had been-made? No, but planned and laid down on paper. Why it was an easy thing to draw a red line on a map and take eredit for that as for a work of improvement in progress. But the question was, would these lines be executed, and, if so, when? Time was an element in matters of this kind which they were too apt to neglect. In making railroads in India they followed too much the English practice. Not that the works were not admirable in construction and perfect in execution, if high speed were the chief object, but their scale and expense were such that the resources of the Indian Government would not suffice to complete them within any moderate period. It was the opinion of many eminent practical men that the precedent of the English railways did not apply to a country situated like India. In England, before a single mile of railway was laid down, we had a most complete system of canal communication, which practically sufficed for the carriage of heavy goods. The railroads came in to supplement the canals, not to supersede them. In India, on the other hand, the state of things was rather that which existed a few years ago in the United States, where the railway did not supersede the canal, but was the first and only communication introduced. It was, therefore, clearly the policy of those who planned the lines in the United States to execute them at the lowest possible cost, to treat with comparative indifference the question of speed, and to press forward the com. pletion of the works with the utmost despatch, even though they should be finished in a comparatively rough and clumsy manThus they would be opened for slow and heavy traffic at the earliest practicable period. The principle which was found adapted to the case of the United States was far more suitable to India, because the interest of money was greater in the latter instance than in the former, and the outlay upon unfinished works therefore constituted a heavier burden upon the projectors. The hon. Gentleman had placed the Ilouse in a dilemma by requiring them to affirm that the Government of India was either very dishonest or very foolish. Now, he (Lord Stanley) was not prepared to endorse either of these charges. He did not accuse the Indian Government of being interested in opposing the opening of railway communication in that country; but, owing to their peculiar position, they required a good deal of propulsion from without to make them ner. 1 carry on their works with due zcal and energy. The question was not so much what order should be sent out by the President of the Board of Control, or by that body which the hon. Gentleman represented, as what was the feeling of the local authorities on this subject. The Indian official in charge of a district-than whom there could scarcely be a more hard-working person-was entrusted with a sufficient amount of duty to fill up any one man's whole time. A vast area was confided to his sole care, and the climate after long residence was unfavourable to continued energy on the part of Europeans. He was expected to report frequently, and sometimes in unnecessary detail, to the authorities at Calcutta, which occupied much of his time, and, above all, his connection with the country which he governed was official and official only. An officer so situated might not fail in discharging his functions, but it was clear he had no strong motive urging him to go beyond the strict line of his duty. He had spoken of official persons and it must be remembered that the Indian public was almost exclusively official; it consisted of military men, whose feelings, perhaps, lay in a different direction from the promotion of industrial improvements, and of civilians who had no strong personal incentive to take up subjects of this nature. He omitted the native population when speaking of the Indian public, because their voice scarcely ever reached this country or influenced the policy of the Government. The result of that absence of an influential public opinion, independent of the governing class, in the constant and notorious tendency in the Indian Government to quarrel with its neighbours, which quarrels invariably exhausted funds that might otherwise have been devoted to the improvement of the country. Nothing could keep an Indian Governor General quiet except a deficit, and even that would not always do it. The public in India consisted of civilians and the military. The civilians foresaw an extension of patronage in every new annexation, and both they and the military were flattered by prospects of the extension of the power of this country. Even the mis. sionary interest, he believed, was not hostile to what might enable it to propagate, under British protection, its opinions in a new district. And so it happened that whenever there was any prospect of a dispute it was almost certain that all parties would be in favour of a warlike policy. was seen defects in developing the resources of India the House would have been entitled to interfere; but the speeches that he had heard that evening scarcely touched that point. It was some years since he had the honour of co-operating with his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport on Indian topics, but he begged to remind his hon. Friend that his remarks that evening applied rather to a state of things which existed several years ago than to the present state of India. His hon. Friend had quoted from documents which related to the period anterior to the commencement of what he might call that great era in Indian history which dated from the grant of the charter of 1853. