gal a chance. He had quoted the evidence of his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, who had stated, that up to 1845-6 the amount expended by the Indian Government in roads, bridges, and other improvements, was 1,434,000, Now, he (Sir J. Hogg) found, upon more accurate investigation, that the sum expended during that time in improvements (exclusive of the Ganges Canal and the railways) was, in fact, 2,282,000l. The Committee, in their report, said it had been urged upon their attention that the capability of India for the growth of cotton of improved qualities having been established, the one thing remaining was for European capitalists to place themselves in direct communication with the cultivators of the soil. The report went on to say

"Your Committee are disposed thus far to concur in these views, that it is chiefly, if not solely, to British capital and intelligence applied to this subject that they look for any permanent improvement in quality or increase of production, as it is clearly owing to such means that the improvement of other important articles of the Indian

soil has been advanced."

SIR T. E. COLEBROOKE: Read on.

when they wanted warm clothing they | attention to Bombay and Madras, nor why wadded it with cotton. Thus they were he should not give the Presidency of Benable to consume all the refuse and waste of their cotton. It must also be remembered that India produced cotton for the China market. The inhabitants of China, like those of India, had a peculiar taste, and like them, he believed, had a partiality for dirty cotton-at least they made no effort to have it cleaned. Now, how could the natives of India be induced to grow a cotton with a long staple? The Manchester gentlemen said the cotton of India must be improved 20 or 30 per cent. But if they wanted to improve the growth and staple of the Indian cotton, or to introduce American cotton into that country, the only plan was for these gentlemen to give the growers of India a steady and certain market, if they would not give them high prices. In America the fluctuation in the price of cotton was very great, and Indian cotton was sought after when there was a failure in the American crop. The Indian growers then received a good price for it, and they were stimulated to greater exertion. But when they sent over more cotton next year, there had, perhaps, been a good season in America, and the Indian article became an absolute drug in the market. He believed that one gentleman, Mr. Turner, had thrown 7,000l. worth of Indian cotton upon a dunghill because he I could not find a market for it. Now, could the House expect the natives of India to grow cotton for a casual and uncertain market, when they might grow grain, which would, without any risk, enable them to feed their wives and children? Let the friends of the hon. Member for Manchester agree to take the cotton from them at a certain price, and he had no doubt the natives of India would make the exertion, and that the experiment would succeed; and the more so because, in different parts of India, there was cotton of the same variety, but of different and unequal staples. If the hon. Member for Manchester, instead of sending a Commission to India, would send a circular to the collectors and judges, he would gain more and better information in a few months than his Com-terially increased, to the benefit of the mamission would obtain in ten years. And if he would draw up or suggest the circular, describing the information he wanted, the Directors of the East India Company would send it to India, and do all in their power to assist the hon. Gentleman in obtaining information. He could not see why the hon. Gentleman should confine his

"Your Committee, however, are slow to believe that there exists any apathy or unwillingness on the part of English capitalists to apply themselves to this or any field of employtained. They feel that in this and in other matters they will decide for themselves the time and mode of remedying the evil." Seeing, then, that the East India Company had been trying experiments for ten years on this subject with partial success, he called upon the gentlemen of Manchester to co-operate with them, and to take up the matter where they left it off, or else all their endeavours might fail. He trusted that the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

ment from which valuable results are to be ob

MR. W. PATTEN said, his vote upon this Motion would be directed by the result of the inquiry before the Committee on the Growth of Cotton in India, of which he was a member. He believed that the supply of cotton from India might be ma

nufactures of this country. He thought, however, from the evidence taken before the Committee, that the great difficulty to be contended with was the imperfect state of the internal communications, and the difficulty there was in getting the cotton down to the coast. The witnesses examined before the Committee were almost

tived.

POST OFFICE.

The

MR. FORSTER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Acts 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vic., c. 36, and other Acts now in force for regulating the conveyance of letters by post, as prohibit the transmission of letters on the Sunday otherwise than through the post. prohibition was introduced for purposes of revenue; but as the Post Office was no longer to undertake the duty of transmitting letters on Sunday, the revenue could not be affected by a repeal of the prohibitory enactments. He thought it an unfortunate thing that the House should have agreed to an address to the Crown to stop the conveyance of letters on Sunday by the Post Office, and he hoped no objection would be offered to his Motion, because, as letters would certainly be conveyed by private hands on Sundays, perpetual breaches of the law would be committed.

