GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

HC Deb 21 July 1853 vol 129 cc556-84

Order for Committee read; House in Committee.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 (The Council may make laws).

SIR HERBERT MADDOCK

said, he wished to propose, by way of Amendment to insert "that in making laws and regulations, regard shall be had to the religion and manners, and opinions of the different races of people inhabiting the said territories. "If the natives of India had not as they ought to have, a share in the deliberations of the Indian Legislature, at least provision should be made that Indian legislation should not be offensive to their feelings. The 13th of George III. enacted, with this view, that there should be an appeal against the Indian Legislature to the Crown in Council; and the Act of 1833 gave to the Board of Directors power to disallow any act of the Indian Legislature within one year. It was expedient that adequate restrictions should be provided in this measure against the recurrence of such measures as those which, in several in-stances, had been within the last three years enacted by the Indian Legislature, offensive to the feelings and infractionary of the laws and religion of the natives of India. It had been stated in evidence be fore the Committee that of late years a great change was observable in the demeanour of the British officers, both civil and military who were intrusted with the administration of justice and the command of the army in India. It appeared that they were growing less attentive to the feelings, opinions, and prejudices of the people; and if the Govern- ment of India were also exhibiting less attention to those feelings, opinions, and prejudices than used to prevail in former days, the time might not be far distant when this country would feel the ill effects of departing from the wise policy which dictated conciliatory measures in the administration of the Government of India. He had lived upwards of thirty years in India, and he appreciated, better perhaps than others, the good qualities of the natives, and it was on this account that he desired to see respect paid to their national religion and manners. It might be urged that the Government of India was a government by the sword. If so, he begged the Committee to bear in mind that the class of persons most likely to be discontented by the acts which had been the subject of recent debate, were the very last who would yield to the sword of the army—a class, indeed, which comprised more than two-thirds of the army in India. But he should be sorry to imagine that we had no hold of India except that which we gained by the sword. He should little value the tenure of any such Government. His firm belief, however, was, that England owed the long continuance of her sway in India to the belief that it was her desire to govern the people justly and beneficently; and that belief, he contended, would be confirmed by the insertion of the words he proposed.

MR. HUME

said, that the object of the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Maddock) was merely to carry out in another form the proposal which he (Mr. Hume) made to the Committee the other night and which was then rejected, namely, to admit two natives as members of the Legislative Council. He considered that they were bound to respect the religious prejudices of the natives; and although the Government had refused to allow a Hindoo or a Mahometan to sit in the Council, it was only just that they should declare that the legislation of the Government of India under this new charter was not to be contrary to their religious prejudices and national habits. He thought that they had treated India with insult, by not admitting natives into the Council, particularly after the statement with regard to their fitness made by the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir H. Maddock). He feared the time would come, if they went on legislating against the prejudices and feelings of the natives of India, when the words of the hon. Member would be realised, and that you would not be able to keep them down by the sword. He should support the Amendment.

MR. LOWE

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had given the best possible reason for rejecting the present Amendment; for he had said that its object was to carry out that which the Committee had rejected on a former night. If so, surely the same reasons which led to the rejection of the former Amendment, would equally apply to this. But, taking the Amendment upon its merits, what taking it propose to do? It proposed to add the following words:—"That in making laws and regulations regard shall be had to the religion, and manners, and opinions of the different races of people inhabiting the said territories." Now, what was the meaning of these words? He took it, as a lawyer, that they were merely directory—that they added nothing to, and took nothing from, the powers of the Legislative Council, but would leave them exactly where they were. The words were, in fact, mere surplusage, and would have no legal effect whatever; or, if they had any effect at all, it would be a mischievous one, inasmuch as they would tend to introduce doubts as to the competency of the Legislative Council to deal with a hundred matters connected with the natives, and would therefore be a stumbling block in the way of carrying on the business of the country. But what was the animus with which the words were introduced? The Committee were aware that, whereas we professed to govern India on the principles of civil and religious liberty—viewing all sects with an indifferent eye—and whereas the operation of the Hindoo law was to forfeit the lands and goods of any Hindoo who became a Christian, the British Legislature had wisely passed a law to do away with that forfeiture. Now, if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was carried, it would be at once presumed by certain parties in India that the present House of Commons disapproved the law in question—that they, a Christian Legislature, were so far forgetful of their duty as actually to approve of their fellow subjects incurring forfeiture of their lands and goods in consequence of embracing the religion of Her Majesty and the great body of her subjects. And, besides, he held that the Government was not bound to respect every law and custom of the natives merely because it was the law and custom, independently of its good sense, reason, and morality. We had already done away with several of their laws and customs. We had, for instance, abolished the practice of human sacrifices; we had abolished infanticide; we had abolished suttee almost all over India. There were many other laws and customs pernicious and immoral in their practice which it was still desirable to abolish, and he trusted that, one by one, as the Government felt their way, they would be able to abolish those also. So far, then, from wishing that Government should be restricted from putting down bad customs and bad laws, he trusted that they would gradually be able to improve them; and that, instead of Hindooising our own Government, we should be able to Europeanise theirs.

SIR HERBERT MADDOCK

said, that the hon. Gentleman had objected to the terms of his Amendment; but if he had only turned to the next page of the Bill, he would have found the very same words in the 26th clause quoted from the Act of 1833. So that whatever fault the words had was attributable, not to him, but to the Parliament of 1833. It might be that the words were mere surplusage in a legal point of view; but at all events they would afford great satisfaction to the people of India, and he thought that in itself was sufficient to justify their insertion.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, it was hardly fair in any hon. Gentleman to assume that there was no disposition in the Government of India to pay attention to the feelings and opinions of the people. Besides, the hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that the duty of attending to the feelings and opinions of the natives in laying the basis of their legislation was recognised in the 26th clause, and surely that was enough.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 25.

