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

the Irish law officers came to that decision, approved of
their decision. The Government, therefore, did not intend
now to institute any further proceedings in the matter.
The course suggested by the hon. gentleman ought to be
taken long ago, so that these rev. gentleman might be
prosecuted at the next assizes, If they decided on prose-
cuting no legal proceedings could be taken till next spring,
so that they would be prosecuting in 1854 for transac-
tions that took place in 1852. ( Hear, hear.) But it
might be said, " prosecute for the sake of example."
Well, another election had taken place for the same
county, where these transactions complained of took place
—the same candidates stood, and the election passed off
in perfect tranquility, and no complaints had been pre-
ferred against the conduct of any person, whether lay or
clerical. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, a prosecution was not
necessary for the sake of example. If he were asked, "Do
you concur in condemning the conduct which these rev.
gentlemen pursued? He must say that he did ; and such
was the opinion of her Majesty's Government when they
expressed their wish that a prosecution should take place.
But when he said that, he did not think that their conduct
—reprehensible as he considered it to be—was in such
marked contrast to the conduct of the Roman Catholic
clergy generally in Ireland as to make it fit that these two
clergymen should be selected for punishment. (Opposition
cheers.) However reprehensible their conduct, it did not
stand so prominently forward that they' should be picked
out and made the subject of legal proceedings. (Hear,
hear.) He was bound in all sincerity to say that the con-
duct of the Roman Catholic clergy from some of the high-
est to the lowest rank, was such as to give great pain to all
those who wished to see the ministers of religion, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, retain that respect and
reverence which was essential to the due discharge of their
sacred calling. (Hear, hear.) Things had been said and
done by the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland which, If
said and done by the Protestant clergy in this country,
would have raised an outcry from the Land's End to John
o'Groats. (Hear, hear.) But then, on the other hand,
there were circumstances in the crisis of the last election,
which, although they did not in the least justify the con-
duct of the Roman Catholic clergy, offered some palliation
of it. There was a great political crisis which they looked
upon as a religious crisis, for they were threatened with
the withdrawal of the endowment of Maynooth, and they
anticipated, though erroneously and unjustly, that the
party then in power would use that power against the
liberties which were given by former acts of Parliament to
the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen. Some allow-
ance'should be made on this account for the excitement
of the Roman Catholic clergy. But he would abjure the
house to draw the veil of oblivion over these transactions,
and not to rake up animosities which he hoped had passed
away for ever. (Hoar.) He therefore hoped that the de-
bate would not be continued any longer, because he was
afraid, if the discussion went on, things would be said
which would have a mischievous effect both in England
and Ireland. (Hear.) He would then ask the house to pass
on to the more practical business of legislating for their
distant dominions in India—(hear)—hoping that a better
time would come, when both clergymen and laymen, priests
and landlords, would agree to allow elections to be carried
on with a more free exercise of choice, and more in har-
mony with the spirit of the constitution. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME said that he was very much afraid the noble
lord would find himself disappointed in the hope that free-
dom of election would henceforth be permitted to be exer-
cised, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, without the
intervention of party spirit, and intimidation of one kind
or other. The people of Ireland asked for the ballot to
put an end to such intimidation, and he would advise the
noble lord and his colleagues to ti 7 that remedy. (Hear.)
The noble lord blamed the Roman Catholic clergy, but he
(Mr. Hume) might with equal justice blame the Protestant
clergy, who interfered with elections as much as the
Roman Catholic clergy, though perhaps not so openly and
directly. The clergy on both skies had a perfect right to
interfere if they did so in a proper and fair manner. The
legislature could not prevent such interference, but if the
noble lord really wished to see interference put an end to,
ho would give the people the ballot. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Col. NORTH Mr. Sergeant SHEE,
and Mr. MALINS,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose for the purpose of asking the
house whether it was desirable that this discussion should
be any longer upon the formal motion of the adjournment
of the house till Monday. (Hear, hear.) The question
had been brought forward and answered, the two learned
gentlemen had expressed their views upon it, and as it was
not possible to come to any other result than the agreeing
to the motion for the adjournment of the house till Monday,
he trusted that they might be allowed to turn their atten-
tion to the more practical business of legislating for the
people of India. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for adjournment was then agreed to.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 10, providing that directors appointed by her
Majesty should be eligible to seats in Parliament,
Viscount JOCELYN moved an amendment, giving the
Crown the pow_er of removing any director, on address
from either house of Parliament, declaring that his object
was to prevent the directors from being ever actuated by
party . . .

Sii C. WOOD admitted that it was most desirable that
the directors should be as independent as possible. Taking
the words of the act with respect to judges, " quamcliu se
bene gesserint," he Bari endeavoured to use the best English
form for the purpose of providing that the directors should
continue in office as long as they did their duty. The
words which he had adopted were, in fact, borrowed from
the County Courts Act.
Mr. HUME said this clause was a most important one,
and should be well considered. He recollected a noble
lord's being removed from the Government for having
voted for the repeal of the duty on barley in Scotland ; and
it was impossible to say that the proposed power of re-
moval would not be exercised in a similar spirit. Ho had
no hope that any suggestion of his for the amendment of
the bill would be attended to ; otherwise, he would sug-
gest that the removal of the six nominees ought to be made
to rest with the proprietors, in order to prevent the ano-
maly of different rules being applied to persons holding the
same situation.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said every statesman of emi-
nence had been of opinion that the great evil to be got rid
of was the power of the Court of Proprietors. As the clause
tended to diminish that power ho should vote for it ; but
if the noble lord pressed his amendment to a division, ho
should also vote for that.

