The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 25, 1858.

tion. (Hear, hear.) It was moat unfortunate that we had
not the means of seeing the unofficial accounts that
reached France. Several such had reached him, and the
statement showed that these uniappy Africans were not
free emigrants, but slaves, sold for the purpose. Were
there the ordinary circulation of intelligence in France
which prevailed here, there would be the means of cor-
recting these official accounts which carefully avoided
the main point at issue— whether force had been used
towards these emigrants. (Hear.) There was no ghee-
tion about the law of nations in this case ; there might
be a question of salvage. Undoubtedly, in the presence
of the French captain, no other person had a right to
take possession of the ship, whatever might be the na-
ture of her cargo. ,It was said they were free emigrants;
and yet the first thing they did was to rise and murder
the crew .Was that the way in which our free emigrants
to Canada and Nova Scotia acted? There could be very
little doubt whatever that these were slaves taken on
board against their will, by force and fraud, and that
this was a renewal of the African slave-trade. (Hear.)
Earl GREY thought further information was required
before they could form an opinion. The case originally
stated was not entirely set aside by the communications
now read. He should be glad if the French Government
could prove that these men were emigrants on board
the vessel by their own choice ; but should it turn out
that they were slaves, regularly purchased and manacled,
they were justified by all the laws of God and man in
doing what they did to regain their liberLy. In spite of
the contradiction now given there were circumstances
of great suspicion in the case ; for not only with rega, d
to this vessel, but the whole working of the contract, we
had information that under this colour a regular slave-
trade was being carried on, and that wars were set on
foot for the purpose of procuring slaves. He believed
that if they trusted only to fair means, it would be im-
possible to obtain emigrants, They ought not to receive
the first account against the President of Liberia, but
should wait to hear his explanation. He believed that
the President had condemned the way in which the
French contract was being carried out. It was said that
the vessel being a French one an English ship bad no
right te take possession of her. But, assuming that the
rising was a lawful one, the ship was in possession of the
Africans, and the English were justified in giving them
any assistance which they required. (Hear.) He hop,'
that the Government would do justice to our own offi-
cers on the coast. Toe story of the French authorities
was so full of inconsistencies that it ought not to be
received without confirmation.

The Earl of MALMESBURY said a few words in
reply, and the subject dropped.

THE OATHS BILL.

On the order of the day for considering the report t f
reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords in-
t-isting on their amendments,
The Earl of MAL VIESBURY thought that in the
continued absence from indisposition of his noble friend
at the head of the Government, it would be better to
postpone the subject until that dsy week (Thursday),
when the two bills on the same subject wc.utd stand for
dismission.

Lord CAMPBELL could not help expressing his re-
gret that the intention still should be entertained of send•
ing to the House of Commons reasons why their lordship
should adhere to their amendments. He earnestly im-
plored those who wished for an accommodation of this
dispute to consider well whether it would not be better
to retain the bid they had in their hands instead of send-
ing it back to the Commons.
The Earl of DESART, on the other hand, regretted
the postponement of the reasons. The proposals that
wore made were not for a compromise, but for a conces•
sion. Even if they were willing to compromise the mat•
ter, he thought the proposition ought to come from the
other house. But he hoped their lordships would adhere
to the principle for which they had so long contended,
and would not yieli up to the enemies of Christianity
that upon which not only the legislation of the country,
but all its laws and institutions, were based.
Tne matier was then postponed.
INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM, in the absence of Lord Derby,
postponed the second reading, of this bill.

TRANSFER OF REAL ESTATE BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM was understood to say it was the
universal opinion, both in their lordships' house and in
the country, that something •Oait be done to facilitate
the transfer of real property. Some years ago a commit-
tee had:ilat On this subject, under the presidency of his
noble avid lainented friend the late Lord Beaumont, and
it had come to the conclusion that the most grievous
burden upon land was the costliness of its transfer. Tbat
committee had not been without result. He had himself
passed a bill founded upon its recommendations, and he
had bean assured by the agent of a noble duke that that
measure bad effected in one year a saving of between
6,0001. andl,oool. in the management of his lord's estate.
Last year he (Lord Brougham) had presented a petition
from a gentleman who bad been for many years the ma-
nager of.a great number of properties, on which a sys-
tem of describing each by means of a number prevailed.
During the last 30 years every one of those proper-
ties had been sold, mortgaged, or leased, and the ave-
rage lepgth of the conveyances employed was 190 words
and not.more ; nor had a single dispute ever arisen out
cf the transference of these estates in the manner he bad
described: He (Lord Brougham) wished,to see a similar
plan take the place of laws which appeartd to have been
devised 'for the express purpose of making land as Ittsla
a ;merchantable commodity as was possible. In
Ireland,
~the Encumbered Estates Court had no
fewer than 2,400 petitions presented to it in the
four years ending with 1854. It bad effected
1,448 sales, and the money received bad been no less
than 14,105,000/. —so great was the anxiety both
of buyers and sellers to obtain the intervention of the
court ; of sellers, because they obtained a better price
for their land ; and of buyers, because they received the
inestimable advattsge of a Parliamentary title. S.•
great was the anxiety to obtain the intervention of the
court, that all kinds of contrivances were resortei to
with that view. Fictitious debts were actually created
in order to give the parties a right to petition the court.
The object of his (the noble lord's) bill was to institu• e
a system of registration ; but considering the late pe-
riod of the sessioh at which they had arrived, he would
not on thi4 occasion press it further.
Lord CAMPBELL suggested the establishment of a
registration of deeds, coupled with a proviso that no
deed which had not been registered should prejudice the
rights of any subsequent purchaser of the estate. (Hear.)
After some conversation, the order for the second
reading of the bill was understood to be discharged.
Their I)rdships rose at 25 minutes past 6 o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following private bilis were read a third time and
passed : —Athenry and Tuam Railway. B rkenhead
Improvement Commissioners (Gas and Water), Dublin
and Meath Railway, Redditch Railway, and Stockton
and Darlington Railway (North Riding Lines).