Clause 26 (Her Majesty may appoint Commissioners in England to consider and report on the reforms proposed by the Indian Law Commissioners).

MR. BLACKETT

said, he objected to the preamble of the clause, as being calculated to convey an inaccurate view of the circumstances which had taken place with regard to the late Indian Law Commission. The preamble stated, that— Whereas the Indian Law Commissioners, from time to time appointed under the said Act, have, in a series of Reports, recommended extensive alterations in the judicial establishments, judicial procedure, and laws established and in force in India, and have set forth in detail the provisions which they have proposed to be established by law for giving effect to certain of their recommendations, and such reports have been transmitted from time to time to the said Court of Directors; but in the greater part of such reports and recommendations no final decision has been had. He believed that the attention of the House was called to this point by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) on the second reading of the Bill; and that it had also been alluded to by Lord Monteagle in another place, but no satisfactory answer had yet been given by the Government. He thought it was desirable, however, that the matter should not be allowed to drop without either some member of the Court of Directors or the President of the Board of Control giving some explanation why the late Law Commission had been suffered to fall into abeyance in direct violation of the Act of 1833. It appeared that in 1842 Mr. Amos, one of the Commissioners, resigned. The Court of Directors, in December, 1842, sent a communication to the Board of Control, in which they stated— The Act of Parliament which created those offices requires that new appointments should be made as vacancies arise, and it is only by another Act that this obligation can be suspended. The Board of Control avoided taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this point, and confined themselves to the subject of Mr. Amos's vacancy, respecting which they said (February 1843)— If it be intended to submit to Parliament the abolition of the fourth member of Council, we see no objection to postponing the appointment till the sense of Parliament be taken. In May, 1843, the Directors wrote to the Governor General— It is probable that an application will be made to Parliament at an early period of next Session for authority to put an end to this commission. In the meanwhile we desire you will not fill up any vacancy which may occur. That was to say that, whereas the Act of Parliament required that the appointment should be filled up, they (the Directors) desired that the Governor General should break the law. The consequence had been that the law had continued to be violated from 1843 till now. He wished to hear what explanation could be given with regard to this case.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he did not profess to know what had taken place ten years ago, and he did not think it wise to waste the time of the Committee in discussing by-past events of that kind. What they had to do now was, to provide for the future government of India; and if the hon. Gentleman had any Amendment to offer upon the clause whereby that object could be better effected, he (Sir C. Wood) would be happy to consider it; but unless the hon. Member had such an Amendment to propose, he thought they had better proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

MR. HUME

said, that the Indian Law Commissioners had made a series of reports, in which they recommended extensive alterations in the laws and judicial system of India, and their reports had been transmitted from time to time to the Court of Directors. But, in the words of the preamble to this clause, "in the greater part of such reports and recommendations no final decision has been had." The reports of the Commissioners were here brought home to the Directors; and it was here that explanation was desired. Why had not the Directors attended to those reports? The truth was, the Law Commission had, to a great extent, been a failure; and the Court of Directors were now called upon to excuse themselves from blame, if they could.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

wished to know what reason there was for supposing that this clause would have any greater effect than the corresponding clause of the Act of 1833?

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he considered the course taken by the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) most unsatisfactory. Because a clause in an Act of Parliament had proved a dead letter, and an explanation had been asked, they were told it was useless to inquire into it. In fact, they were called upon to abandon the tenor of experience. But what was the use of experience if it was not to prevent them from doing formally what had been uselessly ten years ago? What had been the result of the very words they were here asked to enact? Nothing. Surely the right hon. Baronet, who professed such entire ignorance of what had taken place only ten years ago, with regard to the country he was governing, could explain why the Commission had been attended with such little result. At all events, Parliament had a right to know the reason, and it ought not to be deterred by the juggle of a double government from an inquiry into a subject of such vast importance.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he admitted that there had been great delay and disappointment in connexion with the late Law Commission, but he thought he was taking the best possible means of remedying the evil by proposing the present clause. If hon. Members were not satisfied with the remedy he proposed, let them propose a better.

MR. BLACKETT

said, he had no desire to throw impediments in the way of improving the law; but he must say, when the right hon. Baronet used the words "delay" and "disappointment," that there had been a deliberate breach and violation of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman would let this charge go by default. His object, however, was answered in having made the charge, and in seeing the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), and the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), sit by without answering it.

