The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-28 00:00:00

COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.

Mr. LYGON asked the First Commissioner of Works
Whether he intended to proceed this session with the Courts
of Justice Bill; and, if so, what day he would fix for the
discussion on the third reading.
Mr. COWPER said he hoped to be able to proceed with
this bill this evening.
EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c., BILL.

On the motion for considering the amendments to this

INfr. H. SEYMOUR moved an amendment to the effect
that the addition of two councillorsl legislative body
in India should be permissive, and
Some discussion followed, and the
eh"mpulsory.
e divided, when
the amendment was lost, the numbers Cs 155 to 60.
Sir C. WOOD proposed, in line 37, atteringe word "two,"
to insert "one of whom shall be a barrister, or a member of
the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland, of not less than five
years' standing."
LAYARD proposed ten years instead of five.
Stir C. WOOD said that five was the number of years in

all the Indian acts. The chief justices of India need not

be barristers of more than five years' standing.

Mr. Vansittart, Col. Sykes, Sir M. Farquhar, and other
members, supported the proposition for ten years.
Mr. WHITE thought there ought to be no restriction.
Mr. DISRAELI thought it was better to leave the ap-
pointment to the responsibility of the Government. Ex-
rperience proved that any term of years did not ensure the
best appointments.
Mr. MALINS thought the proposition of the right hon.
gentleman went much too far. He should vote for the
amendment.

Sir G. LEWIS said what was wanted was a person of
high legal knowledge, not a person of experience as a prac-
tising barrister, and such qualification might be found in a
barrister of five years' as well as in a barrister of ten years'
standing.

Mr. SCULLY supported the amendment.
Mr. J. LOCKE thought that the regulation that every
barrister who was appointed should be of five years' stand-
ing would meet every necessity of the case.

The house then divided. The numbers were—

Ayes 132
Noes
Majority —s9
The amendment was therefore negatived, and the clause
was agreed to.
On clause 19,
Sir C. WOOD proposed an amendment for the regulation
of the making of standing orders by the legislative council.
The effect of the amendment would be to place the Gover-
nor-General in Council in the same position in this respect
as the councils of the local legislatures.
The clause as amended was agreed to.
Some verbal amendments in clause 43 were also agreed
to, and a few other amendments were made in the bill.
EAST INDIA CIVIL SERVICE BILL.

On the motion for going into committee upon this bill,
Mr. H. BAILUE said the great object of Parliament
and of the Government appeared to be to place the whole
patronage of India in the hands of the crown. Last year
the Royal and the Indian armies were amalgamated, and
the result had been to put the whole patronage of the army
under the control of the Crown, and although that patron-
age might not be abused as long as the army was corn •
manded by a royal duke who was not a political partisan,
they had only to look at the Navy List to see how the pa-
tronage of the navy had been prostituted for political pur-
poses. Nine-tenths of the rear-admirals in the Navy List
were connected with the great Whig families. (Hear, hear,
and No, no.) He should be sorry to see the same system
introduced into the army. The uncovenanted service was
originally intended exclusively for the natives of India, but
by a great abuse the Governors. General had appropriated
the best part of the patronage of that service to Europeans,
and Europeans now filled the best places in the service.

By this bill power was given to the Governor-General to

transfer young men frem the uncovenanted to the cove-
nanted service, and thus to take away from the public, ap-
pointments which a few years ago had been thrown open to
competition. The only mode of preventing the abuse he had
pointed out would be to introduce a clause confining the
uncovenanted service to the natives of India. It was not

just to the natives to tax them highly and yet not to appoin
teem to any of the places they were qualified to fill.
Mr. ASTELL said that having been :connected with
India for half a century he wished to warn the house
against passing this bill without due consideration. He
regretted the exclusion of members of the Council of India
from this house, as he believed that if :they could have re-
corded their opinions respecting this bill the right hon. ba-
ronet would not have been justified in making the observa-
tions that he had made with regard to those opinions.
Colonel SYKES was afraid that the bill did not take pre-
cautions for securing as well qualified a class of officials for
the cellectorates, the judgeships, and the other higher
situations as at present filled them. The Governor-General
was to be empowered to appoint any person who had been
in India for:seven years, and who could pass an examination
in the native languages. He did not think, however, that
that was by any means a sufficient qualification.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY observed that a clause in the
India Act transferred to the Crown all contracts which had
been entered into by the company ; but ho feared that the
bill, even if it were amended in accordance with the notices
given by the righthon. gentleman,would act very injuriously
upon the interests of the covenanted servants.
Mr. ADAM deprecated the discussion of Indian affairs
in a party spirit. He thought it a great misfortune that the
direct government of our Eastern empire had been trans-
ferred to the Crown ; and also that Parliament had excluded
from its benches members of the council. It seemed to him
that in doing so it had, as it were, knocked out its own
brains as regarded Indian legislation.
Sir M. FARQUHAR also dwelt on the importance of the
dissents of the council. It was said that two of the coun-
cillors, Mr. Durand and Mr. C. Mills, had withdrawn their
objections to the present bill ; but had Mr. M'Naughten,Mr.
Mangles, Sir John Lawrence, or Sir H. Montgomery ? If
those gentlemen had done so the fact would certainly have
been stated. He wished to know what was the use of ap-
pointing this council ? Were their opinions to be snubbed,
he might say, in this manner ? He feared that unless very
stringent amendments were made in the bill, the public
would be very reluctant to compete for the appointments
offered by Government. He was sorry he (Sir M. Farqu-
har) could not attend the deputation of the civil servants to
the right hon. gentleman. He believed that on that occa-