LONDON CORPORATION REFORM BILL.
Several petitions were presented by Alderman Cope-
land, Alderman Cubitt, Lord J. Russel', and Alderman
Sir J. Duke, agaicst the London Corporation Reform
Bill, especially against the clause that confiscates the
revenues of the corporation without compensation.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. ROLT, consideriog the bill put in peril the rights
'of private and corporate property throughout the king-
dote, could not accept the report of the committee to
whom the bill had been referred, and moved the follow-
ing resolution :--" That the petition of the Corporation
of London against the said bill, which was presented
upoe the 28th day of May last, be referred to the com-
mittee, and that the Corporation of London be heard
bv their counsel, agent., and witnesses, before the com-
mittee on the allegations of such petition." He divided
the bill into two parts, one financial the other political. The
fluoridel part proposed the simple regulation of taking
away a large portion of the revenue of the corpo-
ration, without compensation, whilst those who received
emoluments from the corporation relative to certsio
dues, &c., were to be compensated by the corporation
out of their remaining revenues. He objected to the bill
on the ground that it interfered with the rights of pro-
perty ; and his definition of the ownership of property
was, that they could be maintained in a court of law, or
could obtain redress for a wrong inflicted. There was
no distinction in law in the enjoyment ofproperty between
individuals and corporations, and they ought to consider
the question of rnetage, tolls, and duet belonging to the
corporation as if they belonged to an individual. The
rights of property depended on their universality, and be
thought it neither just, wise, or expedient to interfere
with them by this bill. The income of the corporation
was 100,0001. a year from ;and, and 100,0001, a year
from markets, metage, and other tolls. With respect to
the 100,0001. a year from land, a large portion of that
property would soon expire by the running out of lease,
acc., and the corporation had very wisely put by for some
years 20,0001. a year, and must for some years to come,
to obtain a permanent income of 100,0001. a year. Out of
the
iother Itoolols,
aOOO., /. yearawnnih w
wereere
verypai heavy paid for
aerxp. oensles
of cr.l-
-1 ,
year were deducted for drawbacks on property experted,
and there were other charges which made the expenses
in that department about 30,000/.. a-year, so that the
corporation had only 70,000/. Alm. from the tolls, and
80,0001. a-year from lands, making together about
150,000/. a-year. And how was that sum expended ?
There was a debt of a million secured on the revenue of
ddenbieneg nefspetern street
te
the corporation one-half of whichnd
widening
in
purchasing land for the improvinga
the land for which had been dedicated to the pub,-
lic. The interest of that debt was about 50,000/. a
year. The administration of justice in the city amounted
to 50,0001. a year, making together 100,000/. a year out
of the 150,000/. per ann. income. Of the balance, about
12 0001. per annum were spent in city improvements,
10,000/. in church and pensions, and 10,000/. for led-
dental expenses annually. The last amount might be
considered large, but the house must bear in mind that
one year they had to bury a hero ; another year to erect
a monument to his memory ; a third to receive with be-
coming splendour and hospitality our sovereign ; a
fourth, a foreign prince. The civil governinent of the
city cost about 30,000/. a year, which he thought was
not too much for maintaining the hospitality and splen-
dour of the city. The public had advanced money to
the corporation on the security of the revenues, and
Parliament ought not to abolish that security upon the
good faith of which the money was advanced. All that
was asked was for the house to deal with the Corporat ien
of London in the same way they dealt with Liverpool, to
whom they gave compensation. The rights of property
depended upon the universality, and when once acqu'red
they no right to investigate this acquisition. The tolls
levied on goods corning up the Thames might be
,n abl
u withoutt regulationssen d
unjust, but ho cared not for that: They were in
”ittence, and the owners bad no right to be clerzived
of them
political
ccompensation. They night adopt thr.s
back uhetaifinnedaninnialthpearbtilelf otrheebeill. irfgris.
further consideration. The Oerporation of London

ought to be heard. They might strike, if they pleased,
but hear them first. There was neither wisdom, justice,
or expediency in depriving the corporation of their pro-
perty. To do so would be an act of confiscation.
Mr. CRAWFORD seconded the motion. He said
the corporation of London were as anxious as any
one to have the corporation placed on a footing
with the spirit of the times, but they were averse
to the confiscating character of the bill. The
bill was read a second time on the understanding
that the corporation should be beard against it before a
select committee, though the right hon. gentleman the
Home Secretary appeared to be of a different opinion.
The conviction on the minds of many hon. members was
that the bill was to be sent to a select committee after
its second reading, and the corporation heard before them
Sir G. GREY said there were no rights of property in
a corporation the same as in an individual. The muni-
cipal corporation bill established the principle of dealing
with corporate funds without compensation. The best
course for the honourable and learned gentle-
man to have taken would have been to move
the committal of the bill this day three
months or to have gone into committee, and on these
clauses have urged the arguments he bad used in sup-
port of his motion when they could have been consi-
dered. If the further progress of the bill was to be
delayed, it should have been done by a direct mo-
tion. He by no means said delay was not neces-
sary at this period of the season and the state of
the Thames—(hear, bear)—for probably delay would be
advantageous. He, however, warned the Corporation
against imagining that the bill would then be amended
in accordance with their wish. It would then in all pro.
bability be amended more in consonance with
the interests of the public which in many instance were
opposed to those of the corporation. (Hear.) He be-
lieved the result of delay would would be to carry out
more folly the valuable recommendation of the Royal
Commissioners, and the Corporation of London would
then probably regret they had not accepted the concession
this bill gave them. If the further progress of the bill was
delayed, he should consider himself no longer bound by
this bill, and he should consider himself freer to act mo •e
in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal
Commissioners relative to police and other mat-
ters. (Rear, hear) He considered it was better to
go into committee on this bill, and then they could con-
sider the expediency of the corporation of London being
permitted to impose duties on corn after Parliament hai
abolished the corn tax.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS congratulated the corporation
on their having retained the services of one of the most
eminent gentlemen at the bar in their defence, with
reference to the right of the corporation to levy a tax
upon corn Messrs. Coombe, Dalafield, and Co. many
years since refused to pay it, and the corporation of
London had not the c mrage to go into a court of law
and enforce it. He denied that the corporation of
London bad borrowed a million of money without
having the most ample means of paying
it off by the interest of the property in
which it was invested or by the imposition of local taxes.
The only sum borrowed without these advantages wag
92,000/. for the building of Holloway prison. The At-
torney-General entered into many details connected
with the income and expodenture in comparison vfi.h the
Governmental expenditure of a similar character. He
would support delay if there was a probability of the re-
commendation of the Royal Commissioners being carried
out, and believing it might be accomplished by agreeing
to the motion, he would vote for it.
Mr. S. WORTLEY had strong objections both to the
principle and the details of the bill. Recalled attention
to the improvements the Corporation of London had
effected, and urged they were entitled to greater consi-
deration than they had hitherto received, The bill in
its present shape was undoubtedly a violation of the
rights of property. He suggested that the clauses
which affected the property of the corporation should
be postponed until some arrangement should to made,
with the corporation.
After some remarks from Mr. W. MARTIN,
Mr. WALPOLE contended it was a waste of time to
discuss the details of the bill now. It would be better
to go into committee, where they could be better con-
sidered, and if necessary amended. The coal tax ought
not to be discussed now, because it formed no part of the
bill. (Hear, hear.) He thought they should deal
leniently and liberally to the corporation, and he denied
that there was any attempt to act towards them in an
off-band manner. The bill was just to the corporation
and to the public, and if it were delayed it might next
session assume a shape less advantageous to the corpora-
tion. (Hear.)
Sir B. HALL asked the hon. and learned member for
West Gloucester if he intended to press his motion to a
division ?
Mr. ROLT Yes.
Sir B. HALL said he regretted the hon. and learned
member had decided on adopting that course. He
dissented from the principles laid down by the hon. and
learned member for West Gloucester. Scarcely five
years since, when Sir C. Wetherell was in opposition,
he used the same argument on the Municipal Reform Bill
as the hon. and learned member for West Gloucester
bad used on this.; occasion, but he (Sir B. Hall)
need not remind the house that the predictions of that
day bad not been verified. He hoped if this bel
stood the Government of. the day would oeneider
it to be their duty to bring in a bill founded strictly on
the report of the Royal Commissioners of 1853.
Mr. S. WARREN believed that in the present state
of affairs matters were not ripe for an investigation and
decision by that house. The bill in its present form was
downright confiscation. It attacked the rights and
foundation of property and menaced the sanctity of pro-
perty whether that of corporations or private persons.
The question before the house was, wbether they would

