The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

name of " West's expedient." (Hear, hear.) Since that
time the question had been one as to the numbers of
persons holding office who should be allowed to sit in
Parliament, and the number of persons holding office under
Government, and sitting in that house, was not so
great as it had been in former times. When the matter
had ever been discussed in that house it, had not only been
on account of a feeling of jealousy for the independence of
the house, but it had also been with a view of considering
the expediency of discontinuing the office. It was al ways
assumed as if the whole six members would sit in Parlia-
ment at the same time. He could make as good a bugbear
as that with respect to the East India Company, if expe-
rience did not stare him in the face and contradict him.
He might say, "Look here !
.here are 24 directors belong-
ing to a neat company ; only-think what powerfulinfluence
must be exercised by these 24 gentlemen, all sitting in the
House of Commons, and enabled to decide the question in
favour of any party they choose ;" but that every one know
the case wag not so : that they never had had the 24 mem-
bers of the board sitting together in that house, or acting
as one body: that the most they had was some ve, or six,
or eight, and he did not know an occasion on which these
had all assembled together in Parliament. They had al-
ways been divided—two or three on one side of the house
and two or three on the other; but, if the whole of the
24 did not sit, why suppose the whole of the six would sit?
(Hear, hear.) The largest number of the directors that
had sat was eight, or one-third of the whole body, and it
was likely that one-third of the six—namely, two,
situwold
be the whole number of those members liable to in
Parliament. Well, then, how many of these two would
follow the Minister of the day? It was supposed, and in
his opinion most unwarrantably, these gentlemen would
be in the game situation as gentlemen holding office under
the Crown during pleasure, and that they would be always
ready to give a vote in favour of Government. But it
seemed to him a most irrational supposition that such
should be the case. In the first place they would be gen-
tlemen with a certain qualification, and having served 10
or 20 years in India. They would be most probably
pointed out to the Minister of the Crown for those quali-
fications, and would probably have come home with no
great political bias, which might be in favour of the Go-
vernment of the day, or which might be against them, and
if there was a man of very great eminence in opposition to
the Minister of the day he thought no President of the
Board of Control would venture to oppose him on that
account. But, even if a person nominated by the Crown
was so fortunate as to obtain a seat in that house, it
was still most improbable he would consider himself
under such obligations to the Government that he would
think himself bound to support them on all occasions.
On the contrary, he should think that a person so situated
would generally vote with his own party, voting indepen-
dently, and denying that he was to be looked on in the
same way as a person holding office during pleasure. He
was put there not to belong to the Government—he was
not there to carry on the general business of the country—
but to concern himself with the affairs of India, and give
the best advice he could to the Court of Directors. Any
man of independent mind would say they must not sup-
pose if he took the office he was bound to vote with Go-
vernment on every occasion, and, if he said so, no Presi-
dent of the Board of Control would venture to contradict
him. Well, then, the probability was, they would have
this great danger—that they would have one of these gen-
tlemen on one side of the house and one on the other.
Such was the mighty danger—such was the great hobgob-
lin that had been raised up against the proposition.
(Hear, hear.) But it was obvious the person nominated by
the Crown was not in the situation of a person holding
office during pleasure. When a Ministry resigned those
holding office under them, resigned with them, and others
of the opposite party were put in their place. But the
gentleman belonging to the Board of Directors would remain
and retain his seat, and no one could suppose that the
Government which came in would have such influence over
him, or that he would have such subservience to the Go-
vernment, that he would change his opinions for them.
Besides, they were not to suppose they were sitting in a
Parliament dependent on a close borough nomination.
The member of the board who was sent to that house
would be elected on a certain principle—he was a friend to
free trade or to protection • ho was for the ballot, or
against it ; he was for the Established Church, or for the
voluntary system ; he was elected on these principles, and
he was responsible to his constituency, and no change
of Government would induce him to change his politics
with them. He submitted, therefore, that whatever might
be the appearance of six members nominated by the Crown
having a right to sit in that house, the real practical dan-
ger was very little, and that, with respect to the broad
principle laid down by the hon. member, it was no broad
principle at all, but was merely a compromise made for
convenience,—and, as he thought, a very useful compro-
mise, which enabled members holding office under Govern-
ment to sit in that house ; and if that broad principle had
been admitted for which the Tory party contended, no one
holding office under the Crown would have had seats in the
house, and the constitution of the country would have
been totally different. (Hear.)
