a conclusion in direct accordance with the dictates of common sense, and did not require many hours' discussion, either in the morning or the evening, to be arrived at. He, therefore, thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) was perfectly justified in urging the necessity of this change; at the same time, he would recommend him not to press his objection at present, lest it might endanger a measure in other respects also so beneficial.

said, he would consent to allow the particular provision to be expunged from the clause, lest, by his opposition, the passing a measure otherwise of so excellent a character should be endangered.

Sir, I rise now in order to perform the promise I made last year to this House, that, if I occupied the position which I have the honour to hold as President of the Board of Control, I would submit a statement to Parliament respecting the finances of India, and, at the same time, would give a general explanation of the progress of India since the subject was last under discussion in this House. In order to enable me so to do, I propose to follow the precedent set in former years—though it is now only two years short of half a century since an Indian budget was last presented to the House of Commons—and to move certain Resolutions on the subject of the finances of India. Those who have referred to what took place on former occasions will be aware that many of the Resolutions then moved (though some relating to the commercial receipts of the India Company and to their transactions as manufacturers would be inapplicable to the altered state of circumstances) referred to the income, expenditure, and surplus of the Indian revenue, and they will be Resolutions similar to those which, before I sit down, I shall have the honour of proposing. The Resolutions referred first to the revenue and expenditure of the several presidencies, next to the revenue of India generally, and lastly, to the ultimate surplus, after defraying the whole of the charges payable out of the Indian revenues. The Resolutions which I shall submit are in truth, as on former occasions, nothing more than assertions of matters of fact, deducible from the accounts laid on the table of the House, whether those prepared in the old fashion, according to Acts of Parliament, or those framed in a different manner, which I moved for in the course of the Session, and which are now in the hands of hon. Members. The principal advantage, of course, which I anticipate from the present discussion, is not so much the eliciting the opinions of the House on the finances of India, as that it will enable Government to lay before the House a general view of the state of the Indian empire, and also afford an opportunity to hon. Gentlemen to make such observations as they think fit on the subject, or to seek for further information connected with that most important part of the British dominions, which, so far as I am able to give it from any documents in my possession, I shall be anxious to afford. I do not know that I need say much more on the general character of the Resolutions, but before I go further into the statement, I wish to say a word or two respecting the form of the Indian accounts in the hands of Members. Under Act of Parliament, accounts made up in a particular manner are annually laid on the table of the House. I did not think, when I had time to turn my attention to these matters, that the accounts presented in that shape afforded as much information as it was desirable should be laid before Parliament, and accordingly I desired accounts to be framed very much on the model of the finance accounts of this country, giving very full information on the subjects of the Indian revenue, income, and expenditure. These accounts hon. Gentlemen have had now in their hands for some time, and will be therefore able to express an opinion with respect to them. They were framed with very great care by a gentleman attached to the India Company's establishment in the City, and were submitted to another gentleman of the highest character in our financial department, the chief clerk of the revenue room in the Treasury. They afterwards underwent careful revision by myself, and I think they may be considered satisfactory as regards their form, and the character of the information they give. I am quite aware that they exhibit some defects, which I hope to remedy before presenting them to the House in another year, but for a first attempt to give full information to the House, I trust they will be regarded as a very great improvement on the present form of account. I also take this opportunity of saying that I was anxious to present at the same time to the House accounts similar to the trade and navigation accounts of this country; but I found that, in consequence of the accounts of the different presidencies not being kept in the same form, or not being brought up to the same time, it would be difficult in this year to produce complete accounts of this description. Instructions were sent out in the course of last autumn to the different presidencies, desiring that the accounts might be framed upon a new model, and I hope next year to be able to lay on the table Indian accounts corresponding with the trade and navigation accounts of the United Kingdom. I will only make one further preliminary observation with respect to the time to which these accounts are brought up. It is with very great regret that I am unable to lay before the House accounts—that is to say, complete accounts—up to a period later than the 30th of April, 1852. Those which have been laid on the table of the House pursuant to Act of Parliament, framed on the old model, I believe it would be easy to present at an earlier period. But I have been unwilling to make any change in this respect, because, though I might get the accounts presented two or three months sooner, I should not be satisfied, considering the accelerated means of communication with India, until I gained a whole year, and produced in the month of May or June complete accounts up to the end of the previous year. Instructions have been sent to the Governments of the different presidencies to expedite the transmission of the accounts as much as possible; and I hope, before a couple of years elapse, that I shall be able to effect the result I have stated. The general purport of the Resolutions which I shall move—following former precedents—will set forth the income and charge of each presidency, the income and charge of India payable in India, and the difference between the income and the charges. At the same time, it is true that the accounts will not give an exact representation of the charges of the separate presidencies, because there are some general charges included in the revenues of each presidency, and some, which ought to be divided among the several presidencies are charged to one. Thus, the charges of the Government of India are defrayed out of the revenues of Bengal; the charges of batta are paid out of the revenues of Madras, and of the Indian navy by Bombay, though these charges ought fairly to be distributed between the different presidencies. In like manner, the retired pay and furlough allowance for the whole of India are put into one general sum, though a portion belongs to each of the presidencies. I mention this circumstance to show that in the statement we are able to make out we do not accurately get the separate charges of the respective presidencies, nor the general charges of the Indian Government as distinguished from the local payments. Whether in another year it would be desirable to continue the accounts in this form is a subject for consideration, but at present I will only repeat that this is a first attempt to give information as fully as possible with respect to Indian finance. The information furnished in the statement I am about to make is principally derived from the Parliamentary papers on the subject under the heads in those papers, Nos. 12, 13, and 29. The first Resolution states the amount of the revenue of the Presidency of Bengal, including some districts attached to it, and the local charges thereon, exclusive of the military charge.