compel the Corporation of London to E u it to
the going into committee on a bill that deprived them
of the greatest portion of their property, before the cor-
poration had had an opportunity of being fully heard
before a competent tribunal. lie thought the house
ought not to adopt such a course.
Mr. LOWE considered the rights of property in cor-
poration ought to b.) respected, and not taken from them
except under paramount circumstances.
Lord J. RUSSELL consid red the right of metage
ought to be abolished, and the question of compensation
was a grave one. He had no wish to dispose of those
rights in a summary manner, and he thought it should
be reserved, with that of the coal duties, for future con-
sideration.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the corporation, when

they abolished the street tolls, recognised the right of
interference with the other tols and duties. The rights
and privileges possessed by the Corporation were given,
not to the few inhabitants who now lived within a cer-
tain boundary called the City of London, but tor public
purposes, to the whole of the metropolis of the British
empire.

Mr. J. T. MORRIS d d not object to the passing of
that portion of the bill rela'ive to the political change,
but be was no' prepared to purchase it at the expense
of the confication of the revenue of the corpora ion.
The question of the whole of the metropolis being ad-
mitted to the privileges and rights of the corporation
had nothing to do with the proposed interference wi.h
the rights of property, on the security of which large
sums of money had been advanced for the benefit of the
cit'zms and the public generally.

At 10 minutes to lour o'clock the debate was ad-
j turned by the forms of the hose. The sitting was then
sulponded.
The house resumed at six o'clock.
ALLOWANCE TO WITNESSES.

Mr. POWELL asked the Secretary of State for the
florae Department whether Government intended to
publish a more liberal table of allowances to wit-
nesses at sessions and assiz?s, and whether such table
would be published so early as to be made use of at the
approaching a-sizes acd sessions ; also, whether Govern-
ment intended to propose a more liberal scale of fees for
solicitors who were engaged in conducting prosecutions ?
Mr. WALPOLE said the table of fees now in force
must continue until the commissioners made their reprt.
While the commissioners were pursuing their inquiry he
thought it would be inadvisable to make any change.
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

In reply to Lord GODERICH,

Mr. WALPOLE said that if the bill did not come on
that evening it would be taken on Tuesday at a morn-
ing sitting,

REGISTERING OF JUDGMENTS IN IRELAND.
Mr. S. B. MILLER asked the Attorney-General for
Ireland whether his attention had been called to the re-
cent decisions in the Courts of Queen's Bench and Com-
mon Pleas in Ireland, with respect to the defects in the
form of the affidavits generally adopted for registering
judgments on mortgages in Ireland, and whether it was
his intentioa to bring forward any legislative measure
during the present seesion in consequence of such de-
cisions.

Mr. WHITESIDE bad seen the decisiOn referred to.
He understood property to the value of about a milion
was affected by it. He intended to introduce a bill to
remedy the defect as soon as possible.

ments bet Ween the commissioners 'and the parties from
whom they had purchased the rand. These sprung
mainly from the voluntary assent of the parties ; they
ought to be left on the same basis, and not be made the
subject of a statutory restriction. 'lt appeared to him
that it would be an anomaly, objectionable in principle
and inconvenient in practice, to take the land out of
the position in which it now stood.
Mr. T. BARING said that if the arrangement be-
tween the Government and the commissioner bad con-
tinued on the same f3oting there would have been no
necessity for a statute ; but as that had been altered
they ought to give a legal recognition to what was now
merely a moral recognition.
Mr. S. HEBERT supported the amendment. The
house perhaps was not aware that at present the barrack
accommodation was 1.000 short of the number of men
actually in London. The question of the amendment,
however, did not depend merely on the barracks. The
partnership was now about to be dissolved ; and ought
the Government to preclude themselves from using
the land for any public purpose? It was said there was
a moral obligation, but he could not see what was the
moral obligation in a legal conveyance. The proprietors
did not sell the land to promote science and art, but to
get a good price. If they wanted to promote that pur-
pose they ought to have given the land for nothing.
Mr. KINNAIRD entirely concurred in what had
f alien from the right boo. gentleman who had just eat
down, and thought the arrangement made by the Go-
vernment was a very improvident one for the national
interests.

Mr, COWPER thought the question bad not been
quite fairly stated by the opponents of the clause.
Twelve acres of land were given up by the commis-
sioners to the Government for the purpose of building a
museum and schools. The land was disposed of simply
'for the promotion of science and art, and it would not in
his opinion be right for Parliament to authorise its ap-
plication to any other object.
Lord ELCHO said be bad previously expressed an
opinion t.) the effect that the land land should be retained
f it any public purpose, and more especially for the erec-
tion of barracks, but subsequent reflection had convinced
him that it ought to be applied only to the purposes of
science and art.

Mr. HOPE did not see why the Government should
be tied down in the manner provided for in the bill.

Mr. SLANEY opposed the atnendmen.
The house then divided
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against it ---45
On the motion'ef Mr. J. WILSON, an amendment was
then introduced;with the assent of the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEYIIER, leaving it to the Government (as was
understood) to apply the land to purposes connected
with science and art.

Other verbal amend' enfs in accordance with this
having been agreed to, the bill was ordered to be re-
ported on the following day.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (No. 3) BILL.
Mr. BARING presented a petition against any change
in the form of government of India from inhabitants of
Cheltenham—(a laugh)—many of whom bad served in
India, and still bad interests connected with that
country.