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control had endeavoured this Session, by laying on the table various despatches which had been sent to India during the last few years, to show the House what had been recently done in that country with respect to public works. He (Mr. D. Seymour) did not mean to say that the British Government had till lately executed public works in India at all equal to those which former Governments had executed with much smaller means; but when the British Government became aware of the facts they resolved to make amends. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced, while President of the Board of Control, a new system with re He did not say that from theory only. He was in India at the time that the second Burmese war broke out. He was not about to criticise the policy of that war, but this he would say, that before it was competent for any man to have formed an unbiassed opinion upon the dispute between the Indian and the Burmese Governments, before any certain or authentic information had been or could be received, there was throughout the country a cry taken up by every class of Europeans, without arguing, without hesitation, and without reflection, in favour of going to war. He mentioned that fact because the same causes still existed, and were likely to exist for a long period, why we need not hope that the surplus revenue of India would be applied to the development of its resources. If we were to wait until India applied her revenue to works of internal improvement we might have to wait for a long time. These works should be undertaken without regard to the question of surplus or deficit, for looking at the question in a merely financial point of view the cost to India of delay will be much greater than if they were carried out at once. He would go into no further details. He had risen simply to meet the defence of the hon. Member for Guildford by a reference to the real facts of the case. At this moment we had a demand for cotton which exceeded the supply. During the last ten or twelve years our productive powers with respect to the cot-gard to public works in India, by which ton manufacture had increased 40 per cent, and there was no reason to suppose that either those powers or the demands of foreign countries for our produce would diminish; on the contrary, they were likely to increase. Although the cost of cotton was now double what it was a few years ago, the cotton manufacture in this country had increased to an unprecedented extent, and the difference in price had caused a loss to the community of £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 a year. No fact could be stated more significant than that, and it could therefore hardly be disputed that the Indian Government, which was, in fact, the landlord of the soil of India, ought to exert itself to the utmost to promote the growth of cotton in India, in order that the constantly augmenting demands for our cotton manufactures might be amply supplied. MR. DANBY SEYMOUR said, that it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question, and that if the Indian Government had been guilty of any Lord Stanley many of the suggestions of Mr. Bright were carried into effect. In each of the Presidencies a Commissioner of Public Works had been appointed, and each year those Commissioners sent to the Government of India a list of such works of irrigation, &c., as they thought necessary. The amount expended during the last two years on public works was nearly £3,000,000, being about one-eighth of the whole revenue of the country, and he ventured to say that that was as much as any Government in any country had ever done. The noble Lord who had just sat down had discussed the question whether railroads in India should be of a solid, permanent character, like those constructed in England, or temporary, like those in America, which were constantly requiring large outlays for repairs, and which, without such outlays, soon became only fit for tram-roads. But putting that aside, the Indian Government had resolved that the wisest plan was to make solid, although expensive railroads, such as those in Eng land, which would last one hundred years, as they believed that in the end that would prove to be the truest economy. That was the plan that had been adopted in Austria, Russia, and, in short, every European country that had sufficient capital. He also had to remind hon. Members that railways in India were made by means of foreign, not Indian capital. As to the question before the House, he had to remind them that the cotton trade had sprung up within the last seventy years, and great pains were at first required in order to grow cotton in America. It was not an indigenous plant there, and some time elapsed before those varieties could be discovered which were best adapted to the American climate. There was a Report of M. de Maurepas in the French archives as to the advantages of growing cotton in Louisiana, and when at that period, not more than seventy years ago, eight bales were entered at the custom as the produce of that country, it was rejected as being more than America could produce. The present immense growth of cotton in America was the result of that same diligence and labour which had raised up the cotton manufacture in this country, and the same means adopted in India would produce the same result. There was no difficulty in growing cotton in India. The soil was