said, he trusted he should not be thought presumptuous if he ventured to take a part in this discussion, although he felt that he was more in need of indulgence than almost any one who had called the attention of the House to Indian affairs, for he was unable to bring before them any of those topics so well adapted to excite attention which had generally been urged in Indian debates. He was neither able to adduce such instances of misgovernment as had occasionally been brought forward, nor to paint such glowing pictures of prosperity as had been described by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg) and other hon. Gentlemen. He (Sir E. Perry) hoped the Committee would believe that the opinions he was about to express had been formed without any personal bias one way or the other, his only object having been a sincere desire to ascertain the truth. He had heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) with unmixed gratification. He (Sir E. Perry) was satisfied that he represented the opinions of thinking people in India when he said, that that speech would be hailed as the most promising with regard to political prospects that had ever been addressed to them from this country. The right hon. Baronet had frankly admitted that the estimates he had framed presented what was certainly an alarming deficit, but, notwithstanding this circumstance, he had detailed the operations which he proposed with respect to four great subjects intimately connected with the prosperity of India. The despatches that had been laid upon the table showed that the right hon. Baronet had given to public works in India a stimulus such as those enterprises had never before received. The Governor General and the Governors of the different presidencies had been allowed to avail themselves of the large balances standing in the public Treasury, independently of the revenue of the year, in order to promote any public enterprise characterised by sound engineering skill, or which had local evidence in its favour. With respect to the judicial establishment, also, hints had been given to the Governor General as to the pay of Native judges—a subject on which so much evidence was taken before the Parliamentary Committees of last year, and on which a very strong feeling existed both in this country and in India. The right hon. Baronet had effected a very large and beneficial operation on the funded debt of India, by reducing the interest from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. If the tenure of the right hon. Gentleman's office was to be characterised by the measure of education he had sketched, he (Sir E. Perry) would be bold to say that the name of Sir Charles Wood would be linked by the grateful Natives of India with the two or three English names they loved to honour. He (Sir E. Perry) cordially concurred with every portion of the educational scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. For years past the educationists of India had been appealing to the home authorities for that assistance and encouragement which was now to be afforded them. They had previously appealed in vain for assistance to enable them to establish normal schools, training colleges, universities, and to promote education generally, but now, for the first time, did they find anything like large and general support extended to them by the home authorities. He considered that the gratitude of India was due to the right hon. Gentleman for having proposed these measures, which emanated, be believed, from the Board of Control. Although, however, he (Sir E. Perry) had listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet with unmixed gratification, he could not help observing, from the demeanour of the House, and from the thinness of the benches, and even of the Treasury bench, that very little interest in discussions of this kind was shown within the walls of that House. It certainly might have been expected that the colleagues of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) would have attended to hear what was certainly one of the most glowing pictures of India that had ever been drawn. He, however, attributed their absence and the dulness of demeanour that had characterised the House to the fact that discussions of this kind did not appear to lead to any practical result. He thought it was necessary, in order to excite the attention of the House, that hon. Members should feel that they were being instructed with a view to some operation on their part, or to some active demonstration to which they could lend aid. It had been the characteristic of all the Indian discussions of this nature that they took place in almost empty Houses. On the last occasion when a similar budget was opened, only about thirty Members were present, although the Duke of Wellington made an admirable speech in favour of his brother's administration. It was then, as it was now, and as it would continue to be, the general feeling of the House, that the information afforded by Indian discussions of this kind might be just as well gained from blue books. He (Sir E. Perry) thought, however, that a very important moral might be drawn from what they had heard from the President of the Board of Control to-night. If he (Sir E. Perry) had correctly characterised the scheme propounded by the right hon. Baronet for the government of India, it