forcible cases had been cited, he could not see that either
religious or personal liberty was in danger under the
present system, as he believed that no person was at
present resident in a convent, without the power to leave
it if she chose, or who needed any protection not
afforded by the existing law. He therefore opposed both
the resolution and the amendment.—Mr. G. H. MOORE
complained loudly of the illiberal feeling manifested
against the catholics by the press, in society, everywhere
in this country, which, nevertheless, professed to uphold
the principles of civil and religious liberty. He examined
the objects of the measure, and condemned it at every
point as unnecessary and insulting. The house then
became clamorous for a division, and the debate was
continued for some time amid great noise and confusion.
Mr. CHAMBERS having replied, the house divided, when
the motion for the second reading was negatived by 207
against 178, but a division was not taken upon the
amendment.

On Thursday, June 23, on the second reading of the
Bill for the Government of India, Lord STANLEY
moved an amendment that in the opinion of the house
further information is necessary to enable Parliament to
legislate with advantage for the permanent government
of India; and that at this late period of the session it is
inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it
disturbs existing arrangements, cannot be considered as
a final settlement. He contended at great length that,
considering the late period of the session, legislation on
so important a subject was altogether unavoidable, even
if delay were desirable upon other grounds. The main
grounds, indeed, upon which delay was desirable, were
that the opinions of the natives of India, and the classes
generally most interested in the measure, had not yet
been fully ascertained. He believed that public opinion
was against the past system of government, and in favour
of some change; but it was impossible to form a just
opinion with regard to the past, or to legislate fairly for
the future, until the most complete information had
been obtained. It was urged on the other side that
immediate legislation—of whatever nature—was the
primary necessity. But he maintained that even the
prompt settlement of the question, desirable as that
might be, was a secondary object compared with its
satisfactory settlement. He examined the arguments
urged against delay, and dismissed them one by one.
He reminded those who feared agitation and rebellion
that there was a large military force in India, and that
there was no Indian nationality; and that, at any rate,
if there was any discontent, a measure of the kind
proposed was not calculated to allay it. With regard to
the measure proposed, he dwelt especially upon the fact
that it is described as temporary, but was yet imposed
for no particular period, and might last for all time.
Proceeding next to examine the provisions of the
measure itself, he referred in the first instance to the
subject of patronage, with regard to which he thought
the amount of reform proposed, besides being wrong in
principle, was altogether disproportionate with Sir
Charles Wood's statement under that head. The
proposed change in the home government he described to
be altogether inefficient. And with regard to both these
heads, the bill had the disadvantage of being neither a
proper measure of reform, nor a measure of continuance,
to give time for such reform to be effected. He came
next to the question of the Indian government,
condemned the policy of carrying on expensive and
exhausting wars; and showed their effect upon the revenue of
the country. He traced the effect of those wars in the
small amount expended upon public works and other
useful objects. He then alluded to the system of judicature
as calling for reform, and to the subject of education,
as even more particularly demanding the attention of
the Indian government. With regard to that government
itself, he admitted that it had been in many
respects successful, but still maintained that there was
much in its administration during the last twenty years
that called for inquiry.—Mr. LOWE answered Lord
Stanley's arguments. He maintained that there was
ample time to discuss the measure this session; and he
argued, from the present state of India, and of the
surrounding states, that immediate consideration of the
question of our Indian government was called for.—Mr.
PHINN opposed the bill, because it was not the "large,
liberal, and substantial" measure that the country
expected, and had a right to expect. He considered
that the responsibility of the government of India should
rest with the crown, instead of being entrusted to
irresponsible bodies, which resolved the authority into that
of a mere plutocracy. He condemned the bill generally,
as failing to provide for those important reforms which
he believed to be necessary, and which he described.—
Sir R.H. INGLlS made various objections to the bill; that
it proposed to legislate for an indefinite period; that it
destroyed much of the substance of the present system
without providing an adequate substitute; and that it
altered the constitution of the government. At the
same time he believed that delay was not necessary, and
might be dangerous; and on that ground he opposed the
amendment. He hoped that the bill would be proceeded
with at once, with such alterations as the wisdom of
parliament might suggest. All that the house had to
do was to provide for India a good form of government,
and leave it for the Executive at home and in India to
work out and fill up the details.—Mr. Henry BAILLIE
considered that it was desirable to settle the question
this session, but that it was still more desirable that the
settlement should be permanent, whenever it took place.
Under all circumstances, he did not consider the demand
for delay unreasonable.—Mr. HERRIES, in a speech of
great length and deliberate minuteness, expressed
himself in favour of immediate legislation; and though he
made many serious objections to the bill, yet he
preferred it to the amendment. The debate was then
adjourned.

On Friday, June 24, the debate on the Government
of India, was resumed. Mr. HUME spoke in favour of
the amendment. Mr. MACAULAY, in a powerful speech
supported the second reading of the bill. It is no
objection to the bill (he contended) that it is not final—
it ought not to be final; it should be a large but cautious
step in the path of progress. The improvement of the
Indian Government in England is comparatively of
small importance; the great thing to be done is to
improve the administration in India; for India must be
governed there, and not here. Every measure of which
history will hereafter make mention has been taken
without authority from the Home Government. Thus,
reprimands from home followed the step taken in 1835
on the subject of Native education, the abolition of the
transit-duties, the removal of the censorship from the
press, and the making the coinage uniform. Upon the
civil servants, from the governor-general down to the
revenue-collector, depends the happiness or misery of
the natives;—"you may read (said Mr. Macaulay), the
character of the collector in the eyes and garb of the
population. As to patronage, if the governor-general
were allowed to nominate the civil servants, the most
monstrous age of jobbing the world has ever seen would
commence. And because the plan proposed by the
bill will fill the service with fit and superior men by the
plan of competition, Mr. Macaulay was earnestly
desirous it should pass without delay. He replied to
the arguments of Lord Ellenborough on this subject;
and cited a host of cases—among them that of Lord
Ellenborough himself—to show that men who have
shone in early academic examinations will most likely
retain their superiority. He argued that the civil
service must always be a close service; that the
defects of the judicial department would be best
remedied by the operation of the bill, which will raise
the character of the service generally; and that it
provides the best kind of admission for Natives who
can compete successfully against European candidates.
Controverting Lord Ellenborough's views with respect
to the effect of education on the natives, he said—"We
shall not secure or prolong our dominion in India by
attempting to exclude the Natives of that country from
a share in its government, or by attempting to
discourage their study of Western learning; and I will
only say further, that, however that may be, I will
never consent to keep them ignorant in order to keep
them manageable, or to govern them in ignorance in
order to govern them long."—The debate was carried
on in favour of the amendment by Mr. BLACKETT, Mr.
OTWAY, and Mr. ADDERLEY. Mr. Adderley, however,