The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-15 00:00:00

TTIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY E V ENING, J VNE 15, 1858.

length, and have a responsible minister with agents re-
movable at the pleasure of the crown—not lightly re-
movable but on the same footing as the under-secreta-
ries. He was sorry to have troubled the committee at
such length—(hear, hear)—his excuse was that he had
not troubled them before. He thought it best to state
frankly what his opinions were, and what course he
would take ; he should, with the views he had described,
vote for this resolution, but for the seventh resolution
he could not vote. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that his right hon. friend who
had just spoken had revived the question of the general
expediency of legislating for India this session, and in so
doing had in fact renewed the discussion which was first
opened by the hon. member for Huntingdon in the early
part of the debate. The right hon. gentleman had also
referred to an opinion which he (Sir G. C. Lewis) had
expressed, that the existing constitution of the East India
Company was cumbrous and inefficient. He (Sir G. C.
Lewis) did not think it would be agreeable to the com-
mittee if he were now to renew that question, but he
would just remark that the objection he made did not
apply to the constitution of the Court of Directors, but
to the compound which was formed by the Board of Con-
t-ol operating upon the Court of Directors. He was
quite prepared, if necessary, to defend the opinion he
then expressed, that it was most desirable the house
should, in the present session, proceed to revise and re-
construct that ineffective form of government. The
question they had now immediately to consider, how-
ever,
was the mode of appointing the council which was
to assist the Indian Ministers. He quite concurred in
the opinion that it would be highly advantageous to have
such a council. When the general question of our colo-
nial administration was more in question than it was on
the present occasion, it was proposed that there should
be a colonial council to assist the Colonial Minister; but
the objection to that proposal was the heterogeneous
character of our colonies, which would frustrate the ob-
ject it was intended to answer. For example, if a coun-
cil were sitting in one chamber, composed f members
prepared to advise the Minister on questions relating to
our North American colonies, of others prepared to ad-
vise on our Western, of others again on our Australian,
and of others on Ceylon, it was impossible they could all
concur with equal efficiency in giving advice on any one
question. Now, with respect to India, the constitution
of a homogeneous council was quite possible. He could
see no absurdity whatever in the propositior, and he did
see reasons for establishing an Indian council, though he
could see none_for establishing a general colonial coun-
cil. With regard to the precise manner in which the pro-
pored council should be constituted, the noble lord op-
posite had brought that question forward in a fair and
convenient form, and one which he trusted would lead
the committee to a satisfactory solution of it. The noble
lord bad divided the question into two parts—the mode
of appointing the nominative portion of the council, and
the mode of appointing the elective portion. Practi-
cally, the question lay between the proposition of the
noble lord and that of the late Government. The ques-
tion in fact was, should the council consist exclusively of
members nominated by the Crown, or should it consist
partly of members nominated by the Crown, and partly
of members elected according to the principle set forth
in the Bth resolution. With respect to the tenure of the
member to be appointed by the Crown, the proposition
of his noble friend was, that they should hold office
during good behaviour. In the bill of the late Govern-
ment, the proposition was this—that they should be ap-
pointed by the Crown, that the term of office should be
appointed by the Crown, that the term of office should
be eight years, subject to good behaviour in that
time, and that they should then go out unless so re-ap-
pointed, but in that case they were not to be entitled to
retiring allowances. The object of the proposition of the
late Government was this. It was thought that unless
some provision were made limiting the period of service,
they would not retire. In the bill of the late Govern-
ment the term was reduced to six years. But such-was
the reluctance of officers to retire, that he would re-
mind the committee that in the case of the judges,
which had been referred to by the noble lord, even with
the securities of publicity and single action in Court, a
great difficulty had been found in inducing aged
judges to retire, even the loss of the all-important sense
of hearing not having been deemed by them sufficient
for the purpose. Some ago ought, therefore, to be fixer?,
and he was prepared to agree to the proposition of the
Government, with the understanding that the Govern-
ment could give a superannuation. (Hear, hear.) With
regard, now, to the elective part of the council, that was,
in fact, the point on which the vote of the committee
would turn. The noble lord had with great candour ad-
mitted that the principle of representation would be in-
applicable in the case of a council like that of India. He
said he recommended election as the best mode of treat-
ing a problem difficult of solution by other means ;
but that he did not look upon the council as fulfilling
a representative character, or as being entrusted with
representative functions. He (Sir G. C. Lewis)
begged hon. members, on that (the Opposition) side
of the house, to remember, therefore, that all the
popular arguments as to the election were held by
the Government to fail in the case of India. The
principle of our constitution was, that taxation and re-
presentation
should go together. Now, the taxpayers
were the people of India, but the constituents of the
elective members of the council would be the tax-eaters,
as they bad been termed the tax-consumers of India.
They would be the proprietors of India stock, who re-
ceived dividends guaranteed on the produced the Indian
revenue. There were 1,600 proprietors of India stock,
of whom one-fourth were ladies, and the principle of
election proposed was, that the voters should have a
direct interest in property charged on the revenue of the
country. But India stock was now quite imaginary.