appeared to him the strongest argument that could be adduced in favour of a proposition brought before the House many times last year, as to the value of Parliamentary interference with respect to the great principles that should govern our rule in India. He attributed entirely to the Parliamentary discussions that had taken place, and to the Act that had emanated from them, the very great strides in administration which had been made with respect to India during the last twelve months. That Act very much enhanced the position of the President of the Board of Control; it greatly diminished the power of the Court of Directors; it threw increased responsibility upon the Ministers of the Crown; and the very statement that had been made that night afforded the strongest possible demonstration of the value of the plans propounded in that House last year. The proposition brought before the House last year was one which was most interesting to many thinking men out of doors; it occupied much public attention, and was re-echoed loudly by the press, and in the House was ably and eloquently urged by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), the main point being the general feeling which existed of the necessity of some Parliamentary influence with respect to the government of India. The hon. Member for Manchester brought forward his arguments on various occasions, always urging the necessity of such Parliamentary influence, and he (Sir E. Perry) took the liberty of saying, that the arguments by which the hon. Member for Manchester supported his propositions excited the admiration, if not of that House, of which at that time he (Sir E. Perry) was not a Member, of people out of doors, and he believed the soundness of his views, and the felicity with which he expressed those views, raised him, even in the opinion of Members of the House, to the highest rank of Parliamentary orators. In his own opinion, the breadth of the views propounded by that hon. Member, and the vigorous grasp he took of a difficult subject, convinced him that he was equal to all the exigencies of government, and was blessed with the possession of a statesmanlike mind, which, if he had had the opportunity, would place him in the first class of statesmen, as well as of Parliamentary debaters. He (Sir E. Perry) deduced from the topics which, upon the present occasion, had been so well brought forward by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control an argument in behalf of that position, and he was anxious to demonstrate that Parliament had never interfered with respect to India, except under the most beneficial auspices. It was a Parliamentary struggle which, twenty years ago, opened the trade of India to English merchants. It was by another Parliamentary struggle about the same period that the China trade was emancipated from monopoly; it was Parliament that first introduced education into India, that gave it that stimulus from which such great effects had resulted, and it was Parliament which by its last Act passed with reference to the subject, had interfered most beneficially to destroy what he conceived was one of the worst parts of the government of the Company—namely, the civil patronage it enjoyed, and which English statesmen knew had operated so injuriously to the good government of that country. The general objection brought forward to Parliamentary influence with India was, that it would reduce the Government of that empire to the condition of that of one of our Colonies, that Parliamentary influence with our Colonies had been generally deprecated, and Indian reformers were asked, whether they would have a system of ruling which was so deprecated introduced into that large country? That was the position which was thrust into their faces; but the House would observe there was one thing which, in the consideration of this matter, ought to be weighed most carefully; and that was, the extraordinary difference existing between the Colonies of this country and the empire of India. With respect to the Colonies in connection with this country, he might presume to speak with some degree of authority, having lived in one of them, and it would be found, as a general rule, that they were inhabited by an Anglo-Saxon democratic people, struggling for self-government, and animated by few of those feelings of interest in the aristocracy which appertained to the mother country. In general they had obtained self-government; they had, however, been unruly; the mother country had been annoyed during the struggle, but in the main they had succeeded in obtaining good government. India, on the contrary, was a large peninsula, a populous country, necessarily under a despotism, and it was, therefore, as utterly dissimilar in its condition to any of our Colonies as one country could be to another; to compare India with a colony was to compare two countries wholly different in their characteristics. It was, however, unnecessary to institute such a comparison, or to found any argument upon it, because we had an example of colonial government as applied to an Asiatic colony in direct juxtaposition with the government of India, and that example was to be found in the island of Ceylon, and he could show the House that that colony had during the last two or three years progressed in a more rapid and extraordinary manner than even India itself—

