GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. (Hansard, 22 July 1853)

HC Deb 22 July 1853 vol 129 cc657-85 657

§ Order for Committee read. House in Committee.

§ Clause 32 (Subject to regulations all persons desirous of being admitted to Haileybury or Addiscombe, or appointed Assistant Surgeons to be admitted for examination).

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he would state to the Committee what course the Government now intended to pursue with regard to the appointments comprised in this clause. The original proposition of the Government had been that all the appointments to Haileybury should be thrown open to public competition. One hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention of moving as an Amendment to this proposal, that the system of appointments to Haileybury should remain by nomination as at present. Another hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, had an Amendment on the paper, that only one-half the admissions to Haileybury should be open to public competition, the other moiety remaining the result of nomination as now. It was the intention of the Government on this point to adhere to its original proposition, and to throw all admissions to Haileybury open to public competition, the natives of India being admissible to that competition equally with Her Majesty's other subjects. With regard, however, to admissions to the military seminary at Addiscombe, the Government had seen reason to reconsider its original proposal. That proposal, as contained in Clause 33 of the Bill, was to render admissions to Addiscombe also matter of public competition, altogether abandoning the existing system of patronage in that particular. He had, however, since the Bill had been presented to the House, received many communications from Members of the Committee, Gentlemen who had thoroughly investigated the existing system, and who had intimate practical 658 knowledge of its working—all urging upon the Government the inexpediency of interfering with that system, and manifesting, from the evidence of all the military men who had been examined, that the result of the system had been to render the engineer and artillery services of the East India Company equal if not superior to the corresponding services of Her Majesty's army. It had been determined, therefore, to adopt the unanimous views of these competent judges of the matter, and to leave the system of admissions to Addiscombe as it now existed. He might add, in correction of a misapprehension which had gone abroad of his original statement of the measure, that the principle of public competition in admissions to Addiscombe had never been contemplated by the Government as applicable to other than the engineer and artillery services, that was to say, to the scientific departments of the East India army. With regard to appointments to assistant surgeonships in the East India Company's army, he intended to adhere to his original proposition, that these should be altogether open to public competition, the natives of India being equally admissible to candidateship with Her Majesty's other subjects.

MR. HUME
was very glad to find the Government willing to avoid the mistake they had originally announced with regard to military appointments to the East India Company's service, and he was satisfied that the evidence before the Committee upstairs, and the opinions of the most competent authorities, would, were they equally accepted by the Government, equally induce them to reconsider their proposition with regard to admissions to Haileybury. He proposed to make the trial of throwing the admissions open to public competition by making that principle apply only to one-half, and if that trial should succeed it would be easy then for them to extend it to the whole. The manner in which the high offices in the civil service had been filled, and the general fitness of the civil servants appointed for their duties, was a proof of the success of the present system, and was a safeguard against any sudden change in the mode of conducting the business of the Government in India. He feared that to open the whole of the admissions to a public competition in the first instance, would be to run too great a risk. The trial was made in 1833, when the system of allowing each Director to nominate four 659 persons for each office, was introduced; but that plan was found objectionable in working, and it was altered afterwards by Act of Parliament. Mr. Tucker, who was a good authority on the subject, had given strong reasons against the adoption of the principle of general competition, and had shown that it was not those who were the brightest at college who were the most competent men of business in after life. He should move in line 5 to insert words confining the competition for admissions to Haileybury to one-half of the whole number.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 5, after the word "appoint," to insert the words "one-half the number of."