The 6,000,000/. of India stook was simply a charge upon
the revenue of India, and did not exist in a tangible
form. Therefore the stock holder was only the creditor
of the Indian Government. He had a certain charge on
the revenue of India, which was guaranteed to him by
Act of Parliament. He was a guaranteed creditor, and
his claim had priority of other claims. If the stock-
holder, therefore, was to have a vote in the election of
the council, a similar right ought to be given to all other
creditors of the Indian Government. He did not see how
it was possible to make a distinction between the Indian
bondholders and those who held the Indian debt, or
were proprietors of India Stock. By a recent return of
the stock held since 1851 it appeared that 297 millions of
rupees were held by Europeans, and 164 millions by
natives; being 29,000,0001. and 16,000,0001. respec-
tively. Native proprietors, therefore, held one-third of
the entire amount of the Indian debt. Now it was pro-
vided by the last act for India that the claims of these
parties might be paid off within one year of Parliament
depriving the company of their administration of the
Government of India, or, in certain circumstances in
which it might seem expedient to do so. The contingency
then contemplated would actually arise if the measure
now before the house should pass ; for the company,
would then be deprived of its possession, and Govern-
ment of the Indian territorie.. The proprietor might
then demand to be paid off, under the conditions of the
existing act. There would be no difficulty in the opera-
tion' and, in his opinion, it would be an advantageous
one for the country. Either, therefore, the proprietor
would demand to be paid off, or else the time would
come when such a measure would become expedient and
necessary. In either case it was clear that it would not
do to rest the basis of an elective principle for that coun-
cil on a constituency which might and which no doubt
would, one day disappear. The noble lord proposed that
members of railways and other public works in India, in
addition to the proprietors of India Stock, should be
members of the constituency. Ile (Sir G. C. Lewis) could
not see that the committee could come to any other con-
clusion than tba'. the whole council should be nominated
by the Crown. Tile noble lord had said that the consti-
tuency he proposed would be free from political bias—
bat more than that was wanted to constitute a body of
electors. He (Sir G. C. Lewis) had no objection to a
clause being introduced to qualify some of the present
directors for being members of the council.
Sir E. PERRY said the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Graham) had stated that he intended to vote in favour
of the council being partly elected and partly nominated,
although he had said he was opposed to that proposition
upon principle. As to the functions of the Court of Di-
rectors, he had high authority for stating that in most of
the measures of a general character they had very little
power to interfere, after the.thing was done, beyond that
of making comments. The council as proposed would,
in his (Sir E. Perry's) opinion, sink into a mere nonentity.
With the exception of the recal of Lord Ellenborougb,
he denied that the Court of Directors were entitled to :
the credit which some hon. members had given them
for their independence and knowledge of India. The
functions of the council formed an important element
for their consideration. The right hon, gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to
the question, that the council were to do everything.
Now, it appeared to him (Sir E. Perry) that in certain
cases where justice was to be administered, to natives of
India especially, the council would be found to be
of great value. Delay in legislation upon the affairs
of India would be fatal to the interests of this country
in India in his (Sir Erskine Perry's) opinion. His hon.
friend the member for Guildford told the house over and
over again that they had no one to deal with in India
but the mutinous troops ; but surely, after what had
happened, no one could be found who entertained such
an opinion. He thought that speedy legislation was of
the utmost importance, in order to disabuse the minds
of the people of India themselves, and that things might
settle down as quietly as possible. Another great ob-
stacle in their way was the prevalent feeling among the
religious party in this country. They looked upon India
as if It were an island in the South Seas, and thought
that by sending out one or two missionaries the whole

country would be converted. Now, that was simply a
delusion ; and he, for one, should bail the day with
itatisfaction when the whole of India was surrendered to

the Crown and the same principles apied to the people
as were acted on at home. He hope see toleration
I and justice eetabliehed—he wiehe I have the rights of
property respected, and tirolinteri nee on the part of
the State with matte that o tto be left to indi-
viluals. .

Mr. S. HERBERT wail,' not follow his hon. and
learned Jriend4tb The past of the Board of Directors
as compered with what its future Government would be.
He voted the other night for the larger number on the coun-
cil, becausehethought that,divided intocommittees to do
the work the East India Directors now performed, a
large number was necessary. He did not believe that
any one not engaged in the administration of affairs
himself was competent to-advise a Secretary of State.
And then came the question as to how the council
was to be constituted. - They had, 'in the, first in-
stance, the plan of his noble friend the mob nber for
Tiverton, which was to be a direct 'noinitittion by
the Crown of persons eligible to be elected.
Then they had that of his noble frieni..
fcr tho City of London, which. was
.'ibarfn
by the Crown during good behavior, .acid" that of
the noble lord the President of the uat'd of Control,
.mEtTc.h,6dlustriuncicatl°bny.
