The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-07 00:00:00

other day some employment out of the regular course was
open this man was appointed to the office at a salary of
£1,200 a year. Of course there were many covenanted ser-
vants who did not like bringing in the uncovenanted, but
after full discussion the measures which he submitted to
the house had met with the general concurrence of his
council, and he thought the course they had taken was very
creditable and honourable to them. He would tell the house
exactly how he proposed to deal with the case. He proposed
that when any authority in India should think it desirable
under the special circumstances of the case that such an
appointment should be made without regard to precedents,
he should have authority to make the appointment, subject
to such regulations as might from time to time be made in
that behalf by the Secretary of State in Council ; but that
such appointment should be provisional only, and that it
should be so reported forthwith to the Secretary of State in
Council, with the special reasons for making it, and that
if the approval of the Secretary of State, concurred in by
a majority of the council, were not received within a
year, the appointment should be void. The same
regulations as no.w applied to covenanted ser-
vants would be employed in these cases; the person so
appointed must have resided in India seven years, must
have passed in the language of the district in which he
would be called upon to serve, and must, in fact, have satis-
fied the same test and qualifications as a covenanted ser-
vant, and with these safeguards he thought that no abuse
of the power could take place, and that they would be pro-
viding for what was a necessity of the public service, and
in such a way that covenanted servants could not complain.
With these explanations he begged to move for leave to
bring in a bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE said he had been requested to men-
tion what the objections of the covenanted servants to the
measure were, but he believed that the statement of the
right hon. gentleman would tend greatly to remove those
objections. They had understood that the offices which were
formerly held by covenanted servants were to be held in
future by other persons, and even excluding covenanted
servants from some of the higher branches of the service.
But it appearee from the explanation of the right hon. gen-
tleman that nothing of the kind was contemplated, and
that nothing could be done in regard to these appointments
without the approval of the Secretary of State and the
council.
Mr. AYRTON believed that the act of 1793 was framed
to prevent jobbing, and that from that day to this the ne-
cessity for its provisions had continued to exist; and he
believed, moreover, that there was just as much necessity for
maintaining its principle at the present day as there was
when it was framed.
Lord STANLEY said the house could not be too vigilant
end cautious in considering a measure which, for good or
evil, would have an important influence on the future wel-
fare of India. He wished to express his own opinion of the
measure of his right hon. friend, because from the part he
had taken in the regulating of the civil service, he felt
bound to take upon himself a share of the responsibility.
Shortly after the tranfer of the government of India to the
Crown, this question of a compromise between the cove-
nanted and uncovenanted services of India was brought
under his notice, and after examining into it he came to the
conclusion that it was impossible to maintain the system as
it had hitherto been maintained. Doubts had been ex-
pressed as to the legality of past appointments, so that it was
felt no time should be lost in removing those doubts. He
believed that a return to the law of 1793 was impos-
sible, in consequence of the great number of appointments
which had been made since then, the increase of expense to
which such a return would give rise, and the feeling that
would be excited in India. The only practical and impor-
tant question for the house to consider was whether it would
admit persons who were not members of the covenanted
service to appointments from which up to the present time
they were excluded. There were three different opinions on
this point. One class of persons were of opinion that the
exclusive privileges should .be maintained ; others thought
that there was no necessity for any exclusive rights or pri-
vileges. The third opinion, that which was carried out in
the present bill, was one between the two others, namely,
that the civil servants ought to retain their present rights
and privileges, but that an opportunity should be given to
men who had not been brought up in the service to enter
it. With regard to the first view, he considered it simply
impossible to carry it out; with regard to the second, it
would produce great evil in India. Upon the whole, there-
fore, he believed that the mode proposed by his right hon.
friend was the best for dealing with the difficulty. There
were two dangers to be avoided. One was the danger of so
diminishing the rewards of the civil service that men of in-
telligence, ability, and good position in life would no longer
be induced to enter it. The other and the more pressing
danger was lest the Governor-General and other high
authorities of India should have the opportunity of intro-
ducing their own friends and dependents into the service.
Against that danger they could not be too cautious. He
thought the securities taken by the bill would be effectual
for this purpose. The term of residence required was so long
as to make it impossible that the Governor-General should
have the opportunity of introducing his own friends and
dependents into the civil service, and it was not likely that
he should show undue favour to those of his predecessor.
Then, the knowledge of language was a security, though in
a lesser degree. These securities were so important that in
his opinion they ought to be inserted in the bill, and not
made the subject of separate regulations, which might be
evaded. (Hear.) There was also this third security, which
in his opinion was the most effective of all—that the ap-
pointment should be confirmed by the Secretary of State
for India and the Council. If an appointment was made in
India which had something of nopotism in it, it was not
likely that the Secretary of State or the Council of India, a
majority of whom belonged to the civil and military ser-
vices of India, would so far sympathise with the person
making it as to confirm such an appointment. These were
as strong securities against the abuse of patronage as could
be taken. They were stronger than any they had at home.
Under ordinary circumstances he would have postponed
expressing his own opinion till the second reading ; but as
he felt almost as responsible as his right hon. friend for the
general character of the measure, he thought it only fair
that he should take the earliest opportunity of stating what
his views were. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES said that the present measure was a bill
of indemnity after a practical breach of the law for 68 years.
The bill of 1793 was brought
,in to prevent jobbing, and
they could not take too many securities against such a re-
sult. When new territories were conquered persons outside
the civil service had necessarily to be appointed to perform
the duty of administration. They did so for half the pay
of the covenanted servants. He had no objection to having
the service thrown open to properly qualified persons.
Mr. BAILLIE said that this was the most important of
the three bills introduced by the right hon. gentleman, and
it would require the greatest attention from the house. The
law of 1793 had been made to prevent jobbery, but it had
been purposely evaded. In some cases, such as those of the
non-regulated provinces, the law had been necessarily
evaded, but it was doubtful whether the law in these cases
had been really violated or not. He considered that some
bill was necessary to amend the irregularities which had
grown up.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR doubted whether the law of
1793 had been so shamefully evaded as was represented.
The Government of India was often in great distress for
persons who were legally qualified to fill certain appoint-
ments. It would greatly facilitate the right understanding
of the measure if the right hon. gentleman would lay on
the table the correspondence in the case of Mr. O'Reilly,
where the arguments on both sides upon the question of
throwing open the service were fully and clearly stated.
Sir J. FERGUSSON warned the house against being
hurried into precipitate legislation upon a subject of this
great importance. He was glad to find that the right hon.
baronet had spoken with such moderation as to the extent
of interference with the civil service which the Government
contemplated.
Mr. VANSITTART said he had felt afraid that under
cover of this bill an insidious attack was to be made on the
civil service, but he hoped his fears would turn out to be
unfounded. He wished to know whether the right hon.
gentleman would consent to lay on the table the opinions of
the special committee which he had appointed to consider
the measure.
Sir C. WOOD in reply said that many of the points
which had been raised would be more conveniently dis