suitable and the people were industrious; the chief obstacle lay in their poverty. When capital was forthcoming, and as the intelligence and education of the people increased, they would be able to manure their land more, to raise better sorts of cotton, and would come forward to improve the communications, which at present impeded the carriage of cotton to the coast. Upon what ground was the House called upon to exercise Parliamentary interference? Not one word had been uttered during the discussion which showed the necessity of such interference. On the contrary, every thing that had been said referred to a previous period, while what was doing now appeared to be ignored. The only suggestions offered referred to the sale of the land in fee simple and to the making of roads. Upon roads, however, the Indian Government were laying out £3,000,000, besides the expenditure upon railways; and he did not see how they would be justified in laying out a larger sum. With regard to the tenure of the land, that was a most difficult question. There were persons who considered with Mr. Mill that the state was entitled to the increased produce of the land, and Mr. Mill would consistently apply the same principle to England. On the other hand, the principle of selling the fee simple outright existed in some of the most advanced and prosperous countries of the world. He was not, however, at that hour of the night going to enter into the question of the land tenure of India. He had heard of the formation of cotton companies, but no gentleman had come forward and said, "We will endeavour to grow cotton in India if you will let us try the experiment upon a tract of country. The Government, he was persuaded, would not be indisposed to aid the experiment by allowing British planters to be located in India, and they would be only too happy if such an experiment succeeded. Good roads, capital, with European superintendence, were the requisites needed, and if these were forthcoming there need be no fear respecting the growth of cotton in India. Meanwhile, if the only suggestions which could be offered were those he had noticed, he thought, as the Government had done all they could do, it was very hard that this House should condemn them without making out any good case for so doing. He should, therefore, conclude by moving the previous question. Whereupon Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put.' SIR ERSKINE PERRY moved the adjournment of the debate. MR. VERNON SMITH said, that, considering the importance of the subject, the Government would not oppose the Motion for adjournment. Debate adjourned till Tuesday next. INSPECTORS OF TAXES (SCOTLAND). MOTION. MR. BLACK said, that, in accordance with the notice which stood upon the paper in his name, he rose to move the following Resolution : "That it is the opinion of this House that the Salaries of the Scotch Inspectors and Surveyors of Taxes are inadequate for the duties they have to discharge, and as these duties are not less onerous than those performed by the same officers in England, that the remuneration for their services should be placed on the same scale as those of England and Ireland." He wished to point out to the House the difference which existed in individual cases between the salaries paid to surveyors in Scotland, as compared with those which persons occupying similar situations received in England, as he could see no good reason why officers acting under the same Board, administering the same law, and with precisely the same responsibility, should, in the case of Scotland, be remunerated for their services upon a scale so much lower than that which prevailed in this country. Be MR. WILSON said, it was not a convenient course to discuss in that House the question of the salaries of these officers. He felt assured that if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who had carefully considered the relative duties to be performed by the various revenue officers throughout the United Kingdom, had been of opinion that the salaries which the Scotch surveyors received were disproportionate to the duties which they had to perform, they would have long since brought the subject under the notice of the Treasury. that as it might, however, he ventured to express a hope that that House would not be induced, without some strong cause shown, to undertake those functions which obviously belonged to the heads of the various departments employed in the collection of the public revenue; for if it were once to interfere in the regulation of the salaries and promotion of the revenue officers, there would be no end to the pressure which would be brought to bear upon hon. Members from all quarters. The proper course for the Scotch surveyors to pursue, if they felt they were labouring under a grievance, would be to address the Treasury through the heads of their re spective departments, or to lay their case before the Commissioners themselves, who, if they thought proper, might make a recommendation upon the subject to the Treasury. MR. KINNAIRD said, that the answer of the hon. Gentleman was not satisfactory. The duties discharged by the Scotch surveyors of taxes were most admirably performed, and it became, therefore, a question well worthy of consideration, whether, by reducing the salaries of the English surveyors to the same scale, a large saving in the public expenditure might not, without any decrease of efficiency, be effected. MR. CRAUFURD said, he should support the Motion, in the hope that the subject