Hw hoicwhasw ab so
upnaar ttlyo
sayby election
that
he awnads pvaerry

the extreme fairness which characterised the statement of
that noble lord. Indeed, there was one remarkable cha-
racteristic in all his statements—that he never sought to
colour anything, but tells the house everything with the
most perfect fairness. (Hear.) Such a course of proceed-
ing gives him, very naturally, great authority. The noble
lord accordingly told them that he believed the elective
element would be very advantageous, but he admitted
that it was attended with great difficalties. The noble
loi d said, do not confound these elections with represen-
tation ; but, after all, that was the great difficulty. Re-
presentation without election was poss:ble -because par.
ties may represent certain class interests—and oven elec-
tion without representation. He remembered, many
years ago, reading in one of the works of the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a story of an
English traveller who, in travelling in Egypt, had an
interview with the Pacha, when he described the adran-
' tage of popular election and representation, such as
practised in England. On a subsequent occasion, in
another interview, the Pacha informed him that he in-
tended to adopt the system in Egypt. " What 1" said
the traveller, " you cannot do it ; you have not the
means nor the population to carry out such a system."
"Oh !" said the Pacha " I have determined to elect
them myself." (A. laugh.) Now that was what be (Mr.
S. Herbert) called representation without election. They
looked upon election in this country not with any great
favour, but as a means to an end, in order to secure the
benefit of representation. It was not in itself good, for
it led to extravagance, reckless expenditure, hatred,
and bad feeling, but they put up with all, in order to
obtain the blessing of representation, and to do the
country great good. Now, in case of election for this
council, the court of proprietors holding stock could
easily transfer it to entitle the holders to vote, and,
altogether, very great abuses may arise. The question
then arose, could they get in any other way an indepen•
dent council ; that is, an independence which could
not be suspected. Now, he objected to the plan of his
noble friend the memberfor Tiverton, because he thought
the members of the council would be subject to be in-
fluenced by the Crown. The plan of his right hon. friend
the member for Carlisle, propounded for the first time
that evening, was certainly entitled to their serious con-
sideration. They had the power of the Crown checked
by the nomination in the bill, with the placing of names
on the table of the house in order to enable any one to
object to them. He certainly approved of it, though he
did not see his way how it was to be effected ; but he
hoped the Government would put some resolutions on
the paper to carry it into practical operation. As the
question at present stood, he certainly preferred the
proposition of his noble friend the member for the city of
London ; but he hoped the Government would adopt
the proposition of his right hon. friend.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY believed that on the appoint •
ment of a proper council depended the future welfare,
and indeed the safety of India. There were three modes
proposed to secure that object. There was first the pro-
position of the Government, then that of the noble lord
the member for Tiverten, and the third by the noble
lord the member for London. For his own part, ho pre-
ferred the plan of the Government to that of the noble
lord the member for London, and that noble lord's to
that of the member for Tiverton. He was favourable to
the larger number of the council, and he was a decided
supporter of the plan of committees, as distinguished
from heads of departments. He was also in favour of
there being a vice-president of the council, as the presi-
dent could not be always present. He did not see any
objection to a member of the council being a member of
that house. Still there was a great deal in what had
been said on this subject by the noble lord the President
of the Board of Control. He denied that the charges
against the East India Company contained in a work
by a Mr. Shaw, and published thirty years ago
—and which were read by the honourable member
for Surrey (Ur. Drummond) were tree as
regarded the company at the present moment. The hon.
gentleman then read an extract from the work of Mr.
Mills, the author of " India," in which he eulogised the
conduct of the company as regarded their administration
in India. The hon. gentleman read another extract from
Basil Hall's work to the same effect. He then said that
he would support the motion of the noble lord (Lord
Stanley), unless the Government were disposed to accept
the proposition made by the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) which be looked
upon as a most statesmanlike one. (Hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL concurred in the view taken on the
question by the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham), as
he was anxious that a strict check should be kept on the
Indian Minister. No notice was taken as to how the
local councils in India were to be appointed. He should
like to hear from the President of the Beard of Control,
in the course of the night, how the local councils were
to be appointed.
Lord GODERICII said that the principle of complete
and entire responsibility of the future Minister for India
had been decided on, and also that he should be assisted
by a council. He trusted that the person appointed to be
Minister, if he had not special and particular knowledge
of the affairs of India himself, should be assisted by a
council composed of persons who would give him the best
and most reliable information. But he could not bring
himself to believe that the plan of election, as sketched
out by his noble friend opposite (Lord Stanley) would
give the Minister such assistance as he most needed. He
thought that for such assistance they could look to the
Crown alone. It seemed to him that the noble lord re-
tained all the vices of the existing system of governing
India, without any of its advantages. The present Court
of Proprietors had the advantage of meeting in a body,
of having papers laid before them, and of discussing
Indian subjects, but at the same time that all these pe-
culiar advantages, and the body enjoying them, were to
be swept away, they were told that it was desirable to
retain the principle upon which they were elected on
behalf of a body of men who would have none of
their advantages, Then they were to have as consti-
tuents retired Indian officers, but they were an exclusive
body, and ho could not think it wise to give them any
power in the election of the council. In this country,
election had nothing to do with executive appointments,
but his noble friend had gone out of his way to secure a
constituency which was by no means calculated to secure
a council such as they wanted. The plan of nomination
by the Crown bad been in operation for five years, and
they had heard no complaints. All judicial nominations
were made by the Crown, and yet there were no ap-
pointments less objectionable. There was a very impor-
tant question, namely, what share the Home Govern-
ment was to take in Indian affairs. The best policy was
to leave the fullest discussion to the local authorities
upon local details ; but that would not be the case if
they had an independent council ; and these being his
views, he could not vote for the resolution of his noble
friend.