Lord STANLEY, in moving that the bill should be
read a second time, said,—Considering that this house
has been engaged from the beginning of February last up
to the present time, though not quite without interrup-
tion, in discussing—not indeed an India bill, but all the
leading provisions which must be introduced into any
bill for the government of India, I think it will as gladly
be dispensed from hearing as I shall be from offering
any very protracted comment upon the measure which
I have now to bring under its notice. I entertain
that opinion the more confidently because, although
it is impossible to hope or even to desire that any
measure involving interests of such vast importance
should, pass through this house without ample discussion
and full inquiry, the majority of
.points upon which dif-
ference of opinion is likely to arise may be more pro
perly discussed when the bill is in committee than upon
the second reading. The details are for the committee to
consider; its principle is that which the house has
already on several occasions agreed to, and of affirming
which it is not likely to recede, notwithstanding that
appeal against the danger of such legislation at a critical
period, and in .favour of the postponement of any per-
manent measure which we have just heard urged by one
who has so much right to speak on this question. The
principle of this bill I understand to be the transfer of
the government of India from the Company to the
Crown, the administration of Indian affairs by a respon-
sible Minister, with the proviso that that Minister shall
be assisted by a council. As to the details, it seems to
me that I had better go through them very briefly, but
in so doing I shall simply explain what it is that we pro-
pose. and shall not stop to vindicate it by any long or
elaborate arguments. The point on which it is likely
that the discussion will mainly turn is the consti-
tution and functions of the council. In this bill
we propose to adopt the nubaber of members
which was the other day approved by the Cone-
miitee—yiz , 15. Besides the fact of that number hav-
ing met the approval of the Committee there are various
reasons why it should be adopted by the house, The
number of those who are at present engaged in discharg-
ing the somewhat analogous functions of carrying oil
the Indian bu-iness is 18. Nov, if at any future time
we find that the business which devolves upon these gen-
tlemen can be performed by a similar number, it will be
easy to come to Parliament for a further limitation, and
to carry it out by the simple expedient of declining to
fill up the next few vacancies which may occur. It would
not, however, improve our reputation for consistency if,
after baying reduced the number from 18 to 12, or even
a smaller number, we were afterwards to find that the
business was too heavy for them :to get through, and
were to bo compelled to rtrace our steps, to reverse
our decision, and to revert to a number which we had
previously declared to be unnecessarily large. (Hear,
bear.) There is also a circumstance connected with
the tenure of office by these gentlemen which renders it
desirable not to keep the number down to the lowest
point. On considerations which have already been partly
discussed, and which it will be my duty again to submit
to the house to-night, the Government has decided to
propose that the members of Council shall hold their
offices for life. Now, it is quite clear that under those
circumstances you must make provision for the possible
event of some small ►umber of them being at some future
time no longer as well fitted f,r the active performance
of their duty as they were at the time of their appoint-
meet. Further, I conceive that if the independence of
the Council be, as this House has hitherto during these
discussions held it to be, a matter of no slight moment,
that independence will be more effectually secured when
the Council is so extended that even of those members
nominated by the Crown no elinieter can probably have
recommended the appointment of a majority, or of mere
than a small portion. Therefore, in order to secure effi-
ciency as an additional guarantee for independence, and
in consequence of the vote of the Committee the other
night, we propose that the number of members of which
the Council shall consist shall be 15. (Hear, hear.) To
the manner of their choice, which was explained on a
former occasion, I will now only briefly revert. We
propose that in the first instance 7 out of the
15 shall be elected by the Court of Directors from
those who are or have been members of their own
body., In adopting that course we are following,
or rather extending, a precedent which was set in
the Act of 1853; and, considering the inconvenience
which arises in the conduct of any business, more
especially in the conduct of business on so extensive a
scale as that of India, feoca- any break or defect in offi-
cial tradition, considering the difficulty of working new
machinery with new men, I think that the House will
feel that on that ground, as well as on account of their
personal ability and efficiency, it is desirable that in any
council to be constituted there should be a considerable
portion of those who now form the Court of Directors.
(Hear, hear.) We propose that the prccess of election
should precede that of nomination ; that the election of
these seven members by the Court of Directors should
take place within 14; and the nomination of the re-
mainder within 3() days after the passing of the A ct, so
that it may rest with the Crown to decid e whether, after
the election has been made, there remain any members
of the Court of Directors who ought to be eeleeted as its
nominees. There is another reason why it seems conve-
nient to take that course. I think the house is inclined,
and just'y eo, to share in that jealousy of the power and
patronage of the Crown which has been expressed by
the right boo. member for Oxford University. I can
well understand an objection being entertained by many
persons to the creation by the Crown alone of 15
officers of high dignity and considerable emolument.
Now, if the election of half the Council is left in
the hands of the Directors, the amount of patronage
at the disposal of the Crown is so far limited,
and the danger to which I have referred is avoided.
(Hear.) With-regard to the manner in which vacancies
should be filled up, or in other words the permanent con.•
stitution rf the Council, wo propose to adhere to the
proposition which we laid down last week before the
committee—viz., that of nomination by the Crown and
election by the Council for alternate vaaanciee. (Hear.)
I have beard thattlescribed as a complicated mode of
proceeding. I cannot presume to j edge what is consi-
dered to be complicated by some hon, gentlemen, but it
appears to me that a more simple mode of, or one more
Wee from that complication and embarrassment which
certainly would arise if there were what I may call a
double election—a submitting of names by ens autho-
rity and an acceptance of them by another--cou'd hardly
be conceived. (Hear,) Although my object at present
is rathereto explain
_than to vindicate the proposit ens
which Yee hai-e ventured to submit' to the house, yet we
have heard ;to nspch of the danger of self-election, and
of the abuses which areie from it in former times and
under different circumstances, that I think it right to
state that eyvry argument- to whichl have listened upon

7

:true.