to which it referred would receive the attention of the Commissioners. Mr. Black COLONEL SYKES said, that the principle laid down by the Secretary of the Treasury, if carried to its full extent, would deter public servants from addressing the House upon any grievances of which they had to complain; but the hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that they should appeal to the Commissioners in the first instance. Under the circumstances, he advised his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh to withdraw his Motion. MR. BLACK said, that perhaps hon. Gentlemen did not sufficiently understand the position of these Gentlemen. They were unwilling to complain to the Commissioners, as the consequence would be that they would be dismissed the service and reduced to destitution. Motion negatived. EVIDENCE UPON OATH (HOUSE OF LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. WARREN said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to empower the House of Commons and its Committees to take evidence upon oath. He did not anticipate that the Motion would meet with any opposition. The power with which the Bill would invest the House was already enjoyed by the Lords, and it was naturally a subject of surprise that it had not yet been extended to the Commons. Morcover, the necessity for the Bill was abundantly evident from the difference in the manner of giving evidence before Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to the Motion, but he remarked that it was a subject of some importance, and not rashly to be decided HIGHWAYS BILL. BILL WITHDRAWN. Order for Second Reading read. MR. MASSEY said, he rose to move that this Bill be discharged. It was, however, his intention to bring it into Parliament early next Session. SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE observed, that he regretted very much that the Bill had not first been allowed to go to a second reading and be reprinted, because legislation on the subject was most urgent. At the same time he considered it would be almost impossible that a Bill of this kind could pass unless the law on the question was consolidated. He hoped that next Session the hon. Gentleman would bring in a Bill to repeal the whole of the existing laws. Order for Committee read. House in Committee. Clause Seven:-Amendment again proposed, to add at the end of the clause the words " and may set aside, satisfy, or otherwise deal with it accordingly." Question again proposed, "That those words be there added." COLONEL FRENCH said, he would appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) to postpone the Committee until after the other orders of the day. A large number of Irish Members who took an interest in this Bill were at present at Cambridge House upon a deputation to Lord Palmerston on the subject of tenant right, and it would scarcely be fair to proceed with the Bill in their absence. He moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. MR. CRAUFURD regretted he could not accede to the request of his hon. Friend, since the passing of the Bill might thereby be endangered. MR. AYRTON said, there was no Mem. ber on the Treasury bench to throw light on the important question which this Bill raised. This, he thought, was an additional reason for postponement. Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.' The Committee divided:-Ayes 31; Noes 93: Majority 62. Question again proposed. MR. STAFFORD said, he must express his regret that none of the law officers of the Crown were in their places. In their absence he thought the Government could hardly wish to proceed with a Bill of this importance. MR. MASSEY (who at this moment was the only occupant of the Ministerial benches) observed, that the principle and the details of the measure had been over and over again considered by this House, and if at this time hon. Members were so little acquainted with those details as to require the attendance of the law officers of the Crown, in order to explain them, he should despair of making much progress. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would proceed with the Bill. MR. NAPIER said, he wanted to know if the Government had adopted the Bill as it stood, because in this case he should be prepared to show that it would prove wholly unworkable in Ireland. In the absence of the law officers of the Crown, however, he thought the Committee were but wasting time by entering into a discussion of the details. As to himself, he had no desire to obstruct the progress of the Bill, but he wished to put it into a form in which it would work. MR. DEASY said, that he also quite concurred in the principle of the measure, and was only anxious to render the Bill as perfect as possible. He, therefore, regretted that none of the law officers of the Crown were present to assist the Committee. MR. MASSEY said, the Attorney Generals for England and Ireland had sat on the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, and the latter hon. and learned Gentleman had been present at the discussion on the first clause. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, it had already been announced, upon high authority, that this Bill would throw the law of Ireland into great confusion. He found also that there were notices of no less than forty Amendments on the paper. Were the Committee to reject or adopt them, without being informed by the proper authority of their probable effect? It was preposterous, therefore, that they should proceed in the absence of the law |