SIR JAMES W. HOGG

said, the hon. Members for Guildford and Honiton were exceedingly anxious that public business should be proceeded with, that the clauses of this Bill should be permitted to pass, and that objections should not be taken to a clause by an individual who said himself he did not mean to oppose it. The clause said generally that the Law Commission had made certain proposals, and that these proposals, which had had been submitted to the Judges of the three Supreme Courts of India, had been sent home. He admitted there had been considerable discussion upon them—that was always the case when there was diversity of opinion—but he denied that there had been any violation of the Act of Parliament by discontinuing to fill up an appointment which the Act of 1833 provided for. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong upon that subject. For many years there had always been a Legislative Member of Council, and he admitted it was in the contemplation of the Court of Directors in 1842 to abolish it. They had a distinct representation from the Governor General that the expense of the Law Commission was enormous, and that no adequate benefit was likely to arise from it; it was therefore suggested that the work of the Legislative Member of Council might be done by the Advocate General. In consequence of these suggestions, the matter was considered by the Court of Directors, who saw that as the appointment had been made by the direction of Parliament, it must be continued, unless the same authority discontinued it. It was discussed whether or not they should apply to Parliament; they determined not to do so; and the Legislative Member of Council existed now, and had constantly existed from 1833. The subordinate members, he admitted, had been discontinued and, in order to keep the Commission alive, another member had been added. The secretary had existed uninterruptedly There was, however, an impression that the expense far exceeded any benefit the had resulted; but the suggestion to discontinue it did not originate with the Court but it came from the Governor General in Council.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he did not think the hon. Member for Honiton had got well out of the matter. They were told in very glowing terms in 1833 by the then Secretary to the Board of Control that nothing was so easy as to give a good code of laws to India, and that the advancement of the natives to offices should be encouraged. On both those points there had been a great disappointment. Between 100,000l. end 200,000l. had been expended on the Law Commission—which was easily done when the members had 10,000l. a year—and without any result. It appeared by the evidence before the Lords Committee last year that the code prepared by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) was positively untranslateable into any language in India. If that was the case, it was right that it should not be adopted; but it would have been better if the Law Commissioners had not resided five years in India at a great expense. If, however, the vacancies in the Law Commission were not filled up, the matter should have been brought before Parliament. He must say that the President of the Board of Control assumed a style which was not very desirable, and exhibited a great deal of impatience. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett) had made some very reasonable remarks, and the right hon. Gentleman lectured him about going back ten years, and said that he might either accept the clause or reject it; and he talked of the pressure of public business, and the late period of the Session. That was not their fault, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to take advantage of his own wrong; yet the interests of 100,000,000 of people, who were suffering from their laws being in a perfect chaos, were nothing, to the convenience of a Minister, Would this clause have any greater effect than that in the Bill of 1833? The right hon. Gentleman had not shown that. He (Mr. Bright) wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, in cones- quenee of a letter he had received from Bombay, stating that it was reported that it was the intention of the Government to send out Commissioners to each of the Presidencies to inquire into and report on the state of the country; with power to redress grievances and promote improvements, perhaps in the means of communication, the tenure of land, and the administration of justice. He wished to know if the Government had any such intention? He hoped they had, for he believed great good would ensue from such Commissions, whose information would form the basis of future legislation for the government of India.

SIR JAMES W. HOGG,

in explanation, said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had been appointed Legislative Member of the Council at a salary of 10,000l., but it was no part of his duty to be a member of the Law Commission. Being, however, Legislative Member of Council, he voluntered to act as the President of the Law Commission, and he acted gratuitously in that respect during the whole time he was in India. The other member of the Commission had not 10,000l. a year, but 5,000l. a year. Let the House remember, that although the subject had been in agitation for thirty years, there was no criminal code for England; and he thought it was not surprising, when they considered the extent of India, the diversity of nations and creeds, and the differences of language, that a criminal code had not yet been formed applicable to the whole of India. We had not yet been able to frame one for our own country, where the difficulty was comparatively little, and where the appliances and means were great; it was no marvel that one had not been framed for India. He could not conceive anything requiring more care, more time, and more attention, and he did not think that the delay which had occurred, considering the magnitude and importance of the object in view, was to be blamed or regretted when compared with what would be the consequence of framing for India a code of laws that would not be applicable to its condition.

MR. BLACKETT

said, the hon. Member for Honiton told them the fifth member of the Legislative Council had been always appointed, but that the subordinate members of the Law Commission had been discontinued. That was precisely the charge he brought.

MR. MANGLES

said, the hon. Gen- tleman had not stated the cause which led to the failure of the Law Commission. The laws were framed by the Law Commission, and then handed over to the Legislative Council, which was overburdened with business, and was utterly unable to give sufficient attention to it. That was the great cause of the failure of the Law Commission for practical purposes. That would be remedied by this Bill, because this plan was founded on an entirely different system. The whole thing would be in the hands of the same body to frame the laws and to enact them.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, that the cause of the breaking down of the Commission was, according to the evidence of Mr. Cameron, owing to the irresistible opposition of the Court of Directors.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he feared that the progross of the Bill would not be facilitated by bringing charges against the Directors for what they had done ten years ago.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he attributed the failure of the Commission to their having undertaken to do too much. He believed that one code of laws for the whole of India was impossible. He wished to know how the Board in England was to work?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

replied, by stating, that the reports of the Commissioners would be transmitted to the Indian Government for its consideration, with power to amend and adopt their suggestions.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, he should support the clause, from the conviction that never was there a time when greater responsibility rested upon the Crown and the Legislature, in reference to the Government of India, than the present.

MR. HUME

said, he must remind hon. Members that all the evidence that had been taken by the Committee upstairs proved that when attempts had been made to assimilate the laws of England and of India, those attempts had invariably failed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 (No appointment of any Advocate General of the said Company shall be valid, without the approbation of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India).

MR. HUME

said, he was of opinion, that to subject the Court of Directors to the supervision of the Board of Control in a matter of this nature, would degrade them in public estimation.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he took the same view of the clause, and at the same time he must declare his inability to discover a reason for what appeared to be a gratuitous insult to the Court of Directors. If the Directors were to be intrusted with power at all, surely they should be allowed to appoint their legal officer.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

hoped the Government would not abandon the clause. Any one who might refer to the list of Advocates General during the present century would find abundant reason for enacting the clause.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, the object of the clause was to guard agaist the possibility of an improper appointment; at the same time he attached no great importance to it.

