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

opponents of the measure would, by.their so-called amend- 1
meats, make it, if possible, worse. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. Nowdegate, Mr. Mangles,
and Mr. Hildyard,
The committee then divided. The numbers were,—
For the original motion ... ... 193
For the amendment ... 111-82
On our return to the gallery we found Mr. B..IGHT ad-
dressing the house, but, amid the noise following a division,
we could not collect any of the hon. gentleman s remarks.
Mr. HUME wished to ask the right hon. b Ironat the
President of the Board of Control whether it w ,uld not be
better at once totally and entirely to abolish the Court of
Directors than nominally to retain it, but by the power of
appointment on the part of the Crown virtually to destroy
its independence and its efficacy. If anything had ever
been more distinctly pronounced than another, it was the
declaration of the right hon. gentleman (Sir C. Wood) in
favour of the system of double government. But the right
hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had told
them quite a different thing. The house ought, therefore,
to know what was really intended to be done, the speeches
of the two right hon. gentlemen being in direct opposition
to each other.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not apprehend that what lie had
said, having been supported by a majority of the commit-
tee, deserved to be marked with such strong marks of re-
probation as were implied in the speech of the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose. His (Sir J. Graham's) earnest desire
was to maintain a double government ; at the same time
he could not shut his eyes to the fact on which the right
hon. gentlemen the member for Stamford dwelt—that the
time must come, and that probably at the expiration of 20
years, when the system of a double government must
cease. It was wise, therefore, to make preparation in time
for that inevitable alternative.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY moved the insertion of the fol-
lowing words in the same clause:—" That on or before the
first *ednesday in the month of April, 1854, the 15 direc-
tors hereafter appointed to meet and act as the Court of
Directors shall prepare a list of 12 persons whom they shall
deem best qualified to act as directors, and who shall have
been 20 years at the least in the service of the Crown in
India, or in the service of the said company in India ; and
it shall be lawful for her Majesty, out of the said list of
12 persons," &c.
Sir C. WOOD objected to the amendment, because it
restricted the eligibility to 20 years' service, when the per-
son to be elected would certainly be disqualified by age,
and because there was no provision for the removal of di-
rectors. He was opposed also to any interference with the
nomination of the Crown.
After a few words from Mr. HUME,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he had no objection to
adopting a period of 10 instead of 20 years' service.
Mr. T. BARING considered that Parliament had de-
cided to leave the nomination to the Crown, and reconi-
mended the hon. baronet to withdraw his amendment.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
In line 38 of the same clause,
Mr. RICH proposed to amend it by substituting for the
"one" director, who is to be appointed for the first period
of four years, the word " two," and also generally to amend
the periods of service to three, six, and nine years.
Sir C. WOOD objected to the amendment on the ground
that it would render it necessary that the elective directors
should be elected for no shorter period than nine years,
which was more than double the time for which they were
elected at present.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that the clause before the com-
mittee ought to be considered in connection with a subse-
quent clause, which made directors eligible to seats in the
House of Commons. The clauses in conjunction would
destroy the independence of directors. What he wanted
was, that directors should be elected for a fixed period—
say eight to ten years—and be not eligible to re-election.
If the clause should pass as it now stood, he would pro-
pose the omission of the clause allowing directors to be
members of the house ; for if there should be three or four
elected directors, and five or six nominees of the Crown in
that house, an independent member, on bringing forward
any question connected with the Indian Government,
would have to encounter not only the hon. baronet the
member for Honiton and the President of the Board of
Control, as at present, but the fresh auxiliaries by whom
they would then be supported, and would thus be borne
down by the accumulated evidence of persons interested
in giving a colour to transactions, or even in suppressing
the truth. (Hear.) The clause ought to be postponed to
afford the President of the Board of Control an opportu-
nity of altering it to meet the wishes of the house.
Sir J. HOGG—The hon. member for Manchester never
rises to discuss any question whatever before the house
without introducing matter of a personal nature. I never
knew any occasion on which the hon. member rose in
this house in which he did not take the opportunity of
saying something personal and offensive. (Anaugh, and
Hear.) I call on the hon. member to state what he
means by his allusion to the member for Honiton and his
vicinity to the Treasury bench. (Laughter.) I tell the
hon. member that my conduct in Parliament has been, at
least, as honourable and independent as his—(hear, hear)
—and I further tell him that I have had an opportunity
afforded me which he, perhaps, has not had, of evincing
that independence in conjunction with attachment to
India and the desire to render that country any humble
services in my power. I must refer to a matter which I
have never mentioned before, either public or private, but,
taunted as I have been, I am compelled, however re-
luctantly, to take this course. Some nights ago the hon.
member made an observation to which I, not being of a
suspicious nature, did not attach the meaning which it was
probably intended to convey. My attention, however, was
subsequently called to the observation, and I believe that
something was meant by it which the hon. member had
not the manliness to state openly. The remark in question
compels me to state—and I do so in my own justification
—what I have hitherto abstained from making publicly
known. Ido not pretend to be devoid of that honour.
able ambition which makes every man desirous of aspir-
ing to the dignity or honour of office, nor am I, per-
haps, in a position to pretend to be insensible to the emo-
luments attendant on the possession of office. This being
the case, it happened that nearly nine years ago I had the
honour of being sent for by Sir R. Peel, who offered me
a high office—high in station and in respect to emolu-
ment, and involving the honour of being enrolled of her
Majesty's Privy Council. I, or any other person, might be
proud of such an offer from such a man. (Hear.) The
offer 'Ares made not only without solicitation, but without
the slightest intimation of a wish on my part. Why did
I decline it ? I had recently been elected deputy-chair-
man of the East India Company. I hope my colleagues
have a sufficiently good opinion of me not to doubt my in-
dependence, but I resolved not only to be independent, bat
to be above the possibility of imputation. It was a mo-
ment when India was the subject of deep and anxious con-
sideration—it was the period of the Sutlej campaign in
1845. If I had been merely a simple director I wonldhave
gladly availed myself of Sir R. Peel's offer, but having
been selected by my colleagues to fill an office of import-
ance, I could not reconcile it to my feelings to abandon
them and my duty to India ' • and, although there were in
the direction men as able to discharge the duties of that
office as I was, yet I intimated to Sir R. Peel that I could
not, consistently with what I felt due to my colleagues,
abandon the position in which they had placed me. I think
my conduct in this matter proves that I am not influenced
by the low considerations which the hon. member would
seem to impute to me, and I pledge my honour I never
mentioned to my colleagues the offer which had been made
to me, and in the years which have elapsed I believe that
to not more than three or four living men have I men-
tioned an offer of which not only a humble individual
like myself, but almost any man might be proud,
looking to the man who made it and the high
character of the office tendered. (Cheers.) I beg pardon
for introducing a matter of a personal nature, but after the
allusions which have been made to me I could not refrain
from doing so.
Mr. BRIGHT—The hon. baronet has alluded to some-
thing which passed in a former debate, when he says I had
not the manliness to say what I thought. lam of opinion
that I generally say pretty much what I think. (A laugh,)
I did, on the occasion referred to, allude to the hon. baro-
net's ambition, but not in an offensive sense. I do not
blame the hon. baronet for being ambitions, and I think
that men generally would perform much less if they were
not ambitious. I think the house will agree with me in
thinking that I did not to-night utter a syllable which any
man had a right to deem offensive. Perhaps I have not
been sufficiently regardful of the delicate position in which
directors of the Hon. East India Company are placed, and
of the state of feeling which may exist under such circum-
stances. try to be more careful in future, and avoid
wounding them on the tender point. (Laughter.)
After some conversation, in the course of which Sir T.
Maddock and Mr. Cayley recommended the postponement
of the clause, and Mr. Bright advised Mr. Rich not to press
his amendment to a division,
The amendment was withdrawn.
On the question that the clause, as amended, stand part
of the bill,
Mr. T. BARING moved a proviso to the effect that the
persons nominated should not have quitted the Indian ser-
vice for more than five years.
Sir C. WOOD thought it was undesirable to place such
a limit on the power of nomination, as the object was to
introduce fresh blood into the Court of Directors. Cases
might well occur in which it would be desirable to solicit
persons who had left the Indian service for a longer period
than five years.
Lord JOCELYN said that some of the men most distin-
guished in India would be excluded if this proviso were
adopted. He thought it would be better to postpone the
clause for further consideration.
Mr. T. BARING said that after the opinion expressed
by the noble lord he should not insist on pressing his
amendment.
Mr. BRIGHT suggested that the qualification required
for the nominees of the Crown—in the possession of a cer-
tain quantity of stock- was unreasonable, and would
prove inconvenient. They would have no connection with
the proprietors, and the restriction might prevent the no-
mination of eminent individuals. He, therefore, moved
the omission of the latter part of the clause.
Sir H. HADDOCK agreed that the requisition was im•
material.