§ SIR HERBERT MADDOCK
said, he could not agree with the Amendment of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, for he thought that it would lead to extraordinary confusion if they admitted one-half the students into a college who were nominated by their friends, and another half composed of persons who had gained that position by their individual attainments. He was of opinion that all these admissions should be open to public competition. If the plan was to be adopted of sending men to Haileybury who had passed a previous examination, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to limit the number so admitted; because, if not, it appeared to follow almost as a matter of necessity that, once admitted, they would be supported and sent out to India, so that on their first examination the future prospects of the young men would altogether depend. He imagined that it would be far better if the admission to this seminary, or to some other place of education suited to the purpose, were left entirely open to all who chose to enrol themselves as candidates, and who had passed a sufficiently satisfactory examination, but leaving their future appointment to competition before their departure to India. The Government of India was mainly carried on by 600 or 700 English gentlemen, who were sent out there for that purpose, and it was, of course peculiarly incumbent on the Legislature to take every precaution to render the administration of India as perfect as possible. Now, though there could be no doubt that the civil service had been highly distinguished, yet it must be evident that out of so many there must be some who ought never to have been admitted into it; and he thought, that, with the view of securing at all times the best ser- 660 vants, there should be a fair and open selection by competition. When once they should have thrown open the civil service to all the country, he could not conceive what necessity there would be for retaining Haileybury as a separate establishment. It was said that this clause would open Haileybury to all British subjects; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to anticipate that amongst those who would become competitors would be some of the Natives of India. He (Sir H. Maddock) rather doubted that, and he doubted whether it was desirable to encourage any plan which placed Natives and Europeans on precisely an equal footing in respect to the denomination of offices which they held. He felt himself bound to record his vote in favour of leaving the whole of these appointments open to competition.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he differed from the hon. Gentleman in thinking that any difficulty would arise from admitting one set of persons by competition, and another by patronage. In his opinion the hon. Member for Montrose had taken a very reasonable course, and had made a most reasonable proposal. The object of this Bill was altogether experimental, and the Amendment was of a similar character. The hon. Member for Montrose said that instead of having only one mode of admission into Haileybury, they should have two, in order to see which succeeded best, and then adopt the one which was found to be most successful. This was a very grave and important question; they were about to interfere with the mode of admission into a service which had been found to be perhaps the best of which they had any experience, and therefore they should be very cautious as to how they altered it. The change now proposed evidently originated in the desire to carry out the great principle of competition, a principle excellent in itself, but not adapted to all circumstances. Some persons—as for instance the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), condemned those who were opposed to the principle of competition in this case, as though they favoured ignorance. He (Mr. V. Smith) did not think that that was a very just inference to draw; but he certainly was prepared to deny the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, that academical distinction was the surest test of success in life. It was easy enough to quote particular instances; but, generally speaking, he did not think that academical distinction 661 was the best test of a man's future career, and particularly in that kind of success which was desired in the Indian service. If any person would look to the list of persons who had been with him at the University, instead of finding those who had been most successful there the most prominent in public life, he would find them, still scholars, indeed, and men of letters, but buried in remote parts of the country, and not the most prosperous in the struggle of life. Competition as regarded Haileybury College had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh in the last India Bill, and what was called the fourfold system had been the result, according to which every Director, instead of selecting one, was to nominate four persons, and to allow the successful candidate to be determined by competition. He did not know precisely why that plan was adopted, but he believed it was on account of the difficulty of finding persons who would enter into such competition, and the unwillingness of the Directors to make an invidious choice, which must result in disappointment to three of those nominated, to the injury of their subsequent chances of success in life. He (Mr. V. Smith) must say he believed that the fourfold system of competition was, on the whole, a better one than that now proposed. The President of the Board of Control said that his plan would at least do no harm; but it was, to say the least, doubtful whether it would not do harm by excluding persons who might be excellent public servants, but who would not submit to competition, for fear of incurring the stigma of rejection. There were many who had been most distinguished in after life who in youth were lively boys, averse to study and competition of this sort; and when they talked of great men who had distinguished themselves at a University, he could tell them of persons who had succeeded in the world without attaining distinction in those studies. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman had not told them what kind of competition he proposed to institute. It was quite possible that they might have a system from which a Charles Fox, when a boy, would have shrunk with disgust, and an Arthur Wellesley would have retired with defeat. But that was not the only view to take of this subject. He was perfectly ready to admit that there was a vulgar use of patronage, which was commonly called "jobbing," and which every one deprecated; but it must be remembered that there was also such a thing 662 as a noble use of patronage. Now the greatest enemies of the East India Company had not said that bad men had been introduced into the colleges; and, so far as his experience went., he must say that he had never seen a finer set of young men than he had at Addiscombe. They were now creating a Government for India, and he feared it must be owned that Her Majesty's Ministers were rather disposed to disparage the Government which they were about to establish. The First Lord of the Admiralty had certainly gone further than most of his colleagues, inasmuch as he had positively admitted the incapacity of the Court of Directors. But he (Mr. V. Smith) did hope that, if they really were to institute a fresh Government for India, they would not be so unwise as to strip it of every ornament, advantage, and privilege which the Directors had hitherto exercised, and which, he maintained, it was necessary for them to exercise. He begged the Committee to look at the effect of the present system of patronage on the Indian service. At present the servants of the Company always looked to the Directors for protection—as, in fact, the authors of their political being, and consequently were disposed to serve them with that fidelity which was expected from them. But it might be a very different thing if they owed their places to competition, and not to the governors whom they served. On all these grounds he was inclined to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose; and if he went to a division, he (Mr. V. Smith) should give him his support. The proposal of his hon. Friend was one of experiment on a Bill of experiment, and for that reason he should be glad to see it adopted.

LORD STANLEY
said, he was not about to enter into the question of public education at Addiscombe; but the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, so far as they applied to the civil service, did appear to him to deserve as well as to require some answer. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, had contended that those who had taken academical honours, and had distinguished themselves in competition in early life, had not, in the majority of instances, become successful at a later period of life; and, on the other hand, that many of those who had not distinguished themselves in early life had attained great eminence afterwards. Now, be (Lord Stanley) ventured to differ from the right hon. Gentleman with respect to both the one and the 663 other of these points. As to the subsequent distinction obtained by those who had achieved academical honours, he must say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) was perfectly justified by the facts to which he had referred, as well as by the experience of both Universities in the mater. It was impossible, he thought, to look at the records of academical distinctions without seeing that, generally speaking, in the far greater number of instances persons had achieved honours at a later period of life very much in proportion to those they had obtained at an early period; and this was more and more the case in proportion as we came nearer to the present day—in proportion, he meant, as we came to deal with the educational system which was in operation at the present day, rather than with that which was in operation in former times. There was then a fair primâ facie ground for contending that this test of competition, as hitherto applied amongst them, had been so far successful as to justify them in trying it further. At the Universities, from the nature of those institutions, there was a tendency that not all of those who had been distinguished there should be afterwards engaged in the occupations of active life. The Universities themselves absorbed a very large number, and a great many occupied themselves in teaching, and were not, therefore, brought into competition in later life. That circumstance must be considered; but if amongst those who had distinguished themselves in the Universities, they should select those who had afterwards taken a part in active life, they would find that the proportion of those who distinguished themselves in the world was much greater than appeared at first sight. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) put the converse case, and asked them to consider how many distinguished men there had been in all professions who would fail in undergoing the test of early competition. His (Lord Stanley's) answer to that was, that so far as that was the case, he believed it was very much on account of the prevalence of the very ideas which the right hon. Gentleman was now supporting; that it was very much because, until within the last few years, until, indeed, the present generation, that a sufficient degree of importance had not been attached to the practice of public examination and competition in early life. The result was, perhaps, also due to another circumstance, 664 that until very recently the teaching in out Universities, however excellent for a particular purpose, was not such as to qualify men in the best manner for public life, These circumstances ought to be taken into consideration in discussing the question whether they ought to apply the test of competition. But there was one point upon which the President of the Board of Control had not given them sufficient or satisfactory information—he meant with respect to the period at which the competition was to be introduced. Now, every thing, in his opinion, turned upon that. He did not think that, on the whole, they could have a better or fairer test than that which was furnished by competition at the age at which academical degrees were usually granted—namely, at about 20 or 21 years of age; but it would be a different thing if the test were applied three or four years earlier, and if the competition was a competition between boys, and not between young men. He did not believe that the accidental distinction which one might obtain at the age of 17 or 18 was any great test of real ability, because, obviously, distinctions at that age depended more frequently on the effect of cramming and artificial training, than on the spontaneous efforts of the mind. He thought, then, that the principle of competition, as against the principle of nomination, was one which deserved the sanction of the House; but at the same time it was very important to see that the period of the competition was not fixed at too early a period of life. He confessed that he should not have been greatly dissatisfied if they had made examination the sole qualification for entrance into the civil service directly, without the interposition of a previous trial merely for matriculation on entering college. He believed that it would be an infinitely better plan if they were to say that such and such is the standard of qualification required for the civil service, and that those who had approached nearest to that standard, and those alone, should be admitted to the service. He believed that such a plan would in every respect be found to answer better than that of an examination at the entrance to college, which would necessarily take place at an early period of life. That was his principal objection to the scheme of the Government; but that did not affect the question at that moment before time Committee—namely, the question with regard to the principle of competition as against nomination; and, on that point, so far as it 665 applied to the civil service, he should certainly support the general principle of the clause.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
also intended to support the clause as it stood, thinking it better that the admission should be by competition, than by the present plan of nomination. But at the same time he was not insensible to the evil of cramming to which the principle was exposed, and he admitted that this evil should not be lost sight of in considering the difference between the two principles. He certainly did not think that the panegyrics which had been uttered upon the present system of nomination could be justified, because it was apparent, from the clearest evidence, that the persons employed in the judicial department in India did not possess even an average amount of talent. The existing system of appointment had been condemned by Lord William Bentinck, who said— The bane of our system is not solely that the civil administration is entirely in the hands of foreigners, but that the holders of this monopoly, the patrons of these foreign agents, are those who exercise its directing power at home; that this directing power is exclusively paid by patronage, and that the value of this patronage depends exactly upon the degree in which all the honours and emoluments of the State are engrossed by their clients, to the exclusion of the natives. There exists, in consequence, on the part of the home authorities, an interest in the administration precisely similar to what formerly prevailed as to commerce, and directly opposed to the welfare of India. It was because he (Mr. Phillimore) believed that the present system was directly opposed to the welfare of India, that he would give his vote in favour of the clause.