Mr. BAILLIE said, that if the arguments of the
noble lord were to have acy weight, they would amount
to this, that the members of an elected council could
not be trusted with the Government of India, because
they would be unfit to be trusted with State secrets.
Some animadversionwhad been made upon the nature of
elective constituency proposed, but he thought such a
constituency wont' have a great interest in the good
government •of Andia. If men invested their money
upon security of property in India, if that property was
lost to this country, it was clear the owner would be the
loser, and he would therefore have a direct interest in
the welfare of the Indian Government. (Hear, hear.)
If they were to have any constituency at all, he did not
see how they could have a better than that which the
Government had selected. The hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Davenport, in a long speech about anything but
the resolution,—(laughtei)—attacked the (Jourt of Di-
rectors, and said that all the praise was due to the offi-
cials of the Court, and not to the Board of Directors; he
might just as well-say that all the praise was due to the
clerks and not to the chief of the Foreign-Office. (Hear.)
It was raid that officers coming home from India would
not canvass the constituency ; but those gentlemen
would not be required to do so; for they would be the
parties to be selected by the Government ; and it would
be gentlemen representing the finance and the commerce
of the country who would have to appeal to the consti-
tuency, and very useful members they would be. The
only manner in which the Minister could be made re-
sponsible would be by having details of every transac-
tion of the Indian Government. Civilians were sent
out to govern India with despotic powers, and the only
security they could hive that those powers would not
be abused was to have a detailed account of every trans-
action, however small, and this was the case at present.
He alluded to a recent report respecting Pegu as an
illustration. It gave an account of how the province
was flourishing and how the revenue was increasing.
But one of the means of revenue was a poll-tax, estab-
lished long before we had the country ; a poor man
was pressed for it and could not pay it ' • he went out
and sold his children for a few rupees with which he paid
his tax. This gave us an insight into the real condition
of the people there, and it was only by such details tbat
they could get that insight. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. V. SMITH regretted the extraneous subjects
which bad been introduced into debates. Hon. and
right hon. members who had neglected previous occa-
sions of expressing their views_ cane down upon a par-
ticular resolution and gave_ eineression to their general
opinions, as the right hon. gentleman the member for
Carlisle had done that eveninget He admitted the right
hon. gentleman who introduced this bill was not open to
such a charge, for upon everyiresolution he had made a
speech of interest, and free froth personalities. (Hear,
hear.) What they wanted reap an independent coun-
cil. He did not believe.-that 'these nominated mem•
hers could be so dependent and so base as some
seemed to suppose. (Hear.) The right honourable
gentleman (Sir J. Graham) bad represented them as
ravens with their mouths Jopen, waiting for something
from the minister ; bat this was a degree of turpitude
which was net to be expeoted. But sinoe 1853 they had
actually had the experience of these nominated members,
and everyone admitted that the result was most sates-
factory—(hear, hear)—and why, he would ask, should
not future nominees' be equally independent ? As to
election, it was a mere resort, and not a very desirable
one, for the purpose, it was said, of securing independ-
ence to the Crown. If gentlemen were nominated for
life, they would be perfectly independent. The right
hon. gentleman said the constituencies proposed were
as good as any constituencies could be. What were
they ? First, the proprietors of East India Stock—a
constituency to which every one objected. An hon.
gentleman (Colonel Sykes) had given a very good proof
of what that constituency was when he said it took him
seven years to canvass them before he secured his elec-
tion, and that election cost him 2,2381. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. Metcalfe, and every one examined before the
committee of 1853, spoke against it. The next con-
stituency was the railway proprietors, who were said to
have an interest in India. So they had ; they were in-
terested in high fares ; but the people of India were in-
terested in low fares. (Hear.) The third and last pro-
posal was, that the servants of the company should have
votes, which would be making the servants appoint the
masters. This applied to existing servants as well as to
retired servants. If a candidate applied to a railway
proprietor, for instance, he would say that he wanted a

Higher guarantee for his line ; and, if the candidate
would vote for that additional guarantee, he would sup-
port his candidature ; and, if not, he would oppose him.
The same would be the case in canvassing retired
officers, who would want their pensions increased. Such
cases as these were continually coming before the autho-
rities now. The Crown, he believed, would have no
difficulty in finding a sufficient number of proper and
independent men, even supposing them all to be nomi-
nated. (Hear.)
