The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-02 00:00:00

LONDON COILPORATION BILL.

Mr. LA.BOUCHERE asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer what were the intentions of the Government in
relation to the bill for the regulation of the Corporation
of the City of London 3 The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had stated the other night that he did not think the Go-
vernment would be able to go on with it during the pre-
sent session. It would be :convenient if the right hon.
gentleman would state whether or not he intended to
abandon it. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would take the earliest opportunity the state of public
business would allow, to state generally what were the
intentions of the Government with regard to measures
before the house. Perhaps, therefore, th hon. gentleman
would not press him upon that point at present.
CHELSEA. BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
' Sir J. SHELLEY said that this bill had been long on
the paper, and he should be glad to know what was to
be done with
Lord J. MANNERS said that as a debate of some
length had taken place on a previous evening he thought
that when the order came on the division might be taken
at onc?. _ _

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL

The house then went into committee on this bill.

0.1 7

Mr. G.LADeniteiNiE rose, ire cenfermity with the
intention hejhad expressed the other evening, to pro-
pose as an amendment the addition, et the end of
the 20th line in this clause, of these words :—" And
it shall consist of the following members." The
object of his amendment was that the first mem-
bers of the Indian Council should be named in the
act of parliament. He did not think any private mem-
ber of the house ought to assume the responsibility of
submitting the names of the persons to be entrusted
with these functions. Their selection would devolve
upon the Government, who should subject their choice
to the review of Parliament, and if the names so recom-
mended were uhimately accepted the nomination of the
new council would have all the weight and authority
which would be derived from its having been sanctioned
by the judgment of both houses. By the act of 1853 it
was provided that the number of the directors of the
East India Company should be reduced, and the task of
making that reduction was imposed upon the then ex-
isting Court of Directors itself, and the directors were
accordingly obliged to exclude several members of their
own body. It was understood that this had been found
by the Court of Directors to be an extremely painful
and invidious duty; and it was obvious that objections
of feeling must attach to such a mode of proceeding.
His great object, however, in making this motion was,
that the Indian council should be clothed with the
greatest possible amount of moral weight and influence
' consistent with maintaining intact the responsibility of
the Secretary of State. This end, he thought, wound
Le best attained by naming the original members of the
collo:it in the bill. It had been the Practice of Parlia-
ment to' follow this course when it was constituting
bodies wh;:h were to be invested with subordinate funs,
tines of govere'rnent of an arduous nature ; and the more
onerous the dutieEf to be discharged, the more weight
would be given to those who were intrusted with them if
their appointment received the express approval of Par•
!lament. The commissioners chosen to carry out the re-
form of the two universities were specifically named in the
act of parliament relating to that subject, and the same
remark applied to the case of the Charity Commissioners.
Moreover, when Mr. Fox introduced his India Bill, he
proposed to divide the Government of India into two
departments, one of which was confided to a superior
commission composed of seven members, aid the other
to an assistant-commission consisting of nine members,
and the names of both sets of commissioners were sub-
mitted to Parliament. True, that bill was rejected, but
its rejection turned upon entirely different considerations.
Upon the grounds of precedent applicable by just ana-
logy to this case, and also upon the grounds of reason,
it was therefore desirable that the committee should add
whatever it could in the way of moral weight and inlu-
ence to those who were to perform the difficult task of
supporting and advising the Secretary of State at this
critical juncture in administering the government of
India. His proposal would, therefore, give the new
Council the benefit of a good start, without in any de-
gree fettering the discretion or impairing the responsi-
bility of the Indian Minister. The right hon. gentleman
concluded by moving his amendment.
Lord STANLEY thought it would not be convenient
to adopt the proposition of the right hon. gentleman,
which would do away entirely with the principle of elec-
ting a part of the Council by the members of the present
Court of Directors from among themselves, and would
place in the bands of the Government, subject to the
sanction of Parliament, the nomination of the whole.
Now, it was the object of the Government not to make
any needless changes, but to follow as far as they could
the analogy of that which actually existed. They had
found a Council composed palely of nominees and pertly
of members elected by the Court of Proprietors ; and they
had worked upon that as a basis. They proposed to increase
the number of nominees and to reduce the number of
elected members, so as to bring them to nearly equal pro-
portion,. But in reducing:the eleeted.rnembers of the exist-
ing Council they preferred to leave in the hands of the
body the choice of those who should be members of the
new Council. It was said that this course was proposed
in 1853 and very reluctantly adopted. The changes
made in 11153 were certainly reluctantly effected, but
upon much larger and more general grounds, by the
then existing Court of Directors. After having been in
frequent communication with those 'who represented the
Court of Directors, he had not heard anything wbioh in-
duced him to believe that, if called upon to perform this
public duty, they would shrink from its. discharge on
account of private feeling. The proceeding on which
they were invited to enter wa, the less invidious because,
as only one-third or one-fourth of their whole number
would be chosen, exclusion would be the rule, and there
could not therefore be the same expectation on the part
of each member that he would be one of those chosen as
there would be if the majority were to be elected, and
only a few left out, One great reason fer leaving the
choice in their hands was, baying acted together, they
would be better acquainted with each other's capacities
for the transaction of business than the Government
could be. The bill also contained.a provision that the
members of this cnincil should not be capable of sitting
in Parliament, and the duty of the dire ctors would there-
fore be less invidious than it would have been if they
had been called upon to exclude certain members from a
body which was otherwise to remain the same. The
objection to inserting the names in the bill was, the
adoption of such a course would seriously retard the pro-
gress of the measure. The Government could not nomi-
nate these members without some time for consideration.
and a delay of even a week or 10 days would at this
period of the seseion be very inconvenient.
Sir E. PERRY supported the amendment. He did
not think that the mode of selection proposed in the bill
would lead to the appointment of the best seven menu
hers cf the Court of Directors, especially as it was re-
ported to be the intention of the court to select none of
its nominated members.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
On clause 8, providing for the appointment of the
first members of the Council,
Mr. V. asked whether the words " or have
been theretofore such directors" were intended to give
the Court of Directors power to choose not only from
existing directors, but also from those who, having filled
that office, had retired ?
Lord STANLEY said that the words were intended
to give that power, but he apprehended that the election
would take place principally from the existing body.
Mr. V. SUITII said that this would throw upon the
directors another invidious task, and therefore he moved
that these words should be omitted.

The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it .
Alaj mty
Sir J. GRAHAM remarked. .. ...
..
.. 75
that
w
as censured
the other evening for raising a:discussion upon the
unlimited transfer of power to the Minister of the
Crown, under clause 3, with regard to the expenditure
of the Indian revenue both at home and in India, and
with regard also to the distribution of patronage. Ha wa,
glad to say, however, that tt at discussion had been pro-
ductive of great advantages. The President of the Board
of Control had ascertained the views of many members
in diffJerat parts of the house, and the cone:quence