The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-01 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 1, 1858.

Vroachinys in (Varliannt.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY.

The Earl of ALBFMARLE presented a petition from
Birmingham, praying for a better system of govern-
ment in India. He expressed his disapproval of the
plan of a government for India proposed by the
Ministry. The noble earl withdrew his motion for
certain returns connected with the Indian Civil
Service.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MONDAY.
INDIAN RESOLUTIONS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved a reso-
lution that the house would on Friday resolve itself
into a committee to consider the Act of the 16th
and 17th of Victoria, cap. 95, with the view of pro-
posing the resolutions he bad laid upon the table on
the subject of the government of India. He briefly
reviewed what had occurred daring the present ses-
sion with reference to this subject. Leave had been
given to Lord Palmerston to introduce a bill to
transfer the government of India from the East India
Company to the Crown. Upon that occasion an
amendment had been moved, affirming the inexpe-
diency at that time of legislating for the government
of India. But, although there were very plausible
and cogent reasons why that amendment should be
favourably received, it was rejected by an overwhelm•
ing majority, and Lord Palmerston bad permission
to introduce his measure, but nothing more ; none
of the details of the measure were sanctioned by the
vote. It must be assumed, however, be observed,
that the opinion of the house was iu favour of the
transfer of the government of India to the Crown.
Unexpectedly a change of Administration took place,
and the present Ministers had to consider the effect
of this vote upon both India and England. He then
proceeded to compare the main features and prM-
nip les of the two bills—that of the late and that of
the present Government—and observed that two
schools had each laid down a formula for the govern-
ment of India. One boasted of the simplicity of
their scheme. It consisted in the appointment of a
Minister with undivided responsibility sitting in that
house, assisted by a limited number of nominees—an
under-secretary and clerks—asserting that India
ought to be governed like other external possessions
of the Crown. He denied that there was any analogy
between India, an empire comprehending many dis-
tinct nations, and any other possession of the Crown,
or that such a scheme of Indian government would
work in a satisfactory manner. But the adherents
of the simple school said it did not much signify,
because India must be governed in India.
Much, however, was involved in this proposition.
If the principle were adopted, the Governor-
General of India would be placed in a position of
power which the Constitution of the country bad not
yet contemplated. The more be reflected upon the
simple plan, the more he was convinced of its
danger and impracticability. The other plan which
had been laid before the house in the shape of a
bill had been stigmatized as complicated. He did
not agree that this was a fault in a form of ad-
ministration, for Indian affairs. Our own Constitu-
tion was not a simple one, yet it worked well, and it
the scheme of the Cabinet were proposed for the first
time it would be condemned as absurd and unwork-
able. He assumed that the majority of the house
was in favour of a council. If so, it must be in
favour of a real council. It ought, then, to be
numerous, for there were eight considerable heads
of business which required to be managed by com-
mittees. Then, assuming that the council should
consist of the number mentioned in the bill of the
present Government, was the house prepared to
intrust the nomination of these eighteen councillors
to the Crown ? This was a proposition which the
country would never approve. Then recourse must
be had to the elective principle. This was objected
to as unconstitutional. He felt immense difficulty,
he said, in encountering such an objection, which
baffled discussion. He admitted that the application
of the principle was anomalous, but the house was
dealing with one of the greatest anomalies of modern
times. Then, who were to be the electors ? In the
resclutions a constituency was proposed analogous in
character to the present, but infinitely improved,
representing 59,000,0001. of capital, all invested in
India. It was objected that it would be impossible
to canvass such a constituency. He believed so, and
he thought this was one of the great recommenda-
tions of the plan. Passing under review various
other objections to this part of the resolutions, he
insisted that the proposition was a wise one ; that if
there was to be a real council for India recourse
must be had to the elective principle ; that this was
an all-important portion of any scheme ; and that
other questions—such as patronage and finance—
wets subordinate and, comparatively, matters of
detail. In conclusion, he urged upon the house
OW PIM 5 O*olol4 C 04,0041 wet. otP911114)(1. 4114

in knowledge and experience to the Court of Direc-
tors, it would be better not to renounce the existing
machinery ; that unless a body was created in this
country that could control the Government of India
in India, and if they adopted the principles of the
school of simplicity, they might depend upon it that
the fate of our Indian empire was sealed, and it
would be deservedly lost.

