The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-30 00:00:00

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL,

On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
Mr. BRIGHT objected to the re-introduction, without
notice, of the clauses requiring ownership of East' India
Stock as a qualification for all the directors.
Sir C. WOOD repeated the reasons he had assigned for
the insertion of that clause and
Mr. HUME stated that he, perhaps, was as much to
blame as anybody, for he had objected to the exclusion of
the clause.
The bill was then read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Mr. HE 1' WORTH moved the following clause—" That,
whereas the East India Company are the territorial land-
lords of India, it be an instruction given by this act to the
Government now established in India that it shall forth-
with institute a survey of all the jungle, unenclosed and
unoccupied lands, and shall cause the same to be mapped
out, for the purpose of selling the said lands as freeholds,
at prices not ex-ceeding ss. per acre, and thereby, without
interfering with the present tenure of the lands already
occupied and brought into cultivation, a system of free-
holds in land may be introduced, which is a main stimulus
to productive agricultural industry."
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the clause, the principle
of which did not seem to him expedient in itself, or appli-
cable to the circumstances of India.
Mr. HUME said it would be futile to extend cultivation
in the interior of India, until means were thoroughly ac-
complished for the conveyance of produce to the ports and
markets. The object of his hon. friend was a very bene-
volent one, but he did not see that it could be effected by
a resolution of the House of Commons.
Sir J. HOGG pointed out that, the revenue of India
being mainly derived from land, to adopt the clause of
the hon. member would be to cut off one great future
source of income. At the present time the company af-
forded great facilities to all persons who desired to rent
laud in India.

Sir R. FITZGERALD supported the motion, on the
ground that any change would be for the better to the na-
tives of India.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. 3. G. I'HILLIMORE then moved the following
clause :—" Whereas it is essential for the good' govern-
ment of British India, and highly conducive to the con-
tentment of the people, that no case of real misgovern-
ment or of well-grounded grievance should be without real
means of redress; be it eaacted, that persons suffering
under alleged wrong may lay their case before the Lords
Justices, and that it they shall allow the further prosecu-
tion of the C!1,40 it Sh.lll U 0 i'aferro.d to the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, and the decision of the Judi-
cial Committee upon such case shall be final."
Mr. LOWE opposed the motion, observing that the
question it raised had already been decided by the house.
After observations by Mr. Blackett, Mr. Murrough, Sir
R. Inglis, and Mr. Hume, •
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the whole question before
the house was this—EM the clause proposed give a re-
medy for the evil complained of ? It was said that the
present mode of dealing- with the cases of persons having
claims on the Indian Government was dilatory and ex-
pensive. Well, he admitted this, but it was impossible
that it could be otherwise from the very nature of the
cases themselves. But he did not, see the necessity of
a special tribunal to try those cases. The case of the
Rajah was one of disputed suocession, which could not be
decided by the tribunal proposed. (Hear, hear.) He con-
tended that the present mode of dealing with cases of al-
leged Indian injustice could be properly disposed of through
the medium of the Governor-General, the Court of Di-
rectera, and Parliament, and he denied that cases that
had been decided by these tribunals had been flagrantly
dealt with. Unless_ they provided a perfect remedy for
the evils complained of, the better course would be to
leave matters as they were: Ho hoped never to see the
day when that house would be called upon to impeach a
Governor-General of India ; but the, house was the ulti-
Mate appeal in all cases of the kind, and ought to be so.
He did not think the Lords Justices were persons who
could deal properly with such cases as those under consi-
deration, and it would be impossible for a committee of
the Privy Council to decide upon such cases unless power
were given to it, that would override the powers of the
Court of Directors, and would equal those of Parliament
itself.

Mr. BRIGHT supported the clause, because he thought
the tribunal would be equal to the decision of cases between
British subjects and the Government of India. The hon.
4entlepiau referred to the case of Colonel Frith in support
of this view of the case. He could say that Colonel Frith
would submit his case to the Committee of Privy Council
with great willingness, and he would rest satisfied even if
the decision wee against him. He hoped the noble lord
would give so, ne assarance that some tribunal would be •
established to deal with CANS arising between British sub-
jects and the Court of Directors.
Sir H. HADDOCK ieterred to the case of the Rajah of
Sattara, and contended that it proved the necessity of an
independent tribunal. being established to investigate such
cases.
Sir JAMES HOGG said that Sir James Carnac was the
governor selected for Bombay, and it was well known that
when in England, on tho Court of Directors, he was an
advocate of the. Rajah of Sattara, ; but when Sir James
Carnac went toPombay, and inquired into the circum-
stances of theAja,h's case, he decided against him. With
regard to.the >rticulat,enotion before the house, he was
decidedly opposed to the constitution of a tribunal which
would be paramount to all authority. Thee,: was already
a court of appeal in India, and a similar tribunal in Eng-
land, namely, tho Committee of Privy Council.
Sir J. FITZGERALD supported the clause.
Mr. PHILLIMORE said he was ready to withdraw that
part of the clause which gave the power of appeal to the
Lords Justices ; and if Lord John Russell would give a
promise that he intended to carry out the scheme approved
by Sir Robert Peel and Lord Althorp, he would withdraw
the clause altogether.
Lord J. RUSSELL believed that Sir Robert Peel had
never proposed any measure on the subject at all. Ha
merely asked the Government to consider the question,
and Lord Althorp, without pledging himself to any details,
said that he would.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority
' The clause was consequently lost.
Mr. WISE then moved the following amendment and
clause :—" That clause 29 be disagreed to. And be it
enacted with regard to admissions into the Military Col-
lege at Addiscombe, that the nominations shall be made
by the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President
of the Loard of Control, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
and the Governor-General of India respectively, for the
time being, in equal proportions of one-fourth' of such
nominations."
The clause was put and negatived without a division.