sion Mr. Anderson advocated their claims with distin-
guished ability—(hear, hear)—and that his arguments ap-
peared to have weight with the right hon. gentleman. He
thought this was a bill which required the greatest consi-
deration that could be given to it by the right hon. gentle-
man.

Sir H. VERNEY said that 'in the year 1855 there were
20 vacancies in the civil service of India and 105 candidates.

In 18,56 there were 20 places to be given away, and 56 can-
didates ; in 1857 there were 12 vacancies, and 60 candidates;
in 1858 20 places were offered, and 67 candidates applied ;
in 1859 there were 40 places, and 119 candidates ; and in
1860 80 places and 154 candidates. Was it not qaite plain
that if the Government had offered more places there would
have been more competitors ? He observed that already
appointments had been given to persons who were unac-
quainted
with the languages.
Mr. W. E. FORSTER said he wished to hear from the
right hon. gentleman whether or not Sir J. Lawrence was
in favour of this bill.
Sir J. FERGUSSON said he hoped the opinions of mem-
hers of the council were not rejected upon small technical
grounds. He also said he could not help thinking there
were some minutes of dissent written by members of the
council which had not been laid before Parliament. He
wished to know whether the house was in possession of all
the minutes of dissent of last year; because if any opinion of
members of council were kept back and not laid before the
house, they were not in possession of all the information
which they would wish to have, and which might materially
influence their decision.
Mr. AYRTON wished to call the attention of the house
to the view which had been taken by the hon. baronet who
had just sat down. He (Mr. Ayrton) did not think those
views at all advantageous to the council which had been
recently established. Nothing would, in his opinion, so soon
conduce to the destruction of the council than the idea that
they were constituted for the supervision of the measures of
her Majesty's Secretary of State for India.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE, in reference to the minutes of
the Council of India, said that he had a perfect recollection
of what took place when the matter was formerly discussed,
and he understood they were to be laid before the house if
required. It appeared that important papers connected
with the bill were not laid beforo the council for them to
deliberate upon, and therefore it was the more necessary
that the house should be fully informed of all that had
taken place in the council, and if the house felt a real sense
of the importance of this subject they would insist upon the
production of these papers before they proceeded further.
He objected to the great haste exhibited in passing these
India bills, which were of such magnitude, and which af-
fected so many interests in India.
Mr.l.
of the council, SE YMeotißcil, for he
couldagre
e with the hon. and
learned member behind him (Mr. Ayrton) in the theory of
the
dutiesl
advisingh the c otuhnec il
Secretaryw as es-
tablished not only for the
purpose
of State upon all matters relating to the good government
to that of India, but particularly on
most materially related
to be
bills like the present, which
give: country. It was the duty,
therefore, of the council to theiriaici beforeopinions upon the
. hod
to the house.
bill, and those opinions ought
of State to the sub-
ject
right Ii .I N
hon.N A I
baroneti t D saidthhee
Secretary draw the attention
of the duties of the council, and he believed that of l‘thlre.
house was induced to decide that the members of cat the
should not have seats in that house upon the geounduntha. that
the house would have every information of the subject
matter debated by the council. The council were to minute
their opinions, and he distinctly understood that hon. mem-
bers would have a right to meve for the minutes, in order
that the house might be fully informed of the merits of every
e. It was treating the house unfairly not to produce
these minutes.
The civil servants of India ought to be suf-
ficiently protected, and the right hon. baronet ought to give
did
not assurance on the subject, though he confessed he
not share in the alarm which appeared to be felt.
Sir C. WOOD said he did not propose to go into the
question raised at any great length, because the house had
already agreed to the principle of the bill without a
division ; besides the topics discussed were wide of the
provisions of the bill. There was no party feeling in
the matter, for it was the intention of the noble lord the
member for King's Lynn to have introduced a similar bill,
and the noble lord had stated in the fairest and frankest
manner that he should support this measure. The question
raised in reference to the functions of the council he thought
was settled last session. The council were the advisers of
the Secretary of State, but he was not bound to follow the
advice tendered, nor was he bound to consult the council.
The Secretary of State for India was quite as free and un-
fettered as the President of the Board of Control formerly
was, and could introduce measures to Parliament without a
previous discussion being had by the council. The minutes
referred to by the hon. member for Bradford were recorded
against the bill of last year, and some of the members of
council objected to their being produced as against this bill,
which they did not approve, but they did not object to the
1 production of them with the memoranda appended to them
as appeared on the paper. (Hear, hear.) It was not the case
' AM 40 civil servants or no person in authority in India wag'
.., . . . . ._
_...
... . . _