"In 1834 the first coffee estates were planted. In 1854 there were upwards of 300 plantations in full bearing, containing 60,000 acres of planted land. The capital thus invested by Europeans has been about 4,000,000l. Between the years 1838 and 1843 the Ceylon Government sold 250,000 acres of Crown land, and opened 800 miles of good carriage-road. There are now more than 3,000 miles of road in Ceylon. In 1837 the coffee shipped amounted to 43,000 cwt.; in 1852 to 324,000 cwt. In 1837 the value of the imports was 595,888l., that of the exports 326,860l. In 1845 they amounted to 1,495,127l. and 679,286l. respectively."

That was the wonderful state of progress in that island during the period he had described, and it was entirely owing to European enterprise and the investment of European capital giving to that island large views of government. While, then, he expressed his own opinion as to the views which were brought forward last year upon this subject, and advocated so strongly, he entreated the House to remember the manner in which those views were met by the leading statesmen of this country; they were met in a manner which led to the material curtailment of the power of the Court of Directors, and to the transfer of that power, and with it the responsibility it entailed, to the Government. The Court of Directors was a mighty power; it had all the prestige attaching to the prolonged existence of 250 years; its antecedents and its history were the antecedents and the history of a power of no small importance. Its gigantic patronage had given it relations and interest in every household of the kingdom; its claims in the opinion of all sober-minded men were substantial, and on conservative affections could not be otherwise than great; but, notwithstanding all this, when the views to which he had referred were propounded in that House and disseminated out of doors, excepting the immediate retainers of the Company, not a single voice was raised in its favour. In no other way could that be explained than in this:—The leading statesmen of this country saw that the existing system had become effete—that it was no longer in harmony with the spirit of the times—and that the feeling had grown up in the minds of men that this mighty empire could only be governed and be increased with safety by those who, in a Parliamentary government like that of England, were placed at the head of affairs. Parliament required to know, and India required to know, how the government of 150,000,000 of the human race was to be conducted, and the circumstances of the time demanded that its administration should be brought under Parliamentary influence, for as long as another body existed, which practically had the government of India, they would never get a House—more than they had that night— to listen to a statement respecting Indian financial affairs or the progress of improvement in that country. If the right hon. Baronet or the House referred to the origin of the Indian speeches which they might read in Hansard, they would find that in many cases they were never made in the House at all, being the production of some clerk in the India House, who used to prepare them, and then, after Mr. Dundas had delivered a few sentences to the House, the MS. was handed over to Hansard; he was even told that the clerk in the Board of Control could show a number of the speeches got up in that manner. Unless, therefore, they got the ordinary Parliamentary motives to bear in relation to this question, it never could be a general subject of interest to the discussion of which hon. Members would aspire. He was glad to have had the opportunity of stating his views on this point, believing as he did that truth, although it might be told to an audience however small, would ascend in the world, and, being disseminated, take firm hold of the public mind, arming itself at last with irresistible power. He was unwilling to dwell longer on this subject, but he wished before he sat down to call the attention of the House to a point connected with finance, on which he conceived it might interfere most beneficially in the interest of India—he meant with respect to the propriety of an arrangement for bringing the offices of the Directors of the East India Company into close connection with the Government offices. That subject excited the attention of Parliament last Session, and if any hon. Gentleman would refer to the divisions which took place on it, he would find the House was almost equally divided on the question before them. The division, he recollected, was sixty-one to seventy-four, the proposition for bringing those offices together being negatived by a majority of thirteen, and in the minority of sixty-one would be found the names of a large number of Gentlemen on that side of the House who were known friends of India. The right hon. Baronet had detailed to them that evening the various expenses of India, and it certainly did strike him (Sir E. Perry) that it was most absurd that the offices of two consulting bodies should be more than four miles apart. He thought he could show the House how they could save to India at least 150,000l. The whole cost of what he might call the double government, taking it on the most moderate calculation, was as follows:—Salaries of Court of Directors (now 10,000l.), 7,568l.; of contingent expenses, consisting of repairs, taxes, &c., and petty charges, 32,062l.; salaries, &c., of the secretaries and officers of Court of Directors, 94,387l.; Board of Control and establishment, 29,420l.; rent of India House and other buildings of the Company, at 6½ per cent on their own valuation of 506,919l., 32,950l.; rent for India Board, on a valuation of 40,000l., 2,600l.—making, in the whole, 198,987l. Now, let them contrast that with the cost of Government offices which transacted similar duties—he meant the Colonial Office, doing the business of fifty-three Governments, which amounted to 40,550l., and if they added 10,000l. a year as salaries of the Court of Directors, supposing them to continue always in existence, the whole cost would be 50,550l.; therefore, the sum of 150,000l., or near it, might be applied to the purposes shadowed forth by the right hon. Baronet. He trusted that some hon. Member with more experience than himself would favour the House with his opinion of the practicability of such an amalgamation, for if a saving to that extent could indeed be effected, it might be attended with the most important advantages to India, and he had sanguine hopes the matter would be investigated by the right hon. Baronet himself, as he (Sir E. Perry) had seen enough of the Government of India to know that their chief desire was to deal out justice to the Natives of that country, and in their supervision to correct what was wrong. He sympathised with the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg), in the assertion, that an attempt to do justice had characterised the rule of the East India Company. With the mass of business that fell to a Member of Parliament, it was impossible to waste a day in conferring with a clerk at the India House on points upon which information was desired, and which the Board of Control did not contain. The governing mind upon various small points of Indian administration could only be found among the superior class of examiners of correspondence at the East India House. Great benefit would result from getting all the Government authorities of India into one building, situate in the immediate vicinity of the other Government offices. He should not have gone so fully into the subject in so thin a House, except that the opportunity of speaking upon Indian subjects arose so seldom that one, who like himself strongly felt the responsibility cast upon this country by Providence in regard to India, would not do his duty if he did not seize any occa- sion of this kind that might present itself. Any one who had studied Indian history must see that the temper of the times had greatly changed, and that the views of the public had been much enlarged since the discussions of this subject commenced; fifty or 100 years ago the question was how much money could be got out of India, and not how much the Government could benefit 150,000,000 of our fellow-subjects. But the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, and others, were becoming sensible of the holiness of our mission. Parliament was "rising to the height of this great argument." He was sure that the most enlightened minds were desirous that our government in India should assume the most liberal form of policy that was compatible with the despotism that must always exist in an Asiatic country. This policy was as sound as it was unselfish, and he was sure it was only by the adoption of this large and generous policy that Parliament could preserve the connection that now existed for the benefit of both countries, and which, if every act were conceived in the same spirit, would, he trusted, continue for countless generations.

