said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War whether he had heard a statement that Brevet Major Ward, commanding Her Majesty's 60th Rifles at Arcot, ordered two Roman Catholic soldiers to the guard room for refusing to attend the service of the Established Church on Christmas Day last?

said, he had made inquiry at the Horse Guards, and found that no report of such an occurrence had been received there.

I rise to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the imprisonment of Mr. Hodge, an English subject, by the authority of the Sardinian Government. As the circumstances of the case rest to a great degree upon rumour, I shall not venture upon any recital of them, which might afterwards turn out to be incorrect, but shall simply ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any objection to his stating to the House what those circumstances are, and what is the nature of the correspondence that may have taken place between the Governments of Sardinia and Great Britain.

There is, Sir, an extradition treaty between France and Sardinia, under which the person of Mr. Hodge, who had been arrested in Sardinia upon some allegation connected with the late attempt upon the life of the Emperor of the French, was demanded to be surrendered to the French Government. But it appeals that under the terms of this treaty it was not competent to Sardinia to comply with that request without previously obtaining the consent of the English Government. Under these circumstances, a demand was made upon Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Hodge should be surrendered by the Sardinian Government to the Government of France. We requested that the papers which had been seized on the person of Mr. Hodge, and which were the foundation of this demand, should be sent to England. Having examined those papers, and it being our opinion that they were not sufficient to warrant the committal of Mr. Hodge by a Magistrate in England, we declined to accede to the demand made upon us. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that a statement has been published, and generally believed, that the state of Mr. Hodge's health was very precarious, and that he was subjected to a very severe imprisonment. We instructed Her Majesty's Minister at Turin to inquire into these circumstances, and to place himself in communication with Mr. Hodge. We found that Mr. Hodge was suffering from a pulmonary complaint, but Sir James Hudson had anticipated our instructions, had taken care that every becoming comfort was at the command of Mr. Hodge, and had demanded from the Sardinian Government that his imprisonment should cease as soon as the due observance of the forms of law would permit.

May I ask whether the correspondence on the subject is concluded, and, if so, whether there is any objection to lay it on the table?

The correspondence was very slight, conducted chiefly by telegraph, and I think it will be as well not to lay it on the table of the House.

I now rise to move that the Resolution of Thanks which this House arrived at on the 8th of February last be road. My object in making that Motion is that we may insert in the Resolution the name of a distinguished gentleman — the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, whose name, by an unhappy inadvertence, was omitted on that occasion. The Thanks of the House were, by the Resolution to which I have referred, offered to the Governor General and to the Governors of Madras and Bombay, but the name of the Hon. Frederick James Halliday. the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, was omitted. Now, I am sure the House will feel that that gentleman has been placed, in consequence of this inadvertence—I may almost say this clerical error—in an extremely painful position. It is not merely that he has been deprived of the highest compliment that one of Her Majesty's subjects can receive—the Thanks of Parliament for public services—but the omission of his name seems to cast a slur upon his reputation which never could have been intended, and which can only be effaced in the way proposed. I do not anticipate, therefore, the slightest opposition to the proposition that I am now going to make—that the Resolution of the 8th of February be read, and that in his due position in that Resolution, which would be immediately after Lord Elphinstone, the name of the Hon. F. J. Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, be inserted, so that he may receive in a proper manner the thanks of the House of Commons for his public services during the revolt in India. But since I gave that almost formal notice several Amendments to which I must call the attention of the House have been placed upon the Votes. There is one Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), to include the names of Major General Mansfield, Brigadier General Chamberlain, Brigadier General Hope Grant, and Brigadier General Walpole, and, in addition to the fourth Resolution of the 8th of February, the hon. and gallant Gentleman requests us to record the Thanks of the House as eminently merited by those distinguished men who were commanding officers, and who lost their lives during the revolt in India. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) also proposes a Vote of Thanks to Sir William Peel for his services in India. I trust there will be no difference of opinion as to the course which we ought to take upon these propositions. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made them that there is no one in this House who more appreciates the services or more deplores the loss of these eminent men than myself. Indeed, when I had the honour of addressing the House upon the original Resolution, as proposed by the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, I called upon the House not to forget at that moment of thanks and congratulation the names of the illustrious departed, and I even took the liberty of expressing my regret that rules, the wisdom of which experience has proved, prevented our inserting the name of Sir William Peel, whose romantic energy recalls the brilliant achievements of Sir Sidney Smith. I, therefore, need not assure the hon. and gallant Members that there is no want of respect or of sympathy on our part with the deeds and character of the eminent persons mentioned in their respective Amendments. But there are certain rules which have always been observed in regulating our Votes of Thanks, and from which, I think, it would be most unwise for us to depart. Indeed, when we have passed the line, I do not exactly see where we are to stop. On reading the names included in the Amendments I am sure, brilliant as they are, I could add to them some not less distinguished. Why should the name of Greathed, for example, or of Adrian Hope, be omitted? The truth is, however, that the services of these and other distinguished officers are acknowledged in that general Resolution which thanks the rest of the officers of Her Majesty's army for their gallant services. I hope the House will acquit me of any ostentation—I am really now only supporting the course which was wisely taken by the late Ministry — but perhaps the House will permit me to observe that I think the Thanks of Parliament should not be proposed except after great deliberation, and then only by the executive Government. They should be proposed in both Houses, and with such a concurrence of opinion that there could be no doubt of their being unanimously passed. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, feeling that the House appreciates equally with themselves the services of the eminent persons whom they have named, will not press to a division the propositions which they have placed upon the paper, I am certain with the best intentions, but I think with less consideration than so important a question would require. I hope that nothing so painful may occur as that we should have a division upon a subject of this kind. The rules which have been laid down on this subject are the result of the experience of long years; the practice that has been adopted has been sanctioned by the most eminent men who have attempted to control the business of Parliament; and I trust, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen satisfied with an expression of their respect and sympathy for the distinguished persons whose names they have proposed, will not insist upon going to a division, but will allow the Motion, which I now make, to be passed unanimously.

observed that, when the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) moved the Vote of Thanks on the 8th of February to the distinguished officers who had done such good service in India, the name of Viscount Canning was objected to by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground that the insertion of that noble Lord's name might be supposed to imply an unqualified approbation of all the policy he had pursued since he had been in India. Subsequently, when it was shown that the Vote of Thanks was confined to the exertions he had made to suppress the mutiny, the right hon. Gentleman gave way, and consented that the Resolution should pass nemine contradicente. Now, as it would be impossible, when the Indian Bill came to be debated, and when the causes which led to the insurrection came to be considered, not to bring forward some points affecting the conduct of Mr. Halliday prior to the mutiny, he wished to protest now, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer formerly did, against being supposed that, by assenting to the present Motion, he was precluded from making whatever observations he should feel to be necessary when the Indian Bill came before the House.

said, be trusted the House would not think him guilty of presumption if be were to ask leave to offer a few words in explanation of the circumstances under which Mr. Halliday's name had been unfortunately omitted from the original Vote of Thanks. He could bear the strongest testimony to the energetic conduct of that Gentleman, who had made all possible exertions, and tried every means in his power, to further the military operations for the suppression of the mutiny. As Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, it was true he had no military authority, that being vested in the Supreme Government, but the whole local administration was exclusively in his hands; and though he only bore the title of Lieutenant Governor, he was in fact as much Governor of the Provinces of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, as the Governors of Madras and Bombay in their respective Presidencies, the only difference being that the latter had military authority. The thanks of this House, however, had not been given to the Governor General and to the Governors of Madras and Bombay for military services, but for civil services which they had rendered in furthering the operations of the army. Mr. Halliday had rendered similar services, and his exertions and success were in no wise inferior to those of the Governor General and the Governors of the other Presidencies. He had shown the greatest zeal, vigilance, and ability, in facilitating the movements of the troops upon the grand trunk road; and fur his most praiseworthy services in providing for provisioning and the carriage of the troops he deserved the thanks of this House and the gratitude of the country. The arrangements were so complete that, not only was provision made for supplying the troops with necessaries, but food was actually kept cooked and ready for them at the different stations on their road from Calcutta, so that they had their food and proceeded on their march with rapidity never before equalled. Mr. Halliday also deserved great credit for haying so conducted the civil administration of his Presidency, that no troops were required to keep it in order. It was true that in consequence of their habits and character the population, happily, did not need the presence of troops. The Natives of Bengal were a peaceful and timid people, so pacific that they were said to be too timid to defend themselves even against gangs of robbers. But there were bad characters there as everywhere, and Mr. Halliday's administration had been so eminently successful that, with one single and partial exception, there had been no example of disturbance within his district, and the revenue had been collected with the same regularity as in times of peace, the whole credit of which was due to Mr. Halliday. He (Mr. Mangles) was disposed to take his share, and a very large share, of the blame, for not inserting Mr. Halliday's name in the list, and the regret be had already expressed in private he wished to express openly for that omission. Her Majesty's late Government did him (Mr. Mangles) the favour to send to him, a day or two before the Vote was proposed, a paper containing a list of the names to be proposed, and be (Mr. Mangles), by an omission which he could not sufficiently re- gret, did not suggest the insertion of that name. He regretted it the more, because, in addition to knowing officially how well entitled to the thanks of Parliament that Gentleman was, he was a personal Friend of his (Mr. Mangles) of many years' standing. What the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) might mean by the caveat he had thrown out, he (Mr. Mangles) was not able to guess; but if that hon. Gentleman had any charge to bring forward against Mr. Halliday, he could only say that such was his feeling as to the credit Mr. Halliday had won, and the services he had rendered to the country, that he should, however ineffectually, be prepared to meet it.

said, he did not propose to divide the House on the proposition of which he had given notice; but he had expressed his opinion when the late Government was in office that the number of officers thanked was too limited, and that officers of lower rank than those who were thanked had performed very signal services. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the difficulty, if the House went below a certain rank in naming officers in votes of thanks, of drawing the line where to stop; but he would remind the House that there was a time when votes of thanks were reserved for general officers of high command, and the line had been gradually extended to other ranks in the army. He fully concurred in what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to Brigadier General Greathed. However, he was content to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not in considering it be too apprehensive of departing from the wisdom of past ages, for which that House did not in its practice show too devoted a veneration.

said, that as a personal friend of Mr. Halliday, who had been under his immediate direction in India, he could not sit still and not hoar testimony to the great abilities of that officer, whose success he thought afforded the best proof of his merit. He was at a loss to conceive what charges the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had to bring against him.