SIR JAMES W. HOGG,

citing the names of the principal men who had held the office of Advocate General in the present century, including Sir Robert Smith, Sir W. Burroughes, Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, Mr. Sergeant Spankie, Mr. Pearson, Sir J. Colville, Sir Lawrence Peel, and Mr. Jackson, challenged the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) to name a single one of those men who was not eminently qualified, by ability and learning, for the office of Advocate General. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) had certainly felt it his duty to oppose one appointment, and it was of Mr. Lyall's he spoke. But he opposed it, not with reference to the character or acquirements of Mr. Lyall, for he was well known at the University as a distinguished scholar and an accomplished man; but with reference to his standing at the Bar, which, being under six years, he thought was too junior to be appointed to such an office. He stated the whole truth, and did not withhold from the House the only case which perhaps might be subject to remark. He felt assured that it was not the intention of Government to throw any stigma on the Court of Directors; but the clause did appear to justify the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster, that there was "abundant reason" for it; and if it was only to show that this statement was without foundation, and that the series of appointments had been such as were beneficial to the country, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not persevere with the clause.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE

said, he had endeavoured to introduce as little personal matter into the debate as possible; but, as reference had been made by the hon. Baronet to the case of Mr. Lyall, he must say that the early age at which that gentleman was made Advocate General rendered his appointment a very improper one. [Sir J. W. HOGG: That is only one case.] The hon. Baronet should not tempt him to enter into more cases by name, though he did think there were other appointments which would not have been made but for interest. His impression was that Mr. Lyall had been appointed singly and solely because he was the son of an East India Director, and he thought this appointment alone justified the assertion he had made.

MR. MANGLES

wished the hon. and learned Gentleman would give chapter and verse for the charge he had brought against the Directors. [Cries of "No, no!"]

MR. OTWAY

said, he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not yield to the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir. J. W. Hogg), for the hon. Baronet himself, in the case he had mentioned, had shown the necessity why a veto might well be vested in the hands of a Minister of the Crown.

MR. F. SCULLY

said, he had to renew a charge which had been made some years ago by the hon. and learned Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball), that the Directors of the East India Company, particularly in the law appointments, made their selection almost entirely from the English Bar, and that no Irishmen were sent to India. He was anxious that this charge should not be made again, and he rejoiced that power was given by this Bill to the President of the Board of Control to see that these appointments for the future were fairly distributed.

MR. T. BARING

said, he thought if the appointment were vested in the hands of the Board of Control it would be found that the Government were very much open to pressure from without, and that in order to satisfy some portion or other of its supporters it might make legal appointments which would not be preferable to those which were now made by the East India Company. At first he had no great objection to the chase as its stood, because he believed the appointment would be made in concert between the two bodies—the East India Direction and the Government; but if the Committee were to decide upon the principle on which it was now put, that it was to be in the hands of the Govern- ment, then he must say that he had great distrust of Government appointments; and he thought it was not unlikely the appointment would be given to some supporter of the Ministry of the day. With these opinions he should wish the clause withdrawn, that the appointment might remain altogether with the Court of Directors.

SIR JOHN FITZGERALD

said, he thought there ought to be a check to the power of the Court of Directors in these appointments; he was aware of a case in which Sir James Grant, who had agreed with a predecessor of his in allowing an appeal by a native to a supreme Court, was superseded, and the Advocate General was appointed in his stead.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. F. Scully), he could state that two, if not three, of the gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) as having received the appointment were Irishmen. There was not the least wish, on the part of the Government, to keep this appointment in their hands; on the contrary, they left it to the Court of the Directors, subject only to the approbation and control of the Government. The sole object they had in view in this as in all other cases where the approbation of the Crown was made a condition of appointments, was to secure that the Court of Directors should make a proper selection.

MR. ROCHE

said, that not one of the Irishmen who had received the appointment of Advocate General belonged to the Irish Bar; they were all selected from the English Bar. Upon the general question, he had only to say that it was not wished to keep the appointment, but only the veto, in the hands of the Board of Control, and, on constitutional grounds, he should certainly support such a course.

SIR JAMES W. HOGG,

in reply to the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Roche), mentioned the names of several members of the Irish Bar who had held judicial appointments in India, and among others, Sir John Franks, Sir Francis Macnaghten, and Mr. Stretrel. In the year 1844 or 1845, he had, himself, as Chairman, offered, through Sir Frederic Thesiger, the appointment of Advocate General at Bengal to five English Barristers, by all of whom it was declined. The offer was made through Sir Frederic Thesiger, because neither himself or his colleagues were sufficiently acquainted with the merits of members of the Bar, and they made the offer depend solely upon their professional character. It was not men of great practice who would take it, and they selected men of character and talent. He objected to the clause for this reason, that the East India Company down to the present time had had this appointment in their own hands, and to say now that it was in future to be made subject to the approbation of the Crown, was to say, by implication, that they had not honestly discharged their duty in the appointments they had made.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

said, he would not be a party to any course that would imply a censure upon the East India Company for their appointments, nine out of ten of which were admitted by the Minister of the Crown to be unexceptionable.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he had no wish to support any course which would meet the views just advocated by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Roche), who distinctly stated that he valued the clause because it would cause a scramble amongst the Irish Bar for appointments. If the Scotch and English put forward similar claims, as they had a right to do, the scramble for patronage would be on a most extensive scale. He never heard a clause so weakly supported as the present was. If the appointments were vested in the Board of Control, the right hon. Gentleman would be subject to continual pressure on account of them. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in whatever view he might regard those appointments, as they concerned himself, would endeavour to relieve his successors from the odium that must attach to them in respect to those appointments.

MR. RICH

said, the statement of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), did great credit to the Court of Directors, in the way of appointments. But the East India Company were subject to influences as well as other bodies, and he thought that it would be well to counteract them as far as it was possible. The President of the Board of Control would not have the direct appointment, but merely a controlling power to check any improper selection by the Court of Directors.

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 59: Majority 56.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control relative to this clause, which provides that the Commander in Chief of Her Majesty's forces shall also be Commander in Chief of the Company's forces. He had some fears that the effect of this clause would be to exclude the Company's officers from the chief command.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, there would be no such exclusion; it would be perfectly competent for Her Majesty to appoint a Company's officer Commander in Chief of Her forces, and consequently Commander in Chief of the Indian army.

