and the Bishop of Oxford take part, the Bill is read a second time without a division-In Committee upon the Bill, several Amendments are proposed by the Earl of Ellenborough, and rejected; but upon his motion, Sir J. Pakington's Salt Clause is expunged-The Bill, as amended, passes the House of Commons, and becomes law. THE Ministerial measure for the where perjured witnesses could of was got (lit.) a head, which introduced in the House of Commons on the 3rd of June by Sir Charles Wood, in a speech which occupied five hours. He began by bespeaking the indulgence of the House, on account of the paramount importance of the question, which involved the destiny for weal or woe of 150,000,000 of our fellow subjects he then disposed of the appeal for delay by representing that it was unnecessary as regarded information, and in the opinion of Lords Dalhousie and Hardinge there might be danger in postponing legislation. He next proceeded to give a concise account of the results of the administration of India for the last twenty years, premising that it must be judged by different rules from those applied to European government, many of the elements of the question being peculiar to India. He dwelt on the petitions of the Native Association of Madras to show that its statements were exaggerated misrepresentations. The complaints in the native petitions might be comprised under three heads-the administration of justice, the want of public works, and the tenures of land. These three topics he severally considered. With reference to the first, he dwelt upon the care and labour bestowed upon the penal code which was about to be carried into effect in the Indian territories; he noticed the peculiar circumstances, as well as difficulties, attending the dispensation of justice in India, rendered it a matter of surprise, he said, that it should be administered so satisfactorily as it was. He did not think it could be affirmed that justice, under their own separate laws, was not fairly and impartially administered to the natives of India, who reposed implicit confidence in the integrity of English judges. This inference might be drawn from the results. of the appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the Company's courts in India. The native Judges, too, who now decided a large proportion of the causes, had greatly improved in integrity. He passed to the next head-public works-a subject, he observed, of vital importance not only to the welfare of India, but to the interests of this country, and which was attracting daily more and more consideration, the outlay for that purpose having nearly doubled in five years. Sir Charles read a statement of the roads completed, or in the course of construction, in different parts of India, adverting to the subject of railroads, in the promotion of which, he said, no time would be lost or expense spared, and to that of canals and works of irrigation, which had been increased to such an extent as to render productive 14,000,000 acres of new land. In reviewing the last topic-the tenures of land-a very complicated subject-he discussed the comparative merits of the Zemindary, the Ryotwar, and the village sys tems of revenue settlement, prevailing in the Bengal, the Madras, and the Western Provinces respectively, showing the inexpediency, and the impediments in the way, of establishing either as a universal system; and he examined the subject of cotton cultivation, the success of which, he remarked, depended upon the certainty of a market in this country, which, again, depended upon the price of the American crops. Sir Charles next considered the revenues of India, which were raised almost entirely from the land, the impost not being a tax, but a portion of the rent of the land; the other chief sources of revenue were opium and salt, the last tax being by no means so oppressive as had been represented; the gross revenue was about 26,000,000. In enumerating the results of the last twenty years' administration of India, he noticed the extinction of slavery, suttees, infanticide, human sacrifices, and Thuggee, all of which had been quietly put an end to, contrasting the state of British India with that of India under Mahomedan rule and that of native princes, appealing to the testimony of native as well as European authorities. Sir Henry Elliot, a trustworthy witness, had disproved the boasted superiority of the Mussulman administration of India, even in the matter of public works; while the improved condition of the indigenous peasantry was shown by their increased power of consumption of the necessaries of life. The value of the imports into India had augmented from 7,993,000l. in 1834-5 to 17,313,000l. in 1849-50, or 140 per cent. After adverting to various improvements now in operation for ameliorating the condition - of the Indian people, he admitted that it did not follow from these facts that the existing Government of India was the best that could be devised; but if we were to test a Government by its results, whatever might be its anomalous character, that of India could not be condemned as bad or inefficient. That Government might be regarded under two different aspects -the Home Government and that of India. Against the Home Government it was objected that there was no responsibility, and that the Court of Directors, though a mere fiction, was an obstruction to all good government, owing to the mode