that subject has borne a reference not to the principle of
self-election as applied to the constitution of some one
part of a particular body, but to the principle of self-
election when regarded as the only means by which en-
trance into such a body could be obtained. (Hear.) If
you were to open only one door into the Council—if
you were to say that no person could enter it except by
the pleasure of a majority of that body as it was already
constituted, and consequently that no person could enter
it who did not share the opinions of the majority—l
could well understand that under such a system the
grossest abuses would be likely to arise, and that the
opinion which once gained the upperhand would be
likely permanently to retain its predominance. But
in the present case we propose a mutual check, a
mutual control ; we propose that the Indian know-
ledge and experience of those who constitute a ma-
jurity of the Council should be brought to bear in
the selection of new members, while, at the same
time, the Crown will exercise that check which it
ought to possess upon the inconvenience which would
arise if every vacancy were filled up according to the
principle of sel;-election. (Hear.) It is said, again, that
what we call election is really nomination in disguise. If
I entertained that view, the present is not a scheme
which I should venture to propose. In the first place, I
do not think that because men are themselves nominees,
therefore they are to be taken as having no will, no judg.
went, no independence of their own, but as willing,
whatever their term of office, whatever their personal
eminence or character, to fulfil the pleasure of the Minis-
ter by whom they were first appointed. (Hear.) I do not
think that is a danger likely to arise in any case, but it
is a danger still less likely to arise when, as iu the pre-
sent instance, even the nominated members of the Coun-
cil will he the creation, not of one, but of many succes-
sive Ministries. (Rear.) If lam told that the proposed
self. election is virtually to abandon that elective princi-
ple which the house has sanctioned, my answer is that
we were willing—we are willing—to introduce the elec-
tive principle upon a wider scale if it were only possible
to find a fitting and satisfactory constituency. (Rear.)
I believe that to have recourse to the method of election
as a way of appointment to the Indian Council is the first
idea which has entered the mind of every person who has
considered the subject. (Hear.) The difficols which all
persons on further consideration have felt is that of con-
stituting a constituency which would answer the purpose.
We have been told that we should have retained matters
as they are, and gone back to the' Court of Proprietors.
I have nothing to say against the ladies and gentlemen
who constitute that proprietary body, but I do say that
they do not possess any special Indian knowledge, and
that even their interest in the good conduct of Indian
affairs is indirect and remote. Although it might possi-
bly be expedient to oontinue them when they were found
in existence as part of a system which you wished to
modify by degrees, yet it is a different thing to say, when
you are recasting the system altogether, that you will
reintroduce into it that which has always been justly
considered as one of its most anomalous eleinents. (Hear.)
We take the resolution to which the committee came the
other eight as conveying the sense in which it was un-
doubtedly understood by many of those who voted for it.
We believe that those also supported the resolution did
so, not having reference to any special e mstituency
which was in their minds, but from a desire to protest
by their votes against the exclusive and uncontrolled
right of appointment being vested in the Crown. (Hear,'
hear.) I was always of opinion that if the Court of Pro-
prietors were to to retained at all, it should be so with
large additions and extensions. lam free to confess,
however, that every day's experience has convinced me
more and more that the creation of a constituency com-
posed of those who are connected with works cf an in-
dustrial character in India—for example, the sharehold-
ers in railways and other undertakings of that kind—
would be to introduce into the Council an element to
which some objection might be taken. (Rear.) I say so
upon this ground, that whereas a constituency for the
election of an Indian Council should in its essence be an
elective body only, and should not involve any idea of
representation, there is a danger that persons connected
with particular undertakings would bind those whom
they elected to act as the representatives, not of India
or of England, but of the particular concerns in which
they were interested, and to push forward those un ter•
takings often, no doubt, to the disadvantage of other
eotks equally pressing and important. (dear, hear.)
Such ate the reasons which have induced us, objecting
to the principle of excfasive nomination, and desiring to
carry out the resolution to which the committee came
the other night, to do so by the particular machinery
which we now propose. With respect to the proposal
of ten years' service or residence in India as a qualifi-
cation for a majority of the Council, I have heard it ob-
jected to upon two grounds. The complaint has been
made frequently and publicly, but by those who cannot
have read the bill, that the practical effect of it must
be to limit the Council to the Indian civil and military
services. Now, that is obviously not the case. (Hear,
hear.) . On the other hand, I have heard the objection
raised, that to introduce into the Council to
the extent of nearly a half men who have no special In-
dian knowledge or experience would be to turn it to
purposes for which it was not intended. My reply is,
that in stating that a majority of the Council ought to
be men having Indian experience, our object is, in the
first place, to lay down a general principle, and then to
establish a maximum beyond which the number of mem-
bers not connected with India should not in any case
extend. We have no objection to the introduction of
even a larger proportion of those who have special In-
dian experience (Hear.) I have received a communi-
cation from the chairman and deputy-chairman of the
