The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-09 00:00:00

amendment. As the bill stood it might be reconsidered
next year or the year after. He should most certainly vote
against the amendment. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. HUME said the existence of this act in the eyes of
the natives would be always uncertain, and there would be
no security for property in India, from the prevalence of
the feeling that the government would be liable to a con-
tinual charge. Nevertheless, he must protest against the
idea which had been thrown out, of placing India upon the
same footing as the colonies.
Mr. T. BARING remarked that if the bill was good the
system of government would be, es far as it well could be,
permanent; if it was defective, the government would be
uncertain, and it was for that very ground that he felt
strongly in favour of the clause as it stood, and was opposed
to the amendment. The object of all of them must be to
obtain a good government, for India ; and he repeated, the
government to be established by this bill would be perma-
nent so long as it was gocd, or uncertain so long as it was
defective. This would be a great stimulant to exertion on
the part of the authorities, and for that reason he was
opposed to again having a lease of the government of India.
Mr. D A NBY SE YMOUR quit e agreed with the hon. gen-
tleman who last addresFeal the house, that it would be most
undesirable to insert any term of years in the bill, because
if any defects were found to exist in the Government, it
would he open to immediate remove!, and would be a great
inducement fer capitalists to invest in Indian property.
Lord STANLEY said, for his own cart, he was so little
satisfied with the bill as a whole, thaChe conldnot consent
to give up any epporfimEty for altering or amending it.
Now, I:this amendment were adopted, it would be used
as an argument against any future motions for improving
the Government of India, since whenever any motion of
that sort was brought on, it would be met with an obser-
vation something like this :--" Oh, what is the use of de-
bating the subject now when the whole question will have
to be considered at the end of five or six years," as the case
might be. For these reasoes, he could not give his support
to the amendment.
Viscount JOCELYN declined to press the amendment,
and it was ultimately withdrawn.
Mr. PHINN proposed to insert in the third line, after
the word "shall," the words " be governed by and in the
name of her Majesty, her heirs, and successors."
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought it would be much bet-
ter to leave the clause as it stood. The natives were ac-
customed to the present style and title in the government,
and any other perhaps won'd not be so acceptable to them.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 34
Against it 127
Majority —93
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 2,
It was agreed to fill up the date when the 18 directors
should come into power thus, " second Wednesday in the
month of April, 1854."
Viscount JOCELYN had given notice of an amend-
ment which was to increase the number of directors from
18 to 24, as he thought the former number would be
wholly insufficient to manage the functions of the board.
As the bill stood, it was proposed to have 12 directors
elected by the proprietors, and six nominated by the Crown;
but if his amendment was carried he should move that 16
be elected by the Court of Proprietors and eight nomi-
nated by the Crown.
Mr. HTJME said this appeared to him to be the most
important part of the bill. He, for one, thought the
whole of the directors ought to remain elective, and en-
tirely free from political influence. They saw enough of
the ill effects of self-elections in the Scotch burghs, and he
trusted this attempt to introduce the system into the Court
of Directors would not be persevered in.
Sir C. WOOD said it was no doubt difficult to prove the
necessity of 18, or 24, or any precise number, bat judg-
ing from experience they came to the conclusion that 24
was a large and inconvenient number. In 1813, Lord
Grenville proposed to reduce the bond of directors to 12,
and in 1833 the present Lord Glenelg also proposed to re-
duce them to 12, but the directors at those petiods ob-
jected to the reduction in consequence of the large com-
mercial business which they had to transact. In 1833, Mr.
Tacker, the ablest of the court of directors at that period,
said that, for the transaction of territorial business 16
would be ample, and the board had no other business to
transact. A body composed of 24 members was too large
for an executive council. Would any one propose that the
Imperial Cabinet, which certainly had not more business
to transact than the India board, should be composed of
24 members? Authority and experience showed that 24
was an inconvenient number for an executive body. In-,
deed, if he had a view to efficiency only, he should be dis-
posed to reduce the Court of Directors still more than was
proposed. The executive council in India was composed
of only four members. (Hear, hear.) But it was neces-
sary to keep up the independence of tho board, as well as
that they should be efficient, and he thought that both
those objects would be best secured by the number which
the bill proposed.
Mr. T. BARING thought that it was not wise to dis-
turb an existing arrangement, unless it was found to be
inconvenient, or unless some good was to be effected by the
change, The right hon. gentleman said that the 24 was a
large and inconvenient body. Where was the evidence of
that ? No one stated before the committee that the pre-
sent number was found to be inconvenient, or that it in-
terfered with the dispatch of business. As far as the evi-
dence before the committee went, it was in favour of 24.
(Hear.) Ho did not think that they should be guided by
opinions given in 1813 and 1833. Lord Glenelg, in a letter
on this point, dated the 16th of March, 1832, said that the
subject was a difficult one, and that the number of direc-
tors must be proportion to the business done. Now, con-
sidering the great extent of new territory acquired since
that period he did not think the business to be transacted
could have diminished, notwithstanding that the India
Board had no longer any commercial business to per-
form. The evidence of Mr. Waterfield showed that there
was an enormous increase of business. In 1830 there were
but 602 dispatches, whereas in 1849 there were 2,415. It
might be said that the Board of Control transacted the
business, but the whole of it was sifted and digested by the
India Board before it was sent to the Board of Control.
There were 21 directors of the Bank of England, and they
had not more business to perform than the India Board.
There was no object of economy or patronage to be gained
by the diminution, and if the linsiness had heretofore been
transacted satisfactorily, he saw no reason why a change
should be made. It seemed to him to be giving an unme-
rited slap to a body of men who performed their duties
with satisfaction to the country. (Oh !) He thought it
would not be easy to choose out of the House of Commons
itself men of more integrity, of more honour, or less guided
by party feeling than t he 24 gentlemen who conducted the
business of the India House. With regard to the Execu-
tive Council in India being composed of four members, it
rather told against the right hon. gentleman, for it had
been proved before the committee that many useful re-
forms had been omitted in consequence of the great pres-
sure of business upon thorn. He should therefore support
the amendment of the noble lord.

