said, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether he intends, as is reported, to open a part of Kensington Gardens for the use of Equestrians; and, if so, what portion of the Gardens will be devoted to that purpose?

said, he believed that it was the wish of the House, as it was the pleasure of Her Majesty, that the Royal Parks should produce as much enjoyment as possible to all classes of the community. After the decision of the House last year in favour of a ride in Kensington Gardens he thought he should have been wanting in respect to the House if he had not opened a ride again this year; but, considering the loud and almost clamorous objections then made, he felt it his duty to endeavour to remove all just grounds of complaints against the ride. The objections which he felt most forcibly was that proceeding from certain fond parents and timid nurserymaids in regard to the dangers to children which might result from the want of experience or adroitness on the part of the equestrians using the ride; and he had, therefore, traced out a line by which the horsemen and horsewomen would have the advantage of shade from heat, and soft turf for their horses' feet, without crossing any frequented path or walk whatever. There could be no nurserymaid, he thought, who could object to the line he had marked out. Another ground of complaint was that the privacy of the gardens would be destroyed. He owned that lie did not pretend to have the power—nor could any mortal man have it—of securing privacy in any park generally open to the public, in the centre of the Metropolis with nearly 3,000,000 inhabitants. At all events, the ride about to be opened would not interfere with the privacy, such as it was, of a great portion of the gardens. The entrance to the ride would be under the dry arch of the bridge which divided Kensington Gardens from Hyde Park—on the south side—and the first warm day after this suitable for a ride that gate would be opened.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Galway County, Whether it is his intention to bring on his Motion to-morrow with reference to the recognition of the Southern States of America, and also, whether the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary deems it desirable that the subject should be discussed?

said, it was his intention to bring on the Motion to-morrow, and he believed the Foreign Secretary was prepared to discuss the question.

So far as the Government are concerned, having asked the hon. Member on several occasions to postpone his Motion, we can make no further objection to his bringing it on, but, looking to the interests of the public service, I cannot say that I think it desirable that it should come on.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is with his leave and sanction that boats are allowed to go on the Ornamental Water in Regent's Park; whether he is aware that considerable annoyance has arisen to the families of owners of private gardens which abut on the same, from persons landing on or lying alongside of these gardens; and whether lie intends to take any steps to remedy the grievance complained of?

said, he wished to put another question on the same subject, the permission for boats to row on the ornamental water in the Regent's Park. He knew, as living in the neighbourhood—["Order, order!"] He merely wished to say that having had many opportunities—o

said, the hon. Gentleman was clearly out of order in making the observation.

said, he wished to know whether anything had occurred which had induced the Commissioner to regret the licence granted, or that would interfere with the consideration of its extension, especially so as to allow the employment of boats on a Sunday?

said, that last summer it occurred to him that the ornamental lake in the Regent's Park was not so conducive to the public recreation as it might be, or as the Serpentine was, and he, therefore, made arrangements to allow boats to ply. On that occasion he received an urgent remonstrance from the owners of property on one side of the lake, and, also, from persons living on the other side. Those persons stated that if boats were allowed the private gardens would be liable to the incursions of a miscellaneous London mob. The other allegation was that if the stagnant water were stirred up serious consequences would result to the health of the neighbourhood. He was happy to say that neither of those apprehensions had been realized. A miscellaneous London mob had not paid eighteen-pence an hour for boats, and had not landed in the private gardens. The only complaint that had reached him was a complaint of incivility towards a lady by a young man who was rowing in a boat. On the other hand he had received the strongest expressions of gratitude and satisfaction at this additional source of amusement, and he knew that a great many clerks and shopkeepers, young men employed all day in sedentary occupations, had found a source of healthful recreation by rowing on the water in the morning. It had also given a vivacity and picturesque appearance to the park which all persons of good taste must greatly rejoice in.

rose again and said: I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill of the greatest possible importance to our Indian Empire. It modifies to a great extent the Executive Government, and—what is of still greater importance—it alters the means and manner of legislation. I can assure the House that I never felt more responsibility than in venturing to submit to it a proposal of so important and grave a character. It is hardly necessary for me to mention that the power of legislating for 150,000,000 of people, and nearly 50,000,000 whose welfare it indirectly affects, is a matter of the gravest importance, and I am quite sure that to those who have ever studied India the inherent difficulties of the question will be no less apparent. We have to legislate for different races, with different languages, religions, manners, and customs, ranging from the bigoted Mahommedan, who considers that we have usurped his legitimate position as the ruler of India, to the timid Hindoo, who, though bowing to every conqueror, is bigotedly attached to his caste, his religion, his laws, and his customs, which have descended to him uninterruptedly for countless generations. But, added to that, we have English settlers in India differing in almost every respect from the Native population—active, energetic, enterprising, with all the pride of race and conquest, presuming on their superior powers, and looking down in many respects and I am afraid violating in others, the feelings and prejudices of the Native population; with whom, nevertheless, they must be subject to laws passed by the Legislative body in India. I have always thought that the gravest question in modern times is the relation between civilized and less civilized nations, or between civilized portions and less civilized portions of nations, when they came in contact. The difficulty is seen in America, in Africa, in New Zealand, but nowhere in the widely extended dominions of Her Majesty has it reached such a magnitude as iii India. And in this particular case the difficulty is aggravated by the circumstance that the English, who form a portion of those who are to be subjected to this legislation, are not a permanent body. They go there for a time. Officials, when their term of service has expired, and persons engaged in commercial or agricultural pursuits, when they have made a fortune, return to this country, and though the English element in India is permanent as belonging to a nation, it is most transitory when we come to consider the individuals who compose it. Such are the circumstances under which we are to legislate, and I regret to say that the recent mutiny has aggravated these difficulties. The unlimited confidence which a few years ago was felt by the European population in the Natives of India has given way to feelings of distrust. Formerly there was, at all events, no feeling of antagonism between the higher portion of official persons and the great mass of the population. The latter looked up to the Government as to a protector, and if any feeling of antagonism or jealousy existed it existed only between them and those members of the service or the English settlers who were brought into antagonistic contact with them. When I heard some time ago that the feeling of antagonism was extending itself lower among the Natives and higher among the officers I deeply regretted it, as the most alarming symptom of altered circumstances, which must obviously tend to increase the dangers of our position. I do not wish to dwell on this matter, but it would be folly to shut our eyes to the increasing difficulties of our position in India, and it 13 an additional reason why we should make the earliest endeavour to put all our institutions on the soundest possible foundations. It is notoriously difficult for any European to make himself intimately acquainted with either the feelings or opinions of the Native population, and I was struck the other day by a passage in a letter from one of the oldest Indian servants, Sir Mark Cubbon, whose death we have had recently to regret. He had been in the service for sixty years; he had administered the affairs of Mysore for nearly thirty years; he had been living in the most intimate intercourse with the Natives, possessing their love and confidence to an extent seldom obtained by an English officer, and yet he said "that he was astonished that he had never been able to acquire a sufficient acquaintance with the opinions and feelings of the Natives with whom he was in daily communication." Many of the greatest mistakes into which we have been led have arisen from the circumstance that we have been, not Unnaturally, perhaps, for arranging everything according to English ideas. In Bengal we converted the collectors of taxes into the permanent landowners of the country, and left the ryots to their mercy. In Madras, Sir Thomas Munro, from the most benevolent inotives, and to avoid the evils of the Bengal settlement, introduced the ryotwarry system. It is now asserted that a more impoverished population than that of Madras does not exist. When I was at the Board of Control it was said that the system of the North-Western provinces was perfect. In consequence of that opinion it was introduced into the newly-acquired province of Oude. We fancied that we were benefiting the population, and relieving them from the oppression of their chiefs, but in the rebellion the ryots of Oude took part against us and joined their chiefs in the rebellion. Subsequent to the rebellion the Indian Government, profiting by the circumstance, reverted to the old system in Oude, and happily with the greatest success; and re- cently at an interview between Lord Canning and the talookdars they expressed their gratification at the restoration of the former system, and the Governor General justly congratulated them on the fact that tranquillity prevailed in a district which had been so frequently the scene of violence and outrage, and that ill the most newly acquired of Her Majesty's Indian dominions confidence existed which was not surpassed in the oldest settlements. The House can hardly be aware of the extraordinary and inherent difficulties in devising a system applicable to the whole of India. It behoves us to be most careful, as a rash step may lead to most dangerous consequences. It is easy to go forward. It is difficult to go back, and I confess I am disposed to err on the side of caution and to profit by the warning of one of the ablest Indian officers, Mountstuart Elphinstone, who said "Legislation for India should, be well considered, gradual, and slow." The measure which I propose to introduce will effect some changes in the executive Government of India. About two years ago the Government thought it right to send to India a distinguished Member of this House, Mr. Wilson, in order to aid in putting the finances of that country in a more satisfactory condition. As far as I can learn, the changes which Mr. Wilson had the opportunity of inaugurating, and which have to a considerable extent been carried out, have gone a great way to convince the authorities of India of the mistaken way in which they were proceeding, and to lay the foundation of a sounder system of finance. Judging from the accounts which we have received by the last mail, I believe that a change has come over the financial affairs of India, and that we may look forward to a more satisfactory state of things than has prevailed for many years. There can be no doubt that the Council of the Governor General has suffered serious inconvenience from the absence of any Member thoroughly acquainted with the laws and principles of jurisprudence; and Lord Canning, in one of his despatches, points out how desirable it is that a gentleman of the legal profession, a jurist rather than a technical lawyer, should be added to the Council. I propose, therefore, to take powers to send out an additional member of Council. Although it is not so specified, it is intended that he should be a lawyer, and I must endeavour to find a man of high character and attainments, competent to assist the Governor General and his Council in fram- ing laws. The main change proposed is, however, in the mode in which laws and regulations are enacted. The history of legislative power in India is very short. In 1773 the Governor General in Council was empowered to mate regulations for the Government of India, and in 1793 those regulations were collected into a code by Lord Cornwallis. Similar regulations were applied in 1799 and 1801 to Madras and Bombay, and in 1803 they were extended to the North-West Provinces. The territory of Delhi, however, which was nominally under the sovereignty of the Great Mogul, was administered by officers of the Government of India, and with such good effect that in 1815, when Lord Hastings acquired certain provinces, he determined that they should be administered in the same way by Commissioners appointed by the Government. The same System has been applied to the Punjab, Scinde, Pegu, and the various acquisitions made in India since that date. The laws and regulations under which they are administered are framed either by the Governor General in Council or by the Lieutenant Governors or Commissioners, as the case may be, and approved by the Governor General. This difficult mode of passing ordinances for the two classes of provinces, constitutes the distinction between the regulation and the non-regulation provinces, the former being those subject to the old regulations, and the latter those which are administered in the somewhat irregular manner which, as I have stated, commenced in 1815. There is much difference of opinion as to the legality of the regulations adopted under the latter system, and Sir Barnes Peacock has declared that they are illegal unless passed by the Legislative Council. The Act of 1833 added to the Council of the Governor General a member whose presence was necessary for the passing of all legislative measures, and put the whole of the then territory of India under that body, at the Same time withdrawing from Madras and Bombay the power of making regulations. In that Way the whole legislative power and authority of India were centralized in the Governor General and Council, with this additional member. So matters stood in 1853, but great complaints had emanated from other parts of India of the centralization of power at Calcutta. The practice was then introduced of placing in the Governor General's Council members from different parts of India. The tenour of the evidence given before the Committee of 1852–3 was to point out that the Executive Council alone, even with the assistance of the legislative member, was incompetent to perform the increased duties which were created by the extension of territory. Mr. M'Leod, a distinguished member of the Civil Service of India, and who had acted at Calcutta as one the Law Commissioners, gave the following evidence before the Committee:—

"The Governor General with four Members of Council, however highly qualified those individuals may be, is not altogether a competent Legislature for the great empire which we have in India. It seems to me very desirable that, in the Legislative Government of India, there should be one or more persons having local knowledge and experience of the minor presidencies; that is entirely wanting in the Legislative Government as at present constituted. It appears to me that this is one considerable and manifest defect. The Governor General and Council have not sufficient leisure and previous knowledge to conduct, in addition to their executive and administrative Junctions, the whole duties of legislation for the Indian empire. It seems to me that it would be advisable to enlarge the Legislative Council and have representatives of the minor presidencies in it, without enlarging the Executive Council, or in any way altering its present constitution."