Lord PALMERSTON should confine his observations,
he said, to Mr. Disraeli's elaborate defence of his bill,
and especially to the advisability of having a council
of persons elected by parliamentary constituencies.
He contended that the argument in favour of the
elective principle was founded upon a fallacious
analogy. It appeared to him that eighteen was esi
inconvenient number for the council. Its functions
were not to decide, but merely to advise in the de-
partment for the management of Indian affairs; not
to control and overrule, for then the responsibility of
the Executive Government would cease, and there
would be, in fact, a double Government.
Mr. GLADSTONE did not think that, after the de-
cision of the house in February in favour of termi-
nating the existing form of government for India,
the best mode of proceeding was by resolutions,
which had the effect of making a new commence.
ment of the work. No progress had been made in
the settling of this question since it was first intro-
duced, and Lord Palmerston seemed to imply that
the present session would not see its settlement.
Looking at the state of public affairs and of public
opinion upon this subject, be respectfully protested
against affirming the motion before the house. He
bad heard from Mr. Disraeli an ingenious and
elaborate defence of his bill, but whatever scruples
he felt towards the measure had not been removed
by it. In neither plan, however, could he see any
elements of a good scheme, and there was great
difficulty in attempting to govern by one people
another people separated not only by distance, but
by blood and by institutions. The Court of Direc.
burs had been practically a body protective of the
people of India, and there ought not to be a less
efficient provision for that object. He looked in
vain, however, be said, in either plan for any protec-
tive power that could be compared with the Court
of Directors. There should be a protection afforded
to the people of India against the ignorance, error,
or indiscretion of the people and Parliament of
England. There had grown up, he observed, a
system fraught with danger to the Parliament and
to the liberties of the people of England, as well as
to India, by the undue and unconstitutional exercise
of power by the Executive here through the treasury
and army of India, by which wars were commenced
without the knowledge or consent of Parliament,
and an accumulation of debt was cast upon India.
There was no limitation on this power, or worse than
none, in either plan, and he therefore remonstrated
against the motion.
Mr. GREGORY moved, as an amendment, a resolu-
tion, " That at this moment it was not expedient to
pass any resolutions for the future government of
India." _

Mr. W. EWART seconded the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL submitted that notice should
have been given of an amendment which would !a-
verse a previous decision of the house, and which
ought to be fully debated. He did not see why the
house should not proceed to consider the resolutions
proposed by the Government, and come to some
conclusion. In his opinion, the best mode of con•
stitating a council was, with certain restrictions and+
qualifications, to make the Crown responsible for the
nomination of the members.
The debate was prolonged by Sir George Grey
Mr. Walpole, Sir F. Baring, Lord Goderich, and Mr.
Horsman, who opposed the amendment.
Mr. V. SWITII also opposed the amendment, and
in the course of his speecn, alluding to the proposal
of Lord John Russell to proceed by resolutions, said
" the noble lord was quite consistent, having pro-
posed to him (Mr. Smith) in December last to
proceed by resolutions."
The amendment was then withdrawn and the
original motion agreed to.
On the order for going into a Committee of Supply
Mr. MONSELL moved an address praying her
Majesty that no alteration may be made in the
existing arrangements which regulate the admission,
to cadetships in the Royal Artillery and Royal
Engineers. He urged at seine length the inex•
pediency of altering
a system which, he said, worked
perfectly well.
Mr. Lefroy, Sir F. Smith, and Sir W. Williams
spoke against any alteration.
General PEEL, premising that he had made no
alteration in the system, and that the principle et
competitive examination would continue, explained
the state of the case, dissuading the house from
adopting the motion, although he suggested an
inquiry as to the best method of educating the
scientific branches of the army.
The raotior, mos Imported by Mr, Twoos sod
Air, Dihuy,

