The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

quences. It appeared that by a Ulnae,' law any nat
who might become a convert to Christianity forfeited his
property. But that law had been very properly abolished
by the Legislative Council ; and ho believed that if that,
amendment were adopted, the result would be that the
natives of Indi& would be led to suppose that the House of
Commons disapproved of the course which had been pur-
sued by the Legislative Council in that matter. He did
not think that wwere bound to respect every feeling or
custom of the peojle of India without any reference teihe
conformity of such feeling or opinion to good sense and
morality. We had already abolished infanticide and
suttee in that country, and he believed that there were
other customs still in force there, which might, with great
advantage, be similarly done away with, wheneVer the
opportunity might offer.
Sir If. MADDOCK replied, amidst cries for a " divi-
sion." The very words he had introduced into that amend-
ment were employed in the 26th clause of the bill, and had
been copied from a provision in the act of 1833. He be-
lieved that even if these words could be considered as mere
surplusage their insertion in the bill would give consider-
able satisfaction to the people of India.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clause 25 was agreed to.
On clause 26, referring to the enactment of a law com-
mission to inquire into and report upon the administration
of justice in India,
Mr. BLACKETT objected to the clause, as it was calcu-
lated to give an inaccurate view of the result of the late
law commission of India. The matter could not be allowed
to drop without explanation as to why the late commission
hod been allowed to fall into abeyance. (Hear, hear.) If
no defence could be made' it was only right that so flagrant
a violation of an act of Parliament should be exposed to
the people of this country. In December, 1842, on the
resignation.of Mr. Amos from the commission, the Court
of Directors declined to fill up the vacancy, and gradually
the commission fell into abeyance.
Sir C. WOOD said he had. no cognisance of what took
place in 1842 or 1843. He thought they should not now
discuss what took place then, but confine themselves to the
future of India. _ .

Mr. HUME thought the directors were called upon to
explain the matter.
Mr. J. PHILLINIORE said they could not attend to the
argument of the President of the Board of Control. But
what was the 1183 of enacting a clause now which would
have no better result than the former clause to the same
purpOrt. (Hear.) The law commission had cost a great
sum of money, but had effected very little for the people
of this country. They surely had a right to inquire why
the commission had fallen inoperative. (Hear.)
Sir C. WOOD complained that these matters should be
introduced at the present period of the session. If hon.
gentlemen were not satisfied with the Government mea-
sure why not suggest a better one ?
Mr. BLACKETT did not wish to throw unnecessary
obstacles in the way of the bill ; but he should say his
object was attained in making these charges, seeing the
hon. members for Guildford and Honiton in their places,
but making no reply. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. W. HOGG said the charge of the hon. gentleman
was that the Court of Directors had violated an act of
Parliament by discontinuing appointments to the commis-
sion on the occurrence of vacancies. He assured the hon.
gentleman he was in error. The Court of Directors re-
ceived a letter from the. Governor-General of India, stating
that, whilst the expenses of the commission were enor-
mous, very little good was effected in return. The matter
was then considered by the Court of Directors, and the
general feeling appeared to be that it was advisable to dis-
continue the law commission altogether. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT observed that the commission had cost
over 100,0001., yet no result whatever had been attained.
He had heard it stated that the code of laws prepared for
India by the hon. member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay)
was positively untranslateable into any language known in
India. If such were the fact, of course it was right not to
have proceeded with it. However, it seemed to him that
the question should have been brought before Parliament
and discussed, with a view to some remedy being applied.
He thought the observations of the hon. member
for Newcastle most reasonable ; yet the President of
the Board of Control lectured him for inquirin,,,, into
affairs that occurred ten years since. (Hear, hear.)- The
period of the session had been urged. Why, they had been
sitting there since last November. (Hear, hear.) The
convenenice of the Cabinet was doubtless very important;
but was there to be no consideration for the 100,000,000 of
human beings groaning under a chaos of laws and anoma-
lies ? (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright) had received a letter from.
Bombay, where it was reported that her Majesty's Minis-
ters intended to appoint a commission for each of the pre-
sidencies, and which commission should report on the
several important matters in the presidencies, such as the
tenure of land, the administration of justice, and so forth.
He hoped the President of the Board of Control would in-
form the house if such were the fact. (Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Bright) hoped it was, as nothing could be more ad-
vantageous to India, as forming the basis for future legis-
lation for that country. He thought one such report from
men of ability on the spot would be worth a dozen blue
books compiled at home, though the commissioners need
not be paid 10,0001. a year, as the former law commission-
ers had been. (Hear.)
Sir J. W. HOGG should say that Mr. Macaulay had
been appointed a legislative member at 10,0001. a year, but
it was no part of his duty to be of the law commission.
However, he volunteered his services and acted gratuitously
as president of the commission during the entire period.
(Hear, hear.) The other commissioners had not 10,0001.,
but 5,0001. a year ; and as to Mr. Macaulay's code being
untranslateable, he should say that, considering the diver-
sity of languages and prejudices, it was no wonder it should
have been found inapplicable to all India. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words in explanation from Mr. BLACKE
Mr. MANGLES said the failure of the law commission
had been entirely owing to the want of landmarks to guide
it. The failure was not at all owing to the members who
composed that commission.