Mr. RICH contended that, while the India Board was
represented by its members in that house, and the Govern-
ment by the Secretary of the Board of Control, the Go-
vernment nominees would neither represent India nor the
Government, and stood, therefore: m a most anomalous
position. The house had acted on the principle of getting
rid of the subordinate officers of Government, as in the case
of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital and in other
instances, and these directors would not be in such a high
station that they ought to have seats. He recommended
that there should be a limitation placed to their tenure of
office. If they were to have seats at the board renewable
at the pleasure of the Minister, he was afraid they would
not do much honour to themselves. The best men for the
office of directors would be those who on their return from
India would be least desirous of a seat in the house, and
who, probably, would not have means enough for it.
Feel-
bag the directors nominated by the Crown could not be in-
dependent, he would vote against the clause.
Mr. V. SMITH expressed his groat satisfaction at the
present discussion, and tendered his thanks to the hon.
members for Manchester and the West Riding, and others
for the votes he would have received from them on a pre-
vious evening on the amendment he introduced respecting
the composition of the board. There was no word of abuse
which had not been lavished on the gentlemen whom the
house the other night determined to appoint as part of the
board ; but, objecting to that as he had done, he would not
consent to place a hand on a portion of the board and to
exclude six of the 18 members of the board they were
about to form from Parliament. He did not think there
was anything in the argument that these gentlemen would
have no time to sit in the house—there were many others
engaged in business in the house from whose presence they
derived great advantage, but he must say there had been
an inconsistency in the arguments of the right hon. baronet
the President of the Board of Control and of the noble lord
the member for London ; for at one time they had con-
tended these gentlemen would not be at the beck and call
of the Minister, and at another they said that the number
of officers of Government sitting in Parliament had been
so much diminished that there could be no harm in admit-
ting them. (Hear, hear.) He contended that these gen-
tlemen would be liable to the influence of the Crown,
&hough he thought there would be certain advantages in
the discussion of Indian affairs in having them present.
At a future period he would propose to exclude one of the
secretaries of the Board of Control from a seat in the house.
(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be better to have one
political secretary and one permanent secretary. (Hear.)
That change would only diminish by one the number of
the members of Government with seats, and the use of a
permanent secretary would be greatly felt. If they formed
a board--six to be elected one way, six to be elected ano-
ther, and six to be nominated by the Crown, who alone
could not sit in Parliament, they would draw a most invi-
dious distinction, and in the difficulty, which he admitted
to be very great, the best way appeared to be to leave the
constituencies of the country to chose these gentlemen at
pleasure.
Sir H. MADDOCK was not surprised to find the clause
had given rise to the constitutional jealousy of the house
but thought that jealousy might be much lessened if the
Government would make a slight alteration in an earlier
clause of the bill. The only reason for supposing these di-
rectors would be dependent upon the will of the Minister
was to be found in the duration of their office and its re •
newel. He strongly recommended the President of the
Board of Control to consider the propriety of limiting the
appointment for a term of years without any capacity of
reappointment. They ought, not to have the power of re-
turning the same six persons indefinitely, and if they
wished to retain the services of the best qualified persons
in India, they would make the office of brief tenure.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment 79
Against it 139
Majority OOOOO •• --60
The clause was then agreed to,
as was clause 11.
Clause 12, enacting the oath to be taken by directors,
was then proposed.
Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment, that a declaration
should be substituted for the oath.
Mr. BRIGHT approved of the amendment.
Mr. HADFIELD believed that the moral sense of the
country was shocked by the multiplication of oaths.
Mr. EWART commented on the inconsistency of enact-
ing a new oath when Parliament had occupied itself for
years past inarnerjri n g old ones.
several
SMITH . ELLICE supported the amend-
ment, the latter gentleman observinc, that having substi-
tuted a declaration for the oath formerly taken with re-
spect to the qualification of members of Parliament, he
could not conceive it necesaary to require an oath from di-
rectors.
Sir C. WOOD said ho had already proposed to leave out
the oath as to qualification, and to substitute a declaration
instead ; the oath would then simply stand as an oath of
office pledging the persons not to allow themselves to be
actuated by improper or corrupt motives that, if an oath was to be taken in any
Inc.aisieilai-eharateuver,shaye
could hardly conceive a case more sole than when,
an
oath was to be impor,ed on a man that he would discharge
a trust without be;aig influenced by any corrupotomveoti;ere
eedinms-
Mr. G. PHILLIUORE had hoped theof
Government
would have taken the present opportunity
of the admirUstering at least of one oath, and thne'renbyd
with
read a more'. lesson to the country.