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE complained of the spirit of
party which had been suffered to creep into these debates.
A great and respected statesman, Lord Metcalfe, had long
ago predicted the evil which would result from the direct
action of that house in the affairs of India; he, there-
fore, wished to have such a council as would command
the confidence of the house. They were not called upon
at that moment to discuss the details as to the mode in
which the elections should take place, although the
speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Car-
lisle might have led away the house to suppose that such
was the case. They lived in hopes of quieter times
again, and then they would, no doubt, see once more
that apathy on the part of the public which they had
formerly witnessed with respect to India. He thought
there ought to be come council which would be a check
upon the minister, because they might perchance be
placed once more under a psuodo-Whig Government,
such as they had lately had, who wou!d support a
council which would be guilty of all sorts of corruption ;
no, he would not say corruption, but all ports of mis.
takes. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) In the course of
these debates many suggestions had been made as to
the manner in which the council might be made most
useful and most independent. Now, it was quite clear
that, after all, the greatest portion of the Government
must be carried on in India, and any plan which united
the active and vigorous judgment and experience of
those connected with the local government with the
home government would of itself improve the constitu-
tion of that government. He, therefore, ventured to add
one more suggestion, which, however, did not emanate
from himself, but bad been suggested to him by an offi-
cer of great experience in India, namely—that the go-
vernors and councils of the several presidencies, and the
chief commissioners of the Punjaub and our other great
provinces in India, should have each the power of ap-
pointing a member of the council, coming, as these gen-
tlemen would do, direct from the scene of action—ac-
quainted, as they would be, with the local wants and
requirements of their respective presidencies and pro-
vinces—and chosen, as no doubt they would be, because
they were the best men that could be sent, he could
not help thinking that they would form a useful,
practical, and independent element of the council.
If they had such an element in the council, these schemes
of annexation which had been so pertinaciously carried
out by the Board of Control against the constant remon-
strances of the Court of Directors, and which were the
real cause of the mutiny, would be prevented in future.
(Hear, hear.) It was important that such an element
should be given to the people of India themselveF, and
that the policy announced in the despatch of Lord Ellen-
borough should be practically carried into effect. He
approved entirely of the mixed principle of nomination
and election, and he thought that the retired civil and
military officers engaged in India would form a very use-
ful constituency. The plan of the noble lord the member
for the city of London did not secure that independence
in the council which even the Minister of India must,
for his own sake, desire. Remember how very rapidly
Presidents of the Board of Control were changed—(hear)
—and surely the new President would always feel happy
to find in the council, on his coming into office, men at
once experienced and independent, on whose assistance
and public spirit he could rely. He trusted the noble
lord would not, in this case, yield to the suggestions of
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell), but that he would ad-
here to the plan he had proposed, and he was prepared,
for one, to give his cordial assent to, and divide in its
support.
Colonel SYKES said a great variety of topics had
been imported into the debate, and if he followed other
speakers he trusted he would not be considered singular.
He believed the policy they were engaged in carrying
out was equally dangerous to England and to India,
and he foresaw nothing but mischief until he heard the
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which,
replying to the question, " What are to be the funclons
of the new council 7" he said they were to be those of
the present Court of Directors, and that they would, in
fact, initiate all Indian measures. If the right
honourable gentleman adhered to that declaration,
and carried it out, be saw hope of safety yet,
and especially in financial matters, for the Minister
would not be able to spend a single shilling without
the consent of his council. He saw also in it a pro-
tection against the carrying out of such nefarious schemes
as that of the Oude bankers to plunder the Vizier, and
which was only defeated by the independence of the
directors at home. (Hear.) A Minister was said some-
times to be responsible; but what was the fact I He
was only responsible when he happened not to have a
majority. The late Mr. Hume endeavoured, during
several successive sessions, to bring the Minister to ac-
count for annexing the territories of the Rajah of Sat-
tare, but the majority of the Minister always shielded
him. Ministerial responsibility was therefore not a
reality. They came now to the question of how this
small council of 15 was to be elected. Was it to be
wholly nominated by the Crown, or partly nominated
and partly elected ! One-third would be nominees ac-
cording to the proposition as it stood. The rest were to
be elected by persons who were decried in all kinds of
ways as being altogether unreliable for the purposes of
the election. Of the 1,600 or 1,700 stockholders of
the Company, while about 300 of them were certainly
ladies, the majority of the remainder were parties who
had lived in India, and knew the country and all about
it. If those persons were unworthy of confidence, how
was it that they had been trusted for 75 years to exer-
cise that very function of election in the Court of Direc-
tors ? As a rule, could it be said they had not made
judicious and useful selections in their appointment of
directors; Of the 18 directors of which the board was
composed, 6 were military men, 3 were bankers—a most
useful element in the composition of the board as regarded
finance-6 civil servants, men of experience, 2 lawyers,
and 1 naval man. He would ask whether that consti-
tution did not combine the requisite variety of talent,
and combine it, too, in the proper proportions I If the
trust confided to that board had not been abused, who
should it be thrown over I The noble lord the member
for London had endeavoured to cast odium upon it by
calling up its former character as a trading associa-
tion. That character, however, it had long since been
deprived of, and it now existed merely as a poli-
tical body; but even if the fact were not so, how could
it be degraded by the charge of its engaging in opera-
tions of commercial enterprise t On the contrary, so
long as the merchant princes of England continued to
hold their present high place in public esteem, such an
association with commerce could only do them honour.