commission going out under the authority the question was new to Parliament, with of Government would have a much greater the consent of the House he should be power of making inquiries, and its autho- perfectly satisfied with the discussion that rity over the country would be much had taken place, and believing that it greater, than that of any mere private would lead importantly in the direction in commission. The hon. Baronet said the which they all wished to go, he would not East India Company had been at work a put the House to the trouble of a division great many years; but his complaint was on this question. that their experiments for sixty years had MR. SPEAKER put the Question, produced no result. The right hon. Baro-" That the Motion be withdrawn," when net the President of the Board of Control there were cries of No, no!" from Colosaid, that after sixty years the experiments nel SIBTHORP and one or two others. of Dr. Royle had produced, not cotton, Motion was accordingly put, and negabut a summary. But it was cotton that the Manchester people wanted; and it was for the sake of obtaining this supply that he had brought forward this proposition. The hon. Member for Beverley admitted that, as far as their present experiments went, the East India Company had done about all they could; and he recommended the Manchester people to go over and purchase cotton in India. If it were true that they had done all they could, his case was made out; because he proposed a step which he thought would add to the information they had. However, this question came before the House in its present shape for the first time, bringing large questions connected with India before it; and, unfortunately, for many years Indian subjects had received no attention in that House. He was, therefore, not surprised that it was not probable the House would consent, on the first proposition, to the appointment of this commission; but he ventured to give an opinion, that the difficulties of the cotton trade in this country, from the violent fluctuations in the supply of the raw material from the United States, would increase materially, because the more extensive the trade became, the more would it suffer from these fluctuations, and at the same time the deficiencies in the Indian revenue would, go on, and the condition of that country would deteriorate in the same manner. The result would be that, at no very distant period, Parliament and the Government would be obliged to take up this question in a manner much more serious than they seemed disposed to do at present. The noble Lord at the head of the Government would have done credit to his administration, and would have given hope to the great industry of the north of England, and to a large proportion of the people of India, if he had consented to this proposition. However, as the Government did not see it judicious to do so, or were not able to do so at present, and as

Motion made, and Question proposed

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Acts 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vic. c. 36, and other Acts now in force for regulating the conveyance of Letters by Post, as prohibit the transmission of Letters on the Sunday otherwise than through the Post Office."

COLONEL THOMPSON thought, in a case of this kind, that Government ought either to do the people's business for them, or allow them to do it themselves. He did not think either the Government or the commercial portion of the community had come to a thorough knowledge of what had been inflicted, not only upon the commercial world, but upon the public at large. Suppose one of his constituents at Bradford heard by the post which left London on Friday of the loss of one of his argosies, with the addition it might be of supposing one or two of his sons lost in it. He must not have further intelligence from London on Saturday, because it would be Sab

bath-breaking at Bradford to have the let- | Post Office, led to far less desecration of ter delivered to him on Sunday; and he the Sabbath, than would be caused by any must not have a letter from London on other mode. If the public were prepared Sunday because that would be Sabbath- to submit to the inconvenience, they must breaking in London: therefore all his submit to it altogether; if not, the least intelligence must be a day behind; and possible desecration of the Sabbath would vice versa. And all this because indi- be by restoring the mode of communicaviduals who repudiated the authority of tion by post as it had existed up to this the Author of Christianity and his im- time. However, he thought it quite right mediate followers, which undeniably form- that the public should know what the ined the basis of the religious belief of convenience was; if they were prepared to the great majority of the nation, had submit to it, well and good; if not, this chosen to deprive the people of the right was an indirect mode of evading the late of communication they enjoyed. There vote of the House, which ought not to be were further consequences to come, if sanctioned. something was not hit on to prevent them. There was evidence of a communication existing between the promoters of these restrictions and the parti prêtre in France. They played into each other's hands; and it would be seen that the move made here, would be followed up in France: and nobody doubted that there the event would be, that the party would first be successful, and then would be upset. And then would come the rebound in England; all of which he thought wise statesmen should endeavour to avoid, and not sacrifice the interests of the country to a piece of most impertinent and cruel legislation. On these grounds he should support the Motion.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he could not agree to the Motion. He believed that the vote which the House came to the other night was an unfortunate vote, because it would lead to great breaches of the law and desecration of the Sabbath. The result would be just the reverse of what was intended by the promoters of the resolution; it would lead to a greater amount of fraudulent Sunday labour than was actually performed before the measure was proposed. At the same time, the House of Commons having come to that resolution, the Government had felt themselves bound to carry it out, as far as it was in their power. They took it for granted that the House of Commons was a faithful representation of the opinion of the public; and if they were willing to submit to the inconvenience and hardship of this restriction, which had been very much underrated in his opinion, all the Government had to do was to carry the measure out. He did not think it was their duty to attempt to do that indirectly which the House could do directly if they were disposed. He believed that the distribution of letters and newspapers on the Sunday, as at present conducted by the

MR. AGLIONBY said, that the House of Commons had no reason to complain of Her Majesty's Government; but he thought that the public had great reason to complain of the House of Commons. Never was there a division taken so much by surprise as that which was taken the other day on the Motion for an Address to the Crown; and although the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Berwick, because it would be an indirect way of getting rid of the resolution to which the House of Commons came, he should very much regret if there was no direct way in which it could be shown that the opinion of the House and of the public was not in accordance with that of the majority upon that occasion.