MR. HUME

said, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, because the exclusion from the supreme command had long been felt by the officers of the Indian army to be a stigma upon them. They had great cause to complain of the situation in which they had been placed in this respect. In the Affghan war some of the officers of the Indian army had conducted themselves in a manner which would have been creditable to any service. They wanted a little more reform in the appointments in India, and if they had made more use of the Company's officers than they had done, they would not witness such proceedings as were now taking place in India. He would not say anything of Bombay, for he believed there was a great deal of talent there; but, looking to Bengal and Madras, he thought the time was come when some of the officers should be relieved from their commands.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he would suggest that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman should be embodied in words and added to the clause, for he himself had certainly understood that the effect of the clause would be to exclude the Company's officers.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 29.

On Clause 30 (Sick leave and furlough regulations).

MR. HUME

wished to know whether the Government were prepared with the alterations so much desired with regard to furloughs. The present system was a great grievance in the Indian army, and many officers suffered considerably through not being allowed to come to England on sick leave, though they might go to Australia and the Cape.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, the sole object of this clause was to remove the restrictions which at present prevented officers on sick leave coming home to England.

SIR JAMES W. HOGG,

said, the present rules with regard to furloughs did not arise from any act of the Court of Directors, but were compulsory by the law as it at present existed. The object of this clause was to remove the restrictions, and give the home authorities power to make such regulations on the subject as they should think fit.

MR. T. BARING

said, there had been abundance of evidence before the Committee of the grievance which the present system with regard to furloughs inflicted on the Indian army, and which evidently arose originally from the time required to come to England before the days of steam navigation. What seemed to be the general desire of the witnesses examined before the Committee was, that the Company's officers should be placed in the same position as officers in the Queen's service.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31 (Salaries).

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

wished to know why some of the officers were paid in sicca rupees, while all the rest were paid in Company's rupees?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that all salaries, without exception, were paid in Company's rupees.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he begged to ask what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with regard to the salaries of the Directors? He thought the original salary of 500l. a year, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, was utterly insignificant for persons in such a position. Nothing was said about the subject in the Bill, and he wished to know whether it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to propose any larger sum?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that having first proposed 500l, a year, he had not thought it fitting to suggest an increase, except the general expression of opinion in the House had been in favour of it. If such were the sense of the house, he should have no objection to make the salary 1,000l. per annum, which he thought, in many respects, would be more fitting for the office.

MR. ELLIOT

said, he thought that if an increase in the salary were not made, it would be impossible to obtain proper men to fill the office now that they had taken from it all other inducements.

MR. HUME

wished to know if any re- gulations were to be made with regard to the absence of the Governor-General and the Commanders in Chief from the seat of their Governments.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he thought it would be exceedingly undesirable to make any legislative provision on the subject. It had better be left to be settled by regulations from the home authorities.

LORD STANLEY

said, he had no objection to the reduction of salaries; but he thought it was rather extraordinary, when they reduced the Commander in Chief's salary that they did not also reduce the Governor General's salary. By reducing one without the other, they increased the disproportion between the salary of the Governor General and the officer next highest to him in rank.

MR. OTWAY

would suggest that the salary of the Commander in Chief should be so fixed that it would cover all the contingencies of his pleasure trips, which were very expensive to the Country.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that the absence of the Governor General and the Commander in Chief must always depend upon circumstances; they often did more service to the country while absent from the seat of Government than they could have done had they remained there. He believed that the Governor General rather lost than gained by his absence.

MR. OTWAY

thought that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken there, for he knew that when the Governor of Bombay moved up the country he caused considerable expense.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

So he might, but he would gain nothing by it personally.

MR. RICH

said, that before the clause was disposed of, he wished to know when the House would have an opportunity of discussing the subject of the Directors' salaries?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

was understood to say that the only time to raise that discussion would be when a clause was brought up with reference to the subject.