said, that after the House had been sitting for ten hours, and after a speech from the President of the Board of Control which had occupied two hours and a half in its delivery, it would ill become him to trespass at any length upon the House. He wished, however, that the right hon. Baronet would take into consideration the propriety of sending out instructions, that the accounts should not be made up to April, but that they should be closed in December. The accounts would then reach this country in June, and the right hon. Baronet would not have to make his next speech to a House, the number of whose Members varied from eleven to thirteen, as had been the case tonight. He greatly regretted that this very important statement had been put off until the very close of the Session. He trusted that the public works for the benefit of the people would be continued, and he would suggest to the right hon. Baronet that the Governors of the four presidencies of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, and Agra, and the officer at the head of the administration of the principalities of Scinde, Pegu, and the Punjab, should be instructed, at the close of each year, following the example of the Earl of Elgin in the case of Canada, to draw up a Report of the progress which had been made in the departments of civil and criminal justice, the state of the finances, and the condition of commerce, the improvement in police, in roads, bridges, and internal communication, and also the progress that had been made in the education of the people, so as to give a distinct view of the position and prospects of the respective provinces. If such Reports were laid upon the table annually at the time of the Indian Budget, they would be of incalculable good. They would create a wholesome and a generous emulation among the Governors, and infuse a spirit of greater zeal into their operations. The annual account would enable Parliament, the press, and the public to compare the success of the measures of one period with another, and test the real progress of India. He believed that the government of India by this country had tended upon the whole to the benefit of the inhabitants, and he thought Parliament might boldly invite th criticism of the world upon it.

