The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-20 00:00:00

spent by the Court of Directors. He believed the public
would not consent to give the patronage to the Govern-
ment, and therefore the only remedy was an anlerolment
such as he had given notice of. He believed all the
evile of the administration could be traced to the sys-
tem of patronage. The appointments to the cavalry,
instead of being given at Addiscombe, were re-
served for the aristocracy of Leadenhall-street, and to
increase their patronage. The regular cavalry were
preferred to the irregular, which was more serviceable
and more economical. He thought the clause ought to
be struck out, and that which he proposed or some
ether be substituted.
The Earl of DERBY could not trace-any connection
between the noble earl's speech and the amendment of
which be had given notice. His proposal was to give all
the patronage to three members of the Ceuncil to be
chosen by the Secretory of State ; as the bill stood the
secretary would have two nominations out of 17. The
noble earl thought that too much, and therefore pro-
posed to give one-eigth directly, and the other seven-
eighths indirectly, though the three members to be
named by him, who were to receive their full salaries of
1,200?., although remaining members of the Council,
were not to take any part in the government of Indie.
Earl GRANVILLE did not think it advisable thus
to stereotype the mode of nomination, it would be
making it a sort of property of the Council. He thought
the subject should be Id; to future regulation.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 41,
The Duke of SOMERSET objected that under this
clause neither the Governor-General nor the Secretary
of State would have any power to expend any money
The Earl of DERBY said the clause did not at all in-
terfere with the powers now vested in the Governor-
general, it only subjected the expenditure to the revi-
sion of the council.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGET remarked that the
clause did not at all alter the position of the Governor-
General—the council was substituted for the Court of
Directors, who now revised all the expenditure.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 52, relating to the audit of accounts,
The Earl of ELLENBOR.OUGR said he had an
amendment to propose in the clime. He considered it
only just to protect tho revenues of India from being
charged with any expenditure to which they were not
properly applicable, and he feared the council would not
be as careful as the Court of Directors were. He pro-
posed to extend the powers of the auditors, and with that
view to add the words, " Especially noting any pay-
ment, if such there be, in which it shall appear to him
any mosey coming out of the revenues of Ida 11:-.s been
applied to other purposes than those of the government
of India."
The Earl of DERBY believed the clause as it stood
afforded sufficient protection, but he would consider the
amendment before the next Cage of the bill.
Itord MONTEAGLE supported the amendment. The
present system of public audit in this country was not
satisfactory, and the last report had recommended a re-
turn to the cli system of the auditor reporting direct to
Parliafuent. He would recommend the same system
with regard to India.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH did not think it pos.,
bible to improve the present system of accounts at Lead,
enhali-street.

The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 53, accounts to be laid annually before Par-
liament,
The Earl of SILIFTESBURY moved to add a pro-
viso that the accounts be accompanied by astatement giv-
ing an abstract of what had been done during the year to
improverailways, roads, and canals, the number of Euro-
pean settlers and soldiers in each presidency, the mortality,
the number of schools and colleges, members attending,
books used, /cc., the statement being prepared in such a
manner ad to exhibit the moral and material progress of
each presidency.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH should not object if
he thought the preparation of the statement would not
cost too much, or would be read by anybody except the
noble earl and one or two others.
After some conversation the clause was agreed to.
On clause 54, which requires that the order for the
commencement of hostilities be communicated to Parlia-
ment one month after their actual commencement, _