Mr. S. HERBERT, observing that, although the
nomination system was gone, that of competition had
been put back, explained the principles which he bad
laid down upon the subject of examinations, depre-
cating any further inquiry as superfluous.
rhe discussion VMS continued Lord G. H.
Vansittart, Mr. P. O'Brien, and A. Vane-
Tempest.
Mr. Bourne' said the motion, in its present form,
would prevent any improvement, and that the house
ought to know what the actual state of things was.
Mr. MONSELL having made a verbal alteration in
his motion, to meet Mr. Roebuck's objection, after
some remarks by Mr. WALPOLE, who recommended
that the matter should be left to the Secretary for
War, and by Captain Vrviar, the house divided, when
the motion of Mr. Monsell was virtually carried by
217 to 177.
On the order for the second reading of the Excise
Duties Bill,
Mr. DEASY pleaded for the removal of certain local
burdens in Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer as a
set-off to this tax.
Mr. P. O'Berzx moved to defer the second reading
for six months.
This amendment was seconded by Mr. ESNONDE.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that the grounds
upon which the increase of the duty upon Irish
spirits had hitherto been resisted had been prac-
tically shown to be illusory.
Objections to the equalization of the spirit chilies
were offered by Mr. Grogan, Mr. M'Cann, Mr.
Cogan, Mr. Kirk. Mr. M'Evoy, and Mr. M'Carthy,
and some of the objections were answered by Lord
Naas.
Upon a division, the second reading was carried by
227 to 35. _ _

Other bills were advanced a stage, and the remain-
ing business having been disposed of, the house ad-
journed at a quarter-past one o'clock.

HOU SE OF LORDS—Tuzsosy.
OATHS BILL.
The house having gone into committee on the
Oaths Bill, _ _

The Earl of WtexLow moved an amendment to
the first clause, omitting the words declaring " that
no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate
hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, supe
rioritv, pre eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or
spiritual, within these realms." Believing that the
affirmation contained in these words was centrary
to the fact, as presented by the legalized status of
the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, and the
allegiance paid by English Roman Catholics to the
Pope, the noble earl maintained that the phrase
ought to be cancelled from the present version of
the parliamentary oaths.
The amendment was opposed by Lord LYNDHURST,
and ultimately withdrawn.
The LORD Cfp.westmoa moved the omission of
the fifth clause, under which a Jew was allowed to
take the oath by omitting the words "on the true
faith of a Christian." On constitutional grounds he
insisted that a perilous precedent would be estab-
lished if a single constituency, merely by persisting
in an illegal act, were permitted to overawe the
Legislature. On the religious question, he argued
at much leopth in favour of maintaining inviolate
the Christian character of the House of Commons.
Lord LYSDHURST defended the clause. He pointed
out the risk of unseemly collision that would be in-
curred between the two Houses of Parliament, or
between the Commons and the legal tribunals, if
that house proceeded, as had been threatened, to
admit Baron Rothschild to his seat by a simple reso-
lution of their own. The question had occupied
Parliament for very many years, successive measures
being carried in the Lower House by constantly in•
creasing majorities, while the majorities for the
negative among their lordships rarely exceeded one-
tenth of the whole number voting. It was no doubt
the duty of that house to stop precipitate legislation ;
but they ought not to reject a measure so perse•
veringly urged by the Commons, and enforced by
the opinion of the people. Before assuming so ob-
stinate au attitude, they should be quite sure that
they were standing on a rock. The clause, he re-
marked, was framed in stnct accordance with the
principle recognised in all the law courts and public
Offices, that an oath should be taken according to
the formula most binding on th 4 conscience of the
deponent. Lord Lyndhurst then adverted to the
religious arguments, and vindicated the right of
Jewish subjects to a full participation in all the pri-
vileges of citizenship.
The Duke of l'itsaidioaouGH supported the amend.
went, as did the Duke of RUTLAND,
el. The Clause was defended by Lord Stuart de Red-
thee, Earl Granville, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and
m. •
L. •
Lod '":14111 of anuouderrj. It was opposed by
Dungannon and the Biibop of Caibel,
Their lordibips divided--
For the clause
Aplust .. 119
........
Maiori4 opines Ow clam era