I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the discretion of selecting the officers whose names are to be proposed to Parliament for the high honour of the thanks of both Houses is most safely vested in the Executive, who are most fully aware of the relative claims of all those who may come under their consideration, and who also are the best judges whether it would be expedient to depart in any case from those general rules which have hitherto guided Parliament in the expression of their thanks to military officers. I think, therefore, that it would be best for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster to agree to the substantive Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and not press the Amendment of which he himself has given notice. With regard to the question of the omission of the name of Mr. Halliday from the former vote, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) has correctly stated the circumstances. When that vote of thanks was proposed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control communicated beforehand a copy of the names to the two Chairs. It did not contain the name of Mr. Halliday, because it did not appear to us that, according to the words in which the Resolution was put; the particular situation and functions of Mr. Halliday could be brought within the scope of the vote. The draft of the Motion was returned by the Chairs without any suggestion that Mr. Halliday's name should be inserted. Some time after that, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) stated to me that which he has just represented to the House, namely, that there were circumstances connected with the peculiar duties which Mr. Halliday had performed in relation to the military arrangements in that part of the Empire, which in his opinion and the opinions of the Directors of the East India Company entitled him to the thanks of the House. I pointed out to him, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control pointed out to him, the difficulty and inconvenience which would arise from revising the vote which Parliament had already come to; but I stated that if the Chairs officially communicated to the Board of Control their view of the matter, and recommended that a substantive Motion for a vote of thanks to Mr. Halliday should be laid before Parliament, we should be ready to give due consideration to such recommendation. As that recommendation has been made to the present Government, and that Government have thought fit to adopt it, certainly I am not going to obstruct the vote proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he thought the rule laid down with the apparent consent of the leaders of both sides of the House—that the Executive Government ought, on their responsibility, to determine to what persons the thanks of Parliament should be proposed—was one which it was most desirable to observe; and he would not have said a word, had not the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) given notice of his intention to move the thanks of the House to several officers who were named in his Motion. He (General Codrington) did not wish to enter into any discussion with regard to those names, but, as several brigadiers were mentioned in the hon. and gallant Member's Motion, he thought it right to remind the House that there were other brigadiers who had led assaults at Delhi; that there was a general officer, whose name, as he was dead, he might mention, General Barnard, who had for some time commanded the forces before Delhi, and in several actions; and that there was also Major General Windham, under whose command one of the brigadiers mentioned in the gallant Officer's Motion served, to whom the thanks of Parliament had not been proposed. He had merely risen to say that, if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster had been brought forward, he (General Codrington) would have moved the addition of other names to the Resolution. He agreed, however in the propriety of the principle that the Government should, upon their responsibility, submit to the House the names of the officers to whom they considered thanks ought to be voted.

said, that had the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster persevered with his Motion, he should have felt it his duty to move the addition of another officer's name. He alluded to Major General Lester, commanding the Bombay army in the Southern Mahratta State, who with only 100 European troops had contrived to preserve that province in tranquillity and security, amid the symptoms of conspiracy and mutiny which were manifested around him.

said, he thought the rule of leaving the selection of the names of military officers in the hands of the Executive was the correct one. He might mention, however, that he had found, on reference to a book which recorded the Votes of Thanks passed to the army on various occasions, that in some instances as many as fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and even twenty-four officers had been included in the votes, and that all officers in command of brigades had invariably been thanked. It appeared that, when a vote of thanks was passed in 1812 to officers who had commanded at Salamanca, the names of seven officers were omitted, and among them, singularly enough, was that of Marshal Beresford; but in February, 1813, an Amendment, including the seven omitted names, was proposed and adopted. He did not wish to say anything in the slightest degree disparaging with regard to the gentleman who was the subject of the vote before the House, bat he thought, if it was a slur to omit the name of that gentleman from the vote lately adopted by the House, the omission of the names of officers who had commanded brigades! before Delhi, and in other parts of India, was quite as much a slur upon them. In his opinion this was especially the case with regard to General Barnard, who had commanded the army before Delhi for some time, and to other officers who had lost their lives in the struggle. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take this subject into their consideration, and that, acting upon the precedents to which he had referred, they would include in the votes of thanks the names of brigadiers and of officers holding independent commands.

observed, that he fully-concurred in the propriety of including Mr. Halliday's name in the vote of thanks. He further wished to state that, in his opinion, Lord Elphinstone had deserved the thanks of Parliament, not merely for his civil services, but also for the admirable military arrangements which he had made at Bombay, and he believed it was on that ground that his name had been included in the former vote.

said, I wish to ask for some explanation from the Government in addition to that which has already been given with reference to this Vote. The House will remember that last year, the Army Estimates were voted before the news of the Indian mutiny arrived, and the Votes of men, and for pay and provisions, were taken on the supposition that the ordinary number of troops only would be sent to India during the year. After the Army Estimates had been voted news of the Indian mutiny was received, and it became necessary to transfer an unusual number of men to India, the effect of this proceeding being that the pay and provisions of the regiments sent to India were provided by the East India Company, instead of being defrayed from the Army Estimates. It also became necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill to enable them to embody the militia, and a vote of £200,000 was taken to assist in the payment of the expenses of that embodiment. At the same time a statement was furnished to the Treasury by the War Department, in which it was represented that although the estimated expense of the embodied militia would exceed £200,000 there would nevertheless be a saving upon other branches of the Army Estimates, in consequence of the great number of men who would be transferred to India, and the repayment of whose expenses was to be expected from the Company, and that therefore the sum which had been voted for the embodiment of the Militia, together with the surplus voted for the Army Estimates, would probably suffice for the service of the army during the year. Now, I had not heard before I left office whether that anticipation was likely to be fulfilled. I had not been informed that any supplementary vote would be required for the Army Estimates. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War proposed yesterday, however, in Committee of Supply, an additional vote of £500,000 for the expenses of the embodied militia. That vote was agreed to, and it was explained on the part of the Government that there was a real deficiency in the Army Estimates to the extent of £500,000, and that consequently £500,000 more than the sum voted last year would be required for the service of the present year. I don't doubt that that statement was correct, but before the Report is agreed to I am desirous of knowing what will be done with the large saving which must necessarily accrue from the number of regiments transferred to India, and whether the Estimates furnished by the War Department in the last Session, and which the Treasury at that time were led to believe correct, have proved incorrect.

Sir, this is really a much simpler question than the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. After the Army Estimates were voted last year, the House will recollect that a Bill for the embodiment of the militia passed so late as the 22nd of August. In consequence of that Bill being passed the sum of £200,000, provided for the militia in the Army Estimates, was exceeded by a sum of £500,000. The expenditure for the embodiment of the militia under that head amounted to £700,000, and therefore there is a clear deficiency of £500,000. We have thought that we were only taking a Parliamentary course in asking the House to vote that sum without seeing whether we could, under the Appropriation Act, by availing ourselves of surpluses in other items in order to meet deficiencies, find other means for obtaining that supply. It is our opinion that, whether we have this power under the Appropriation Act or not, the power given to the Government by that Act is one which ought only to be exercised by a Minister at a moment of emergency, and which certainly ought not to be exercised when Parliament is sitting, and when he can apply to this House in a straightforward manner. With regard to the other sources, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) says that it was estimated that surplus moneys to the amount, or more than the amount, now required, would be available from other military Votes. We shall be very glad if that turns out to be the case; but it is impossible that the accounts of this military expenditure can be collected in time for us to form any opinion as to what may be the amount of saving effected under that head. If, however, the amount of saving be equal to £500,000, or even a greater amount, we shall not be able to avail ourselves of it; because this surplus would so range under the head of acknowledged savings that it would form part of the Consolidated Fund. [Sir George LEWIS dissented. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I have the highest authority to induce me to believe that the fact is as I state it. That authority is one who ably filled the office which I now have the honour to hold, and which was worthily filled recently by the right hon. Gentleman himself; and, therefore, I cannot relinquish that opinion. But whether that be an accurate opinion or not, I hope the House will not disapprove of the course we have taken—namely, that where we have found a clear deficiency of £500,000, we have preferred coming before Parliament for a direct vote to supply that deficiency.