Court of Directors, stating that the number of those
qualified by service or residence in India should be two-
thirds instead of one-half. (Hear, hear.) We are ready
to entertain that proposition, and to discuss it fairly in
committee ; and certainly my own belief is that, whe-
ther it be expedient to put such a proviso into the act
or not, an Indian Council, to be properly constituted,
ought to contain that proportion of men of Indian expe-
rience and knowledge. (Rear.) There is one provision
which has been much canvassed, and on which, no doubt,
there is room for great difference of opinion—I mean the
prohibition against members of the Council serving in
Parliament. It may be to many men an object of ambi-
tion to fill at the same time the position of a member of
Parliament and that of a member of the Council, and I do
not think that the mere objection that the whole time of
a member of the Council is required ought to weigh with
us in deciding that point, because, if it applies to a mem-
ber of the Council, it ought a fortiori to apply to a Se-
cretary of State and to all those who are carrying on,
with much more labour to themselves, the ainnuistrative
business of the country. Tbat is not the objection, there-
fore, upon which I shall rely in maintaining the prohibi-
tion to which I have altuded. But it seems to us, consi-
dering the close and confidential position in which these
gentlemen will be placed with respect to the Minister,
considering also the frequency of Indian discussions in
this house, that any man who by his office was a c
league of the Minister in the Council, and who might
at the same time be an opponent of the Minister
in Parliament, would stand in two situations inconsist-
ent one with the other, and singularly unsatisfactory as
regards him-elf. The tenure of office we 'propose is a
tenure for life. We have considered what objections
might arise to varicus kinds of tenure. Ido not Cent?'
that all are liable to some objections. a short term
were proposed, with the power of reelection, then the
independence of at least the nominated members would
be entirely destroyed ; and if the members were ap-
pointed for;,a long term, then, though the difficulty T
have just mentioned would be get rid of, another would
arise, for men advanced in years and infirm in health
might continue in office for one uniform period. On
the whole I think that the objections against a tenure
for life are less considerable than against any other
tenure. We propose, with a view of facilitating retire-
ment, that a retiring pension shall be allowed on a large
sod lihrral scale. The Salaries of the members will be
1,2001. a-year each, and after ten years' service the re-
tiring pension will be 5001. a-year, and after 15 years'
service 8001., or two-thirds of the whole salary, after
which no further increase will take place. In the matter
of a retiring pension it is clear that there are two oppo-
site dangers against which it is necessary to guard. It
there should be a retiring pensioa after a short term of
years, then you run the risk of what might be called
jobbing—namely, of members bring induced to retire
after a very short service to make room for others. If,
on the one hand, the retirement is to take place after a
long-: xtendod service, then you induce men to hold on
after their services are no longer valuable. It is nece--
sary to strike the balance, and we propose to strike it
in the manner I have explained ; and, whatever retiring
allowances should be slotted to the members of the
council, it is desirable that they should be entitled to
claim them as a matter of right, and not as a matter of
favour. With respect to the salaries we do not desire to
measure the importanceof the office created by the amount
of salary assigned. Those who have served in India,
and have retired from that service, generally retire
upon a retiring allowance calculated upon a liberal
scale ; and the amount of the salary assigned to the
members of Council is intended much more as a compen-
sation to those gentlemen for the additional expense con-
sequent on the necessity of permanently residing in
London than as an equivalent in money for the services
they are asked to render. In the clauses which follow,
matters arising out of the amalgamation of the two offices
in Cannon-row and Leadenhall-street are dealt wit 4. It
may be convenient to mention, though it could not well
be inserted in the bill, what is the course of proceeding
we intend to adopt with respect to the transaction of
business. The whole Indian question may be divided
among six committees with two members of Council in
eache assisted by a head clerk and the establishment. We
propose that all correspondence, with an exception here-
after to be named, shall originate in these committees,
and be sent up to the Secretary of State. If the corre-
spondence is judged by the committees, in the first in-
stance, or by the Secretary of State, to be of sufficieet
importance to be laid before the whole Council, it will be
in the power of either of the committees or of the Secre-
tary of State to submit it to the whole Council ; and we
merely decline to state that all the business should
be brought before the whole Council, as such a de-
claration would have the effect of encumbering the
whole Council with a mass of routine details. I have
heard a complaint that no provision is made for the meet-
ing of the Council at regular and stated periods. I think
that that is a reasonable objection, and therefore, when
tt oh et
hbei Ile
ffgsocets
unless prevented by urgent necessity. (Hear, hear)
tihnatot
tchoememouittnecei,i Ishprooupldosme teoetinosneei
et
aa clause,
shallTo
nhl at
only
i rsme
aet
eos
to e
na
at
t,
wthlbeyaa ts eo
dnr
rude e
aria al
te el
kph:et thato etabti the;p arCno
provision
iusnitoch
nit!
o
s
in the bill was that by attempting to settle matters
of detail by Act of Parliament we run the ri k
of tying ourselves down to minute arrangements,
convenience
t
Chwoohwui unhcf ai
spracticalahut idi 1 fi
actn a e
axtiphreaiarntiC.gellnseelnekTs sense
noeni gi
sgh
theuet s Ministertinohd afterwardstneae vde
raeesdt
a:
of the
tee showhltenahn tet
ph:
Gtialuhnbecike:,.
thatu th iosnhtohuaste point the
be
intention debates