Mr. Hill, another eminent civil servant, said—

"The mode of carrying out improvements must be by strengthening the hands of the Legislature. It would be a great improvement if, after the preparation of laws by the Executive Government and its officers, when the Legislature met, they had the addition to their number of the Chief Justice and perhaps another judge of the Supreme Court, one or two judges of the Sudder Court, and the Advocate General, or some other competent persons—so that there should be a more numerous deliberative body."

I quote these two opinions only, because they are so clearly and concisely expressed. In consequence of the general evidence to that effect, I proposed, in 1853, a measure adding to the Council of the Governor General, when sitting to make laws and regulations, members from the different provinces of India, together with the Chief Justice and another Judge of the Supreme Court of Bengal. My intention was, in accordance with the opinions I have cited, to give to the Council the assistance of local knowledge and legal experience in framing laws; The Council, however, quite contrary-to my intention, has become a sort of debating society, or petty parliament. My own view of its duties is expressed in a letter I wrote to Lord Dalhousie in 1853, in which I said—

"I expect the non-official members of your enlarged Legislative Council to be constantly employed as a Committee pf Council in working at Calcutta, on the revision of your laws and regulations."

It was certainly a great mistake that a body of twelve members should have been established with all the forms and functions of a parliament. They have standing orders nearly as numerous as we have; and their effect has been, as Lord Canning stated in one of his despatches, to impede business, cause delay, and to induce a Council, which ought to be regarded as a body for doing practical work, to assume the debating functions of a parliament. In a letter which is among the papers upon the Table of the House, Mr. Grant tears testimony to the success which has attended their labours in framing laws; and I will quote the words of another able Indian civil servant to the same effect. He says—

"If it be assumed that the enlargement of the Council by the addition of two judges of the Supreme Court and four councillors of the different Presidences of India was designed only as a means of improving the legislation of the country, the measure must be regarded as a complete success. The Council has effected all that could be expected, and may with just pride point to the statutes of the last seven years as a triumphant proof that the intention of Parliament has been fulfilled."

I think that is a very satisfactory proof that as far as my intentions—and what I believe were the intentions of the Legislature of this country—are concerned, the objects of the change in the position of the Governor General's Council, when sitting for legislative purposes, have been most completely fulfilled. I do not wish to say anything against a body the constitution of which I am about to alter, but I think that the general opinion, both in India and England, condemned the action of the Council when it attempted to discharge functions other than those which I have mentioned—when it constituted itself a body for the redress of grievances, and engaged in discussions which led to no practical result. So much has this struck those most competent to form an opinion, that I find that the first Vice President, Sir Laurence Peel, expressed a very decided opinion against it, and says of the Council, in a short memorandum—

"It has no jurisdiction in the nature of that of a grand inquest of the nation. Its functions are purely legislative, and are limited even in that respect. It is not an Anglo-Indian House of Commons for the redress of grievances, to refuse supplies, and so forth."

These obvious objections were pointed out to me by the Government of India last year, and it way my intention, to have in- troduced a measure upon the subject in the course of that Session. I felt, however, so much difficulty in deciding in what shape the measure should be framed, that I deferred its proposal until the present year; and Lord Canning, who was very anxious that such a measure should be passed, consented to defer his departure from India in order that he, with his great experience of that country, might introduce the change. The present constitution of the Council for legislative purposes having failed, we have naturally to consider what should be substituted, and in doing so we must advert to the two extreme notions with regard to legislation which prevail in India. The notion of legislation which is entertained by a Native is that of a chief or sovereign, who makes what laws he pleases. He has little or no idea of any distinction between the executive and legislative functions of Government, A Native chief will assemble his nobles around him in the Durbar, where they freely and frankly express their opinions; but having informed himself by their communications, he determines by his own will what shall be done. Among the various proposals which have been made for the government of India is one that the power of legislation should test entirely on the Executive, but that there should be a consultative body; that is, that the Governor General should assemble, from time to time, a considerable number of persons, whose opinions he should hear, but by whose opinions he should not be bound; and that he should himself consider and decide what measures should be adopted. In the last Session of Parliament Lord Ellenborough developed a scheme approaching this in character in the House of Lords; but hon. Gentlemen will see, in the despatches which have been laid upon the Table, that both Lord Canning considers this impossible, and all the Members of his Government, as well as the Members of the Indian Council, concur in the opinion that, in the present state of feeling in India, it is quite impossible to revert to a state of things in which the Executive Government alone legislated for the country. The opposite extreme is the desire which is natural to Englishmen wherever they be—that they should have a representative body to make the laws by by which they are to be governed. I am sure, however, that everyone who considers the condition of Indian will see that it is utterly impossible to constitute such a body in that country. You cannot possibly assemble at any one place in India persons who shall be the real representatives of the various classes of the Native population of that empire. It is quite true that when you diminish the area over which legislation is to extend you diminish the difficulty of such a plan. In Ceylon, which is not more extensive than a large collectorate in India, you have a legislative body consisting partly of Englishmen and partly of Natives, and I do not know that that Government has worked unsuccessfully; but with the extended area with which we have to deal in India, it would be physically impossible to constitute such a body. The Natives who are resident in the towns no more represent the resident Native population than a highly educated native of London, at the present day, represents a highland chieftain or a feudal baron of half a dozen centuries ago. To talk of a Native representation is, therefore, to talk of that which is simply and utterly impossible. Then comes the question to what extent we can have a representation of the English settlers in India, No doubt, it would not be difficult to obtain a representation of their interests; but I must say that of all governing or legislative bodies, none is so dangerous or so mischievous as one winch represents a dominant race ruling over an extended Native population. All experience teaches us that where a dominant race rules another, the mildest form of government is a despotism. It was so in the case of the democratic republics of Greece, and the more aristocratic or autocratic sway of Home; and it has been so, I believe, at all times and among all nations in every part of the world. The other day I found in Mr. Mill's book upon Representative Government, a passage which I will read—not because I go its entire length, but because it expresses in strong terms what I believe is in the main correct. Mr. Mill says—

"Now, if there be fact to which all experience testifies, it is that when a country holds another in subjection, the individuals of the ruling people who resort to the foreign country to make their fortunes are, of all others, those who most need to be held under powerful restraint. They are always one of the chief difficulties of the Government, Armed with the prestige and filled with the scornful overbearingness of the conquering nation, they have the feelings inspired by absolute power without its sense of responsibility."

I cannot, therefore, consent to create a powerful body of such a character. It must be remembered, also, that the Natives do not distinguish very clearly between the acts of the Government itself and the acts of those who apparently constitute it, namely, the members of the Legislative Council; and in one of Lord Canning's despatches he points out the mischiefs which have on that account arisen from publicity. He says that, so far as the English settlers are concerned, publicity is advantageous; but that if publicity is to continue, care must be taken to prevent the Natives confounding the measures which are adopted with injudicious speeches which may be made in the Legislative Council. I feel it, therefore, necessary to strengthen the hands of the Government, so as to enable them not only by veto to prevent the passing of a law, but to prevent the introduction of any Bill which they think calculated to excite the minds of the Native population, repeating the caution which I have before given, I say it behoves us to be cautious and careful in our legislation. I have seen a measure which I myself introduced in 1853, with one view, changed by the mode in which it was carried into execution so as to give it an operation totally different from that which I intended. The mischiefs resulting from that change have been great; and I am, therefore, anxious that in any measure which I may propose, and which the House, I hope, will adopt, we should take care, as far as possible, to avoid the likelihood of misconstruction or misapplication by the Government of India. It is easy at any future time to go further, but it is difficult to draw back from what we have once agreed to. The despatches of Lord Canning contain pretty full details of the scheme which he would recommend. Those despatches have been long under the consideration of the Council of India, and with their concurrence I have framed a measure which embodies the leading suggestions of Lord Canning. I propose that when the Governor General's Council meets for the purpose of making laws and regulations, the Governor General should summon, in addition to the ordinary members of the Council, not less than six nor more than twelve additional members, of whom one-half at least shall not hold office under Government. These additional members may be either Europeans, persons of European extraction, or Natives. Lord Canning strongly recommends that the Council should hold its meetings in different parts of India, for the purpose of obtaining at times the assistance of those Native chiefs and noblemen whose attendance at Calcutta would be impossible, or irksome to themselves. I do not propose that the judges ex-officio shall have seats in the Legislature; but I do not preclude the Governor General from summoning one of their number if he chooses. They were useful members of a body meeting as a committee for the purpose of discussing and framing laws, but I think it is inexpedient and incompatible with their functions that they should belong to a body partaking in any degree of a popular character. I propose that the persons nominated should attend all meetings held within a year. If you compel their attendance for a longer period you render it very unlikely that any Natives except those resident upon the spot will attend the meetings of the Council. This also is recommended by Lord Canning. Hon. Gentlemen will have noticed the great success which has attended the association with us of the Talookdars of Oude and of the Sirdars in the Punjab in the duties of administering the revenue, and Lord Canning has borne testimony to the admirable manner in which they have performed their duties. I believe greater advantages will result from admitting the Native chiefs to co-operate with us for legislative purposes; they will no longer feel, as they have hitherto done, that they are excluded from the management of affairs in their own country, and nothing, I am persuaded, will tend more to conciliate to our rule the minds of Natives of high rank. I have no intention of doing anything to make this Council a debating society. I wish, to quote an expression of Sir Laurence Peel, to render them a body for making laws. The Council of the Governor General, with these additional members, will have power to pass laws and regulations affecting the whole of India, and will have a supreme and concurrent power with the minor legislative bodies which I propose to establish in the Presidencies and in other parts of India. I come now to the power of making laws which I propose to give the Governors and Councils of the other Presidencies. Lord Canning strongly feels that although great benefits have resulted from the introduction of members into his Council who possess a knowledge of localities—the interests of which differ widely in different parts of the country—the change has not been sufficient, in the first place, to overcome the feeling which the other Presidencies entertain against being overridden, as they call it, by the Bengal Council; or, on the other hand, to overcome the disadvantages of having a body legislating for these Presidencies without acquaintance with local wants and necessities. This must obviously be possessed to a much greater extent by those residing on and nearer the spot. And, therefore, I propose to restore, I may say, to the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay the power of passing laws and enactments on local subjects within their own territories, and that the Governor of the Presidency, in the same manner as the Governor General, when his Council meets to make laws, shall summon a certain number of additional members, to be as before either European or Native, and one-half of whom at least shall not be office-holders. It is obviously necessary that these bodies should not be empowered to legislate on subjects which I may call of Indian rather than of local importance. The Indian debt, the Customs of the country, the army of India, and other matters, into the details of which it is not necessary that I should enter, belong to a class of subjects which the local Legislatures will be prohibited from entering upon without the sanction of the Governor General. I propose that Councils rather differently constituted should be established at Bengal; and, if the Governor General thinks right, as he obviously does from his despatches, that he shall be empowered hereafter—but not without the sanction of the Secretary of State—to create a Council for the North West provinces, or the Punjab, or any other part of India which he may think desirable. It has been represented that the province of Pegu might, perhaps, be constituted into a separate Government, with a Council. I somewhat doubt whether it is at present ripe for such a change; but when it has acquired sufficient importance, no doubt the district will be better administered in that way than it is at present. By this means, while we shall attain a general uniformity of legislation, with a sufficient diversity for the differences of each part of India, we shall, I hope, adapt the system to the wants of particular localities. It is quite clear that the public works may be better dealt with by local bodies than by a central authority; but as each district might be disposed to repudiate liability to maintain its share of the army, on the ground that it would not be first exposed to danger, and as it is highly desirable that the distribution of troops should be in the hands of the central authority, I think that the army, among others, is a subject which should be left to the general Council. The Bill also gives power to the Governor General in cases of emergency to pass an ordinance having the force of law for a limited period. Questions might arise about the Arms Act, or the press, as to which it would be very injudicious that delay should occur; and we, therefore, propose to empower the Governor General on his own authority to pass an ordinance having the force of law, to continue for a period of six months, unless disallowed by the Secretary of State or superseded by an Act of the Legislature. I believe I have now gone through the main provisions of the Bill. They have been carefully considered by the members of the Indian Council, men drawn from every part of India, of every profession, and with the most varied experience. The measure has been prepared with their entire concurrence, and it has the approval of most of the persons with whom I have conversed on the subject. All I can say is that every precaution has been taken in the framing of the Bill to make it effectual for the accomplishment of the object which it is designed to achieve. Every one has been consulted whose opinion I thought ought to be taken. It has been carefully considered by the Government in India and the Government at home. I venture, therefore, to submit it to the House in the hope that, with such Amendments as may be made in it in its progress through Parliament, it may tend to the happiness of India and the prosperity of the Queen's subjects in that portion of Her Majesty's dominions. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend, in certain respects, the constitution of the Council of the Governor General of India, and to authorize making laws and regulations for the Presidencies of Fort St. George and Bombay, and for other parts of Her Majesty's Indian territories.

