of Common Law (Ireland) Bill; the discussion of the
clauses of which, with some formal business, occupied
them during the remainder of the sitting.

On Thursday, June 9th, in reply to questions
respecting the State of the Coinage, Mr. J. WILSON said
that, the demand for gold coin having abated,
arrangements had been made for a very large coinage
of silver, and that the report that there was an
unusual quantity of light gold coin in circulation was
unfounded.

On Friday, June 10th, the adjourned debate on the
Government of India was again resumed. Mr.
BLACKETT said that his main objection to the bill was
that it retained the East India Compmy as an organ
for administering the government of India. He urged
the great tranquillity now enjoyed by India as imposing
the greater obligation upon parliament to approach the
settlement of this question with deliberation. He
contended that the question was not that of the double
government, but of the existence of the East India
Company, distinguished from the East Indian Government,
and he proposed to confine his observations, with
the exception of a few remarks upon the Indian
revenue, to the subject of patronage. After showing
how, in the matter of the abolition of the transit duties,
for which the Court of Directors claimed credit, that
body had in reality paralysed the efforts of the Board of
Control, he insisted upon the strange anomaly of vesting
the patronage of India in the hands of a private
corporation, governing 150,000,000 Asiatics by the
machinery of a joint-stock company, some of the most
experienced Indian statesmen being practically excluded
from its direction by the intolerable humiliation attending
a canvass of the constituency. He urged various
objections against the manner in which the patronage
had been dispensed since the act of 1833, the exclusion
of natives of India from covenanted offices being
contrary, he argued, to the spirit and intention of that act,
and he adduced the instance of Dr. Chutterbutty, a
native educated in England, as exemplifying the
determination of the Court of Directors to resist to the
utmost the fulfilment of a solemn trust. He dwelt
upon the matter of patronage, because it was the only
point in which the court had exercised an absolute and
unlimited control, and which they had distributed, he
said, in a manner most calculated to benefit their own
family connexions, and least calculated to economise the
resources of this country and to strengthen the social
institutions of India.—Mr. T. BARlNG wished the bill
to be introduced, since the doubts which might be felt
upon the subject could be better discussed at a later
stage of the measure, and because he thought there
were evils in delaying legislation. He indicated some
of these evils, which made, in his opinion, immediate
legislation the duty of parliament. He admitted that
the present system of Indian government was an
anomaly, but it had the advantages of having preserved
the connection between India and England, and of
having saved the former from internal discord and
foreign invasion. He desired to see the government of
India in the hands of the Crown, not as our colonies,
the control of which was bandied from one side of the
house to the other, but in conjunction with a body so
constituted as to be independent of political influence,
and not consisting wholly of persons educated in the
Indian services. Whatever might be the defects of the
present system, it could not be denied that the result
had been to produce men of whom any country must be
proud, and his strong feeling was in favour of the
existing machinery, which would continue to exempt
this great question from the blasting influence of party
strife.—Sir H. MADDOCK, on the contrary, considered
that there would be an advantage in delaying legislation,
at least until next year; was convinced that no
disorder would arise from delay, and that the intelligent
part of the native community in India would regard it
as a proof that parliament felt that the subject deserved
more deliberation. He did not, however, oppose the
introduction of the bill.—Mr. Danby SEYMOUR said,
he had never heard such a combination of misrepresentations
as were put forward in the speeches of Sir C.
Wood and Sir J. Hogg, and he read documents in
refutation of statements made by them on the subjects
of the Indian police and the administration of criminal
justice in Bengal and the general character of the
European judges and magistrates. He accused the
present government of dealing partially with this great
question, and the committee of repelling witnesses not
favourable to the East India Company; from a great
variety of authorities he elaborated every dark picture
of the company's rule, reproached Sir C. Wood with
softening its shadows and with omitting all reference to
the condition of the natives of India, which had been
described as "universal pauperism" and "the lowest
state of degradation"; and he deduced from the
Cawnpore Statistics the fact that, in the most favoured
districts, described as the paradise of India, the
allowance to the cultivators was but 2s.1½d monthly
per head. After touching upon the subject of irrigation,
Mr. Seymour read many testimonies as to the imperfect
qualification and the excessive emoluments of the
covenanted civil servants, and concluded by recapitulating
his charges against the company as affording him
ground for asserting that their government had not
been a good one.—Mr Archibald HASTIE observed
that, before the existing system of government of India
was pulled down—a system which had benefitted the
people of that country and the manufacturers of this—
some system should be ready to be put in its place; but no
one who had expatiated upon the evils of the company's
government had suggested a remedy.—Mr. HUME was
of opinion that an attempt to legislate upon this subject
without the fullest inquiry was unsafe. Time ought to
to be given to ascertain where lay the fault of the mis-
government of India, if it really existed. No evil
could arise from postponing legislation, and he deeply
regretted the course taken by the government in a
matter in which, if we took a wrong step, it could not
be recalled. He wanted to know whether the financial
difficulties of India were to be attributed to the Court
of Directors or to the Board of Control, which now
sought to get rid of the check imposed by the court.
He believed that the spirit and intention of the court
was to govern India honestly, wisely, and for the
benefit of the people; yet this body, which he would
strengthen instead of weaken, was now virtually to be
put an end to, while the Board of Control, being
composed of persons unacquainted with India, and its
constitution fluctuating with the vicissitudes of parties,
India would be made a political football. He wanted a
responsible minister for India, with the Court of
Directors as a real check, and publicity, and he
protested against this hasty measure as an injustice not
only to the Court of Directors but to the people of
India. He thought it ought to be opposed at every
stage, as not only unstatesmanlike and uncalled for, but
a mad scheme.—Leave was then given to bring in
the bill.

On Friday, June 10, the second reading of the
Succession Duly Bill having been moved, Sir J. PAKINGTON
said, that he had intended to meet the motion with an
amendment that the bill be read a second time that day
six months, but having consulted his friends, and finding
that they were not then prepared to go on with the
discussion, he should not oppose the second reading,
reserving opposition until the next stage.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after assenting to this
course, explained the intentions of the government on
the subject of the succession tax in the case of corporate
bodies. It had not, he said, been thought right that
corporation property should escape taxation, while private
property was taxed; but a ditficulty arose, from the
circumstance that corporations never die, and therefore
that there was no succession in the case. On consideration,
it was thought best that a commutation should be
made by corporations in the shape of an annual tax,
which, generally speaking, would be sixpence in the
pound on their net revenue. This would not commence
immediately, but for seven years, namely, until the 5th
April, 1869, would be threepence in the pound. As
regarded the different kinds of corporations, he explained
that the municipal bodies would be subjected to a similar
rule as that adopted in the case of the income-tax, and
that while the act would touch their realised property,
that arising from rates and taxes would be exempted.
Trading corporations would not come within the purview