Sir C. WOOD said the reasons for it were these—that
the nominated might be assimilated with the elective mem-
bers, and that the court existed independently of the go-
vernment of India, and its members must be directors for
all purposes.
Mr. BOWYER supported the amendment, thinking the
possession of stock would be inconsiderable and immaterial
in respect to the givinc, the nominated directors any com-
munity of interest with the company, while it would ex-
clude many excellent men.
Mr. BRIGHT said one of the most distinguished indi-
viduals just returned from India had told him that he could
not obtain the qualification required by the clause. The
best Indian servants were, however, poor—with nothing
but their pension ; and the clause required 2,0001. stock,
which would cost 5,000/.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there was weight in what had
been urged against the clause. (Hear, hear.) It appeared
to be felt that the absence of the qualification would be no
derogation from the position of the nominated directors.
He, therefore, was prepared to agree to the omission of
the words. (Hear, hear.)
gladnothing that the
was noble
more or d a c
taken pernici-
ous
I saidHe thoughthe was
pecuniary qualifications. (Hear, hear.)
ir.
thatpi course.lEL
against this part of the clause were strong,
The than
arguments
factitious
The clause was amended , and then agreed to.
and he trusted that it would be struck out. (Hear, hear.)

On the next clause,
Mr. BRIGHT moved (it being half-past twelve) that the
house resume. (Hear, and no.)
Sir C. WOOD pressed that two or three more clauses be

taken.
Sir J. W. HOGG suggested that the 15 directors best
competent to be put out of the present board should be se-
lected by the Government, so as to spare the board the
painful duty of doing so. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI differed from this suestion as it would
increase the nominees of the Crown. The members of that
11°.1.1y3 of course, would not be selected. • (Hear, hear.)
r.(s:r. BRIGHT said, the only alternative was, that the
prietors should select them. The right hop:President,of
the Board of Control had himself suggested it. It Was