wished to express his hope that the right hon. Baronet would not press too quickly on the House the consideration of this matter. The despatches of Lord Canning were placed in the hands of Members only that morning, and he for one had not had time to read them. He approved entirely the principles of this Bill. It contained two principles which, in his opinion, promised to be eminently successful—one for the greater localization of the Government of India, and the other for the introduction of independent Members of the Council. Whether it would be possible to accomplish by the machinery of the Bill all that the measure proposed was matter for discussion, and he thought that time ought to be given to hon. Members to consider the provisions of the Bill, and to propose such Amendments as they might think it desirable to submit to the House,

said, it was difficult to give a uniform legislation for a country composed of twenty-one different nations, speaking different languages, and having different habits and prejudices, but he did not think that that difficulty should prevent them from making any attempt to legislate at all. The local councils would bring legislation within a narrower sphere, and adopt it to the peculiar wants of the peoples under the respective presidencies; indeed, the Bill would only restore the power to the local councils possessed before the establishment of the Legislative Council of India, the difference being that formerly they could only pass rules and regulations; whereas for the future they would be enabled to pass laws. He hoped the legislation would be such as to insure a return on the part of the people to that attachment to this country which existed before the rebellion. He was not now about to enter into a discussion of the details of the measure; but would merely express a hope that ample time would be given to the House to consider with attention its various provisions.

thought that the legislation proposed by Lord Canning, and sought to be carried into effect by this Bill, combined the logical and central managements in a manner that deserved the praise of the House. It was quite true that the time must not be very remote when it would be possible to put in practice any scheme for the representative system in India; but we must adopt means to prepare the Natives for local self-government. He thought that the localization of India would be productive of great benefit. As far as he could understand the proposition from the Correspondence of Lord Canning, it had his approval, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would succeed in bringing it to a successful conclusion.

said, there were two interests which especially required representation, the trade and the agriculture of India, and he believed that that would be best attained by this combination of local with central government. Lord Canning had very skilfully laid down the distinction between the two; and he gave his cordial support to the Bill, which carried out the views of the noble Lord. He believed, however, that the credit of originating the plan was due to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who had suggested it many years ago.

hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India would turn his attention to the question of improving the laws in that country, especially in respect to the making and enforcing of contracts.

The next Bill which I propose to ask leave to introduce is a Bill for the purpose of forming one instead of two Superior Courts in India. There is the Supreme Court, consisting of lawyers and Queen's Judges sent out from this country, which has complete jurisdiction over the three Presidency towns of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras, and exclusive criminal jurisdiction in important matters over Europeans, in whatever part of India they may be. There is also the Sadder Court, That is a Court of Appeal for all the Courts in the country, whether they are presided over by Natives or by Europeans; and it also exercises over those Courts a sort of superintendence, or what may be called the functions of a Minister of Justice. In the evidence which was given before the Committee that sat on East India affairs in 1852–53, a strong opinion was expressed by those most competent to give an opinion, that it was desirable, with a view to the better administration of justice in India, that those two Courts should be consolidated into one, which would unite the legal knowledge of the English lawyers with the intimate knowledge of the customs, habits, and laws of the Natives possessed by the Judges in the country. I was very anxious in introducing the Bill of 1853 to include a provision for effecting the object I now propose, and to empower Her Majesty to issue Her charter for the establishment of a united Court, and to lay down regulations for its guidance. But I found that the Members of the Indian Law Commission, though they were most anxious that this measure should pass, thought it would be useless to attempt to unite the Courts till certain forms of procedure were established, which would enable the amalgamated Court to do what the two Courts had been accustomed to do. I was, therefore, compelled to postpone legislation on the subject. In order to obtain the basis on which the form of procedure could be framed, a Royal Commission was issued in this country to a number of gentlemen of the highest attainments to report generally on the subject. I certainly considered myself remarkably fortunate in obtaining the assistance of the gentlemen who formed that Commission. They were Sir John Romilly, Master of the Rolls; Sir John Jervis, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; Sir Edward Ryan, late Chief Justice at Calcutta; Mr. Cameron, late President of the Law Commission and Member of Council at Calcutta; Mr. M'Leod, of the Civil Service, Madras, also a Member of the Law Commission; Mr. Ellis, the accomplished reporter of the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench; Mr. Lowe, M.P., intimately acquainted with colonial courts of justice as well as English law; Mr. Hawkins, late Judge of the Sudder Court, Calcutta, and afterwards Secretary to the Law Commission; Mr. Baillie, whose practical professional knowledge of Indian law and Courts in the country districts there was of the utmost importance in such an inquiry. The Commission devised forms of both civil and criminal procedure, which I believe—if I may say so in the presence of gentlemen of the long robe—are superior to any that exist in this country. The House knows that more than a quarter of a century ago Lord Macaulay, assisted by many able gentlemen in Calcutta, framed a criminal code. That code was tossed backwards and forwards between this country and India; and I recollect that when I was President of the Board of Control it appeared to be no more likely to be acted upon than it had been twenty years ago. No doubt there was a necessity for some form of procedure for that criminal code, and the Commission to which I have referred drew up a form of procedure which has been under the consideration of a Committee of the Council in India. That Committee has reported in favour of the form of procedure recommended by the Commissioners, and I have no doubt that in the course of a few weeks it will have passed into a law. Lord Macaulay's criminal code has already passed into law, and I believe that at last, after so long an interval, the people of India will, from the 1st of January next, have a form of procedure and a criminal code which will bear comparison with those of the most enlightened people in any country in Europe. The Commission also recommended a form of procedure in civil cases, which is now in full force, and the result of its working shows that it has been most successful. The reports from the various districts prove that it has done much to diminish the expense, time, and amount of litigation. The Lieutenant Governor of Bengal says—

"The result of all the inquiries I have made from the Native Judges, by whom nearly all original suits are tried, and of whom I have now seen many in different parts of the Lower Provinces, is, that the new procedure, in working, has been successful, even above all hope."

The Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces

"Concurs with the Sudder Court of the North-West Provinces that Act VIII. of 1859 (the code of civil procedure) is one of the best Acts ever passed by the Legislature."

A private letter from the Judge of Benares (Mr. W. Edwards) states that in his district, and he believes in all the districts of (he North-West Provinces, the code of civil procedure has had a remarkable effect in expediting and improving the administration of justice. The number of cases pending at the close of certain periodical eras is given in the margin. These show that in 1835 the number was 1,475; in 1840, 1,640; in 1850, 1,699; in 1855, 955; in 1860, the first year of the new code, 175. The average duration of a case in each class of Courts in the district has been reduced to less than one-third since the code came into force. The total cost of 25 cases taken at random, under the old system, was 1,711 rupees, under the new, 687 rupees. The number of papers in each case under the old system was 27, under the new 11. The remaining part of the civil code to be dealt with is a work of no mean importance. Looking at the results that have arisen from the appointment of the Commission in 1852, and which ended, its labours two or three years afterwards, I think I cannot take a course more advantageous for the improvement of the jurisprudence of India than to appoint a similar Commission now. I am happy to say that Sir John Romilly and others of the old Commissioners have agreed to act, and I hope they will be able to devise a civil code as good in character as the criminal code. The Commissioners also recommended the formation of district Courts in the country, a recommendation which is under the consideration of the Government of India. All the measures to which I have referred it is competent for the Government of India, there or at home, to carry out. The matter to which I wish to call the attention of the House more particularly is the crowning point of the whole, and the only one for which the sanction of Parliament is necessary. When that is done, so far as legislation goes, the whole of the recommendations of the Commission will have been carried into effect. The last of their recommendations was the formation of a high Court to exercise the functions now performed by the Supreme and Sudder Courts. The Bill I now propose to introduce has been sent to Bengal, where it has been submitted to the observation of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and the amendments suggested by them have been introduced into the Bill. The Judges of the Supreme Court of Madras were also in favour of amalgamating the Courts, and I have likewise received the suggestions of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Bombay. The present Supreme Court consists entirely of Queen's Judges sent from this country, while the Sudder Court consists entirely of members of the Civil Service who have risen through the successive stages of the service, but who have not necessarily had the slightest legal training. With their great knowledge of local habits and customs will be united the legal training and knowledge of the English, Scotch, and Irish bars; their knowledge of Native habits and customs will be of the greatest assistance in guiding the opinions of the legal members of the Court; and the union of these two classes of Judges will constitute a far better Court than would be formed by either separately. We propose that in the new Court there shall be a certain proportion of barristers or ad- vocates of the Scotch bar; that there shall be a certain proportion of civil servants, and that the remainder shall consist either of one or other of those classes, or of barristers trained in India, or of Native Judges. An impression has gone abroad in India that the Government are adverse to the appointment of Native Judges. That is not so. Lord Canning has expressed a decided opinion that Native Judges, well trained, are as well qualified as any other persons to take their places by the side of English Judges in the high Court. That is provided for in the Bill, and the Judges will, therefore, be chosen from among those three classes. I do not know that I need go into any further detail respecting the Court. Its advantages are clear. We shall have one Supreme Court, one sole Court of Appeal, instead of two, and, inasmuch as the administration of justice in the minor Courts depends on the mode in which the appeals sent up from them are treated, the superior Court thus constituted will, I hope, improve the administration of justice generally throughout India. It is notorious that the greatest confidence is felt by the Natives in the administration of justice by the Supreme Court even at present. Now, according to the provisions of this Bill, the Judges of the Supreme Court may be sent on circuit throughout the country. The effect of this will be that in important cases occurring in the various districts, justice, as in this country, will be administered on the spot by a trained Judge. At present, if an Englishman commits a crime which may subject him to serious punishment, he and all the witnesses must be brought to Calcutta, and the case must be tried there. In future an English Judge going into the country will be able to try these cases. At present when a crime is committed up country by an European the necessity of bringing him to Calcutta amounts, in many cases, to an absolute denial of justice. It may be impossible in a country like India to bring justice to every man's door, but, at all events, the system now proposed will bring it far nearer than at present; and where criminal offences are committed by a European—happily such instances are rare—the impartial administration of justice on the spot will produce a most desirable influence on the minds of the Natives. I think I need not trouble the House with any further observations upon this Bill. I trust that I shall be allowed to introduce it, and that, having some years ago, when President of the Board of Control, introduced various measures to improve the administration of the law in India, I may now be permitted to give a finishing stroke to that good work by carrying into effect the last recommendations of the eminent Commissioners who inquired into that important subject.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to confirm certain appointments in India, and to amend the law concerning the Civil Service there," said,—I now have to move for leave to bring in the third Bill of which I have given notice, and I do not know that in some respects it is of less importance than the other measures which I have mentioned. I know that it excites lively interest among certain individuals, who conceive that their personal interests are affected by it; but I do not think that they will or can be affected to any such extent as should induce the House to interfere with that which I believe will be of great public advantage. The good of the public service ought, I think, to outweigh what I venture to call the imaginary injury apprehended by these persons. The object of the Bill is to legalize certain appointments which have for the last fifty years been made in India contrary to law, and to provide that in certain exceptional cases, to which I will hereafter allude, appointments may be made, notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by the old law. In 1793 an Act was passed, the object of which was to prevent jobbing in Indian appointments on the part of the Indian authorities; and it provided that all vacancies occurring in the civil branch of the service, under the degree of Councillor, should be filled up from among the civil servants of the company. That was the law of 1793, and I am not now disposed to question that it was then a proper law. Since then, however, the state of things has undergone a considerable change. At any rate, there is not the slightest doubt that almost from the passing of this Act the Government of India found it impossible, consistently with a due regard to the public service, to adhere to its provisions. At all times the Indian Government, with the sanction of the Court of Directors, whose interest it was to maintain the rights of the Civil Service, deviated from the law to such an extent that I believe I shall not exaggerate when I say that at this moment one-third of the Indian appointments have been made contrary to law. There are three distinct cases in which the law has been departed from. According to the Act all civil appointments in India, such as existed in 1793, must be held by covenanted servants only. Now what is the case? All the civil appointments of this description that are hold by military men, all that are held by Englishmen other than covenanted servants sent out from this country, and all the civil appointments held by Englishmen born in India, or by Natives are contrary to law. In the first place, in what are called the non-regulation provinces of India the Indian Government never for a moment supposed that they were bound by the law, and they have, therefore, bestowed the appointments largely upon military men and others. A few years ago, when I called the attention of the Indian Government to the salaries of the civil servants, Mr. Ricketts was desired to inquire into the matter, and reported fully upon a variety of matters, including this; and I will show, from documents quoted in that report, what are the opinions of various persons bearing upon this subject. In the non-regulation provinces, as I said, the Government never dreamed of being bound by the Act of 1793, but the fact is undoubted that in the application of this Act there is no real distinction between the regulation and non-regulation provinces, and that which is illegal in one is also illegal in the other. Perhaps there never was a more able administrator nor one who more effectually called forth the energies of those under his control than Sir Henry Lawrenee. Though there is hardly whom I should any person in the world look upon as a greater authority in these matters than Sir John Lawrence, yet it is remarkable that all those who were acquainted with both concur in looking upon Sir Henry Lawrence its the higher authority of the two. Sir Henry Lawrence's opinion is given in the following words:—

