rejected what had produced such fruits. In answer to
Mr. Cobden, he said the wars of which complaint had
been made had been caused neither by the home
government nor the court of directors—not by British policy,
but by Indian necessity. It was also, he said, an inherent
necessity with such an empire that the views of its
governors, which were opposed to annexation, should
occasionally change. Vindicating the conduct of those
whom Mr. Cobden had assailed in reference to the
Rangoon affair, he proceeded to say that government
was about to re–introduce a valuable check, namely, an
annual statement on the affairs of India. On the finance
question he showed that, allowing for the balances in
the Indian exchequer, there was only an increase of
£8,400,000 to the Indian debt after the four great wars,
and also that the debt had increased forty per cent, and
the revenue fifty–five per cent, in the same time, with
no increase, but a diminution, of taxation. As regarded
patronage, with every desire to prove malversation, no
proof of it could be obtained, and the system might be
changed, but no better men could be sent out. The
weight of evidence was against the canvass system, but
the bill struck directly at the patronage which fed it.
He characterised the suggested opening of the covenanted
service as a wanton breaking down of a line of demarcation,
reminding the house that it would be impossible to
alter the rule in the civil and not also in the military
service. But the desire of the government, here and in
India, was to introduce the natives into the service of
the state as they should become qualified for admission,
and no consideration of fear should prevent justice being
done them, while no fanciful notions of liberality should
induce changes of an untried character he hoped the
house would consent to the second reading, as there was
every disposition to meet discussion on its details, while
he believed that the rejection of the bill, on the amendment,
would, under the critical circumstances, be most
dangerous.—Mr. BRIGHT was not sure that, even if the
bill were less objectionable, it would not be advisable to
delay it. There could be no doubt that, a short lime ago,
the house, the newspaper press, and, as he believed, the
government, were in favour of postponing legislation—
as was the opinion of India. He did not like the bill
better for having no fixed period mentioned in it; for,
unstatesmanlike as it was, it might have as long a run
as the act which it was to supplant. As regarded
Lord Dalhousie's opinion, it was probable that Sir J.
Hogg, or some one else, had told that nobleman what
sort of a recommendation was desired. He did not
believe any one, in or out of the house, was in favour of
the measure. Of course, all who were connected
with the Company were for immediate legislation, for
they knew that, after two years' delay, public opinion
would make a renewal of their power imposssble.
Delay, he declared, was wisdom. Remarking that
previous speakers on the government side had not
defended the bill, but had thought that in vindicating
the Company's administration of the past they had done
enough in support of a measure for the future, he
entered into a prolonged argument to show that the
Indian government had neither been correct in theory
nor advantageous in practice. He dwelt on the
misery of the peasantry and the internal violence
which was permitted to take place, argued that our
courts produced the perjury imputed to the natives,
characterised the great trunk road as a merely military
and not a commercial one, and showed how comparatively
small was the annual sum laid out in works,
observing that the town of Manchester alone had for
years spent more in its own improvements than had
been spent in India by a government drawing £29,000,000
of taxes and ruling more than 100,000,000 of people. He
hoped to hear from Mr. Macaulay all that could be said
for the bill, and believed he had not been disappointed,
and referring to Mr. Macaulay's description of the
enormous and uncontrolled powers of a collector, he
urged that these afforded an argument why a government
which appointed such men should he theoretically
correct. He demanded why, if soldiers and civil
servants were ready to go out and labour in India for
years, energetic commercial men were not, and the
fault, he contended, must be caused by mal–administration
After some strictures on the financial condition
of India, he proceeded to examine the bill. Assailirg
the principle on which the Indian administration was
founded, he urged that the proprietors had no control
over the directors, the latter had none over the secret
committee, and that again had none over the Board of
Control, nor had the press or parliament any power
over the Indian government, and no bill tending to
continue this mask and subterfuge should receive
anything but the condemnation he bestowed on the
government and on the present measure. The government
had certainly done much to degrade the Court of
Directors by taking patronage from it, and by showing
an opinion that its constituency was unfit to elect all its
members, but no direct responsibility was created as
regarded a minister in that house, and the President of
the Board of Control would shuffle away from Indian
questions as heretofore. He dwelt upon the popularity
which a government direct from the Crown would enjoy
in India. We were losing a great opportunity, and he
was unhappy that the bill had fallen into the hands of
a minister unable to comprehend the importance of the
subject. By passing this bill, we should ignore our
own constitution, and throw mud upon our representative
institutions.—Mr. HARDINGE supported the second
reading, because the bill continued a double government,
and because it proposed immediate legislation.—Sir J.
HOGG repelled the attacks of Mr. Bright, and demanded
why the papers containing the results of the inquiries
of Mr. Mackay, the Manchester commissioner to India,
were not published, a circumstance which he attributed
to the fact that they did not bear out the desired case.
He replied to several alleged mis–statements of detail
by previous speakers in the debate, and proceeded to
defend at great length, and amid much impatient
interruption, the judicial system in India, which he
contended had been unfairly described. He approved of
all the changes proposed by the bill in regard to the
government of India, but did not approve of the
alterations in the home government, thinking them
unnecessary, but the main principle of the bill was the
preserving of the East India Company to protect India
from party conflict.—The debate was the adjourned.

The third reading of the Malicious Injuries (Ireland)
Bill was moved and opposed by Mr. J. FITZGERALD,
who entered at length into his objections to the bill.—
The SOLICITOR–GENERAL for Ireland defended the
bill, and ridiculed the extraneous grievances imported
by Mr. Fitzgerald in his speech.—After further discussion
the house divided, and the third reading was
carried by 71 to 10, majority 61.—The bill was read a
third time and passed.

On Tuesday, June 28, Mr. WALPOLE put questions
on the subject of National Education in Ireland. He
inquired wliether the Commissioners of National
Education in Ireland have rejected or expunged from the list
of books to be used in the national schools "The
Evidences of Christianity," by the Archbishop of Dublin;
and whether they have determined that, if any child's
parents should object to the use of any single book, it is
a sufficient reason for excluding such book, not from
that child only, but from the whole school.—Sir J. YOUNG
said, it was difficult to give explicit answers. There had
been a good deal of misunderstanding upon this subject
as to the practice and the opinions of the Board of
National Education, the former being not altogether
uniform, and the hitter being divided. He read the
rule established in 1842, respecting the construction of
which doubts had arisen of late, and every one must
draw his own conclusinn from the wording of the rule.
The general practice had apparently been not to insist
upon the scripture lessons being read against the wish
ot parents. With regard to the "Evidences of Christianity,"
Roman Catholics and others had taken an
objection to that book as of a polemical kind, and this
work and the "Easy Lessons on Christianity," had been
withdrawn. In reference to the second question, the
practice had been, where an objection was made by
the parent of a single child, that the reading of the
book objected to was relegated to the period of separate
religious instruction.

Mr. Bonham CARTER moved a resolution to the
effect that, when any commission should have
issued for inquiry into the corrupt practices for