said, that the Reports upon the state of the different provinces of India, which his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) wished for, were regularly forwarded to the Court of Directors. [Mr. KINNAIRD: But not to Parliament.] That was because the superintending officer of the Government in that House had never done his duty by calling for them. If the hon. Member would look at the Reports by Colonel Sykes, he would find that there were better Reports accessible to him of India than of England. It was not information that was wanted, but publicity. He believed that the Directors of the East India Company had determined to give greater publicity to their proceedings than hitherto, not only here, but in India, where the greatest mystery and secresy had been observed. He was disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry), from whom he had expected a statement of what he had seen in India, and what he proposed to do for the people of that country. With regard to the accounts, if they were made up to the 30th of April, as at present, ample time would be afforded for having them correctly laid upon the table; and he thought, therefore, that no alteration was required in the date to which they were made up. He believed that the Government had taken the proper course for ascertaining the requirements of so large and diversified a class as the people of India, and he hoped the interest taken in that people would continue to increase in future. He felt the greatest gratification at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control. He had begun his administration well, and he (Mr. Hume) trusted that from this time forward we might expect to see an annual improvement in the state of our Indian empire. He did not himself wish for many of the alterations in the details of administration which had been referred to by previous speakers. What he desired was, such measures as would improve the condition of the Natives. And an excellent commencement in that direction had been made in the despatch which had just been sent out, directing the establishment of a system of education. That despatch proceeded upon the right principle of leaving the details of the scheme to be settled in India. For it was utterly impossible for any set of men here to point out the precise measures required for each district of a continent so diversified in character as was Hindostan. It was, however, requisite that that House should be kept informed of what was done, in order that it might be able to guard against any neglect. It was much to the credit of the Government that they proposed to give education to all without distinction of sect or creed. He hoped that in the next Session of Parliament the President of the Board of Control would lay on the table of the House the Resolutions which he intended to move some days before he made his speech. The Resolutions might have been a mere matter of form this year, but it would not be so in future. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was impossible to improve the revenue of the Presidency of Madras. On the contrary, he thought that Colonel Cotton had conclusively proved that, by the introduction of improved means of communication, the condition of the people might be much improved, and consequently the revenue materially augmented. Let them consider what our facilities of communication had done for England. Well, he believed that India presented capabilities for equal improvement. Looking to the market which Australia would now afford for Indian produce, he was much mistaken if the large outlay on roads and canals which the Government had authorised would not be attended with a most beneficial effect both upon the credit of the country and of the revenue. In order, however, to attain this end, it was very desirable that more attention should be paid to irrigation than had been done for some time past, and that the Natives should be relieved from vexatious imposts like the Moturpha tax, the payment for water, and the tax on the sinking of wells. With regard to the military establishments of India, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly pointed out that the Native troops were numerous, and the British troops few. But he must press upon the Government the necessity of doing justice to the former troops, and to the 5,000 or 6,000 European officers who commanded them. They had at present much cause to complain that very little attention was often paid to their just claims. He must, in the most emphatic manner, express his dissent from the doctrines laid down by Lord Dalhousie with respect to the acquisition of provinces now under the rule of Native princes. We had now a great and important empire in India; we had 150,000,000 of people under our sway; and he (Mr. Hume) wished to see our measures directed to the improvement of the condition of our present subjects—to making them rich and happy—rather than to the acquisition of further territory. And more than that, he desired to see the Native princes of India following our example, and improving the condition of their dominions by the same measures which had been already successful in ours.