31r. J. PHILLIMORE asserted that the commission
broke down by reason of the increasing opposition of the
Court of Directors. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. WOOD begged to state, in reply to the hon.
member for Manchester, that no such commission as that
to which he had alluded was known to him ; indeed, that
was the first he had heard of the matter.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought the main difficulty lay
in the commission endeavouring to accomplish too much.
As for one universal code of laws for India, he believed
the thing to be quite impossible.
Mr. J. MACGREGOR, cautioned hon. gentlemen how
they dealt with the clause now under consideration, as it
was one which straightway touched the prejudices of the
native inhabitants of India. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill.
On clause 27, " Advocate-General's appointment to be
subject to the Board of Control,"
Mr. HUME said he thought it would be much better to
give the power of appointment to the Court of Directors.
The proposition, as it stood was indicative of a want of
confidence in that body, and he begged to move that the
clause be struck out.

-----
Mr. V. SMITH said the clause NV3s a gratuitous insult
to the Court of Directors, and he should support the amend-
ment of Mr. Hume.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE supported the clause.
Sir C. WOOD said the clause was proposed in its pre-
sent shape, because it was thought more likely to secure a
proper appointment
Sir J. W. HOGG said that there had been a series of
appointments by the Court of Directors to the office of
Advocate-General, of the most eminent and distinguished
men. And, with one exception only, he challenged any
one to state a single name in the whole of that series who
was not eminently qualified for the office. He hoped,
therefore, that her Majesty's Government would not throw
a slur upon the Court of Directors by persevering with the
clause.

Mr. T. BARING thought if the appointment were
vested in the hands of the Board of Control it would be
found that the Government wore very much open to
pressure from without, and that in order to satisfy some
portion or other of its supporters it might make legal ap-
pointments which would not be preferable to those which
were now made by the East India Company. At first he
had no great objection to the clause as it stood, because he
believed the appointment would be made in concert be-
tween the two bodies—the East India direction and the
government ; but if the committee were to decide upon the
h
principle on which it was now put, that it was to be in the
of the government, then he must say that he had great
distrust of government appointments; and he thought it
was not unlikely the appointment would be given to some
supporter of the ministry of the day. With these opinions
he should wish the clause withdrawn, that the appoint-
ment might remain altogether with the Court of Directors.
Sir J. FITZGERALD supported the clause.
supposing
thet hagtov the cmlaeunste
.
placed ern
Sir C. WOOD said the lion. member for Huntingdon
(Mr.
nomination
inthine hands
lie (Sir C. Wood) had no wish of the sort. On the con-
the Baring)ol vinaisna mistakent
con-
trary, he desired to leave it with the Court of Directors,
subject, however, to the approbation or veto of the govern-
ment.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE supported the clause. If this veto
were not given to the Crown the Irish bar, which was
equal to any other bar in the world in point of talent and
information, would be shut out altogether from these ap-
pointments. He supported the clause giving this veto to
the Crown, because it would have the effect of making the
Board of Control responsible to Parliament for these ap-
pointments.
Sir J. W. NOGG instanced the appointments of Sir John
French, as Judge of Calcutta, of Sir William Mqsraughten,
of Mr. Stretteli, and other gentlemen, with a view of show-
ing that the East India Company had not overlooked the
merits of Irishmen. He said that the company in making
those appointments were only influenced by the wish to
select men of eminence and ability. From the establish-
ment of the East India Company up to the present mo-
ment they had always the exclusive power of making
those appointments. If that power was now to be taken
from them, it would imply a kind of censure upon the
company for not having discharged their duties honestly.
Sir R. H. INGLIS would not be a party to any course
that would imply a censure upon the East India Company
for their appointments, nine out of ten of which were ad-
mitted by the Minister of the Crown to be unexception-
able.

Mr. NEWDEGATE had no wish to support any course
which would meet the views just advocated by the hon.
member for Cork, who distinctly stated that he valued
the clause because it would cause a scramble Among the
Irish bar for appointments. If the Scotch and English put
forward similar claims, as they had a right
to do, the
scramble for patronage would be on a most extensive
sup
scale. Ho never hoard a clause so weakly ported as
the present was. If the appointment be vested in the
Board of Control, the right hon. gentleman would be sub-
ject to continual pressure on account of them. He trusted
that the right hon. gentleman, in whatever view ho might
regard those appointments, as they concerned himself,
would endeavour to relieve his successors from the odium
that must attach to them in respect to those appointments.
Mr. RICH said the statement of the hon. member for
Houiton did great credit to the Court of Directors, in the
way of appointments. But the East India Company were
subject to influences as well as other bodies, and he
thought that it would be well to counteract them as far
as it was possible.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause .................................. 115
Against it
... 59
Majority —s6
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 28,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked a question as to the ob-
ject of the clause in respect to the appointment of the com-
pany's officers ?
Sir C. WOOD said ho was aware that there was some
misapprehension abroad as to the meaning of this clause.
The question was, in effect, whether it was intended to
exclude the officers of the company in the chief appoint-
menta to be made. He was happy to say that no such ob-
ject was ever intended. Although the Queen would
appoint the commander-in-chief of the whole of the forces,
that officer might be a general in the company's service.
The clause in this respect made no difference iu the prac-
tice hitherto followed.
Mr, RUMS expressed his gratification, at hearing this