The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-12 00:00:00

the Isle of Man customs duties. He had seen deputations
from the House of Keys since Friday, and having
.heard
their statements, had prepared a Treasury minute in an-
swer, showing that they had greatly
object of the Government proposition misunderstood the
and
until
he drd-
portunity had been given to consider hat minute
not intend to proceed with the measure.
THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he understood the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to have stated that the committee on the
India Bill should conclude at a certain hour that evening,
and then that the report on the Succession Duties Bill
should be brought up. He wished to know at what hour
that course woculd be taken ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—that depended on whether the re-
port on the Succession Bill was to be received without dis-
cussion or not. If there was to be any discussion it had
better not be brought on at a late hour.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it was the intention of an
hon. friend of his to move an amendment on the bringing
up of the report.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to intimate that the
Succession Bill could not be brought on.
THE INDIA BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 3,
Mr. V. SMITH rose to propose an amendment to the
clause. He hoped he might entreat the attention of the
house, for the reason that they were placed in an awkward
and unusual position in the discussion of this measure.
Complaints had been made against the Government for not
bringing it on earlier, but he thought there was more just
cause to complain of the Ministry of 1850, who did not pro-
pose the appointment of a committee like that which was
appointed in 1830. (Hear, hear.) Some little blame was
also to be laid on gentlemen opposite, on their mode of
opposing the bill. The noble lord the member for Lynn
moved an amendment asking for delay in legislating, and
the result was, that the discussion on the question of delay
was mixed up with the question of the second reading,
and they had never really discussed the principle of the
second reading. He, therefore, made no apology to the
house for now inviting them to a discussion on the prin-
ciple of the measure. The question which was decided the
other night was whether they would go into the conside-
ration of the bill, and he had voted for going into that con-
' sideration. Another qUeation was what was called the
question of double government. He agreed with the
noble lord the member for Lynn that no phrase was ever
invented with less meaning. It was, in fact, invented by
the enemies of the system, as it implied a confused govern-
ment. But it really was a mixed government, with an in-
dependent body, acting as a check on the power of the
crown. That body should, therefore, be really independent
if it was to be such a check, and to ake it so was the ob-
ject of his amendment. He did not wish to counteract the
principle of the bill, but to carry it fully into effect. With
regard to his (Mr. V. Smith's) amendment, the vote would
be taken on the omission of the words, " her Majesty
by warrant under the royal sign manual," and he
proposed to insert the words " the Court of Directors
by warrant from her Majes'ty under the royal sign
manual, countersigned by the President of the Board of
Control, shall appoint." The honourable member for
Montrose said this would be a mode of self-election ; no
doubt it would be, but with the qualification that
they would be men who had been ten years in India.
This selection was limited to the appointment of three-
fourths of the court, and excluded directors and ex-direc-
tors, and if it was thought advisable, he would have no
objection to limit the choice to those who had returned
from India within a given period. With regard to the
opinions and authorities on this point, he might state that
Lord Hardinge had said that he thought that for every
two directors put late the court by the proprietors, there
might be one put in by the court itself, taken from mem-
bers of the Indian service. Mr. Halliday, that valuable
Indian servant, hesitated about giving his opinion on the
English government of India, but, on being pressed, said
that he had heard it proposed that the Indian directors
should be nominated partly by the Crown directors, and
partly by the holders of Indian stock ; 'but he inclined to
the mode of election us it at present existed, but with one-
third or one-fourth chosen by the directors themselves.
The same opinion was expressed by Mr. Marshmau, who
thought that part of the court should be elected by the
directors themselves, the minister for India having a
" veto" on the nomination. In the plan proposed the only
object seemed to him (Mr. V. Smith) to be to insert nomi-
nees into the direction, so that by degrees they might be
the means of superseding the Court of Directors altoge-
ther. It was as it were getting in the small end of the
wedge. He did not mean to say that was his right hon.
friend's intention, because if it had been he would have
declared it; but other persons might take up that princi-
ple, and it was on that ground that ho (Mr. V. Smith) ob-
jected to it. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to
say that he was decidedly in favour of a mixed govern-
ment, which, cumbrous as it appeared, was a better 0016-
nial government for India than the government of any
other colony, and was far superior when compared with
the government of any colony where there was a native
population. It was on behalf of a mixed government that
he asked their votes, and it was because he believed that
the system of nominees would destroy the power of the
check which the Court of Directors was intended to be that
he moved his amendmeut. The right hon. gentleman then
moved to omit in the clause the words, "It shall bolaw-
ful for her Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to
appoint," in order to substitute the words " The Court of
Directors by the consent of her Majesty under her royal
sign manual, countersigned by the President of the Board
of Control. to appoint,"
Sir C. WOO.Jthought it would be more convenient for
the committee to avoid a general discussion on the past
Government of India, and other to:'ies introduced by his
right hon friend, which did not bear on the precise ques-
tion raised, and to which he proposed to confine himself.