If it is distinctly understood that what is saved upon the other Votes shall not be transferred I have not the smallest objection to the course that is being taken; but what I object to is, that there should unnecessarily be an increase of £500,000 in the Vote for the Army, because, if a saving equivalent to that sum is made upon pay and provisions, then, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman says, I apprehend it will be quite competent to the Government, under the Appropriation Act, to transfer that sum to other items. For example, they may spend that sum in barracks or fortifications, or some other item in the War Department.

I think the fact of the Government applying for this Vote is the best assurance the House can have that any surplus that may be available on the item referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) will not be applied in the way he has just spoken of. If the anticipations expressed by the War Department last year prove correct, and a saving be effected, we shall acquaint the House with the fact; and the public shall have the benefit of the surplus.

said, he wished to express his perfect concurrence and satisfaction with the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt there was a power under the Appropriation Act of transferring small savings from one item to another; hut it was never contemplated that so large an amount as £500,000 should be transferred from the Active Service Estimates to those of the Militia, or from the Militia Estimates to those of the Active Service. This was one of those points on which he thought the House should be particularly careful. He was glad to find that Her Majesty's Government had laid down the principle very strictly, and he only hoped that they would adhere to it.

said, he thought the question of some importance, but it was undoubted that in the last year the course objected to by the right hon. Gentleman had been adopted. Thus no less a sum than £590,000 was taken from a transport vote and applied to naval purposes, and from what had now fallen from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer he understood that right hon. Gentleman lamented that something of the same kind wag not done in this instance—namely, that a surplus existing on the Army Estimates was not, under the 27th clause of the Appropriation Act, applied to the expenses of the militia. Now, he (Sir Henry Willoughby) had no doubt the Government had pursued a constitutional course, upon finding a deficiency, in coming to this House to vote the money; but he thought the House wanted a further assurance from the Government that all sums of money not required for army services would be considered strictly as savings. What guarantee had they that the power given by the 27th clause would not still be exercised with regard to another item? The whole question pointed to the necessity of limiting the power given by this clause. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir James Graham) had rendered good service by procuring an appropriation audit, yet a loophole was furnished by the 27th clause, under which a million of surplus in one department might be taken to supply a million of deficiency in another, If the House meant to strike at the root of the evil they would come to a Resolution limiting the power of effecting such a transfer to sums under £50,000. It had given him great pleasure to notice how fairly and aboveboard the Government were acting in this particular, but still he should like some distinct assurance that when savings under other heads become known they would be placed in the Exchequer and devoted to such purposes as Parliament hereafter should direct.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman deserved great credit for having stated to the House the deficiency which existed in the sum which had been voted for the militia, and asked for the means of supplying it, instead of availing himself of the phraseology of the Ways and Means Act, and taking money which had been voted to one purpose and applying it in a different way. Such conduct, he thought, furnished the best guarantee the House could have that the same course would be taken not only by the present but by all future Governments. No doubt it was inexpedient to frame such a Ways and Means Act as would prevent an appropriation which the exigencies of the public service, particularly in times of war, might render necessary. But this latitude was given by Parliament in the belief that provisions of the Appropriation Act would be made use of in the same spirit in which the power in question was given, and he thought no attempt should, for example, be made to conceal from Parliament the deficiency in one particular item of such a sum as £500,000. For the last two Sessions they had been occupied in inquiring into the whole subject of the appropriation and audit of the public money, and he supposed that that subject would come down before the House later in the year. It was, therefore, unnecessary now to enter into the question of the securities which were desirable on this point with a view to the public interest. Resolutions agreed to.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a statement made by him on a former occasion, and then controverted by the Secretary to the Treasury, that there had been introduced into the Appropriation Act of last year a clause of a novel kind. That clause was the 26th, the words of which were of such a nature that he maintained the whole principle of appropriation might be set aside under it. Whatever might be the intention of the persons who introduced that clause, he thought it certain that an evil-minded Minister might now take money voted for the army and appropriate it to the navy; and, in fact, apply any money to any purposes. He, under these circumstances, was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the circumstances under which that clause was introduced into the Appropriation Act; whether it was borrowed from any previous Act, and if any appropriation had taken place under the Act which would not have been made were no such clause in existence. He himself believed that there had been no appropriation under the Act; but he felt it was due to the House of Commons to raise the question now, inasmuch as in "another place" the subject had created much attention, and it had been even assumed that this House had abandoned its functions.

said, the explanation which the hon. Baronet desired was one which was extremely simple. The clause in question was one which was almost peculiar to the Act of last Session. There had been a dissolution of Parliament in the middle of the Session, and there were two Appropriation Acts. The arrangement had been made to prevent the necessity of separate votes for the two portions of the Session. The first appropriation was passed before Easter. At the end of that Session, Government considered whether it might not be desirable simply to pass a Ways and Means Act, and at the end of the ordinary Session in August an Appropriation Act, covering both portions of the Session. It was decided, however, to adhere strictly to the precedent of the year 1841, in which precisely the same circumstances occurred, and a dissolution took place in the middle of the Session. The clause, therefore, to which the hon. Baronet referred had been copied exactly from the Act which was passed at the end of the Session of 1842, in order to rectify the difficulty which had arisen from its omission in the Appropriation Act of the previous year. The precaution was taken of inserting the identical words under which the Controller of the Exchequer at that time had acted from the old Act, instead of allowing the difficulty to arise which had been encountered the previous year from the separation of the votes of the year into two portions. The late Government had not, in taking that course, enlarged in the smallest degree the powers which were given by the 27th Clause, or enabled the Minister to appropriate any sum to a purpose not specified in the other clauses of the Appropriation Act.

observed that the clause ought to have been so worded, that surplus money voted for the army should be applied to army purposes only, and that any surplus in the money previously voted for the navy should only be applied to the navy. As the clause stood, the surplus could be appropriated to any Department of the State.

said, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without calling the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War, to a most injurious alteration made in the Mutiny Act two years ago, without previous notice thereof having been given to the House. It was carried through in August, when the greater number of hon. Members had returned to their homes; and the grievance of which he complained in the first instance affected Scotland, though it was also a matter in which England and Ireland were intimately concerned. Before the alteration, to which he alluded, almost every householder in Scotland was liable to have soldiers billeted upon him; and when the militia was called out during the Russian war, this liability was found to be an intolerable grievance alike destructive of family peace and highly subversive of military discipline. The matter was thereupon represented to the late Government, who put it off with one excuse after another, until at last an appeal was made to the House of Commons that proved successful. An Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, was carried in Committee of Supply, and the system that formerly prevailed in Scotland was abolished. But, although that was the case, a proper remedy for the inconveniences it produced was not applied; for, instead of doing that or investigating the subject at all, the late Government, in the month of August, without giving any notice whatever, assimilated the law of Scotland to that of this country and threw the whole burden of billeting our soldiers upon the publicans, in entire forgetfulness of the fact that there was nothing analogous in the circumstances of that class of men in the two countries. It was his (Mr. Baxter's) intention, had the late Government remained in office, to have moved an Amendment in Committee on the Mutiny Bill, or the Army Estimates, and take the sense of the House upon the question to which he referred. In the present state of affairs, however, he was unwilling to adopt that course, but he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would, in a spirit of fairness and candour, investigate the subject, he would be able to provide an efficient remedy. The grievance was one against which he might say that the people of Scotland were "up in arms." The effect of the law as it now stood in Mont-rose, one of the boroughs he had the honour to represent, would give the House some idea of the height to which these grievances had risen. The population of that borough, amounted to 15,000 persons, out of which number thirty-three were publicans. Now, for two months during last autumn, there were billeted upon these thirty-three persons an entire regiment of militia, numbering more than 800 men, and he found from a petition which he had presented this evening from the Provost and Magistrates of Montrose, that not less than 35,963 billets were issued in the two months of October and November, entailing a tax of £224 13s. 4d. upon these thirty-three victuallers. The consequence was, that although some of them had been enabled to bear the expenditure which the system entailed, yet others, who were in a smaller way of business, had been obliged to sell off their stock in order to pay their debts, and had applied to the parish authorities for the means of support. In the city of Edinburgh, the state of things was still worse; and one individual alone had had 5,000 billets imposed upon him in the space of nine months, and some most respectable men were, under those circumstances, talking of giving up their business altogether. He (Mr. Baxter) should therefore appeal to the Government to take the subject into their serious consideration, and, if possible, to do away with a system which was a remnant of barbarism, and which was alike subversive of military discipline and opposed to the best interests of the public. He might be permitted to suggest that the most advantageous course to adopt would be the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole system of billeting for the three kingdoms, with a view to the adoption of measures of redress. If no remedy were granted for the present most obnoxious state of the law in the course of this Session, he begged to intimate that he should avail himself of another opportunity of bringing the matter forward and taking the sense of the House upon it.

