at great length on his own remedy for India-the decentralization of the Government, pointing to Ceylon, where there was some kind of representation of public opinion, and recommending electoral councils for Bombay and Madras. At present all the governors of provinces were in fetters, and Sir Charles Trevelyan had been blamed for attempting to break through them. "I am convinced," continued Mr. Bright, "that you will not make a single step towards the improvement of India unless you change your whole system of government-unless you give to each Presidency a government with more independent powers than are now possessed by them. What would be thought if the whole of Europe was under one governor, who knew only the language of the Feejee Islands, and if his subordinates were like himself, only more intelligent than the inhabitants of the Feejee Islands are supposed to be? You set a governor over nearly 200,000,000 of human beings, in a climate where the European cannot do the work he has to do so well as here-where neither the moral nor physical strength of the individual is equal to what it is at home-and you do not even always furnish the most powerful men for the office; you seem to think that the atmosphere will be always calm and the sea always smooth-and so the government of India goes on; there are promises without number of beneficial changes, but we never hear that India is much better or worse than before. Now, that is not the way to do justice to a great empire like India. What is now going on in India

Not

among our own troops? withstanding what we have heard, that the Government is not disposed to take a gloomy view of things, who can tell what intelligence another mail may bring us? Let us not forget the condition in which India now is. Her native governments have been cast to the ground, and the princes who reigned there are wanderers on the soil they once called their own, pensioners on the bounty of the strangers by whom their fortunes have been overturned. Thousands of the people helpless and friendless, deprived of their natural leaders and their chiefs, are spread over the land, looking still, I trust, with hope to the justice and clemency of their conquerors. I appeal to your mercy and justice on behalf of that people. For years past I have never spoken but with the same earnestness as now in their behalf; and I ask if it is not possible to touch a chord in the hearts of Englishmen that will raise them to a sense of the duty they owe to the people of India? If this state of things exists in India it must ere long become a serious burden to the people of this country. You will show to the world that, though you can conquer, you have not the ability to govern. You had better disencumber yourselves of the fatal gift of empire if it leads you as conquerors to neglect the duties you owe as governors. I hope it will never be said that the time had come when the arms of England were irresistible in India, but that India was avenged, inasmuch as she broke the power of England by the intolerable evils she imposed upon her, the vast amount of men and money re

quired to keep India in subjection being a burden she was unable to bear."

Mr. T. G. Baring briefly replied to Mr. Bright. With respect to his scheme for improving Indian administration, he was of opinion that the whole control of the government of India should rest with the Governor-General; but he admitted that there would be a great saving of time in not fettering the governors of the minor presidencies in matters of detail.

Mr. H. Digby Seymour complained of the apathy of the Central Government of India, which was unable to attend at Calcutta to all the details sent to them. The military force required in India, he agreed with Mr. Bright, depended upon the principles on which it was to be governed. The proposed taxes were, in his opinion, open to great objection, especially the salt-tax. He suggested other modes of raising

revenue.

Mr. Vansittart desired to see more civil functionaries, and the settlement of more Europeans in India. Mr. Gregson spoke against, and Mr. Kinnard and Mr. Coningham in favour of an Imperial guarantee. Mr. Hankey .deprecated the middle course taken by the Government.

The formal resolutions submitted to the House were agreed

to.

A discussion as to the best mode of raising money in this country for the service of India, was raised upon one of the stages of the East India Loan Bill as it passed through the House of Commons. Mr. Crauford took occasion to express his objection to the principle of an Imperial

guarantee, but he suggested that Parliament might borrow the money in England for Indian purposes, and lend it again to India, taking some adequate security. Mr. Vansittart and Mr. Ayrton advocated an Imperial guarantee. They argued that we were wasting 10,000,000l. ayear to maintain abstract principles of political economy. Col. Sykes advocated the same views. Sir Edward Colebrooke and Sir Henry Willoughby asked for information touching the intentions of the Government in sending out Mr. James Wilson to act as the Financial Minister in India, and expressed doubts as to the expediency of that step. Nothing, they said, could be more dangerous than to set up a department in opposition to the Governor-General.

Sir Charles Wood said that Mr. Wilson had not yet accepted office, but he hoped he would do so. The financial responsibility would, however, still rest on the Governor-General, just as in England it rested on the Cabinet. Mr. Wilson, or whoever might be appointed to the office contemplated, would be merely a member of the Governor-General's Council, charged with the department of finance.