MR. BRIGHT

said, in connexion with this subject, he begged to say, that one reason why he proposed, the other evening, to abolish the oaths was, that he did not see how the Directors, considering the patronage they enjoyed, could well be called on to make the declaration which was included in the oath directed to be taken by the 12th clause. By that clause every Director had to swear that he would not— directly or indirectly accept or take any perquisite, emolument, fee, present, or reward, upon any account whatsoever, or any promise of the same for or in respect of the appointment or nomination of any person or persons to any place or office in the gift or appointment of the Company. Now, there could be no doubt that the patronage possessed by the Directors was something advantageous to them. He lately heard of a case from a Member of that House with respect to a relation of his, which would show how the matter stood. This Gentleman applied for an appointment in India, and he got a promise from Mr. So-and-so. When the promise was asked for, "My friend is not rich, and you are a man of business," was the significant rejoinder, which was understood to mean anything that it was not desirable to ask openly and distinctly. The gentleman said, "I am a man of business; what of that?" The answer was, "My friend is not a rich man, and you are a man of business. I need not say any more about it." "Well, I suppose you mean an offer of money, but even if I were disposed to do that, is there not a law by which I am obliged, when I go to the India House, to swear or declare that I have not given, directly or indirectly, and shall not give, any one any fee or reward." "Oh," he said, "these are mere matters of form, and you are a man of business." This was the constant argument. At last the gentleman said, "I am a man of business, but not a man of that sort of business, for it is impossible for me to make the declaration required at the India House. Nothing would induce me to do so." Well, he did not get the appointment, but somebody else did who was a better man of business. [Cries of "Name, name!"] He would not name, but he had given the conversation as it occurred, and there was a Member of that House who could give it even more minutely. The Directors, therefore, found a personal advantage in the distribution of their patronage. He recollected the case of a celebrated artist who, knowing that the Directors were forbidden to receive any gift directly, asked a Director, if he would not like to have a portrait taken of himself, his wife and children. He thought that portraits of this kind made by a celebrated artist, to be hung up in the Director's room would be compensation sufficient for the favour asked at his hands. There was no doubt that when they spoke of a Director's patronage they meant that it was something advantageous to him, though when they said it was worth 10,000l. a year, they did not mean that he received that amount in money, but that, by interchanges among friends, and in a variety of ways, he had a large amount of patronage that was personally advantageous to him, and that was the reason why the salaries were so low heretofore; for he did not believe that their patriotism was so great that they would give the whole amount of their time for the twelve months—attending every week and day at the India House—with all the vast anxiety of mind under which they laboured for the good of India; he did not believe that they would undergo all this for 300l. a year. If they had no other object in that House than 300l. a year—and they did not even get that—he did not believe many of them would be there, and he thought many of them were much deluded in being there. There they sat by night, and in the day they attended Committees, for which the public generally believed they were paid, but it was not so. He voted against the oath which this Bill required the Directors to take, namely, that they would not, directly or indirectly, accept of any fee or reward on the ground that none of them could take the oath in its literal sense and meaning. But coming to the question of salaries, if the Directors were to continue to have patronage, or that portion of their emoluments which patronage gave, he did not think the salary should be fixed at a higher sum than was proposed. If it was proposed to raise the salaries of the nominated Directors only to 1,000l., he did not see how it was possible to keep up the distinction of salaries. There were to be eighteen Directors, and if they received 1,000l.a year each, that would be 18,000l.; and as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman would probably have double salaries, it would make altogether a sum of 20,000l. This Bill greatly increased the expenses of the Indian Government. He did not mean to say that this was not necessary; but when the Legislature of this country was taxing India to a degree more than any civilised or uncivilised Government ever taxed a people before—for he maintained that in proportion to their means no people were so enormously taxed as the natives of India—it was their duty to see that the expenses of the Home Government were not increased, unless they saw that the people of India would gain real and solid advantages in return. He proposed on a future occasion to go into the question of the expenses of the Home Government for India, which were frightfully scandalous. The India Direction and Board of Control cost twice and quadruple as much as the best Home Government could be established for. If the number of Directors were reduced to seven, so that they had plenty to do, and had full responsibility, he would not object to giving them 1,500l. or even 2,000l. a year. But when he found East India Directors able to attend that House night and day—that they had business concerns in the city, and that some of them had business of half a dozen other kinds on their hands, besides the enjoyment of their salaries and patronage, he thought the House would be acting regardlessly of the people of India if they allowed the taxes, which were raised extortionately from them, to be lavished by those who did not contribute any part of them.

MR. T. BARING

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down was a man of business, and as a man of business he ought not to make statements to that House which he could not substantiate—he ought not, as a man of business, to snake imputations and attacks upon individuals unless he was fully prepared to prove and establish them. He (Mr. T. Baring) was a man of business also, and he must be permitted to state that in his experience he had not always found that those most suspicious of others were the most trustworthy themselves. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman did not do himself or his own character and feelings justice, because, as every one was disposed to judge of others by himself, the hon. Gentleman, he must repeat, did not do his own high character justice by spreading imputations and attacks of this kind. This question ought not to have been treated as a mere personal question. He was sure that justice was not done when it was made the vehicle of attacks upon a number of persons who were entrusted with the agency of the Government of India. This showed the feeling which some hon. Members and some persons out of doors entertained, namely, to make every constituted body, whether a Company or a Cabinet, which had possessed power for any length of time, the pointed aim of attacks. He (Mr. T. Baring) thought that it would be far more consistent with the high character of the hon. Gentleman, and the undoubted importance of the question, if he refrained as much as he could from showing that acrimonious opposition to those individuals who had been entrusted with the Government of India, and if he confined himself to the mode in which that Government had been administered. With regard to the question of salaries, he (Mr. T. Baring) presumed the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Control) would take it into his own hands. The Government was all-powerful on this question, and they should make such alterations in the Bill as they deemed expedient; and, if they took that course, they would be supported by the House in doing whatever was right and proper.

SIR JAMES W. HOGG

said, it was very true that the hon. Member for Manchester had, throughout the whole of this discussion, indulged in personal observations, for which, however, he did not wish now to blame him. But when an hon. Member made a statement casting imputations on any man, and made it of his own knowledge, that statement must, primâ facie, be taken to be true and to be probable. He hoped the day would never come when any Member might rise in his place and make a charge against any gentleman, or any body of men, entrusted with power, and yet shrink from substantiating, that charge. The hon. Member had spoken not generally, but in detail. He had spoken of some personal friend of his own—a friend who seemed to deal in the basest of all traffics. He had spoken of a proposal base to the man who made it, base to the man to whom it was made. He had told them that his friend had been appealed to as "a man of business;" and there could be no doubt as to the meaning of that expression, for the hon. Gentleman added that he could not make the declaration—required by the rules of the India House—that he had given nothing for the appointment. He went further, and said, the appointment did not take place, but went to somebody who was "a better man of business." Now, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) called upon the hon. Gentleman, as he hoped in future that his statements in the House would command belief and credit, to state the name of the party, the appointment, and the name of the Director, whom, if these imputations against him were true, he ought to hold up to public scorn and disgrace. If the hon. Member shrank from this, all that he had said of the Directors would fall back upon himself. He would state to the House some of the foundations on which these kind of stories rested. When he was Chairman, some few years since, there were rumours respecting the distribution of patronage, so generally circulated that he thought there must be some foundation for them. A Secret Committee sat for five or six months, and over it he presided. Before that Committee everybody was called who could, by his evidence, cast the slightest imputation on any Director. The result was, that they found gangs of swindlers had personated Directors, and promised patronage. The different gangs were indicted, and, he thought, convicted, without exception. In one case there was a son, seemingly appointed by the agency of the father, who paid 1,200l. for the appointment. Owing to some unexpected circumstance he went on one occasion straight to the real Director, and in a roundabout way introduced his subject. The Director denied any knowledge of the transaction, and the gentleman pulled out a note purporting to be from the Director. The note was of course a forgery. In the house of one of these gangs they found a tariff of appointments under Government, as well as under the Company—a tariff which went even to titles, and fixed the price of a peerage. On that occasion everybody able to cast any imputation against the Directors did so, and there was certainly one of their own body who appeared to be implicated. He was indicted and convicted. Having stated these particulars, he again appealed to the hon. Member. He asked the House to co-operate with him in his appeal to that hon. Member to state the details, to state the persons, to state the names, and to expose all engaged in that infamous transaction to the public scorn, which they deserved. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed it was admitted that, although there was no money given, yet that the Court of Directors, by the exchange of appointments, or by some other arrangement, received something for their patronage. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) told the hon. Gentleman that that statement was totally void of truth and foundation, and that, according to his standard of morality, any Director who gave an appointment with any expectation, direct or indirect, proximate or remote, of any reward, emolument, favour, or interchange, or anything in return—either money, appointment, or anything else—after the declaration he had made, basely perjured himself, and basely betrayed the patronage which was commit- ted to him for the public advantage. Let the hon. Gentlemen give up the names of those to whom he alluded, and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) pledged himself that the Court of Directors would co-operate with him in exposing those who had been engaged in these infamous transactions.

