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

any one considered the class of persons from which
these gentlemen were to be selected, he could think that
they at all belonged to the category of those Who were
members of the Government, and who were appointed
to office, because they were the political supporters of that
Government. That was not, however, the character of
the men, and it was a total abuse of the term to call them[`
" placemen." As to the honourable member's observation;.
with reference to what he considered the large number of
placemen who held seats iu that house, he (Sir C. Wood) could
only say, that within his experience, the number of. those
placemen holding seats had been reduced by some 5 or 6,
and he did not think, therefore, that there was any ground
for the apprehension that the introduction of these nomi-
nees into Parliament, assuming that they would not be in-
dependent, could give the Government such an overwhelm-
ing numerical strength in that house as the hon. member
anticipated. He wished to call their attention to what the class
of persons was from which these nominees were to be selected.
They would be persons who had returned from service in
India, after a residence there of, perhaps, some 30 or 35
years, and who, so far from being accustomed to bow to
the beck of a government, had been themselves the inde-
pendent rulers of countries hardly inferior in extent to
this kingdom. Was it likely, then, that such persons—
greatly experienced and advanced in years—brought up as
they would have been in the Indian school, where they
were trained to the exercise of power and authority, and
where they acquired an independence of character and
spirit—was it likely that they could be treated by any
government as placemen ; or that they would submit to
such a species of control from the Government, or from any
other body in that house ? (Hear, hear.) It was impro-
bable that these gentlemen would be induced to support
the Government, which had nominated them, in order to
insure their re-election on tho expiration of the period of
six years, which was allotted for their term of office,
since the likelihood would be that, at the end of that
period, there could be a change of Government—(hear,
hear)—and there would be no dishonourable motive which
could operate with these gentlemen in their conduct in
that house. (Hear, hear.) He could hardly perceive how
the independence of these gentlemen could be at all risked
by their holding seats in that house, and it could not be
denied that they were the most fitted persons to take part
in any deliberations which affected the administration of
Indian affairs. He considered, therefore, that, looking at
the character of these gentlemen, the situation in which
they would be placed, and the position which they would
fill, they could not bo in any respect obnoxious to the
charge of being placemen, or of being in auy way depen-
dent on the Ministry which had appointed them. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN thought this was by far the most important
clause in the bill. With reference to what the right hon. gen-
tleman had said, he would observe that they did not wish
to deprive constituencies of the power of electing any can-
didate who might be considered eligible. But what he
contended for was this, that gentlemen who were nomi-
nated to sit on the Board of Directors, should make their
selection, and confine themselves either to that house or to
the board. In the United States of America the constitu-
tion prohibited any man, who held an office of emolument,
from having a seat in ongross at all. If it be true that
there was already a vast amouut of work to be done by tho
Board of Directors, the fair argument then was, that tho
directors, who would be nominated by the Crown, would
have enough to do without being engaged in that house.
(Hear, hear.) Indeed, it was impossible that the members
of that house who had no other duties to attend to could
perform their work efficiently in the house. Would any
man then tell him that any person could properly attend
to his Parliamentary duties, and at the same time could
efficiently do his duties in Leadenhall-street, for which he
was paid, in addition to a right of patronage. (Hear.)
The point they were now deciding upon, was what broke
up the Government of Mr. Fox—namely, the patronage of
India, and he could say they would be wanting in that
jealousy which distinguished their forefathers, if they ad-
mitted into that house six men, or it might be ten men,
dependent on tho Ministers of the Crown. He therefore
called upon the committee to oppose the clause.
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY and Sir
C. WooD,

Lord STANLEY argued that the right hon. gentleman's
argument in favour of the independence of his placernen
contradicted itself. India was no longer a place for
amassing fortunes at once, and gentlemen who went there
generally returned, not advanced in life and perfectly inde-
pendent in situation, but under 50, and in circumstances
that would induce them to keep their re-appointment in
view, and so render them subservient to the party which
appointed them. On these grounds he objected to the bill.
In ordinary circumstances, therefore, you would have the
nominee swayed by feelings of gratitude to the Minister to
whom he owed his appointment for some considerable
period after that event ; and again, governed by analogous
feelings for a considerable period before the expiration of
their tenure of office, looking forward to a re-appointment
by the same authority. But even if they were to enjoy
entire independence, which yet he could not think was pos-
sible, he did not think it would in that case be desirable
that these gentlemen should have seats in the house. For,
in order to have things go on smoothly in an executive
office, it was not expedient to have those who filled that
office putting themselves in opposition to the Government ;
he could not think anything could be more inconvenient.
(Hear, hear.) He wished the house to suppose that a great
question of Indian policy should come on, such, for instance,
as the Affghan war—say some two years afterho had secured
his appointment as a director, and whilst ho had a seat in the
house. It would be possible for him to resign his seat either
in the house or at the board, but no man can tell him that he
would vote without embarrassment or that he would find it
very easy to act upon his convictions, and vote against the
Minister to whom he owed his appointment. Again, they
could not say that the exclusion of these gentlemen would
be any infringement upon the rights of the electors ; in -
deed, the argument had no application to the case. Let
them take a parallel instance. Any mercantile company
taking an agent, say, into their employment, had a perfect
right to say that, as they paid handsomely, they expected
the whole of his time, and make it a condition that they
should not accept a seat in Parliament. That was a con-
dition which they had a perfect right to make, and there
could be nothing in the case of the Government to deprive
them of the same right. There was one more argument :
it was said that it would not be worth the while of those
who had been high office in India, but had come home,
ant others of the same class, to accept seats at the board
if a condition were annexed excluding them from Parlia-
ment. On the contrary, he believed that they would find
that, even for the term of years proposed, those seats would
be objects of ambition to the persons contemplated by the
Government, and that they would bo much competed for
by persons who had been in the Indian service. But in
case it wore so, that having made the experiment they
should afterwards find that they could not get the class
of persons contemplated for these o:lices, the remedy of the
plan lay in increasing the salary, and otherwise rendering
the plan more eligible—but it was not desirable, in order
to attain an end attainable in any other way, to render the
danger of corruption more imminent in the house by giv-
ing seats in Parliament to the six nominees of the Crown.