The Bill for authorising the loan to India having passed the Commons, was introduced into the House of Lords on the 11th of August, by the Duke of Argyll, who made a statement respecting the condition of Indian finance similar to that given in the other House by Sir Charles Wood. The Duke, however, took a rather more cheerful view of the prospects of India. He thought that the principal field for retrench

ment was in the military expenditure. There was now no native power to give us uneasiness: not a gun could be cast without our consent; a native army was useless without artillery, and our relative superiority to the natives had much increased.

The Earl of Ellenborough took strong objections to the practice of giving guarantees to railway companies, which, he said, prevented the Government from borrowing at a lower rate than the rate of the guarantee. He approved of the measure adopted by the Government of sending out Mr. Wilson to act as Chancellor of the Exchequer of India. With assistance, that gentleman might reduce the accounts to an intelligible shape; but he must be supported from home, because he would have to teach, not only habits of business, but habits of obedience. Lord Ellenborough objected to the reduction of the civil salaries, and thought that at no distant period we might reduce our military establishments. He would bring down the number of Native troops to the level of the European troops. He strongly objected to those who proposed that we should abandon India.

Lord Lyveden agreed that there was no cause for despondency. He could not hear talk of abandoning India without a certain amount of shame. With regard to the financial question, he thought that both the civil and military expenditure could be reduced. He also thought that that gigantic job-the Indian Council-should be reduced to six members, who should be the heads of departments; but the greatest saving must be effected

in military expenditure. Lord Ellenborough had spoken of Mr. Wilson as a Chancellor of the Exchequer; he had never understood that Mr. Wilson was to act in such a capacity. If he had the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would involve a great interference with the Government of India. He hoped that Mr. Wilson would be armed with sufficient authority, and so backed from home, that the country would obtain the advantage of his services.

The Loan Bill passed through the House, and received the Royal Assent.

It may be convenient to notice in this connection, a Bill introduced towards the end of the Session by Sir Charles Wood, to fix the limits of the European troops in India. Its object and nature were explained by the right honourable Baronet. In 1853, he said, the number of Company's troops was increased from 12,200 to 20,000, and the number training in England from 2000 to 4000. It was a legal question whether the Act meant that the Company could employ 20,000 or 24,000. The late Government had sanctioned an establishment of 25,500, and the Bill was necessary to cover anything that had been done which might be illegal. The Bill limited the number to 30,000. It did not follow that the whole of this number would be raised, but it could not be exceeded. With regard to the employment of a local European force in India, Sir Charles Wood expressed a strong opinion, remarking that the weight of authority was in favour of such a force. The late Lord Hardinge, Sir John Law

rence, the late Government and the present Government, had alike come to that conclusion. It would be far more expensive to maintain a force entirely composed of Queen's troops, than a force composed of Queen's and local troops. With regard to the mutiny of the local troops at present in India, he said, he thought the men had no substantial grievance, but that a great deal was to be said in justification of their view. He looked upon it rather as a strike than as a mutiny; they ought not to be dealt with as mutineers; and he thought that Lord Canning, after having had accorded to him the fullest authority to deal with the question as he thought fit, had acted for the best in giving the men the option of a discharge. The Bill did not prejudice any of the questions connected with the subject of our Indian forces, which were left open for future consideration.

General Peel made some strong remarks on the conduct of the local European force, and said that an army in which such discipline existed was not to be trusted. He seemed to be entirely opposed to any local European force whatever, considering that it would interfere with the recruiting of the Queen's troops in England. He suggested that the limit of 3 per cent. of foreigners, now allowed to enter the British army, should be extended. The

question of a local army was neither more nor less than a question of patronage, and he thought it would be better to do without the Indian Council than leave them any patronage at all.

Sir de Lacy Evans objected altogether to recruiting foreigners. He would not call the insubordination of the local troops a mutiny; and he considered that a local army was indispensable to India. Mr. Sidney Herbert pointed out that General Peel, as a member of the Commission, had pronounced against a local army, while, as a member of the late Government, he had decided in favour of it. Colonel North complained of the mismanagement of the local troops in India, and of the withholding of batta from those troops who served in Persia. Sir Frederick Smith looked upon the maintenance of a local European force in India as a necessity; and as regarded the insubordination of the local troops, he could not call that a mutiny, when the men had so strong a case. Colonel Sykes expressed a decided opinion in favour of a local force. Sir Henry Willoughby thought that the House of Commons should bear some share of blame for the late mutiny, because they had not made the transfer of service clear to the men. Several other members expressed their opinions the measure, which eventually passed.

on

was