Now as regarded the patronage to be exercised by the
Council of India, he was willing to agree that one-half
should be thrown open to competition, and that the
other half should be distributed by the Indian Govern-
ment in such a manner as would prove most beneficial
to the Indian service. If the proposition, however, of
the noble lord, for a council partly nominative and
partly electi:e, should not be carried, ho was of opinion
that the next best measure would be one of nomination
by the Crown, under the condition of review by Par
liament ; and as to appointments he thought the best
way would be for the council to recommend to the
Minister, who would thereby be relieved from any un-
due odium that might attach in any case. The army
of India ought, in his judgment, to be under the council
rather than under the Crown ; for, though they were all
proud of their leyalty, still circumstances might arise
in which they would be out at elbows with royalty,
The British army existed only so long as the Mutiny
Act existed, but the army of India was a permanent in-
stitution, and unless they were now on their guard it
might one day be made an instrument in accomplishing
the violent subversion of our constitution. In conclu-
sion he would urge the noble lord to abide by the reso-
lution, and not in any way to recede from the principle
which was involved in it. (Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY said he just wished to state, before
the debate closed, as it had been said that this was a
constituency which he had proposed, that he had not
proposed it or pledged the Government to it.. He only
mentioned it while 'describing the difficulties of the point,
and the sole meaning he bad was this—that if the house
should approve of the principle of election, there were
materials but of which the necessary conditions could
be framed. (Hear, beer.) It was not necessary that they
should travel beyond the letter of the resolution. The
resolution stated, in effect that it was expedient that the
council should be partly nominative and partly elective.
The intention of those words was clear, and he dis-
claimed most positively that the principle of election at
all involved the principle of representation. They were
of opinion that some check should be devised against the
principle of uncontrolled nomination by the Crown, and
if.that could be had, be thought it mattered very 'little
whether or not a representative character was acquired
by the council. (Hear.) One of the suggestions thrown
out was, that every member of the council should be in
some sense elected, but subject to the approval of the
House of Commons, That proposition was, however,
too complex in its character. He would not be under-
stood to say that the Government pledged themselves
not to admit any kind of constituency, but they could
not do so if, on the whole, the inconveniences of such a
plan were greater than its advantages. But the Govern-
ment desired to place some restriction on the uncon-
ernen o
tf d propositiontd the
not
he
was uncon-
trolled nomination of the Crown. (Hear.) In the ap-
pointment council,wish
il3h
re a
to d devise
pledge
totake
howh
Government desired that some other parties might be
consulted besides the Ministers of the Crown. Upon
om t hoavt
is
themselvesens to
sense of
morethe
house—(bear)—but considering what had passed, the
than that.

Lord PALMERSTON thought that what the noble
lord had stated in another period of the evening, when he
was shadowing out those constituencies, he had materially
strengthened the objections against his present proposition.
Flo (Lord Palmerston) was not therefore surprised, after
the objections made to this constituency, that the noble
lord had not ventured to propose it to the house. Tho
speech of the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) was not
in harmony with-the manner in which he argued against
the principle pf election. He said he was prepared to vote
for a resolution which embodied that principle. He at-
tempted toget outof that inconsistencyhya play upon words;
for he said the Crown might nominate as councillors per-
sons who at present were acting in the capacity of directors,
and that thereby he embodied the principle of election.
But now he proposed that the council and the President,
or Secretary of State, as ho might be called, were to choose
three men out of which the Crown was to select ono. He
(Lord Palmerston) should like to know how the Crown was
to make this selection except by the advice of tiled resident
himself. (Hear.) So that ho was the first to overule and
paralyse the council; he was to select three names himself,
and then go to the Sovereign, and advise her to select one.