MR. BRIGHT

said, it was quite cheerful to see such virtuous indignation displayed in this matter, and a lecture had been read to him, not for the first time, by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), but in his speech he had seemed to admit the whole case, for he said that the consideration of the patronage was one reason why the salary was so low as 300l. a year. ["Hear, hear!"] That was just the pith of what he (Mr. Bright) had stated to the House. He supposed no man living, who ever had patronage to bestow, had not found it an irksome and unpleasant business. Let them take the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the late Sir Robert Peel, before the Official Salaries' Committee, had spoken in language that almost claimed their compassion of the difficulty they had in selecting persons for patronage, and they said that giving one appointment disappointed about twenty persons. It was absurd to suppose that 300l. a year was a salary sufficient to induce men to discharge the duty incumbent on a Director of the East India Company. But 300l. a year was considered enough, in consequence of the patronage that attached to the position of a Director. This was the notorious belief, not only of the country, but also of the House. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) had applied to him to tell the House in detail the case to which he had referred. He had told it to the House in considerable detail. He had told it as a narrative communicated to him by a Member of that House, whose name it was not necessary to give, referring to a near relative of that Member. The circumstances he had stated were those which had been stated to him, and he believed them to be true. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) said that his (Mr. Bright's) friend was the base individual who made the offer. No; his friend was the man who was not sufficiently a man of business to enter into the transaction. He did not say that the person who made the offer was a friend of the hon. Gentleman's. At any rate, he (Mr. Bright) did not know him, but he knew the gentleman who had refused to have anything to do with the transaction. He therefore hoped none of the baseness of the transaction would apply to him. He hoped, also, that it did not apply to any one belonging to the Court of Directors. But that such things were done, or were believed to be done, was indisputable. It was the natural result of an arrangement by which men, with great and important duties, were paid only 300l. a year, the rest being made up by patronage. The President of the Board of Control had seemed to say that it was partly by reason of the diminution in the value of the patronage that the salary of the Directors was to be raised to 500l. He did not believe that if he or any Member of that House were placed in that position with 10,000l. of patronage a year to distribute, that they could avoid giving way to the enormous temptation of distributing it in a way that would produce some advantage—either to themselves or their families, in some way or other. No office was so open to temptation of this kind as that of the East India Director. He did not approve of the system. Let the patronage be taken from them, and let them have a salary suitable to the dignity of their position and the responsibility of their office. As to making attacks upon the Directors, he had taken the same course for the last seven years. The district of the country with which he was connected was concerned enormously in the manner in which India was governed, and no taunts of the hon. Member for Honiton, or of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, should deter him from denouncing what he believed to be a, corrupt system; but he made no charge against the hon. Member for Honiton, or his colleagues. It was quite possible that the Director who was to have furnished the appointment was as innocent as the hon. Gentleman; but he said that the public believed that such affairs as this did actually take place, and that was a conclusive argument against the system which was about to be continued.

MR. ELLIOT

begged to ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether he would give up the names of the parties to whom he had referred; or whether, by concealing them, he would make himself a party to the charge?

MR. BRIGHT

hoped the hon. Member did not mean to say that he was a party to the fraud. He had stated exactly what was told to him by a Member of that House; he knew to whom the appointment was offered, but not by whom, nor did he know the Director referred to. What he had stated was on the authority of a Member of that House. ["Name, name!"] No; he would not state the name. He thought his own reputation should be a warrant of the truth of the statement he had made—he would not abandon the ground he had taken.

MR. MANGLES

said, he would appeal to the House whether such charges should be brought forward without any attempt being made to substantiate them? How could any Gentleman or man of honour hear such charges made with respect to a body of which he was a member, and not feel indignant? He appealed to the hon. Member for Manchester to name the parties to whom he had alluded.