Mr. BRIGHT then moved the introduction of a clause
providing that suitable offices should be erected or
procured for the East India Company and the Board of
Control, if possible, under the same roof. All had acknow-
ledged the great delay and inconvenience that arose from
having the two departments located two or three miles
apart. It was said by a writer on India, that she Presi-
dentship of the Poard of Control was the penal office in the
Cabinet. He hoped that reproach would no longer attach
to it, and, as it was now raised to the dignity of a first-
class office, with a first-class salary, that the right honour-
able gentleman would bring tir' st-class talents and exer-
tions to the discharge of his important duties. The
salaries of the clerks and officers of the company at Lead-
enhall-street amounted to upwards of 100,000 h Then
there were 25,000/. spent in pensions; and other allow-
ances, &0., 18,0001. more ; law expenses, 4,0001., and so
on; altogether amounting to 187,0001. The Board of
Control cost nearly 30,0001. ; and thus the two depart-
ments cost upwards of 200,0001. Yet it was said that the
chief part of the government of India must take place in
India, Why the Board of Inland Revenue had been
transferred to Somerset-house, with a great advantage and
a great saving, the building in Broad-street having been
sold. In the same way the building in Leadenhall-street
might be sold, and the produce would pay for the erec-
tion of new offices near Downing-street. No one could
pretend that the administration of Indian affairs would
not be improved by the arrangement. There could be no
inconvenience or expense, and the directors might come
up by the lti. steamers, or altogether in an omnibus ; and
a cab was only is. 6d. (A laugh.) If the right hon. gen-
tleman opposed the clause, it was to be hoped that he
would.do so on some reasonable ground; but the clause
was so just and reasonable that he (Mr. Bright) hoped the
right hon. gentleman would consent to it.
The clause was brought up and read a first time, and on
the question that it be read a second time,
Sir C. WOOD said he could not forfeit his character for
modesty by alluding to the increased salary voted for his
office farther than to say that he conceived his responsi-
bilities were greatly increased by:the present measure, and
he would do his utmost to discharge his duties. He agreed
that if the offices of the company and the Board of Control
were consolidated it must be at Westminster. And the
change would probably be accompanied by the establish-
ment of a system of single government, under a Secretf:
of State. On that subject the arguments on both sides n ft
been repeatedly discussed. Under a double goveorn_cLeeneF;
however he did net see-the advantage of the tw °"`
being under, the Same roof ; and, indeed, it might
Theendanger board
the independence of the Board of Directors.
in
could not but have duties andbusiness to discharge .
g street.
Lead-
enhall-street, which could not be done in D
mere considerablepurchase of
saving effected by the change.
g"-- of nearly 300,0001..
He did not believe that there would be any°Nvn
The ent- offices had
ground near Downing-street for
been recently negociated at an expense o
—a most numerous sum for
a simplticall rejudi cial a-
lieve that any delay took place presc Dally to
site. He did not b
the public service by reason of the separation of the two
offices.
Mr. HUME said the whole affairs of India being con-
ducted under check and control of the Board of Directors,
required the establishment at Leadenhall-stteet. He was
sensible of the advantages of consolidation, but was not
prepared at the present time to consent to the abolition of
e was ample employment for all
rs in the affairs of India ,• and
tthheatele,sertagbielissohire.
tehnet.
directors
he suggested that they ought not to be connected with any
other public bodies.
Lord STANLEY said there had not been a single reason
given against the clause. (Hear, hear.) It seemed a mere
question of time. (Hear, hear.) The Indian government
was rapidly approximating to the single form, and when
that system was established consolidation must ensue.
That being so, it would follow that the sooner the change
was efiheted the better. (Hear, hear.) As to the expense
it was really inconsiderable. (Hear, hear.) The majority
of the directors were not engaged is other business, and if
these offices were to become so important as it was now
contended, they ought to concentrate their attention as
much as possible upea their duties. He believed that the
idouble system of offices doubled the chances of business
being neglected, since a double staff of subordinates relied
on each other, and had a divided responsibility, (Hear,