But if the right hon. baronet meant that the President was
to have only one voice out of 15, then he was establishing,
on the part of the council, that principle of self-election

which was the great abuse once complained of in our mu-
nicipal bodies, and which Parliament abolished. He (Lord
Palmerston) would beg the committee to recollect that wo
wore living, fortunately for ourselves, under a constitu-
tional monarchy, and not under a republic. And what was
the principle of a constitutional monarchy? It was that in
every act the Crown should have a responsible adviser ;
but now it was proposed that the council should be elected
by an irresponsible body, and not in accordance with any
principle of the British constitution. They were proposing
to abolish the Board of Directors because that body was
irresponsible, and at the same time asking the house to
adopt a principloof an opposite nature, and not in harmony,
with the British constitution. (Hear.) They were propos-
ing a council not elected by a responsible minister, who
might be taken to task for the appointment. The whole
proposition was anomalous, and was a return to that state
of things which Parliament had already abolished as an
abuse. (Hoar.) The member for the West Riding stated, in
the clearest possible manner, that the council they were de-
sirous of establishing was intended to be one to advise, but
not to overrule or control the minister. How could any mi-
nisterbe responsible for his department if he was to be over-
ruled by others who were appointed without any concur-
rence on the part of the Crown? But if it was said that
ho was to be pre-eminent in all matters then what was the
Use of this distinction ? The council would not be respon-
sible, and they might select through favouritism or con-
cert among themselves three very inefficient men, and the
Queen would be obliged to take one of them. The Govern-
ment were particularly the guardians of the constitution
of the country,and their measures ought to be in harmony
with that constitution. He held that all officers in con-
nexion with the executive ought to be appointed by the
constitutional advisers of the Crown. Was a judge a less
important functionary than one of the supposed council ?
Yet his appointment was not left in tho hands of his fel-
low judges. If a perfectly independent council could not
be appointed, he thought it would be better to continue
the present system till Parliament be better advised.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he was sorry that the proposi-
tion of the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle,
met with such an unkind reception at the hands of the
noble lord (Lord Palmerston). No one could have observed
the course of the discussion without noticing that there
were strong objections to both propositions— to the prin-
ciple of election by an extended constituency on the one
hand, and to the principle of nomination on the other.
(Hear, hear.) The speech of the noble lord (Lord Stanley)
although it was well received, as it deserved to be, drew
forth the warm feelings of the house when, with imparti-
ality and candour he stated the strong difficulties he felt
in attempting to apply the popular principle of election,
and also his objection to the principle of uncontrolled
nomination by the Crown. (Hear, hear.) It was ex-
tremely difficult to adopt ono or the other (Hear, hear.)
Tho question was how you were to reconcile nomination
by the Crown with the weight and independence of coun-
cil. That independence must not be a nominal indepen-
dence, but an independence with weight and efficiency, and
free from suspicion. But this would bo impossible if the
council were appointed on the principle recommended by
the late Government, for that would make them subject
to removal at will after the lapse of a few years. He
could, however, understand what made the late Govern-
ment make that proposal. They saw that they had but
the choice of two difficulties. They saw that if they ap-
pointed them during good pleasure, there would be consi-
derable danger lest the office should lapse into the nature
of a comfortable sinecure, and you might be burdened
with functionaries who, though competent at first, might
cease to be so through the lapse of years, and yet bo un-
willing to resign office. (Hoar, hear.) The plan proposed
by his right hon. friend was different, and the manner in
which it had been received afforded a fair augury of its
ultimate acceptance. He (Mr. Gladstone) was not pre-
pared to admit the principle laid down by the noble lord
(Lord Palmerston) that all acts of the Government under
a constitutional monarchy should be done by a responsible
Minister. He admitted that those acts which were placed
in the hands of the Executive should be done by a respon-
sible Minister, but there were municipal and other acts
which it was important even for the maintenance of free-
dom to keep out of the hands of the Executive. It was not
for the purpose of overruling and hampering the President
that it was proposed to give him an independent council,
but to secure a full exprce-sion of opinion from the best
and most adequate authorities, from men fully competent
to give such advice as would guide the President, not con-
trol him, iu his decision. As ho understood it, a certain
number of names were to be presented, out of which the
Crown was to form a judgment. He must say that he ob-
jected both to the proposition of the noble lord (Lord Pal-
merston) on the one side, and to the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other, while he agreed
in the soundness of the principle contended for by his right
hon. friend (Sir J. Graham).
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to the proposal of the right
hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham). They all knew that an ap-
pointment by the Crown meant an appointment by the
Minister. who was responsible to the house; so that in
effect the appointment by the Minister was an appoint-
ment by the house. He should therefore vote against the
proposition of the right hon. baronet. (Hear, har.)
Sir F. BARING said the question was whether the
council should be solely appointed by the Crown, or by
some other mode independent of the Crown. That was the
question. The proposal of the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Graham) seemed to bo a good mode of escaping out of the
difficulty. His noble friend (Lord Palmerston) had called
on them to guard the constitution in this matter ; but they
had to recollect that India had an arbitrary government.
The Secretary of State for India was under no such con-
trol as regarded the army as the Secretary for War was
under to the Treasury and that house, and he was under
no control in matters of finance. Therefore it was that
they must go out of their way to get an independent
council to control the Secretary of State.
Lord J. RUSSELL said hon. members should make up
their minds as to the proposition upon which they meant
to divide, but he thought it was out of the question to ask
a division upon a proposition which had one sense for one
member and another sense for another. What he wanted
to know was, whether the Ministry adopted the proposi-
tion of his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham). His own
opinion was unchanged, and he should certainly vote
against .the proposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM said a few words in explanation, to
the effect that what he proposed was that the council
should be partly elected and partly nominated, in opposi-
tion to the proposal of the noble lord that the council
should bo nominated by the Crown. He had proposed no
resolution, nor opened his month during the entire dis-
cussion until that evening, and he should be extremely
sorry if the Government adopted his proposition without
giving it their serious consideration.