vernment. The object is, that the Council should have
a moral influence and control ; that the Minister's de-
cision should be, as it is practically now, final on all
matters, but that all the members of Council should be
empowered to publicy and formally protest, and if they
disapprove of the course taken by the Minister they may
compel him to record his reasons in writing. But lam
convinced that there is much more danger of a Minister
leaning too much on his Council than neglecting their
advice. All the habits, tendencies, and ideas of English
life are such as utterly to discountenance public men
desiring to assume to themselves authority and respon-
sibility beyond that which is imposed on them. I think
I am not %%rung in saying that a far more prevalent dan-
ger is that of their desiring to shift responsibility and to
throw it on others. So far from public men seeking to
extend their powers, it is much more likely that they
would endeavour to develops part of their powers on
others. The arrangements I have stated will insure the
necessity of all business, with one exception hereafter to
be named, or-ginating with these committees, where it
will be dealt with by two members of Council for each
committee, while any business of importance would
afterwards be submitted to the whole Council. I have
referred to a single exception, which after much doubt
and hesitation we thought it necessary to make, and it
consists in that which relates to the business now nomi-
nally transacted by the Secret Committee. I say
"nominally," because we have beard it again and again
publicly asserted that the Secret Committee is a delu-
sion, and that the real power is actually vested in the
President of the Board. A, regards this part of the
question, there were three courses which might have been
adopted—either to throw open the whole business with•
out exception to the whole Council, or to elect tvo
or three members to constitute a secret committee,
or to vest a power in the Minister to deal with cer-
tain matters on his own responsibility. The objec.
tion to the first course is, I think, obvious. The
practical effect of throwing open all the business to the
council would be to produce considerable delay in cases
of emergency. The second course, that of creating a
Secret Committee, who without the power of controlling
should have the right of being consulted by the Minis-
ter, appears very objectionable. If the Minister were to
choose the members of the Secret Committee, then the
check on him would be practically illusory ; and if the
Secret Committee were to be appointed by the Council,
then there woul be this inconsistency—that the Minis-
ter would be compelled to accept as colleagues those
with whose selection he has nothing to do. The plan
we have to propose is to vest the right in the Minister,
in case of necessity, to deal with a certain class of busi-
ness on his own authority. It seems to be an anomaly
and something worse, if you greatly increase the respon-
sibility of the Minister to greatly diminish his power.
Though the bill does not make it compulsory on the
Minister to create a Secret Committee, it is optional for
him to do so ; but the bill leaves him the power to trust
to those in IN born he has confidence ; and any man, how-
ever wild and rash, would shrink from that vast increa-e
of responsibility which be would necessarily acquire if,
knowing that he is provided with councillors in whom
he might confide, he in any great emergency acted with-
out reference to them. In one word, though theme may
be occasions when it may be necessary for a Minister to
act on his own authority, yet, in my judgment, those oc•
casions ouaht to be rare and exceptional. If a Minister
were habitually, and in cases not urgently requiring
secrecy, to act upon his own authority, and without con-
sulting his Council—that is to say, if he were to extend
his authority beyond its present limits, through the me-
dium of the Secret Committee, that would be not only a
gross abuse of ibis power, but a violation of the spirit
and meaning of the Act. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to the question of finance, it was provided in the bill
of the noble lord (Palmerston) that no increase of ex-
penditure should take place without the consent of four
members of the Council. In omitting that provision we
certainly did not do so from ignorance of the perils
which may arise if an uncontrolled discretion of increas-
ing expenditure be conferred upon a minister, nor from
any desire to assume that power to ourselves. But it
appeared to us that such a provision was totally inade-
quate fur the purpose aimed at. We thought a check of
that nature would he illusory rather than reel, cud that
being illusory, it would serve only as a screeo, and would
prevent the appliea' ion of that other and more efficient
kind of control upon which we rely. It seemed to us that
the object would be better attahtied by that on which I
think Parliament has a right to insist, and which Parlia-
ment has in its own bands to secure—namely, the regu
lar, the periodical, and the minute publication of Indian
accounts. (Hear.) Moreover, it will be borne in mind
that both by the bill of the noble lord and by that the
contents of which I am now stating, any rn'enaber of the
Council has the power of protesting formally against arty
measure to which he is opposed. Now, undoubtedly,
finance would never be comprised in the class of busi-
ness which would require secrecy. Tile Council must be
consulted upon it. Any member, as I have said, has the
power of protesting. If Parliament chooses to call for
such protest it may easily be made public, and in that
manner there is, as it seems to me, a far more real and
effectual control than could be given by a mere provision
that no increase of expenditure shall take place unless
the minister has the support of four members of a coun-
cil, some of whom are named by himself. With regard
to those important provisions in the bid which deal with
the Indian army, there is one point on which I think it
right to make a clear statement, because lam afraid it is
not very clearly set forth in the bill. I noticed only to-
day that one of the clauses relating to this subject was
drawn in rather an obscure manner. Now, we propo e
that. the civil service of India shall, as before, remain
open to competition, and in addition to that we propose
wholly and uorevrvedly to open to competition what
are called the scientific branches of the military service.
As to the other cadetships—those in the non-scientific
branch of the service—we propose that a small propor-
tion, one-tenth, should ge to t aas of civil or mili-
tary servants in India who may be considered deserving
of that privilege. To the remaining military patronage
we have applied as nearly as possible the precedent of the
state of things which now prevails. In dealing with this
branch of the subject our general wish was to continue
for the present, with as few modifications as possible,
the system which now exists. I say for the present, be-
cause it appears to us, as it has probably appeared to all
who are interested in Indian affairs, that circumstances
wholly independent of those measures which are before
the hou-e— wholly independent of the course of legiele-
tion which we have been pursuing during the present
session—independent, I may almost say, of the question
of the continuance of the Company, may require au en•
tire reorganisation cf the Indian army, or at all events
the native portion of it. Now, any attempt at this mili-
tary reorganisation would be fur the present premature;
and we therefore propose that the whole subject should
be investigated by means of a commission, to consitt of
12 members—three of these members to be officers of the
Indian army, three of them officer's of the Queen's army
who have served in India, three to be civilian gentlemen
of eminence, and the remaining three official peisonagte
who are principally concerned in this matter, viz , the
Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of State for War, and
the President of the Marti of Control. To that commis-
sion, so constituted, we intend to refer an it quiry, the
heads of which include the relative proportions of the
European and the native force, the question whether the
European army should be local or one for general service,
whether exchanges from one branch to another are cos-
clhl.a, and generally on whatterms the transfer .f the Com-
pany's army to the Crown should take place. Pending
that inquiry it is not our wish to anticipate the re,ult
which may flow from it ; but this I say freely and ear-
nestly, that I am certain Perliainen will censent to no
arrangement—and I can answer for the Government
that they will consent to none—which, however plausible
or convenient it reigat appear, should have the effeett of
render n,g• entrance into, or promotion in, the Indian
army more difficuit than it now is to talent and to merit
unaided by patronage, or wh:c'e should introduce into
that army Parliamentary or ter influences injurious to
its efficiency. (Cheers.) The whole question, however,
must necessarily come before Parliament again, and,
until it does, our object is to maintain things nearly as
they are at present, with such modifications only as may
relieve us from the necessity of making further altera-
tions without full and ample time for consideration.
(Hear, hear.) Thera is one clause in the hill, the 29th,
which we find both in the noble lord's bill and in that
introduced by the present Government. I mean the
provision which vests in the Governor-General the
appointment of the members of the council in India. I
cannot but admit that that proposition, aithough on the
one hand it was capable of defence, has on the other
hand been received with apprehension and alarm by
many persons whose opinions on such a subject are en-
titled to the highest consideration. (Hear, hear.) They
argue that a Governor-General or the Governor of a
Presidency even at present has a very large and on
limited power in his hands, and that it would be
dangerous to increase that power by mating his col-
leagues in the Council dependent on his will. (Hear.)
I du not propose to abandon the clause, but I wish to
say distinctly that I have retained it in the bill only in
order that it may receive a full and fair discussion, we
holding ourselves at liberty, if the sense of the house and
the judgment of those best conversant with the sultect
should be adverse to our proposal, to reconsider, and if
necessary, to alter the clause. (Cheers.) With respect
to the question of finance, as I apprehend that will be
fully discussed in committee, I shall say nothing more at
present than that I have heard nothing which has led
me to believe that those whose fortunes depend upon
the security of Indian finance will have that security
in any the slightest degree diminished. (Hear, hear.)
There is a provision in the bill for sending out a com-
mission to investigate the financial state of India
Now, I believe that such an inquiry is very necessary
and very advisable ; but it has been urged with great
force that any investigation of that kind ought to
come through the Governor-General ; that it ought
to take place with his sanction, in deference to his au-
thority, and should not, se it were, be a power set up to
check and control him. (Hear, hear.) On that ground I
shall withdraw the clause in question, and communicate
with the Indian Government as to the best method by
which the same End may be attained, (Hear, hear.)
These are the provisions of the bill. I will onl say in
?encluteon that I think we run some risk of exaggerats
sag the importance for good cr for evil of legi.letion of
this kind carried on in this house. What we call a bill
for the future Government of India is really only a bill
to provide what we believe will be a inure effective mea-
sure for supervision and control at a distance of the Go-
vernment of India. No doubt effective supervision and
control are valuable and even indispensable ; hut, do
what you will here, the real stress, the real pressure will
be upon the Government in India---(boar, hear)—and
even there, where the pressure is greatest, I believe the
Government of India must depend, not upon any icge-
hious machinery which you cnn contrive -for its worS-
ine, but upon the living energy of able and wilhchoseu
men whom you must, to meet the varying and ur.fere-
een circumstances which will from time to time ,rise,
invert with large authority, and to whom you must give
an ample and a generous confidence. (Beer.) Ido net
propose this bill as a measure to remedy all the abused