said, he would beg to add his entreaties to those of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the right hon. Gentleman would take this question into his serious consideration. The Scotch had every willingness to afford every assistance to the troops passing through the country; but, if this inquiry were granted, it would be found that the existing system acted in a peculiarly oppressive manner in Scotland, and not at all in England. There were in the Scotch towns numerous places which might be secured at a cheap rate, and in which the troops could be much better accommodated than they were at present.

said, the present system of billeting in Scotland was an injustice and a grievance to a certain portion of the inhabitants of that country. The remedy for the evil was simple enough. If it cost a certain sum to maintain soldiers in billets, there was no reason why that sum should not be paid by the country generally, instead of being drawn from the pockets of a few. He understood that fourpence a night Was sufficient to maintain a soldier upon a march; but the allowance to the innkeeper was only three half-pence, which was an obvious injustice. Much attention had lately been excited by a report upon the sanitary condition of the army, and he thought that it would tend greatly to improve the soldiers' health if the present system of billeting were abolished, and proper places provided for the reception of soldiers.

observed, that the persons upon whom soldiers were billeted were bound to find meals for the men and forage for the horses. The amount which was allowed for that food was less than the cost, and those persons were made to suffer by their obedience to an Act of Parliament. He admitted that it was not possible entirely to abolish billeting when troops were upon a march, but the late Government had given a very satisfactory promise that billeting should be resorted to as little as possible, and he hoped the present Government would give a similar assurance.

said, he thought the system was injurious alike to the soldier and the public. As he thought an inquiry was the best means to take preparatory to a settlement of the question, he should support the proposition to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee.

said, that a year or two since it had been agreed to place Scotland in the same position in respect of billeting as England, but it was quite true that in Scotland there were not the same means of accommodating soldiers as existed in the more populous districts of England. There could be no doubt that it was also better for the soldiers themselves if they could be lodged in barracks rather than quartered in billets, and especially when they were permanently stationed in any place. If men were billeted, the allowance made to the innkeeper should be fairly proportioned to the expense he incurred. The right of billeting, however, must be maintained, in order that the soldiers might be enabled to procure food and lodging whenever the necessities of the service required them to be moved. In the present state of things that was a power which could not be well abandoned.

could not see why billeting was any greater hardship in Scotland than it was in Ireland, and it was impossible to abolish the system, or there would be no means of providing for the wants of troops when upon a march. In stances had occurred in his experience in Ireland, where the men had to be quartered at gentlemen's houses because there were no public houses in the neighbourhood.

said, he could confirm the statement of previous speakers as to the hardships of the present system as applied to Scotland. It was a great grievance which called loudly for a remedy, and if the Government would take the matter into their consideration, and institute an inquiry by means of a Committee of this House, they would be conferring a great boon upon the aggrieved parties, and pressed upon the gallant Secretary for War the propriety of some inquiries into the subject.

said, he was of opinion that Scotland did not labour under any peculiar grievance in this respect. The evil of quartering soldiers upon private houses was represented to the House last year, and the Mutiny Act was altered in consequence. No doubt it would be pleasanter if the soldiers were not billeted anywhere; but he, for his part, was acquainted with no better place for the accommodation of the soldiers than the public-house, which was open at all times; and the only real grievance appeared to be that the publican was not sufficiently paid for the accommodation he provided.

said, he must differ from the hon. Member because there was a difference between the public-houses of Scotland and those of England and Ireland. Under Forbes Mackenzie's Act, Scotch publicans could not lodge on their own premises, and therefore when soldiers were billeted on them they had to find the accommodation elsewhere. Now one of their complaints was that the allowance made by the law fell very far short of what they had to pay for lodging the soldier. He would not, however, put the case as an exclusively Scotch grievance as he thought the whole system was bad. He thought the Government could meet the difficulty in the simplest manner either by providing proper barracks for troops, or else by paying persons liable to have men billeted upon them a sufficient sum for the expenses they were put to.

said, the only pledge he could give was that the subject should have his most earnest attention; and he thought he could not furnish a better proof of his willingness to consider it than the fact that he had already, at the request of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), agreed to receive a deputation from that city on Thursday next upon the subject. He himself was of opinion that there were hardships connected with the billeting system which arose from changing the station of troops. No alteration had been made in the allowances since 1830; and of course when the prices of provisions were high it was felt to be a peculiar hardship upon the publican. What was the best mode of applying a remedy he was not prepared at that moment to say; but he would promise to give his earnest attention to the subject.