They had agreed the double government should be main-
tained, and all that they had to decide was in what shape
certain persons should enter the Court of Directors An
other point had been agreed on—namely, that by some
other means than election by the Court of Proprietors a
certain portion of the future courts should be introduced
into it. The evidence that had been received went strongly
to point out a great defect in the constitution of the Court
of Directors—namely, that the ablest men -men of the
highest character and experience among Indian servants—
were deterred by the arduous anti expensive system of
canvassing from offering themselves as candidates for the
direction ; and it was apparent, from the concurrent evi-
dence of many witnesses, that by some means or other, a
portion of the court should be selected from such wen. In
order to simplify tho question, he would concede that one-
third of the court shold be introduced either by selection
or nomination, and the question was, whether it should
be done by such a selection as was proposed by his right
hon. friend, or by nomination by the Crown. His right
hon. friend had raised an objection to the mode adopted
by the Government on the ground that the persons to bo
appointed were nominees. It was not until after great
deliberation, that it was decided to adopt that plan. If
the Court of Directors were to be independent, it was the
interest of the Government to make them so. They might
be wrong in the mode of doing that they had adopted.
He admitted it was a fair subject for discussion, but he
still thought that the plan chosen by the Government was
the best calculated to preserve the independence of the
court. His right hon. friend said that self-election by the
board was objectionable, and he (Sir C. Wood) thought so
too, as it would tend to destroy the independent action of
the court. It should always be an object to treat a min-
ority with respect ; and, practically, to leave to a minority
a certain amount of check over a majority; and obviously
the scheme of the right hon. gentleman would have the
effect of placing in the hands of the majority a power
to sink and crush the minority by the overwhelming
introduction of their own partisans. That, certainly,
would be the result ; and only to a very limited ex-
tent indeed would the veto of the Crown be of use in
preventing such an evil. With regard to what the
right honourable gentleman had said of the dangers
of the proposal of the Government occasioning dissensions
between the directors and the Board of Control, all he (Sir
C. Wood) could say was, that he did not foresee that dan-
ger, and that, at any rate, he was quite sure the plan of
the right hon. gentleman would be far more productive of
such mischief. Supposing that the minority in the court,
and that the Board of Control were on one side, and the
majority of the court against the Board of Control, then
dissensions could not but arise when the majority increased
its strength. (So we understood the right hon. baronet,
but it was, as usual, difficult in the gallery to catch his
precise meaning.) In this respect the plan proposed by
the Government was greatly superior, for the sole object of
the Board of Control would be to select men of marked
qualifications, and such. appointments would consequently
in each case be decided upon without reference to the state
of parties or cliques in 'the Court of Directors. The right
hon. gentleman had said a good deal with respect to the
possible dependence of these nominee directors on the Go-
vernment. He (Sir C. Wood) did not believe that any
such dependence would ,ever exist. The sole object of the
Government would be to get men of first-rate capacity,
knowledge, and experience ; and certainly they were not
to look for such men to the classes of retired Indian ser-
vants who might consent to act as manageable tools to the
Minister in the House of Commons. Undoubtedly, it was
his opinion, that the Gervernment of the day, which would
make such appointments, would be guilty of betraying its
high and sacred trust in the most disgraceful manner. Ho
did not agree with his right hon. friend on the question of
salary. In talking on that head, he (Sir C. Wood) had
always contemplated low amounts ; and his notion was
that the emoluments of the office ought not to be such as
to make it on that ground a matter of petitioning to the
Government. He wanted the office to be sought for on
other grounds. Tho office was .held now for little or no
salary, and he only pro posed to raise the salary a small
degree higher ; and he believed that by low salary this,
among other results, would be produced—that the men
who would accept tho office would be of independent
character and position. He also differed with the right
hon. gentleman in
,regard to the contingency of English
party politics being eciingled in the practical adminis-
tration of Indian affairs. He did not think it very likely
that gentlemen arrived in England after long service in
India, and still devoted to Indian questions and wrapt
up in Indian interests would easily get engtilphed
in purely English polities ; and, assuredly, if there was
one fact more clearly made out than another in the evi-
dence taken 137 the committee, it was this—that the civil
service of India was totally free from the feelings aroused
by party contentions in England. He therefore did not
fear that Governments here, in the men they selected,
would make party choices ; but even if there was that
danger, it was to be remembered that the evil would in
some measure cure itself, since, consequent upon our rapid
changes, one Government would be enabled to counteract
the party influence which might be introduced by another.
Unanimity in the directors was not likely, and he thought
it was not desirable that there should be but one party in
the court any more than it was desirable that there should
be but one party in that house. And if the apprehensions
of his right friend that there would be party struggles
were well founded, the more reason there was that it
should not be put in the power of a majority to select ono-
third of the court from ameng its own partisans. The
Government did not propose that there should be any dif-
ference in position and authority between the two classes
of directors the elected tend the nominees ; and as both
would be directly, and in the first place, guided by their
Indian habits and feelings, he did not see what•likelihood
there was that those selected by the Crown would stand
out from their own body as dependent tools of the Board
of Control. On the whole ho was sure this part of the
scheme would work satisfactorily ; and ho believed it would
prove that the highest and most illustrious names in the
Indian service—even such a name as Mountstuart Elphin-
stone—need not disdain the acceptance of such nomineeshi
by the Crown. The safety for India andtlat for the Court. or;
Directors, and for this country was, that was so much
the interest of the Government to
second-class, and possibly dependent were not likely'
ever to get the office ; and on that
committee to reject the amendment. dhe asked the
pgongilifirst-clasa ram
Mr. HERRIES was understood to say that he found his
own views on this point very accurately
seuxpPppresart,drejoicing
amendment, which he would accordingly
that the opposition to this part of the Government planwas
initiated on the ministerial side of the house. He did not
flee how it would be possible for a body constituted as the