Clause agreed to.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words— The provisions hereinafter mentioned respecting the admission of students into the College of the said Company at Haileybury, that is to say, Sections 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 of the said Act of the third and fourth years of King William the Fourth, shall be repealed. He opposed the introduction of words into the clause, the effect of which would be to alter that clause in the Act of 1833, which conferred upon the Directors the patronage they at present exercised. He thought the changes that were proposed were much more considerable than were necessary. The result of the present distribution of patronage of the Company had been highly beneficial. They had the evidence given before the Committee by Lord Hardinge, Sir George Pollock, and Sir Charles Napier, as to the efficiency of the military service in India. Why, then, was so large a change proposed to be introduced? His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), on the second reading of this Bill, had placed great stress on those two noble seats of learning, Haileybury and Addiscombe, from which had issued so many distinguished personages. The effect of the measure was to open competition, to make a man's fortune in life depend on his success or want of success in a preliminary examination at those places. This would have an important effect both on the civil and military service of India. What, for instance, would be the effect on the military service? The words in the Act were, "natural-born subjects of Her Majesty:" and a question was raised in the other House whether that would include the natives of India. It was answered in the affirmative, and, therefore, if the Bill passed, it must be understood that all the natives of India were authorised to submit themselves to general competition. The consequence might therefore be, that, in the course of time, European soldiers would be commanded by native officers. He could not understand, however, if the competition was to take place under certain regulations, how it could be open competition. He demurred altogether to the principle that a man's future life was to be judged from his excellence in his early youth. He denied they could carry that out to such an extent as to make it a general rule. As an illustration of his argument, he would mention that those who were now the most distinguished officers in the East India Company's service had not when at College succeeded in passing for Engineers, but had been obliged to enter the Artillery. Among these were Sir George Pollock, Sir Henry Pottinger, Mr. Kaye, Mr. M'Gregor, Sir Henry Lawrence, and Mr. Abbott. He conceived that the Government would have immense difficulties to encounter in bringing their system of competition into practice. Whether that competition was to be general or special, it was equally open to objection. They had now to decide between two systems of competition—the one which now existed in the East India Company, or the new system which was proposed by the Government. Objectionable as he believed many parts of the Bill were, he considered this was the most objectionable portion, and that from it very unhappy consequences might arise. When the natives of India heard it proclaimed that they had a right to enter the service of the Company, they would, by their own intelligence and ability, render themselves qualified for that service, if they had only the means of doing so. Then one of two consequences would follow. They would either find their way into the service, or else the Company would have arrayed against them a spirit of discontent on the part of the whole people of India, the result of which it would be difficult to foresee. He did not see on what principle of justice, if they once admitted the principle of open competition, they could say to the natives of India they had not a perfect right to enter the service. These were practical difficulties which it became the Government to consider; and if they did not promise to do so, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee with regard to the colleges at Haileybury and Addiscombe.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he thought it desirable to keep the questions relating to the two establishments distinct, and he should now only address himself to the case of Haileybury College. In doing so, he did not think it necessary to add much to what had already fallen from the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), whose statement was confirmed by all experience, that those persons who distinguished themselves early in life generally occupied prominent stations in after life. By the proposed system the persons admitted to Haileybury College would be in every respect as good as those admitted now by the nomination of the Directors, and there would be this additional advantage, that they would have proved their superiority in point of intellect. Admitting the efficiency of the Indian service, he still saw no reason why it ahould not be improved, and he could not see any reason why they should not take every possible means of insuring the best men for the responsible situations which had to be filled.

MR. HUME

said, he wished to know of what use Haileybury College would be if this new system were adopted? Was it to be supposed that the pupils, after acquiring all the learning which procured their admission, could learn anything more at Haileybury? He would submit to the Government that, having every testimony that they possessed the having civil servants of any public establishment ever known, why should they run the risk of destroying such an excellent body of men? He would suggest that, by way of a trial, one-third or one-half should be admitted by competition, and the remainder from Haileybury, by which means both plans would be tested, and the merits of each fairly ascertained. As to Addiscombe, he thought that touching that was the rashest act which could be done. No seminary had turned out so many excellent and superior men as Addiscombe. He would therefore move as an Amendment to be added to this clause:—

"Provided always, and be it enacted, that in any regulations so to be made by the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, provision shall be made that one-third of the number of persons to be admitted in any one year as students into the said College of Haileybury, also one-third of the number of persons in any one year to be admitted as students into the military seminary of the said Company at Addiscombe, and also one-third of the persons to be admitted in any one year as assistant-surgeons of the forces of the said Company, shall be so admitted and appointed from persons nominated or recommended by the Board of Directors of the said Company, acting collectively, and not upon the recommendation or nomination of any individual Director."

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he thought there was one point upon which information was most necessary, namely, whether it was intended that natives of India should be included in the competition, and whether it was to be held out to them that all the services were open to them, if they had sufficient talent to obtain them?

LORD STANLEY

said, he would remind the hon. Member that that question would come before the Committee upon the discussion of the next clause. The present clause only said that from the passing of the Act all appointments to Haileybury and Addiscombe should cease, and he held himself free to object to the details by which it was now proposed to carry out the plan.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he was quite ready to take a division upon the question of competition with regard to Haileybury, and then to consent that progress should be reported.

MR. VERNON SMITH

admitted that it might be desirable to try the system of competition, but he was not prepared to adopt the system of competition absolutely. He considered that nothing could be better than the plan pursued at Addiscombe, where the pupils, after three years' study, underwent an examination, and those who most distinguished themselves were appointed to the Artillery and Engineers. The consequence was, that those departments of the military service of the East India Company were at least equal, if not superior, to any other similar services in the world.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he wished the subject of civil and military appointments to to be considered separately; and he was anxious now to take a division upon the question whether the appointments to Haileybury should be open to competition or not. He fully admitted the importance of this subject, and if it was the wish of the Committee he would not object to reporting progress.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that they should begin with the clause to-morrow.

MR. OTWAY

said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) would inform the Committee what restrict- tions he proposed upon admissions to Addiscombe? If it was proposed to grant admissions to Addiscombe without some test, some of the most effeminate and least qualified natives of India would, by cramming, just obtain sufficient knowledge to pass, and then get situations in the Artillery, to the detriment of the service.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that he would state the opinions of the Government on that subject to-morrow.

The House resumed. Committee report progress.