MR. HEALD opposed the Motion. He was surprised that the voice of the people on this important question, spoken in a constitutional manner through their representatives, as well as by petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of persons, should be regarded as nothing by hon. Members opposite.

MR. G. THOMPSON supported the Motion. He thought no individual in the 19th century would stand up and say he was not to be the judge for himself whether he had not the right as a subject and member of civil society to transmit letters on a Sunday, or receive them through the various channels of communication from those who pleased to send them. Why should that right be interfered with, any more than the cooking of a dinner on Sunday?

LORD J. RUSSELL hoped the House would not agree to the Motion, because it would lead to much further consequences than perhaps those hon. Members who supported it might apprehend. It was obvious that if, instead of the general rule,

arise from the non-transmission of letters on Sunday, had earnestly deprecated the continuance of a system of transmission, because it led to a growing evil of increasing transactions of business on Sundays.

MR. FORSTER, in reply, said, the present state of the law was absurd, as persons might send parcels by railway on Sundays, though they might not send letters. One party had supported the resolution from fanaticism, and the other from fear.

Question put, and negatived.

HYDE PARK-EXHIBITION OF 1851. COLONEL SIBTHORP moved for a return of the number of trees marked and proposed to be cut down in Hyde Park, for the purpose of making room for the buildings to be appropriated to the use of the proposed Exhibition of 1851. He said, that on the previous evening his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport had put a question to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests on this subject; but the answer was unsatisfactory, because the noble Lord said that certain trees were going to be cut down, but they had had ocular proof to the contrary. In were young trees. He (Colonel Sibthorp) the discharge of his duty he had visited the park that day. He had taken the trouble to inquire about the trees. He saw a clump, a very important clump, and ten of them only were marked; he could not say how many more might be marked for

with which the Government charged itself with the transmission of letters, they were to allow letters to be conveyed on Sunday by private hand, that would become the establishment of a private post-office, and letters would be sent on that day as much as on other days of the week; that day would be the means of transmitting letters more than on the other days, and it would interfere with the general transmission of letters by the Post Office. Therefore he thought, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that if letters were to be conveyed on Sunday, it would be far better to restore the state of things that existed before the resolution of the noble Lord the Member for Bath was passed. He must say, although he thought it his duty to advise the Crown to comply with the Address of this House, which was founded on numerous petitions signed by nearly 700,000 persons, and which was declared to be the wish of the House not only by hon. Members who were present and voted for it, but by the voluntary absence of a great number of hon. Members who declined to vote against the proposition, he certainly could not share in the opinion that it was advisable. He did not rely on, nor did he attach so much importance as many hon. Members had done to the transmission of mercantile letters or mercantile intelligence; but he did think that the post, being the means of conveying to different members of a family in different parts of the kingdom the news of illness, of accidents, of danger perhaps to other members of the family, the retaining of that knowledge for twenty-four hours-[Colonel THOMPSON: Forty-eight hours!]-which they might have that time sooner, was contrary to the indulgence of those feelings of charity and affection which belonged to our Christian as well as our moral character. He therefore, in oppos-intention to cut down the ten trees that ing this Motion, must say he very much regretted the decision to which the House came. He owned that, although there might have been, and he would not deny that there was, a very strong feeling on the part of the public in favour of the noble Lord's proposition, it appeared to him rather to tend to that which was certainly contrary to the precepts of our religion, and established for precept the oppositethat man was made for the Sabbath, and not the Sabbath for man.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, that a number of large firms and constituencies having balanced the difficulties that might

destruction hereafter, but

"Principiis obsta; sero medicina paratur Cum mala per longas convaluêre moras." Those ten trees were elms, and he would take the liberty of giving an opinion that they were of nearly forty years' growth. He wanted to know whether there was an

had been marked in the park. The parks were the property of the people, and had always been so considered, and he asked for what were they to be cut down?-for one of the greatest humbugs, one of the greatest frauds, one of the greatest absurdities ever known-he meant the intended exposition of 1851. For such a thing as that, the Government were about to be guilty of the crime of demolishing public property of the most valuable kind, and all for the purpose of encouraging foreigners, who would only laugh at the English for their folly. He asked by whose sanction was this done? Of course, he did not charge