Sir J. W. HOGG, after referring to the argument which
the noble lord who had just addressed the house had used
on a former debate, said he would entreat the house to
consider how they would defeat the measure by pursuing
the course which had been proposed. If hon. members
once created the impression abroad that those men were to
be the mere nominees of tho Crown, men of high princi-
ples would not accept the office. (Hear.) He was himself
opposed to the principle of nomination, but the house had
adopted it, and his desire now was to see it work well.
(Hear, hear.) If, then, they asserted that these men were
to be at the beck of the Minister, and that at the same
time they were sent into the Board of Directors they were
to be refused seats in that house, they would find it diffi-
cult to obtain independent-minded men to accept the office.
(Hear.) Throughout the whole of the service in India
every man felt himself to be identified with the public ser-
vice ; and he thought the same thing would occur with the
inen sent into the Court of Directors. (Hear, hear.) He
could assure the hon. members for Manchester and the
West Riding that they were right in their estimate of the
labour performed by the Court of Directors. With refe-
rence to what had been said about admitting these nomi-
nees to seats in that house, he would observe that, although
the Board of Directors consisted of 30 members, at no time
had there been more than seven of the directors in Parlia-
ment ; and he believed that of the six nominees not more
than one would obtain a seat in that house. And ho would
say to hon. members not to agree to a course which would
place the other directors in a bettor position than those
who would be nominated by Government. (Hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said they had heard a good deal of the
devotion of the directors to the interests of India, the de-
votion
and he
et
hodf
htehe
de i r
tot i
amsek,a ni
fd
tthhaet wwhe or
el e
tohfe theea s
eir
mind,,
.
thant o the ea
tbt
eu
us id-
nwehsesroeftthheeirhtoiumsee ?w4sWwhhaltu h
could htheyyuld
o more devote
to the circular of the Minister, and come down to the
house with their votes at the service of the Government ?
The question had been treated in language that almost
assumed that there was a kind of Roman virtue abroad in
these days, such as made any precautions as to the compo-
sition of the house unnecessary. Why did the President
of the Board of Control not raise the question broadly and
directly, by bringing forward the statute of Anne for the
purpose of repealing it ? They would then be fairly dealt
with by the Minister, which they were not when it was
proposed to repeal a statute of such importance by a clause
in a bill like this. The right hon. gentleman then re-
ferred to the 25th clause of the 6th Anne, c. 7, which pro-
, hibited all who held any new office created since the act
from sitting in Parliament, and returned to the present
composition of the house under this bill. First, they had
the President of the Board of Control, then two secretaries
and six nominee directors, or, in other words, six under-
secretaries ; in fact, this department of India would be re-
presented by nine individuals in the house, all holding
office under the Crown. Was there any parallel to this ?
By an Act of Parliament more than two under-secretaries
could not sit in this house. But here were eight under-
secretaries connected with one department, and all to bo
in the house. It was the more important, as connected
with the speech of the President of the Board of Control,
who seemed to ignore the precautions of former days' as
though it were no longer necessary to have safeguards as
to the composition of the house. He said he must vote
against this clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL did not in the least wonder that
there should be some jealousy displayed at the introduc-
tion of six members into that house holding appointments
to which they had been nominated by the Crown ; but, at
the same time, it was rather extraordinary to find that
those hon. members who displayed that jealousy were those
who had been ready to leave the nomination of the six
directors in the hands of the Crown, and thus give more
influence to the Government than they had hitherto pos-
sessed. (Hear, hear.) No man could, he
that if out of the eighteen directors t
thethe htive
elthvoeurets,endehnyy
to
be
en
disqualified,rarliament and
e
psirmopchrieesteoershwyetrhee pcerrmewiettewdereto
influence of those chosen by the Crown would be weakened,
and the effect would be to place in a position above them
those chosen by the proprietors, and that was a course very
much opposed to that taken by hon. members who opposed
this measure a fortnight ago. With regard to the broad
principle proposed to be taken into consideration by the
right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester, which
was that of the exclusion of placemen from Parliament,
and the consideration of the necessity of repealing the sta-
tuteihtaavpeperaeraedd toth ehiametthwaittthheearirgehter hon.he
gentleman
f Q u
couldeen An Let'
would have perceived that it was nothing more,than'a com-
o
com-
promise between the two great parties in that house. The
Tory party had maintained that no person named by the
Crown to any aPPointment should be permitted to sit in
Parliament, while the great Liberal party, adopting what
appeared to him to be a more reasonable view, said that
there ought to be no restriction upon the right' of a con-
stituency to elect whomsoever they pleased, and that per-
sons holding office were as well entitled as any others to
sit in that house. The principle was debated on the broad
principle, and there seemed to be no likelihood of coming
to an agreement till Mr. West suggested that a person
holdinc, office should vacate his seat, but be eligible
for re-election ; so that the act was in point of fact a
compromise, which had for a long time gone by the