RC nor
favourable to the principle of this bill ; and on a former oc-
casion he had quoted the opinion of several eminent persons
supporting this statement. It was true that a deputation had
waited upon him in reference to the funds of the civil ser-
vants, but they had admitted the impossibility of introducing
a provision into this bill to attain the very fair object which
they had in view, desiring him only to express his opinion
upon the subject to the house. His opinion was that they
were not likely to be injured by any possible application of
the provisions of the bill, the object of which was, as he had
before stated to provide for special and exceptional cases.
He could not however deny that there was a possibility, very
slight though it was, of their being injured in their funds
by the provisions of the bill, but he had expressed to them
the opinion which he had promised to repeat in the house,
that if it should turn out that the existing members of the
civil service were injured in respect of their funds, either
for themselves or their families, by any use or abuse of the
powers conferred by the bill, they would have a fair right
to claim compensation.

Mr. VANSITTART said the civil servants looked upon
the bill as objectionable, considering that its only effect
would be to destroy the valuable services to which they be-
longed. The time had been very short for its consideration,
the civil servants in London had taken every means they
could, and had gone to great expense, with a view to intro-
duce a clause for their protection, but they had been taken
by surprise, net expecting that the bill would be brought in
this session, and they had not had an opportunity of com-
municating with their brother civil servants in India. With
regard to the title of civil servants to compensation if they
were injured by the measure, they had only the ipse digit
of the right hon. gentleman.
The house then went into committee.

Mr. VANSITTART drew the attention of the committee
to the wording of the Ist clause. It was notorious that
within the last six months the Indian Government, under
pressure from the press of Calcutta, had made the appoint-
ment of many gentlemen out of the service to very impro-
tant civil situations, and more especially by the creation of
a great number of small cause courts, in the case of some of
the appointments to which the persons appointed were obliged
in the discharge of their duties to avail themselves of the
services of interpreters. He thought, therefore, that the re-
strictions which were proposed to be applied to the appoint-
ments under this clause, or else the manner in which a
great number of civil appointments would be held would be
contrary to the opinion expressed by the house in the se-
cond clause. The subject of the small cause courts had been
fully investigated by the colonisation committee, and they
had been told by the civilians who were examined that if
there was one thing more than another calculated to add
to the unpopularity of our rule in India, it was the intro-
duction of English law, to be administered by English
barristers, in the English language, in these courts—that
it would.be regarded by the natives as a gross hardship,
and as a badge of conquest degrading them in the
eyes of the public. The committee generally were of opin•
ion that however applicable and popular these small
courts were in Calcutta they ought not to be extended to
the Mofussil. Under these circumstances, he was anxious
to omit the word "heretofore," in line 11 page 2, and to
substitute the words, "before the commencement of the
present session."
Colonel SYKES said as it appeared that these small
cause courts had been established within the last year, and
as those appointed could not have any knowledge of Maho-
medan and Hindoo law, by which all these civil causes were
determined, he must object to the clause as it now stood.
Such appointments should not be made without an exami-
nation testifying the capacity of the candidates for the
duties which would be required of them.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE had no objection to give indem-
nity for what had been done, if these appointments were not
to be made in future.

