The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-30 00:00:00

EVENING,

oonncillora with whom the law surrounds him, take a
step which might have most important and most preju-
dicial effects. In compliance with thetse representatitocs
of my noble friend it was agreed to introduce iuto this
clause words requiring the Secretary of State bef 're
sending out secret orders to communicate them to the
Vice-President of the Council and one other member, to
be seise ed by himself. I think that that was a wise and
judicious arrangement, and one which, without too much
cramping the authority of the Secretary of State,secured
to him the s tine means of obtaining assistance and ad-
vice as are possessed by the President of the Board pf
Control under the existing system. It is, however, the
opinion of the House of Commons, that the provision
which we introduced "tends to divide the responsibility
of the Minister, and create a now secret committee,
which, under the new Government, will be no longer
necessary." There is no question that, to a certain, but
very limited extent—because the Secretary of State has
the power of overruling the councillors whom he consults
—it does relieve him from responsibility. If the House
of Commons are of opinion that that responsibility
should be so whole and undivided as not to require that
he should consult any person whatever before he takes
soimportant a step as sending secret orders out to India.
undoubtedly that view is not carried out by the bill
as it was sent down by your lordships. What the House
of Commons means by saying that the Secret Commit•
tee will under the new Government no longer be neces-
sary they do not explain, and of course I cannot ex-
plain it for them. I cannot say that I think the amend-
ment was an injudic ous one, or that its rejection by the
Commons is a desirable alteration of the bill. At the
same time, I do not think that,considering the very great
interests which are involved in the passing of this bill,
the amendment made dy your lordships is of sufficient im-
portance to justify you in adhering to it against the wish of
the House of Cosnmons, and therefore I shall propose
that your lordships do not persist in that amendment.
For the same reason, because I think, that the question
involved in them, though not an inconsiderable one,
Ts only of subordinate importance, I shall ask your lord-
ships not to insist upon the amendments made in page
39, and 40. The objections taken by the
Commonsto these amendments appear to me to be ra-
ther inconsistent with that to which I have just referred.
instance they objected that the amendment It 9, hn elines
thr
a 7
in-
troduced by your lordships tended to divide the respon-
sibility of the Minister. In this instance, in which your
lordships proposed to give to the Secretary of State un-
divided responsibility with regard to the appointment of
the members of the Council of the Govsrnor-General,
and of the different Presidencies in India, the House of
Commons say that that undivided responsibility ought
not to rest with the Minister, and that "it is undesir-
able to increase the patronage of the Minister without
providing a check upon its exercise." The distinction
between the views of the two houses is this. According
to your lordships' amendment the Secretary of State was
celled upon to make these appointments in Council,
which rendered it necessary for him in every cave to lay
the proposed appointment before the Council, and to
listen to any objections which might be raised to it.
The House of Commons have rejected that amend-
ment and restored the clause to the form in which it
originally stood—viz., that the Secretary of State
shall make these appointments, not only with the
knowledge of the Council, but also with the concurrence
of the votes of a majority of the councillors. As the
previous alteration leaves to the Secretary of State
too large a discretion, I think that this unduly restrains
his po era and places too much in the bands of the
Council as a body the- appointment to very important
ffices, thereby encouraging what my noble friend (Lord
Etlenborough) particularly deprecates—can vaisie e and
the looking to individual members of the Council rather