Sir H. MADDOCK said, what the hon. member for
Montrose suggested was so utterly repugnant to reason that
he trusted the committee would not assent to it. He was
not aware of any instance in which a director had been
displaced from office by the proprietors. It should be borne
in mind that hitherto few directors had had seats in that
house, and he did not think the number at all likely to be
increased. The independence of the directors could only
be secured by limiting, as far as possible, the range of se-
lection, and he should hereafter propose an amendment for
the attainment of that object.
Mr. E. ELLICE (Coventry) thought the committee was
involved in considerable difficulty through the course pur-
sued by the Government. The Government, jealous of
the Court of Directors, thought their object could only be
attained by nomination from the Crown ; while some hon.
members were of opinion that the best course would be to
give to the directors themselves, or at least to three-
fourths of their number, the election of persons in the same
category as thoso from which the Crown was to make its
nomination, reserving to the Crown a veto. There was a
great constitutional objection to giving to six persons no-
minated by the Crown, the right to a seat in Parliament,
but the amendment of the noble lord did not meet the
case, and therefore he must vote for the clause.
Mr. OTWAY did not much value the Court of Direc-
tors, but as long as they remained he should wish to see
them independent. If, therefore, the noble lord pressed
his amendment, he (Mr. Otway) must support it.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it was essential that mem-
bers should not go to the division under the impression
that these appointments were to bo held during pleasure.
The words " misbehaviour" and " inability" had already
received a legal interpretation in an act of Parliament, but
independently of that, it would be quite impossible to re-
move a director merely for giving a hostile vote. If a
director should be convicted in a court of law of taking a
bribe in the disposal of his patronage, or, if his inability
should be proved, then the Crown would have power to
remove, but that was totally distinct from a power de-
pending merely on will or discretion.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said that after what the noble
lord had just said, he (Mr. Seymour) did not seehow he could
oppose the amendment. The superior judges could only
be removed on address from both houses, and he did not
see why these gentlemen should not have equal protection.
The clause put them on a level in this particular with the
judges of the County Courts, whereas, in his opinion, their
position would be more important.
Sir C. WOOD said he had inserted in the clause the
same words in English which in Latin formed the tenure
of the higher judicial appointments.
Mr. ELLIOT feared that tho effect of the dame would
be to make the nominated directors completely dependent
on the Minister of the day.
Lord J. RUSSELL feared that the bearing of the clause
was not understood. The elected directors would be re-
movable by the proprietors, and why not the nominated
directors removable by the Crown ? Besides, the appoint-
ments would be for six years, and it was very improbable
that any President of the Board of Control would bo in
office all that time.
After an observation from Mr. ELLIOT and Mr. CAYLEY
respectively,
Mr. COBDEN said that in his opinion the expediency
of the amendment of the noble lord would depend on the
fate of the following clause, which gave the nominated
directors a right to sit in that house. If they were to sit
in that house, the more independent they were made of the
Crown the better ; if not, he thought the best way would
be to have the responsibility of their appointment and re-
tention with the Ministers of the Crown.
Mr RICH said that his experience of Parliament taught
him that whenever proceedings were to be taken against
an individual, especially if that individual where a mem-
ber, Parliament invariably flinched from the duty. He
should, therefore, prefer to have the power of displace-
ment in the hands and on the responsibility of ministers.
Mr. BRIGHT was about to move an amendment, when
The CHAIRMAN informed him that the time had gone
by, and
Mr. BRIGHT then expressed his intention to support
the amendment of the noble lord, and if that motion
should be lost to move the rejection of the clause.
Mr. MANGLES was understood to support the clause.
Lord JOCELYN said, he had heard nothing to justify
him in withdrawing his amendment. I
Mr. V. SMITH doubted whether the proposed amend-
ment would make the nominee directors more independent.
It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the
Crown than to compel the Minister, when a director be-
came
incapable, to ransack all his infirmities, as the ground
of an address to the Crown for his removal. (Hear.)
The house then divided—
For the amendment 43
Against it
Majority —47
Mr. BRIGHT then moved the rejection of the
whole clause, on the ground that it would be im-
proper to have in that house six persons nominated
by the Government, and who would be at the beck
of the Government, and holding situations with good
salaries and an immense patronage. The number of
nominees fixed upon was only six, but that number might
hereafter be multiplied, and a proportionate addition made
to the 35 placemen which the ministers could at present
muster on any occasion when their assistance was re-
quired, without taking into consideration 'the great
many other members who, though not holding places,
were equally subservient to the powers that be. IA
thought that, if these persons were allowed to
_f!it
in that house, their services in Lea denhall-street would be
rendered much less useful, while in Parliament they couldrs.
never maintain the position of independent members.
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible that they should forget
who had appointed them, or with whom lay their re-elec-
tion, and the consequence would be, that the seat of a
nominee in the Court of Direction would be converted
into a political office, under the Government of the day.
Sir C. WOOD said that he could not agree with the
•re-
proachful term of " placemen," which had been applied
to these gentlemen. He could not) conceive that if