of electing the members, their exercise of patronage, and the manner in which the business was transacted. In considering these objections, Sir Charles explained the machinery of the two branches of the Home Government, insisting that he, as the head of the Board of Control, was as responsible to Parliament for the administration of Indian political affairs as the Secretaries of State in their respective departments. He argued that the Court of Directors was no sham, as had been alleged, and that the charge of delay preferred against the double system was groundless, a large portion of the government of India being administered in India itself. He then addressed himself to the question, what should be the form of the future Indian government-whether it should be double, or whether it should be a single authority, administered by a Secretary of State. He examined the proposal of Lord Ellenborough, to substitute for the Court of Directors a council of twelve persons, to be named in the Acta scheme which, in his opinion, would be a double Government under another name; that of Mr. Halliday, that there should be an elected body of twenty-four persons; and the evidence of Mr. J. S. Mill, Lord Hardinge, and Mr. Marshman, more or less in favour of a double Government. He then explained the Ministerial measure. They proposed to have the relations between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors as they stood, but to change the constitution and limit the patronage of the latter. The thirty members of the Court were to be reduced to eighteen, twelve of whom were to be elected in the usual way, and six nominated by the Crown from Indian servants who had been ten years in the service of the Crown or Company, which would obviate the objection, that the best Indian servants would not obtain seats in the Court. One-third of this number were to go out every second year, but to be forthwith re-eligible. This change was to take place gradually; in the first instance, the thirty Directors were to elect fif teen, and the Crown nominate three. The Directors were to receive 500l. a year. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman 1000l. The proposed system of government was to continue until Parliament should otherwise provide. With respect to patronage, which was now entirely in the hands of the Directors, it was proposed to do away with nomination by favour, and to make civil and scientific appointments depend upon merit alone. On this point Sir Charles Wood expressed himself very emphatically. Haileybury and Addisshall be thrown open to unlimited competition. If the aristocracy are able to introduce them combe 66 selves to the Indian service, I shall be exceedingly glad; if the son of a horse-dealer can introduce himself in that way, I shall also be exceedingly glad. Merit, and merit alone shall be the test." But the direct appointments to the Indian army not being fit subjects for competition, would be left as at present in the hands of the Directors. In respect to the Executive Government in India, the principal change proposed was the separation of the Governorship of Bengal from the Governor-Generalship, constituting a LieutenantGovernor of that Presidency, continuing the Lieutenant-Governorship of Agra, and giving power to the Supreme Government to institute a new Presidency in the districts on the Indus. A temporary Commission would be appointed in England to digest and put into shape the draughts and reports of the Indian Law Commission appointed in 1833. As legislation on that digest must take place in India, they proposed to improve and enlarge the Legislative Council, giving the Governor-General power to select two members, the Trade of the Presidencies one each, and making the Chief Justice of the Queen's Court, and one other Judge, members—in all, twelve; the Governor-General to have a veto in their legislation. The education and the examination at Haileybury would be improved by increasing the legal education and conducting the final examinations by independent examiners. The superior Courts were to be improved by consolidating the Courts of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut with the Queen's Courts, the Amalgamated Court being an ultimate Court of appeal, with original jurisdiction in certain cases. Minor Courts were to be instituted in each of the towns of the Presidencies, and the Judges of the Amalgamated Court occasionally employed as a special commission to try causes in any part of the country. They also proposed to raise the character, acquirements, and salaries of the native Judges. Sir Charles Wood, in conclusion, took a rapid survey of native education, and the prospects of Christianity in India. Mr. Bright discussed the Government scheme in a satirical vein of criticism. He objected to it entirely, on the ground of the maintenance of the double Government, which was a mockery and a delusion, and he was convinced that it would not be approved by the whole Cabinet. It was not possible that thirteen sensible gentlemen, with any pretensions to form a cabinet, would agree to a measure of that nature. (Cheers and laughter.) The debate was then adjourned to the 6th of June, when it was resumed by Mr. J. Phillimore, who showed, in an elaborate speech, that the system of Government hitherto maintained in India had not contributed to the welfare of the people of that country. With regard