said, that in rising to call attention to the propriety of colonization in India, and the extension of our trade with the central regions of Asia, he was anxious to repudiate all desire to advance any merely theoretical or speculative doctrines in favour of the Motion he was about to make. He simply wished to have an inquiry; to have the facts of the case, both for and against colonization, given in evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons. His apology for bringing forward this important and difficult subject was the deep interest which he felt in it. Besides the interest he took in the question, another reason why he ventured to bring it forward was, that although Committees had sat on the subject of India, Session after Session, and although this question of colonization in that country had been slightly touched upon in previous inquiries, it had never engaged the serious and undivided attention of a Committee. He proposed, therefore, that there should be an inquiry into this single subject. Whoever read the evidence which had been laid before the House upon this and kindred subjects must be struck by one remarkable circumstance, namely, the "great difference which existed between colonization in our other possessions, and colonization in India. In those other possessions, there was the free developement of British capital, British industry and British labour, and everybody must be struck with the contrast between the colonization of our other possessions and that of India. We saw, as it were, new empires growing up after the model of the mother country, which owed their prosperity to the free developement of British capital and British industry. In India, on the other hand, we found, exclusive of the military, only a few merchants and Indigo planters, numbering in all probability not more than 22,000 persons. He was aware that the objections might be made to his Motion on the ground that generally the climate of India was not favourable, but decidedly adverse to colonization by Europeans. There were parts of India, however, in which the climate was highly favourable to the European constitution. It might also be objected that the land of India was already occupied, and it was well known that it was occupied to a great degree; but in the part of the country to which his Motion referred, there was a vast extent of territory where the lands wore open to colonization. Again, it might be alleged that the East India Company had already made the experiment, and that, so far as it had gone it had failed; but it should be remembered that that experiment was made under circumstances which were widely different from those which existed at the present time. We were about to have railways constructed throughout India, and far more facile means of communication than had ever before existed. Therefore, he rejected the experience of the past as being any criterion of the question of progress or non-progress in the future; and at the same time, he could quote in favour of the European colonization of India the opinions which had been expressed by two Governor Generals of that country. Lord Metcalfe and Lord W, Bentinck, two former admirable Governors General, had borne strong testimony to the importance of this subject; and of late years the East India Company had shown themselves favourable to the settlement of Europeans in that country, although in earlier times they had been decidedly hostile to it, and strove for the exclusion of all persons not in their service. He was willing to give the Company every credit for fairness, but he thought it would be admitted that for a long time they were greatly to blame for hot making roads, without which civilization could not make any material progress. It was only within the last twenty or thirty years that the Company had begun to make roads, and without them the developement of the resources of India was utterly impossible. With regard to the tenure of land in India, on which another objection might be based, he would suggest that the Committee should take that subject into consideration, more especially as there were two sides to the question, both of which he was anxious should be heard. It was alleged by cotton-growers that the tenure of land in India stood on a very unsatisfactory footing; while, on the other hand, the Company maintained that it was a fair tenure, and that they made no objection to any person holding the fee simple of the soil. That, then, was a question which surely demanded inquiry. There were large districts of India the geographical position of which pointed them out for the purposes of colonization. Beginning with the line of the Himalayas, there was the territory of Sylhet, where the industry of Europeans could find extensive employment. Then came Assam, the tea districts of which were already worked by European capital, and where the increasing production of that article was becoming enormous. Turning westward there was Darjeeling in Sikkim, a most prosperous tea colony, which had doubled its population in a very short period. There was also the kingdom of Nepaul, with its celebrated valley, which he hoped to see developed ere long; and proceeding further to the westward they came to Nynee Tal and to Simla, the latter being an outlying station destined in the opinion of many to become the future capital of India. Going southwards to Rajpootana they reached Mount Aboo, where an English settlement now existed. Then they had also considerable tracts near the Vindhya mountains; and following the line of the eastern and west- ern Ghauts they would find ample lands suitable for European settlement. All the various hill stations, churches, schools, libraries, and all the accompaniments of western civilization were seen to spring up; and he wished to have their geographical and other conditions investigated before a Committee. Railways, too, were being formed near the line of these hill settlements, and nothing would be easier than to connect them with the Grand Trunk line from Calcutta, which would run within 100 miles of the Himalaya range. The other railway from the Bombay side across to Calcutta would also pass in close proximity to the Vindhya mountains. The Hindoos had shown the greatest alacrity in availing themselves of railway communication, thus falsifying the predictions which had been uttered on this subject. Nothing could be more conducive to the security of our empire in a military sense than to establish settlements where the climate would confirm the health of the European soldier, and where a railway system would enable us to communicate at once with the centre of action. A British force thus stationed on the hills might, on an emergency, pour down upon the plains in fewer hours than it had hitherto taken days to assemble them, and when not occupied with military duties the troops might, like the Roman soldiers of old, be employed in the cultivation of the land. Another reason for stationing our troops along the Himalaya range was, that they formed the line which separated us from those portions of Asia where Russia was supposed to possess influence, while the Sikhs, the Ghoorkas, and other friendly tribes were situated in the direction of that line. On this point, also, he thought there was room for inquiry before a Select Committee. But these colonies would prove of more importance than for mere military purposes. Armies might conquer, but colonists only could settle and keep the country. And that these commercial colonies would materially aid in the maintenance of our supremacy in India had been conclusively shown by the vigorous assertion of their rights made by the indigo planters in the course of the present lamentable insurrection. He might also advert to what he might call the Indian view of the question—to the effect which these colonies would produce upon the Natives themselves. No one would deny that it would prove a vast been to India if British capital were to circulate there; and that could only be done by the encouragement of settlement of British colonists. There was great encouragement for the investment of that capital. The part of India to which he referred produced cotton, Indian cane, wool and iron in abundance, and all of the best quality. As another proof of what might be done in this way he might state, that while the produce of tea in the Assam district was in the years 1854–55 538,0001b., in the years 1856–57 it had increased to 700,0001b., and this increase was solely to be attributed to the settlement among them of British colonists. At this moment the inhabitants of the Himalayas got their tea through Thibet from China, a distance of several thousand miles. Now if they could obtain it from the neighbouring district of Assam it would be a great advantage to them, and a great benefit to trade. The mere existence of these hill stations produced great good among the Natives, and the rapidity with which they extended was proved by the fact stated by Dr. Hooker, that the Native and European population of Darjeeling, in the Sikkim district, near Bhotan, doubled in two years. That station the Rajah of the country had offered to sell us, hut the East Indian Company had most unaccountably refused to purchase. However a great impetus had been given to trade there, and the population of the place had been doubled in consequence of an annual fair which Dr. Campbell had established at that place. This statement was confirmed by Mr. Welby Jackson, who said that the number of inhabitants had in 1854 increased from a few families in 1838 to about 20,000 persons. But turning from the Indian to what he might call the English point of view, the good which would arise from these stations would not be confined to Natives. In these hill districts, which enjoyed a European climate, we might establish centres of civilization. There might be the clergy of our different churches, our colleges, and our schools of law; and he believed that owing to the rapid extension of railways and electric telegraphs the idea of the removal of the seat of the central Government to the northern part of India had already been seriously entertained. Hon. Members knew perfectly well the melancholy obligations which compelled the colonists in India to! part with their children at an early age and send them home to England for the purposes of education. Family ties were thus broken, perhaps never to be renewed. But if places of education were established in the northern and eastern portions of India there would no longer be a necessity for the unnatural separation of parent and child. Europeans could be educated without that lengthened separation from their parents which was now rendered necessary by the climate of India. Such a school had already been founded at Hope Town, in the Himalayas. He had always thought that it was of the utmost importance to extend a knowledge of the English language among the Natives of India, and in no way could this be better accomplished than by the establishment and multiplication of these hill stations by means of which a settled population of Englishmen might be kept up in that country. By adopting such a course we should be imitating the example of those great colonists the Romans, as recorded by Gibbon. By the means of their military colonies the Romans diffused a knowledge of their language wherever their arms extended and he, Mr. Ewart, would ask whether it was not of equal importance that the language of Bacon, Shakespeare, and Milton should be spread abroad through India. Another point of great importance was the establishment of free municipalities in India. He did not mean that the Natives of India could, at the present time, be members of free corporations; but he believed that if English municipalities were established in English stations a foundation would be laid for the gradual elevation of the Native population themselves, though ages would probably elapse before they were fit for political freedom. By these colonies being thus placed on moral and physical eminences, a great example would be set before the Natives; they would look and learn from us; and civilization, trade, and commerce would gradually be extended among thorn. Municipal was the best foundation of political freedom, and he built well who erected his superstructure upon such a basis. He believed that such a municipality already existed at Simla, but if it did not it could not too early be established. Another matter of which we ought not to lose sight was our trade with Central Asia. About the year 1783, under the rule of Warren Hastings, we had a trade across the Himalayas with the interior of Asia. English broadcloths were then to be found in Thibet; but at the present day the whole of Central Asia was closed to the manufactures of England, and received only those of Russia. Dr. Hooker, confirming the report of Captain Turner, who was sent into Thibet to see whether a trade could not be opened with that country, said that the whole of our frontier was shut against us for commercial purposes. The Native of Thibet, being within sixty miles of our tea plantations, got his tea from China, a distance of 2,000 miles; and goods from St. Petersburg were found where English manufactures were unknown. He was anxious that this trade should be opened to our enterprising merchants and manufacturers. Captain Turner and Abbe Hue stated that Thibet produced many important articles of commerce, such as wool and rock salt, but especially gold and silver. His own opinion was that Thibet, in fact, would turn out to be the California of Asia. The Abbe Hue said the finding of gold was so common that the shepherds amused themselves by purifying the gold which they found while watching their flocks. He thought, therefore, the possibility of opening up an extensive trade with Central Asia was a fair subject for inquiry. There was, however, another question far more momentous, namely, the extension of Christianity in these regions. What more effectual means could be adopted than this system of colonization for Christianizing India? We should then have not only a resident, but a permanent and a permanently increasing Christian population. We might continue from age to age to teach, not only by precept, but by example, the pure doctrine and the practical results of Christianity. Might we not cause it to be said by the ignorant and idolatrous populations of those lands, as it was said by the Pagan idolaters of old, "See how those Christians love one another"? and might we not hope that, incited by our example, they might admire and follow it? We had every cause to hope that tranquillity was now about to be restored to India. Might we not trust that by such means as he proposed and by others a new era would dawn on that country? We won it—not always perhaps justifiably—by arms and arts, by war or by diplomacy, but having gained it, let us hope that our mission there would be for the benefit of the Natives themselves. Let us address India in words similar to those beautiful words which Shakespeare put into the mouth of Theseus: —

"Hippolyta, I won thee by the sword,

And gain'd thy hand, doing thee injuries;

But I will wed thee in a softer key,

With peace, with freedom, and with equity."

On the other hand, might we not in India as elsewhere vindicate for England her ancient prerogatives of unbounded trade and successful colonization? To her unbounded trade, to her successful colonization, he might apply the words which a Roman poet, still retaining under the debasing influence of an empire the force and the fire of Republican feeling, applied to the arms of his own country:—

"Quicumque mundo terminus obstitit,

Hune tangat armis; visere gestiens,

Quâ parte debacchentur ignes,

Quâ nebulae pluviiquè rores,"

In the name then of commerce, of colonization, of civilization, and religion, he would move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the progress and prospects and the best means to be adopted for the promotion of European colonization in India, and the formation of military stations, especially in the hill districts and healthier climates of that country, as well as for the extension of our commerce with Central Asia.

seconded the Motion.

said, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was doubtless a very important one, but his hon. Friend would forgive him for saying that the time he had selected for bringing it under the notice of the House was not very opportune. His hon. Friend was aware that in the course of a few days they were about to legislate for India, and to frame a new Government for that country. It would have been more desirable, therefore, if his hon. Friend, had postponed his Motion for this inquiry, which intimately concerned the internal relations of our Indian empire, till he saw what form the Bill of the Government would assume. His hon. Friend, however, was an old and experienced Member of this House, and doubtless was quite competent to form his own judgment as to the time when he should bring forward his Motion, and, therefore, he (Mr. Baillie) would proceed at once to make a few observations on the proposition. In the first place, he must express his surprise at the sanguine view which his hon. Friend entertained of the facilities for colonizing India with an European population. All the reports with which he was acquainted went to assert that even in the hill districts of India Europeans could not live beyond the third generation. But his hon. Friend, judging from the original form in which his Motion was couched, did not appear to anticipate that these colonies would be self-supporting because he proposed that the Government should expend the revenues of the people of that country in the establishment of schools and colleges for the education of the children of the colonists. Secondly, he proposed that Government should expend the revenues of the people of India in constructing railways through the districts where the colonists were to be located. Thirdly, he proposed that the Government should expend the revenues of the people of India in the establishment of military stations for the benefit of those colonies. Now, first of all with respect to the establishment of military stations. He knew many people agreed with his hon. Friend and were in favour of the troops being established in the hill stations. But he bad been assured on high authority that if that plan were adopted it would be exceedingly injurious to the troops themselves, because if they were usually left in the agreeable climate of the hills, they would never become acclimatised, and whenever their services were required in the hot plains they would very soon become unfit for their duties. But he would beg to ask his hon. Friend whether he thought it just that the people of India should pay for the expense of establishing these European colonies. India was a highly populated country. She was not in want of colonisation, labour was abundant and cheap, and therefore, if colonies were established for the benefit of the colonists themselves either they or the people of England, who sent them forth, ought to bear the expense. But if he could not convince his hon. Friend that it would be unjust to the people of India to bear this expense, at least he hoped to be able to convince him that the attempt would be impracticable. In the first place, he took it for granted his hon. Friend expected that if colonists were to go out from this country they would take a certain amount of capital with them. He surely did not mean to send labourers to India where labour was already so cheap. But what English capitalist would go 10,000 miles to establish himself in India, unless he had a reasonable security that he would have a good return for his capital? Now, would his hon. Friend pretend that a colonist would have a good return for his capital if he settled in the hill country of India? If they went there they would soon find out that to employ their capital to advantage they must cultivate the plains and not the hills. It was in the plains they would find that fertile land where sugars and the other products of which his hon. Friend had spoken could be grown; but if they wont to the hills they would find a European climate indeed; but they would also find a rugged, barren country on which no capital they could expend would make the soil so productive as to afford them a sufficient return. His hon. Friend talked of Simla. But surely he did not suppose that colonists would cultivate Simla, which was 7000 feet above the level of the sea, which was a mere sanatorium placed on the face of a mountain so steep that you might walk from the hill on to the roofs of the houses. That was not the place for an industrious colony. It answered very well for the purposes of health, but not for the purposes of colonisation. So far as regarded the case of the colonists. He knew however, that many complaints had been made against the East Indian Company for their opposition to the establishment of colonies, and to the cultivation of the land by Europeans. That might have been the ease formerly, but of late years every facility had been given to colonists by the Indian Government, and land was offered to them on the fairest terms. In the first place, it must be remembered, that all the land of India did not belong to the Company; a good deal of it was as much private property as was the land in England. It was private property subject to a land tax, and there were many of the natives who could show titles to their land 500 or 600 years old. But where the land did belong to the Company he would state the terms on which it was offered to European colonists. About the district of the Sonderbund there were large tracts of waste land to which no individual could lay claim on interest. These lands were offered on a lease of forty years. One-fourth of the whole was always to remain rent free, and the whole would be rent free for the first three years. In the fourth year one twentieth part of the rent would be charged, rising one-twentieth every year till the twenty-third year, when the whole charge would be calculated at the rate of 1s. 6d. per acre, at which it would remain for the rest of the lease. There were other lands where the full rent, rising in the same manner, went as high as 2s. an acre; and there were besides some conditions attached as to the capital the colonist must possess. Now he would ask the House whether any one of our colonies afforded terms more fair and liberal than these. A very important question, and one in respect to which the gentlemen of Lancashire interested in the cultivation of cotton felt some anxiety, had been touched on by his hon. Friend, and that was the land tax. He knew there were many gentlemen who were opposed to the land tax altogether. They said they were perfectly ready to undertake the cultivation of cotton on the banks of the Indus and the Godavery, provided they could obtain any fixity of tenure and be assured that the land tax would never be raised upon them. They complained that the practice of the Indian Government was to assess the land according to the value of the rising crop. That might have been so in former times, but the practice was now entirely discontinued. In Bombay the rate of the land was fixed for thirty years, and he must say he thought that was a fair term; no one could expect that the Government could agree to keep a low tax in perpetuity. The same change was now going on in the Presidency of Madras, and an order had just been sent out to India pointing out that the practice which formerly prevailed of regulating the assessment of land according to the cultivation in each year had been for a considerable time absolutely prohibited, and enjoining the fixing of the assessment at a moderate rate not liable to alteration for thirty years. Such were the regulations in the two Presidencies, and there was this advantage in both of them, that after the terms were once fixed there was no restriction on the occupant; he was free to cultivate his land as he pleased. He really did not think that terms more moderate could be expected unless the land tax was given up altogether, which no one could expect. With respect to the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Government had not the slightest wish to prevent inquiry. They thought, however, that the present time was not very opportune; and if his hon. Friend would be satisfied for the present with having all the information in their possession given to him—and there were many papers which might be given—and make his Motion next year, when a regular Government was established in India, the Government would much prefer that course; but if he persisted in his Motion, and thought it better to have the inquiry at once, Her Majesty's Ministers would offer no obstruction.

said, he wished to deny that he ever intended that the railways and other facilities for the colonists should be made at the expense of the people of India, neither had he any idea of English labourers being sent out to India. He was very glad to hear that the Government had no objection to his Motion; and as he and his friends were very desirous of an inquiry, he would press his Motion.

said, that he must express his regret that the Government had given way to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart). The Directors of the East India Company had anticipated the wishes of the hon. Gentleman, for in September, 1856, they sent out orders to India to institute those inquiries for which he was desirous. He had already put into the hands of the hon. Gentleman that evening, official replies to the India House despatch with respect to the mountain districts, and suggested that he should in the first instance move for those replies, and if dissatisfied with them, then to ask for the Committee. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had declined to take that course, but persevered in raising hopes of a scheme of colonization which was impracticable. There were times when the Natives of India would be glad to get rid of their skins, if by so doing they could cool themselves; and it was irrational to expect that Europeans could labour on the plains. As for the hill districts, the country was rough, cultivation was carried on by terraces, and it was rarely that a level square of 100 yards could be obtained for cultivation. Was it possible to cultivate a country in squares of 100 yards with a view to colonization? The health of Europeans in India was, no doubt, much better on the hills than in the plains, and the East India Company had promoted cultivation in the hill districts as far as they could by sending to them healthy pensioners, and by offering advantages to settlers, but their efforts had been unsuccessful. The rich products of India, such as cotton and indigo, required a large amount of capital and fertile plains; but was it to be expected, that people possessing capital would be induced to go out from this country when there was no prospect that capital and labour by European agency could be employed to advantage either in the plains or on the hills? As the Government were willing to assent to the Motion he would not oppose it, but he believed its adoption would occasion a great deal of unnecessary trouble to a Committee of the House.

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) would move for the production of the papers to which he had referred, as they would doubtless tend to remove much of the misapprehension that existed as to the practicability of colonizing India. He had once entertained the idea of settling in India, but he had given it up, and from his personal experience he was in a position to state that as far, at all events, as the southern portions of India were concerned, it would be found impossible to carry out the views of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart). It was impossible to grow anything in the plains of India, except such products as sugar or indigo, which required very largo capital. The climate in the lower range of the hills was pestilential. There was a point called the fever range, and if a man saw a fine piece of country the first question he asked was whether it was above or below fever range, for if it was below that range a European could only go there at the risk of his life. Above fever range the sides of the hills were so precipitate that it was impossible to construct roads, and it was almost difficult to find a square foot of ground upon which a cabbage could be grown.

said, he was as little desirous as any man of opposing a Motion which was intended to benefit India by-pointing out the advantages of settling them, but having in his hands the papers to which his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) had referred, he wished to say a few words with regard to one or two subjects which had been discussed. He referred more especially to the mistaken notion which appeared to prevail that there was some disinclination or hostility on the part of the East India Company, or those who represented them, to the settlement of Englishmen in India, and that the nature of the land tenure offered a great obstacle to the successful cultivation of the soil by means of European capital and labour. He believed that neither of these obstacles really existed, but that the prejudice had come down from former times, when the Company was a purely commercial association, which monopolized the trade of India and China, and, like all i similar bodies, regarded interlopers with great jealousy. Persons acquainted with the condition of India were, however, well aware that since 1813 the Company had possessed no monopoly of Indian trade, and that from that time, and more especially since 1834, they had had the strongest interest in encouraging the settlement of Europeans, and promoting agriculture and manufactures as tending to increase the general prosperity of the country, and to occasion a consequent improvement of revenue. The statement of the Secretary to the Board of Control with respect to the terms upon which for many years past the Government had granted jungle land was quite incompatible with the notion that they were opposed to the settlement of Europeans, or disinclined to facilitate the acquisition of landed property. Land was to be obtained in perpetuity for 1s. 6d. and 2s. an acre, and since the time of Lord Auckland it had been a rule, not only in Bengal and the North Western Provinces, but also in Madras and Bombay, that the staple grain of the Provinces should he the standard of assessment for all the produce of land, and therefore the ryot or proprietor might cultivate sugar, or any valuable product, without a higher assessment than was imposed upon land under grain cultivation. The papers which he held in his hand would doubtless be somewhat discouraging to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart). In 1856 the Government of India, upon the requisition of the Court of Directors, instituted inquiries as to the feasibility of establishing colonies of retired officers and soldiers in the hill districts, and these papers contained the answers, which, with the single exception of those from one district in Bengal, were altogether unfavourable. Captain James, Secretary to Sir John Lawrence, said, with reference to the district bordering on the Punjab:—

"The Chief Commissioner desires me to state, for the information of the Right Hon. the Governor General in Council, that there is no arable land available in the mountainous districts of the Punjab within British territory. Indeed, there is not sufficient for the Native population, and in the greater part of those tracts the best land is in the valleys where the climate is more or less insalubrious. I am to add, that in the Chief Commissioner's judgment little could be done even by good agriculturists without considerable capital."

The Commissioner of the First Meerut Division wrote in these terms with respect to Debra Doon: —

"I apprehend that the idea of inducing British soldiers or officers to locate themselves in the plains will not be entertained. The manual part of agricultural operations could not be carried on by Europeans in this climate. In Dehra Doon there is still a large portion of unappropriated land at the disposal of Government, and the climate is in part of the valley more suitable to the English constitution for outdoor work. The Eastern Doon, however, is so insalubrious that the idea of reclaiming it through the agency of Natives of the country, except by gradual encroachments on its borders, has been abandoned. In the Western Doon a colony of Portuguese and Anglo Indians, discharged from Scindiah's military service, was planted at Herbunswala, and received much encouragement, but it languished and failed. In the mountains within our jurisdiction private proprietary rights extend over every acre, and the culturable land has been positively brought into existence, with rare exceptions, by manual labour employed in constructing terraces and in levelling the surface."