§ MR. ELLIOT
observed, that some of the most eminent officers in the Queen's service, who had held commands in India, including Lord Hardinge and Sir Charles Napier, had borne testimony to the admirable education afforded at Addiscombe, and had spoken in the highest terms of the efficiency of the artillery and engineer officers in the Company's service. He must say, with regard to the civil service, that he could not concur in the desire entertained in many quarters that it should be thrown open to competition. He believed that the mode in which the civil servants of the Company had hitherto been appointed, had tended very materially to promote the efficiency of the service. He had no doubt that, if persons were selected merely for their academical attainments, 666 they might get men more of one stamp than those who were appointed at present; but they required men of varied character for the Indian service, and some of those who were by no means remarkable at college for their learning had become celebrated for the energy and spirit which they had afterwards displayed. The Court of Directors had been blamed, not only for their selection of civil servants, but also for having promoted officers in that department who had been involved in some dilemmas; but he begged to inform the Committee, that when civil servants of the Company reached India, the Directors had no power with regard to their promotion. That promotion rested entirely with the Governors of the Presidencies to which they were appointed, or, if they were sent to Bengal, with the Governor General. He need scarcely remind the Committee that Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had been employed in the Indian service, was afterwards selected by Her Majesty's Government to fill the office of Governor of Jamaica when the affairs of that colony were in a critical state, and was eventually appointed Governor General of Canada; that Sir George Anderson had been Governor of the Mauritius, and was at present Governor of Ceylon; and that Sir George Clerk, an experienced servant of the Company, had been selected as Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He believed that two out of the three Gentlemen he had named would not have obtained appointments in the civil service, if they had been subjected to the competition which it was now proposed to establish. He was sure Sir George Clerk would not be offended at his saying that he (Sir G. Clerk) was as little inclined to study, as a young man, as he (Mr. Elliot) was himself; but that Gentleman had, notwithstanding, attained the highest honours. Sir Charles Metcalfe, although not an excellent scholar, was, as a young man, a jolly, jovial, happy fellow; but he got employment in the East India Company's service, and the Committee knew what was the result; he (Mr. Elliot) doubted, however, whether, if the proposed system of competition had been in existence when Sir Charles Metcalfe was a young man, he would have passed the examination. It had been alleged that the Court of Directors had not dispensed a sufficient amount of their patronage among those who had served them in India; but he must say he thought they had always behaved with great fairness to that class. 667 If, however, the proposal of the Government should be adopted, he conceived that the Indian servants of the Company would be placed in a most disadvantageous position. It would, for instance, be impossible for the widow of any of the Company's officers, depending merely upon her pension, to give to two or three sons, until they attained the age of eighteen or nineteen, the education which would qualify them to become competitors for the chance of entering the Company's service. It was of advantage to the Indian service that a connexion between those who had retired from the service, and those who had just entered, should be kept up, for the sons of retired officers were received with respect and affection by those of the Natives who had known their father. He hoped means would be adopted for affording to the sons of civil and military servants of the Company a chance, at least, of obtaining some of the appointments in their gift.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
considered that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman deserved the consideration of the Committee. They were called upon to effect an important change, and to open what had been termed a close service; some hon. Gentlemen were so carried away by the theory of competition, that they forgot there were other qualifications required for the Indian service than those which could be tested by examination as to learning. It was necesary to insure, on the part of the servants of the Company, the very highest qualities—honour, honesty, and attachment to the Government whose interests they were required to maintain. Under the system which it was now proposed to establish, it would, however, be impossible that anything could be known of the connexions, the early education, the dispositions, or inclinations, of the persons who came forward as competitors for appointments. All that would be known would be, that they possessed a certain amount of literary acquirements. The House of Lords was not a useless body, but it was not appointed by competition. They were hereditary; and how were they fitted for their exalted position save by the education they received from childhood—an education in principles, not literary acquirements, with which a man might be crammed. The real test of an Indian servant was the way in which he applied himself to, and performed, his duties; and that test the covenanted service of India had for years most 668 honourably borne. He considered, also, that the adoption of this clause would deprive the East India Company of the opportunity of rewarding, in the most satisfactory manner, the faithful and honest services of those whom they employed in India, by enabling children to follow the same honourable course of life which had been pursued by their parents.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
observed, that when he became a Member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, he entertained some considerable prejudice against the Company and their servants; but his experience on the Committee had proved that that prejudice was, to a great extent, unfounded. He believed, however, that in adopting the principle of competition, in lieu of nomination, they secured an important test, if not the best test, of merit. The result of his experience, however, had been to show him, that, from whatever cause, the nominations had all flown in one channel; for whilst the Hibernian Celt was unknown in India, the Caledonian Celt was quite familiar. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) had stated last night that the claims of the Irish Bar with regard to Indian appointments had not been neglected, and he mentioned the names of Sir Francis M'Naghten, Sir J. Franks, and Mr. Strettel, as persons holding judicial appointments in India. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had made some inquiries on the subject, and had ascertained that Sir F. M'Naghten was appointed in 1815; that Sir J. Franks had been appointed 28 years ago, and that Mr. Strettel never had held a judicial appointment.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
feared that competition would have the effect of excluding the sons and relatives of distinguished servants of the Company from the appointments which their friends had deserved. Not that he objected to competition, but he felt it was monstrous to discuss it without some scheme before them, to show how it was intended to work. He thought they were making a fearful experiment without adequate information to support them.

§ Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 93: Majority 54.

MR. BLACKETT
hoped the President of the Board of Control would postpone the consideration of that portion of the clause which referred to the Addiscombe patronage, because it was contrary to the 669 understanding on which many Members had voted for the second reading. When the right hon. Gentleman announced his intention of restoring it to the Directors, there were but few Members present in the House.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, it was not his fault that hon. Gentlemen did not attend in their places. He had declared his opinion, with respect to a particular course, during the ordinary routine of business, and he could not be held responsible for the number of persons present at the time.

§ MR. OTWAY
saw no reason why, in the course of time, the Natives should not be admitted into the military service, as they ought to be admitted at once into the civil service. He thought they might at once make them collectors—three or four to the district which was now done by one Englishman; and the consequence of that would be an improvement every way. He expressed his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken as to admission to Addiscombe.

§ SIR HERBERT MADDOCK
considered that some hon. Gentlemen had made a mistake with regard to the admission to Addiscombe, for the youths went there to the higher branches of education, in consequence of their success in public competition. It was proposed to continue upon the present footing all the rest of the cadets sent to India; for it appeared to him when the number of Directors would be reduced from 24 to 18, that absolutely and in reality there would be a greater amount of individual patronage than there was when the civil appointments were direct. It appeared to him that the Commander in Chief would be a good person to have a portion of the patronage, and that the Court of Directors in their corporate capacity, might be entrusted with a considerable amount of it.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that as the right hon. Gentleman was departing from the arrangements which he had made to the house in his opening speech, by restoring to the Directors a portion of the patronage which he had originally proposed to take away from them, perhaps he would inform him whether he intended to add to the salaries of the Directors. The Bill did not fix the amount, and it appeared to him that it ought to be fixed. He should be glad to hear what the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were on this point.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he pro- 670 posed to bring in a clause to fix the rate of the salaries.

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, that the hon. Member was out of order. The proper time to ask the question respecting salaries would be when the clause relating to them should be before the Committee.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that the proposition of the clause before the Committee was to restore the patronage of the Directors. The right hon. Gentleman had himself connected the question of patronage and salaries. Although he deferred to the Chairman (Mr. Bouverie), and would sit down, if wrong, yet he thought he was in order, and entitled to put the question.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the hon. Gentleman asked him a question, whether he intended to introduce a clause to fix the salaries of the Directors, and the answer he gave him was that it was his intention to bring in such a clause.

§ MR. BRIGHT
But as to the amount of the salary, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
The hon. Member should confine himself to regular proceedings. When the question of disposing of the clause respecting salaries should be before the Committee, he would state what he intended doing.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
said, the right hon. Gentleman had taken credit for doing away with a large portion of the patronage of the Court of Directors, which he was now about to restore by this clause. He certainly had not supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would, without notice, have abandoned a part of his Bill. If it had been generally known, many hon. Members who had staid away from the House would have come down and voted upon the questions before the Committee.

§ MR. OTWAY
said, that the question of salary and patronage had been so repeatedly discussed that it was no wonder that hon. Members should feel desirous of being informed upon the first point. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's alteration would be to give to the Directors from 1,000l. to 2,000l. a year more in value to each Director. The additional appointments would amount to that. In reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman ought to state to the Committee the additional salaries which he intended providing for the Directors, and which would come out of the pockets of the people of India.

671

MR. BLACKETT
wished to ask whether the alteration proposed to be made in this clause in any degree affected the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived in his speech upon the first reading of the Bill, when he said he thought it only fair to increase the salaries of the Directors when he proposed to diminish their patronage?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he had never connected the patronage with the salaries, and had all along repudiated the idea that the Directors received any personal benefit from the patronage. When on this subject he would take the opportunity of making a statement which he had been requested to make to the House. The hon. Member for Manchester had last night made a very strong statement to the House affecting the character and reputation of the Court of Directors. He had that day seen the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court of Directors, and they requested him to make an announcement to the House to the following effect: They regretted exceedingly that charges of a general nature should be made in such a manner as was done last night by a Member of that House; that statements of that kind should have been made by an hon. Member in his place without at the same time imparting his authority. With regard to the charge so made, they felt that it was so general as to make it impossible for them to answer it except by expressing their disbelief that any member of their body had acted in any way whatever so as to warrant such a charge; but they stated that as on a former occasion, when charges such as these were brought forward, they appointed a committee to investigate those charges, and at the same time prosecuted to conviction certain persons who had been guilty of tampering with the sacred duties of the Directors, and succeeding in bringing them to merited punishment—so they were prepared to pursue on this occasion a similar course. They were anxious that this statement should be made in the face of the House and the country; and it was their earnest wish to have every accusation that could be brought against them investigated in the most searching manner. They called upon the hon. Member for Manchester—who must be anxious to see the Court of Directors, a body exercising important and responsible functions, able to refute these charges—they called upon him to produce the evidence on which he rested his charges, and they pledged them- 672 selves that they would spare neither time nor money, nor effort, to prosecute to a conviction any person who had been dealing in such a way as the hon. Member had represented with any appointment in the gift of the Directors; and at any rate if the evidence was insufficient to allow a conviction, to hold him up to the infamy which he so richly deserved.