to the exclusion of natives from offices, by the Act of 1833 it was declared, that neither colour, descent, or religion should incapacitate any native from holding office in India; but the Govern ment of the Company had not placed a single native in office who might not have held office before the passing of that Act. With respect to a code of law for India, nothing had been done to codify the law, and the administration of the civil and criminal law was in a frightful state. He quoted from Mr. Lewin's evidence and Mr. Norton's pamphlet, cases of gross oppression on the part of Judges, or arising from the general state of the law. Cases were heard, and judgment was passed without the accused being heard; some Judges were young and incompetent, and unacquainted with the language of the country. He denied that any parallel to this state of things could be found in England; but one might be found in the orations of Cicero when he described the administration of justice in Sicily under Verres. As a consequence of the ignorance of the Judges, perjury and corruption were general; and yet the remedy of employing the natives had not been tried. It was "libellous, impious, and blasphemous" to assert that the people of India were not fit to hold office in their native land. Sir George Clerk described the high caste Hindoos as exceedingly moral, and fitted for the higher offices even of Government. It was all very well for Sir Charles Wood to go back to the time of Akbar for a picture of native government; he might as well have gone to the days of Attila for an account of the Augustan æra. If a Hindoo were to apply the same arguments to us, might he not turn to the seventeenth century, and, misled by the councils of the men who invariably slandered those whose dominions they attempted to confiscate, ask if we had ever heard of Louis, of Catherine of Russia, of Frederick of Prussia, of the incestuous Court of Dresden, of the kidnappings of men from one end of Europe to the other; of their cruel punishments if they fled; or (coming to later times) of the sack of Warsaw, of the partition of Poland, of the crimes which occasioned and the terrors which attended the first French revolution? And, if another Genghis Khan or Tamerlane were to sweep over Europe once more, what would they think if he assigned these events as reasons for not allowing the natives to hold any offices in their own country? The tenures of land, a most important element in the question, had been passed over too lightly by Sir C. Wood. The East India Company had assumed the rights of the proprietors of the land, but had invariably neglected all his duties. Under the Zemindary system in Bengal the native landed proprietary had been reduced to a dead level of misery, and the Ryotwar system had blighted the prospects of the Madras provinces. Condemning in strong terms the general policy and proceedings of the Court of Directors, he appealed to the House whether so enormous a power should be left in such hands. Sir James Weir Hogg defended the Company at great length, and his speech produced a considerable effect upon the House. He rejoiced, he said, that agitation and clamour had done their worst, and brought out everything that could be alleged against the East India Company. He then depreciated Mr. Bright's "speech of shreds and patches, of bits from old newspapers, pamphlets, and magazines.". There was no lack of information extant respecting India, which was not a sealed book; all that was required was industry and application to explore fifty-three large folio volumes. Addressing himself more directly to the question, he urged the necessity of immediate legislation, which was peremptorily demanded, and that delay would tend to disturb the tranquillity of con India, spreading doubt and distrust there. The main question, he agreed with Mr. Bright, was the system of double Government, and it was because he was vinced of the expediency of this system that he supported the motion. So far from the Court of Directors being, as alleged, a mere sham, under the existing system. the practical government of India rested with the Court, under the paramount control of Her Majesty's Ministers; but the great virtue of the double Government consisted in its being the only mode by which the administration of India could be purged of all political bias. Sir James then proceeded to show that the Directors' patronage had been properly distributed; that the emoluments of the Indian civil service were inferior to those in corresponding stations in the general public service; and that India, so far from languishing, had advanced in prosperity-this result being indicated by the large increase of the gross revenue, notwithstanding reductions of duties and taxes, and in spite of fiscal legislation in this country calculated to retard the commercial progress of India. Upon this head, he referred to a variety of returns, disproving, he contended, the conclusions of Mr. Bright respecting the finances of India. The estimate for the year 1852-3 showed a gross revenue of 29,228,252., and an expenditure of 26,317,526l., leaving an Indian surplus of 2,910,7261.; after allowing for the tribute to England there was still a surplus of nearly 500,0007., including the estimate for the Burmese war, which was about 600,000l. The Indian debt had nominally increased; but of this increase 15,000,000l. had been incurred |