Mr. NE,WDEGATE was opposed to the dispensing
an oath -on this occasion.

Mr. 141. BALL supported the amendment, believing that
the h onour of the person appointed would be a sufficient
seenrity for the faithful performance of the trust confided
to. him.

ilr. Sergeant SHEE believed that no oath was taken by
the Ministers of the Crown on their assuming office, but
that they simply made a declaration that they would pro-
tect some of the most valuable institutions of the realm.
That declaration was of the most solemn and binding obli-
gation. Surely, if a declaration was sufficient protection
for the Protestant Church and for the propor performance
of the high office of a Minister of State, it was quite suffi-
cient to secure a due discharge of the duties of a director
of the East India Company.
no hardship
BURRELL was understood to say that he saw
~, in requiring an oath to be taken by a director
of the East India Company.
Lord STANLEY believed that a man was equally liable
to penalties whether he violated an oath or a solemn decla-
ration, and he
think that the did not, therefore, in that point of view
important conseqinnegn away
with an oath was of any very
something more in the". But he apprehended there was
changing of an oath f'ol)roposed amendment than the mere
anadzaration, and, that it was in-
tended to imply that,
ease, it afforded no security. being needless in the present
he should support the amendmeeZ himself of that opinion
penalt a
Mr. V. SMITH had no doubt that
declaration, sub-
jecting the person taking it to
binding as an oath - and he thought 1;1"u" be equally
(sir C. Wood) would do well to adopt tuetight hon. friend
posed, and at once substitute a declarationh'fxotendment pro-
Sir R. INGLIS considered the statement of oath' and learned serjoant (Shee) was erroneous
—natatlp3 hon.
Ministers do not take office upon a mere 'delaratioi3;,' bthuatt
on the contrary, that they have an oath solemnly adminis'
tered to them. The proposition before the committee was
not merely to abolish the oath in this instance, but to
abolish oaths generaly. liaomdng the inguence which

oaths had on the consciences of men, he, for one, could
never agree to that proposition.
Mr. MASTERMAN very much objected to oaths being
taken unnecessarily ; and in this case he thought the right
hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood) would do wisely to yield
upon this point.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that the general expression of
opinion on this occasion ought at once to influence the
right hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood), and ind ce him to
accede to the proposal which had been made. Ho believed
the concession would be exceedingly well reciived by all
parties.
Mr. L BUTT did not wish, by his silence, to have it in-
ferred that he assented to the proposition that the taking
of an oath was contrary to religion or morality. It was
erroneous to say that any penalty attached to an oath or a
declaration which bound a party for his future conduct ;
it was merely an obligation on the conscience. But the
question they were now debating had been most inconve-
niently raised. Surely, if in any case they were justified
in requiring an oath, they could not more legitimately or
fairly impose it than upon men who were intrusted with
the government of a great population like that of India.
The real question which lurked under this proposition
was, whether or not they would retain a solemn recogni-
tion of a Divine Providence in the administration of human
affairs. What ese r a th 3 &ffmence let areen an oath and
a declaration ? When that question was fairly brought
before the house he was perfectly ready to maintain it.
Believing that there was no case more solemn, or in which
it was more right to apply it, he should certainly support
the administration of an oath to those whom they were
about to intrust with the administration of our Indian
empire.