§ MR. BRIGHT
I want the House to understand exactly what it was I said; and after that I shall leave the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) who is the authority for what I stated to the House, to confirm my statement. What I stated was this—that an hon. Member of the House told me that a near relation of his own had had offered to him by a person—a gentleman—so he was represented to me—an office or appointment in India; and that in the course of the conversation relating to it, intimations were held out as to what would be expected in such a case. The gentleman to whom the appointment was offered afterwards ascertained that it would be necessary for him to make a declaration or oath that he had not given, nor expected to be called upon to give, any compensation or payment for this appointment. When he ascertained that, he found that with his views upon the quession it was impossible for him to accede to the intimations that were held out to him, and at the same time conscientiously make the declaration required of him; the consequence was that he did not get the appointment, and I presume, if the appointment were given at all by this gentleman, he found some other person who was not so scrupulous as the gentleman to whom I have referred. That is the statement I made to the House—of course I do not again enter into the details of it; and I may now add that my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth stated it to me in the course of conversation. Perhaps it was not desirable that, without consulting him, I should have stated it to the House. I can only say that I did not intend to state it before I rose to speak; but believing that similar cases on the part of the Directors were notorious, I did not conceive it would have roused such a feeling as it did last night. I said then that my authority was an hon. Member of this House. I did not state that he was then in the House, though I knew he was, because I was not aware that he was at liberty to give the name of the party. I did not wish to excite hon. Members of this House 673 to call upon him to rise and confirm it. But since last night the hon. Member has put himself in a somewhat different position, and therefore I have nothing further to say, but leave him to give an explanation.

§ MR. WILKINSON
I hope the House will believe that I was anxious last night, when I heard the hon. Member for Manchester so severely attacked, and knew that I was his informant, to rise and corroborate his statement. The reasons why I did not do so were twofold: first, my statement to the hon. Member was made in private conversation, and was made in illustration of the manner in which, according to common apprehension, the great patronage of the Company was administered. That may be altogether unjust, and I am bound to believe hon. Gentlemen who say that it is so; but I say that there is a strong impression existing in the public mind to that effect, and having mentioned it merely as such, I must say it took me somewhat by surprise when the hon. Member stated publicly what I had told him in private conversation. That was one reason. The other was, that as I was not then at liberty to give my authority for the statement, I thought it would not be productive of any advantage if I did rise, and I therefore remained silent. I have now to state that the person to whom this transaction occurred is my own brother; and that it occurred about last October twelvemonth, though I cannot be altogether sure with regard to the month. I have had a communication with my brother this morning, but he does not feel himself at liberty—having given his word of honour—to divulge the name of the party. The House must, therefore, take the facts on my own statement. The circumstances occurred substantially as the hon. Member for Manchester related them. My brother was desirous to send his son to India, and he made no secret of his desire. Soon after a gentleman came to him whom he had known many years, and said that he could get an appointment for him. My brother said he was much obliged to him; but a long time passed, and the appointment did not come. At last the gentleman came, and hinted something very much to the effect of what the hon. Member for Manchester mentioned to the House last night. My brother, who was not at all acquainted with the forms of the East India House, had no idea that there was any impropriety in what was suggested by this gentleman, 674 and never supposed that there was any illegality in an East India Director selling a piece of patronage of this sort. I mention this, because the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton said last night, that the party who offered money was as base as the party who accepted it. I beg to say that my brother has as nice a sense of honour as the hon. Baronet himself. But when the gentleman proposed to my brother that he should give something for the office, I must say he was rather pleased than Otherwise, because he would be glad to give 300l. or 400l., in order to escape being under obligations to any one, by buying the appointment in the same way as a commission is bought in the Army. So matters remained, till a friend went to the India House, and showed my brother a copy of the documents that he would be required to sign on getting the appointment; and when he saw these declarations he certainly was startled. He went to the gentleman and explained to him that it was impossible he could sign this declaration when he knew that he had given a consideration for the appointment. The gentleman's answer was, "Oh, you do not understand these things, they are matters of mere form; I shall give you the appointment, and you will give something to a friend of mine, who is in indigent circumstances—that is all." My brother, however, could not swallow a piece of casuistry like this, and the affair came to an end. At the same time my brother pledged his word of honour that he would not divulge the name of this gentleman; and therefore he cannot give it up. I must say, however, that the gentleman in question is not one of the parties to whom the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton alluded last night, as carrying on a traffic in these appointments without being able to sell them, because he holds such a position in the City of London that there could be no doubt whatever that if he had taken a consideration from my brother, he must have given what he had contracted to give. It may be possible that a Director had given the gentleman this piece of patronage, which he proposed to sell without the Director's knowledge; but that he did offer to sell it is certain.