and grievances of which complaints have been made with
regard to our Indian administration. I propose it sinspll
for what it is—as a reform which, I believe, will lead to
other reforms—(hear, bear)—and without which thee°
other reforms could not be so easily or couveniently
carried out. I propose it as is necessary and desira-
ble simplification of a system of government which all
persons acknowledge to be complicated and cumbrous
and es the rectification of an anomaly which has en•
dured too long, and which at the present day can serge
no useful purpose. I propose it as the substitution for
a provisional form of government of a more permanent
and I believe, more salutary form of administration, and
as a measure which will vest the government of that
great dependency of England, India, in the English
Crown, and will place it under the direct authority of
English Minister, responsible to this house and to lbe,
public opinion of England. (Cheers.) The noble lord
concluded by moving that the bill be read a second tiaie.
Mr. BRIGHT did not rise for the purpose of opposivg
the second reading of the bill. On the contrary, if and
hon. member thought proper to divide thebause he wou4l
vote with the noble lord. He must say, however, rbet
there were a gm d many clauses in the bill to which be
entertained serious objections. Some of them would, be
hoped, be amended as the bill passed through commit'
tee ; tut if that were not the case be could only lore
that, as the Bill of 1853 was abandoned in 1853, within
the next five years the House of Commons would take
s )me further steps with regard to this question, withthe
view of simplifying the government of India as carried
on in England. He wished to take this opportunity °I
making some observations upon the general question of
Indian government, which it might have been out of
place to make during the discussion of the various roar
lotions that had been agreed to by the house. He thought
it must have struck every hon. member that, while two
Governments had proposed great changes with regard to
the government of India, ne good case had really been
made out for such changes in the speeches of the noble
lord and the right hon. gentleman by whom those bills
had been introduced. (Hear, and a laugh,) That opinion,
he knew, would meet with a response from two or Three
hon. gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the house'
(Hear.) It had occurred to him when the noble lord et„
the head of the late Government introduced his
he made the observation when the present Chancel'
!or of the Exchequer brought forward his measure."'
that if the house knew no more of the question than
they learned from the speeches of those right hon. gen"
tlemen they could not form any clear nation why it was
proposed to overthrow the East India Company. Vs
boncurable member for Guildford (Mr. Menglee) had
expressed a similar opinion several times during the pro•
gress of the discussion. The tight honourable man'
her for Carlisle had said that the East India COn'
pany was dealt with in the manner in which animals in"
tended for sacrifice were treated in Eastern countries
and ancient times,—that they were decked with garlands
when they were led out for immolation. That was true;
but it did not therefore follow that the house eves quite,
right in the course it was taking. It must be clear the',
the moment the House of Commons met this session
there was only one course which the then Government
could adopt with reference to this question. A feeling
wasted throughout tbe country—he believed he ni'gh'
say it was universal—that fur a long time past the ge.,
vernment of India had not been a good government'
that grave errors—if not grievous crimes—had bee°
committed in that country. lie thought the conscience
of the nation had been touched on this question, and
they came by a leap, as it were—by an irrepressible
stinct to the conclusion that the East India Compol
must be abolished, and that another and, as the nation
hoped, a better government should be established for
that country. There was a general impression, arising
from past discussion in Parliament, that the in,'
dustry of the people of India had been grievousl
neglected ; that there was great reason for cocatilairl,
wit h respect to the administration of justice ; and that
with regard to the wars enterer into by the Indian Go-
vernment there was much of which the people of Eng;
land bad neeson to be asamed. (Hear,) It was said tbe.
these faults were to be attributed to the B iard of Cnn.
trol ; but he (Mr. Bright) had never defended the Boer'
of Control. He believed everything the East lud,ie
Company had said of the Board of Contr. I—to its die'
credit—(a laugh.) —and he believed that everything the
Board of Control had said to the discredit of the East
India C impany was perfectly true. (Cheers and laugh'
ter.) He hoped his hon. friend (Ur. Mangles) would
not require any further expression of opinion upon OP
point. (A laugh. Tnere was also a general impress 0a
that the expenditure of the East India Government WO
excessive, and it had been proved before more than one
committee that the taxes imposed upon the people of Indic
were onerous to the last degree. These subjects waredie'
cussed in 1853, at which time, in his opinion, the change
now proposed ought to have been effected. Subsequentlf a
the calamitous events of 1857 and 1858 occurred, av
the nation came at once to the conclusion—a conduit°
which ho thought no disinterested person could resist-a'
that it was impossible that India and its vast population
could any lenger be retained under the form of govet
went which had existed up to this period. If, then, e
change was inevitable, the question was how it should b:
accomplished and what should be done. He thought id
was quite clear the course the noble lord had pursue
was right—viz., that of insisting that during this Pre,i
sent session, and without delay, the foundation of s.l`
reform in the government of India should be commence
at home, because they could not take a single step v":.;
regard to any real and permanent, improvement in tr,
Indian government until they reformed what he might
call the basis of that government by the changes effected
In this country. What, then, was the change which 08
proposed, and which ought to be made ? For his own
part, in considering these questions, he could not alto'
gether approve the bill now before the house. What theft
wanted with regard to the government of India was o°t
which in common conversation was called "a little toots
daylight." They wanted more simplicity and more re;
speneibility. (Hear.) He (Mr. Bright) had objected to
the scheme originally proposed by the Chancellor of th
Exchequer because it did not provide these requisitee;
That teheme so closely resembled the system they iver,,
about to overthrow that he (Mr. Bright) could not bring
himself to regard it favourably. In considering the su:
jest before Parliament met he asked himself this quo
lion:—" Suppose there bad never been an East DO'
•
Company or any such corporation—suppose India W
been conquered by the forces of the Crown, commande...,
by generals acting under the authority of the crown ,
how should tee then have proposed to govern distantdaj
minions of vast extent, and with a population that coal
scarcely be counted?" He believed such a system of gee
e
vernment as had heretofore existed would never bale
been established, and if such a system had not 10.iSte3
he was convinced that no Ministry would have prop:o°,l
the plan now submitted to the house. He thong
f
the Government would have been placed in the band° °J
a Secretary of State, with his secretaries, olerks, ap
staff of officers, or of a small board, so small as to pt ii
vent responsibility from being diffused aed divided,
not actually destroyed. He suspected that the only Ora
son why the country or Parliament would be disposed
to approve the large Council proposed was that they he,
seen something like a Council, formerly of 24, and sub
sequently of 18 members, and he believed there wlici
something like timidity on the part of the house, a%
probably on the part of the Government, in making,
gri at a change as he suggt sted to the simple plan vviiiebe
would probably have existed had no such body as td
East India Company ever been established. He *"..,7,
willing to admit candidly that if the Government of India
at home was greatly simplified it wculd be necessO;
that very important changes should be made in the o°o
vernment of India. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with t.,.
.`s
noble lord (Stanley) that the representatives of 11,
Crown in India must have power as well as reepanet,
bitty ; that they should be enabled to deal with ejlea
gencies— (hear, bear)—and to settle the hundred °lid
thousand questions that must arise hourly alno°,;
100,000,000 of people, without sending 10,000 miles
this country to ask questions which ought to be Bettie
at once by some competent authority en the ell,.
(Hear, hear.) There_ were two modes of governing Ittf,
and the hon. member for Leominster (Mr. Willough,by)
.i
who had been a very distinguished servant of the
-00:1
India Company, had publicly expressed his views ups
this question. He (Mr. Bright) bad been very mug
struck with a note attached to the published report
that speech, referring to the multifarious duties d,
charged by the directors of the East India Company:
That note stated that
" A despatch may be received containing 60, or I°°of
or 200 cases; and the despatch, in itself voluneinutY,
is rendered more so by collections attached to
containing copies of all former correspondence °0
the subject or subjects, of all letters written o.
therec
by various local officers, and all p!pers relating theret t,
Thera has not long since been in the Reer,nue DePeic
ment a despatch with 16:263 pages of collections. 00
1845 there was one in the same department with 46,000
pages, and it was stated that Mr. Canning some Year
since in the House of Commons mentioned a military
ted
despatch to which were attached 13,511 pages of COu'oh
tions." The hon. gentleman did not say in his sP,ee,,
anybody at the India-house ever read all these thlaete.
(Hear.) It was quite clear that if the directors weree/e
pretend to go through a waggon-load of docutne"be
coming to Leadenhall-street every year it must only be
a pretence, and that if they wanted to persuade
this
House that they gave attention to only one-tenth Ps
of that mat'er they must think the House more Bred
lous than they were in matters of that kind, (Cbeerbe
t h
That was one mode of governing India. It woe
od
mode which bad been adopted and the mode which be
failed. If they were to have the details settled her:
was perfectly certain they would have no good govt 0
went in India. (Hear, hear.) He had alluded eOO.
feriner occasion to a matter which occurred in c,bst
mitten. A gentleman who was examined stated
be had undertaken to brew a more wholesome beer !the
quite as good as that exported for the supply bee
troops, somewhere in the Presidency of Madras, forted„
sixth of the price paid by Government for that exino% •
to India from England ; that the experiment was cord
pletely succuessful ; that the memorandum or re ot
with regard to it was sent home, no doubt forming Pt it
of the thousands of pages in the collection ; and 113010
was buried in the heap in which it came, hecause_oo
years nothing was hoard of a proposition which fr_`.'o,l.
have saved the Government a very large amount a° ad
ally, and opened a new industry to tbe population _ri
capital cf India. (Hear, hoar.) He believed
d u
this system of government wan one of delay and raft
appointment—one, actually, of impeseibility—one worn.
could by no moans form a coinplere theory of g 2
ment as held by any persons in the House (bear, boa be.
and that eho other, the simpler system, which o
would wish the House to undertake, was onocts.
action, progress, and results, with regard to India, tiPnti
as they had never yet seen and never would gee es'
there eves a complete simplification of the Indi'nees'
vernment in this country. (Hear.) He came to the 'loci,
Owl—and it was for this question that he wished Pr'