Sir C. WOOD begged hon. gentlemen to keep entirely
separate the first and second clauses, which had nothing to
do with each other. Certain appointments had been made
without question, without objection, and with the consent
of the most rigid civil servants. But the law officers had
declared all these appointments to be illegal, and the object
of the first clause was to give them legality. Nobody
questioned the propriety of making such appointments for
the future, and it made no difference in the relative posi-
tions of natives and Europeans. The object of the second
clause was different—it was to enable the governors in
India, with the consent of the Secretary of State in Council,
to appoint, in special cases, uncovenanted servants to situa-
tions which had been hitherto open exclusively to cove-
nanted servants. In order to meet the objections of the
hon. member (Mr. Vansittart), he would propose to leave
out the word "heretofore," and insert the words " from the
Ist April last."
The amendment was agreed to.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE objected to the clause on the
ground that it would empower the Governor-General to ap-
point military men to perform civil duties, not only in the
non-regulation, but also in the regulation provinces. He
could understand the existence of such a power in the old
Court of Directors. But they were now engaged in providing
statutory powers for the Governor-General ; and they ought
to understand clearly what these powers were, or else con-
sent at once to give the Governor-General carte blanche. It
appeared to him that under the clause the Governor-Gene-
ral might appoint a military man to be a judge in Sudder
Ameen.
Mr. LONGFIELD concurred with the last speaker. He
thought the clause went much beyond the object expressed
in the preamble. There could be no objection to granting
an indemnity for the past.
Sir C. WOOD said it was absolutely necessary to give the
powers conferred by the clause.
Mr. LESLIE moved to omit the latter part of the clause,
giving power to make similar appointments in future.
After some discussion, the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. VANSITTART then moved the omission of the
words "or similar."
Sir C. WOOD said the object of the clause was to ap-
point uncovenanted servants in places similar to those in
which such appointments had been made, as, for instance,
the Sudder Ameen at Dacca.
Mr. AYRTON said the class of covenanted civil servants
was so distinct from the uncovenanted, that no harm could
arise from leaving out the words "or similar," if the object
of the right hon. gentleman was that things should remain
as they were at present.
Mr. FINLAY said that by the omission of the words the
power of the Government would be restricted in creating an
effective civil service.
Mr. LONGFIELD did not think it had been shown by
the right hon. gentleman that the retention of the words
would prove beneficial to the people of India. It would give
the entire control of the appointments to the Government.
Mr. PULLER said he was not prepared to place the in-
terests of the whole civil service in such jeopardy, as he
should do if he consented to the introduction of so vague a
word as "similar." If the word " same" was too narrow
for the purpose of his right hon. friend, the word similar
was too vague and too- wide.
Mr. AYRTON suggested that the clause should apply to
" the class," and not to the individual appointments.
Sir C. WOOD said that they considered the matter care-
fully in the India-office, and they eame to the conclusion
that the words, "or similar," were the best that could be
used. He did not believe there was any real difference be-
tween the majority of the house and himself. He had no
objection to the introduction of the words "officers of the
same class," but he thought it better to leave the clause as
it stood.
After some further conversation, the committee divided :
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —ls
The amendment was therefore lost.
Clause 1 was then agreed to.
Sir C. WOOD moved in clause 2, line 31, after " Pro-
vided that," to insert "except in the departments of
Finance and Customs in the Presidency towns, no person
shall be so appointed who has not resided for a period of at
least seven years in India, and shall not have passed an
examination in the vernacular language of the district in
which he is to be employed."
Mr. VANSITTART suggested that there should be an
examination in more than one language of India.
Sir H. VERNEY concurred in the suggestion.
Colonel SYKES trusted that every person would be re-
quired to pass an examination in Hindostani as well as the
vernacular language of the district.
Mr. ADAM moved as an amendment to Sir C. Wood's
amendment, after " employed," to add " and in all other
local departmental tests which are now or may hereafter be
prescribed for covenanted civil servants in a like case." He
proposed. the amendment for the security of the Govern-
ment and the public, and as an act of justice and fairness to
the civil service. Any idle young man might by two
months' reading pass an examination in the vernacular lan-
guage of any district, and, therefore, such an examination
was no test of his fitness for appointment.
qiiinuSeaiiporibfiaCirce.taielteueoOOD said that after having given full considera-
tion to the
d:sasitibofjcoect he could not agree to the amendment.
He thought it would be unreasonable to require the same
covenantedasre s introducingwhich
t:
the
v qualifications
u n e o
desirable%. en ;i n t c
ind
they servants.
enr vahacontut
olsdf.
parliament, as it deprived the Government of that discretion
possess.

Major PARKER observed that Hindostani was as much
the general language of India
as English was that of this
he did not think these country.
e
oaudd asked
be subjected
theal
SirA ft cit.,
.s
le
vi oieLfurther dui si3c uys ssi
ao
ind,
im-
portant matters ought to be left entirely to the
whth
regulation
of
pt he
re s
oSne es raert. aproyi
not
ef
dS
tt
oa the
iignhCooffiu
enec i
wl , and
same tests, and would be required to enter into the same
stipulations with regard to not engaging in trade, 8:e , toe
which the covenanted servants were liable.
Mr. ADAM said he had given notice of an amendment
which would meet the objection to which the hon. baronet's
question pointed.
The committee then divided on Mr. Adam's amendment.

The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes
Majority .. —l5
Sir H, VEB,NEY moved the addition to the clause of
the words "and that he shall pass the same examination as
that prescribed for civil servants in like cases."
Sir C. WOOD opposed the amendment as unnecessary.
The amendment was negatiyed without a division.