"He thinks that both justice and expediency demand that military men and civilians should receive the same amount of salaries when employed on similar duties. It is for the public benefit that the present competitions for offices, especially in the higher grades, should exist."

Sir John Lawrence, himself a civilian, says—

"But a good sprinkling of military men is beneficial, especially in a new country; their presence excites emulation."

Again, Sir Henry Lawrence says—

"I go much further in my views of equalization, and strongly advocate that uncovenanted gentlemen be largely mixed with civil and military officers in the non-regulation provinces, and be paid at a similar rate. Such appointments to be by selection after approved service and strict tests from the ordinary uncovenanted ranks. Such competition would both strengthen Government and improve the tone of the services."

The above passages refer to offices in the non-regulation provinces, which have been elsewhere reserved for covenanted servants. I come now to the second class. The more general way in which the Government have proceeded has not been by appointing uncovenanted servants to fill the places of covenanted servants, but by abolishing covenauted places, and creating new covenanted places. This has been done to an extent of which hon. Gentlemen are, perhaps, not aware. In 1793, for instance, the assistant-collector must be a covenanted servant. There is no such person now of the same class as before; but there is a deputy-collector, who may be an uncovenanted servant. Sir George Clerk, in a minute drawn up while my noble Friend opposite was in office, says—

"Adherence being quite impossible with reference to increasing population, crime, and litigation, the restrictive law has been disregarded to a great extent—for instance, by uncovenanted servants being appointed Postmaster General, superintendent of police (Bombay), secretary in the Foreign Department, and by the appointment of 316 existing deputy collectors uncovenanted against sixty-four existing covenanted."

I do not blame the Government of India for this course. It was forced upon them by the necessities of the case. Sometimes they broke the law; sometimes they evaded it. It has been precisely the some in the judicial appointments. In former times the judicial officers were covenanted servants, but afterwards a new class of officials were created, called Sudder Ameens, and Principal Sudder Ameens, who are almost without exception Natives or uncovenanted servants. Here they did not break the law, but they turned the flank of it. This process is very clearly described by one well acquainted with the practice as to judicial matters of India. He says—

"The original jurisdiction in the administration of civil justice, which, in 1793, could for the most part be exercised only by civil servants, passed into the hands of the uncovenanted Judges, not by an absolute transfer of the authority of the covenanted Judge, but by a gradual augmentation of the power of the uncovenanted Judge. In like manner uncovenanted agency is now employed to a much greater extent than formerly in the administration of criminal justice, and in the revenue departments."

This, be it observed, is in the regulation provinces, to which nobody questions for a moment that the Act of 1793 strictly applies. Then we come to the last class of cases in which the Government of India has avowedly appointed uncovenanted servants to offices in the presidencies which, under the law of 1793, were held by covenanted servants. Nothing can be clearer than that in 1793 the Secretaries to the Government were exclusively covenanted servants. Now, two secretaryships—Military and Public Works—are held by soldiers, and the assistants in both cases are uncovenanted servants also. In Lord Corowallis's time there was in the Political and Secret Department a secretary, an assistant-secretary, and eight assistants, all of them covenanted servants; at the present time the secretary and the undersecretary are covenanted servants, and the eight assistants are unconvenanted. The same has taken place in other departments, and there is no doubt that such appointments have been illegal. The assay-master, the master of the mint, the military paymaster, the superintendents of police, all formerly covenanted servants, have for a considerable time been uncovenanted servants. A short time ago Sir Frederick Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, during the absence of a civil Judge, appointed an uncovenanted servant to perform the duties. The arrangement was the most convenient which could be made, but, unfortunately, he was an uncovenanted servant and the Government had to remove him. A short time before, however, an uncovenanted servant had been made a collector of revenue at Bombay, and the Court of Directors confirmed the appointment. On this, Mr. Ricketts very justly remarks—

"The same law applies to both offices. If it was illegal to appoint an uncovenanted officer merely to officiate as a civil Judge, it was at least equally illegal to appoint an uncovenanted officer to be permanently collector at Bombay."

I mention these matters not to blame the Government of India, because the necessities of the case justify them—and they are rather to be praised for making the public interest and the proper administration of the functions of Government first considerations. Lord Elphinstone not only approves this practice, but in his evidence before the House of Lords, he expresses an opinion that a Native might legally be made a collector or a Judge. Lord Auckland says—

"An absolute disqualification to all but those in the covenanted service from holding, or from even taking charge in time of emergency of the offices in question would be productive of very great embarrassment and inconvenience."

The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the authority of Sir George Clerk, Lord Hardinge, and others, pointing out the desirability of having in the public service some offices of emolument and position to which Native gentlemen of character might aspire. Lord Dalhousie, in a minute of the 26th of April, 1854, stated—

"It is a cause of constant regret with me that there do not exist in the public service some offices of large emolument and high position to which Native gentlemen of character and ability might rise, so that the office and pay of principal Sudder Ameen may no longer be the boundary of a Native gentleman's ambition in the British service."

Mr. Ricketts, notwithstanding that he might be supposed to have the prejudices of a covenanted servant, nevertheless, recommended that the uncovenanted service should be admitted to certain offices embracing Executive control. That gentleman's report stated—

"It will be observed that in the list given there are no offices embracing Executive control, but I would under each Government have a few such offices open to Natives and East Indians. If each Government were permitted to appoint three uncovenanted collectors, three uncovenanted Judges, and three uncovenanted magistrates, or Natives or East Indians thoroughly qualified for the offices, presenting themselves, choosing, of course, such districts as were best suited to the experiments, these classes would be provided with further opportunity of showing their fitness for such positions. I can see many advantages from such a partial opening of Executive offices, and no possible disadvantage, unless the advance of our native subjects towards fitness for offices of high responsibility is considered disadvantageous."

He did not think it possible that any man could consider such a result disadvantageous. With regard to the bench of the Upper District Court, Mr. Harrington, as chairman of a Committee of the Legislative Council, strongly recommended the appointment of uncovenanted servants and of Natives. That gentleman stated—

"I am bound, however, to admit that the Select Committee never contemplated, nor did they desire, that the bench of the Upper District Court should be composed entirely of Members of the Indian Covenanted Civil Service. What they hoped was that the senior or chief Judge of the Court would be a member of that service; that the second Judge would be a member of the English or Irish bar, or of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland; and that the third Judge would be selected from the uncovenanted judicial branch of the Service, which is composed chiefly of Natives of India."

Lord Canning had recommended the admission of Natives to seats on the bench of the High Court. A case had arisen within the last few days exemplifying in the strongest manner the advantage to be derived from a provision such as he intended to propose. Lord Canning had written home proposing that a member of the Indian Council, Colonel Durand, should go out to India and take the place of Foreign Secretary, that gallant officer being most eminently fitted, in the opinion of the Governor General, for the office. Colonel Durand, at considerable personal sacrifice but from a sense of public duty highly creditable to him, responded to the invitation, and the whole of the India Council were perfectly willing that the Government of India should have the assistance desired, yet under the existing law the appointment could not be made. He had stated the reasons for taking the course which he proposed to pursue, because he was anxious to convince the House that when interfering, even to the smallest extent, with the vested interests of the covenanted servants, it was not without very strong and unanswerable grounds in the interest of the public service. His noble Friend who preceded him in the office of Secretary of State became impressed with the necessity of this change. He had found the records of his noble Friend's opinion in the office, and after careful inquiry he had come to the same conclusion. He had no intention to lower the covenanted service. That service had produced some of the ablest men whom the country had ever seen, and, no doubt, it was a great advantage that men going to India should know what prospects were before them. Those who supposed that he was about to injure to any extent the covenanted service had entirely misapprehended his views and intentions. But he thought there were exceptions in which a positive bar against the admission of uncovenanted services to office was a positive evil. The members of the uncovenanted service felt it to be a degradation and a stigma, and it was not fair to call upon them to perform laborious and onerous duties without any prospect of promotion. If they were not fit let them be excluded without a scruple, but let them not be excluded by law from the possibility of rising in accordance with their merits. In the case of Native servants, Mr. Ricketts recommended their admission. He said—

"The emulation would be useful in stimulating the exertions of both parties, useful in elevating the position of Natives generally, and making them more honest by showing trust in their honesty. The deeper the fall the greater is the fear of falling. Many a dishonest lerishtedar has made an honest deputy collector."

He felt, therefore, that with due precautions against the power being abused the admission of uncovenanted persons, English, whether civil or military, and Natives, would be most beneficial to the public service, and he thought the request in the memorial of the uncovenanted servants expressed very fairly what ought to be granted—

"Your memorialists ask only that the supreme and local Governments be empowered to promote uncovenanted servants who have passed through a certain term of approved service in India to offices now reserved exclusively for members of the covenanted service."

They further asked—

"That the Bar, which at present excludes uncovenanted servants, whatever their merits or special qualifications, from holding offices heretofore reserved for covenanted officers, be removed, and that it be left to the discretion of the supreme and local Governments to promote meritorious uncovenanted servants to such offices, under such regulations as may be deemed necessary."