His hon. Friend was probably aware that one peculiarity of the Himalaya mountains was that valleys were scarcely to be found in them. The country consisted of hills rising from hills, and he believed that in the whole Himalaya range there was not a lake of any magnitude. The consequence was that very small portions of the land were available for cultivation, as would be seen by the following statement of Captain Ramsay, Commissioner of Kumaon:—

"The portion that could be made use of would require to be terraced, and after much labour the average size of a field would not exceed 100 yards. All the good land of the province has come under settlement engagements, the waste land of the low valleys is unhealthy and altogether unsuited for the residence of Europeans."

These papers would be laid before Parliament, and it would be found that they gave no encouragement to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the growth of tea in Assam. Tea had been grown there with very great success, Assam tea, on account of its valuable qualities, was at this moment the highest priced tea in England. It was used to give strength and flavour to the weaker teas of China. It was an exceedingly strong-flavoured tea. He had drunk it unmixed, and a very painful experiment that was. With regard to the employment of English labour in Assam, he had to state that that field of labour was as fully open now as it could be made by means of any researches which the very ablest Committee could make. The Secretary of the Board of Control had alluded to the very liberal terms upon which land was let in Assam. The Government provided the tea-plants gratuitously. They had sent Mr. Fortune, whose work on China was well known, upon two or three expeditions to China to procure tea-plants and everything that might be necessary. One-fourth of the land allotted to the colonists was held by them free from rent in perpetuity. The whole of the land allotted was rent free for three years. At the end of three years a rent of about 2½d. per acre was charged upon three-fourths of the land. In the next year the rent was raised to 2s. per acre, at which it was fixed in perpetuity. A better tenure could hardly be conceived. Almost the whole of the revenue of the Indian Government was rent from land, and it was impossible for. them to give up that revenue altogether. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries had spoken of the desirableness of locating the European troops sent to India in healthy places. The order which had recently been issued by the Indian Government would show how strongly the Court of Directors was impressed with the necessity of thus locating them. Within the last few months orders had been sent by the Court to the Government of India, directing them to appoint a medical commission to ascertain the best sites in India for the location of the European troops there. The despatch on that subject from the Indian Government recommended that the troops should be located near the trunk railways, or at least be afforded facilities for reaching them, in order that during the season most trying to Europeans they might have opportunities of visiting the coolest districts. Long before the hon. Member for Dumfries had turned his attention to the subject, despatches had been received from all the local Governments in India as to its colonization by Europeans. The information contained in these despatches was not altogether in accordance with the views of the hon. Member for Dumfries. He was afraid that it was such as to warn Europeans against any rash settlement in India rather than encourage them to proceed thither. He hoped that the Manchester gentlemen would read those despatches, because they contained very valuable in information with respect to the growth of cotton in India. Those gentlemen who fancied that the Indian Government exerted all their energies in repressing any attempt to cultivate cotton in India would find from those despatches that cotton might be grown there as freely as indigo, sugar, or any other of the articles which were produced there, without the slightest hindrance on the part of the Indian Government. There was the amplest room for the employment of capital in the cul- tivation of cotton in India, not directly but indirectly; and if those gentlemen at Manchester would transfer a portion of their capital to India, they would obtain now an illimitable supply. If they would only send a trustworthy agent to India he was sure the first report he would make to them would be that they had been deceived as to the Company being opposed to the growth of cotton, and that with money they might purchase cotton as easily as indigo. It was absurd to suppose that the Company made an exception of cotton, and that they only encouraged the production of other articles. The only reason why the supply of cotton had not been greater was, that the capital employed had not been sufficient to induce the Native population to grow it, and to send it down to the coast in that state in which purchasers desired to have it. He admitted that the means of conveying cotton from the interior to the coasts of India were not as great as desirable. But he could assure those who fancied that it was mainly owing to defective means of conveyance to the coast that cotton was not produced in greater abundance in India that such was not the fact. The chief hindrance to cotton cultivation in India was the dishonesty of the Natives employed in the transmission of goods to the coast. It had been said that cotton could not be packed in bales, but had to be sent down in bulk, because no man could be trusted in the packing of it; but, if the Manchester men would send out cotton presses and honest agents, they could pack the cotton in the way they wished. In the papers referred to, and in the correspondence which he hoped the Secretary of the Board of Control would lay before the House, the hon. Member would find a mass of information on the subject of his Motion, and with regard to the tenure of land in India. If the hon. Member would read those papers he thought be would come to the conclusion that no Committee of inquiry was needed.

remarked, that he thought the Government had exercised a wise discretion in granting the Committee, and that the hon. Member for Dumfries had been quite justified in moving for it by the discussion which had arisen. Every hon. Member who had spoken declared that the greatest misconception prevailed respecting this subject. He, for example, was of opinion that for a considerable time impediments had been placed in the way of European colonization and settlements in India. If this Committee, therefore, should do nothing but remove that misconception —[Mr. MANGLES: Call it prejudice.] — which was now so deeply rooted in the public mind, no one, he thought, could regret its appointment. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had tried to turn this into a cotton debate, but his hon. friend (Mr. W. Ewart) never went into that question; the object of his Resolution was the best mode of securing European colonization in India. Then the hon. Gentleman had taken the House to the hill districts, which he declared were incapable of cultivation; but what his hon. Friend sought inquiry into was, the subject of colonization generally. There was another point of much importance which seemed to have been overlooked. He referred to the extension of our commerce with Central Asia. No one had denied that at one time we had the command of the trade with that district, but for some reason we had gradually lost it, and the result of the appointment of this Committee would, he hoped, be to show that there were modes of re-opening this trade. A letter had been placed in his hands written by Dr. Hooker, of Kew, who said:—

"I believe it is impossible to exaggerate the advantages of the Himalaya for sanitary purposes, for founding schools, hospitals, and asylums, for military depots, for civilizing the hill tribes, for opening up Thibet, and supplying Central and Northern Asia with tea (especially), which is the current coin of Thibet, with English broadcloths and other fabrics, and for the investment of a great deal of English and Indian capital in various ways. That the whole British frontier from Burmah to Affghanistan should be closed against us for the purposes of trade and commerce has always appeared to me to be a very startling and anomalous fact."

It was impossible also to exaggerate the importance of establishing schools in the healthy districts for the children of British soldiers. Sir H. Lawrence had made the experiment, and the result had been highly successful, for instead of the frightful mortality that existed in the plains, the scholars were as healthy in those schools as they would have been in this country. He thought the hon. Member for Dumfries had done wisely in persevering with his Motion. The papers which had been printed would be submitted to the Committee; and if they made the case clear, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Mangles) believed they would, a large amount in printing would be saved.

explained that he had confined his observations to the hill regions because he thought it was generally admitted that it would be impossible for European colonization to be carried on elsewhere.

