The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-27 00:00:00

insert in the bill, which were Sir J. Currie, Mr.
Doring, Sir R. Montgomery, Mr. Pringle, Sir Claude
Wade, Sir J. Pennelather, Colonel Beaumont, and
Colonel Vivian. Of those intended to represent the
Indian constituency, he would name Mr. Mangles,
Captain Shepherd, Sir J. W. Hogg, and Mr.
Prinsep. Six members of the Council would have
the power of summoning a meeting at any time.
The members would be at first appointed for
two, four, or six years, and permanently for
six years. They would not sit in Parliament,
and would have a salary of 1,0001. a year. The
distribution of patronage would remain the same
as now, the Queen doing directly what she now
did indirectly. The patronage now exercised
by the Company would belong to the Council.
There would be still, as now, of least for the present,
two armies in India. The expenses of Indian
Uovernment would be paid out of its revenue;
provision was also made that the state of the revenue
should be laid before Parliament, and a system of
credit would be established. But he was bound to
say that he felt great anxiety on the subject of
Indian revenue. The financial system applicable
to the colonies did not apply to India. A royal com-
mission was to be issued, which should visit India,
and examine and rep rt on its financial condition
throughout all its establishments. He had inserted
a clause for the appointment of such a commission
in the present bill. He trusted that the house
would allow the bill to be introduced, that its pro-
visions might be studied during the recess. He
believed that it would effect a most benefieitil change
in the government of India, and open a new era of
prosperity to that country.
Replying to Mr. Elliot,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the bill
would not interfere with the power now exercised by
the Governor-General.

Lord PALMERSTON gave his full consent to the
introduction of the bill, on the understanding that
his opinion was fully reserved as to the details.
Mr. GILPIN objected that the people of India were
not represented by the bill.
Mr. R. MANGLES said that he should oppose all
attempts to deprive the East India Company of its
power, but if the bill passed, he and his fellow•direc-
tors would do their best to promote the efficiency of
the new Government.

Mr. WHITE thought that the people of India
ought to have been represented. The measure con-
trasted favourably with that of the noble lord (Pal-
merston), but was not, he feared, free from detects
and omissions.

Sir 1:. PERRY said that the preseut bill mainly
differed from that of the noble lord in the increased
number of the Council and the introduction of the
elective principle. In the application of this princi-
ple class interests were too much regarded.
Mr. BLACK claimed a member of the Council for
Edinburgh.
Mr. VANCE claimed another for Dublin.

Some further discussion, of miscellaneous cha-
racter, took place, in the course of which various
suggestions were thrown out, and questions asked
by different members on points of detail, eliciting
successive replies from Mr. Disraeli. Ultimately
the motion was agreed to, and leave being given, the
bill was brought in and read a first time. The
second reading was then fixed for Monday the 19th
of April.