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

retirements, he thought they should be gradual, because
he saw great dangers in sudden changes.
Mr. W. EWART said in order to have an indepen-
dent council there must be a limit of five years with a
prospect of re-election, which would be an ample security.
Mr. RICH thought a periodical infusion of new blood
into the council was necessary. Persons who held ap-
pointments for life were always found to be listless,
while those who had to go out at a certain time were al-
most invariably energetic. He thought a superannuation
fund to secure the retirement of members would be a
most unjust thing to India, by creating a very serious
charge. Appointments for life would not therefore leo
so beneficial as appointments for a term of years, what-
ever the limitation might be.
After a few words from Mr. LINDSAY,
The committee divided, when the numbers were— -
For the amendment
Against it . 154
Majority against
Sir G. LEWIS asked whether there was any necessity
for that part of the clause which referred to criminal or
disgraceful conduct. It appeared to cast an unnecessary
stigma on the councillors. If any member of the council
was guilty of criminal conduct he would be liable to be
treated by the criminal law, and would be committed by
the magistrates; so that by the very necessity of the case
prevented from attending the meetings of the council.
As for disgraceful conduct, he could not conceive how
any such emergency could be expected.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the members of the Court gf
Directors were removable for "incapacity or misbehl-
viour," and suggested that a similar clause should be in-
troduced in this bill.
Mr. CAIRNS said her Majesty could have no power
to discharge those who were not servants of the Crown.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the directors were not remov-
able by the Crown on an address from this house. They
were not servants of the Crown. The members of the
council were servants of the Crown, and that they should
be removable by the Crown on an address from this
holier, was consistent with the whole scheme.
After a few words from Mr. GURNEY and Sir H.
WILLOUGHSY,
Mr. WARREN said that county court judges were
removable for misbehaviour or inability.
Lord STANLEY said that under this clause there
would be the power to remove a member of the council
in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy. As to the ob-
jection that persons would be removed for inability,
though arising from no fault of their own, the provision
, of a retiring pension met that point.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there bad been instances of
judges retaining office after they were unable to dis-
charge their duties, and the case might be the same with
the councillors under this act.
Tire CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that there was nothing so difficult to define as inca-
pacity, and every attempt to define it would trench on
the independence of the council. He therefore hoped
that the amendments which had been suggested would
not be pressed.
Clause 11, as amended, was teen agreed to.
On clause 12, which provides that members of the
council shall not sit in Parliament,
Sir E. PERRY said it was desirable that the mem-
bers of council should not be engaged in trade. He
had understood that this was the opinion of the Go-
vernment; if so, a previeion to that effect should be
introduced into the clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said if a member was
appointed on the understanding that he should vise
the who!e of his time to his duty, and if he did not
ei) so it would he a breach of the understenditig, and
would come under the definition of misbehaviour.
Sir E. PERRY urged that the words "or concerned
in any trade or traffic whatever" should be introduced
into the clause. It was well known that a late Presi-
dent of the Board of Contr. I had been engaged as a
sleeping partner in a large commercial concern ; and
he wished to prevent anything of this kind occurring
with tae new council.
Mr. LIDDELL thought that, considering how useful
the presence • f East, India directors in that house bad
been, it was very desirable that the house ehould not
be for the future deprived of that advantage) by the ex-
clusion of the teernheis of the council from this house.
By that exelusisn they would deprive the Inr;ian Govern-
meet of .Leme of the fittest perseeie for the council. He
proposed to omit the word "no," and add "e" to the
word "member."
Mr. ELLIOTT said that all the information they were
able to obtain in Indian debates weer derived from Ea,t,
India directors. Why should the house deprive them-
selves of the advantage of that information which was
thought so necessary for the Indian Government ?
Mr. GROGAN said that if the clause were carried
they wound bare no authoritative informant on In-
dian affair o in that house except the presideet.
Sir E. COLE BROOKE supported the ametidmect,
Mr. CLAY was far from undervaluing the assistance
f the directors, at the same time he thought thrst from
the wealth and position of many gentlemen -who had
lived in India, they need not apprehend any dearth of
information.
Lord J. RUSSELL was averse to putting any re-
straint upon the choice of electors unless on very strong
arguments. The principle of exclusion had been carried
too far. There were few men who bad afforded so much
information on Indian topics as Sir Wiliam Grant, whose
speeches bad been heard with groat admiration by that
house. The objection that the debates of the council
would be reviewed reminded him of the story of a Welsh
magistrate, who, when he had heard one side of a case,
and the counsel for the other side was about to address
him, stopped the learned gentleman by saying, " When
I have heard one side of a case I can decide easily
enough, but if I hear both tildes I am always puzzled."
(Hear, and a laugh.) As the council was now constituted
there was co fear of an Indian " agitator" becoming a
member of it. (Hear, hear.) At present, also, the
opinions of the East India Company were well known
in the House of Commons, and due abatement made for
them. He thought the balance of advantsge was in
favour of members of the council sitting in Parliament.
Lord STANLEY agreed with the noble lord that there
were advantages and disadvantages in members of the
council having seats in that house, but the advantages of
their being excluded, in his opinion, prevailed, and he
should therefore resist the amendment. He would re-
mind the noble lord that there were already many classes
exsluded from Parliament by reason of their office.
There were judges and others, and there was no class of
men who would feel the hards- ip less than those men
who, baying spent their lives in India, had no social ties
at home. Give these men Feats in Parliament4and if it
were not a disability, it might be made by the Govern-
rnent of the day a condition that they should get seats in
Parliament to support the Minister, He thought they
should be kept, dpossible, free even from suspicion. The
mutual confidence which should exist between a member
of the council and a Secretary of State would, in his opi•
nion, be much impaired, by the former having a seat in
that house, and connected with come political party.
He thought a councillor could riot discharge his duties
as a member cf Parliament and' a member of the coudcil
in an efficient manner, and he should therefore oispose
the amendment.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE thought the reasons giren by
the noble lord who had just sat down were totally without
foundation, awl believing the exclusion of members of the
council of India from that house most mischievous, ho
should support the amendment. .
Mr. V. SMITH asked what it was they required in
members of the council but to be independent. But surely
after their experience of the Board of Directors, who were
said never " to be guilty of art indiscretion," they could
not but see that it would be most i,.monveraient to have
members of the council iu that house' for unseemly con-
tests must arise between them and, the Secretary of State,
which would be most injurious to India. By admitting
them into that house, they would either bo the creatures
of the Minister of the relay, or obstructives, and in either
case it was not advisable to adroit them.
Mr. PULLER supported the amendment.
Mr. RIDLEY could not see why members of the House
of Commons should not be eligible as well as members of
the Hence of Lords.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause.
Against
Attjciity —124
The clause, after some conversation, was agreed to.
The CHAMAIAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again to-morrow (Friday) morning.
The Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Bill passed through
committee.