Mr, BRIGHT said he was not surprised at the speech of
the hon. member, seeing that he had made one previously,
the tone of which might have led any one to expect that
he would postpone the bill on its introduction. The Pre-
sident of the Board of Control was also fairly chargeable
with great inconsistency in this matter, No one who had
heard the greater part of his first speech would have sup-
posed that ho meant to propose any alteration. For four
hours he indulged the house with a panegyric on everything
that the Court of Directors had done. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Baring) said he was in favour of efficiency in the
court. So far as efficiency was concerned, he (Mr. Bright)
would have been glad .to see the number reduced not
merely to 18 but to 12. (Hear.) He agreed with the right
hon. gentleman the member for Edinburgh, that too ranch
formal business connected. with India had been trans-
acted in England ; and he was satisfied that one of the
main elements of improvement was to get rid of a large
portion of the ineffective labour now performed in this
country. Ho would like to know how many members of
the court generally attended the meetings, and what
amount of time they gave to the business of governing
India. It was well known that many of them had chair-
manships, directorships, and other occupations uncon-
nected with the India House j and he presumed that they
walked into the India House and entered their names as
present, and that the actual labour was confined to ono-
third of the number. If that were the fact, what necessity
could there be for keeping up the number at 24? The hon.
gentleman (Mr. T. Baring) said there never was a body
more free from party feeling. He (Mr. Bright) had under-
stood that it was a fatal objection to a candidate for the
directorate that he was a member of Brookes's Club.
(Laughter.) That showed that party feeling was not en-
tirely shut out from the court. His town experience with
regard to committees of that house had led him to the con-
clusion that 18 was a much better number than 24; and
ho thought that India would he better governed by a
council of seven members chosen judiciously—able mon,
clearly responsible, and having the power of recording
their dissent from the Board'of Control—than 24 or 18 men
chosen in the incongruous and inconsistent manner that
the court had been hitherto.

Mr. C. BRUCE thought that considering the variety
and importance of the duties to be discharged the number
of directors should be increased rather than diminished.
Captain MANGLES said—With regard to the hon.
member's (Mr. Bright's) jocose story about Brookes's Club,
ho wished to observe that it was pretty well known that
he himself held radical opinions rather stronger than those
of the members of Brookes's Club, but that had been no bar
to his admission to the Court. His right hon. friend the
President of the Board of Control had repeatedly poken of
the Court of Directors as an executive body ; whereas it
was, in fact, a much more consultative than an executive
body, it propr function heint to revise and control. In
considering thee question before the.committee it should be
borne in mind that India was not one and indivisible,. but
a country which presented as great varieties as those which
existed between England and Germany; and it was abso-
lutely essential that the Court of Directors should be per-
sonally conversant with the habits, manners', and character
of the whole people of India. The hon. member for Man-
chester had drawn an analogy between the Court of Direc-
tors and a committee of that house..; but surely there was
no analogy between a tribunal which had to deal with only
ono question and one which had to deal with hundreds of
questions. At present The court was composed of three
committees, each consisting of seven or eight members, '
Under the Government plan the committee, would consist
of only five or six members. The Court of Directors had
no vacation; under their charter and. bye-laws they sat
every week. Ndgroes must have holidays. (Laughter.) The
right hon. baronet had laid no grounds for the alteration
proposed, nor had shown that any inconvenience Ina
arisen from the present number of the court. Re seemed
to fouhd fiimself on a mere speculative notion that 18 was
a better number than 24.
Lord STANLEY. approved of the reduction, and con.
sidered that the court would still be the largest executive
council in the world. As to the quantity of business, one
of the reforms expected was a considerable diminution in
tho amount of formal business and in the number of dis-
patches, which would be sent home for approval.
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE approved of the reduction, and
would vote for the clanso as it stood.
Sir R. INGLIS had heard no sufficient reason for alter-
ing the number of directors. Ho should therefore support
the proposition of the noble lord for inserting 24 hours in-
stead
of 18.

Mr. RICH support,ed the clause.
Sit H. MADDOCK also was of opinion that 18 was
quite a sufficient number.
Mr. J. M`GREGOR, amid general signs of impatience,
announced his intention of supporting the clause.
Mr. NEWDEGATE Wan snrptised at hon. gentlemen
connected with the Colonial Assocition, who were so much in favour of the principle of representation, seeking
to break down the only system of representation that India
had. Without any complaint of the number of directors
being too large—without any charge that they had
neglected the interests intrusted to them—they were about
to reduce them from 24 to 18, and of that number to give
the Crown the power of nominating 6 thus destroying
the independent character of the governing body of India.
Ho should vote for the amendment,

Mr. °TWAY considered that 18 directors would form a