said, there were many topics in the speech of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control which called for observation, but at that late hour he would only detain the Committee by adverting to one or two of them. He admitted the great improvement which had been made during the last twelve months in the government of India, which in a great measure was due to the influence and exertions of the right hon. Baronet. His minute on education would be received with approbation from one end of the country to the other; but, at the same time, he could not help telling him that, with regard to the salt tax and the supply of salt to India, he took an exceedingly erroneous view, and must have been greatly misinformed upon this branch of the subject. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the state of the people of Bengal, which he had been told by well-informed persons was as bad as Madras. One great fact had come out from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that there was a deficit of 800,000l., and, therefore, it would be necessary to press upon the Government of India the necessity of retrenchment. One of the most obvious ways in which this reduction of expenditure could be effected, would be by making the regular cavalry irregular, which would diminish the cost by one-half. The regular cavalry was quite inefficient; and the only reason why it was kept up was, that the Directors might have the opportunity of giving away the commissions. The patronage of the Directors had been diminished; but it had now to be divided amongst fewer persons, so that each had more than fell to his share before the Charter Act of last year. So bad was the Madras regular cavalry, that out of eight regiments there was only one that had not mutinied or shot its officers. The right hon. Gentleman should press the Directors to adopt the policy of Sir Robert Peel, and to reduce or wholly abolish taxation upon the chief articles of consumption of the great mass of the population.

said, he fully concurred in the panegyrics which had been pronounced on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but he trusted that he would not be led away to prefer rapid to cheap transit. Another point in which he (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) took great interest was the navigation of the Godavery. Were that river made practicable for 500 miles it would do more for India than any other step that could be taken, and it would enable us to grow cotton at a much cheaper cost than could be done by America itself. As to the extension of our territory, he looked upon every annexation with apprehension. Our object ought to be, not to extend, but to improve, our possessions.

said, he must complain that the officers of the Queen's service were by the existing rules placed in a most injurious and degrading position. He could understand why a preference should be given to officers in the Company's service; but this was not a matter of preference, but of absolute monopoly. An officer in the Queen's service might be a most able and distinguished man, but he was shut out from all the honours and emoluments of his profession, as long as there was any Company's officer that by any possibility could be presented to them. The true remedy would be to amalgamate the two services; for he thought that there should be but one service, and that the Queen's.

said, he thought it was unfortunate that the state- ment of the right hon. Baronet had not been made at an earlier period of the Session, and also that the Members connected with India were not in attendance in the House on so important an occasion. He thought the misfortunes of the people of India arose from the vice of the land tenures in that country, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would attend to that subject, as vicious tenures of land had been the ruin of the West Indies as well as of Ireland. The condition of the rural population of Poonah, in June, 1854, was of the worst description; they were literally famished, and thousands of them had been living on roots for the preceding four months, all because of the viciousness of the land tenures in that country.

said, he must beg to express the great gratification he felt at the approbation hon. Gentlemen had been pleased to bestow upon his statement. With regard to the observations upon minor points, he was quite aware that many improvements might be made. With regard to the debt, there might be found, at pages 43 and 44 of the Report, a full statement of it, and the interest paid. As to the universal confiscation of the property of Indian Princes, that was not near so universal as had been stated. He wished at the same time to correct a misapprehension under which his hon. Friend (Mr. V. Scully) laboured. Owing to the want of rain there had been last year a failure of the crops, and to that circumstance the destitution was to be attributed, and not to the state of the land tenure. With respect to the observations which had been made in relation to the Godavery, he had to observe that certain works had been recommended and executed for the improvement of the navigation, and that further works were contemplated for the like object, so as to carry the navigation, if possible, into the heart of the country, and render the river navigable as far as possible.

said, he rose to call attention to the circumstance that those Amendments excluded the University of Durham from the operation of the Bill, which had only been originally included in it after a very considerable discussion in that House. Now, he must say, after the question had undergone so complete an investigation—after the proposal had met with the sanction of Her Majesty's Ministers in that House, he was entirely unprepared to find, without any previous notification of such an intention, an Amendment made by a Cabinet Minister in the other House, and supported by another Cabinet Minister, to the effect of excluding the University of Durham from the Bill. Still he was not without hope that the noble Viscount the Secretary for the Home Department, on a reconsideration of the subject, would see fit to reinsert the name of the University of Durham in the Bill.