cussed in future stages of the bill. He must, however, de-
cline to depart from the ordinary practice by laying upon
the table tho reports of committees which had been ap-
pointed by the Government to consider the subjects dealt
_ _

with by these bills. The council might be said to be the
mind of the Secretary of State, and it would be a very in-

convenient course to produce to the house the opinions of
the various members of the council upon the measures sub-
mitted to the house by the Government, but he repeated
that the general opinion of the council was favourable to
the measure.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR asked when the discussion
would be taken.

Sir C. WOOD said he proposed to take the second read.
ing that day week.
EXCISE AND STAMPS BILL.
On the order of the day that this bill, as amended, be con•
sidered,

In clause 14 a provision was introduced that in the event
of a number of persons having to sign an agreement or re-

ceipt one only need sign his name across the adhesive stamp.
Mr. AYRTON said as the law stood at present no agree-
ment need be stamped sooner than 6 months after execution,
The hon. and learned member moved the omission of the

words, " And also any agent or per.on who shall prepare or
be employed in preparing the same."
Mr. CRAUFURD hoped the amendment would not be
pressed. What he complained of most was, that the clause
would hit the unhappy counsel who prepared a lease, al-
though he had nothing to do with the execution of it.
In reply to a question from Mr. HENNESSY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was not aware that the clause would make any alteration
in the law of agreements as regarded the period allowed for
stamping after they were executed.
The amendment
sion, having being negatived without a divi-

Mr. AYR TON said he had abstained from dividing in
deference t,o the wish of hon. members who objected to the
clause as a whole. His own objections applied in fact to
the whole cla4se, The clue° htttl the aitigular anomalY of,