It was very remarkable that, although a number of distinguished men had been bred up in the covenanted service, many of the ablest administrators of India had not been covenanted servants. If one side quoted Mountstuart Elphinstone, Sir Charles Metcalfe, and Sir John Lawrence, the other could quote John Malcolm, Sir Henry Lawrence, and Sir Thomas Munro. A short time ago he was conversing upon the subject with an able covenanted servant, and he said that the change was quite right, and that he knew an instance of an uncovenanted servant who had been employed for years at a salary of £400 a year, who had seen his covenanted juniors rise to £700 a year, and who only the other day, when an officer was required for employment out of the regular course, was selected, such was his merits, for that employment at £1,200 a year. This measure had been considered by the Council. Many of them, of course, did not like breaking into the covenanted rule, but after discussion they authorized him to introduce it as a measure which had their general concurrence. It was honourable to them that with their natural predilections against the change they should have concurred in it, on the ground of the advantage to the public service. He proposed to legalize all those appointments which had habitually been made. He proposed, further, that when any authority in India should think it desirable, under the special circumstances of the case, that an appointment should he made, without regard to the Act of 1793, he should have authority to make the appointment, subject to such regulations as might be made from time to time by the Secretary of State in Council; that the appointment should be provisional; that it should be reported to the Secretary of State, with the special reasons for making it; and that, if not approved within a year by a majority of the Council, it should be void. The regulations would be laid down in England; the appointment would be made in India, and without the concurrence of a majority of the Council in England it would be void. The regulations had been prepared, and they would require, generally speaking, precisely the same qualifications as those of the covenanted service. In order to prevent the abuse of a Governor General taking out a number of friends and appointing them, it was proposed that the officers to be appointed should have resided in India seven years previously, and that they should be qualified in the language of the district to which they were appointed. Natives would be subject to the same tests as Europeans. He thought that with these restrictions no abuse could take place, and that although in an infinitesimal degree it infringed on the vested rights of the covenanted servants, they could not possibly complain of a change so eminently required by the demands of the public service. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that leave be given to bring in a Bill to confirm certain appointments in India, and to amend the law concerning the Civil Service there.

believed that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would do a good deal to dissipate the impression which had hitherto prevailed in India in regard to this measure. He had received several letters requesting him to state to the House what wore the feelings of the covenanted servants on this subject. In their petition it was set forth that the Act of 1793 contained, along with the rules of the covenanted service, a proviso that no man should be appointed to a situation with a salary of £500 a year unless he had been three years resident in India. The petitioners stated that in the territories which the Company then possessed that rule was almost universally acted upon, and pointed out the advantage to the Civil Service in inducing men of intellect to qualify themselves for the important duties of that profession. He thought that the law of the case was clearly in favour of the civil servants of the Company, because the Act just passed for the better Government of India declared that all contracts and engagements which bound the Company should bind the Crown. The petitioners, however, feared that offices which formerly could be held only by covenanted servants were to be thrown open to all persons without distinction, and prayed the House to prevent such injustice being-done to them. But it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate such a course, because he understood that should any arbitrary act of that character be done by a Governor General of India, it would not be sanctioned by the Secretary of State. The petitioners set forth another ground of complaint, and he (Mr. White-side) thought it was a grievance which they were justly entitled to complain of, and that was the mode in which their retirement was regulated. They stated that they had to subscribe a large percentage of their salary to the Civil Service Fund and Annuity Fund, the objects of which were respectively to make provision for their families on their deaths, and for themselves after a certain fixed period in the service. These funds were supplied by the percentage deducted from their salaries, and they said, very truly, that if their salaries were curtailed the funds in question would of course suffer. They, therefore, claimed compensation on that account; but he did not hear the right hon. Gentleman propose to give them any. He had received a letter from a very clever and active young gentleman in the Indian service, who complained of the heavy de- ductions which were made from the salaries of civil servants, in addition to an income tax at the rate of 10¼ per cent. The position of the covenanted servants, his correspondent showed, would be much prejudiced by the proposed change, as their promotion would be twice as slow as formerly, and their salaries much reduced. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to frame the regulations so as to redress the grievances of the covenanted servants, and that, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would consider how the heavy income tax which the covenanted servants had to pay might be reduced, and less deductions made from the service money of those very, useful and deserving officers.

said, he shared the belief of the right hon. Gentleman that the Act of 1793 was introduced for the purpose of suppressing jobbing; and held that there was just as much necessity for maintaining the principle of that Act at that day as when it was first passed. If he had any prejudice at all in regard to the Civil Service of India, it might be expected that, as he had been in India, but had had no connection with that service, he would adopt the prejudice against it which seized nearly all non-official residents. But, making every allowance for the short comings of the Civil Service, and the incompetency of individual members of it, he thought that, on the whole, no measure was ever passed in Parliament which had conferred so much benefit on India as that which established the Civil Service of that country on its present basis. He believed that it had contributed more than anything else to good government—as far as there had been any—in India, and, therefore, he thought it would be the duty of the House to watch with great care any proposal from the Minister of the Crown which would interfere seriously with that great institution. He entirely differed from the view which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) took of the statute of 1793. It was a mistake to suppose that the statute prescribed that certain offices were to be filled with civil servants, and that one-third of the appointments which had been made since then were illegal. It would be very strange that such should be the case, and that it should never have been brought under the notice of Parliament. The provision in the statute was that all appointments in the civil line of the Company's service should be conferred on those only who constituted the Civil Service in India, but the statute did not specify what should be held to be the civil line of the service. Its object was to provide that the Court of Directors in England should decide what new appointments in India should be in the civil line of the Company's service, and that it should not be competent for the Governor General, or any of the Governors, to appoint their own friends to offices of such a character; but it never was contemplated by the measure that every person in the Civil Service of the Government of India or discharging any civil duties was to be a member of the Civil Service. At the very hour when the Act was passed there, were a vast number of civil appointments in India which were not held by civil servants, and such had been the case to that day. There were two classes of appointments—those in the civil line of the Civil Service, and those in the line of offices held by Natives, and sometimes by Europeans in India. The former class was confined to the Civil Service, while the other was at the disposal of the Governor of India or the Governors of the Presidencies. But, after a time, attempts were made to make appointments to the line without first making representations to the Government in England, and it was to put an end to jobbing of this description that the Act of 1793 was passed. He was not at all anxious to see the Civil Service of the Government, as at present established, extended to all appointments in India. The Government hero ought to consider what appointments should be confined to the Civil Service, and what should be thrown open to Natives. Claims for opening the Civil Service had always been made by Governments in the name of the Natives; but when the power of making the appointments was given it was not exercised for their benefit, but in favour of Englishmen who had the command of influence in the local administration. That was the difficulty with which the House had to deal. Ministers always said they were desirous to promote those whose claims were of the highest character; but no such considerations influenced them in the actual exercise of their power. It was used according to motives of which it seemed impossible for men to divest themselves in the discharge of their public duty. The House should take care that it did not open a new field for corruption. He would express no opinion on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; but, if he put forward claims on behalf of the Natives of India, there should be some guarantee given that the appointments should be open to merit, and that they should be given to Natives, and not to English adventurers, who set up comparisons between themselves and the covenanted civil servants, and complained that they did not receive the same compensation. If Englishmen were wanted to administer the affairs of India, they should be sent from this country in a regular manner; but if Natives were employed, they should be paid on a scale suited to them. The scale of remuneration to a Native of India was not more than one-fifth or one-sixth an Englishman would receive for discharging the same duty; and if the scale of salaries were fixed on this consideration it would, he thought be a strong guarantee that none but Natives would be appointed to the posts. He did not wish then to express any opinion on the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, which was one of considerable detail; but every one must feel that the course he had taken was intended to improve the public service, and was, therefore, so far deserving of sup port.

thought the House could not be too vigilant and cautious in considering measures of this kind, which, whether for good or for evil, must have a most important effect on the welfare of India, and he would be sorry, therefore, that the Bill should pass without full discussion. As reference had been made by his right hon. Friend to the part which he (Lord Stanley) took in the regulation of the Civil Service of India, he felt bound to take his own share of the responsibility which belonged to the preparation of this measure. Shortly after the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown an inquiry was instituted into the covenanted and the uncovenanted Civil Service; the opinion of the law officers of the Crown was taken; and he (Lord Stanley) then came to the conclusion that it was impossible to continue the exclusive privileges of the covenanted service as they had hitherto been kept up; and when his right hon. Friend became Minister for India, he ventured to sketch out the plan which he had in preparation on that subject. The plan which he was then about to introduce was nearly identical in principle with that which his right hon. Friend now brought forward. As to legislation on the past appointments in India that was a question on which the House had hardly any choice. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had expressed doubts whether they were illegal. But that doubt was not shared by the law officers of the Crown; and when grave doubts were raised as to the legality of so many past Indian appointments, he thought they were bound to lose no time in legalizing them and removing those doubts. As to the future, he did not think it was now worth their while to consider whether it was possible to return to the system constituted by the Act of 1793. He thought to any one acquainted with all that had taken place in India during the last twenty years, such a proposition would appear to be simply impossible. Since that time a great number of appointments had been created, and thrown open, in consequence of the insufficient number of covenanted civil servants and the enormous increase of expense which would be necessary if the covenanted service were increased in proportion. As far as these appointments were concerned, the service had been practically opened and must remain so. The practical question before the House now was, whether they would admit persons not of the covenanted service into those higher offices from which up to the present time they had been excluded. On that subject there might be said to be three different opinions. There was first the opinion of a considerable number of the members of the covenanted service, that their exclusive privileges in respect to these offices ought to be maintained. That, for reasons which he would give, he thought to be impossible, and, therefore, it was unnecessary for the pre-rent to discuss that view. There was next the opinion that a service with exclusive rights and privileges was unnecessary, and that all appointments should be thrown open; but that was a plan which, in the present state of things, he believed would lead to serious evil. It would create a vast amount of Parliamentary patronage, and special qualification for Indian duty would be neglected in the choice of Indian servants. Third, there was a combination of the two plans, on a principle like that contained in the present Bill, by which the covenanted service would, indeed, be maintained in practical possession of its present rights and privileges, without wholly shutting the door to others who fulfilled certain conditions of qualification. As to the maintenance of the covenanted servants in their present position, he believed, as he had said, they would find that it could not be done. The feeling of the Natives, and still more the feeling of the European residents, was such as to render the maintenance of an exclusive civil service impossible. It was not so much that any individual felt aggrieved at his own personal exclusion, but that the feeling of each was that he belonged to a class which by the law of India was not allowed to aspire to the conduct of the higher offices of the State; that was a position in which Europeans, at least, would never acquiesce. Again, it was impossible to say to members of the uncovenanted service, that, however useful and efficient they might be, there should be a limit beyond which they might not pass. Upon the whole he believed, with the right hon. Gentleman, that all the privileges of the Civil Service ought not to be swept away, but that energetic men now excluded from it should be encouraged to consider themselves as possible members of that body. This would put an end to the feeling of envy with which the covenanted service was at present, not unnaturally, regarded. In this settlement of the question there were, no doubt, two dangers to be guarded against; one was the danger of so diminishing the value of appointments to the Civil Service that men of intelligence and ability would no longer be induced to enter it; and you would thus be compelled to raise other men less intelligent and less able to a position in life to which they were not equal; the other, and the more pressing danger of the two, was that an opportunity would thus be given to the Governor General and other persons in high authority to raise their own friends and dependants to office to the exclusion of those who had gone through the training necessary to fit them for those stations. But these were dangers which might be guarded against, and he thought the securities provided in the Bill of his right hon. Friend were sufficient. In the first place, there was the term of residence in India which was required as a qualification. A Governor General rarely stayed in the country longer than seven years, so that by this provision he would not have the power of appointing any of his own friends, and it was not likely he would go out of his way to perpetrate a job in favour of the friends of his predecessor. Then the requirement of a knowledge of the language of the district to which an appointment was to be made did, though in a less degree, give a security that unfit men would not be chosen. He did not know if these securities were to be inserted in the Bill itself; if not, they ought to be. These were matters of too great practical importance to be left to be dealt with by regulations which were continually liable to change. There was a third security, and he thought it the best of all. Supposing an appointment to have been made from nepotism, and in special favour of some individual, it was not likely that the Secretary of State for India would be willing to take the discredit of recommending the appointment for confirmation; and, if he did, it could not be reasonably supposed that a majority of the Indian Council would confirm if. Appointments would require the threefold sanction of the Governor General, the Secretary of State, and the Indian Council. If these securities were not sufficient, he knew not what would be. They were certainly stronger than any securities that at present existed. But what the House had chiefly to consider was whether the injury done to the members of the Civil Service would not be more than compensated by the increased security and popularity of the service itself to which the European residents in India would now be encouraged to look, instead of its being one from which they felt themselves hopelessly excluded. Under ordinary circumstances he would have reserved his opinion of this Bill till the second reading; but on this occasion, as he had some responsibility in framing it, he thought himself bound to take the earliest opportunity of expressing his opinion in its support.