Mr. COBDEN said, the only argument of the hon. and
learned gentleman was that they were not doing right in
dealing with this question on the present occasion. He
did not understand the hon. and learned gentleman to say
that the efforts which had been made to diminish the
number of oaths were unwise, and surely he did not mean
to deny that they had now been for some time gradually
abolishing oaths. Was he ignorant that the Duke of
Richmond once boasted in the House of Commons that he
had been instrumental in abolishing some millions of oaths
per annum ? Did he object to that; would he revive those
oaths ; would he restore the oaths which were taken in the
Custom-house, for instance? The hon. and learned gen-
tleman did not object to the principle of diminishing the
number of oaths, but he objected to deal with the subject
now. But how were they to prevent an increase in the
number of oaths except by stopping the principlo when it
was proposed to introduce it, as in the present case ? What
was said now was, not that they would abolish all oaths
taken by magistrates, lord-lieutenants, and every other
official. They were not proposing to prevent the hon. and
learned gentleman from cross-examing a witness according
to law under the responsibility of an oath, nor from going
into a committee-room to discharge their functions the
responsibility of which he professed weighed upon him
when he had taken an oath. For himself, he hoped he
should go into a committee-room without having taken an
oath with just the same feelings of responsibility as if he
had gone through that ceremony. The single question
befo.e the committee was, whether or not they would
consent to increase the number of oaths in a case where it
had been clearly demonstrated to be unnecessary.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, he did not think the hon. gen-
tleman had quite followed the argument of the hon. and
learned gentleman opposite. The hon. and learned gentle-
man did not argue that it would be incompetent or unwise
for Parliament to abolish oaths when they were unneces-
sary, or when they were taken upon trivial occasions ; but
what he said was, that this was not a trivial occasion, or
an insignificant or trifling oath, but an oath taken upon a
solemn occasion, and for solemn purposes. The question
was not, as had been stated by the hon. gentleman the
member for the West Riding, whether or not they should
add additional oaths to those already taken ; because there
was an oath now imposed upon persons elected to the office
of director of the East India Company, and, some parts of
it being thought unnecessary, it was proposed to leave them
out—but it really was, whether the occasion of taking an
office of this great importance, power, and responsibility,
was one fitted for taking an oath. If it was a fitting occa-
sion, then the principle was not in question, but if it was
not, then the oaths taken by the Lord-Lieutenant, the Lord
President of the Council, and all other persons holding
office in this country were improper, and there ought to be
an act passed to abolish them.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment 99
Against it l3B
Majorityagainst the amendment —39
Mr. J. B. SMITH then moved the insertion of the
words " Or a declaration," with a view of making it op-
tional for persons whether to take the oath or make a de-
claration.
Sir C. WOOD said that the general law already pro-
vided for cases where declarations could be substituted for
oaths, and there was, therefore, no occasion for insert.
ing a particular provision in the bill to meet this particular
case.

Mr. J. B. SMITH thought there would be less objection
on that account to insert this provision.
Mr. BRIGHT thought the right hon. gentleman was mis-
leading the house entirely on this point. A declaration
could only be substituted for an oath in the case of persons
belonging to the Society of Friends, of Moravians, or of
Separatists, all three very-small bodies. Indeed, he believed,
he had never met with but one Separatist in his life. How-
ever, the great bulk of persons, 99 out of 100, would be
obliged to take the oath, and it was possible that they
might thus shut out a number of persons whose services
would be very valuable. The bill introduced by the Re-
corderofLondon forthe purpose of substituting declarations
for oaths in certain cases would not meet this case, as it
applied only to judicialjoaths, and would afford no relief to
those who were called on to take the oath of office for a
director of the East India Company. He really thought
the Government ought to give way, especially after the late
division, when almost every member on that side of the
house, except the members on the Treasury bench, had
voted in the minority. It was only by coalescing with hon.
gentlemen opposite—a course which was considered trea-
son to the Treasury bench, when gentlemen on that side
of the house took it—that the Government had obtained a
majority of 39, a number, no doubt, which the hon. baro-
net below (Sir R. H. Inglis), the great stickler for oaths,
would no doubt think more highly of than ever. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.)
After a few words from Mr. E. BALL,
1 Mr. HAYWOOD said, there were a great many per-
sons, not Quakers or Mora,vians, who had conscientious
objections to taking an oath, and they should have the
option of making a declaration.
Lord STANLEY asked if the sects now privileged by
law in other cases would be exempted from taking the oath
under this act ?
Sir C. WOOD wished to say, that if an oath was to be
taken at all, this was an occasion on which it should be
taken. (Hear, hear.) If it was wished that oaths should
not be taken, then let there be a general measure for that
purpose, but he objected to a partial proposition in a bill
like the present. (Hear.) In answer to the question of
the noble lord (Stanley), ho had to state that, whenever
by the existing law a person was relieved from taking
an oath he would also be relieved under this bill. (Hear.)
Mr. J. B. SMITH said, this was not a question of
oaths. What he proposed was, that there should be the
option of making a declaration on the part of those who
were neither Quakers nor Moravian, but who, neverthe-
less, objected to taking an oath.