After a few words in explanation from Lord J. 11,US-
SELL, which were inaudible,
Sir C. WOOD reminded the committee that the effect
of the vote they were about to give would be the
adoption of the principle of nomination proposed by Lie
noble friend the member for the city of London, or that of
the Government, that it should be partly by nomination
and partly by election.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not
rise to defend the member for Carlisle, who is always well
prepared to defend himself ; but I wish to defend the com-
mittee from the charge of disingenuousness, because if
there is one characteristic stronger than another which has
marked the proceedings of the committee it is the bona
fides with which it has discussed, from the first, these
resolutions, and the spirit with which every suggestion
from either side has been entertained, with respect and
with that fair spirit of discussion and investigation which
has very much advanced the object we have in view. Now
the noble lord the member for London has not placed fairly
before us the issue on which we are going to decide. Ho
calls on the government to say whether they aro in favour
of the proposition of the right lion. gentleman the member
for Carlisle, or whether they are in favour of the constitu-
encies mentioned by the President of the Board of Control
in his that observations. What he has a right to call on
us to do is, to give an opinion on the fifth resolution.
When those resolutions were proposed it was held con-
venient that We should decide on point after point,
without unnecessarily connecting ono point with an-
other. And although my noble friend the President of
the Board of Control, in his first observations this evening,
has adverted to other resolutions, and has expressed the
general opinions of the government respecting them, and
although other members of the committee, like the member
for Carlisle, have freely offered their suggestions to the
honed, still we aro never to forget that the issue at stake
on the point we aro to decide is really the fifth resolution
—that we are not to decide on suggestions made by mem-
bers of the committee in the course of the discussion, nor
on remarks made by the President of the Board of Con-
trol, but that in the vote that wo are approaching we
are about to decide on the fifth resolution, which de-
clares that it is expedient that the council should be
partly nominated and partly elected. Now, in asking
the house to assent to that resolution, no one can pre-
tend to say that in doing so they are bound to support the
seventh resolution" any more than they are bound to sup-
port the proposition of the right hon. member for Carlisle.
And when the President of the Board of Control spoke of
the seventh resolution, he spoke in no dictatorial tone, nor
as if he wished the house to understand that the Govern-
ment were pledged to that resolution ; and therefore I
maintain that we have only acted in accordance with the
general spirit of the proceedings in committee in discussing
the resolutions separately, and that the point in discussion
does not bind us to assent to the constituency to which the
President of the Board of Control adverted, or to sanction
the proposition made by the member for Carlisle or any
other member. If we vote for this resolution and against
that of the noble lord we shall advance our proceedings.
All to which we wish to pledge the opinion of the com-
mittee by this resolution is, that the council should be
formed of mixed elements, and if the committee approves
of that general principle, and will support the fifth reso-
lution, my opinion is, that we shall so advance our pro-
ceedings that this evening will by no weeps be fruitless of
results. I therefore hope that this fifth resolution will be
cerried. (Hear, hoar.)
!. Mr. GLADSTONE rose to ordor,'and observed that they
were not, by the vote they were about to give, called on to
adopt the words of the sth resolution ; they wore asked
merely to say that certain words in it shall be allowed to
remain there,

The committee then divided.
For the amendment lB5
Against it
Majority against the amendment —es
Lord GODERICH said as it was desirable that the Go-
vernment should have an opportunity of considering the
effect of the proposal made by the right hon. gentleman
(Sir J. Graham) as to tho manner in 'which the council
should be constituted, he moved that tho chairman report

progress.
Mr. BARROW said as the question had been fully de-
bated, he protested against the subject being further dis-
cussed. Ho therefore objected to the motion of the noble
lord. _ _

Hr. RICH contended that they ought to have time to
divided,question. when there appeared--
consider e
co
committee
iltvtheoel et
hen
For reporting progress
Against it
Majority
—B4
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the proposal of his
right bon. friend ought to be further considered, and there-
fore he should say" No" to the resolution before the com-
mittee, but ho would not advise that the committe should
divide upon the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the committee was only pledged to the fact that the couu
cil should be a mixed one, and therefore it was only fair
that they should pass the resolution.
'Lord J. RUSSELL asked if the light hon. gentleman
was going to proceed with the 7th resolution ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
6th resolution must come first. (Laughter.) The Govern.
ment would take care to pass resolutions in accordance
with those already agreed to.
The sth resolution was then agreed to without a
division.

PEACE PRESERVATION ACT , (IRELAND) CON-
. TINUANCE ILL
On the motion that this bill beß road. a second time,
Mr. BAGWELL opposed it. Ho moved that the bill be
read a second time that day six months.
Lord NA AS said that, from the state of certain districts