was somewhat amused that, after sixty-eight years' breach of the law, there should be so much anxiety to satisfy the minds of people in India on that point. The Act was, no doubt, passed to prevent jobbery and corruption, and he agreed that too many securities could not he taken against those evils; but these appointments were in so good hands that there could be little doubt that every care would be taken to guard against anything of the sort. He did not object to the Civil Service being thrown open to all comers who were properly qualified whether they belonged to the Civil Service or to what were called the "outsiders." But he thought to whichever class they belonged that they ought to be highly remunerated. They collected a large amount of revenue, and as judges they had cases before them involving sometimes half a million of money. They ought, therefore, to be placed above the reach of temptation and suspicion. He had no objection to the principle of the Bill.

agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that of the three Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced this required the greatest caution on the part of the House. It was admitted that the Act of 1793 was introduced for the purpose of preventing jobs; and that that law had been shamefully evaded, and evaded for the express purpose of jobs, which had been carried on in India to an immense extent. He did not say that there were not cases in which the law had of necessity been evaded, as in the case of the non-regulation provinces; but in these cases it was doubtful whether the law applied, and so whether it had been evaded or not. To take the case of the Punjab for example, there were a great number of civil servants required, while there were none of the covenanted servants that could be obtained for the purpose. He had no opportunity of knowing what were the safeguards to which his right hon. Friend referred; but he had no hesitation in saying that some such Bill as the present was necessary in the condition into which the whole system of the Civil Service had fallen.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member that the Act of 1793 had been introduced to prevent jobbing, but he did not agree that it had been so shamefully evaded. The fact was, our Empire in the East had increased without a corresponding increase in the number of civil servants. He believed that in each of the three Presidencies the Governments had been in great straits, at times, for legally qualified persons to fill certain appointments when they became vacant. He believed that the Government had no power to reconsider appointments when once made, and he thought it would greatly facilitate a right understanding of this measure and the necessity for some enactment of the kind, if the Secretary of State would lay upon the table the correspondence which took place a few years ago in the case of Mr. O'Reilly. Independently of all considerations of justice, he thought some such measure was necessary to keep up the efficiency of the public service in India. There was always a large deficiency of public servants in India, and there was always a large number of uncovenanted servants. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had called those adventurers who went out to India to fill the situations which were vacant there; but surely they were perfectly justified in offering their services. The hardship was that this large number of civil servants, who had shown themselves equal in merit to the covenanted service, were debarred from filling the high offices to which their merits entitled them; and this Bill only enacted that a man who had distinguished himself in the public service should be competent to hold the high appointments to which his merits gave him a claim to aspire. As an instance of the injustice of the present state of things, he might mention the case of Mr. Venables, an uncovenanted civil servant, who during the mutiny remained in his district, and, unaided by any covenanted civil servant, exerted himself energetically and successfully. The merits of that gentleman were recognized by the Government, which regretted that it had not the power, because he was uncovenanted, to appoint him to the posts which he was justly entitled to fill. Mr. Venables could not be allowed to administer the affairs in a district in ordinary peaceful times, though he had shown himself able to do so in a time of mutiny, and the highest reward that could be conferred upon him as an uncovenanted civil servant was £1,200 a year. In order that the House might clearly see how the present regulations acted, he should move for the production of the correspondence concerning Mr. O'Reilly; and he hoped that the House would in the meantime agree that it was desirable to adopt means for advancing civil servants of extraordinary merits, and at the same time to adopt precautions against jobbing.

said, that as this country had now assumed the direct Government of India it behoved the House of Commons to be careful that they did not by precipitate legislation produce ulterior evil consequences. A sister Bill to the present one was introduced into the House last year, consisting of one clause only, and which excited very general alarm. That Bill simply proposed to suspend recruiting in the Indian army, and yet it involved the interests of a large service and the position of a large number of officers, who were anything but satisfied with the regulations which that Bill proposed. Although the present Bill was short, yet it might introduce a new principle, and be a departure from those sound principles of good government by which we had so successfully established the British Empire in the East. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with the utmost moderation as to the extent to which he intended to interfere with the Civil Service in India. The Civil Service of India was composed of persons who had devoted themselves from their earliest youth to that service. Having once embarked in that service, no other was open to them; and having entered for those prizes which they looked to attain by long service, it was not fair to let in others over their heads to prevent them attaining that object which had induced them to enter the service, and for which they had exposed themselves to a trying climate and suffered a long expatriation. It would be unjust if the best prizes should be taken by civil servants who had not been entered in a regular manner. In the case of those who since the new regulations for opening the Civil Service to competition had entered the service it would be still more unjust, for it would expose the élite of the youth of this country to the risk of being shut out from the highest prizes by persons who had better influence and more powerful friends in this country. As Lord Macaulay had said, the civil servants of India were distinguished by integrity, disinterestedness, and public spirit, and their just rights should be respected. He agreed with the noble Lord below him (Lord Stanley), that the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman intended to establish ought to be embodied in the Bill. They ought not to be left to the judgment of the Secretary of State, as one Secretary might have different views with regard to them to those of his predecessor. If it was found necessary at home to lay down precise regulations in Acts of Parliament, how much more requisite must it be when we were dealing with the case of a distant empire. The right hon. Baronet had quoted very high authorities, most of whom were de-serious of opening the Civil Service to Natives of India, in favour of his Bill; but he thought that the House ought to have been put in possession of the opinions of the Members of the Council of India on this Bill. A Special Committee of that Council had been appointed to consider this measure, and it was understood that they were not unanimous in their expression of opinion upon it. Some of them saw the danger of placing so much patronage in the hands of the Minister, and required certain safe- guards to be introduced. He thought it was a dangerous principle to introduce a Bill of this kind with a few simple clauses leaving to the Minister of the Crown afterwards to fill in the details in any way he pleased, and denying to the Indian Council the opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject. Unless the right hon. Baronet produced the papers which he had declined to give the other evening, and unless he consented to introduce into the Bill the regulations to which he had referred, he should himself propose clauses which would prevent men being sent from this country to fill places of profit which were now reserved for the civil servants.

asked whether the Secretary of State would introduce into the Bill a regulation requiring every man appointed under this Bill to have a knowledge of Hindustani?

hoped from the speeches which he had heard that the apprehensions which he had entertained with regard to this measure were unfounded, and asked whether the Secretary of State would lay on the table the dissents of the members of the Special Committee which had considered this Bill? The right hon. Baronet had, with reference to the first of these three Bills, moved for Correspondence which in a great degree supported his measure, and he hoped that he would grant him a similar favour with regard to this one.

in reply, said, that it would he absurd to require a man who was to be employed in the Madras Presidency to be acquainted with Hindustani—a language which probably no one else in the presidency would understand. He would, before the second reading of the Bill, which he proposed to fix for that day week, consider the propriety of introducing the regulations into the Bill. He did not think it desirable to produce the Reports of Committees of the Council made to the Secretary of State. If the House insisted upon the production of such Reports, the only result would be that the Secretary of State would never appoint a Committee. He might, however, repeat what he had before stated, that he introduced this Bill with the general concurrence of his Council.

was understood to say that the dissents which were to be produced to the House were such as were prepared by members of the Indian Council in cases in which they dissented from the decision of the majority of the Council, or from that of the Secretary of State, if he overruled the majority.

inquired when the right hon. Gentleman intended to take the discussion on the Bills?

said, he would fix the second reading for that day week.

complained that one of the clauses would have the effect of extending hawkers' licences to a new class of persons. The words were "any tradesman or person who went to ask for an order for goods;" and, although commercial travellers and agents were specially exempted from the operation of the Act, it might be argued that shopkeepers themselves fell within the definition.

said, the law of hawkers was one not easy to construe and apply. The intention of the Bill was not to interfere with the established practice except in one particular case. That was the case of persons who, being hawkers in every other respect, yet escaped the licence tax through selling their goods by sample. The clause would not extend to any person who had a shop.

said, that the words of this clause were so loose that they might make the counsel who was instructed to draw a lease liable to a penalty of £20 for not presenting it with the proper stamp to the parties who were to sign it.

said, the words to which objection was taken were, "And also any agent or person who shall prepare or be employed in preparing" the instrument. The intention of those words was to bring within the scope of the penalties of the clause the responsible person employed in the preparation of the agreement and who presented it to the parties for signature. The old principle of the Stamp Laws made attorneys and solicitors who prepared such agreements liable to a penalty for presenting a document to the parties which was not duly stamped. That' was still the law of the land; but it was not usual to sue for these penalties, because the legal profession generally obeyed the law and presented to their clients documents with the proper stamp. But it was well known that house agents often framed these agreements without the intervention of a solicitor; and the object of the clause, therefore, was that the person whose business it was to present the agreement to the parties in order that it might be executed should be liable to a penalty if he did not present it duly stamped. The words of the clause were, he thought, not too wide, and any court of law would, doubtless, confine them within the plain reason and object of the enactment. No person would be able to sue under this clause except the revenue authorities.

was not aware that attorneys and solicitors were bound under a penalty, as the right lion. Gentleman stated, to see that every deed they prepared was duly stamped, and he should be glad to have the statute containing such a provision pointed out to him. One difficulty was this, that there was nothing to connect the default of the agent with the default of getting the agreement stamped. There was another difficulty, arising from the fact that it was not stamped paper exclusively which was to be used, because adhesive stamps might be applied. On looking at the whole clause, he could not but think that we were going far in the direction of penal legislation with respect to stamps. At present an agreement might be stamp-fid six weeks after signing; but if this clause were passed a person could not sign a paper at the moment without the necessary stamp. The time might be late at night or early in the morning, and the place one at which a stamp could not be procured at the moment; and, therefore, it was going very far to say that a person must not sign the agreement without affixing the stamp. This was an abrogation of the present law for which there was no necessity, because the provision applying to the non-validity of unstamped agree- ments was sufficient for all purposes. It was not necessary that these agreements should be in writing at all, and people ought rather to be encouraged to make use of written agreements, in order to prevent misunderstandings, than be deterred from so doing by legal obstacles such as those now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The House ought not to deal with a question like this as if penalties were matters of course. It was not sufficient to say that the authorities would not be likely to make any undue use of a penal enactment—it was the duty of Parliament to consider very carefully how far there was a necessity for any penalty before it consented to it. He was sorry to say that in this respect the reformed lost by comparison with the unreformed House of Commons. Previously to the Reform Act the Members of the House of Commons felt that they occupied a position in which they were jealously watched by the people, and in which great caution, when dealing with matters like that now under discussion, was necessary on their part; but now it seemed to be very much the custom to have a popular cry, and to pay but little attention to legislative details on subjects to which that cry did not apply. He begged to move as an Amendment to leave out the words, "and also any agent or person who shall prepare or be employed in preparing the same."

thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) applied to the whole clause.

objected to the clause because it imposed the penalty on the person who prepared the document, and not on the offending person who got the signature attached.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not this clause altered the law which permited the stamping of agreements with respect to the six weeks?

was not aware that there would be any alteration in the law of agreement with respect to subsequent stamping.

said, he had not divided in his Amendment in deference to some hon. Members who preferred voting on the clause. He opposed (he clause because it would introduce the singular anomaly of making it penal to do what the law allowed. A letter and its answer constituted an agreement in law with regard to letting apartments, if stamped, and the law permitted the stamping of one of these documents when the transaction was completed. The present clause abrogated that provision by requiring the stamp to be affixed before the agreement was completed under a penalty. Before they passed such a clause they should abrogate the whole law of agreements. He trusted this system of penal legislation would not be persisted in. He thought it most objectionable that the Board of Inland Revenue should have the power of imposing these penalties or not at their pleasure.

said, the clause would impose the penalty of £20 on the second of two parties to an agreement who did not, because he could not, sign on the stamp, simply because the stamp had been already obliterated by the first signature.

observed that precedents of similar penalties were abundant, and they all rested on the principle of this clause. The objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton), indeed, went far beyond the clause, arid was directed against the whole provision of the law which required that documents should be written on stamps. The after-affixing of the stamp was the exception not the rule. In the case of policies of insurance, bills of exchange, promissory notes, proxies, &c, parties were liable to positive penalties for not making use of the proper stamp. It was said that many of these agreements were made by correspondence, and arose constructively out of the effect of correspondence. On that point he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. But with such cases this clause had nothing to do. It was meant to apply, and he was advised that it did apply exclusively to those cases in which formal agreements were drawn, intended to be signed in common by the parties. If words could be devised, unexceptional in themselves, and excluding these constructive agreements, the joint effect of correspondence, in order to make the intention of the clause more clear, although he was advised it was clear already, he should make no objection. He wished to act on the principle on which, they had acted in regard to "bills and parcels, to make a low charge, and to take security by means of a penalty against any evasion of the charge. These transactions were of a very fugitive character, and hardly ever came under the view of any person but those immediately concerned, and there would be no security for the payment of the charge without a penalty.

said, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite right in calling attention to the matter. He objected that where correspondence was going on, and the person letting apartments consented to accept the proposal, the agreement being thus made, by this clause the person sending the letter would be rendered liable to a penalty for not writing on a stamp. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn.

said, that half the transactions in life were matters of correspondence, and if a memorandum were made, and a penalty, enforced because it was not stamped, it would be introducing quite a new law, which would be carried out into all the other descriptions of stamps. It appeared to him that this was a matter of very grave consideration. If a difference arose which had to be settled in a court of law it was usual to get such agreements stamped on paying the penalty, in order that they might be available as evidence; but there was nothing to compel people to stamp such agreements, if they did not wish to do so. If he understood the clause aright there was to be a penalty imposed if an agreement was not stamped, whether the parties wished to use a stamp or not. This was introducing a new state of things which might prove very serious indeed. He wished to know whether it was intended to enforce the penalty if the memorandum was not subsequently required to be stamped?

said, that by the old Stamp Laws a deed could be stamped on payment of the penalty and brought into Court for examination, but the Court took no notice of the previous omission of the stamp. Now, however, the Court took judicial notice of the want of a stamp, and inflicted an additional penalty. This, he thought, gave sufficient protection to the revenue. The effect of the clause might be to encourage verbal contracts, and thus the revenue would rather suffer by it than otherwise. The whole of the circumstances had evidently not been taken into consideration by the advisers of the Inland Re- venue, because it was clear that it would make almost every letter a constructive agreement. He thought the clause should be withdrawn.

said, that there was no other case in which an immediate penalty was inflicted when liberty was given to the parties to stamp the agreement afterwards. The penalty which was inflicted upon the parties for not obliterating stamps was quite sufficient to meet the case.

said, that he was quite prepared to amend the clause by inserting words to this effect, "provided that nothing herein contained should be considered to render persons liable to a penalty on account of any letters or correspondence by post, containing proposals for the letting or taking of a house." He must say that if the objections to this clause were so strong as to ensure its rejection, he must also drop the clause which provided for the reduction of the duty, taking his chance of getting the present high duty where he could upon agreements for letting houses.

stated that the Proviso could not be added unless the Amendment were withdrawn.

said, that he would bring it up at a subsequent stage.

Sir, I wish, before the House goes into Committee, to address to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given him private notice in writing. I think it, in the first place, due to myself to say that I had no wish to intrude on the attention of the House in the early part of the evening—[previous to the postponement of the Orders of the Day]—and that n rising then I simply desired to give the noble Lord intimation that it was my desire to suit his convenience in drawing attention to the subject to which I am about to advert. The Speaker, however, having, in the courteous discharge of the duties of his office, called me to order, I at once gave way, and, though I am reluctant now again to trespass on the time of the House, yet I am quite sure hon. Members will perceive, from the contents of a letter which, with their permission, I will read to them, that the question to which it relates is one deserving of serious consideration, affecting, as it does, not one, but 700 of our fellow-countrymen in a foreign land. The inquiry which I have to address to the noble Lord is, What steps, in consequence of a pledge which was given some nights ago by the Prime Minister, have been taken by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the religious persecutions to which British merchants, 700 in number, resident in the South of Spain, are subjected, notwithstanding the assurances that indulgence would be extended towards them which have been received by the noble Lord from the Spanish Minister? I wish also to learn whether the noble Lord has any objection to lay on the table copies of any Correspondence on the subject which may have passed between the English Government, their agents in Spain, and the Spanish authorities? Now, it will be in the recollection of the House that I put a question about three weeks ago to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, with regard to the outrages which have been committed with the official connivance of Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Xerez, against a number of British subjects resident within the official district of the Consulate of Cadiz. The noble Lord at the head of the Government gave upon that occasion an explanation of that satisfactory nature to be expected from the frankness of his character; but I received a letter only yesterday from the South of Spain, on behalf of a numerous body of merchants, informing me of facts of which I was not before aware. We were told by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the 17th of April last, that the Spanish Minister had given assurance that every indulgence would be extended to the British merchants and families resident in the south of the Peninsula; but I did not then know that which I can now affirm, that those merchants were in possession of direct and positive authority from the British Minister at Madrid, to hold the services of the Church of England in their own houses in that part of Spain. It appears, however, that, in direct violation of the sanction thus given, this privilege has been withdrawn, and I feel assured I do not ap- peal in vain to the House of Commons when I ask them whether the fact that 700 of their fellow-countrymen are forbidden, not only in the Consul's house, but in their own private residences, to pursue the exercise of that religion which is the faith of the country to which they belong, is not one which calls for some expression of opinion on their part? The information which I have received shows, I regret to say, that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not acted up to the assurances which were given us by the Prime Minister, because, up to the 27th ult., no proceedings had been taken on this subject by our Minister at Madrid or the Consul at Cadiz, so far as I am informed from credible sources, in consequence of any despatch received by them from the Foreign Office. I will now, if the House will allow, read the letter to which I have alluded, which has not been got up for the purpose, of creating a fictitious sympathy, but which comes from an honest English merchant, representing a large number of his fellow-countrymen. The letter is as follows:—

"Xerez do la Frontera, May 27.

"Up to the present Mr. Brackenbury has received no communications either from the Foreign Office or from the British Legation at Madrid as regards this case; and, consequently, he does not feel himself justified, as I learnt from an interview I had with Mr. Brackenbury yesterday, in referring to the British Government the whole case as it stands. It may be interesting for you to know that by the late census we have under our Consul's district (Mr. Brackenbury's) no less than 700 British subjects—namely, 400 males and 300 females—all of whom are deprived of the services of our Church. A large number of these are families of engineers, with young families, among whom our late curate had commenced a steady and useful work, by devoting three days in each week to visiting them and teaching the young children. Were Mr. Vice-Consul Gordon to allow us protection of our flag, all might go well. In this hope I address you."

Now, it is, I contend, rather too bad of the noble Lord, who can exert himself actively enough in party and political squabbles, to neglect in this respect the duties of the office which he is charged to administer. Those merchants whose cause I am pleading are surely entitled to some respect, and the noble Lord must be aware that the reports, as well from our Minister at Madrid as from our Consuls in other parts of Spain, clearly prove that a system of persecution is carried on in that country to an intolerable degree, not against Spaniards only—of them I will say nothing now—but against our own fellow-subjects, who expect to be supported by the British Government in the enjoyment of those privileges which they are unquestionably entitled to exercise. In finding fault with Vice-Consul Gordon, I am happy to be able to say that he is an exception to the general practice pursued by our representatives in Spain. For example, our Vice Consul at Seville is a Roman Catholic.: Nevertheless, his drawing-room is open to British residents in that city—and there is a large glass factory there in which numbers of Englishmen are employed—for the purposes of Divine service. Another of our Consuls has actually fitted up a chapel for the celebration of the services of the English Church. Yet, notwithstanding these examples, Vice Consul Gordon forbids our fellow-countrymen within his jurisdiction not only to enter his house but to exercise the rites of their religion under the British flag. This is a case, Sir, which it clearly becomes the House of Commons carefully to consider. I do not mean to trespass upon the time of lion. Members now by entering into further details with respect to it, but I would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he would seriously direct his attention to a matter which these merchants whose cause I am advocating declare to be of vital importance to them—namely, that facilities for holding Divine service on the Sabbath should be afforded them—a privilege, with an earnestness with which we must all sympathize, they maintain to be of as much importance as the free exercise of civil rights. I trust the noble. Lord way be able to give us some assurance that the severity which has hitherto been resorted to in the case of those gentlemen is likely to be abated, and that the promises' of greater indulgence in their regard given by the Spanish Minister may be carried into effect.

The hon. Baronet has come down to the House, and, without any notice to me that he was about to make such a charge as the present—

I wrote to the noble Lord.

In the evening, after I came into the House.

The noble Lord was not in his place yesterday or the day before.

That is true, but the usual mode of proceeding is to give notice in the Votes. The course, however, which the hon. Baronet took was to inform me about five o'clock this evening that he intended to introduce to the notice of the House the question of the persecution of the Protestants in Spain, giving no intimation of his intention to bring the charge against mo that, my noble Friend at the head of the Government having given a pledge that certain matters should be inquired into and certain grievances as far as possible redressed, I entirely neglected to do anything towards redeeming that pledge.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon—

That was the hon. Baronet's statement.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I said was this, that the communication to which I referred was written to me from Cadiz on the 27th of May; that the writer stated he had, on the previous day, seen Consul Bracken-bury, who informed him that up to that time he had received no communication on the subject from either the British Minister in London or the British Legation in Madrid; and, therefore, I think I was justified in saying that the noble Lord had not paid that attention to the matter which I was led to believe he would have given to it.

