penalty to the offender and an example to others, without shocking the feelings of the community, and at the same time to combine reformation with punishment. Hitherto our colonies had enabled us to make transportation beyond the seas one of our secondary punishments, but this resource having now failed-the feelings of the colonists revolting against being brought into contact with our criminals, and a great event having changed the condition of our Australian colonies-the system must be altered. The first result to which the Government were led was the necessity of ceasing to transport offenders to the colonies, except a small number to Western Australia, and the Bill proposed to empower the courts to alter the sentences. It was proposed that after a certain period of preliminary imprisonment the offender should be capable of receiving a ticket-of-leave in this country, liable to be revoked. He thought that, with regard to a great portion of those who were sentenced to transportation, reformation was by no means a hopeless object, and every effort would be made to accomplish it. When those persons who had conditional ticketsof-leave were to be released, the grave question arose, where were they to go, and how were they to be employed? He had every reason to believe that means would be found of giving all these persons employment upon the public works, apart from the convicts, at suitable wages, from which occupation, without a stigma, they might slide into the ordinary avocations of honest industry. The charge for providing additional accommodation would be borne by the public, but, as the cost of trans porting criminals would be no longer incurred, there would be a very considerable annual saving of expenditure. The whole system must be considered in a great de gree experimental; but he believed that this was the best mode that could be devised to meet the great change to which he had referred. Mr. Walpole concurred in the scheme as a whole, but differed on two points. By the second clause, transportation for a shorter period than 14 years was abolished: it would be better to give the Crown power to commute all sentences of transportation for periods of penal servitude. As the Bill stood, no convicts but those who had committed the gravest offences could be sent to the colonies; but some colonists might desire our convicts, and if the Bill were altered as he suggested, that would enable the Crown to send convicts to any colony desiring it. He also suggested, that where a man, after remission, again commits an offence similar to that for which he has already been punished, he should receive the next higher punishment. If they looked to the reports upon the subject they would find that the system of employing criminals upon public works had not only proved highly beneficial to the convicts themselves, but had also contributed to the lasting advantage of the country. cost of transportation was little short of 200,000l. a year, including the expenses incurred in the colonies; the cost of the prisoners at home was also very great, but the works at Portland paid themselves at the present moment, besides producing a noble harbour; and he was satisfied that if similar works were prosecuted in other The parts of the kingdom, great public good would accrue to the country, and great progress would be made in the improvement and reformation of criminals. In the year 1849, the profitable labour at the works at Portland produced upwards of 17,000l.; in 1850, it produced 14,000l.; in 1851, 20,541l.; during the past year the earnings of the convicts had exceeded the cost of the establishment, and there was no reason to doubt that, wherever the same facilities existed for the employment of offenders, the same results would follow. Sir John Pakington complained of the course taken by the Government in bringing forward this measure at a time when it could not be discussed. There should have been a full discussion. He hoped Ministers had not been too precipitate in abolishing transportation; he had intended to continue it until 1854. The Bill bore evident marks of haste, but on the whole he agreed with its provisions, and should offer no opposition. Mr. Adderly approved of the plan, condemned transportation as a punishment, and expressed his preference for the present proposition over that of Sir J. Pakington. Several other Members approved, and no one opposed, the Bill, which passed through Committee. Upon the 12th of August, on the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill, Mr. Keating adverted to the novel and, as he considered, objectionable principle of granting to convicts tickets-ofleave, which would introduce, he said, in the country a new class of persons, who, although quasi free men, capable of contracting obligations, would be yet in the anomalous position of being liable to have their liberty abridged at the will of a Secretary of State. This part of the plan, he observed, superseded the constitutional functions of the judges, whose sentences the Secretary of State would have the jurisdiction of revising. So far from deterring from punishment, this would produce an opposite effect. He thought these clauses required more consideration, and that they should form a separate Bill, to be introduced next