the "Sudder Adawlut: "it is proposed to consolidate
both, and make the Court of Amalgamated Judges
supreme in matters of appeal. Minor courts 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. It is proposed to raise the character,
acquirements, and salary of the native judges.
Towards the close of his speech, Sir Charles Wood
expressed a strong opinion in favour of improving the
education of the natives, as a means of elevating their
condition and moral tone: he believed that it would
not weaken but strengthen our hold upon the empire.
—The only speech which followed Sir Charles Wood's
was from Mr. BRIGHT, in a spirit of hostile criticism;
and the debate was adjourned till Monday.

On Monday, June 6th, Mr. G. H. MOORE adverted to
the recent Resignation of Three Irish Members of the
Government, and the subsequent correspondence on the
subject, which had appeared in the newspapers; and
inquired whether, in the public version of Lord
Aberdeen's letter to Mr. Monsell, the Times was right
in printing that Lord John Russell's sentiments were
not shared by "any" of his colleagues, or the Morning
Chronicle, in printing "many." And in the event of
the latter being correct, he demanded which of the
members of government did share those sentiments;
and he also asked whether votes were only to be looked
to for the future, while opinions might be repudiated.—
Lord J. RUSSELL replied: "With respect to the first
question, I have to state that I have been informed by
Lord Aberdeen that there is an important misprint in
the letter which is given in the Times; that that
misprint consists in stating that certain reasons I gave
in this house on Tuesday last are not concurred in by
'any' instead of by 'many" of my colleagues; and
that the report in the Morning Chronicle is the correct
report. As to which members of the cabinet they are
who share my opinions and who do not share those
opinions, I am totally unable to answer the question of
the hon. gentleman; but I can only say, further, that
Lord Melbourne elsewhere used to say—and I think it
was a very sensible opinion of his—that it was quite
sufficient that members of the government should agree
in the course they pursue, and that it was not at all
necessary they should agree in all the reasons which
induce them "to adopt that course." This reply was
received with cheers and laughter.

On the motion for the third reading of the Income
Tax Bill, a short discussion was followed by a division,
when the third reading was carried by 189 against 55.
Sir F. KELLY moved a clause to reduce the tax upon
incomes between £100 and £200 a-year to 3½. in the
pound, and between £200 and £300 a-year to 5¼d . in the
pound.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected
that this was an invitation to go back to a system which
experience had condemned, and which in principle was
most dangerous.—This clause, after a brief debate, was
negatived upon a division.—Sir F. KELLY moved
another clause, to deduct 5 per cent. from the amount
of the tax paid upon incomes under £400 a-year in
respect of each child of the party paying under twenty-
one years of age, which was likewise negatived.—Sir A.
CAMPBELL moved a clause to allow, in respect of lands,
tenements, and heritages in Scotland, the deduction of
all parochial and county rates and assessments which
are paid by the owner.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER  said, a clause of the same nature, but more
limited, had been already rejected by the house, because
it would unsettle the general structure of the tax, and
upon this ground he opposed the motion.—The clause
was, after debate, negatived upon a division.—Several
new clauses, moved by the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, were agreed to without discussion, and
added to the bill.—Certain verbal amendments were
made in the bill, which then passed.

The adjourned debate on the question of the Government
of India, was resumed by Mr. J. PHILLIMORE. He
enlarged upon the state of the judicial administration
in India, the defects of the system, the inefficiency of
the judges, which rendered the company's courts, he
said, a terror, instead of a safeguard, to the people.
There was one remedy for this state of things, and this
the company had obstinately resisted, namely, the
employment of natives in higher capacities. The
tenures of land, a most important element in this
question, had been passed over too lightly by Sir C.
Wood. The East India Company had assumed the
rights of the proprietor 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
settlement 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 J. HOGG defended
the conduct of the company. 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 admistration of India could be purged of all
political bias. He 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. The estimate for the
year 1852-3 showed a gross revenue of £29,228,252, and
an expenditure of £26,317,526, leaving an Indian
surplus of £2,910,726; after allowing for the tribute to
England, there was still a surplus of nearly £500,000,
including the estimate for the Burmese war, which was
ahont £600,000. The Indian debt had nominally
increased; but of this increase £15,000,000 had been
incurred through the Affghan expedition, which was
not an Indian, but an European war. With reference
to the Indian land tenures. Sir James observed he had
not heard a single argument or objection upon this
subject which he did not find had been better put
forward in minutes and reports at the time when the
different settlements were first made, and he justified
the non-introduction of the village system, adopted in
the north-west provinces, into those of Madras and
Bengal, it being a rude system, suited only to a
primitive state of society. The state of the cotton
cultivation, he argued, was not to be attributed to the
government; the need of foreign capital and
Manchester energy, the demands of the home market, the
interests of the cultivators, who found that grain was a
more remunerative crop, and especially the want of
railroads, tended to check the growth of good cotton.
After a passing allusion to the salt and opium
monopolies, Sir James adverted to the subject of public
works, leading statements of the number of those
works already completed, and the sums expended, and
he then replied to the allegation of Mr. Phillimore, that
natives of India were not sufficiently employed, showing
that they adjudicated ninety-six per cent. of the causes,
that they were appointed deputy collectors and deputy
registrars at high salaries. After describing in glowing
language the social revolutions accomplished in
Mairwara, Candeish, and the Khond country, by reclaiming
and civilising even wild and ferocious tribes, he
concluded by describing the progress of education, of
ecclesiastical establishments, and of moral and religious
facilities throughout British India.—The debate was
again adjourned.

On Tuesday, June 7th, there was No House, a
sufficient number of members not having assembled.

On Wednesday, June 8th, Mr. COBDEN referred to
the "No House" of the previous evening, and
condemned the government for allowing their officials to
keep members out the house.—Lord D. STUART, as a
sufferer, added his complaint, and said that if the
government persisted in such a course, he should bring
forward his motion as an amendment on supply. After
some further conversation, the subject dropped.

The house then went into committee on the Courts