than to the Secretary of State in this country and to the
Governor Geeeral in India. I object to this alteration,
but I am not prepared to ask your lordships to persist
in an amendment which has been deliheratsly and care-
fully considered and rajected by the House of Commons.
The next two amendments to which the C •mmone object
are in pages 10 and 11, and involve the principle of ap-
pointment by coinpeition. Now, I wish to draw your
lordships' attention to the exact state of the case, and to
the questions which are raised by the bill as it was sent
up from the House of Commons, by your lordships'
amendment, and by the rejection of that amendment by
the other house. As the bill originally stood, it was
proposed to substitute the Secretary of Sate and Coun-
cil for the President of the Board of Contr.''l and the
Court of Directors of the East India Company. With
these authorities have hitherto rested the appointments
to the civil and military services of the Company ; but
candidates have been required to undergo a very severe
and, to a certain extent, competitive examination. The
particulars of that examination, and the amount of com-
petition which was to be introduced into it, have been
regulated, n t by an Act of Parliament, but by instru-
ments proceeding from the competent authorities, and
in substituting the Secretary of State and Council for
those authorities the bill, as originally introduced, gave
to the Secretary of State power of making regulations, to
be confirmed by order in Council, as was formerly exer-
cised by the Court of Directors and the President of the
Board of C Attrol. The House of Commons, however,
went a step further, in the direction of a com-
petitive examination, and proposed not only that
all candidates should be subjected to such an exa-
mination, but that the result of that competition
should, without reference to any other circumstances
or any other conditions, regulate the order of suc-
cession in which candidates should receive their appoint-
tnente. Ido not wish to enter now into the general
question of the principle of competitive examination for
admission to the civil or military service ; but I think
there are two grounds on which your lordships' amend-
ments may be fairly vindicated, and their rejection by
the House of Commons may be reasonably objected to.
The one is, that the principle of competition was exactly
as much secured, subject to the consent of Pa•liawent,
by the bill, as it sto d in the first instance, and by the
system as it exis'ed under the East India Company, in-
asmuch as the regulations being made and confirmed by
order in count 1, that order in council, or any other order
varying those regulations, having to be laid before the
House of Commons, that house had an opportunity of
expressing its opinion as to the expediency of such va-
riations. And seeing how much the print pie of compe-
tition is on its trial, perhaps its successful trial, at this
moment, I think it was not judicious absolutely to tie
the hands of the Executive Government as by an Act of
Parliament to lay down such stringent rules as to the
necessity of appointing the most successful competitor.
Another objection is, that bitherto the regulation of ap-
pointments to the civil and military service of this country
has not been under Act of Patliament, but by the direct
authority of the Crown, of course under the responsibility
of its advisers. This clause might therefore be regarded
as to a certain extent infringing on the prerogative of the
Crown in respect to these appointments. I must, how-
ever, fairly admit that there is a partial answer to this
abjection as far as the civil service is concerned ; for,
though undoubtedly such a regulation as to the civil
service of this country would' he an infringement on the
prerogative of tie Crown, it is not so clear that that in-
fraction would Extend to the case of India, because it is
not a prerogative which the Crown has hither to exercised
there. It is.a power and a prerogative which the House
of Commons and Parliament are fur the first time vest-
ing in the Crown— viz , the administration of Indian
affairs by direct management, and by patronage
—which is the most important point—coon -cted
with the services of India. Therefore it is
competent for Parliament to hand over that power and
authority to the Crown sea mock—that is to say, sub-
ject to such conditions as at the time of the transfer it
may.deem fit. Though Ido not assent to the principle
adopted by the House of Commons, though I think it an
unwise course so to fetter the hands of the Executive
and of the Indian Minister as well as to limit the discre-
tion of Parliamer.t itself, yet in regard to the civil ser-
opep are earsno to w
g v
vice I ern not prepared to advise your lordships to insist
on your amendment. But I must say there is another
serviceptrienwgmhe icl
17.1 appears
over the army of
mh ea
handing
nstand e r o
ot n
quite Crown
c ha
do fd t
eh
the
ne t
sf(u)o
India ; but, by the 33i clause of this bill, it is provided
that all appointments to cadetship shall be vested in
her Majesty. And if you provide, as I think you must
do, that with regard to the military service of India, as
well as with regard to the military service of this coun-
try, all appointments of this description should be vested
in the Crown, it is almost a contradiction in terms to
say, in the first instance, that all cadetships in the scien-
tific branch shall be vested in her Majesty, and to follow
that up by sating that no persons shall be recommended
except in the precise order as they come out of a com-
petitive examination, and that the Crown shall be com-
pelled to exercise its authority according to the result of
that competition, With respect to the civil service, it
may be argued that practically speaking, the Crown does
not exercise that authority over appointments which are
perhaps by the strict theory of the constitution vested
in it. But, in reference to the army, whether of this
country or of India, it is of great importance that
we should-not lone sight of the principle that the Crown,
and not Parliament, is the true source of appoint-
ment and-of promotion. (Hear, hear.) That is a con-
stitutional principle which I confess I should see aban-
doned with very great regret ; and I think this point
has not been maturely considered by the House of Com-
mons. As to admission to the civil service, the question
Was raised io that assembly, the other house, was dis-
Tlitherisrabteeindgeeia
cussed, and a division taken upon is, when the Govern-
gancoomtheer to
reason
a d e-
must, no doubt in a thin house, was left in a minority.
why we should not insist on our amendment with regard
to it. But the power of the Crown in theory and in
decision
°o and
on the
thiso t other
subject,hou t
hhaatv Caving
practice over appointments and promotions in the army
I hold to be a matter of very considerable constitutional
importance. The house of Commons, however, appears
rather hastily to have inferred that the same necessity
applied to the military as to the civil service ; and, rte•
cordingly, it introduced into this clause amendments re-
lating to cadetships in the scientific branches corre-
sponding to those applicable to the civil service. This
was done without taking into serious consideration and
discussing whether there is not a broad constitutional
daitinction between the power of the Crown over the
civil and the military departments respectively. This is
a point of such great reomett that, without saying that,
even if the ether house should adhere to its opinion, I
should think it prefarabla that this important measure
-should be lost, and that these lone discussions should be
protracted to another session, with all the inconvenience
attending such ara ad interim government of an empire
like India, ail' it a ould be unwise for your lordships
hastily and at once to adopt the decision of the House
of Commons in rejection af your amendments. And as
respects tte provision that the Crown shall be bound to
grant Cade ships precisely
in accordance with the suc-
cess of the candidates in a competitive examination, it is
I believe due to the prerogative of the Crown, due to
your lordships' own position, due to the great interests
involved, as well as respectful to the other house itself, that
it shouli be invited to consider the marked distinction
`between the two cases, and that as the formal mode of
attaining that end your lordship should be advised to