The committee then divided ; the numbers were—
For the clause
For the amendment l2
854 Majority for the clause —39
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 13 being read,
Mr. BRIGHT proposed to report progress.
Sir C. WOOD hoped the committee would allow them
to proceed with that and the 14th clause.
Mr. BRIGHT had no objection to proceeding with the
two clauses. Referring, then, to clause 13, he contended
that it would be impossible to prevent canvassing by the
proprietors of East India Stock.
Sir J. HOGG explained that the by-laws to be drawn
in accordance with this clause would preclude the directors
and the proprietors from canvassing.
Lord STANLEY doubted whether the by-laws would
have the requisite power, and suggested that Parliament
should establish a more direct prohibition.
M. MILNES thought it was a strange clause. It would
disturb all the ordinary rules of society, and prevent any
candidate for the office of director asking a friend over the
dinner-table for his support.
After some further conversation,
Sir C. WOOD said he was perfectly ready to give up the
clause.
The clause was then rejected.
On clause 14, fixing the quorum of the General Courts
of Proprietors at 20, being read,
i Mr. BRIGHT said he looked upon the object of the
clause to be to snuff out that moribund body, the Court of
Proprietors. He believed that very fow persons generally
attended the Court of Proprietors, and, if the quorum were
fixed at 20, it would be ver-j, easy for the hon. member for
Honiton, when he wished, to give the hint to his friends
to quit, and then the Court would be broken up.
Sir J. HOGG maintained that it was desirable to fix a
quorum, in order to prevent two or three proprietors merely
from keeping the Court sitting, as had been the case, so
late, even, as 1 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. HUME proposed to make the quorum of the Court
of Proprietors, exclusively of the directors, present, 10,
in.itead of 20, as in the clause.
The amendment was negatived, and 20 was retained.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Monday.
DUBLIN PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION
DILI.
This bill passed through cc,mmittee.
EXPENSES OF 'ELECTIONS BILL.
On the order of tho da
3r-
:o this bill, for considering tho amendments
Mr. HUME said that he wished to propose several addi-
tional amendments, and. he hoped the further consideration
of the measure would. be postponed to some day on which
a discussion could take place.
Mr. C. BERKELEY suggested that the hon. member
for inontrose should defer the provisions he wished to
engraft upon the bill until next session—(a laugh)—when
the noble member for the city of London intended to bring
forward a general measure on the subject of the represen-
tation.
bill referred,
Sir H. DAVIE said he had never heard of any complaint
in Scotland with renrci to the proceedings to which the
as he supposed it was,
and hobwould, therefore, oppose the applica-
tion° f the measure to that country.
Mr. FORBES could. not see, if this bill was a good one,
Mr. E. DENISON
as well as t 'why it should not apply to Scotland
, o niglaud
sure unreasonable, an,
Colonel SIBTHOPa) had before
-.thou ht the provisions of the roes.-
'I that the bes course would be not
to press it further.
this as a mean, dirty, , shabby the same opinion.
—however he might regret that
be excluded from tbe lions() said that he looked upon
( A
laugh.) Entertaining
and ho still entertained
the effect of the bill. Whoever daZd t
his constituents the p over of expressing
feel-
ings on such occasior s was unwerty too
an hon. friend of his should
hat that would be
ttbeeti3mpt to deny
_he
hnoiertaa
tu!ing that. opinion
rrilopeerthem. He should only have expected such a bill from one
who who had not a shilling in his pocket. The bon, and gallant
member concluded by moo ing that the further considera-
tion of this bill should be postponed till that day three
months.

Mr. GEACH, also, felt v ery strong objections to this
bill, because he thought it attempted to do that Which
never could be done—viz., to put down the expression of
popular feeling. There w: a large class of the commun-
ity who were not intruste( I with the franchise, but, at the
same time, it was admitte d that those who were intrusted
with it were trustees for t hose who were not. Well, then,
this large class of non-electors had scarcely any means of
expressing their opinions,, if the Legislature put down the
use of all outward emblems, such as mustering under flags
and marching in procesF.ion vith music. Those classes had
a.righet to express their opin: icn3, and if they were deprived
deal With, ana
of the means of peaceably a xpressing them, they would be
driven to adopt a way tvlsicl would be more difficult to
greatly more injurious. (Hear.) Besides, .