The Earl of ELLENEOROUGH objected to the
clause as it stood. - Five weeks must elapse More the
order for the commencement of actual war arrived in
India, and five weeks more must elapse before it was
known that the Governor-General had declared war. He
did not believe that any man in his senses would give an
order for the commencement of actual hostilities under
such circumstances. Practically it would be a notifica-
tion to the state against which proceedings were to be
taken. If this had been the law before the late Persian
war he did not believe that either Busbire or Moham-
merah would have been taken.
The Earl of DERBY said be was at a loss to under-
stand the obj -ctioa of his noble friend. If an order was
sent out directirg the commencement of actual hostilities
he thought it was not unreasonable that Parliament, if
then sitting, should be informed of the fact that such an
order had been sent out within one month after. How
that could be a notice to the enemy he could not under-
stand. Ile did not think the instance selected by his
noble friend was a happy one, because it ever there was
an unconstitutional proceeding it was that Persian war,
which was commenced, carried on, and ended without
Parliament having the slightest knowledge that they
were going to war, what the grounds of the quarrel
were, or what they were fighting about. (Hear.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he was not going
to defend what had been done by the late Government,
but whether right or wrens, in their policy, the war had
been successful. He believed that the clause would never
be acted upon. Suppose, for instance, when the order
to commence the Persian war had been sent out,
the Indian mutiny had broken forth, and that the Gover-
nor-General did not act upon the order under the circum-
stances, would not the communication to Parliament one
month after the order bad been sent out be a notification
to Persia of their intention ?
Lord WODEHOUSE suggested two months instead
of one. •
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE thought the object of
the clause was a very desirable one, but care should be
taken that the interests of the country did net suffer.
For that, reason he thought it desirable that the time
should be extended.
Lord CRANWORTII said that the late Government,
after mature deliberation, agreed to the clause, but the
noble earl (Ellenborough) pointed out such difficulties
arising from the distance of India from this country as
might make it positively mischievous to act upon the
clause.
• The Earl of DERBY said that if this clause, which
was verbatim the same as when it was agreed to by the
members of the late Government, had been so maturely
considered by the late Cabinet, he was at a loss to know
why they changed their opinion. Was it that they sat
on the other side of the house ? He would not object to
the two months.
Earl GRA.NVILLE thought the charge of change of
opinion was an extraordinary one to come from the
noble, earl whose government changed their opinion not
only with regard to the subject of India, but with regard
to almost every other subject. (Hear.) It was very
possible for men to come honestly and conscientiously to
an opinion, and on further argument to change that
opinion. (Hear.) He did not think the argument of
the noble earl (Eilenborough) bad been answered, and
he could not help thinking it would be better to insert
three months instead of one or two. By the end of the
month they would be sure of having received the answer
of the Governer-General.
The clause was then agreed to, two months being sub-
stitutedinstead of one as in the clause (as was understood).
On clause 55, which refers to the employment of the
Indian army beyond the frontiers of India,
The Earl-of DERBY proposed a new clause instead,
for the purpose of getting rid of the constitutional ob-
jection which had been urged to the old clause.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the object of the clause
was a good one. Mr. Fox suggested something of the
kind formerly, and so did Mr. Pitt, but they failed, and
was there the slightest chance, if the clause bscame law,
of its being more successful ? Tee Indian army was not
to be employed outside the Indian frontiers, except to
repel an invasion or on some urgent and sudden neces-
sity without the consent of Parliament. As he said be-
fore, no war was justifiable except the case was urgent,
and some suddenness was always connected with a mili-
tary. operation. What was the meaning of the consent
of parliament I Was an act of Parliament to be got ?
Wis there any other mode of expres-ins its censsnt ? If
so, it ought to be embodied in the clause. By this clause
the Governor-General might be deterred from doing
things which it would he his duty to do.
The Earl of DERBY said it had been supposed that
the.object of the clause was is impose a restriction cn
tio prerogative of the Crown with respect to the Indian
army on foreign expeditions. the clause had no such
object, and it would have no such effect. After this
slum passel the Crown would b 3 at liberty to employ in
any quarter of the world every single man engaged in
the Indian service during the period of his service. I,
beirig the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to make
war and peace, the only constitutional check upon that
prerogative was the sanction cf Parliament to the pecu-
niary arrangements, without which no tr .01)3 could be
removed. This &atm, was introduced for the protection
of the Indian revenue, and it provided that Indian troops
should not quit, their own territory except for the pur-
pose of preventing actual invasion ; or if they did, that
the expenses should be defrayed out of the revenues of
this country, and not out of the revenues of India. It
did not prevent the employment of Indian troops by the
Queen, but it is said that if the Queen employed those
troops in other than wars within the territories of India,
it should ba for Parliament to decide whether these were
Indian or imperial objcws. Ii this clause was not agreed
to, it would be c t
for an unconstitutional sove-
reign to employ the whole of the revenue and troops of In-
dia in carrying on a war for any purpose which the Crown
might dire3t, vsitho:i.t bei: g
(Hear.b e
)d to came to Parlia-
ment for a single
I thought the bill had
The Earl ae; L 110 RO
f rr it gave the
taken the hest seuuri Y
244irj.-et that,
re a that kind.
Council a power of vetoing a,..Y ~s
The directors refused to pay for the China
_
e- ps
audit they had not agreed to pay h:,lf the ePcr's°'
the Persian expedition, they e ,uld uut bo called upon
f one shilling towards the exeenses of that war. It
Wad, for teat reai.e.o no e.;:i iieted the elfin ,e °ell he in-
operative. Ile helieverl the only effect ui Ord
would be to tie up the sword of the Governor-General,
to paralyse' his diplomacy,toPreavnedntto. lead to the very wars
which it was intended
The committee then divideel—
For the new clause .. ............. 52
Against it 3(3-16
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses down to 70 were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 71, the last clans-,
The Earl of DERBY stated, in answer to a question
from Earl Granville, that on the bill coming into epee
ration in India a proclamation would be issued by the