I have no doubt that when the gentleman wrote the letter he thought Mr. Consul Brackenbury had not received a communication; but the hon. Baronet is hardly entitled to say that I entirely neglected the matter. The fact is that, my noble Friend having informed me what had passed in the House, I examined and considered the papers relating to the subject, and immediately took steps to remedy the evil complained of. Those steps were taken a very few days after the hon. Baronet had put his question. It is quite true, as the lion. Baronet has stated, that Mr. Gordon, our Vice Consul, had acted quite unjustifiably, because though, being a Roman Catholic, he would not allow his house to be used for Protestant worship, yet when the British merchants and inhabitants pointed out another person, a British merchant, as being willing to give up his house for that purpose, Mr. Gordon said that that proceeding would be against the law of Spain—that Protestant worship was only permitted in Spain under the flag and in the house of the Consul or Vice Consul, and that he could not be a party to such an infraction of the lair as was suggested. I make some allowance for Mr. Gordon saying that he did not choose to have Protestant worship in his own house, but then I think he was bound to give every facility for the performance of Protestant worship elsewhere. Sir Andrew Buchanan, when this letter came to his knowledge, suggested to Mr. Brackenbury that it would be well, as Vice Consul Gordon felt bound by his conscience not to allow Protestant worship in his house, for him to point out some other person who would act as vice consul without having the same scruples in respect to the service of the Church of England. That letter was written some months ago, but Vice Consul Gordon did not offer any resignation of his position. What I did after reading the correspondence was this—I wrote to Mr. Brackenbury, desiring him to point out some fitting person to act as Vice Consul at Xercz, and I ordered that proper communications should be prepared in order that an exequatur might be obtained from the Spanish Government for the person so appointed. It is quite true that a short time elapsed before this was done, for owing to a multiplicity of business the matter escaped my notice; and, therefore, it is quite possible that Mr. Brackenbury might not have received it up to the 27th ult. But as soon ns I receive from Mr. Brackenbury the name of a fit person to act as Vice Consul at Cadiz I shall immediately apply for an exequatur for him. I think this but fair, because, considering the circumstances in which not only Protestant but Roman Catholic vice consuls have allowed Protestant worship to take place, there appears to be some peculiar hostility to the celebration of Protestant service on the part of Mr. Gordon. With regard to what has been taking place of late years in Spain, Sir Andrew Buchanan, who has been some time in Spain, does not share in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet. Sir Andrew Buchanan says that, so far as the Spanish Government are concerned, they do not wish to execute the law in a manner at all oppressive and injurious to British merchants; and he mentions as an instance, that when Lord Howden was at Madrid, that noble Lord wrote word that in consequence of the exertions of my noble Friend near me (Viscount Palmerston) who was then Secretary of State he had obtained permission for the formation of a cemetery at Madrid, where Protestants might be buried; but it was cautiously provided that there should be no procession, and that the clergyman should not wear his surplice or other ecclesiastical habit; whereas, shortly after his: appointment as Envoy, there took place at Madrid the funeral of a Protestant, followed by a procession of a great number of persons who had known the deceased, and a Protestant clergyman, wearing his surplice, performed the funeral service; and this, Sir Andrew Buchanan thinks would not have been allowed several years ago. I will not enter further upon the general question, but when I receive a letter from Consul Brackenbury, and the Correspondence is complete, I will produce the papers, and the hon. Baronet will then be able to judge of the case from a knowledge of all that has passed.

I do not mean in any way to cast any imputation upon the noble Lord, but I wish to point out that as it takes only five days to communicate with Cadiz, and four weeks have elapsed since the answer of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was given, I thought upon the receipt of this letter of the 27th May that the noble Lord might in the hurry and flurry of political discussions have forgotten the subject. But I wish to make this further observation—perhaps by way of explanation—with respect to the statement of the noble Lord, that in Lord Howden's time there was a certain amount of liberty of conscience allowed to Protestants, that since that time laws have been passed abolishing all that took place in Lord Howden's time.

What I said was that Sir Andrew Buchanan had stated that, whereas in Lord Howden's time certain things were not permitted by Spanish law and by the Spanish Government, some of these things were now permitted.

said, that the lion. Baronet the Member for Tarn-worth had referred to a subject affecting 700 British subjects in Spain; but the subject to which he now wished to call the attention of the House referred to thousands of British subjects in this country, and involved a case of much greater oppression and religious persecution. He was told that quite close to that House there stood the Tothill Fields Prison; and in that prison, as in all others, the unfortunate Roman Catholic inmates were debarred from all religious worship, and that a priest was not allowed to minister to them. Some months ago the Roman Catholic clergyman was allowed to meet the Roman Catholic inmates of Tothill Fields Prison in a cell, a dozen at a time. The privilege was afterwards extended, and the Roman Catholic clergyman was allowed to meet them altogether in a corridor; but, as that arrangement was considered to interfere with the discipline of the prison, the clergyman was again obliged to address them in batches of ten or twelve. This privilege was afterwards withdrawn, and he could not blame the prison authorities, as the Solicitor General had given it as his deliberate opinion that, according to law, the Roman Catholic clergyman could only address the prisoners individually. He hoped the hon. Baronet would succeed in his object; but he thought that when their attention was called to the grievances of British subjects abroad, they ought also to look a little at home. He hoped the hon. Baronet would assist in relieving his own countrymen confined in English prisons from this sort of religious persecution.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it was to be regretted that his co-religionists were deprived of the services of their priests, and especially that their unfortunate position prevented them from attending their regular places of worship; but there might be good reasons for this, which did not at all apply to the case of the Protestants in Spain, which had called forth the remark. Prisons were places intended for reforming criminals; and as he had not been contradicted, and could not be contradicted, in the statement which he made the other night, that Roman Catholic priests were enjoined, as part of their religious duty, to teach contempt and disobedience of the laws of this Protestant land, and which duty they were often known most zealously to perform, it appeared natural enough that the poor prisoners while under the public charge should he saved from the risk of such teaching. Add to which, if Roman Catholics could demand admission for their priests, every person of every other denomination of Christians could, with far more reason, demand like admission for their spiritual teachers. Moreover, Roman Catholic priests also almost invariably attempted some proselytism or some breach of the law if admitted within gaols or workhouses, and no wonder, for it was their positive duty to violate rules which prevented their effecting what they believed to be for the good of their Church. Thus, in addition to the general difficulty of admitting ministers of any creed to gaols, there was a special objection to the Roman Catholic priest.

said, he believed it was not the case that Roman Catholic inmates in Tothill Fields Prison were debarred from religious worship. He would, however, inquire into the facts, and if the hon. Gentleman would give notice and ask him a question on the subject he would be prepared to state exactly what the facts were; and he would ask his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to give his legal opinion on the subject.

said, that having been a visiting magistrate for twelve months at Tothill Fields Prison, he could state that during that time no complaint had been made by the Roman Catholic prisoners that they were deprived of the opportunity of religious instruction.

said, that the other night he called the attention of the House to the price paid by the Government for anchors. He then showed that the Admiralty were paying three times more than the market price for anchors, and that the contract for anchors had been for twenty years in the hands of one firm, and was not open to competition. Since then he had received a letter from a large manufacturing firm of iron chains and anchors in the north of England, stating that the Spanish Government were paying them £20 per ton for anchors less than the Government were paying, and that these anchors were to be exactly the same as the Admiralty anchors, and to be proved by the same tests. They further stated a fact of which he (Mr. Lindsay) was certainly not aware before; and this only showed the advantage that was gained by discussions in that House. It was this: that the contracts for chain cables as well as for anchors were not thrown open to public competition, but were placed in the hands of a particular firm. He hoped the noble Lord would state what were the prices that were paid by the Government for chain cables. Out of 792 anchors supplied in 1855 125 were rejected, because they would not stand proof; whereas another firm which had supplied anchors for fifteen years had only one rejected. He wanted to know how it was that that same firm which supplied the anchors had the exclusive opportunity of supplying cables also?

said, he had distinctly told his hon. Friend that the same firm supplied both the anchors and the cables. In 1841 there were two firms which contracted for chain cables and anchors as well as Mr. Lennox Brown. Those firms had since failed, and since then Mr. Brown alone had supplied them. He would now state that if any firm would make a proper offer to the Admiralty they would be prepared to consider it, both as regarded anchors and cables. The prices charged by the present contractors were occasionally revised, according to the market prices of the day, and, therefore, it was not fair to say that the Admiralty were paying at an excessive rate for their anchors and cables,

expressed an opinion that the wording was too vague, and asked how it was intended that the commission of "an offence punishable at law" should be proved? Was it by the record of a previous conviction, or by hearsay evidence of some person, who had been told by somebody else, who had heard from the relieving officer that an old woman had informed him that the child had stolen an apple? The description "frequents the company of reputed thieves" was likewise vague and objectionable. These institutions were really doing a great deal of good, and the managers of them would do well not to make the drag-net too wide, otherwise they might raise up some feeling against them.

replied that if the wording of the clause was confined to previous convictions it would limit the operation of the existing law, which conferred on magistrates a power of committing under the Vagrant Act, though, in practice, that power was inoperative, as magistrates felt afraid to exercise it. The definition having regard to "reputed thieves" had been introduced with the same object, of increasing the discretionary power of magistrates. "Reputed thieves" was a phrase having a perfectly recognized meaning in the police courts. But if it is was feared that these words were so loose that they might be used arbitrarily he had no objection to their being altered.

as a magistrate, bore testimony to the difficulty which was felt in administering the existing law.

hoped the clause would be retained in its present shape, as it was very desirable that the class referred to should be brought within the provisions of the Act. "Reputed thieves" were, in fact, very well known characters. Their appearance was as familiar to the police as that of any hon,. Member. If any Gentleman chose to accompany a police-officer to their haunts he could point them out one by one. They were, in fact, as notorious as the leaders of that House.

was glad his hon. Friend had so explicitly stated the operation of the clause. The objection which he felt was levelled precisely at this discretionary power of locking everybody up. He had no doubt the policeman at the door entertained his own opinion of every hon. Member who passed him, and that not in all cases of a complimentary character. Policemen were like mad doctors, who thought everybody mad, and would prove it too, if they were paid for it. He felt sure, if they accompanied a policeman, as proposed, they would hear him say of a good many persons, "That feller ought to be locked up." "As for such a one, he ought to be hanged." How were they to know anything, about "repeated thieves," unless they lived with them? He supposed the fathers and mothers would be "reputed thieves," and would be locked up too.

moved to omit the third paragraph of the clause, "Any child apparently under the age of twelve years that has committed any offence punishable by law or frequents the company of reputed thieves."

said, that those only were to be sent to an industrial school who had been brought within the cognisance of the law. In point of fact, the provision was a mitigation of the present state of the law. The justices would have a discretionary power, and it was not likely that they would send all the children brought before them to these schools. He wished the first part of the clause to be retained, but the other portion might be very well omitted.

supported the Amendment. The Committee had not been told that this was a substitution of industrial for reformatory schools.

said, that children could not be sent to a reformatory until they had been convicted. But they might be sent to industrial schools under this clause, if they had committed an offence punishable by law, which might be felony or even murder.

must remind the Committee that to reject this paragraph would be to destroy the efficiency of the Bill. It was left within the discretion of the justices whether children of this tender age were to be committed for trial or sent to an industrial school. The object of the clause was to withdraw from corrupt influences and from association with reputed thieves children who might otherwise become the inmates of prisons and reformatories.

thought the clause as it stood of great value. Any one familiar with reformatories must have been struck with the small and trifling character of the offences with which the children were usually charged. He considered that these industrial schools would be the proper places for many of these children; they would be kept at a smaller expense, and, therefore, so far from increasing the Estimates would have a tendency towards economy.

said, he thought the Bill offered a premium to crime, inasmuch as a child would only have to commit a crime punishable by law, to be at once provided for by the State, without punishment, and without loss of character. He hoped the clause would be rejected.

thought it worthy of consideration whether the managers of these schools should not come upon the parents for a certain amount where they were able to pay.

thought that the clause gave too large a discretion. It would be better to define the sort of offences with which the magistrate should be allowed to deal.

asked, was the magistrate to convict the child before he could send him to school?

apprehended that the magistrate would not convict unless there was an information laid before him.

observed that, in cases of petty theft, when the offender was brought up by a policeman, there was no information.

said, that there was what amounted to an information in the cases referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, a statement on oath before the magistrate. In the cases to which this clause was intended to apply the magistrate should be satisfied on credible evidence that there had been an offence against the law.

observed that such evidence could only be evidence on oath.

said, that the intention was to avoid the stigma of a reformatory.

thought that the wording of the clause was too wide.

said, that the clause was only intended to apply to children under 12.

suggested that the sum to be paid by the parent should be, not "such as the justice shall think fit," but "sufficient for the child's maintenance at school."

promised that words to that effect should be introduced.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.