§ VISCOUNT JOCELYN
Sir, this is one of the most painful things that has ever taken place in this House. That one Gentleman should have mentioned in public what he heard in private conversation affecting the character of a body of gentlemen entrusted with great power and patronage, 675 and who are sworn on their oaths not to use that power in an improper way—that such a thing should have taken place without further explanation, must leave a stigma on the whole of the members of the body to whom it applies. I think before the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) mentioned it, he ought to have ascertained who it was, and should have been prepared to give his name. If I were a Director I would call upon the House, end the honour of the House, to desire that the name should be divulged. Remember what it is we are doing. We are about entrusting body with the same great powers they have hitherto enjoyed, and without any additional checks. Is it right that these gentlemen, to whom we are entrusting these powers, should be left under the stigma of having made a corrupt use of their patronage, and that too in breach of their oaths? I think this is a question of honour that affects us all; and I call upon the hon. Gentleman, before another day passes, to come down to the House and let us know who is the guilty party. I think that the East India Directors have a right to claim that the name should be mentioned, and that the party should be placed on his trial. This I must say, that we have had before us, in the Committee upstairs, evidence on the question of patronage; and there is not, so far as I can remember, a single fact alleged affecting the honour and integrity of these gentlemen in the disposal of their patronage. Do not, then, let us send forth to the world this statement against the Directors on the authority of a single Gentleman, and be afraid to state the name of the guilty party.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
Sir, I heard yesterday the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester with great pain, but I am bound to assert that he did not refer to any Director as the guilty party. That he left such an impression on the House is but too clear; but it might, on the other hand, be equally true that the whole negotiations took place not only without the guilty knowledge, but even without the suspicion, of any member of the Court of Directors. I honestly believe that that was the fact. I believe that not one member of the Court, so long and so ably represented by the hon. Member for Honiton, is at this moment open to the suspicion of being a party to such conduct; and if it can be made out that the hon. Member for Manchester charged—as I believe he did—no one individual Director with the cognisance of it, then I think the time of the House 676 may be better occupied in the discussion of the Bill before us, than in pursuing further this painful subject.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he could not but regret that the hon. Member for Manchester should, with such information, have made a charge such as that which he had made last night against the Court of Directors. He ought to have considered that they were now about again to place in the hands of these Directors the government of a great empire, and that therefore they ought to be persons of high character, and that there ought not to rest upon them the least suspicion of being accustomed to dispose of their patronage on any but public considerations. It was of the utmost importance, on the other hand—though the hon. Member seemed to think light of it—that it should not go out to India that these Directors were persons of any one of whom it could be said that he had disposed of his patronage in any such improper manner; and it was evident that the character of the Directors would be seriously affected by such charges as these. The transaction, however, to which the hon. Member had referred was between two persons, neither of whom were Directors, and neither of whom, so far as it had appeared to the House throughout, had any authority from, or any connexion with, any one of that body. He really thought that the hon. Member for Manchester ought more seriously to consider matters of this kind before he brought them forward as charges against the Company. If it were possible, it was the bounden duty of the Directors, having got the cue, to inquire whether any person had made such an offer in the name of any one of the Directors. Such an inquiry might utterly fail; but he would say, for his own part, that notwithstanding this charge had been hazarded, he thought the character of the Court of Directors—apart from the question whether or not they ought to be entrusted with the Government of India—would stand as high as ever in the estimation of the public, as men fulfilling the duties of their position with a full sense of its honour and dignity.

§ SIR JAMES W. HOGG
wished to point out that it was not only the Directors of the East India Company who were punishable for the sale, of patronage, but any third party who was guilty of a transaction so dishonourable could also be indicted and punished for it. He mentioned this because cases had occurred in which persons had pretended that they had the sale 677 of patronage, and that they could give appointments, who in reality had no appointments to give, and who get money for which they could give no consideration. The question then arose, if there were so many dupes, how could things go on? but that was readily explained by the fact that the person offering the money was as liable to be indicted and punished as he who received it. Those men, therefore, who, one after another, had been duped, and who had given 500l., 1,000l., and even 1,200l. for appointments, and not one of whom had got anything in return, did not make the matter public, because they, having given money, were just as liable to be indicted and punished as those who received it. This trafficker in appointments, who had made such an offer to the brother of the hon. Member for Lambeth, was just as base, just as dishonourable, and just as liable to punishment, as if he had been the Director himself who had the appointment to give. It was obvious that, whatever might be that person's position in the City, in life, or in society, that "base" was not a harsh or uncalled-for expression to apply to his conduct., because, though the brother of the hon. Member—an honourable man—shrunk from being a party to such a transaction, the person who made him the offer evidently knew that it was dishonourable, since he had the audacity to propose to him the only way in which the law could be evaded. Whatever his position in life might be, he had boon guilty of a base, dishonourable action—doubly so, because it tended to implicate a body of honourable men. If it were consistent with the feelings of the hon. Gentleman—and he hoped it would be so—to give up the name of the gentleman to the Chairman of the Court of Directors, they had the means of tracing the matter, because a registry was kept of every appointment made, of the person to whom it was given, and at whose request. They could trace the matter to the bottom, and they could either show that there was some Director who had participation in this transaction—and, if so, they were prepared to indict and punish him—or they could show that this individual had been so dishonourable and base as to attempt to sell an appointment, but that he was more—that he was a swindler who had attempted to sell that which he did not possess. He hoped, for the sake of public morality—for the sake of public justice— 678 the hon. Member would endeavour to press upon his brother the necessity of bringing to justice this culprit, whom he had the misfortune to know, and with whom he had had the misfortune to have had communication.

MR. BLACKETT
said, he thought the hon. Member for Honiton had indulged its much undeserved censure of the hon. Member for Manchester. Surely it could not be said that when his hon. Friend was placed in possession of information relative to a great public scandal, it was his business to be silent. He gave the House all the information in his power; and he thought the hon. Gentleman showed remarkable courage in refusing to retract an assertion which he believed to be perfectly correct; and also that he showed a just sense of honour in refusing to betray the confidence which the hon. Member for Lambeth had reposed in him.

