The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-07 00:00:00

prognosticate disaster for a schema which they had taken
such pains to frame. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MELLOR thought the proposal of the noble lord
was calculated to work beneficially for the country, and
therefore be should support it.
Mr. A. KENNARD likewise regarded the suggestion of
the noble lord with favour, as ho thought the question of
the goveroment of India could not be raised too often in
Parliament, if they desired the benefit of that country.
Mr. AYRTON regarded the present as the most mis-
chievous of all the many proposals which the noble viscount
had urged with reference to India. (Hear, hear, from the
Government benches.) He should have thought the noble
lord ought to have remained satisfied with the divisions
which he had already taken with regard to the bill, and
have felt that his views with regard to India were distaste.
ful to the house. One fatal objection to the proposal now
brought forward was, that it would make the council de-
pendent upon the good opinions of the Government of the
day.

Mr. DUNLOP welcomed the noble lord's motion, which
compelled the house to re-consider this question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the effect of the
clause would be that they should reconstruct the
council at the end of five years, but that after that period
the council would cease, and the whole of the power would
be vested in the hands of the Secretary of State. The mea-
sure which the hon. member for Birmingham had through-
out consi,tently supported would come to pass. The noble
lord had at first a lvocated a council of eight, who would
be mere ciphers, and now he went two steps further and
wished that after five years the whole power would vest
in the Secretary of State. The hon. member for Perth
said it was very difficult to get the attention of the House
of Commons to Indian questions, and that it was now only
because the Indian revolt had forced their attention to the
subject that a bill was able to be carried. But that went
against his own theory, because in five years hence there
would probably be no such emergency to force attention to
the subject, and the effect of his proposition would be that
Parliament would have to remodel the Indian Government
at a time when he could have uo guarantee that they
would not be in the very state of mind which he depre-
cated. What would be most calculated to paralyse the
powers and exertions of the council, would be to tell them
that they were only to last for five years.
Mr. WILSON said the hon. and learned gentleman was
mistaken. The Secretary of State had no power under the
bill except in council; and if the council lapsed the power,
the Secretary of State would lapse too. The effect of the
bill would be, that it would be incumbent on Parliament
to reconsider the whole question. That would only be
what had been done in all India bills, which were inva-
riably for limited periods. The great difference between
the two bills of the Government showed how unsettled the
question was; and the debates showed the lack of infor-
mation on the subject. These were strong reasons for
supporting the amendment.
Mr. G. H. VANSITTART felt convinced that nothing
would be gained by adopting the proposition of the noble
lore. If it was held but that the council should only en-
dure for five years it was impossible that our Indian policy
could be placed on a firm basis. Such an arrangement
would lead to much doubt and confusion.

Mr. DARBY GRIFFITHS said he thought they ought

to have au opportunity of revising the measure at a definite
period, and he thought it most reasonable to adopt the
period proposed by the noble lord.
Mr. ADAMS thought the noble lord could hardly be
serious in desiring to see this clause become a portion of
the bill. The bill was framed with a view to members
being appointed for life, or during good behaviour, and the
noble lord now proposed that the council should only last
for five years. They would never get the right sort of men
to accept office under such circumstances. Without per-
manency, how could they expect the people of India to
have any confidence in the Government ? Again, the pro-
position would destroy the independence of the council, by
making them dependent on whoever might be Minister at
the end of the five years ; and if they were place seekers
they would for the latter part of the term strive to gain
his favour. These were reasons why the salary of the
directors should not be the measute of that of the coun-
cillors. The directors had themselves a pecuniary interest
in the prosperity of the company, and were not bound to
give all their time.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that at
the end of the live years, if the amendment were carried,
the whole of the power would be in the handsof the Secre-
tary of State. The hon. member for Devonport had said
that the whole of the powers of the Secretary of State
could only be exercised in council. But the object of the
amendment was to abrogate only so much of the bill as re-
ferred to the council, and as the bill transferred all the
powers of the company to the Crown, the effect would be
to leave the absolute and irceponsible power in the hands
of the Secretary of State. It would be perfectly regular
and straightforward if the noble lord had on the third read-
ing asked the house to reject the bill ; but the course I aken
by the noble lord was to ask them at this stage to so modify
the bill as to transfer an arbitrary power to the Crown,
thereby abrogating all they had hitherto decided on. The
house would pause before agreeing to such a proposal after
all t heir labours. He had thought the original proposal one
to be regarded with suspicion as leaving too great control
of patronage to the secretary, but even that provided a
parliamentary control. But this proposal would place the
Government of India beyond the control or cognisance of
Pat liameut, and undoing all their work would leave only
a caput mortuum. The noble lord could surely not have
contemplated that result, but that would certainly be the
effect of the amendment. He deprecated the redisenssion
of the principle at a stage which should only relate to
detail.