CHELSEA-BIUDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion that this bill be now read a second time.
Mr. BLACKBURN moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.
Tim house, after a few words from Lord J. MANNERS, •
divided— '
For the second reading l6l
For the amendment 96
Majority for the second readine,,

,Mr. BLACKBURN then said the bill had been rejected
Three weeks ago, and was now brought on after 12 o'clock
at night; but ho hoped it would be 'rejected upon going
into committee.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND)BILL.
'The house went into conamittee on this bill, and, having
passed some clauses,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
the chairman report progress;
The CHAIRMAN accordingly reported progress, and the
house resumed.
LONDON CORPORATION REGULATION BILL.
On the motion that the adjourned debate for going into
committee on this bill be resumed,
Mr. WALPOLE moved that the order be discharged,
and it was discharged accordingly.
CLERK OF PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and, after a
few words of conversation, the Chairman reported progress,
and the house resumed.
COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS RILL.
The house then resolved itself into committee on the
Copyright of Designs Bill.
Thu bill passed through committee,:
BISHOPS TRUSTS SUBSTITUTION BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
DIVORCE AND [ATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERA.L, in reply to Mr. GLAD.
STONE, said he would, on Monday, name what day he
would bring on the second reading of this bill.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
On the motion that this bid (Lord Pahnerston's) be
read a second time,
An Hon. MEMBER, atnidat the laughter of the house,
said, "Next session."
Lord PALNIERSTON,—This dayiwesk. (Laughter.)
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion, that this bill be considered.
Lord BURY moved that nothing herein contained shall
render valid any marriage with the sister of a deceased
wife, if either of the parties to such marriage shall, after
having contracted suak marriage, and befoia the passing of
this not, have married any other person.
After a short discußsion.Ahe clause was agreed to.
NORTE' AMERICAN TERRITORIES.
Sir E. B, LYTTON briught in,a bill to provide for the