§ MR. MANGLES
quite agreed that the hon. Member for Manchester had shown considerable courage. In charging a gentleman in the City of London, not connected with the Direction, the object of the hon. Gentleman was to throw doubt and distrust on the Court of Directors. The hon. Gentleman had shown the animus throughout in justifying the proceeding, in saying that the practice was notorious. It was at least equally notorious that the Court of Directors had spared no pains to bring the parties who had been guilty of such practices to justice—that they had not even spared members of their own body, but had prosecuted every one whom the law could be made to reach; and if the hon. Member for Lambeth would, as he was bound to do, bring forward this charge, he would pledge the Court of Directors that they would prosecute to the utmost the guilty party.

§ MR. WILKINSON
I wish to state, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Guildford, that I did not say that the party in question was in communication with a Director, but that he professed himself to be in communication with a Director, or other person who could secure the appointment. I trust the Committee will bear in mind that it was not. I who made the public charge; and I may say that. I should not have made a public charge of this sort unless I had been at liberty to give up the names of the parties concerned. Whether my brother will consider himself justified, under all the cir- 679 cumstances, in disclosing the name, I cannot toll, but. I do not think it fair to call upon me to do so.

§ MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE
reminded the Committee that the hon. Member for Manchester most carefully guarded himself against breathing any imputation against any Director; but, on the contrary, he repeatedly said that it was perfectly possible that the Director in question knew nothing about it.

§ MR. MASTERMAN
considered every individual who had risen to defend the hon. Member for Manchester only made the case worse. Any one who had listened to that hon. Member must be aware of the stigma he cast on the Directors; he made charges, and then had not the courage to state where or who was the delinquent. He would not trust himself to use the expression of indignation which rose to his lips. He considered it highly reprehensible, first to bring a charge of this nature against a body of honourable men, holding high position, and of unblemished character, and then to shrink from substantiating it. For himself, he was a Director; he had always held a fair character in the world, and he repelled the imputation. He looked at the indiscretion which the hon. Member had been guilty of, and he asked where was the man, after this, who would trust himself to hold a private conversation with the hon. Member for Manchester? Then, there was the hon. Member for Lambeth, who had just reason to complain, as having been made the means of libelling the honour of the Court of Directors; but he thought the hon. Member was bound, as a man of honour, to endeavour to get rid of the obligation which now kept him silent, and to afford to the Court of Directors an opportunity of tracing this disgraceful charge to its source. He had beard many circumstances stated abroad of the same sort, and he could only say he had always followed up the slanders whenever he had an opportunity. The hon. Member for Manchester resolved in his mind to throw out charges against the Court of Directors, and the first opportunity that presented itself out came this story. He was astonished that a man of so much ability should descend to throw out reflections against a body of men whose honour he held to be unassailable.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he trusted when the hon. Member for Surrey made another speech, charging that House with being a 680 mass of corruption, that at least the House would not laugh and cheer his statement after what had taken place to-night. Last night they were discussing a question of salary, whether it should be more or less, what was the inducement for men to take the office of East India Director. Questions of that nature and the sale of patronage had been spoken of constantly in that House. Now no one ever said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had patronage worth 20,000l. a year, and that the Prime Minister had patronage worth 15,000l. a year; but the invariable and constant phrase was that the patronage of an East India Director was worth 12,000l. or 14,000l. a year. He made a statement to the House—whether it was judicious or not, of course, every one would form his own opinion—but he should like to see the Member who had never done an injudicious act—he made a statement, and if no one believed it last night, they had all reason to believe it now. There was not an individual in that House who did not now believe that somebody who represented himself to be connected with a Director had offered to the brother of the hon. Member for Lambeth, to procure an appointment in India for a consideration. He did not charge the Directors with it; and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford was quite right in saying that he guarded himself from anything of the kind his object was to show that there was truth in the phrase, that this patronage was worth something, and that by one mode or other it had passed from hand to hand in the market, and was made something valuable of. He did not for a moment suppose that the Directors of the East India Company generally, or commonly, made a traffic of their patronage;—but that the East India appointments were bought and sold, was, he believed, as undeniable as that the East India Company existed. He gave one case. It was not a case against the hon. Member for London, or the hon. Member for Honiton—

§ SIR J. W. HOGG
Against whom then?

§ MR. BRIGHT
was not saying it was a case against the hon. Baronet; he was saying it was a case where this patronage had been offered for a consideration, and that was the statement he made to the House, and that statement was confirmed by another Member of that House.

§ MR. MASTERMAN
rose to order.

681

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he was in order. He was merely stating a fact. There was not a man in the world whom he would not sooner suspect than the hon. Member for the City of London, who was so goodnatured that he could not look vexed even when he got up to lecture him. But what he objected to was that he should be lectured by the hon. Member for Honiton, and two or three others, as if he had brought a charge against the hon. Member for Honiton or his co-Directors. If he had had a charge against them, he would have made it openly and directly; but his object was to show that these things were trafficked, and that he had shown; and he would go further and say that the mode in which the Government permitted this patronage to be distributed by twenty-four Directors, who were not directly responsible to any body, that that was a mode of distributing the patronage which actually encouraged the very practices which he believed the Government and the House would be anxious to prevent. In the course that he had taken with regard to the East India Company, he had endeavoured to fortify himself by authority that could not be disputed. He did not regret, so far as the Company was concerned, that he had mentioned the case of this person in the City, whoever he might be; but he had to apologise to his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth that he did not ask his permission to repeat the story; but he confessed he had not thought of stating it until he was on his legs, and this question of patronage and the salary of the Directors was under discussion. He made the statement—he believed it to be true, and he believed it to be confirmed by the general impression out of doors. He defied any person in or out of the House to say, that he had sacrificed the public interest in any way by the statement that he had made on this question.

§ MR. OTWAY
then, referring to the clause, complained that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) had acted disingenuously in having induced a number of Members to vote for the clause giving the salary, under the idea that the Directors would be deprived of the patronage, and then turning round and giving them the patronage.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the argument of the hon. Member would be good against any alteration being made in a Bill.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 33 (Enacting that, subject to 682 regulations, all persons desirous of being admitted to Haileybury or Addiscombe, or appointed assistant-surgeons, should be admitted for examination as candidates, the words relating to Addiscombe were expunged).