Lord PALMERSTON said the speeches from the Trea-
sury benches, to judge from the altered appearance of the
seats behind him, had, like thei resolutions, answered
their purposes. (Laughter.) There were two ways in
which the propositions he had made were met by the Go-
vernment. One was that which was adopted when there
was no answer. , He was then met with silence ; without
attempting argument, Government met him by going to a
division. The other mode was more complimentary. It
was to totally, fundamentally, and entirely misrepresent
his proposition, and answer not what he proposed, but
something totally, fundamentally, and entirely different..
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the clause
would have the effect of handing over the whole govern-
ment of India, without any check, to the Secretary of
State, because it, would make to cease the existence and
functions of the council. But on the contrary he pur-
posely and studiously avoided saying that the council
should cease. The part of the bill which constituted the
council and compelled the secretary to act in conjunction
with it, would continue untouched, but the clause would
put an end to their salaries and to the number. As to the
mode of appointment, the alteration would only apply to
any vacancies which might arise after the five years. The
only effect of the clause would be, that they would be
compelled to reconsider the number and salaries. That
would, cf course, involve the reconsideration of the whole
arrangement, but that was the merit of the clause. It
would not put an end to the council, or hand over the
governme_.t to the Secretary of State, as had been al-
leged.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For Lord Palmerston's clause ll5
Against it
Majority for Government .
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud cheers.

Mr. D. SEYMOTJIt moved the following clause :
" Whereas it is expedient that some offices hitherto ex-
clusively filled by members 'of the civil service should be
thrown open to other qualified persons, the 56th and
57th section of the act 33d George 111., c. 52, are
hereby repealed." The repeal of these clauses was approved
of by several persons in India of the highest authority and
position in the civil service. The effect of the clauses had
been to debar the company availing themselves of a great
deal of talent in India, and the repeal of them would not
only allay any irritation that might exist between the civil
and non-civil servants in India, but would increase the
efficiency of the administration. The hon. gentleman con-
cluded by moving the clause.

Lord STAN LEY said the hon. gentleman had opened
a wide subject, which by his proviso was treated in a most
summary and sweeping manner. He (Lord Stanley) had
not had an opportunity of inquiring into the relations be-
tween the uncovenantedand the civil service, bnt it seemed
to him that his proviso would sweep away all the privi-
leges which had been enjoyed by the covenanted civil ser-
vice during the last 70 years. He thought that the mem-
,
mendations of the hon. member would breako up the whole
framework of society in India, and would have a greater
effect upon the internal government of that country than
probably many hon. members anticipated. The subject
should engage the attention of the Government, but he
hoped the house would not at present pledge itself to any
positive course on the subject.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE thought it would be dangerous
for the house to pledge itself to any direct course upon this
point at present.
Mr. W. VANSITTART called attention to the state of
the Indian army, tpwards the reorganisation of which he
regretted no step had been tkaen.
Mr. D. SEYMOUB, withdrew his clause.
Mr. GREGSON moved the following clause :—" That
the settlements of Penang, Singapore, Malacca, Labuan,
and Sarawak, be placed under the President of the Celle.
cil of India."
Mr. FITZROY objected to the proposition, which he
thought could not stand in the form of a clause.
The SPEAKER confirmed this view of the ease, and the
clause fell to the ground.
Lord STANLEY moved the following proviso :—" That
if /any person -being or having been such director, and
elected or appointed as aforesaid, shall refuse to accept the
office, it shall be lawful for her Majesty, by warrant under
her royal sign manual, to appoint in the place of every
director so refusing, some other person to be a member of
the council, but so that nine members of the council at the
least shall be persons qualified as hereinafter mentioned."
The proviso was agreed to.
Sir E. PERRY moved in clause 10, after "behaviour,"
to insert, "and Isbell not, so long as ho remain such
councillor, accept, hold, or carry on any other office or
situation, or any other profession or employment from
which any gain or profit shall be derived."
Lord STANLEY said the clause had been discussed over
and over again, and there could be no mistake as to the
nature of the duty of the councillors. They would have
to give up as much time as was necessary for the perform-
ance ofitheir duties, and further than that the Government
was not disposed to impose further restrictions upon them.
Sir C. FORTESCUE said there 'was a restriction im-
posed on members of the Court of Directors, namely, that
they should not be engaged in any other way or trade with
India. He thought that restriction might be imposed on
members of the new council.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Lord STANLEY moved on elates() 15 to leave out " with-
out the consent in writing of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer," and insert " except by a similar order in council, to
be laid in like manner before both houses of Parliament."
The amendment was agreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved to leave out clauses 27 and
28; relating to the secret committee. The noble lord
strongly objected to the unreserved power which it was
proposed to delegate to the Minister as to acting on his
now responsibility, and with respect to calling in the ser-
vices of the secret minister. The present President of
the Board of Control was as objectionable, as his successot:
might be objectionable—(hear, hear, and a 1%11031--
and although the former might exercise the power ver.th
advantage, the Minister who succeeded him might act ha a
different spirit. The noble lord concluded by mating the
omission of the clauses.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said that
the 27th clause referred, not to the general mode of con-
sulting the council, bat to the circumstances in which the
Minister would be compelled to act ,vithout delay. He did
not think it wise to Gine the limits of the secrecy pro-
posed by the chews. Was it probable that in the state of
society in ';e'rtich we lived that the Minister would abuse
the noeeer entrusted to him lie thought that the proba-
bilities entirely opposed to that contingency. The
object of the bill was mainly to establish the responsibility
of the Minister. It was not contended that there should
ha no FOCI ecy; but he was not prepared to argue that there
should be no limit. Tiro danger arose that by attempting
to defihe a limit the efficiency of the Minister in a given
I
QK4eNg.ell,!,y might be impaired. The responsibility of