session. Lord Palmerston assured the House that this matter had received the most deliberate consideration from persons competent to deal with the subject, who had thought the system would be attended with considerable advantage. It was believed that, after a period of preliminary imprisonment and employment upon public works, the hope of obtaining a ticket-of-leave would tend to produce reformation and good conduct in order to merit this indulgence. As transportation had ceased, it was very desirable, with a view to reformation, to inspire and keep alive this element of hope. Imprisonment and forced labour would be sufficient for the purpose of example, and, as far as the security of the public went, the proposed system afforded additional safeguards. The liability of the party to have his ticket-of-leave recalled in case of misconduct, and to be cast back upon the prison or public works, would teach him habits of self-control. No new principle was introduced; no new power was conferred upon the Secretary of State. The Crown possessed at present the power of not only remitting, but of mitigating or commuting sentences. Mr. Walpole concurred in the plan of punishment laid down in the Bill, and believed that it would be beneficial. He was convinced, he said, and he showed that there were ample grounds for this conclusion, that the employment of convicts, in the manner proposed, upon public works, would not only have a reformatory influence upon them, but would in time reduce our convict expenditure to a comparatively trifling amount. He insisted, however, upon the essential importance of holding out, as a part of the scheme, a severer punishment to those who should abuse the indulgence conceded to them. After a short discussion, in which Mr. Spooner, Mr. J. Phillimore, Mr. Barrow, Mr. T. Chambers, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Hume, and Sir J. Pakington took part, the Bill was read a third time and passed; it subsequently passed the House of Lords, and became law. 1 CHAPTER VI. INDIA BILL:-Sir C. Wood, on the 3rd of June, in a Speech of Five Hours, introduces his Bill for the Government of India-His Speech — Mr. Bright criticises the Measure, and it is debated for three nights -Mr. J. G. Phillimore condemns the Policy and Proceedings of the Directors-Sir J. Hogg replies and defends them-The debate is continued by Mr. Blackett, Mr. T. Baring, Sir H. Maddock, Mr. Danby Seymour, Mr. Archibald Hastie, and Mr. Hume-Upon the Second Reading Lord Stanley moved an Amendment-He advocates delay until further information is obtained-- He is answered by Mr. LoweA long and important debate ensues, which is continued by adjournment for four nights-Speeches of Mr. Phinn, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Baillie, Mr. Herries, Mr. Hume, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Blackett, Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Otway, Mr. Adderley, Mr. Mangles, Mr. Cobden, Sir J. Graham, Sir H. Maddock, Mr. J. G. Phillimore, Mr. Monckton Milnes, Mr. Hardinge, Mr. Bright, Sir J. Hogg, Mr. Rich, Mr. Cumming Bruce, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Napier, Mr. J. Macgregor, Mr. Digby Seymour, Sir C. Wood, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord John Russell-After a division the Amendment is rejected by 140 against 322— In Committee upon the Bill various amendments are proposed by Mr. Phinn, Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Bright, Mr. Hume, Sir H. Maddock, and Mr. Monckton Milnes.—An anecdote is related by Mr. Bright illustrative of the alleged Corruption of the Directors— Several new clauses are proposed to be added by Sir H. Willoughby, Mr. Hume, Mr. Rich, Mr. J. G. Phillimore, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Vernon Smith-Upon the Bill being considered as amended, Sir J. Pakington moves the insertion of a clause putting an end to the salt monopoly-This gives rise to a debate in which Sir C. Wood, Mr. J. G. Phillimore, Sir J. Hogg, Mr. Hume, Mr. Lowe, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, and others, take part-Upon a division the clause is carried against the Government by 117 to 107-After the addition of clauses moved by Mr. Wigram and Sir C. Wood, and the rejection of others moved by Sir C. Wood, Mr. J. G. Phillimore and Mr. Bright, the Bill is passed.-In the House of Lords the question of the Future Government of India is discussed on several occasions during the Session-Upon the 13th of June a motion by the Earl of Ellenborough for the production of certain correspondence, occasions an important debate-Speeches of the Earls of Ellenborough and Granville, Lord Monteagle, the Duke of Montrose and Marquis of Clanricarde-The Second Reading of the Bill is moved by the Earl of Granville-After a debate, in which the Earls of Malmesbury, Aberdeen, and Ellenborough, Lord Monteagle, the Duke of Argyll, Lords Ashburton and Wharncliffe, 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. HE Tfuture government of India was future government of India was 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. 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, He e where perjured witnesses could got at an anna (14d.) a-head, which 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 |