§ MR. RICH
said, he had to propose an Amendment for the purpose of raising the question, whether or not the Natives were to be admitted to the Company's covenanted service: as regarded employment in the public service, the Natives were placed in a worse position by the present Bill than they were before. The intention of the Act of 1833 was to open the services to the Natives; and surely now, when our Indian Empire was more secure than it was at that time, it was not wise to deviate from such a line of policy. His object was, that all offices in India should be effectively open to Natives, and therefore he would not require them to come over to this country for examination, as such a condition would necessarily entail on Natives of India great expense, expose them to the risk of losing caste, and thereby operate as a bar against their obtaining the advantages held out to all other of Her Majesty's subjects. The course of education, through which the youth of India at present went at the established colleges in that country, afforded the most satisfactory proof of their efficiency for discharging the duties of office; yet, what was the reward of their ability? They were placed in the lowest places, if they even got them, and, after a service of ten or twenty years, they might have walked their hard course up to an appointment which a young civilian from England thought himself aggrieved if he were not promoted from after two or three years' residence in India. This was not just or wise, and would infallibly lead to a most dangerous agitation, by which, in a few years, that which would now be accepted as a boon would be wrested from the Legislature as a right. They had opened the commerce of India in spite of the croakers of the day—let them now open the posts of Government to the Natives, and they would have a more happy and contented people. He did not ask them to make the Natives councillors at once, but to establish some college where the Indians in India might have the same access to the public service as Englishmen had in England. When they considered the expense of coming over here, the rigours of our climate, and the risk of losing caste, it seemed harsh indeed to 683 make a Native come to England as the only way to get into the covenanted service; and besides, it would be many years before an Indian could get any high office, He would not urge this so strongly, if he was not supported by the opinion of the Government of 1830, of the House, and of the framers of this very clause, which, however, could not be carried into effect. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would accede to his proposition, and devise one of his own to carry out the same object. He would move, that after the word "Haileybury" there should be inserted the following words, "or such established college, seminaries, or universities, as shall be appointed for similar purposes in Her Majesty's territories in India."

§ Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 34 (Empowering the Board of Control to make regulations concerning the admissions, examinations, and appoint meats, at Haileybury and Addiscombe).

§ SIR JAMES W. HOGG
suggested that as the existing state of things would be altered by this Bill, the nominations to Haileybury should be made by the Court of Directors, subject to the control of the, Board of Commissioners.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
thought it would be better to leave the arrangement as they stood in the clause, and to give the power to the Commissioners.

MR. HUME
expressed a hope that the regulations would be laid before parliament as soon as possible.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
expressed his concurrence in the view taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 35 agreed to.

§ Clause 36 (Empowering the Board, by their regulations, to determine the age an, qualifications of persons to be appointed to the civil or military service in India, or a assistant surgeons, and to prescribe the subjects for examination).

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
inquired if there would be an examination as a certain test for fitness on leaving college. I was not so stated.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
Certainly There would be an examination, not only on entering but on leaving college. The latter would be conducted by independent professors, and would be the test of fitness.

§ MR. RICH
inquired, would there be a examination in India? He complained that he had received no answer whatever 684 to his former proposal as to colleges in India. It was unusual for the Government to act in such a way, and give no answer. He had no doubt the right hon. Baronet thought his remarks beneath his notice; but the House would agree that the subject to which he had referred was certainly one of some importance.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
disclaimed any intention of treating his hon. Friend's remarks with disrespect. It would be time to make regulations for the examination and admission of persons in India when colleges had been actually instituted there.

LORD STANLEY
said, that the question of the establishment of the Indian colleges was about the most important that could be mooted. It was, in fact, whether or no Natives of India should be admissible to the Company's service; because, to suppose that Natives, in any considerable numbers, would encounter the danger and expense, and cut through their habits and prejudices so far as to come across to this country in order to submit to examination in the establishments here, was the greatest fallacy in the world. To refuse to institute such colleges, was in effect to exclude Natives of India from the service. In discussing the second reading, he understood that one ground on which merit was claimed for the Bill was, its tendency to give encouragement to the more extensive introduction of Natives into the higher grades of the service. So far as he had yet got into the Bill, he had found nothing for giving a Monopoly of education to the college of Haileybury; nor had he seen anything pledging the House to keep up such a monopoly. He could not refrain from expressing his conviction that, in refusing to carry on examinations in India as well as in England—a thing that was easily practicable—the Government were, in fact, negativing that which they declared to be one of the principal objects of their Bill, and confining the civil service, as heretofore, to Englishmen. That result was unjust, and he believed it would be most pernicious. If men of high ability were desired in any service, that service must be made, to a certain extent, a close service—that is to say, no one should be admitted into it without having passed through a regular examination to qualify him for admission. In a few years it would be found absolutely necessary to admit Natives to the higher grades of offices; and if proper I machinery for qualifying them were not provided in India., the service could continue 685 close no longer, and must suffer accordingly.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
did not quite understand the argument of the noble Lord. He said it was necessary to keep the civil service in India a close service, which he (Sir C. Wood) understood to mean that it should be kept in the hands of Europeans; and yet in order to effect that object the noble Lord proposed to admit more largely the Natives into that service. It by no means seemed to him (Sir C. Wood) necessary that all persons employed in India should be members of the civil service. It was incorrect to say that the law of 1853 had been made a dead letter, for the report of last year showed that the number of Natives employed in the civil service had increased to a great extent. He knew of no reason why that increase should not go on. With regard to education, he thought the only place where an education could be acquired that would fit a person for employment in India was at Haileybury. He did not believe it could be gained in India.

§ Clause 36 agreed to; as were also Clauses 37 to 39.

§ Clause 40 struck out.

§ Clause 41 (the last clause) agreed to.

§ House resumed. Committee report progress.