said he was glad the Government had had the good sense to assent to the Motion, as he considered this question one of the most important which could be agitated with regard to India. He was one of those who thought it had not been at all proved that European colonization in India had reached its utmost developement. When the East India Company held the island of Ceylon, very few British colonists indeed were settled there, but since Ceylon had been separated from India European colonization and the exports of the island had very much increased. Now, why should British capital seek investments in Ceylon and avoid the opposite coast? As an instance of the difficulties in the way of settlers he might refer to the case of a person who wished to buy land on the Sheevaray hills, where coffee was grown with great success; but he found it impossible to buy this land in fee simple. The East India Company refused to let him settle there on any other condition than that he should hold the land for twenty years, and then be subject to any assessments which they might choose to put upon it The hon. Gentleman, it was true, stated that the land would be held for twenty years; that then the assessment was fixed, and that as long as you paid it you would not be turned out of the lands. But in the Northwestern Provinces, where the settlement was considered most satisfactory, some of the old assessments had expired, and it was necessary to reduce them because they were too high in amount. When he was in India he found that in Bombay doubts were expressed whether, low as the settlement was, it was not too high, and he owned that he was glad of the appointment of this Committee, because it would be able to investigate the subject fully, and inquire whether, unless a very low rate indeed was fixed upon, it was possible really to determine what land should pay, and whether the best system (one which had, he believed, been proposed by many distinguished servants of the Company) would not be to fix a very low assessment—say, of one rupee an acre—and then to put up the land as in the Colonies and sell it outright. The more he considered the ques- tion the more convinced he felt that there were cogent reasons for thinking that something of the sort must ultimately be adopted in India before they could introduce that extended cultivation and that application of capital to the soil which existed in other countries. No doubt the land-tax formed a very large portion of the revenue of India, but that was formerly the case in England, while as the country increased in wealth the tax was reduced. When his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen said there was scarcely a spot in the country where corn could be cultivated, he would remind him that in the district on the Malabar coast corn could be cultivated, along the whole range of the Ghauts, from the Mysore country right up to the latitude of Bombay. The Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company had mentioned the question of cotton, and said that the quarrel between the officials of the Madras Railway gave you the real secret why cotton was not cultivated in large quantities, and the reason adduced was that it was owing to the low state of civilization and morality that existed. There was no honesty, and no person could trust his neighbour in the country. He (Mr. D. Seymour) had read all the correspondence on the subject, from which it appeared that the railway company wanted the cotton to be carried in bulk, while the consulting engineer wanted it to be screwed in the interior and carried by measurement on the railway, and his reason was that it would necessitate the people to have screw-presses in the interior. There had also been presented a memorial from the cotton merchants of the interior, to the effect that, although they had not presses at present, yet that after a while they would come. But, if they looked at the people in the interior, they would find that they were poor; and, according to Lord Harris, there were not 500 cultivators who were possessed of capital, and those who had it had it in very limited amount. The fact was that the people of Madras, during a long series of years, had been called upon to pay more taxes than they could afford, and the capital of the country and its financial vigour had in consequence become impaired and exhausted; and there were not probably two persons, whether civil or independent persons, who had been in India, who would not say that they never saw the country reduced to so wretched a condition as around Madras, and the people in such a degraded state as the unfortunate ryots, without capital, and with rents so high that they could not adequately or remuneratively cultivate the soil, and were not unfrequently obliged to emigrate. How, with all this, could they expect a high state of civilization, or that honesty between man and man which was the fruit of being placed beyond the reach of physical wants and in a higher atmosphere of education and refinement? How, amidst deserted villages, and in a country without irrigation, could it be expected that honesty would flourish? He was sorry to see how little had been legislatively done for the people of Madras, and that the assessment had not been reduced. The people were famishing, miserable, and powerless for the accumulation of capital; and he rejoiced to see the appointment of this Committee, which would be calculated to call out these facts and bring about a remedy. The planters, and other independent persons scattered over India in small numbers, universally told us that the prevailing system was bad, and that they could not cultivate; and what did Mr. Bazley, the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, say upon this question? Why, that he would not, under the circumstances alluded to, recommend any relation of his to go out to India. What was the state of their Native courts and their local police? He had heard the condition of them described by the merchants on the coast of Malabar, and by a gentleman who went to Ceylon in consequence of the difficulty he experienced in carrying on commercial transactions on the coast of Malabar. He said, "When we have debts, we have to bribe the under officials of the court to carry out the necessary process; and even then, so long is the delay, that we would almost rather abandon those debts than go into the Company's courts." This complaint was reiterated on every side; and if the proposed Committee had the effect of bringing out these facts, and developing these difficulties in the way of the settlement of Europeans, it would result in the greatest value and advantage both to India and this country. The Chairman of the East India Company had said that this was all the outcry of independent Europeans, who had a malignant hatred against the East India Company, and were prejudiced against them as a commercial corporation. There was a memorial from the inhabitants of the Neilgherry Hills the other day, in the neighbourhood of which many Europeans were settled, and from Ootacamund where coffee cultivation was carried on to a considerable extent. Now, were these Europeans contented with the present constitution of these courts? Most of them were retired servants of the Company; but were they contented with the administration of courts which had been described as efficient and good? The memorialists asked to have a branch of the Supreme Court in their district, and requested that it might be placed under English law, but it was refused. He (Mr. Seymour) thought it should have been granted, and that the more the English law was introduced in that country and the more people were trained in English law the better, although his hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Sir E. Perry) was laughed at for saying he wished to see the introduction of English lawyers in India. He (Mr. Seymour) also would like to see them, and the independent planters said the same. India was a great country, but there were parts of it where you did not need lawyers, parts only partly civilized, and in a state of semi-barbarism; and in these districts it was sufficient to have gentlemen with common sense and honesty, and not necessarily possessing a knowledge of English law. You did not want lawyers in Orissa, or on the coast of Malabar, but they wore eminently indispensable in the civilized communities of Delhi, Agra, and Benares, where commercial transactions were extensive, where complicated questions of civil law arose, and where you wanted men who had undergone a regular training and who were accustomed to take legal evidence. The last part of the proposed Motion was not the least important in connection with the question of European settlement and colonization in India. Nothing could be more important in its relation to our political power than the extension of our trade with Central Asia, and nothing could be easier than to extend that trade almost indefinitely. In doing this we should enrich ourselves and civilize Central Asia, and be doing infinitely more for that region of the globe than by placing particular chieftains on the throne of Herat. A beginning had been made in this auspicious direction in the establishment of the port and fair of Kurrachee, and he trusted the movement would be encouraged as much as possible. Every mile of road made from Kurrachee, the best outlet for our trade with Central Asia, would increase our political position and the means of sending armed forces to that country. The people of the country were so much impressed with the importance of this fact that they were flocking down there in numbers, and valuable products, such as wool, unknown as exports for the past two years, were most enormously increasing. And not only so, but Colonel Jacob, in his communications on the Western frontier of Beloochistan, and Mr. Frere, in his letters, both stated that the ruling power in Affghanistan was most anxious to have his roads constructed. This movement should be encouraged as much as possible, so as to scatter civilization over the vast masses of Central Asia, from which the natural outlet was cut off by the Russian customhouse on the Black Sea, and which was the only way, except through the Himalayas, of communicating with the vast plateaus of Central Asia, and which, owing to their ignorance and isolation, were gradually falling into the hands of Russia. On the whole he rejoiced that the Committee had been granted; he was sure that it would be well conducted by his hon. Friend who had moved for it, and he trusted and believed that it would be highly advantageous to the great desideratum of colonisation in India—advantageous not only in its direct but also in its indirect results.

said, that though he was among those who greatly lamented the late change in the Government, yet he perceived that one or two advantages had flowed from it. In the first place, the Government which had succeeded had, greatly to their credit, granted this Committee; and, in the second place, the House had had the advantage of hearing an able argument in its favour from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who last year, because he was in office, had taken some pains to combat the arguments which he (Mr. Turner) had taken the liberty of making on the subject of the supply of cotton in India. Apparently it was part of the hon. Gentleman's duty, when in office, to answer those who impugned the conduct of the Indian Government; and now that he was out of office, like the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of the Admiralty last night, he was found supporting the views which, only a short time ago, he had been obliged to oppose. The Chairman of the Court of Directors argued that if the Manchester merchants wanted cotton, they should go to India and grow it: there was plenty of it for them to grow, but that the Manchester merchants did not think was in their province. What they wanted was, that the Government of India should afford such facilities, and make such arrangements for the growth of cotton in India that they might go there, not to grow it, but to buy it in a state fit for their use. They thought India was a country capable of supplying the manufacturers of this country with the most important raw material of which we were now almost entirely dependent on the United States for a supply, and they did think it was the duty of the Government to give facilities for the production of the supply. The consequence of the falling off in the American crop had been to raise the price of cotton in India; that rise in the price had been sufficient stimulus to overcome all the difficulties of transit, and 220,000 more bales of cotton had been obtained from India in the last year than she had ever supplied before. It was a fair inference, therefore, that if there had been roads in existene, if the means of communication with the interior had been easy, India might always have supplied that largo amount of cotton. The duties, however, which the East India Company ought to have performed years and years ago would now, he hoped, be fully carried out under whatever new government might be established in that country. If roads were only made, and a system of irrigation carried out, and fair play given to colonists and settlers by the local officers of the East India Company, in a few years there would be a mighty change, and in the development of the resources of that country England and British India would be benefited. He was glad that this Committee had been granted, for much valuable information would be elicited by it.

said, he would suggest that the words "for the formation of military stations" should be omitted from the Motion, as they might lead to an inquiry which had no connection with the civilization of India.

said, he had no objection to the omission.

said, he was afraid, from all accounts, that there was likely to be another season of deficient supply of cotton from the United States, and there was no country to which we could look for a remedy for this but India. He regretted to say, however, that there was no country which afforded more palpable evidence of misrule and mismanagement than India. It was very easy for the East India Company to tell the merchant if he wanted cotton to go there and grow it; but when he got to India the roads provided by the Government were so bad that it was perfectly impossible for him to carry it away when he had grown it. In America the grower of cotton could carry it to the port for 2 per cent. of its value, while in India it cost him 50 per cent. The duty of remedying this state of things had been grievously neglected by the Company; and he was glad, therefore, that the present Government had announced their intention of bringing in a Bill to replace the present inefficient government by a new form of administration for India, and also that they had assented to the present Committee.

said, that he supported the Motion, but could not agree with what his Friend the Member for Poole had asserted regarding the East India Company and Judicial Courts, in India; on the contrary, he dissented entirely from him. He had long thought that encouraging Europeans of capital and character to settle in India would give strength to our rule, and tend greatly to bring together races so totally different in every respect as Europeans and Asiatics. Very few Europeans ever made India their permanent residence, or remained more than twenty or twenty-five years; consequently they were considered as pilgrims and strangers. The Mahometans were conquerors like ourselves, differed also in religion, but after conquest they adopted India as their permanent abode, associated with the Natives, and became thereby more united with them, in feelings and ideas, than Europeans have ever been. If anything could be done now equally to unite European settlers the result would be most beneficial, and might, moreover, prove the means (indirectly) of conversion to Christianity.